Talk:United States/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

"about 50,000 convicts were shipped to Britain's American colonies."

This was a strange factoid that is given too much prominence in the founding of the country section. I'd never heard this before, and upon following the link supporting it, it turns out that many of these "convicts" were English POW's and so forth, and also cites Samuel Johnson, who was perpetually in a drunken rage -- not reliable.

This line I think sets up a false comparison with our Australian friends -- the US colonies were never penal colonies.

Would anybody mind if I chopped this?

IvyGold (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it can stay. It's short (one sentence) and accurate and based on very solid sources. It's based on a major article in the leading scholarly journal, the American Historical review. it does indeed invite comparisons to Australia. The fact does susprise people, so OK--they can learn from reading. Rjensen (talk)

If it's accurate, I don't see any reason that it cannot remain. I also don't see how it would invite comparisons to Australia since it's just one sentence in a string of sentences that describes early migration to the New World. The only thing that I can suggest would be that if it seems to be misleading just using the word "convicts", then maybe it can be expanded slightly that some were POWs or the like. Otherwise, I think it's an interesting piece of information that not everyone came to the new land voluntarily. Kman543210 (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen. This is (a) something I was not aware of and (b) something significant about American history that I learned of only because someone thought to add it here on Wikipedia. From my perspective, that's what we're here for--to deliver information, unbiased by routine prejudices, that inform us, always accurately, sometimes surprisingly.DocKino (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That, and we're here to write an well-written encyclopedia. Maintaining a coherent narrative throughout the article helps. Discussion of where the American people came from is certainly pertinent, especially when woven into the article that already makes mention of foreign settlers, African slaves, and later mass-immigration. MrZaius^talk 12:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Cher

Let's make this fast. I propose that a reference to Cher as a representative popular culture export be removed.

• - agree She's not at the same level of consciousness as many, many others. Only the top should be referenced, if that.LedRush (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I propose that a reliable source be added to support whoever is listed as illustrutive of the U.S.'s influence on worldwide pop culture. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary era

Either we are looking for a different reference, or we have to reword the rather ambiguous sentence "removing President Saddam Hussein based on arguments that are now widely rejected". The reference is an opinion poll, and neither it is up to interpretation whether the questions are equivalent to "do you reject the arguments for removing Saddam Hussein". The closestI could find was the question "Do you think the Bush Administration deliberately misled the American public about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, or not?" - but here answers are 53% say did mislead, and 42% say did not mislead, what is not exactly bolstering the claim of a wide rejection. But even then, the sentence is rather ambiguous as it is not clear who rejects (Americans? The World? Reality?). Regarding the criticm section, it is standard practice to attribute critism, that is, here to Amnesty International. Novidmarana (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right. Wording it as "widely rejected" isn't very clear. Your change to "rejected by a majority in opinion polls" is much better. A State Of Trance (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Medical bills are the most common reason for personal bankruptcy

This statement has a reference, but that is not what the reference says. Have a look at this table from the study. Medical bills are the reason for 21.3% of all bankruptcies, and nothing in the article indicates that 21.3% is indeed the highest percentage value for all possible reasons for personal bankruptcy. I suspect that loss of employment will potentially be in the same percentage area and is a potentially contender for the title most common reason. Else, only if one adopts a very broad definition of medical reasons (ranging from illness over birth of a new family member to uncontrolled gambling) medical reasons become undoubtedly the most common cause (with 54.5%), but even then it is not clear as many bankruptcies have more than one reason. Novidmarana (talk) 07:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair analysis, but shouldn't lead us to excise the entire passage. The significant fact here—supported by the reference—is that medical costs are a leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States. (If you were to reach the logical conclusion that they are not almost anywhere else in the rest of the developed world, which enjoys universal health insurance, you would be correct.) I've edited the passage so it reflects the inarguable and most significant fact.—DCGeist (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

All that is not really clear-cut. We have a number of 21.3%, but we have no numbers for other contributors to bankruptcy, and without those we cannot say anything what the leading contributors are, especially as most personal bankruptcies have many contributors.

Furthermore, see "Medical Bankruptcy: Myth Versus Fact", David Dranove, Michael L Millenson. Health Affairs. Chevy Chase: Jan-Jun 2006. pg. W74, 10 pgs, Quote from the abstract

"David Himmelstein and colleagues recently contended that medical problems contribute to 54.5 percent of personal bankruptcies and threaten the solvency of solidly middle-class Americans. They propose comprehensive national health insurance as a solution. A reexamination of their data suggests that medical bills are a contributing factor in just 17 percent of personal bankruptcies and that those affected tend to have incomes closer to poverty level than to middle class. Moreover, for national health insurance to have an impact, it would have to define "medical" expenses in a much broader way than is now typical of either private or government-funded plans."

So medical bills are according to this reevaluation only a contributor in 17% of all cases, and even then we have to deal with multiple contributors, making it unclear what the leading causes are. Novidmarana (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Baby. Bathwater. Rephrased again.—DCGeist (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Still not what the reference says. I reworded using a verbatim quote from the paper mentioned above to remove all ambiguity. Seventeen per cent is hardly signifant, at least not if we have no information on other reasons for personal bankruptcies, especially in light of that more often than not there a several contributing factors at work. Novidmarana (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

As the very evidence you've adduced demonstrates, the 17% figure represents a low estimate, is highly arguable, and does not belong in the article. The fundamental fact remains: medical bills are a significant contributor to personal bankruptcies—significant both (a) per se and (b) comparatively in the prevailing context applied throughout the article, that of developed nations.—DCGeist (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable source that supports your personal interpretation of the data, that is that 17% is a low estimate and that it is highly arguable? Because apparently the previous figure of 27% is highly arguable, as is evidenced by the study cited above that reexamines the original data. Furthermore, there is a difference between contributors and contributing factors, and both studies say that medical bills are only a contributing factor of many, and not the only reason. In fact whether 17% is signifant can only be decided if we no all other contributing factors, and both studies give no numbers to decide that. In any case whether a number is signifcant or not is subjective, hence we should give the number and not an ambiguus significant which (is a word to be avoided anyway). Lastly, do you have any data on other developed countries we are not aware of? Novidmarana (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Marijuana as cash crop

I removed this rather surprising statement "The leading cash crop is marijuana" in the economy section, stating as reason exceptional claims require exceptional sources in the edit summary. The references given are a study by drug reform activist in a self-published, non-peer-reviewed journal, and an ABC news story about this study. The ABC news story in itself is not really a reference as ABC does not make this claim; they are merely reporting that such a study exist, and they also have a rather unspecific quote, "Drug enforcement officials say the equation is not that simple." in reference to the validity of this study. So following policy, i.e. Wikipedia:Verifiability we should remove this sentence if no reliable source can be found. In any case, given the difficulty of measuring the production value of an illegal drug, we should have more than just one study if we want to present as truth that Marijuana is the leading cash crop. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I find no problem with the sources, but the claim is exceptional and would ask for another one or two good, reliable citations before we consider adding illegal drug production as the number one crop in the US. To be clear, even after we get a better cite we should discuss how best to include the information.LedRush (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

See also The Mismeasurement of Illegal Drug Markets] for some interesting facts on the measurement problems involved. I have no idea who is right here, but that is beside the point - we should not treat something as fact that is not established as such. For example, the study by the activist uses an estimate of 10,000 metric tons of domestic marijuana production (plus 5000 tons imported from Canada and Mexico) in 2006. According the other paper domestic consumption of Marijuana in the US (ie consumption of domestically produced and imported marijuana) was only 760 metric tons in 1993, down from 940 in 1988. Of course consumption could have increased between 1993 and 2006, or part of US production is exported, but still, it does not make me confident in the soundness of the study by the activist. There are some other interesting data in the linked paper, and most of them give the impression that estimates of marijuana production are notoriously unreliable and can vary by orders of magnitude. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this topic adequately dealt with at Cannabis, Drug policy of the United States, or (not that it really should be) War on Drugs? It seems pertinent to the encyclopedia to discuss the range of estimates, even if it's not necessarily relevant and possible to briefly deal with here. It would add much needed references and added context to Drug policy, if it could be introduced in a reasonable manner. MrZaius^talk 07:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the statement. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

News media's now discussing the US has lost superpower status, US now considered a great power

Since I have heard CNN over & over the last months on the US superpower status, more and more articles are becoming public the US has last its superpower status. It's 2008 and since this awful year of the poor economy continues, world governments are starting to realize the US is not the superpower any longer. For example, Israel's government has come forward in recent weeks about their frustration over the United States, the US is not playing its part on the world wide scale as it has, lot has changed and the US is not meeting their criteria to perform like a superpower, it isn’t and Israel has admitted it. More than ever Israel has been left aside on many important issues which reflect their standing in the Middle East and the US as its partner on terror by also promoting democracy, military funding and financial issues, has completely halted severely as the US is all dried up. If the US is so great, think again, our superpower status is gone, thanks to our government, it will take the US years to get their standing back on the world front arena as the US sits as a great power to the world currently: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3611657,00.html and http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/78536

More sources will be posted shortly http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3611657,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.2.49 (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

First source makes claim that "US is no longer undisputed superpower". It never says the US isn't a superpower.

The second one says discusses only "monetary superpower status" and though it says that some French and Russians believe that status is lost, it also says "the American Diplomatic circles did not respond aggressively to the EU officials who doubted the US ability to lead or to continue as a monetary superpower, against their nature especially during Bush´s era." In order to "continue as a superpower" you must currently be one.

This disucssion has been played out, and the IPs need to stop the disruptive posting of citations claiming they say one thing when they really indicate the opposite. Even if citations were found for this proposition, counter examples are so widespread that the language still shouldn't be altered without clear consensus.LedRush (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Led. This discussion is getting tedious. I agree that the US may no longer be a "superpower" outside of its military, but IMHO, the lede as it stands is sufficient. It says a) the US emerged as the sole superpower after the end of the Cold War. This is beyond dispute. It does not explicitly say that America retains that status, so this discussion is moot. It goes on to say b) America remains a leading cultural, economic and political force. Also beyond serious dispute, even if America is "diminished." This wording, deliberately vague, should satisfy both those who believe America remains a superpower and those who don't. If the lede instead said that, today, in 2008, America remains the sole superpower, then there'd be something to discuss. But it doesn't explicitly say that. So, let's end this discussion. Canada Jack (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree, the sources are well said, the US has lost superpower relations. The United States certaintly isn't in that control anymore. Liberals and conservatives habitually say of the United States as a superpower (not always) except the ones who are't controlled from Bidlerberg or the media will say other wise, the US isn't a superpower. Neocons like Norman Podhoretz advise that our "only option" with Iran is "to go to war" (The Week, June 8, 2007 p.6) – as though we can. A New York Times commentary on Iraq blithely states that, no matter the outcome, "the United States would still be the sole world power" (Jan. 14, p.WK1) – as though we are. Bush planners aim at establishing a "permanent" U.S. military presence in Iraq (The Christian Science Monitor, June 12, p.1) – as though we could. And presidential candidates of both parties speak as though we can accomplish anything if we're well-led. Well, as Roky Erickson once said, "You can believe that story if you want to."

Consider, first, global economics, then China, then the state of our military. What is it and who's money is it?

The Economist (Feb. 14, 2007 p.18): "Typically in the past, when America's economy has weakened, the rest of the world soon flagged. But this time ... the rest of the world has speeded up even as the American engine has lost steam. ... [Gross national product] per person is now growing faster in the euro area than it is in America. Domestic demand is also booming in emerging economies in Asia, the Middle East, and Russia [and] most of China's growth comes not from exports but from domestic demand." Since World War II, and until recently, American consumption has been the world's primary economic force – which is why the world had no choice but to tolerate our misadventures. Now many nations are booming on their own, in cooperation with one another. The U.S. is still important, but it's not necessary.

The Economist (April 14, p.12), under the headline "Come in number one, your time is up": "America used to be the world's biggest exporter. First it was pushed aside by Germany, and now it has been outclassed by China. ... In global finance, too, America and the dollar are being shoved off their pedestal. The dollar is still preferred as a reserve currency, but it is no longer the favourite form of cash for households and firms. There are now more euro[s] ... in circulation than there are dollars [my italics]. In the international bond market, the euro has displaced the dollar as the main currency. ... Wall Street's stockmarket capitalisation has now been eclipsed by Europe [combined with Russia]." Still important, but not necessary. Still important, but now the world has many other choices. In light of these facts, to think of the U.S. as "the sole world power" is ludicrous – as it is ludicrous to imagine that in this brave new world we will be granted the authority, and accorded the deference, to which we've been accustomed for 60 years. The leading nations haven't yet decided what to do with their new power. They're not used to it. But they'll get used to it, and they will use it – how, at this point, is anyone's guess. But the more delusional we remain about our status, the harder the shock will be when they figure out how.

It's been widely reported that we are, by far, the world's biggest debtor nation. The Week (June 8, p.20): "Including unfunded promises made for Medicare, Social Security, and federal retirement programs, U.S. taxpayers have a total debt of $59 trillion. That's $516,000 for every U.S. household." Obviously, we're not paying that debt anytime soon, especially when "the nation's average personal savings rate fell to negative 1% in 2006, meaning that Americans spent more than they earned" (The Week, Feb. 16, p.16). Also widely reported: America needs foreign investment and loans to function. Foreigners "hold a record 52%" of U.S. government debt, "up from 25% in 1995" (The Week, Dec. 15, 2006, p.44). How can you call America a superpower when we can't meet our expenses without the goodwill of our rivals?

Which brings us to China, our primary banker. The New York Times (April 14, p.C3): "Last year, when Treasury debt increased by $184 billion, almost half of that amount ... was provided by lenders in China. ... China [is] the largest source of funding for the United States government's deficits." The article reports that our Federal Reserve bought 20% of "our newly issued bonds" and that "only 4% of the [total] money came from American investors and institutions" (my italics). Which totals only 24% coming from American sources. Without the present level of foreign investment, especially Chinese investment, America would be in very bad straits. Uh oh ... the Chinese show signs of changing their ways. "Their fastest growth these days lies in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, South America, and elsewhere in Asia – in other words, practically anywhere other than the United States" (The New York Times, April 18, p.C1). One result is that China has created a new "agency to invest its immense reserves in foreign currency. ... Some analysts say the formation of the new agency means China is moving away from heavy reliance on investing in United States dollars through Treasury securities [The New York Times, March 10, p.C3]." We're still important, but not nearly as necessary. With even a small change in its investment policy, China has the power to dampen America's economy.

Now consider the state of America's military. Colin Powell, quoted in Time (April 16, p.30): "The active Army is about broken." The Washington Post (March 19, p.1): "Senior U.S. military and government officials acknowledge ... that it will take years for the Army and Marine Corps to recover from what some officials privately have called a 'death spiral,' in which the ever more rapid pace of war-zone rotations has consumed 40% of their total gear, wearied troops, and left no time to train. ... The U.S. military now lacks a large strategic reserve of ground troops ready to respond quickly and decisively to potential foreign crises. ... The vast majority [of Army units in the United States] are rated 'not ready.'" The Post article reports the reactions of several congressmen to a classified military briefing. Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz, D-Texas: "I have seen the classified-only reports. And based on those reports, I believe that we as a nation are at risk of major failure, should our Army be called to deploy to an emerging threat." Rep. Walter B. Jones, R-N.C.: "This nation has got to replenish and fix what is soon going to be broken." Finally, the Post goes on: "Under current ... plans, it will take two to three years after the Iraq war ends [my italics] ... to restore ... equipment levels. It will take five years and at least $75 billion for the Army to increase its active-duty ranks [as planned] up to 547,000 soldiers."

That's for the future. Right now the military is hurting at home as well as on the battlefield. "The backlog of [veterans'] disability claims stands at more than 405,000, with cases averaging 177 days to be processed. ... Experts estimate that an additional 400,000 claims will be filed in the next two years" (The New York Times, June 6, p.WK13). "Care facilities for American troops and their families are buckling under the strain of war and funding limitations" (USA Today, June 5, p.1). Barry McCaffrey, retired four-star Army general: "There is no argument of whether the U.S. Army is rapidly unraveling" (The Christian Science Monitor, April 4, p.11).

The Washington Post (May 8, p.D1): "Joseph E. Stiglitz [Nobel winner in economics] ... co-authored a study that predicts the Iraq conflict alone will eventually cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion, counting military rebuilding and health care for wounded veterans." Incredibly, we haven't paid for any of this yet. The Post article noted, "The war bill is going directly on the nation's credit card." Foreign investors, especially China, have been paying for this war.

Now why would they do that? The answer: It's in their strategic interest to finance a war that drains America's financial, military, and leadership clout. They're paying for us to screw ourselves. It saves them the trouble. However, given the irresponsibility of America's military adventures and the equal irresponsibility of the American electorate in elevating someone like George W. Bush to power, why would China and the other investing nations finance the rebuilding of America's military might? How could that possibly be in their interest – especially now that the euro has overtaken the dollar as a viable medium for world exchange? Hence China and others are making obvious moves to invest differently. We're about to be left behind.

We're still important as a country yet we are facing serious problems, a big economy but not as big as you think, a player but not the player we were (we are declining everywhere), we're playing different than 2007 (read the labels anytime you buy something and that will tell you who is the real player). We're still dangerous but not as dangerous as Russia is, with all our bombs and missiles, they out do us on more nuclear arsenals than anyone, period. But we won't be fighting another ground war anytime soon and everybody in Congress knows it and so does Wallstreet. Financially and militarily, we're no superpower anymore, only in certain catagories but very limited (that means yo have to have a superior economic power (fail this), pre-eminent military ability (where the US is too thin), characterized by relative invulnerability (our banking system is haulting thi), the ability to deter or cause great damage and project military might globally (this is not working world wide currently), characterized by access to raw materials (China & India are ahead of us on this one), volume and productivity of the domestic market (China rules this one), a leading position in world trade as well as global financial markets (right now the European Union is ahead of us), innovation and the ability to accumulate capital (which way are behind on international capital)). Whether we recede from center stage gracefully or destructively, we'll recede. We already have. It doesn't look that way on TV, but we already have and lost that status.--Stockhouse (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well that was an incredible lot of words to say what has been said over and over within the past week. All of the issues you bring up have already been addressed. You're just raising the dead to be killed again.Prussian725 (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Name

So its a "federal constitutional republic"?, so is it this article that's important enough to be labeled beyond a country?.Rodrigue (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Labeling it a "federal constitutional republic" in the prose does just that. Could you please clarify your question/request? MrZaius^talk 04:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

medal count

The medal count for the Summer Olympic games given here does not match the number given in the article United States at the Olympics. Who is right? Randomblue (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I notice that article gives three different figures: 2,188 in the lead (obviously not updated to reflect the most recent Olympics); 2,298 in the "Medals by Summer Games" chart; and 2,296 in the "Medals by summer sport" chart. I think we can stick with the clearly cited figure (2,301) in this article. Variation may come from different means of accounting for medals awarded to multinational teams, which I believe American athletes participated in a few times in early Olympics.DocKino (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Marijuana as cash crop

I removed this rather surprising statement "The leading cash crop is marijuana" in the economy section, stating as reason exceptional claims require exceptional sources in the edit summary. The references given are a study by drug reform activist in a self-published, non-peer-reviewed journal, and an ABC news story about this study. The ABC news story in itself is not really a reference as ABC does not make this claim; they are merely reporting that such a study exist, and they also have a rather unspecific quote, "Drug enforcement officials say the equation is not that simple." in reference to the validity of this study. So following policy, i.e. Wikipedia:Verifiability we should remove this sentence if no reliable source can be found. In any case, given the difficulty of measuring the production value of an illegal drug, we should have more than just one study if we want to present as truth that Marijuana is the leading cash crop. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I find no problem with the sources, but the claim is exceptional and would ask for another one or two good, reliable citations before we consider adding illegal drug production as the number one crop in the US. To be clear, even after we get a better cite we should discuss how best to include the information.LedRush (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

See also The Mismeasurement of Illegal Drug Markets] for some interesting facts on the measurement problems involved. I have no idea who is right here, but that is beside the point - we should not treat something as fact that is not established as such. For example, the study by the activist uses an estimate of 10,000 metric tons of domestic marijuana production (plus 5000 tons imported from Canada and Mexico) in 2006. According the other paper domestic consumption of Marijuana in the US (ie consumption of domestically produced and imported marijuana) was only 760 metric tons in 1993, down from 940 in 1988. Of course consumption could have increased between 1993 and 2006, or part of US production is exported, but still, it does not make me confident in the soundness of the study by the activist. There are some other interesting data in the linked paper, and most of them give the impression that estimates of marijuana production are notoriously unreliable and can vary by orders of magnitude. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this topic adequately dealt with at Cannabis, Drug policy of the United States, or (not that it really should be) War on Drugs? It seems pertinent to the encyclopedia to discuss the range of estimates, even if it's not necessarily relevant and possible to briefly deal with here. It would add much needed references and added context to Drug policy, if it could be introduced in a reasonable manner. MrZaius^talk 07:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the statement. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Number of uninsured

There are many studies out there that try to measure the number of uninsured, with widly varying conclusions. Defining underinsured is inherently subjective and thus all estimates will vary with the concrete defintion of uninsured that is employed by the study. A Meta-analysis of studies is "How Much Health Insurance Is Enough? Revisiting the Concept of Underinsurance", Medical Care Research and Review, Vol. 63, No. 6, 663-700 (2006), DOI: 10.1177/1077558706293634. They find that estimates of the percentag of uninsured range between 2.9% and 53%, all depending on the definition and the methodology of the study (thus also making it hard to compare all the numbers from all the different studies). Citing only one study, especially one yielding an estimate that is in the higher range of estimates, is rather unbalanced and POV. See also WP:RS, quote:

"Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred to provide proper context, where available." Novidmarana (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's time to call an end to your tendentious campaign against addressing this issue. The current statement is not backed by "random newspaper clippings", as your disingenuous edit summary claims. It is supported by two articles from the country's leading daily newspaper, describing three major studies whose findings have been released in the last four-and-a-half months. There is no reasonable basis for your POV tag, and it has been eliminated.DocKino (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I pointed you to a meta-study, which according to WP:RS is preferable to random newspaper clippings. And this meta-study show that your cherry-picked studies are not representative, like it or not. And the sentence "Millions of insured Americans also have difficulty meeting medical costs." is not very informative anyway, because it does not say anything about how many Americans are affected (2 million? 200 million?), and even worse difficulty meeting medical costs is something completely subjective.

And tendentious campaign? Really, maybe I could say the same about you and you repeated insertion of POV material that contradicts academic meta-studies. Please address these concerns before removing the POV tag, or remove the sentence in question. Novidmarana (talk) 23:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

And for further reading, quote from WP:RS: "For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment." Novidmarana (talk) 23:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

On a tangentially related note, noone owns this article - Please try to keep that in mind before issuing such dismissive comments as the first comment by DocKino above when attempting to explain a revert of an obviously good-faith edit (which, by the way, there's been rather a lot of going 'round lately). Let's keep it civil, especially when we're dealing with other established editors. That said, the tag did seem a little off the mark - It's not so much POV as it is a bad source that should be stricken, along with its data, with an explanation here when contested. Note that noone has raised any objection to the proposed edit Novidmarana, to point - Seems reasonable to me. The only thing I'd say is that the practice here of linking to popular press sources when available gives much more layman-accessible sources. If the study above has garnered any press, it'd be nice to have one well-written article ref'd as well. MrZaius^talk 02:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Btw, my apologies if the above seems a touch more curt than need be - I initially read this conversation out of context, without seeing the more reasonable one above it.

• (A) The single "meta-study" Novidmarana keeps pushing is over two years old. References to three independent studies that have reached similar conclusions within the past six months is obviously preferable.
• (B) There is nothing in Novidmarana's favored source that contradicts the statement that now appears in the article.

As a side note, Novidmarana has reasonably inquired if there are any studies surveying this issue in other developed nations. There are. The Commonwealth Fund conducts periodical multinational studies. The 2005 study surveyed six wealthy nations (US, UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Germany). The three questions on access to health care vs. cost show that the United States is the clear "leader" in cost/access problems. See here.—DCGeist (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

A) Silly statement. Not only are you completely ignoring WP:RS, you do not even seem to understand what a [[meta-study}} is. It is not me who favors this source, but WP:RS. If you would have read at the least the introduction to this meta-study you would understand that the definition of underinsured drives the result leading to estimates that range from almost zero to more than fifty percent. That these studies are newer has only one effect, that is having newer data available. The fundamental problem of defining underinsured stays. It is really time to ask to stop pushing your NYTimes newspaper clippings, and accept that we have a guideline WP:RS that clearly states that meta-studies are preferable to single studies, scholarly studies are preferable to newspaper clippings.

B) As I said already above, the statement "Millions of insured Americans also have difficulty meeting medical costs" is completely uninformative as it does not tell us anything about what millions of Americans means (2 million or 200 million), and does not tell us anything what difficulty meeting medical costs means (if I have to sell my Rolls-Royce to be able to pay my medical bills is that a difficulty already?). Per WP:WEASEL we should avoid sentences such as this, especially as this sentence merely hides that there is no generally agreed number of underinsured in the US, not even close.

Hence remove, and please argue here with Wikipedia policies and guidelines instead of your personal opinion on what we should include here and what not. And lastly, as a side note: Maybe the three questions on access to health care show that the United States has the highest percentage of complainers, but there are other questions (preventive care, prescription drugs etc) where the answers are not that clear-cut. In any case, this is a questionnaire, not a study. There is a difference, because a study attempts to correct for things such as selection bias and so on. Novidmarana (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No need to be aggressive, I think DCGeist was pretty reasonable. Also note that DCGeist notices that a metastudy which is more than two years old out of necessity does not contain newer sources. I think this is a good point, newer (reliable) arguments provide growing insights and are therefore more relevant. A meta study only gives the view of the investigated period (A meta-study from about AD 1450 would provide the argument the world is flat).

I agree millions is a problematic statement; however even 1 million uninsured would be noticable. It is beyond doubt, as shown for example by DCGeist's reference, that underinsuring is a problem in the US compared to other developed countries. Arnoutf (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I explained that all above. The fundamental problem of all these studies is defining the term underinsured. Depending on the definition a study employs you can get anything from zero to hundred percent of all insured being underinsured. That is why the meta-study shows that estimates range from 2.9 to 53 percent. The new studies add nothing to this basic problem of defining the term underinsured. They use new data, but they do not tell us how these percentage estimates would vary with using different definitions of underinsured.

Also WP:RS is clear about the use of meta-studies VS single studies and academic studies VS newspaper clippings. Two years is not very old, things change, but nothing suggests that the numbers have changed dramatically so to make a difference.

Furthermore, there is alot of doubt that underinsuring is a problem in the US compared to other developed countries, because this is not what DCGeist reference addresses. The reference is an opinion survey, not a study that addresses problems such as making numbers comparable across countries or addressing a possible selection bias. So far no study has been forthcoming that applies the same definition of underinsured across countries and makes an international comparison.

The sentence "Even for insured Americans it is frequently difficult to meet medical costs" gives no real information and is completely subjective. They same could be said about almost every country as no definition is given what difficult to meet medical costs means.

Lastly, if we are at it. If we point out all those insured that have difficulty meeting their medical costs, for the sake of neutrality we should also point out all those uninsured that would have no difficulty purchasing health insurance, see Is health insurance affordable for the uninsured? respectively should also mention that a large number of those uninsured are illegal immigrants, see Immigration's Impact on The Size and Growth of The Population Lacking Health Insurance, something that is too often forgotten in international comparisons, because these ignore that illegal immigrants are not insured in most developed countries either. Novidmarana (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

A few comments. Apparently the problem here is that there is no good and water-proof definition of what underinsured means, resulting in wildly varying estimates of the number of uninsured. That means that we should not try to hide that there is considerable disagreement on this. Choosing studies as a reference that give estimates at the higher end strikes me as very unbalanced, apart from that WP:Reliable Sources is very clear about what sources are preferred.

I am not sure whether the current statement for insured Americans it is frequently difficult to meet medical costs is a compromise or not, the problem is, as is pointed out above, that this sentence is ambiguous (because it attempts to encompass all those estimates of the number of uninsured) and thus gives no real information to the reader. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, like many compromises, it gives less definitive information then many of us might wish, but it still succeeds in indicating the important point—that not only noninsurance but underinsurance is a significant problem in the United States, one that—as we know—affects not only the daily lives of many Americans but political contests and public policy priorities as well.

On another point, Novidmarana's observation about the connection between the large number of uninsured and the large number of illegal immigrants in the United States is well worth considering. Unfortunately, the study he references dates from 2000 and is based on health coverage data from 1998. If we can find a more recent reference, we should look at recasting the relevant passage.—DCGeist (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

But then we could also write just the opposite, that is for insured Americans it is frequently NOT difficult to meet medical costs. It would imply exactly the opposite, but with estimates of the number of underinsured between 2.9% and 53% (according to what was said above) this would be covered by the sources as well. If the problem of underinsurance needs to be included because of its political implications, well, then we should write that out in full, something like underinsurance is an important topic in the political discourse, with good source, obviously. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"For insured Americans it is frequently NOT difficult to meet medical costs"? Really? We should articulate an obvious assumption like that? No. The current statement is worth including because it indicates something that is not immediately obvious. Many readers are likely to assume that possessing insurance essentially ensures (yes) that medical costs will not pose a significant problem. Our multiple, up-to-date sources indicate otherwise. The statement and the links that accompany it advance understanding. Articulating the obvious would not.—DCGeist (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That is why we have WP:NPOV - the sources support both version of the statement as whether the right statement is "insured American frequently have" or "frequently have NOT difficulties" depends on what estimate one uses and depends on how one interprets the numbers (there is no clear threshold above which one says frequently and below one does not say frequently - is it 50%, 25% or 10%, who knows, that is very subjective.). So one has to choice which statement to use. I agree that one would not include "frequently have NOT difficulties", but logically that does not imply that one should use the other version, as this would be POV.

It is not even clear whether our source indicate otherwise (ie all sources, not only those that made it into the newspaper this year), because with this wide range of estimates they do imply anything except that we do not know much and that there is no scholarly consensus on the definition of underinsured. In the end that is the big news, and the article would gain if we would try not to hide this uncertainty. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Could not agree more, but I guess it is useless to repeat oneself again and again. No answer so far why we should ignore the WP:RS and prefer newspaper clippings to an academic, peer-review meta-study that establishes that there is no consensus on the significance of the problem of underinsurance. Using two studies (both not even published in a peer-review process), that give numbers at the very high end of the range of estimates is blatantly violating WP:UNDUE. The only argument forthcoming is that the meta-study is two years old (guess what, WP:RS says: The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse - the meta-study has, these two studies by advocacy groups have not). I said it above again and again, the fundamental problem of these studies is that there is no generally agreed definition of underinsurance. The new studies can add new data and could thus indicate trends. They do not establish a consensus on the definition of underinsurance, and have thus nothing to say what the scholarly consensus on the absolute number of underinsured is.

No answer so far also why we should use have a sentence that obscurs the truth that there is no scholarly consensus on the definition and the significance of underinsurance. We could phrase the sentence both ways, given the sources. Giving preference to just one version violates WP:NPOV. It was said that one version is obvious and the other is not, but that what is obvious and what is not is entirely subjective. For someone who is underinsured the current version would be obvious, to someone else the other one would be. Novidmarana (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No, what's really useless is for you to step in and think you can simply delete well-discussed, well-sourced, and broadly supported article content because you don't like it. It's useless for you to falsely claim there are only two recent studies when you know there are three. It's useless for you to frame this as a debate over what the absolute number of uninsured is when the article clearly does not address that point. It's useless for you to argue that the passage in question should be dismissed as "entirely subjective," when it summarizes in plain English the common findings of three independent studies.DocKino (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You are completely unwilling to address the points I raised, substituting debate with false claims of well-discussed, well-sourced, and broadly supported. My apologies if there are three and not two studies out, but as the article clear two studies were financed by the Commonwealth fund and one by the Kaiser foundation, so in fact it seems to be that we are talking about two studies and not three here (and we are still ignoring the scholarly consensus, yay why bother with scholarly consensus if we have sources that support our personal POV). Please explain why we should only consider these three (or two?) non-peer-reviewed studies by advocacy groups (what's next American Enterprise Institute as source?), and ignore all studies that have gone through the peer-review process. Maybe because if we would do that, we could not summarize in plain the common findings anymore, because there are NO common findings. Novidmarana (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's quite clear that there are three distinct studies--one was undertaken by the Commonwealth Fund, another was undertaken by the Center for Studying Health System Change with financing from the Commonwealth Fund. And a major correction to your claims: the Commonwealth fund study was published in Health Affairs, a "peer-reviewed journal that explores health policy issues of current concern" [emphasis added]. At any rate, all three studies are respectable enough to be reported on in the business pages of the New York Times. Now, you've stated that these reports have been "cherry-picked." Let's see about that. We currently reference two major mainstream news reports describing the findings of three studies from two or three groups, depending on your count, and released in the past four-and-a-half months. Can you point us to any studies that have been released and reported on in the past, say, twelve months that reach contradictory conclusions? If you can, you may actually have a case.DocKino (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it did went to the peer-reviewed process. Health Affairs seems to be peer-reviews, but the study was not published in Health Affairs as it is a Web exclusive. Furthermore, I have repeatedly pointed out that there is a meta-study that represent academic consensus, and following WP:RS we have to use this study, something you conveniently ignore by setting the bar at past 12 months. Two years is hardly outdated, especially as the basic problem of finding an appropriate definition of who is underinsured and who is not is the same as it was last year or the year before or ten years ago. Again, your choice of twelve months is cherry-picking, we are not talking about a meta-study that is ten or twenty or more years old, then you would have a case. And by the way, in medicine I would never trust a study that is four-and-half months old, has not been cited, has not gone through a peer-review process, has been released shortly before election day and has been released by two advocacy groups.

And if we are at it, using uncivil edit summaries and defaming me as tendentious editor do not add at all to the discussion. I raised several points that have not been answered - in particular, that is why we should ignore the WP:RS guideline on which sources to use, and which not. Novidmarana (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Before everyone explodes here, why not phrase this in a manner such as : "Some studies suggest that even for some insured Americans, it is frequently difficult to meet medical costs, though to what extent is difficult to quantify and open to differing interpretations." Something like that. That is if there is an agreement that this is truly a controversial issue. My two (Canadian) cents. Canada Jack (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds better, maybe we could add something like: "Although the number of underinsured Americans is not known, with academic studies yielding estimates from a low 2.9 to a high 53%, the subject of underinsurance frequently features in political debates." Sources (a meta-study, and one or two newspaper articles on this subject establishing that it is a notable subject in the political debate. Novidmarana (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's just try to keep it more concise, while connecting it logically to the preceding passage thus: "The subject of uninsured and underinsured Americans—estimates of which vary widely—is a major political issue." Anyone object to that? The topical articles, Health care reform in the United States and Health insurance in the United States (to which we should add links), are the place to go into more detail.—DCGeist (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, although I also think that the estimates of the number of uninsured are not varying that wildly, after all whether someone has insurance or not is relatively straightforward to measure (as opposed to underinsurance). Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I think in context it will be clear that the phrase "estimates of which vary widely" applies solely to the underinsured, as this sentence would immediately follow the passage giving hard numbers on the uninsured, thus: "In 2005, 46.6 million Americans, 15.9% of the population, were uninsured, 5.4 million more than in 2001. The main cause of this decline is the drop in the number of Americans with employer-sponsored health insurance. The subject of uninsured and underinsured Americans—estimates of which vary widely—is a major political issue."—DCGeist (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all version mentioned - something that reflect that there is no scholarly consensus on the number of uninsured, but that nevertheless it is an important part of the political debate on the US health care system. Novidmarana (talk) 04:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've made the change. Two references seem sufficient for the citation: I've added the 2006 meta-study supplied by Novidmarana and retained one of the news reports supplied by DocKino—the one that references the Commonwealth Fund study which, though it was published as a "Web Exclusive", in fact appear to have gone through the same Health Affairs peer-review process applied to journal submissions that appear in print. All the best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Name

So its a "federal constitutional republic"?, so is it this article that's important enough to be labeled beyond a country?.Rodrigue (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Labeling it a "federal constitutional republic" in the prose does just that. Could you please clarify your question/request? MrZaius^talk 04:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

medal count

The medal count for the Summer Olympic games given here does not match the number given in the article United States at the Olympics. Who is right? Randomblue (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I notice that article gives three different figures: 2,188 in the lead (obviously not updated to reflect the most recent Olympics); 2,298 in the "Medals by Summer Games" chart; and 2,296 in the "Medals by summer sport" chart. I think we can stick with the clearly cited figure (2,301) in this article. Variation may come from different means of accounting for medals awarded to multinational teams, which I believe American athletes participated in a few times in early Olympics.DocKino (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Near feature status

This article has been judged to be a good article. It is well descriptive and for the most part avoids any bias. It has certainly come a long way from the chaotic, sociopolitically slanted propaganda policed by a hypocritical elite which knew virtually nothing about the content which it was dictating over and which so rabidly enforced ignorance and illiteracy and viciously stifled any and all forms of progress and updating; but I digress.

Of course as time progresses, this article, like every bit of information everywhere, will always remain under construction, open to constant updating and other maintenance. Perhaps it can be agreed that this article is currently at a standard never before reached and that it is only a matter of time before it, like Belgium, Cameroon, Israel, and Japan, becomes a featured article on the main page. M5891 (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Homicide rate comparison

I've reverted on this matter three times in the last four hours--not as part of an out-of-hand edit war, but as part of a substantive debate. Regardless, I can't revert again, so I bring the debate here. I simply see no justification for a comparison on this issue to Mexico--a neighbor to be sure, but a relatively poor neighbor, and not a country that is customarily used as a benchmark for the U.S. either in our present article nor in external policy discussions. The comparison seems obviously forced, perhaps in a misguided effort to conjure up an unfounded "balance." The fact is, the U.S. has a much higher homicide rate than the countries it is customarily compared to--Canada being one with not only geographical propinquity and recently available statistics, but broadly comparable culture and economics as well.—DocKino (talk) 10:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Anastrophe claims in edit summary "comparison w/canada is because US *shares a border with it*. therefore, statistics for mexico are valid, since the US *shares a border with it*." This is incorrect: The comparison with Canada is valid because the U.S. shares a border with it and the two nations are roughly comparable in terms of personal wealth. Mexico is, so to speak, nowhere close. Throughout the article, the U.S. is compared to other relatively wealthy nations, and that's how it should be here.—DCGeist (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"how it should be" isn't a policy-based rationale for excluding information. canada's culture and economy is not significantly comparable to that of the US - neither is mexico's. the comparison is interesting - that one of the two countries we border has a lower homicide rate, while the other country has a higher homicide rate. excluding that datapoint is what seems forced to me. other than the fact that canada borders the US, what basis is there for comparing the homicide rate, in particular? none. Anastrophe (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

How is Canada not comparable to the US? It's a nation of immigrants that is a former British colony that speaks English and retains other ex-Brit customs (i.e. legal system), has a robust democratic government with broad protections for civil liberties, broadly-educated population, substantial middle class, etc... It's very different in external policies, but domestically it's extremely similar. Mexico has far more poverty and corruption, two extremely important contributing factors for crime rates. SDY (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, logical consistency is a strong basis from which to decide what among the effectively infinite amount of verifiable information that might possibly be included in the article will actually be included. The logic of your position—that the existence of a border is in itself a worthwhile reason for making a comparison—would lead to this article being full of statistical comparisons between the United States and Mexico. Obviously, your position is contradicted by the collective judgment of the many editors who have contributed to this article over the years, who have judged that other wealthy nations are the most appropriate and informative comparison points.—DCGeist (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Crime and (punishment?)

Would it not seem more practical to change this section title to "Crime and Law Enforcement" or something similar to that? M5891 (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably. The current title just asks for arguement.Prussian725 (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I will then change it to "Crime and Law Enforcement" pending any objections. M5891 (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Video Game Market & Anti-Americanism On The Board

The computer games industry now rivals the US film business in size, and is growing faster, This should be mentioned. Quote "Though the American Dream, or the perception that Americans enjoy high social mobility, plays a key role in attracting immigrants, some analysts find that the U.S. has less social mobility than Western Europe and Canada." And yet do you hear of Immigrants coming over there with the shirts on their backs that work hard and eventually become millionaires & billionaires nope & yet you people let this B.S. slide & when pointing out the homicides involving criminals with firearms we should also mention the hundreds of thousands of people that defend themselfs or ward of crimes with there firearms each and every year so as to not seem like the communists/anit-americans are writing everything on here ChesterTheWorm (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC) ChesterTheWorm

The Current President

As a reminder, regardless who wins tonight, the POTUS will continue to be George W. Bush until the winner is inaugurated in January. 99.129.79.33 (talk) 04:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you add President-elect underneath President in the template, until January. Otherwise people will keep changing it back (like what happened last November on Australia, although it was only a few days between the election and the swearing in of the new PM - putting in "Prime Minister-delegate" underneath "Prime Minister" helped). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.88.162 (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I'm leaning towards not adding anything like president elect to the info box. Maybe mention in the article somewhere, but I don't think we should put it in the main info box since there is no official office for someone elected president until he is sworn in. Kman543210 (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It's very relevant to the article that Barack Obama has been elected the next President of the United States, he has already been added to the list of Presidents and thus should by all means be put in the info box as President Elect.--Nebula Wolf (talk) 06:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, he shouldn't. He isn't president yet. --Golbez (talk) 06:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

'President Elect' is not a position within the United States Federal Government. 65.195.245.6 (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This page needs to be edited to comply with what the list of Presidents already say, with what Barack Obama and Joe Bidens pages already say, which these all say. And that is that Obama is President elect and should be put into the info box as such. This page being different than all the others only adds confusion, and Obama not being edited as President Elect will only prolong edit wars. --Nebula Wolf (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Why stop there? Why not mention the VP elect? Perhaps who will be next speaker (Still Pelosi, but we should have a separate line for it)? Maybe guesses on the next pro-tem? He's not president yet: Live with it in prose. --Golbez (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are completely irrational. There has been no election replacing Pelosi, indeed she has been RE-ELECTED speaker of the house. There is a 99.999999999 chance that Barack Obama will become the official President of the USA in Jan, until then I actually do think we should also add Joe Biden as well. Barack Obama below Bush as President Elect and Joe Biden below Cheney as VP elect. You are the one whom needs to live with the fact that he is our next President, and wikipedia catering to such small chances of things happening is insane. It's the exact reason we don't have Green or Libertarian pictures next to Obama and McCain.--Nebula Wolf (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, she's been re-elected to the congress. She can't be re-elected speaker until the new congress takes office in January. What shocks me is that you think I'm not "living with the fact"; I wanted the man to win. Also, I want to see an official citation on your irrational 99.999999999 figure. And, finally: He's not president-elect until December 15. --Golbez (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Now, what I'm curious about is why do people want to keep putting it in? mike4ty4 (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"There is a 99.99999999 chance that Barak Obama will become the official President of the USA in Jan". Don't the words "chance" and "will be" tell you something? Anyway, why the rush? Titch Tucker (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I propose that this article be fully protected until all the heat has died down about the recent election so that nonconstructive edits can be performed. This way admins can only make edits and we wont have silly un-encyclopedic edits. Agree? Ijanderson (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to protecting it for a short period of time. Kman543210 (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What about WP:NO-PREEMPT ? The article doesn't look like it's under a sustained attack by vandals. Semi-protection seems more appropriate. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Capital City

It doesn't actually say what the capital city is. I just says that New York is the biggest city. Kingalex1st (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing that the info box shows that the capital city is Washington, D.C.. New York as the largest city was just added today and is directly under it. Kman543210 (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Officer-Elect

In articles such as about Palau, they reference "president-elect, et al." Obama/Biden should be added to the table's officer section as -elect, to signify the government transition from one officer to another. I see attempts have been deleted more than once, for I don't see why other than unethical reasons. Sirkevinalot (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see discussion above. It's entirely unclear what you mean by "unethical reasons," and perhaps it's best for the sake of civility that you keep it unclear. The fact is that the infobox lists and has listed the heads of the three branches of the U.S. government. The president-elect (and vice-president-elect) do not head anything. They will, but the infobox is not there to project the future. The editors of Palau have reached a different judgment; I would never suggest that their decision is "unethical," merely that it looks unprofesssional.—DCGeist (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw the discussion above, but it refers to the POTUS, I am including all top-level changes that have recently happened. Obama/Biden are not officially President/Vice, but they are the incoming heads of state and forming a government that will soon be in place. [title]-elect's are important enough to note, to show a change in figureheads. We could argue the "chances" he wont make it, but that is moot. The facts, as they stand, are that both gentlemen are elected the new heads, and should be respectfully noted in this article about the U.S. "Unethically" is in reference to maybe some editors not happy with the election outcome and are trying to hold on to the last few days of the current "official" title holder. There is no amount of difficulty in placing [title]-elect under the outgoing heads. If a child or student is using this article as a reference, it would benefit their intentions by acknowledging a near-future change in President and Vice President. There is no painful reason to "minimize" this god-forsakenly long article by omitting the the elected head of state(s). Is the information false? Is the information misleading? Is the information not relevant to current actions? Is the information unimportant to the reader? Wikipedia supports individual articles on [title]-elect positions. These requests for inclusion of the positions is supported. I look forward to the addition! Sirkevinalot (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll talk about Fight Club and mention WP:AGF. I don't particularly care either way, but at this point my opinion is that this article is ludicrously lengthy and that adding more is just ridiculous. For contrast, though, look at Thailand. The heir-apparent is painfully obvious, but the infobox doesn't list him. The article for Oregon doesn't list Jeff Merkley as a senator-elect. I don't care either way if he's there, but it should be consistent with other articles. From the standpoint of "infobox consistency" I'd rather see it not there, since for most countries and most of the time it will be blank. SDY (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox map

How do we feel about the orthographic map that Héous replaced our old map with? I understand the appeal of the orthographic map--it's certainly more attractive. However, I think our classic map is simply more informative in terms of illustrating the country's size and position in relation to the rest of the world. Opinions?DocKino (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's of any interest, there's also a debate on the EU article which recently replaced their map with an orthographic map. (Nebulousity (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC))

The trend does appear to be towards the orthographic maps. And DocKino, I'm not sure the new map is necessarily less informative--it does give a clearer picture of the U.S.'s crucial isolation from Europe (almost wrote "old Europe").—DCGeist (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Point of Order - Puerto Rico, which is visible on the map, should be highlighted as being part of the US. Canadian Bobby (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

But it's not. No more than a map of the United Kingdom would include Jersey. --Golbez (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. The US has complete sovereignty, Puerto Ricans are US citizens, there is complete freedom of movement between the US and the island and those entering the island go through US Customs. I'd enjoy seeing you try the "Puerto Rico isn't part of the US" argument on the CBP agents. Sovereignty over overseas territories is retained by the mother country, regardless of distance or their unique nomenclature. Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, Puerto Rico should be highlighted. It *is* part of the United States. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is a possession of the United States. It is no more a part of the country than Jersey, Guernsey, Gibraltar, and the Falklands are part of the UK. They are possessions of it. You would receive great opposition if you attempted to say that the Isle of Man was part of the UK; I'm supplying the same here. --Golbez (talk) 07:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Inwind's desired change

Inwind, please make your case on this page for the significant change you wish to make to the Native Americans and European settlers which so far results in (a) making the description of Columbus's accomplishment much vaguer and arguably inaccurate and (b) the elimination of what has long been regarded here as crucial information about the demographic fate of the native population.—DCGeist (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no dispute about the significant changes Columbus brought to the American continent. This information should be presented in the context of the continent rather than various countries. Inwind (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Not only is that not a good reason to remove it from this article (bc it can be in more than one article), your change is grammatically undisirable because it is passive voice rather than active voice. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

The map concerning largest ancestry by county in the demographics section has at least one error. Lawrence County Pennsylvania in the Pittsburgh CSA has 27.5% Italian which is the largest ancestry in that county. The map marks German as having the largest, but Germans only make up about 22%.

JOSH GALE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.76.133.70 (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox data—another issue

Ursutraide has repeatedly and without comment or discussion tried to change our longstanding infobox coverage of the essential and specific dates of American independence and constitutional ratification to include the years when most, yet not all, major territorial acquisitions occurred, as in this diff:[1]. This strikes me as entirely unhelpful, given (a) how very long the infobox is already, (b) how ungainly the result looks, and (c) the various links we provide to these acquisitions both in the lede and in the main text. Thus I've reverted.—DCGeist (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur. More is not better. SDY (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletions from Info Box

The infobox is long. Really long. I suggest the following removals:

Gini and HDI: I'm an economist by schooling, but even I don't want to see these numbers up there. Most people won't know what they stand for. Most who do won't know how to put them into context.

Internet LTD: no point, no help.

Currency: shorten to two lines. done

Time zone: I don't feel strongly about this at all, but having such a wide range of times seems to make its inclusion here just not that informative.

Any ideas?LedRush (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we delete "Official Languages", since National Language is under it, and there is no legally recognized official language on the federal level (why define a nothing?). We could also delete/move everything under Gini, except for currency. Sirkevinalot (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I am reticent to do anything until some more people weigh in....anyone else feel strongly about this?LedRush (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I was going to weigh in in support of a couple of these proposed cuts, but a quick survey of other leading country articles suggests that all these data points are fully standard. I don't believe in itself that this fact should be determinative, but I think in this case the benefits of maintaining standardization outweigh the benefits of a cut.—DCGeist (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I generally prefer consistency in most changes. I just thought that this was a place to make the too-long info box shorter. Oh well...LedRush (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

KILL COLUMBUS (really?)

The article currently says the following:

In 1492, Genoese explorer Christopher Columbus, under contract to the Spanish crown, reached several Caribbean islands, making first contact with the indigenous people. Millions of indigenous Americans subsequently died from epidemics of Eurasian diseases.

Are we saying that Columbus was the proximate cause of millions of deaths? I understand the argument that he was the first european over, europeans followed him, and after a century or two millions died. But I feel the above language implies that Columbus himself carried over a virus that wiped out all the american indians. Couldn't we move that second sentence to some place where Columbus isn't indicted as the sole cause of death of millions of people? Intervening events were largely responsible, after all.LedRush (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Though the section means well, it could be taken out of context. Do we even need that last sentence about the deaths? How important is that statement? It should appear on a different article about the indigenous peoples, in detail. The Vikings beat Columbus to North America, maybe they started the introduction of European diseases. Sirkevinalot (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There's not a shred of evidence that the Vikings' brief, small confirmed presence on the tip of Newfoundland about a millennium ago started the introduction of anything, so we can leave that whimsy aside. The sentence about the deaths is important to explain one of the primary changes (arguably the primary change) in the demographic makeup of the territory under consideration. The question here should focus on whether readers are likely to infer from the passage, as suggested, that Columbus was the proximate and/or sole cause of millions of deaths. I've never thought so; we now have two who do. Anyone else see a problem here? Do those who do see a problem have an idea about where the sentence could be moved, or how it could be recast in order to resolve the issue?—DCGeist (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

DCGeist, I know the vikings came for a brief moment, my family are Newfoundlanders (native, pre-confederation w/Canada). I mentioned that because it makes an argument to support the change; showing that Columbus shouldn't appear to be the "first disease bringer." The deaths are important to talk about, but this article is about the United States. Adding more detail, or stretching the words out to clarify things should be on a different article about the indigenous peoples. Our history is vast and plenty, and should be spread out evenly per topics. The main USA article should provide simplified briefs and generalizations. I don't want to scroll 3 miles to the next headline. Sirkevinalot (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It is obviously important to talk about the millions of deaths caused by European settlers. I think this is best addressed in two steps.

1 Move the Columbus sentence from the first paragraph to the beginning of the second.

2 Recast the sentence about the deaths to say something like: Before Europeans first started to settle the Americas in 1492, there were approximately 50 million indiginous Americans. By 1650 there were only about 8 million left as a result of European diseases, wars, and forced labor.

It's not perfect, but the following is the template for what I have in mind.LedRush (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

In broad terms, that strikes me as an excellent solution. More specifically, though, I'm hesitant about including hard figures in what must necessarily be a summary sentence or two—from what I understand, there remains nothing like a scholarly consensus about how many million indigenous Americans there were pre-Columbus. I think referring to the deaths of "millions" or "many millions" is the best we can do in this context.—DCGeist (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

How about this:

The indigenous peoples of the U.S. mainland, including Alaska Natives, migrated from Asia. They began arriving at least 12,000 and as many as 40,000 years ago. Some, such as the pre-Columbian Mississippian culture, developed advanced agriculture, grand architecture, and state-level societies. However, after the Europeans began settling the Americas, many millions of indigenous Americans died from epidemics, massacres, and forced labor.

In 1492, Genoese explorer Christopher Columbus, under contract to the Spanish crown, reached several Caribbean islands, making first contact with the indigenous people. On April 2, 1513, Spanish conquistador Juan Ponce de León landed on what he called "La Florida"—the first documented European arrival on what would become the U.S. mainland.

?LedRush (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No--let's stick to the United States. Columbus never reached it or thought about it. As for the deaths, it's not a very serious discussion of disease. The Mississippean culture died out before the Europeans arrived and to link its collapse to them is false. Rjensen (talk) 21:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

We're not talking about the Mississippean culture. There is a scholarly consensus that millions of Native Americans in what would become the U.S. mainland were wiped out by Eurasian diseases, smallpox in particular, between the early sixteenth century and the formation of the United States.—DCGeist (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Rjensen: just to be clear, most of my suggestion is just switching two sentences already in the article, with a slight rework of one so that it is more specific.LedRush (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added a useful link to the new sentence (Population history of American indigenous peoples), and cut the mentions of "massacres" and "forced labor"--though they both had major impact in much of the Iberian-controlled Americas, neither had a significant demographic effect on native populations in what became the U.S. mainland. We might consider adding a mention of Indian massacres later in the subsection.—DCGeist (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

News media's now discussing the US has lost superpower status, US now considered a great power

Since I have heard CNN over & over the last months on the US superpower status, more and more articles are becoming public the US has last its superpower status. It's 2008 and since this awful year of the poor economy continues, world governments are starting to realize the US is not the superpower any longer. For example, Israel's government has come forward in recent weeks about their frustration over the United States, the US is not playing its part on the world wide scale as it has, lot has changed and the US is not meeting their criteria to perform like a superpower, it isn’t and Israel has admitted it. More than ever Israel has been left aside on many important issues which reflect their standing in the Middle East and the US as its partner on terror by also promoting democracy, military funding and financial issues, has completely halted severely as the US is all dried up. If the US is so great, think again, our superpower status is gone, thanks to our government, it will take the US years to get their standing back on the world front arena as the US sits as a great power to the world currently: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3611657,00.html and http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/78536

More sources will be posted shortly http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3611657,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.2.49 (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

First source makes claim that "US is no longer undisputed superpower". It never says the US isn't a superpower.

The second one says discusses only "monetary superpower status" and though it says that some French and Russians believe that status is lost, it also says "the American Diplomatic circles did not respond aggressively to the EU officials who doubted the US ability to lead or to continue as a monetary superpower, against their nature especially during Bush´s era." In order to "continue as a superpower" you must currently be one.

This disucssion has been played out, and the IPs need to stop the disruptive posting of citations claiming they say one thing when they really indicate the opposite. Even if citations were found for this proposition, counter examples are so widespread that the language still shouldn't be altered without clear consensus.LedRush (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Led. This discussion is getting tedious. I agree that the US may no longer be a "superpower" outside of its military, but IMHO, the lede as it stands is sufficient. It says a) the US emerged as the sole superpower after the end of the Cold War. This is beyond dispute. It does not explicitly say that America retains that status, so this discussion is moot. It goes on to say b) America remains a leading cultural, economic and political force. Also beyond serious dispute, even if America is "diminished." This wording, deliberately vague, should satisfy both those who believe America remains a superpower and those who don't. If the lede instead said that, today, in 2008, America remains the sole superpower, then there'd be something to discuss. But it doesn't explicitly say that. So, let's end this discussion. Canada Jack (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree, the sources are well said, the US has lost superpower relations. The United States certaintly isn't in that control anymore. Liberals and conservatives habitually say of the United States as a superpower (not always) except the ones who are't controlled from Bidlerberg or the media will say other wise, the US isn't a superpower. Neocons like Norman Podhoretz advise that our "only option" with Iran is "to go to war" (The Week, June 8, 2007 p.6) – as though we can. A New York Times commentary on Iraq blithely states that, no matter the outcome, "the United States would still be the sole world power" (Jan. 14, p.WK1) – as though we are. Bush planners aim at establishing a "permanent" U.S. military presence in Iraq (The Christian Science Monitor, June 12, p.1) – as though we could. And presidential candidates of both parties speak as though we can accomplish anything if we're well-led. Well, as Roky Erickson once said, "You can believe that story if you want to."

Consider, first, global economics, then China, then the state of our military. What is it and who's money is it?

The Economist (Feb. 14, 2007 p.18): "Typically in the past, when America's economy has weakened, the rest of the world soon flagged. But this time ... the rest of the world has speeded up even as the American engine has lost steam. ... [Gross national product] per person is now growing faster in the euro area than it is in America. Domestic demand is also booming in emerging economies in Asia, the Middle East, and Russia [and] most of China's growth comes not from exports but from domestic demand." Since World War II, and until recently, American consumption has been the world's primary economic force – which is why the world had no choice but to tolerate our misadventures. Now many nations are booming on their own, in cooperation with one another. The U.S. is still important, but it's not necessary.

The Economist (April 14, p.12), under the headline "Come in number one, your time is up": "America used to be the world's biggest exporter. First it was pushed aside by Germany, and now it has been outclassed by China. ... In global finance, too, America and the dollar are being shoved off their pedestal. The dollar is still preferred as a reserve currency, but it is no longer the favourite form of cash for households and firms. There are now more euro[s] ... in circulation than there are dollars [my italics]. In the international bond market, the euro has displaced the dollar as the main currency. ... Wall Street's stockmarket capitalisation has now been eclipsed by Europe [combined with Russia]." Still important, but not necessary. Still important, but now the world has many other choices. In light of these facts, to think of the U.S. as "the sole world power" is ludicrous – as it is ludicrous to imagine that in this brave new world we will be granted the authority, and accorded the deference, to which we've been accustomed for 60 years. The leading nations haven't yet decided what to do with their new power. They're not used to it. But they'll get used to it, and they will use it – how, at this point, is anyone's guess. But the more delusional we remain about our status, the harder the shock will be when they figure out how.

It's been widely reported that we are, by far, the world's biggest debtor nation. The Week (June 8, p.20): "Including unfunded promises made for Medicare, Social Security, and federal retirement programs, U.S. taxpayers have a total debt of $59 trillion. That's $516,000 for every U.S. household." Obviously, we're not paying that debt anytime soon, especially when "the nation's average personal savings rate fell to negative 1% in 2006, meaning that Americans spent more than they earned" (The Week, Feb. 16, p.16). Also widely reported: America needs foreign investment and loans to function. Foreigners "hold a record 52%" of U.S. government debt, "up from 25% in 1995" (The Week, Dec. 15, 2006, p.44). How can you call America a superpower when we can't meet our expenses without the goodwill of our rivals?

Which brings us to China, our primary banker. The New York Times (April 14, p.C3): "Last year, when Treasury debt increased by $184 billion, almost half of that amount ... was provided by lenders in China. ... China [is] the largest source of funding for the United States government's deficits." The article reports that our Federal Reserve bought 20% of "our newly issued bonds" and that "only 4% of the [total] money came from American investors and institutions" (my italics). Which totals only 24% coming from American sources. Without the present level of foreign investment, especially Chinese investment, America would be in very bad straits. Uh oh ... the Chinese show signs of changing their ways. "Their fastest growth these days lies in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, South America, and elsewhere in Asia – in other words, practically anywhere other than the United States" (The New York Times, April 18, p.C1). One result is that China has created a new "agency to invest its immense reserves in foreign currency. ... Some analysts say the formation of the new agency means China is moving away from heavy reliance on investing in United States dollars through Treasury securities [The New York Times, March 10, p.C3]." We're still important, but not nearly as necessary. With even a small change in its investment policy, China has the power to dampen America's economy.

Now consider the state of America's military. Colin Powell, quoted in Time (April 16, p.30): "The active Army is about broken." The Washington Post (March 19, p.1): "Senior U.S. military and government officials acknowledge ... that it will take years for the Army and Marine Corps to recover from what some officials privately have called a 'death spiral,' in which the ever more rapid pace of war-zone rotations has consumed 40% of their total gear, wearied troops, and left no time to train. ... The U.S. military now lacks a large strategic reserve of ground troops ready to respond quickly and decisively to potential foreign crises. ... The vast majority [of Army units in the United States] are rated 'not ready.'" The Post article reports the reactions of several congressmen to a classified military briefing. Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz, D-Texas: "I have seen the classified-only reports. And based on those reports, I believe that we as a nation are at risk of major failure, should our Army be called to deploy to an emerging threat." Rep. Walter B. Jones, R-N.C.: "This nation has got to replenish and fix what is soon going to be broken." Finally, the Post goes on: "Under current ... plans, it will take two to three years after the Iraq war ends [my italics] ... to restore ... equipment levels. It will take five years and at least $75 billion for the Army to increase its active-duty ranks [as planned] up to 547,000 soldiers."

That's for the future. Right now the military is hurting at home as well as on the battlefield. "The backlog of [veterans'] disability claims stands at more than 405,000, with cases averaging 177 days to be processed. ... Experts estimate that an additional 400,000 claims will be filed in the next two years" (The New York Times, June 6, p.WK13). "Care facilities for American troops and their families are buckling under the strain of war and funding limitations" (USA Today, June 5, p.1). Barry McCaffrey, retired four-star Army general: "There is no argument of whether the U.S. Army is rapidly unraveling" (The Christian Science Monitor, April 4, p.11).

The Washington Post (May 8, p.D1): "Joseph E. Stiglitz [Nobel winner in economics] ... co-authored a study that predicts the Iraq conflict alone will eventually cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion, counting military rebuilding and health care for wounded veterans." Incredibly, we haven't paid for any of this yet. The Post article noted, "The war bill is going directly on the nation's credit card." Foreign investors, especially China, have been paying for this war.

Now why would they do that? The answer: It's in their strategic interest to finance a war that drains America's financial, military, and leadership clout. They're paying for us to screw ourselves. It saves them the trouble. However, given the irresponsibility of America's military adventures and the equal irresponsibility of the American electorate in elevating someone like George W. Bush to power, why would China and the other investing nations finance the rebuilding of America's military might? How could that possibly be in their interest – especially now that the euro has overtaken the dollar as a viable medium for world exchange? Hence China and others are making obvious moves to invest differently. We're about to be left behind.

We're still important as a country yet we are facing serious problems, a big economy but not as big as you think, a player but not the player we were (we are declining everywhere), we're playing different than 2007 (read the labels anytime you buy something and that will tell you who is the real player). We're still dangerous but not as dangerous as Russia is, with all our bombs and missiles, they out do us on more nuclear arsenals than anyone, period. But we won't be fighting another ground war anytime soon and everybody in Congress knows it and so does Wallstreet. Financially and militarily, we're no superpower anymore, only in certain catagories but very limited (that means yo have to have a superior economic power (fail this), pre-eminent military ability (where the US is too thin), characterized by relative invulnerability (our banking system is haulting thi), the ability to deter or cause great damage and project military might globally (this is not working world wide currently), characterized by access to raw materials (China & India are ahead of us on this one), volume and productivity of the domestic market (China rules this one), a leading position in world trade as well as global financial markets (right now the European Union is ahead of us), innovation and the ability to accumulate capital (which way are behind on international capital)). Whether we recede from center stage gracefully or destructively, we'll recede. We already have. It doesn't look that way on TV, but we already have and lost that status.--Stockhouse (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well that was an incredible lot of words to say what has been said over and over within the past week. All of the issues you bring up have already been addressed. You're just raising the dead to be killed again.Prussian725 (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

-Prussian, if you read from international relations experts such Steven Rosefielde[2] he has stated that the US has lost superpower strength by the emerging Russia as the under dog. So if the US remains a superpower, it doesn't mean it is the sole one any longer. When you have experts who are international relation experts who have the proper knowledge of this subject, they can be called by Congress for US discussions as if it were Alan Greespan discussing the financial crisis, same thing. There are only so many international relation experts but Steve Rosefielde is a Harvard University professor who has spoken at the white house earlier this year on specifically China and Russia. In 2004, Steven Rosefielde made it clear that Russia would regain its superpower status by 2010 but then concluded much sooner in his last conference hearing September 2008 at the John F. K government center hearing at Harvard University. I think if someone writes as above there are some true facts I concur with that do make sense in these times. US can’t remain a sole superpower, not in this day in age but maybe a superpower it will remain or limited as a regional superpower instead of a global superpower. I would be happy to send a transcript of Dr. Steven Rosefilde speech last September on his discussion on the US superpower status next to China & Russia, it is quite interesting to hear his point of view. --Speed101 (talk) 06:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'd love to see it. What i am saying is that the US is a superpower. I wouldn't be surprised if Russia and China stepped into the ring, but people are trying to say that the US isn't a superpower, and for petty reasons. That is just not true.Prussian725 (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The USA is a superpower by all definitions. it has the largest military, the largest GDP etc. Whether or not Russia and China are Superpowers is debatable, but not here. --67.8.93.255 (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Usa aren't anymore a superpower looking at many many datas.Now others political being like EU are the main leaders.Many words to say Usa are a superpower would make smile EU and all the world.Reading private and public debts in Usa is more than many words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.12.192.83 (talk) 08:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Lets keep the politics out of it for a moment. Facts a) The United States is an undisputed military superpower. b) The United Sates is the world's largest economy (and to pre-emt any smart alec's out there who want to point out that the EU is bigger all I can say is that NAFTA is even bigger than the EU). c) Culturally the US dominates the world to the extent that the culture of the world is the most homogenous it has ever been. Facts are that the US is a superpower, maybe not THE superpower as it was up till now, but it will be a long time before any nation manages to overtake it. 202.67.84.37 (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The USA was an undisputed miltary power.Iraq & Afghanistan show that USA tactics aren't what they once were.Yes,the US does have the largest military but big doesnt always mean strong.The USA owes Millions to the Chinese and other countries,it has the worlds biggest economy but also the worlds largest debt.It is the most HATED country in the world and also the most arrogant.IMO it is still a superpower but the last 10 years or so has seen it run away with itself.IMO unless the US can learn from its mistakes in the last 10 yrs it wont be long before they are overtaken as a superpower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig McC (talk • contribs) 12:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC) How many men under arms does CHina have?[[Slatersteven (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)]]

Yeah, and the world owes millions of dollars to the US. And I've said it before and I'll say it again, just because everyone hates us does not have any bearing at all on our status as a superpower. You're arguments seem to focus on what other people think of the US and our national debt. We may have debt but our economy is still doing great. It's somewhat strange to me that everyone hates us until they need us.Prussian725 (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This entire debate is ridiculous. Superpower is a subjective term, and if it is causing problems in the article it should be removed. If there are subtantial critics on either side, then their opinions should reflect that. If most experts of one opinion with little criticism, then that should be reflected. This has just turned into some political battleground to let people vent. Paxuniv (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I remember someone trying to shut down this section altogether. What happened?Prussian725 (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

In many today very important books and writings in many languages Usa aren't considered anymore a superpower because of poltical and financial situation very very weak.It's a joke talking of Usa as superpower.EU isn't as many believe an economical power but a true political since 1992,the biggest in the world(and also economical power)Common people in EU and not only consider Usa poor and in decadence.(check datas)Thanks.

Ok, am I the only one who thinks that this IP is acting like a troll since he/she is still spewing out the same thing over and over again long after his/her limited amount of points have been discussed and refuted?Prussian725 (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Here there's a dicussion on datas and not on impressions or ideas.Check EU official site and Encyclopedias or books or independent newspaper very new and trustble.You can choose.It's hard for pride and nationalist people to be in decadence behind others.Datas say only what i told.Please don't offend,you're just an Usa citizen! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossi Elisabetta (talk • contribs) 17:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is tendentious editing. One or two IPs who refuse to sign their comments just say the same thing over and over again.LedRush (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What i write now is the reality for the main part of the world. Only you are still defending a position already lost making smile the whole planet! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossi Elisabetta (talk • contribs) 17:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You're opinion is not backed by the sources. Please make a constructive suggestion for editing the article that has not already been defeated by consensus.LedRush (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You tell all the days we are the best to exorcise the reality.EU is the first political and economical power now(since1992).The richness and the quality of life are very lower in Usa than in EU( i could see it reading but also visiting states like NY,WA,NV,CA,HI,AK,FL).EU population is about 600 mln.EU has a bigger economy than Usa and also all the kinds of weapons.The only France has submarines able to destroy Usa from french sea by rockets M45 and M51.UK is able to do the same.Italy has a launcher able to run for 28000km and transporting 2 tons of nukes.EU overtakes easily Usa also in conventional weapons like tanks,aircrafts and so on.Esa with Ariane 5 and other rockets is able to send to space all kinds of satellites and parts to ISS.Now all EU armies are cotrolled by PESD leaded by X. Solana the high Rapresentant of EU for foreign affairs and defence.You talk always about China because you ignore or prefer to ignore EU because you can understand that is the only one political power that easily overtakes Usa already now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.97.225.77 (talk) 09:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, can somebody PLEASE archive this section before I go ballistic on this guy. It is for the sake of others I do not even start on our militaries, or the fact that this character just insulted my being a citizen of the United States of America. I've said some nasty things before but I have NEVER insulted someone's nationality. I do not know how or even know if I can archive this so someone please do so for all of us.Prussian725 (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The people that have started this rediculous discussion that the USA has lost its superpower status are the anti- american media and the "hate the fact" that America is the biggest and most powerful nation in the world Europeans. The Europeans have for many years been jealous of the ascention of American leadership and economic power. The only way they know how to respond with their jealousy is to continue to critisize our country, our system of capitalism, and our foreign policy. Do they do anything to help protect those that are being slaughtered in Africa? No. Do they do anything to help free those around the world who live under dictators? No. All they do is critisize the US at every turn. They use the UN and other international governing agencies to try and control US actions and put their countries on equal footing with us. And if we don't allow them through the UN to control our actions either domestically or abroad they complain incesantly. The US is sovereign nation who should answer to no international governing body. Most Amercians could care less what the Europeans think or do. Everyone througout the world knows that when there is injustice anywhere in the world or suffering or oppression. They can only look to one country for help. We are the only country that will shed blood for their opportunity for freedom and democracy. No country will ever look to France, Germany, Spain, Italy etc. They have not the military might or the resolve to step up. As for the earlier gentleman who claims that living standards in the EU are better than the US. You are either extremely stupid or extremely ignorant. In either event you're wrong. The US has a GDP of approximately $14trillion which is equal to that of the EU. But what you fail to mention is that we have 300million people producing the same output as 500million people in the EU. Subract the GDP by the number of people in each zone and it's clear who has the highest economic output per person and who has the wealthier nation or who has the greatest average income per person. Stop lying to yourself. The US also enjoys lower average unemployment than the EU and consistenlty has higher economic growth. I know you hate it, but thats the truth. In no way has the US lost it's standing. Europe and the UN and the Far left media can't stand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.4.26 (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Before than writing check all official datas in Wikipedia and also other modern books or newspaper.To answer to who set a right analysys you used a lot of words.All datas are better in EU than in Usa.For istance if you check my liar the gdp lists in Wikipedia EU is has a gdp of 16.9 and Usa a gdp of only 13.8.EU also in military policy doesn't need Usa but it's easier the opposit.Don't talk of Afghanistan where EU is helping Usa.EU has also many peacekeepings in Africa,Middle East and Far East.Don't talk of economy ,Usa global debt it's a shame and the greatest in the world.Every american citizen has a debt (public+private) 9 times a EU citizen.Your deficit/gdp is now 128% like the jamaican.With which fantasy do you talk of high qality life in Usa?If you live in EU may be you can understand the differences.Don't talk about $ situation that has lost always versus EU currencies since 2002 about the 2% every year.It's better you set away your great fanfare and your pride that today and next years will appear to the world more and more ridiculous. Then if you want to dream or helping Usa by the tongue.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossi Elisabetta (talk • contribs) 12:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we can try and stop the rhetoric (from both sides) and actualy discuse the question. There is no doubt that the US was a superpower, and that for a breif period was the only one. Now as to its lose of that status.

is there a definition of what is a superpower? Is the EU a country? Is the EU unique as an association of nations in it's structure. A few sources (which seem to be rather lacking from oth arguments) to back up the claim that the US is either a failing, or is no longer, a superpower. I wil not am these are authorative, my own view is that 'superpower' status has no definition and is therfore a largley self defined term as such you cannot determiie what the definition is you can't determine is something fits that definitioon. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/22/american_decline/

http://www.epluribusmedia.org/reviews/2007/05112007_failed_superpower.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1d6a4f3a-8aee-11dd-b634-0000779fd18c.html http://www.network54.com/Forum/257194/thread/1108479184/1108553975/How+long+super-power-+USA- http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/16/gates_innovation_interview/ http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=5397 Does this mean that we should now say that the US may lose its superpower status (or remioove the referance altogether untill we can find a definition of the term).[[Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)]]

Perhaps the definition also applies to the times. In the 1st and 2nd centuries, was Rome a superpower? Well, by today's standards no. So I think that the term is not subject to anything contemporary, but rather there is something different that defines a superpower. I mean aside from some of the bogus reasons offered by random IP addresses.Prussian725 (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It might just be a POV, but I believe that this argument doesn't matter at all, the age of Superpowers is passed, the age of Co-operation has begun... In a decade or two, we will live in a world without superpowers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.246.81.154 (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

We are judging if Usa aren't anymore a superpower.Usa aren't anymore a superpower.To say Usa are a superpower we should write before that EU is a true superpower organized politically sui generis (check Wikipedia).The idea of nation and superpower intended like in the 20th century is already ended and new political forms of superpower have developed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossi Elisabetta (talk • contribs) 12:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would say that that is somewhat debateable, I mean about an age of cooperation. It is probably best discussed on another page though. But as for this IP: you need to be quiet right now. Unless you have something constructive and intelligible to say, which so far you haven't, then just don't say anything at all because all you are doing is stoking the flames.Prussian725 (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Compromise: In my opinion America losing its status as a "superpower" can only be judged in hindsight. However a phrase like this could please everyone.

• Recent events like the Global financial crisis of 2008, rising Anti-Americanism worldwide, and unpopular foreign policy decisions notably the Iraq War has put US's status as a superpower under question. (Place sources)

Not claiming that we have or have not lost the status. But noting that we aren't as powerful or influential as we used to be. Oldag07 (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that would be entirely displeasing. The points raised in the proposal are relevant to the respect or admiration with which the United States is viewed internationally, but none of them bear on the U.S.'s exceptional power relative to the rest of the world, which is what the term superpower refers to. Note as well that we already arrived at a compromise: the article used to explicitly state that the U.S. remains the world's sole superpower; it now states that it was the world's sole superpower after the end of the Cold War--a position to which no rational argument has been raised--while making no explicit claim about its current status. Though I believe the U.S. clearly does remain a superpower for the time being and that no other country comes close to qualifying, I and the other editors who concur with that position agreed to the compromise currently represented in the article. No further compromise is necessary, accurate, or has any reasonable chance of achieving a consensus. It's time to let the matter rest.—DCGeist (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we add this to the "dead horse" section of the FAQ? SDY (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

First European sttlement in what is today the USA

The first European settlement continually populated in what is now the United States is St. Augustine in Florida. It was first organized on September 8, 1565, by Spanish explorer Pedro Menendez de Aviles. The date was significant because it was the feast day of St. Augustine.

The Spaniards also celebrate the first marriage, birth, baptism, mass, etc… in what is now the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frran (talk • contribs) 16:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well let's not be insulting. What is it exactly you are trying to say?Prussian725 (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

President

We need to edit the president in the article. John199312 (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, with Barak (did I spell that right?) going into the Whitehouse, should we wait or change it now? I almost edited it, but I decided to check with people first. 216.137.216.51 (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't change the infobox until he actually takes office (or at the very least, the day of). --Golbez (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can't spell "White House" or our next president's name, you should not be editing this or any other encyclopedic article. And if you've even considered changing the infobox before Obama takes office, go back to school. Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.109.211 (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Title question

I'm sure this has been brought up before, but shouldn't the title of this article be 'United States of America' instead of just 'United States' seeing as how that's technically the name of country...? --Adam931989 (talk) 15 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam931989 (talk • contribs)

You can read about that here. Louis Waweru  Talk  18:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Citizens Self-Defence With Guns Each Year

check this out "There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually." Thats a qoute from http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html so if its even remotly truthful i think we should put this in there ChesterTheWorm (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC) ChesterTheWorm

AWESOME!!! Although, i think if it went into this article, we would have to find some way to stick it in ther that doesn't look like we are making a political statement (if that's even possible!!!). Actually, I heard that UK doesn't have guns anymore. That must really suck for them, and I'm not joking either, that really must suck.Prussian725 (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. We are all quite happy thanks very much. Titch Tucker (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's better to focus your attention on the Gun politics set of pages if you want to contribute something on this subject. As for the UK there are many guns. The military have them, the armed police units have them, some farmers have them and some criminals. If Guns-R-Us opened tomorrow, vast swarms of people in the UK wouldn't exactly be rushing out to buy them. There are better things to spend their money on, like chocolate hobnobs for example. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

as you say actualy there are guns in the UK, farmers for example are alowed shotguns for pest control (non-human variety). Nor is there a hue and cry about not having them. Ironicly knife crime seem to be a biger issue at the moment, and there are calls for more legislation to curb knife crime, rather then an armed shotenrzy. By the way do the DGU figures include shooting people knockinig on your door to ask direction? [[Slatersteven (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)]]

Spare me the sarcasm. What can your government do to curb knife crime...outlaw knives? Do you honestly think that you can keep criminals from getting their hands on knives, or guns for that matter?Prussian725 (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please, folks. Wikipedia is not a forum or message board. If what you want to say doesn't directly pertain to maintaining and improving this specific encyclopedia article, please find another venue for your comments.—DCGeist (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see the sentence stating "This high rate of homicide may be related to the country's high rate of gun ownership, in turn associated with gun laws that are permissive compared to those of other developed countries.[165]" removed. This is a completely untrue statement. It is not the law abiding men and women who commit crimes with guns, its the criminals that don't own the guns, but steal or buy them illeagaly.(Hbgplayer (talk) 06:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC))

It may be phrased in a way that tempts NPOV, perhaps, but it's far from false. Criminals can steal guns because there are guns available to be stolen or sold illegally. That US gun laws are relatively permissive is a neutral, verifiable (and verified) fact. The "may be" is very suspect though, because it sounds like the article is speculating. Stating that the rate of homicide is higher without making or implying a causal link is probably preferable, the explanation is not "top level" information that has any place in the main article, in my opinion. SDY (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that point about criminals being able to steal guns on the grounds that anyone with internet access can purchase handguns, shotguns, rifles, machineguns, explosives...etc., on the Black Market comepletely regardless of what is sold legally.Prussian725 (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I take it then that the Virigna Tech was carried outm usi9ng an illegaly purchased fire arm? Or are you saying that the killings there were not illegal?[[Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)]]

List of legally owned guns used in crime.

Northern Illinois University Shootings Virigna Tech Shootings (though it must be admitted this may be debatable) Columbine Ronald Taylor Shootings

So it is not a lie to say that legally owned guns are used in crime. 27 September 2006: a 16-year old girl was shot and killed at the culmination of a hostage situation at Platte Canyon High School in Bailey, Colorado. The assailant, who had taken six hostages, committed suicide by shooting himself. The gunman reportedly had two handguns, at least one of which was owned legally by one of his brothers. 29 September 2006: a head teacher was shot dead by a 15-year-old student at Weston High School in Cazenovia, Wisconsin. The student reportedly used guns legally owned by his parents. Also on 2 October 2006: a 15-year-old boy who had been expelled from his high school returned there Monday morning with an automatic pistol and an AK-47 assault rifle he had taken from his parents. In all three cases legally owned guns appear to have been taken, not illegally purchased, from registered owners. Thankfully in one incident no one was hurt, but it does appear that it is not a lie to say that guns are taken from legal owners and used in crime.

This is not an exhaustive search, just a summery. [[Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)]]

And how many people were accidentally killed by a legally owned gun? −woodstone (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure this is relevant, whilst tragic it does not affect the question raised about the suggestion that no legally owned guns are used in crime. It may be relevant to the issue of deaths caused by US un laws though.[[Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)]]

Ok, you're right, some thugs do buy their guns leagaly, but most guns bought are not used for crime. Also, the blackmarket is illeagal. (Hbgplayer (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC))

Please, Wikipedia is not a forum or message board. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not question that trhe black market in guns is illegal, but the idea that it is a lie that only illegal guns are used in crime. As such the sentance "This high rate of homicide may be related to the country's high rate of gun ownership, in turn associated with gun laws that are permissive compared to those of other developed countries.[165]" (which is sourced) is not compleaty untrue, at least some peopel have been killed as a result of guns (legaly) i the posesion of individuals who in many other countires would not have been alowed guns.[[Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)]]

Your whole arguement is based on the belief that you can control what people do. Yes, you can imprison them, yes you can kill them, but you can never change people's hearts. If I really wanted to kill someone, I could do it with a knife, a roller, a car, a shovel, a weed-whacker, a pencil...I could kill someone with practically anything I can hold in my hand. Are guns easier? Yes. Will taking away guns stop murder? No.Prussian725 (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

So as far as the article is concerned, is the line a problem or not? Does the source cover the first comment (homicide and gun ownership association) or only the gun laws cite? If not, it may simply be an issue of and an issue of WP:WEIGHT for a comment where there is some disagreement. SDY (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

In the sources introduction it makes it plain that whilst it does not prove a link between high rates of homicide and gun ownership it says that this is consistent with the facts. As such the sentances inclusion of may is in keeping with what the source says, that there may be an (as yet unproven) casaulo link. [[Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)]]

Just a quick question: What line are we talking about? I haven't heard any mentioned to be in dispute.Prussian725 (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"This high rate of homicide may be related to the country's high rate of gun ownership, in turn associated with gun laws that are permissive compared to those of other developed countries.[165]"[[Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)]]

Hmmm...maybe this is because I am an American, but the line in question seems to be just a political statement that is pro-gun control and glorifying of other countries' gun policies. It really serves no purpose since it has no other statement presenting the other side of the coin.Prussian725 (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Then add a properly sourced statment stating the other side of the coin (which iof course would be that the level of gun ownership in the US had led to a lower murder rate). [[Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)]]

Ok, I know a back-handed statement when I see one. Your parenthetical statement obviously shows what you think and what you think I should say or put up. Oh, if you want me to provide sources, then you provide yours. what sources are you basing your claims on?Prussian725 (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

[3] Here's one to get you started. I think that if America's high gun ownership is going to be listed as a cause of crime, then civilians using them to fight criminals should also be in the article.Prussian725 (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wonder what your point here is, Prussian. The guy broke into a house to rob it. The only difference here in terms of him being caught is he has some lead in him when the cops came to arrest him. Instead of the homeowners simply calling the cops. Canada Jack (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a counter-proposal: how about we remove the whole "guns are related to crime" sentence? Is it really that critical to the top level article? It appears to have problems with NPOV since it is a fiercely debated topic here in the US and the article appears to take sides in the debate or at least does not provide sufficient context. SDY (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Good idea SDY. Oh, Canada Jack, if you had a wife, or kids, or both, would you take the chance that the burglar wouldn't hurt any of them, or yourself, in his attempt to take from you? Maybe you haven't heard but here in the USA we believe in the right for a homeowner to defend his home, himself, and his family against anyone who unlawfully intrudes into his home. The burglar is the one who created the shoot first/ask questions later situtation in the first place, and I am quite sure that most fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters would rather pop someone who breaks into their house than see themselves or their family members possibly hurt.Prussian725 (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, if the burglar cases the place and knows you have a gun, he may just shoot you preemptively to be safe. A situation is never made safer when more firearms are added, and I wholly oppose adding any "guns are used appropriately" comments to the article. I'm simply noting that the sentence in question may have NPOV issues and may not be appropriate for the article, not that I disagree with it in any way. SDY (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That logic makes no sense. When a guy with a knife attacks a woman with the intent to rape her, 99% of the time, the situation is made safer (for her) by her having a handgun. --Golbez (talk) 01:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree but won't elaborate since it's irrelevant here. There is a possible problem with the neutrality of that particular phrase. Does anyone object to removing the phrase in question? SDY (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Prussian: You have avoided the question or, worse, utterly missed the point. How did possession of a gun in the case you cited change the outcome? It's obvious it didn't. The house he was shot at wasn't the only one he robbed. Indeed, one would have assumed that the burglar wasn't dissuaded from attempting a robbery - which might have ended in a dead homeowner if the burglar had a weapon - despite the increased number of guns Americans presumably have. Your example, in other words, defeats your argument. If America had far more guns but far less crime, then you'd have an argument about how guns make America "safe." But that doesn't seem to be the case here. It would seem that a) owning a gun doesn't dissuade other people from committing crimes and b) likely make life more dangerous as criminals or potential criminals would presumably have an easier time getting them too. And far more incentive to use them. Which is what crime figures seem to bear out. And the proof in the pudding is your response - the resort to the line about the right to defend your home and your family. Something, incidentally, I made no comment on. I just noted that the presence of guns is not making America a safer place. As your example unwittingly underlines.

So do guns make America "safe." Clearly not. And there's so many out there now, you now you need them to defend yourself, as you emphatically underline. And I agree. In many parts of America, you'd be crazy not to have one to defend yourself.

The genie has been let out of the bottle. You open the door to increased gun ownership, then you open the door to more criminals with guns, and the need to defend yourself against this. This spirals up, it doesn't spiral down. So OF COURSE you defend your family, your home. Because now you have no choice. And this is good? This is better? Is there, uh, not an increased chance that you might lose your life or otherwise suffer at the hands of an armed criminal than an unarmed one, even if you had a gun? If I was living with my friends who live on North Rampart Street in New Orleans, damn right I'd have a gun. But if you are trying to pretend that guns are making life "safer," I fail to see the logic. Canada Jack (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. THIS IS NOT A FORUM ON WHICH TO DISCUSS THE PROS AND CONS OF GUN OWNERSHIP. --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

SDY. For what it's worth, I do not object.Prussian725 (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Given the importance of the issue within the US it is mnportant to have crime placed withing a social/cultural context. So I am opposed toi its removal. Given what the sentance says any counter argumjnet (and there should be one) should maike the opposite point (by the way there is a source).[[Slatersteven (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)]]

My concern at this point is that it is a contentious point, and the article appears to deviate from expected neutrality. "This high rate of homicide may be related to..." fails WP:NPOV in my opinion. Finding a way to reintroduce the link to Gun politics in the United States would be appropriate, since the issue is discussed with proper detail and context there. SDY (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Whicjh is why there should be a section on guns and the US. It is a major force in US politics. Part of American culture, it's in the consitition the document that lays out what America is. You cvannot understand the US without understanding its relasionship with guns. the line is not coverd WP:NPOV becasue it is clearly a virtual quote from an accademic source. Moreover as I have said the issue is notable[[Slatersteven (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)]]

I just looked at the articles on UK, Germany, and France. Nowhere in those articles is gun policy or even crime and punishment even discussed. So my question is, why America?Prussian725 (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Actualy the UK page does mention crime & punishment, it does not mention guns because they are not a major political pont in the UK (see my point above). The page on Mexico also mentions crime. So it is not true that the US is being singled out, just that those factors which make up a nations identity are being included, and in the US gun ownership is one of those. [[Slatersteven (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)]]

And why is it being presented as a bad thing?Prussian725 (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Becasue crime is (by most people) regarded as a bad thing. However the artivle does not say that crime is a bad thing it reports the statistics, and allows others to draw conclusions from it, which is what WP:NPOV requires.[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)]]

My particular spin is that crime is more or less by definition a bad thing (tm), and I'm primarily concerned that the article paints gun ownership as a bad thing (tm), which I happen to agree with but don't think is particularly neutral. SDY (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

But the line in question does not say gun ownership is a bad thing. It says that there may be a link, but it does not state that there is definitely a link, it leave that open to the reader to decide. It merely states that the claim has been made, but is not proven, as such the line is in keeping with WP:NPOV.[[Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)]]

It, to use an old expression, "leads a horse to water." It's like asking "should we go to the Italian restaurant for dinner?" as opposed to "where should we eat?" Including only one side of the speculation is a problem, and I'd rather not (as the original poster for this thread proposed) include evidence to the contrary as well, turn the section into a "minigunpolitics" and further bloat this ungodly article. I see those as the two options-and the one that doesn't add more text is the better one in my opinion. SDY (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

First of the original point was about self defence use of guns, some of which the source admits are illegal, as such it does not provide an opposite opinion to the line about guns and their link to murder, it could be said to reinforce it as at least some of the DGU's are themselves crimes, crimes that would not have occurred had the guns not been there, and some deaths (which if illegal acts would be murder). Also (as I have said) this is not a minor issue in the US it impacts on politics, culture, and self-identity. So yes we do need both sides of the argument put here, it is needed to better understand the importance and impact of gun culture and politics on the mind set of Americans. To leave out the debate give the impression there is not one, that is POV.[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)]]

I'd say that the article does not give much information on immigration policy controversies, arguably a far more controversial current issue. It barely mentions the question of federalism, a far more important issue historically. I don't object to the article saying that gun politics are a point of heated debate, I just don't think that the article should take a position on the issue, which it does currently by saying that guns are associated with crime. SDY (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SDY.Prussian725 (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

SDY has made some excellent points here. I'm convinced that the way we've been addressing the issue is not ideal. By the same token, Slatersteven persuasively makes the case that it does need to be addressed in some way. There's no perfect alternative spot for addressing this: I've picked a spot in the Parties, ideology, and politics subsection, where a logical connection can be made with the the discussion of the Constitution earlier in the overarching Government and elections section. Another possible spot would be the lead of the Culture section, but it seems a more difficult fit there.—DCGeist (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Whats up with this page ?

This is the most visited page on wikipedia and it is not yet a Featured Article ? This is more of a problem than you would think because a lot of times when conventions from this page are brought up in other articles discussions, they get shot down just because this page is not an FA. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Because featured status has to do with article quality, not rate of visitation. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is pretty decent quality-wise, though there are a few things that could be improved. The main problem is that it's just too big and rambles on endlessly about everything that users seem to think is important. It's a big country, and there's a lot to say, and there are a lot of people who have information about a specific piece of it that is "too important" to be on a sub-page rather than on the main article. I've made a few efforts to cut out things that are either too specific, redundant, or dubious for other reasons, but it's a very entrenched article and I've yet to succeed in removing anything while the article slowly builds. Some other folks have done some work on at least shutting out even more detail, but there will have to be some sections dragged off kicking and screaming into subpages regardless of how pretty or well written they are. SDY (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I fully concur with your cogent analysis, which is similar to one that I put forth about two years ago. This seems to be a chronic and systemic problem with the most prominent articles on Wikipedia. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Shadow Goverment

Does America has a shadow goverment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.232.202.100 (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If you mean in the British parliamentary sense, no. Because the Constitution enforces strict separation of powers, government leaders cannot hold both legislative and executive positions at the same time. Most Americans are inculcated with the importance of separation of powers in elementary school at a young age (as it is a fundamental principle of American government) and find the British system to be terribly confusing. Furthermore, the officers of the Cabinet serve at the pleasure of the President with the consent of the Senate, which means that even if a member of Congress were to take the highly unusual move of proposing his Cabinet while running for the Presidency, it is not likely that all of his proposed Cabinet officers would be accepted by the Senate because of the highly contentious Senate confirmation process. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Goverment

Can anyone change the goverment away from fascism, nazism and communism? It is offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A0shap (talk • contribs) 22:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism in question only lasted a couple of minutes but good eye all the same. MrZaius^talk 14:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone thougth of protecting this article?Prussian725 (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, it already is. Sorry.Prussian725 (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I Edited Something..

Ok i took out the words "some analysts find that the U.S. has less social mobility than Western Europe and Canada." but now there is like a huge giant link which i didnt put there and i dont remember it being there Oh yeah i edited that out cuz it seems too critical in a negative way of our country citing "Sources" as if they were a fact ChesterTheWorm (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC) ChesterTheWorm

Just because something is critical of the country doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the article; Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased, so that means there should be both criticism and praise for our country. 69.152.89.252 (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Government type

I've reverted the edits by User:Lockesdonkey that inserted the government type as federal presidential constitutional republic because the major reference sources that I checked all describe the U.S. simply as a federal republic, and the recent edits seem to be original research. Britannica[4], MSN Encarta[5], and Columbia[6] encyclopedias all simply have the government type as federal republic. The CIA Factbook[7] lists it as constitution-based federal republic. I also noticed that the same user is changing the government type on several different country info boxes. Kman543210 (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The link does direct to an appropriate page though. Maybe we can reword the "government and elections" intro to include that link? DCB4W (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Source and stats

Case? Let it be... Someone say some words, please: which data is more appropriate - the one dealing with all the census response types on the race question or the one freely, though often by the official agencies own weird manner, shuffling the races of people? The one by ACS or by CB? Слава!!!--RightIAm 21:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The United States Census Bureau is the country's ultimate demographic authority. The current source and statistics are thus by definition the most authoritative.DocKino (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Language

The official language of America is obviously English, seeing as how the majority of the states have it as their official language, and ALL the documents from when the country became official (Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, etc.) were all in English. Clab6 (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It may be the defacto offical language, but that does not mean its the official official language. Actualy the country did not become 'offical' until 1783, so the decleration of independance would not count.[[Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)]]

I concur. There is no official language at the federal level in that there is no constitutional provision or federal law, regulation, decree or order expressly stating that English is the official language of the United States. This article is about the federal entity; we have separate articles on U.S. state and individual states. De facto official is the correct description. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Territories

I saw this: "The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, the States, or America) is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district" Shouldn't the territories be included as well? (example:comprising of fifty states, x territories, and a federal district)

The territories aren't part of the country; they are possessions of it. It's a tricky distinction but definitely a distinction. (Except for Palmyra Atoll; that's part of the country, but too trivial to mention in the intro) A similar issue would be if you tried to say that Gibraltar, Man, and Jersey were part of the UK; they are not, they are possessions of it. --Golbez (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. But shouldn't the page at least have a list of the country's possessions or perhaps a link to one?

There is a link, right there in the intro: "The country also possesses several territories, or insular areas, scattered around the Caribbean and Pacific." --Golbez (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh. That wasn't there before. Never mind, I see it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.103.47 (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

editsemiprotected

{{editsemiprotected}}"Of Spain's settlements in the region, only St. Augustine, founded in 1565, remains." That's incorrect. Pensacola still remains, as does Mobile, Tampa, Miami River areas, etc.

Yes, that remark makes no sense. Almost every major city in florida was established by spain.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.103.47 (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. Passage edited to eliminate inaccuracy. Thanks, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

President?

It says he's going to be the first "African American President" he's only half afro america, technicly hes the first mulatto president. Isn't Obama the president now? 86.129.59.23 (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No. He is the President-elect. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No anyone with sub-saharan ancestry is an African and anyone who is a resident of the US is an American, so Mr. Obama is soon to be the first African-American President. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PonileExpress (talk • contribs) 21:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually technically he is the president because i don't think Bush has any power over the country's policy but Obama does —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killerado (talk • contribs) 06:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether you know the definition of "technically" or not.LedRush (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

He is not technicly the president, he has no constitutional power at this time, and will not have untill January. He is (hi9s offival title) president elect.[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)]]

Actually, technically, he's not president-elect until the electors vote for him on December 15. --Golbez (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, technically he's is president-elect because the peolpe voted for him already.Morefight (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Morefight

It is a bit a shade of grey. Obama has been elected by popular and state vote and is as such president-elect of the United States. However, tehcnically the electors are free to vote for whom they like (although this is not realistic), and as such there is no president elect until the electoral college has cast its vote. AS this all will last only another few days I would not bother any further about this. It will go away soon anyway ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a single American has yet to vote for Barack Obama; technically (and if you recall, that's what this thread is about, technicalities :)), they only voted for electors. --Golbez (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, most of the voters probably have no idea how the presidential electoral process works, and don't know what they were voting for, how, or why. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

IIs this coverd in the article, as it is rather interesting (and important as it seems that the people actualy have no say in who ruoles them.[[Slatersteven (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)]]

The president really doesn't have as much power as people think he does, so what you should say is technically, the American people don't have much of a say in who is their chosen spokesperson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.211.253 (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Crime and Law Enforcement

I opened a discussion last month on changing the title of the "Crime and punishment" section to something less questionable. Seeing as there have since been no objections, I will commence with the change. M5891 (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Objection! This article should be unlocked! 66.108.167.71 (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Never going to happen. --Golbez (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

Why is it that the Vespucci and Amerike are both considered claims, but only the Vespucci is acknowledged in the article? Surely if you have one claim you should have another? Especially if the Amerike claim predates the Vespucci?

Your thoughts please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuusha (talk • contribs) 12:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If one claim is present all claimns should be. It is not a fact that America is named after Vespucci it is a theory and as such the Amerike (as it is soourced by as reable a source as the one supporting Vespucci) theory should be re-instated.[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)]]

Vespucci is the mainstream theory (whether it is true or not), I don't think anyone will disagree. The provided reference USAtoday is a reputable newspaper and hence indeed a reliable source.

The Amerike theory is not at all mainstream (but an exceptional claim, needing exceptional evidence). The provided reference[8], redirects to a little community in the UK, the hometown of Amerike. This source is problematic, as there is no way to check the claim "and who many now believe to have been the inspiration for the name of the continent of America." on that page. Furthermore, this village would get much more tourism revenues, shedding doubt on a potential bias in upping the claim (you might call it conflict of interest). Finally, as this theory is not mainstream WP:TRUTH is not in favour of adding such data.

So for this theory to be listed on the main page, a much, much stronger reference needs to be found, and that type of reference must claim very strongly that the Amerike hypotheses is proven to be more than merely one possible alternative to the mainstream theory, that of Vespucci. Until both conditions have been fulfilled WP:UNDUE holds. Arnoutf (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I used the local community website to illustrate Amerike's arms. The BBC History website is, I believe, a far more reputable source than an American newspaper and it's author Peter Macdonald hsa wrote professionally on this subject.

I am not saying that one claim is more valid than the others, just that they both have as much validity and deserve to be in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuusha (talk • contribs) 18:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

BBC history is a good source, (it is used one sentence later than expected though). However upon reading the source only states "Amerike sought reward for his patronage by asking that any new-found lands should be named after him" - Not stating that anyone acted upon this request, and is thus not making the claim that the continent was named after him.

In spite of the reliable nature of BBC the issue remains what the intention of BBC was. To provide an overview of all theories (nobody argues the Amerike idea is a theory), to show new ideas that are interesting, or to support what they think is the truth. The article does not make this clear, so I think they do not have a firm position.

This brings us to the core. Wikipedia is NOT about the truth. It is about broadly accepted mainstream ideas. The Vespucci theory is that, the Amerike not. Therefore mentioning this theory in articles that are not primarily about the naming of the continent should be treated with the utmost care becausse of a host of Wikipedia policies, including WP:UNDUE, WP:TRUTH, WP:FRINGE. Hence in this specific article this theory should have no place. That does not say it should not be due, useful and relevant elsewhere in Wikipedia (the e-space is big). Just not here. Arnoutf (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right of course. Wikipedia is not about the truth, but it is about WP:Verifiability and reliable sources. Here are the sources on the Americas article for the claim. [9]

[10] [11]. Titch Tucker (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I see my edit was reverted. As`I said above, wiki is about WP:Verify and reliable sources. The claim is verifiable and I added new sources. Have a look at the sources, do you think it is a fringe theory? Unless you can tell me different, I dont know of any other theories with good reliable sources other than the two mentioned. Adding this theory will not result in a plethora of crank claims. I'm not exactly desperate to include this, so I wont revert again, but I do think you should think on it more carefully as it adds important information for the reader. PS, It was reverted with the words per talk. I see one person saying it shouldn't be included and three including myself saying it should be. Titch Tucker (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok the facts (not about the naming but about the theories)

• Reliable references Both Vespucci and Amerike theory (verifiability satisfied)
• Mainstream theory Only Vespucci theory (undue attention, and possiby fringe not satisfied for Amerike).

Before re-adding consider the second argument and argue why undue and fringe do not hold, and why the theory needs to be in this article on a country, where any theory on etymology is of minor importance (let alone two competing theories). (PS I have no strong feelings, so I take this discussion seriously, I think most reversions are made by editors who consider the Amerike theory that irrelevant it can be dealt with in edit summary rather than talk - and anyway Wikipedia is not a democracy, so counting arguments or editors means nothing) Arnoutf (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now, maybe I'm too new to this, but can you tell me where it say's only mainstream theory's can be added to an article. I can understand if it was a crank theory on the moon landing article, but the sources on this, as you say, are verifiably satisfied. So, if you can point me to a rule that only mainstream theory's can be included I will be grateful. Cheers. Titch Tucker (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not whether nonmainstream theories can be covered in Wikipedia. Of course they can. The issue is where is it appropriate to do so. A general overview article such as this one (especially one widely regarded as already being extremely, if not excessively, long) is not a suitable venue in which to cover minority theories about etymology, just as it is not the place to cover many other interesting, even important, topics related to the United States. The Amerike theory is given appropriate coverage in Americas#Naming.—DCGeist (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I can understand you wouldn't want any further information on an article that is deemed too long. It just so happens I think this is an extremely important piece of information, information which the vast majority of the US, never mind the world don't know of. I thought Wikipedias role was to impart knowledge. If you believe the coverage in the Americas article is appropriate, why is it not appropriate for this one, other than the page is too long? I'll say no more on it, as I said before, I'm not exactly grinding my teeth here with frustration. I wish you a good day and good editing. Cheers. Titch Tucker (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, looks like people don't care about gaining knowledge, my mistake. Titch Tucker (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your mistake—and it's a big one, my friend. Everyone who's committed to improving this encyclopedia is concerned with helping people acquire knowledge. And part of the commitment involves making judgments about how to most effectively accomplish that. Take the issue here that you seem obstinately dedicated to ignoring: if we included every topic that some person thinks is "extremely important", the article could easily be three times its current length.

Or did you think you were the only person on Wikipedia who had a bit of arguably-U.S.-related knowledge they particularly treasure that's not included in this very article? Well, I've had items that I originally thought were "extremely important" excised because others recognized they were not essential. I'm sure the same is true of most of those who you see collaborating on this article.

In this particular case, it is simply not "extremely important" to go into minority theories about the naming of the American continents as a whole when this is an article on—do you remember?—one particular country on that continent: the United States of America. That is and will remain the focus here. Anyone interested in gaining the (nonmainstream) knowledge that you consider "extremely important" can readily do so by going to the article on the Americas, which is, after all, the topic to which that information is most relevant. Almost all of those you will work with here do care, and part of that caring is maintaining articles' focus.—DCGeist (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(un indent) Although the tone is not very nice, to someone claiming to be new on wikipedia I do agree with DCGeist argument. The Amerike theory SHOULD be (and is) in Wikipedia. Just not here (for exactly the reasons DCGeist mentions). Titch Tucker and others do have a point, also underlined by DCGeist remark "one particular country on that continent" ; why is the etymology of the continent treated on the page of the country at all; and if it is treated why only one theory? The opening line of the etymology section

In 1507, Martin Waldseemüller produced a world map on which he named the lands of the Western Hemisphere "America" after the first name of Italian explorer and cartographer Amerigo Vespucci.[12] The former British colonies first used the country's modern name in the Declaration of Independence, which was the "unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America" adopted by the "Representatives of the united States of America" on July 4, 1776.[13]

Can in my opinion be rewritten as:

Since the 1507, Martin Waldseemüller world map, the lands of the Western Hemisphere have been knowns as "America".[12] The former British colonies first used the country's modern name in the Declaration of Independence, which was the "unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America" adopted by the "Representatives of the united States of America" on July 4, 1776.[13]

Which would circumvent the whole issue, shorten the article, while providing the wikilink to the relevant section where reader CAN find the Amerike theory. Arnoutf (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes this is better. [[Slatersteven (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)]]

No, that's worse. The well-established understanding that the Americas were named after Vespucci is common knowledge among decently educated Americans. Anecdotally, If I didn't learn this by the end of third grade, I certainly had by the end of fourth. Take, as an example, this fifth-grade history textbook: Our United States History. Do a Google Book Search inside it and you'll see, on page 59, a section called "America Gets a Name". It discusses Vespucci; it does not discuss Amerike. Here's another widely distributed textbook: The American Nation: A History of the United States to 1877. Again: discussion of Vespucci—yes; discussion of Amerike—no. In sum, the understanding that the continent was named after Vespucci is basic knowledge just as relevant to this article as is the fact that Columbus "discovered" the Americas--even though Chris never set foot on what would become the United States. The Amerike claim is not basic knowledge for an understanding of the history of the United States--that is what differentiates it from the Vespucci discussion and that is why it is not included in this article.—DCGeist (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

On the other point, I agree with you, Arnoutf. Saying of your fellow editors that it "looks like [they] don't care about gaining knowledge" is not very nice at all.—DCGeist (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

A fact being well-established or common knowledge in a given social group or nationality does not make it true. Even if we are discusing that agroup or nationality. One of the purposes (well self declared) of both Wikipedia and the wider internet is to dissiminate information, not to establish accepted facts and then ignore all others.

Vespachi is basic knowledge because it is mentioned in history books, not because it is true. because it has been around for a long time, not because there is any real evidance for its veracity. The Amerike theory is new, but it has as much factual and evidential basis as Vespachi. As such it will not have the same coverage. This is another reason it should also be included. To enable readers to decide for themsleves what it true, not to be presented with only a given version of the truth.

Moreover I question the caveat about being well educated, how is this being defined? [[Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)]]

Here's another option: remove the etymology section entirely? It isn't particularly important to the USA in particular. It'll avoid the question of giving WP:UNDUE weight to one theory or another and cut a pointless bit of trivia out of an article that is desperate for things to cut. Leave the naming of the Americas to the Americas article, it's the United States of America because it's states that are united and happen to be in the lands called America, not because "America" has some deeper meaning that demands explanation in this article. It would be United States of Columbia if someone had decided to name the continent differently. SDY (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur with SDY's proposal as well as with DCGeist's cogent analysis. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the "Etymology" section, there's some of it that's important information (i.e. other names used in English, historical naming, the plural issue). Some of the historical naming could probably be condensed a bit as well since the name hasn't really changed much (in the grand scheme of things, the US is still a pretty new country so that's not surprising). SDY (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with keeping the language as it currently is. I believe the brief mention of Vespucci is needed as it is taught at every level of schooling and is the "accepted" theory of naming. The minority theories can be hashed out on a sub article.LedRush (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that the Vespucci theory relates to "the Americas" not to "the United States of America". Nobody argues it is irrelevant for the Americas, but is it truly needed for this country article? Arnoutf (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Arnoutf, I understand the distinction you're making, but I'm not sure I agree. The naming of the Americas is necessary history for the naming of the United States of America. In answer to your question on whether it is truly needed: I don't think so, but I do think it helps, and it is only about 5 words.LedRush (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Some questions to frame the debate:

• Is the Amerike theory (or any non-Vespucci theory) considered WP:FRINGE? If they are, I'm OK with leaving it as is but would still rather cut it on principle. It's not important (understanding Vespucci means nothing about understanding the US, it's just a "DYK" factoid) and this article is too big.
• Is the Vespucci theory "commonly believed" or "strongly supported by evidence?" If it's just a commonly accepted "urban" legend, I don't see any burning need to mention it here. SDY (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As I've attempted to demonstrate, the Vespucci explanation is standard information in U.S textbooks of U.S. history, presented as factual and noncontroversial.—DCGeist (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

And supported by the 1508 map.LedRush (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm convinced that this article is badly entrenched and will never improve since every factoid and trivia point is "super important" and cannot be cut. I deny this, and ask the straight question: do we need the etymology here when it duplicates information in the Americas article? I don't care if it's "just a featherweight to add", this article is groaning under the weight of ten thousand feathers and I'd like to start plucking them so that the article is nothing but meat and bones. We'll cook the stuffing in a separate dish. SDY (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that we could trim the section way down if we could create a distinct U.S. Etymology article. But I'm just not sure there's enough material to do that.DocKino (talk) 07:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's covered well in the Americas article, and a "hatnote" to the section redirecting there is sufficient. SDY (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The 1508 map does not say who America is named after so it does not provide any evidance. The Vespachio theory is an attempt to explain the name, it is not supported by the existance of the name (he was after all not the only person who used that name). As such the map can be used as supporting evidance for the Amerike theory with just as much basis in fact. What do non US school books say on the subject? Again I will say that of course school books published before the wide disi9mination of the Amerike theory will not mention it. tjhat does not make it less true, just not as old.

Other thoery Leif Ericsson came to VINLAND from Greenland in the latter half of the 13th century and a theory from the 1930's said the continent was named AMTERIC with "Amt" meaning "district" and ERIC to come up with this cr "Land of the great (Leif) Eric."; other Norsemen who came to North America called this land "OMMERIKE" --or like "oh-MER-ric-eh)---which is an Old Norse word for "FARTHEST OUTLAND." Both are fringe and silly, but demonstrates that even in the 30's the Vespachiop was only a theory.[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)]]

The 1507 map includes this phrase: "ab Americo Inventore ...quasi Americi terram sive Americam (from Amerigo the discoverer ...as if it were the land of Americus, thus America)." See: Martin Waldseemüller.LedRush (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

..The latin rendition of Amerigo (which by the way is not the spelling on the map) is Americi but America is the the feminized version of his name. Vespucci himself never stated that America was named after him. Moreo0ver it has bveen sugested that Vespucci actuyakly used the name America was used by Vespucci becasue of maos made by Amerike bearing his name. This is of course speculation, but then as we do not know the circumstances of the maps production (or the creators intent) any thoery is just specualtion[[Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)]]

The link I provided above goes to the statement on the map which attributes the name to Amerigo.LedRush (talk) 04:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether Amerigo said that America was named after him. The 1507 map explicitly states that it is. Maybe the map is wrong, but that's what it says.LedRush (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually the map does not say that. On the South American mainland (not North America) appears the name America (that it how it is spelt on the map, not Americo, Americi, or Americam). Odd that the text differs, both from the reported claim and the suggested name. Next to this is a block of text that nowhere uses the phrase you have reported. Americi Vespvcii’s (the maps spelling, again different from your quoted text) name is on the map, but not as the name of a place. Now this does seem to imply that Vespachi is the discoverer of America, which caused some controversy at the time, but the smaller map next to him (implying his discoveries) actually says Terra Incognita. I cannot find the text you refer to anywhere else on the map. Please provide a link to the portion of the map that makes the claim. [[Slatersteven (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)]]

This debate is interesting, but if it is relevant to any Wikipedia article, it is Americas, which has a section devoted to the naming of the continents. For our purposes here, the fact remains that U.S textbooks of U.S. history standardly present the Vespucci explanation, presenting it as factual and noncontroversial. If and when that ever changes, and/or if and when they start addressing the Amerike theory in a comparable fashion, then there will be an issue here about how to treat one explanation versus the other. But there is zero evidence that this is the case at present, so a Wikipedians' debate over the Waldseemüller map doesn't really help us improve this article.—DCGeist (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I was aware (please provide a link proving the contrary) Wikipedia does not have a rule that considers US sources (school or otherwise) of greater value then any other. So it does not matter if every book ever published in the US repeats the same thing, sources (reliable) have been provided that shows that there is a debate, tghat the Vespachio theory is not universally accepted, they may not be US but as there is no rule on Wikipedia that says they have to be that is irrelevant.[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)]]

There is no reason to go into minority viewpoints on this subject on this article. Doing so would give undue weight to the topic. This is simply not the appropriate article for this discussion.LedRush (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Then how about this

'the widely held belife is that America is named after Americ Vespachio, but this is not univeralsily accepted'.

Then readers know there is a debate but that Vespachio is the most widely accepted theroy.[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)]]

I agree with LedRush that the etymology of the continent is not very relevant to the article on the country. After all we only see the etymology of "Africa" in the Central African Republic; and we don't see the etymology of Europe in the EU article. These etymologies are where they belong, with the continent, not with the country. I do not see why the etymology of the continent should be in the USA article at all; we could as well add the etymology of the words "United", "of" and "States". The only relevant issue in this specific article is the combination of the words. Arnoutf (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I must continue to disagree concerning the specific issue of including a brief description of the derivation of "America". Every American schoolchild is taught at some (early) point that America (not just the continents, but also the word commonly used to refer to the U.S.A.) is named after Amerigo Vespucci. That's a fundamental, evidently universal element of mainstream instruction in U.S. history, as I've done my best to demonstrate. The etymology of the words "United", "of" and "States" is obviously not part of that instruction—thus, we could hardly "as well add" their etymology to this article. In describing this absence from basic instruction, I have written "obviously." Of course, I mean, obviously as far as I am aware. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, please present it.—DCGeist (talk) 09:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point where international and US centered views on the topic are likely not the same. For most non-US readers (like me) addition of the Vespucci case anywhere but in the continent article would be irrelevant, I trust you that for US citizens this maybe different. Arnoutf (talk) 11:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

Some flaws here... Jacksonville, FLA, is bigger (population wise) than Chicago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.17.165 (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Just one flaw here...that's completely false...—DCGeist (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the USCB population projection of 439 million by 2050 is an important item to be added to the article. The figue is from the same source as ref. 122. "An Older and More Diverse Nation by Midcentury". U.S. Census Bureau (2008-08-14). Retrieved on 2008-09-06. 172.164.89.168 (talk) 07:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That specific projected figure is not particularly important, I believe. The trend is already sufficiently addressed in the article, which notes both that the country's "population growth rate is 0.89%, compared to the European Union's 0.16%" and that "The United States is the only industrialized nation in which large population increases are projected."DocKino (talk) 12:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Reagan and Iran-Contra

There were two lines written about Ronald Reagan: "The election of Ronald Reagan as president in 1980 heralded a significant rightward shift in American politics, reflected in major changes in taxation and spending priorities. His second term in office brought both the Iran-Contra scandal and significant diplomatic progress with the Soviet Union."

Iran Contra put right up there with shift in American thought, economy and Cold War? I don't think so. That is placing undue weight on an event which was not central to Reagan's presidency. What it is saying is that there were two big things which happened under Reagan: rightward shift and scandal, which is not an accurate representation at all.

If we were to use the logic represented in the edit summary here, then the 1983 struggle in Grenada is relevant to the summary, in which 19 people were killed and 116 were injured; the events in Lebanon are surely relevant as well, in which 240 servicemen were killed. And Bill Clinton's Whitewater is significant as well -- that was a major scandal of his presidency and I see no mention of it. In reality, none of those would be appropriate for short summaries because the weight placed on them would be undue. According to WP:WEIGHT:

"In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity... Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view."

The scandal was a significant one, but nowhere have I seen it fit into a two sentence summary of Reagan's presidency, which focus on the major events of the presidency -- the economy and the Cold War. In DCGeist's words: "puh-leeze". --Happyme22 (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Happyme22's personal view that the struggle in Grenada and the massacre in Beirut are comparable in historical weight to Iran-Contra is clearly belied by the record. See, for instance, the New York Times obituary of Reagan, which devotes two paragraphs to Iran-Contra on the first page of its online edition, which surveys the main points of his presidency, and does not address Lebanon and Grenada until page 10, within the detailed chronology of his life. In that detailed chronology, Grenada gets one paragraph, the Beirut massacre gets one paragraph, and the Iran-Contra scandal gets 14 paragraphs—more than an entire page. Similarly, while the USA Today obituary gives less weight to Iran-Contra, again there is no comparison: This obituary states, "The Iran-Contra scandal...dogged Reagan's second term". This obituary does not mention Lebanon or Grenada at all. Perhaps most indicative, the Washington Post obituary: four paragraphs on Iran-Contra, zero mention of Grenada and Beirut. Again, Happyme22's argument based on WP:WEIGHT is a personal one, not supported by the mainstream published evidence upon which we must rely.—DCGeist (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

A personal argument? Really? I'm trying very hard to contain my anger because you have absolutely no evidence that I am doing any of this for personal motives. And you won't find any because I'm not. I'm trying to set the record straight, trying to improve the paragraph; Iran-Contra was a part of Reagan's second term, but it was not the defining event of the second term as the sentence portrays it to be. Mainstream published evdidence? Equating Iran Contra with the economy and the Cold War is nonsense! Happyme22 (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact remains that Happyme22's central claim—that what the article currently "is saying is that there were two big things which happened under Reagan: rightward shift and scandal"—is obviously false. We need only break down the relevant passage to demonstrate that it identifies three uniquely defining characteristics of the Reagan presidency, and the relative weight it applies to each:

1. "a significant rightward shift in American politics, reflected in major changes in taxation and spending priorities"

2. "significant diplomatic progress with the Soviet Union"

3. "the Iran-Contra scandal"

Happyme22's anger is, of course, regrettable, but irrelevant to the debate. The characterization of Happyme22's argument as "personal" simply refers to the fact that the suggestion that Iran-Contra is roughly comparable to Grenada and Beirut is clearly contradicted by multiple outside sources of the sort upon which Wikipedia relies.—DCGeist (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, there's three. But the problem remains because you cannot adequately sum up the Reagan years with rightward shift, Cold War, and Iran Contra. You just can't, because Iran-Contra does not equate to the other two. WP:WEIGHT is the entire crux of what is going on. It's not my personal belief that Iran-Contra was not the defining event of the second term; let's check out that NYT obit: RONALD REAGAN DIES AT 93; FOSTERED COLD-WAR MIGHT AND CURBS ON GOVERNMENT. The title says it all -- the two defining events of the Reagan administration. Iran-Contra is mentioned in that source, and should be, because a summary of more that two sentences is written there. But it is given due weight, which is not done in the two sentences you wrote. Happyme22 (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree that a headline whose relevant section consists of eight words is exactly on point. If Iran-Contra was given the same weight in the article as the rightward shift or Soviet dealings, I would agree that was undue. But the article, I believe, clearly weights them 1, 2, 3 in the proper rank, judging both by length and the effect of the term "significant" (the Soviet reference is given further weight by the next sentence: "The subsequent Soviet collapse ended the Cold War.") The inclusion of the Iran-Contra scandal in that 3rd position is justified by the weight it is given in the sources I've cited. It might be undue to include the four words required after an eight-word headline phrase, but not in the midst of two detailed encyclopedic sentences.—DCGeist (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I know it's not like they put anything about clinto and his adultery & in the white house no less so go figure at who is allowing and diss-allowing facts ChesterTheWorm (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC) ChesterTheWorm

That's a good worm, don't let the facts get in the way. Here's what the article says: "A civil lawsuit and sexual scandal led to Clinton's impeachment in 1998, but he remained in office."—DCGeist (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm with DCGeist here. He has presented a careful analysis of reliable sources that support his position - it is not for the writers of Wikipedia to judge what events deserve what "weight". Unless other sources are presented, a possible recourse would be to elongate the verbiage dedicated to Reagan, but I would think that further examination of new sources would show this to be placing undue weight on his presidency in the course of United States history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.85.232 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Map

The map could use some work. Why exclude Puerto Rico? Also, is Hawaii really that tiny?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Because Puerto Rico isn't part of the country. --Golbez (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It is.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If Puerto Rico is part of the USA, then Gibraltar, Man, and Guernsey are part of the UK. They aren't. It isn't. It's a possession. --Golbez (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Actualy there are a number of inportant differances. The Isle of man and the channel islands whilst subjects of the crown are not governed by the government of the UK, they have thier own parliments. They6 are fully independant. They are not terratories of the UK. Gib is a British overseas terratory, but has its own parliment. It perhaps is closer to the situation regarding Puerto Rico.[[Slatersteven (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)]]

Reading the article seem to imjply that in some respects its part of the US in other areas soverign. That it has some (not all) of the fights (and obligations) of a State. But it does make it clear that it is

" an unincorporated territory and not a U.S. state" amd that "he U.S. Constitution does not enfranchise U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico" And "but the island’s ultimate status still has not been determined and its 3.9 million residents still do not have voting representation in their national government" so it is not clear cut.[[Slatersteven (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)]]

Puerto Rico has been under U.S. sovereignty for over a century and Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917.[12] The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory, which means that it is not intended to become a state; it is subject only to the most fundamental provisions of the U.S. Constitution.[13] According to the U.S. Constitution, “Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”[14] Clearly, Puerto Rico belongs to the United States, as the following sources further confirm:

“Puerto Rico is part of the United States”

---Lopez v. Aran, 894 F.2d 16 (First Cir. 1990).

“Puerto Rico is part of the United States”

---Carr, Stanley. Q&A, New York Times (1986-08-10).

“Puerto Rico is part of the United States”

--- “Fast Facts”, New York Times (2006-11-20).

“Puerto Rico is part of the United States”

---Feeney, Kathy. Puerto Rico Facts and Symbols, page 7 (Capstone Press, 2003).

“Puerto Rico is part of the United States”

---Briggs, Laura. Reproducing Empire, page 18 (University of California Press, 2003).

“Puerto Rico is part of the United States”

---Moscoso, Eunice. “Employers find Puerto Rico”, Atlanta Journal-Constitution (2008-05-18).

Ferrylodge (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

But the Supreme Court has described Puerto Rico as Belonging to but not part of the united states.

http://yalelawjournal.org/2007/05/19/burnett.html “We are therefore of opinion that the island of Porto Rico is a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=182&invol=244[[Slatersteven (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)]]

And thus, even if we wish to call it a "part" of the U.S., it is not the sort of part that is included in standard maps of the United States, just as Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands are equally arguable "parts" that are not included in the sort of map this article calls for. Please look at the official "General Reference" map published by the National Atlas of the United States® service of the U.S. Dept. of the Interior: [15]. Just like ours, it does not show Puerto Rico, nor any other of the unincorporated possessions. This is the standard.—DocKino (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the Interior Department's map that's most similar to ours does indicate Puerto Rico as part of the USA, just like Hawaii.[16] And the Supreme Court case mentioned above is about a hundred years old, pre-dating the 1952 compact between the U.S. and Puerto Rico, and pre-dating Puerto Rico's Constitution. Anyway, I'm more concerned that Hawaii looks infinitessimal on our map. Is Hawaii really that small?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

That map is poorly simplified, as it doesn't show a difference between part of the country and a possession of the country. Note that it says "Virgin Islands (USA)", which are not part of the country, and "Turks and Caicos (UK)", which are not part of the UK, while having "Guadeloupe (France)" and "Martinique (France)", both of which are actually part of France. Hawaii is kind of getting shafted in size, considering it's on the curvature of the globe as seen from that viewpoint. --Golbez (talk) 09:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I would support rotating the Earth a little bit, then, so Hawaii is not shafted as bad.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)