Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:08, 10 January 2008

	United States has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 15, 2005 Good article nominee Listed May 7, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 8, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 18, 2006 Peer review Reviewed July 3, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 21, 2006 Peer review Reviewed June 19, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:USold

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on .

Template:Maintained Talk:United States/Archive Box

A few words to the "mainstream" censorship

Hi! It is sad to see how even the article on the history of the country, United States, where the free Misplaced Pages encyclopedia is kept is subjected to the censoring of a band of editors hostages of a reducionist-materialist ideology that they call "mainstream": history must obey their premises or it did NOT happen; it doesn't matter how solid the evidences and supporting historical documents may be, since the proponents are always labeled "pov" and "troll".
Well, one should already be used to it instead of spending time, efforts and sometimes putting herself/himself into trouble when trying to clarify misconceptions born from common ignorance, right? Wrong! One lesson history teaches us all: societies, civilizations, the World itself only evolves when there are individuals who fight for Truth (be it material or ethereal, but factual) slowly changing the paradigm in which the society, their fellowmen, currently lives-sleeps its illusion.
It happened in the past when deep changes were occurring and it is happening now again...
Whatever you may understand from the above little soliloquy of mine, here is the edition that was constantly reverted, as if these editors resented from an extremely unjustified accusantion that was made into them; or can it be that their mental attitude is the acme of self-satisfaction and intolerance?:

into section "World-War I (...)" :

Lindgren, Carl Edwin, The Rose Cross: A Historical and Philosophical View - The Rose Cross in America: 1800-1909 (Chapter III), Journal of Religion and Psychical Research, Volume19, Number 3:143-152, 1995

Heindel, Max, The Rosicrucian Philosophy in Questions and Answers - Volume II: The Philosophy of War, ed. 1918, ISBN 0-911274-90-1

Thank you for the atention you have devoted to the above lines. Cheers, --Tekto9 (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

My mental attitude has always wanted to be the acme of something. Thanks for the accusantion.—DCGeist (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a mere retoric question: nevertheless, as you have granted, such is the case of your mental attitude; but please do not be resentful as we all have the capability of changing from within and keeping our mind in the fluidal state of adaptability to the new external conditions that may arise. See you. --Tekto9 (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Your contribution is most appreciated. M5891 (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Spanish not defacto

I think we should place Spanish as a second de facto language since most documents of the government are available in Spanish, also, several states, recognise the Spanish language. There is also a large Spanish speaking population in the US.

I think we should at least place the Spanish as a regional recognised language.

190.140.234.215 02:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, calling Spanish a de facto language of the United States would be very misleading, as it is spoken by immigrant communities, though there are many such communities around the country. Identifying the existence of multiple "de facto" languages is more appropriate for places like Montreal. In most of the United States, there isn't that same degree of bilingualism. I think that the current footnote is the most appropriate solution, since it does indicate that Spanish is the second most commonly spoken language and that it is a regionally recognized language, but without overstating its importance on a national scale. --Confiteordeo 05:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well argued. I agree. It sounds like our anonymous visitor in Panama (that's where IP address 190.140.234.215 traces back to) has never visited the United States, particularly the Pacific Northwest, Midwest, or Mid-Atlantic regions. --Coolcaesar 06:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The current footnote is sufficient - though the anon IP does have a point. It is important to remember that the prominance of Spanish varies greatly. In CA it would be quite accurate to call it one of the defacto official lanugages (though many would wish to deny this). On the national overall level, however, Spanish is not that prominent yet, used by about 10% - 15% of the population. Official documents are often available in and it is recognized officially in certain places. As I've said, however, the current footnote does the job. Signature 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing my thoughts then, and I have visited only Florida, New York and Anchorage. You do have a point. ;) 190.140.234.215 (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd add a comment here from the Canadian perspective, perhaps how we handle this issue may have relevance. Unlike in America, we have federally mandated "official" languages, namely English and French. In America, though various states and localities have stated "official" languages, usually English, it is probably most accurate to state that the "de facto" language is English. However, in Canada in various regions, particularly in the North, there are what is called on the Canada page "recognized regional languages." These include Cree, Dene, Inuktitut, etc.

If there was a consensus to do this (and I can accept that given the sensitive nature of the issue of language currently in America this may be lacking), one might note in the box since there is no official language that English is the de facto official language, with "recognized regional languages" in various states and territories, namely Spanish, Hawaiian, Samoan, Chamorro, Carolinian and French. Canada Jack (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and to add to the rather odd remark above about Montreal ("Identifying the existence of multiple "de facto" languages is more appropriate for places like Montreal. In most of the United States, there isn't that same degree of bilingualism.") this is rather misleading. There is no issue of "de facto" language in Canada, there are, simply put, "official" languages and "recognized" languages. Various regions will be de facto English or French, or Chinese, or Polish/Portuguese/Ukranian (like my Toronto neighbourhood).The issue in Canada is not the level of bilingualism per se, it is what are "official" languages and what are "recognized" languages.

Later, when lists of languages spoken are given, then we see the various percentages of speakers of particular languages. In America's case, lacking an "official" language per se, English is de facto with the above-mentioned recognized regional languages. Canada Jack (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The territories aside--it's such a headache accommodating our empire--Hawaiian is the only language that has a legal status comparable to Canada's "recognized regional languages". The recognition of Spanish by New Mexico and French by Louisiana is of a less formal, more purely practical order. I think the general language of the infobox note as it stands adequately addresses the matter there, with greater detail provided in the appropriate article section on Language.—DCGeist (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In defense of my "rather odd" remark, I wasn't making a statement about the legal status of any language in Canada, or really even addressing "the issue in Canada;" I was merely using Montreal as an example of a place where there are multiple languages spoken city-wide, and are hence "de facto" for the city. Regardless of their official statuses, Montreal is is a place where there truly are two "de facto" languages because of the degree to which they are both spoken, and there aren't many of those places in the world. You're conflating my local example with your national politics. --Confiteordeo (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If English were indeed the "official" language of America, I'd agree. But since it isn't, it seems appropriate to note those recognized languages. Maybe Hawaiian is the only one (going by states), or others should be included if we are talking territories, etc. But when something is "de facto" it by definition is outside the normal legally defined boundaries. Yet several other languages within America do have legal definition. Which is why it seems a little odd to exclude them from the box since they have legal status. Canada Jack (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Be interested to hear other people's perspectives here. Mine is this: English is widely recognized as the de facto language of the country. Spanish is the second most common language spoken in the country, but is the official language nowhere (again, leaving the territories aside). There are two and only two official languages within the integral United States:

1. English in at least twenty-eight states
2. Hawaiian in one state, Hawaii (where English is also official)

This would imply an adjustment of the infobox to read something like:

• National language English (de facto)
• Official state languages English (28 or more states), Hawaiian (Hawaii)
• Other common language Spanish

I'm not convinced that constitutes an improvement, though I wouldn't fight hard against it. (For those confused by the ambiguity about the number of states where English is official, please see the excellent source cited at the appropriate point in the Language section. Essentially, there's no official definition of "official.")

There is a related point that the article does not currently address at all: the semi-autonomous American Indian reservations where, of course, a host of Native American languages have official status.—DCGeist (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Upon looking at other national pages, I see rather consistently "official languages." But, for Spain, for example, in their Autonomous Communities, one sees differing official languages, Catalan, Spanish and Aranese for Catalonia, not mentioned on the national page. Accordingly, in keeping these national pages somewhat consistent, I'd suggest a slight modification of the above, as America seems somewhat unique in lacking a national official language (and also in keeping with the wikipedia pages on Official Languages and National Languages):

• National language English (de facto official language)
• Official state languages English (28 or more states), Hawaiian (Hawaii)

Any other language - Spanish included - should be mentioned within the body of the text until such time as Spanish gains an official status within a state or states. Canada Jack (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In defense of my "rather odd" remark, I wasn't making a statement about the legal status of any language in Canada, or really even addressing "the issue in Canada;" I was merely using Montreal as an example of a place where there are multiple languages spoken city-wide, and are hence "de facto" for the city. Regardless of their official statuses, Montreal is is a place where there truly are two "de facto" languages because of the degree to which they are both spoken, and there aren't many of those places in the world. You're conflating my local example with your national politics.

Didn't mean to be snide when I said "odd remark." I should have said it was a misleading comment in that there ARE two official languages within Montreal, at least in terms of service from federal institutions: English and French. And that also matches the overwhelming de facto situation in that city. But to note this is somewhat misleading. Though the title of the thread is "Spanish not defacto language", I am suggesting that the ONLY reason to include a de facto language in the box is if there is no official language. Therefore, lacking an official status, Spanish should not be in the box as English is the National language AND the de facto official language, Spanish is not, though in some localities within America it may have that de facto status. Speaking as someone who was born in Montreal and lives in Toronto, it might be better to note the difference between the "official" status in Toronto vs the de facto status: English and French are official languages for federal institutions, English is the de facto local universal language, with pockets of de facto languages spoken (as I note, near me, Polish, Portuguese, Ukranian, Somalian etc.).Canada Jack (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was my point about Spanish in the infobox. I never said that there weren't two official languages, and in fact, I never said anything about official status at all, so I don't understand how I misled anyone. I never suggested anything about what should be included in Montreal's infobox nor why. I was simply providing an example of a place where there are two de facto spoken languages (it's irrelevant that they're official in that context- and I think you read too much into it.) Given size and prominence of Montreal's Anglophone population over the past 170 years or so, it is likely that the city would still be bilingual even without any of the language laws, which is why the "but it's also official!!!!" argument is specious. --Confiteordeo (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that in Canada there are two official languages nationally, and in America there are none. So it is somewhat comparing apples to oranges (har har) when we talk of the language situation in terms of de facto in Montreal when in Canada there IS official status. It seems to me that you are trying to make a point about the conflation of "official" with "de facto," and to me it seems to be the wrong city to make such a point (with the fights federal vs provincial on language laws; the history of the English banning the use of French, and the reverse since the 1970s, etc.).

But this is all beside the point as the real question here in terms of America is whether, since there is no official language nationally, does Spanish rise to the level of "de facto" national language alongside English? Clearly, it does not, and we agree on that. Though I would hasten to add that in some parts of America, Spanish speakers were there before English speakers, so suggesting it is "immigrant" language is not entirely accurate, Spanish is as indigenous as English.

But, separate from the Spanish issue and for the reasons stated above (no "offical" language) the box nevertheless should be altered to reflect the "official" status that does in fact exist in a number of states: ie. the official status of English and Hawaiian. Do you agree with that? Canada Jack (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

WHAT I'M SORRY, BUT IS THE SINGLE ENGLISH OFFICIAL LANGUAGE IN THE UNITED STATES ...

WHY THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEFACTO , THEREFORE IS NOT OFFICIAL, AND WHY THE SPANISH OFFICIAL SL SL OFFICIAL IN PUERTO RICO AND PUERTO RICO IS PART OF THE UNITED STATES AND PUERTO RICO IS IF OFFICIAL LANGUAGE AND THIS IS PART OF USA, THEREFORE THIS IS OFFICIAL.

Jampalar (Jampalar_talk) 06:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

not to be rude but please have someone translate what you mean to say from your native language into english. SJMNY (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

is dutch: Wat spijt me, maar is de enige officiële taal in het engels DE VERENIGDE STATEN ...

        Waarom de Engelse taal de facto, dus is niet officieel, en waarom het spaans officiële ambtenaar in PUERTO RICO en PUERTO RICO is onderdeel van de verenigde staten en PUERTO RICO is als officiële taal en dit is een onderdeel van de Verenigde Staten, dus dit is officieel.

If I'm reading this right, you are saying english is not official because Puerto Rico, a territory of the US, speaks Spanish and has Spanish as it's official language, therefore making Spanish the De facto language of the US? If so, that's not correct. Looking at the Puerto Rico page aswell, it says Puerto Rico's official languages are English and Spanish. Apparently some decision to make Spanish the only official language in Puerto Rico was over turned and reverted back to both English and Spanish. But one territory does not determine de facto language in the first place ofcourse. Something happened the above quote, I can't figure out what happened, my apologies.135.245.152.36 (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)unsigned

Link to Borders

I have noticed that the United States is the only nation I could find which does not provide links to its neighboring nations in its opening paragraph. Having such links available is very useful in that it allows you to quickly find specific information about a number of nations in a region (for example the heads of state in North America). Instead of providing a link to the nations Canada and Mexico, this article provides links to the borders between the United States and Canada and the United States and Mexico. To bring this article into agreement with the treatment of neighboring nations around the world I included links to the countries Canada and Mexico (02:14, 29 November 2007 ) but I retained the links to the border pages under the words "to the north" and "to the south" so that by clicking on the word Canada a person would see the page for Canada. I think this should be a fair compromise. My edit was reverted and I'd like to know what is so important about the border pages that they make it into the opening paragraph while Canada and Mexico do not.MarsInSVG 03:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why the articles ended up that way or who did it that way, but I agree with the status quo. The situation with the Mexican and Canadian borders is so insanely complicated (for example, there have been several National Geographic articles over the past two decades covering issues for both borders) that it makes sense to link to the border articles to explain how the U.S. connects to those countries. Linking directly to the articles on those countries would give an improper impression as to the physical relationship of Canada and Mexico vis-a-vis the United States. --Coolcaesar 06:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Coolcaesar. In addition, there was extensive discussion in the FAC about focusing on high-quality links--that is, to articles that are likely to further inform the reader about the topic they came to this article to learn about: the United States. The two border articles do that. Links to Canada and Mexico don't nearly as much. Further, they are hardly obscure--no reader will be lost as how to find the Canada or Mexico article if they really want to go there from this. Though it's a close call, I do believe that dedicating those bluelinks to the border articles rather than splitting them is most likely to benefit readers interested in learning about the United States.—DCGeist 08:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that the links to Canada and Mexico have been created but I have to say that it to me is rather odd to mention the borders in this way in the lede. Canada and Mexico are neighbours - what's the deal with focusing on the demarcations between the three countries? Seems to me to be a very odd thing to note at the top of the article. Sure, the issue of borders is complicated, but I would note that to mention it in the lede would be appropriate if there was some sort of border dispute, such as the ones between India and some its neighbours, or Israel where it is a big political issue. The main issue vis a vis America and its neighbours surrounds issues of security and immigration, NOT on disputes over the actual borders. Just my 2 cents. Canada Jack (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Transportation section

The present version of the transportation section is (here I am not citing the references):

As of 2003, there were 759 automobiles per 1,000 Americans, compared to 472 per 1,000 inhabitants of the European Union the following year. Approximately 39% of personal vehicles are vans, SUVs, or light trucks. The average American adult (accounting for all drivers and nondrivers) spends 55 minutes behind the wheel every day, driving 29 miles (47 km) The U.S. intercity passenger rail system is relatively weak. Only 9% of total U.S. work trips employ mass transit, compared to 38.8% in Europe. Bicycle usage is minimal, well below European levels. The civil airline industry is entirely privatized, while most major airports are publicly owned. The five largest airlines in the world by passengers carried are all American; American Airlines is number one. Of the world's thirty busiest passenger airports, sixteen are in the United States, including the busiest, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL).

• 'compared to 472 per 1,000 inhabitants of the European Union the following year' what is the need of this comparison here. I have already put them in Transportation in the United States‎ page. These making the article unnecessarily long.
• Again comparison! 'compared to 38.8% in Europe'.
• 'Bicycle usage is minimal, well below European levels' further comparison.
• The facts on the airline industry need to be shortened.

I suggest to put these in the Transportation in the United States‎. Regular contributors to this page please don't take it offensively. I see there is already a debate on the article size. It is true the article is already long. And such comparisons will make it further long. I agree that these facts used in the comparisons are significant, but please not here, in a country page. They should be discussed in more specialised articles like in Transportation in the United States‎ page. Here I suggest a concise version of this paragraph:

As of 2003, there were 759 automobiles per 1,000 Americans. Approximately 39% of personal vehicles are vans, SUVs, or light trucks. The average American adult (accounting for all drivers and nondrivers) spends 55 minutes behind the wheel every day, driving 29 miles (47 km) The U.S. intercity passenger rail system is relatively weak, with only 9% of total U.S. work trips employ mass transit. Bicycle usage is minimal. The civil airline industry is entirely privatized, while most major airports are publicly owned. United States have world's five largest airlines by passengers carried with American Airlines is first position. 16 out of world's 30 busiest passenger airports are in United States, including the busiest Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL). Please consider it. Otolemur crassicaudatus 11:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, the proposed edit needs a-fixin'--it ends with two nongrammatical sentences. The use of numerals for cardinal numbers contravenes the style of the rest of the article (and a sentence should never begin with a numeral, in any event). We might discuss changing to a style in which, for instance, all cardinals over ten are represented as numerals--but then we would have to have 13 colonies and 50 states throughout. Finally, the text savings gained by cutting the comparisons is quite small, and the section, I believe, reads better and is inarguably more informative with them. We can discuss cutting virtually all the comparisons throughout the article, but to do it piecemeal, I think, is not a good process.—DCGeist 11:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree relating the comparison. But I have made the airlines related sentences concise. No fact is missed during this process. Regarding the number issue, I have followed your argument. Otolemur crassicaudatus 11:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The United States of America is situated in "America" or "The Americas" not the Western Hemisphere. *ReWrite*

Intuitionz (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No rewrite. The information currently presented in the article is correct. Please take a remedial geography course. Seriously, my friend.—DCGeist (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. I'm sorry but the Western Hemisphere is way too broad and misleading to the public. Can you be alot more specific in the whereabouts of the western hemisphere please? First, try including WHICH continent The United States of America rests in please. Intuitionz (talk) 08:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The second sentence of the article states which continent the U.S. is primarily located in. (Perhaps remedial English is in order. Seriously.) In addition, the State of Hawaii, an integral part of the United States, is not geographically "situated in 'America' or 'The Americas.'"—DCGeist (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank You. You just proved my point by saying the State of Hawaii, is not geographically "situated in 'America' or 'The Americas." Thus prompting eliminating the first sentence of saying that: "The country is situated almost entirely in the western hemisphere:" Which is quite misleading and inaccurate since "almost" does not count when we are trying to be factual. It creates speculation to the public. So why include it? I say remove the first sentence, it's A: just NPOV anyway, and B: Inaccurate.

Finally, if Misplaced Pages feels that "almost" is "good enough to be factual" for this article, just keep it. Intuitionz (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The FACT is that the country is situated almost entirely in the western hemisphere. That is neither misleading nor inaccurate. That is the verifiable reality of it. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree, it should say North America first, since only a small portion of the country is not on the North American continent. I suspect that the article on France says it's in Europe, even though portions (larger proportionally than Hawaii) are not. --Golbez (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

On reflection, yes, it is not necessary to mention the hemispheric situation in our lede--that's adequately covered in our Geography section. I wouldn't be averse to something like this:

The country's forty-eight contiguous states and Washington, D.C., the capital district, lie in central North America between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, bordered by Canada to the north and Mexico to the south. The state of Alaska is in the northwest of the continent with Canada to its east, and the state of Hawaii is in the mid-Pacific.

—DCGeist (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe the current wording arose because of an edit conflict that spilled over from Mexico. User:Corticopia edited the lead to read that Mexico is located in southern North America, which the Mexican editors found offensive. One editor (disingenuously) said that if the United States lead were edited to read "in central North America" then "southern North America" could stay in the Mexico lead. User:Corticopia preferred the term "western hemisphere" as a way to include Hawaii and the other Pacific Islands when s/he edited the lead here (over a week or so,) and it stuck. Your revised version is just as acceptable, of course. --Confiteordeo (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah...thank you. I've observed that "central North America" was an unusual locution, but haven't argued against it, as I appreciate its precision. Any other thoughts on that phrase?—DCGeist (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a Google Book search shows many authoritative sources use the phrase "central North America" (though some apply it longitudinally rather than latitudinally--our oceanic contextualization prevents confusion on that score). I'll advocate keeping it.—DCGeist (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This whole debate seems a little odd to me, not least because both sides seem to have expelled both Alaska and Hawaii from the Western Hemisphere, when infact both of them are in that hemisphere. (except for a couple of the most remote aleutian islands)

Yes it does seem odd: the prior lead was correct. In fact, the original commentator's basic logic is flawed: 'Americas' and 'western hemisphere' are not always synonymous, either, the latter of which is sometimes reckoned to comprise the half of the globe from 160 E to 20 W. Moreover, the articles 'western hemisphere' and 'eastern hemisphere' elaborate as to why the former is of more utility -- with the WH sometimes being referred to as the American hemisphere -- while landmasses on the latter (namely Africa and Eurasia) span onto the former. Apropos, the lead now in place reflects the country's location with a wee-bit more detail yet economy (proceeding from the larger to the smaller), while the prior one was rather imprecise and still longer byte-wise.

BTW: my last edit to the article was an erroneous self-rv; cancelled yet not apparently -- mea culpa. Quizimodo (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think I have solved the problem by my simple-but-clear edit to this lead: "The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district. It occupies the whole of the continent of North America, except those parts occupied by Canada and Mexico, plus Hawaii which is in the central Pacific. The United States also possesses several territories, or insular areas, that are scattered around the Caribbean and Pacific" which I have copied here becasue no doubt it will have been reverted by now. Abtract (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that is less clear and a little misleading. "It occupies the whole of the continent of North America, except those parts occupied by Canada and Mexico , . . . ." The previous version was more clear. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

OK it may need refining slightly but I was trying to make the point that in fact everyone knows where the USA is located so we only need a very simply statement to that effect. Abtract (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No, we really do need to be more specific about the location. One of the reasons "everyone knows" where the USA is located is because every encyclopedia article on the subject--like ours--provides those specifics in its lead section.—DCGeist (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Overlinking

There was much discussion in the FAC about overlinking in the article, which went well beyond just cutting down on links to "things not relevant like 'economic' 'cartographer'". Here's a sample comment from one of Misplaced Pages's better-known copyeditors.

I was asked to discuss overlinking. I take a functionalist view to wikilinking: how does it help/hinder the reading experience? Some delinkings may come down to subjective judgement, but given the amount of blue spattering, particularly early on in the article, I'd be inclined to delink dictionary words and the names of countries, unless they're likely to be unfamiliar to many English speakers, or piped to a focused article (such as immigration, which is a good one). Canada, Mexico, France, Spain, Russia could all be smooth black rather than stick-out blue; some are linked more than once, as though we didn't get a chance earlier to digress. "Italian explorer and cartographer" ... well, who wants to interrupt their flow and read the Italy article in that sentence? "Cartographer" and "adjectival" I think people should know; why not remove "and demonymic" (it's not the place to teach us all a new term, unless it's important to understanding the meaning, which it's not—it's redundant). "English"—hello? Same for "Spanish" and "Portuguese"—they're either trivial or just too off-topic to risk diluting the high-value links, the ones you want readers to consider hitting.
(Tony)

The lede of our article has long presented North America and the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans without links for several reasons: (a) the relevant paragraph is already dense with links; (b) these terms are hardly likely to be unfamiliar to any English speakers; (c) we do not have focused articles for them. There are some high-quality links in the paragraph, and some fundamental ones (like Alaska and Hawaii). Linking to such universally known terms as North America and so forth dilutes those.—DCGeist (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The links to things that define the location in a paragraph about the location cannot possibly be considered 'overlinking'. Just because an argument was made in an FAC doesn't make it true. --Golbez (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"Cannot possibly"? No, actually, quite possibly. The terms are universally familiar. The paragraph is already loaded with links, many of which will be of much more value to almost any reader than links to continent and oceans. The terms have not been linked in our lede paragraph for an extended period. You have offered nothing in the way of rebuttal other than to make the objectively false statement that your desired links "cannot possibly be considered 'overlinking'" and the obviously true and irrelevant observation "Just because an argument was made in an FAC doesn't make it true." Well, yes. And just because you don't like the argument doesn't make it false. Can you make a good case for changing the long-standing approach of the article or not? I have given several specific reasons for continuing to not link these terms. You have failed to rebut a single one.—DCGeist (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

These things are being used to define the location - it seems only logical that they be linked, because even something "universally familiar" can require a definition from time to time. For example, France includes links both to its continent and the bodies of water it borders; Russia includes links to every nation plus body of water it borders; Mozambique uses links to describe where in Africa it is... if the lede is overlinked, then it is not because of the links to the contextual items. --Golbez (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can see linking to countries - afterall many users say that these links make browsing WP enjoyable and informative. Yet linking words like "Italian" and "catographer" is not needed. I think working the article once over for overlinking is a good idea. If someone beleivs too many links have been removed, he or she can point those links out here and provide a rationale for inclusion of the link. Happy Festivus, Signature 02:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not (yet?) dogmatic on the subject of overlinking, but I will comment that I find the ratio of blue to black in this article unusually striking. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi-automatic peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
• The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
• Per Misplaced Pages:Context and Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• Per Misplaced Pages:Context and Misplaced Pages:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Misplaced Pages:Summary style.
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: flavor (A) (British: flavour), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), favorite (A) (British: favourite), aluminum (A) (British: aluminium), defense (A) (British: defence), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), enrollment (A) (British: enrolment), cosy (B) (American: cozy), sulfur (A) (British: sulphur).
• The script has spotted the following contractions: Don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Misplaced Pages's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Pbroks13 (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Transportation picture

I have added a picture of Interstate 80 in the transportation section. This a featured picture in wikipedia. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus for picture in Military section

The present picture in the military section is of USS Ronald Reagan. I think there might be better picture than it. Here I suggest some pictures. The F/A-18 picture is a featured picture in wikipedia. I think the pictures of USS Abraham Lincoln and USS John C. Stennis are very good. In my opinion the picture of USS Abraham Lincoln will be very good. Ithink there should be a consensus about which image will be suitable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• I really like the F/A-18 picture, and the USS Abraham Lincoln is also good. But the USS Nimitz is the one I'd !vote for. Of the five presented here, the USS Ronald Reagan is the least impressive, IMHO. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• As a photograph the F/A-18 picture is good, but we already have an image of similar military aircraft in the article, and our goal here should be to show an entire carrier. The Reagan and Lincoln photographs make similar effective use of the horizon line; I prefer the Reagan in this context, as I find the tiny planes in the top left of the Lincoln photo a bit distracting at the scale we're working with. The Stennis image is relatively bland--though it does give a good sense of the carrier's scale vis-a-vis its planes. The Nimitz image is excellent, with my only hesitation being that it looks a bit too much like a promotional photo. At any rate, I'm in favor of keeping the Reagan or replacing it with the Nimitz.—DCGeist (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Both the Nimitz and Stennis images are low quality, so low that they really do not deserve to be in a possible FA article. Also, I agree with DCGeist that the F/A-18 is similar to other photos in the article dealing with warplanes. Thus, I say the Lincoln is the best choice of the ones you posted, but there are probably far more pictures available for Free Use that would be of better quality. The Lincoln accurately describes what kind of projection power the section talks about and suits it best currently. If I remember, I'll search for new photos available for free use by the US Federal Government. Bkkeim2000 (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have found the mother load of US aircraft carriers. Most of these pictures are in high resolution, and would fit the criteria of the section. Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States Bkkeim2000 (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Great job. Would you like to select a few for consideration here?—DCGeist (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll do so this weekend when I have time. Bkkeim2000 (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Wouldn't ground forces be more representative of the American military?PrometheusAvV (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't believe so. The supercarrier is more distinctively American and has come to symbolize the United States' unparalleled capacity to project its military power around the world.—DCGeist (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• The picture of the USS Abraham Lincoln is good. Maxpower37 (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft Carriers are, to me at least, symbolic of American military power and have been since WWII, i'd keep one as the picture without question. i like the one thats there now, though any of them are fine.SJMNY (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• What I'm trying to get at is that both of the photos under the military section are Navy, top right is Sailors and Marines and bottom left, an aircraft carrier. Yes, a carrier is and impressive object but it is not a fair representation of the U.S. military. I propose three photos, not necessarily these, but one from each of the three service branches.

File:DF-SD-07-24657.jpg	File:DA-SD-04-13634.JPEG		File:DF-ST-98-04736.JPG

No. Remember, the section is actually Foreign relations and military. We are keeping the general format as is--one photo representing foreign relations, one photo representing the military. The photo in the top right illustrates foreign relations and is there to represent the president of the U.S. and the prime minister of one of the United States' chief allies. The presence of servicemen and women in the photo is ancillary. The consensus is that the photo illustrating the military be of an aircraft carrier. Let's maintain focus.—DCGeist (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

i agree with DCGeist, and the LAST thing this article needs is to get longer by adding more picturesSJMNY (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Generally, I agree with other editors about not including said pictures -- everything has its place. However, if we were to, would it not be more prudent to include one of a Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile/farm or Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine (either exemplifying nuclear weaponry, a relative rarity in terms of military power, the latter also exemplifying cruise missile/conventional weaponry), or a carrier battle group (exemplifying both naval and air power)? Quizimodo (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Those are each certainly as good choices as an individual carrier, conceptually--perhaps even a bit superior. I just wonder if, in any of those cases, we're likely to find imagery of equal interest. Just looking at the lead photos in the three articles you link to, none of them is as graphically compelling (or even as visually informative) as any of the carrier photos we've been weighing. That's not to say we might not have superior photos in those categories at our disposal.—DCGeist (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As for images that truly pique interest, there are also those which exhibit the atomic bombings of Japan during WWII, or later thermonuclear detonations (like the Trinity test or as part of the Pacific Proving Grounds) that were far more powerful -- read: mushroom clouds. Those would exhibit, implicitly and explicitly, the nuclear capabilities of the U.S., its ascendancy in world affairs as a global power since the 40s, the onset of the Atomic Age and the later Cold War all the same. Quizimodo (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

i still think the aircraft carrier is more symbolic of american military power and its projection than anything else, including atomic weaponry.SJMNY (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Disambig

John Roberts links to a disambiguation page and I can't find his page on wikipedia. Randomblue (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

John Glover Roberts, Jr., if you're talking about the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

He's not the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, he's the Chief Justice of the United States. - Nunh-huh 05:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Picky, picky. You say potato, I say potato. --Crosscountrycpjon (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Potato and potato are correct. Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court: not. It's best to tell people which is the correct term, so they don't risk being thought ignorant by using the wrong one. We're here to inform people, after all, not misinform them. - Nunh-huh 21:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Depressing

Wow, reading through this article I was shocked at how depressing it made it sound to live in the US. In fact, just about every article about a country seems to highlight its negatives more than its positives. I know it is human nature to dwell on the negatives, but I feel like it is a clear bias in these articles and those contributing need to work harder to avoid it. All right, I said my piece so feel free to rip into me. --138.49.23.12 (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. Maxpower37 (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. The balance of this article needs to be addressed.PrometheusAvV (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree. How can you be depressed by an article featuring the Bill of Rights, the largest national economy in the world, James Brown, Martha Graham, and crabcakes?—DCGeist (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Completely disagree. The article clearly highlights the country's wealth, diversity, etc... It neither glorifies nor present the U.S. in a negative light. Then again, as I have said before - the last time a similar message was left, one would expect complaints from those who beleive the article is excessively negative/positive if it was truly balanced. Considering that we have received the contrary complaint as well, I will take this as a vindication of the article's balanced presentation of the U.S. Happy Holidays, Signature 03:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• I was thinking about the largest national economy in the world, and I realized that maybe what depresses our friend 138.49.23.12 is the fact that the fruits of that economy are distributed so unequally. Is it really the article you want to change, 138.49.23.12, or is it the state of the nation?—DCGeist (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think 138.49.23.12's comment above makes it pretty clear that he or she wants to change the article, but thanks for revealing your bias! 66.65.191.125 (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And what bias is that, Princess?—DCGeist (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That the state of the US is cause for depression. 66.65.191.125 (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well, who doesn't love James Brown? Maxpower37 (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Overlinking, part deux

Despite the lack of a consensus for change to the article's long-standing approach, editor Golbez continues to push for linking the names of oceans in the lead paragraph. I have reverted to the long-standing form. My argument is this:

In the unlikely event that a reader arrives at the article unclear on the nature or location of the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, that reader is, sad to say, sure to be equally unclear on the meaning of most of the other nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs that make up its content. To sincerely serve this hypothetical reader, we would need to bluelink every word in the article longer than a monosyllable.

In the more plausible, but still unusual, event that a reader arrives at the United States article with a particular interest in macro-geography, in fact the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, the Caribbean, and the Gulf of Mexico all have been and remain linked in the appropriate geography section of the article.

Even without including bluelinks for these universally recognized bodies of saltwater, the lead paragraph contains fourteen links vs. 109 words--a fairly prodigious ratio. Remember, every additional link reduces the weight of each existing link. Will readers of United States learn more about this subject by going to Washington, D.C. or the Atlantic Ocean?—DCGeist (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. Only link things that are directly related and/or provide further details that are pertinent to the article's topic. Does a link to the Pacific Ocean really assist readers on the United States? Whereas a link to George Washington (for example) undoubtedly does. --Merbabu (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I wholly disagree with this: the Manual of Style is clear regarding such links -- of course, linking to "eographic place names" of major adjacent territories and geographic features is pertinent to this topic; link initially, not repeatedly, yet judiciously. And, despite some things being linked later in the article, important topics are otherwise spuriously linked, like 'Canada' (on its third instance, inexplicably, or tangentially in the prior introduction) -- go figure. Conversely, various other notions are overlinked in the article, like that of 'Hawaii' (at least three times). So, where is the consensus that supports such inconsistency? Quizimodo (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

From that page...

This page in a nutshell: Provide links that aid navigation and understanding. Avoid obvious, redundant, and useless links.

Also, have a look at Indonesia a FA (and a lot shorter which of course has nothing to do with links). --Merbabu (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Could a reader know about the oceans and still want to navigate there on the spur of the moment? Say, to see where exactly is Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean. Or how far is Europe from the US. Convenience is one of the things great about reading Misplaced Pages.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell, the prior lead is deficient on germane links that aid navigation and understanding: the prior lead doesn't allow for a visitor to go to a topic without prompting them to either scroll down (and for a newbie, perhaps not knowing where to look) or typing it in -- both are relative inconveniences; the current lead does allow for this easily and in a manner consistent with the MOS. (Byte-size, it is also slightly smaller.) To date, no one has persuaded convincingly why these terms should not be linked in the lead of this article per MOS (yes, consult featured articles like Indonesia, whereby adjacent territories are linked to) ... and I'd go so far to say that such intransigence probably partially contributes to other 'challenges' (or lack of) herein. Quizimodo (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

DCGeist's misrepresentation of my desires is infuriating. I want to link terms that can be used to explain the context of the nation; the oceans, the continent, the surrounding countries. He takes this to mean I want every term possible linked, like 'border'. I only want to link enough in the intro to give total context as to the location - something the previous intro, which spoke of the 'western hemisphere' (a mostly useless distinction - why not just say it's on earth? or entirely in the northern hemisphere?) and linked to the borders, rather than the countries. His constant speech of "no consensus = DCGeist is right" is starting to get quite annoying - especially when the conversation was going quite against his ideal. --Golbez (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have never stated or implied that you "want every term possible linked, like 'border'." I have argued that, from one perspective, the logic of your linking approach comes close to the logic of that hypothetical and obviously ludicrous approach—in other words, I find it problematic that your approach raises the ratio of blue to black in an article that is already blue-heavy, as Boracay Bil observed. I have identified other problems with your approach—specifically, redundancy and weakening of more valuable links. All that is very, very far from misrepresenting your desires.—DCGeist (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You did indeed, from above: "To sincerely serve this hypothetical reader, we would need to bluelink every word in the article longer than a monosyllable." That is not what I want. I want simple context - I don't want 'every word longer than a single syllable linked'. And hey, if the oceans are so obvious, why not the hemisphere or continent? Maybe the neighboring nations? --Golbez (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, please familiarize yourself with the fundamentals of rhetoric. I am making in that sentence, as I just explained, an argument about the logic of your position, not a claim about your desires or intentions. As for your questions, indeed I am in favor of linking all those terms in the Geography section, as I thought I'd made clear. In the context of this lead paragraph, I'm not convinced that it is most helpful to most readers to link any of them—I do believe the view that the countries, specifically, should be linked in the lead has prevailed, and I've accepted that.—DCGeist (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of misrepresentation, you have indulged in it yourself with your claim that "the conversation was going quite against his ideal." Let's look at this thread and the original Overlinking thread above. You and Quizmodo are clearly on one side of the argument; I and Merbabu are clearly on the other. TigranTheGreat appears to lean toward your position. Boracay Bill appears to learn toward ours. Brendel seems to be just about in the center. It would be fair to observe that the conversation is going no more against my ideal than it is against your own.—DCGeist (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Gulf

On a side note, Golbez, I agree with your rewording of the first paragraph. Focusing on the continent rather than the hemisphere is an improvement, and while I initially had my doubts about mentioning the Bering Strait and Alaska and Russia's propinquity, I've come to think it is worthwhile. It does inspire another thought. I believe we should mention in the lede graf the Gulf of Mexico, whose U.S. coastline is approximately 1,631 miles (the mainland Pacific coastline is only 1,293 miles). I thought of modifying the primary location sentence thus: "bordered by Canada to the north and by Mexico and the Gulf of Mexico to the south." However, that makes the Gulf the object of the verb phrase "bordered by," which is less than desirable. "Bounded by" would be a proper verb form. Or, simply: "with Canada to the north and Mexico and the Gulf of Mexico to the south."—DCGeist (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I've tried that in the latest version. --Golbez (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

To foster amity, I have moved/tweaked notations regarding the country's location in the western hemisphere to the 'Geography' section of the article.

However, the Gulf of Mexico (as is the Caribbean Sea) is part of the Atlantic; for economy, perhaps omit it from the introduction -- it's also already noted in the 'Geography' section. Quizimodo (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I felt the same way, but DCGeist makes a good point - a 1600mi coastline is not trivial. Then again, it IS just part of the Atlantic, and that is perhaps best dealt with in Geography; I'm not averse to moving it down. I only put it back in my last edit because it appeared you'd removed it by accident, since there was no mention in the edit summary. --Golbez (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's leave it from the intro, then -- there are far too many notions repeated in the article already (including that of it being imostly in the WH previously!), thereby contributing to its length, and I feel this is no more important. Quizimodo (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Too long

I was researching this article, and this is one of the best articles on Wiki. Is there anything we can do about its length though? I have high speed connection, and it takes 10-20 seconds to load it. The references along take third of the article.

By the way, why not make it a featured article?--TigranTheGreat (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's probably not a featured article partially/precisely because of its excessive length, etc. Quizimodo (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Way too long. Other countries can provide a more appropriate length. I've said this many times but have to admit I'm not too sure which parts to cull, as I am not as familiar with the subject matter as much as say Indonesia or Australia. Ie, someone needs to make some hard decisions about what is most relevant. --Merbabu (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

PS, quality is excellent. My issue is the excess quantity. --Merbabu (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Quality is great--in fact, I feel envious: I wish Armenia's quality was as good. An obvious place to cut would be the number of references (30% of space). Do other articles have so many references? --TigranTheGreat (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think everything that is mentioned should be referenced. Thus, remove statements and their references (to other articles?). Take the references away but leave the statements, and you lose quality. --Merbabu (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Government section could use some trimming. Are the following statements necessary in the main article?

"though U.S. citizens residing in the territories are excluded from voting for federal officials."

"The voting age is eighteen and voter registration is the individual's responsibility; there are no mandatory voting laws."

There are not that many territories compared to the States, so this seems too much of a detail for the main article. And I don't think other country articles mention the voting age.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think that some select articles, this one included, have no choice but to be long. The amount of information that is relevant to the United States is exactly why this one is long. Overall, this article really does deserve FA status, but the length requirements fail to give exceptions when the length is necessary to the quality of the article.

Also, why does the article not have a scrolling reference box to reduce page length? Bkkeim2000 (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Because those are not supposed to be used in the article namespace; they make the references unprintable. --Golbez (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• It is not too long. The length is necessary. Maxpower37 (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Necessary? My computer lags everytime I look at United States. Informations that are only VITAL must be kept, meaning this page's length really needs to be reduced 129.82.120.126 (talk) 04:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not an issue with the length, but rather, with the volume of templates used. It's a known issue (I brought it up on the tech village pump) and it's a far more complex issue to solve. You COULD just snip 50k out of the article - but if that avoided the highest-load templates, it would still take you a full minute to load it. --Golbez (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Would cutting the entire template group "International membership" at the bottom of the article, with its twelve templates, make a significant difference in load time? Do we have the tools to objectively test that?—DCGeist (talk) 09:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? this article is practically the same size as the UK one, who cares if it is long its an encyclopedia article not a dictionary definition and you must have bad internet if it takesthat long to load, it loads instantly on mine and mines only 2mbps fast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.186.73 (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

USA is the biggest Video Games market for development an sales absent from popular media?

I read most of this an didn't see a section about the video game industry which is as big as film studio's now in the USA an its almost as if this article was written for people who are not apart of the USA today because in 2007 atleast gaming revenue is bigger then movies right now an nothin is said aobut it in the media section, is gaming too new a industry to put in the article even though how big it is or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.90.141 (talk) 05:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

the U.S. is the biggest industry for a ton of things, list them all and this already long article gets longer. The difference between the movie industry (Hollywood) and the video game industry is that one is undoubtably more famous than the other and thus probably more worthy of inclusion in such a broad, general article.SJMNY (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Today's (12/16/07) Editing

My head is spinning with the back and forth. quizimodo & dcgeist, can we discuss all the proposed changes quiz is making instead of editing back and forth?SJMNY (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for confusion or rigour -- simply put, a wee-bit more detail is required in the 'Geography' section. I believe it important -- for the geography section, no less -- to not only list territories approximate to the U.S. but to succinctly place (and yes, iterate) them in relation to the U.S. In addition, I've indicated the 'contiguous United States' initially since 'contiguous' refers just to the 'lower 48' while 'continental' may include Alaska (and therefore the current edition may read to some as being incorrect). As well, continuous de-linking of relevant terms (like Arctic Ocean, unless we are implicitly indicating that it is unimportant or is a part of the Atlantic, a not uncommon perspective) is perplexing. Lastly, these edits aren't mind-shattering: I've added nothing that is in form or structure dissimilar from the subarticle 'Geography of the United States', and one particular editor insinuating a consensus where it can't exist because of said editing (pointed out above) means little. I'll return later. Quizimodo (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad Reference

Reference #79 says Document Not Found Maxpower37 (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC) It is now #80 that I am referring to as a reference was added somewhere in between. Maxpower37 (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

United States of America

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Geography and places good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• A-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• A-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject United States articles