Talk:United States

This article is a candidate to be a U.S. Collaboration of the Month

Vote or comment on the nomination here!

An event mentioned in this article is a July 4 selected anniversary

---

Archives
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 - 2006: May & June
Topical Archives
Name	Introduction
Human Rights	Culture

DO NOT ARCHIVE THE FOLLOWING PASSAGE

A detailed explanation for some of the information provided in this article can be found at Talk:United States/Frequently asked questions. A topical archive of discussions on the introductory paragraphs can be found at Talk:United States/Introduction.

Trying again with largest cities

I mentioned this earlier but only one person responded. Am I to take this that no one cares if this horrible table stays? --Golbez 18:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think User:Jleon cares only if you remove the table.--Ryz05 _t 18:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Some people are opposed to all tables. I prefer them to long paragraphs that contain mostly the same info. I would not be opposed to dropping the 2 density columns though --JimWae 00:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of Columbia to refer to the US?

I don't think the name Columbia should be appearing in the parenthesis next to United States of America in the lead. Those names are some of the most common names to refer to the United States of America in writing (excluding U.S. of A. and U.S. and A. etc.) and most people don't refer to America as Columbia anymore. If you search Columbia on Google, none of the websites that turned up has Columbia refering to the United States, with many refering to Columbia University[1]. Also, the name Columbia has the same pronounciation and should not be confused with the country Colombia. There's already a link to Historical Columbia in the See also section anyways.--Ryz05 _t 13:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"Columbia" seems to be a rather dated term for the US. It deserves a mention, but not as an alternative name. — TheKMan^talk 13:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. It's a very outdated usage, and I'm glad it's no longer in the opening paragraph of the article. Moncrief 09:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Bush vs. Kerry

Hello! Í am from Chicago. Is it true that Kerry was more popular that Bush to win the elections? If so, why did not he win?

The short answer is taht the most popular candidate does not always win American presidential elections. Further, this page is for talking about changes to the article, and not debate about the specific issues covered by the article. Bjsiders 17:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that this page is not for debate but since you answered, you may as well give an answer that informs the asker. Kerry did not win the popular vote in 2004. Gore did win the popular vote in 2000 but lost in the Electoral College due to losing a dispute in the courts over the results of the Florida election. The popular vote does not determine American presidential elections. The vote of the Electoral College does.

Is this not explained in the Government section? If it isn't, it should be. (not the details of the 2000 and 2004 elections but the explanation of popular vote vs. Electoral College)

--Richard 18:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Big problem with United States featured article nomination

People keep objecting because the article is too long, but I'm afraid that if we cut down on the information, then people like User:Bwithh and User:Golbez are going to object because the article is not comprehensive. Also, can we not have a permanent semi-protection to stop people from objecting because they think the article is not stable? Now I'm beginning to doubt if this article will ever get featured, unless more people come in support for this article.--Ryz05 _t 22:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not that I don't think it's not comprehensive - I think it's comprehensive about the wrong things. Like that horrible cities table. --Golbez 22:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There was a poll Talk:United_States/Archive_15#Largest_cities_table, which seems to indicate that most people supported the table. We can have another poll if you want. Besides the table, what other "wrong things" do you want to omit?--Ryz05 _t 22:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not required to obey a poll - if they wanted the largest cities table, that's fine, but that will not change my vote against the article. --Golbez 07:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that the largest cities table is deleted, will you change your vote or at least offer a different explanation to your objection as opposed to just agreeing with User:Bwithh?--Ryz05 _t 17:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the support of the United States article nomination.--Ryz05 _t 18:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What is this objection related to 'the article is not stable'? No article is rock stable here, featured or not. The stability criterion states '"stable" means that an article does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars.' It would seem that semi-protection would work in favor of this criterion by tacitly stating 'we know that this is a target of vandalism and we are doing something to address that'. Edit wars between regular editors are not blocked by semi-protection ... and semi-protection is not the proper recourse for resolution of an edit war between regular editors (as opposed to 'irregular' = 'sporadic' = 'episodic' editors, by which I characterize anonymous and new editors). User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It was an objection raised on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States and I think User:AndyZ answered it pretty well with the link Wikipedia talk:What is a featured article?#Stability.--Ryz05 _t 18:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

DEMOGRAPHICS 2

America is 81% White. According to the US census, Saddam Hussain, Zacharios Masssaoui, Osama Bin Laden and Hamid Kharzai are classsed as `White' In the Census. The U.S. is approximately 67% European and between 61-65% non-Mediterranean European. unsigned (posted by 58.169.1.246 at 10:42, June 2, 2006)

Technically that is all true and scientifically true as well. The Arab people's are from the same sub-race of the human race - ie. Caucasians as are most of the Northern Africans - people of Europe and Russia - the Persians (Iranians), Afghanistanis, and the non-Dravidian Indian's of India who originally called themselves Aryans and brought Hinduism (some think this was the original religion of the Caucasian sub-race) to India when they moved into the Indus Valley region. Hispanics are mostly European or native or a mixture of the two; some are African or a mixture of African and European; and a few are natives - they have a distinct European-type culture rooted in their ties to Spain. We are all Homo Sapiens, however, and genetic differences caused by climate, and geographic isolation dissipate over time when different sub-races integrate and become one ( as in the case of Russia ie. the mongols, the vikings, the Slavs) - essentially given enough time, America will have a distinct American race. - The real differences between people's is language and culture which make up a nationality- and despite some minor differences Americans have a unique common culture unified by language, historic memory, common service to country, and other factors of time and history - including an overwhelming belief in God, Democracy, the American Dream, Equal opportunity, liberty, and our special place among nations represented often as "Manifest Destiny", "City upon a Hill", "Promised Land" etc. which is not a notion of superiority but rather special purpose to show the way by being that "Bright beacon of hope" to all nations by how we relate to one another and govern ourselves, and that "Shining City" through our material efforts at building our nation and extending material benefit to our citizens through the American Dream. --Northmeister 03:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Northmeister, you are one of the most patriotic Americans I've ever known.--Ryz05 _t 03:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

External links format

I thought the external links format before it was reverted [2] was pretty creative and a nice style change for this article. I suggest that it be kept that way, but I'm asking for more opinions because it was reverted due to it being "done without consensus."--Ryz05 _t 22:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Am I to take this lack of response to mean yes that the creative format should be kept?--Ryz05 _t 18:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hrm. While it's pretty, it means External Links doesn't show up in the table of contents. Furthermore, I don't think it's big enough that we need to hide it. So I suggest it remain as is, simple and utilitarian. I do, however, disagree with the editor's implication that all actions require consensus. --Golbez 19:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

American Dream section

I don't mind having a section on American Dream, but it does need references and a copyedit. There should also be a section on American Dream in the article Immigration to the United States. I recommend moving it to the bottom of the Economy section, since it's almost stand-alone.--Ryz05 _t 22:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The American Dream is that great story of rags to riches of getting ahead by hardwork, courage, determination, and sacrifice for the family. --Northmeister 02:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The American Dream is a concept that belongs in United States culture and can and should be mentioned in a culture section or such. A specific section for the concept is giving undue weight, especially at a time when many people are opposing the FAC of this article for its current size. Pepsidrinka 02:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

One sentence mention should be included as it is at the core of what America means to so many. I agree that a main section under culture is better. --Northmeister 02:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved the American Dream section to Culture as suggested.--Ryz05 _t 03:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Testing unprotection

As of 12:30pm EDT: Since the article was unprotected by King of Hearts, there have been eight IP edits, 7 of which were reverted as vandalism.

I figured it's time to keep a real-time log to see if there's any hope for the idealists who think there can ever be an unprotection of this article. It has nothing to do with article quality, either, Ryz05. --Golbez 16:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you see what those "vandalisms" were about? They are just people testing out the formats or people adding comments without references or adding political rants. It doesn't nearly get as much vandalism as the article on Elias Ashmole history, which is far less prominent.--Ryz05 _t 16:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about it; I just semiprotected it. Also, the vandals don't yet know that we're unprotected here. Give it a day. --Golbez 16:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I just went to that article and I did not find it semi-protected.--Ryz05 _t 16:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Duh, of course it's being vandalized, Ryz - It's on the front page. That always happens. Unprotecting it, this is what we deal with every day. At least the vandalism wave on the Ashmole article will last exactly 24 hours. The vandalism of this article is forever. At the moment, the Ashmole article is far MORE prominent, because it's on the front page. STOP MAKING TINY EDITS TO YOUR ENTRY SO I CAN RESPOND, sheesh. :P --Golbez 16:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, Ryz05, how is "adding political rants" not specifically what we are trying to prevent here? That's as much vandalism as adding a penis picture. Your standards are far too high. --Golbez 16:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Check out the article on Pakistan history, which gets many vandalisms and is not semi-protected. Also, I don't mind adding a semi-protection for keeping out political rants, but they don't occur too often in themselves.--Ryz05 _t 17:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, the vandals found out. Since 12:30pm EDT, as of 4:30am EDT, 12 IP edits, 9 reverted as vandalism. --Golbez 08:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Since 4:30am EDT, as of 2:30pm EDT, 11 IP edits, all 11 reverted as vandalism. We're up to 31 IP edits, 27 (87%) reverted as vandalism - in the first 24 hours or so. --Golbez 18:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Official Language

Was English made the official language yet? Dudtz 5/26/06 9:09 PM EST

No. The Senate passed a bill containing two statements on the matter, but it next goes to the conference committee, then has to be passed bu both houses again, then signed by the president. At that point, if the measure is still in th bill, English will become either the "national" language or the "common" language. Stay tuned. -Will Beback 02:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No language is in the Senate bill calling it the "official" language. "National" and "common" are a bit different, and largely symbolic. Moncrief 09:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Consider what actual differences having a language be official means. At least part of, if not all of, being an official language is that it be a language used in official documents & in courts of law - and that citizens are guaranteed to receive services in that language. (This does not mean that services in other languages will never be offered, just that they are not guaranteed.) If all services are available in English, but nowhere is that codified, then it is de facto official - there is no need to say 'none' official, just say "English (de facto)" --JimWae 19:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Saying "none" is very misleading.--Cruzian 19:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Official language 2

Hello folks! I studied official languages of some major countries and found out that none of the countries actually states "official language of our country is...". Instead, there are generally three cases..

1. France constitution says "Language of France is...", Ireland constitution says "The Irish language as the national language is the first official language.". Switzerland and Spain constitutions have similar statements.
2. Netherlands, Finland and Canada express in constitution or bylaws "National languages are...".
3. UK, Italy, Sweden and Norway do not claim any language, although it's safe to say that they have de facto official languages.

To make this article comparable to other country articles, can we really state "no official language in federal level"? The U.S. case is case type 3, and if the national language bill is approved, it will be type 2.

According to the article, official language is "a language that is given a privileged legal status in a state, or other legally-defined territory". Well, English is absolutely the only language you can expect to be serviced by federal institutions. New citizens have been mandated to demonstrate English reading, writing and speking skills for decades. All this is to the degree it's not different from any other country.

Thus, I believe it would very misleading to include statement "None at federal level". If existence of official language is defined by whether there's a law that defines such with the word "official", likely a majority of world's countries do not have official languages.--Cruzian 18:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The "national language bill" is not law yet!! The Senate passed it, but it still has to be reconciled with the House bill and then signed by the president. Please review your understanding of the legislative process in the United States. Moreover, I don't believe that the Senate version of that bill says anything about an "official language." It strikes me as a symbolic statement about English being a unifying language without the provisions of official-language bills (e.g., all government information to be printed in English only etc). At any rate, that bill IS NOT YET LAW, so wait. Moncrief 18:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but see - independent from whether the bill is approved - use of English at U.S. federal level seems to be in line what is generally understood as official language (type 3 countries). Many or most countries do not have "official" (or "national") language, but instead, it's just a practice similar to how English is has been used at federal level in U.S.--Cruzian 19:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Where are you getting the source for these "three types" of official languages? I don't think it's a widely-held belief that the de facto majority language of a country is its official language. The two are separate things. An official language has to be declared. Moncrief 20:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But what is the point of explaining that "the term official language is not used for language X and in country Y", when we could just explain the status? The article should deliver information, not local vocabulary. There seems to be an official language at federal level in Germany, for example, but the role of language is equilevant to English in the United States. I'm only saying that we should say "Official language: English de facto." instead of "Official language: None at federal level. English de facto".--Cruzian 21:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Where are you getting the source for these "three types" of official languages? Moncrief 22:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Both statements are true, however. There is no official language at the federal level. Despite your unsourced assertion about the "three types" of official languages, a language isn't really official until it's been declared so by a government. That's why a number of U.S. states have held referenda about making English their official state language, and supporters have put time and money behind those referenda. New Mexico has declared both Spanish and English as official languages; this is an official act that state took and differentiates it from other states that may have similar-sized populations of Spanish speakers. Spanish speakers in New Mexico therefore have specific, state-legislated language rights that Spanish-speakers in, say, Arizona don't; this is a reflection of official-language status, whether or not the "de facto" presence is greater in either state. At this point, there is no official language at the federal level in the U.S. (or for that matter in the UK, the birthplace of the language) - TRUE. It's also true that English is the de facto language of the country, which is different from having an official English-language policy. ALSO TRUE. So we mention both statements. I don't get the problem, and continuing to talk about the "three types" of official language without sourcing or futher information (who thinks this? Are all three types considered equal?), isn't going to move forward the discussion, in my opinion. There can't be any "de facto official languages" by definition. It's a bit like saying there are de facto laws against theft. You either have the laws on the books or you don't. There isn't a middle ground. (In fact, de facto actually means, by definition, something that isn't "official" -- i.e., legally passed, which would be de jure).) So I'd like to know who, apart from yourself, promulgates the "de facto official language" theory you cite above. Moncrief 23:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What about changing the template to read "Language" rather than "Official language"? Then I think it would be appropriate to say "English (de facto)". An "official language" is a pretty specific thing and term, and isn't a very useful descriptor on a template for countries that don't have an official language, such as the U.S. Moncrief 18:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea.--Cruzian 19:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a little depressing that so many people are editing the article on United States without any knowledge of how things become law here. And I disagree with changing the template, because then you would have every country adding minority languages. Spanish in America, Basque in Spain, et.al. --Golbez 18:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing the template would let us to define status ("official"/"national"/"de facto"/"bureacratic"/etc.) of each language (or not define, if we don't find information). Now, it seems that many countries have incorrect information (they are actually type 2, type 3, or unknown type countries).--Cruzian 19:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like something to bring up on the template's talk page. --Golbez 19:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem we're seeing is that the quality of civics education and legal training in most other countries isn't very good. That's why a lot of foreign editors don't seem to understand how the American legislative process works (in that bills must be signed by the President or the President's veto must be overridden by a supermajority vote). --Coolcaesar 20:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You are off topic. Our American and foreign editors do know the legislative process. We are not talking about the pending national language act, but about that's there's an overwhelming non-codified (and partly codified, such as immigration laws) laws that clearly give "a privileged legal status in a state", which again, seems to be the definition of official language.

Who wrote the above? Could you PLEASE sign your posts? Thanks. Moncrief 23:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Moncrief that that person should have signed their post. Turning to its substance, it is clear that the editor is not a lawyer. The fact that the United States has a variety of disconnected laws and regulations that refer to English does not make English an official language. In American law, the term "official language" is primarily used to refer to laws that specifically mandate that the government shall perform official acts in English as much as possible (with obvious exceptions for public health and safety since there are always going to be recent immigrants and tourists present who do not speak English). See, e.g, Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) (dismissed for lack of a justiciable case or controversy). --Coolcaesar 00:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither the USA article nor the Politics of the United States article mention presidential veto, btw --JimWae 20:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving sections to the demographics article

This article is too long and filled with things that don’t necessarily belong to this article. I therefore propose that we move the sections "Public health", "Largest cities" and "Population migration and growth" to Demographics of the United States, which is an underdeveloped article. These sections do in my opinion more belong to the demographics article than the main article. If you look at other featured articles about countries you will find that don't have the equivalent sections either. Remember that this article is only an overview article and can't possible hold all information related to the United States. --Maitch 19:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the "Public health" section is important enough to mention, as well as the "Population migration and growth" section. We can move the "Largest cities" section to Demographics article. The Public health section can be shortened a bit I guess, but let's hear more opinions. User:Jleon seems to be objecting the removal of the Largest cities section, but it'll be good for him to discuss it here.--Ryz05 _t 19:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Public health is important. Adding information such as:

The death rate for strokes decreased by 59 percent during the same period.[75] Between 1991 and 1995, the death rate for cancer fell by nearly three percent, the first sustained decline since national record-keeping began in the 1930s.[76] And today more than 70 percent of children who get cancer are cured.[77] Since 1964, when the US surgeon general first warned Americans about the dangers of smoking, the percentage of smokers has declined from almost 50 percent to approximately 25 percent.[74]

can be done without, atleast in this article. Rather, it would be more approrpriate in a daugther article about Public health in the United States. Pepsidrinka 04:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That passage you quoted is important to show the progress that the U.S. made in improving public health, how can you remove that when the second paragraph has much to criticize? It's there to maintain a neutral point-of-view at least. However, some of the criticisms can be removed.--Ryz05 _t 16:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I was just selecting a paragraph and explaining how much superfluous information is in this article that can be moved. I didn't read the other paragraph, and well, I guess that is my mistake. However, these statistics, whether good or bad, can be moved, and a good summary of the good and a good summary of the bad can be presented in just a few sentences. Pepsidrinka 23:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The statistics in the Public health section is important. Removing those is equivalent to removing the whole section. I think a good reduction of it is to remove some of the criticisms, like the international rankings for example, which is unnecessary in my opinion.--Ryz05 _t 00:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The whole section needs to go. It has no business in a summary article. Being bold. --Golbez 02:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not right to remove the whole section. Instead, you should trim it if you think it's too long.--Ryz05 _t 02:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Largest cities table 2

I don't mind its inclusion, but it has to be important and informative. For one thing, the population density statistics is important to any city, and a table of population for the various cities is best kept with the density statistics. Removing them also makes the table a lot smaller - leaving a white space next to the pictures, which doesn't look good.--Ryz05 _t 00:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you please point out one of the several featured country articles that have a chart of the population densities of their largest cities? --Golbez 02:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Here: PRC#Urbanization. Also, population densities are always listed on sources like the Census - to find how crowded a city is.--Ryz05 _t 02:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite possibly the worst example you could have chosen, since the table wasn't there when that article became featured, *two years ago*, with *three votes*. Not exactly an extensive review. --Golbez 02:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment: In terms of gauging the importance and influence of a city, the size of the metropolitan area is a better indicator than the size of the incorporated city limits. Administrative city limits are somewhat arbitrary. The cities chosen should be the central cities of the ten largest metropolitan areas instead of the ten largest cities per se. This will cause Phoenix, San Diego, San Antonio, and San Jose to be excluded but we add Miami, Washington DC, Atlanta, and Detroit. Polaron | Talk 02:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As many others have noted, this article is extremely long. By replacing the table with a link to the in-depth article about the largest cities in the US, you cut 3kb. — TheKMan^talk 20:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the biggest supporter of the table is User:Jleon, because he always adds it back each time it's taken out, but he's not discussing about its inclusion on this page. Another vote on whether to keep the table should be wise. Also, I think the many references led to a longer article size, but people should not object because of that. I still don't understand why some are still objecting about its comprehensiveness when so many others are complaining about the size.--Ryz05 _t 21:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

United States vs. United States of America

This article should be moved to United States of America as that is the offical name for our country. Who came up with this? MilesToGo 01:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There was a vote to change the title to United States of America, but there was no concensus. The argument for keeping that name is how it's more common to refer to the country as simply the United States.--Ryz05 _t 01:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

MilesToGo, see Talk:United_States/Archive_14#Vote - Should this article be moved to United States of America? and a subsequent one at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/United_States. With the question "Who came up with this?" you are essentially implying that anyone who does not support the move is an idiot. Read the discussions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

MilesToGo, first you must go to Mexico and try to get it moved to United Mexican States. It is, after all, the official name. --Golbez 02:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If a nation has an official title, why would WP prefer its unofficial name? That should be a standardized naming convention. I realize it's been discussed, but it's quite bizarre. Fearwig 06:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

We await your attempts to get United Kingdom moved to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. --Golbez 13:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy has always been to use commonly used names for things, in line with all other major encyclopedias. As has been pointed out many times (at least eight times last year and this is the third time this year), Encarta, Britannica, and World Book all use "United States" for their corresponding article title. Switching to an official title policy would be extremely problematic where the official title is not well known, as in United Mexican States, and hopeless in cases where there is no official title. Furthermore, the usage of the term "United States" as synonymous with "United States of America" goes back to the U.S. Constitution itself (please read the Constitution's full text). --Coolcaesar 06:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

More to point, on Wikipedia, we use the short form name if it's unambiguous, and in this situation, that means United States. Yes, "United States" is unambiguous. Deal with it, y'all. --Golbez 13:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Poll on the largest cities table

Since apparently the proponents and opponents keep crossing in the dark and never chatting, how about this.

1. No table.
2. Table without densities.
3. Table with densities.
4. Old table with >10 cities and densities and functions.

Vote please, as much as I abhor votes. --Golbez 02:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

1 No table.

1. --Maitch 13:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
2. No table but mention the top 3 in the text. --Polaron | Talk 22:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Polaron also has a good idea there. — TheKMan^talk 22:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Voting is evil. Pepsidrinka 00:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Voting is the most evil way to determine consensus except for all the other means of determining consensus. Consensus means everybody agrees. Wikpedis is not a democracy. BTW, one reason that voting is evil is I vote for "no table" but I disagree with Polaron about mentioning the top three. It's the top ten or nothing, as far as I'm concerned. --Richard 19:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
   • I think the appeal behind mentioning only the top 3 is that they are absolutely unambiguous. The #1 city is the #1 metro area, the #2 city is the #2 metro area, the #3 city is the #3 metro area. Then you get to the #4 city, which is the #7 metro area. Whoops. And the #4 metro area is the #5 city. --Golbez 19:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
6. No table, but mention top ten in text (no numbers needed), should use metro areas. −Woodstone 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
7. No table. Moncrief 21:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
8. No table! —RJN 04:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

2 Table without densities

1. I prefer the table without densities. But I agree that voting is evil.--Coolcaesar 18:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

3 Table with densities

4 Old table with >10 cities and densities and functions

1. I prefer a smaller table and maybe have a larger table (or the whole thing, if removed from here) at Demographics of the United States article.—MJCdetroit 19:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The Largest Cities table has been removed with note marks until a concensus is reached on whether to reinstate it or not. By the looks of it, the majority of the vote is to remove it.--Ryz05 _t 17:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Largest cities

New York City

Los Angeles

Chicago

The United States has dozens of major cities, including several important global cities such as New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago. In 2004, 251 incorporated places had populations of at least 100,000, the table below shows the ten most populous cities according to U.S. Census Bureau 2004 estimates. The ranking is different for metropolitan areas, although the top three are the same.

City	City proper				Metropolitan area		Region
	Rank	Population	density (per mi²)	density (per sq km)	Rank	Population
New York City, New York	1	8,104,079	26,403	10,194	1	18,323,002	Northeast
Los Angeles, California	2	3,845,541	7,877	3,041	2	12,365,627	West
Chicago, Illinois	3	2,862,244	12,750	4,923	3	9,098,316	Midwest
Houston, Texas	4	2,012,626	3,372	1,302	7	4,715,407	South
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania	5	1,470,151	11,234	4,337	4	5,687,147	Northeast
Phoenix, Arizona	6	1,418,041	2,782	1,074	14	3,251,876	West
San Diego, California	7	1,263,756	3,772	1,456	17	2,813,833	West
San Antonio, Texas	8	1,236,249	2,809	1,085	29	1,711,703	South
Dallas, Texas	9	1,210,393	3,470	1,340	5	5,161,544	South
San Jose, California	10	904,522	5,118	1,976	30	1,735,819	West

We need a "Frequently asked questions" page

I am sick and tired of WP newbies asking the same damned question every two months, on average, about why this article is called "United States" v. "United States of America." We really need a FAQ as the first link on this talk page, so that newbies can be appropriately referred to the Manual of Style and the "Naming conventions" guideline. What does everyone else think?--Coolcaesar 17:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, though it will remove one of my favorite activities, being snarky towards them. :P --Golbez 17:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Add it then. In my opinion, "newbies" is an overly pejorative term. You could just say "new people." Moncrief 21:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:United States/Frequently asked questions. There, I did the hard part (i.e., linking to it, now you fill it with "frequently asked questions". Pepsidrinka 23:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Besides an answer to the question about why this article is "United States" instead of "United States of America," what other things could you add?--Ryz05 _t 00:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Is Jamestown the first settlement in the U.S.?

2. Is the U.S. really the oldest constitutional republic.

I have created the FAQ page and added these questions to it. If you have more questions to suggest, please add them. Hopefully, you will agree with the format that I have used to create the page.

--Richard 17:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the archive infobox at the top of this page, you will see that there are four topical archives of discussions that recur frequently. If you wish to nominate another topic to be archived in a topical archive, please do so or be bold and create it yourself.

I will document the topical archives on the Talk:United States/Frequently asked questions page.

--Richard 16:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Name of the article

Why are the naming conventions and MoS such that this article is called "United States" rather than "United States of America"? -Splash - tk 00:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That will be answered in the FAQ. :) Long story short: We prefer the most common name, principle of least surprise, we almost always use the short form on Wikipedia except where disambiguation absolutely required, etc. --Golbez 00:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm, I hate to sound rude, but the reason why it stays at United States is absolutely nothing more or less than inertia. The recent vote to move the page ended at a fifty-fifty split, which means that if the page had originally been at United States of America, that's where it would be right now. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it's just because there was a wave of new editors ignorant of naming standards. --Golbez 19:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Per Capita Income

How can the USA Per Capita Income be $43,555 when the majority of the big cities (over 100,000 inhab.) have Per Capita Income lower than $30,000? I'm telling this because USA's richest counties are small ones in term of population.

Moreover, the richest state of the country is the Connecticut at approx. $45,506/inhab. The majority are states are between $25,000 and $30,000 (maybe up to $35,000 - I haven't looked all the states). I just don't know how can the country's average be that high.

--Slimkay 22:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Slimkay

$43,555 sounds very high to me. You're right, there's something fishy going on, I think. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's really simple. You take GDP and divide it by population. Yes, it's true that MOST families of four aren't taking in $174,220 per year (that's $43,555 × 4)—but that's how this mean average is computed. If the U.S. had a total estimated GDP of $12,490,000,000,000 in 2005, and if the U.S. had a population of 296,410,404 in 2005, then you just divide the 12.49 trillion by the 296,410,404—which gives you $42,137.52 per person.

Keep in mind that mean averages can be quite misleading. If I walk into a tiny graveyard and see on the tombstones that one person died at age 2, another at age 10, a third at age 70, and a fourth at age 78, then I conclude that the average life expectancy for those four persons was 40—even though, in fact, the closest anyone got to dying at age 40 was dying 30 years too early or 30 years too late.

All it takes is one extreme to throw things way off. The mean of 1, 2, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, for example, is about 3.7—but the mean of 1, 2, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 200 is 28.25, which is more than four times as large as the second-biggest number (7) in the set. So, very rich people in small-population counties could, when you average the whole country, raise the average income for poor people in densely populated ones.

It's nothing sinister. It's just math. ... This is also why GDP and GDP per capita are, according to many, poor indicators of how an economy is really doing.

President Lethe 01:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry. I just realized that the numbers shown in the states' own pages are not updated, if compared to this list: List Of US States by GDP per capita (nominal). With this list, I can understand a little bit more the high average.

It seems like the USA is a rather poor country. I mean, there may be a bigger and richer-than-average rich class but there is a lot of poverty spread out everywhere. Am I right?

Also, on the California page it says that the Per Capita Personal Income is $33k while the GDP/capita is $10k more. Ugh?

EDIT: " California is the thirteenth-richest state in the United States of America, with a per capita income of $22,711 (2000) and a personal per capita income of $33,749 (2003). " Taken from California locations by per capita income.

I'm totally confused. I've read the articles about the PCI and the PPCI but I just don't understand the difference between them. Can you please explain me this?

--Slimkay 20:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the "see also" at the end of the American Dream section

What are those "see also" references doing at the end of the American Dream section? What's the point of having them there rather than in the "See also" section?

--Richard 08:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The See also is to allow readers to read more about American culture that the section missed out on. Basically, you can't cover everything on American culture in one section, so those are improvised instead.--Ryz05 _t 15:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I see the problem now. The problem is that the "American Dream" is a subsection of "Culture" and so the "See also" stuff looks like it's a "See also" for the "American Dream" subsection which makes no sense at all. The "See also" stuff needs to be moved to be right under the "Culture" section title before any text begins.

--Richard 16:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. It has now been moved.--Ryz05 _t 22:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the point about "overseas territories"?

Aside from Alaska and Hawaii, what's the point about overseas territories? Why are they worth mentioning in the intro?

It's to say that the U.S. controls other territories outside the continental U.S.--Ryz05 _t 15:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, duh, I got that. The point is that those territories, with the possible exception of Puerto Rico, are largely unimportant in the grander scheme of things. Yes, I know that the Phillipines were a valuable strategic asset at one time and so, I suppose, were Guam and American Samoa. But, at the end of the day, these are sidenotes and don't belong in the intro. Look at it this way, you don't expand on this idea in the History section at all. Nor, as far as I can remember, is it accorded even a sentence elsewhere in the article. How important could it be?

Thus, inserting the phrase "acquired overseas territories" in the intro serves to distract the reader rather than communicate anything important.

I suppose User:JimWae would disagree with me on this one.

--Richard 16:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits to the History section

Ryz05, have you decided that, since this article isn't going to get FAC status anyway, that you don't care about the multiple criticisms of the article being too long? My recent edits tried to take out stuff that wasn't really critical. The History section has been criticized as too long.

And your inflexible defense of bad writing without discussion of why you think yours is superior is likely to cause some editors (well, me, at least) to give up trying to improve this article.

--Richard 15:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

All right, bud. After reviewing your reversion of most of my work last night, I've decided that you're on your own. Don't complain to me about the FAC failing. You're your own worst enemy.

--Richard 15:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I also reviewed the reverted edits and some of them looked like they'd be tough to justify. Some of Richard's changes seemed perfectly fine to me, they added some needed brevity to certain areas of the article and the grammar was no worse, and in some cases, an improvement in readability. Bjsiders 15:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I simply refilled some key information that were blatantly removed, and agree with edits that aim to improve the article without cutting key information or divide paragraphs when there's no need to. --Ryz05 _t 15:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Bjsiders. I'm not claiming that every word I write is perfect or that every edit I make makes sense. However, I put a lot of thought and effort into my edits last night and having them reverted wholesale without discussion is really annoying to the point of being uncivil. I've been trying to help this article towards FAC status and there have been some comments about the quality of the prose. Reverting people's edits without discussion does not move the ball forward.

It's really tempting to revert to my last version but that would violate WP:POINT. I try, though I don't always succeed, to observe WP:0RR. Failing that, I go for WP:1RR. So, I will let Ryz05's reverts stand but I am clearly not a happy camper.

--Richard 15:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard, calm down. I am just trying to improve the article without cutting out key information that people will simply object to for "lacking comprehensiveness." Also, the paragraphs that I replaced were edited by others, which I consider to be fair and good. Finally, I'm happy that there are editors who understand the dilemma of people objecting because the article is simply too long or lacking comprehensiveness. I'm also happy that many prominent editors and even administrators come in support of this article in becoming featured. Therefore, I try to keep the original quality of the article that they support when they voted. So, do not accuse me of "defending my bad writing," because that is false.--Ryz05 _t 15:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. Fair enough. Perhaps I was rash in my response. However, in my defense, there is a guideline to use "neutral edit summaries" when reverting. I hope that my outburst gives you a sense for how arbitrary your edits and reverts can seem at times. This is not the first time that I have had this reaction to your actions.

And, yes, I suppose we should not make major changes as that, itself, can put a FAC in jeopardy. Would you entertain a point-by-point discussion of my edits from last night or should we just leave things alone until after the FAC closes?

--Richard 16:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually hate to revert other's people's edits when they were just trying to improve the article, but what bothers me more are those illogical edits which seem to make more of a mess than actually helping the article improve. Here are the reasons why I reverted some of your edits:

1. Removed the information about the Civil War, which some were objecting to.
2. Added a paragraph explaining the Spanish established the first colony in Florida, which is misleading since Florida did not become a state until after the original 13 colonies had won the American Revolutionary War.
3. A long continuous paragraph was broken up into three small ones, which appeared choppy.
4. A nice, flowing passage was separated into two, and a new (otherwise unnecessary) sentence was added.
5. Removed key information about why the U.S. joined World War I.
6. Removed key information about why the U.S. did not ratify the treaty after WWI.
7. Split a nice paragraph into two (one being only two sentences long), and adding another (otherwise unnecessary) sentence to the second part.
8. Divided another interrelated paragraph into two.
9. Removed information about the mentioning of the relatedness of the American Dream to that of "city upon a hill, a light unto the nations," which I thought is interesting and deserve a mention.--Ryz05 _t 22:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Why no "also known as"?

What on earth is wrong with putting some kind of phrasing like "also known as" in the parenthesis in the first sentence of the article? You have the name of the country in full and then parentheses with alternate names but without any kind of description of what those names are. We can assume they're alternate names, but why not say so? That's common practice in Wikipedia articles.

If I can offer a more general observation: It seems that some of you have been working on this article for a long time, which is great, but I also think that such closeness can create a kind of fear of change. People are awfully quick to revert in full, to dismiss new editors here as "newbies", and to express frustration at any change to this article. Just a thought to keep in mind; sometimes a fresh perspective can be great. Moncrief 15:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree that a "fresh perspective can be great," but adding "also known as" into parenthesis is redundant, since the parenthesis already implies other possible (common) ways of writing or refering to the United States of America.--Ryz05 _t 16:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't imply that. A parenthesis merely implies a parenthetical comment. What we are supposed to infer from that comment is not altogether clear. Are these names equivalents to the full name? Are they all appropriate to use? None of that is clear without additional phrasing of some kind to explain what these other terms are. That's common throughout Wikipedia. Moncrief 16:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If I get no response to my message here, I'll go ahead and add "also known as", though I'm open to suggestions for other ways to explain what these parenthetical names are. I also challenge anyone to find one significant article in Wikipedia that has parenthetical "other names" next to the full name of the subject with no description at all of what these secondary names are supposed to mean or what they're for. Note, for example, how United Kingdom deals with it: the reader is given information about what to make of the parenthetical names. Moncrief 21:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond and thank you for patiently waiting. You can check on a featured country article like the People's Republic of China, which has more common names of the country in parenthesis. Same with the U.S. article; those names in parenthesis are some of the most common ways to refer to the country in writing (excluding U.S. of A. and U.S. and A. etc.).--Ryz05 _t 21:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In the PRC example, it clearly states in the parenthesis that those other words -- which don't show up on my screen, but I'm sure they're Chinese characters -- are the ways in which the name of the country is represented in traditional and simplified Chinese. The terms "Simplified Chinese" and "Traditional Chinese" give the reader a sense of why these Chinese characters are in parentheses. In the United States article, the reader is not told why these secondary terms are here because there's no other information, as there is in the PRC article. It also helps that "China", which is a separate article from the PRC article, is linked in the parantheses. Nothing is linked in the parantheses here. Moncrief 22:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In the PRC article, the words in the parenthesis tell which is simplfied and which is traditional so that people will understand why there are two translations of the same name. I seriously don't think it's necessary to explain that the names in parenthesis are more common ways to refer to the United States of America. If you still disagree, I recommend on hearing more opinions.--Ryz05 _t 22:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with this sentence

"Before the European colonization of the Americas at the end of the 15th century, the present-day U.S. was inhabited by Native Americans, who arrived on the continent by crossing the Bering land bridge between 50,000 and 11,000 years ago.[5]"

Inaccuracies with that phrasing:

1) The European colonization of the Americas was not a finite event that occurred at the end of the 15th century. It was a process that you could argue lasted to about 1900, and certainly into the 19th century. The phrasing above makes it sound like a one-time event at the end of the 15th century, when that was only the very, very beginning.

2) The present-day U.S. is STILL inhabited by Native Americans. Saying that it was only inhabited by Native Americans before the end of the 15th century, and then somehow not so after that time, which is what the above phrasing implies, is grosssly inaccurate.

3) It's not conclusively proven that Native Americans arrived by crossing the Bering land bridge. While I personally believe that they did, and so am not going to edit that part, it's fair enough to insert "most anthropologists believe" in there.

a) how they got here can probably go entirely (to an anthropological article). That they were here a long time is what is relevant to an article on the US.--J Clear 03:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

b) Not relevant to article, but FYI: from something I saw recently on the Discovery or History Channel, it seems like there is more evidence in favor of the land bridge theory.--J Clear 03:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to (again) change that sentence to better reflect the first two facts above. If you decide to change it back, I'd appreciate it if you could explain here why you're doing so. Thanks. Moncrief 16:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The edits looked fine. Those words were deleted because they were considered unnecessary.--Ryz05 _t 16:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't "North American Indians" or "aboriginal population" be better? -- Centrx 06:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Neither of those terms are in popular use. What is your reasoning? Moncrief 17:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Military

Does an article on the US as a whole really need to discuss the nature of the Marine Corps and the dual roles of the Coast Guard? Especially since the present text leaves the reader wondering about the Corps. And since the creation of the non-branch MAJCOMsCOCOMs (e.g. USCENTCOM, STRATCOM), you really can't use just the 3 or 4 service branches to describe the entire military. The MAJCOMsCOCOMs and the civilian termination of the chain of command should be mentioned. The trick would be to do it without significantly growing that section. Tightening the second military paragraph seems possible. Must sleep, be bold tomorrow.--J Clear 02:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you can't "use just the 3 or 4 service branches to describe the entire military." See United States military.--Ryz05 _t 22:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

See United States military#Unified Combatant Commands. The point being that the chain of command for combat operations does not flow down through the service branches. Everything is Joint these days. The 1990 Gulf War and present conflict are not fought by the Army or Navy, they are fought by CENTCOM. Looked at one way, the purpose of the traditional branches it so train and equip units for the UCCs to use. The UCCs are outside the traditional service branches, orthogonal to it in a way. I'm not proposing deleting the service branch info. Better yet, look at Military of the United States#National Command organizational chart where you see the UCC are on par with the services and JCS(who also go unmentioned). When I can set aside a block of time, I'll write it up and you can poke at it.--J Clear 23:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Those are detailed information of how the U.S. military is structured. I don't think the information should be included in the summary section of this article because it'll risk confusing the reader unless some graph or chart is added.--Ryz05 _t 23:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"European plurality"

I don't think this sentence is accurate: "The majority of Americans descend from European immigrants who arrived after either the establishment of the first English colonies or the Reconstruction period in 1863–1877. This majority is expected to be reduced to only a plurality by 2050"

Are not most Hispanics descended fully or partially from Europe and speaking a European langauge? This sounds a little like the 19th cent. argument against the Italians, who are today considered white. The sentence at least needs to be more specific, that the anglo/germanic/southern europe majority will be a plurality. Brando03 15:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the distinction is that Hispanics are a mix of European (mostly Spanish and Portuguese) and Native Ammericans (mostly Central and South American. Their herritage differs markedly from their European ansestors. Jaxad0127 16:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with mentioning a European-descended majority, but the "first English colonies"/Reconstruction references are bizzare. Citation needed! Reconstruction begain in 1865 for one thing. For another, a huge wave of immigration began after 1877, in the 1880-1910 period. (Not to mention the enormous 1840s German/Irish immigration that doesn't seem to be covered by this description.) Is this craptastic sentence still in the article? I'll have to check. Moncrief 17:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights section

This section has problems. It needs to be focused on the present. There is no earthly reason to mention something that happened to the Choctaws 175 years ago! Details about the history of human rights should be located in the main Human rights in the United States article. --JW1805 (Talk) 16:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• I made some changes [3]. And also moved some sections out of this section and into the Military and Foreign relations sections. --JW1805 (Talk) 16:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

FAC failed

The nomination failed again unfortunately. It seems like most people who objected want the article to be summarized even further, despite how some still want more to be mentioned. In any case, it's not possible to satisfy everyone so I suggest we cut down on the article size instead of attempting to expand it. Not everyone will be happy with the change, but I think it is for the best.--Ryz05 _t 23:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I messaged user:Raul654 about why he failed the nomination even though most were in support, but so far, he has made no reply.--Ryz05 _t 23:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

FAC is not a vote; he looked at the issues expressed and decided it did not pass FAC. --Golbez 23:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a response about what he thinks how the article can be improved.--Ryz05 _t 23:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that this decision doesn't surprise me at all. I did a cursory reading of just the History section last week, and I found obvious errors and creaky writing. Somebody needs to read this entire article, and check it for errors. Frankly, it's not up to FA snuff. Moncrief 17:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved information from article

As an attempt to reduce the size of the article (with a goal of 70-75 kb), information that are removed will be placed under this section so they are not lost, because many did spent a lot of time working on this article.--Ryz05 _t 23:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

-Well I'll be restoring the cities table on account that this has been discussed and voted on many times in the past. I agree the article could use some trimming, but this is the wrong place to start. --Jleon 01:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

JLeon, did you miss the vote we had above that said no table? That supercedes the previous votes, I'd think. --Golbez 03:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Many of the additions to the sections of this article are inserted as people identify things that are missing or could be provided in greater detail. Although we all want to improve the article, the excessive addition of information in many sections has caused them to become bloated and sometimes difficult to read. It would be good for editors to remember that this article is intended solely a summary of the many articles that are specifically related to the section subjects. As such, it is strongly advised that extra additions for the sections in this article be added to those respective subject articles instead.--User:Ryz05 03:57, April 22, 2006 (UTC)

WARNING: Do NOT vandalize this article! Vandalism will be dealt with and persistent vandals may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Lind, Michael: "During the nineteenth century the dominant school of American political economy was the "American School" of developmental economic nationalism...The patron saint of the American School was Alexander Hamilton, whose Report on Manufactures (1791) had called for federal government activism in sponsoring infrastructure development and industrialization behind tariff walls that would keep out British manufactured goods...The American School, elaborated in the nineteenth century by economists like Henry Carey (who advised President Lincoln), inspired the "American System" of Henry Clay and the protectionist import-substitution policies of Lincoln and his successors in the Republican party well into the twentieth century."

Richardson, Heather Cox: "By 1865, the Republicans had developed a series of high tariffs and taxes that reflected the economic theories of Carey and Wayland and were designed to strengthen and benefit all parts of the American economy, raising the standard of living for everyone. As a Republican concluded..."Congress must shape its legislation as to incidentally aid all branches of industry, render the people prosperous, and enable them to pay taxes...for ordinary expenses of Government."

Boritt, Gabor S: "Lincoln thus had the pleasure of signing into law much of the program he had worked for through the better part of his political life. And this, as Leornard P. Curry, the historian of the legislation has aptly written, amounted to a "blueprint for modern America." and "The man Lincoln selected for the sensitive position of Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase, was an ex-Democrat, but of the moderate cariety on economics, one whom Joseph Dorfman could even describe as 'a good Hamiltonian, and a western progressive of the Lincoln stamp in everything from a tariff to a national bank.'"

"By 1880 the United States of America had overtaken and surpassed England as industrial leader of the world."

"[They say] if you had not had the Protective Tariff things would be a little cheaper. Well, whether a thing is cheap or dear depends upon what we can earn by our daily labor. Free trade cheapens the product by cheapening the producer. Protection cheapens the product by elevating the producer. Under free trade the trader is the master and the producer the slave. Protection is but the law of nature, the law of self-preservation, of self-development, of securing the highest and best destiny of the race of man."

Largest cities

New York City

Los Angeles

Chicago

The United States has dozens of major cities, including several important global cities such as New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago. In 2004, 251 incorporated places had populations of at least 100,000, the table below shows the ten most populous cities according to U.S. Census Bureau 2004 estimates. The ranking is different for metropolitan areas, although the top three are the same.

City	City proper				Metropolitan area		Region
	Rank	Population	density (per mi²)	density (per sq km)	Rank	Population
New York City, New York	1	8,104,079	26,403	10,194	1	18,323,002	Northeast
Los Angeles, California	2	3,845,541	7,877	3,041	2	12,365,627	West
Chicago, Illinois	3	2,862,244	12,750	4,923	3	9,098,316	Midwest
Houston, Texas	4	2,012,626	3,372	1,302	7	4,715,407	South
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania	5	1,470,151	11,234	4,337	4	5,687,147	Northeast
Phoenix, Arizona	6	1,418,041	2,782	1,074	14	3,251,876	West
San Diego, California	7	1,263,756	3,772	1,456	17	2,813,833	West
San Antonio, Texas	8	1,236,249	2,809	1,085	29	1,711,703	South
Dallas, Texas	9	1,210,393	3,470	1,340	5	5,161,544	South
San Jose, California	10	904,522	5,118	1,976	30	1,735,819	West

The United States Capitol building, serving as the legislative branch of the United States federal government.

The Constitution limits the powers of the federal government to defense, foreign affairs, the issuing and management of currency, the management of trade and relations between the states, as well as the protection of human rights.

This is quite an awkward sentence

In the first paragraph, even:

>>>Buoyed by victories in World War I and World War II as the only major power not devastated, and especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union following the Cold War, the U.S. emerged as the world's sole superpower or hyperpower.[3] <<<<<

While obviously a sentence can lead with a modifying clause, or even two if it flows well, this sentence has two weighty modifying clauses in the front, with the "main" idea at the very end. I suppose it's gramatically viable (just barely), but it's a clumsy, cumbersome sentence to lead into the article with. Ideas for fixing it? Moncrief 19:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the solution is simple. Changing now. If people have objections, let's discuss here. Moncrief 19:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, I agree that sentence was awkward. I've suggested changes on a couple of occasions but the text wound up the way it was despite my comments so I gave up trying. Since you've been bold enough to fix it, I've taken it one step further.

Somewhere along the line, the intent of all this got lost. The idea is really quite simple until you try to cram it all into one sentence and then split it into two again.

Hopefully, my text communicates the point lucidly. In case it doesn't, the point is this... Because the U.S. economy and infrastructure were not wiped out as happened to France, Germany and the U.K. during WWI and WWII, its economy outgrew theirs. Now, this glosses over the point that the U.S. had vast undeveloped natural resources and wide open territory to expand agriculturally. Hey, there's only so much you can cram into a three-paragraph intro.

We don't explain why the Soviet Union became the other world superpower. It DID get devastated by WWII but let's ignore that point also for now since this is about the United States and not about the Soviet Union.

So, as you correctly pointed out, it wasn't until after the Soviet Union collapsed that the U.S. emerged as the world's sole superpower/hyperpower.

--Richard 20:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Grrrr... ok, fine, if you think my version is too long then let's go with yours. However, for reasons that I can't put into words, saying "As the only major power not devastated by WWI and WWII" sounds fine whereas "The U.S. was buoyed by victories in World War I and World War II as the only major power not devastated." sounds awkward.

I think the problem is that the first sentence adds a bit to the meaning of "not devastated" whereas the second sentence leaves the reader hanging as to the meaning of "not devastated".

I think my most recent edit addresses this problem.

--Richard 20:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Since when does "buoyed" come from "not devastated"? Jaxad0127 20:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I prefer just the word "buoyed," which sort of implies that the U.S.'s economy was not devastated, but others at the time wanted it to include "not devastated." I think I'll delete the mentioning of its economy being not devastated, which seems excessive.--Ryz05 _t 22:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with: "The U.S. was buoyed by victories in World War I and World War II and was the only major power whose economy was not devastated. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union after the Cold War, the U.S. emerged as the world's sole superpower or hyperpower" personally. Moncrief 22:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, especially after you made those edits. But, since "buoyed" is implying that the U.S.'s economy was not devastated, don't you think it's excessive to state it "was the only major power whose economy was not devastated?"--Ryz05 _t 23:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)