Talk:United States

Please consider reading the frequently asked questions for this article before asking any questions on this talk page.

Current population (est.): 338,217,000 as of August 9, 2024

Archives
Archive index
Chronological Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20	Archive 21
Archive 22	Archive 23	Archive 24
Topical Archives
FAQ
Article Name
Article Introduction
Human Rights
Culture

|}

"Food"

Burritos do NOT have their roots in Mexico, as it notes under the "food" category. That is a United Statesean creation.

Our article says it came from the American southwest/northwestern Mexico. Since at that time, the American southwest was recently part of northwestern Mexico, I don't think it's inaccurate to say it's Mexican. Perhaps you could improve our other articles with your fact. --Golbez 02:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget that cusinie just like culture does not always follow national boundaries-people always move and land always changes hands; thus a certain type of food may actually have its "roots" in two countries- that's why there is such a thing as Tex/Mex cusinie. Southerwestern cusinie is, for obvious reasons, very closely related to that of Northern Mexico and Burritos may be as much Mexican as American. Then again, I'm not a Chef. Signature^brendel 18:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights Record

Missing is the fact that United States have a human record on par with Iran and Iraq. Can this not be added?

Far be it for us to ignore such blistering evidence, sir, I'll add this right away. --Golbez 09:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I shoudl elaborate: Wha? Maybe you could source your comments. Also, will you want "Iraq/Iran has a human record on par with the United States" added to those articles? --Golbez 10:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

War on Terror

I don't think that the 2003 invasion of Iraq should be under the "War on Terror" heading. What did the invasion of Iraq have to do with the War on Terror?Whirlwindx 15:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should try getting it removed from War on Terrorism first, then. --Golbez 16:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

internal struggles

President Kennedy was murdered on November 22, 1963. His notes state "If there was to be a coup on the government it would come from the CIA" this would mean essentially that The United States Of America Ext. July 4 1776- November 22 1963. Since 1963 we have seen the power and influence of the department dwarf any other department of law. - "The History Channel - Conspiracy Theory"

Yes, that's a nice conspiracy theory-but that's all it is. Signature^brendel 17:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Igniting sectarian strife"

Some seem to want to remove the implication that the United States is responsible, in whole or part for the current Iraqi civil war, however unintentionally. I think it is obvious and simple to state that without the US invasion, the Iraqi Civil War would never have started considering Saddam Hussein managed to brutally control the region for over twenty years yet sectarian violence happened within one year of his removal from power by American-led forces.

The idea that the Iraqi insurgency is not the product of United States actions, not intentionally of course, seems, at best, a crude act of doublethink, that the insurgency would somehow have sprung out of whole cloth on its own, had the United States done nothing and Saddam Hussein remained in power.

That is ridiculous. The civil war is the product of the destabilization of Iraqi government and society. The destabilization is the result of the Iraqi invasion by the American-led coalition. Therefore, unintentionally, America ignited the current sectarian conflict.--Primal Chaos 17:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Primal Chaos is entitled to his own blog, but not to Wiki's pages. The article is about US strategy and policies, and not about the internal dynamics of Iraq. Rjensen 18:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt that without US intervention in Iraq, the "civil war" as we know it now would never have occurred in its current form. However, the matter of "responsibility" or causation herein is not really suited to this page - perhaps one of the innumerable other articles more specifically on the topic would be more the place to advance your argument. --Haemo 23:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"The article is about US strategy and policies, and not about the internal dynamics of Iraq." I'm sorry, but this is patently untrue. The section in question is labeled "History", not "Policy Intentions" nor "World Strategy", but "History", with all the connotation of recording what -has- happened, not what anyone intended to happen.

The History of France will record that it was invaded and conquered by Nazi Germany, whether or not it intended to or it was its policy to be conquered. They were conquered, and that is the history of the matter. Similarly, intentions or policies aside, the US invasion of Iraq and the following occupation ignited the civil war. Please stop citing this as a basis for your argument - it is simply not so.--Primal Chaos 23:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be better served by discussing how the result and continuing complications should be worded, rather than using, on one end, the highly accusative language of 'ignite' (language that is my own), with all its connotation of intentional calamity; and on the other end, the language proposed by Rjensen, which seems a bit of an exonerating whitewash to me. Hence why I reverted it.--Primal Chaos 23:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - perhaps the phrase "igniting sectarian strife" could be changed to something more neutral like "leading to sectarian strife". --Haemo 20:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What is Beano?

Since when is the US referred to as Beano?Omg starburst 00:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Since someone vandalised the article. Signature^brendel 00:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Media

Although the article is long, we should consider making a sub-article titled "Media" which could include topics such as movies, music, television, magazine, etc. Media would be an important sub-article perhaps under "Culture" becasue the United States does have an immense, if not the largest role in media. Abdalla 18:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Great idea, a "Media in the United States" article. Unfortunately this isn't my area of expertise, though I could contribute a bit on the sociological and economic aspects of it. The article would then be categorized as a "American society" article and linked to from the Culture article-as median is definitely a large (and growing) component of culture in the US. Regards, Signature^brendel 19:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Any other comments and concerns would be helpful. Abdalla 01:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"House Speaker"

I cahanged the infobox to read "Speaker of the House", instead of "House Speaker", as the former is her proper title. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 21:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Good. Thx. Signature^brendel 02:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

US or U.S.

Across the article the terms "US" and/or "U.S." are used significantly. We should try to make one of the two terms universal throughout the whole article. I am not sure which one of the two terms would be the most suitable. An agreement has to be made so editing can follow. Abdalla 19:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd argue for "US" since it appears to be what the US Government uses as an acronym. --Haemo 20:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I reconsider this - there's no clear concensus on government documents, but the official abbreviation is "U.S." - I think we should use this.

To everyone else, any other thoughts regarding this matter? Abdalla 20:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the Wikipedia manual of style says to use "U.S.". It simply looks better. --Golbez 22:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to WP:BB and change all of them. Feel free to revert if anyone gets upset. --Haemo 23:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

actually i think US is inspecific. it means "untited states", their are many united states in the world· Lygophile has spoken 14:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but on this article it's pretty clear what United States we are refering to ;-)! Signature^brendel 18:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

John Roberts(R)

Why isn't there an "(R)" by his name when all the other people in government have there party listed by their names.--71.170.41.7 19:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Becuase his is a non-partisan position, whereas the president and House Speaker are partisan positions. Signature^brendel 20:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ireland GDP

I was just comparing the ecomonomy of Ireland and the USA when I noticed that the USA's GDP/PPP was ranked as third. Irelands was ranked as fourth despite being higher...

The US is ranked 3^rd. for GDP PPP per capita, but is ranked 8^th. for nominal GDP per capita. Ireland has a higher nominal GDP per capita but a lower GDP PPP per capita. Signature^brendel 03:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy of Population Portion

The top ten most populated cities varies slightly on this page then the main article: List of United States cities by population. For example on this page it says San Diego is the eighth most populated city but on the List of United States cities by population it says it is the seventh. Maybe this page hasn't been updated or it might use another source. I don't know but someone should fix it. --cooljuno411

The information on this page is correct per the July 1, 2005 estimates by the U.S. Census. San Diego is the eighth-largest, not seventh. The List of United States cities by population is incorrect and I am going to fix that immediately. See http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/tables/SUB-EST2005-01.csv. I am going to remove the tag once again because there is nothing more to dispute. —RJN 23:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, population estimates for such large cities are always going to vary a bit (by several tens of thousands)-that it why we need to watch our sources carefully. The source RJN uses is the best one-US Census Bureau official estimates. Signature^brendel 00:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Which, from what I can see, is the only source that has been used; either here on the aforementioned list. -Phoenix 07:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Chief Justice in Head of Government

OK, don't want to spark an edit war on this one. As I'm sure any experienced editor to this article would know America's government fundamentally relies upon three branches of equal power. Yes, my friends, that includes our neglected friend the Supreme Court. The President's always on TV and Congress is always making some announcement or another, but the little seen Supreme Court plods along in the background. However, it has an equal, recognizable role. The decisions of the Supreme Court carry the bearing of absolute law (as outlined by the Constitution) and may only be revoked by the lengthy amendment process. Now would you agree that's a very powerful thing? I certainly would. Furthermore, who leads the discussions? Whose decisions are generally reflected by the rest of the Court? Why, none other than the Cheif Justice himself, the highest judicial authority in the United States. The Supreme Court is every single bit as powerful as Congress or the President. Now if we're listing the Speaker of the House (as we rightly should) why are we ignoring the Cheif Justice? I'm sorry? Oh, oh, you say because the dear Madame Speaker is 3rd in line to the Presidency? Well, my people, I have some news for you. The President is not, repeat, is not the most important government figure, nor the most powerful. Those things are true within the executive branch and the executive branch alone. He checks the other two branches just as the other two check him. So people your place in the Presidential line of succession has no bearing, no bearing at all. Now you might say, oh, very well, let us simply remove Nancy Pelosi and be done with it. Wrong. The Constitution gives us three, three, need I reiterate, three branches of government. Equal. Equal. Therefore you must recognize the Cheif Justice as the head of a branch of government, the pillar that is the Judicial System, and place him under the government heading in the infobox. Thank you. DoomsDay349 05:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Chief Justice doesn't really do anything more than any other justice on the Supreme Court does. So I'm afraid I don't get your point. Ms. Pelosi has far more relative power compared to a normal representative than Mr. Roberts has to a normal justice. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Chief Justice has one more responsibility than the other justices, he presides over the impeachment trials of Presidents and Vice Presidents. Besides that, he is primus inter pares of the Supreme Court. He is at very least the de jure leader and the de facto figurehead of the Supreme Court. I think that he should be listed amongst the other leaders of the government. Perhaps a vote is in order? -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 23:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

'Tis true that the Cheif Justice theoretically doesn't have any more power than a normal justice. However, considering these guys dominate the conversations, lead discussions, and in all honesty typically lead the Court, I think the Cheif Justice is definitely just as important as the Speaker. Because, in reality, the Speaker of the House doesn't necessarily have any more power than a normal member of Congress. They dominate conversations, lead discussions, and lead the Congress. Wow, that sounds an awful lot similar doesn't it? In any case, I support a vote for the matter, it's the best way to do it anyway. DoomsDay349 05:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Number of States is incorrect

The US has 50 states, not 55. The article seems to be locked, I don't care to find out why, so I cannot correct it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.177.68.50 (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Signature^brendel 05:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

box and link to FAQ at top of page

The box and link to the FAQs has recently been removed twice from the top of this page. It was removed without discussion. However, if you look through the discussion archives, you will find that there was consensus between regular discussion page contributors regarding its visibility and placement. Therefore, please do not remove it again without further discussion. Thank you. JonathanFreed 13:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)