Template:VA Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Template:Spoken Wikipedia In Progress

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 July 9, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept June 27, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Template:WP1.0

Template:Maintained Talk:United States/Archive Box

I don't have the source for this, so I'll try and find it, but isn't it believed that it was William Amerike, and not Amerigo Vespucci, who as resopnsible for the name of "America". The thory goes that not only would the claimed case be named "Vespuccia", after his surname, but that the first maps of america were made by Amerike and thus his name was on the maps. 86.8.52.105 (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google's never heard of him."William+Amerike"&aq=f&oq=&aqi= - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This book, titled Amerike: the Briton who gave America its name mentions a Richard Amerike. The book is not previewable online, though, so I don't know what it says beyond that mention. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is discussed briefly at Americas#Naming. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are elections every two years for members of Congress, but since incumbency brings so many advantages (access to cash from lobbyists, name recognition, gerrymandering, free mailings) which challengers lack, the more accurate assertion is that House members are elected for life unless they resign, have a scandal, or take a highly unpopular position on an important issue. So it's important that we leave in the reelection rates of incumbents (consensus is 90% of incumbents seeking reelection, win) which is backed by numerous sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the information is too detailed for this general overview of the United States. There are many sub-articles in which the plethora of details about the United States are located. The info on incumbancy advantage is more appropriate in Elections in the United States or Federal government of the United States. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree if it wasn't important -- if it was just a "detail" as you say; but I think the whole "two year terms" idea is misleading because it suggests that there's a healthy turnover of representatives every two years. This doesn't happen. The average age of representatives is over 60 by one estimate.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there's any suggestion "that there's a healthy turnover of representatives every two years." The turnover of federal parliamentarians varies across a wide range among representative democracies around the world. This is obviously a summary and must be restricted to laying out the fundamentals of how the system works. The question of turnover is an important but nonfundamental matter and is best reserved for the topical article, where it can be properly contextualized by reference to the turnover rates in other representative democracies.—DCGeist (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Constitution, Congress has the power to declare wars. According to my recollection, the last time Congress "declared war" was World War II; in contrast, the Korean War, Vietnam War, actions in Panama and Grenada, Gulf War I and II were essentially presidential decisions (in some cases Congress ratified the decision after the fact). So, I think it's misleading to describe Congress as having the power to declare war without some counter-balance (as per WP:NPOV that the primary decision making power regarding wars in the US is the presidency.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been an official war since then, just 'police actions.' It's quite disappointing that the Congress hasn't stepped in and yanked power back. You also left out Haiti, Liberia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, and Somalia, and there's probably others too. But yeah, while only congress has the power to declare war, that, like most of the constitution, has been ignored for a few centuries. So some mention of the war powers act would be good. --Golbez (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Good idea to mention war powers act; I'll bet there's a wikilink to this article. But I wonder whether we should consider modifying the part about the executive branch, something like "in practice, the president makes decisions about war". Or perhaps something worded better? But the current version which omits the president's war-making power is against the WP:NPOV; there should be a balancing viewpoint. And the consensus view in the political science world (I'm not an expert, but I read a lot) is that the presidency is currently the most powerful branch, and makes in effect (through its numerous agencies) a wide variety of rules and regulations (which is supposed to be the Congress's job), the Congress is largely ineffective, although the judiciary still has some clout. Perhaps the presidency should come first, before the Congress, in the listing of the three sections?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the page be moved to United States of America, since that is the official name of the country? Tarheelz123 (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the FAQ at the top of the page. --Golbez (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you type in the Wikipedia search box "United States of America" (without the quotes, of course), you come to this page here -- it's redirected. So it doesn't matter. I bet it's easier to leave it as it is, since lots of people are used to the current arrangement.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt the United States had the largest economy in the 1870s…Wasn’t the British Empire at the height of its power at this time? Perhaps we can find another source for this? (Any comments made in a defensive or personal way will be deleted.) --Frank Fontaine (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the parenthetical; you do not have the right to remove others comments because you consider them "defensive", there are rules about what comments are allowed and that doesn't really fall under them. You're already poisoning the discussion by adding that. It's like walking into a library and asking, "Where can I find a book on the Roman Empire? And please don't give me a look like I'm an idiot, just tell me where it is." You'll just shock them and they'll be far less likely to help in a friendly way. I mean, really: Is there any reason for people to get defensive over this? (well... okay, some people here do, but you really shouldn't be pre-emptive like that) --Golbez (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the source about the 1870s estimate. The US had the largest national economy -- comparing US vs France, US vs United Kingdom, US vs China. So technically it appears correct, but I think this fact could stand some more references. It's somewhat misleading because today we compare the US with Europe; and, back in the 1870s, the US economy was small compared to the European economy as a whole.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's misleading at all. The European political/economic situation was vastly different in the 1870s, and there simply was no "European economy as a whole" in any practical sense during that era.—DCGeist (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see what you're saying. My sense was the US economy came into prominence in the 20th century, but the facts suggest otherwise. Good statistic.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the decision to remove the debt owed by US to China. This is arguably the most important statistic dealing with US-China relations, and properly belongs in an overview of American foreign policy -- which is what that section was. Strongly urge reinstating this information.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to include it, it fits better into Economy than Foreign relations and military and should be expressed in much more summary fashion: "China is the largest foreign holder of U.S. public debt" (placed perhaps at the end of the first Economy paragraph). This statistic bears on the close economic relationship between the U.S. and China; there is not a comparably close diplomatic relationship as there is with, say, our NAFTA cosignatories, referenced in Foreign relations and military.—DCGeist (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree if you move the deleted section, in abbreviated form with reference, to the "economy" section; but deleting it entirely seems unproductive. I think the debt issue bears on both the economy and foreign policy and that it's a highly important issue.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done, with two-day-old reference.—DCGeist (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adroitly done, thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"al-Qaeda terrorists struck the World Trade Center" is a highly controversial and contested statement. There is a lot of disputed information and no concrete proof al-Qaeda was responsible. Let’s not have Wikipedia full of as much propaganda as American history books people. We need to be objective here and not state opinion as fact.

I was thinking about changing it from:

On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorists struck the World Trade Center in New York City and The Pentagon near Washington, D.C., killing nearly three thousand people

to

On September 11, 2001, terrorists hi-jacked planes that struck the World Trade Center in New York City and The Pentagon near Washington, D.C., killing nearly three thousand people. Al Qaeda is largely believed to be responsible, although many 9/11 conspiracy theories have developed.

or something like that.

any ideas? suggestions?

—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 19:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]