Talk:Society of the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Older comments

This is ugly. Are we really expecting to fill in all of this empty space? -- Zoe

Hi Zoe, thanks for taking an interest in this page. In answer to your question, yes I'd like to fill in all of that space. I've been trying to add more substantial articles on the U.S. and its states. Unfortunately, this is not my area of expertise, thus I have to do a fair amount of research prior to and during the writing of the articles. If you're offering to help, that would be fantastic. As far as the ugliness of the page, I agree with you on that, though I've found many such empty sections and bulleted outline lists in various articles, some of which for the U.S. I've replaced. It seems to be the wiki practice. I am certainly willing to either change the section headings to bullets or even move the unfinished sections to this talk page until they have been completed. What do you think? - sfmontyo

What the hey? This isn't right..Not even close. First off foriegn films are widely available. Most US Broadcast cartoons targeted to children are sanitized and dubbed Japanese Anime. Manga and Animae are widely available. Other forign films are also most certainly widely available.

Second although there are large conglomerates for food and retail, they are regional and don't extend the US. Only a few stores like Dollar General, Target, K-Mart, Wal-Mart, and Save-A-Lot are the same across the states. These stores don't make up the bulk of any large US city's retailers. There are almost always local stores on top of these stores. The same with the foods. ALthough Fast-Food and Fast Casual chains exist in the US they exist alongside local resturants, cafes, and diners.

Holidays

Concerning the "other holidays": I don't know any companies that give any off those holidays as days off, except for Columbus Day and Veterans Day. In addition, can we get the tables to line up? -- Zoe

I'm open to most any suggestion. As far as the "other holidays", I wasn't sure about bank holidays and the like. We can delete them or change the title to indicate that they are unobserved in the sense of having time off. I had planned on getting to those holidays after completing the earlier parts of the article. Should we make this just one table? Also, I had planned on adding dates to them as well. I can't do any more work tonight, but can take a look at it tomorrow. Cheers, - Sfmontyo

I think one table would be good, with indications as to whether they're observed or not. -- Zoe

The Holiday list is way off also. In the US a Holiday can be declared by the Federal Govt, the State, or the local City. Carnival and Oktoberfest are two examples of locally declared holidays. On top of that there are also some cultral-centric Holidays which are observed without being declared by the govt at any level. The Jewish Holidays you have listed are typically not declared by any State. The Fed Govt only declares 10 Holidays; Christmas, New Years Day, Presidents Day, Martin Luther King Day, Memorial Day, Independance Day (4'th of July), Labor Day, Columbus day, Thanksgiving, and Vetrans Day. On the other hand Haloween, St. Patricks Day, Valentines Day, Easter, Good Friday, and April Fools day are celebrated uniformly across the US without being declared.

I noticed all these comments on holidays but there is no holiday section in the article itself. It was one of the things I saw that was obviously missing. Any reason that it isn't there anymore, since it appears to have been there at one point? Tygartl1 20:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Curious why my changes were just undone

Why were my changes of "00:20, 11 Dec 2003" and "00:25, 11 Dec 2003" reverted ? (Not that I'm terribly upset, but I am curious -- I thought one of my changes fixed an apparent misstatement of fact, and one fixed a flaw in grammar.)

I'm sorry. I mistook you for another anon that appeared to be Michael. I'll revert your changes now. -- Pakaran 00:30, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I can't really revert this one, since you've edited it since then, sorry. -- Pakaran 00:31, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

re: "One of the biggest differences in suburban living is the housing occupied by the families." -- I couldn't understand this -- differences from what?

From urban housing, as in apartments and row houses. This applies mostly to Eastern cities like Philadelphia. In Denver most houses in the city are the same detached houses one finds in the suburbs, but somewhat smaller and older. The suburban housing pattern mandates the car culture, access to most services requiring the use of a vehicle. Fred Bauder 12:37, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

"The States" is a term generally used when referring to the country from some overseas vantage point.

I may be mistaken, but I believe it's mainly Canadians who use this term. I believe that as often as not, people from non-North American, English-speaking countries refer to the US as "America" or the "USA" or what have you, but not so much as "the States." Can someone confirm or refute this? --Sewing 23:46, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I can't speak to this question, but i question its relevance: this article is about American culture, and that context suggests construing that sentence as saying that Americans overseas are likely to talk about, for instance, how long it is before they will be "going back to the States". --Jerzy(t) 04:46, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)

It's not just Canada. We use it in the UK as well. Brentford 16:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Putting food back into the article as I believe it is an aspect of culture. Further, a web search will show other references also view food as an aspect of culture. e.g. one such (no comment on whether this is a good one or not :) ) is Microsoft Encarta. See http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_1741500820/United_States_(Culture).html - Sfmontyo 05:03, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Virtues?

Could a virtue of hygene be added? Americans are generally a very clean people that place a large value on personal hygene. For example, body odor is a very extreme taboo in America as opposed to Great Britain or other Western countries. Just an idea...

-That's a joke, yeah? [JonMayer]

...I'm not at all convinced by this one!

Midland I believe is spoke in the Midwest just north of the Ohio and stops at the plains.

African American Vernacular English should have been added.

America is too loose and diverse a country for you to treat it like other countries. I mostly talking about the article on Dress. If it were some old world civilization I can see that but not the US. -Eurytus

phenomenon: middle class families embracing high culture in the 50's and 60's

Has anyone heard of this phenomenon? Middle class American families somewhere mid-century embraced upper class culture like classical music, high art, theater, education, etc. and in turn indoctrinated their children. What is this phenomenon called. How can I learn more?

lmathews@abr-nc.com

Social Problems

I think that this page is not as carefully critical as it could be. Certain of US' (our) social issues could be addressed here, too. Homelessness is a truly American cultural phenomenon, the product of individualism. Race and racism are important cultural components. Public life in the US is mostly secular, but there is a lot of conflict about the meaning of religion in our society. These controversial need to be duly included.

--Defenestrate 4 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)

Use of the term "American Culture"

...is an ambiguous one, because it can lead to confusion between "culture of the USA" and "culture of the people of the Americas". Aztecs, Toltecs, Sioux, Canadians, Equatorians, Argentinians, Brazilians, etc... all have culture, and they are all in the American continent. Thus, "american culture" is a misleading term, and I believe that it should be substituetd to something clearer, such as "culture of US", "US culture" or some other unambiguous equivalent. If its ok with everybody, Ill make such changes in a day or two. LtDoc 23:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

While in other languages and/or cultures the term "America" retains a more general sense of "the Americas," no ambiguity attaches to the word in English—that is to say, the terms "America" and "American" are construed in the English language as referring to the USA or topics related to the USA. More particularly with regard to the present article, the context (i.e., an article titled "Culture of the United States") further confirms this interpretation to the reader. This is not chauvinism or linguistic appropriation, it is simply the path of semantic development that the phrase "America" has taken in the English language, and changing the article in the manner you suggested would appear to make the article more stilted and unnatural-sounding. —Ryanaxp 16:30, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

It is an unfortunate semantic development that shows how ignorant most US people are. Nevertheless, I agree that most people think that American People are US-people. In some of my edits to this page, and in my own every day speech, I say United States People, but I am part of an opinionated minority. Sigh.

Even if for US citizens the term "american" refers to them alone, it is yet highly offensive to others. And even in the US the term causes some confusion, you just need to check on the page of native americans, for example. Furthermore, its is linguistic appropriation allright, perhaps the biggest case of such uf ever there was one. America (the continent) existed well before the US was colonized, independent and founded. Perhaps what you meant is that it wasnt your generation that started it, but it surely was an appropriation (and I can see a couple of reasons for that) of the name. There are several pages discusing this topic, and I suggest you take a look at them to see how the discussion goes. As of now, we have a 2-1 pro-change vote.LtDoc 22:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I for one suggest you might do well not to assume that I haven't followed the "several pages" you mention above—in fact I have read the opinions expressed on this topic in various places (including vigorous opinions both pro and con) and formed careful conclusions on the matter weighing both sides. Moreover, I must wholeheartedly and firmly reject your attempt to put words in my mouth—I meant what I wrote, no more, no less; and nothing I wrote said anything whatsoever about my own or anyone else's generation. Your kind understanding in my emphasis is greatly appreciated, as I'm sure you can see why it is important to address such matters in an affirmative (but hopefully not rude) manner.
Regarding the assertion you make of the current use of the term "American" as reflecting chauvinism on the part of Americans, I'm afraid we shall simply have to respectfully agree to disagree, as there seems no more likelihood of either of us convincing the other, than would those who debate the validity of evolution or the propriety of abortion. I can appreciate the sincerity of your views, and I hope you can understand that my view of the matter is sincere, as well.
As for pointing out the vote count at the conclusion of a single day, I think it seems a bit unripe even to mention—I'm not some reverting avenger and I've no intention to go about changing any such changes you make, but since you opened the discussion here on the talk page and invited opinions, I simply stated mine. —Ryanaxp 02:15, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Well, what I suggested is that, since you have an opinion on this matter, it would be good to get an eye on the other articles as well - I didnt assume you either did or didnt follow up, I was making a suggestion. Also, if you take the time to re-read my comment youll see that I havent placed any words in your mouth. What was implied in my previous comment is that people who dont believe this to be an appropriation usually mean that they werent the ones who started using the term.

And yes, I agree this (these) subject(s) should be adressed in an affirmative way, as (I hope) you can tell by the way I address the matter. However, (catchy sentence warning!) I disagree to the fact that we should simply agree to disagree on the fact that it was either an appropiation or an evolution. (Dont get me wrong, agreeing to disagree on subjects is all nice and good, and cordiality should be always a top requirement to participate in all kinds of discussion). My point is, reviewing historical documents, studying the mannerisms of the time, getting a grasp on how the term "american" was coined, by whom, to which purpose, in what cultural, historical and plolitical background, we can (and will) find out the reasons that made this term current in the USA as of today, therefore asserting it was an appropriation.

As for the count, it was only to place a partial result,you can rest assured that I wouldnt dream of making such a change (in which several people feel passionate about) in a single day of voting, with the meager count of 3 votes, for it would be trollish, unethical and just plain rude. Talk pages are for discussion, and with a little luck, improvement, of the article. Cheers!LtDoc 16:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Intra-national allegiances

"Recent immigrants tend to congregate with other immigrants from their country of origin,..."

This is common in most countries, and is not unique to America. I don't think it adds to our uniqueness; that is, I don't think it is a dynamic that adds to America's unique culture. Instead, it is a common element in world urban culture. There are some important issues here nonetheless, being the general groups of immigrants: those from Europe, those from outside Europe, and those forced here by the slave trade. The relative differences with which these groups have blended into the society (and continue to blend) is indicative of unique American attitudes and culture. However, the fact that immigrants from an area will tend to congregate for a time in different parts of different cities is of no real interest: who they are certainly matters when talking about American culture, while the fact that they arrived and grouped up in some cities is not.(anon Oct 2, 2005)

Sports

Perhaps it would be appropriate to widen the idea here of a fairly unique selection of American-only (more or less) sports, by a short mention of the sports often associated with east-coast k-12 grade school. Lacrosse and field hockey, for example, are quite common school sports in the east coast (although largely unknown in the west) - with lacrosse being an american invention/adaptation. I don't mean this as an over-detailed nitpick, but instead think they are great examples of some truly unique sports played in the U.S.(anon Oct 2, 2005)

lacrosse being an american invention/adaptation. Funny. I always thought it was a canadian sport. hence the whole "national sport of canada" thing.

Divorce

I think it could be useful to note the divorce rate in the US. While the issue is touched on again in more depth later (single parent households), it would seem appropriate to mention some specifics on the rate over time, perhaps in the Divorce section. I think (again, as is done later) the rate should be given some context as well - in some countries, America is perceived as being a culture that is rife with divorce.(anon Oct 2, 2005)

Romantic relationships

Attitudes toward sex is a low-hanging-fruit type of cultural marker, and this issue could be a good candidate for inclusion in the article. Attitudes awards sex and media violence is a common point of comparison between American and various European contemporary cultures (ie, being worried about one but not the other, depending on where you are from). I don't think we would be getting too salacious to at least generally reference the basics of the attitudes toward sex and sexuality found in America. We have enough unique (although not extraordinary) ways of thinking and implementing our attitudes to warrant mention, and as well the topic in general is one that many other cultures feel to be a key distinction found in perceived American culture.(anon Oct 2, 2005)

Death rituals

A reasonably distinctive element to how Americans deal with death (and one that is somewhat new, appearing in the last half-century or more), is our tendency to very quickly get dead bodies out of the home and out of sight. Unlike many (perhaps even most) cultures, where the dead are kept in the home for some time, we rapidly move our deceased away from the home. Once a person has died, their body will be seen very little - generally just at a funeral home for a short period. This, again, is in stark contrast to many other cultures. I don't feel this is a small detail, and think that perhaps a person from another culture may find a comment about this issue informative.(anon Oct 2, 2005)

American perception of government

We have a quite distinctive, and almost pathological/religious, distrust of government that can be found in American culture. This, taken with our general religiosity, and in particular with the strong focus on "end times" / apocalypse in much of our fundamentalist religion, makes for some unqiue and quirky things that arise in our attitudes. These two elements combine to surprising effect, with our government often viewed by some as being a potential vehicle of the Biblical apocalypse. This can give some insight to some of the things that Americans can get oddly impassioned about: namely gun control laws (something that the citizens of most other countries have no real issue with).

This issue isn't something that arises solely out of wacky down-home militias (themselves an interesting element of America) - one of the unique and important elements of our nation's founding was to codify an inherent distrust of government (and, more particularly, the people of government) into the laws and agreements that form our foundation. This particular idea, and the attitudes from which it sprang, has been surprisingly long lived - some might even say virulent. More so than any place I have ever visited, the blue collar near-pathological distrust of the federal government taken as a whole is breathtakingly unique to America. As well, this bit of our shared outlook is often noted favorably (when discussing the manner and form of our early government) by many as being a key component to both our own form of representative government, and to our perception of government in general.

I'm quickly getting too specific or narrow here, but I want to be clear on this aspect of the american psyche due to the fact that in milder versions, it is very much present: there are a very large number of Americans (I'll go out on a limb and say that these Americans will not infrequently be non-urban working class peoples) who very specifically believe that the U.N. is a body that will herald the Antichrist, and that the UN is pushing America to have stronger gun laws so that America is easier to take over by the Antrichrist. Whew! Don't run away just yet! While this represents the most extreme form of this broad sense of distrust we have in our culture, in much milder ways this attitude is quite prevalent. When a country codifies early on a mistrust of centralized governments, and a healthy dose of traditional or fundamentalist religion is thrown into the mix, this distrust of government can suddenly arise in unexpectedly strong form. Much of what the rest of the world considers to be completely inexplicable in American culture (again, our passionate guarding of the right to own firearms) arises from the blending of these two cultural themes.

This may seem an odd point to stress and advocate for mention in the article, but I admit that I fear an article written solely from the standpoint of a white-culture, urban, educated middle/upper-middle class writer. We (and I put myself squarely in that demographic) can too easily apply our sense of America to a country that is mind-numbingly diverse on almost every axis imaginable. (anon Oct 2, 2005)

Family Arrangements

On the relatively early age at which a child is expected to have left home: "The strong capitalist tradition may also be a subtle factor (more economic input for landlords)."

I don't think this comment is such a hot idea. It strikes me as editorialistic, quite speculative, and not very sensible (is the author truly arguing that hundreds of millions of people have had their sense of independence, and when in their lives it should take place, subtly altered by a dark cabal of apartment owners?).(anon Oct 2, 2005)

Mobile Americans

Simply put, Americans tend to move around in the country at an eye-watering rate compared to the rest of the world. This of course is due in no small part to the fact that we are both large, and contain a large number of urban economic centers. So, understandably, many Americans will make major moves to new cities for reasons of employment, as well as other sundry reasons.

This is very frequently cited as being a distinctive element to life in America that is very much at variance with what is found elsewhere in the world. It's impact is certainly important (and I believe plays into the American attitudes towards family). Definitely worth considering as addition to the article.(anon Oct 2, 2005)

A work that I can cite at your request (see my talk page) stated that the degree of mobility of Americans in the last 10 years has decline compared with that of the 1980s. --Dpr 06:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Anonynmous comment

I just read over this article, and really enjoyed it. Great work! I would be scared to even begin writing about a summary of American culture. I had a few comments and ideas, which I will list above. I take up far too much space, and go on at great length about seemingly small details. I'm sorry for this, and feel free to wholesale delete my comments at your whim! While I ramble on at length, I am generally just advocating a quick mention of the topic that I bring up. (anon Oct 2, 2005)

The average American moves once every 6 years. Declining or not, that's high. -Adammathias

Education

Is the distiction between "middle school" and "junior high" really grades 6-8 for middle and 7-9 for junior high? That's not how it works in Southern Illinois. Almost all the towns have junior highs, and they're all 6-8. There are some "middle schools," but there doesn't really seem to be a difference. Very rarely is there a school, of either nomenclature, that goes 7-9. In fact it's more common for there to be 5-8 schools. (5-8 is still rare, but it's less rare than 7-9.) 70.106.209.48 06:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I wonder if it's often just a regional thing as to which term to use to describe things. My very vague perception is that perhaps middle school is maybe weighted towards the easter seaboard?

Arizona uses middle schools. The genesis of one method over the other does not seem to be relegated to geographics on a continental scale. Perhaps changes that are being prompted by No Child Left Behind will affect a more unified system nationally (speculation).

Car Culture

Americans love their cars and their comparitively inexpensive gasoline. Recently federal government statistics found that there were more licensed automobiles than drivers in the US. The automobile is a symbol of empowerment. It should be mentioned. 70.106.209.48 06:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Allen Ginsberg

Hey folks - need your help on the Allen Ginsberg page. I think it needs a section giving an overview of his literary/intellectual credentials. thegirlinwhite 12:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Use of 'America', 'American' etc.

I have removed the inaccurate of these words where possible. Markb 10:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Cars invented elsewhere

This implies that Americans invented cars. That should be changed, though I'm not sure what precice wording should replace it

try created/manufactured/imported from

The manufacturing techniques which allowed cars to be plentiful and cheap enough to be sold to the general public were what was invented in America. I'm just going to take out "automobiles" for now until I or someone else have a reference for that. Mahern 19:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Henry Ford invented the assembly line, not the car. The car was invented in Germany by Carl Benz. Signature^brendel 19:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what I meant by "manufacturing techniques...". Sorry if that wasn't clear enough. Mahern 21:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Impact on world

Someone should add a fairly lengthy section on the influence of american culture on the rest of the world

No less than a book length section will do that, but I would be very impressed if someone pulled it off. American values are everywhere thanks to, for example, American businesses, tourism and movies.

where are the footnotes?

where are the footnotes?

Are you guys stealing this information or making it up or what?

Probably making it up. Most Wikipedians are too lazy or dumb to run an Infotrac search and dig up some articles. Even fewer have the energy to take notes when they're at the library and they see a book that's relevant to a Wikipedia article.--Coolcaesar 20:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I have small library at home and am now trying to turn this into an at least somewhat decently referenced article. Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 23:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

US article on featured candidate

Just to let you guys know, the United States article is on featured article candidates list, so you can cast your vote there- or not.--Ryz05 19:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

American Vacation Time

re: this sentence in the article: "The average American worker has fewer vacation days than the average European (10-15 rather than the European average of around 20)." This is completely and totally incorrect. Workers in France get 8 weeks paid vacation, plus they work a 35-hour workweek, which amounts to another 22 days off per year. Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/27/60II/main704571.shtml

The above is not unusual in Europe, with the exception of Britain. Germans, for example, also enjoy a guaranteed minimum of 6 weeks paid vacation with numerous paid holidays. The same goes for Italy. By contrast, U.S. companies are not required to give ANY vacation time to their employees. Most workers I know, if they get any time off at all, get one week of vacation time. On top of that, the "40-hour week" is complete fiction in the U.S. these days, as many workers are foced to work 50-60 hours a week and/or hold down two to three jobs to make ends meet.

Relationship to other countries/cultures

The bit about Americans being "insular" needs a reference; likewise, the bit about few books being translated. Otherwise, this stuff should be removed. Cultural Freedom talk 12:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It should also be noted that not all Americans think of the US as being the entire world. Many Americans have strong relationships to individuals in other countries and 15% of the population are immigrants themselves! Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 23:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Nationalism vs. Patriotism

Someone added a parenthetical comment about how Americans (and, it is suggested, not many others) "often believe that their patriotism has nuances that differentiate it from nationalism and nationalism's negative connotations." Patriotism and nationalism are different phenomena. Simple inspection of the words' respective etymologies makes this evident; moreover, think about how absurd the following sounds "Nationalist Americans stormed the Capitol...." A rewording of the claim that highlights how most historians, not just Americans, understand the difference between a country and a nation, and thus the diff. between patriotism and nationalism, might make it acceptable, but I see no reason why such a claim should be in this article at all. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006.06.19 18:29 (UTC)

I concur. By confusing patriotism with nationalism, the claim becomes simply ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with loving one's country. I have been to many countries and everyone there loves their country and its symbols (the flag, the national anthem, the head of state, etc.). --Coolcaesar 08:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Nationalism usually means being loyal to people of same genetic, linguistic etc backround. Patriotism seems more accurate in the case of the United States because of the mix of backrounds in the country. -Wikipedia-fan

Sorry guys I disagree. While it is true that nationalism is usually used in reference to a loyalty based on common ethnic or linguistic background, the fact that America is ethnically diverse doesn't erase the strong similarities between the American sense of patriotism and true nationalism. Patriotism is love of ones country but Americans who see themselves as patriots tend to view America almost as an culturally homogeneous nation same as with Germany, France, or China. And while it's true that there's nothing wrong with loving ones country that love morphs into nationalism when America's relations with the rest of the world are called into question. With that respect, American patriots typically see things in a "you're either with us or against us" light perfectly exemplified by the whole "Freedom Fries" movement leading up to the Iraq war. Basically the point I'm trying to make is that American patriotism doesn't stop at love for ones country. In order for one to be accepted as a patriot by patriots in America an almost unqualified devotion to the national interests of America is required (no matter how the pursuit of those interests impacts others) and any way you look at it, that's nationalism.--24.90.108.188 08:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)mind3l3vation

Nacirema

Have a look at Nacirema, it is an interesting look at US culture, but isn't even linked in from this page. --Midnighttonight 04:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding diversity

I quote the article under the section Attitudes -

"There really isn't any "American" attitude, or "American" style, because the country is perhaps one of the most diverse in the entire world."

The way I see it is that the country clearly is one of the most diverse in the world, if not the most diverse, and to write "perhaps one of the most..." seems to be uneccessarily cautious and unsure. Perhaps the article should read "because the country is perhaps the most diverse in the entire world", or "because the country is one of the most diverse in the entire world."--Benhealy 01:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur. I rewrote. (Actually, that whole section is somewhat clumsy; I'll try to rewrite it at some point.) --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-25 07:59 (UTC)

Drugs

I folded the section on tobacco as a subsection of a wider section on all drugs. I tried not to let my opinions bring any POV into the section, but may have failed. If it needs improvement for NPOV, go ahead - but please don't just delete anything! EdC 23:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that "illicit drugs remain immensely popular." The word "immensely" makes it sound as if a majority, or nearly a majority, of the population uses illegal drugs, which is untrue. In any case, it's highly subjective. Perhaps the statment could be replaced with an objective statistic, such as a percentage.

Attitudes

The first paragraph under attitudes reeks of being wrong.

It is important to bear in mind that the United States of America is highly diverse, by way of region. The South is entirely different from the Northeast, which is itself in many ways foreign to the Mid-West, which adheres to an entirely different cultural attitude than the West. There really isn't any "American" attitude, or "American" style for the simple reason that the country is so extraordinarily diverse.

The south is not ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from the Northeast. The Northeast is in no way foreign, etc. I think the meaning of this paragraph could be summed up in fewer words and not stress that each reigion is seperate and disimilar entirely, but that every reigion, while being part of a mainstream US culture, differs on several aspects from reigin to regien.

Why not just remove that entire paragraph entirely? I suspect that the same thing could be said of any country of reasonable size, yet (for example) Culture of Germany doesn't try to stress the difference between a Brandenburger and a Bavarian... --Bletch 02:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

And the San Francisco Bay Area is as different as a foreign country ;-) (At least that's what some "Heartland" Americans say after coming here). Every complex society and especially American society which is in itself a compound culture features sginficant cultural fragmentation. In the US the culutral fragmentation is ironically one of American society's most prominent "common" featrues. Regards, Signature^brendel 19:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Race

Nothing about race.Mrdthree 14:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

True-there should be. Race does have a significant impact on how individuals perceive their environment as it is still build into the socialization process. Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 23:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal

I have removed all the gigantic list of "____ of the United States" becuase this is available in the template at the top of the page. Iolakana|^T 16:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Cultural values

This section reads like orig. research, without citations & seems to summarize and generalize instead of explaing. I'd vote for a rewrite. Desertsky85451 19:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

See my comment below. Regards, Signature^brendel 19:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Section temporarely removed

I removed the following section for three reasons:

1. It is OR (no sources)
2. It is POV (somebody writing of his own experiences)
3. It is inappropriately written

This section could do immense damage to this article's reputation and that of WP overall IMHO.

“ American values maybe contrasted with European, and more extremely Asian cultural values. It may be noted that while America is dominated by assimilated Europeans, it is also home to various other racial and cultural groups. Here are some contrasts:

Europeans and Asians remark about America's valuing "freedom" in its many manifestations. Americans encourage experimentation and often view failure as just one step towards success. Individuality is encouraged, though conformity is still a default. Americans encourage building your own peer networks, as compared to hierarchical systems, such as Confucianism, which establish hierarchies within blood family and employment. Although bonding with people of like backgrounds is a default, reaching out to those different is encouraged. America has no formal class or caste system, but there is a belief that with enough luck and or effort, informal boundaries can be crossed, as a topic of many movie plots. There is a somewhat naïve but optimistic belief that all problems can be fixed with enough commitment and effort, e.g. if we can put a man on the moon, we can cure xyz. Gino's Pizza radio ad: "About that leaning tower, we can send our boys over there and fix it right up". Relative to Asian societies, Americans like to speak out, express opinions, shake hands, network / socialize with complete strangers, and hug. Immigrants from all nations, particularly children are sometimes torn between their ancestral and their new host country's values.

”

Also, I have noticed that this article provides almost no sources and some of the text, no offense, exclusively featrues gross generalizations of stereotypes. How many American actually retire and leave the work-force once and for-all at the mere age of 65? How many Americans actually only work 40h/week? Such stereotypes should also be present with current statisitcs to give an accurate reflection of American culture today and better illustrate historical trends. Best Regards, Signature^brendel 19:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Leads the World?

Just curious about this quote, "The United States leads the world in higher education..." What exactly does 'leads the world' mean? Seems a little opinionated to me. Though I am a complete and utter noob. 82.19.24.194 14:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Maria 16th September 2006

Well, we do lead the world in higher education. We have more universities than any other country, and more foreign students attend US schools than any other country. I seem to recall there used to be references here or elsewhere on Wikipedia that pointed out we have a higher percentage of the population that has attended college than anywhere else, and that most of the top 20 schools in the world were in the US. You are right, though, without references, this sounds like a statement of opinion. We need to source that better.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of the word American

I think American should be changed to "United States" in most places. American is a colloquial term, and United States (or U.S.) the legal one. Also, "Native Americans" should be "Native North-Americans". That's only if its not planned to include Inca references :D

I should add too that the references to "American Literature" and "American Art" speaking only of U.S. artists, is , at the least, insulting for the big legacy of the great painters, novel writers, poets and musicians all over the continent.

I'd think "Native North-Americans" would be inaccurate. "Native Americans" is a phrase with its own meaning, but "native North-Americans" would include anyone who is native to North America (i.e. whoever was born there). I think "indigenous" or "aboriginal" might be more appropriate. 24.72.103.137 10:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sociology and assimilation

I think this statement needs clarifying-

Modern sociologists tend to view pluralism, rather than assimilation, as a goal for American society, largely disregarding the idea of the melting pot.

Is this what the majority of American sociologists think should happen i.e. their personal opinion, or the majority of sociologists in the world, or is it what the majority of sociologists have scientifically determined about what the American society wants? Roy Brumback 12:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"this what the majority of American sociologists think should happen i.e. their personal opinion" The majority of modern sociologist see pluralism as the best way to dealing with American's diversity. I think most sociologist globally would agree, but this statement concerns US sociologists, especially as it cites a book containing the articles of American sociologists. I have added the word "American." Also we don't actually have a study showing what the "majority," 51%, think; thus the word "many" is implied in the sentence. Regards, Signature^brendel 18:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

But as sociology is a science, it can't really say what should happen or be, only what scientifically is, as there is no scientific definition of the good. So once again, is that their personal opinions or what they have scientifically determined what the majority of Americans think? What does "dealing with diversity" mean? One can't scientifically define a goal of what should happen. At most sociology might be able to determine what things keep a "diverse" group of people from having conflicts, but where are the scientific studies on that cited here? And that is not what the statement says, it says pluralism is a goal for American society, and science can't define a goal for a society. Roy Brumback 06:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes social scientists do give advise. I understand your point, but please understand that Sociologist are Social Scientists and much Economists and Political Scientists, they caution and give advise. You see, they don't just state what is, they also think of what should be adn how to get there. They have determined that plusralism is best for American society or as you said they "might be able to determine what things keep a "diverse" group of people from having conflicts."' Social scientist conduct research and come to conclusions on how to proceed based on their research. American sociologists have concluded that pluralism is the best thing for American society, much like people used to see asimilation as the best way to deal with diversity. In other words, pluralism has been suggested as the best way to deal with diversity by Sociologists. That is what the sentence says. You can also interpret it this way, the statments tells that pluralism is the best way to deal with diversity and perhaps is thus one of the goals of American society. BTW: A good way of defining the term "Dealing with diversity" is "what things keep a "diverse" group of people from having conflicts"- pluralims is a common answer. The Social Sciences are a curious thing ;-) Regards, Signature^brendel 06:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If they think of what should be, then that is their personal opinion and not something scientifically determined. If that is what they think is best (good), then that is also personal opinion, not something scientific. And again, what does "dealing with diversity" mean, scientifically? The cite says sociologists think this is a goal, again not something scientifically determined, but a personal opinion.

One should not have to interpret what the sentence means, and it seems to me to mean they are stating a goal, which is a personal opinion. If we can find a scientific sociology study showing "diversity", whatever that means, keeps people in less conflict then assimilation, again a foggy term, then we can cite that for that conclusion, not for a conclusion about a goal.

But would you agree that as a matter of science we can not say what should be the goal of society, only how to achieve goals we set out to achieve? Social sciences are, at least in principle, like any other science, using experiments to test theories. As there is no scientific theory of the good, one can't say scientifically what should be, at least not at the present time. Certainly people ask social scientists about their opinions on things, but all they can really say scientifically is how to achieve a goal, not what is should be. Chemists and astronomers also have ideas about what should happen in the world, but these are not any more scientific then what a sociologist thinks should happen in the world. Social scientists working for say Hitler certainly had a different goal then social scientists who advised say Truman on the desirability of the Marshall Plan. Social scientists working for the USSR has different goals then those working for the US, and there is no way to scientifically say who was right on the goal, only what effects on say supply of goods price controls had ect...

So this sentence needs to be changed to either say what sociology has determined is the best way for people to work together or stop conflict or whatever or label this goal as the personal opinion of the majority of sociologists to keep it factually acurate. Does the cited material say that sociology has determined what prodecures are best for avoiding conflict or making a society more productive or whatever or does it say what sociologists think a goal should be, in which case it is personal opinion? Roy Brumback 07:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please differentiate between social and natural sciences. These are not the personal opinions of average joes. These are conclusions based on scientific research. Also, this sentence is a combination it states the follwoing:

1. Pluralism is based on scientific research the best method to deal with diversity (its the how, not the goal itself)
2. Pluralism can already be seen in American society. Meaning that sociologist have determined American society to be pluralitic already to some extend

This is what the cited metrial says. In other words, pluralism is in the expert opinion of sciologist the best way of dealing with inter-ethnic relations and is already present in society. I changed the wording of the sentence. Also, "But would you agree that as a matter of science we can not say what should be the goal of society, only how to achieve goals we set out to achieve?"- Agree but I think you misunderstood my last post a bit. The goal is inter-ethinc harmony (meaning no conflict between persons based on the ethinicity, ancestry or race). Pluralism is in the opinion of Sociologist the way to get there, it the "how." Thanks you for your concern. Regards, Signature^brendel 19:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That's better but one question-Do you have that source and is that what is says, that "pluralism", which I think needs definition, leads to more "harmony", which is what? Less conflict? Less violence? Needs to be more specific and needs actual cited sociological studies. And I do not differentiate between social and physical sciences, as they are both simply using data and experiments to test ideas. If they are personal opinions, no matter if they are not "average Joes", then they are just that, personal opinions, no better or worse than anyone else's, otherwise we are using an argument from authority. Roy Brumback 23:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

There is an entire article devoted to pluralism. Harmony means exactely as you said: "Less conflict... Less violence". Again, to be precise we could write a whole other article on racial harmony. We are condesing a lot into a small space here, so the terms are going to be somewhat vague-as they are in all country articles due to the complxity of the subject matter. Also, I do beleive that there is a difference between an expert opinion and other opinion. After-all we do pay doctors for their opinion when we are sick, don't we ;-). Regards, Signature^brendel; 23:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but their opinion isn't always correct is it. And what about the source. Do you have it? Roy Brumback 06:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, no expert opinion is not always right. Yes I do have the source-its a book in print. Also, this is not just expert opinion, its also an observations. Sociologist have observed pluralism in American society and also states that this is the best way towards racial and ethnic "Harmony." Regards, Signature^brendel 06:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Roy Brumback

"Expert sociologists" have much less influence on American society than they wish they had. Also, most of these sociologists are left leaning and work in left leaning universities and their opinions reflect the desires of that context. I think this statement might be technically correct, but it is much less useful than you might think. We might consider removing it, as it indirectly implies that plurality is the "new" goal of America, when in fact, it isn't. American society has always been a blend between pluralism and assimilation, with the former prevalent in new immigrants and the latter in their children and future generations.Kevinp2 13:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"American society has always been a blend between pluralism and assimilation"- that's why need that statement. Sociology beleive that plurality is to a certain extend visible within Americans society, not just a goal. Our statement needs to reflect the exsistance and expert opinion on plurality as well as the continuing presence of assimilation. BTW: Plurality is also what created American culutre-the Irish assimilated but they also changed American culture and society; thus creating plurality as well. Signature^brendel 20:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• There is actually a huge political debate over the merits of cultural assimilation versus multiculturalism and pluralism. I don't think it's fair to give the opinion of only one group on this topic. Those three articles have lots more material on the subject, so I'm just going to link to them. -- Beland 23:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

A better image than the "melting pot" is that of the "salad," or "trail mix." We're all in the same bowl or bag, but people generally still remain within their own ethnic/racial/religious groups, remaining separate entities rather than everyone being truly "blended" or "melted" together like soup; however, there is rising racial consciousness in the USA, and thus the rising tension that comes along with rising racial consciousness -- some predict a 'race war' sometime in the future, with the country eventually being divided up by ethnic/racial status. Anti-Semitism is generally on the rise across the board (Racial antisemitism, not anti-Judaism), as is Black resentment against Whites, White resentment against Arabs/Muslims, Black resentment against Hispanic/Mexicans, Hispanic resentment against Whites and Jews, and so forth. People tend to naturally segregate themselves by race and avoid "race mixing" (because they naturally feel most comfortable in their own in-group, amongst their own kind), just look at prison populations -- there is nothing unusual about this. However, let us hope that the "melting pot" doesn't begin to boil over one day, thus spoiling the entire meal and making a huge mess. --172.131.131.220 11:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

HDI

Since when did the HDI change from .944 to .948? 74.117.72.239 06:17, 1 October 2006

See List of countries by Human Development Index for references. -- Beland 23:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC) It has been 0.948 --Darrendeng 08:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

September 11, 2001 and the War on Terrorism

I think it's inappropriate to have a section on this topic and not a section on other major events in united states histor (vietnam war, gulf war, war of ___, etc, economic events).

It seems more like a partisan hack.

"The history of the United States: Revolutionary War, Civil War, Great Depression, WW2, Republican George Bush's Screw-Up In The Middle East."

Yes, even though I agree that Bush screwed things up, the recent War in Iraq should not receive any more attention in this article then say, the Vietnam, 1^st Gulf War, etc... This article is to provide an overview of the US, not merely its current issues; thus we must be careful in how much text we devote to current issues. Signature^brendel 20:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, timelessness is one of the characteristics of an encyclopedia, and giving undue weight to the sensational or current is a violation of WP:NPOV. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 20:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Image of Country with states names?

either the names of the states on the image below the information box should be all spelled out or all abbreviated. it looks tacky when it's both!

War on terror allies

I just re-read the 9-11/War on Terror section and found something that might be misleading. Throughout the section the word ally is used as though it pertained to the same list of countries. The problem is that the US allies in Afgahnistan are not neccessarily allies in Iraq. For example, Germany send troops to Afgahnistan-which was all in all a classic NATO effort. Iraq is a different stroy, only some of the allies in Afgahnistan are allies in Iraq (mainly the UK). Thus I think we need to tweak the wording a little to reflect that the word ally in Afgahnistan does not include the same list of countries as in Iraq. In the Iraq paragraph we could perhaps replace the phrase: "the United States and its allies" with "the United States and some of its allies" or "the United States and coalition forces." Regards, Signature^brendelNow under review! 18:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

alleged POV is in fact just plain unpatriotic

4 edits by 8r1ck removed by Golbez who childishly alleges POV, too much detail and no source. these edits are not POV, are not too much detail and are sourced.

1) 2 short sentences stating that millions of native americans died because of colonization. with link for source. 2) US power 'described as' imperial - source linked in word 'imperial' to US empire page 3) motive for 2003 iraq war widely questioned in feb 2003 because seen as a war for oil - linked to feb 2003 protest page which gave quote 'kein blut fur ol'. 4) 3 or 4 word qualifier which showed US foreign policy is not something people just talk about but that it has actual *consequences*

all these are important points to people outside the patriotic US mainstream and are not POV. how does someone get away with calling tens of millions of deaths a 'detail', calling documented anti-imperialism a POV, of denying that many people saw - and still see - the US motive for invading iraq as a quest for oil? totally unjustified unless it's the work of someone exercising a patriot's agenda. should the edits be reinstated? i think so.--8r1ck 15:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edits[1] are inappropriately detailed for what is an already overlong summary article. They additionally border on personal commentary in the case of the "3 or 4 word qualifier", and in the Iraq war case give Undue Weight to the temporal and a single instance of protest.

The United States has the geographic scope of a small continent. If the content would be inappropriately detailed for the article about Europe, it's probably too detailed for inclusion here. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 16:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What if people want to see the additional information? 170.215.83.212 23:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Then they need to visit the corresponding article. Signature^brendelNow under review! 01:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"Childishly"? Please. Be civil. --Golbez 18:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

8r1ck edits give too much detail-this article is supposed to give a broad overview of the US. They also seem to boreder-line and sometimes violate the NPOV guideline. BTW: nouns in German are capitalized. Regards, Signature^brendelNow under review! 18:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for your prompt comments. My edits are not overly detailed for what is an already overly long summary article, they are short statements which *balance* the incredibly one-sided page of prose which could be a white house press statement. how is it you all feel comfortable with the idea of not mentioning in a (how many?) 10,000 word history of the US the concept of american imperialism? afetr a century long description of global power wielding - much of it disastrous - that isn't detail. how is it too much detail to mention, in any short history of the US, that tens of millions of the native inhabitants were wiped out because of, er, the creation of the US? that would seem to be a basic fact of this particular nation building. many millions of still living people don't believe a word the US government says. it has no credibility. when the CIA funds coups or Kissinger hands over East Timor on the quiet to the Indonesian generals precipitating massacre and tyranny, people know the US governmet says one thing and does and means another. reporting otherwise - such as here on the wiki - is far out there in the land of credulity and denial. did people believe the war on iraq was for oil? of course. do they still believe it? of course. is that detail? of course not. how is it personal commentary to say that US foreign policy has 'consequences' and not personal commentary to say it is 'widely talked' about? one seems to me to be a more humane way of looking at it than the other. there are sources for all this, i gave a few, badly styled no doubt. but it isn't POV.--8r1ck 20:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if tens of millions were wiped out due to European action, (without a before and after census, I'd love to know how you intend to verify that number) it would be unfair, biased, and unsourced to lay those numbers at the feet of the US. How many died due to Colonial Powers prior to (and after in the case of Latin America and Canada) the 'creation' of the US? Bo 20:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay conerning the deaths of Native Americans: Many, many died during the Spanish, French and English colonization. Most of them, however, were not killed by force. Most Native Americans died from diseases the Europeans brought to North America. The Native Americans had never been in contact with these strands of bacteria and viruses before and their immune systems lacked the capability to fight of these diseases. That said there was a substantial amount of murder and marginalization afflicted upon the Native American peoples, most however died from diseases that their body's just counldn't fight.
Also, the US is the world's largest post-industrial country, it goes without saying that its governmental policy is controversial. All nation governments are hyrpicitical at one point or another, including the US government. Now, due to America's size the ramificantions of US foreign policies, whether seen as flawed or not, are going to have a greater impact on the global community than that of most other countries. The US, as do most powerful countries, has its fair share of shameful history (slavery, indian wars, internment camps, etc...) but one should abstain from overstating the negative aspects of American society and history. Finally let me asure you that this is nothing personal-I'm German-American and I'm aware of all aspects of German and American society (good & bad), as for the Bush doctrine, I'm a Democrat. So you can rest asured that this isn't about patriotism but rather an effort to keep this article truly balanced. Signature^brendelNow under review! 21:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

it is, in this instance, irrelevant whether native americans died from the gun or smallpox. both were due to colonization. if any of you had checked my original edit you would see this was sourced in a statement made by the UN world conference against racism. it's also irrelevant whether similar sitiuations happened in other parts of the continent because there wouldn't be a US without the fact of native american mass death. more died than in the holocaust. many more died than on sept 11. elvis and native american cuisine get a few lines. millions of deaths nothing yet. there's been no convincing argument to say this fact is not essential to a basic outline of US history. similarly there has been no case at all to defend the other cuts. war for oil, for example. in 2002 the washinton post thought this was a good reason for getting rid of saddam hussein: [2]. chomsky and the radical left had been loudly proclaiming the oil motive long before the bombers actually went in: [3]. these are sources. then there's american imperialism. to constantly bang on about the massive global power of the US and then to not acknowledge that this has been widely understood as being imperial in nature is either ignorant or a denial of the facts. is it disliked because 'imperial' has such negative connotations? here are a few sources: American Empire, [4]. that great conservative publication the economist magazine also talks about the certainty of american empire [5]. all these are just a few of the possible sources which ought to justify a few short lines in the article for some pivotal facts about the US: 1) millions died in its formation 2) it is widely seen as a (hostile) empire 3) it wages war for profit - the latest being in iraq for oil. the edits and where they lead won't make pleasant reading for most americans but why should that get in the way of history? if there's no better criticism of the edits, they'll be re-posted.--8r1ck 10:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"1) millions died in its formation": looks like an issue for the british govt page, or the spain, or france, or colonization. And if you're referring to the treatment of native americans in the U.S.'s expansion west, that would deserve some mention in its own section or article, but be wary not to set a precedent of catalogueing the wrongdoings of citizens of a country at the top of a country's page, because we could go from country article to country article and insert much worse than is the case with the U.S. "2) it is widely seen as a (hostile) empire": by people who obviously have no bias in the issue, right. This is also simply wrong on its face. "3) it wages war for profit": that's your opinion. You can't add it to the article unless you have proof, and that doesn't mean citing another left-wing nut's opinion. 2nd Piston Honda 11:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

1) Millions died, from diseases brought by Europeans, not Citizens of the United States, if you want to point out that colonization had a negative impact on the locals, do so, but don't blame the Americans for actions instigated by the Spanish and French. As for the Holocaust reference, Get Some Perspective. The European Explorers didn't INTEND to wipe out the Indians, like the German leadersip intended to wipe out the Jews. 2) It is the only Empire to voluntarily return lands, to the same people, twice, in a generation (See also France). 3) War for Profit? Who paid the US to fight in any war, and how much were they paid? --- I grow weary of your POV edits. Bo 13:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

pre-declaration of independence history already gets 4 paragraphs in the article so obviously the fact of native american mass death can't be disqualified on the grounds that it isn't american history. the other 'arguments' are just noise.--8r1ck 15:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Millions died, from diseases brought by Europeans -Yes, that is part of America's history (it happened on the North American contient) and would most appropriately be mention in the colonization of the Americas article. If you would like to add a mention of Native American deaths to the pre-1777 section please discuss you're proposed sentence here and try to have more than one source, as all of them vary in their statements.
2. All nations have waged war for profit or because they thought the could gain something; be it freedom, natural resources, or territory -It goes w/o saying that the US like every other country has waged war to gain things.
3. The US is not always seen as a hostile empire; Germany was happy to have US troops in West Germany to defend against the Soviets; I seriously doubt that any NATO or G8 nation sees the US as a hotile empire even if they disagree over the Iraq war. There are more countries that see the US as an ally than those that see the US as hostile- even if the Bush admin hasn't been very successful in global PR.

That said please keep WP:NPOV in mind. Best Regards, Signature^brendelNow under review! 19:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

However, if it tries to paint an overall pro-USA image, then it's also biased. A truly neutral article will not lean in either direction. Not everyone thinks the US is good, not everyone thinks it's bad. 170.215.83.212 23:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it is always wrong to describe something as vast, complex and diverse as US society in terms of Black or White. One can't make such general statement about a country that has 300 million people; let alone a country like the US that is itself the result of relatively recent large scale human migration and has what is perhaps the developed world's most diverse populous. Signature^brendelNow under review! 01:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

none of this argument succeeds in any way in undermining the case for including the 3 main edits or for that matter the 4th. saying facts should be ommitted because other countries have done similar things is no argument at all. include the similar facts on all the national pages. citing national governments as the only group able to decide about the imperial status of "the world's only superpower" (a phrase repeated in the main article) - 'any NATO or G8 nation' - totally misses the point that significant opinion worldwide is of the published opinion that the US is an empire. that's *many* eminent academics, cultural commentators and politicians. i don't see how it is possible to say the number of native american deaths 'would most appropriately be mention' in another article. without justification this is just, er, POV. it's important that the number of deaths - about 10 million - features in the US article because it is a massively important piece of history which significantly defined the nation. you don't want to give that a sentence for the US? because it's a detail? this is about balance. the article so far is totally lopsided with no negative facts and planty of bias. to say of US foreign policy that it gets talked about suggests that US policy is so benign it is has no devasting consequences. it's a subtle difference. there's no more to say here. the edits will get reposted. --8r1ck 20:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"to say of US foreign policy that it gets talked about suggests that US policy is so benign it is has no devasting consequences"- that's not true. The US has 300 million people, making it by far the world's largest post-industrial society. Thus the ramifications of US foreign policy will be equally extensive. Also calling the US an empricial power does not tehcnically imply hosility. As for "that significant opinion worldwide is of the published opinion that the US is an empire. that's *many* eminent academics, cultural commentators and politicians."- nobody is debating that some individuals including members of the American intelegista are of the opinion that the US ought to revise the manner in which it excersises its extensive global power. That also goes w/o saying due to America's size. As for Native American deaths, which are a seperate issue aside from current US foreign policy, bring more than one neutral source to the table and we can discuss your proposed sentences. Regards, Signature^brendelNow under review! 22:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

sources and re-edits

1) native american deaths in the millions g. fisher | Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples | UN World Conference Against Racism

• existing sentence: "the present-day continental U.S. was inhabited exclusively by various indigenous tribes, including Alaskan natives, who migrated to the continent over a period that may have begun 35,000 years ago and may have ended as recently as 11,000 years ago."

• suggested re-edit: "the present-day continental U.S. was inhabited exclusively by various indigenous tribes, including Alaskan natives, who migrated to the continent over a period that may have begun 35,000 years ago and may have ended as recently as 11,000 years ago. It is estimated that between 2-10 million native americans died because of colonization."

2) US as empire [[6]] | fox news | [7] | [8]

• existing sentence: "After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States continued to intervene in overseas military conflicts such as the Gulf War. It remains the world's only superpower."

• suggested re-edit: "After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States continued to intervene in overseas military conflicts such as the Gulf War. It remains the world's only superpower. The global influence of the US has imperial characteristics."

3) US motive for invading iraq was oil washington post | globalpolicy.org | bbc news | February 15, 2003 anti-war protest

• existing sentence: "After the invasion, only a limited number of non-nuclear stockpiles were found, and the Bush administration later admitted having acted on flawed intelligence."

• suggested re-edit: "After the invasion, only a limited number of non-nuclear stockpiles were found, and the Bush administration later admitted having acted on flawed intelligence. The motive for the invasion was disputed before it happened however and discussion about US interest in Iraq's oil resources was widespread in the months before the war."

4) 'consequence'

• existing sentence: "The United States has vast economic, political, and military influence on a global scale, which makes its foreign policy a subject of great interest and discussion around the world.

• suggested re-edit: "The United States has vast economic, political, and military influence on a global scale, which makes its foreign policy a matter of great consequence around the world."

--8r1ck 13:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

English de facto

I tried putting de facto in parantheses, but it was reverted with the reason of "that implies that it's the official language, but de facto." De facto and official are two different things. De facto means "in fact" or "in practice" or "in reality," very different from official. Without the parantheses, it sounds like "English de facto" is the official language (which contradicts the previous statement in the infobox that the US doesn't have an official language) or that the US uses the de facto English, which doesn't exist. What does everyone think? — Jaxad0127 03:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the article de facto, the normal wording would be "de facto English". --tjstrf talk 03:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, "de facto language" is correct, not "de facto English," since there isn't an accepted de facto form of English, which I pointed out earlier. — Jaxad0127 04:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Land area incorrect

Under the Geograpy section is says

"The United States is the world's second largest country by land area, after Russia."

This untrue The US is the 3rd or 4th largest after Canada and diputedly China.

LAND area. Canada's land area is actually 4th or 5th in the world; its total area is 2nd because of the many lakes it has. --Golbez 03:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

buffalo

"Between 1830-1880 up to 40 million American Buffalo were slaughtered for skins and meat, to aid railway expansion and to help subdue Native Americans by denying them a primary resource."

this sentence about buffalo which i just put in environment has been immediately removed and labelled "POV assertion of motive". this is more miserably biased editing. the 40 million number and the word 'slaughter' were both footnoted with 2 other internal links. which bit is asserted motive? it's all sourced except perhaps for the 'denying primary resource' which was nevertheless in just about all the stuff i read about buffalo slaughter and can easily be footnoted. but who needs 3 footnotes in a sentence?

how about this from the existing edit:

"After many failed U.N. resolutions and Saddam Hussein rejecting demands to surrender, the United States and its allies invaded Iraq in March of 2003."

sounds like POV assertion of motive to me. i should not be surprised that a jingoistic country of 300m produces some jingoistic wiki history writers. it's vandalism, it's denial, it's sustained and it's seemingly consensual. no more contributions from me here you'll be glad to hear. --8r1ck 12:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't see how the buffalo section is POV -- the first definition of 'slaughter,' according to Merriam-Webster is "the act of killing; specifically : the butchering of livestock for market." It carries a negative meaning when applied to humans because slaughtering' humans is killing them with no reason (as they presumably will not be consumed) and because it implies that they are being treated no better than animals.

As for the Iraq section, it may need to be reworded -- it's not terrible (as everything it says is true), but "many failed" sounds a bit POV, not to mention the grammar error in "after ... Saddam Hussein rejecting ..." --Archangel127 14:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The Buffalo section's issue is with the assignment of the motive as including to help subdue the indians by 'denying primary resource'. The claim that it was for food and meat isn't controversial (therefor no POV issue), to claim it was part of campaign to subdue the Indians is controversial (hence POV issues). It may be able to be reworded, but as posted, it was advancing a POV, with out citiations. Bo 14:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I put the buffalo mention in up in the westard expansion section. I mentioned take a look to see if the 'denial of primary resource' is done in a NPOV way. Thanks. Bo 15:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The Buffalo almost died out because European settlers in addition to Indians killed them for food, clothing and sport. The "dying of the buffalo" was caused by over-hunting. I don't think most White settlers killed the Buffalo w/ the intention to whipe out the Native Americans (some might have though). As mentioned above, the statement certainly carries with it some validity but needs to be presented in an NPOV manner. Regards, Signature^brendelNow under review! 20:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I take it that I was successful in adding the information in a NPOV way.. Thanks! Bo 15:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Apology for vandalism on my account

I foolishly left my account logged on when I left my computer, and one of my friends vandalised this page. I have tried to revert the edits by that person, but I may have missed some, so I sincerely apologise. Rossenglish 14:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Length Issues

I've spend some time considering how to shorten this article, but I really can't see where to begin. Potentially, we could remove some categories that are less importation, and just have the link to the subpage, but I'm not quite sure where to begin on that either. As long as we don't actually add to the main page, aside from current events, we should be okay?71.111.98.144 07:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually do think of this article as being excessively long considering that this article covers the entire United States. The US is one of the most complex countries on earth and even just giving a glimpse of it is going to take a good seized article. Regards, Signature^brendelNow under review! 20:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Reading through the article, there are many things which are clearly not all that important to a broad overview of the country. I've added some suggestions to the todo list, which you can see at the top of the talk page here. Normal article length is around 30K. You're right that this is a big topic; perhaps something on the order of 40-60K would be appropriate. But right now it's over 100K, and that's definitely too big. This needs to be a relatively brief survey, targeted at people who aren't interested in too many details, but just want to get an overall picture. Quite a bit is left up to subarticles for people who want to take the time to go more in depth, or who are looking for a specific piece of detailed information. -- Beland 23:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Taken a look at some of the suggestions. Everything looks about right - the trick is getting started :). I think current events should be the only one that goes into detail - everything else should just be a brief summary. Also, lots of sub-topics should be just completely removed and placed in the sub-articles, thus cutting down on length/size. 71.111.98.144 03:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

WWII the costliest war

WWII cost the United States 288 billion in 1940s dollars, in direct economic costs only. Using 1943 as the base year, this comes out to $3,264,505,931,139 (3+ trillion) in 2005 dollars. No other war came close. Ufwuct 22:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

True, the Second World War was perhaps the costliest war in modern history. The 3 trillion plus figure seems very realistic. Regards, Signature^brendelNow under review! 01:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I had just thought the Civil War might have been costlier. It was much costlier in terms of lives.--Rotten 14:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

True, especially in terms of civilians. If you think that the wording is ambiguous (in not differentiating between human costs (casualties) and economic costs), please try to improve the wording. Ufwuct 15:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed the human cost (especially in civilian casulties) was much greater during the civil as much of that fighting actually took place on the continental U.S. I guess we need to add the word "costliest in economic terms" to accurately reflect the provided historical data. Best Regards, Signature^brendelNow under review! 16:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Made the proposed change in wording from "costliest war" to "costliest war in economic terms"

Isn't Civil War the costliest war for the economy of USA? WW2 was profitable for the USA economy. Ko Soi IX 00:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It was only indirectly helpful. I think this claim concerns the direct cost of property damage and military spending, which would otherwise have been available to the civilian economy. -- Beland 00:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Economic terms is different from economic effect. The Civil War destroyed the economy of the South, but WWII cost more. — Jaxad0127 02:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

IN terms of lives, the US was l--Johnhardcastle 10:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)et off very cheap!

Change of Government Section

Post 9/11, suggest changing "Federal Republic" to "Police State". --ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 23:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay I got the joke and I agree the executive has gained way too much power- of that's what you're implying. Congress is supposed to make laws (hence, legislative) and not the president (he may merely suggest them and dis/approve of them). Signature^brendelNow under review! 23:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggested edit for the Religion section

In the religion section it impies that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Protestant denomination. This is incorrect. the LDS Church stands alone, apart from Orthodox churches or the Protestants. Thanks. 204.113.19.8 17:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Michael

Isn't it interesting?

This article is featured in two languages... but not in English. I know this is an irrelevant point, but I thought it was kind of interesting, especially since this article appears to be far more detailed than other featured articles in English. Freezing the mainstream

Well, actually this article is too detailed. The main complaint during its FA canidacy was its length. Best Regards, Signature^brendelNow under review! 00:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Maza, North Dakota

Under the infobox at the top of the page under Largest City (New York City, NY) could someone add the Smallest City, which is Maza, North Dakota, since it is the smallest city in the United States. I cant do it for I have an IP # and IP's are blocked. 68.111.174.76 07:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

We only add a country's largest city to the country infobox. People are usually more likely to seek info on a country's largest, not smallest city. As we do need to keep an eye out for infobox length, I am personally undecided whether or not we should mention a nation's smallest city in the infobox. Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 09:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely suggest not adding the smallest city, as that could change tomorrow when someone incorporates a new city with a population of 4 or less, or if Maza grows by even one. In addition, the amount of effort to definitively find/verify the "smallest" city in a country with a population of 300 million would be huge, and the definitions surely vary as well. Even mentioning this on the article's page would seem to be speculation. -- Renesis (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

D'accord. Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 01:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for Minor Changes Made: Inaccurate dating of Proto-Indian entry into America, et al

I don't feel any of these changes are major or controversial. I even left the date of the entry of Proto-Americans alone, though its clearly in error, as that will certainly cause controversy and some sort of support for such a change needs to be garnered. (I'm learning the ways of wiki.)

In the intro, at least, to whit:

1. Changed awkward wording of "adherents spanning across" to "members representing" [all major denominations].

2. The present day continental United States was inhabited for at least 15,000 years by indigenous tribes.

First: the "tribes" were not indigenous; they immigrated like the Europeans (Viking, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, English, Swedes--in about that order). And we know far too little about the Proto-Indians to know whether they organized themselves in tribes. The chief unit of social organization may have been the extended family or even something closer to the so-called "nuclear" family; with larger gatherings of related families (clans?) occuring periodically, perhaps centering around events such as mass bison crossings where large numbers of hunters would be needed.

So I'm going to remove the word "indigenous since it is indisputably an error. To call the Mayan and Aztec civilizations "indigenous" would be correct; but to label their builders thusly is most certainly not.

More importantly: This date is way, way off. Although the footnote acknowledges this, the text should also reflect it. Or, at the very least, the text should note the controversy about the dating as well as the two most probable routes of immigration. E.g.: Lewis Binford has proven that Proto- or Paleo-Indians were present in Pennsylvania as early as 20,000 BP.

The well-known Bering "land brige" or, when glaciers sealed the ice-free "corridor" postulated to have periodically opened a sort-of "highway" into the continental interior, Proto-Indians most probably entered the ice-free areas of the Alaskan and Canadian oceanic litorals by means of a series of marine "jumps". The Inuit/Eskimos still retain technology that probably differs little from that used by Proto-Indians and is certainly capable of such voyages.

In fact, even the date of "35,000 years BP" is off perhaps by as much as 15,000 yrs. A site in Brazil has been dated to 44,000 yrs BP (tho' this has been disputed). If Proto-Indians were in Brazil 44,000 years ago, then it's certain they were in North America centuries or millennia before that. Given their nomadic lifestyle and humanity's then lack of riding or pack animals (horses, camels, donkeys, et al), it is perfectly possible for it to have taken thousands of years to move on foot through Mexico and Central America to reach S. America.

(It has been claimed that H. erectus was present in North America hundreds of millennia before H. sapiens sapiens, based on one highly disputed, if not dubious, "find" in the California desert near the city of Barstow, California.)

Granted, this much detail belongs in the article on American Indians, but I feel, a correction must be made about the dating and methods of Proto-Indian immigration.

And, to reiterate, the term indigenous has got to go.

3. Changed listing of European settlement from English, French, Spanish, to the chronologically correct order of Spanish, English, French. Also, added that the Dutch and Swedes made failed attempts to plant colonies, the last seized by the Dutch who were subsequently turned out by the English Navy (the head of which was the then Duke of York, the future James II, hence the name "New York.")

PainMan 00:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay regarding your changes:

1. Yes all human beings in America are the descendants of migrants. In fact, all human beings outside of Africa are the descendants of migrants. Human migration is the sole reason why the human race has spread across all five continents. The political correct term in the US is Native Americans. In Canada the term is "First Nation people" as one could argue that anyone born in American is a "Native American."
2. True, Native Americans arrived in the US earlier than 15,000 years ago.
3. Yes, the correct order of settlement is Spanish, English and French. But please leave references to Swedish and Dutch settlements. New York was called New Amsterdam and until today the city's dutch history is visible in street and neigborhoods names (e.g. Steuyvesant district). The English may have gained control over Dutch settlements, but the dutch were nontheless those who pioneered settlement in what is today Manhattan and other Mid-Atlantic regions. Additionally the Dutch had significant culutral influence on early colonial America (While others such as the Germans did too, the Dutch actually had colonies).

Otherwise, I mostly agree with your edits and above propositions. Best Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 01:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Edit for the Language section

This sentance: "Nowadays, more languages are being used in daily life for mainly Spanish speakers who cannot understand English." is rather poorly worded and could use revision.

Largest-Smallest States

Somebody should add a list for all the states from largest to smallest.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesk111 (talk • contribs) .

Already done.

• List of U.S. states by area
• List of U.S. states by population

Jecowa 21:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Punctuation redundancy

The article gets off to a kinda slow start right at the beginning when it lists "US" and "U.S.", and "USA" + "U.S.A." as alternate names. But whether or not you choose to punctuate abbreviations is surely a question of style, and doesn't constitute an alternative name for the country. Any given publication will pick one version depending on whether they tend to put periods between abbreviations or not. You might as well say that JFK was also known by his other monikier, "J.F.K.". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spiralhighway (talk • contribs) 23:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Independence not July 4

Historically speaking, the United States declared Independence on July 2nd, not July 4th. (We celebrate 7/4 only because Congress realized the day before that they forgot to celebrate Independence day). Quoting United States Declaration of Independence:

Independence was declared on July 2, 1776, pursuant to the "Lee Resolution" presented by Richard Henry Lee of Virginia on June 7, 1776, which read (in part):...

I think that the proper date should be listed in the infobox, with some sort of mention about observation on July 4th for historical reasons. IMacWin95 22:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Independence Day (United States), the July 2 declaration was secret and preliminary, and the final draft of the declaration document itself wasn't done until two days later after a flurry of rewriting. It was not announced to the people until July 4. There's a difference in "the day you decide to declare independence" and "the day you actually declare independence." Your assertion of it being July 4 because Congress "forgot" seems incorrect, based on that article. --Golbez 00:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

hyperpower

if theres only one superpower whats the point of naming it hyperpower also? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.134.53.233 (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Good question, the term isn't really useful IMHO, but does exsist. Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 19:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't do any good for Americans as well as to the whole world to think in terms of "power" at all. My suggestion is to wipe out the whole sentence. In the same way: Americans which never have been outside their continent should re-consider their attitude towards the whole world. Recent development of the issue with the US/Mexican border clearly shows what a "superpower" means! Hope this wuld't offend some. 1990 the Berlin wall went down. 2006 there are only two borders on which wals are emerging-so what's teh point of being a superpower ??? Regards, Allilinin 10:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to debate what American's should or should not do. The fact is that both terms ("superpower" and "hyperpower") are in common usage with respect to the US (especially "superpower"). Johntex\^talk 21:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)