Talk:United States

This article is a candidate to be a U.S. Collaboration of the Month

Vote or comment on the nomination here!

An event mentioned in this article is a July 4 selected anniversary

---

Archives
Chronological Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8
Archive 9	Archive 10
Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14
Archive 15	Archive 16 - 2006: May & June
Archive 17
Topical Archives
Name	Introduction
Human Rights	Culture

DO NOT ARCHIVE THE FOLLOWING PASSAGE

A detailed explanation for some of the information provided in this article can be found at Talk:United States/Frequently asked questions. A topical archive of discussions on the article's introductory paragraphs can be found at Talk:United States/Introduction.

NATO

"Foreign relations and military - even if most of Turkey is in Asia, Turkey is still also in Europe, which means Turkey is in Europe (in addition to Asia), which makes it right to say ALL." (edit summary by User:Preslethe)

Can anyone supply a cite for Turkey being 'in Europe'? It seems to be nonsensical but I'll wait before reverting. --Guinnog 19:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure.

•Quotes from Wikipedia's article on Turkey:

• "a Eurasian country" (first paragraph)

• "located in the Balkan region of Southeastern Europe" (first paragraph)

• "member of [...] the Council of Europe" (second paragraph)

• "straddling Europe and Asia" (second paragraph)

• "intersection of Asia and Europe" (first paragraph of History section)

• "located in Europe" (first paragraph of Geography section)

• "Many geographers consider Turkey politically in Europe" (first paragraph of Geography section)

• "a transcontinental country between Asia and Europe" (first paragraph of Geography section)

• "Turkey forms a bridge between Europe and Asia" (third paragraph of Geography section)

• It's been trying for years to join the European Union.

• Edit summary that said "Turkey mostly in Asia!", not "completely".

I'm sure there are plenty of other sources, too.

Not entirely in Europe, sure. But also not entirely not in Europe.

So the question is "Is Turkey a country in Europe?" The answer is Yes. The second question is "Is there any NATO country that is not in Europe or North America?" The answer is No.

President Lethe 19:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Some non-Wikipedia sources:

• Turkey's embassy to the U.S.: First paragraph of "Geographical Profile" says "The lands of Turkey are located at a point where Asia, Africa and Europe are closest to each other, and straddle the point where Europe and Asia meet." First sentence under "Area" ends in "in Europe."

• Infoplease: First sentence includes "in southeast Europe"

• CIA World Factbook: First point: "In 1964, Turkey became an associate member of the European Community". First two words of "Location" subsection of "Geography" section: "Southeastern Europe"

• 2001 Standard Edition CD-ROM of World Book Encyclopedia: First sentence of Turkey article: "Turkey is a Middle Eastern nation that lies both in Europe and in Asia."

• Encarta: First sentence ends in "a nation in western Asia and southeastern Europe".

President Lethe 19:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I see what you mean. Still seems inaccurate to me, as most of Turkey does still lie in Asia, but I'll try and come up with a compromise we can both live with. --Guinnog 19:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say that all of Turkey is in Europe or North America. It says that all the countries are. This means every country has part of its land in Europe or North America. I do understand that there's a chance that someone could read it as "all the land of every NATO country is in Europe or North America". But, if we start going down this "Turkey is also in Asia" path, then why not the "Hawaii isn't in North America" path, too? President Lethe 19:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I think I'll leave that to you! No, I get your point and know these things are pretty arbitrary when it comes down to it. You in turn should be aware that stating or implying that Turkey is a European country (we can agree that it isn't part of North America!) is controversial; Turkish accession to the EU is a very contentious topic for example. Historically, Turkey had an empire that included large parts of Balkan Europe; nowadays they are left with a mere vestige and are largely seen either as Near-East, Asian, or (as some of your refs put it) a special case bridging Europe and Asia. See if you can think of a tweak that will eliminate the contentious ambiguity; I will too. --Guinnog 19:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean about Turkey (though I still stand by my idea about this sentence). When I ask myself "What is Turkey? Where is it? What about its culture and history?", it's a blurry mixture of Europe and the Middle East and Asia.

Still, I'll mull this over today. (Should pull away from Wikipedia for now, though. There are Father's Day things to do.)

"In its effort to contain communism during the Cold War, the U.S. founded NATO, which compels the country to defend, against foreign invasion, any NATO state, all of which are in North America and Europe."

That's the original. Maybe we should have something like

"In 1949, in their effort to contain communism during the Cold War, the U.S., Canada, and ten Western European nations formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a mutual-defense alliance in which they have since been joined by 14 other European states—including Turkey, which straddles the Eurasian border, and some former Soviet states."

It's not hugely longer; but it gives the founding year, makes clear the inclusion of Canada and exclusion of Mexico, points out the 'Westernness' of the founding European states, allows an almost accurate count of the present total number (it doesn't mention the French and Greek withdrawals), gives the full name (generally, it's better not to use an abbreviation at the first mention of something), mentions the Turkish stretch into Asia, and points out that even countries originally considered the enemies of NATO have now joined it.

Back later. President Lethe 20:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Americas terminology footnote

Currently at the beginning of the introduction, the "Americas" abbreviation has with it a note pointing to Americas (terminology). This page is merely a list of regions in the Western Hemisphere and places whose names include "America". Whereas the relevant section in this article, found right below the introduction actually explains the terminology, this footnote simply leads the reader to somewhere else inexplicably, when the reason why the note might be reasonable is in fact satisfied right below. This note should be removed. —Centrx→talk 06:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Forcing a Balance

In several places, the combined editors seem to force a politically-correct balance, almost an apology for US history. The examples cited below are unique to American history and can't be found in articles about the UK, Japan, China, Mexico or Canada. It's not that such notations and asides are incorrect, they smack of forced-comparison, an exaggeration of mistakes and a watering-down of accomplishments (moon landing, winning the Cold War, sending troops to Europe and Pacific region in 1917 and 1942, etc.). It's a unique, so-what attitude found only in this piece and absent from other countries:

Sprinkling of Native Americans (the Mexico article calls pre-Columbian "humans" and "inhabitants" and Canada says "First Peoples")

The Sole Superpower link quickly mentions China and India

The only outcome of WWII was to "pull the economy out of depression", without mention of whether or not US assistance helped win the War.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq has is quickly followed by "...an anti-war movement that has grown over time"

The event "the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991" is downplayed. No mention of Reagan or that no shots were fired.

The last sentence under "Government and politics" has as much text on the Republican and Democratic parties as the Green an Reform parties.

The sport "soccer" must be parenthetically called "football" and how it's not popular here as it is in other countries.

The point is, like the US itself, this article's an easy target for non-American agendas. Perhaps it comes with the territory? I'm going to a small NPOV edit to test my hypothesis. Details to follow. --Robertkeller 17:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Robertkeller.

On "Native Americans", see other parts of this Talk page. (I happened to write something here on the same issue just several hours ago.)

If you have a problem with the superpower article, change that article. The introduction to this article doesn't mention China and India; it says the U.S. is the sole superpower (end of story).

I fully support mentioning that the U.S. played a huge role in the outcome of WWII.

I sympathize with you about forcing of balance. I'm also glad that you say that it's not that the things are incorrect. But, really, how does saying that there's sentiment against the Iraq war dilute the presentation of the fact that the war happened and is happening? If we say a criminal was executed, how is it dilution to say that some opposed the execution? I think a much better example of dilution would be something like "The criminal was executed—but not really ... they just sort of didn't rescue him when they saw him cutting his wrists" (which, of course, would be absurd and indeed a twisting of the facts).

If you're talking about the fall of the Soviet Union in the opening of the article, the reason for the absence of more detail is that it's the opening of the article. No mention of Reagan—but also no mention of any other president (Washington, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, &c.). There's a link to the Cold War's own article.

There are links to the political parties' articles. Think of this mention of the parties as a bit like state representation in the Senate: the most prominent players all get a mention, regardless of their prominence relative to one another. If we're going to mention the notable increase in 'non-Democrat, non-Republican' persons and parties, and give example parties, then we have to name some examples. (Truism.)

I think it would be fine to take out the "football" parenthesis next to "soccer": any reader who doesn't know what "soccer" means can click on the link and instantly find out. Not mentioning that it's less popular in the U.S. than elsewhere in the world could easily lead the uninformed reader to think (1) that it's as popular in the U.S. as, say, baseball is, and (2) that it's as popular in the U.S. as it is elsewhere.

President Lethe 18:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

To an extent, I agree that this article has fallen victim to an anti-American agenda at times, I think it's mostly the obnoxious apologetic anti-American agenda of much of the American left. On Native Americans, however, in Canada they are called "First Nations" and in the US, we generally refer to them as Native Americans. I think that's just a matter of custom from country to country. MikeNM 22:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Except that, as I wrote above, the U.S. Census, which certainly has been making strides in inclusiveness, does say "American Indian"—and most members of the tribes in the U.S., except when talking about a specific tribe by name, actually use "Indian" more than they use "Amerindian", "American Indian", or "Native American". (This is similar to the fact that the plurality of black Americans call themselves "black", rather than "Negro", "colored", "Afro-American", or "African-American".) — President Lethe 23:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Photos in Geography section

It just occurred to me that we're back to relative monotony in the illustrations. We have (1) western mountains with blue sky and a foreground of vegetation and (2) western mountains with blue sky and a foreground of vegetation and water. See this in the talk archive. President Lethe 01:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the rest of the article, we have Time Square, a Pennsylvania farm, a North Carolina church, the University of Virginia, the capitol, a farm (in South Dakota) form the Great Drepression, Ellis Island (1902), Iwo Jima (how'd that happen?), the Battle of Gettysburg, ..., and several maps. Looks like the plains and the west are under-represented. Jaxad0127 01:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article has nice illustrations. But Times Square isn't the landscape; a farm is a farm on the landscape (or what man has done to the landscape); a church isn't the landscape; the U. of Va. isn't the landscape; the Capitol isn't the landscape; the Dakota farm is an abandoned farm in the middle of a landscape that doesn't look that way today; Iwo Jima isn't the U.S. landscape (neither is the Moon); and a painting crowded by soldiers and smoke isn't the landscape.

It just dawned on me that maybe you overlooked the name of the section that I started with this post: "Photos in Geography section".

I stand by what I said in April: "What about deserts, glaciers, prairies, old mountains topped with trees, new mountains topped with snow, tropical beaches, rocky coasts, volcanic islands, Pacific northwest rain forest, &c.? I'm not saying that there is no variety in the present pictures, or that the pictures should show all the features I just mentioned; but we can do better."

Maybe we could have some two- or more-image collages, kind of like this.

President Lethe 02:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, it isn;t fair to show just two Western mountains in the geography section, but the rest of the article isn't fair either. Nearly everything in the entire article from the east coast. Jaxad0127 02:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you're grasping the point. This isn't anti-Westernness, and it's not about 'fairness': this is pro-variety-ness. We used to have more variety; I'm sure others will agree to restoring it. And the existence of shortcomings in one part of life is never, on its own, a justification for not trying to eliminate shortcomings in another part of life. President Lethe 04:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, pictures of U.S. glaciers wouldn't be representing the East coast; and the East coast wouldn't necessarily be represented by pictures of tropical beaches, rocky coasts, volcanic islands, deserts, prairies, or rain forest, either. In fact, several of those things would necessarily be represented by photos showing western areas of the country—as far west as Alaska and Hawaii, even. (Seems I wrote this while you were posting a reply. I wrote this paragraph after your note immediately below was posted, but before I'd read it.) President Lethe 04:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to interject a bit, but what you're saying needs to be applied to the rest of the article as well. Just looking at the images, it looks like all the habitation and history is in the east, the desolation in the plains, the mountains in the west, and the military on the Moon and Iwo Jima. Jaxad0127 04:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, thats what I'm saying as well. I agree that the geography section is too heavy on picturesque mountains, but the rest of the article needs work aswell. Jaxad0127 04:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Righty. Then let's get to work—or convince others to. President Lethe 04:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

How about spreading the geography pictures throughout the article? Jaxad0127 04:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry I was misunderstanding you earlier. While I was thinking that you weren't getting my point, I wasn't getting your point. You're right that we should strive for even more variety in the illustrations throughout the article, and that perhaps a photo in one section could simultaneously illustrate several different points (history, culture, geography, &c.).

Anyway, I had an idea. I got out the "U–V" volume of the 1983 edition of the World Book Encyclopedia and looked up the United States. Now, yes, the World Book article is longer than, it seems, people want this Wikipedia article to be—and so we probably wouldn't use as many photos as World Book does. And, yes, this book is 23 years old. Still, maybe we can get some good ideas. I'll just transcribe the captions from (or otherwise describe) the photos in the article, in order:

• The article starts with a group of three photos. The first one includes the WTC towers. The caption: "The United States is a land of great beauty and natural wealth. Its many famous and interesting sights include the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor, above left; quaint cable cars on hilly San Francisco streets, top right; and areas of rich farmland in the fertile Midwest, bottom right."

• Also near the introduction, a bison grazing in front of mountains that have grass, trees, and melting snow: "Breathtaking Scenery makes Yellowstone National Park one of America's favorite vacationlands. The park, located chiefly in Wyoming, is home to buffaloes and other wild animals."

• In a section called "The Nation", three photos:

• "Giant Cactuses in Arizona are symbols of the 'wide open spaces' of the Southwest. A warm, dry climate has made the Southwest one of the nation's fastest-growing areas."

• "A Snow-Covered Village nestles among low hills in Vermont. Such tiny, picturesque settlements are common in much of the far Northeastern part of the United States."

• An exterior shot: "A Southern Mansion in Alabama dates from 1853. Originally a private home, it is now a government-owned museum and a reminder of the life style and architecture of the pre–Civil War South."

• In a section called "Way of Life":

• "Urban and Rural Life in the United States constrast sharply. Motor vehicles move slowly along a street lined by big buildings in downtown San Antonio, above left. At a county fair, right, farm people show their sheep in a livestock competition."

• An aerial shot: "Sprawling Suburbs surround many American cities. Rows of comfortable houses line the streets of most of them. Highways connect the suburbs with their central cities, where large numbers of suburban dwellers work."

• "Central Cities of most U.S. urban areas have neighborhoods where most people belong to the same racial or ethnic group. In New York City's Harlem area, above left, most people are blacks. A Chicago neighborhood, right has many Spanish-speaking people and some signs in Spanish."

• "The Educational System of the United States includes many learning opportunities outside formal classrooms. An adult education class, above left, offers woodworking lessons. At a museum, right, people study exhibits dealing with space travel."

• "Religion plays an important role in the lives of millions of Americans. The country's churches provide people with moral guidance and places for worship. Many churches are also centers for social gatherings, such as the church picnic shown at the left."

• "Recreational Activities provide the people of the United States with leisure-time enjoyment. Baseball fans thrill to the excitement of the duel between a major-league pitcher and batter, above left. A large group of runners compete—and get exercise—in a marathon race, right."

• In a section called "The Arts":

• "Early Painting and Sculpture emphasized American themes. Most colonial painters concentrated on portraits. John Singleton Copley painted a famous portrait of soldier and politician Thomas Mifflin and his wife, above. The portrait shows Copley's ability to capture the human character of colonial leaders. In the 1800's and early 1900's, many painters turned to the West for subjects. Charles Marion Russell's The Bolter, pictured at the upper right, is typical of this artist's scenes of cowboy life. For generations, the Hopi Indians of Arizona have carved wooden figures called Kachina dolls, right. The Hopi used the statues in religious ceremonies."

• "Modern Painting and Sculpture have produced both abstract and realistic styles. Jackson Pollock gained fame for such paintings as Number 13, 1949, shown above. These paintings consist of rhythmic patterns dribbled onto the painting surface. George Segal placed plaster figures among actual subjects, as in The Butcher Shop, shown at the right.

• "Architecture in the United States developed the skyscraper as one of the most characteristic types of modern building. The Sears Tower, lower left, dominates the Chicago skyline. Frank Lloyd Wright ranks as America's most important architect. Wright's Falling Water house, lower right, shows his ability to blend a structure with its natural setting."

• "Popular Music has taken many forms in the United States. Jazz relies on spontaneous playing by musicians. Trumpeter Louis Armstrong, standing in the center of the group shown at the upper left, was the first great jazz soloist. Country music, left, began as the folk music of Southern whites but soon gained widespread acceptance. Singer Elvis Presley, above, helped make rock music the country's leading type of popular music in the mid- and late 1900's." The country illustration shows older people playing a banjo, guitars, and drums at the Grand Ole Opry. The photo of Elvis shows his '70s style.

• "Motion Pictures have been one of the most popular and influential art forms in the United States since the early 1900's. The animated films of Walt Disney, such as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, shown at the left, have charmed moviegoers throughout the world. Woody Allen became a leading actor, director, and writer with the success of Annie Hall, shown at the right, and other comedies."

• "Dancing in the United States often explores American subjects. The famous dancer and dance composer Martha Graham created Appalachian Spring, shown above, a ballet that celebrates the courage and dignity of American pioneers during the early 1800's."

• "Theater has produced many masterpieces of serious drama and musical comedy. Arthur Miller's drama Death of a Salesman, shown at the left, deals with a salesman who discovers that his search for success has brought him only disappointment and failure. Frank Loesser wrote the music and words for Guys and Dolls, shown at the right, a musical about colorful characters who live in New York City."

• In a section called "The Land":

• "Rolling Hills dotted by farm buildings stretch across the Appalachian Highlands, which extend from Maine to Alabama. The scene shown above is in West Virginia."

• "A Swamp that includes bald cypress trees lies in Florida's Everglades National Park in the southernmost part of the Coastal Lowlands. The Coastal Lowlands extend from New England to Texas."

• An aerial shot: "Fields of Wheat grown near a rural Montana community on the Interior Plains. The plains, America's vast heartland, stretch from the Appalachian Highlands to the Rocky Mountains."

• "Rugged Hills border a valley in northwestern Arkansas, which is part of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands. The region also includes parts of Missouri and Oklahoma."

• "The Rocky Mountains, west of the Interior Plains, soar to heights of more than 14,000 feet (4,270 meters) above sea level. The majestic scene above is in Colorado."

• "Desert Areas cover much of the Western Plateaus, Basins, and Ranges land region, west of the Rockies. The land shown above is in the Nevada portion of the Great Basin, a part of the land region."

• "The Pacific Coast forms the western border of the Pacific Ranges and Lowlands region, which extends from Canada to Mexico. Rugged rock formations line parts of the coast, including the California area shown at the left."

• In a section called "Climate":

• "Death Valley, California, the country's driest place, receives less than 2 inches (5 centimeters) of precipitation yearly. It recorded the highest U.S. temperature ever, 134° F. (57° C)."

• "Waimea Canyon, Hawaii, was formed by water flowing from Mount Waialeale. The mountain, the wettest place in the U.s., receives about 460 inches (1,170 centimeters) of precipitation a year."

• "Prospect Creek, Alaska, recorded the lowest U.S. temperature ever, –79.8° F. (–62.1° C). The nearby town of Barrow has the country's lowest annual temperature, 9° F. (–13° C).

• In a section called "Economy":

• "America's Economy produces a greater value of agricultural, manufactured, and mined products than any other country. A huge warehouse, left, stores grain before it is shipped to distant markets. Barges, railroad cars, trucks, and other transportation facilities are used to transport products."

• "Forests are one of the many natural resources that contribute to the U.S. economy. Logs from forests are used for lumber and in making other valuable products."

• "Manufacturing ranks as the single most important economic activity in the United States. The steps in the manufacture of an airplane include building a full-sized model, above."

• "Agriculture includes the raising of both crops and livestock. A mechanized system for fattening cattle for market, above, is one example of the efficient methods used by American farmers."

• "Mining provides vital raw materials for American industry. For example, a strip mine, left, yields coal. Coal, in turn, is used to fuel electric power plants to make steel for many manufactured products."

• "The Construction Industry provides jobs for many Americans. Construction workers help put up a high-rise building in the center of a city, above."

• "Service Industries are those economic activities that provide services rather than products. Data processing, above, is one of the many service industries. Others include government services and the operation of hotels and restaurants."

• "A Network of Highways crisscrosses the United States. Highways form a key part of the nation's excellent transportation system. The construction and repair of highways provides jobs for people through the country."

There are also 10 maps, showing the United States' location on the globe, its political divisions (along with National Parks, railroads, and major highways), its divisions into regions, its population density and centers of population, the shift of its geographic center over time, its terrain, its average January temperatures, its average July temperatures, its average yearly precipitation, and the use of its land. And there are several tables, charts, and graphs.

I won't take the time to write about the illustrations in the separate articles on U.S. Government and U.S. History. Also, obviously, some things that the World Book puts entirely within the U.S. article are things that Wikipedia has separate articles for. Still, as I said, this might give us some ideas for illustrations.

President Lethe 18:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Good place to start. Most of those would be best in their separate articles. Are collages acceptable? Jaxad0127 20:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"Maybe we could have some two- or more-image collages, kind of like this." :-) President Lethe 20:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We'd be able to fit more images in with them. Jaxad0127 21:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Motto sources, PLEASE.

Centrx, I see that you removed my additional words in the info box, the ones saying that E Pluribus Unum is/was the de facto motto and that In God We Trust is the official motto.

I am not necessarily saying you were wrong to do this—but can you, or someone, please, show me a source that says the motto of the United States ever was officially E Pluribus Unum? What law or act says it?

I am not denying that this is possible. It's just that—although I have seen the legal stuff creating the Great Seal of the United States in the 18th century, and making In God We Trust the official motto of the United States in 1956—I have never found a reputable source saying that E Pluribus Unum was an official motto of the United States and saying what part of the government decided this on what date.

The only official status I've ever seen for E Pluribus Unum is that it is what officially appears on the Great Seal of the United States. In other words: it's the official motto of the seal; it's not the official motto of the country itself.

I've brought this up repeatedly at the Talk page, and don't remember ever seeing a refuting reply.

As I understand it, in the 18th century, they came up with a motto to put on a seal (not a motto for the country itself)—and, over time, people eventually adopted this motto (E Pluribus Unum) as a de facto motto for the country itself—and, then, in 1956, Congress made an offical motto for the country (In God We Trust).

Please, anyone with sources of different information, bring them forward. This isn't sarcasm or rhetoric; it's just that I would like to get this clarified, because I so far have never seen a reputable source saying that the government ever, ever said something to the effect of "The official motto of the United States itself is E Pluribus Unum". Thanks to anyone who can help.

President Lethe 01:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that sounds about right. I'm editing the motto section to say that E Pluribus Unum is the de facto motto and In God We Trust is the de jure motto. R'son-W 20:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That part of the box has been edited at least twice since I posted here.

First of all, whatever we determine the facts to be, there is, I believe, no great reason not to influde a few small words in the box to make it even clearer. Those words could be de facto, on the one hand, and official or de jure on the other. I think by law is silly; it may be a translation of de jure. But nobody asks "What is the by-law language of country x?" The question is "What is the official language of country x?" In fact, the word by-law, close in spelling to the phrase by law, already exists, with quite a different meaning.

Second, I intend to gather and quote from some sources. We'll then have to judge which one is, or ones are, right, if that's possible.

• The "United States" article of the 1983 The World Book Encyclopedia says, without citing a source,

Motto: In God We Trust, adopted July 30, 1956.

• The "e pluribus unum" entry of the 1983 The World Book Dictionary says, without citing a source,

It is the motto inscribed on the official seal of the United States. It was once the official motto of the United States, but since 1956 the official motto has been "In God We Trust."

• The "In God We Trust" entry of the 1983 The World Book Dictionary says, without citing a source,

the official motto of the United States since 1956.

• The "e pluribus unum" entry of the 1969 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language says, without citing a source,

The motto of the United States.

• http://www.answers.com/topic/e-pluribus-unum, seemingly quoting Houghton Mifflin Company, says

E pluribus unum was adopted as a national motto in 1776 and is now found on the Great Seal of the United States and on United States currency.

• http://www.answers.com/topic/e-pluribus-unum, seemingly quoting Answers.com, says

motto of the United states, found on coins

• http://www.answers.com/topic/e-pluribus-unum, seemingly quoting Columbia University press, says

motto on the Great Seal of the United States and on many U.S. coins. Although selected in 1776 by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson for the Continental Congress, it was not officially adopted as a national motto until six years later.

• http://www.greatseal.com/ says that the design of the Great Seal of the United States began in 1776 and was finalized in 1782. As far as I've been able to tell, it says nothing about e pluribus unum as a motto of the United States. It includes a transcript of the original paperwork.

• Wikipedia's own E pluribus unum article, says

E pluribus unum was the first national motto of the United States of America.

It also says

The motto was selected by the first Great Seal committee in 1776, at the beginning of the American Revolution.

And it says

In 1956, "In God We Trust" replaced E pluribus unum as the national motto according to United States Code, Title 36, Section 302. President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the resolution into law on 30 July 1956.

After that last quote comes a citation link to http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_mott.htm.

• http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_mott.htm says that e pluribus unum was "the original motto of the United States". But, although it describes the process of designing the Great Seal of the United States, it fails to give any clear evidence that e pluribus unum was selected as a motto of the United States itself.

• http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/faq/index.htm, a page at the website of the U.S. Department of State, mentions e pluribus unum in describing the Great Seal of the United States, but not as an official motto for the country itself. This page seems to be the only relevant of the four results of using the website's search feature to find, in quotation marks, "e pluribus unum".

• The State Department page directs the reader to a pamphlet at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/27807.pdf. This 18-page pamphlet, an official publication of the United States government, mentions e pluribus unum and other mottoes many times, but never once says that e pluribus unum was anything more than a motto on (1) the title page of the London Gentlemen's Magazine and (2) the Great Seal of the United States.

• The "E Pluribus Unum" article on the 2001 Standard Edition CD-ROM of The World Book Encyclopedia says, without citing a source,

is the Latin motto on the face of the Great Seal of the United States (see GREAT SEAL OF THE UNITED STATES).

It also says

Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, members of the first committee for the selection of the seal, suggested the motto in 1776.

And it says

Since 1873, the law requires that this motto appear on one side of every United States coin that is minted.

• The "Great Seal of the United States" article on the 2001 Standard Edition CD-ROM of The World Book Encyclopedia says, without citing a source,

In its beak is a scroll inscribed E pluribus unum, or One (nation) out of many (states). Above its head is the 13-star "new constellation" of the 1777 flag, enclosed in a glory, or golden radiance, breaking through a cloud. See E PLURIBUS UNUM.

• The "National Motto, United States" article on the 2001 Standard Edition CD-ROM of The World Book Encyclopedia says, in its entirety, without citing a source,

National Motto, United States, is In God We Trust. Congress made this phrase the official motto of the United States in 1956. It has appeared on coins since 1864, and probably originated from verse 4 of "The Star-Spangled Banner": "And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'" See also E PLURIBUS UNUM.

• The "United States" article on the 2001 Standard Edition CD-ROM of The World Book Encyclopedia says, without citing a source,

Motto: In God We Trust, adopted on July 30, 1956.

• A picture caption on the 2001 Standard CD-ROM of Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia says, without citing a source,

E pluribus unum is the United States motto, appearing on the nation's coins and paper money, and on many of its public monuments.

The same sentence appears as the opening of a section of the "United States (Overview)" article, without a cited source; that section is called "E Pluribus Unum: The American Experience".

• The same Encarta’s article on the Great Seal of the United States also mentions e pluribus unum, but says nothing about it as a motto of the country itself; no source is cited.

• The same Encarta’s article called "In God We Trust" says, in its entirety, without citing a source,

In God We Trust, national motto of the United States. The phrase derives from the line "And this be our motto, 'In God is our trust,'" in the battle song that later became the U.S. national anthem, "The Star-Spangled Banner." The phrase first appeared on U.S. coins in 1864 and became obligatory on all U.S. currency in 1955. In 1956 it was made the national motto by act of Congress.

Interestingly, I don't find Encarta listing "In God We Trust" as a motto of the U.S. unless I specifically look up "In God We Trust". If you're just reading through an article on, say, the United States, the only motto it mentions is E pluribus unum, which it declares the motto of the U.S. Such an omission makes me suspicious.

I'd like to quote more resources; but almost all of my books are inaccessible at the moment.

So, we have

• some webpages (including one at Wikipedia) saying various things, some of which don't cite their sources, and some of which misrepresent their sources

• some reference works saying various things and not citing sources

• a government pamphlet repeatedly mentioning e pluribus unum but failing ever to call it a motto of the U.S.

• a government action from 1782 specifically mentioning e pluribus unum but failing ever to call it a motto of the U.S.

• a law passed in 1956 that explicitly says what the motto of the U.S. is (and it doesn't say e pluribus unum)

• and the Great Seal of the United States—the Seal itself—, which continues (half a century after the 1956 law) to read E PLURIBUS UNUM, which could be taken as evidence that the Seal motto is independent of the national motto.

When we disregard the various contradictory, and often citationless, sources in reference works and at private websites, and stick to actions of the government, we get (or at least this is what we get in my research so far)

• E pluribus unum as the Seal motto, proposed in 1776 and confirmed in 1782

• In God We Trust as the national motto since 1956

And, of course, as we know, many persons and groups have adopted e pluribus unum as a de facto U.S. motto in the 18th–21st centuries.

So, yet again, I say that the infobox should describe E Pluribus Unum as a de facto motto since whenever and on into the present, and In God We Trust as the official motto since 1956. The term de facto should appear; and the term de jure or official (but not by law) should appear.

President Lethe 00:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've already edited the article. I also removed the meaning of e pluribus unum since theres alreaday a link to it's article. I also added a note directing would-be editors to the talk page. Jaxad0127 01:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how good our sources are for the de facto motto, but there only one official national motto, "In God We Trust", per U.S. Code. [1]. -Will Beback 02:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As a historical reference to the previous motto, see the 1911 EB. -Will Beback 02:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I just checked the United States Code and Code of Federal Regulations online at GPOAccess (www.gpoaccess.gov). "In God We Trust" isn't mentioned at all in the CFR, and the only mention of "E Pluribus Unum" is in the description of the seal of the NTSB. As for the USC, 36 U.S.C. § 302 has only one line, as follows: "In God we trust" is the national motto. There is one mention of "E Pluribus Unum" at 31 U.S.C. § 5112, which simply describes the design of coins and specifies that "E Pluribus Unum" should be on the reverse side of each U.S. coin. There is only one mention of the Great Seal of the United States in the U.S.C., at 18 U.S.C. § 713, which makes it a crime to knowingly use the Great Seal without proper authorization for a variety of purposes.

So the point is that "In God We Trust" is the official national motto under federal law, and E Pluribus Unum just happens to appear on the coins and the seal. I hope this resolves the debate. --Coolcaesar 02:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for the research help.

• Coolcaesar, I, too, hope it solves things; your conclusion is the same one I've occasionally been trying to convince people of for months here. :-)

• Jaxad0127, thanks for changing the article. Good point about link as translator of Latin.

• Will Beback, the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica seems to fit with what we're saying here: (1) it doesn't say E pluribus unum is the official national motto; and (2), though it does describe it as a national motto, this description makes sense in that it was decades before In God We Trust became the official national motto and was at a time when the de facto national motto was the Seal’s official motto.

I do have one concern, though. "De facto" and "official" can sometimes be opposites—kind of like "Official is what's on the books, but de facto is what everyone actually uses/does/says". In the infobox, some readers might get an impression like "IGWT is on the books, but everyone just uses EPU"—which, of course, is not quite true, because both mottos are used today, in 2006, by various groups at various times, even though only IGWT is the official national one.

Does anyone have any ideas about avoiding this? I thought of maybe making the the parenthesis for IGWT say "de facto and official". Thoughts?

President Lethe 03:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts on all this are two fold: One, "In God We Trust" is by law the "official motto" so it should include "official" and "E Pluribus Unum" is the "historic" motto. Just put "historic" as a disclaimer and "official" with "In God We Trust". We can't put an end date on "E Pluribus Unum" as that never ended as a national motto, it just never was an official motto. Thus one is historic the other official - both national. Just my two cents - hope it helps. --Northmeister 07:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds alright to me. Will change article. The thing about no end date on EPU is what I meant by "since whenever and on into the present". :-) — President Lethe 15:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I should think that if "E pluribus unum" was considered the national motto and was put on the U.S. currency, the only reason it wasn't voted as the "official motto" in Congress is that the legislators at the time were not so silly. The problem with "de facto" specifically was that the status of "E pluribus unum" would have changed at a point in the time interval given. The problem with both, as I can see, is that "de facto" and "de jure" are more used in terms of property or sovereignty over lands and unless specified otherwise can imply contradiction. —Centrx→talk • 05:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the term "historic" is appropriate. "Historic" would imply that EPU is no longer used. Everyone I know assumes that EPU is our motto, and doesn't know that IGWT is the real motto. That's why I suggested "de facto" for EPU. Although "traditional" would work well, too. R'son-W 10:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I see the possible problems with "historic". I also see them for "traditional"—as if there is no tradition of using "In God We Trust", when, in fact, it's been traditionally on coins for more than a century.

Perhaps we should just say something like

Motto

• E Pluribus Unum

• In God We Trust (official, 1956–present)

Thoughts?

President Lethe 17:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Religiousness compared

Part of the article says

The country is also noteworthy for its relatively high level of religiosity among developed nations. About 46 percent of American adults say that they attend religious services at least once a week, compared with 14 percent of adults in Great Britain, 8 percent in France, and 7 percent in Sweden. Moreover, 58 percent of Americans say they often think about the meaning and purpose of life, compared with 25 percent of the British, 26 percent of the Japanese, and 31 percent of West Germans.

I understand that this may originate in the cited souce—but why the U.K., France, and Sweden? And why the U.K., Japan, and West Germany (only part of a country since 1990).

Forgetting, for the moment, the matter of possibly large differences in the polling techniques in various countries, I have a proposal: Can't we make a comparison to the average of the rest of such countries, choosing a specific group (such as G8, or the E.U., or everything on one side of a certain line in Europe—plus Australia and New Zealand and possibly Japan and South Africa)?

There are way more Western countries than just France, part of Germany, Japan, Sweden, and the U.K. Add up those four and a fraction countries' populations and what portion of the total Western population (minus the U.S. population) do you get?

It just seems a highly selective use of statistics.

I know some may object to counting Russia or some of the Eastern European members of the E.U. as Western. But we must be able to come up with something better than France, part of Germany, Japan, Sweden, and the U.K.

I know there's dispute about what countries fit in the categories Western, democratic, modern, developed, first world, free, industrialized, &c., and how those categories overlap. But, because we might get much different results moving from Italy or Spain or Ireland to Finland, I think we should have some kind of average.

Counting most, if not all, of the countries, from the groups I suggested above gives Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany (the whole thing), Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the U.K. (separate statistics for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales?), the U.S., and the Vatican.

I know some of those are very small states and some are in Eastern Europe. But what makes France, part of Germany, Sweden, and the U.K. special?

Also, until I changed it several minutes ago, it said "church" instead of "religious services". Is this accurate or not? Some restrict "church" to Christianity, while others use it to mean other religions' gatherings, too.

President Lethe 16:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Good points. Can someone find more stats on this? Jaxad0127 17:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

(second) largest Christian-majority nation in the world

The United States is the second largest Christian-majority nation in the world (behind Brazil at 89%) [...]

I've never liked the ambiguity of this sentence, regardless of whether it says first or second and mentions Brazil or not. Does it mean "no other country has MORE PERSONS who call themselves Christian" or "no other country has A BIGGER PORTION OF ITS POPULATION calling themselves Christian"?

89% of Brazil's 186,405,000 persons would be 165,900,450.

78% of the United States' 298,217,215 persons would be 232,609,428—which is 40% more persons than the Christians in Brazil.

If 74% of Austrians are Roman Catholic, and another 5% are Protestant, and you throw in 180,000 Eastern Orthodox Christians (in a country of 8 million), you get at least 79% of the population being Christian—higher than the 78% figure for the U.S.

What about Italy, which is about 90% Roman Catholic? Add some Protestants, who are also Christians.

Plenty of countries have larger PORTIONS of their populations claiming Christianity than the U.S. has.

The point is that no country has more ACTUAL PERSONS who claim Christianity. The REAL NUMBER of persons, not their PORTION of the population.

I'm getting rid of the Brazil bit—and rewording the sentence to make it clear that it's about the actual number, not the percentage.

President Lethe 16:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Is mentioning such trivia even necessary? —Centrx→talk • 05:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for using CAPS so we could read easier. Anyway, I think the phrase "largest Christian majority" is pretty self-explanitory. It means it has the second largest percentage. And some people don't consider it trivia. But thanks for the helpful 2 cents. 69.153.5.43 20:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If it "means it has the second largest percentage", then it's wrong. The edit history of the article, and my post that started this section of the talk page, demonstrate that.

And I think Centrx is right that it's not so necessary to mention. That the U.S. has more Christians than any other nation is just about to be expected—because only two other countries (China and India) have more persons, and neither of those countries is mostly Christian.

Anyway, that bit has been out of the article for at least a day now.

President Lethe 22:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"Melting pot" vs. "salad bowl"

It is important to realize that the "melting pot" idea has been a core concept of American culture for most of its history. The idea of trying not to assimilate and trying to maintain one's own culture was generally perceived as "unAmerican".

When I was in high school (in Connecticut) in the early 1970s, I learned of two models of American culture - assimilationism (melting pot) and multiculturalism (salad bowl). At the time, I rejected the "salad bowl" model in favor of the "melting pot" model. However, over the last few decades, it has become apparent that their are significant pockets of people in the U.S. who prefer to maintain their culture (e.g. Muslims, Hindus, Chinese, Africans, etc.)

It's not that these people don't learn English and American ways. Of course, they do. However, they also keep many aspects of their culture (e.g. religion, language, etc.).

This is a major and continuing challenge to American culture. There is a dominant culture which is a "melting pot" but still primarily Anglo in nature. There are pockets of immigrant culture and the challenge is how to support and respect these pockets of immigrant culture.

This topic should be treated somewhere in Wikipedia but what I've written is about much detail as is appropriate in this article.

Where should the topic be treated in greater detail?

--Richard 15:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

See melting pot and salad bowl. Cheers. --Yuje 15:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I had only looked at salad bowl this morning but now that I look at melting pot, I see that it does a good job of treating the contrast. --Richard 17:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What if we mix them together and get "soup"? Jaxad0127 15:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)]

Nah, you're more likely to get soggy greens in cheese fondue.  ;^) --Richard 17:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, everyone. Don't forget what melting pot means in this context. If you pour some liquid zinc into some liquid copper, you don't get "zinc that has assimilated itself and become copper just like everything else around it": you get brass. The point about melting pot has never been that newcomers just adopt the culture that's already there: it's that they adopt it while it simultaneously adopts them. Think about it: Italian immigrants, for example didn't "assimilate" into eating sort of British-based American food; instead, they came along, adopted some stuff, contributed some stuff—so that, nowadays, most Americans have some kind of Italian-based food in their cultural diet.

The melting pot is indeed different from the salad bowl. But it's multidirectional adoption/assimilation: it's not that the newcomers just end up copying the old. If it were that way, then blacks, for example, would have just adopted European music—end of story—, and we wouldn't have ragtime, blues, jazz, rock'n'roll, rap, &c.

President Lethe 16:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Very well said, couldn't have said it better myself. --Northmeister 16:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. But that zinc/copper metaphor only applies to the U.S. if you allow for pools of zinc and copper to float around the melting pot in an unalloyed state.

If you ask "Well, which is it? melting pot or salad bowl?", the answer must be Both and Neither. We are not all becoming one culture as was expected and advocated in the 1950's. And yet there are no immigrant groups that create real enclaves in which the culture remains "pure" and unAmericanized.

The point is: The melting pot emphasizes the mixing of cultures and the formation of a new one from the inputs. The salad bowl emphasizes the intermingling of cultures without substantive change. Neither is quite the right metaphor but the two taken together describe what has been going on here for 200+ years.

The difference is that we are shifting from a predominantly "melting pot" model to more of a mixed "melting pot/salad bowl" metaphor. Few descendants of German, Italian and Polish immigrants speak the language of their forebears. Many Asian and Islamic second- and third- generation kids are being sent to schools that teach the language of their parents and grandparents. Spanish, Chinese and Arabic are spoken at home not just because grandparents and parents aren't comfortable in English but as a mark of cultural identity and pride.

I (born in Chicago) don't speak Chinese but my wife (born in Hong Kong, came here at 6yrs old) does. My children (9 and 7 yrs old) speak better Chinese than I do.

It is far more likely that children and grandchildren will visit the native countries of their parents and grandparents while they are still children and on a frequent (as often as annual) basis. We haven't visited China but many of my children's friends do.

To assert that America is a "melting pot" is not inaccurate but it smacks of the assimilationism of the first part of the 20th century. Taken as a strict analogy, I dislike the "salad bowl" metaphor. However, the fact remains that multiculturalism is here to stay.

--Richard 17:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I wasn't getting in on the argument of whether it's a melting pot or a salad bowl (I agree that it's both); I was just reminding people of what melting pot means (that it does not mean immigrants just throw away their old culture and replace it with the new one, but that instead the 'old country' and 'new country' cultures influence each other and create something new, a hybrid).

Also, most children and grandchildren of immigrants do speak English (many as a first language), even if they also end up taking classes to help them remember, or learn for the first time, their recent ancestors' language. (I'm not expressing this as argument against anything you said, Richard. My motivation, besides plain old information, is my annoyance at the pundits who rave about immigrants' supposedly coming along to destroy English in America; just letting off steam.)

President Lethe 18:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This talk of alloys reminds me of making orange Play-Doh when I was little, from red and yellow. In the process of kneading it together, before I was done, I would end up with some bits being very well mixed, while others were still at other points on the red–orange and yellow–orange spectra. I think that's what we've always had and still have in the U.S., though the amount of this differentiation rises and falls at various times and in various areas. We do have some bits where the red and yellow are still almost pure, and bits where they're slightly mixed, and bits where they're more mixed, and bits where we have just about the closest we're going to get to a perfectly medial orange. — President Lethe 18:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If someone told me this morning that come nighttime, I'd believe that the best metaphor for American culture is Play-Doh, I would laugh at them. But, here I am! R'son-W 09:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Official Language?

Didn't congress say that English was the common and unifying language? And isn't that political lingo for "official language"? Seriously. And I know some people will say "no, it's not political lingo for 'official language'", but I think it's obvious that it is, seeing as congress introduced it in the middle of the immigrant debate, and what other purpose would a federal legislature have to call a language "common and unifying" if they aren't making it official? 69.153.5.43 21:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"Didn't congress say that English was the common and unifying language?" No, I don't think they did. And if they did, the senate didn't. And if they did, it doesn't matter til the president signs it, which he hasn't. --Golbez 21:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Legislation that did not pass, and which had a specific issue over whether to say "national language" or "official language", certainly doesn't make for an official language of the U.S. In terms of common, prevalent use, English is the de facto official ("official" in the sense of "used in government business") language of the U.S.; but it's not the de jure official language (no law says it is; and efforts in this vein have so far failed). Some of the individual states have one or more de jure official languages, as English, Spanish (in at least one of the Southwestern states, and in at least one town in Texas), French (Louisiana), &c. If I remember right, German was an official language of Pennsylvania until the 1950s. — President Lethe 22:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the Senate actually has passed that amendment, but the House and Senate still need to hammer out the differences. And Golbez is right, until it passes by the President, it's not law. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

(Just to clarify: When I said "pass", I meant House and Senate agreeing on exactly the same thing and sending it on to the president. — President Lethe 03:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC))

This is actually quite simple to answer. As of right now there is no official language in the United States. Period. English is, as it has always been on the federal level, the de-facto main language of this country. Please do not add speculations here, an encyclopedia is to feature facutal content only. Thank you. Regards, Signature^brendel 19:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The whole thing is pretty silly. The United States officially has no official language. As far as I can tell, though, English functions in the US in exactly the same manner as official languages do in countries that have official languages. All road signs and street signs are in English (in some places they are also in other languages, but I don't know of any places where they are only in other languages); all debate in the United States Congress and in every state legislature takes place in English; all laws and other government documents are written and printed in English. English is the language in use in all government offices. With a few exceptions, one must demonstrate proficiency in English to become a naturalized citizen. More or less all public education is in English (certainly the vast majority is). Besides the fact that English isn't called the official language, is there any way it does not meet the standards of "official language" held by other countries that do have official languages? john k 19:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is no law. What you described above is true and that's why English is the de-facto official language of the US. Regards, Signature^brendel 19:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Nominate articles for Portal:United States

I've worked for the past month to update Portal:United States and keep it better maintained. Though, I think the portal would be even better with broader participation. Perhaps people that have worked on this article would be interested? One way to broaden participation is instead of choosing the "selected article" myself each week, if others would nominate articles and help make decisions. (same goes for pictures, though these are stocked up through July 29) If you would like to nominate or weigh in on what should be featured, please visit the portal. Or if you would like to help in any other way (update news, improve the topics box, etc.) please also stop by. I think the portal is close to featured portal status, and added participation would get it there. Thanks. -Kmf164 (talk contribs) 21:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

The demographics part of this page leaves alot to be desired. It says how many "white" people there are. It breaks down the "types of white" people and gives their percentage. It does not give a percentage for African Americans or Native Americans, or Latinos. It just gives facts about them (which I am not disputing). Rivka 15:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Longest surviving republic?

Is the United States the longest surviving republic? The tiny Republic of San Marino is an independent nation and has been so from the middle ages. It's current constitution was written in 1600. --58.105.130.75 20:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

But has it been a republic since then? Signature^brendel 20:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:United States/Frequently asked questions. Looks like you obviously missed the link at the top of this page! --Coolcaesar 21:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Religious statistics

This table may be useful for this article and/or other Wikipedia articles about religions and nonreligion in the United States. It is based on the table on page 58[2] of the 2006 Statistical Abstract of the United States[3], by the U.S. Census Bureau.

The original table in the Abstract just lists the religion or other group, the number of U.S. adults giving that answer to an open-ended question in 1990, and the number of U.S. adults giving that answer to an open-ended question in 2001.

I have computed some additional details, based on those figures: the percentage of the whole population that each group took up in 1990 and in 2001; the percentage of change in actual number over that span of years; the percentage of change in the portion of the adult population that each group made up over that span of years; and the change in percentage points of the portion of the adult population that each group made up over that span of years.

For example, if the adult population in 1990 was 100 persons, and it was 200 persons in 2001, and if a certain group had 50 persons in 1990 (column 2) and had grown to 150 persons in 2001 (column 7), then

(1) the percentage (portion) of the population in 1990 was 50 (50 is 50% of 100) (column 3)

(2) the percentage (portion) of the population in 2001 was 75 (150 is 75% of 200) (column 8)

(3) the percentage of change in the actual number was 300 (150 is 300% of 50) (column 4)

(4) the percentage of increase in the percentage (portion) of the population was 50% (75% is 50% bigger than 50%) (column 5)

(5) the increase in percentage points was 25 (75% has 25 more percentage points than 50% has) (column 6).

The Abstract calls the table "Self-Described Religious Identification of Adult Population: 1990 and 2001". The original table is expressed in thousands ("175,440" represents 175,440,000); but I've added the extra three zeros to each number of persons.

Unlike some Western countries, the U.S. doesn't have an official government roll listing each person and his/her religious status. The U.S. Census Bureau got this information from non-government sources.

The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) 2001 was based on a random digit[–]dialed telelphone survey of 50,281 American residential households in the continental U.S.A. (48 states). Respondents were asked to describe themselves in terms of religion with an open-ended question. Interviewers did not prompt or offer a suggested list of potential answers. Moreover, the self-description of respondents was not based on whether established bodies, institutions, churches, mosques or synagogues considered them to be members. Quite the contrary, the survey sought to determine whether the respondents themselves regarded themselves as adherents of a religious community. Subjective rather than objective standards of religious identification were tapped by the surveys.

The Abstract lists the source of the 1990 data as Barry A. Kosmin's and Seymour P. Lachman's One Nation under God: Religion in Contemporary American Society (1993); and the source of the 2001 data as Barry A. Kosmin, Egon Mayer, and Ariela Keysar, of the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (New York, New York), specifically their American Religious Identification Survey (2001).

Sorry about the alignment. It seems that, no matter what I do, I haven't figured out how to make Wiki tables have some right-aligned columns.

Footnotes are from the original table (i.e., they're not my creation).

Religion, &c.	1990 Number	1990 Percentage of Population	Percentage of Change in Actual Number, 1990–2001	Percentage of Change in Percentage- of- Population	Change in Percentage Points of Population	2001 Number	2001 Percentage of Population
Adult population, total¹	175,440,000	100.00	+18.5	—	—	207,980,000	100.00
Total Christian	151,496,000	86.35	+5.3	–11.19	–9.66	159,506,000	76.69
Catholic	46,004,000	26.22	+10.6	–6.72	–1.76	50,873,000	24.46
Baptist	33,964,000	19.36	–0.4	–15.98	–3.09	33,830,000	16.27
Protestant—no denomination supplied	17,214,000	9.81	–73.0	–77.23	–7.58	4,647,000	2.23
Methodist/Wesleyan	14,174,000	8.08	–0.2	–15.79	–1.28	14,150,000	6.80
Lutheran	9,110,000	5.19	+5.2	–11.29	–0.59	9,580,000	4.61
Christian—no denomination supplied	8,073,000	4.60	+75.3	+47.85	+2.20	14,150,000	6.80
Presbyterian	4,985,000	2.84	+12.3	–5.31	–0.15	5,596,000	2.69
Pentecostal/Charismatic	3,191,000	1.82	+38.1	+16.50	+0.30	4,407,000	2.12
Episcopalian/Anglican	3,042,000	1.73	+13.4	–4.30	–0.07	3,451,000	1.66
Mormon / Latter-Day Saints	2,487,000	1.42	+12.1	–5.47	–0.08	2,787,000	1.34
Churches of Christ	1,769,000	1.01	+46.6	+23.65	+0.24	2,593,000	1.25
Jehovah’s Witness	1,381,000	0.79	–3.6	–18.70	–0.15	1,331,000	0.64
Seventh-Day Adventist	668,000	0.38	+8.4	–8.57	–0.03	724,000	0.35
Assemblies of God	660,000	0.38	+67.6	+41.36	+0.16	1,106,000	0.53
Holiness/Holy	610,000	0.35	–6.7	–21.32	–0.07	569,000	0.27
Congregational / United Church of Christ	599,000	0.34	+130.1	+94.06	+0.32	1,378,000	0.66
Church of the Nazarene	549,000	0.31	–0.9	–16.41	–0.05	544,000	0.26
Church of God	531,000	0.30	+77.8	+49.96	+0.15	944,000	0.45
Orthodox (Eastern)	502,000	0.29	+28.5	+8.38	+0.02	645,000	0.31
Evangelical²	242,000	0.14	+326.4	+259.73	+0.36	1,032,000	0.50
Mennonite	235,000	0.13	+47.2	+24.20	+0.03	346,000	0.17
Christian Science	214,000	0.12	–0.4	–23.53	–0.03	194,000	0.09
Church of the Brethren	206,000	0.12	+73.8	+46.60	+0.05	358,000	0.17
Born Again²	204,000	0.12	–72.5	–76.84	–0.09	56,000	0.03
Nondenominational²	195,000	0.11	+1,176.4	+976.71	+1.09	2,489,000	1.20
Disciples of Christ	144,000	0.08	+241.7	+188.21	+0.15	492,000	0.24
Reformed / Dutch Reform	161,000	0.09	+79.5	+51.42	+0.05	289,000	0.14
Apostolic / New Apostolic	117,000	0.07	+117.1	+83.13	+0.06	254,000	0.12
Quaker	67,000	0.04	+223.9	+173.21	+0.07	217,000	0.10
Full Gospel	51,000	0.03	+229.4	+177.87	+0.05	168,000	0.08
Christian Reform	40,000	0.03	+97.5	+66.60	+0.02	79,000	0.04
Foursquare Gospel	28,000	0.02	+150.0	+110.89	+0.02	70,000	0.03
Fundamentalist	27,000	0.02	+125.9	+90.58	+0.01	61,000	0.03
Salvation Army	27,000	0.02	+7.4	–21.89	–0.00	25,000	0.01
Independent Christian Church	25,000	0.01	+184.0	+139.57	+0.02	71,000	0.03
Total other religions	5,853,000	3.34	+32.2	+11.55	+0.39	7,740,000	3.72
Jewish	3,137,000	1.79	–9.8	–23.87	–0.43	2,831,000	1.36
Muslim/Islamic	527,000	0.30	+109.5	+76.71	0.23	1,104,000	0.53
Buddhist	401,000	0.29	+169.8	+127.61	+0.29	1,082,000	0.52
Unitarian/Universalist	502,000	0.29	+25.3	+5.69	+0.02	629,000	0.30
Hindu	227,000	0.13	+237.4	+184.65	+0.24	766,000	0.37
Native American	47,000	0.03	+119.1	+84.86	+0.02	103,000	0.05
Scientologist	45,000	0.03	+22.2	+3.10	+0.00	55,000	0.03
Baha’i	28,000	0.02	+200.0	+153.06	+0.02	84,000	0.04
Taoist	23,000	0.01	+73.9	+46.70	+0.01	40,000	0.02
New Age	20,000	0.01	+240.0	+186.80	+0.02	68,000	0.03
Echankar	18,000	0.01	+44.4	+21.85	+0.00	26,000	0.01
Rastafarian	14,000	0.01	–21.4	–33.72	–0.00	11,000	0.01
Sikh	13,000	0.01	+338.5	+269.86	+0.02	57,000	0.03
Wiccan	8,000	0.005	+1,575.0	+1,312.93	+0.06	134,000	0.06
Deity	6,000	0.003	+716.7	+588.89	+0.02	49,000	0.02
Druid	—	—	—	—	—	33,000	0.02
Santeria	—	—	—	—	—	22,000	0.01
Pagan	—	—	—	—	—	140,000	0.07
Spiritualist	—	—	—	—	—	116,000	0.06
Ethical Culture	—	—	—	—	—	4,000	0.002
Other unclassified	837,000	0.48	–53.9	–61.10	–0.29	386,000	0.19
No religion specified, total	14,331,000	8.17	+105.7	+73.53	+6.01	29,481,000	14.17
Atheist	—	—	—	—	—	902,000	0.43
Agnostic	1,186,000	0.68	–16.4	–29.51	–0.20	991,000	0.48
Humanist	29,000	0.02	+69.0	+42.53	+0.01	49,000	0.02
Secular	—	—	—	—	—	53,000	0.03
No religion	13,116,000	7.48	+109.6	+76.77	+5.74	27,486,000	13.22
Refused to reply to question	4,031,000	2.30	+179.0	+135.34	+3.11	11,246,000	5.41

¹ Refers to the total number of adults in all 50 states. All other figures are based on projections from surveys conducted in the continental [sic] United States (48 states).

² Because of the subjective nature of replies to open-ended question[s], these categories are the most unstable as they do not refer to clearly identifiable denominations as much as underlying feelings about religion. Thus they may be the most subject to fluctuation over time.

I think it's interesting to note the changes that occurred over eleven years. I wonder how things have changed in the five years since 2001.

I'm glad the government has to rely on outside sources for this information.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting that we put this table into the article. I just provide it here for reference, because I think the source is highly reputable (it's what the Census Bureau itself relies on for the Abstract) and because there's been some recent fiddling with the figures in the Religion part of the article.

If anyone catches an error, please, mention it: I may have mistranscribed a digit here or there.

President Lethe 22:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• A month or 2 ago, I e-mailed the private agency that did the survey asking why they assumed non-denominational was Xn - given there are already non-denom Protestants & non-denom-Xns listed. No reply yet. --JimWae 01:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• look here for right-alignment --JimWae 01:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean you emailed them about? I can think of at least three different answers that respondents might give to that open-ended question, each of which could result in a different item on that list of survey results: "I'm religious, but I don't have a denomination" (keeps person out of "no religion" category, but nothing more), "I'm Christian, but I don't have a denomination" (puts person into Christian category, but nothing more), and "I'm Protestant, but I don't have a denomination" (puts person into Protestant Christian category, but nothing more).

Thanks for the advice about aligning; I hope to have the time for it soon (that table already took me a long time today, even though I'd done some of the work last year).

President Lethe 04:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Notice they have 3 categories of non-denoms. They decided ALL non-denoms were Xn. This can only be a mistake, I believe. I should hope they fix this for of the next survey. Btw, the summary data should probably NOT come between the years. Somebody also insisted on adjusting the figures for non-responses --JimWae 04:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Just now noticed your reply here. Yes, I see the three "nondenominational" categories all under the Christian heading. It makes sense to me for two of them: people can give such answers as "I'm Christian but without a denomination", "I'm Protestant but without a denomination". But you're right: "Christian—no denomination supplied" and "Nondenominational", both under the "Christian" heading—one should be a duplicate of the other, one would think.

I agree with you that perhaps the two years shouldn't be so far apart. My idea was "the earlier year, the information about the changes during the transition, and then the later year". It might be easier if some of the columns were shaded. Unfortunately, without one of those utilities (non of which I've tried yet), making big tables at Wikipedia is very tedious—and shifting columns around is even more so.

Important point: Please, clarify "Somebody also insisted on adjusting the figures for non-responses". Do you mean the original researches made odd odjustments? Do you mean the Census Bureau didn't accurately report the results of the researchers' work? Do you mean that I made an error in creating my table?

President Lethe 18:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking English at home

brendel left this message at my Talk page:

US native speaker percentage

Hi, it just occured to me that difference in our percentages (79% vs. 82%) could be as we are using differently dated info. What year is the 214.8 mil figure? Signature^brendel 03:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

There is only one source for all my figures on language. It is the source mentioned in two non-footnote links in the paragraph itself (the Language paragraph in the U.S. article): http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/06statab/pop.pdf. (I failed to get the normal reference encoding to work right for me; that's why I just put it in as a link in brackets, which gets shortened to a numbered link in brackets, but in a sequence separate from the article's reference footnotes.) I mentioned the same source in what became Archive 15 of this Talk page:

The U.S. Census Bureau's 2006 Statistical Abstract of the United States includes a table of languages spoken at home by members of the U.S. population aged 5 years and up; it's on page 47 of this PDF. "The American Community Survey universe is limited to the household population and excludes the population living in institutions, college dormitories, and other group quarters." The table is "Based on a sample and subject to sampling variability". The numbers are rounded to the thousands. The table is dated 2003. The table says the total population aged five years and up was 263,230,000. (The 214,809,000 persons aged 5 and up who speak only English at home are indeed about 81.61% of the total population of persons aged 5 and up.) Here are the contents of that table, reordered by rank.

Rank	Language	Speakers
1	English only	214,809,000
2	Spanish or Spanish Creole	29,698,000
3	Chinese	2,193,000
4	French (including Patois, Cajun)	1,379,000
5	Tagalog	1,262,000
6	Vietnamese	1,104,000
7	German	1,094,000
8	Korean	967,000
9	Italian	782,000
10	Russian	705,000
11	Polish	601,000
12	Portuguese or Portuguese Creole	560,000
13	Arabic	558,000
14	Other Asian languages	525,000
15	Other Indic languages	524,000
16	African languages	503,000
17	French Creole	483,000
18	Japanese	475,000
19	Hindi	396,000
20	Other Indo-European languages	376,000
21	Persian	360,000
22	Urdu	335,000
23	Greek	333,000
24	Other West Germanic languages	311,000
25	Other Pacific Island languages	300,000
26	Other Slavic languages	284,000
27	Gujarathi	280,000
28	Serbo-Croatian	234,000
29	Armenian	195,000
30	Miao, Hmong	175,000
31	Laotian	174,000
32	Hebrew	168,000
33	Other Native North American language[s]	166,000
34	Mon-Khmer, Cambodian	163,000
35	Yiddish	142,000
36	Other and unspecified languages	142,000
37	Scandinavian languages	136,000
38	Navajo	136,000
39	Thai	112,000
40	Hungarian	90,000

I hope that helps clarify things. Indeed, we should try not to mix figures of different years, especially when coming up with percentages—and we should mention in the article text what years we're talking about.

President Lethe 04:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Rounded to the thousands:

Total U.S. population in 2003: 291,082,000.

Total U.S. population aged 5 and up in 2003: 263,230,000.

Total U.S. population aged 5 and up and speaking only English at home in 2003: 214,809,000.

214,809,000 ÷ 263,230,000 = 81.6%.

214,809,000 ÷ 291,082,000 = 73.8%—but this is irrelevant for what we're talking about. The figures for all the languages are restricted to those persons aged 5 years and older—so we have to consider the English-speakers as a portion of those aged five and up, not as a portion of the whole population including people 3 years old and 2 days old.

President Lethe 05:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this helps. I had 276,256,000 above the age of six, this came from infobox. The number makes sense, now and for a while we were indeed using differently dated states. Thanks for clearing things up and going through the trouble to post all this data right here. Best Regards, Signature^brendel 06:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Article title?

Shouldn't this be moved to United States of America? It's the full name of the country. It's odd that it's at "United States." --Howdybob 11:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

DUDE! ARE YOU BLIND OR DYSLEXIC OR SOMETHING? Read the top of this page! There's a humongous link RIGHT THERE to Talk:United States/Frequently asked questions. That's the sixth or seventh time that question has been asked this year! --Coolcaesar 16:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Calm down. It's easy to miss that notice. --tomf688 (talk - email) 18:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

My goodness, please be civil. -- WGee 03:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Take a valium or something, man. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 05:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, looking at it, it's not that big. Quite easy to miss. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 05:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. Jaxad0127 06:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have fairly high resolution on my display, and I had to scroll around and look and look to find that 'warning', even though I knew it was there. It's not really highlighted or anything, and the wording doesn't really shout "Before you bring up issues that we've settled repeatedly, please, see this other page first." (And "simmah down now" edit summary: great laugh.) — President Lethe 13:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's easy to miss the FAQ link. Perhaps it should be moved to the very top of this talk page. JonathanFreed 04:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

With 70pt font, mid-red color, bold and a large warning image. Jaxad0127 04:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

And <blink>. --Golbez 04:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe not that big or colorful, but making that link larger and bold would help. Okay, I got carried away but newbies keep bringing up what is already a closed issue.--Coolcaesar 21:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, the issue is not closed. The importance of consensus is ongoing; the need for consensus did not end with the May 2006 vote. Also, please avoid even using the term "newbies". JonathanFreed 03:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we go differently than all the other big encyclopedias on this issue (and they all use a common name policy which means they use the "United States" title), then we'll give those Britannica clowns yet another reason to compare Wikipedia to a public toilet (there is a notorious essay by the former editor of Britannica lying around on the Web somewhere). Basically, any change would have to involve a massive grass-roots movement to push the other big encyclopedias towards an "official name" policy (or else Wikipedia will just look like the weird outlier) and I don't see that happening. Most Wikipedians support matching other encyclopedias on editorial policies to improve WP's legitimacy. Or else it will be the Rodney Dangerfield of encyclopedias — it just can't get no respect. --Coolcaesar 05:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The 2005 print edition of Britannica uses "United States of America", not "United States". Using common names is presently a guideline, not a policy, and exceptions are allowed to both. JonathanFreed 14:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was looking at Britannica two weeks ago in the public library and I'll concede that Britannica Macropaedia uses "United States of America," but the online version of Britannica as well as Britannica Micropaedia both use "United States." Also, there are other well-known encyclopedias out there, like MSN Encarta, World Book, Americana, Columbia, Grolier, etc. All of them use "United States." I suspect that Encarta and World Book are actually better known to most non-intellectuals since their structure is less confusing than Britannica's weird Micropaedia/Macromedia/Propaedia mess — and they're much cheaper so most middle-class families can afford one or the other. Plus there's the huge Microsoft marketing machine, of course). As I have said many times, there is no need for Wikipedia to be the odd man out. And I reiterate all the other good reasons given previously for the status quo at Talk:United States/Name.--Coolcaesar 21:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

1. The issue can be temporarily 'closed' and then 'reopened'.

2. Whatever is decided, it should be stuck with for a long while. Moving back and forth is a waste of time and effort and computer resources. Either way, redirect pages automatically take care of it.

3. Are we going to start naming the U.K. article "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? Will France's be renamed "French Republic"? Will Mexico's be renamed "United Mexican States"? Will Germany's be renamed "Federal Republic of Germany"? Will South Africa's become "Republic of South Africa"? Will Austria's become "Republic of Austria"? On and on and on. Let's go ahead and rename Virginia's ("Commonwealth of Virginia"), Massachusetts's ("Commonwealth of Massachusetts"), California's ("Republic of California"), Rhode Island's ("State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations"), &c., &c., &c., while we're at it. And New York City's should become "City of New York". (Sarcasm is intended not rudely but just to support a point.)

President Lethe 14:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Howdybob appears to have suggested an exception to the guideline, and not a change to the guideline itself. As such, we need not consider the consequences of changing the guideline, which might include the renamings mentioned by Preslethe. JonathanFreed 20:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The off-putting examples above are devoid of all logic. Using the name US for USA is like using only "republic" for "French (Austrian) republic" or the ""Federal Republic" for "Federal Republic of Germany". Not the way around as suggested above. The other halves of the name France(Austria) and Germany are clear enough. Unfortunately that does not go for America, which is just too ambiguous as name for the country. A point could be made that UK is similar to US though. −Woodstone 20:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Right. We use 'United States' becuase no other courty has that exact phrase in it's name. The closest is Mexico (United mexican States). Jaxad0127 21:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not whether the shorthand is inherently logical that is the point here. It's what people actually use to refer to the object. All American journalists routinely use "United States" on air and in writing. They might use "United States of America" once or twice a month to make an editorial point (for example, to show a serious tone of voice) but insisting on saying the full name every single time would get them fired (which is why no one does that). Similarly, most Americans simply say "United States" or "U.S." most of the time. And that's what Wikipedia should follow.

Like more established encyclopedias, Wikipedia follows an empirical system of naming---what do people actually use to refer to something?---not an inherently logical one. We're descriptive, not prescriptive; we follow, not lead. This conclusion follows logically from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (specifically, not a soapbox) and the non-negotiable core policy WP:NPOV. This is like the difference between sociologists and philosophers. Sociologists merely describe what people do, while philosophers talk about what they should do. --Coolcaesar 21:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Exceptions to guidelines can breed changes to guidelines.

2. My point numbered 3 above could be construed as support for naming the article just "America" (in line with "France", "Massachusetts", &c.)—but the real point was 'short versus long', not which part of the long form is absent from the short. Although others here have helped clarify this since my last post, I also wanted to do it myself.

3. I also support the 'Let's mimic most other reputable encyclopedias in article naming' sentiment.

President Lethe 00:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The majority of Wikipedias in other languages use their translations of our full name "The United States of America". For example french, italian, kurdish, norweigian (bokmål), russian, turkish, et cetera. Few use the translation of "United States". More use the transcription of USA then "United States". Since it's the full name, we should follow suit. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 00:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

And thats probably the standard in their language, but its not in ours. Jaxad0127 01:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Rank of US by area; 3rd, 4th, or 5th?

The third paragraph in the article lead states the US is the fifth largest country by area, while the sidebar (box) says the 3rd. And the article List of countries and outlying territories by area ranks it a disputed 3rd or 4th. Which is it? And can this article be consistent? -- Dmeranda 17:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If it says "fifth", it's vandalism. And I'm unvandalising it right now. Brazil is fifth.

As to third or fourth: it seems to have become the agreement to say third in most places and, in just one place, point out the third/fourth dispute with China over Taiwain.

President Lethe 17:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No Internet?

I think it is very funny neither this article nor Science and technology in the United States mention which country funded the development of the ARPANET and the Internet! Kind of ironic when people read Wikipedia over the Internet. Ha ha. --153.18.156.242 18:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. What's going on? I remember seeing the Internet mentioned in an earlier version several years ago, but it looks like one of those America-haters took it out. If no one objects, I'm putting a reference to the Internet back in. --Coolcaesar 21:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I just check the relavent History of the United States articles, and none mention ARPANET or that the US invented the Internet. Jaxad0127 23:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Al Gore mentions it. --Golbez 23:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Lol. Thats just a joke. Jaxad0127 23:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Just stepping in to say that the "I invented the Internet" quote is a serious misquote of something he really did say. Back in 2000 or 2001, Rolling Stone had a good piece chronicalling the media's coverage of that quote and lots of things that ended up revolving around it. And, actually, "Al Gore" does mention it: for example, in the "The Internet and the Webbys" section. The guy did play a significant role in what developed into the Internet, and he didn't claim to have invented it. I'm not saying that everyone believes the false stuff about him—but I'm just having my little spurt here to try to clarify this for those who do misunderstand it, in case any are around to see this. — President Lethe 00:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. It's done. I added the Internet to the Economy section for the U.S. article and Science and technology. --Coolcaesar 00:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I was gonna say "Yea!"—but the American role in Internet development was and has been much more than just funding. — President Lethe 01:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

When the first humans arrived

Even among scientists, the starting and ending points of the influx of what would eventually be called Native Americans are quite contentious. Before we get into an edit war, perhaps we can compile the years given by various reputable sources and then come up with an acceptable range to mention in the History section of the article. I'll be posting some here in a few minutes. — President Lethe 01:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Philip Kopper's The Smithsonian Book of North American Indians: Before the Coming of the Europeans (Smithsonian Books, Washington, D.C., 1986): page 23:

Why did fluted stone lanceheads—"Clovic points"—appear throughout the Americas some 10,000 to 12,000 years ago, then vanish from the stratigraphic record?

Page 33:

"Unmistakable signs" of ancient human occupation have been found near the tip of South America; people used Fell's Cave near the Strait of Magellan in Chile about 11,000 years ago. How much earlier must their first ancestors in the Americas have begun their unplanned trek down from Beringia? Although fierce controversies have raged for years over the date of the first human arrivals in the New World, archaeologists have reached no consensus. Their estimates range from 12,000 to 40,000 years ago, with most experts suggesting dates between 12,000 and 20,000 years ago. (In 1986, charcoal from a pit fire at a rock shelter site in Brazil was radiocarbon dated at 32,160 B.C. However, such early dates have proved to be in error before, and only further research will conclusively establish the age of this exciting find.)

• 2001 Standard Edition CD-ROM of The World Book Encyclopedia: "Indian, American":

Most scientists think the first Indians came to the Americas from Asia at least 15,000 years ago. Other scientists believe the Indians may have arrived as early as 35,000 years ago. [* * *] By 12,500 years ago, Indians had spread throughout the New World and were living from the Arctic in the north all the way to southern South America.

May gather more later. — President Lethe 01:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

official language

I heard somewhere that a bill that just passed has a thing attached saying the oddicial language of the us is now english --24.239.174.223 12:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You heard imprecisely, at least. Go to the top of this page and click on item 9 in the table of contents. — President Lethe 13:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)