Talk:United States/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Human rights records

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

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

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

A few quotations from the 2006 Human Rights Watch report, specifically the sections on the U.S.A.:

"...it has become the only government in the world to seek legislative sanction to treat detainees inhumanely."

"At least 131 detainees [in Guantanamo Bay] began a hunger strike in August 2005 to protest their indefinite confinement, pledging to starve themselves to death unless they were brought to trial or released. Two dozen have been kept alive by forcefeeding."

"At the end of 2004, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a memorandum repudiating earlier policies that had permitted a broad range of brutal interrogation tactics by, among other legal sleights-of-hand, redefining torture to exclude all techniques that did not inflict pain “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death.” The Department has not, however, ever revealed what its definition currently is."

"Since 2002, over three hundred specific cases of serious detainee abuse have surfaced. At least eighty-six detainees have died in U.S. custody since 2002, and the U.S. government has admitted that at least twenty-seven of these cases were criminal homicides."

"The United States incarcerates people at a greater rate than any other country, 724 per one hundred thousand residents. Seven million people—or one in every thirty-one persons—is in prison, or on probation or parole. Black men between the ages of twenty-five and twenty-nine are seven times more likely than their white counterparts to be in prison or jail. More than six hundred thousand people annually leave prison, most of them to return to distressed minority neighborhoods, facing formidable barriers to successful reentry, including laws that limit their access to education, housing, and jobs."

"Adult and juvenile inmates confront sexual assaults and violence—by each other as well as by staff. With poor supervision and discipline, staff in many facilities can engage in excessive or malicious use of force with near impunity."

"Evidence of the arbitrariness and procedural flaws in the imposition of the sentence continue to grow. Since 1973, 121 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence, including one in 2005."

"While U.S. child offenders no longer face the death penalty, they do face the possibility of life without parole sentences. There are at least 2,225 child offenders sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prison in the United States, an estimated 59 percent of whom received the sentence for their first criminal conviction. The United States is one of fourteen countries in the world known to permit such sentences and research suggests that there may be no more than twelve child offenders outside the United States serving life sentences without possibility of release. The Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by every country in the world except the United States and Somalia, forbids sentencing child offenders to life without parole."

Just some examples.

-Jay

I live in the US , and I know that the human rignts in the 30 citie's I've visited are basically as good as possible. I'm sorry to say a few (isolated) examples do not define a whole. 69.69.88.85 05:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)bellahdoll

Those examples given (if they are true) are very rare and are not at all what the US does. I'm sure every European country has people that have done at least some of those things. And the US is way better than Iran or Iraq when it was under Saddam. The US has freedom of speech, religion, and the press. Sadaam killed and tortured hundreds and thousands of Iraqis who opposed him. No American has ever done that. There are lots of other bad things Iran does that the US doesn't.

Why are we discussing this ridiculously uninformed comment by someone with an obvious political issue with the american government. Delete his post and ignore his idiocy. While I do not seek to condone the lapses in human rights law that have been perpetrated by the American government from time to time as there are real problems, this is a just bigoted posting from an ignorant user. I am guessing you had never been to either pre-invasion Iraq or modern Iran and have no knowledge whatsoever of what has occurred in those countries for the last forty years. By the way like the use of quotations to insinuate validity as well. Human Rights Watch can surely be trusted and the facts themselves, are probably right. But they never meant these facts to back up as fallacious an argument as you have made. No intelligent, rational person with any brain at all could realize the vastly worse human rights situation in either Iraq or Iran. Did you even happen to read their reports on those countries? Obviously, no. Next time think before you type any more of this worthless drivel, this is not a political forum its an encyclopedia , although from the sound of it you haven't opened too many books in your lifetime.

War on Terror

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

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

I think there is a major over emphesis on "The War on Terror". All major conflicts post ww2 are summed up in one sentence, while 2 paragraphs are spent on a hugely insignificant(in perspective, not trying to be insensitive) course of events. -Smadge 23:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

internal struggles

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

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

In the section about Saddam, there should be a line about the weapons of massdestruction (so far not found), since this was the U.S.' main reason to go to war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.53.203 (talk • contribs)

Introduced a link to Rationale for the Iraq War & cleaned it up a bit. That's about as much as we really ought to do here, as we need to carefully limit the length of this article. MrZaius^talk 09:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"Igniting sectarian strife"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There was sectarian struggle and violence during Saddam's reign. This is why he retaliated against the Kurds and the Shiites. Perhaps, what you are trying to say is that now the parties are roughly equal and the control is less. However, there has always been deviseness in Iraq. Ursasapien 02:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There are separate articles for Iraq and the Occupation of Iraq. The point's better made there than here, and should be made in a nuanced way noting the level of repression the Kurds and Shi'a were subjected to prior to the invasion. This article's already long enough that it probably shouldn't be expanded past the point of noting and linking to the invasion, occupation, and capture of Saddam. Opposition in the Iraqi parliament is noted in citations, as well. MrZaius^talk 05:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Media

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

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

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

I still havent noticed any change in the culture section of the article. What i am proposing is perhaps a conjoining of music and cinema sub-articles in to one sub-article titled media. Information could be borrowed from Media in the United States to add to the new section. Other general information about the U.S. media and its effects on U.S. culture, and U.S. media compared to other nations would also be useful. One could also mention the amount of money spent on the industry, and how the media gives its message (i.e. radio, television, internet) to the general public.Abdalla 21:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

US or U.S.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would have argued for U.S.A. instead, as that prevents any argument on the lines of "Which United States?" For that matter, it seems unusual that United States of America isn't the title of this article (being both more specific, and most likely, the official name of the country.) That's my five cents worth (five, due to the removal of two cent pieces over here in Australia.) 60.226.133.172 12:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I dunno why there's any confusion, since there's only one "United States" at present in the world. As for being more specific and the official name of the country, are you proposing we rename a particular article to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? --Golbez 14:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have to share my concern with 60.226.133.172, why is the article not named "United States of America"? Considering that's the nation's proper name. Abdalla 21:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy of Population Portion

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

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

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

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

Chief Justice in Government Tab of Infobox

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

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

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

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

Perhaps you would benefit from a reading of the Constitution. Although there are 3 branches of government, it is never asserted that they are "equal." Yet, that is beside the point. Only the President is the "head" of government, and only he and the Vice-President face a national vote. While the Congress is perhaps the most powerful of the three branches, it has 535 members. The head of one house of Congress is the Vice-President of the Executive branch of government and first in the line of succession to the Presidency. The head of the other house of Congress is second in the line of succession to the Presidency. By the way, the Chief Justice only presides during the Senate trial of the President because the Vice-President (who would otherwise preside) has a vested interest: if the President is removed from office, then the Vice-President becomes President. In no other impeachment proceeding does the Chief Justice preside. Further, the only mention of "Chief Justice" is in the impeachment clause of Article I. There is no other mention of the office in the Constitution, even in Article III which establishes the Supreme Court. The "management" function the Chief Justice has is wholly under the direction of Congress, which by law sets the rules for the court system. --Danaidh 03:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You're seriously about to tell me the three branches of the the Federal government aren't equal. I don't think so, might. Do you know of the power of judicial review? The power of the Court to declare a federal law unconstitutional? Or perhaps the fact that the voice of the Court carries the same power a constitutional amendment? Those two things alone, I think, give the Supreme Court (and the Cheif Justice, who directs the Court) a great deal of power. DoomsDay349 04:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

SCOTUS decisions do not carry "the same power a constitutional amendment": the decision is merely interpreting what already exists in the Constitution as it applies to current laws, and does not change the Constitution. Even Article III really just states that there shall be "one supreme Court" (notice the lower case), which simply means that there shall be a final court within the federal judiciary, and does not actually create the SCOTUS (which is created by a law passed by Congress). Kelvinc 05:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where there is any mention of "head of government" in the article. Such a term is not meaningful for the United States, so there is no point in trying to fit certain officials into it. If you mean "head of state", that is without doubt the President. —Centrx→talk • 05:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I meant the government tab in the infobox. I've retitled this to better reflect that. DoomsDay349 05:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that you think the Chief Justice should be listed first? There is no "head of government" listed there, and listing the President first does not imply that he is the "head of government". —Centrx→talk • 05:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does imply that-and as you have said yourself that the term "head of government" isn't useful for the US. I'm afraid that only mentioning the president is going to be misleading. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. At the rate we're going, we may as well just throw in the Senate Majority Leader, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and every other bureaucrat on down to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, since they're all really important, right? After all, hasn't it been said that Alan Greenspan was the second most powerful person in Washington next to the President?

Of course, these are rhetorical questions. Soon we will have an infobox longer than the article, and then some clever political science professor is going to highlight this ongoing dispute on his blog to show why Wikipedia is an unreliable resource because any high school dropout can edit it. No political scientist (who actually understands the structure of power) would be insane enough to list so many officials in a simple summary infobox. We should stick with head of state and head of government and push the other details into the body of the article where they belong. In practically any government there is always something quite quirky about who is really in control. The point of the infoboxes is to give a quick overview and then the body text can explore the messy details. --Coolcaesar 06:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I doubt any poli sci professor will find it so notworthy or "insane" that we have decided to put the speaker and chief justice in there-nowhere does the infobox say that we are only refering to the head of state. Refering only to him is an option but mentioning the "leaders" of all three branches instead of just the head of government seems a better alternative. Consider that in a poli sci class the instructor will tell you why he is only mentioning the prez as the head honcho-here on WP the reader needs to make sense of the infobox himself. In sight of that, we could also add one of those little question marks (like we have for the gini index) that would explain to readers why only the prez is listed and what head of state means. Signature^brendel 22:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I was misguiding in my word choice: I meant to place the Cheif Justice somewhere in the Government infobox tab, probably at the bottom. Like I said, putting it to a clear Support or Oppose discussion might help. DoomsDay349 20:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Decisions on Wikipedia are not made by voting. Also, you have to formulate what exactly you are proposing much more clearly. —Centrx→talk • 20:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a vote, it's a discussion, modeled after such things as the AFD process. DoomsDay349 20:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That part of AfD is broken. It causes no problems if the decision is clear-cut--though in that case the voting is merely pointless. Here, we have article content with an endless variety of possibilities, not just deletion or non-deletion, and here we do not even have a clear idea of what you are proposing. AfD is a bad model to take. —Centrx→talk • 20:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I can very easily give you a clear model of what I'm proposing. Whether or not the Cheif Justice should be in the Government tab of the Infobox. It currently is, but it was removed before and off and on and such. This way we can establish clear consensus (which would be much much easier with a Support or Oppose discussion, which plenty of other things do) of whether or not it ought be there. DoomsDay349 20:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

My $0.02: put it in; Support. The constitution sets up checks and balances, and we should recognize all three branches on the infobox. The judiciary branch can tell congress a law is illegal, or the president an action is beyond his powers. As the supreme court has some power over the other two branches, they should be represented.

That, and the Speaker of the House is already there. 171.71.37.103 20:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

box and link to FAQs at top of page

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

It blatantly violates WP:BOLD and is going to be removed again. The phrase "regular discussion page contributors" (which you didn't give any reference to) means absolutely nothing, according to WP:OWN. And I dare you to point out a single article with a similar message, advising people to not be bold in leaving comments (on a flipping talk page!!). It's insulting, a violation of policy, counter-productive, a total waste of space, and ill-intentioned. That enough discussion for you? (Sorry if this seems rude, I'm just having difficulty with the idea that anyone could actually support shutting down original thoughts and ideas.) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 20:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What? Things don't "violate WP:BOLD" - it's a guideline for how a user should edit articles, and about how to make changes. It doesn't mean you get to ignore the consensus which has been developed on this page, and it certainly isn't some kind of policy basis for your actions. Furthermore, I really don't see the problem with it - this article routinely gets the same questions asked here, and the FAQ is a good way to answer these quickly and easily. There's no "shutting down original thoughts and ideas" here - there's a request to read a short page, and see if it adequately answers the question a user may have. If it doesn't, or if they don't agree with the arguments or reasoning presented here, they can still post the question here. --Haemo 22:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In response to the dare (above), please see the message that has been at the top of Wikipedia:Help_desk since 10 July 2005 ("Please check the Very Frequently Asked Questions before asking a question here!"). Further, I do not understand what policy is being violated. Also see the suggestion on Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages about introducing an FAQ page. I certainly welcome edits that make this page's referral to the FAQ page more friendly, but I disagree that the solution is to remove the referral's visibility and placement. Anybody else? JonathanFreed 15:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Still can't find a single article talk page with a FAQ banner that asks people to not discuss things that have already been "decided" or "determined". (Of course, a WP namespace page might have a FAQ!) What I meant about WP:BOLD was that the top of the page shuts down new users from asking questions by saying, basically, "don't ask anything that anyone might have ever asked before. There is absolutely no chance that any question previously answered could have possibly been asked slightly differently, at the wrong time, or answered incorrectly. We know better than you." Maybe WP:BITE is a better fit. As for its rudeness, in the meantime I'll see what I can do about the FAQs, but... Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

GA and ArticleHistory

Someone made a change to ArticleHistory which was done incorrectly and returning an error, so I reverted it.[1] I can't find any indication the article has been delisted at GA, either. If the article is delisted GA, an explanation should be given here, and it will need to be added to {{ArticleHistory}} correctly; see the instructions on the template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Govermental debt

I heard that the US goverment has the highest goverment debt in the world if this is true could some one put it on the economy section —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peace keeper II (talk • contribs) 16:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

True, the US does have the overall largest extrenal debt. As it also has the largest GDP, it does not have the largest debt as percentage of GDP-I will figure out a way to word that neutrally. Thanks for the suggestion! Signature^brendel 21:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The history of the United States national debt, relative to gross domestic product, since 1900.

Chief Justice?

I noticed how in the Infobox template for this page, under government it lists the President of the US, the Vice-President, and the Speaker of the House. Wouldn't it only make sense to add the chief justice of the Supreme Court, as the head of the third branch of government? Since the President presides over the Executive Branch, the Vice-President (aka President of the Senate) and the Speaker of the House preside over the Legislative branch, and the Chief Justice presides over the Judicial Branch. I think it's a reasonable request. Let me know what you think. -Prezboy1 22:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Since the "official" Head Of Government and Head Of State is the President, I think Bush should be the only person in the infobox. Of course, Roberts and Pelosi must be mentioned in the article, but even within the US, they are not considered as "high-up". Therequiembellishere 03:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well they are certainly considered high-up. Mentioning only the head of state is still misleading IMHO (as most Americans understand that there are three branches, we should list the three leaders). Signature^brendel 03:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

But by that reasoning all countries with more than one branch will need to have 2 leaders in their box. Therequiembellishere 04:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they would/should. Signature^brendel 05:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

But the heart of it is that there hardly ever is a true "first among equals", the President/Prime Minister/King/Queen/Chancellor/Premier/Grand Duke/Co-Prince/Prince/Leader or whatever are the true Heads. Therequiembellishere 05:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Two points

First, the Continental Congress declared independence with the Lee Resolution on July 2, 1776; since this was just as legally binding as the Declaration, it deserves a mention, perhaps parenthetically in the lead. Second, the government began operations on March 4, 1789 at 11am in NYC. The date March 4 should accompany 1789 in the body. Thanks. Mdiamante 17:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead? No. History? Yes. And I agree on March 4. --Golbez 20:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Re the FAQ, "Isn't St. Augustine, Florida the first settlement in the U.S.?"

(The following question was copied/pasted from the FAQ page; JonathanFreed 18:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC))

Isn't Roanoke Colony technically the first settlement? Therequiembellishere 03:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Roanoke came 20 years later. St. Augustine was the first European settlement in what is today the United States; Roanoke was the first English settlement, and the first settlement in what later became the 13 colonies. Florida wasn't one of the original British colonies. --Golbez 20:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I know Saint Augustine was the first settlement in the New World (I live in Florida), but I believe that since Roanoke was the first colony in what later became the United States Of America, it should be listed as well.

... But... St. Augustine was the first settlement in what later became the United States. It just wasn't the first English settlement, nor was it the first settlement in the 13 colonies. --Golbez 02:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, I think that we should mention all three: Saint Augustine as the first settlement, Roanoke as the first settlement within the Thirteen Colonies and Jamestown as the first successful settlement in the Thirteen Colonies (the Roanoke settlers were never truly found). Therequiembellishere 02:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, mention all three. Signature^brendel 23:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Work Hard to Get This Article to FA!!

I think that if we want this article to become a featured article, we should take a look at the featured article criteria and see where we can improve. A lot of other countries, such as India, Japan and Germany, are featured articles, so maybe we should take a look at those articles and see where they have come from and how their path to FA status applies to this situation. I believe that eventually we'll be able to get this to FA status, but we can't do this without cooperation and consensus! Good luck; hope I can help somewhat. --Gabycs 15:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not want to sound like one of those lunatics from Conservapedia (and they are a bit loony), however, GOOD FRIGGIN LUCK GETTING AN ARTICLE ON THE USA TO BE A FEATURED ARTICLE! It's not going to happen... lol... Yes I'm American...

John 02:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC) (I apologize for how simplistic and basic this little comment is, but I think the style fits the point...)

EU/US GDP

I know that the European Union(EU) is not a country, and so in terms of country, the U.S. has the largest GDP(total), however I do believe that the EU is considered a single operating Economic entity, and so I do believe that at the very least it should be noted somewhere, that though the U.S. has the largest single country economy, an economic unit larger then it does exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wphilipw (talk • contribs) 05:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

That is implied through stating that the US has the largest national economy-meaning the largest economy of any nation. Signature^brendel 23:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite possibly I missed it, but where in the article does it sat national economy? all I was commenting on was the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) - and though the EU is not one country, at least the countries within the Euro line do operate as one GDP AS WELL AS seperate GDPs, like I said, I don't think changing the fact that the U.S. is listed as number one is the thing to do, but simply putting a note which says something to the effect of "excluding EU" or "not including Europeen Union or other multinational economic entities" or smth like that might make the article more accurate. Wphilipw 02:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

True, the EU is included in the CIA factbook (It is the only non-country to be listed w/ the CIA providing a whole explanation of why the EU is listed among countries). I will make sure it says national economy (I think it already does but I'll check again). Regards, Signature^brendel 05:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I retract my previous statements - sort of - as stated by you brendel, the article does clarify the GDP to be in reference to countries only "With a gross domestic product (GDP) of more than $13 trillion, the U.S. has the largest national economy in the world." I'm sorry, I missed this before (yes it was there before I read the archived versions). The reason I missed it is because I was looking at the right panel - under the GDP sections - not in the main article, sorry about the confusion, that does make sense. And though I do still believe that clarifying this on that right 'info panel' would be useful, I don't think it to be crucial, especially with this sentence being in the article. - Wphilipw 05:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup Template

I have noticed that there is a cleanup template in the "Socio-economic class" subsection in the "Economics" section. Why is it there. I think that the subsection is written well. If this is not true, how can it be made better? Regards. Universe=atom 18:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why someone placed it there (perhaps it was someone who doesn't like the subject). I have removed the template. Signature^brendel 22:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Per the edit summary when the tag was placed, "Socio-economic class - tag section for cleanup - a large portion of the first paragraph is worded in so general a manner that it seems only tangentially related to the topic at hand". Sorry for not noting it in the talk page. It's the only section in the page that goes out of its way to define general concepts, and doesn't really seem to fit. Could probably shave it down a fair bit, but I probably don't have time to take care of it tonight. Maybe over the next couple of days. MrZaius^talk 05:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

How does that section not fit in? How could it be narrowed down? The sections is very important as social class is a fundamental building block of American society and therefore must be mentioned in this article. The section is certainly not in need of a clean-up tag- such a tag will only confuse readers, duping them into thinking that the information they are reading is not reliable. The class section is a) needed b) as concise as possible c) provides readers world-wide with a wholesome overview of America's class system and d) is in accordance with today's college sociology textbooks (from which the section draws its information. The section states far more than "general concepts"-many people (especially those who don't live in the US) are not awayre of the six socical classes sociologists commonly identify-they are not aware of what consitutes class in America. Would a person in Mumbai neccesarily know what constitutes class in America. Please discuss before editing, if you don't mind. Regards, Signature^brendel 06:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely what I am doing. What I took issue with initially was that the first paragraph seemed to contain a fair number of definitions and explanations of terms that were not specific to the United States. Was proposing that the section could be simplified or, if the terms in the first paragraph are specific to the United States, that the link should be briefly explained. Wouldn't take much. MrZaius^talk 07:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes thos things are specific to the US. Signature^brendel 18:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, "remains a vaguely defined concept, sociologists point to social class as the perhaps most important societal variable.[5]" - Were Hickey et al writing specifically about the US? "Social classes are groups consisting of those who share similar positions within the economy." - Don't need definition of common terminology in this article, esp given presence of article & wiktionary entry on class. Those two statements and the definitions of the six social classes that don't mention whether they are specific to American society or all/most western societies were what prompted all this. Thoughts on ways to improve it? MrZaius^talk 07:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The six classes are specific to American society; thus they need to be mentioned. Not all countries have six social classes based on income, education and occupation. In some countries race, ethnicity and ancestry are the primary components of class. Even in the UK, ancestry and predigree still play a role. We can remove the second sentence ("Social classes are groups consisting of those who share similar positions within the economy.")-but the rest needs to stay. People are not well aware of what constitutes class in America. In order to make the statements less general I have added the percentages for each of the six classes. But general concepts need to be menioned in this article- that's why we also mention that the US borders Canada and Mexico and gots its independence from BG. I think the approximate percentages and the removal of the second sentence should improve the section sufficiently. Regards, Signature^brendel 18:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The percentages were an elegant solution. Nice fix! MrZaius^talk 05:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Beginning Sentence

The first sentence in the article has had many changes throughout the previous week, and im not sure which one should be permanent. The following are the multiple sentence variations:

• The United States of America is a federal democratic republic comprised of 50...
• The United States of America is a democratic republic comprised of 50...
• The United States of America is a nation comprised of 50...
• The United States of America is a country comprised of 50...

Which of the following should be the permanent sentence?Abdalla 03:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence is the most descriptive and accurate. The third is the worst possible choice and may be perceived as being incorrect. The term nation has two meanings: it may be used as a synonym for "country" describing the legal entity also known as a state or it may describe a nation-state, that is an ethnically & culturally homogenous country-something the US is clearly not. The fourth and second choice are appropriate but the first remains the best variant IMHO. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Signature. Adjusted accordingly. Also, note that more was changed than just those first few words. The nation/country wordings were rather clunky, reading "nation/country in the western hemisphere. It consists of 50...". The flow was all off with those two. I'd really rather not see 3 or 4 surface again. MrZaius^talk 15:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think things are fine as they are: the U.S. is already noted as a federal constitutional republic in the last sentence of the 1st paragraph (thus, duplicate information). In the lead, I would opt for just 'federal republic' or simply 'country' (which is the least contentious, I think, of the country-nation-state trichotomy), with democratic elements noted later. As it is now, one should be changed and its probably simpler to change it back. However, per discussions long ago, I believe it important to note upfront that the U.S. is of/in the 'western hemisphere' simply because of its scope (i.e., Hawaii isn't part of North America) and, thus, have readded this. Corticopia 16:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Any objections to moving it to the second sentence, which covers geographical topics, rather than the initial one? Would solve the aforementioned flow issue. MrZaius^talk 16:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a flow issue? I mean, we're really trying to be summative for such an expansive topic. I'd prefer the 'wh' note to be in the first sentence -- just as much as we say upfront that (for example) Canada is in 'northern North America' or similar -- because this is also inferred by its name -- United States of America. It's hard to say what is preferable -- play around with it (?) :) Perhaps move the 'wh' tidbit to the end of the sentence: "... territories in the western hemisphere." The challenge with that is the current wording allows for the interpretation that the U.S. is comprised of (overseas) territories outside the 'western hemisphere', while the above may not. I hope that makes sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Corticopia (talk • contribs) 16:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Actually, there are US states that stradle the border. I took the liberty of moving the statement to the /* Geography */ section, where it seems more apt and allows space to discuss exceptions. Might it suffice to simply state that the nation is a western nation in the LEAD? It already points out that the nation is almost entirely on the North American continent. MrZaius^talk 19:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Which states: Alaska and Hawaii? They are properly (or mostly) in the western hemisphere. As well, notation of the country's capital has been removed. Noting that it is a 'western' nation (more a statement about its sociopolitics) is not exactly the same as noting it is of the 'western hemisphere' (which may mean that but is more intended to communicate its location). Anyhow, it seems that the very edits to rectify flow (the preceding content of which was consensually agreed upon and in place for a little while) have complicated and contorted content; the 1st paragraph seems mass of confusion now. Thus, I think it prudent to restore these prior tidbits. Corticopia 21:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the more and more I compare the two, the more and more I prefer the preceding introduction: note 'country' upfront, then expand on this in last sentence of 1st paragraph. Corticopia 21:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That's just it - Alaska is only "mostly" in the western hemisphere. I don't take issue with the remainder of the edits, but the first sentence really was far superior when it read "The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprised of 50 states and several territories." per the discussion above. The term country is plainly implied by the word republic and lacks specificity, and the western hemisphere statement just simply isn't completely correct when accounting for Guam, the eastern most Aleutian islands, et al. Going to go ahead and restore the first sentence, to make sure that we're hitting the truly important bits defining the US in the first sentence. MrZaius^talk 05:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, please note above where I mentioned that the western hemisphere link was restored to the United States#Geography section, and in a more accurate/nuanced manner. There really isn't space for an accurate/non-ambiguous treatment of the topic in the already-busy lead, and it's relatively unimportant considering the prominence of the North America link in the lead, which makes it redundant. MrZaius^talk 05:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Was it? I somewhat disagree. I'm fine with noting it as a 'federal constitutional republic' upfront (though it doesn't glide as easily off the tongue) but, again, this content is now duplicated in the 1st paragraph. As before, I maintain it is also necessary to note that it is a country of the western hemisphere, while not perhaps being completely in it -- this covers off on reckonings of the United States that strictly limit it to the 50 states and DC and or insular territories (also linked). I've made apt editions. And noting its scope upfront is just as important for such an expansive topic. And I suggest focusing on and pruning redundant text elsewhere in this already lengthy article before justifying why you now think there's no space for content that has been in place for months unchallenged. Corticopia 12:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What I said was that there wasn't space for an accurate description in the lead, including, in plain and unambiguous language, exceptions such as Guam and the easternmost Aleutians. The term is linked and covered in the article below, and is, again, somewhat redundant when covering the country's location with the North America reference. On a side note, if you look through the history of the article, you will find that I've made a concerted effort to trim redundant text in all sections of this article. If the first-sentence description of the United States as a federal yada yada was redundant, we could make an effort trim the later mention in the lead. I'll take a look at that in a moment. MrZaius^talk 13:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that the current version (per your last edit to the lead) is much better, and accurately yet succinctly describes the country's location. :) Thanks. Corticopia 13:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that was largely unrelated. Still has your text reading "of the western hemisphere" which is still potentially ambiguous. At the very least, we might want to make it read "largely in the western hemisphere", if it must be in the lead, for accuracy's sake. MrZaius^talk 13:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I realise that, but that rearranging of content made the intro more readible (IMO). :) I think your proposal to add 'largely' is fine, which I was hoping to avoid through notation of the that the US is of (not totally in) the wh. Thanks. Corticopia 18:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As odd as this feels (considering our disagreements on other issues), I find myself strongly inclined to agree with you and BrendelSignature on this issue. Federal democratic republic sounds like the most accurate and precise way of describing the U.S. in the first sentence. All three words are essential to introducing the complex nature of the political entity that is the United States. Country or nation alone just doesn't quite cut it.--Coolcaesar 08:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, I think the entire First Paragraph needs a tune-up and should be worded in a more logical and flowing fashion.Abdalla 20:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think part of the challenge is defining and describing the extent and constituents of the U.S. so succinctly (and appropriately, since many other country article do the same), and I do not believe this can be done any more economically than presently. However, I'm all for further logical rearrangements to make content within the 1st paragraph flow more easily. Corticopia 21:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

OK: I've made edits that, hopefullly, have yielded a more logical progression/presentation of information. Thoughts? Corticopia 22:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

At least with regards to the WH ref, those are precisely the words I was looking for. Good job MrZaius^talk 23:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If that was directed at me, thanks! I also apologise for the dotting and inadvertent brusqueness ... but it is a loaded article with a loaded intro. Corticopia 23:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone was new to the information in the first paragraph, the most probable result will be confusion. What I meant to say when I mentioned previously to make the paragraph 'flow', is to make the paragraph easier to understand for those who have little background knowledge about the article. Although difficult, try reading the paragraph in its present form, in the point of view of a less informed reader. I think the paragraph still lacks wikipedia quality standard.Abdalla 02:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't concur: the first paragraph succinctly describes what and where the US is, while the 2nd and other paragraphs elaborate -- 'piped links' expand and inform further. Actually, if we defaulted to simplicity (KISS mentality), we would probably have to revert to simpler notions, like noting 'country' instead of a multinomial description of the country which is already noted in the country infobox. If you have sweeping suggestions for a revamped introduction, place them here first and we can discuss. Corticopia 02:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but I think it should be the second one. Also, it should be that comprises or comprising not "comprised of". I made that change, but it was reverted, so I figured I might say something here and see if anyone objects to me changing it before I do it again. And regardless of whichever sentence is used, changing the verb should not make a difference.Alcemáe ^{T • C} 09:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Comprised of" is perfectly acceptable in modern writing, but if you wish to avoid this issue in the future, perhaps it should be changed to "composed of" or something similar. Confiteordeo 09:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comprised of is not considered standard, its often attacked as wrong. I have sources, but its not a huge deal; I just think that since comprised of is not always accepted, it should not be used. Alcemáe ^{T • C} 09:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Comprised of" is indeed considered standard. Were it not, Websters would not include that sense as a definition before the usage note. "Comprising" appears awkward to many readers, which is why it keeps getting changed. Like I said before, if it matters that much to you, change it to something completely uncontroversial. Confiteordeo 11:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. MrZaius^talk 14:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Watergate?

Should there be a single sentence on Nixon's troubles, given the constitutional challenge the nation overcame? Perhaps combined with Clinton's impeachment challenge. 69.218.120.201 13:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely a no to Clinton, and to the unmentioned President Jackson. Neither were removed from office, and both are covered in the impeachment article linked from here. Nixon's worthy of note, however, just because he was the only sitting president ever removed from office. Dropping in a brief mention. MrZaius^talk 15:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I daresay you mean "the unmentioned President (Andrew) Johnson. President Andrew Jackson was not involved in an impeachment challenge. --afriend

Aie. Damn those three characters. In both that case and the present administration, I wonder if the country would be well served by adding a constitutional requirement for name differentiation, based on the algorithms currently used to measure password complexity. MrZaius^talk 06:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that qualifies as "ridiculously subtle humor". Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 19:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Nixon wasn't removed from office; he was, however, the first (and so far, only) president to resign the post.

nothing about the native americans genocide?

the following sentence is funny and so naive: "However, first contact between Native Americans and early Spanish explorers spread epidemics that killed a large portion of the indigenous population. These epidemics combined with violence by European settlers to marginalize the Native American population in the United States". "Violence" and "marginalize" aren't realistic words compared with what really happened don't you think? Cliché Online 02:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Compared to before, it's a marked improvement [2] However, if you've got a way to pack more into a similar number of words or characters in the current version, go right ahead. MrZaius^talk 05:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

War on Error

The war on terror section is far too large, and needs to be rephrased as a direct manifestation or should I say festation of the fact that George W Bush is America's worst president ever, and created the war on terror just as an excuse to attack Afganistan and Iraq, and would have attacked Iran as well had not reason on the part of the military intervened. 199.125.109.78 03:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't - it's in line with the rest of the article, and no it doesn't. Your suggested rewrite would break WP:NPOV. We must carefully moderate our tone here, remaining encyclopedic to achieve the ultimate goal of WP:FA status. MrZaius^talk 05:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's in the history section, and if you go generation by generation we end with "Cold war and civil rights" and then "war on terror". This is suggesting that the only things that happened from 1945 to 2007 was the cold war, civil rights (which only gets one sentence), and the war on terror. Well hello, are you saying that nothing happened for a whole generation? What happened to the computer generation? Where did the internet come from? And by the way I'm not stating a point of view when I say that George W Bush is America's worst president, that's easily quantified by the fact that he took a surplus into the biggest deficit ever, in fact he has spent more money than all other presidents combined. He failed miserably on Sep 11, the FAA failed to notify Norad in a timely manner and even when notified failed to effectively scramble an intercept. An analysis of the timeline shows that the jets that were scrambled, and that "flew like a scalded ape, at speeds topping 500 mph" averaged only 447 mph, less than 25% of their top speed. It is no wonder they were too late. And what did Bush do while this was happening? He finished reading "The Pet Goat" to schoolchildren. Did he want the attacts to happen? It would be hard to come to any other conclusion. 199.125.109.67 15:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There are several generations that are committed from the very brief summary of the United States history featured here, to help us stay within the WP:LENGTH guidelines. The verifiable sections of your comments are, however, dealt with in articles linked to by this one. However, you do raise an interesting point about ARPA & their series of tubes. MrZaius^talk 06:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Strike that last. It's covered in /* Innovation */.

Broken links

On May 14 the CIA made major changes to it's website, breaking the links in the article to the CIA Factbook. Approximately 9 links need to be fixed. Many can be found by changing the link from /publications/factbook to /library/publications/the-world-factbook 199.125.109.15 19:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out, MrZaius^talk 08:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD and GDP

This edit was reverted, but was within the guidelines, as I understand them, for WP:LEAD. I moved the lengthy discussion of GDP as a portion of GWP, introduced last month, out of the LEAD and into /* Economy */ and replaced them with a single sentence "summarizing the most important points". Should probably remove the pipe from GDP and add the year for the numbers & ref, but aside from that, I think it was a fairly sound edit. Would there be any objections to my restoring it? MrZaius^talk 03:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the edit for three reasons:

• The US has the world's largest national economy, not largest economy overall
• The US has actually a mixed economy, as government constitutes 36% of GDP, so simply saying "capitalist" is somewhat of a uber-simplification.
• We already stated that the US has the world's largest national economy in the previous edit

Yes, it was a fairly sound edit but not quite "correct enough" for the LEAD. We can, however, take out the part of the US economy constituting 22% of GWP-that can be mentioned in the economy of the US article. BTW: Otherwise you have done a great job improving the article. Regards, Signature^brendel 06:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm kind of attached to the GWP mention, as it provides such a clear perspective on the relative size of the economy. However, it may not be so important as to warrant mention in the LEAD. Would it work if we wrote this in the LEAD:

Its national economy is the world's largest, with a 2006 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of more than $13 trillion.

and the following in the /* Economy */ section:

The United States GDP of more than $13 trillion constitutes 22 percent of the gross world product. The nation ranks as the third or eighth highest GDP per capita, according to the International Monetary Fund.

That way we move the significant but lengthy details about rankings and % of GWP to the economy section, preserving them, and making the LEAD easier to chew through. This wording's a little less repetitive, and a wee bit stronger, IMHO, than what we have at the moment. MrZaius^talk 06:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That'll work! Signature^brendel 06:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The average person is Sweden is poorer than the poorest Americans

The Americans might like to see this: "Study discovers Swedes are less well-off than the poorest Americans" www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/678046/posts Maybe you can use it in the article.

Might be relevant in Sweden, if you had the actual study to cite, but it's not really relevant here. MrZaius^talk 04:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that statement's validity (how you define being "well-off is a difficult matter and you can spin it anyway you want)- but that aside it isn't relevant here. Signature^brendel 05:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it too. This source is being discussed at Talk:Sweden. IMHO, this contributor is having an agenda (contribs).

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Genocides

Why is there no mention of Native American, African and Iraqis genocides?

... er... yeah, um, what needs to be mentioned is there. Cute that you also included a "Japanese genocide" before you removed it. --Golbez 19:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The problems are that the term genocide wasn't coined early enough to be relevant to the first two, that the enslavement of a race is better discussed explicitly as that, and that no government or IGO has ever publically accused the United States government of committing genocide in Iraq. Like Golbez said, the references we have in the article already to each of those issues is already superior to any WP:ESSAY likening them to genocide. MrZaius^talk 06:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"WWII was the most costly war for the USA in its history"

The fact of the matter is WWII was and/or is the second most costly war in the history of the USA. In first place now is currently the military fiasco with Iraq on Terrorism. The Federal Government has borrowed literally close to 5 Trillion (yes, T for Trillion, where 5Trill is 5,000 Billion) when one takes into account the "on" and "off" budget of the USA Fed Gov. Clearly, the article needs to be updated, because it's inaccurate to claim anymore that WWII was the most costly war of the USA, when the war we're currently spending on has exceeded WWII on any basis you'd like to make--- be it nominal or real spending, that is actual dollars or even inflation adjusted dollars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.25.100 (talk • contribs)

The various "wars" on poverty, drugs, and terror are not generally classified with individual military conflicts when making those comparisons. Do you have inflation adjusted figures that suggest that the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, or any earlier war was more costly to the United States than World War II? I can't seem to find any that suggest that the Iraq war has cost more than 200-400 billion USD, to point. However, even in 1990 USD, http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm claims that WWII cost the United States over 2 trillion. MrZaius^talk 06:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)