![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The U.S. originated from 13 colonies in British North America that declared their independence in 1776 and fought a revolution to achieve it. The former colonies proceeded to form one of the first constitutional republics in the world. Since then, the country has expanded its borders and obtained greater wealth and influence in global affairs. However, the path to development did not come without a price as American history is tainted with cruelties such as slavery, and the forced migration of millions of Native Americans out of their homelands and onto reservations.
In the decades after the Second World War, the United States became a dominant global influence in economic, political, military, cultural, scientific and technological affairs. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, it stands today as the world's sole superpower or hyperpower. The influence of the United States is, like any other nation, nonetheless limited by international agreements and the realities of political, military and economic constraints.
Since the late 20th century it has eclipsed all other nations in terms of relative economic, political, and military power as well as cultural influence.
I think that's missing the point a bit. Maybe since the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has been the sole hyperpower, but it's not like this is 100% new status. The US has been a superpower for the entire 20th century, I don't think any other country could really be considered a superpower throughout the century (the Soviet Union was one from end of WWII through the 80s, perhaps). Finding a succinct way to say that might be better than picking an exact point at which the US became a hyperpower (which seems to be the way that sentence has headed). — Daniel Quinlan 21:28, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)
Besides, eclipsed is not the appropriate word - it would imply that only the US is visible now, which is false. Furthermore, the US certainly hasn't overcome all other nations as a collective, but rather as individuals. David.Monniaux 10:00, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Should we still describe the US as having "low unemployment"? Tuf-Kat 02:24, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)
Maveric149 wrote no, the nation was formed when the declaration; just like every other one
"It was established upon the ratification of the Constitution in 1789 as a union between 13 colonies which had broke away from their mother nation, the Britain, in 1776."
No. This is not the widely held conception. The DOI does state "united States of America" but with the u in lower case. It is true that the republic was not created until 1789 (or some may argue the civil war or even never), but the US as a political entity was. It was just a confederation. -- Jiang 23:30, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Its status as a republic was not apparent until the South lost the Civil War. (Some states' rights supporters continue to dispute this.) If secession and nullification were legal, it would be considered a confederation. Let's just leave that out and state that it was established in 1776. -- Jiang 23:43, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Take a look at the Articles of Confederation: [2]
ARTICLE I The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".
-- Jiang 00:33, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Reddi, it was never certain whether nullification or secession would be legal. The Consitution is a compact among sovereign states - the states gave the federal government power, insead of the other way around. As a result, it was not certain whether states would be able to pull out of this contract. (This is how the South seceded!) It was also believed by some that laws could be nullified. Virginia and Kentucky resolutions? So no, it is/was not necessarily a republic. -- Jiang 06:12, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)~
Remember confederation and federation are not the same. A federation is a single unit made up of sub-units that have come together to form it, it being greater than the sum of the parts. A confederation is in effect a club of independent units who share powers together and in a limited way act in unison. The original confederate United States of America was replaced by the federal United States of America; same name, different meaning. The difference can be highlighted in the different emphasis in the words. The confederation was in effect the United States of America (ie, the states were the basic units, the unity a case of some shared areas of interest) while the federation was in effect the United States of America, ie, emphasis on the central united unit with the states as sub-units. It is the same in the European Union (not the European Community, which is a different entity and not merely the old name for the EU as most people think), which is in effect a confederation of independent states like the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, etc etc. What are called Euro-federalists want the European Union to become the singular dominant unit with the UK, France et al as sub-units. The USA conferation failed because it was too ramshakle and lacked a unity. The federation created a central entity, the USA, with the states as sub-units rather than co-equal independent members of a club, the case in 1776. Remember also, 1776 marked UDI (a Unilateral Declaration of Independence), a UDI that unlike Rhodesia in the 1960s or the Irish Republic (1919-1922) worked and produced a real state. FearÉIREANN 06:40, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The entire debate about whether states can leave the union legally is silly. It is 100% illegal. At least not without an act of congress, I suppose... Article I, Section 10:
Finally, the 10th amendment is pretty good proof that the Federal government is the primary power, not the states.
Daniel Quinlan 07:38, Oct 4, 2003 (UTC)
It would be interesting to see some detail of the ongoing dispute that seems to take place in many political fora regarding whether the United States is a republic or a democracy (or both). I won't disclose my position. :)
America is a federal republic-- naryathegreat 00:12, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
see my comments immediately above... this is an example of what I mean. depending on WHICH government you are referring to AND on your opinion, the United States is/are:
depending on what facet of the gem you look at, many of the above are provably correct, including contradictory positions. Before we report on the facts, it would be convenient to have there be at least some consensus on what is true about the USA in the real world. This might never happen. Huge isssues of rights and responsibilities and obligations and jurisdiction are involved, billions of dollars, millions of people on any side of the fence. Pedant 16:09, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)
As far as this article goes, My Humble Opinion is that we should go with the constituion:
US Constitution, Artivls FOUR section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. (emphasis added for clarity) Pedant 22:55, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
OK, there seems to be an edit war brewing over the following sentence...
"The influence of the United States is nonetheless limited by international agreements and the realities of political, military and economic constraints."
Since I wrote the sentence, let me tell you what I meant by it and why I put it there. Let's discuss it here and then build a consensus over whether it belongs in the article or not.
I read in this Talk page a heated debate about whether or not we should talk about the U.S. being the sole superpower or not. Actually, the debate was also about the sentence "In the decades after the Second World War, the United States became a dominant global influence in economic, political, military, cultural, scientific and technological affairs."
The original text before I modified it characterized the U.S. as "the" dominant global influence, etc. I weakened "the" to be "a" which I think is more accurate and less arrogant to boot.
I also added the sentence "The influence of the United States is nonetheless limited by international agreements and the realities of political, military and economic constraints."
The intent was to qualify the previous statement that "Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, it stands today as the world's sole superpower." What I was really trying to say was that even the world's sole superpower can't do whatever it wants to and why it can't.
Of course, the sentence is true of every other country but only the U.S. is the world's sole hyperpower and therefore the sentence I wrote has more meaning when written about the U.S. than if it was written about another country.
What I'm really trying to say is that the U.S. tries to "live by the rules". Yeah, yeah, I know we might argue that the doctrine of pre-emption breaks new ground by shedding the old rules and creating a new one. But leave that go for the moment and consider that the U.S. at least makes a semblance of living by the rules.
Richard 23:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with some edits, but a list of what the US did after independence is not needed in the opening (which is explained later in history and other sections). Also, calling them 13 states doesn't sound as right as just calling them "former colonies".-- Ryz05 07:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
THey were states when they formed the United States under the constitution. The earlier sentence talks about the colonies - how they got beyond the 13 colonies is needed as a link to the present day expansion of power & influence -- JimWae 07:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
These are not being presented as full expositions, just introductions to be continued later - and in same vein as other problems expressed in that paragraph. People will "continue down" if the intro has interesting topics that are "promised" for later. Innovations and sources of anti-Americanism are interesting to many -- JimWae 07:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you "disagree with become more democratic" because you think it is less now or the same as then? Expansion of the franchise to non-landed, blacks & women is not a topic to get readers to want to "read down"? -- JimWae 07:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
You've removed <expansion> "through purchases and wars" five times tonight. You neglected to give much reason for doing so - other than "too much detail" and "too many ands". Using a comma is not "an excuse" for keeping it - commas are valid punctuation & that was a syntactically correct punctuation of a fairly short sentence. You missed probably the only valid reason to exclude it - the Louisiana Purchase & the Mexican WarS seem not to even be mentioned in the article. I wonder how much longer the bare mentions of democracy will last. -- JimWae 08:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Please remember WP:3RR everyone =) -- mboverload 08:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I think there are many separate controversial issues in the intro paragraph. I'll try to list the ones I have identified. Other editors may identify others or take issue with the way I have framed the issues. I'm happy to have them edit this list as long as it's done nicely and with discussion.
1) Superpower vs. Hyperpower - Both of these terms are defined in Wikipedia as being different from each other although the articles are marked as possibly violating WP:NOR. The definitions there match what I was trying to say about "before the fall of the Soviet Union" and "after the fall of the Soviet Union".
2) Whether the U.S. has become "THE dominant global influence in economic, political, military, cultural, scientific and technological affairs" since the end of WWII. I still believe that the truth is too complex to put into a single sentence or even a single paragraph. I agree with President Lethe that it's too much to put in the intro section. I'd just as soon leave it out altogether. It's too hard to make it work as part of a concise intro.
3) Whether the sentence "The influence of the United States is nonetheless limited by international agreements and the realities of political, military and economic constraints." belongs in the intro and specifically whether it is POV. I'm not convinced that what I wrote is evident to anybody who understands what a hyperpower is. See the definition of hyperpower and you will see that what I wrote is not there. The point I'm trying to get at is that with two superpowers (U.S. and U.S.S.R.) there is an inherent balance of power. With only one hyperpower, one might conclude that there is no balance of power. I'm arguing that there is an inherent limitation to the power of the U.S. as a hyperpower at this point in time. Even the British and Roman empires were not omnipotent. Moreover, the U.S. does voluntarily enter into agreements that limit its power. Those are facts. Is there a POV motivation in focusing on those facts in the intro? I suppose but maybe there's a POV motivation in not wanting to mention those facts in the intro. That's why I would like to have the objectives of the intro laid out explicitly so that we have a standard to measure them against.
4) I don't like the sentence "However, the path to development did not come without a price as American history is tainted with cruelties such as slavery, and the forced migration of millions of Native Americans out of their homelands and onto reservations." I think the issue is that similar sentences could be written about all the colonial powers (Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Holland, Russia, China, Japan). Perhaps I'd be happier if we inserted a phrase like "like any other colonial power of the 19th and 20th centuries... etc."
-- Richard 19:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
"The U.S. originated from 13 colonies in British North America that declared their independence in 1776 and fought a revolution to achieve it." The U.S. got their independence from England/Britian so should be changed to: "The U.S. originated from 13 colonies in British North America that declared their independence in 1776 from English Britian and fought a revolution to achieve it."
English Britian??? aussietiger 16:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that it is important for the intro to mention the spread of democracy and rights, which are integral to U.S. history. In particular, I think this sentence:
should remain in the introduction in some form. - Will Beback 22:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Ryz05 just reverted my edit to the paragraph discussed above with the edit comment "What was wrong with the previous version?". I think the revert was a bit rude since it asserts that I have to explain what's wrong with the previous version instead of him having to explain what was wrong with my version. But since I'm a believer in the 0RR rule and refuse to engage in edit wars, I will take up the challenge and explain why I wrote what I wrote.
Here's the original text which Ryz05 reverted to:
Here's the new text that I wrote which was reverted out:
My original problem with the paragraph started from the fact that the word "tempered" is misused in the original text.
Here's the definition of "temper" as a verb make more temperate, acceptable, or suitable by adding something else; moderate; "she tempered her criticism"
chasten: restrain or temper
There's no way that you can reasonably use "temper" in the way that it was being used. You could say that "the rapacious drive for land was tempered by a desire to do things legally via treaties with the Indians" or any number of variations on the theme but I was trying to keep the general thrust of the statement.
And the real point of the paragraph is lost because we are left with a "progress" balanced by "sins" statement. The real point is that all of that is "past history". Many of these indictments of American conduct are about things that happened and have been rectified.
If you didn't know anything about the U.S., the previous version of the paragraph would leave you with the sense that neither of these sins (against Indians and against African-Americans) had been rectified.
Ok, Ok, Congress hasn't officially apologized to blacks for slavery or to Indians for the sins of the past. Nor have we paid reparations to either group. However, we shouldn't just cite the sins without also citing the rectifications made in the 20th century and there have been many.
So, how to get the point across but without coming across as a POV slam or POV defense of the U.S.? Answer: "Just the facts, ma'am"
I thought about saying "limited to white males with property" or "white Northern European males" or "white Protestant males" but I figured that would just stir up another POV firestorm.
Read what I wrote. It's a reasonable statement of the facts without being terribly POV. We could also list a host of other departures from democracy and civil liberties like the Alien and Sedition Acts, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, McCarthyism, etc., etc. This is not a place for that. U.S. history hasn't been uniformly pure as the driven snow. There've been lots of times when we have departed from our ideals.
I'm not trying to indict the U.S. I was just trying to address the horrible misuse of the word "tempered" and, while I was at it, providing a more accurate statement of the facts.
Now, if you object to the phrasing "tainted by shameful acts", I'm willing to debate that. Want to propose a less harsh phrasing? I'm all ears. Just as long as it doesn't do violence to the English language.
I'm going to replace "tempered" with "limited" for now and I'll hold off putting back the rest of my edits pending further debate here.
Richard 01:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Another problem with the previous paragraph:
This is a picky point but I didn't like the sentence "While the nation's growth was marked by the development of constitutional democracy and guaranteed rights and liberties of citizens".
I wanted to put "the nation's history" alongside "the development of constitutional democracy, etc". I didn't like putting "the nation's growth" alongside "the development, etc." I didn't like the emphasis on growth although I understand that the idea is that growth was achieved on the backs of the Indians and the African slaves. However, that leaves out other departures from democracy and civil liberties like the Alien and Sedition Acts, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, McCarthyism, etc., etc. which oppressed other people like women and, yes, even white males.
I know it's hard to capture all of that in a single paragraph but I think my paragraph did a better job of it than what went before.
-- Richard 01:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that it is important for the intro to mention the spread of democracy and rights, which are integral to U.S. history. In particular, I think this sentence:
should remain in the introduction in some form. - Will Beback 22:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Ryz05 just reverted my edit to the paragraph discussed above with the edit comment "What was wrong with the previous version?". I think the revert was a bit rude since it asserts that I have to explain what's wrong with the previous version instead of him having to explain what was wrong with my version. But since I'm a believer in the 0RR rule and refuse to engage in edit wars, I will take up the challenge and explain why I wrote what I wrote.
Here's the original text which Ryz05 reverted to:
Here's the new text that I wrote which was reverted out:
My original problem with the paragraph started from the fact that the word "tempered" is misused in the original text.
Here's the definition of "temper" as a verb make more temperate, acceptable, or suitable by adding something else; moderate; "she tempered her criticism"
chasten: restrain or temper
There's no way that you can reasonably use "temper" in the way that it was being used. You could say that "the rapacious drive for land was tempered by a desire to do things legally via treaties with the Indians" or any number of variations on the theme but I was trying to keep the general thrust of the statement.
And the real point of the paragraph is lost because we are left with a "progress" balanced by "sins" statement. The real point is that all of that is "past history". Many of these indictments of American conduct are about things that happened and have been rectified.
If you didn't know anything about the U.S., the previous version of the paragraph would leave you with the sense that neither of these sins (against Indians and against African-Americans) had been rectified.
Ok, Ok, Congress hasn't officially apologized to blacks for slavery or to Indians for the sins of the past. Nor have we paid reparations to either group. However, we shouldn't just cite the sins without also citing the rectifications made in the 20th century and there have been many.
So, how to get the point across but without coming across as a POV slam or POV defense of the U.S.? Answer: "Just the facts, ma'am"
I thought about saying "limited to white males with property" or "white Northern European males" or "white Protestant males" but I figured that would just stir up another POV firestorm.
Read what I wrote. It's a reasonable statement of the facts without being terribly POV. We could also list a host of other departures from democracy and civil liberties like the Alien and Sedition Acts, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, McCarthyism, etc., etc. This is not a place for that. U.S. history hasn't been uniformly pure as the driven snow. There've been lots of times when we have departed from our ideals.
I'm not trying to indict the U.S. I was just trying to address the horrible misuse of the word "tempered" and, while I was at it, providing a more accurate statement of the facts.
Now, if you object to the phrasing "tainted by shameful acts", I'm willing to debate that. Want to propose a less harsh phrasing? I'm all ears. Just as long as it doesn't do violence to the English language.
I'm going to replace "tempered" with "limited" for now and I'll hold off putting back the rest of my edits pending further debate here.
Richard 01:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Another problem with the previous paragraph:
This is a picky point but I didn't like the sentence "While the nation's growth was marked by the development of constitutional democracy and guaranteed rights and liberties of citizens".
I wanted to put "the nation's history" alongside "the development of constitutional democracy, etc". I didn't like putting "the nation's growth" alongside "the development, etc." I didn't like the emphasis on growth although I understand that the idea is that growth was achieved on the backs of the Indians and the African slaves. However, that leaves out other departures from democracy and civil liberties like the Alien and Sedition Acts, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, McCarthyism, etc., etc. which oppressed other people like women and, yes, even white males.
I know it's hard to capture all of that in a single paragraph but I think my paragraph did a better job of it than what went before.
-- Richard 01:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I continue to find wholesale reverts of edits rude and annoying. In general, such behavior tends to discourage the open and inviting philosophy of Wikipedia. Moreover, reverting an edit which is not wholly unacceptable takes the position that your version is so superior to the new edit that there is nothing of value in the new edit. This is highly arrogant.
Please take the time to read the new edit carefully and understand the rationale behind the edit. The editor is encouraged by WP:BOLD to "be bold" (i.e. make the change first and discuss later at least if the changes are not controversial). Editors are also asked to assume good faith.
No one "owns" the intro paragraphs and no one can claim to represent the consensus of the editors because there is no clear consensus. Certainly not one that has been indicated by a vote. I should know... I've read just about everything that has been said about the intro from Talk:United States/Archive 1 through Talk:United States/Archive 15.
(BTW, a consensus is not a majority position, it is a near-unanimous agreement. This is why votes are considered "evil".)
I will explain why I have made the edits that I have made and I will make them again. Please observe WP:3RR. I do not wish to engage in an edit war but this is getting truly annoying.
OK, here's the current intro text with my comments
OK, I've made the changes described above. As a result of this round of edits, the verbiage about the native Americans and slavery have been dropped. I'd be happier with that stuff in but I will leave it for somebody else to raise the issue and put it back. I do not feel strongly that it has to be in the intro paragraph and I've already struggled more with this intro than I really wanted to.
-- Richard 21:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Simply put, the dominance is clear in military terms but not so clear in other arenas. And, you're trying to make one little sentence say too much and, as a result, the sentence is vulnerable to criticism.
What "dominant influence" means in the economic arena is a little unclear to me. I won't get into it too deeply here but the value of saying this in such a short phrase is certaintly debatable. Being the biggest economy doesn't mean we dominate are able to dominate as much as we used to. Are we more dominant than anyone else? Yes but are we the only dominant economic influence? Hardly. If the economic arena includes natural resources then OPEC and the Middle East also dominate.
What does "dominant" mean in the political arena? That we get most of what we want? I suppose we do but getting what you want involves wanting what you can get. That we set the agenda on the stage of world politics? Maybe. But we certainly didn't "win" on the issue of the U.N. and Iraq. How dominant are we politically?
How about the scientific and technological arenas? Perhaps we have dominated and arguably continue to dominate but the world is changing and that dominance is being challenged by Europe, Japan and even China and India. Asserting our dominance without mentioning the challenge is arrogant and POV.
Culturally dominant? What are you saying? That the whole world watches our movies and TV programs? Maybe that's true but that's also changing. That everybody wears Levi's, Gap jeans and Nike shoes? That's also changing. It's claimed that the trend-setter in style and film is Japan. Wanna debate this? I don't. I just don't want to claim that we dominate the world. Although I guess it's true that we are flooding the world with McDonald's, KFC, Pepsi and Coca-Cola.
Look we can debate this until the cows come home. I actually don't care that much about this sentence personally. However, I know that, in the past, the sort of phrasing that involves "THE dominant influence" has attracted editors who come in and argue that this is POV. And that will start another edit war. And, for what? So that we can say that the U.S. is THE dominant influence instead of A dominant influence (or the pre-eminent influence)? "Dominant" is a strong word. "THE dominant" is an even stronger phrase.
A little softening will go a long way. BTW, being a "superpower" is primarily about military power. Yes, military power rests on economic strength which rests on scientific and technological capability. However, you shouldn't assume that being a military superpower implies all the rest. The Soviet Union remained a military superpower for easily a decade after it had lost on those other fronts.
-- Richard 00:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
It is considered to be the oldest constitutional republic in the world, and has existed for over 200 years Anything being put in the opening paragraph shouldn't be a matter of contention. Either it is definitely the oldest constitutional republic in the world, in which case we take out 'considered to be'; or it is one of the oldest, in which case we say that; or we remove this claim from the intro entirely and leave it do be dealt with in the appropriate section. Nomist 19:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
A few more thoughts : The USA is the third oldest republic in the world, surpassed in age only by San Marino and Switzerland. It is the second oldest constitutional republic. But it is the oldest presidential republic (Switzerland didn't introduce the presidency until sometime in the 19th century, San Marino has never had a president). So I would propose changing "constitutional" to "presidential". Travelbird 02:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The Switzerland article says "In 1798, the armies of the French Revolution conquered Switzerland and imposed a new unified constitution." Helvetic Republic was a state lasting for five years, from 1798 to 1803. It is the predecessor of modern Switzerland. - -- JimWae 03:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, then since the current US Constitution was ratified in 1787 and Switzerland in 1788, The US is the second oldest republic. Jaxad0127 03:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The U.S. originated from 13 colonies in British North America that declared their independence in 1776 and fought a revolution to achieve it. The former colonies proceeded to form one of the first constitutional republics in the world. Since then, the country has expanded its borders and obtained greater wealth and influence in global affairs. However, the path to development did not come without a price as American history is tainted with cruelties such as slavery, and the forced migration of millions of Native Americans out of their homelands and onto reservations.
In the decades after the Second World War, the United States became a dominant global influence in economic, political, military, cultural, scientific and technological affairs. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, it stands today as the world's sole superpower or hyperpower. The influence of the United States is, like any other nation, nonetheless limited by international agreements and the realities of political, military and economic constraints.
Since the late 20th century it has eclipsed all other nations in terms of relative economic, political, and military power as well as cultural influence.
I think that's missing the point a bit. Maybe since the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has been the sole hyperpower, but it's not like this is 100% new status. The US has been a superpower for the entire 20th century, I don't think any other country could really be considered a superpower throughout the century (the Soviet Union was one from end of WWII through the 80s, perhaps). Finding a succinct way to say that might be better than picking an exact point at which the US became a hyperpower (which seems to be the way that sentence has headed). — Daniel Quinlan 21:28, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)
Besides, eclipsed is not the appropriate word - it would imply that only the US is visible now, which is false. Furthermore, the US certainly hasn't overcome all other nations as a collective, but rather as individuals. David.Monniaux 10:00, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Should we still describe the US as having "low unemployment"? Tuf-Kat 02:24, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)
Maveric149 wrote no, the nation was formed when the declaration; just like every other one
"It was established upon the ratification of the Constitution in 1789 as a union between 13 colonies which had broke away from their mother nation, the Britain, in 1776."
No. This is not the widely held conception. The DOI does state "united States of America" but with the u in lower case. It is true that the republic was not created until 1789 (or some may argue the civil war or even never), but the US as a political entity was. It was just a confederation. -- Jiang 23:30, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Its status as a republic was not apparent until the South lost the Civil War. (Some states' rights supporters continue to dispute this.) If secession and nullification were legal, it would be considered a confederation. Let's just leave that out and state that it was established in 1776. -- Jiang 23:43, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Take a look at the Articles of Confederation: [2]
ARTICLE I The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".
-- Jiang 00:33, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Reddi, it was never certain whether nullification or secession would be legal. The Consitution is a compact among sovereign states - the states gave the federal government power, insead of the other way around. As a result, it was not certain whether states would be able to pull out of this contract. (This is how the South seceded!) It was also believed by some that laws could be nullified. Virginia and Kentucky resolutions? So no, it is/was not necessarily a republic. -- Jiang 06:12, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)~
Remember confederation and federation are not the same. A federation is a single unit made up of sub-units that have come together to form it, it being greater than the sum of the parts. A confederation is in effect a club of independent units who share powers together and in a limited way act in unison. The original confederate United States of America was replaced by the federal United States of America; same name, different meaning. The difference can be highlighted in the different emphasis in the words. The confederation was in effect the United States of America (ie, the states were the basic units, the unity a case of some shared areas of interest) while the federation was in effect the United States of America, ie, emphasis on the central united unit with the states as sub-units. It is the same in the European Union (not the European Community, which is a different entity and not merely the old name for the EU as most people think), which is in effect a confederation of independent states like the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, etc etc. What are called Euro-federalists want the European Union to become the singular dominant unit with the UK, France et al as sub-units. The USA conferation failed because it was too ramshakle and lacked a unity. The federation created a central entity, the USA, with the states as sub-units rather than co-equal independent members of a club, the case in 1776. Remember also, 1776 marked UDI (a Unilateral Declaration of Independence), a UDI that unlike Rhodesia in the 1960s or the Irish Republic (1919-1922) worked and produced a real state. FearÉIREANN 06:40, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The entire debate about whether states can leave the union legally is silly. It is 100% illegal. At least not without an act of congress, I suppose... Article I, Section 10:
Finally, the 10th amendment is pretty good proof that the Federal government is the primary power, not the states.
Daniel Quinlan 07:38, Oct 4, 2003 (UTC)
It would be interesting to see some detail of the ongoing dispute that seems to take place in many political fora regarding whether the United States is a republic or a democracy (or both). I won't disclose my position. :)
America is a federal republic-- naryathegreat 00:12, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
see my comments immediately above... this is an example of what I mean. depending on WHICH government you are referring to AND on your opinion, the United States is/are:
depending on what facet of the gem you look at, many of the above are provably correct, including contradictory positions. Before we report on the facts, it would be convenient to have there be at least some consensus on what is true about the USA in the real world. This might never happen. Huge isssues of rights and responsibilities and obligations and jurisdiction are involved, billions of dollars, millions of people on any side of the fence. Pedant 16:09, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)
As far as this article goes, My Humble Opinion is that we should go with the constituion:
US Constitution, Artivls FOUR section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. (emphasis added for clarity) Pedant 22:55, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
OK, there seems to be an edit war brewing over the following sentence...
"The influence of the United States is nonetheless limited by international agreements and the realities of political, military and economic constraints."
Since I wrote the sentence, let me tell you what I meant by it and why I put it there. Let's discuss it here and then build a consensus over whether it belongs in the article or not.
I read in this Talk page a heated debate about whether or not we should talk about the U.S. being the sole superpower or not. Actually, the debate was also about the sentence "In the decades after the Second World War, the United States became a dominant global influence in economic, political, military, cultural, scientific and technological affairs."
The original text before I modified it characterized the U.S. as "the" dominant global influence, etc. I weakened "the" to be "a" which I think is more accurate and less arrogant to boot.
I also added the sentence "The influence of the United States is nonetheless limited by international agreements and the realities of political, military and economic constraints."
The intent was to qualify the previous statement that "Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, it stands today as the world's sole superpower." What I was really trying to say was that even the world's sole superpower can't do whatever it wants to and why it can't.
Of course, the sentence is true of every other country but only the U.S. is the world's sole hyperpower and therefore the sentence I wrote has more meaning when written about the U.S. than if it was written about another country.
What I'm really trying to say is that the U.S. tries to "live by the rules". Yeah, yeah, I know we might argue that the doctrine of pre-emption breaks new ground by shedding the old rules and creating a new one. But leave that go for the moment and consider that the U.S. at least makes a semblance of living by the rules.
Richard 23:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with some edits, but a list of what the US did after independence is not needed in the opening (which is explained later in history and other sections). Also, calling them 13 states doesn't sound as right as just calling them "former colonies".-- Ryz05 07:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
THey were states when they formed the United States under the constitution. The earlier sentence talks about the colonies - how they got beyond the 13 colonies is needed as a link to the present day expansion of power & influence -- JimWae 07:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
These are not being presented as full expositions, just introductions to be continued later - and in same vein as other problems expressed in that paragraph. People will "continue down" if the intro has interesting topics that are "promised" for later. Innovations and sources of anti-Americanism are interesting to many -- JimWae 07:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you "disagree with become more democratic" because you think it is less now or the same as then? Expansion of the franchise to non-landed, blacks & women is not a topic to get readers to want to "read down"? -- JimWae 07:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
You've removed <expansion> "through purchases and wars" five times tonight. You neglected to give much reason for doing so - other than "too much detail" and "too many ands". Using a comma is not "an excuse" for keeping it - commas are valid punctuation & that was a syntactically correct punctuation of a fairly short sentence. You missed probably the only valid reason to exclude it - the Louisiana Purchase & the Mexican WarS seem not to even be mentioned in the article. I wonder how much longer the bare mentions of democracy will last. -- JimWae 08:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Please remember WP:3RR everyone =) -- mboverload 08:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I think there are many separate controversial issues in the intro paragraph. I'll try to list the ones I have identified. Other editors may identify others or take issue with the way I have framed the issues. I'm happy to have them edit this list as long as it's done nicely and with discussion.
1) Superpower vs. Hyperpower - Both of these terms are defined in Wikipedia as being different from each other although the articles are marked as possibly violating WP:NOR. The definitions there match what I was trying to say about "before the fall of the Soviet Union" and "after the fall of the Soviet Union".
2) Whether the U.S. has become "THE dominant global influence in economic, political, military, cultural, scientific and technological affairs" since the end of WWII. I still believe that the truth is too complex to put into a single sentence or even a single paragraph. I agree with President Lethe that it's too much to put in the intro section. I'd just as soon leave it out altogether. It's too hard to make it work as part of a concise intro.
3) Whether the sentence "The influence of the United States is nonetheless limited by international agreements and the realities of political, military and economic constraints." belongs in the intro and specifically whether it is POV. I'm not convinced that what I wrote is evident to anybody who understands what a hyperpower is. See the definition of hyperpower and you will see that what I wrote is not there. The point I'm trying to get at is that with two superpowers (U.S. and U.S.S.R.) there is an inherent balance of power. With only one hyperpower, one might conclude that there is no balance of power. I'm arguing that there is an inherent limitation to the power of the U.S. as a hyperpower at this point in time. Even the British and Roman empires were not omnipotent. Moreover, the U.S. does voluntarily enter into agreements that limit its power. Those are facts. Is there a POV motivation in focusing on those facts in the intro? I suppose but maybe there's a POV motivation in not wanting to mention those facts in the intro. That's why I would like to have the objectives of the intro laid out explicitly so that we have a standard to measure them against.
4) I don't like the sentence "However, the path to development did not come without a price as American history is tainted with cruelties such as slavery, and the forced migration of millions of Native Americans out of their homelands and onto reservations." I think the issue is that similar sentences could be written about all the colonial powers (Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Holland, Russia, China, Japan). Perhaps I'd be happier if we inserted a phrase like "like any other colonial power of the 19th and 20th centuries... etc."
-- Richard 19:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
"The U.S. originated from 13 colonies in British North America that declared their independence in 1776 and fought a revolution to achieve it." The U.S. got their independence from England/Britian so should be changed to: "The U.S. originated from 13 colonies in British North America that declared their independence in 1776 from English Britian and fought a revolution to achieve it."
English Britian??? aussietiger 16:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that it is important for the intro to mention the spread of democracy and rights, which are integral to U.S. history. In particular, I think this sentence:
should remain in the introduction in some form. - Will Beback 22:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Ryz05 just reverted my edit to the paragraph discussed above with the edit comment "What was wrong with the previous version?". I think the revert was a bit rude since it asserts that I have to explain what's wrong with the previous version instead of him having to explain what was wrong with my version. But since I'm a believer in the 0RR rule and refuse to engage in edit wars, I will take up the challenge and explain why I wrote what I wrote.
Here's the original text which Ryz05 reverted to:
Here's the new text that I wrote which was reverted out:
My original problem with the paragraph started from the fact that the word "tempered" is misused in the original text.
Here's the definition of "temper" as a verb make more temperate, acceptable, or suitable by adding something else; moderate; "she tempered her criticism"
chasten: restrain or temper
There's no way that you can reasonably use "temper" in the way that it was being used. You could say that "the rapacious drive for land was tempered by a desire to do things legally via treaties with the Indians" or any number of variations on the theme but I was trying to keep the general thrust of the statement.
And the real point of the paragraph is lost because we are left with a "progress" balanced by "sins" statement. The real point is that all of that is "past history". Many of these indictments of American conduct are about things that happened and have been rectified.
If you didn't know anything about the U.S., the previous version of the paragraph would leave you with the sense that neither of these sins (against Indians and against African-Americans) had been rectified.
Ok, Ok, Congress hasn't officially apologized to blacks for slavery or to Indians for the sins of the past. Nor have we paid reparations to either group. However, we shouldn't just cite the sins without also citing the rectifications made in the 20th century and there have been many.
So, how to get the point across but without coming across as a POV slam or POV defense of the U.S.? Answer: "Just the facts, ma'am"
I thought about saying "limited to white males with property" or "white Northern European males" or "white Protestant males" but I figured that would just stir up another POV firestorm.
Read what I wrote. It's a reasonable statement of the facts without being terribly POV. We could also list a host of other departures from democracy and civil liberties like the Alien and Sedition Acts, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, McCarthyism, etc., etc. This is not a place for that. U.S. history hasn't been uniformly pure as the driven snow. There've been lots of times when we have departed from our ideals.
I'm not trying to indict the U.S. I was just trying to address the horrible misuse of the word "tempered" and, while I was at it, providing a more accurate statement of the facts.
Now, if you object to the phrasing "tainted by shameful acts", I'm willing to debate that. Want to propose a less harsh phrasing? I'm all ears. Just as long as it doesn't do violence to the English language.
I'm going to replace "tempered" with "limited" for now and I'll hold off putting back the rest of my edits pending further debate here.
Richard 01:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Another problem with the previous paragraph:
This is a picky point but I didn't like the sentence "While the nation's growth was marked by the development of constitutional democracy and guaranteed rights and liberties of citizens".
I wanted to put "the nation's history" alongside "the development of constitutional democracy, etc". I didn't like putting "the nation's growth" alongside "the development, etc." I didn't like the emphasis on growth although I understand that the idea is that growth was achieved on the backs of the Indians and the African slaves. However, that leaves out other departures from democracy and civil liberties like the Alien and Sedition Acts, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, McCarthyism, etc., etc. which oppressed other people like women and, yes, even white males.
I know it's hard to capture all of that in a single paragraph but I think my paragraph did a better job of it than what went before.
-- Richard 01:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that it is important for the intro to mention the spread of democracy and rights, which are integral to U.S. history. In particular, I think this sentence:
should remain in the introduction in some form. - Will Beback 22:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Ryz05 just reverted my edit to the paragraph discussed above with the edit comment "What was wrong with the previous version?". I think the revert was a bit rude since it asserts that I have to explain what's wrong with the previous version instead of him having to explain what was wrong with my version. But since I'm a believer in the 0RR rule and refuse to engage in edit wars, I will take up the challenge and explain why I wrote what I wrote.
Here's the original text which Ryz05 reverted to:
Here's the new text that I wrote which was reverted out:
My original problem with the paragraph started from the fact that the word "tempered" is misused in the original text.
Here's the definition of "temper" as a verb make more temperate, acceptable, or suitable by adding something else; moderate; "she tempered her criticism"
chasten: restrain or temper
There's no way that you can reasonably use "temper" in the way that it was being used. You could say that "the rapacious drive for land was tempered by a desire to do things legally via treaties with the Indians" or any number of variations on the theme but I was trying to keep the general thrust of the statement.
And the real point of the paragraph is lost because we are left with a "progress" balanced by "sins" statement. The real point is that all of that is "past history". Many of these indictments of American conduct are about things that happened and have been rectified.
If you didn't know anything about the U.S., the previous version of the paragraph would leave you with the sense that neither of these sins (against Indians and against African-Americans) had been rectified.
Ok, Ok, Congress hasn't officially apologized to blacks for slavery or to Indians for the sins of the past. Nor have we paid reparations to either group. However, we shouldn't just cite the sins without also citing the rectifications made in the 20th century and there have been many.
So, how to get the point across but without coming across as a POV slam or POV defense of the U.S.? Answer: "Just the facts, ma'am"
I thought about saying "limited to white males with property" or "white Northern European males" or "white Protestant males" but I figured that would just stir up another POV firestorm.
Read what I wrote. It's a reasonable statement of the facts without being terribly POV. We could also list a host of other departures from democracy and civil liberties like the Alien and Sedition Acts, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, McCarthyism, etc., etc. This is not a place for that. U.S. history hasn't been uniformly pure as the driven snow. There've been lots of times when we have departed from our ideals.
I'm not trying to indict the U.S. I was just trying to address the horrible misuse of the word "tempered" and, while I was at it, providing a more accurate statement of the facts.
Now, if you object to the phrasing "tainted by shameful acts", I'm willing to debate that. Want to propose a less harsh phrasing? I'm all ears. Just as long as it doesn't do violence to the English language.
I'm going to replace "tempered" with "limited" for now and I'll hold off putting back the rest of my edits pending further debate here.
Richard 01:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Another problem with the previous paragraph:
This is a picky point but I didn't like the sentence "While the nation's growth was marked by the development of constitutional democracy and guaranteed rights and liberties of citizens".
I wanted to put "the nation's history" alongside "the development of constitutional democracy, etc". I didn't like putting "the nation's growth" alongside "the development, etc." I didn't like the emphasis on growth although I understand that the idea is that growth was achieved on the backs of the Indians and the African slaves. However, that leaves out other departures from democracy and civil liberties like the Alien and Sedition Acts, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, McCarthyism, etc., etc. which oppressed other people like women and, yes, even white males.
I know it's hard to capture all of that in a single paragraph but I think my paragraph did a better job of it than what went before.
-- Richard 01:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I continue to find wholesale reverts of edits rude and annoying. In general, such behavior tends to discourage the open and inviting philosophy of Wikipedia. Moreover, reverting an edit which is not wholly unacceptable takes the position that your version is so superior to the new edit that there is nothing of value in the new edit. This is highly arrogant.
Please take the time to read the new edit carefully and understand the rationale behind the edit. The editor is encouraged by WP:BOLD to "be bold" (i.e. make the change first and discuss later at least if the changes are not controversial). Editors are also asked to assume good faith.
No one "owns" the intro paragraphs and no one can claim to represent the consensus of the editors because there is no clear consensus. Certainly not one that has been indicated by a vote. I should know... I've read just about everything that has been said about the intro from Talk:United States/Archive 1 through Talk:United States/Archive 15.
(BTW, a consensus is not a majority position, it is a near-unanimous agreement. This is why votes are considered "evil".)
I will explain why I have made the edits that I have made and I will make them again. Please observe WP:3RR. I do not wish to engage in an edit war but this is getting truly annoying.
OK, here's the current intro text with my comments
OK, I've made the changes described above. As a result of this round of edits, the verbiage about the native Americans and slavery have been dropped. I'd be happier with that stuff in but I will leave it for somebody else to raise the issue and put it back. I do not feel strongly that it has to be in the intro paragraph and I've already struggled more with this intro than I really wanted to.
-- Richard 21:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Simply put, the dominance is clear in military terms but not so clear in other arenas. And, you're trying to make one little sentence say too much and, as a result, the sentence is vulnerable to criticism.
What "dominant influence" means in the economic arena is a little unclear to me. I won't get into it too deeply here but the value of saying this in such a short phrase is certaintly debatable. Being the biggest economy doesn't mean we dominate are able to dominate as much as we used to. Are we more dominant than anyone else? Yes but are we the only dominant economic influence? Hardly. If the economic arena includes natural resources then OPEC and the Middle East also dominate.
What does "dominant" mean in the political arena? That we get most of what we want? I suppose we do but getting what you want involves wanting what you can get. That we set the agenda on the stage of world politics? Maybe. But we certainly didn't "win" on the issue of the U.N. and Iraq. How dominant are we politically?
How about the scientific and technological arenas? Perhaps we have dominated and arguably continue to dominate but the world is changing and that dominance is being challenged by Europe, Japan and even China and India. Asserting our dominance without mentioning the challenge is arrogant and POV.
Culturally dominant? What are you saying? That the whole world watches our movies and TV programs? Maybe that's true but that's also changing. That everybody wears Levi's, Gap jeans and Nike shoes? That's also changing. It's claimed that the trend-setter in style and film is Japan. Wanna debate this? I don't. I just don't want to claim that we dominate the world. Although I guess it's true that we are flooding the world with McDonald's, KFC, Pepsi and Coca-Cola.
Look we can debate this until the cows come home. I actually don't care that much about this sentence personally. However, I know that, in the past, the sort of phrasing that involves "THE dominant influence" has attracted editors who come in and argue that this is POV. And that will start another edit war. And, for what? So that we can say that the U.S. is THE dominant influence instead of A dominant influence (or the pre-eminent influence)? "Dominant" is a strong word. "THE dominant" is an even stronger phrase.
A little softening will go a long way. BTW, being a "superpower" is primarily about military power. Yes, military power rests on economic strength which rests on scientific and technological capability. However, you shouldn't assume that being a military superpower implies all the rest. The Soviet Union remained a military superpower for easily a decade after it had lost on those other fronts.
-- Richard 00:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
It is considered to be the oldest constitutional republic in the world, and has existed for over 200 years Anything being put in the opening paragraph shouldn't be a matter of contention. Either it is definitely the oldest constitutional republic in the world, in which case we take out 'considered to be'; or it is one of the oldest, in which case we say that; or we remove this claim from the intro entirely and leave it do be dealt with in the appropriate section. Nomist 19:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
A few more thoughts : The USA is the third oldest republic in the world, surpassed in age only by San Marino and Switzerland. It is the second oldest constitutional republic. But it is the oldest presidential republic (Switzerland didn't introduce the presidency until sometime in the 19th century, San Marino has never had a president). So I would propose changing "constitutional" to "presidential". Travelbird 02:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The Switzerland article says "In 1798, the armies of the French Revolution conquered Switzerland and imposed a new unified constitution." Helvetic Republic was a state lasting for five years, from 1798 to 1803. It is the predecessor of modern Switzerland. - -- JimWae 03:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, then since the current US Constitution was ratified in 1787 and Switzerland in 1788, The US is the second oldest republic. Jaxad0127 03:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)