Talk:United States

First European settlement in what is today the United States: Saint Augustine

The first European settlement in a country colonized mainly by Europeans it's a very important information that needs to be added to this article. It's widely documented that Saint Augustine was founded in 1565 by Spanish explorer and admiral Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, the town it's the oldest continuously occupied European-established city and port in the continental United States.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frran (talk • contribs)

Population of the US

DCGeist, thank you for directing the data also in the main article Demographics of the United States. [1] I fixed this. In my opinion the population of the country is such a main issue that the short text and table would deserve a place also in the main article of the United States. Based on my fixing the main problem, it would in my opinion be fair on your side to have some flexibility as well. How do you think? Watti Renew (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"Flexibility" sounds nice, but if we were "flexible" about every proposed good-faith addition to the article, it would be ten times as long as it already is. As things stand, it is generally recognized that the article is already pressing against the limits for acceptable length. It is a constant, but necessary struggle to restrain it from further expansion. Meanwhile, we have many associated topical articles that are much more suitable for the addition of worthwhile information of a relatively fine-grained nature. That is the backdrop against which this discussion must take place, not individual "flexibility." Now let's look at the two elements of the proposed addition:

* Table showing U.S. population at six different dates: I am strongly opposed to the addition of this on two grounds. The first, which is sufficient in of itself, is that its addition would yield extreme (and ugly) media clutter. There is already a lot of media in the section, and the addition of this table would squeeze the text to an unacceptable degree. Second, we use tables to rapidly convey data of great interest to readers—fundamental information like leading economic indicators, racial/ethnic breakdown, and language demographics. It is highly unlikely that more than a very, very small number of readers come to a general overview article on the United States thinking, "I want to know what the U.S. population was in 1971 and 1990." Sorry, but this table has no place in a general-interest article of this type.

* Text describing U.S. population growth since 1990: The paragraph in question already describes U.S. population growth over the course of the 20th century (i.e., since 1900). I don't believe the paragraph needs two such conceptually similar sentences, especially given our space limitations. In the present context, the 20th-century-growth passage delivers more information, because the paragraph tells us already that the country's current annual population growth rate is positive at 1%. Furthermore, two paragraphs later, we learn, "Between 2000 and 2010, the country's Hispanic population increased 43% while the non-Hispanic population rose just 4.9%." Much of the essential information provided by the proposed addition is thus already covered in the section. We simply can't afford the sort of redundancy it would introduce. Sorry, but no.

Let's see if any other editors are interested in weighing in on this, and what their perspectives are. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree; this summary article does not need detailed numbers on the demographic history of the country, that's much better dealt with in a child article. Especially in the format it was presented, it was not compatible with the current article (why would you think it's good to give the change in population from 1990 to 2008 at the start of the section?). That the population increase in the last statistical period was almost entirely Hispanic is very relevant to current demographics; what the population was in 1971, or 1990, much less so. DC elaborates better than I would or could. --Golbez (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

:) I agree with you, flexibility can not be the only key argument. I am sure we agree that the article should describe the most important facts about the USA. The population growth is one of the key problems of the world future. Therefore, the population development should in my opinion be shown in every country article in short like a table. This argument is supported by following statements:

• 1) “A bigger issue than how much we consume per person is how many we are in the world. The question of the world population and development are like married together. We need to work for both to solve the important questions of the world future. “ Ms. Minna Säävälä, Väestöliitto, Väestöliitto (The Family Federation of Finland http://www.vaestoliitto.fi/in_english/) [2]
• 2) Lester R. Brown: “Improvement of the family planning is the main problem and the most urgent problem of the world. The benefit is huge and costs are minimal. If desired the family could become smaller fast. E.g. in Iran the number of children pro family dropped from seven to three by political decisions from 1987 to 1994. if we neglect the active family planning, the costs can exceed our resources.” ref Perhesuunnittelun tehostaminen on maailman ykkösongelma Lester R Brown Helsingin Sanomat (HS) 26.2. 2009 A2
• 3) Dalai Lama visited in Finland in August 2011. As I remember he stated the idea (e.g. HS) that today the world is one, so that the concern of the environment and development is our common challenge. In this respect in my opinion you can not claim that the concern of the population growth is not of interest in the article of the United States. Every article should have all information fairly including the population growth. According to WP:NPOV …all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Watti Renew (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of population growth is not being rejected; using a large table with random years is. What I have more of is a response for the method in which you made your argument. The quality of an argument to include a table of information in a summary article is inversely proportional to the number of external links and quotes used to support said argument. It's also just plain nonsensical to use NPOV as a reason. --Golbez (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This deletion is discussed including the table: [3]

Population in the United States increased from 1990 to 2008 with 54 million and 22 % growth in population.

Watti Renew (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Population in the United States
Year	Million
1971	207.7
1980	227.7
1990	250.2
2000	282.4
2004	293.3
2008	304.5

Wikipedia policy, like WP:NPOV, is a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. For development I can add text like in the Demographics of Canada and related wikilinks World population and Overpopulation. This table is not large and years are not random, but the first and last year available and 10 years interval. 2004 shows the latest development. Data may be searched by many since World Population will surpass 7 Billion on 31 October 2011 [4]. Watti Renew (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No, not happening. You've convinced no one and are ignoring the multiple, irredeemable problems that have been raised with your edit. I encourage you to give this up now and move on. You will not succeed in this misguided effort, and you run the risk of being blocked if you pursue it via an edit war.—DCGeist (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi DCGeist, you still did not agree. I thought I convinced allreagy everybody. I need a cup of coffee before reply. Watti Renew (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Who was convinced? Name one person. --Golbez (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to throw a new voice in, while I agree that population growth is an interesting and important issue, the information people will be searching for when coming to this page (and indeed what many may look for in the main demographics page) is information about the present day country, its present population and ethnicities etc. While a sentence or two summarising historical and possibly future growth may be useful, a table is a bit Undue. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Summary: 1) Watti Renew: The population of the country is such a main issue that the short text and table would deserve a place. The population growth is one of the key problems of the world future, supported by 3 expert citations. According to WP:NPOV …all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. 2) DCGeist: too long article, many associated topical articles that are much more suitable, very small number of readers have interest, article includes allready population growth rate 1% and by 2000-2010, the Hispanic population increased 43% and others 4.9%. 3) Golbez: only a large table with random years is.rejected, It's also just plain nonsensical to use NPOV as a reason. 4) Chipmunkdavis: the information people will be searching for when coming to this page is information about the present day country While a sentence or two summarising historical and possibly future growth may be useful, a table is a bit Undue.

REPLY: I find thretening less polite. According to Blocking policy responding with excessive force can discourage users from editing. WP:NPOV Wikipedia does not hide important facts. WP:NPOV, is a widely accepted standard. You made good argumets that can be used for the development. DCGeist, Readers should have interest in the population growth and Wiki does not hide importat facts. Long Ok, lets have less history in the article. More relevant articles. YES I agree. This is a Both/And -question not Either/Or -question Energy in the United States, Climate change in the United States, Corruption in the United States and Human rights in the United States deserve also a place in the article. Human rights in the United States was supported in the discussion reacently., Let’s include theese in the article. Golbez, Let’s do a smaller table. Chipmunkdavis: a small table offer useful fact of the development in a glance. Year 1990 is commonly used reference year in respect to climate change calculation. If needed, I sugget to table 1971, 1990 and 2008 since this data is available and shows the change in our generation. 1900 is too far in the history. Details may be highly relevant and interesting but details are not a sufficient argument to hide the overall picture of the population growth in the United States during this generation 1970-2008. Watti Renew (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, wikipedia does 'hide' important facts. It's an essential part of WP:Summary Style, and ensures we don't end up with overly massive articles. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, the summary article does not hide the core facts as this. There are more suitable details to exclude, if necessary to avoid overly massive articles. Examples:

A: In population a more compact table of the population centers and link Table of United States Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Do you support?

B: 25 % of the article is history. The improvement options are 1) move all text in History of the United States 2) reduce text or 3) remove history pictures. Last option is a soft solution without losing facts and getting faster loading of the article. Do you support? Watti Renew (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need a table at all. That should stay in the main article. As for history, 1 is ridiculous, 3 is fairly irrelevant as pictures don't affect prose size (with picture MOS being slightly different), but 2 is good, if you want to do 2. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, when I keep the size of the article constant, in my opinion, I have taken your criteria into account. To shorten the US history, is an open opportunity for everybody. You can also do it. If there is too long history, it is not in my opinion fare reason to remove the other improvements. Watti Renew (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify first of all that they're not my criteria, they're wikipedia's criteria, laid down by various guidelines. The article is currently 174.733kb, of which 64kb is article text, in case you were wondering. And you're right of course, the door is very open for myself to shorten history, or do various other things in the aritlce. One day perhaps I might (and the first thing I'd do is deal with that strange family structure section, but that's for another time). However, that's not on my to do list at the moment. You made an edit, and it was reverted. DCGeist and Golbez agreed here that the information you added did not belong to the article. I agreed with them. You have not convinced any of us that the information should be in. You are welcome to pursue other methods of WP:Dispute resolution if you really wish, but I will say now that in my opinion they probably won't get far. The best use of your time now that consensus is against you here is to direct your editing somewhere else, perhaps further expanding Demographics of the United States. I've reached the point where I'm repeating my arguments, so unless something new comes up, I think that's me done. Good luck with your editing endeavours, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi friend Chipmunkdavis, I hope you understand that my aim is a good dictionary, cooperation and reach consensus. As I agree with many of your opinions, I feel that we are companion editors and have more mutual interests than disagreements. It is natural that the language and cultural differences can create misunderstandings but I feel we can work this out to reach consensus: Consensus is Wikipedia's model for decision-making Sorry, If it takes time but there is no timelimit - Please give both yourself and the other party some time. Often it helps to just take a deep breath and sleep on it. Don't worry! You can always fix the problem later. I continue with the other things later. As I understand, you can agree with the text part. OK? Population in the United States increased from 1990 to 2008 with 54 million and 22 % growth in population. Watti Renew (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a consensus and it is very clear—this largely redundant data is not getting added to the article. Your failure to convince anyone speaks for itself. It's too bad that you can't come to terms with the consensus, but a consensual process does not guarantee that everyone leaves entirely happy. You may continue to repeat yourself here for a while, if it pleases you, but this process is evidently complete. As Chipmunkdavis said, the best use of your time is to direct your editing endeavors somewhere else. Best of luck.—DCGeist (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

DCGeist, opinions needs reasons WP:CONS. You can reply my reasons given for you in the summary above.[5]. Please wait that I reply Chipmunkdavis first. Watti Renew (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

DCGeist, article content is not based on voting since it would be easy to ask friends to support one's opinion. Now ready, thanks . Watti Renew (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, let me correct misunderstanding: With criteria I referred to your argument with reason in discussion. WP:CONS: Consensus discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons. In this discussion your comments were no 1, no 2 and no 3 and reply no 4. The summary of 1-3 is: “While a sentence or two summarising historical and possibly future growth may be useful, a table is a bit Undue. I don't think we need a table at all. It's an essential part of WP:Summary Style, and ensures we don't end up with overly massive articles. “ Watti Renew (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC) continue

Chipmunkdavis, I understood that your main consern was the size of the article. This may be a valid argument. However, I point out that it can also be weak and indistinct. Anyone can make the article massive with pictures or other details and claim thereafter with this criteria that all other information is undue. Therefore, I tried to convince you that the history section (25 % of the article) is more responsible for the overly massive size than my tiny addition. As you point out the share of text is 64 kb and photos and tables 110 kb. In my opinion there are too many photos. Watti Renew (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, to fix the size smaller I will:

• 1) Do the metropolitan area infobox more compact with same data.
• 2) Remove: Mayflower in Plymouth Harbor, Battle of Gettysburg, New York Harbor, 1902, Abandoned farm in South Dakota and World Trade Center, since the history section includes too many pictures and takes space from the other section that is not fair and balanced. The table of the population growth in 1990-2008 is more a core fact of the US than the pilgrim picture, old harbour or non-existing building, since it gives more relevant information. Watti Renew (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, in my opinion, the estimations of the future population is not relevant, since Wikipedia does not predict the future. The citizens of the US can influence their population growth and demographics e.g. by education, health care, population control and family planning. In respect to the climate change and consumption of the natural resources and energy it is in my opinion more valid how many citizens there are in the US today and tomorrow than the ethnicity of the people. Also this supports the importance of the argued table. This is a world problem. We have to control it worldwide. Therefore, I started adding the country specific tables: see User:Watti Renew/Sandbox/Population. Watti Renew (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Though a clear consensus developed against several of your proposed changes and you were able to develop no consensus in favor of any of your proposed changes, I see you went ahead and made them anyway. I believe they detract from the quality of the article, and I have reverted them. If you edit war to restore them, you will be blocked—it's happened on this page before.

Your proposed changes to the Demographics section have clearly been rejected—with, yes, multiple reasons given—and we will not indulge you on that matter further. If you wish to see if you can build a consensus in support of any other of your proposed changes (just as Castncoot did below for the addition of a Statue of Liberty image), start a new thread to specifically address one or more of them.—DCGeist (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I will quit this article and discussion since none opf my sincere attempts were supported. Have a nice time. Watti Renew (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• WP:CIVIL: Participate in a respectful and considerate way, do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others and avoid upsetting other editors whenever possible
• WP:CON: Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two.

DCGeist, you upset me by ignoring me in the consensus. In my opinion, this is not the intended idea of the consensus. After having many cups of coffee, I am back. Further, you should not make judgements of an incomplete work. Watti Renew (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

What consensus? You never had one person agree with adding this. The only consensus has been against you. I truly do not understand why you are continuing this fight, except perhaps you enjoy aggravating others. --Golbez (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

New proposal

I will edit my proposals on page:User:Watti Renew/Sandbox/United States Demographics. It has own discussion page, if you like. I will introduce the outcome here. Watti Renew (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I try to consider Wikipedia:Article size, WP:summary style and WP:Undue from national and international perspective.

In my opinion, global perspective is key summary facts since World Population was 6 billion in 1999, will surpass 7 billion on 31 October 2011 [6] and with the 2007/2008 growth trend 8 billion in in 2025. Watti Renew (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Despite the misleading header, this obviously does not concern a new proposal. Watti Renew's proposed alterations to the Demographics section have been repeatedly and roundly rejected. It is sad that he is unable to recognize that the horse died a long time ago.—DCGeist (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Might be time for some blocking/banning if he is unable to comply with Wikipedia policies. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Population of the largest cities of the United States

I made Template:Population of the largest cities of the United States(2,183 bytes) to substitute Template:Largest Metropolitan Areas of the United States ‎(4,112 bytes). In my opinion this change deserves place, since it takes less space andd has more data. How do you like? Watti Renew (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, as it is, the new template is not useful. It does not say "in millions", and it does not say what "n.d." means. Are you saying there's no data as to the size of Miami and Boston? Secondly, the sizes of the largest areas is more important than the sizes of the largest cities; it is more relevant to include Washington on this list than San Antonio. Thirdly, what is the rationale for including 14 (not 10, not 15) cities? --Golbez (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Fourthly, at least one of the numbers is plain wrong, as San Diego has been over a million for a while. --Golbez (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You have correct. Fixed. I shall recheck these still. This template includes the top 10 cities and also top 10 metropolitan areas in the US based on the population number. According to the article there are four global cities with the population over 2 million (New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston) and nine cities over 1 million. This is demonstrated in this template. Watti Renew (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I would sooner suggest the municipal population be added to the existing template. Since your table makes no attempt to explain why there are 14 cities, it could confuse readers (wondering, for example, why Washington is coming after San Jose, but before Boston). Due to the wild disparity between municipal and metropolitan populations of many areas of the country (some large regions have tiny inner cities, like Miami and Salt Lake City, whereas some large cities have virtually no suburbs, like San Antonio and San Jose), it doesn't seem to me wise to try to combine the two. The notes required to explain to the reader the reasoning for inclusion and ordering in the list would be so much as to simply justify two separate lists. And I don't think two lists are justified (such a statistic about "9 cities over 1 million" can be treated in text, as it's the metropolitan area that's more important for a summary article). --Golbez (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe the current template, which was arrived at through the work of multiple editors and after several other variations were tried out, serves the article and our readers very well. Golbez's analysis of the proposal's deficiencies is spot on. I don't see any good argument for a change here.—DCGeist (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Golbez and DCGeist. The current table focused on metro areas is fine. Classic example of if it ain't broke, don't fix it. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing sources

According to the WP:LENGTH, WP:REF it is not needed to write the www-link twice. Is there some reason to keep these? This concerns several en wiki pages but here with over 200 references, the space lost is more. In my opinion, the ref list would be easier to read without dobble links Also I prefer to write the references without the template in the ref form. For example, in this article 141 alphabets would be in shorter 79 alphabets as following:

• "Human Development Report 2010" United Nations. 2010. http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Tables_reprint.pdf. Retrieved 4 November 2010.

• => Shorter: "Human Development Report 2010" United Nations. 2010. Retrieved 4 November 2010.

Population in the United States

I suggest the following addition in a new form, since 1) I find numbers more accurate data than describtive pictures. 2) One of the main reasons for the population growth is poverty. In my opinion, underminding the population growth problem serves the interests of those who want to undermind the reasons of the population growth. WP:NPOV Wikipedia does not hide the facts for any political reasons. 2) This is core data in the article since the US is the third populous country and at moment its population continues growing 3) Since the US population growth is based also in legal and illegal immigration, it shows that this problem can not really be solved only by focusing the domestic population, but needs to be considered worldwide. In my opinion, this is very urgent for the sake of the natural resourses and climate change. As Lester R. Brown wrote Improvement of the family planning is the main problem and the most urgent problem of the world. The benefit is huge and costs are minimal. There is no other place to go. There is only one planet. The following proposal takes 400 kb less space than earlier:

Population in the United States (Millions):

• 1971: 208
• 1980: 228 (+ 20)
• 1990: 250 (+ 22)
• 2000: 282 (+ 32)
• 2004: 293 (+ 11)
• 2008: 304 (+ 11)

Watti Renew (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you continue to cite NPOV as a rationale for including this forces me to not take this seriously. I note you still haven't justified using 1971 instead of 1970. --Golbez (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You have good questions. The 1971 is based on the source. The reason may be linked in the climate policy. I think of this. See also my other population template. With help of your all good questions I have now thw new proposal: Watti Renew (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Population of the largest cities (1000)
	City	Region
New York	18,897	8,362
Los Angeles	12,829	3,832
Chicago	9,461	2,851
Dallas	6,372	1,300
Philadelphia	5,965	1,547
Houston	5,947	2,261
Washington, D.C.	5,582	n.d.
Miami	5,565	n.d.
Atlanta	5,268	n.d.
Boston	4,552	n.d.
Phoenix	4,193	1,231
San Antonio	2,143	1,167
San Diego	3,095	956
Indianapolis	1,756	740
Source: 2010 U.S. Census

Drug Policy

Can something be included in the human rights section about the federal government's stance on drugs and the treatment of users/distributors? Distributors are punished as seriously as some violent crimes. Users are generally forced to hide from the police-state that has been established to remove these people from society and contain them all within some form of monitoring (probation, prison, random screenings, job-related drug tests, etc.) Additionally, the private business sector is encouraged not hire someone who uses or has used drugs. Is this considered a federal fascism, or does the government have to execute these people for it to be considered fascist?

Human rights

[[7]] {{Quotation|

Edit request from , 25 October 2011

Why isn't there a Gini category which says that United States' Gini is high, beside the Gini number? It seems like the only two countries missing this are the US and UK. Guess that would make them look bad, but it is unappropriate for an encyclopedia to hide facts, no matter the reason.

77.105.50.171 (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the Gini coefficient? That information is included in the infobox. Taking a quick look around, I notice that some countries list a category, others list a rank, and others list a number only. I'm not sure what suggests we should use one over another; perhaps it depends on the source cited. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and to be more clear about what I mean, please look up countries such as Russia, Sweden etc. They have both category and the actual Gini coefficient next to each other. Bosnia, UK, France, Egypt, Greece, and certainly some more have just the coefficient stated, like the US does, but the vast majority has both (please don't make me calculate percentage :). I am not saying we should use only one, but the contrary, state both category and coefficient like in the "Sweden" article. Of course, this should be done for all of those countries, but we have to start somewhere. 77.105.50.171 (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Excuse us, but you referred to the purported "Gini category" as a "fact". On exactly what basis do you claim this so-called "category" to be a "fact"? Are you familiar with our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy? It appears not. Please read it carefully. Then go out and research among the high-quality sources our policy requires and see if you can find any support at all for the "category" you presently believe is a "fact". The FACT is, people have been trying to impose this made-up category on this article page for years, when in FACT, they should have been removing it from other country article pages, because it has no basis among reliable external sources. Get to work, friend. Please.—DCGeist (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I only used term 'Gini category' because that's what it's named in Wikipedia source. Surely you are aware that this is just tertile being expressed in more user-friendly way (colours and words 'high','medium','low'). Are you saying that we cannot even divide by three because it is considered original research and not simple logical deduction? 77.105.50.171 (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Why not divide by two, or four, or five, or six, or eight? Because any such pseudo-authoritative division is out of line here if it is based on "Wikipedia source" as you put it. If we're going to name categories, those names and categories must be based on external sources that meet our verifiability standards. We're not allowed to create category divisions ourselves, understand? That's how Wikipedia works. I asked you before and I will ask you again (but for the last time): Please read our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and take it to heart.—DCGeist (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point about naming issues. However, I do not see why 'highest third', 'lowest quarter' etc. would not be accepted as the verifiability policy states that 'drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research'. It is evident if a country is positioned in the lowest quarter in the same list in which it is shown to be 39th overall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.50.171 (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

But again: on what basis are you choosing to divide into three parts...rather than into two...or rather than into four...or rather than into five...or rather than into...? The simple answer is that you can't perform such a division on your own chosen basis. If an outside source that meets our standards performs such a division, then we can reflect that. So seek out that outside source!—DCGeist (talk) 11:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I marking that as ✗ Not done since there is no consent. If you gain any consent, then place replace again the parameter to no. mabdul 13:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Gini update needed

Hello everyone. Found that there is wrong information up about gini "Gini (2007) 45.0[1] (39th)." 39th place is wrong if you follow the link provided by "39th" you will find that it is on place 94th (if sorting by "CIA Gini as a percentage"). Siim44 (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siim44 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it notable that not absolutely everywhere under U.S. jurisdiction drives of the right?

Is it just me? or doesn't the lead of the article mention US territories? As such think it implies that all of them drive on the right too. CaribDigita (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

US territories aren't officially part of the USA. The USVI aren't unique in this different driving side to the controlling state, Gibraltar drives on the right yet the UK drives on the left. You wouldn't put Left (except for Gibraltar) in the UK infobox. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis is exactly right. As is Golbez, who explained this in edit summary.—DCGeist (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The lead of the article mentions the territories because they are possessions of the U.S.; however, they are not part of the country. The infobox does not include their population, economy, languages, or area, so why should it include their driving style? --Golbez (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Motto - Proposed Change

I would like to propose that:

Motto: In God We Trust (official)

E Pluribus Unum (traditional)

(Latin: Out of Many, One)

Be changed to:

Motto: In God We Trust (official)

E Pluribus Unum (original)

(Latin: Out of Many, One) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.76.35 (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Generally when one proposes such a change, they also provide a source.--OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_mott.htm is one article about it.. and there is a lot of documentation that states that E Pluribus Unum was the motto up until 1956, and was the first official motto of the United States. Therefore, it is fair to say that it is the original motto.