text:
Talk:United States/Archive 6

Minor holiday problem
The table about holidays implies that government organizations observe Martin Luther King Jr Day, President's Day, and Colombus Day. Some do, but many, including schools, do not. Are there statistics on the matter that anyone knows about? President's and Colombus Days are, in my experience, extinct holidays. The table makes it seem like they are not.
 * They aren't extinct as far as the federal government is concerned. We should perhaps mention that these are holidays that the government recognizes, but private citizens and businesses are not required to observe them. It also mentions they are federal holidays. And it does say that not all schools observe them. Do you have a specific complaint? --Golbez 03:29, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Photographs
Any consensus for adding photographs of "typical" (as much as such a thing is possible) vistas and views and sights of the U.S. to this article? It's nice to have the Bill and Rights and George Washington, but those photos are a bit static and I like the idea of adding photos that aren't so "official" - a main street in a town, perhaps, or something along those lines. See New York City's article for an example of what I'd consider dynamic photos that enhance an article. Moncrief 05:14, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree; how about a picture of, perhaps, a football game? The NYSE trading floor? --Golbez 21:47, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * Totally. Either of those would work in the appropriate section.  Moncrief 22:06, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Culture
The section on Culture seems to be focused on exported popular culture, rather than on American culture as experienced within the country. And, it mentions Seattle several times: I like Seattle a lot, but it has not had much influence on American culture. Whereas, for example, Californian culture (and I'm not writing this as a fan) has had a huge influence and it is not really mentioned. brassrat

I agree with user:brassrat. The culture section is focused on exported culture in TV and movies. The US is a diverse place and there should be a section titled Regional Culture. Please user:Golbez stop vandalizing and deleting the Regional Culture section. Can we get a sys admin to stop Golbez?

Hey, 67.123.172.188, sorry if I called your additions "useless," but Golbez didn't vandalize anything: your additions weren't even really about "culture," you basically just mentioned different church denominations and said that Northerners are called Yankees. I agree with Brassrat too, but your stuff didn't really cover that. --Jleon 01:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

 * lol wtf --Golbez 04:23, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * That said, the anon's edits may well have a place, since it has been pointed out, accurately so, that the Culture section focuses too much perhaps on the export of culture. Still, it was turning into somewhat of a checklist of the different cultures in America, without giving any time to the unifying culture most Americans have. The different bits may have a use, but this is the article for the country, not for the states or the regions. --Golbez 04:30, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Why not rename "Culture" section, "Entertainment Industry" and move it to the "Economy" section. You can read the "Culture" section and think the USA is all about "Sex and the City". The culture section has nothing about cultural traditions, traditional clothing, traditional attitudes, or traditional holidays. And yes, my input is more like a starting point for others to add on to. I have not lived in the North, so I could not add much about it's culture, but had hoped someone would add on. As far as deletion of newly entered is concerned, it is forbidden in all the guidelines I have read. Stubs are encouraged as a starting point. If somebody goes along deleting contributions, pretty soon people will stop contributing. -anon

The United States is a great center of higher education, boasting more than 4,000 universities, colleges and other institutions of higher learning, the top tier of which may be considered to be among the most prestigious and advanced in the world. Neither is mentioned that higher education in the US is one of the most expensive in the world, nor that besides few universities (Berkeley, Princeton, Harvard, Stanford) universities in America have a low level of education compared to universities around the world. This is something commonly known to many people that come from other countries, that shared with me (what I experiences as well) that getting a higher degree in the US is almost as simple as finishing regular school in other countries. User:64.175.251.190

--Well if you have anything other than anecdotal "experiences" to show as evidence, then please share it with us. --Jleon 19:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

This article is almost twice the recommended size
This article is 61k that is almost twice the recomended size. See Article_size. I am not seriously demanding that the article is shortened but I request that people who think that the USA can exceed the size limit allow this for other countries too, for e.g. Germany. Please express your support at talk:Germany. Andries 18:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

--Let's not overreact to the issue of the article size. The recommended size is a totally outdated suggestion based on the fact that some very early browsers could not support articles over 32k. This issue is no longer relevent, and thousands of articles of lesser importance than the United States have gone way over this amount with little notice. --Jleon 19:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

That's not at all what the "article size" article itself says, however: it cites stylistic considerations, as well as (not very compelling) technical ones. Also see Summary style, which waxes further lyrical on similar issues. Incidentally, on the "thousands of articles" point, this would in fact be about the #324th largest article, if none of the others had changed size in the meantime. And as Andries says, the real problem is the "precedent setting" one: users who wish to add large amounts of marginal material to a given article will say "but look, it's nowhere near as big as United States, and this is an Important Topic, too". And there's really no need for it: all the material in over-long sections of this article is already covered in the various "main articles" on that sub-topic:  why have such long sections on Politics of the United States, Demographics of the United States and Holidays of the United States? Alai 00:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Because they have pretty much the most basic amount of info. The other logical end is that the article gets so long that several sections end up being only a "see also" link, which is horribly unuseful. This article is pretty much as short as it functionally can be, and some areas can still be expanded. However, only as an outline - detailed info belongs in the proper articles. There's no reason for the 32k limit except for a natural breaking point, and perhaps it should be doubled. I have no problem with setting precedent, this has become a good article. --Golbez 06:37, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * As a non-editor of this article, and as a non-USian, I have to say that far from a "basic" amount of info, they contain a horribly extraneous quantity, and in places read as positively waffly. Every other country could also not merely list its national holidays, but put them into a great stonking table -- but how many do?  (I dare say lots of us self-indulgent Europeans would have yet longer such lists.)  I strongly urge against "but the US is an important country" arguments, since inevitably they'll end up being replicated elsewhere, and before one knows it, article size standards are totally gone.  If you want to argue for that, or for a larger limit, then that's another matter, but let's not simply start with United States (or Germany...) as special cases.  Alai 13:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Care to share what you think can be changed, apart from the "great stonking table"? And maybe there needs to be a precedent. --Golbez 14:13, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't want to be a nuisance, and yes, this is a good article, but I changed my opinion a bit and I request that this article is shortened to prevent setting a bad precedent. What am I going to say to enthusiastic editors who complain that Wikipedia has double standards with regards to article size? See talk:Germany. Andries 06:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Why are you so scared of Germany breaking the barrier? --Golbez 14:13, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * The trouble there is that Germany has had it history section disportionately lengthened (in search of "balance") by one user, who's specifically cited this article as "precedent" for not shortening it again (among various other assertions in an incredibly long-running edit war over this). You're more than welcome to come over and help sort it out!  Alai 16:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Part of my inspiration in expanding this article was Japan, which has a long and robust history section. However, you'll noticed we've managed a concise history summary for this article, but then again, America is a lot younger than Japan or Germany. I looked at Germany but honestly I don't know enough about it to properly edit it. Looking... okay, I see a major problem already - it spends four paragraphs on a 12 year period. That, and lots of other stuff in History, rightly needs to be split out. It's not my style to get involved in edit wars, though. :/ --Golbez 16:27, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that country, city and other such location-based articles remain under the 30 kb limit. (The warning appears at 30kb). When one reads such articles an overview of the subject is needed, not detail. Articles on countries are made of discrete units (as opposed to a continuous section based article such as history), which can very well be shortened, and the extraneous details moved to the main articles. ~32 kb also is a sweet spot for readers; it becomes more difficult to read a lengthy article (particularly on screen) if the size is allowed to swell like this. And as far as I've seen, a précis/summary of the topic is usually better written than a longer article which tends to expand on details. Take a look at India, a FA. On an 800x600 resolution on Opera v8, the length of the page is 21 scrolls whereas the US article is 32 scrolls. Comparing the length of both the pages, the India page is ~29.5 kb as opposed to 61kb (double) for the US. (its a vague metric, but it does point out how information is sewn into the India page) One way of reducing the size, is by adding information that is resident in markup such as tables relegated to a template. See also Wikiproject Countries. = Nichalp ( Talk )= 09:54, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * It is entirely possible to OVERshorten. Shortening should be done for form, not to reach some arbitrary number. No one here has yet stated what they think should be shortened in this article; until you do, your concerns are merely aiming towards a number, rather than a solution. I agree that the 32k barrier is a useful figure for readability; however, an article should not be sacrificed to meet it.

 * Looking at India now to compare... Politics can be shortened, it's entirely possible I overexpanded it. Demographics! That's where a major part of the bloat is. (And I can say that because it's not my baby), you could lose a few k there, particularly in "race". Same deal for social issues - India doesn't even have a social isssues section. (Maybe it should?) How best to elegantly remove this? Changing these wouldn't drop it to 32k, but it would help shorten it, and not even for shortening's sake either. Lemme see what I can do. --Golbez 14:13, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

The quest for shortening
Bear in mind I am shortening for readability, not for shortening's sake. I've identified two further places where it is unnecessarily wordy - Race, and Social Issues. The Race section has more information than the main article! And Social Issues seems to be a unique segment, if the PRC's page doesn't have one, then really, it's there only to attack the USA. Race needs to be MOVED to the main article and some kind of short mention left behind, and Social Issues, I don't know, turn it into a two sentence section whose only purpose is to introduce the main articles. I'm putting this here because I'm about to leave for the day, so someone else take up the work. Thanks :) Sorry if I sound harsh above, but most of the comments at first sounded like shortening for shortening's sake, which is a really bad motivator. Shorten for readability and usefulness, which is what I'm doing. --Golbez 14:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * Try and see what text is really needed here. I would suggest a radical cut down of the text on the page. Get the page to 22kb. After that inclusion can always be there. See Wikiproject Country for what headings are recommended. A precis of the text would get the bulk of the matter here, while removing the extra details. = Nichalp  ( Talk )= 16:29, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * 22k? I'm assuming that's a typo for 32k, and no, again, shortening is not the motivation here. Getting to 32k is not my ideal; cleaning up the article is. It just happens to be that many sections need shortening or moving. There is no reason whatsoever to simply chop off the article at the knees purely to get it to 32k. --Golbez 17:13, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * By the way, I'll point out that India cheats - they use a template for their infobox, which saves them several kb. :) They also have much better pictures than we do. Again - 32k is not the ideal, readability is. --Golbez 17:15, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * I know the India page cheats. :) But I've already suggested the same above. I believe quite a lot of kb will be saved. Yes it was 22 kb. = Nichalp  ( Talk )= 17:27, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * We USED to do that; I think the current standards are to NOT use a template for a one-time-use in such a fashion. And that is again focusing only on the size, and not on the actual article. By saying 22k, I think what you're saying it, chop it down to the 100% bare bones, and then add in as needed? --Golbez 17:41, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1)I'm not sure if there is a "no one use policy". The Main Page has a couple of one use templates. Many countries have infobox templates too. It keeps unnecessary markup away from the page. 2) Exactly, you've got my point. Trust me, I've used this methodology many times. Précis is the way to enrichen the page. (A vague analogy again: a 5 hr movie won't sell as well as a 2.5 hr one, lots of edits are done to reduce the film length). Best of Luck, = Nichalp  ( Talk )= 20:12, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Main Page, Current Events, etc. are special pages and not regular encyclopedic pages. There must have been reason the editors of this page abandoned the one-use template, I don't know what it is. --Golbez 20:18, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Its a good start. Now 56 kb. BTW the infobox takes just 2kb. = Nichalp  ( Talk )= 18:00, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

From a readability standpoint, 30KB is just the starting point where an article may be getting too long. Reading an article of that size takes about the same amount of time as the average person's attention span, so going past that point has its costs and those costs need to be justified by the need for the article to be comprehensive (expansive topics simply need more space). The likelihood of being too long to efficiently cover its topic steadily increases as an article grows past that point so such articles should be closely examined to see if they still efficiently cover their topics in spite of their size. I personally do not think any topic is so expansive that it needs 60KB of space, but there are many topics that need 40 to even 50KB of space. I think this is one of those topics (the closer to 40KB the better, though).

The beauty of a hypertext encyclopedia is that more detailed treatments of sub topics can be covered in separate articles that are just a click away. Print encyclopedias, such as Encyclopedia Britannica, tend to jam everything into monolithic articles due to the fact that cross referencing other articles is such a pain. Others, such as Encarta, only cover topics in a mid level of detail. We should take full advantage of our hypertext environment and be able to cover topics in a mid level and a high level of detail - all in one encyclopedia. That is the aim of Summary style (oh, and lead sections should also serve as concise articles in their own right - so that is three types of encyclopedias we can be at the same time by using Summary style). --mav 14:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Protection?
Page protected to discourage graffiti. I suggest it remain protected until the fuss over the Koran desecration controversy of 2005 fades away.

Till then, I hope critics of the US will add neutral, balanced text explaining the reasons for their anti-American sentiments to whatever article(s) they feel are appropriate. Wikipedia does not endorse OR condemn US policy. (See NPOV policy.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:10, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

--Most of the vandalism on this page looks like it is either done by teenagers or the mentally ill, not necessarily from people overseas who are upset about recent news stories. I think blocking this page is unlikely to do much good. --Jleon 15:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Since the page is locked and I cannot currently make the edit myself, I'll put it down here so that it's not forgotten. Can somebody please make it clear that the President and V-P are elected on the same ticket. As the article reads it could be taken to mean that there are separate elections for the two posts. --Rednaxela 19:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)- One more thing: Where's the 'This page is protected to deal with vandalism. -Please discuss suggested changes on the talk page' tag gone?

Agreed -- the protected page tag needs to be there. Earpol 20:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * can someone please add an interwiki link to Stati Uniti ? thanks. Srl 09:18, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

--I still don't understand the purpose of the blocking- there's ALWAYS been vandalism on this page, and it always gets reverted within 2 or 3 minutes. Whoever put the protection did not bother to discuss this with us first, and if you're waiting for damaging news stories to fade away then the protection is likely to never get lifted. --Jleon 18:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

--I agree completely. Protecting the page was not even done properly -- there is still no "protection tag" on the main article. The page was protected, out of the blue. I believe the current protection on the United States page is in direct violation of Wikipedia protection policy -- read the following direct excerpt and justify the current lockdown:

A semi-permanent protection is used for:
 * Protecting high visibility pages such as the Main Page from vandalism.
 * Maintaining the integrity of the site's logo.
 * Maintaining the integrity of key copyright and license pages.
 * Maintaining the integrity of press releases.
 * Protecting certain "system administration" pages.
 * Protecting the often-used texts in the MediaWiki namespace.
 * User pages and their subpages that are subject to repeated vandalism.

A temporary protection is used for:
 * Enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an "edit war," upon request.
 * Protecting a page or image that has been a recent target of persistent vandalism or persistent edits by a banned user.
 * Preventing changes to a page while investigating a possible bug in the MediaWiki software.

The protection of a page on any particular version is not meant to express support for that version and requests should therefore not be made that the protected version be reverted to a different one.

Talk pages and user talk pages are not protected except in extreme circumstances.

When a page is particularly high profile, either because it's linked off the main page, or because it's recently receieved a prominent link from offsite, it will often become a target for vandalism. It is best not to protect pages in this case. Instead consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself.

Earpol 20:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I've unprotected. I think there are enough vandal fighters here with United States on their watchlist to keep the various graffiti artists, POV pushers, and silly bastards in check. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Columbia
People keep removing the reference to Columbia as a name for the United States; Columbia is a perfectly valid and used name (you know, "Columbia the Gem of the Ocean", "Columbia Broadcasting Corporation", "Columbia Gas", "Columbia Pictures", etc.) which is now somewhat archaic but still used poetically, and should remain. Note that it is NOT the same as Colombia the country, if that's what the editors are thinking. Earpol 20:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Was it ever used in any way other than metaphorically? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

===>Columbia as America? I can't seem to find any references to this title. I see these coporations that include Columbia in their name, but I don't understand how that is to refer to the political entity of the USA. Can someone give me an actual reference? Justin (koavf) 19:12, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Top ancestry map
If I may give my two cents... the top ancestry map in the article is very interesting, but it is also very misleading for people not familiar with statistics. The map tend to over-represent minorities. One example: take a county in Virginia in which 30% of people have Black American ancestry, 29% have German ancestry, 28% have English ancestry, and 13% have Irish ancestry. On the map, this county will appear as an African American county, although in reality white people are 70% of the population in this county. Same can be said about the Mexican counties on the map. It would make more sense to provide a map of races, based on Census 2000, with a colour for each county according to which race is the majority in the county (either non-Hispanic White, or Hispanic, or Black, or Asian, etc.). Such a map would better reflect the location of minorities in the country. Hardouin 21:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Criticism
Hmm, I wonder where the "Criticism" section is... Maybe such an imporant section as "Federal holidays" took its place? helix84 14:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--Why does there need to be one when there aren't any "criticism" sections for other countries? We need to remember that these are encyclopedia articles, not internet blogs. --Jleon 15:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I think there used to be a Criticism section, but it is now the enormous WP article on Anti-Americanism (with an equally huge talk page attached). I concur with Jleon.  If people really want to read about criticism of the U.S., that's what the Anti-Americanism article is for.  --Coolcaesar 22:03, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

recent supposed fix of photos
Important cities Main.........HSTN......CHCGO.......LA........NY article:.....HSTN......CHCGO.......LA........NY List of......HSTN......CHCGO.......LA........NY cities in....HSTN......CHCGO.......LA........NY the..........HSTN......CHCGO.......LA........NY United.......HSTN......CHCGO.......LA........NY States.......HSTN......CHCGO.......LA........NY .............HSTN..................LA........NY  The..........HSTN..................LA........NY United.......HSTN..................LA........NY States has...HSTN..................LA........NY dozens of....HSTN..................LA........NY major cities, including several important global cities...

City names are where the photos (wider than here) are.

Now, was it worse before that?--JimWae 04:14, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Photos in "Important Cities"
-- I'm trying to prevent a revert war from opening up, by starting a discussion on this matter. While Houston may be the fourth largest city in the U.S., most people would agree that it is not the fourth most important (maybe not even among the top ten in that regard). The three largest cities are also undisputably the three most important, and the only three with real claims of being "global cities." Therefore, I believe we need to agree on keeping these three, and only these three, among the pictures in that section. Otherwise, you're going to have a never ending dispute with people trying to jam pictures of Boston, Philly, San Fran, Dallas, and Miami onto here. --Jleon 18:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Plus every time a 4th photo gets added, the text margins get mucked up on wider screens that have room for 4 photos but only very little left for text - resulting in one or two words per line of text. It's much better to have the photos underneath one another - without going into the next section.--JimWae 18:48, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

 * Actually, with just the three, it still gets mucked up on large screens. The bottom photo runs over the "section line" for the next section on my monitor (1600x1200).  I'm going to see if I can clean that up some.  Personally, I don't care whether there are three or four. -- Dpark 22:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I added a couple of clearing breaks: (<br style="clear:both;" />) to resolve the runover. -- Dpark 22:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I tried a (reverse) L-shape with the pictures, with the fourth hanging to the left of the others at the bottom. It worked great, until I turned my resoluton down to 800x600, at which point it became painfully obvious that there should be only one line of pictures.  I now say to only have the three pictures.  Leave Houston off. -- Dpark 23:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While you reformatted the pictures, which is great by the way, I reformatted the text slightly. I also reworded the language for better flow and also to expand the section just a little bit so that we don't have that problem of runover with the images. --Gerald Farinas 23:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--I agree that the section should be expanded slightly, but we need to be more careful with the wording we use. Honolulu is in no way the economic or cultural "center" of the Pacific Rim. I can easily name a dozen cities (Tokyo, Seoul, Sydney, LA, etc.) that are far more important to the region. Also, what was the point of repeatedly listing the top three in the first paragraph as "Chicago, LA, and NY"? I can see no logical purpose in listing these alphabetically. On a brighter note though- I think the new photo of Chicago looks really great. --Jleon 13:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The "economic center" and "cultural center" of the Pacific Rim is how the East-West Center and its dignitary visitors have described Honolulu for decades now, including the current Presidents of South Korea, Philippines, Taiwan and the Prime Ministers of Australia and Japan during their last meetings in Honolulu. Honolulu has been quite known as such by international relations academics and students, like myself in Chicago.

 * The East-West Center has become the principal meeting place of nations in the Pacific Rim on issues of economics and culture since President Lyndon Johnson's administration.  It was used for peace talks during the Vietnam and is currently being used for peace talks between the Koreas.  The U.S. Department of State defers Pacific Rim cases to its offices in Honolulu.  Honolulu is frequent host or headquarters of several major intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations such as the Asian Development Bank, the NGO Cooperation Network, Mayors' Asia-Pacific Environmental Summit, Permanent Secretariat of the Mayors' Asia-Pacific Environmental Summit, Pacific Islands Environmental Symposium, China-U.S. Conference of Mayors and Business Leaders, Japan-American Conference of Mayors and Chamber of Commerce Presidents, Asia Pacific Urban Technology Institute, among others.  Honolulu is the defacto military center of the Pacific Rim throigh RIMPAC, which has its international headquarters in Honolulu.  --Gerald Farinas 15:46, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ok “dudes”- I don’t know how anyone can possibly compare Honolulu to the incredible importance (both economically and culturally) of Tokyo in the region. Just compare the economic output, or the number of international banks and trans-national corporations based in these cities. Of course I’m not surprised that many international meetings are held in Honolulu on account of its central location and abundance of hotel rooms, but international relations is far different than international finance and culture. I think so-called “symposiums”, “conferences”, and “summits” hardly qualify as important activities at all, because they could happen anywhere and tend to gravitate to places with nice beaches. --Jleon 16:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Politics
If you read the article, you may be forgiven for thinking that this country doesn't have a government at all. Where is the section in which I can learn more about the US political system - the powers of Bush, Condi & Co - Congress, the Senate, the judiciary? I could not find one word about it. Did I miss something? - Heimdal 16:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's in the Politics of the United States article; there's already a link in the United States Infobox template at the bottom of the page. I don't know why there's no section on politics on in the U.S. article itself, but I would assume the reason is that American politics is such a huge issue that it's best to keep it in a separate article (since it is the kind of thing that would evolve hourly). --Coolcaesar 17:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes I do agree that American politics are a big issue. But some words about it would still be useful here. After all, America's social issues are a big matter too, and you have an entire section dedicated to it. - Heimdal 09:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GDP
Is the US 2nd? anon changed it ... and I checked the article ... and it has the EU 1st ... is the EU "country"? I don' know [not big on economics ... nor of the "status" of the EU] ... So should it be 1st country; 2nd overall or ??? anyone? [or, I'm I missing something?] JDR

 * EU is the common economic zone, as US. The member states are as integrated as American states are. Ranking economies we should compare Oranges with Oranges and Apples with Apples. Comparing US with Germany doesn't make any sense to me. 145.254.118.240 01:00, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Hmm ... ok ... thanks ... so apples to oranges it's 1 ... but 2 to one for the same fruits ... JDR =-]

 * This is wrong, wrong, wrong. The E.U. is not like the U.S., it is instead something like NAFTA!

 * Inside the E.U. each country has its own president/prime minister/chancellor. There is no common foreign policy (remember: Iraq war, France and Germany vs. Italy, Spain and U.K.), there is no common currency (The Euro is not the only European currency), each member state has its own passport, its own laws, its own language, and so on!

 * The E.U. was founded to preserve peace in Europe after the 2nd worldwar. It has now become a trade union, since there are special laws that are mandatory for all member states. Brussels is currently working on a E.U. constitution, but that cannot be compared with constitutions of nomal countries, such as our beautiful U.S. constitution. The E.U. is currently being expanded to include 25 instead of 15 members, but that is heavily opposed by citizens. And: There is no E.U. military! Each country has its own military, some have joined NATO, some not. Some participated in the war in Iraq, others not. In the U.S. however, it was the U.S. that invaded Iraq, not just Montana and California. Or did you ever read in the newspaper: Arkansas has threatened to veto, or Alabama will not participate ... ???

 * That's funny, I have read several quotes from High-ranking EU officials that state the EU was formed to oppose the mono-polar economic power of the USA, not to preserve the peace as you propose. The EU, by their definition, is a hedge against American power. Not arguing, but rather point out their own internal opinions.

 * Due to cultural differnces (that don't exist in the U.S.A.), language problems (same again), big differences in laws (same), and stubbornnes (same) there will NEVER be a U.S.E. (United States of Europe)!

 * Well, it's a common practice to put EU first in GDP rankings - though unranked, just like the GDP page in Wikipedia. So, I think the US should be both 1st and (2nd) - yes, EU isn't a single country, but the states aren't completely independent either, and it's a major economic force and should be recognised then.
 * Maybe the comparison should be between major economic forces rather than countries.Pedant 23:57, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

 * Right. The EU is not like the US. The independent member countries of the EU (France, etc.) are self-governing entirely, unlike the American states. The EU (though the new constitutions are tying to change this) is a economic entity, with higher pretensions: more like a glorified NAFTA.

US has the first ranking economy, not the second. The EU isnt even a country. Incase you guys dont know, EU constituion talks collapsed a few months ago. It has no federal powers, it cannot command the GDP of every member nation. If you're going to count the EU as a country, you might as well count NAFTA as a country. Which would mean NAFTA has the largest economy (USA + Mexico + Canada).

 * What are you objecting to? The page says the US has the strongest economy, afaics. Marnanel 20:51, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

So what would you say would be definitive similiarites and dissimiliarites between the EU and NAFTA?

 * It's an interesting argument as to whether the EU constitutes a single economy. The EU is a much tighter grouping than NAFTA, but much less tight than the US. An "economy" is not the same thing as a country. Taiwan (ROC) is regarded as an economy but most places are too afraid of mainland China to give it recognition as a country. This is all academic though... we should take our lead from accepted international practice. The UN's GDP rankings do not currently list the EU, the member countries are listed separately. Ben Arnold 22:24, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The EU is not a 'single country' any more than the Arab League, NAFTA or the African Union are. The USA is a single country, the EU is not-

Enough reasons why the EU and the USA are not similar enough to be compared? --Cynical 21:21, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The EU laws are not 'compulsory for all member states' as a previous contribution asserted- they all have to be ratified by lawmakers in the individual countries.
 * Alabama can't refuse to enact a new federal law (the member states of the EU can).
 * Michigan doesn't have its own currency (many members states of the EU do, and the others could change back from the Euro to the Deutsche Mark, Lire etc. if they wanted to).
 * New York can't decide to leave the USA (member states of the EU can leave any time they like)
 * California can't go to war with Montana (member states of the EU can, although it hasn't happened so far it may when the potentially more volatile Balkan states join)
 * Texans vote for the same President as people from New Jersey (member states of the EU each elect their own leaders)
 * The USA has a single national anthem and a single team in the Olympics, the World Cup etc. (The EU member states have their own anthem and teams)
 * The USA has a single, legally binding Constitution (the EU doesn't have a Constitution yet, and even the new one that's being decided won't prevent members from dumping it and leaving the EU)
 * Each state in the USA has the same (de facto)official language: English. The member states of the EU have a total of at least 20 different official languages between them)
 * The USA has a single military- the US Army, the US Airforce, the US Navy, and the likes of the National Guard are controlled by the USA. The EU member states each have their own militaries, commanded by the sovereign governments of those states, there is no EU Air Force or whatever
 * The states of the USA have agreed borders- there are no fall-outs over where Arizona ends and New Mexico begins, whereas, as one example, Spain still disputes UK sovereignty over Gibraltar, as does France with respect to the Channel Islands

 * Why not simply remove the GDP occurence in the template ? I personally don't find it very relevant, it's not something undoubtable (compare to facts of geography for instance). It's just a way to calculate economic power of a country. Why not then figure out the number of men the US army is composed of ? That's a way to calculate military power. Helldjinn 18:59, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * But not an entirely accurate one, just as total GDP is not an entirely accurate figure. The EU ranks higher than the US, but has a lower per-capita. North Korea's military is larger than the US's, yet few would consider it a superior military. --Golbez 19:58, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * That's exactly why I consider removing GDP : it's not accurate. Why GDP and not HDI for instance ?Helldjinn 05:04, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * The Economist magazine (perhaps the UK's most authorative business/economics/politics magazines) - recognises the Eurozone area as a single economic area and in its statistical analysis treats it as such - this definition includes 12 of the current membership of 25 EU states. The non-Euro EU member state being, Denmark, Sweden, UK plus the 10 Accession states of 2004). The Euro 12 share a single currency and have no means to set their own independent interest rates, the are therefore effectively a single economy. Most of the other 13 countries are bound by mechanisms such as ERM II (the holding bay for consideration for entry into the Eurozone) which significantly restrict their ability to vary their interest rates, exchange rates and inflation rates - their economic agenda is effectively set by their desire to join the Euro 12. Setting aside the question of economic sovereignty/pseudo-sovereignty - all 25 members of the country are bound by the dictates of the Aquis Communautaire, the vast body of European legislation that each country is treaty bound to incorporate into its own legal codes, a great deal of this legislation is related to economic spheres of activity with the goal of promoting a single European market for capital, goods, human resources, services (a fundamental principle of the EU since the Single European Act of 1986 - with scheduled implemenation by a deadline of 1992). Given these considerations, I would say that for the purposes of Wikipedia the EU should be considered as a economic entity for the purposes of GDP tables, the fact that it is not a nation-state (in the conventional sense that one thinks of one), but a state-like entity is essentially irrelevant.  Moreover, the tendency towards deeper economic integration within the EU means that by considering the EU as single entity for the purposes of economic analysis the Wikipedia will reflect the general trend of events and reflect the true state of play more closely as the EU continues its process of constant evolution.

Final point as an aside - the EU is not simply a glorified trade area (I think some people have this impression), it is, as acknowledged by former Commision President Romano Prodi, a political project. Nick Fraser 12:39, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The EU is significantly different than NAFTA. The EU provides for the free movement of people which NAFTA does not. The EU is also a customs union. NAFTA only provides for duty free trade of goods whose origins are primarily from one of the NAFTA countries. Steggall 22:57, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is true that the EU is not a single country, but it should be noted that it has the strongest economy in the world. Although each country has it's own laws and leaders, is this not also true of the American states? The European Union represents the opinions of its member states, and allows them to have their own seperate laws, as well as imposing some of its own by which all members must comply. And, although they have their own leaders, the EU has it's own "Official" leader. Yet again, this is the same as in the US, in which the states can make their own laws, and they have their own "leaders". So the difference between the two is that the EU is not a declared country. THis does not alter the fact that it does have the strongest economy in the world. Lieutenant Blue 12:33, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PPP
The PPP and currency exchange rate from US dollars to US dollars is by definition 1.0, see purchasing power parity. The PPP numbers can be removed. But all reporting areas that doesn't use the US dollar should of course have both. - Jerryseinfeld 01:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Do you agree or what? - Jerryseinfeld 19:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Previous archive page is Talk:United States/Archive 5

Next archive page is Talk:United States/Archive 7

title: Talk:United States/Archive 6


text:
User talk:Walter Smith

Welcome
Hello , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! You 19:41, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

MechWarrior: Vengeance
Very good job for a first article. There is only one thing missing: references. Keep up the good work!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Tnx. It's a good start, but as the above guideline external links are not references (they are related sites from which no info was taken for our article).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See also computer games articles listed in the Featured articles section.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Rommie24.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Rommie24.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 13:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Rommie_current.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Rommie_current.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 19:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Lander_and_rover_drawing_lmb.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lander_and_rover_drawing_lmb.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 19:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:MW4 cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MW4 cover.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Walter Smith


text:
USS Robert L. Barnes

USS Robert L. Barnes (AO-14) was an oiler in the United States Navy.

Robert L. Barnes was a steel tanker built during 1917 by McDougall Duluth Ship Building Company, Duluth, Minnesota, for the Robert Barnes Steam Ship Co.. Alexander McDougall built her as a prototype "rectangular ship" or "sea-going canal boat," with a plain, low hull and a superstructure that could be removed to pass under canal bridges. The ship was visually very similar to a Whaleback, also designed by McDougall. She was acquired from her builder by the U.S. Shipping Board on 29 June 1918; transferred to the U.S. Navy the same day; and commissioned at New York 19 October 1918. She remained in custody of the 3d Naval District while preparing for sea. Lt. G. C. Daniels assumed command on 29 January 1919.

Assigned to the 5th Naval District at Norfolk, Robert L. Barnes departed New York 12 March 1919 for Hampton Roads. Subsequently, she operated out of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and New York until returning to Norfolk 18 April 1919. The ship remained inactive at Norfolk and was undergoing overhaul 4 September 1919 when she was assigned to the Naval Overseas Transportation Service. She departed Norfolk 21 November for San Pedro, California, via the Panama Canal and San Diego, California After transporting diesel fuel to Pearl Harbor, the tanker departed Hawaii 8 April 1920 with fuel oil for Guam.

Arriving at Apra Harbor, on 27 April, Robert L. Barnes served as an oil storage vessel in Apra Harbor. The ship remained at Guam through the interwar decades, departing only in 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1930, and 1934 under tow for Cavite Naval Base, Philippine Islands, for overhaul.

Robert L. Barnes was still in service at Guam on the outbreak of World War II in the Pacific. During Japanese air attacks on the island, 8 December 1941, the oiler was bombed and strafed at her mooring, causing damage topside and starting dangerous leaks. Still afloat when the Japanese invasion force landed on Guam, Robert L. Barnes was abandoned and fell into enemy hands 10 December 1941. She was renamed Hasu Maru. It was struck from the Navy list on 24 July 1942. Subsequently taken into Japanese service, the Robert L. Barnes was recovered at the end of the war. It was then sold to British mercantile interests, where she served as Fortune and M.T.S. No. 2 from 1945 to 1949 before she finally was scrapped in 1950.

title: USS Robert L. Barnes


text:
User talk:Alezane

Hi Alexane. Did you take Image:AXthree001.JPG yourself? Please go to that page and indicate where you got the photo from. Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 19:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Alezane


text:
Peedi Peedi

Pedro Louis Zayas (born September 25, 1977), better known by his stage names Peedi Crakk or Peedi Peedi, is an American rapper from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He is best known for his guest appearances on Freeway's 2003 single "Flipside" and Jay-Z's album The Blueprint 2: The Gift & The Curse (2002). He was a member of the Roc-A-Fella Records group State Property, and was signed to G-Unit Philly. He is of Puerto Rican descent.

Career
Pedro Zayas grew up in North Philly. He first signed to Roc-A-Fella Records in 2001 with the help of Freeway, a friend of his since high school who had already joined the label through Beanie Sigel and his State Property entourage. In 2002, his Megahertz-produced debut single, "One for Peedi Crakk" charted in the R&B/Hip-Hop Top 40. He continued with guest appearances on various Roc-a-Fella albums, including Jay-Z's The Blueprint²: The Gift & the Curse and Freeway's Philadelphia Freeway. His guest appearances gave him a reputation among East Coast hip hop audiences. Faced with increasing exposure, the Peedi Crakk decided to modify his rap name to Peedi Peedi.

However, in 2005, two problems greatly affected Peedi's career. State Property dissolved, and Roc-a-Fella Records formally split into two. Jay-Z remaining at Def Jam with 50 percent, and Roc-a-Fella co-founder Dame Dash taking the other 50 percent to Universal Records under his Dame Dash Music Group. Peedi refused to side with Sigel and Dame Dash, and was briefly a free agent until Jay-Z, who soon became the president of Def Jam and maintained the Roc-a-Fella catalogue at the label, signed him. Peedi began working on a debut album, Prince of the Roc, but it was continuously delayed.

In 2006, Peedi was featured on Game Theory, the first Def Jam release by fellow rap group The Roots, on its single "Long Time". Shortly afterwards, Roots drummer and leader ?uestlove offered Peedi a provisional spot with the group. Peedi stated he would welcome the chance to join The Roots. The one single for his shelved album, "Take Me Home," was released in 2007. Peedi became at odds with the label over his album, and tensions developed between him and Jay-Z. Peedi decided to lash out against the executive/rapper in the press and leaked several Jay-Z diss tracks, before he was released from his contract in 2008. Peedi then signed with Internet-based label Amalgam Digital, where he planned the release of a new album for September 2008; which eventually got pushed back. Originally planning his debut album, A Night in the Life, for March 24, it was later pushed back to May 2009. It now has no known release date.

Albums

 * Crakk Files Vol. 1 (2004)
 * Crakk Files Vol. 2 (2006)
 * Crakk Files Vol. 3 (2007)
 * Torture Crakk Is Bakk (2007)
 * Prince of the Roc (Unreleased) (2007)
 * Welcome to Crakk's House (2008)
 * A Night in the Life (Unreleased) (2009)
 * Crakk Files Vol. 4 (2011)
 * CF5: The Cocaine Edition (2013)
 * Crime Partners (2017)

title: Peedi Peedi


text:
Minnesota Department of Transportation

The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT, ) oversees transportation by all modes including land, water, air, rail, walking and bicycling in the U.S. state of Minnesota. The cabinet-level agency is responsible for maintaining the state's trunk highway system (including state highways, U.S. Highways, and Interstate Highways), funding municipal airports and maintaining radio navigation aids, and other activities.

History
The agency's history can be traced to the state's Railroad and Warehouse Commission which emerged slowly from 1871 to 1905, and the State Highway Commission created in 1905. The Highway Commission was abolished in 1917 and replaced by a Department of Highways. The Minnesota Highway Department has been credited with numerous works listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. For air transport, the Minnesota Aeronautics Commission was created in 1933. Much of the railroad oversight was transferred to the Minnesota Department of Public Service in 1967. Two years later, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety was established and took over the Highway Patrol and Driver's License Bureau. MnDOT finally came into being in 1976 and took over the functions of the aeronautics and highway departments, plus transportation-related duties of the Minnesota State Planning Agency and Department of Public Service.

Services and projects
MnDOT operates networks of ramp meters and traffic cameras in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area in order to manage traffic flow. The department has also put up informational electronic signage along highways to provide alert messages. Message boards have been in Rochester, Duluth and the Twin Cities for some time. Part of the reason for the Rochester signs is occasional flooding of U.S. Highway 52. The department expanded use of the signs after Amber Alert legislation allocated funding for larger networks. In the Twin Cities, MnDOT began using them to display freeway travel times in 2003 or 2004 to help drivers plan alternate routes to avoid heavy traffic if necessary (although a generic message like "buckle up for safety" is sometimes encountered during special safety campaigns planned in conjuncture with the State Patrol and Department of Public Safety).

Twin Cities Public Television (TPT) station KTCI channel 17 has been used for many years to display weather-related information that is funded by MnDOT. This service is continued on channel 2-4 following the digital transition. The department also had a long-standing partnership with KBEM-FM radio (88.5 FM) in Minneapolis to relay area traffic information, although that relationship is coming to an end. After public outcry, the term was extended, but it is unclear how long the two organizations will continue the relationship. MnDOT paid KBEM-FM $400,000 per year to provide the information, about half of the station's annual budget. Video from traffic cameras is also shown on cable television systems in the metro area (at one time, this had also been shown on KVBM channel 45, today known as KSTC).

In 2021, the department asked the public to name eight new snowplows introduced to the fleet. 24,000 submissions were received. The winning snowplow names were:

 * Plowy McPlowFace
 * Ope, Just Gonna Plow Right Past Ya
 * Duck Duck Orange Duck
 * Plow Bunyan
 * Snowbi Wan Kenopi
 * F. Salt Fitzgerald
 * Darth Blader
 * The Truck Formerly Known As Plow

Organization
MnDOT is led by the commissioner of transportation, who is appointed by the governor for a term coinciding with the governor's. The commissioner may appear as a party on behalf of the public in any proceeding before any governmental agency regulating public services or rates relating to transportation. The commissioner also provides technical and financial assistance to the Metropolitan Council and regional development commissions in the regional transportation planning process.

List of commissioners
Below is a list of Minnesota Highway Department (1917–1976) and Minnesota Department of Transportation (1976–present) commissioners:
 * Charles M. Babcock (1917–1932)
 * N. (Nels) W. Elsberg (1933–1938)
 * M. (Michael) J. Hoffman (1939–1957)
 * L. P. Zimmerman (1957–1961)
 * James C. Marshall (1961–1965)
 * John R. Jamieson (1965–1967)
 * N. T. (Nils Theodore) Waldor (1968–1971)
 * Ray Lappegaard (1971–1974)
 * Frank Marzitelli (1974–1976)
 * James Harrington (1976–1978)
 * Dick Braun (1978–1986)
 * Leonard Levine (1986–1991)
 * John H. Riley (1991)
 * James Denn (1991–1999)
 * Elwyn Tinklenberg (1999–2002)
 * Carol Molnau (2003–2008)
 * Thomas K. "Tom" Sorel (2008–2012)
 * Bernard J. "Bernie" Arseneau (2012), interim commissioner
 * Charles A. Zelle (2013–2019)
 * Margaret Anderson Kelliher (2019–2022)
 * Nancy Daubenberger (2022–), interim commissioner

Districts
MnDOT is divided into eight construction districts, with each district responsible for highway construction projects, maintenance, and highway right-of-way issues for their area. Each district has a district area headquarters as well as a secondary maintenance area office.

title: Minnesota Department of Transportation


text:
User talk:MrAmazing8270

Welcome
Hello , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! You 19:46, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Image Tagging Image:Bilgili.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bilgili.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 13:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Frawleystadium.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Frawleystadium.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —fuzzy510 01:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Bigsoccer.gif
This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Bigsoccer.gif. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 17:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wstw.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Wstw.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bigsoccer.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Bigsoccer.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello MrAmazing8270! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Serdar Bilgili -

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:MrAmazing8270


text:
Visalia Municipal Airport

Visalia Municipal Airport is five miles west of downtown Visalia, in Tulare County, California, United States. The airport is eligible for the Essential Air Service program, but has no scheduled air service, and is not eligible to request funding for service until April 30, 2026.

The Federal Aviation Administration says this airport had 1,831 passenger boardings (enplanements) in calendar year 2010, a decrease from 2,455 in 2009. The National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems for 2011–2015 categorized it as a general aviation airport (the commercial service category requires 2,500 enplanements per year).

History
Visalia Municipal Airport was built in 1927 and purchased by the city in 1928.

The Works Progress Administration (WPA) began several projects at the Visalia Municipal Airport in 1936, and would continue to make improvements at the field.

The War Department assumed control of the airport in February 1942, just weeks after Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, which led the United States to enter World War II. The airport was renamed the Visalia Army Air Field (Visalia AAF) and operations at the facility began almost immediately upon the United States Army Air Forces control of the airfield. Anti-submarine patrols were conducted from Visalia AAF by the 47th Bombardment Squadron (Medium) using Lockheed A-29 Hudson, and later B-25 Mitchell medium bombers.

In June 1942, the Visalia AAF was established as a sub-installations of the newly built Hammer Field in Fresno (along with Hayward AAF and Palmdale AAF). It shared Hammer Field's mission to train light, medium and heavy bomber squadrons. During that period Consolidated B-24 "Liberator", B-25s, Martin B-26 "Marauder" and the A-29s operated from Visalia AAF.

In January 1944, Army Air Forces headquarters ordered the entire Air University night fighter training program to California to be headquartered at Hammer Field. Under the supervision of the Army Air Force School of Applied Tactics (AAFSAT) and the 481st Night Fighter Operational Training Group, night fighter crews were organized into Overseas Training Units and entered three phases of training. In all phases, Visalia AAF was used as a satellite training site. During this period, Douglas P-70 "Nighthawk" (heavy night fighter version of the A-20 "Havoc" light bomber) and Northrop P-61 "Black Widow" operated from Visalia AAF. It is known that the 425th Night Fighter Squadron was stationed at Visalia AAF for its entire training cycle from February until May 1944 when it was deployed to the European Theater at RAF Charmy Down, England as part of the Ninth Air Force.

In 1946 the War Assets Administration, acting on behalf of the War Department, terminated the leases with the City of Visalia and other parties with the remainder of the lands transferred to the City of Visalia between 1946 and 1947.

United Airlines mainline flights began in 1946 and ended in November 1979.

After the deregulation of the airline industry in 1978, Visalia Municipal Airport became eligible for the Essential Air Service (EAS) program. Since then Air Midwest, Great Lakes Airlines, Scenic Airlines, SeaPort Airlines, SkyWest Airlines, Swift Aire Lines, and Wings West Airlines served the airport with EAS funding support, but none were successful.

SeaPort Airlines was the most recent airline at Visalia. Starting February 9, 2015, SeaPort operated 12 nonstop round trips a week to Burbank and Sacramento. The airline suspended its service without notice on January 15, 2016.

After the abrupt cancellation of commercial air service, the US Department of Transportation received proposals from three other airlines to start service from Visalia using EAS funding, but the city rejected the offers, believing that none of the carriers had a strong enough proposal. Instead, in January 2017, the city asked to be enrolled in the Essential Air Service Community Flexibility Pilot Program which allows communities to receive a cash grant equal to two years worth of subsidy in exchange for forgoing their EAS funding for the next ten years. Visalia was the first community ever to enroll in the program which had been established more than a decade earlier in 2003. In March 2017, Visalia received a grant worth $3,703,368 for the construction of two 10-unit tee hangars to serve small single-engine aircraft, and one corporate hangar to serve business jets and large aircraft. In exchange, the city will be ineligible to receive EAS subsidy funding for service until April 30, 2026.

Visalia Transit operates the V-LINE bus service connecting the Visalia Airport to Downtown Visalia, Downtown Fresno, California State University, Fresno and the Fresno Yosemite International Airport. The route started on November 18, 2015, but since the cancellation of commercial air service in Visalia, free extended parking (up to 10 days) has been offered at the Visalia Airport main terminal lot, where one can then ride the bus to Fresno's airport.

Facilities
Visalia Municipal Airport covers 821 acres (332 ha) at an elevation of 295 feet (90 m). It has one asphalt runway, 12/30, 6,562 by 150 feet (2,000 x 46 m), and one helipad 45 by 45 feet (14 x 14 m).

In the year ending March 22, 2022, the airport had 32,500 aircraft operations, average 89 per day: 95% general aviation, 3% air taxi, and 2% military. 161 aircraft were then based at this airport: 120 single-engine, 36 multi-engine, 2 jet, 2 helicopters, and 1 glider.

Other sources

 * Essential Air Service documents (Docket DOT-OST-2004-19916) from the U.S. Department of Transportation:
 * Order 2005-4-25 (April 28, 2005): selecting Eagle Canyon Airlines, Inc., d/b/a Scenic Airlines, to provide essential air service at Visalia, California, at the annual subsidy rate of $450,000 per year for the first two years and $300,000 for the third year beginning with its inauguration of service.
 * Order 2006-8-29 (August 30, 2006): selecting Mesa Air Group Inc. d/b/a Air Midwest to provide subsidized essential air service (EAS) at Merced and Visalia, California, and Ely, Nevada, for two years, beginning when the carrier inaugurates service. Merced and Visalia will receive 23 weekly round trips to Las Vegas, operated on a Las Vegas - Merced - Visalia - Las Vegas or Las Vegas - Visalia - Merced - Las Vegas routing at an annual subsidy rate of $1,599,207. Ely will receive 6 nonstop round trips each week to Salt Lake City at an annual subsidy rate of $647,709. Air Midwest will operate as America West Express/US Airways Express and serve each community with 19-passenger Beech 1900-D aircraft.
 * Order 2008-6-26 (June 19, 2008): selecting Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. to provide subsidized essential air service (EAS) at Merced and Visalia, California, and Ely, Nevada, for the two-year period beginning when the carrier inaugurates full EAS pursuant to this Order, at an annual subsidy of $4,900,401 with 19-seat Beech 1900D turboprop aircraft.
 * Order 2010-9-13 (September 9, 2010): re-selecting Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd., to provide subsidized essential air service (EAS) with 19-passenger Beechcraft-B-1900D aircraft at Merced and Visalia, California, and Ely, Nevada, for the two-year period from October 1, 2010, through September 31, 2012. The annual subsidy rates will be set at $1,961,174, $1,746,507, and $1,752,067 for Merced, Visalia and Ely, respectively, for a combined total of $5,459,748.
 * Order 2012-9-9 (September 10, 2012): re-selecting Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd., to provide subsidized Essential Air Service (EAS) with 19-passenger Beechcraft B-1900D aircraft at Merced and Visalia, California, for the two-year period from October 1, 2012, through September 31, 2014. The annual subsidy rates will be set at $1,698,878 and $1,697,929, for Merced and Visalia, respectively, for a combined total of $3,396,807.

title: Visalia Municipal Airport


text:
O'Connell Bridge

O'Connell Bridge is a road bridge spanning the River Liffey in Dublin, Ireland, which joins O'Connell Street to D'Olier Street, Westmoreland Street and the south quays.

History
The original bridge (named Carlisle Bridge after the then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland – Frederick Howard, 5th Earl of Carlisle) was designed by James Gandon, and built between 1791 and 1794.

Originally humped, and narrower, Carlisle bridge was a symmetrical, three semicircular arch structure constructed in granite with a Portland stone balustrade and obelisks on each of the four corners. A keystone head at the apex of the central span symbolises the River Liffey, corresponding to the heads on the Custom House (also designed by James Gandon) which personify the other great rivers of Ireland.

Since 1860, following similar work on Essex Bridge (now Grattan Bridge) to improve the streetscape and relieve traffic congestion on the bridge, it was intended to widen Carlisle Bridge to bring it to the same width as 70 m-wide Sackville Street (now O'Connell Street), which formed the north side carriageway connection to the Bridge. Between 1877 and 1880 the bridge was reconstructed and widened. As can be seen on orthophotography it spans now 45 m of the Liffey and is about 50 m wide.

When the bridge was reopened around 1882 it was renamed for Daniel O'Connell, when the statue in his honour was unveiled.

In recent years, the lamps that graced the central island have been restored to their five lantern glory. In 2004, a pair of pranksters installed a plaque on the bridge dedicated to Father Pat Noise, which remained unnoticed until May 2006, and was still there as of June 2020.

In popular culture
The bridge is the setting of Liam O'Flaherty's short story, The Sniper, and is also referenced in several other works, including James Joyce's novel, Ulysses.

Arthur Fields, locally known as The Man on The Bridge, took more than 182,000 photographs of pedestrians on the bridge from the 1930s to the 1980s.

title: O'Connell Bridge


text:
Talk:Mariazeller Bahn

Wow, that's close to unrecognisable even to me... :-D

I'm quite too busy at the moment to do it myself but whoever wants to do this cleanup or some other edit to this article - you have my kind permission to take whatever you need from the english pages at http://www.mariazellerbahn.at (which are my own work) and to release it under terms of the GNU-FDL!

Herbert Ortner 19:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's not all. The article is also duplicated. See Mariazellerbahn. They should be merged, of course. Kelisi 01:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Nixing of garbage, redirecting
This "article" is complete rubbish, and I don't know why it hasn't been deleted. Comic relief, perhaps? Well anyway....

The writer didn't even get the title right (it's one word, not two), and I seem to be the only one who has realized that it is a duplicate article anyway. I have expanded the Mariazellerbahn article by translating the German article and adding several pictures. There is nothing that can be deciphered in this shambles of an article that you won't easily pick out of that article.

Therefore, despite any wails of protest (pause to listen........... ?! .....Anyone?), I am wiping this junk out and making it into a redirect. Kelisi 17:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mariazeller Bahn


text:
Talk:Fried egg

Picture
The egg doesn't look cooked
 * Looks fine to me Indium 01:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup attempt
Does it look better now? Lenin & McCarthy 15:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I did a bit more work. Looking OK now? The Singing Badger 16:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, you put the cleanup note on. If you think it's better Lenin & McCarthy 16:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

scrambled
Scrambled eggs — eggs, which are beaten and then fried, and sometimes mixed with milk or cream; in the British Isles these are regarded as distinct from a 'fried egg'.

The distinction is made in the U.S. as well. Go to a diner and order eggs, and they will ask you, “Fried or scrambled?”

Michael J 21:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've been all over the US, and I've never seen anyone call scrambled eggs "fried". Kafziel 14:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm removing the reference to scrambled eggs in this article - there's already a page about scrambling eggs on wikipedia ahpook 11:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Scrambled eggs are different to fried. 217.28.6.80 (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Uhh, scrambled eggs are necessarily fried. It's like removing Canada from the North America article. I'm putting it back in. -Iopq 03:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * uhh, scrambled eggs have their own article. "fried eggs" doesn't just refer to the specific method of cooking, fried eggs inpliesvthe yolk is not broken. 71.236.105.175 15:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In the russian section there is some talk about 'yaichnitsa' being a generic term for either the fried egg or omelet. It also states that the same is true for the Polish 'jajecznica'. Well, i can say for SURE that the polish jajecznica means scrambled eggs and not omelet and not fried egg. I have corrected this by removing the polish word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.238.229 (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

 * About scrambled eggs being necessarily fried, this is not true. The best scrambled eggs i have made are almost poached in butter. I don't even think they reach 100 degrees Celcius, so it's not even boiling temperature. Frying i think implies a much higher temperature.Scroogy (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Argument
I'm in a heated debate with some friends. Is a Fried egg still considered sunny side up if you put a lid on the pan and let the steam cook the top, or does that become over easy?

 * I say it's technically still sunny side up because you never flip it, however the result is like an over easy egg in taste because the top gets cooked some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.207.108.22 (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

 * It is sunny side up unless you flip it over. Steam cooking the top just makes the whites less runny; it doesn't change the fact that the sunny side is up. They are also delicious prepared that way and recommend that everybody go have some now. ;-)

 * It's only "sunny side up" if it is *both* not flipped *and* you can see the yolk through the top (The "Sun"). If you cook the top, it's now "Up Easy".  In fact the whole section should be clarified.  There are two factors:  up or over, and the degree of doneness.  "Sunny side up" is a special case.  e.g You can prepare eggs "up hard".  Kazens (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I have never come across the term "bullseye" for fried eggs in India, in fact it is often called egg fry egg half-fry and so on. If the term "bullseye" is indeed used, it must be very specific locales. Could the author include some references to this effect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayfair void (talk • contribs) 10:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Omelettes
a fried egg should be cooked all the way (term_fried egg sandwich) meaning hard form egg including yolk. being boken or whole when fried but still well done. Removed this:
 * Omelettes are fried eggs mixed with various fillings and spices.

Omelettes may be cooked by frying, but they are not fried eggs within the usual meaning of the term -- besides which, omelettes don't necessarily include any fillings or spices. -- Picapica 14:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Omlette reference still present in Russian SurDin (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Other Meanings
Are either of those really necessary to this entry? Nobody's going to come to this page looking for "fried eggs" as slang for small breasts. That's pretty much what UrbanDictionary.com is for. 74.76.142.137 20:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I removed that item. Possibly the entire "other meanings" section should be removed. 98.207.94.47 01:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I just removed some ethnic slang (which referenced the urban dictionary). It doesn't seem like such things should be here, but I'm ok with the golf reference. I'm not up on my wikipedia policies/guidelines, but perhaps Avoid statements that will date quickly is relevant here. 98.207.94.47 (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I deleted the "Other Meanings" section. There is a line at top of this entry which says "This article is about the food. For other meanings of the term "fried egg", see Fried egg#Other meanings." It links to a wiki page that repeats the golf usage (the only "other meaning" discussed) verbatim. Irish Melkite (talk) 04:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The link at the top of the page went to the part you removed. You sort of broke it :P. I went ahead and removed the whole thing - I don't think we need slang terms to play a role in this article. Lawshoot! 04:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Variation...
The recipe under this section is in the form of instructions, which are not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. See, for example, Wikipedia is not a manual... The recipe can be incorporated into a description - otherwise it should be deleted. Jimjamjak (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Dippy eggs?
I grew up in Eastern Pennsylvania and moved to Western Pennsylvania as an adult, and I think there is some confusion about what a "dippy egg" is. From what I know, "dippy eggs" are a Western Pennsylvania term to describe the eggs with liquid yolk for dipping with toast. Here's a Pittsburgh Post Gazette source attesting to that. More specifically, I think that "dippy eggs" are the "sunny side up", per this food critic review from a food critic. As far as I know, it's not really a Maryland or Pennsylvania Dutch term, but it's possible. After some research, I also think that there is a British dish called "dippy eggs" that is kinda like soft boiled. I'm not an expert on this, so I wanted to bring it up.--Blargh29 (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I grew up in the Philadelphia area; we always called sunny side up eggs dippy eggs, but we also sometimes called over-easy eggs dippy eggs, too, on account of you can still dip your toast in them, something I wish I were doing right now because all this talk about eggs is making me powerfully hungry. Also, I love eggs.

I agree. A Dippy Egg is English for a soft boiled egg with the top removed. Strips of toast or other food is then dipped into the egg yolk. (food strips are often called soldiers) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.210.37 (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are refs needed for the dish of Huevos rancheros...???
--222.67.205.0 (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?hl=en&q=sunny+side+up+Huevos+rancheros&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

Full English Breakfast image description
The description on the image of the full English Breakfast is incorrect. The image shows a hash brown, a common component of the full English Breakfast, not 'fried bread'.

Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_breakfast#Full_English_breakfast and also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Full_English_Breakfast.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.118.22.166 (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Egg in a basket
I noticed that the section on here doesn't follow Wikipedia form in style or language with a lot of opinionated claims that can't be verified as general, common, or fact. I'm going to tag those parts with citation requests. I'm also proposing that the section is moved under US with mentions of Britain and Australia as there seems to be no evidence that it's more international. It seems that it's not only a dish specific to those regions, but there are many different sub-regional variations as evidenced by the many different names given to the dish. As of now, the section has more than the main article, too and that's not Wikipedia form either. I'll check back later to see if there's any edits or comments on my proposal. --173.15.125.225 (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

HP sauce only?
The statement for the UK section specifically states "and a variety of condiments such as HP Sauce." Is there any reason why that can't be changed to sauce in general? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrZoolook (talk • contribs) 12:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

History?
Is there any information about how, when or where the idea of frying an egg got started? Most likely the exact person, place and time are obscured into the distant past, but I doubt I am the first person to wonder about this. It just seems to me someone must have found the answer. Rod Lockwood (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Any real first occurence is probably pre-historic. Eggs are incredibly nutricious and are a meal for many animals. So eggs as a food source predecesses the evolution of mammals. The idea of cooking eggs seems trivial once the idea of fire exists. Frying (as used in fried egg) is just cooking the egg outside of its shell. It's like the idea of cooking meat or drinking milk. Who would have been the first human to do these things? We are unlikely to ever find out as it was done way before people wrote things down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scroogy (talk • contribs) 11:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Sunny Side Up
Sunny side up is a chiefly American term and is used throughout the article before being explained in the American section, either another term should be used or the term sunny side up should be explained in the header. 86.13.119.97 (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

UK and Ireland
I removed a bit of gratuitous Americana that seemed to have snuck in here.109.155.168.26 (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

India
Why are "fried eggs are most commonly called "poached"" in India and Nepal? Poached are not the same as fried! Is this an example of "Indian English" - i.e. distorted meanings due to ignorance?Royalcourtier (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Russia
Yaichnitsa (polish jajecznica) is the name of the Scrambled eggs, also the descrition here is about the Scrambled eggs. --212.122.206.18 (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

New Article Idea
I've seen a lot of proposals for adding distinctly 'American' styles of eggs, like dippy eggs / Sunny side up eggs / so on and so forth, would it be encyclopedic to have a separate article for more regional styles of serving eggs? I couldn't find one if it exists, but I think that might stop people from adding random local styles to this article!EventuallyHere (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Fried egg


text:
Talk:United States/Archive 7

America
Moved to Talk:United_States/Name

Opening sentence
From LaurelBush 16:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) (Laurel Bush - 16 Kennedy Terrace - UK - KWI 5BN):
 * I suggest the article's opening sentence should read
 * “The United States of America, also referred to as the United States, U.S.A., U.S., America,¹ or the States, is a sovereign power and federal republic centred on Washington DC in central North America …”
 * The expression ‘sovereign power’ places the US on a map of sovereign powers, of which others include the UK (centred on London or Westminster), France (Paris) and Ireland (Dublin). Or is 'UN-recognised sovereign power' more precise?

 * How about "country"? —Michael Z. 2005-01-28 16:47 Z

 * I second the motion to use the word country. Terms of art like 'federal republic' and 'sovereign power' belong in the article, but further down. brassrat

American versus USean
I removed the following:

¹America'' is incorrectly used to refer to the nation of the United States. Actually America is the name of a continent ranging to the Canadian North Pole to the Chilean South Pole. This continent was named after the Italian cartographer Amerigo Vespucci. Most people from this continent, mainly Latinamericans, find offensive the use of the term American to mean a citizen of the United States of America. The correct and proper way in Spanish to address to a Citizen of the United States of America is Estadounidense which could easily be translated to English as USean (the pronunciation of US is a usual and ean as in FloridEAN.''

and replaced it with (from a previous edit):

¹America may refer to the nation of the United States or to the Americas''—North and South America. The later usage is more common in Latin American countries where the Spanish word América refers to both continents. The United States is a less ambiguous term and less likely to cause offense. Unfortunately the term American meaning a citizen or national of the United States has no straightforward unambiguous synonym.''

America is not incorrect in this use. It is accepted in the United States, and overseas as well. Germans use it this way. Polish use it this way. British use it this way. I'd wager that plenty of others do as well. It is therefore accepted and correct. It is ambiguous, but correct.

Additionally, America is not a single continent. America may refer to the North American and South American continents collectively, but that's two continents, not one. In English, we refer to The Americas to specify both continents. The use of the word America to refer to The Americas in English is rare at best, and nonexistent at worst. This is an English language encyclopedia. As such, we should follow English standards. If Spanish-speaking people use the word America differently, that's fine. They have their use. We have ours.

Finally, USean/USian sounds ridiculous in English. Again, if it works in Spanish, keep it there. We don't attempt to force Anglicizations on Spanish language texts. It's equally inappropriate to attempt to force Latinizations (better word for this?) on English texts.

If anyone has a good compromise, please, add your input.

-- Dpark 06:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it should stay. That "USean/USian" sounds ridicolous is YOUR opinion, and is not enough reason to remove a whole paragraph. What, your view suddently became universal, eh? BAH! Besides, it's "The Americans, not "The Americas". That sounds like some backwatered mexican-town way of pronouncin' it. So speak for yourself: What's so wrong with spanish influences to the text (You DO know that English has been made up by "rip-off's" from the Latinic language, right?) when YOU make "The Americas" rare at best? Prepostirous, in their world "Americans" would be as rare as well - It all depends, not on your imperialistic view, 'tho. Not only that, you're lynching negroes - Removing the thing about Amerigo Vespucci too, which is, in fact, RIGHT....and you're too using an hypocrisy, since you do the same. And Spanish? 'Tis not latinization, but espanozifications. It's more justifyable to "force" (it's not even that, since it's sometimes used) Spanish on English since English was, in fact, MADE UP by a few Spanish words. English was not. Therefore, it cannot be equal. The paragraph's should stay.--OleMurder 09:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The inclusion of the conjured terms USean and USian would amount to advocacy of use of those terms, which are simply not in anything resembling what could be called "common use". The unqualified term American is by far the most common word used to describe citizens of the United States; and in English almost always refers to people of that country. The qualified terms North American, Central American and South American are used to denote regional origin. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If there is ever a need (which in my experience is rare) to describe someone as being from North or South America more generally than "North American" or "South American" the phrase "from the Americas" is used instead. In British English "American" is almost always used to mean "a person from the United States of America" unless it is being used to make a point about Canada/Canadians (usually) or Mexico/Mexicans (less frequently). In the future the same may happen with regard "European" as countries such as Norway and Switzerland are geographically in Europe but not in the European Union (then you have Cyprus which is culturally European and a member of the EU, but geographically in Asia. Turkey may also join the EU in future, and that is partly in Europe but the vast majority is in Asia). In short, use American but explain that while it is potentially ambiguous it is by far the most common term in the English-speaking world (or, in other words, do what the article currently does). It might be worth a mention that USean has been proposed as an alternative by some, but hasn't caught on in popular usage. Thryduulf 10:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with Dpark and Tony Sidaway on this. The whole USean bit comes out of nowhere with no support or sommon usage and doesn;t even really make much sense overall. Including it would be advocacy/personal research/nonnotable/unverifiable/vanity and a long list of other things violating Wikipedia policy. DreamGuy 10:51, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * Wow, you totally went off on some tangents, there. I'll try to actually address your stuff, though.

 * I'm pretty sure that many or most natively English-speaking people would agree that USean sounds ridiculous. It's not just my opinion.  We don't form words like that.  If we did, we'd have words like "NASAean" to describe someone who works for NASA, or NATOean for a member of NATO.  We don't form words that way, though.  As others pointed out, including the term would be tantamount to endorsing it.  Just because a few people think its a good idea doesn't mean we should endorse it.  I'm sure I could round up a few people who think it'd be fun to refer to Europeans as "EUs" (pronounced "eews").  But having a few crazy supporters does not make it worthy of inclusion in the article about Europe.

 * No, it's not "The Americans". No one ever uses that term to refer to North and South America collectively.  "The Americans" would typically refer to the citizens of the US.

 * What's wrong with Spanish influences? Nothing, when they occur naturally.  We've incorporated words such as "siesta" over time, and that fine.  It's not fine to force wierd Spanish-esque words on English speakers to avoid offending a few zealots, though.  (Your understanding of the history of the English language is lacking, and I will not address the claims that it's made up of Latin language "rip-offs".  You can read about the English language for yourself if you wish.)

 * We're not "lynching negroes". And if you cannot reply in a civil manner, your opinion will not be respected.

 * I removed the whole paragraph. I wasn't specifically trying to remove the bit about Amerigo Vespucci.  It just got dropped in the shuffle.  If that information is important, though, it might be better to simply add it to the article, or link to Americas where it's further explained.  It was rather out of place in that footnote.

 * "espanozifications" is most definitely not a word, though it's quite fun to say.

 * It's not justifiable to force Spanish on the English language. You haven't given any reason why this is acceptable, and I'm sorry, but your opinion, however zealous, is not a valid reason.  And again, please read about the English language before making claims about it being "made up by a few Spanish words".
 * -- Dpark 15:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Dpark, for your rational post. Here is the entire USean/USonian "controversy" in a nutshell: in Europe, most specifically in France, a mini-debate now rages around the term "American". In France, some want to replace the term "américain(e)" with the neologism "états-unien(ne)". This so-called movement is ideological and more often than not linked to virulent anti-Americanism. The French Wiki site is not immune to the debate, and many contributors prefer the new term. But the English-speaking world is not France; it is not drawn in to the same kind of political slugfests; it does not yet see "American" as imposed by imperialist running dogs. Rather, "American" is simply standard usage in both U.S. and British English. Wikipedia will accept "USonian" once it is standard usage, and not before. We should not impose a (very) weak and (very) politicized neologism upon every English article in Wikipedia. --Mason (a francophile American)

 * Thanks for your reply. I can (sort of) understand why some people want to use the terms America and American to refer to the Americas and any citzen thereof, and if it were common usage, I might agree with them.  What I want to avoid are the "political slugfests" you refer to.  I'm hoping we can reach a consensus and simply point to it whenever there's a disagreement on usage of America/American.  I'm also wanting to avoid the petty reverting/re-reverting that happens with miles vs km already.  So far it looks like no one actually sees "USean" as valid common usage, but instead as what they wish was common usage.  And in that light, I definitely think we should keep it out of articles unless/until it actually makes its way into common usage. -- Dpark 19:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've added the following to the first note: Many alternative words for American have been proprosed, but none have enjoyed widespread acceptance. Perhaps that's an acceptable compromise. It presents the possibility of other terms, without appearing to actively endorse them. -- Dpark 21:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Americas are also called "the western hemisphere". I have to agree that common usage among native English speakers is that "American" means a person from the United States. I say this as an American who regularly reads British publications (Economist and Nature, in particular). AdamRetchless 21:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A legal definition exist. The government is called the United States "the Federal Corporation" in Title 28 Section 3002. This government is a republic and not a democracy or representative democracy. See the revision and Article IV of the Constitution. Example:  No one ever voted on income tax or abortion...but it happended. These are probably the two greatest issues today. The republican form created these laws.
 * 28 USC 3002(15) does not create a legal definition of the term "United States". That subsection simply defines the words "United States" when they are used in that particular chapter of the United States Code. This is simply a way of saving words in the remainder of that chapter of the U.S. Code. (And by the way, Congress and the legislatures of three-quarters of the states voted to legalize the income tax by adopting the Sixteenth Amendment.) Mateo SA | talk 00:44, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Previous archive page is Talk:United States/Archive 6

Next archive page is Talk:United States/Archive 8

title: Talk:United States/Archive 7


text:
USS Kaweah

USS Kaweah (AO-15) was the lead ship of her class of fleet replenishment oilers in the United States Navy.

Kaweah was launched in 1919 by William Cramp & Sons, Philadelphia, under USSB account; acquired by the Navy 20 October 1921; and commissioned 28 December 1921.

After sea trials Kaweah departed New Orleans early January 1922 and arrived Philadelphia 18 January. She departed 14 March for a cruise to the Canal Zone and the Gulf of Mexico. She returned to Norfolk 7 May and decommissioned 15 August 1922.

Kaweah recommissioned 16 December 1940, Commander Charles B. McVay III, USN in command. From early 1941 until late fall, she made oil runs between ports on the East Coast and the Caribbean. She arrived NS Argentia, Newfoundland, 17 November for duty in the North Atlantic. For the next 14 months she operated between Iceland, Greenland, and Boston, supplying the fleet with gasoline and diesel oil. She departed New York 13 January 1943 with a cargo of diesel oil for Casablanca, returning New York 12 March. Kaweah made another round trip cruise to Casablanca in April before resuming fueling operations at Halifax, Nova Scotia, 26 June. For the remainder of 1943 she cruised in convoy between New England and Iceland supplying the fleet units with vital fuel.

For the duration of the war the oiler cruised along the North American coast, Greenland, and the Caribbean with aviation fuel and diesel oil. Throughout the war Kaweah remained almost constantly at sea on the important, never-ending duty of keeping the fleet supplied with petroleum products. Following the cessation of hostilities 14 August 1945, Kaweah arrived Hampton Roads, Va., 26 September and decommissioned at Norfolk 16 November 1945. She was transferred to the WSA 28 May 1946 and sold to Boston Metals Co., Baltimore, for scrapping.

title: USS Kaweah