Talk:United States/Archive 22

message: Should there be a section on Anti-Americanism (could use Wikipedia for an example), or at least a link to the Anti-Americanism section.  As the comments from many users of this  website testify, there are a LOT of misconceptions about Americans and their country. Chiss Boy 16:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Americanism Section/Link

message: Why isn't there a link to this page in the article. This is a very relevant topic to the United States.
*It's also a relevant topic for every country; so should every nation have a human rights section, or only the United States? Chiss Boy 16:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How's the "the preceding comment was made by unsigned user 'IP adress'" made? Chiss Boy 16:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Human rights and the United States]]

message: I second the request for a bit about literature in the culture section (why cinema and sport but not books?)  I would add it myself but I don't have the requisite edit number yet.  Beginning with Nathaniel Hawthorne and continuing through Melville, Twain, and James, America has a distinguished record of advancing the novelistic form.  Among our Nobel laureates are Faulkner, Hemingway, and Toni Morrison.  I recognize the piece is too long already, but perhaps we can cut visual arts a bit to make room? ParvatiBai 15:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literature 

message: Under cities, someone has listed New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas , and Houston as the most important global cities in the United States. While most everyone will agree with the first three, the international consensus (global cities) is that both Dallas and Houston do not rank near LA, NYC, and CHI. In fact, cities like San Francisco are higher than those two. The article should be changed to just mention the alpha cities (New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago).
Then above comment smacks of anti-Southern, anti-Texan regional chauvenism. There is tremendous diversity in Texas and especially the Houston area, as well as Dallas. Lets not let regional prejudice blind us to these facts. 
Phil
67.42.243.184 20:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Global Cities

message: Could his in the box over at the right possibly be made a bit more formal, such as "Richard?" I know everyone calls him Dick, but it's the same as if Bill Clinton was President it would probably be more formal to put William Jefferson Clinton... Just a thought. Arthur Wellesley 19:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My recollection (confirmed by any number of online Florida ballot images) is that "Dick Cheney" is the name under which he ran for the office.  We should probably respect that.  On the other hand, even leaving formality aside, it seems as though his proper name should be given.  "Richard B. (Dick) Cheney," perhaps? Eastcheap 03:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dick Cheney

message: To say that the Yellowstone National Park area is the only volcanic area in the Rocky Mountains is incorrect, especially considering the volcanic areas of Pacific Coast, which includes Mt. St. Helens (erupting now) in Oregon, Lassen Peak in California, Mt. Rainier in Washington, Mt. Hood, etc. Also, Routt County in northmost Colorado contains numerous hot springs, and used to contain the only geysir in Colorado. [The geysir quit erupting after a railroad was constructed through the area, with much construction blasting.] Also, there is a volcanic area in northern Arizona that has erupted withing the time of Indian inhabitation of the area, and the highest point in Arizona is the large dormant volcano Humphreys Peak.
Then there is the Hot Springs National Park in Arkansas! That's evidence of a volcanic zone there.
dale101usa@aol.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.4.17.33 (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vulcanism

message: I noticed that in the article on religion Islam is placed as making up 0.6% of the population of the US. I'm no mathemetician but as conservative estimates of the American Muslim population range from 4,000,000 to 8,000,000 (the latter estimate according to CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, which might be more reliable since a great deal of American Muslims, particularly African Americans, tend to resist cooperating with censuses of their communities by non-Muslims) and some less conservative estimates I have heard with my own ears from a Connecticut chemistry & sociology Professor's mouth say as many as 10,000,000--and this is out of an estimated national populace of 300,000,000, unless I am mistaken--shouldn't it come out as something more like 1/32 (that's an extremely rough estimate, I don't have much time...leaves a remainder of about 4,000,000 unaccounted for, so I'll have to tweak it before I post it) of the population? Doesn't that come out as more than 0.6?
I'd like to edit this article and talk about Islam a little more (the author has already given Christianity its rightful due) emphasis, since it is, after all, the fastest growing religion in the US as well as the world and has influenced socio-politics a great deal particularly in the last 10-15 years (i.e. the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, CAIR, the recent controversies in the US over permissibility of public prayer in airports and schools for Muslims, the election of a Muslim (Keith Ellison) to the House of Representatives, etc). In other words, I think Islam is relevant to any article on religion in the United States. Is this okay?
I also think that as America is, as I have seen mentioned repeatedly with much enthusiasm by various editors on the Discussion page, arguably one of the most diverse places on the planet today, its page on wiki ought to be a little more "diverse" and extensive, namely in the matters of African, Hispanic, and possibly Native Americans (aka there should be articles about them and their influence in our society, too). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EKASeeker of Knowledge (talk • contribs) 19:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, CAIR alone is hardly a reliable reference for such figures, and citing the chemistry/sociology professor you heard might be difficult. Secondly, fastest growing religion is an ambiguous definition since you can take it by percentage increase of adherants, percentage increase compared with the whole population, or total increase in numbers. (The middle I believe is Islam, the first I think is Wicca with a like 1,000 percent growth, and the last is still Christianity). The thing is, even if your numbers are correct, I hesitate to support the idea that Islam really is a fairly large source of influence in America or helpful for giving an outside reader an impression of America; in my experience, Islam has had a very minute influence on America coming from the inside, and in my case, I see almost nothing of it at all where I live :/. All of the controversies you cite mostly have to do with Muslims from the outside forcing the U.S. to respond to threats from a pretty fair distance across the globe, and CAIR really isn't an important enough organization to warrent much detail in this article. Homestarmy 19:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, citing one professor you heard also doesn't really qualify as a source. There're quite a few Wikipedians who are professors themselves. Homestarmy is also right that Islam hasn't had a very significant impact on mainstream American culture which consists of mainly Judeo-Christian floways, norms and mores from Western Europe. As for the percentages, Muslim-Americans are in any case a rather small ethnic group consitituting less than 3% (even when 8 million) of the population. That said obviously their cultural heritage ought to be mentioned on Wikipedia but please consider that this particular article is only supposed to give a rought idea of the US. There are already complaints that this article is too long. That said, if you see obvious cases of Euro-centrisism you can bring them up here and we'll try and fix them. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 19:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics and Religion 

message: What an absurd stament. Only a rabid Leftist would claim that 9/11 was not worthy of it's own section. Please don't take such fringe elements into account in your editorial descision making. And by the way-- great job!
67.42.243.184 20:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Cold War and aftermath are definitely the end of one historical period, and the 9/11 attacks are widely regarded as being the beginning of a new one. So even if it is a recent event it is a distinct segment of United States history and should remain as the most recent section for now. In 20 years we may need to re-evaluate whether there is a better title for that section, and 50 years from now whether the first decade of the 21st century even needs more than a 2 sentence blip describing it, but from the present perspective it is the most logical cutoff for a new section. --tjstrf talk 07:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Our biographical articles mention a person's death or marriage or job change as soon as we know the news.  Our article on the United States must be similarly up-to-date.  We may not yet know how 9/11 will be viewed 50 years from now, but we do know it is important enough to rate a mention in the main article. Johntex\talk 01:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreasonable to include 9/11 on the front page under "History" 

message: Question: why is the term superpower found in this article so much? I realize that this is an US self-identification thing, but isn't Wikipedia supposed to be WP:NPOV? Can we at least attribute to sources the places in the article where it is states that the US is a superpower or "the only" superpower? 
Definitely US is the only Super Power, not in just one aspect, but many - technological, economic, political etc. From the moment people wake up till the moment they go to sleep, people around the world depend on the products created by US technology. Is it not true? So what is wrong in calling US a Super Power
 - A Wikipedian
Maybe say that they're "self-applied" terms? After all, according to Wikipedia's own article on the subject, superpower, the term itself is heavily criticized as being either inaccurate or passe. --ScienceApologist 06:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for citizens from other nations to air their inferiority complexes. At least, I don't think that's what it's purpose is (I could be mistaken). Cheers.--Rotten 17:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes little difference where Wikipedia is based, since anyone can edit it and the secret police are not bashing down your door and stopping you. The notion that an American product will necessarily be filled with pro-US propaganda is idiotic, amongst other reason, for the fact that much great and prominent US criticism and self-criticism, sometimes the best in the world, originates in the US itself and circulates freely within and outside the country.--Supersexyspacemonkey 23:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The term Superpower isn't a value judgment; it's a simple recognition of a widely recognized fact.  The term is clearly defined and cited; there's no WP:NPOV issue here. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I would not have put it so crudely or used the term "fools," I echo this sentiment, people really need to do more research and spew less. Such gross ignorance of history, where people profess to be discussing history, is disturbing. The term "Superpower" is not a self-applied term, and was invented to denote the new kind of global powers that emerged after WWII, which were more militarily, economically, and politically powerful than the traditional concept of a "Great Power," and the scope of this power was so radically ahead of the other Great Powers, that the term "Superpower" was coined in order to describe THE BRITISH EMPIRE, THE UNITED STATES, and THE SOVIET UNION. But Great Britain was in decline, and by the time of the Suez Crisis was no longer considered a Superpower, thus leaving only the Two, the USA and USSR. Of course, if you people would bother to simply look it up in, say, the article that deal with the term "Superpower," then you would understand this, so you really have no excuse to feign ignorance and to go on juvenile anti-Yankee rants.--Supersexyspacemonkey 23:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Great argument, here and below.  It isn't POV that the United States is the superpower.  Wikipedia (and the world) is just rife with: Europeans who are envious to see the United States have power which they once had (at least to a degree) and might not attain again; Asians whose economies are growing and view the United States as the dominant power to beat (a sort of "[they're] going to catch and surpass you" sort of gloating); Latin Americans who recognize that the United States should be their peer (a fellow former colony, younger than some of the Spanish ones), but is far more developed than them--and while they look up to Europe, Europe looks up to the United States; Canadians who are angry that the world overlooks their country because of its closeness (physically, culturally, linguistically, etc.) and small size (population) next to the United States; and Muslim dominated countries who think that the United States is waging a war against Islam in general.  Add all those up, along with sundry others envious of the United States or who get slanted, biased media (or both), and you end up with a lot of the world angry at the United States due to their (the non-Americans)  own jealousy or misconceptions.  Chiss Boy 17:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The U.S. is referred to as a superpower in this article because it is a political term, just as much as Democrat or Republican are. Those terms are not really considered POV anymore, and can be found in many Wikipedia pages. Besides, the superpower article describes the term adequately. Hojimachong 01:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Superpower and NPOV

message: The name of the country is the United States of America.  That should be the primary title of the article, with United States redirecting to it by default. --Hpa 19:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Talk:United States/Frequently asked questions for why the article is at its present title. --tjstrf talk 19:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: When you manage to get United Kingdom moved to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Mexico moved to United Mexican States, then we may consider your request. --Golbez 04:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with you. Let's change it to United States of America. All Male Action 04:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but please see the FAQs. Signaturebrendel 23:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have read the FAQ and I suggest long form is used for all countries with anything shorter or of common vernacular be a redirect to long form article. Such a policy ultimately provides a greater amount of information to the reader. --Ikyork 06:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I belive the title of the article should be changed 

message: The Economy section now states that, "The U.S. has a slightly smaller social safety net than that of other developed countries."  The footnote (43) cites the Heritage Foundation, which is a fairly biased source.  "Slight" seems inaccurate, especially in regard to health care.  Perhaps the information could be given in less relative terms, simply saying what the US social safety net does and does not have.  Alternately (or additionally), perhaps a liberal think tank could be consulted and cited. --Stevensonrl
:Well we should use a neutral source-you're right the Heritage Foundation is quite the conservative think tank. The things is of course between which countries you make the comparision. The US well-fare net is not that much smaller than that of Australia or Switzerland (they too are "other" developed nations). The US well-fare net is, however, considerably smaller than that of say, Sweden or Norway. As I said, we need a neutral source to replace the Heritage Foundation reference. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 01:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight change to Economy section? 

message: This article presents a view of the USA as if it is a utopia without err,  to have an article that is bias is not proper. If someone who did not know any better read this page, it may give them an uneven view of the USA.  The United States of America uses the Monroe Doctrine, so it deserves a little more information to make those who are not aware, aware. People in the general public of the world need to know more about America. People wish to know how the country was founded by those cast out of Europe for various reasons be them, religious ideals, horrible crimes, or etc. Or how some came to the new country looking to be their own masters. Also they need to know how the 18th century founders of the country wanted to be Kings under the rule of a democracy for those deemed worthy. More information in the article needs to reflect the impact the USA has had on historical events, and how do to calculated orchestrations has caused current conditions in South America and the rest of the world. The article needs a chart on poverty, or crime, a little more info would not be unreasonably linthy.
--Margrave1206 18:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid your over-simplifying things a bit. Most Americans are the descendents of European immigrants who came here during the 19th and early 20th century in search of land and economic opportunity. Some European countries such as Germany actually encouraged emigration to the US in order to open up farmland for urban development (today German-Americans are the largest ethnic group). America is way to diverse for overly-generalized labels. If you beleive that this article paints an overly-optimistic portait of the US please tells us where and we can fix it. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 00:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I live in the U.S. and, while it could always be improved, it is kind of utopian. Money is pretty easy to come by. There's no shortage of jobs. Living is pretty easy. Economy is booming. The stores are filled with goods of all kinds. We have a good amount of freedom. I feel thankful all the time that I live in a place of such abundance. Even most of who are considered in "poverty" are pretty well off. For example, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 46% of those in "poverty" in the U.S. own their own home (with the average poor person's home having three bedrooms, with one and a half baths, and a garage. Understanding Poverty I've been to several other countries, and in comparison the U.S. is a kind of utopia in my opinion. Improper Bostonian 04:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yeah, of course, the US like all free high income western nations is utopian when compared to the developing world (which is where 83% of the world lives). Most Americans do live pretty decend lives. Besides I don't think that this article is overly patriotic or optimistic to begin with. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 06:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: @user "Me", you dont seem to understand what is meant by "civilian control." It does not mean that the citizens of the United States vote on where and how the army does its job (this isnt an athenian democracy). It means that in this country it is illegal for elected members of the legislative and executive branches of the government to be concurrently serving in the military. All generals report to the commander in chief (i.e. the president), who is, by definition in this country (but not necesarily others) a civilian. --Cptbuck 02:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  Civilian control simply means that it is not controlled by a government made up of military officials (like Pakistan).  --Coolcaesar 17:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, because the military is under the control of Congress (and to a lesser extent, the President), it is also answerable (indirectly) to the people (along with the civilian politicians to whom the military is directly answerable).  Chiss Boy 17:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States/Utopia article??? 

message: Come on people. We don't have to get into every little bit of detail here but statements like 'The United States has a long-standing tradition of civilian control over military affairs.' is a bit utopian version of what is and has been the case. I know that compared to some countries in the world (cf. the bosnian in the above discussion) this might be more true, but in essence it is not. For any country. But in US, how many oppose the camp at Guantanomo bay? How many condone going to war for false (WMD) reasons? Under civilian control is to me a big pile of crap. It is under governmental control, which to a certain extent is controlled by the people, but that does not mean the it is under civilian control.User:Me
:@user "Me", you dont seem to understand what is meant by "civilian control." It does not mean that the citizens of the United States vote on where and how the army does its job (this isnt an athenian democracy). It means that in this country it is illegal for elected members of the legislative and executive branches of the government to be concurrently serving in the military. All generals report to the commander in chief (i.e. the president), who is, by definition in this country (but not necesarily others) a civilian. --Cptbuck 02:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  Civilian control simply means that it is not controlled by a government made up of military officials (like Pakistan).  --Coolcaesar 17:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, because the military is under the control of Congress (and to a lesser extent, the President), it is also answerable (indirectly) to the people (along with the civilian politicians to whom the military is directly answerable).  Chiss Boy 17:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Civilian control over the military?

message: The lead is very untidy, and almost comical. I've moved the "other names" to the names section (makes sense). Its almost like writing Robert Smith (also known as Bob, Bobby, Rob, Robby, R.S.) is a... --Jay(Reply) 01:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ture, strating out listing all common has certain a comical cache. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 01:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Someone replaced the "baseball and apple pie" photo with one about story-telling quilts.   While the former is a bit stereotypical of the USA (and a rather inaccurate and romanticized interpretation of the USA), the latter goes to the other extreme and seems to present a rather narrow interpretation of USA culture.  I would venture to say that very few Americans have heard of a story-telling quilt - and an even smaller minority of a Americans actually have one in their family.
Rather than revert the photo change, should it be deleted altogether? ++ Arx Fortis 06:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say revert to the "romanticized" and generalized version. US culture is very diverse-there are Americans who have never played baseball and many don't like apple pie either. Nonetheless it's kind of a nice romantic stereotype that adds to the article esthetically. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 07:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture Photo changed? 

message: Let's add a pictures of this; it's probably the most recognized image of the U.S. in the world.
:Yes we really should! Unfortunately my Statue of Liberty pics from my last NYC trip arn't of really great quality. I'm going to check the Commons in a while. Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statue of Liberty 

message: It is absurd there is no mention of American literature in the Culture section. The United States has a literary tradition rivaled only by Great Britian. Someone should add in a paragraph on it at least, even if it mostly exists to direct people to the full article about it.
:All fun aside, yes, I agree that a few sentences and a link to the American literature article would be appropriate.--Primal Chaos 12:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, the US has since the age of enlightment had a literary tradition comparable to western Europe for the same time span. There should be some mention in the culutre section (The US isn't just about fast-food, TV and sports ;-)). Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 00:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly so. The US has won more Nobel Prizes than any other country, and ranks only second behind France in Nobel Laureates in Literature with 12. See the Nobel Prize and related wiki articles... --Ikyork 07:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sort stuck up of you to automatically think "the European Level" is something especially grand.  And how much American literature have you read, anyway?  Guessing not much if any--so many Europeans go into hissy-fits because their subcontinent does not seem to be set for greatness in the predictable ("foreseeable") future, and they see that the United States is a superpower and are jealous because of it.  Chiss Boy 17:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Literature

message: Someone changed the name of the president to Jonathan Diaz. I don't have an account - would anyone mind changing it?
:It's been fixed. Thank you. --tjstrf talk 04:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of President 

message: The section under Economics includes the following statements:
Since 1975, the U.S. has a "two-tier" labor market in which virtually all the real income gains have gone to the top 20% of households, with most of those gains accruing to the very highest earners within that category.[50] This polarization is the result of a relatively high level of economic freedom.[51]
The polarization in question is not necessarily a RESULT of a high level of economic freedom.  The Economist article sited demonstrates a correlation, but not a cause and effect.  Some would argue that the polarization mentioned in the article is due to mixed economic policies that favor some groups/individuals/corporations over others.  Perhaps the last sentence, "This polarization is the result of a relatively high level of economic freedom.[51]," should be removed.  The cited fact in the preceding sentence (Since 1975, the U.S. has a "two-tier" labor market in which virtually all the real income gains have gone to the top 20% of households, with most of those gains accruing to the very highest earners within that category.[50]) stands alone.
:True there is a certainly a difference between correlation and causation. I propose either changing the sentence to "There is a strong correlation between a strong emphasis placed on market freedom and the poliraztion of income," or as you say, remove it. If no one else chimes in, I'm going to replaced the sentence with my proposed revision. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 22:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two tier labor market

message: I would really like to remove the labled map from the front matter but thought I would ask here first.  I find it rather large and unsightly (as its all in grey rather than shaded).  Also some of the cities are misplaced (El Paso is in Texas) and the principle of inclusion is unclear.  I think the other maps are sufficient for this survey article.  Eluchil404 07:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, it should go. I finally realized that if you mouse-over a city or state you get info on that location (which isn't explained beforehand to the reader -- an egregious violation of user interface design).  Aesthetically the map is very unattractive and leaves the reader wondering "what are the dots for?"  Raymond Arritt 01:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Labled map

message: The title of this article is "United States". However, the introduction to this article, including the bolded word and the title in the infobox, is "United States of America":
"The United States of America is a country in North America that extends from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and shares land borders with Canada and Mexico. The United States is a federal constitutional republic, with its capital in Washington, D.C."
These two things should be exactly the same. The question is, should the bolded word/infobox be changed to "United States", or should the page be moved to "United States of America"? -- RattleMan 21:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia differentiates between article title and formal long-version name of a country. The article title is the common, short-version name of a country to make things easier, so that instead of looking up "The United Mexican States," you just look up "Mexico," for example. The official complete name of the United States is The United States of America, and this is clearly indicated within the article and the boxes. As far as there being one sentence that states "United States of America," immediately followed by another sentence that mentions only "United States," this isn't because they are being idfferentiated as two different things, it is only out of convenience and practicality, and we could alternately write "USA," or even just "US."--Supersexyspacemonkey 00:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The article is not being moved. --Golbez 12:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Rattleman, please read Talk:United States/Frequently asked questions.  The link is at the top of the article for a reason.  --Coolcaesar 01:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title versus intro 

message: While I know that the word American technically refers to anyone on either of the American continents, even the OED clearly states that American describes "An inhabitant of the United States." The word American cannot be replaced with citizen as doing so would exclude permanent residents who are included in all the studies and statistics on this page; thus the word "American" is the best to use. In an article soley pertaining to the United States it is clear what we mean by American and the OED, Webster and Cambridge dictionary support the notion of using the term American to describe a US-resident. Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *A LOT of Anglophones (and others) refer to people from the United States, and as an adjective relating to the country, as Americans or American, not only Americans (people of the United States), even if they will occasionally use the term to relate to people of the Americas (which even Americans do when it is warranted, i.e. the OAS, the Organization of American States).  However, when the "American" used is not clear, almost always in the English language, the default is relating to the United States.  Even a local Spanish language television channel (Univision), has a program called "Despierta América," and covers the United States (the América in the title).  If you go to some Japanese and point at a person from the United States and ask "what nationality is that guy" (in English), they are bound to answer "American."  If the guy was from Chile, they would answer "Chilean," not "American."  If you go to an Australian and ask about some clothes he bought, he would more probably answer (if they were from the United States) "an American sweater and some American pants" before "a United States sweater and some United States pants" Even the BBC, which has a global viewership, vacillates between using United States and American as an adjective, and even uses America to refer to the United States (noun).  It definitely isn't only Americans that use the term in reference to the United States.  It is the most common use in English (be that American, British, Irish, Canadian, Australian, South African, Indian, Filipino, Chinese (for a non-Anglosphere country), etc. English ).  Chiss Boy 17:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *In Mandarin Chinese (Putonghua?), the word for the United States is based on "America."  And before the Anti-Americans get into an uproar, the Arabic word for Europe is based on "France." Chiss Boy 17:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American 

message: The wiki poverty in america article is linked to this one?? It needs to be if it is not. Over 35 million americans live in poverty. 
Also in the ethnic group section, how does the USA come to the conclusion who is white or black by their standards? For a fact that they changed or in constant flux as to who is considered white. For a fact a great deal of people in Amercian have Native American blood. Also if one went by the American one drop rule who would be black????
--Margrave1206 01:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "One drop rule" is no longer used by the US government, instead self-identification is used. It used to be that if a person had "one drop" of non-white "blood" in them they were non-white. In other words everyone w/ one drop of black blood in them would have been black a person with one drop of white blood in them would not, however, be considered white, as that group was kept more exclusive. The poverty article is in the templates at the bottom. Regards, Signaturebrendel 01:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the census and for almost all other purposes, ethnicity in the U.S. is self-declared (as Brendel mentioned). If you say you're white, black, native American, or whatever, that's what you are. See Race (United States Census). Raymond Arritt 01:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Margrave, a lot of Americans have Amerindian blood--and are proud of it; they don't try to hide it as many Latin Americans do.  In fact, they often mention it readily even though their Amerindian ancestor was their great, great, great, great (something) grandparent.  And onto the one drop rule.   The one drop rule was: a) only for African descent, and b) a long time ago.  Furthermore, many Americans of African descent have European blood (around 20%?), most Amerindians (who report themselves as such) have substantial European blood, too.  Chiss Boy 17:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ?????? Of course they're proud, who isn't proud of their ethnic group???...but many of them are only proud because they don't have alot. I have many 'White' friends with Amerindian blood, and they are proud, but they look down on others with more Amerindian blood. Being Mestizo myself, I think it's very rude of you to say that we try to hide that fact. At least we don't claim to be proud about it and then put down Latin Americans for being 'brown'. But that's neither here nor there.... Have you nothing better to do than to go to every discussion and try to drive your views into everyone??? Please, your anti-American accusations are too wild....be sensible, too. Signed Cali567 04:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may think it's rude all you want, but it is a fact that a lot of Mestizos look down on those with more Amerindian blood than themselves, and conversely look up to those with less.  There is a lot more institutionalized racism in Mexico and other Latin American countries with a large non-European (predominantly European) population than there is in the United States.  Similarly, you can consider all this "ignorant American" and American is for people from the Americas (much less used in the global English language than American used for people from the United States) stuff as not being anti-Americanism, but it still is, along with the EUers acting as if their union is a country merely so they can state that the EU has a larger GDP than the USA (NAFTA has a larger GDP than the EU), and is the third largest population (again bumping the United States).  Chiss Boy 21:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poverty & Race in the USA 

message: I think that it should be mentioned how many states the USA consists of in the introduction. I was looking for that, but I couldn't find it. Either I'm blind or it isn't mentioned at all in the whole article (except in Administrative divisions, where it is said that there are 48 continental states plus Alaska and Hawaii) --80.219.120.34 19:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about in the introduction, but its certainly an important oversight in the article. I would suggest we attempt to emulate the excellent (and concise) Administrative Divisions section of the Mexico article, Link —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Primalchaos (talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There are 50 states, not 46.  That four states refer to themselves as "commonwealths" is of no legal or technical difference. Nicholas F 17:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of states 

message: The map nearest the top doesn't show the Hawaiian Islands, which I find very wrong for an encyclopedia. Does anyone know where to find a better one? I'll look around too... | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 23:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a very strange map. The land masses are shaped like they would be in a Eckert IV, but this map is square. The location of Hawaii would actually fall outside the bounds of the map. I changed the map, but it could still use some work. I have lots of trouble with SVG. Jecowa 16:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll upload/find something more appropriate.  Quizimodo 20:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried Google Image earlier today, but I couldn't find an image of the entire world. Good luck Quizmodo. :-) | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 20:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quizimodo fixed it. Jecowa 03:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Since the US Census Bureau said so. If you consider the Mason-Dixon line the boundary, then yes, MD and DE are in the south. --Golbez 09:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Delaware and Maryland are definitely part of the South.  Just because they didn't secede in the War Between the States doesn't change that.  Kentucky is also part of the South.  Chiss Boy 17:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: This article is too government oriented. In the Economy section all it seems to talk about are state accomplishments. We are not a fascist nation. There IS a private sector accomplishing a lot of great things. There is a picture of a state university. How about a private university?  The United States is more than just the government. The government is actually less important than the private sector in a capitalist economy. So why so much focus on state accomplishments? This looks like it could be an article put out by the Nazis glorifying Nazi germany. Improper Bostonian 02:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP has rules about this. We should not give "undue weight" to any aspect of the topic. But the "topic" here seems to be the political regime resulting from the Euro colonization of North America, so the stateist bias is legitimate. I have complained about this before without success - I think there must be a clear definition of the topic of each article. Otherwise our rules about neutrality and balance are unenforceable. You need to go to to the articles where the Wikicracy decides these issues. Fourtildas 04:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "This looks like it could be an article put out by the Nazis glorifying Nazi germany."- What this mean? Signaturebrendel 06:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyway, if you think private sector info is needed you should write something. Put it here for discussion first (to avoid squabbles). I suspect you will find you have difficulty coming up with something that is purely American and without public sector involvement. Except for things like microwave popcorn, aluminum beer cans, Pringles potato chips, plugin air fresheners, Hummers, etc. Fourtildas 05:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shortage of info about private sector accomplishments

message: "Beginning early the Cold War, the U.S. achieved successes in space science and technology, leading to a space race which led to rapid advances in rocketry".  This should be replaced by "Russia launched the first artificial satellite and the US scrambled to catch up". Fourtildas 04:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be that as it may, the latter version is POV. Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "Russia launched the first artificial satellite and the US scrambled to catch up". Fourtildas  Fourtildas, how about "Russia launched the first artificial satellite and the US scrambled to catch up, and succeeded, landing the first man on the Moon.  Since then, the Russian exploration of space has waned, with the American space agency, NASA, becoming the dominant space agency in the world. "?  (and the '.' goes before the " in a quote).  Chiss Boy 17:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Beginning early the Cold War, the U.S. achieved successes in space science and technology, leading to a space race ... " is not correct. It should say "Beginning early the Cold War, the U.S.S.R. achieved successes in space science and technology, leading to a space race ... " Fourtildas 04:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space Race 

message: Recently the mention that the UK was America's closest ally was removed under 'Foreign Relations and military'. 
I think Anglo-American relations is an integral part of the modern United States. The UK deserve a mention as they followed America into their War on Terror. Also Britain has an influence on the US and the US greatly influences the UK, especially regarding a very similiar foreign policy and military strategies.
It's also important to mention this as the article doesnt really state that after the war of independance we ever got back on 'good terms', but now the UK and US are fighting side by side 'shoulder to shoulder' against a common enemy, despite what was, and somewhat still is, overwhelming opposition.
Would anyone else agree that the special relations with the UK should be put back into that section??
strongmike248@hotmail.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.14.220.113 (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No there shouldn't, there is a seperate article for UK-US relations. Many Western European nations such as Germany, the Neatherlands and Irland have had great influences on the US and are very close allies. The US is probably the least Anglo nation in the Anglosphere due to ancestry, culture and the fact that much of the US wasn't even colonized by England. Besdies, this article describes the US in a nutshell, it is too long as it is and having sections on all the nations to which the US has culutral, political and/or linguistical ties need to be placed in seperate articles. Regards, Signaturebrendel 00:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The UK isn't just one of many allies -- opinion polls consistently show that Americans regard the UK as the closest ally of the U.S., by a very wide margin (see cites at Special relationship.  This is worth a brief mention. Raymond Arritt 18:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is America's closest ally. But is America the UK's closest ally? (Probably outside the EU) True, despite only 13 out of 50 states being colonized by England and 90% of Americans being primarily of non-English ancestry, the UK is America's cloests ally in geo-political terms. This article, however, is already too long. This is American in a nutshell and as you have mentioned there is a seperate article for the UK-US relationship. In this article, long as it already is, a brief mention is one sentence. Considering the wide scope of this article the sentence, "The UK is America's closet ally" should/needs to suffice. Regards, Signaturebrendel 22:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be fine -- no need to go on and on. One sentence is plenty, with a wikilink to Special relationship for those who want to know more. Raymond Arritt 01:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special Relationship 

message: I am writing a book about America and the Internet for the University of Toronto Press, and would like more information on the events leading up to the United States entry being locked. Please keep in mind that this is not a query intended to challenge the decision. 
I wish to document the event in my book, as an example of the online debate over America's identity. To that end, I would ask any editors who recall the circumstances leading up to the decision to lock the page if they could recount what happened (email me at michael@strangelove.com). I assume that there were so many changes being made to the article that the process had to be more carefully managed. I also assume that these changes reflected a debate between the 'left' and the 'right' over the character of the US, that they were in some way political (as indeed all history is in some way political). I am seeking to have these assumptions confirmed or corrected.
My purpose is not to reignite that debate, and hopefully I have the correct forum for posting this question. Comments from any participants in the editing process that led to the lock are welcome and of interest to my work.
Respectfully,
Dr. Michael Strangelove
University of Ottawa
www.strangelove.com
:One of the main reasons was simple vandalism. The "United States" article is a high profile target and was therefore prone to many "jokes" by newly registered or unregistered users. Amazingly we have not had many left vs. right disputes on this page. Also, please note that the article is only semi-protected; thus any user with a couple of hundred edits can edit this page. Regards, Signaturebrendel 00:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hardly locked. You might not be able to edit it as an IP, but if you made an account and waited 4 days you could. It's protected from IPs and really new accounts because people were just making stupid changes like this one. --tjstrf talk 01:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactely, it isn't locked. The semi-protection is largely the result of bored people googeling the USA and thinking its fun to vandalise this article. Regards, Signaturebrendel 02:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Information on History of Dispute over the United States Page in Wiki 

message: In 1776 the United colonies demanded their independece by the 'Declaration of Independence stating:
"[...] That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
And in the 'Treaty of Paris 1783' which was the peace treaty gives what they actually got:
"[...] His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof. [...]"
However this treaty is void as of 1812 when the Congress of the United States declared war upon Britain. Becuase, if one makes a treaty which says I can fish and live on your land. If I then start a fight with you. That would mean I broke the treaty, certainly I wouldn't recognize the treaty that was signed before you started a fight with me. I would throw you out of my land if I could!
Although the 'Treaty of Ghent 1814', that treaty further reinsures that the agreements made under Treaty of Paris will also be the state of things from here on but in many more words so I don't really know what was included in that treaty. Lord Metroid 15:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treaty of Paris is void 

message: While foreign relations can definetly involve the military, I dont believe these two should be combined.  Also, should foreign relations be expanded to include more than just the UN maybe Kyoto, etc...?
:Indeed not.  The military is only one aspect of many in foreign relations.  As for Kyoto, etc. how about other things such as APEC, ANZUS (military), NATO (also military), WTO, IMF, World Bank, etc.  Besides trying to make the United States look bad (as if you people aren't doing that enough), Kyoto is probably not something you'd want to mention.  Many European countries (and Canada, Japan, etc.) signed  and ratified the Protocol, and it does not look as if they will fulfill their part of the bargain.  Basically it shows the worth of nations who are quick to accept agreements and then not abide by them as being more base than countries who did not accept the agreement and then do not match the standards the agreement called for.  Chiss Boy 18:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Foreign relations and military be combined? 

message: Well, I finally have the time to check up on United States and what a mess it has become again.  Aargh.  And it was getting so nice the last time I read it thoroughly in August.  
Here are the edits which I am disputing as either unsourced, inadequately sourced, poorly written, or just plain dumb:
*Thethirdperson put a rather detailed discussion of the U.S. economy straight into the lead paragraphs on 15 January 2007.  The last time I checked, all the U.S. editors were trying to reduce the level in the first paragraph, not increase it.
*Thethirdperson's discussion was sourced to Encarta.  The last time I cited an encyclopedia was when I was in the fifth grade of elementary school (that's primary for the English folks).  Only children and poorly trained journalists cite tertiary-level sources like encyclopedias.  Adults (including most Wikipedia editors) cite to primary and secondary sources.  I'm sure the Encarta people are really laughing at Wikipedia now.  
*Brainboy109 made edits  such as this one around 15 November which ended up purging the link to Law of the United States from the article for the third time.  Having to keep reinserting that link is becoming really, really irritating. U.S. law is much, much more than the Constitution; that's why it takes three years of law school to learn it.  The section in the article on the Constitution as currently phrased grossly overemphasizes the importance of the federal Constitution.  The states have constitutions too.  
--Coolcaesar 12:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ick, I hadn't been paying attention, just vandal-watching. Thanks, I just tried my hand at cleaning it up. --Golbez 14:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here, I was just watching for vandals and let most legit-looking edits fly. Signaturebrendel 23:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Coolcaesar, I was unaware that you were a member of the intellectual elite.  Shall I bow the next time I see your username?  You're wasting wikipedia's space by criticizing my edits.  I simply added a very lengthy discussion of the economy in the introductory paragraphs with the hopes that somebody else would read and edit them.  I cannot determine myself which parts are most important to the common reader because I think all the data are important.  And I only cited Encarta Online for its usage of the term "most technologically advanced" economy.  Otherwise, other sources were being used.  Also, this encylopedia is for editing at anyone's discretion.  There is no official group of U.S. editors.  We're all editors.  If you would like to edit it as well, you may.  Discussion of it in a childish tone isn't necessary.
Thethirdperson 10:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest bizarre edits to this article I am disputing 

message: In order to reduct the size or long apperance of the article we could put a lot of economic info (e.g. personal income, GDP growth, unemployment, etc...) in a table and remove it from the text. One of the images (there are two right now) would give way to a table featuring much of the statistical info now mentioned in text. Furthermore, a table is more attractive to readers who are commonly intimidated by text containing statistics. The following would be covered in the table:
*GDP (nominal, PPP & per capita)
*Median Household & Individual income
*Persons below poverty teshold
*Income distribution (top 20% & bottom 20%)
*Unemployment
*Homeownership rate
I'll wait for comments until this evening Pacific time before putting this idea into place. Thanks, Regards, Signaturebrendel 23:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I instituted the table and managed to shorten the article by 3Kb. Signaturebrendel 06:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy table 

message: *ENwiki: 9,631,420
*Afrikaanswiki: 9 629 091 km²
*ANGwiki: 9 629 047 
*ARAGONwiki: 9.372.610 
* ...
*DEwiki: 9.629.891
*...
*ESwiki: 9.631.418
*HUwiki: 9 363 155
* ...
All different. --195.56.207.92 20:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the figures for a country as large and diverse as the US are naturally going to differ from source to source. Though I'd go with the offical US government stats. The US population varies greatly depending on year as it is growing very fast. Furthermore if undocumented immigrants were included the figure would jump an additional 12-15 million. Regards, Signaturebrendel 20:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the real size of the country? 

message: Shouldn't this article have at least a brief discussion of craft to compliment its discussion of American art?  Arguably craft traditions (e.g., pottery, quilting, glass-blowing) are more distinctive elements of national culture than are the high arts.  Some American craft, such as wood-turning or North Carolina pottery, represent important American contributions to visual culture.  Klmarcus 22:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Craft 

message: Could someone please add to the Sports section at the bottom of the page? It seems good enough, but I would be happy to see it improved. I will add stuff where I can, but I would appreciate it if anyone else could help too.
--Robin63 05:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports section 

message: Do we really need Nancy Pelosi and John Roberts there? Especially Roberts' party, since that's a wholly nonpartisan position? --Golbez 06:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that putting Robert's party affiliation up there is nonesense. But Pelosi does belong up there. The President is not the ruler-the people are. The people are represented through congress (not the President!) and Nancy Pelosi as speaker represents the people with whom the ultimate power in our state is vested. The President is simply the top civil servant (ture, a very powerful civil servant, but still a civil servant nonetheless). He is not our ruler! ;-) Signaturebrendel 07:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why didn't this subject come up when a Republican was Speaker, I wonder? ;) Anyway, what powers does the Speaker have, anyway? So far as I know, she has no special legislative or executive power, unlike, well, a President or Vice President. (the VP because he holds the tiebreaking vote in the senate, something a speaker does not have). It seems like subject creep, do we add the President pro tempore as well? --Golbez 14:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The speaker decides what bills get voted on before they reach comittee! That's a lot of power. When the president (who propsed most of today's bills) submitts a bill proposal, the speaker gets to decide whether or not that bill will make it to congress. Pelosi has the authority to kill any bill before it reaches the house. The VP has no real dejure power. Signaturebrendel 18:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not quite true. In his (or her) capacity as President of the Senate, the VP resolves tie votes in the Senate. Raymond Arritt 18:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the VP resolves ties (though considering the amounts of votes 50/50 ties are relatively rare). It is not, however, near as much power as the speaker of the house. Signaturebrendel 02:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It also makes sense to have the leaders off all gov branches up there. After all we don't have a "single leader government." All three branches have their leaders and they should be mentioned. Signaturebrendel 03:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaders 

message: I think we should change the name of the title from 'United States' to 'The United States of America'.  That is the formal name listed in the article and people who search for 'the united states of america' do not get this page as a result.  I believe that if it was changed, both searches for the origional name and the above mentioned would lead to this page.  Just thinking.Simonsays19 03:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been already extensively, exhaustively and teidously discussed and can be found in the Talk page archives. Please consult them.--Primal Chaos 03:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You want the formal name? I'll give you the same answer I give everyone: Come back when you managed to get Mexico moved to United Mexican States. --Golbez 17:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Simonsays19, see the link to the FAQ for this talk page at the top of the page.  --Coolcaesar 18:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "and people who search for 'the united states of america' do not get this page as a result." Yes they do.  redirects here. --Random832 21:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: The official name of the country is the United States of America, and the article even refers to it as such. The article should probably be renamed with a redirect from United States. It should also be noted that many other nations use "United States" in their title, such as Mexico. -- Timmmy! 23:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to refer to the large blue box at the top of this page that says "Please peruse the frequently asked questions for this article before contributing to this talk page."  The information in the FAQ should address your concerns.  --Confiteordeo 00:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: For one thing, the name of Mexico is United Mexican States - not United States of Mexico. For another, did you just completely miss the section RIGHT ABOVE THIS ONE?! --Golbez 02:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we need a big flashing sign at the top of this page "Click here to find out why this article is called United States and not United States of America." ;-) Having two sections in a row w/ the question of why this article isn't called US of A is quite amousing. Signaturebrendel 06:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh.. remember that the vote ended up in basically a 50/50 split last time. The one and only reason why this page is located here now is because it was located here when it was first written. I am rather disappointed with your responses (although I also wonder why this person thought taht the above section didn't apply...) ... Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I bet we could have a flashing logo, the Star Spangled Banner coming through the speakers, Smell-o-VisionTM, and automated voicemail to their home phone saying "please look at the FAQ", yet people would continue to bring up this point. Raymond Arritt 04:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I just updated the FAQ.  The last vote was in November, and it was unanimous for "no move". -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 06:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that the vast majority of people who type in "United States" will be looking for this article, it probably shouldn't be moved. Besides, there are four disambiguation pages right at the top of the article. Hojimachongtalkcon 04:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to United States of America? 

message: In the Innovations section, it only talks about government projects. Most of the R&D in the U.S. is done entirely in the private sector (69% of it is private). So I put a tag in that section because there is missing information, such as accomplishments by Microsoft, IBM, etc. Improper Bostonian 17:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Private sector innovations?

message: United States → United States of America — correct name. —User:89.168.0.166 -  This discussion section added by SigPig |SEND - OVER 00:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How many fucking times do we need to take this vote? We should do one every Sunday night... until it passes. Idiots.--24.91.161.79 04:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
#Support. ... Nah, I'm just kiddin', speedy close this. --Golbez 04:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments:
*Humblest apologies. I put the discuss section in here because it wasn't added when the RM went in -- as a Canadian I have no opinion one way or the other. I can only plead lack of sleep and CityPulse24 talking about the anniversary of some oilstrike or somesuch  as I was entering the info. I have made the correction above. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 00:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
#Support. ... Nah, I'm just kiddin', speedy close this. --Golbez 04:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Support. ... Nah, I'm just kiddin', speedy close this. --Golbez 04:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: #Absolute oppose. Everyone knows it as simply the United States. There is no United States of Alberta. Georgia guy 00:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: :Add any additional comments:
*Humblest apologies. I put the discuss section in here because it wasn't added when the RM went in -- as a Canadian I have no opinion one way or the other. I can only plead lack of sleep and CityPulse24 talking about the anniversary of some oilstrike or somesuch  as I was entering the info. I have made the correction above. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 00:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion