Talk:United States/Archive 17

message: I mentioned this earlier but only one person responded. Am I to take this that no one cares if this horrible table stays? --Golbez 18:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think User:Jleon cares only if you remove the table.--Ryz05 t 18:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying again with largest cities 

message: I don't think the name Columbia should be appearing in the parenthesis next to United States of America in the lead. Those names are some of the most common names to refer to the United States of America in writing (excluding U.S. of A. and U.S. and A. etc.) and most people don't refer to America as Columbia anymore. If you search Columbia on Google, none of the websites that turned up has Columbia refering to the United States, with many refering to Columbia University. Also, the name Columbia has the same pronounciation and should not be confused with the country Colombia. There's already a link to Historical Columbia in the See also section anyways.--Ryz05 t 13:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Columbia" seems to be a rather dated term for the US. It deserves a mention, but not as an alternative name. — TheKMantalk 13:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with this. It's a very outdated usage, and I'm glad it's no longer in the opening paragraph of the article.  Moncrief 09:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Columbia to refer to the US? 

message: People keep objecting because the article is too long, but I'm afraid that if we cut down on the information, then people like User:Bwithh and User:Golbez are going to object because the article is not comprehensive. Also, can we not have a permanent semi-protection to stop people from objecting because they think the article is not stable? Now I'm beginning to doubt if this article will ever get featured, unless more people come in support for this article.--Ryz05 t 22:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that I don't think it's not comprehensive - I think it's comprehensive about the wrong things. Like that horrible cities table. --Golbez 22:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a poll Talk:United_States/Archive_15#Largest_cities_table, which seems to indicate that most people supported the table. We can have another poll if you want. Besides the table, what other "wrong things" do you want to omit?--Ryz05 t 22:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not required to obey a poll - if they wanted the largest cities table, that's fine, but that will not change my vote against the article. --Golbez 07:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the largest cities table is deleted, will you change your vote or at least offer a different explanation to your objection as opposed to just agreeing with User:Bwithh?--Ryz05 t 17:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the support of the United States article nomination.--Ryz05 t 18:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What is this objection related to 'the article is not stable'?  No article is rock stable here, featured or not. The stability criterion states '"stable" means that an article does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars.' It would seem that semi-protection would work in favor of this criterion by tacitly stating 'we know that this is a target of vandalism and we are doing something to address that'.  Edit wars between regular editors are not blocked by semi-protection ... and semi-protection is not the proper recourse for resolution of an edit war between regular editors (as opposed to 'irregular' = 'sporadic' = 'episodic' editors, by which I characterize anonymous and new editors). User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an objection raised on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States and I think User:AndyZ answered it pretty well with the link Wikipedia talk:What is a featured article?#Stability.--Ryz05 t 18:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big problem with United States featured article nomination 

message: America is 81% White.  According to the US census, Saddam Hussain, Zacharios Masssaoui, Osama Bin Laden and Hamid Kharzai are classsed as `White' In the Census. The U.S. is approximately 67% European and between 61-65% non-Mediterranean European. unsigned (posted by 58.169.1.246 at 10:42, June 2, 2006)
Technically that is all true and scientifically true as well.  The Arab people's are from the same sub-race of the human race - ie. Caucasians as are most of the Northern Africans - people of Europe and Russia - the Persians (Iranians), Afghanistanis, and the non-Dravidian Indian's of India who originally called themselves Aryans and brought Hinduism (some think this was the original religion of the Caucasian sub-race) to India when they moved into the Indus Valley region. Hispanics are mostly European or native or a mixture of the two; some are African or a mixture of African and European; and a few are natives - they have a distinct European-type culture rooted in their ties to Spain.  We are all Homo Sapiens, however, and genetic differences caused by climate, and geographic isolation dissipate over time when different sub-races integrate and become one ( as in the case of Russia ie. the mongols, the vikings, the Slavs) - essentially given enough time, America will have a distinct American race.  - The real differences between people's is language and culture which make up a nationality- and despite some minor differences Americans have a unique common culture unified by language, historic memory, common service to country, and other factors of time and history - including an overwhelming belief in God, Democracy, the American Dream, Equal opportunity, liberty, and our special place among nations represented often as "Manifest Destiny", "City upon a Hill", "Promised Land" etc. which is not a notion of superiority but rather special purpose to show the way by being that "Bright beacon of hope" to all nations by how we relate to one another and govern ourselves, and that "Shining City" through our material efforts at building our nation and extending material benefit to our citizens through the American Dream.  --Northmeister 03:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Northmeister, you are one of the most patriotic Americans I've ever known.--Ryz05 t 03:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DEMOGRAPHICS 2 

message: I thought the external links format before it was reverted  was pretty creative and a nice style change for this article. I suggest that it be kept that way, but I'm asking for more opinions because it was reverted due to it being "done without consensus."--Ryz05 t 22:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I to take this lack of response to mean yes that the creative format should be kept?--Ryz05 t 18:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrm. While it's pretty, it means External Links doesn't show up in the table of contents. Furthermore, I don't think it's big enough that we need to hide it. So I suggest it remain as is, simple and utilitarian. I do, however, disagree with the editor's implication that all actions require consensus. --Golbez 19:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links format 

message: I don't mind having a section on American Dream, but it does need references and a copyedit. There should also be a section on American Dream in the article Immigration to the United States. I recommend moving it to the bottom of the Economy section, since it's almost stand-alone.--Ryz05 t 22:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The American Dream is that great story of rags to riches of getting ahead by hardwork, courage, determination, and sacrifice for the family. --Northmeister 02:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The American Dream is a concept that belongs in United States culture and can and should be mentioned in a culture section or such. A specific section for the concept is giving undue weight, especially at a time when many people are opposing the FAC of this article for its current size. Pepsidrinka 02:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One sentence mention should be included as it is at the core of what America means to so many. I agree that a main section under culture is better. --Northmeister 02:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the American Dream section to Culture as suggested.--Ryz05 t 03:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Dream section 

message: As of 12:30pm EDT: Since the article was unprotected by King of Hearts, there have been eight IP edits, 7 of which were reverted as vandalism.
I figured it's time to keep a real-time log to see if there's any hope for the idealists who think there can ever be an unprotection of this article. It has nothing to do with article quality, either, Ryz05. --Golbez 16:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you see what those "vandalisms" were about? They are just people testing out the formats or people adding comments without references or adding political rants. It doesn't nearly get as much vandalism as the article on Elias Ashmole history, which is far less prominent.--Ryz05 t 16:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for letting me know about it; I just semiprotected it. Also, the vandals don't yet know that we're unprotected here. Give it a day. --Golbez 16:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just went to that article and I did not find it semi-protected.--Ryz05 t 16:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Duh, of course it's being vandalized, Ryz - It's on the front page. That always happens. Unprotecting it, this is what we deal with every day. At least the vandalism wave on the Ashmole article will last exactly 24 hours. The vandalism of this article is forever. At the moment, the Ashmole article is far MORE prominent, because it's on the front page. STOP MAKING TINY EDITS TO YOUR ENTRY SO I CAN RESPOND, sheesh. :P --Golbez 16:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Ryz05, how is "adding political rants" not specifically what we are trying to prevent here? That's as much vandalism as adding a penis picture. Your standards are far too high. --Golbez 16:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out the article on Pakistan history, which gets many vandalisms and is not semi-protected. Also, I don't mind adding a semi-protection for keeping out political rants, but they don't occur too often in themselves.--Ryz05 t 17:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testing unprotection 

message: Was English made the official language yet?
Dudtz 5/26/06 9:09 PM EST
:No. The Senate passed a bill containing two statements on the matter, but it next goes to the conference committee, then has to be passed bu both houses again, then signed by the president. At that point, if the measure is still in th bill, English will become either the "national" language or the "common" language. Stay tuned. -Will Beback 02:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No language is in the Senate bill calling it the "official" language.  "National" and "common" are a bit different, and largely symbolic.  Moncrief 09:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Saying "none" is very misleading.--Cruzian 19:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: but, under current laws, at least in some states (was this a national court decision, or a state level decision?) it is required by law to provide certain services in multiple languages.  E.g. in several states, the public schools must accomodate non-English speakers.  Doesn't this remove English's status as our "de facto official language"?MikeNM 19:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Language 

message: I don't mind its inclusion, but it has to be important and informative. For one thing, the population density statistics is important to any city, and a table of population for the various cities is best kept with the density statistics. Removing them also makes the table a lot smaller - leaving a white space next to the pictures, which doesn't look good.--Ryz05 t 00:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please point out one of the several featured country articles that have a chart of the population densities of their largest cities? --Golbez 02:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here: PRC#Urbanization. Also, population densities are always listed on sources like the Census - to find how crowded a city is.--Ryz05 t 02:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite possibly the worst example you could have chosen, since the table wasn't there when that article became featured, *two years ago*, with *three votes*. Not exactly an extensive review.  --Golbez 02:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the biggest supporter of the table is User:Jleon, because he always adds it back each time it's taken out, but he's not discussing about its inclusion on this page. Another vote on whether to keep the table should be wise. Also, I think the many references led to a longer article size, but people should not object because of that. I still don't understand why some are still objecting about its comprehensiveness when so many others are complaining about the size.--Ryz05 t 21:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest cities table 2 

message: Since apparently the proponents and opponents keep crossing in the dark and never chatting, how about this.
#No table.
#Table without densities.
#Table with densities.
#Old table with >10 cities and densities and functions.
Vote please, as much as I abhor votes. --Golbez 02:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll on the largest cities table 

message: Why are the naming conventions and MoS such that this article is called "United States" rather than "United States of America"? -Splash - tk 00:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That will be answered in the FAQ. :) Long story short: We prefer the most common name, principle of least surprise, we almost always use the short form on Wikipedia except where disambiguation absolutely required, etc. --Golbez 00:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, I hate to sound rude, but the reason why it stays at United States is absolutely nothing more or less than inertia. The recent vote to move the page ended at a fifty-fifty split, which means that if the page had originally been at United States of America, that's where it would be right now. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it's just because there was a wave of new editors ignorant of naming standards. --Golbez 19:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the article 

message: How can the USA Per Capita Income be $43,555 when the majority of the big cities (over 100,000 inhab.) have Per Capita Income lower than $30,000? I'm telling this because USA's richest counties are small ones in term of population.
Moreover, the richest state of the country is the Connecticut at approx. $45,506/inhab. The majority are states are between $25,000 and $30,000 (maybe up to $35,000 - I haven't looked all the states). I just don't know how can the country's average be that high.
--Slimkay 22:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: $43,555 sounds very high to me. You're right, there's something fishy going on, I think. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If you are talking about GDP per capita, you are calculating things correctly, but if you are looking at per capita income, I believe your method of calculation is incorrect.  The GDP includes money that never makes it into an individual's salary.  I thought that the average single income was 20-something thousand, and the average family income was in the high 30 thousands, though I might be wrong.MikeNM 19:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Per Capita Income 

message: What on earth is wrong with putting some kind of phrasing like "also known as" in the parenthesis in the first sentence of the article?  You have the name of the country in full and then parentheses with alternate names but without any kind of description of what those names are.  We can assume they're alternate names, but why not say so?  That's common practice in Wikipedia articles.
If I can offer a more general observation: It seems that some of you have been working on this article for a long time, which is great, but I also think that such closeness can create a kind of fear of change.  People are awfully quick to revert in full, to dismiss new editors here as "newbies", and to express frustration at any change to this article.  Just a thought to keep in mind; sometimes a fresh perspective can be great.  Moncrief 15:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree that a "fresh perspective can be great," but adding "also known as" into parenthesis is redundant, since the parenthesis already implies other possible (common) ways of writing or refering to the United States of America.--Ryz05 t 16:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it doesn't imply that.  A parenthesis merely implies a parenthetical comment. What we are supposed to infer from that comment is not altogether clear.  Are these names equivalents to the full name?  Are they all appropriate to use?  None of that is clear without additional phrasing of some kind to explain what these other terms are.  That's common throughout Wikipedia.  Moncrief 16:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If I get no response to my message here, I'll go ahead and add "also known as", though I'm open to suggestions for other ways to explain what these parenthetical names are.  I also challenge anyone to find one significant article in Wikipedia that has parenthetical "other names" next to the full name of the subject with no description at all of what these secondary names are supposed to mean or what they're for.  Note, for example, how United Kingdom deals with it: the reader is given information about what to make of the parenthetical names. Moncrief 21:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I didn't respond and thank you for patiently waiting. You can check on a featured country article like the People's Republic of China, which has more common names of the country in parenthesis. Same with the U.S. article; those names in parenthesis are some of the most common ways to refer to the country in writing (excluding U.S. of A. and U.S. and A. etc.).--Ryz05 t 21:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the PRC example, it clearly states in the parenthesis that those other words -- which don't show up on my screen, but I'm sure they're Chinese characters -- are the ways in which the name of the country is represented in traditional and simplified Chinese. The terms "Simplified Chinese" and "Traditional Chinese" give the reader a sense of why these Chinese characters are in parentheses. In the United States article, the reader is not told why these secondary terms are here because there's no other information, as there is in the PRC article. It also helps that "China", which is a separate article from the PRC article, is linked in the parantheses. Nothing is linked in the parantheses here. Moncrief 22:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the PRC article, the words in the parenthesis tell which is simplfied and which is traditional so that people will understand why there are two translations of the same name. I seriously don't think it's necessary to explain that the names in parenthesis are more common ways to refer to the United States of America. If you still disagree, I recommend on hearing more opinions.--Ryz05 t 22:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no "also known as"?

message: Does an article on the US as a whole really need to discuss the nature of the Marine Corps and the dual roles of the Coast Guard?  Especially since the present text leaves the reader wondering about the Corps.  And since the creation of the non-branch MAJCOMsCOCOMs (e.g. USCENTCOM, STRATCOM), you really can't use just the 3 or 4 service branches to describe the entire military.  The MAJCOMsCOCOMs and the civilian termination of the chain of command should be mentioned.  The trick would be to do it without significantly growing that section.  Tightening the second military paragraph seems possible.  Must sleep, be bold tomorrow.--J Clear 02:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't understand why you can't "use just the 3 or 4 service branches to describe the entire military." See United States military.--Ryz05 t 22:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See United States military#Unified Combatant Commands.  The point being that the chain of command for combat operations does not flow down through the service branches.  Everything is Joint these days.  The 1990 Gulf War and present conflict are not fought by the Army or Navy, they are fought by CENTCOM.  Looked at one way, the purpose of the traditional branches it so train and equip units for the UCCs to use.  The UCCs are outside the traditional service branches, orthogonal to it in a way.  I'm not proposing deleting the service branch info.  Better yet, look at Military of the United States#National Command organizational chart where you see the UCC are on par with the services and JCS(who also go unmentioned).  When I can set aside a block of time, I'll write it up and you can poke at it.--J Clear 23:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are detailed information of how the U.S. military is structured. I don't think the information should be included in the summary section of this article because it'll risk confusing the reader unless some graph or chart is added.--Ryz05 t 23:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Military

message: I don't think this sentence is accurate: 
"The majority of Americans descend from European immigrants who arrived after either the establishment of the first English colonies or the Reconstruction period in 1863–1877. This majority is expected to be reduced to only a plurality by 2050"
Are not most Hispanics descended fully or partially from Europe and speaking a European langauge? 
This sounds a little like the 19th cent. argument against the Italians, who are today considered white. The sentence at least needs to be more specific, that the anglo/germanic/southern europe majority will be a plurality. Brando03 15:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for the distinction is that Hispanics are a mix of European (mostly Spanish and Portuguese) and Native Ammericans (mostly Central and South American. Their herritage differs markedly from their European ansestors. Jaxad0127 16:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no problem with mentioning a European-descended majority, but the "first English colonies"/Reconstruction references are bizzare.  Citation needed!  Reconstruction begain in 1865 for one thing.  For another, a huge wave of immigration began after 1877, in the 1880-1910 period.  (Not to mention the enormous 1840s German/Irish immigration that doesn't seem to be covered by this description.) Is this craptastic sentence still in the article?  I'll have to check.  Moncrief 17:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, of the European immigration waves, the one that came in the early 20th century, before the immigration quotas were passed, is very large, and unless someone can prove otherwise, I believe that their desendants are at least near in number to those who came during colonization and Reconstruction.  Secondly, unless a more detailed overview of US immigration is going to be included, which I believe would be too detailed for the US summary article, I don't believe that discussion of when these Europeans came is necessary.  Finally, that those of European descent will be reduced to a plurality by 2050 is a disputable projection.  While I think that it is highly likely, I don't believe that that statement should be included in this article. MikeNM 19:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "European plurality"

message: This section has problems.  It needs to be focused on the present.  There is no earthly reason to mention something that happened to the Choctaws 175 years ago!  Details about the history of human rights should be located in the main Human rights in the United States article.  --JW1805 (Talk) 16:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Rights section 

message: The nomination failed again unfortunately. It seems like most people who objected want the article to be summarized even further, despite how some still want more to be mentioned. In any case, it's not possible to satisfy everyone so I suggest we cut down on the article size instead of attempting to expand it. Not everyone will be happy with the change, but I think it is for the best.--Ryz05 t 23:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I messaged user:Raul654 about why he failed the nomination even though most were in support, but so far, he has made no reply.--Ryz05 t 23:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FAC is not a vote; he looked at the issues expressed and decided it did not pass FAC. --Golbez 23:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still waiting for a response about what he thinks how the article can be improved.--Ryz05 t 23:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say that this decision doesn't surprise me at all.  I did a cursory reading of just the History section last week, and I found obvious errors and creaky writing.  Somebody needs to read this entire article, and check it for errors.  Frankly, it's not up to FA snuff.  Moncrief 17:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Rather than cut back on meaningful content in this article, I think you should attempt to cut back on some of the less important, more innane facts that are included in some sections.  For example, the transporation section states that Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport is the country's busiest airport.  Facts like that can be cut out, making the article shorter, more concise, and without removing anything that provides a deeper view of the country.MikeNM 20:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC failed 

message: If you followed the FAC discussion, you will know that there were three major categories of objection:
# Didn't include topic X, Y or Z
# Article is too long
# Prose is flabby
Ironically, objections 1 & 2 seem to contradict each other.  How do cover more topics and make the article shorter at the same time?  Some people argued that you could shorten the article by tightening up the prose.  They're dreaming.  I don't think you can shorten the article more than 5% by tightening up prose.
Anyway, if we want to achieve FAC status, we probably need to get the article into the 60kb - 70kb range.  Question is: what should our goal be?  We're close to 79kb right now.  Seems to me that the obvious choices are 50kb (the top of the Wikipedia guideline range), 60kb or 70kb.
We should pick one of these numbers and, assuming we can get down to that number, just say "Hey, that's the number we picked.  The Wikipedia guideline of 30-50kb is for your average article.  The United States article ain't no average article."
 
If you read my comment in the section immediately above this one, you'll see that I propose setting a page bhudget on the total length of the article.  With this tool, we can hit any goal we set.  Now, all we have to do is set the goal.
So, what are your thoughts?
--Richard 00:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what number to pick, but it's way too long now and there's already an American History article. Cut at least five of the six pictures from the American History section and reduce the text by more than half. The picture of George Bush signing the PATRIOT ACT isn't so important either. -Barry- 02:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call for consensus vote 

message: # --Richard 00:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut article down to 60kb (25% reduction) 

message: # Sandboxes for different sizes? This is pure insanity. --Golbez 22:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop trying to make this win FA for a few months and just concentrate on writing a good article

message: Hello all, I know a lot of people have put in a lot of work to make this article and get it to featured article status.  I applaud your work.  As someone who worked on the Canada article, and got it to featured article status, I would like to make some suggestions.  The biggest problem with this article is it's length, and it doesn't subscribe to the summary style.  What we did with Canada was completely remove some sections to daughter articles, and considerably shorten other sections.  This is difficult, as we all know there is lots of important information that needs to be given, but we have to be a little discerning, and let the daughter articles do their work instead.  So here is some more specific suggestions and comments.  I'm sure that a lot of you will not be happy with them, but I think they will improve the article.
#History section is ok, if not a bit too long. One too many images though.
#Politics main section is ok
#Move foreign relations and military to a top level section, combine the two, and shorten considerably (examples, remove territorial disputes, remove consulates, and countries that don't have relations, remember summary not detail)
#Remove Human Rights section, make it a See also at the end of another section or move it directly to the See Also section.
#Political Subdivisions is great.
#Geography section is good, but too many images, remove two of the ones on the right, and make the remaining one bigger.  All images removed can be put in the daughter article.
#Economy section is too long.  Remove the last paragraph, and remove most of the detailed information in the second paragraph; just state that it varies, and give a list of stuff, and then merge the third paragraph into it.
#Remove the Transportation section completely, it doesn't need to be in the main article. As for the Science section, I can see a reason for it.  Either remove it, or make it a top level section, and move it lower down in the article.
#All subsections in the Demographics should be merged into the demographics section (no subsection headings). 
##Considerably shorten the language, stating that English in the main language, but that there are other languges with a list.  Reasons can be in the daughter articles. 
##For the education paragraphs, remove the sentences on trade schools, homeschooling, and the last paragraph. 
##For the religion paragraphs remove the comparison of religiosity. Combine and shorten into a summary the last sentences of the second paragraph and the third paragraph regarding regional differences.  Remove the fourth paragraph.
##Remove the public health section completely.  Make it a link in a See also at the end of the demographics section.
##Remove the Population migration and growth, this level of detail really needs to be in a daughter article, the main demographics section takes care of the numbers of different races.
#Culture section is good
#Make the Sports section it's own section, or shorten considerably, and just state interests and move into the culture section
#Make the American Dream subsection its own section.
#Images: There are 26 images in the article, while images help the article, too many distract the flow, and hurt smaller resolutions.  I would suggest no more than 15 images.
Please don't take any of the above comments as devaluing anyone's work.  The article is very good, but we must take advantage of internet medium (links) to make the page have summary content for those who want some quick info, and allow for more detailed analysis in the daughter articles. -- Jeff3000 01:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another comment, is look to Australia as the ideal featured country article.  It's well written, well sectioned, and has just the right amount of detail. -- Jeff3000 03:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, just took a look, well done. America deserves a little more however, because of our large role in the world compared to Australia. I've looked at Japan, Germany, etc. and they run about 80 kilobytes in Germany's case, and less in Japan's case. What this article lacks is flow, and it severely misses on many markers. I tried to rectify this in my reduction attempt just now, like mentioning the Pilgrims for example in History, very important to American identity; not even mentioned previously. The opening needs real work to be presentable and needs expansion; the rest needs some reduction and should flow like the Australian article to a large degree. --Northmeister 04:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several recently promoted featured articles that exceed 70kb...I think to be descriptive, much less than 80kbs is going to be tough with this article. I just greatly expanded the geography section since IMO, that section was in need of more detail. I am infavor of removing some images, but we need some that show what at leasta  couple of sections of the country look like. Bush signing any bill is simply not needed. Why not a picture of George Washington instead?...he's supposed to be the father of the country. I see no reason to have a section on the American Dream at all...what for? That section seems parochial and prone to POV. Well, I didn't add any refs to the geography section so I'll try and get those in later.--MONGO 11:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The American Dream deserves at least a sentence and a link though. —Centrx→talk 12:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember everyone, no one is talking about deleting information or not describing the United States in detail, we're just talking about putting information in the appropriate place, which to meet the summary style article, is in the daughter articles.  -- Jeff3000 12:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, we should all work together to reduce the size a bit, including the American Dream section, which deserves a paragrpah summary. We should also clean-up the grammar in places. I agree with removing some photos. We should use another article like Canada to go by. --Northmeister 14:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions to improve this article 

message: This is a significant improvement from the original 85-95kb. I think what the article needs now are some copyedits and references. After that, it's ready to become FAC again.--Ryz05 t 14:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind on cutting down the information, but the version before the changes is a lot more organized and better looking. It'll be interesting to see what you guys come up with, but I hope the article will become featured in the near future. I have to say that this article changed a lot since April 10, 2006 .--Ryz05 t 15:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's work on organization then. I wanted to organize the article like other national articles are organizated to be wiki-standard.  There is still room for improvement; however. --Northmeister 16:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article has been reduced to 73kb 

message: "The majority of Americans descend from European immigrants; this majority, which in 1965 was 90% and today is closer to 81%," in the Demographics section needs to be sourced.
I've consistently seen figures closer to 70-75% for the percentage of European-descended Americans today.  In fact, 81% couldn't possibly be true because 12% of Americans are black and about 13% are Hispanic, which adds up right there to 24%.  Not to mention the 2% or so who are Asian, which takes it to 26% non-white just from the most widely-accepted (and somewhat outdated) census figures.  100- 26 = 74.
Please fix or source, if you're somehow including some Hispanics because of their part-Spanish ancestry, and please do so quickly.   
Moreover, the 11-12% figure for African Americans has been pretty consistent in the last 50 years, so how do you come to 90% European in 1965, considering that fact and that perhaps 2% of the population was Hispanic at that point (rough estimate)?  100 - 13 = 87, which is not 90%.  Source these things!  You can't just make stuff up out of thin air or guess at something, and put it in a major Wikipedia article. Moncrief 17:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alien Nation is not an unbiased book.  (I'm bypassing many of the other irrelevancies in your post.  Heard of paragraph breaks?)  The appropriate data to cite in a factual article comes from the U.S. Census, not Michael Savage's anti-immigration book.  Moncrief 21:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alien Nation wasn't written by Michael Savage. I will get the source, and I also agree that the US Census figures for 1965 and beyond are what should be used. If I am wrong or I remember wrong, I stand corrected. Feel free to remove that slice of the sentence about 1965 etc. and just state the year 2000 census figure, until I pull the book from the shelf offer a source. --Northmeister 21:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alien Nation was written by Peter Brimelow, head of VDARE and a leader in the anti-immigration/immigration reduction movement. -Will Beback 21:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above editor is correct and despite controversy, Brimelow's book is well referenced concerning the demographic changes since 1965 and what existed in 1965. I however support the present sentence as it was edited as fine. --Northmeister 22:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source needed

message: I added seven references to the geography section...is there any other factoid in that section that needs a reference?--MONGO 20:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: references

message: Looking at other nations (Canada and Australia) that have passed their FAC's; I feel the opening is inadequate to meet our needs. I also feel we should use those countries pages to organize this article or use it as a standard. As far as the Opening, I suggest each editor concerned offer their Version of the now existing paragraph (or one entirely new) and that once we have several versions from interested editors we work to combine the best elements from all into one for the page - until then the original stays.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Northmeister (talk • contribs) 
: Yes, somehow, along the way the intro got truncated to being too short.  Ryz05 was trying mightily to keep it short but as Montcrief and Northmeister were whacking away at WWI and WWII, it slipped into a coma.  ;^)
: It might be useful to read through Talk:United States/Introduction to get some perspective on which blocks we've already gone around.
: For your reference, I'm adding in the intro as of April 12th.  No particular reason for that date or that version.  This is just the intro that I saved when I created the topical archive Talk:United States/Introduction.  I figured it would provide a point of reference for what used to be in the intro at an earlier point in time.
: --Richard 00:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet again, it wasn't my intention to gut your article. I agree the intro is too short as it stands now.  But this business about conflating World War I, World II, and the end of the Cold War all together as the cause of the U.S.'s hyperpower status just does not work.  It also isn't true that all other victorious countries had "devastated" economies after WW1.  "Devastated" is a subjective word, and there are people who would argue even that Britain, never invaded, wasn't exactly "devastated" even by WW2.  Sure, it took years to recover fully and great swaths of London were bombed, but is discussion of wartime devasation of other countries (never precisely defined) the best use of the intro?   I believe your purpose is to encapsulate in perhaps two sentences the U.S.'s rise from obscurity to superpower.  OK, let's create two such sentences. The ones that existed are, in my opinion, unworkable.  Moncrief 03:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for opening paragraphs 

message: Placement of a topic in one list or another is just a tentative initial assignment.  The purpose of making these lists is to stimulate a debate and ultimately form a consensus about what topics should be in each list.
--Richard 07:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added "Never been a Commonwealth nation" and "No official langauge" because the first is irrelevant, and the second is not noteworthy enough for an opening - especially since the de facto official language and actual in many states official language is English. --Northmeister 10:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Candidate topics for inclusion in the opening

message: You can list a topic to be included or NOT to be included.  However, you may not move a topic from the "to be included" list to the "NOT to be included" list or vice versa.  If you disagree with the recommendation to include or exclude a topic, please move it to the "List of topics whose inclusion is a matter of debate".  Then please explain why you disagree in the discussion section.
--Richard 07:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed rules 

message: I build the initial "List of topics to include in the opening" list by listing all the topics in the current opening and adding in topics from the candidate openings based on the Australia and Canada models below.
--Richard 07:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added "Never been a Commonwealth nation" and "No official langauge" because the first is irrelevant, and the second is not noteworthy enough for an opening - especially since the de facto official language and actual in many states official language is English. --Northmeister 10:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: The United States occupies the central portion of North America. Extending from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean, the United States shares land borders with Canada,Mexico and Russia.
Inhabited originally by Native Americans, Canada was founded as a union of British colonies which declared independence from Britain in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence.  However, the British did not recognize the independence of the colonies until 1783 after conceding defeat in the Revolutionary War. 
The United States is a now a federal republic of fifty states.  There is no official language although English is the de facto language of business and government. A technologically advanced and industrialized nation, its diversified economy relies heavily on an abundance of natural resources and on trade, particularly with the Canada, Mexico, Japan and China.
--Richard 07:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the first paragraph. I don't like the rest of it. I think the Australian version is the best to work from. Of, course what others think may help us to know where to work from. Once we have a starting point from proposals offered by others, each of us can then tweak the starting point form until it works best in our opinions as an opener. --Northmeister 09:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Canadian version was modelled on the Australian version following comments I made to its WP:FAC. In the hope that it might assist your efforts, I'll rehash it here: Generally, good introductions to country articles contain three elements. The first paragraph of the introduction provides locational context - what its geography is, who its neighbours are. The second paragraph gives an historical overview. And finally, the third paragraph is left for societal details - what its political system is (briefly), what its social characteristics are (because this could be many things, it's important to mention something that is defining).--cj | talk 11:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Following the model of the Canada article 

message: This section needs a LOT of work.  Plenty of high-school comp-type phrasings and overly broad statements.  I'll tackle it when I have time too, but just wanted to point it out.  It'll keep us from FA status.  Moncrief 22:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything is cited. Nothing about the information is overly broad...it's all fact, check the references. At least now, there is a small discussion on climate. You'd be more likely to not have this become a featured article by not even talking about the weather!--MONGO 05:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to all be sourced now. It wasn't yesterday when I made my comment.  Moncrief 13:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Climate section

message: Over the course that century and the 18th century, the population grew, new areas were settled, and the British colonies became increasingly self-governing.
Centrx wrote:
One problem with this is that at the beginning they would have been totally self-governing in practical matters, though totally non-self-governing in terms of high-level legislation and sovereignty, and then both decrease and increase, respectively, with more specific on-the-ground actions by the Crown, and more legislative and attempts at control.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Centrx (talk • contribs)  (Comment moved here from the article by Richard 03:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the issue, since the paragraph is clearly talking about British colonies in North America generally, so that phrase does recognize that the present-day US and present-day Canada were equally British colonies at the time, but only present-day US declared independence. Ddye 19:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally get that, and it's a valid, accurate point of course, but my only concern is that the way it's phrased it could make one think there were present-day U.S. territories that didn't declare independence in 1776.  Perhaps it's just because this is a US article that a reader might make that assumption, or perhaps there's a slightly more clear way to phrase it.  But it's not too big a deal.  Moncrief 19:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I recall correctly, Florida was owned by the U.K. around the time of the American Revolution due to some treaty. However there were no British colonies there. -Will Beback 19:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other introduction problem

message: nowhere to be found... funny how in wikipedia is much easier to find WMDs information on coutries of the "axis of evil".
:Wikipedia is open for edits.  If you want to add information to this article (there's a section on the military), go right ahead.  Moncrief 15:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Isnt the US the country with the most WMDs?

message: Hi, 
I am a Seventh-Day-Adventist from Germany and this is my community.Here are some Rußlanddeutsche (ethnic Germans from the states of the old Soviet-Union). Original they were Mennonites, Baptists or Hutterer. The last one went to America in 1875. A few years later some German Mennonites from Russia (13,000) immigrated to the USA and they heart about the Advent-message and told it their relatives in Russia. And nowadays are ca 5,000 of the Russia-Germans Seventh-Day-Adventists. But mostly they are Baptists (Evangeliumschristen-Baptisten; 300,000) or Mennonites (Russlandmennoniten; 30,000). Here is my question: Have the Germans from Russia in the United States an own community or  an expellee organizationlike in Germany, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan or in Canada? Or are they integrated (Here in Germany they aren´t). 
Friede sei mit Euch, Peace, Simon MAYER
:The German community is pretty well integrated into American society. In fact America was one vote away when it was founded from speaking German, rather than English due to the large number of German emigrees in Pennsylvania at the time. The religious community of Mennonites, Amish, and others are sometimes living in separate communities due to their specific beliefs, but do interact with other Americans when coming to town for various reasons. As far as the Russian-German community, I am unsure. --Northmeister 03:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I always read in history books that we were one vote away from French. Anyways, he wasn't talking about historic Germans, but about what I assume to be refuges from the former Soviet republics. Jaxad0127 03:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was German. The vote happened in 1771, but sorry I don't a source other my memory.  I am sure someone has a source for this vote. MJCdetroit 04:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Urban legend: "Legend has it that in 1795 a bill to establish German as the official language of the fledgling United States of America was defeated in Congress by a single vote. There never was such a vote; indeed, there wasn't any such bill, either. A proposal before Congress in 1795 merely recommended the printing of federal laws in German as well as English, and no bill was ever actually voted upon."  --Golbez 04:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia-Germans in tte United States 

message: Can anybody answer me this? -Dragong4
:Er.. perhaps you're looking for the Reference Desk? And Americans love an accent. --Golbez 02:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he means foreign accents. Jaxad0127 04:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, which explains why country music performs so well. ;) --Golbez 04:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Apparently not. --Golbez 23:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best-selling bands only come from England? 

message: You seem to have a strong, unexplained preference to spell out every number under 100.  While this is unlike nearly all other Wikipedia articles and against most style guides' advice (they only insist on numbers spelled out under 10), I actually wouldn't have a problem with your proclivity if you were at least consistent about it.  You can't (or shouldn't) change the numbers in the introduction but then not throughout the entire article.  We now have numbers under 100 spelled out in the intro ("seventeenth century" and the like) but not further down in the article (the "Demography" section, to name one example).  Consistency is the most important factor here and, while I'd also be curious what your rationale is (I'm sure you agree that arbitrary decisions without thought-out rationales are no good), I'm more interested in seeing consistency applied so we can shoot for Featured Article status again, and so this article looks its best.  Moncrief 00:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, I like to spell as a word any number that is no more than two 'words', including "a hundred", "one hundred", "seventy-three", "sixteen", "five", &c. (There are exceptions. For example, in a list of figures that includes all sorts of different 'word lengths' of numbers, I'd write them all as numerals: e.g., "1, 13, 456, 1,092".) But (1) I'm pretty sure Wikipedia's own style manual generally recommends that any two-digit number be written with numerals (even if it's a 'one-word' number, like 15 (fifteen)), and (2) a system that is consistent is the most important thing to keep in mind. Just sharing my view. President Lethe 02:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Centrx, what is your numbering rationality?