Talk:United States

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

Current population (est.): 338,233,000 as of August 12, 2024

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% Italian which is the largest ancestry in that county. The map marks German as having the largest, but Germans only make up about 22%.

National Leaders

The intro mentions the heads of the Executive Branch (President and Vice-President) the Judiciary (Chief-Justice), but only one of the heads of the Legislative Branch (Speaker of the House). I attempted to note that the Vice President of the United States also carries the title of President of the Senate, only to be told that this "Crowds the box and adds nothing". I disagree. This is a key element in how our country is governed as the President of the Senate holds a tie-breaking vote in that body and may not be known to many people. FSF-Rapier (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a pithy quote that says it better, but the sentiment is that the Vice President is really only meaningful for who they might become rather than who they currently are. The position has very little influence by design in the constitution, though many of the people who hold the post are influential for other reasons. The VP is not the head of any branch of government and that the tie-breaking vote is obscure shows just how important a power it is. SDY (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Too large

This article is currently clocking in at 166 kilobytes long, much of that may be images and footnotes but the issue remains that many readers with less efficient systems will find it hard to access this article let alone contribute to it. I let it to those more familiar with the content to suss out if a spin-off is appropriate as I'm one of those who cannot easily access the article so will have to abstain from accessing it. Banjeboi 22:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been brought up by me before that the size (or rather, I think, the huge number of templates) slows the article down dramatically. It takes 30 seconds to load for me, where other similarly sized articles load in 5. I'm not sure anyone knows where to start. --Golbez (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Where to start? Start deleting the copious volumes of text. Start with the history section. It's intended for people with little (me) or no idea on the topic - it's way too much to take in for a first timer. Look at Indonesia for a clue - its history is longer and just as detailed as the United States, yet it is far more succinct. The rest can go into other articles (ie, History of the United States. I'd do it, but like I said, I'm not overly familiar with the subject matter, thus I'm not sure what's worth removing and what isn't. --Merbabu (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The loading speed has nothing to do with the amount of text. It's the abundance of templates. --Golbez (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct, but my problem is with the length of text from a readibility point of view. --Merbabu (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As I stated I can't really look at the article but it would seem that two possibly routes to split would make sense. One is to chop the article into thirds, or whatever, and have part 1, 2 and 3. I've never seen it done but I'm sure an example of it working must exist. The more common is to spin off the biggest section(s) into their own articles and provide a summary - usually the lede of the spun-off article - with a link to that article. Appropriate templates, unsure where they are, could also be spread to the most appropruate sub articles. Banjeboi 06:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Might as well drudge up an old proposal at this point. Never got much feedback one way or the other, really. History of the United States was, when last I looked (5-6 months ago, admittedly) poorly written, poorly cited, and just generally poor, despite being almost as lengthy as this article. We should take the history section of this article and condense it into three-four paragraphs with no sub-sections and split the current well-polished and aggressively edited and condensed section into a new "History of the United States" - There is some information that would be lost in the process, but that can be handled by merging the few notes in the History article that are inappropriately missing from its daughter articles into its daughter articles. Some areas of the new article would warrant expansion, but it should be the basis for expansion/rewrite rather than a merge into the current mess. This would also take care of nearly all of the todo items on the History article's talk page. The same could be done for the Culture section & Culture of the United States. This would obviously be a very, very involved and time-consuming project, but I believe it may result in multiple FA articles where one GA and two Bs currently exist. MrZaius^talk 08:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Too large...a particular case

Mr. Dalit has reverted a particular section of this article ("Contemporary era") to an old version he largely wrote and obviously prefers three times in under three hours.

There are several issues here. I can see from the history of the section in question that it existed in a reasonably concise, well-written, balanced, and stable form for many months before Mr. Dalit intervened in mid-July to expand it all out of proportion and slant it in particular ways. There are a range of problems: Mr. Dalit not seem to know what the word "encompass" means; he does not appear to understand the importance of focusing on the history of the United States (rather than, say, the history of the Hussein regime in Iraq); he does not appear to understand that in an overlong general article on the U.S., that we can not indulge in expansive detailing of "context"; he does not appear to recognize that certain of the balancing language he prefers has now been included. He mentions that I have made many edits in recent days. This is true. My edits have been largely focused on copyediting, proper style of citations, updating data, and so forth. The fact that Mr. Dalit has not made any edits in months and has reappeared for the sole purpose of repeatedly restoring his personally preferred version underscores how tendentious his position is.DocKino (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

While I prefer your more concise and neutral version, there is some whitewashing still in there and we could choose some words and information better.LedRush (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

By all means, if you see ways of sharpening it while maintaining something like its current length, I'd certainly support that.DocKino (talk) 04:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

NO discussion of American Firsts

I saw very few references to the large number of notable American Firsts, which are now widely used throughout the civilized world

• Electricity (Franklin 1752)
• Light Bulb (Edison 1879)
• Telephone (Bell 1874)
• Computer (Berry 1937)
• Air Conditioning (Carrier 1902)
• First Freeway (Conn. 1935)
• First skyscraper (Chicago 1884)
• Internet 1980s

That would be like an article about Ancient Rome with no meantion of their stadiums, roads, or armies Censusdata (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Telephone as also american Congress recognized was invented by italian Meucci.And what should be written about all inventions or discoveries in EU states? More attention ,please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.185.187 (talk) 05:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of lead section paragraph

DanteAgusta removed the final paragraph of the lead section with an edit summary saying, "(reverted, sources are not NPOV". The removed paragraph, edited just to render the supporting refs as inline external links, read:

The United States suffers from problems such as extreme income inequality[1], above-average levels of homicide and violent crime[2], as well as environmental pollution in urban areas. The U.S. also uses more petroleum and other natural resources than any other country[3], and its foreign policies have also been subject to much controversy around the world.

Choosing supporting sources is more about reliability than about NPOVness. I am aware of no WP policy or guideline which requires cited supporting sources to be NPOV, though blatantly POV sources need to be presented differently from NPOV sources, and need to be balanced by presentation of other significant POVs.

There are three bare-URL sources there. Let's take a look at them.

• http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html would have been better cited as
• G. William Domhoff (December 2006), Wealth, Income, and Power, Self-published, retrieved 2008-09-03

This does appear to be a POV source. The WP article on the author describes him as a Research Professor in psychology and sociology at the University of California, Santa Cruz whose first book, Who Rules America?, was a controversial 1960s bestseller which argued that the United States is dominated by an elite ownership class both politically and economically. I don't think this source should be used to support a lead-section point. If used later in the article, the POV character of the source should be pointed out, and balancing information from sources with other POVs should probably be included as well.

This is also a self-published source. WP:V places limits and cautions on the use of self-published sources. These are described here. This source appears to be inside of the limits, but the cautions do apply. It might be better to use an alternative supporting source.

• http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/eighthsurvey/8sv.pdf would have been better cited as
• Eighth United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 2001 - 2002 (PDF), United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Division for Policy Analysis and Public Affairs, retrieved 2008-09-03

I wouldn't describe this as a POV source. The source is being cited in support of an assertion that the U.S. has above-average levels of homicide and violent crime. The sfollowing bits of specific information are contained in the source:

• Table 2.2, Total recorded intentional homicide, completed, rates the U.S. sixth highest in 2002 among the 22 countries listed, with 5.62 per 100,000 inhabitants.
• Table 2.4, Total recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm, rates the U.S. highest in 2002 among the six countries listed, with 3.25 per 100,000 inhabitants.
• Table 2.6, Total recorded major assaults, rates the U.S. second highest in 2002 among the 13 countries listed, with 310.14 per 100,000 inhabitants.
• Table 2.8, Total recorded rapes, rates the U.S. second highest in 2002 among the 23 countries listed, with 32.99 per 100,000 inhabitants.
• Table 2.9, Total recorded robberies, rates the U.S. seventh highest in 2002 among the 20 countries listed, with 145.87 per 100,000 inhabitants.
• Table 2.10, Total recorded major thefts, rates the U.S. highest in 2002 among the 24 countries listed, with 969.14 per 100,000 inhabitants.

I would say that the cited source does support the assertion.

• https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html would have been better cited as
• Rank Order - Oil - consumption, CIA World factbook

I wouldn't describe this as a POV source. The source is being cited in support of an assertion that the U.S. uses more petroleum and other natural resources than any other country. The source says that the U.S. estimated oil consumption in 2005 was 20,800,000 bbl/day, out of a total world consumption of 80,290,000 bbl/day. On the same site, this page ranks the U.S. as the top consumer of electricity, and this page ranks the U.S. as second in the world in natural gas consumption, behind Russia and ahead of aggregate European Union consumption. I would say that the site does support the assertion, but I would have cited all three of those pages.

In sum, the sources look OK to me, with some reservations about the first one. I don't think that the information in that paragraph belongs in the lead section, though. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well, the sources do look ok. I do believe I acted hastily. The user who added it is known for adding un-sourced anti American pov to many articles. --DanteAgusta (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the main point - The sources are mostly adequate, and there are plenty of additional sources to back it up from IGOs with American membership. That said, though, I'm not sure that expanding the already lengthy LEAD was warranted, and that the additions were worded in a way that was far less compact and polished than the rest of the language therein. MrZaius^talk 06:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources are accurate, but all this is mentioned elsewhere in the article, so need to add this. Originally this section has been added by User:Wikipedian06, just have a look at this guys contributions with edit summaries such "rm Amerikkkan-fueled anti-Chinese propaganda", "rm amerikkkan vandalism", " rm reference with lots of unsourced Western anti-Chinese propaganda" and so on. Novidmarana (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Nicely put, Novidmarana. It's an appallingly written section. The grinding of the axe is so loud, ear muffs should have been issued to all readers as safety precaution. Further, the way the sources were interpretted is very suspect. At best, perhaps it could be re-written wihtout interpretation and not so blatantly POV. Try second half of last lead paragraph in Indonesia article as inspiration (a feature article). --Merbabu (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As others have mentioned, my problem is not with the sources but with the POV, repetition, and writing of the passage. It is better left deleted.LedRush (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

GDP RANKING WRONG

Usa in the GDP lists of Wikipedia are second after EU.It'd be better to change the position 1 about GDP with 2 to have not a ridicolous contraddiction.Is it wikipedia or Ameripedia?Not propagand,objectivity! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.185.187 (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

EU is not a country. USA is ranked 1 as a country. If you look at the EU listing, you will see a - not a number. You will also notice EU countries like France and the UK on the list. So the rankings are by country. --DanteAgusta (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a EU citizen!So it doesn't exist!Come to EU and try to pass by check in and look at passports or at EU instituions.They exist and they're strong.This is ameripedia.It'd be better to change the numbers to be credibleand not uncredible!In the GDP there 's also Cia coastline which isn't all a international agency. Many people in EU are beginning to feel Wikipedia like superficial and ameripedia. Please change this laughing situation. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.185.187 (talk) 06:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please learn English if you wish not to be a laughingstock on "Ameripedia." When you learn English, something wonderful will occur! You will discover that no one has claimed that the EU does not exist. It is simply not a country. The United States of America is.DocKino (talk) 06:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, never said the EU did not exist. I said it was not a country. France, Germany, Italy, the UK, these are countries. The EU is not a sovereign state, so on a list of countries, it does not count. Each member state counts individually. --DanteAgusta (talk) 06:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is Ameripedia,an encyclopedia only for Usa glasses that make smiles.Usa are 2nd in the mail list,open the eyes! Please change the WRONG numbers. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.185.187 (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Listen, the rankings start at 1 not - so the EU is ranks similar to the world as a whole. The ranking is correct. And you are being well, just weird. --DanteAgusta (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ,so it's time to change Usa ranking number 1 with 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.185.187 (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but you don't seem to understand what numbers are and how they work. I suggest getting some education on the matter, then come back and check the charts again. Also, check out the page on what a country is. That would be good. --DanteAgusta (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) The rankings in the infobox for this article and similar articles for other countries are manually imported from the relevant List of ... by country articles. This discussion, if it belongs anywhere, belongs either on the talk pages of the individual List of ... articles or in some centralized forum set up for that discussion. Actually, I believe that the discussion has been held several times on the talk pages of those articles and has been held at least once in some centralized forum. Hmmm.... Yes. See Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have just now been checking those out since the conversation came up. --DanteAgusta (talk) 06:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

EU is a new kind of nation that you like or not.It's called in the latin form sui generis.I' m a EU citizen and i know my country like you i think Usa.We've all institutions:President,Parliament,Commission,Justice and Army.Our capital is Brussels.So phone EU and tell it that doesn't exist.Ameripedia ,that's the new name of this site with these numbers.It's out of reality and ojectivity.I'm sorry.Please it's time to change datas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.185.187 (talk) 06:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I gather, then, that you wish us to erase the articles on Italy, and France, and Spain, and all the other former countries that have now been subsumed by sui generis "nation" EU and summarize what little important information there might be in the EU article. Correctamundo? PS: Did you phone EU and ask if it is nation? Give us the number, please.DocKino (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You can erase everithing you want from Ameripedia but the truth and the shame rest.You can find EU President email in EU web site.It's very esy,write him,possiblement en français! You are not realistic and objective.Change wrong datas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.185.187 (talk) 07:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah man, this dude is cracking me up. He thinks were "out of reality"?? I am laughing so hard my side is splitting. This has to be a gag. It is a good one. lol --DanteAgusta (talk) 07:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

At EU citizens eyes NOW you are second as also coastlines say.Cia coastline should be erased because it'isnt an international and mondial agency.Usa are second now at all world eyes.Please change WRONG datas on Usa presentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.185.187 (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Basta cosi, eh? Fools like you are part of the reason we shameful Americans keep electing fools like...DocKino (talk) 07:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to offend me? I don't allow this.Be quiet!I talk about WRONG datas about Usa with right and objective positions.Look at the GDP list!EU is first.That's the truth.If you don't like it ,ask for to be certain at EU web site.It's simple. Please change WRONG datas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.185.187 (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, time to stop. Please refrain from asking to change the GDP. It is not going to change cause the rank is correct. What you are doing now is spamming this page with nonsense. Please stop now. Thank you. --DanteAgusta (talk) 08:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I began first to write for a right thing.The rank is WRONG because EU is a political being.We have its passport and all institutions.The old manner of intending countries in EU is ended in 1992 with Maastricht Treaty.EU is first if you study all new economical book.So change wrong datas.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.185.187 (talk) 08:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith only goes so far. I think 87.xxx is merely trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point about either alleged bias in Wikipedia, or about the size and strength of the EU. I will warn said user on his talkpage, in hopes of ending this charade. Justice America (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I noted a right thing in my edit.If you don't like it don't offend.YWho like an encyclopedya like TRUTH and HONESTY.Please change the rank of Usa GDP.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.12.199.223 (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This guy seems like a troll to me. I suggest everyone just stop paying attention to him. TastyCakes (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You are ineducated and ignorant.If you don't like truth and objectivity tou have to read Mickey Mouse and not looking for better a book.The official ranking of WB and IMF are clear.EU rapresentants are in all world organiztions (very strongly).EU has first gdp.So please change the ranking of Usa.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.9.189.194 (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not feed the troll.

You like Ameripedia and Mickey Mouse.I think that some responsable of Wikipedia should check you and stop you in my edit.EU is indicated officially from also from Wikipedia as 1 in the World for gdp.Check EU site!I know that the head quarters of Wikipedia is in Florida but they can't allow all this stupid and loosing nationalism.For truth and Honesty plese change the ranking of Usa from 1 to 2.Thanks.