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. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 40 |
It needs to be mentioned somewhere in the article that America is God's chosen nation, until he allows movement into Israel. Without this, the article seems an insult to the founding fathers, who founded America on the idea that Christ is with us, and America is always morally right. Forever. Mwahcysl ( talk) 21:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Clearly a troll... TastyCakes ( talk) 20:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
'Morally right'. This guy has clearly never heard of Abu Ghraib prison, The Highway of Death or Fallujah.
I hope he was joking. If not his lack of knowledge is laughable and his arrogance is ridiculous. 92.24.70.8 ( talk) 18:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Saying that America is God's chosen nation would be a serious violation of NPOV. Leo-Isaurus-Rex ( talk) 18:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
US GLOBAL DEBT(Private + Public) /GDP is about 835% against a medioum level of 140% of EU.The Public debt/GDP (considering as well done all over the world FNM and FRE debts)is about 130%.
The main part of evoluted world considering this official datas and other political aspects don't consider anymore Usa a superpower.It's difficult to change official datas by talking.Thanks for your attention.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Campi Lorenzo ( talk • contribs) 06:23, January 5, 2009
The current unemployment number for December 2008 is 7.2%. The current data reference is the older November 2008 data at 6.7%. The corresponding summary reference link does not need to be changed, however, as it is already referencing the latest DOL December 2008 summary data. Meaning, only a simple number and date change is required to be up to date..
If someone would give me permissions, I would consider it a patriotic duty by keeping the data current from now on... I would also promise to not change anything else as well... :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgatliff ( talk • contribs) 15:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
This has probably been dealt with before, but going through up to 33 archive pages to find out ... well, life's just too short.
Why is the abbreviation "USA" free of periods (full stops), but the abbreviation "U.S." includes them? -- JackofOz ( talk) 23:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone looked at that yahoo poll that supposedly says that most americans are conservative. First of all, I don't think one yahoo poll should be considered valid in determining the whole politcal ideals of the country. Also, I only saw that is said that a plurity of americans prefer the next president to be moderate, with conservative coming in second. This entire claim seems pretty bogus to me, and I think it should be deleted from the article. Does anyone agree?
It's under the political ideals or something section, it says that a plurity are democrats but there are more conservatives than liberals. I'm going to delete it and see what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.124.65 ( talk) 04:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
There have been other polls that show a majority of americans lean right (conservative). If there is no reference to such polls conducted by CNN, Gallop or any valid media then I don't believe it should be in the article. I agree with the statement because I have heard of these polls being conducted and the result was such, however Yahoo is a web based poll and does not control the polling the way legitimate media would. Rgoss25 ( talk) 21:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Well I had a heated editing "debate" with dcgeist, but I think ultimatly my point was summed up by "somedumbyankee". I just didn't like the sentence because I think the moderate self identification was actually more reflective of what most people consider "liberal" in this country. I'm just glad someone put it in better words than I did. I totally agree that this sentence should be removed (as it has been). ( Fshoutofdawater ( talk) 04:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC))
The trouble with the section is that it doesn't rely on references. Part of the reason is that it is difficult to find references that explain "liberal" and "conservative" in the way the article attempts to. It has a strong cultural bias as the definition of these words has evolved in American political culture. Either that section needs to just go or needs to be written with an explanation as to what they mean in America vs Great Britain and other English speaking countries and a little on how they evolved. Meaning the "conservatives" Harding and Hoover were for a strong protective tariff. The conservative Ronald Reagan was for economic liberalization. It is only a summary section but it assumes that the reader is familiar with the modern use of these words in American politics which an encyclopedia should not assume. Reboot ( talk) 00:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Currently, the article states: "Certain cultural attributes of Mandé and Wolof slaves from West Africa were adopted by the American mainstream; based more on the traditions of Central African Bantu slaves, a distinct African American culture developed that would also deeply affect the mainstream.[176]" But no examples are given. Can someone provide some examples? It is very interesting, but pretty pointless without any concretes. Kjaer ( talk) 05:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Should we refer to him as "Barack Obama" or "Barack H. Obama"? Your thoughts. Ijanderson ( talk) 12:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, M5891 doesn't read the edit summaries to find out why his/her edits keep getting reverted, so I'll have to break it down here:
1) Eliminating the description (with link) of Hispanic/Latino as an officially designated "ethnicity". Bad idea. Discussion of the section over many months has made clear the need to articulate that the "ethnicity" designation is per the Census Bureau (and, though conceptually related, is not identical to the category of "race").
2) Eliminating the percentage of Hispanic Americans who are Mexican Americans. Bad idea. Mexican Americans are a clear majority of Hispanic Americans; no case has been made to erase this significant datum.
3) Changing the source (and consequent calculation) of Hispanic population growth from an already existing high quality 2008 cite to extrapolation from a newly introduced 2000 cite. Obviously a ridiculous idea.
4) Listing the four largest Hispanic American ancestry groups. First, M5891 simply gets it wrong, as DCGeist explained a while back: the top 4 are not Mexican, Puerto Rican, Spanish, and Cuban, but Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, and Salvadoran. Second, no case has been made for listing these four--why not three? why not five? The fact is--again, as already explained--Mexican Americans are more than 4 times as populous as the next three Hispanic American groups combined. Naming them here is simply bloat--this is precisely what we have topical articles for.
5) Adding this bit: "However, White Americans overall (non-Hispanic Whites together with White Hispanics) are projected to remain the racial majority at 74%, or 325 million, in 2050." Unlike the fact that minorities are projected to be the majority of the U.S. population by 2042--which is sourced to a Census Bureau press release and which is referred to widely in the U.S. media--M5891's favorite factoid is sourced to an op-ed piece and is rather of the "dog bites man" variety. If M5891 wants to try to find a place for this in Demographics of the United States, he/she is certainly welcome to give it a try, but it clearly has no place here per WP:UNDUE.
Even in the one spot where M5891 was helpful, updating the figure for the % of the American population that is foreign-born, there was a failure to properly update the citation, casting the main text alteration into doubt. This has been addressed. DocKino ( talk) 03:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
People, please try and be civil when reverting good-faith edits. Noone owns this or any other article, and it is perfectly reasonable (although often inadequate) to respond to talk page comments in an edit summary. MrZaius talk 13:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey I think we should add a section about American exceptionalism and how America is the best country in the world, according to exceptionalists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.56.20 ( talk) 21:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253a/american-exceptionalism.htm Does the article need to mention it, thats hard to justify, but also is very much part of (some) Americans world view, and might help non Americnas understand why Americans sometimes react how they do to (in the view of non Americans) critisism. Aslo its meaning, (and therefore what it represents) has shifted. [[ Slatersteven ( talk) 17:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)]]
I find just as many "exceptionalists" in the UK as i do in the United States. Moreover, it is the same with every country around the world. America tends to voice its "exceptionalists" a bit more because it gets allot of critics, well thats how i see it anyway (And “exceptionalists” is not a real word, bah!). Misortie ( talk) 22:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
This article mentions gdp and status many times, but fails to mention the United states debt level. Willydick ( talk) 22:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
{The United States is an officially secular nation; the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion and forbids the establishment of any religious governance.}
Parts of this statement has no actual basis in fact, given that the majority of Americans consider themselves Christian and that the Country itself was founded on judeo-Christian principles. The US is therefore NOT an officially secular nation, nor has it ever been during its existence.
Also, the First Amendment DOES NOT forbid the establishment of a religious governance, what it actually forbids is any sort of political favoritism shown towards religion on behalf of the government.
Please take the time to correct these oversights, as soon as possible. Thank you.
“ | Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. | ” |
--per the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- Evb-wiki ( talk) 13:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Palmyra atoll is an incorportated territory and as such is an integral part of the united states as opposed to the other territories. As such i have changed the sentence regarding the make up of the united states to refelct this. XavierGreen ( talk) 17:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
This article claims that USA is the 2nd largest country in the world, yet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_outlying_territories_by_total_area lists it at 3/4 are we using a different set of criteria, or is there a genuine mistake? Clarification would be good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.114.193.236 ( talk) 19:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Sorry... I think I had a brain fart. Everything does seem to be in order after all. Keep up the great work guys.
I think this section should explain that, before the United States became an independent nation, it was part of a group of North American colonies that were usually referred to in English as "British America." This is why the country's name became the United States of America and its citizens known as Americans. -- 67.133.117.210 ( talk) 23:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
In all of the government pages I have seen, government leaders have been restricted to those with executive authority. Neither the Chief Justice nor the Speaker of the House have executive authority. I believe that the two offices should be removed. 167.142.44.163 ( talk) 03:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please add a list of International Rankings to the wiki page for the United States, such as there are already ones on other countries' pages, as can be seen here for Estonia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia#International_rankings_2
And here for Canada:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada#International_rankings
I attempted to do this myself, but I do not have enough previous edits to allow me to edit the page for the United States. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Beegor (
talk •
contribs) 18:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
While they could use some organizing and maybe standardizing, I wholly disagree that they should be removed, or that it isn't useful enough for the USA page. I agree that there is room for thinning in the pre-existing sections, and believe that an International Rankings list will be much more useful to many more people that a lot of what is already posted in the USA page. For whoever would like to do so, I've put together a preliminary listing of stats with sources for the USA:
The Economist Intelligence Unit's index of democracy
Year: 2007
Place: 17
Link:
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf
Individual Freedoms ranked by the World Liberty Index
Place: 19
Link:
http://www.stateofworldliberty.org/report/rankings.html
Economic Freedoms ranked by the World Liberty Index
Place: 5
Link:
http://www.stateofworldliberty.org/report/rankings.html
Ranking of Health Care System, according to World Health Organization
Year: 2007
Place: 37
Link:
http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/dec07/content/view/79/1/1/5
National Income rating in US dollars
Year: 2007
Place: 14 - $44,710
Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GNI_(nominal)_per_capita
Human Development Index (quality of life, Intelligence, life expectancy)
Year: 2008
Place: 15
Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
Global Peace Index
Year: 2008
Place: 97
Link:
http://www.visionofhumanity.org/ &
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_peace_index
World Database of Happiness report
Rank: 27-31
Link:
http://www1.eur.nl/fsw/happiness/hap_nat/nat_fp.htm
Reporters Without Borders' annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index
Year: 2007
Rank: 22 (domestic) & 108 (Iraq)
Link:
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11715
Economist Intelligence Unit & IBM e-readiness report
Year: 2007
Rank: 2
Link:
http://graphics.eiu.com/files/ad_pdfs/2007Ereadiness_Ranking_WP.pdf
Official Development Assistance as a percentage of GNI, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Year: 2006
Rank: 23 - 0.18%
Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_charitable_countries#Official_Development_Assistance_by_country_as_a_percentage_of_GNI_.282006.29 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Beegor (
talk •
contribs) 19:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Democratic = PEOPLE choose and elect for their president/prime ministers.
Republic = We RELY on a president/prime minister to make decisions for us.
Are you sure that it's a "federal consituional republic"?
I think that it should be changed to a democratic republic with it linking to
Democracy and
Republic.
ATC
(talk) 03:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Under the section titled "Contemporary History" Saddam Hussein is called a "former U.S. ally". This overstates the relationship between the US and Iraq in the 1980s to a non-trivial degree... That Saddam H. was once on friendly terms is worth making, but to label him an ally does a disservice to the young and those that don't have acquaintance with the history of the period.
The passage reads: Lacking the support of NATO or an explicit UN mandate for military intervention, Bush organized a Coalition of the Willing; coalition forces preemptively invaded Iraq in 2003, removing dictator and former U.S. ally Saddam Hussein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.190.162 ( talk) 05:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
"Sereptitious support?" There was nothing secret about it, Jros. No one is "forcing" an alliance here. America's realpolitick position was to dominate the region and when Iran fell to the wayside, Iraq was the perfect foil. In fact, it was the vocal left who routinely denounced Reagan and Bush for allying with Hussein, that is, until 1990 when the US finally broke ranks with Hussein and the vocal left, predictably, roundly criticized Bush as he attacked Iraq. Canada Jack ( talk) 00:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The word in question is "ally," not "alliance," and within the context of what the line says, I don't see a problem with describing Hussein as a "former US ally." I'd agree it'd be a bit of a stretch to call this some sort of "alliance," as this is something that connotes something more formal, but Hussein certainly was an "ally" for a good part of the 80s. Canada Jack ( talk) 16:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
One in helpful association with another: I thinkl tjnhat prety mch descrbes the relationship. the US was helpng Sadam. One that is allied with another, especially by treaty: Note that it does not exclude informal allinaces ally - an associate who provides cooperation or assistance: Again prety good overall description of what the US did for Sadam.
Why can't the United States page be edited anymore??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc900 ( talk • contribs)
why do you have to be 'autoconfirmed'. Azorrez ( talk) 10:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I know this has probably been brought up before but after ten exhaustively long archive pages I'm more interested in simply asking. The name of the article is "United States", when in fact the article is about the "United States of America", there are may nations which have United States in their names, and their articles are all named appropriately, why is it this one is the only one failing to include the full, official name of the nation as the article name? That seems strange to me, though I realize it would be bothersome to change it at this point given it's scope and comprehensiveness, as well as being linked to many other articles. Revrant ( talk) 18:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why that would even matter, given we're talking about articles here, not calling dibs on the naming of the country itself, many articles feature "United States" and are all appropriately named after their subject material. I have read the entirety of the small argument, I chalk this up to laziness paired with adherence to some invisible encyclopedic "law" that states we should not have the actual names of our subject material featured, rather their commonly used "name". I find this fascinating considering a vast amount of articles deviate from this entirely, however the question is withdrawn all the same, I can plainly see there would be no resolution if it were raised again. Revrant ( talk) 07:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I think if some of the other uses of "United States" were more prominent, it would be more of an issue, but most of them are either countries that no longer exist, entities that do not (yet) exist, or were named after the USA. Note that even in the Spanish wikipedia, where "Estados Unidos" is much easier to confuse with "Estados Unidos Mexicanos", the EE. UU. gets the undisambiguated article. SDY ( talk) 22:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
For the record, the Japanese Instrument of Surrender at the close of WWII is available here. It uses the term "United States Representative" and refers to the counry as the United States (full stop). SDY ( talk) 20:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to add this link under "Maps" in the External Links section: SHOW USA Cartograms of data about the 50 states Wikitigger ( talk) 19:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The previous section here ceased being useful long ago. If you'd like to start over, please do, but keep it civil. -- Golbez ( talk) 21:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The culture held in common by most Americans is referred to as mainstream American culture, a Western culture largely derived from the traditions of Western European migrants, beginning with the early English and Dutch settlers. German, Irish, and Scottish cultures have also been very influential.[7] Certain cultural attributes of Mandé and Wolof slaves from West Africa were adopted by the American mainstream; based more on the traditions of Central African Bantu slaves, a distinct African American culture developed that would also deeply affect the mainstream.[177]
Again, the problematic section of the paragraph in question. As Golbez suggested, let's keep it civil. Please do not attack me, again, for looking for clarification on the wording in this part of the article.
A contributor (who, by the way, did excellent work improving the visual quality of the article) recently stated in edit summary that "the IMF_GDP ref is dubious. I can't find the data." While it is a little laborious to cull the data, it's all there and the International Monetary Fund's data is hardly "dubious". Here, for example, is how to cull the per capita GDP data and international rankings.
Similar reports can be prepared for the other data sourced to the IMF WEO Database, or a massive report with all the relevant data and other years can be prepared.— DCGeist ( talk) 18:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
On the point I raise immediately above, please see the thread below. We have major size concerns on this article that need to be recognized in all these debates. DocKino ( talk) 22:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
While it is nice to see people joining in to improve the article, please recognize that there is a well-established consensus that the article is at the very limit of acceptable length or simply too long. Significant efforts have been made in the past few months to restrain and rollback the size of the article. When considering improvement to the article this really needs to be factored in--a change that makes the article somewhat shorter is much preferable to one that makes it longer (referring to both readable text and all the coding that has once again pushed it over the 160 KB mark after some months below). DocKino ( talk) 20:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't know where to begin fixing this, but in the picture in the "Political divisions" section in which clicking on the state takes you to the corresponding article, the southern end of the Delmarva Peninsula leads to the Maryland article, though it should lead to the Virginia article. Hopefully someone with the technical know-how can correct this. faithless (speak) 09:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
"The ranking varies depending on how two territories disputed by China and India are counted and how the total size of the United States is calculated: the CIA World Factbook gives 3,794,083 sq mi (9,826,630 km2),[1] the United Nations Statistics Division gives 3,717,813 sq mi (9,629,091 km2),[18] and the Encyclopedia Britannica gives 3,676,486 sq mi (9,522,055 km2)."
What this says is that China instigated this dispute. It didn't. China's total area have not changed since its founding. People controlling the US page knows that the sole reason is due to the fact that US changed its way of calculating total area, basically by including coastal and territorial waters, when similar waters are not included for China.
I think this should be corrected to reflect the truth, which in this case is in favor of our enemy, China.
The highest and lowest points are available for some states, why not the whole country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.64.138 ( talk) 00:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
A table showing american ethnicities shows 80% white, 15% latino and 12% african, and some others. Either its clearly wrong or its misleading and doesnt explain itself. (Maybe it counts people who are mixed twice). I checked the source and there are no clear conclusions, just raw data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.44.149 ( talk) 16:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
If it uses for "ancestry group" a national definition: German-Americans, Italian-Americans etc....then it cannot use "African Americans" as a nation called Africa doesn´t exist. It should be used Kenyan-Americans, or Xhosa-Americans, or Zulu-Americans, or Tswana-Americans...but NOT "African Americans" or then there should be included also "European Americans" (including white Hispanics)
It is a completely ridiculous definition.-- 88.18.149.134 ( talk) 12:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Uh yeah... Don't think that would work with most AFRICAN AMERICANS since most had ancestors that came to the new world before the existence of most African countries, which were created by European colonial empires. As for tribal affiliations most blacks in the US can't trace their lineage to any tribes short of a genetic test and even then it would be extremely convoluted, due to heavy mixing. So, AFRICAN AMERICAN is the correct term. Akaloc ( talk) 17:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
"One set of exceptions comprises Vermont, Texas, and Hawaii: each was an independent republic before joining the union." should be California Texas and Hawaii see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Republic California was an Independent nation for a brif period of time not vermont The truth maker ( talk) 01:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Only one state seceded before 1861. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.90.98 ( talk) 06:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that the size of countries listed in the United States thread is inacurate. Based on another Wikipedia article, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_outlying_territories_by_area), United States has the 4th largest landmap, behind (in size order) Russia, Canada and China. Based on some another sites ( http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/world_statistics_by_area.htm ; http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/worldguide/guide_largestcountries.html), United States has the third largest landmap, just behing Russia and Canada. My point is that Canada is the second in landmap size in about every article I came upon. This would need to be corrected on the United States thread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.63.111 ( talk) 17:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
In addition to the above; I find it laughable that Wikipedia should be quoting the land size of America in acres; it should be in the metric hectares. The Seventh Echelon ( talk) 01:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello all, I just want to bring up something that has been bugging me for a bit. Every time I change " dissolution of the Soviet Union/USSR" to " dissolution of the Soviet Union", someone reverts it. May I ask in more detail, why? Surely my format is better because it provides links to both topics, as the initial structure doesn't have any immediate wiki-links to the Soviet Union, and users have to type or scroll around a lot to get there. Simply put, my structuring is more convenient, and I'm amazed people keep undoing it.
Also, the BBC always refers to the United States as the US, and I thought that would be worth a mention at the top alongside U.S., but again that keeps getting removed. Is it because both are basically the same? I don't necessarily think so. The whole thing is just getting annoying. I try to throw in a few more words, change links to make them a bit more direct, and it all keeps getting removed. Can someone please clarify what's going on? Thanks - AyrtonProst Sign Here/ Contact 09:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I belive that the USA should also include the Spanish language as they have that in the south(such as Texas). ( TheGreenwalker ( talk) 21:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC))
I mean it should include Spanish language because like you said, 'it is spoken in New Mexico',a USA state, and therefore should be included. Also, if you look at the UK page, it contains small languages, so I believe it will help if it included Spanish language, because around 10-15% of Americans speak it. ( TheGreenwalker ( talk) 23:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC))
I believe the language should be changed to English instead none a federal level since most states' nation language is English and everyone speaks English its just kinda obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstarsbravo ( talk • contribs) 02:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd refer to the above thread. Prussian725 ( talk) 17:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Why wikipeda as a neutral organization redirects America to the United States?
As we all know America is the name of the continent that extends from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego in South America. It would be more acurate to point America to the continent article, which by the way is America and not Americas (plural). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.192.50 ( talk) 23:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as how they are seperated by a canal in the country of Panama. By the way, how've you been EU 100%? Prussian725 ( talk) 17:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
USA is NOT AMERICA DAMN IT. AMERICA IS A CONTINENT, USA A COUNTRY... AMERICANS ARE ALL THOSE WHO LIVE IN THE AMERICAN CONTINENT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.68.147.188 ( talk) 22:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
First, Barak Obama is half-African American or half-black, so it cannot be said he is the "first 'African-American'" to hold the office.
Second, other U.S. presidents have had "African-American" or "black" lineage or ancestry (Jefferson, Harding, Coolidge, Jackson, Lincoln, and Eisenhower). None of these were 100% African-American (or black); so there were other so-called "African-American" presidents before Barak Obama, if one uses the term "African-American" to mean a person with some African-American lineage or ancestry.
The following article needs to be updated with this correction, as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
Sources:
Daniel E. Pearson, "Lincolniana Bibliotheca 1993," http://webpages.charter.net/lincolnbooks/1993Bibliography.html
KCTCS Diversity Programs, "The History of Black History," http://www.kctcs.net/diversityprograms/stolenlegacy.htm
Harding said he could not deny that he had a black ancestor. The "accusation" had come up in the 1920 presidential election.
Sources: Leroy Vaughn, "5 Black Presidents," http://www.geocities.com/cureworks1/5blkpres.htm
Grant Segall, "Magicians' roots reach deep into Ohio," Cleveland Plain Dealer, 2 July 2004, http://www.cleveland.com/ohio/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1088760904294480.xml and discussions on soc.culture.african-american newsgroup —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotdjdave ( talk • contribs) 19:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Hotdjdave ( talk) 20:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it is true that other presidents had claims they had black heritage, but it is not true that a) any of these claims were verified and b) any of these presidents said they had black heritage. So, Obama is, indeed the first president to self-identify himself as having black heritage, and to have that claim readily acknowledged. The links above have a lot of innuendo, for example others, like political rivals, suggesting he had this heritage and reports of Jefferson hunting down his mother's letters etc. But this is not "evidence" at all. Canada Jack ( talk) 20:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Apparently I have to start this discussion again. UVA is not the university/college that should be representing the United States' education system. Please read the previous threads on this. In addition the current image has some major image deficiencies (distortion, tilted, lighting). Yes, a public school should represent US education, but UVA is way too arbitrary. Yes, world heritage site is interesting and notable, but that doesn't mean that ppl know what UVA is. Berkeley is world-renouned and this article really should be geared to be universal, not just made for Americans. The Berkeley image is preferable: it covers much of the campus. The current UVA image isn't ven centered. Rule of thirds is not great for a building. ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 17:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
← My reasons for not using UVA or this image as the representative of US education:
So that's what I have to say; again, it doesn't have to be Berkeley. It just shouldn't be UVA. Also, just so you know, I have no connection to either institutions. ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 04:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Overall, I'm not convinced by these arguments. I still hold that UVA is not a great representation of US higher education and I'm unhappy that US primary and secondary education is not represented here at all (which is why I suggested the Smithsonian, a leading distinctly American educational institution). Don't forget, a typical American student goes through twelve years of schooling before higher education, meaning it makes up a much greater and more distinct part of one's life (if you're spending 12 years in college/graduate school, you are in an extremely small minority). Also, the image used is not of great technical quality for the reasons outlined above and while there are other poor-quality photographs in this article, they will hopefully be removed and replaced soon and should not weigh on this image. I'm putting in for a Request for Comment due to my strong feelings against this image. We'll see what other members of the wiki have to say. Should they not agree with me, I'll drop it. ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 19:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Currently, this image of the Rotunda at the University of Virginia is the sole representation of all US education. Previously it was a landscape view of UC Berkeley and before that, another image of the Rotunda. It is agreed that an image of a US public institution/entity should represent US education, but there is disagreement as to which one (it need not be limited to higher education). Comments on which institution/entity should represent US education would be appreciated. ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 19:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
No, no, no: I'm not making a formal proposition. I'm offering an example of a possible compromise. The entire point of the RfC is for others to weigh in and offer other possible examples, not necessarily vote on "your side" versus "my side". I do think that the Smithsonian Castle could be a good replacement, but I also think others may have better ideas than me. Again, this all comes down to the fact that UVA seems upsettingly arbitrary to represent the whole of US education (upper, lower, what have you).
While you have a point about the other 3 images (White House, Capitol, Supreme Court), you can't really have an article on the United States without those; so the connection is incidental. And referencing the Castle as "an administrative federal building" is not at all a fair representation of the building itself and almost nobody would ever actually call it that; you're very much oversimplifying the issue to make a point.
I placed the US Department of Education seal to the right. Even that would be a better representative of US education. Though I don't suggest it. Maybe the answer is to not have an image because a reasonable image that represents US education in general can't be found. ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 17:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
← I've made it explicitly clear that I think Berkeley was better than UVA. You know, like on an SAT question, you have to pick the "best" answer, when at least another one is "good"? And no, I'm not saying Cal is "best" of all possibilities, but best of the ones brought up (out of 2! - nobody else has offered alternatives!) I said it in my last post: "And find me the quote where I said Berkeley was perfect to represent US education. I just said it was better and much less arbitrary." I still challenge you to do that. That responds to the first paragraph.
I'm still not swayed by an opinionated source from AIA that is over 100 years old. I'm not saying it's worthless, I'm just saying it's lost value in the century since. If you look at UNESCO's site about Monticello/UVA, you'll notice a lack of photos of UVA (two of Monticello!) and you'll notice that it's the entirety of UVA, not just the Rotunda or the Lawn that are given World Heritage Site-status. Maybe a better way to do this photo, then, is to do a quasi-aerial from the opposite end of the Lawn. You don't know it's a quad because you can't see the buildings on the side. That responds to your second paragraph.
I appreciate the cross out. I honestly am not sure where you're coming from on that. And don't forget, this is the Internet. I interpreted the wink as a "gotcha", as if trying to rub something in. That's not my fault; just be more careful with emoticons in the future; I would advise against them during debates like this. This is another example where I originally took it as a "gotcha": "And if only 34.4% have a degree from the apex level of public U.S. education, I'd guess 0.0% have a diploma from a museum. ;)" See what I mean? That responds to your third paragraph.
No, people don't visit museums 180 days a year, but sometimes (and you have to admit this), you remember more from a field trip than the 180 days because they were monotonous; admittedly, that's completely qualitative, but it is the first thing I thought of. And I don't think I should have to respond to your 0% remark because it was so obvious. I mean, come on? But my point still stands with 34.4%! Maybe a primary or secondary school would be good? I don't know; I still don't like the idea of one school representing education. And I'm kind of against one higher-ed school due to the free publicity (even public schools charge a price). UNESCO wasn't brought up until I removed this image the first time; I bet the person that originally put this image in was a UVA alum. I still think, though, that because the Smithsonian has influenced far more people than any one American university ever could, it represents the educational experience better (again, for the reasons stated above). That responds to your fourth paragraph.
If I've said it once, I've said it too many times: Berkeley is better. Its image quality was also better, though I'm still not a fan of the current one compositionally. I give you credit for your efforts in fixing the current image; it indeed looks better (It doesn't cause me to cringe any longer). That said, the building itself is still suffering from a curvature. Look at the stairs, tops of the columns, and base of the pediment and compare to a horizontal line. The centers typically are higher than the ends. It's probably not a physical problem, but a photographic one, and could still be fixed. And again, as I've stated above, the east-coast bias was more of an observation. And on that note, keeping UVA isn't solving the problem that you're now jumping on just because I brought up this new option. It may not be in DC, but it's only 100 miles away (almost exactly). Keeping UVA doesn't help it at all; I think we can agree to just ignore this point for now on, b/c we're just going to use it against each other, causing it to be moot anyway. Me pot, you kettle. That takes care of the fifth paragraph.
An added bonus is that the Smithsonian image is featured, too (and some of our most respected photographers gave high praise to the image ← This is an example of an observation that marginally impacts the overall debate but is interesting to note, much like the east-coast bias). Also, the current Secretary quit as President of Georgia Tech ( home of a top-5 engineering school in the nation in 2009, based on US News) to take the new role; apparently he feels the Smithsonian is notable enough to leave the highest levels of higher ed to run it (←another observation). ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 01:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
My GOD, what did I stumble upon? First verdict: Shush it up. Second verdict: I do agree with many of the points from users DCGeist, DocKino, and Ben Lunsford... Keep Rotunda. Here's my summary of this discussion:
DCGeist made the point that UC-Berkeley is no less "arbitrary" than Virginia. He mentioned that the U.S. Government commissioned a study showing just that. Many sources were subsequently cited showing that U. of Virginia is a top public university by numerous standards. Agree.
DocKino acknowledged both schools are highly regarded and thus concentrated on the photos and the structures in those photos. He said, and I completely agree, that the photo of UVA is excellent and it depicts something of great historical and architectural significance. He also said that the Berkeley pic was mediocre, agreed, and there was nothing in the pic quite so significant. Additionally, he said to use a Smithsonian pic to represent Education would be quite bizarre. Agree.
Ben Lunsford said, well, a lot. I realise that he had only been trying to play defence against the relentless attacks of wadester, but wow. Basically I'll say this: he cited a lot of sources, from a US Government study and US News and World Report magazine showing the university is a top US public; to UNESCO, the AIA, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, and American Heritage, showing the structure and area in the photograph is of great significance both to this nation and to worldwide visitors. Great sources, Ben.
wadester... if you had taken one angle and stuck with it, you may have been more convincing. You just made my head spin with all the different forays, some of them to the brink of ridiculousness. I truly think your time could be spent better elsewhere. That goes for Ben too.
--
An unrelated, but important thought re: UNESCO: perhaps this article should include more US World Heritage Sites? It's really to the brink of ridiculousness that the Statue of Liberty is not pictured in the article. And I would like to see Yellowstone or Yosemite pictured instead of Mormon Row and the Teton Range. Perhaps this is for a different discussion, but UNESCO World Heritage status is a quite major global designation by a quite major global organisation and perhaps that should be a consideration when deciding whether to picture, say, the Teton Range versus nearby Yellowstone. I understand that sometimes there are more scenic photographs available of one thing versus another but I'm thinking most World Heritage Sites would have numerous photographs available for use on Wikipedia.
Now I shall leave this page forever!! Because within about 10 minutes, wadester will respond and I will not get held up on this. These are my thoughts after reading this lengthy diatribe. Now I'm leaving. Do not follow me home. 66.43.69.114 ( talk) 15:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
If we're going to go back to the UVA-Berkeley debate, then so be it; though I still hold that one higher ed institution shouldn't represent US education when only a third of Americans actually get a degree.
Find below a few options I dug up to represent Berkeley (in order of my preference, FYI). And below that, find reasons why I think Berkeley should be the choice (completely new ones from before, so please read on ).
Ranking Group | UCB | UVA |
---|---|---|
US News & World Report [2] (based on 15 indicators of academic excellence... too many to list here) | 21 Public: 1 |
23 Public: 2 |
Princeton Review- USA TODAY [3] (based on tuition [equals out] and academic environs [class size, prof. accessibility, % of TA-led classes]) | Public: -- | Public: 1 |
United States National Research Council rankings [4] (based on only one metric: faculty research publishing) | 2 | 28 |
Kiplinger rankings [5] (based on costs [again equal], SATs, selectivity, retention rates, and student-faculty ratios) | 12 | 3 |
Academic Ranking of World Universities (Shanghai Jiao Tong University study; based again on that singular metric, faculty research publishing) | 3 [6] | 95 [7] |
Top 100 Global Universities (50% of this ranking is the ranking by Shanghai Jiao Tong above; based primarily on the same singular metric, faculty research publishing) [8] | 5 | 80 |
Academic Analytics Top Performing Schools (based on only the same singular metric: faculty research publishing) | 9 | 36 |
Old-metric Forbes ranking [9] (based on Who's Who lists, professor ratings, student debt, % who graduate, and # of Rhodes scholarships) | 73 [10] | 43 [11] |
New-metric Forbes ranking [12] (adds "affordability and productivity" as very large weights to metrics above) | 28 Public: 2 |
22 Public: 1 |
National Bureau of Economic Research ( Harvard- BU- Yale- Stanford study) (based on top destinations of high-achieving students) | 27 Public: 3 [14] |
20 Public: 1 [14] |
Webometrics Ranking of World Universities Another research ranking - based on open access scientific research published online) |
5 | 35 |
Why Berkeley?
Why any of these images?
So this is my overview as to why Berkeley should be the representative image in the Education section of this article. It shows that UVA is indeed more arbitrary than Berkeley, and has a number of sources to prove that. The replacement suggestions are all taken on sunny days with blue skies, making them enjoyable to look at, and feature Sather Tower, the icon of the Berkeley campus. As Linda Richman used to say, "Please, discuss..." ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 15:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Notability | Current: Jefferson's Rotunda (U-Va.) |
Alternative: Sather Tower (center of image, UCB) |
---|---|---|
Constructed | 1819–1825 | 1914–1917 |
Architect | Thomas Jefferson | John Galen Howard |
Global | UNESCO World Heritage Site (1 of only 4 constructed since 1492 in United States) | -- |
United States |
National Historic Landmark (1 of 2,442) National Register of Historic Places (1 of 80,000+) |
National Register of Historic Places (1 of 80,000+) |
Accolades | Survey of
American Institute of Architects deemed it
America's proudest work of past 200 years in 1976. -------------- American Heritage called the Lawn surrounding it America's Greatest Architectural Achievement in 1984. -------------- In 1895, The New York Times called it "the most monumental architectural project that had or has yet been conceived in this century" some seventy years after its construction. |
-- |
Fun Facts | The Marquis de Lafayette and James Madison dined for 3 hours with Thomas Jefferson in the Dome Room of the unfinished Rotunda at the university's inaugural banquet. | Has a 10,500 lb. "Great Bear Bell". |
Wadester16 introduced a pretty cool table into this momentous (10,000 word?) discussion, so allow me to do the same for the actual buildings in each photograph. To me, the choice of an image is also about the notability of the structure actually viewed through a photograph, as well as the notability of where it sits. Wadester never seems to want to follow the discussion here, so I thought I'd bring forth a second table. At the end of the day, the image should be a visually powerful depiction of a significant structure in a significant location. There aren't many structures or locations in public education that are more notable than Thomas Jefferson's Rotunda and Lawn. This was the last great work of a man with a considerable shadow. Ben Lunsford ( talk) 02:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Putting the two images next to each other in your table really notes how dull the Rotunda image is. UCB's is much more vibrant and exciting. Image uses HDR. Like I said, that morning light can be overrated. ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 04:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I'm throwing in the towel here. No reasonable comments will come due to our extensive comments here, which is a shame because UVA still is not the university to represent my nation on WP. I was working to change something, so no overly-productive comments (save for you Ben) reverts to keep. Yea, it has UNESCO and AIA (which I will now add, since I'm no longer arguing, is a group of pompous arses - but my personal opinion from personal experience), but Berkeley has the rankings (I don't buy the whole "best value" and that study has to start with colleges from somewhere), is better known internationally, and is well known for its scientific advances that helped make the US that much more successful in the 20th century (something I would argue UVA lacked greatly compared to UCB). My point still stands, though, that because so few Americans actually get a degree, that a university is not the best choice anyway. The Smithsonian was not the best either, but I felt it was more representative of an American educational experience (the American history, the science and technology, the art and culture, government and civic duty, etc.). There, I said my piece. Enjoy your "win by attrition", and I now pass over the battery from my back. And out of curiosity, if you went to college, which was it? ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 05:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I do like the UVA pic, but the Image #1 below that has the most detail that I've seen out of any of the offered pics. Amazing treatment around the clock tower! 207.216.182.222 ( talk) 07:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)kmon
Oops! I meant the UCB image,(Alternative #1), directly above the UVA! Alternative #4 is also good but not enough detail is visible. 207.216.182.222 ( talk)krmon —Preceding undated comment added 07:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC).
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. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 40 |
It needs to be mentioned somewhere in the article that America is God's chosen nation, until he allows movement into Israel. Without this, the article seems an insult to the founding fathers, who founded America on the idea that Christ is with us, and America is always morally right. Forever. Mwahcysl ( talk) 21:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Clearly a troll... TastyCakes ( talk) 20:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
'Morally right'. This guy has clearly never heard of Abu Ghraib prison, The Highway of Death or Fallujah.
I hope he was joking. If not his lack of knowledge is laughable and his arrogance is ridiculous. 92.24.70.8 ( talk) 18:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Saying that America is God's chosen nation would be a serious violation of NPOV. Leo-Isaurus-Rex ( talk) 18:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
US GLOBAL DEBT(Private + Public) /GDP is about 835% against a medioum level of 140% of EU.The Public debt/GDP (considering as well done all over the world FNM and FRE debts)is about 130%.
The main part of evoluted world considering this official datas and other political aspects don't consider anymore Usa a superpower.It's difficult to change official datas by talking.Thanks for your attention.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Campi Lorenzo ( talk • contribs) 06:23, January 5, 2009
The current unemployment number for December 2008 is 7.2%. The current data reference is the older November 2008 data at 6.7%. The corresponding summary reference link does not need to be changed, however, as it is already referencing the latest DOL December 2008 summary data. Meaning, only a simple number and date change is required to be up to date..
If someone would give me permissions, I would consider it a patriotic duty by keeping the data current from now on... I would also promise to not change anything else as well... :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgatliff ( talk • contribs) 15:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
This has probably been dealt with before, but going through up to 33 archive pages to find out ... well, life's just too short.
Why is the abbreviation "USA" free of periods (full stops), but the abbreviation "U.S." includes them? -- JackofOz ( talk) 23:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone looked at that yahoo poll that supposedly says that most americans are conservative. First of all, I don't think one yahoo poll should be considered valid in determining the whole politcal ideals of the country. Also, I only saw that is said that a plurity of americans prefer the next president to be moderate, with conservative coming in second. This entire claim seems pretty bogus to me, and I think it should be deleted from the article. Does anyone agree?
It's under the political ideals or something section, it says that a plurity are democrats but there are more conservatives than liberals. I'm going to delete it and see what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.124.65 ( talk) 04:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
There have been other polls that show a majority of americans lean right (conservative). If there is no reference to such polls conducted by CNN, Gallop or any valid media then I don't believe it should be in the article. I agree with the statement because I have heard of these polls being conducted and the result was such, however Yahoo is a web based poll and does not control the polling the way legitimate media would. Rgoss25 ( talk) 21:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Well I had a heated editing "debate" with dcgeist, but I think ultimatly my point was summed up by "somedumbyankee". I just didn't like the sentence because I think the moderate self identification was actually more reflective of what most people consider "liberal" in this country. I'm just glad someone put it in better words than I did. I totally agree that this sentence should be removed (as it has been). ( Fshoutofdawater ( talk) 04:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC))
The trouble with the section is that it doesn't rely on references. Part of the reason is that it is difficult to find references that explain "liberal" and "conservative" in the way the article attempts to. It has a strong cultural bias as the definition of these words has evolved in American political culture. Either that section needs to just go or needs to be written with an explanation as to what they mean in America vs Great Britain and other English speaking countries and a little on how they evolved. Meaning the "conservatives" Harding and Hoover were for a strong protective tariff. The conservative Ronald Reagan was for economic liberalization. It is only a summary section but it assumes that the reader is familiar with the modern use of these words in American politics which an encyclopedia should not assume. Reboot ( talk) 00:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Currently, the article states: "Certain cultural attributes of Mandé and Wolof slaves from West Africa were adopted by the American mainstream; based more on the traditions of Central African Bantu slaves, a distinct African American culture developed that would also deeply affect the mainstream.[176]" But no examples are given. Can someone provide some examples? It is very interesting, but pretty pointless without any concretes. Kjaer ( talk) 05:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Should we refer to him as "Barack Obama" or "Barack H. Obama"? Your thoughts. Ijanderson ( talk) 12:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, M5891 doesn't read the edit summaries to find out why his/her edits keep getting reverted, so I'll have to break it down here:
1) Eliminating the description (with link) of Hispanic/Latino as an officially designated "ethnicity". Bad idea. Discussion of the section over many months has made clear the need to articulate that the "ethnicity" designation is per the Census Bureau (and, though conceptually related, is not identical to the category of "race").
2) Eliminating the percentage of Hispanic Americans who are Mexican Americans. Bad idea. Mexican Americans are a clear majority of Hispanic Americans; no case has been made to erase this significant datum.
3) Changing the source (and consequent calculation) of Hispanic population growth from an already existing high quality 2008 cite to extrapolation from a newly introduced 2000 cite. Obviously a ridiculous idea.
4) Listing the four largest Hispanic American ancestry groups. First, M5891 simply gets it wrong, as DCGeist explained a while back: the top 4 are not Mexican, Puerto Rican, Spanish, and Cuban, but Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, and Salvadoran. Second, no case has been made for listing these four--why not three? why not five? The fact is--again, as already explained--Mexican Americans are more than 4 times as populous as the next three Hispanic American groups combined. Naming them here is simply bloat--this is precisely what we have topical articles for.
5) Adding this bit: "However, White Americans overall (non-Hispanic Whites together with White Hispanics) are projected to remain the racial majority at 74%, or 325 million, in 2050." Unlike the fact that minorities are projected to be the majority of the U.S. population by 2042--which is sourced to a Census Bureau press release and which is referred to widely in the U.S. media--M5891's favorite factoid is sourced to an op-ed piece and is rather of the "dog bites man" variety. If M5891 wants to try to find a place for this in Demographics of the United States, he/she is certainly welcome to give it a try, but it clearly has no place here per WP:UNDUE.
Even in the one spot where M5891 was helpful, updating the figure for the % of the American population that is foreign-born, there was a failure to properly update the citation, casting the main text alteration into doubt. This has been addressed. DocKino ( talk) 03:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
People, please try and be civil when reverting good-faith edits. Noone owns this or any other article, and it is perfectly reasonable (although often inadequate) to respond to talk page comments in an edit summary. MrZaius talk 13:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey I think we should add a section about American exceptionalism and how America is the best country in the world, according to exceptionalists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.56.20 ( talk) 21:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253a/american-exceptionalism.htm Does the article need to mention it, thats hard to justify, but also is very much part of (some) Americans world view, and might help non Americnas understand why Americans sometimes react how they do to (in the view of non Americans) critisism. Aslo its meaning, (and therefore what it represents) has shifted. [[ Slatersteven ( talk) 17:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)]]
I find just as many "exceptionalists" in the UK as i do in the United States. Moreover, it is the same with every country around the world. America tends to voice its "exceptionalists" a bit more because it gets allot of critics, well thats how i see it anyway (And “exceptionalists” is not a real word, bah!). Misortie ( talk) 22:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
This article mentions gdp and status many times, but fails to mention the United states debt level. Willydick ( talk) 22:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
{The United States is an officially secular nation; the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion and forbids the establishment of any religious governance.}
Parts of this statement has no actual basis in fact, given that the majority of Americans consider themselves Christian and that the Country itself was founded on judeo-Christian principles. The US is therefore NOT an officially secular nation, nor has it ever been during its existence.
Also, the First Amendment DOES NOT forbid the establishment of a religious governance, what it actually forbids is any sort of political favoritism shown towards religion on behalf of the government.
Please take the time to correct these oversights, as soon as possible. Thank you.
“ | Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. | ” |
--per the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- Evb-wiki ( talk) 13:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Palmyra atoll is an incorportated territory and as such is an integral part of the united states as opposed to the other territories. As such i have changed the sentence regarding the make up of the united states to refelct this. XavierGreen ( talk) 17:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
This article claims that USA is the 2nd largest country in the world, yet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_outlying_territories_by_total_area lists it at 3/4 are we using a different set of criteria, or is there a genuine mistake? Clarification would be good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.114.193.236 ( talk) 19:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Sorry... I think I had a brain fart. Everything does seem to be in order after all. Keep up the great work guys.
I think this section should explain that, before the United States became an independent nation, it was part of a group of North American colonies that were usually referred to in English as "British America." This is why the country's name became the United States of America and its citizens known as Americans. -- 67.133.117.210 ( talk) 23:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
In all of the government pages I have seen, government leaders have been restricted to those with executive authority. Neither the Chief Justice nor the Speaker of the House have executive authority. I believe that the two offices should be removed. 167.142.44.163 ( talk) 03:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please add a list of International Rankings to the wiki page for the United States, such as there are already ones on other countries' pages, as can be seen here for Estonia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia#International_rankings_2
And here for Canada:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada#International_rankings
I attempted to do this myself, but I do not have enough previous edits to allow me to edit the page for the United States. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Beegor (
talk •
contribs) 18:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
While they could use some organizing and maybe standardizing, I wholly disagree that they should be removed, or that it isn't useful enough for the USA page. I agree that there is room for thinning in the pre-existing sections, and believe that an International Rankings list will be much more useful to many more people that a lot of what is already posted in the USA page. For whoever would like to do so, I've put together a preliminary listing of stats with sources for the USA:
The Economist Intelligence Unit's index of democracy
Year: 2007
Place: 17
Link:
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf
Individual Freedoms ranked by the World Liberty Index
Place: 19
Link:
http://www.stateofworldliberty.org/report/rankings.html
Economic Freedoms ranked by the World Liberty Index
Place: 5
Link:
http://www.stateofworldliberty.org/report/rankings.html
Ranking of Health Care System, according to World Health Organization
Year: 2007
Place: 37
Link:
http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/dec07/content/view/79/1/1/5
National Income rating in US dollars
Year: 2007
Place: 14 - $44,710
Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GNI_(nominal)_per_capita
Human Development Index (quality of life, Intelligence, life expectancy)
Year: 2008
Place: 15
Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
Global Peace Index
Year: 2008
Place: 97
Link:
http://www.visionofhumanity.org/ &
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_peace_index
World Database of Happiness report
Rank: 27-31
Link:
http://www1.eur.nl/fsw/happiness/hap_nat/nat_fp.htm
Reporters Without Borders' annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index
Year: 2007
Rank: 22 (domestic) & 108 (Iraq)
Link:
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11715
Economist Intelligence Unit & IBM e-readiness report
Year: 2007
Rank: 2
Link:
http://graphics.eiu.com/files/ad_pdfs/2007Ereadiness_Ranking_WP.pdf
Official Development Assistance as a percentage of GNI, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Year: 2006
Rank: 23 - 0.18%
Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_charitable_countries#Official_Development_Assistance_by_country_as_a_percentage_of_GNI_.282006.29 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Beegor (
talk •
contribs) 19:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Democratic = PEOPLE choose and elect for their president/prime ministers.
Republic = We RELY on a president/prime minister to make decisions for us.
Are you sure that it's a "federal consituional republic"?
I think that it should be changed to a democratic republic with it linking to
Democracy and
Republic.
ATC
(talk) 03:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Under the section titled "Contemporary History" Saddam Hussein is called a "former U.S. ally". This overstates the relationship between the US and Iraq in the 1980s to a non-trivial degree... That Saddam H. was once on friendly terms is worth making, but to label him an ally does a disservice to the young and those that don't have acquaintance with the history of the period.
The passage reads: Lacking the support of NATO or an explicit UN mandate for military intervention, Bush organized a Coalition of the Willing; coalition forces preemptively invaded Iraq in 2003, removing dictator and former U.S. ally Saddam Hussein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.190.162 ( talk) 05:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
"Sereptitious support?" There was nothing secret about it, Jros. No one is "forcing" an alliance here. America's realpolitick position was to dominate the region and when Iran fell to the wayside, Iraq was the perfect foil. In fact, it was the vocal left who routinely denounced Reagan and Bush for allying with Hussein, that is, until 1990 when the US finally broke ranks with Hussein and the vocal left, predictably, roundly criticized Bush as he attacked Iraq. Canada Jack ( talk) 00:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The word in question is "ally," not "alliance," and within the context of what the line says, I don't see a problem with describing Hussein as a "former US ally." I'd agree it'd be a bit of a stretch to call this some sort of "alliance," as this is something that connotes something more formal, but Hussein certainly was an "ally" for a good part of the 80s. Canada Jack ( talk) 16:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
One in helpful association with another: I thinkl tjnhat prety mch descrbes the relationship. the US was helpng Sadam. One that is allied with another, especially by treaty: Note that it does not exclude informal allinaces ally - an associate who provides cooperation or assistance: Again prety good overall description of what the US did for Sadam.
Why can't the United States page be edited anymore??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc900 ( talk • contribs)
why do you have to be 'autoconfirmed'. Azorrez ( talk) 10:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I know this has probably been brought up before but after ten exhaustively long archive pages I'm more interested in simply asking. The name of the article is "United States", when in fact the article is about the "United States of America", there are may nations which have United States in their names, and their articles are all named appropriately, why is it this one is the only one failing to include the full, official name of the nation as the article name? That seems strange to me, though I realize it would be bothersome to change it at this point given it's scope and comprehensiveness, as well as being linked to many other articles. Revrant ( talk) 18:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why that would even matter, given we're talking about articles here, not calling dibs on the naming of the country itself, many articles feature "United States" and are all appropriately named after their subject material. I have read the entirety of the small argument, I chalk this up to laziness paired with adherence to some invisible encyclopedic "law" that states we should not have the actual names of our subject material featured, rather their commonly used "name". I find this fascinating considering a vast amount of articles deviate from this entirely, however the question is withdrawn all the same, I can plainly see there would be no resolution if it were raised again. Revrant ( talk) 07:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I think if some of the other uses of "United States" were more prominent, it would be more of an issue, but most of them are either countries that no longer exist, entities that do not (yet) exist, or were named after the USA. Note that even in the Spanish wikipedia, where "Estados Unidos" is much easier to confuse with "Estados Unidos Mexicanos", the EE. UU. gets the undisambiguated article. SDY ( talk) 22:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
For the record, the Japanese Instrument of Surrender at the close of WWII is available here. It uses the term "United States Representative" and refers to the counry as the United States (full stop). SDY ( talk) 20:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to add this link under "Maps" in the External Links section: SHOW USA Cartograms of data about the 50 states Wikitigger ( talk) 19:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The previous section here ceased being useful long ago. If you'd like to start over, please do, but keep it civil. -- Golbez ( talk) 21:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The culture held in common by most Americans is referred to as mainstream American culture, a Western culture largely derived from the traditions of Western European migrants, beginning with the early English and Dutch settlers. German, Irish, and Scottish cultures have also been very influential.[7] Certain cultural attributes of Mandé and Wolof slaves from West Africa were adopted by the American mainstream; based more on the traditions of Central African Bantu slaves, a distinct African American culture developed that would also deeply affect the mainstream.[177]
Again, the problematic section of the paragraph in question. As Golbez suggested, let's keep it civil. Please do not attack me, again, for looking for clarification on the wording in this part of the article.
A contributor (who, by the way, did excellent work improving the visual quality of the article) recently stated in edit summary that "the IMF_GDP ref is dubious. I can't find the data." While it is a little laborious to cull the data, it's all there and the International Monetary Fund's data is hardly "dubious". Here, for example, is how to cull the per capita GDP data and international rankings.
Similar reports can be prepared for the other data sourced to the IMF WEO Database, or a massive report with all the relevant data and other years can be prepared.— DCGeist ( talk) 18:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
On the point I raise immediately above, please see the thread below. We have major size concerns on this article that need to be recognized in all these debates. DocKino ( talk) 22:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
While it is nice to see people joining in to improve the article, please recognize that there is a well-established consensus that the article is at the very limit of acceptable length or simply too long. Significant efforts have been made in the past few months to restrain and rollback the size of the article. When considering improvement to the article this really needs to be factored in--a change that makes the article somewhat shorter is much preferable to one that makes it longer (referring to both readable text and all the coding that has once again pushed it over the 160 KB mark after some months below). DocKino ( talk) 20:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't know where to begin fixing this, but in the picture in the "Political divisions" section in which clicking on the state takes you to the corresponding article, the southern end of the Delmarva Peninsula leads to the Maryland article, though it should lead to the Virginia article. Hopefully someone with the technical know-how can correct this. faithless (speak) 09:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
"The ranking varies depending on how two territories disputed by China and India are counted and how the total size of the United States is calculated: the CIA World Factbook gives 3,794,083 sq mi (9,826,630 km2),[1] the United Nations Statistics Division gives 3,717,813 sq mi (9,629,091 km2),[18] and the Encyclopedia Britannica gives 3,676,486 sq mi (9,522,055 km2)."
What this says is that China instigated this dispute. It didn't. China's total area have not changed since its founding. People controlling the US page knows that the sole reason is due to the fact that US changed its way of calculating total area, basically by including coastal and territorial waters, when similar waters are not included for China.
I think this should be corrected to reflect the truth, which in this case is in favor of our enemy, China.
The highest and lowest points are available for some states, why not the whole country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.64.138 ( talk) 00:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
A table showing american ethnicities shows 80% white, 15% latino and 12% african, and some others. Either its clearly wrong or its misleading and doesnt explain itself. (Maybe it counts people who are mixed twice). I checked the source and there are no clear conclusions, just raw data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.44.149 ( talk) 16:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
If it uses for "ancestry group" a national definition: German-Americans, Italian-Americans etc....then it cannot use "African Americans" as a nation called Africa doesn´t exist. It should be used Kenyan-Americans, or Xhosa-Americans, or Zulu-Americans, or Tswana-Americans...but NOT "African Americans" or then there should be included also "European Americans" (including white Hispanics)
It is a completely ridiculous definition.-- 88.18.149.134 ( talk) 12:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Uh yeah... Don't think that would work with most AFRICAN AMERICANS since most had ancestors that came to the new world before the existence of most African countries, which were created by European colonial empires. As for tribal affiliations most blacks in the US can't trace their lineage to any tribes short of a genetic test and even then it would be extremely convoluted, due to heavy mixing. So, AFRICAN AMERICAN is the correct term. Akaloc ( talk) 17:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
"One set of exceptions comprises Vermont, Texas, and Hawaii: each was an independent republic before joining the union." should be California Texas and Hawaii see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Republic California was an Independent nation for a brif period of time not vermont The truth maker ( talk) 01:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Only one state seceded before 1861. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.90.98 ( talk) 06:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that the size of countries listed in the United States thread is inacurate. Based on another Wikipedia article, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_outlying_territories_by_area), United States has the 4th largest landmap, behind (in size order) Russia, Canada and China. Based on some another sites ( http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/world_statistics_by_area.htm ; http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/worldguide/guide_largestcountries.html), United States has the third largest landmap, just behing Russia and Canada. My point is that Canada is the second in landmap size in about every article I came upon. This would need to be corrected on the United States thread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.63.111 ( talk) 17:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
In addition to the above; I find it laughable that Wikipedia should be quoting the land size of America in acres; it should be in the metric hectares. The Seventh Echelon ( talk) 01:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello all, I just want to bring up something that has been bugging me for a bit. Every time I change " dissolution of the Soviet Union/USSR" to " dissolution of the Soviet Union", someone reverts it. May I ask in more detail, why? Surely my format is better because it provides links to both topics, as the initial structure doesn't have any immediate wiki-links to the Soviet Union, and users have to type or scroll around a lot to get there. Simply put, my structuring is more convenient, and I'm amazed people keep undoing it.
Also, the BBC always refers to the United States as the US, and I thought that would be worth a mention at the top alongside U.S., but again that keeps getting removed. Is it because both are basically the same? I don't necessarily think so. The whole thing is just getting annoying. I try to throw in a few more words, change links to make them a bit more direct, and it all keeps getting removed. Can someone please clarify what's going on? Thanks - AyrtonProst Sign Here/ Contact 09:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I belive that the USA should also include the Spanish language as they have that in the south(such as Texas). ( TheGreenwalker ( talk) 21:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC))
I mean it should include Spanish language because like you said, 'it is spoken in New Mexico',a USA state, and therefore should be included. Also, if you look at the UK page, it contains small languages, so I believe it will help if it included Spanish language, because around 10-15% of Americans speak it. ( TheGreenwalker ( talk) 23:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC))
I believe the language should be changed to English instead none a federal level since most states' nation language is English and everyone speaks English its just kinda obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstarsbravo ( talk • contribs) 02:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd refer to the above thread. Prussian725 ( talk) 17:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Why wikipeda as a neutral organization redirects America to the United States?
As we all know America is the name of the continent that extends from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego in South America. It would be more acurate to point America to the continent article, which by the way is America and not Americas (plural). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.192.50 ( talk) 23:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as how they are seperated by a canal in the country of Panama. By the way, how've you been EU 100%? Prussian725 ( talk) 17:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
USA is NOT AMERICA DAMN IT. AMERICA IS A CONTINENT, USA A COUNTRY... AMERICANS ARE ALL THOSE WHO LIVE IN THE AMERICAN CONTINENT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.68.147.188 ( talk) 22:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
First, Barak Obama is half-African American or half-black, so it cannot be said he is the "first 'African-American'" to hold the office.
Second, other U.S. presidents have had "African-American" or "black" lineage or ancestry (Jefferson, Harding, Coolidge, Jackson, Lincoln, and Eisenhower). None of these were 100% African-American (or black); so there were other so-called "African-American" presidents before Barak Obama, if one uses the term "African-American" to mean a person with some African-American lineage or ancestry.
The following article needs to be updated with this correction, as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
Sources:
Daniel E. Pearson, "Lincolniana Bibliotheca 1993," http://webpages.charter.net/lincolnbooks/1993Bibliography.html
KCTCS Diversity Programs, "The History of Black History," http://www.kctcs.net/diversityprograms/stolenlegacy.htm
Harding said he could not deny that he had a black ancestor. The "accusation" had come up in the 1920 presidential election.
Sources: Leroy Vaughn, "5 Black Presidents," http://www.geocities.com/cureworks1/5blkpres.htm
Grant Segall, "Magicians' roots reach deep into Ohio," Cleveland Plain Dealer, 2 July 2004, http://www.cleveland.com/ohio/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1088760904294480.xml and discussions on soc.culture.african-american newsgroup —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotdjdave ( talk • contribs) 19:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Hotdjdave ( talk) 20:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it is true that other presidents had claims they had black heritage, but it is not true that a) any of these claims were verified and b) any of these presidents said they had black heritage. So, Obama is, indeed the first president to self-identify himself as having black heritage, and to have that claim readily acknowledged. The links above have a lot of innuendo, for example others, like political rivals, suggesting he had this heritage and reports of Jefferson hunting down his mother's letters etc. But this is not "evidence" at all. Canada Jack ( talk) 20:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Apparently I have to start this discussion again. UVA is not the university/college that should be representing the United States' education system. Please read the previous threads on this. In addition the current image has some major image deficiencies (distortion, tilted, lighting). Yes, a public school should represent US education, but UVA is way too arbitrary. Yes, world heritage site is interesting and notable, but that doesn't mean that ppl know what UVA is. Berkeley is world-renouned and this article really should be geared to be universal, not just made for Americans. The Berkeley image is preferable: it covers much of the campus. The current UVA image isn't ven centered. Rule of thirds is not great for a building. ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 17:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
← My reasons for not using UVA or this image as the representative of US education:
So that's what I have to say; again, it doesn't have to be Berkeley. It just shouldn't be UVA. Also, just so you know, I have no connection to either institutions. ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 04:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Overall, I'm not convinced by these arguments. I still hold that UVA is not a great representation of US higher education and I'm unhappy that US primary and secondary education is not represented here at all (which is why I suggested the Smithsonian, a leading distinctly American educational institution). Don't forget, a typical American student goes through twelve years of schooling before higher education, meaning it makes up a much greater and more distinct part of one's life (if you're spending 12 years in college/graduate school, you are in an extremely small minority). Also, the image used is not of great technical quality for the reasons outlined above and while there are other poor-quality photographs in this article, they will hopefully be removed and replaced soon and should not weigh on this image. I'm putting in for a Request for Comment due to my strong feelings against this image. We'll see what other members of the wiki have to say. Should they not agree with me, I'll drop it. ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 19:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Currently, this image of the Rotunda at the University of Virginia is the sole representation of all US education. Previously it was a landscape view of UC Berkeley and before that, another image of the Rotunda. It is agreed that an image of a US public institution/entity should represent US education, but there is disagreement as to which one (it need not be limited to higher education). Comments on which institution/entity should represent US education would be appreciated. ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 19:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
No, no, no: I'm not making a formal proposition. I'm offering an example of a possible compromise. The entire point of the RfC is for others to weigh in and offer other possible examples, not necessarily vote on "your side" versus "my side". I do think that the Smithsonian Castle could be a good replacement, but I also think others may have better ideas than me. Again, this all comes down to the fact that UVA seems upsettingly arbitrary to represent the whole of US education (upper, lower, what have you).
While you have a point about the other 3 images (White House, Capitol, Supreme Court), you can't really have an article on the United States without those; so the connection is incidental. And referencing the Castle as "an administrative federal building" is not at all a fair representation of the building itself and almost nobody would ever actually call it that; you're very much oversimplifying the issue to make a point.
I placed the US Department of Education seal to the right. Even that would be a better representative of US education. Though I don't suggest it. Maybe the answer is to not have an image because a reasonable image that represents US education in general can't be found. ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 17:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
← I've made it explicitly clear that I think Berkeley was better than UVA. You know, like on an SAT question, you have to pick the "best" answer, when at least another one is "good"? And no, I'm not saying Cal is "best" of all possibilities, but best of the ones brought up (out of 2! - nobody else has offered alternatives!) I said it in my last post: "And find me the quote where I said Berkeley was perfect to represent US education. I just said it was better and much less arbitrary." I still challenge you to do that. That responds to the first paragraph.
I'm still not swayed by an opinionated source from AIA that is over 100 years old. I'm not saying it's worthless, I'm just saying it's lost value in the century since. If you look at UNESCO's site about Monticello/UVA, you'll notice a lack of photos of UVA (two of Monticello!) and you'll notice that it's the entirety of UVA, not just the Rotunda or the Lawn that are given World Heritage Site-status. Maybe a better way to do this photo, then, is to do a quasi-aerial from the opposite end of the Lawn. You don't know it's a quad because you can't see the buildings on the side. That responds to your second paragraph.
I appreciate the cross out. I honestly am not sure where you're coming from on that. And don't forget, this is the Internet. I interpreted the wink as a "gotcha", as if trying to rub something in. That's not my fault; just be more careful with emoticons in the future; I would advise against them during debates like this. This is another example where I originally took it as a "gotcha": "And if only 34.4% have a degree from the apex level of public U.S. education, I'd guess 0.0% have a diploma from a museum. ;)" See what I mean? That responds to your third paragraph.
No, people don't visit museums 180 days a year, but sometimes (and you have to admit this), you remember more from a field trip than the 180 days because they were monotonous; admittedly, that's completely qualitative, but it is the first thing I thought of. And I don't think I should have to respond to your 0% remark because it was so obvious. I mean, come on? But my point still stands with 34.4%! Maybe a primary or secondary school would be good? I don't know; I still don't like the idea of one school representing education. And I'm kind of against one higher-ed school due to the free publicity (even public schools charge a price). UNESCO wasn't brought up until I removed this image the first time; I bet the person that originally put this image in was a UVA alum. I still think, though, that because the Smithsonian has influenced far more people than any one American university ever could, it represents the educational experience better (again, for the reasons stated above). That responds to your fourth paragraph.
If I've said it once, I've said it too many times: Berkeley is better. Its image quality was also better, though I'm still not a fan of the current one compositionally. I give you credit for your efforts in fixing the current image; it indeed looks better (It doesn't cause me to cringe any longer). That said, the building itself is still suffering from a curvature. Look at the stairs, tops of the columns, and base of the pediment and compare to a horizontal line. The centers typically are higher than the ends. It's probably not a physical problem, but a photographic one, and could still be fixed. And again, as I've stated above, the east-coast bias was more of an observation. And on that note, keeping UVA isn't solving the problem that you're now jumping on just because I brought up this new option. It may not be in DC, but it's only 100 miles away (almost exactly). Keeping UVA doesn't help it at all; I think we can agree to just ignore this point for now on, b/c we're just going to use it against each other, causing it to be moot anyway. Me pot, you kettle. That takes care of the fifth paragraph.
An added bonus is that the Smithsonian image is featured, too (and some of our most respected photographers gave high praise to the image ← This is an example of an observation that marginally impacts the overall debate but is interesting to note, much like the east-coast bias). Also, the current Secretary quit as President of Georgia Tech ( home of a top-5 engineering school in the nation in 2009, based on US News) to take the new role; apparently he feels the Smithsonian is notable enough to leave the highest levels of higher ed to run it (←another observation). ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 01:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
My GOD, what did I stumble upon? First verdict: Shush it up. Second verdict: I do agree with many of the points from users DCGeist, DocKino, and Ben Lunsford... Keep Rotunda. Here's my summary of this discussion:
DCGeist made the point that UC-Berkeley is no less "arbitrary" than Virginia. He mentioned that the U.S. Government commissioned a study showing just that. Many sources were subsequently cited showing that U. of Virginia is a top public university by numerous standards. Agree.
DocKino acknowledged both schools are highly regarded and thus concentrated on the photos and the structures in those photos. He said, and I completely agree, that the photo of UVA is excellent and it depicts something of great historical and architectural significance. He also said that the Berkeley pic was mediocre, agreed, and there was nothing in the pic quite so significant. Additionally, he said to use a Smithsonian pic to represent Education would be quite bizarre. Agree.
Ben Lunsford said, well, a lot. I realise that he had only been trying to play defence against the relentless attacks of wadester, but wow. Basically I'll say this: he cited a lot of sources, from a US Government study and US News and World Report magazine showing the university is a top US public; to UNESCO, the AIA, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, and American Heritage, showing the structure and area in the photograph is of great significance both to this nation and to worldwide visitors. Great sources, Ben.
wadester... if you had taken one angle and stuck with it, you may have been more convincing. You just made my head spin with all the different forays, some of them to the brink of ridiculousness. I truly think your time could be spent better elsewhere. That goes for Ben too.
--
An unrelated, but important thought re: UNESCO: perhaps this article should include more US World Heritage Sites? It's really to the brink of ridiculousness that the Statue of Liberty is not pictured in the article. And I would like to see Yellowstone or Yosemite pictured instead of Mormon Row and the Teton Range. Perhaps this is for a different discussion, but UNESCO World Heritage status is a quite major global designation by a quite major global organisation and perhaps that should be a consideration when deciding whether to picture, say, the Teton Range versus nearby Yellowstone. I understand that sometimes there are more scenic photographs available of one thing versus another but I'm thinking most World Heritage Sites would have numerous photographs available for use on Wikipedia.
Now I shall leave this page forever!! Because within about 10 minutes, wadester will respond and I will not get held up on this. These are my thoughts after reading this lengthy diatribe. Now I'm leaving. Do not follow me home. 66.43.69.114 ( talk) 15:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
If we're going to go back to the UVA-Berkeley debate, then so be it; though I still hold that one higher ed institution shouldn't represent US education when only a third of Americans actually get a degree.
Find below a few options I dug up to represent Berkeley (in order of my preference, FYI). And below that, find reasons why I think Berkeley should be the choice (completely new ones from before, so please read on ).
Ranking Group | UCB | UVA |
---|---|---|
US News & World Report [2] (based on 15 indicators of academic excellence... too many to list here) | 21 Public: 1 |
23 Public: 2 |
Princeton Review- USA TODAY [3] (based on tuition [equals out] and academic environs [class size, prof. accessibility, % of TA-led classes]) | Public: -- | Public: 1 |
United States National Research Council rankings [4] (based on only one metric: faculty research publishing) | 2 | 28 |
Kiplinger rankings [5] (based on costs [again equal], SATs, selectivity, retention rates, and student-faculty ratios) | 12 | 3 |
Academic Ranking of World Universities (Shanghai Jiao Tong University study; based again on that singular metric, faculty research publishing) | 3 [6] | 95 [7] |
Top 100 Global Universities (50% of this ranking is the ranking by Shanghai Jiao Tong above; based primarily on the same singular metric, faculty research publishing) [8] | 5 | 80 |
Academic Analytics Top Performing Schools (based on only the same singular metric: faculty research publishing) | 9 | 36 |
Old-metric Forbes ranking [9] (based on Who's Who lists, professor ratings, student debt, % who graduate, and # of Rhodes scholarships) | 73 [10] | 43 [11] |
New-metric Forbes ranking [12] (adds "affordability and productivity" as very large weights to metrics above) | 28 Public: 2 |
22 Public: 1 |
National Bureau of Economic Research ( Harvard- BU- Yale- Stanford study) (based on top destinations of high-achieving students) | 27 Public: 3 [14] |
20 Public: 1 [14] |
Webometrics Ranking of World Universities Another research ranking - based on open access scientific research published online) |
5 | 35 |
Why Berkeley?
Why any of these images?
So this is my overview as to why Berkeley should be the representative image in the Education section of this article. It shows that UVA is indeed more arbitrary than Berkeley, and has a number of sources to prove that. The replacement suggestions are all taken on sunny days with blue skies, making them enjoyable to look at, and feature Sather Tower, the icon of the Berkeley campus. As Linda Richman used to say, "Please, discuss..." ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 15:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Notability | Current: Jefferson's Rotunda (U-Va.) |
Alternative: Sather Tower (center of image, UCB) |
---|---|---|
Constructed | 1819–1825 | 1914–1917 |
Architect | Thomas Jefferson | John Galen Howard |
Global | UNESCO World Heritage Site (1 of only 4 constructed since 1492 in United States) | -- |
United States |
National Historic Landmark (1 of 2,442) National Register of Historic Places (1 of 80,000+) |
National Register of Historic Places (1 of 80,000+) |
Accolades | Survey of
American Institute of Architects deemed it
America's proudest work of past 200 years in 1976. -------------- American Heritage called the Lawn surrounding it America's Greatest Architectural Achievement in 1984. -------------- In 1895, The New York Times called it "the most monumental architectural project that had or has yet been conceived in this century" some seventy years after its construction. |
-- |
Fun Facts | The Marquis de Lafayette and James Madison dined for 3 hours with Thomas Jefferson in the Dome Room of the unfinished Rotunda at the university's inaugural banquet. | Has a 10,500 lb. "Great Bear Bell". |
Wadester16 introduced a pretty cool table into this momentous (10,000 word?) discussion, so allow me to do the same for the actual buildings in each photograph. To me, the choice of an image is also about the notability of the structure actually viewed through a photograph, as well as the notability of where it sits. Wadester never seems to want to follow the discussion here, so I thought I'd bring forth a second table. At the end of the day, the image should be a visually powerful depiction of a significant structure in a significant location. There aren't many structures or locations in public education that are more notable than Thomas Jefferson's Rotunda and Lawn. This was the last great work of a man with a considerable shadow. Ben Lunsford ( talk) 02:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Putting the two images next to each other in your table really notes how dull the Rotunda image is. UCB's is much more vibrant and exciting. Image uses HDR. Like I said, that morning light can be overrated. ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 04:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I'm throwing in the towel here. No reasonable comments will come due to our extensive comments here, which is a shame because UVA still is not the university to represent my nation on WP. I was working to change something, so no overly-productive comments (save for you Ben) reverts to keep. Yea, it has UNESCO and AIA (which I will now add, since I'm no longer arguing, is a group of pompous arses - but my personal opinion from personal experience), but Berkeley has the rankings (I don't buy the whole "best value" and that study has to start with colleges from somewhere), is better known internationally, and is well known for its scientific advances that helped make the US that much more successful in the 20th century (something I would argue UVA lacked greatly compared to UCB). My point still stands, though, that because so few Americans actually get a degree, that a university is not the best choice anyway. The Smithsonian was not the best either, but I felt it was more representative of an American educational experience (the American history, the science and technology, the art and culture, government and civic duty, etc.). There, I said my piece. Enjoy your "win by attrition", and I now pass over the battery from my back. And out of curiosity, if you went to college, which was it? ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 05:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I do like the UVA pic, but the Image #1 below that has the most detail that I've seen out of any of the offered pics. Amazing treatment around the clock tower! 207.216.182.222 ( talk) 07:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)kmon
Oops! I meant the UCB image,(Alternative #1), directly above the UVA! Alternative #4 is also good but not enough detail is visible. 207.216.182.222 ( talk)krmon —Preceding undated comment added 07:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC).