Talk:United States/Archive 29

message: Probably not the first to suggest so, but... shouldn't the article be called "United States of America", with a disambiguation for "United States", since technically that's also the name of The United Mexican States? Just a suggestion.
:The United Mexican States is different; if it was called The United States of Mexico, we'd have an ambiguous situation on our hands.  I do, however, believe that a discussion might be in order.  Our constitution actually names the USA as the 'United States'. Nicholas SL Smith (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently this has been a topic of conversation for a while -- check out [Should this article be moved to United States of America?], although, I don't know if there was a consensus reached there.  To tell you the truth - after a search for discussion about this, I don't see that a consensus has ever been reached.  I'm worried that a consensus will be very very difficult to reach, and may not be worth everyone's time for something which is handled through redirects.  We can try though.  I'm going to ping a few editors who have been a part of past discussions to see what I can dig up first. Nicholas SL Smith (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you bothered to scroll down on this page, you'd see that this topic was debated again just a few weeks ago and again ended up with no consensus.  Please do not reopen this can of worms again.  You must have a slow computer or something!  --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow - thanks Coolcaesar!  But, I must warn you - you must remain civil.  Please read Wikipedia:Civility.  Disrespect for others is not tolerated in Wikipedia.  Id consensus has not been reached, a discussion should be reopened. Nicholas SL Smith (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think it will be good for anyone with a question about the name of this article to review  FAQ: why this article is named US and not USA.  I think it will shed a lot of light on to this topic.Nicholas SL Smith (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name = 

message: I was charting the growth of the article over the last couple of weeks using User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js and thought I'd share the results:
Current http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&curid=3434750&oldid=141$ (150k)
* Prose size (text only): 63 kB (9992 words)
From the end of the most recent FAC: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&oldid=139239542 (133k)
* Prose size (text only): 57 kB (9110 words)
From the start of the FAC process: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&oldid=135527718  (114k)
* Prose size (text only): 48 kB (7779 words)
It's worth noting that there are a fair number of :template:main articles linked here that require a fair bit of cleanup or that don't contain many of the points that are new to this article.  The pre-FAC/mid-May suggestion that the article be broken up isn't viable, as those articles do already exist. That said, it might help us try to get back to a more effective article length to go through and take the scissors to the article, carefully cutting few dozen sentences after moving their key points and references to the main articles. MrZaiustalk 18:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference section of this article takes up alot of space. Isn't there a method/way of shrinking it? Or at least having it in a way that allows it to be contractable and expandable? Londium 21:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See further discussion of this topic below. --Evb-wiki 00:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article length 

message: i don't believe the source states that the oil fields being flown over by the air force jets in the picture are kuwaiti... they may very well be iraqi, and the kuwaiti reference should probably be replaced — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.166.51 (talk) 
:True, the source doesn't identify the location of the pictures oil fields. It doesn't mention whether they're in Iraq or Kuwait. Unfortunately I'm not a war-buff and don't know enough about Gulf War I to critique this pic's cap. I do, however, agree that unless the oil fields can be idenified as Kuwaiti they pic cap shouldn't speculate on the oirl fields location. Regards, Signaturebrendel 23:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US air force jets 

message: Why has senate majority leader been placed in the government section? It is not a constitutional position and truthfully holds no power other than what it is granted by the members of the majority party. Also, I noticed that ever since Nancy Pelosi became speaker there has been a battle to keep her in the government section (this was never even considered when Dennis Hasteret was speaker). It seems that someone just wants to flaunt the fact that the democrats have control of congress by adding every position they can think of or someone is just getting to wrapped up in being fair. In my opinion it should either have only the president (the constitutional head of state) or the leaders of all three branches of government (president, vice-president, speaker, and chief justice) and thats it. In any event majority leader should not be included because it is not a constitutional office. President pro temp. of the senate has a more legitimate claim because it is a constitutional office and third in line to the presidency, majority leader is neither of these. And since I cannot remove it, can someone else?
:Quite right. Senate maj. leader was recently added and per your argument should be removed. Done.—DCGeist 16:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government Section 

message: Why does this article lack a subdivisions section, or a template to guide readers to the 50 states and overseas holdings of the United States? I believe more readers would come to a "United States" article seeking pointers to Iowa, Maine, Nebraska, Arizona and Kentucky than, for example, the number of dead and wounded from a current engagement overseas. Is this article not overseen by the WikiProject on Countries? Should it not then follow its guidance? The relevant guideline suggests that these articles give a "Quick overview of the administrative subdivisions of the country. Name the section after the first level of subdivisions (e.g. provinces, states, departments, etc.) and give the English name. Also include overseas possessions. Link to "(subdivisions) of X". This section could also include an overview map of the country." As a side note, this article is still terribly bloated. Have you considered making more effective use of summary style, specifically in the "Income and social class", "History", and "Crime and punishment" sections? I'm sure that there aren't to many who would fault you for implementing trims in those sections. Geuiwogbil 13:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point, there used the be a template in the middle of the article about the states, but it would appear to have been removed some time ago... --Golbez 13:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it was something like 400px, and illegible below that - struck as part of the recent attempt at a FAC cleanup. Note that Territorial evolution of the United States is still linked to as a main article from the Geo section, and every state is listed therein. That said, it wouldn't hurt to have a two sentence summary of that article in the Geo section to explain the link being there. MrZaiustalk 14:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a really bad article to direct people to for a list of the states. =p --Golbez 14:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It might be a little clunky, but it works.  Looks like there isn't much else we can use other than the cat. However, I wonder if they'd look kindly on a 5 column list of states in the Geo main article, eliminating the need to summarize and link to territorial evolution there. MrZaiustalk 14:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, I say that, and neglect to state that that would overlook the territories and D.C. What would you say to breaking that list out of U.S. states, moving it to List of U.S. states and territories, and adding the territories and D.C. with a new lead reading something like "This list of U.S. states and territories lists the 50 states that have made up the United States since 1959 and its territories and the District of Columbia, which, though neither state nor territory, is home to the federal government of the United States." Enough of the states and territories are listed in geography to link to that as a main w/o qualms. MrZaiustalk 15:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a Political divisions of the United States, I don't think all of that article juggling is needed. --Golbez 23:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, that's less apt, both to the geo section, and as answer to Geuiwogbil, as it discusses considerably more than the geographical distinctions. A straight up list of states and territories might be a simpler approach, and may actually be a welcome change to the U.S. state article, given the degree to which the lengthy list detracts from the article as a whole. MrZaiustalk 00:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subdivisions 

message: The first chapter of the "Postwar superpower" section equated the United States and Soviet Union in a misleading way. It downplayed the significance of US allies such as the UK and France, which had their own military doctrines and nuclear weapons unlike any of the Soviet allies. It stated that both supported dictatorships as if the countries had a similar view on democracy. It equated American anti-communists such as McCarthy with communists by stating that they attempted to suppress opposition like the Communist Party in communist countries. McCarthy never imprisoned and tortured members of the Democratic Party like communists did with their opposition. Moreover, there wasn't just one Communist Party in each Eastern Bloc country. In East Germany, for instance, there were several parties. Nazi activity was suppressed in several West European countries after WWII. Does that mean political opposition was suppressed like in communist countries? No. The chapter had to be rewritten to more accurately reflect actual history.--Kelstonian 17:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right about the tone of the later part of the section, but your edits to the first part introduced a couple of oddly worded phrases that decreased readability, and, more importantly, downplayed the importance of the superpowers. Reverted the first part to the stronger and more correct wording, left the positive edits to the anti-communist section. Note that we discuss the role of NATO and select member states elsewhere in the article, as well. MrZaiustalk 17:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about the readiblity issue and also about including the Korean war as it is now. However, it's misleading to talk of the Cold War as US and SU jockeying for power the way, for instance, Britain and France were in their colonial wars. The Cold War was mostly an ideological war in which success was measured by the political and economic system that each country ended up with; power was only a tool to achieve these goals. The SU was trying to spread communism and the US was trying to prevent it.--Kelstonian 20:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just prevent it, but actively promote western economic and political ideals.  Jockeying for power isn't all that far off the mark, but it would be a little closer to say something along the lines of "using their political, economic, and military strength to promote the dueling ideals of Stalinist communism and capitalist democracy" - Probably ought to stress all three to avoid glossing over the non-military aspects of the Cold War MrZaiustalk 20:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Dissent in Congress has been noted, although more up to date sources would be valuable - that and the use of the present tense is adequage. That said, the Axis of Evil ref isn't all that terribly relevant, in retrospect (although it did have a considerable social impact, regardless of the brevity of its use by Bush). MrZaiustalk 00:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postwar superpower 

message: :Two United States: Mexico and USA?!
--Jolo Buki Original 14:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the FAQ for further information on why this article is called "United States" instead of "United States of America." Thank you, Signaturebrendel 22:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Never said it wan't appropriate for him to voice his concerns regarding the article here - but simply urged him to look at the FAQ so he could gain more insight into why this article is called United States. Signaturebrendel 00:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of article 

message: Obviously, I'm sure this issue has already come up before. I'm justing wondering why a scroll template isn't neccessary in the reference section when there's nearly 200 reference links? I can't seem to find the "warning on the scoll template page" anywhere, and I'm not going to scroll through all 28 archive pages to find the discussion about it. 24.21.130.80 16:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was referring to Template:Scroll box. The real problem isn't one of necessity or readability, it's about basic accessibility - using overflow tags and the template that does the same breaks the printable layout of this page, rendering obscured content permanently obscured to readers of the printed page and, potentially, users of screen-readers reliant upon said layout. MrZaiustalk 16:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, as the editor that put it in this time appears to have been a heavier editor of the zh wiki, please keep in mind that the above applies equally to all wikis on Wikimedia and, presumably, all other installs of MediaWiki. MrZaiustalk 17:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of a scroll template 

message: I've removed the party affiliation diagram. States like Texas don't register party membership, and the sampling of states that do is not representative of the whole United States. --Davidstrauss 22:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The diagram is based on reputable polls. The publishers and researchers do beleive that their poll are representative of the country and on Wikipedia we need to take their word for it, as long as they their research has been adopted by reputable instutitions. Fruthermore, the chart reflects the total number of registered members with each party, information which is known to both parties. It is not a poll of political orientation, which is differs from partisanships. I re-inserted the chart as it is informative and not in any way misleading - it simply shows registered partisan membership. Signaturebrendel 05:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party affiliation diagram 

message: Golbez has removed the partisan membership chart becuase he/she thinks that Independent implies third party membership. It does not. "Independent" simply means that a person is not a part of either the Republican nor Democratic Party. Please see the source used for further information. There absolutely nothing desceptive about this chart. It merely shows the size of America's two big parties. Regards, Signaturebrendel 18:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Independent" is an official registration in many states, so this is giving undue weight to that. I don't see any added value from this pie chart unless it shows all registrations. There's more than two parties in this country, y'know. --Golbez 18:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there are, but generally speaking social scientists refer to the U.S. as a two-party system. Perhaps the term "independent" is used in a slightly ambigous manner. If I changed "Independent" to "Other" would that solve the problem? Signaturebrendel 19:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It will fix the problem of me removing it; it will not fix the problem of its relevance, since such a simplistic chart can be handled in text. --Golbez 19:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's good to know that wording will improve the chart and "fix the problem." As for relevance: True, the info can, is being handeled in the text. But charts tend to be better at conveying info to readers - they allow our readers to visualize the info. Signaturebrendel 19:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independents 

message: There's still a lot here in the relatively polished History and Culture sections that aren't in the slightly messy B-class articles at History of the United States and Culture of the United States. I'm of half a mind to take our History section and use that as the basis for a rewrite of the History article, although I haven't had time to get started on it. Merge back the other article into our section and split that into a new article, and it'd be starting out with a ton of strong sources, etc. Will hopefully start over the weekend. MrZaiustalk 12:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is way too long. It needs to be shortened some how. There is no need for such great detail in one article. I would like to help in such a shortening process, but cannot promise anything. The article's excessive length and onerous amount of detail was a significant aspect of the recent failed WP:FAC. --Merbabu 14:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I estimate that the article is about 25 percent shorter than the Encyclopedia Britannica's comparable Micropedia article. Remember, that's their summary article. The Macropedia version is much, much longer. Go to britannica.com and see how long their full-length and student versions of United States are (288 and 177 online pages respectively, if you're feelin' lazy). To call the amount of detail in our article "onerous" is gross hyperbole.—DCGeist 17:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't call it "onerous" either, but it was somewhat disheartening to see the article grow by 20-30% during the FAC. The split mentioned above, however, would take as back to pre-FAC4 levels, if not lower still. Just as importantly, it would give us well written articles that we could create real summaries for - As it stands, what we have is a slightly shorter rewrite, not a summary, of those two sections' main articles. MrZaiustalk 18:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not the aritcle is of excessive length varies greatly with section. While the history section may be 2/3 the length of its main, the economy section isn't. Consider that we have 2 GAs, and 1 B-class article dealing with nothing but income, that is not to count other articles on issues such as class (2 GAs, 1 B-class), wealth, homeownership, and poverty (1 B-class each). Overall there are over half a dozen "full-size" articles discussing the U.S. economy alone. The same can be said for the politics section. Before we devise a strategy to shorten the article, we need to identify those section who arn't limited to giving summaries of their main article(s). While we should be able to get the article down to about 100kb/110kb/120kb, it is going to remain long. I agree w/ MrZaius, that the post-FA growth rate is a bit worrisome yet would like to stress that this is going to be one of the longest high-quality article on WP. Regards, Signaturebrendel 21:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely. References are a huge part of this article - the infobox and wiki links also add to the article's length considerably. The actual article, that is prose, is much smaller than the ~ 140kb you see listed at the top of the page while you edit. Signaturebrendel 00:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting 

message: I don't seem to see much criticism in this article. Won't this be an NPOV problem? Kleinbell 02:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What would be an appropriate amount of criticism? :-) Or, a better question would perhaps be, what specific criticisms are missing in your opinion?  --Merbabu 03:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a fair bit openly discussed, and a fair bit insinuated by tone - the phrase proxy war is nowhere a glowing acclamation. Criticism should be directed at specific policies, as there seem to be rather few sane people who would criticize the US simply for existing. It and most other details should be covered primarily in the articles covering those policies and, in the case of the more controversial ones (those resulting in the world's leading incarceration rate, those leading up to the Iraq war, etc), the criticism is at least hinted at, and in several cases openly discussed in the article. MrZaiustalk 03:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should not simply look for criticisms to 'balance' the article as if there should be equal weight on a set of NPOV scales. On the other hand, omission (either by mistake or intent) of any significant and relevant 'negative facts' is indeed a POV problem, and there is no reason in principal why they can't be placed in this article. I guess we wait to see if Kleinbell does have anything specific in mind. --Merbabu 03:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't NPOV mean that there shouldn't be any kind of criticism OR praise? My earlier complaints about NPOV in this article were about the positive emotive language rather than a lack of negativity Sean 17:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Criticism of US? What? Criticizing it's geography, it's DNA pool (including of course fauna and flora) or it's weather? Criticism of US politics I can understand, but that goes to Politics of the United States. Besides, NPOV requires circa: the kind of criticism, the group of critics vindicating that criticism, and arguments of defense from US or allied. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 10:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV: Criticism of the United States 

message: I noticed that there was a change from "white" to "Caucasian" and back recently, yet neither party has mentioned their rationale on the talk page. Personally, I prefer the term Caucasian. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 22:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the census bureau only recognizes the term 'white', since it would be weird to be both caucasian and hispanic. --Golbez 00:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hispanic culture originates from Spain, a European nation. Therefore, it would make perfect sense to be caucasian, or white, Hispanic. 65.70.104.73 (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It bothered me a lot as a teenager because I, though "white", was darker than some of my "black" friends, and I suppose I still haven't completely gotten over it. Still, in looking into that Caucasian article more, I see that there are reasons not to use it, as well. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 00:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The U.S. Census Bureau uses the term White, so we should use that term as well. Remember that races are social constructs and are, therefore, arbitrarily defined. Look in the article White American for the currently "official" definition. Signaturebrendel 01:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Since we use the Census Bureau terms and not personal opinions of editors, I'm not sure what this thread will accomplish. Want it changed? Write your congressman. --Golbez 21:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct. The current American consensus uses "white" to describe people of Caucasian European ethnicity. As flawed as some people may find this, it is what the majority currently agrees with. Only a change in public opinion can produce a change in ethnic labels. M5891 23:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really; the Census Bureau can change whatever it wants, it's more a from-high decree than a 'consensus' issue. After all, most police departments, I think, use the term 'caucasian'. --Golbez 00:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caucasion vs. white 

message: The Crime portion of the Crime and Punishment section concentrates almost exclusively on Homicide and portrays the sole cause as lax gun controls.  Property crime is given a single sentence with no numbers and an incorrect statement.  The source shows about a 50% greater incidence in burglary in the England. Apwvt 16:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The negative tone seems warranted, given the incarceration rate that goes with it, but yeah - it would be great to get those replaced with two generic stats: one on violent crime and one on non-violent crime. Would be better summary-style content. MrZaiustalk 18:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The best way to summarize is by stating that "porperty crime is moderately low, violent crime moderately high compared to other developed countries, with the homoicide rate being the highest in the developed world." The homicide rate in the U.S. does need to be mentioned becuase it inproportionally high. Property and other violent crime rates are fit the mold of other develop countries, it is only our homicide rate (ca. 5X the developed world average) that "sticks out" - and yes, most experts (sociologists, criminologists, anthropologists...) blame easy access to guns. Also please remember that any crime section is going to sound negative - we're discussing crime. Regards, Signaturebrendel 18:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV: Crime and Punishment 

message: I wasn't sure where else to post this, but this seemed like the best place.  I've noticed several times that when American, as in American person, is used in Wikipedia that it links to this article.  Since there are many good editors involved in this project, I thought I would propose an idea for a separate article entitled American People (United States) with the "(United States)" part included to distinguish it from the current American people disambiguation page.
This article would be different from the current Demography of the United States article, which is almost entirely about reporting statistics.  I was thinking the proposed article would be more literary in style, using those statistics but commenting on them as well.  The United States is one of the most diverse countries on Earth, and the way in which people use the word "American" varies greatly both inside the country and out.  To begin with, there is the history of immigration and sense of past identity.  Many places in the Northeast and West coast will self-identify by ethnicity, calling themselves "Irish" or "Italian" even if they are U.S. born.  In my own travels, these people are usually not regarded as "Irish" or "Italians" in Ireland or Italy, but as Americans, plain and simple.  That is only one of the differences.  There is also the interesting trend in the census that many white Southerners self-identify as "American," without any mention of their ethnicity.  Is this because of a stronger sense of past association with the land?  Does it have something to do with the dense population of African-Americans in that area as well?  And while we're on the topic of race, that plays an important role in how an "American" views him or herself also, as does religion.
I think it would be a fascinating topic.  I would start it myself if I could, but I know for a fact I won't be able to write it myself.  What I wrote above is based mostly on observation, but I'm sure that there are studies that we can cite to this extent also.  If other people are interested in doing this, I'll do my part to get the ball rolling.  SpiderMMB 02:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your proposal is good. Except that I think that parts of demographics should belong to there playing a subordinate role in that article. And I also think that most of the culture text in this article belongs to there. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 10:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Article Idea: "American People (United States)" 

message: There appears to be a mistake under etymology. The name America was not, as many people think derived from Amerigo Vespucci, but from Richard Ameryk, who was the cheif investor in one of the voyages of Giovanni Caboto (John Cabot), who arrived several years before Vespucci. citation: The Book of General Ignorance, Faber 2006 79.66.205.109 16:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all a rather useless point. But in any case, you're correct. In Spanish, the word americano is too ambiguous, but it's not in English, because we don't have a word for estadounidense or (for that matter) norteamericano. It was used as a word because it's far too difficult to say "United States of American" or something like that. It's easier to create this word in Spanish. The Evil Spartan 23:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not entirely true.  The term "United Statian" is technically correct and is (very?) rarely used.  The term is there - it's just that nobody knows it.Shapu 15:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: A while back, I suggested that some more basic information on America's largest business sectors/ industries be added. I've located all the information I was referring to in the Census Bureau's Statistical Abstract of the United States 2007. You can check it out online--here's the link for the business section: http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/07statab/business.pdf.
Anyway here are the stats that strike me as most significant--they could be added to the opening part of the Economy section of the article or, perhaps, to the section's infobox. I know there are concerns about the length of the article, so I wanted to raise these items here and see if people agree that some or all belong in this article or only in the Economy of the United States article. Here goes (with the most recent available figures):
Largest business sectors (2003),
by gross business receipts: Wholesale and retail trade ($6,384 billion)
by net income: Finance and insurance ($425 billion)
by employment: Health care and social assistance: (15.47 million people)
Leading manufacturing field (2005),
by contribution to GDP: Chemical products ($186 billion)
Leading international trade commodities (2005),
by export value: Electrical machinery ($74.29 million)
by import value: Vehicles ($195.93 million)
I'd be very interested to hear what people think.DocKino 20:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't hurt to make one (or maybe two) sentences of prose out of the above and insert it, but what seems more important at present is shoring up the split Econ, History, Culture, and Politics articles to let this article consist of stronger, more compact summaries of quality articles. Is the topic covered in Economy of the United States? MrZaiustalk 21:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My initial thought is that, yes, this info is worthy and basic enough to be in this main article--except I'm not sure how informative the dollar figures are in this context. I'd save those for the full Economy article. But yes, biggest business sectors, biggest "industry," and biggest trade items seems reasonable. As one or two people have noted, we already do have biggest cash crop.—DCGeist 01:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic business information 

message: Before I say anything, it should be noted that I'm American (from Massachusetts).  Even in what people consider the "yankee" states of New England, it's generally taught that the colonies pretty much lucked out.  If it had been just a simple deal of Britain vs. Colonies with no outside complications, the colonies wouldn't have stood a chance.  So do we really want to use the word "defeated" to describe the outcome of the American Revolutionary War? 75.69.110.227 21:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with your point on how we won the was (without Spain, Netherlands, and France we might not have) but do you have a better term to use?   New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 21:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While your case is not unreasonable, I'd say this in response: The British were inarguably defeated at Yorktown. It is generally recognized that this defeat led to  Britain's withdrawal from combat with the colonials and their eventual ceding of their claims to what is now U.S. territory.—DCGeist 21:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The word defeated just means Britain lost. True, Britain wouldn't have been defeated w/o French, etc... support of the colonies. Discussing why and how Britain was defeated, however, goes beyond simply stating whether or not Britain was defeated. Signaturebrendel 22:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Lucked out" simply isn't accurate.  After Yorktown, it became clear to the politicians in London that they could not win the war at a cost (human and treasure) they and the nation found acceptable.  That is how most wars end.  This is also how the end of the conflict is usually summarized in UK-originating textbooks.
Djwardell 05:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Defeated Britain? 

message: How much longer is this war gonna last? Are we gonna follow the guidelines at Wikipedia: Lead, or not? Will someone block the disruptor, before the article gets 'protected'. GoodDay 21:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article won't be protected before the user is blocked. He's been reported for his 10 reverts in 24 hrs at WP:AN3. We just have to wait 'till an admin looks at the case, which, I think, should be pretty open and shut. --G2bambino 22:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring over 'lead' 

message: I've seen only the OVERSE side of the Great Seal of the U.S. in the infobox.  How about someone show the overse AND the REVERSE seals as well? Elwin Blaine Coldiron 02:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's only room for the more common one, but the other is available in Great Seal of the United States. MrZaiustalk 08:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Great Seal 

message: The Government and Politics section affirms that: "It is both a representative democracy and a constitutional republic, 'in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law.'"
However, regardless of how the representative aspects (proportionality or not) is managed, there is relative consensus that a necessary condition for a democracy to exist is that the countries citizens are eligible to vote in the elections that select their national government (in this case, executive and legislative branch). Nonetheless, in the case of the United States, there are more than four million U.S. citizens that are excluded from participating in U.S. elections. 
So, under that scenario, the U.S. is not a representative democracy in which the "constitutional republic" is created to temper the rights of all minorities. since there are more than four million U.S. citizens that are not enfranchised and whose right to participate in the national government that holds sovereignty over them is not protected by law.
---
Does the U.S. aspire to be a "democracy" as part of its de jure or de facto public policy?
Hypathia 02:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 4.7 million Americans who don't have the right to vote that you're referring to are convicted felons.  Not a set race or social group that the Government is actively suppressing, but a group of people that have broken federal law and were convicted in a court of law.  Second, this isn't a national thing...its a States Rights issue really.  Each state has it's own Board of Elections that controls this issue.  For example in most states the loss of voting doesn't last forever, in Mane or  Vermont you don't even lose it at all!  You're trying to make a very complex issue a little too simple.  They broke the law, this is part of their punishment.  -_-  71.75.103.239 04:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the U.S. a representative democracy where ''all'' its citizens may vote in executive and legislative national elections? 

message: I'm sorry, but it seems that the mention under "US History: Superpower" of black bear attacks as similar to terrorism is absurd. I too enjoy a little Jon Stewart on occasion, but Wikipedia has its rules for a reason: we're trying to be an encyclopedia, no? Anyways, if someone would remove the bear blurb and the citation, I would be happy. Be silly somewhere else please, not somewhere where foreigners might form their first and maybe only impression of the US. Not to mention all of those students who get all of their info from wikipedia. Thanks, Jasper124c41 04:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hullo there, don't be sorry - you haven't done anything wrong! Now I would urge caution before you or anyone else goes deleting sections of an article. I too thought the bear attacks sounded absurd, but on closer inspection it is certainly verifiable and notable, and a few editors seem to have looked it over. I checked the citation and it is real, perhaps it would be better to reference the original Reuters article instead of a newspaper's reprint of it though. As for the placement of the information, I do not feel it is saying bear attacks are similar to terrorism, except in that they both cause fear. Perhaps it is implying that while the terrorist threat consumes much attention, other threats still occur and are relevant even in a superpower. There is nothing silly about bear attacks, would you be saying such things if your home had been invaded by a huge hungry beast? We should be asking ourselves why these animals, brought up in the wilderness, are now behaving with such hostility to American citizens. Is this the price of environmental degradation and urban sprawl? Or an unprovoked attack that calls for overwhelming retaliation?
P.S. Who is little John Stewart? (I am from Finland, but I have spent much time studying and traveling in the great USA without encountering little John) Aleksi Peltola 04:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm treating this bear attacks business as glaringly obvious trolling. As such, my only further participation in dealing with it will be summarily deleting it if it pops up again.—DCGeist 05:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Umm, instead of declaring anything you don't like as trolling, why don't you look at how the article can be improved? I see this aint the first time you have made an arbitrary decision to change this article without discussion. As for the paragraph concerned, I think it needs a more NPOV. While it is factually correct, it may be misinterpreted - maybe say some schools and certain neighboorhoods are locked down, where sightings have occurred (it's not as if everyone in the western US is under lockdown). Humanproject 05:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A look at user contribution pages of "editors" Tazchook (), Humanproject (), and  Wen Hsing () makes it quite obvious that this a trolling/vandalistic assault on the article. Real editors, please do not engage in pointless discussion with "them."—DCGeist 05:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Excuse me, while I haven't examined everyone else's edit history, I am certainly no vandal. Before making such accusations why don't you look at your own behavior - I have zero tolerance of vandalism whatever form it takes, and that includes unilateral deletions without discussionHumanproject 05:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur this thing about bear attacks, while funny, is trolling and vandalism in violation of all core Wikipedia policies.  Any admins out there, please block all those accounts referenced by DCGeist. --Coolcaesar 18:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the initial addition was vandalism, but Humanproject does not appear to be a troll or vandal to me. He (or she) is just someone who is unaware of Stephen Colbert (yes, such people exist) and was fooled into believing this was legitimate. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Similarly, Wen Hsing also does not appear to be a vandal/troll. Tazchook is the vandal here. The other two are more or less unwitting victims. Also, even he does not yet appear to be an active enough vandal to resort to blocking. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't agree with your assessment, Ben. Please note that Tazchook's vandalistic edit was his first Wikipedia edit in three months. Now what are the odds that Wen Hsing's first Wikipedia edit also in three months would be to restore that same vandalistic edit? And then what are the odds that Humanproject's first edit in five months would be to work on that very same vandalistic edit? Reading a few of the older edits of each of these "characters" further confirms what already seems very evident: for Humanproject, see, for instance ; for Wen Hsing, see, for instance, . The sense of humor, expressed in exaggerated faux offense, is obviously of the same ilk.—DCGeist 18:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, you make a convincing argument. I hadn't thought about the possibility of puppetry. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've submitted a Request for Checkuser.  --Richard 19:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Aleksi Peltola: Jon Stewart is a comedian, and Stephen Colbert is a spin-off show that makes a big deal about the threat of bears and editing Wikipedia. They're both hilarious, vandalism to Wikipedia notwithstanding. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you Ben. In light of the coincidences mentioned above I must agree that at least Tazchook is a vandal. The others should be warned or even blocked. I really can't understand what drives such pathetic people to waste time doing this. Aleksi Peltola 07:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I undertake to make the official complaint toward Mr DCGeist for output defamatory inaccuracies in allegation to me.Wen Hsing 13:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, yeah. Real editors, please note, I've just realized this cretin has a fourth trolling alias, IamYossarian, who has a remarkable interest in Adolf "Shitler" () and whose first edit in three months--yes, once again--was to work on the vandalistic black bear edit ().—DCGeist 17:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are bear attacks really relevant in this broad overview of an article? 

message: The intro presently reads that the United States comprises "fifty states, one federal district, and fourteen territories." This may sound pedantic, but my understanding is that only the states and incorportated territories are actually part of the United States; the rest are possessions. A state or incorporated territory is considered to be a permanent part of the United States; all of the territories, save Palmyra Atoll, are unincorporated. A similar thing can be looked at the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is *part* of the United Kingdom, whereas the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are only *possessions* of it. Most lists of area and population do not include the territories, nor do most maps. The territories, I think, should be listed separately, along the lines of, "The United States comprises fifty states and one federal district, and has fourteen territories around the globe." or what not. (I don't think Palmyra Atoll is important enough to be listed separately in the intro) --Golbez 23:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at various official U.S. government websites and the Encyclopedia Brittanica (in print!), I'm inclined to agree. Your rewording seems good; perhaps "...and possesses fourteen territories..."?—DCGeist 00:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Given that the opening graf is not long, mention of the territories could also possibly be reserved for its final sentence, thus: "The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and one federal district.... The United States possesses fourteen territories, or insular areas, scattered around the Caribbean and Pacific."—DCGeist 17:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes to DCGeist's 2nd point, but alter as follows: 'The United States also possesses ...' Quizimodo 17:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I would say an imperial verb matches well, but they are commonly referred to as 'possessions', among other names. --Golbez 17:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composition of the country 

message: "United States of America" is the proper name, and "United States" can refer to several other former or proposed nations. 69.12.155.64 01:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the link to the Frequently Asked Questions page at the top of this talk page.  That question has been exhaustively and furiously debated at least seven times (if memory serves me correctly) and the consensus has always been to keep "United States."  As indicated in the huge archives for this talk page, the Wikipedia editors who monitor this article have already raised the dozens of major arguments on both sides, including that one.  Please review the FAQ first.  Thank you for your attention. --Coolcaesar 01:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to "United States of America" 

message: Question-  The article says the United States is mostly in the Western Hemisphere.  Understandably the territories such as Guam are in the Eastern Hemisphere, but I've never heard that parts of Alaska are Eastern.  Can anyone find a valid source for this, to save me editing it and looking foolish? Darkage7 07:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just look up Aleutian Islands - several cross 180 W, though none are on the other side of the dateline. --Golbez 07:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hemispheres 

message: Was there a indigenous name for America given by its aboriginal people? was it a name for the entire nation or were there just provincial names? and if so should it be included in the article in some detail in the etymology section and then in further detail in the Native American articles? just a asking out of curiosity, thank you, Maikeli MB 23:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there were many hundreds of native peoples, most of whom never interacted with one another, I don't think there was a unified name. --Golbez 23:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The concept of nationhood was not the same in many indigenous American cultures as in European (Western) culture. As far as I know (though I am not an expert on Native American studies) many tribes refered to the sourrounding land by its features (mountains, lakes, rock colorations, vegetation, etc...). Signaturebrendel 22:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Several days ago I added information in the section on Crime and Punishment.  The section said that the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world.  I clarified that we have the highest documented incarceration rate, and provided figures to compare the US's rate with that of China.  This information was reverted away by DCGeist with no discussion.  There was also a section that said how "scholars" claimed the US's high homicide rate was related to its rates of gun ownership.  This was funny, as it was right next to a graph showing the US's homicide rate compared to that of Canada, France, Germany, and Russia, with Russia's homicide rate being shown as four times higher than that of the US.  I added a sentence saying that Russia's homicide rate is higher than that of the US, dispite Russia's stricter gun laws, and said that the issue was more complicated than a simple comparison of gun laws.  This information was also reverted away without discussion by DCGeist.  Finally, a section I added (with cite, from another wiki article) saying that the US's overall crime rate was comparable to that of Canada's was removed by DCGeist.  I doubt he has issue with that cite in the other article I took it from, so why did it need to be removed from this one?  I'd rather not get into an edit war, so I'm putting this here instead of just adding the information back in.  I see no reason why it shouldn't be in the section, though.  Any thoughts?  -CumbiaDude 21:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The information you added detailing Russian and Chinese crime rates seems to me clearly inappropriate for an overview article on the United States. The fundamental point about "documented" incarceration rate is well-taken and, expressed concisely as it is now, is an improvement to the article. Your statement that the issue of gun homicide rates is "more complicated than a simple comparison of gun laws" is inarguably true but irrelevant to the content of the article and to common sense. In other words, it is a strawman. The article does not get into a "simple comparison of gun laws." It notes that scholars connect the high homicide rates in the U.S. with its permissive gun laws--the context is that the U.S. is sociopolitically and culturally similar to nations such as Canada, France, and Germany that have more restrictive gun ownership laws, much lower gun ownership rates, and much lower homicide rates. Russia--characterized by an authoritarian regime and a culture of brigandage--has far higher homicide rates, indeed demonstrating that restrictive gun ownership laws are ineffective when the society itself is so diseased. These are important points to make, but this is not the article in which to make them. As for the point about the overall crime rate relative to Canada's, this doesn't really tell us much more than the existing comparison of property crime rates with which the paragraph currently ends. It thus strikes me as conceptually redundant and superfluous in this context. As you hint at, it appears appropriately in the more detailed article Crime in the United States.—DCGeist 21:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand that this article might not be the best place to mention China's rate of incarceration, but I didn't want to just modify what it said without backing it up (instead of just saying the US wasn't necessarily the highest, I put in a good candidate for somewhere with a higher incarceration rate).  Your point about Russia being sociopolitically and culturally different from the United States makes sense, but then in the opposite direction I could say that Switzerland is just as similar to the United States as is Germany, and yet many people there have fully automatic military rifles stored in their homes while in the military without a huge surge in homicide rates.  Switzerland has only 1.32 total homicides per 100k population, while about 27% of the population had acces to firearms as of 1994.  I could also bring up Northern Ireland which had a homicide rate of 6.09, while only 8.4% of the population had access to firearms as of 1994.  I agree that this section shouldn't be a comparison of gun laws (we already have articles for just that), but it compares the crime rate of the US with "similar" nations with more restrictive laws.  That is a comparison of gun laws and their effect on crime, is it not?  Finally, I think it would be better to have just the comparison between America's and Canada's overall crime rates instead of the property crime cite.  Why look at just a piece instead of the whole picture? -CumbiaDude 06:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we had a good source that gave us a comparison of overall crime rates for multiple nations, I'd support substituting that for the well-sourced multinational comparison of burglary rates we have now. The sole comparison to Canada, I believe, is a bit weaker than what we currently have.—DCGeist 07:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As we are identifying top rates in the article text, I do agree on reflection that referring to the debatable nature of the matter is valid, certainly in the notes. I've expanded the latter citation in the relevant sentence to include the Straight Dope source you provided.—DCGeist 07:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment I have found some statistics comparing total numbers of crimes in various Western European countries and the US, but it doesn't give the rates per 100k of population.  I could do the math, but the numbers seem off to me (about 4,000 crimes per 100k in the US, about 7,200 crimes per 100k in the UK, and about 7,200 crimes per 100k in Canada).  The source is here down below using the downloaded pdf file.  It's down in Table 1, Crimes recorded by the police.  The way I did it was I took the total number of crimes, divided by the total population (for these estimates here I just used the 2006 estimates for population, instead of going back to the 2001 population, but we could do that for the actual numbers if we put them in the article), then I multiplied that by 100,000 to give me the number of crimes per 100k population.  We could also use the information in Table 2, Victimization Risk.  This gives percentages for overall crime, Contact Crime, theft of a car, and burglary.  The US's given percentages are near or below the averages for all four categories.  Take a look and let me know what you think.  -CumbiaDude 18:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I have edited the article to include the study I found. -CumbiaDude 23:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, good for Dan - he was right to revert your edits. Scholars do say (the vast, vast majority) that America's lax gun laws cause it to have the developed world's highest homicide rate, despite having a relatively property crime and aggrevated assualt rate. Wether or not you agree with these scholars or beleive their research is faulty is irrelevant. As for Russia and China - these are not quite comparable to the U.S. Indeed Mexico and Russia have stricter gun control laws but are unable to enforce them... (see Dan's comments above) Comparing law enforcement efforts in developing countries such as Russia and the U.S. is truly comparing Apples and Oranges. The only reason I put Russia in the text is to provide another reference point, aside from similar countries (i.e. other developed high income countries). Fact is that "scholars connect the high homicide rates in the U.S. with its permissive gun laws" - if you would like to voice your disagreement with their studies I recommend communicating with them via publishing your research in a scholarly journal, but not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to represent dominant opinion in acadmia - the version of this article that is in disagreement with your opinion does exactely that. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't dispute that there are many scholars who believe that the gun laws of the United States are responsible for its higher homicide rate, but I would hardly say it was the "vast, vast majority".  I could find many studies saying just the opposite.  I commented on the comparability (or lack thereof) between the US and Russia/China above, so I won't repeat it here.  I would like to repeat what I said above about Northern Ireland's homicide rate (6.09 in 1994 vs 5.7 for the US) despite their much lower access to guns.  Also, why is it the case that Mexico and Russia have higher  homicide rates because of ineffective law enforcement, while the US has a high (although still lower) homicide rate due to lax gun laws?  If the United States made new, much more restrictive laws, without a corresponding drop in homicide rates, would the laws still be too lax or would it then be a matter of ineffective enforcement?  In fact, Washington, D.C. has had very restrictive gun laws (owning of handguns was prohibited, for example) without affecting the homicide rate (35.7 per 100k people in 2004, much higher than the U.S. average).  D.C. residents were able to go to neighboring states and purchase handguns, then (illegally) bring them back into D.C., they were able to (illegally) buy them from other D.C. residents, etc.  The fact that they were illegal didn't stop people from using them in crimes.  I say this shows that the U.S. actually has a problem of ineffective enforcement of current laws, like you said about Mexico and Russia, rather than a need for more restrictive laws.  -CumbiaDude 06:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an interesting take on things and you might want to publish it in a newspaper editorial. It does, however, represent Orignial Reasearch, which accroding to WP:OR cannot be included in WP articles. Nonetheless just some food for thought: gun control laws only work at the federal level (a person in DC can easily buy a gun in VA) - and yes, if stricter laws were past w/o results it would most likely speak of ineffective enfrocement. Obviously laws need enforcement to be effective. North Ireland is not comparable to the U.S. - it suffered from quasi civil war in the 1990s. But that's all OR. Regards, Signaturebrendel 22:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Reverts by DCGeist 

message: I have two issues with this image, present in the Superpower section of this article. 
# The image actually shows three F-15 aircraft and two F-16 aircraft.
# The caption can be taken as suggesting an unstated implication that the aircraft shown, or the U.S. superpower which operates them, caused the devastation which the image shows.  I suggest that the image be replaced or recaptioned. -- Boracay Bill 01:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go for that. It isn't very long and it avoids misinterpretation. — Jaxad0127 13:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image caption 

message: When reading this article the whole article generally has a negative view of the United States. The article is full of comparisons of how poorly the United States compares to other countries. Where are the comparisons showing where the United States performs better than others? That's because none are shown. In reality the United States excels in most areas yet none of these have been included into the article, only a mass of criticizing material has been included. The whole article reads in a very critical way of the United States pushing a point of view that the United States is a bad and finished country. I would have thought this article being one of the most popular articles on Wikipedia plus Wikipedia's neutral point of view policies should have made anti-US sentiment impossible. I suggest an administrator or a reliable editor(s) reviews the content of the article and removes any material which may breach WP:NPOV. It's much appreciated if anyone can help on this. 88.109.12.164 13:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I suppose this is one of the joys of being a Wikipedia editor: a couple of weeks ago we were accused of offering an overly optemistic description of the U.S. and now were are being accused of offering a view that is too pessimistic. The way I see it this means we've writtten a well balanced article! BTW: The article states emphasizes that the U.S. is highly divrse, powerful and affluent. The content of the article is well balanced, as evident in the contradictor complaints. Signaturebrendel 22:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very Negative View Of The United States? 

message: Conceptually, I'm 100% in favor of Happyme22's addition of the image of Reagan's Berlin Wall speech. Crucial president, crucial historical event. But I don't feel the particular photo itself is really of encyclopedic quality. Do we have any free-image hounds here who might possibly locate a shot that shows the man doing his thing a bit more visibly? (Image-hunting wise, I'm a free-use maven, so I'm just not the guy for this task.) Come through and you will get a barnstar.—DCGeist 08:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tear down that" photo 

message: I trimed this section of some details I believe are well-covered elsewhere, particularly the Bill of Rights, Bush v. Gore and United States presidential election, 2004. If I've been too bold, feel free to revert and start over. --Evb-wiki 16:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, this is tough. For it's size, it's pretty tight. A quick read though did not find much to trim. There are already a lot of forks, but unless we want to have sections with only redirects, combining sections covered by the forks may be necessary. --Evb-wiki 16:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government and politics 

message: The demonym of the United States people is currently best know to be "Americans". But since this can be misleading, many people use different demonyms to describe the United States people. One of the most popular ones is "United Statians". This word was also published in Urban Dictonary's word of the day. See [www.urbandictionary.com]'s word of the day for the 4th of July, 2007. Currently it is located at . The word's definition can be directly accessed at .
Definition 1 makes this argument. "All people born in North and South America, which are continents, are "Americans" - United Statians would be better suited to describe someone born in the United States."
If you do a Yahoo! Search for exact phrase "United Statian" with URL [www.urbandictionary.com] you will come up with a link to United Statians which has different content, yet the same URL. Perhaps it's slightly different. But definition 1 there has this to say.
"
Most NON-English speaking countries, specially in Latin America and Europe, refer to people from the USA as "Estadounidenses&quo t;, "Etats-Uniens", etc. (United Statian) which is the right way to call them, because anyone who's born in the American Contienent, it's an American.
It's like if there was a country in Europe, named United States of Europe, and they auto call themselves "Europeans", anyone how lived in Europe would be an European, not just people from that country; in the same way, anyone who lives in America(s) is an American not just people from the USA.
Todos somos Americanos, desde Canada hasta Argentina, y los Estadounidences no tienen derecho de tomar nuestro nombre.
Where are all Americans, from Canada to Argentina, and the United Statians have no right to take our name.''
"
Therefore, I think this is a valid demonym to add to the United States of America Wikipedia page. How do I go about getting this passed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.132.89 (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see discussion of this issue above. It is not an encyclopedia's job to assess what should be, but to describe what is. In English, a U.S. citizen is called an "American"; "United Statian" has gained no traction at all.—DCGeist 23:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactely. Moreover, the urbandictionary is not exactely a reputable source. Signaturebrendel 23:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demonym of United States people 

message: OK, checking the page history Avargasm and DCGeist are on the fringes of an edit war, please sort out your differences over a discussion on this talk page, you must be respected wikipedians to be able to edit the article so please act like you are. Thank you. Rick-Levitt Talk Contribs 08:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: United Statian can also refer to the people of mexico since there countrys full name is "The united states of mexico" & i been to mexico & brazil with people refering me as an americano so i disagree with the notion that the word "united statian" is popular in latin america  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChesterTheWorm (talk • contribs) 17:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You would be incorrect, since Mexico is called the United Mexican States, not the United States of Mexico. If you think the difference is trivial, think of how weird it would be to call the country in this article the United American States. --Golbez 18:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Edit War 

message: Why can I not edit this article. The lock clearly is not working as it is still being vandalised but I cannot revert it! Rick-Levitt Talk Contribs 20:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is only semi-protected, so if you're logged in, you should be able to edit it. However, you have to be patient - as this is a very long article, it can take a long time to load the edit page and save changes. Terraxos 03:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am logged in and there is no edit tab. Rick-Levitt Talk Contribs 11:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The edit tab should always be there (to at least look at the source). I'm using a different skin and the edit link is plainly visible (if not immediately due to all the categories/translations). — Jaxad0127 12:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I haven't been a member for four days so I will try again when that time comes. Thanks for help. Rick-LevittContribs 17:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I have unprotected the article.  It was protected for 2 consecutive months. Superm401 - Talk 19:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I predict reprotection within 48 hours. --Golbez (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You, sir, are optimistic. :-) --DevinCook (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, so maybe it was closer to 4 hours. That was getting unmanageable, we'd already lost an entire section of text and no one noticed. --Golbez (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Me Again 

message: Hi. I'm just wondering why my version of the page was removed (by a bot no less). The page was lacking some much-needed info about the current history of America. It mentioned nothing about the economic troubles we faced in the late '70s, as well as the Iran hostage crisis of 1979. The only thing it said about Ronald Reagan was that he influenced American politics. Ok, but that didn't even capture the full effect of his presidency, during which some major world-changing events occured. I cited all "controversial" statements. There was nothing wrong with the edit, and a bot removed it! Happyme22 04:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very suspicious bot behavior. The edit summary says it did something completely different from what it actually did. I think you should try re-adding your edits, and keep an eye on them. Additionally, as a first step you should contact the creator of the bot, and let them know that it's gone black ops. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 12:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, especially considering it was several edits after you added that and after that bot had already edited once. I just looked and it's first edit wasn't described correctly either (it has the same summary), and it made some mistakes too. — Jaxad0127 12:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put a comment on both the User talk:KocjoBot page as well as on the owner's talk page. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot, and I've readded the material. Happyme22 13:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brief more about current history 

message: While the bot's behavior is inexcusable, I'm partially reverting for the general reason detailed in extensive discussion above--we need to be looking at shrinking the article, not growing. The history section is generall seens as the leading candidate for such shrinkage, as we already have a fine article on the History of the United States. More specifically,
*Nixon: The langauge about his resignation was fine--and "allegations of impeachment" is not English, I'm afraid.
*Carter: Historically, stagflation appears more significant than the hostage crisis. (I've cut the cite--this straightforward history sentence is not likely to be challenged. If it is, we can always restore it.) Again, it's not that the hostage crisis is insignificant; just that we really have to control length here.
*Reagan: Similarly, trimmed foreign policy addition--given our size pressures, we cover that adequately via both the following sentence and the nearby photo and caption.
By the same token, having added Carter, we really do have to at least briefly mention the first President Bush, which I have done.—DCGeist 17:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it looks good. It least it now has some info about our moden presidents, but what abour Gerald Ford? How about (shown here in bold): "As a result of the Watergate scandal, in 1974 Nixon became the first U.S. president to resign, rather than be impeached on charges including obstruction of justice and abuse of power; he was succeeded by Gerald Ford." That way, we mention all the recent presidents starting w/ Nixon in the last two paras. Happyme22 23:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given our length pressures, I don't think we need to mention the brief tenure of the unelected Ford. Anyone else have an opinion on this?—DCGeist 07:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think he should be added either. The most significant thing about his presidency was that he followed a resignation that was almost an impeachment. — Jaxad0127 12:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the 6 words suggested by Happyme22 aren't unreasonable. Sure, he didn't serve a whole term, but it's not even a whole sentence... Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The added length is negligible. He should not be the only one not mentioned. --Evb-wiki 13:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 3–2 so far. Ford may finally be winning a national election!—DCGeist 16:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha! Poor Jerry. Happyme22 23:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1970s-1980s history 

message: I think that this page should be added to the external links section. It provides a very well laid out collection of direct links associated with the topic. The time and work 
put into building this page is very evident and I believe that it could be a very useful resource for academic study on the United States especially in conjunction with this Wikipedia article.
It is:
*United States from Mahalo.com Travis Oberlander 20:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't. It's a commercial site, violating WP:EL and WP:COI (since it's appears that you created the page). OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a commercial site. I didn't create the page, actually I Quality Controlled the page in order to ensure that the sites linked to weren't spammy, inappropriate or unusable. Travis Oberlander 21:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not a commercial site? According to this article, it plans to raise revenue by eventually selling ads.  While Mahalo may be a link directory, Wikipedia is not. New content is preferred to links. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think this is an appropriate link. Please familiarize yourself with our guideline: Wikipedia:External links.—DCGeist 23:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose - As with the links at Australia and Mexico, I cannot support the inclusion of this link as per WP:EL - Links normally to be avoided (no. 13): "open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". But thanks for seeking consensus. --SRHamilton 07:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add an external link 

message: I think that this link should be added to the external links section. It will provide this article will personal opinions and stories specifically relating to the subject. This will add a more personnel outlet if the viewer feels inclined to follow the link.
Here is the link:
* United States Travel Guide from GlobeGnome.com  Shaun Wright 23:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is an appropriate link. Please familiarize yourself with our guideline: Wikipedia:External links.—DCGeist 23:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose - As with the links at Australia and Mexico, I cannot support the inclusion of this link as per WP:EL - Links normally to be avoided (no. 13): "open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". But thanks for seeking consensus. --SRHamilton 07:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Link suggestion

message: Now that our major debate over the article name and our mini-debate concerning the Demographics section have been resolved, I'd like to turn to this section--really a table--that was recently added by DevinCook. Let me first say that I really admire the care with which DevinCook created this states table/section--if everyone was this conscientious about the quality of their work, Wikipedia would be a much better place for it. Regretfully, therefore, I oppose its inclusion in the article. Given our extensively discussed size concerns; given the fact that we link to the relevant detailed article, U.S. state, both in the very first sentence of the article and as a highlighted link at the top of the Government and politics section; and given my belief that—if a consensus emerges that this level of detail needs to be included—a readable political map of the country would better serve our readers (a related, but separate, debate), I believe the section should be deleted from the article.—DCGeist 06:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your kind words. I, as well, wasn't completely satisfied with the length of the two tables. The article is quite long - which is not surprising given a huge topic such as the United States. However, I do think that information is vital to have on the page. First, the 50 states should be easy for users to find. Second, it is important to emphasize that the United States is a federal union of 50 states. This, however, might simply be patriotism speaking rather than academics. :) The information on the tables could be reorganized into 3 or 4 columns rather than the current two. This would decrease the overall length from 26 rows (25+title) to 20 (for 3 columns) or 14 (4 columns). To make it fit horizontally, the capitol column should be removed. The style should also be changed from "wikitable sortable" to "wikitable". I agree that a clickable political map would be a great alternative - given that is is featured early in the article. What does everyone think? -DevinCook 08:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: EDIT: For a better discussion, I created the 4-column version of the tables and put it on my User Page. Take a look and let me know what you think.-DevinCook 12:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the five-column version looks even better, and definitely enhances readability. Would you mind substituting it for the two-column version in the article? Or, I certainly can. However, the primary size issue with the article is not so much length/readability (your first version of the table was fine on that score) but KB size and download time. The table is about 6.4 KB in size, a big chunk--that's the main concern (and yes, I realize that a substitute map might well raise a similar concern).—DCGeist 21:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated the table on the article. I didn't realize that article size, in KB, was the primary concern - rather, I thought, it was length of the article. Sorry about that. We could link the flags to the articles on each of them, but that increase the byte count quite a bit!--DevinCook 21:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the kind words. As for having a section purely of links in the middle of an article, virtually every country article does that - this one has been the odd man out. In almost every article, you'll find an 'administrative division' section describing and then listing and linking all of the primary divisions of the country. --Golbez 22:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I also suggest we change this section to 'States and Territories', as, for example, at present, the article lacks any mention of the Virgin Islands, and mentions Samoa and the CNMI only in the languages section. --Golbez 22:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New "States" section 

message: "(a british invention but built and tested on american land)" (regarding the Manhattan project)
"Controversy has arisen about the matter of America claiming too much glory for the war even though they only jjoined half way through and suffered the least casualties out of the competing countrys. This has led too much xophobia especially in britain and russia who fought for the whole six years and suffered hundreds of thousands/millions (in the case of russia) This has also led to the British getting upset over Americans claiming to have "saved britain" during the war."  - Self Explanatory.   
These two quotes are located in the section discussing world war two.  Due to the fact that in the past few years of editing wikipedia I have not registered an account I am unable to revert the page.  Can anyone else edit the page, or, at the very least, correct the above quotes' author's spelling (and grammar, if needed)?  202.216.122.194 12:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The inappropriate material has been eliminated.—DCGeist 16:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality/factual accuracy/outside sources? 

message: I'm talking about american citizens who are from here or became citizens here
make sure to add alexander graham bell to that list  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChesterTheWorm (talk • contribs) 17:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see our section on Science and technology and the many topical articles in that field. Nothing more needs to be added to this national overview article on this topic.—DCGeist 20:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add another catagory: inventors 

message: Why are we being compared with europe as if its a country?
why not compare us with japan? LoL
i'd like an awnser to this and or if you dont have one take those comparisons off  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChesterTheWorm (talk • contribs) 18:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually we'll leave those useful comparisons in. LOL!!!—DCGeist 20:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Because the U.S. is roughly the size of Europe (acutally Europe as a whole is a little bit bigger but the EU is roughly the same). Obviously we can't compare the U.S. with Germany or France alone due to the difference in size. Comparing it to China isn't quite as useful due to larger differences in economic development. Signaturebrendel 00:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the transportation catagory..... 

message: When I looked up "fascism" in Wikipedia, I was redirected to the page on the "United States." Is anyone else having this problem? --Armaetin 00:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, it's been fixed. --Armaetin 00:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fascism 

message: Someone needs to fix the archive bot - it's time to archive this page. I would do so myself manually if it wasn't for the automated bot. Could someone with more know-how on WP bots please activate or notify the bot to archive this page. Thank you, Signaturebrendel 00:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive bot? 

message: As the USA has no de jure national language, should the infobox reflect the states the have several de facto languages? --Neon white 17:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um...it does. In the infobox note.—DCGeist 17:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  National language 

message: At the end of the Sports section, several athletes are mentioned as world famous. Lance Armstrong is an extremely noteworthy American athlete and should be added to this list. Andrew Davis Price 07:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesse Owens? John McEnroe? Chris Evert? Jack Nicklaus? I'm beginning to wonder if our little list is wise.—DCGeist 07:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the four names we have now (Ruth, Ali, Jordan, Woods) as they are from four different sports and eras, and I think they do come close to rounding out the top tier of "fame" in the field as such. Interestingly, there is one way in which the group is not diverse, but I'm not sure it's relevant. --Dhartung | Talk 02:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly is relevant. And when I wrote down the great Chris Evert, I was really thinking of the even greater Martina Navratilova, who--in my POV--would also cover us on the diversity point of "immigrant."—DCGeist 07:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly. The thing is, are we representing U.S. diversity here, or are we really listing the four or so most "world famous" American athletes? If it's diversity, it shouldn't be all men and it shouldn't be 3/4 black (or 2 black and 1 Cablinasian....). But if it's most famous I'm not sure who else to add. --Dhartung | Talk 19:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. My point--I think this was my point--is that if we were to expand beyond the four names we have now, then diversity would make sense as a factor, since unquestionable fame would no longer be the standard. Anyway...yes, let's keep it as is.—DCGeist 19:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lance Armstrong 

message: Please edit:
The end of this article states that the only "integral" parts of US territory other than the states is DC and Palmyra Atoll. A 12 square mile uninhabited island? How about we replace that with Puerto Rico?
--71.212.17.191 04:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Puerto Rico is not part of the United States. Palmyra Atoll is. --Golbez 04:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Dear .191, how about we please crack open our dictionary. "Integral" does not mean the same thing as "important," as you apparently imagined it means.—DCGeist 08:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That tone is a bit unhelpful, please don't bite the newbies. --Golbez (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palmyra atoll 

message: I have noticed many wikipedia article about people claim their nationality is American. Is this an actual nationality? I was under the impresson Canadians etc could refer to themselves as American too (rather like the term European). I have looked on the German site and they always state US-American as a nationality. Moreover I have found wikipedia to be harbouring quite a few mistakes. Many Britons are referred to as English which in reality hasnt been a nationality for over 300 yrs. Thank you for any information. --Camaeron (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of Englishmen will take offense to that. The relationship between the constituent countries (that is how they are termed) of the United Kingdom is rather complex. And whether or not Canadians use that term (never heard one to, as that would lump them in with what the US calls itself, and Canada has its own identity) or Germans use that term, people from the United States call themselves Americans, regardless of possible international attempts to change that, and the English-speaking world recognizes "American" to mean someone from the United States. --Golbez (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Spanish they use "estadounidense", which basically translates to United States-ian. "Estados Unidos" is United States in Spanish, and "-ense" is a suffix denoting nationality. Natalie (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which probably makes linguistic sense in Spanish but not in English, the same reason we didn't call people Soviet Unioners or United Kingdomites. --Golbez (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No term for the continent otherwise? "North American" would work perfectly well. Or Central American, or South American. --Golbez (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Please see the archives for a lengthy discussion of this very topic. In short, we describe usage, we don't proscribe it. In the English language, the word American is used to refer to people of US citizenship. (Of course, just like many words in the English language, the word American can be used in other ways, too.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see American (word).  And there are hundreds of organizations and corporations that use America as synonymous with the United States of America. I had a list of them in American (word) at one point but then got into an edit war as some people thought it was original research.  For example, the Parking Company of America clearly is specific to the United States (see their logo in the photograph I took for the article on standard form contracts).--Coolcaesar (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American vs US-American 

message: Building on my suggestion of a few weeks ago, and having considered the issues raised by other editors, I'm making a major edit for editors' consideration: removing the in-article table presenting the fifty states by name accompanied by their flags and substituting a fully Wikilinked template version of :Image:Map of USA with state names.svg, specifically Template:USA midsize imagemap with state names. This will reduce our KB weight (by almost 5 KB) while increasing the amount of information delivered in a similar amount of space. While I understand that external templates have some hidden effect on download time, the net result, if not a significant time savings, should at least be close to zero (if someone technically knowledgeable could check this, that would be great). Let me know what you think; if you concur with the substitution, one question is the size of the templated map. I attempted to set it at the smallest size where the state names could be read without undue strain. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anecdotally, the page is downloading faster onto my system since the substitution.—DCGeist (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know my comment is a little late, but the only thing I would say is that the section is not cited. My guess is that you are working on this, so I'm sorry if I'm intruding. --Happyme22 (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not intruding at all, but I don't see anything in the section that calls for citation. Simply because something constitutes a section or a paragraph or any other such block of text does not mean that it requires citations, as I'm sure you know. We cite quotations, we cite specific data, we cite things that have been challenged or likely to be challenged. This section evidently does not call for citations, and I'm sure you agree we shouldn't apply superfluous ones simply for the sake of appearance. Best, Dan.—DCGeist 05:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Just nitpicking that the assertion "Apart from the temporary secessions of the southern states during the Civil War, the number of states has never shrunk." is technically incorrect, at that's my understanding. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Texas v. White, , that that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null". -- Boracay Bill 05:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good nitpick--and, in fact, the sentence is hardly necessary in any form in the context of this overview article. I'll cut it. Best, D.—DCGeist 05:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  States section 

message: The last line of the "Etymology" Section contains this line "American is rarely used in English to refer to people not connected to the United States.". This is not only completely false, but is rather racist. Please remove it. Either that or change it. Something like "American is rarely used by Americans to refer to people not connected to the United States" or "American is a fallacious demonym used, due to a lack of imagination during the founding years of the United States, by US citizens unaware of their neighbouring countries, as well as their own history and culture, which features not only the annihilation of the "Native" American people (also often referring, falsely, to the indigenous people of North America, whereas native Americans were first encountered by Europeans in the Southern Americas) but also various military forays and operations into the lands of other American nations, most notably during the drug wars during the latter part of the 20th century" Happy Editing! 62.72.110.11 (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Racist or not, how is it completely false? Other speakers of English besides those in the United States also use American to refer almost exclusively to people connected to the United States. You don't have to like it for it to be true. Our job is to describe usage, not to prescribe it. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Please give us some cites from reputable English-language sources based in major English-speaking countries like Canada or India or South Africa or Ireland or the United Kingdom or Australia or New Zealand that support your assertion that English speakers outside the U.S. use the word "American" as a demonym for people other than U.S. citizens. I believe your assertion is false. I would love to be proven wrong.—DCGeist (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No, you completely ducked the challenge. Of course, there are other ways of referring to Americans. We were not arguing that point. You made a claim about the use of the word "American." You asserted that the sentence "American is rarely used in English to refer to people not connected to the United States" is "completely false." I asked you to defend your assertion. I asked you to provide reputable citations for the use of the word "American" as a demonym for people other than U.S. citizens. You have entirely failed to do so. The current wording of the article stands.—DCGeist (talk) 07:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I will, thanks. You too, sunshine.—DCGeist (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology issue 

message: Is the US not the most diverse nation in the world?  Virtually, people have come from every corner of the world..which is not seen in any other countries. Rotinajeht (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but how do you objectively quantify that? --Golbez (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Easily. Just do an origin study of the population. Look at Census data from all countries and see. This study has likely been done somewhere already but I couldn't provide a link off the top of my head. You would have to compare the majority with the minorities percentage wise and judge the data accordingly. Danman111111 (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we could just not be so ridiculously cerebral about it and use "One of" like now?  Saying we are "The most diverse" comes off as some kind of nationalist rant.72.147.217.63 (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its definitely not. Look at India. They don't even have a majority ethnic group. A few important minorities is does not make it the most diverse. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 02:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the UK?  What about Canada?  Howabout you drop it unless you actually have statistics?  Good boy. 76.69.39.83 (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE most diverse, or one of the most diverse nations?