This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Should there be a section on Anti-Americanism (could use Wikipedia for an example), or at least a link to the Anti-Americanism section. As the comments from many users of this website testify, there are a LOT of misconceptions about Americans and their country. Chiss Boy 16:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The page should correct many anti-american misconceptions.

Why isn't there a link to this page in the article. This is a very relevant topic to the United States.

• It's also a relevant topic for every country; so should every nation have a human rights section, or only the United States? Chiss Boy 16:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

How's the "the preceding comment was made by unsigned user 'IP adress'" made? Chiss Boy 16:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I second the request for a bit about literature in the culture section (why cinema and sport but not books?) I would add it myself but I don't have the requisite edit number yet. Beginning with Nathaniel Hawthorne and continuing through Melville, Twain, and James, America has a distinguished record of advancing the novelistic form. Among our Nobel laureates are Faulkner, Hemingway, and Toni Morrison. I recognize the piece is too long already, but perhaps we can cut visual arts a bit to make room? ParvatiBai 15:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

BS

Chinese GDP(PPP) goes in U.S.A. after 4 years. Will you be true? If I continue an anual rate of 10% growth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.146.220.31 ( talk) 10:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm not quite sure what it is you're saying, but we feature both PPP and nominal figures in our articles (it used to be just PPP but I changed that), so if you distrust PPP just look at the nominal figures. Regards, Signature ^brendel HAPPY HOLIDAYS 19:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

GDP after five years（Annual ratio growth of American 4%, annual ratio growth of Chinese 10%)

China 15138794

U.S.A. 14936847

This is bad way to view an economy considering the real gdp of China is really somewhere between 2-3 trillion.

True there is a very, very large discrepency between China's nominal and PPP GDP. Regards, Signature ^brendel 19:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Guessing that it's just some boastful Chinese who considers the PRC the greatest country in the world. A lot of Indians (and Americans) are similar, too. Chiss Boy 16:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Under cities, someone has listed New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas , and Houston as the most important global cities in the United States. While most everyone will agree with the first three, the international consensus ( global cities) is that both Dallas and Houston do not rank near LA, NYC, and CHI. In fact, cities like San Francisco are higher than those two. The article should be changed to just mention the alpha cities ( New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago).

Then above comment smacks of anti-Southern, anti-Texan regional chauvenism. There is tremendous diversity in Texas and especially the Houston area, as well as Dallas. Lets not let regional prejudice blind us to these facts.

Phil

67.42.243.184 20:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Could his in the box over at the right possibly be made a bit more formal, such as "Richard?" I know everyone calls him Dick, but it's the same as if Bill Clinton was President it would probably be more formal to put William Jefferson Clinton... Just a thought. Arthur Wellesley 19:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My recollection (confirmed by any number of online Florida ballot images) is that "Dick Cheney" is the name under which he ran for the office. We should probably respect that. On the other hand, even leaving formality aside, it seems as though his proper name should be given. "Richard B. (Dick) Cheney," perhaps? Eastcheap 03:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

In my point of view, pizza overtaken Hamburgers especially as most Americans' favorite junk food. Even though you can't count dominos, Pizza Hut, Papa Muffies, and Carbonies sales very easily. There is also frozen pizza from gas stations that are often bought (even discusting hot pizza at gas stations). Some people go as far as making their pizza from scratch. Wikipedia can say this for junkfood (not counting veggies, potatos, squash and meat as the most common nutrious food) Renegadeviking

Well as you can't count "sales very easily," perhaps we should just state that Pizza is among Americans' favorite fast food dishes. You should, however, remember that not all Pizza is fast-food. Go into any really good Italian resutrant and you will discover that an excellent pizza can be an art form. Even California Pizza Kitchen's pizza entres are well-beyond fast food. Regards, Signature ^brendel 22:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Pizza would be american's favorite food period, but the nutrition facts on frozen pizza make it as unhealthy as Cheese Burgers. Get where I'm coming from. So that's the point. Americans eat unhealthy and pizza is #1. Renegadeviking

I understand "where [you're] coming from." Yet, I feel the need to point out that there is more to pizza than your local supermarket's frozen food aisle. Pizza can be quite sophisticated when you eat at a finer Italian establishment. Semantics aside, do you have a source to state that pizza is not just among the top foods (in terms of overall consumption) but the top food? If it is an online source I would appreciate it if you could provide me with a link. Regards, Signature ^brendel 03:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems comparison between the sales of pizza and hamburgers would be difficult because a pizza may feed 2 or 3 people, but 2 or 3 hamburgers could feed one person. I'm guessing that hamburgers would have more sales than pizza, but just because something sales more doesn't mean that it is the favorite. For example, I may favor sports cars, but I can only afford an economy car. Hamburgers are often cheaper, quicker, and more convenient for consumers, but they may prefer the taste of pizza. I agree that if we can't find a reliable source, we should just list both as being favorites. Also, concerning the junk food status of pizza, just because a food is sophisticated or fancy doesn't mean that it isn't junk food, which describes the unhealthiness of a food. Jecowa 04:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You're saying Pizza Hut is healthier than McDonalds, which doesn't make sense. All that stuff that makes the cardboard underneath wet is liquid fat and oil, but "it's perfectly good for you" in your opinion. Here is your source [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] for Pizza #1 food. Renegadeviking 20 January, 2007.

I am not talking about Pizza Hut. That pizza is crap. I am talking about the handmade, oven fresh pizza you get at a fine Italian resturante. I don't eat pizza of cardboard and even the pizza at California Pizza Kitchen isn't soaked in grease. I am saying there are two types of pizza: Fast food (that grease junk served on cardboard platters) and high quality resutrant pizza, the kind that is hand made by an Italian Chef. Not all pizza is fast food, much of it is but not all-so can label all pizza consumption as fast food. Regards, Signature ^brendel 19:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't all that also true for Hamburgers, though? -- Random832 21:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been inside a genuine pizza parlor in River Falls, Wisconsin called Luigi's Pizza which specializes in Pizza, breadsticks, and pizza roles. I know what you're saying so all pizza from anywhere would still the top American type of food right? Renegadeviking 20 January, 2007.

• There are over 300 million Americans spread out across the continent. Stating that hamburgers or pizza is the most common American food is a huge generalization. That stated, you merely seem to want to argue that Americans eat badly (which many Americans do). Sort of petty. Chiss Boy 16:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

To say that the Yellowstone National Park area is the only volcanic area in the Rocky Mountains is incorrect, especially considering the volcanic areas of Pacific Coast, which includes Mt. St. Helens (erupting now) in Oregon, Lassen Peak in California, Mt. Rainier in Washington, Mt. Hood, etc. Also, Routt County in northmost Colorado contains numerous hot springs, and used to contain the only geysir in Colorado. [The geysir quit erupting after a railroad was constructed through the area, with much construction blasting.] Also, there is a volcanic area in northern Arizona that has erupted withing the time of Indian inhabitation of the area, and the highest point in Arizona is the large dormant volcano Humphreys Peak.

Then there is the Hot Springs National Park in Arkansas! That's evidence of a volcanic zone there.

dale101usa@aol.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.4.17.33 ( talk) 17:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

Mt. St. Helens is not in Oregon! The before mentioned, Mt. Rainier, Mt. Hood, etc., are all in the Cascades or another mountain range from the Rockies.

Anonymus

It might be better to say that Yellowstone National Park is a volcanic area because it is a Supervolcano and still active. There is a difference between a regular volcano like Mt. St. Helens and a supervolcano. It is the only supervolcano in the United States and most of the hotsprings around it in other states are part of the supervolcano itself. RosePlantagenet 14:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that in the article on religion Islam is placed as making up 0.6% of the population of the US. I'm no mathemetician but as conservative estimates of the American Muslim population range from 4,000,000 to 8,000,000 (the latter estimate according to CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, which might be more reliable since a great deal of American Muslims, particularly African Americans, tend to resist cooperating with censuses of their communities by non-Muslims) and some less conservative estimates I have heard with my own ears from a Connecticut chemistry & sociology Professor's mouth say as many as 10,000,000--and this is out of an estimated national populace of 300,000,000, unless I am mistaken--shouldn't it come out as something more like 1/32 (that's an extremely rough estimate, I don't have much time...leaves a remainder of about 4,000,000 unaccounted for, so I'll have to tweak it before I post it) of the population? Doesn't that come out as more than 0.6? I'd like to edit this article and talk about Islam a little more (the author has already given Christianity its rightful due) emphasis, since it is, after all, the fastest growing religion in the US as well as the world and has influenced socio-politics a great deal particularly in the last 10-15 years (i.e. the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, CAIR, the recent controversies in the US over permissibility of public prayer in airports and schools for Muslims, the election of a Muslim (Keith Ellison) to the House of Representatives, etc). In other words, I think Islam is relevant to any article on religion in the United States. Is this okay? I also think that as America is, as I have seen mentioned repeatedly with much enthusiasm by various editors on the Discussion page, arguably one of the most diverse places on the planet today, its page on wiki ought to be a little more "diverse" and extensive, namely in the matters of African, Hispanic, and possibly Native Americans (aka there should be articles about them and their influence in our society, too). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EKASeeker of Knowledge ( talk • contribs) 19:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

First, CAIR alone is hardly a reliable reference for such figures, and citing the chemistry/sociology professor you heard might be difficult. Secondly, fastest growing religion is an ambiguous definition since you can take it by percentage increase of adherants, percentage increase compared with the whole population, or total increase in numbers. (The middle I believe is Islam, the first I think is Wicca with a like 1,000 percent growth, and the last is still Christianity). The thing is, even if your numbers are correct, I hesitate to support the idea that Islam really is a fairly large source of influence in America or helpful for giving an outside reader an impression of America; in my experience, Islam has had a very minute influence on America coming from the inside, and in my case, I see almost nothing of it at all where I live :/. All of the controversies you cite mostly have to do with Muslims from the outside forcing the U.S. to respond to threats from a pretty fair distance across the globe, and CAIR really isn't an important enough organization to warrent much detail in this article. Homestarmy 19:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, citing one professor you heard also doesn't really qualify as a source. There're quite a few Wikipedians who are professors themselves. Homestarmy is also right that Islam hasn't had a very significant impact on mainstream American culture which consists of mainly Judeo-Christian floways, norms and mores from Western Europe. As for the percentages, Muslim-Americans are in any case a rather small ethnic group consitituting less than 3% (even when 8 million) of the population. That said obviously their cultural heritage ought to be mentioned on Wikipedia but please consider that this particular article is only supposed to give a rought idea of the US. There are already complaints that this article is too long. That said, if you see obvious cases of Euro-centrisism you can bring them up here and we'll try and fix them. Regards, Signature ^brendel HAPPY HOLIDAYS 19:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What an absurd stament. Only a rabid Leftist would claim that 9/11 was not worthy of it's own section. Please don't take such fringe elements into account in your editorial descision making. And by the way-- great job!

67.42.243.184 20:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It is unreasonable to include 9/11 on the front page under "History". The full effect of 9/11 has not been completely accounted for and this event is only a small part of the nation's history. The previous sections include wide ranging time periods such as Reconstuction, the World Wars, etc. 9/11 is not or atleast has not yet become a wide sweeping trend or established time period in U.S. history so therefore it should not be included on the front page. 66.172.99.74 04:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Dr. C. Frederick, Englewood, CO

The Cold War and aftermath are definitely the end of one historical period, and the 9/11 attacks are widely regarded ^{citation needed} as being the beginning of a new one. So even if it is a recent event it is a distinct segment of United States history and should remain as the most recent section for now. In 20 years we may need to re-evaluate whether there is a better title for that section, and 50 years from now whether the first decade of the 21st century even needs more than a 2 sentence blip describing it, but from the present perspective it is the most logical cutoff for a new section. -- tjstrf talk 07:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Our biographical articles mention a person's death or marriage or job change as soon as we know the news. Our article on the United States must be similarly up-to-date. We may not yet know how 9/11 will be viewed 50 years from now, but we do know it is important enough to rate a mention in the main article. Johntex\ ^talk 01:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a new page should be created for 'mordern history' or 'current events' in which modern and current events can be kept of this page... -- Ikyork 06:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Question: why is the term superpower found in this article so much? I realize that this is an US self-identification thing, but isn't Wikipedia supposed to be WP:NPOV? Can we at least attribute to sources the places in the article where it is states that the US is a superpower or "the only" superpower?

Definitely US is the only Super Power, not in just one aspect, but many - technological, economic, political etc. From the moment people wake up till the moment they go to sleep, people around the world depend on the products created by US technology. Is it not true? So what is wrong in calling US a Super Power

- A Wikipedian

Maybe say that they're "self-applied" terms? After all, according to Wikipedia's own article on the subject, superpower, the term itself is heavily criticized as being either inaccurate or passe. -- ScienceApologist 06:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for citizens from other nations to air their inferiority complexes. At least, I don't think that's what it's purpose is (I could be mistaken). Cheers.-- Rotten 17:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an american product. Of course it will have propaganda boasting the u.s. image. That will never change. However, the sensible users can still take it upon themselves to fix what they can. -G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.33.164 ( talk • contribs).

It makes little difference where Wikipedia is based, since anyone can edit it and the secret police are not bashing down your door and stopping you. The notion that an American product will necessarily be filled with pro-US propaganda is idiotic, amongst other reason, for the fact that much great and prominent US criticism and self-criticism, sometimes the best in the world, originates in the US itself and circulates freely within and outside the country.-- Supersexyspacemonkey 23:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The term Superpower isn't a value judgment; it's a simple recognition of a widely recognized fact. The term is clearly defined and cited; there's no WP:NPOV issue here. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly-- it's a fact, not an opinion. But someone who is opinion-driven and not fact-driven may not be able to see this. Ideology over logic and all of that...

67.42.243.184 20:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You fools "superpower" is not a self applied term. It started in the cold war and Russia the soviet union was also called a superpower. Now this new term "hyperpower" is also not self applied. It was created by the French prime minister.

While I would not have put it so crudely or used the term "fools," I echo this sentiment, people really need to do more research and spew less. Such gross ignorance of history, where people profess to be discussing history, is disturbing. The term "Superpower" is not a self-applied term, and was invented to denote the new kind of global powers that emerged after WWII, which were more militarily, economically, and politically powerful than the traditional concept of a "Great Power," and the scope of this power was so radically ahead of the other Great Powers, that the term "Superpower" was coined in order to describe THE BRITISH EMPIRE, THE UNITED STATES, and THE SOVIET UNION. But Great Britain was in decline, and by the time of the Suez Crisis was no longer considered a Superpower, thus leaving only the Two, the USA and USSR. Of course, if you people would bother to simply look it up in, say, the article that deal with the term "Superpower," then you would understand this, so you really have no excuse to feign ignorance and to go on juvenile anti-Yankee rants.-- Supersexyspacemonkey 23:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Great argument, here and below. It isn't POV that the United States is the superpower. Wikipedia (and the world) is just rife with: Europeans who are envious to see the United States have power which they once had (at least to a degree) and might not attain again; Asians whose economies are growing and view the United States as the dominant power to beat (a sort of "[they're] going to catch and surpass you" sort of gloating); Latin Americans who recognize that the United States should be their peer (a fellow former colony, younger than some of the Spanish ones), but is far more developed than them--and while they look up to Europe, Europe looks up to the United States; Canadians who are angry that the world overlooks their country because of its closeness (physically, culturally, linguistically, etc.) and small size (population) next to the United States; and Muslim dominated countries who think that the United States is waging a war against Islam in general. Add all those up, along with sundry others envious of the United States or who get slanted, biased media (or both), and you end up with a lot of the world angry at the United States due to their (the non-Americans) own jealousy or misconceptions. Chiss Boy 17:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• The U.S. is referred to as a superpower in this article because it is a political term, just as much as Democrat or Republican are. Those terms are not really considered POV anymore, and can be found in many Wikipedia pages. Besides, the superpower article describes the term adequately. Hojima chong 01:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The name of the country is the United States of America. That should be the primary title of the article, with United States redirecting to it by default. -- Hpa 19:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read Talk:United States/Frequently asked questions for why the article is at its present title. -- tjstrf talk 19:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

When you manage to get United Kingdom moved to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Mexico moved to United Mexican States, then we may consider your request. -- Golbez 04:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. Let's change it to United States of America. All Male Action 04:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hpa & All Male Action - Please confirm that you have read the FAQ, and please identify anything new you have to contribute beyond what is in the FAQ. Perhaps the FAQ page is missing something pertinent. JonathanFreed 05:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The nation is the "united States of America", according to the declaration of independence of the united states against Britain. ~~Opaleg

Yes, but please see the FAQs. Signature ^brendel 23:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have read the FAQ and I suggest long form is used for all countries with anything shorter or of common vernacular be a redirect to long form article. Such a policy ultimately provides a greater amount of information to the reader. -- Ikyork 06:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The Economy section now states that, "The U.S. has a slightly smaller social safety net than that of other developed countries." The footnote (43) cites the Heritage Foundation, which is a fairly biased source. "Slight" seems inaccurate, especially in regard to health care. Perhaps the information could be given in less relative terms, simply saying what the US social safety net does and does not have. Alternately (or additionally), perhaps a liberal think tank could be consulted and cited. --Stevensonrl

Well we should use a neutral source-you're right the Heritage Foundation is quite the conservative think tank. The things is of course between which countries you make the comparision. The US well-fare net is not that much smaller than that of Australia or Switzerland (they too are "other" developed nations). The US well-fare net is, however, considerably smaller than that of say, Sweden or Norway. As I said, we need a neutral source to replace the Heritage Foundation reference. Regards, Signature ^brendel HAPPY HOLIDAYS 01:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This article presents a view of the USA as if it is a utopia without err, to have an article that is bias is not proper. If someone who did not know any better read this page, it may give them an uneven view of the USA. The United States of America uses the Monroe Doctrine, so it deserves a little more information to make those who are not aware, aware. People in the general public of the world need to know more about America. People wish to know how the country was founded by those cast out of Europe for various reasons be them, religious ideals, horrible crimes, or etc. Or how some came to the new country looking to be their own masters. Also they need to know how the 18th century founders of the country wanted to be Kings under the rule of a democracy for those deemed worthy. More information in the article needs to reflect the impact the USA has had on historical events, and how do to calculated orchestrations has caused current conditions in South America and the rest of the world. The article needs a chart on poverty, or crime, a little more info would not be unreasonably linthy. -- Margrave1206 18:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid your over-simplifying things a bit. Most Americans are the descendents of European immigrants who came here during the 19^th and early 20^th century in search of land and economic opportunity. Some European countries such as Germany actually encouraged emigration to the US in order to open up farmland for urban development (today German-Americans are the largest ethnic group). America is way to diverse for overly-generalized labels. If you beleive that this article paints an overly-optimistic portait of the US please tells us where and we can fix it. Regards, Signature ^brendel HAPPY HOLIDAYS 00:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I live in the U.S. and, while it could always be improved, it is kind of utopian. Money is pretty easy to come by. There's no shortage of jobs. Living is pretty easy. Economy is booming. The stores are filled with goods of all kinds. We have a good amount of freedom. I feel thankful all the time that I live in a place of such abundance. Even most of who are considered in "poverty" are pretty well off. For example, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 46% of those in "poverty" in the U.S. own their own home (with the average poor person's home having three bedrooms, with one and a half baths, and a garage. Understanding Poverty I've been to several other countries, and in comparison the U.S. is a kind of utopia in my opinion. Improper Bostonian 04:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well yeah, of course, the US like all free high income western nations is utopian when compared to the developing world (which is where 83% of the world lives). Most Americans do live pretty decend lives. Besides I don't think that this article is overly patriotic or optimistic to begin with. Regards, Signature ^brendel HAPPY HOLIDAYS 06:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Civilian control over the military?

Come on people. We don't have to get into every little bit of detail here but statements like 'The United States has a long-standing tradition of civilian control over military affairs.' is a bit utopian version of what is and has been the case. I know that compared to some countries in the world (cf. the bosnian in the above discussion) this might be more true, but in essence it is not. For any country. But in US, how many oppose the camp at Guantanomo bay? How many condone going to war for false (WMD) reasons? Under civilian control is to me a big pile of crap. It is under governmental control, which to a certain extent is controlled by the people, but that does not mean the it is under civilian control. User:Me

@user "Me", you dont seem to understand what is meant by "civilian control." It does not mean that the citizens of the United States vote on where and how the army does its job (this isnt an athenian democracy). It means that in this country it is illegal for elected members of the legislative and executive branches of the government to be concurrently serving in the military. All generals report to the commander in chief (i.e. the president), who is, by definition in this country (but not necesarily others) a civilian. -- Cptbuck 02:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Civilian control simply means that it is not controlled by a government made up of military officials (like Pakistan). -- Coolcaesar 17:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, because the military is under the control of Congress (and to a lesser extent, the President), it is also answerable (indirectly) to the people (along with the civilian politicians to whom the military is directly answerable). Chiss Boy 17:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The lead is very untidy, and almost comical. I've moved the "other names" to the names section (makes sense). Its almost like writing Robert Smith (also known as Bob, Bobby, Rob, Robby, R.S.) is a... -- Jay( Reply) 01:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ture, strating out listing all common has certain a comical cache. Regards, Signature ^brendel HAPPY HOLIDAYS 01:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've read that the U.S. is the most philanthropic nation in the world, private charity. [6] [7] Americans donate 260-300 billion per year. Anyone know where to find the studies on this that we can cite? All Male Action 02:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, in total numbers the US donates more money than any other country on earth. The US is also by far the largest developed nation on earth (next is Japan w/ just a bit over a third America's size). Regarding per capita measurements, other developed nations donate more money to charity. Regards, Signature ^brendel HAPPY HOLIDAYS 07:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not just total numbers-- it's as a percentage of per person (per capita).

67.42.243.184 20:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw a television show recently that said Americans give more of a percentage of their income to charity than any other nation. Again, I'm talking about private voluntary giving rather than forced tax-funded "giving." Again, I don't know where to find the studies though. All Male Action 07:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Check with the Heritage Foundation. If you cannot find an article which supports it, contact them. They will be more than happy to provide you with statistics about the United States' philanthropic activities.

Thethirdperson 17:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sure they would as it seems with the latest report of economical freedom that the Heritage Foundation is glorifiying USA a little bit by stretching their judging criterias when they estimate the economical freedom index. Because as of 2007 USA seems still to be in the lead even though many many restrictions on how to govern business and other atrocities against the public has been comitted under the last year. Which logically should have dragged down the rating of economical freedom for USA but that doesn't seem to be the case while other countries that was on the top in 2006 have been degraded. I don't necessarily find the Heritage foundation to be a credible source of research anymore. Lord Metroid 16:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone replaced the "baseball and apple pie" photo with one about story-telling quilts. [8] While the former is a bit stereotypical of the USA (and a rather inaccurate and romanticized interpretation of the USA), the latter goes to the other extreme and seems to present a rather narrow interpretation of USA culture. I would venture to say that very few Americans have heard of a story-telling quilt - and an even smaller minority of a Americans actually have one in their family.

Rather than revert the photo change, should it be deleted altogether? ++ Arx Fortis 06:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I say revert to the "romanticized" and generalized version. US culture is very diverse-there are Americans who have never played baseball and many don't like apple pie either. Nonetheless it's kind of a nice romantic stereotype that adds to the article esthetically. Regards, Signature ^brendel HAPPY HOLIDAYS 07:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, I don't think the purpose of the article is to satisfy romantic notions, but to present facts. I believe that a more accurate cultural photo would display American Football and Malls (as representative of consumerism). others may disagree. But Baseball is deffinatelty not the norm any longer as an American past-time. - Lordsuhn 10 January 2007

I would add more photos overall and even include a near photo-essay on American culture. This is a huge nation, don't be afraid to take up plenty of space to cover the needed points. That could be done in this case without overkill.

67.42.243.184 20:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Lordsuhn, you may _feel_ consuming is a factual representation of american culture, but given that logic, so are any number of things required to function within a modern human society of which are not unique to the US. if modern society existed without capitalism and the purchasing of goods through the representation of time/effort in the form of money, people would still be required to 'consume' to feed and clothe themselves, as well as have hobbies, etc. LEAST i not mention that the romanticism of certain cultural aspects (apple pie, baseball) is what makes them icons in the first place. over and out, -- Ikyork 06:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Apple pie picture is disrespectul to the United States, see it's discussion page. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 20:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think would be nice to metion the exterior politics of USA.

Let's add a pictures of this; it's probably the most recognized image of the U.S. in the world.

Yes we really should! Unfortunately my Statue of Liberty pics from my last NYC trip arn't of really great quality. I'm going to check the Commons in a while. Regards, Signature ^brendel 19:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty article appears to have many pictures etc... -- Ikyork 07:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There should be mention, on the section of the article about the name, of the "manifest destiny doctrine", that is so clearly expressed by the said name

Also, one should note that, in the same session, there is a lenthy explanation of the name of the continent itself. Not only this seems very POV to me (as a reflection of the said doctrine) but also that material seems to fit better at the "Americas" article Cold Light 20:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Your notion that manifest destiny is "clearly expressed" in the name is itself pov and highly debatable. The fact is that at the time of the formation of the United States there were no other independent nations in the American continent(s). The United States was the very first post-Columbian sovereign nation ever formed, was formed as a federation of several colonies, not just one colony, and its name is a logical expression of the solidarity felt by those colonies that were in rebellion against foreign rule. These colonies formed "Continental" congresses, which truly were continental in scope inasmuch as they included all of the at-that-time rebellious colonies on the Continent. Finally, the "United States of America" is nothing more than an expression of fact at the time, those "United States" were in fact the ONLY "states" that existed in all of America, everything else on the continent was a COLONY, so to interpret the intent of the stile "United States of America" as an expression of Manifest Destiny and expansionism is a gross stretch.

Secondly, an explanation of the name of the continent is essential here because that name also forms a part of the name of the United States of Amerca, that is just plain logic.-- Supersexyspacemonkey 23:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I am glad to have finally received an answer. Thank you for the consideration. To the name issue: It is not "logical" (I think we probably mean resonable, but we should avoid needless semantic discussions) to explain the origins of the contient's name in the countries article. "state" is also in the said name, and (thankfully) no one even tried to explain it in the article. The country takes its name from the continent. That is the resonable fact for the article to explain.

The explanation of the continents name in this article is POV. Is is so because mixes the identities of the country and of the continent. They are separete entities, and the article should reflect that. I do not oppose to putting this information on the "Americas" article and linking to there from here.

No, thank you, any opportunity to discuss differing views is most welcome. In response to your observations:

1. On the contrary, that their identities are mixed is an etymological and historical fact, not pov. Whether the country should have been named the way it was, or whether or not one likes the name, or agrees with the name, is a completely different and independent discussion altogether, and is a matter of pov. The continent and the country are separate things, but their names are not separate things, irrespective of one's opinion regarding that matter.

2. The full name of almost any country, with a few notable exception, consists of a core proper noun (or adjective) along with several miscellaneous terms, e.g. "The United Mexican States," "The Federal Republic of Germany," "The French Republic," "The Kingdom of Sweden," "The Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya," and so forth. Nobody would reasonably deny that even while generic terms such as "republic" need not be explained etymologically (though they may be described in a section dealing with politics), and words such as "the" need not be explained at all, any intelligent article must still explain the origins of proper nouns and adjective such as "French" or "Germany." This situation is no different with regard to "The United States of America."

3. "OF"--there is much confusion regarding this English pronoun, and there is even an entire section here in the discussion page devoted to it. Many people have argued that because the phrase is "...of America," therefore the proper name of the country cannot itself be "America." They argue that this phrase merely denotes a country that is located "in" America (continent), or proceeding "from" America, or "related to" America, or having to do "with" America. Were this clearly and unequivocally the case, then I would agree with your argument that "America" is nothing but a miscellaneous, geographical descriptor, on the same level of importance as "republic," as far as the nation's identity is concerned. However, this is not the case, and the word "of" can also mean "which is called," or "which is known as."

• Kingdom of Sweden --means "Kingdom named Sweden," not "Kingdom that lies within Sweden"
• Federative Republic of Brazil --means "Federative Republic named Brazil," not "Federative Republic that happens to be located within a larger, distinct area that is called Brazil."
• Republic of Guatemala --means "Republic whose name is Guatemala," not "Republic that is located somewhere in Guatemala"
• Federal Republic of Germany means "Federal Republic that is named Germany," not "Federal Republic that exists in a certain part of Germany
• Commonwealth of Australia --means "Commonwealth named Australia," not "Commonwealth associated with Australia."

What the colonists and the Founding Fathers meant when they named the Republic is debatable, and can be argue either way. What is not arguable is the fact that, as a matter of usage, the preposition "of" is both used and understood, in modern times, by Americans, and indeed by English-speaking peoples, in the sense that it is used in the names of the countries I listed (or any other country containing "OF" in its official title). Whether or not that is a good thing, bad thing, in poor taste, fair, diplomatic, polite, etc., is a matter of personal opinion. But, like any other sovereign nation, the United States of America can take any name it wants, which is not already in use by another sovereign nation, and the american continent is not a political entity, much less a sovereign nation.

As a Mexican-American I fully encourage other American peoples to call themselves "American" regardless of which American country they call home, and to educate those who are not aware that "American" has two valid definitions, one as an adjective for the citizens of the USA, and another as an adjective for the inhabitants of all America. But, these things should not be mutually exclusive, and we should all respect the names of foreign countries regardless of what they are, even if they are named after continents.-- Supersexyspacemonkey 09:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a clarification on the above point. You referred to yourself as 'a Mexican-American'. Does that mean you are a citizen of Mexico, a country of which is in the Americas (specifically the continent of North America), or does it mean you are a citizen of the United States (of America) whose family heritage is within the country of Mexico? If you are a citizen of Mexico, then should Canadians call themselves Canadian-Americans, or rather as person with family heritage originating from Mexico, do you feel I (someone who can trace their ancestry to Europe) should refer to myself as a European-American or more specifically given the preference to country of origin, Irish-Welsh-Scottish-German-American? Then at what point may people who are citizens of the United States (of America) refer to themselves as United States of-Americans or even United States of America-Americans?

The purpose of the above is to illustrate that language is clumsy, and quite often its exactitude is better abandoned for its perfunctory usages. You feel me? -- Ikyork 07:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"Manifest destiny" was a sorry expression. It comes from a different timeframe, and has many characteristics that are not inherently associated to the country's name. I meant it reflects the leading role the US has tried to keep on the continent from the very beginning. The notion that the US represented (and represents) the continent and its interests. Cold Light 22:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Being, at the time, the only free nation on the continent, and being a federation of all the freed colonies who fought for their independence, I see absolutely no reason why the USA should not have been entitled to represent the entire continent and its interests, and for its name to reflect that. I think that the intention is completely positive and completely justified, and there is nothing wrong with it, but there is a tendency to apply later events and later politics retroactively. As far as the present time, I think that it has very little to do with what a country "should" be named, since names are inherrently historical in nature. France was named after the Franks, a Germanic tribe, even though the current inhabitants are mostly descended from Roman colonists and speak a Romance language. But nobody is going to change the historical name of France to fit the present.-- Supersexyspacemonkey 11:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Contrary to what your opinion seems to be, Cold Light, in English (and this is the English language Wikipedia) the United States is part of North America. The country makes up the majority of the continent's population (some 300 million Americans of the roughly 500 million North Americans). Even if you were to use the Americas as your argument, the United States makes up over a third of the population. Furthermore, the United States makes up the vast majority of the continents' GDP, and easily has the most dominant military. American culture is also spread across the world. So, yes, the United States representing the Americas, and especially North America, makes some sense (akin to how Russia often represents Central Asia, and until recently much of Eastern Europe; India represents much of South Asia; and South Africa represents much of southern Africa). Chiss Boy 17:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It is absurd there is no mention of American literature in the Culture section. The United States has a literary tradition rivaled only by Great Britian. Someone should add in a paragraph on it at least, even if it mostly exists to direct people to the full article about it.

All fun aside, yes, I agree that a few sentences and a link to the American literature article would be appropriate.-- Primal Chaos 12:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree, the US has since the age of enlightment had a literary tradition comparable to western Europe for the same time span. There should be some mention in the culutre section (The US isn't just about fast-food, TV and sports ;-)). Regards, Signature ^brendel HAPPY HOLIDAYS 00:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly so. The US has won more Nobel Prizes than any other country, and ranks only second behind France in Nobel Laureates in Literature with 12. See the Nobel Prize and related wiki articles... -- Ikyork 07:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone just vandalized this article....

Wrong. How can you say you've got the Literature at the European Level. You will not find the maturity and depth of thinking as in French or German Literature... or the complexity of British or Russian.

• Sort stuck up of you to automatically think "the European Level" is something especially grand. And how much American literature have you read, anyway? Guessing not much if any--so many Europeans go into hissy-fits because their subcontinent does not seem to be set for greatness in the predictable ("foreseeable") future, and they see that the United States is a superpower and are jealous because of it. Chiss Boy 17:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone changed the name of the president to Jonathan Diaz. I don't have an account - would anyone mind changing it?

It's been fixed. Thank you. -- tjstrf talk 04:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Also someone changed it from President to puppet and changed vice president to vice lawyermaker or something like that. It needs to be changed as well.

The section under Economics includes the following statements: Since 1975, the U.S. has a "two-tier" labor market in which virtually all the real income gains have gone to the top 20% of households, with most of those gains accruing to the very highest earners within that category.[50] This polarization is the result of a relatively high level of economic freedom.[51]

The polarization in question is not necessarily a RESULT of a high level of economic freedom. The Economist article sited demonstrates a correlation, but not a cause and effect. Some would argue that the polarization mentioned in the article is due to mixed economic policies that favor some groups/individuals/corporations over others. Perhaps the last sentence, "This polarization is the result of a relatively high level of economic freedom.[51]," should be removed. The cited fact in the preceding sentence (Since 1975, the U.S. has a "two-tier" labor market in which virtually all the real income gains have gone to the top 20% of households, with most of those gains accruing to the very highest earners within that category.[50]) stands alone.

True there is a certainly a difference between correlation and causation. I propose either changing the sentence to "There is a strong correlation between a strong emphasis placed on market freedom and the poliraztion of income," or as you say, remove it. If no one else chimes in, I'm going to replaced the sentence with my proposed revision. Regards, Signature ^brendel HAPPY HOLIDAYS 22:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would really like to remove the labled map from the front matter but thought I would ask here first. I find it rather large and unsightly (as its all in grey rather than shaded). Also some of the cities are misplaced (El Paso is in Texas) and the principle of inclusion is unclear. I think the other maps are sufficient for this survey article. Eluchil404 07:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it should go. I finally realized that if you mouse-over a city or state you get info on that location (which isn't explained beforehand to the reader -- an egregious violation of user interface design). Aesthetically the map is very unattractive and leaves the reader wondering "what are the dots for?" Raymond Arritt 01:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The title of this article is "United States". However, the introduction to this article, including the bolded word and the title in the infobox, is "United States of America":

"The United States of America is a country in North America that extends from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and shares land borders with Canada and Mexico. The United States is a federal constitutional republic, with its capital in Washington, D.C."

These two things should be exactly the same. The question is, should the bolded word/infobox be changed to "United States", or should the page be moved to "United States of America"? -- RattleMan 21:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia differentiates between article title and formal long-version name of a country. The article title is the common, short-version name of a country to make things easier, so that instead of looking up "The United Mexican States," you just look up "Mexico," for example. The official complete name of the United States is The United States of America, and this is clearly indicated within the article and the boxes. As far as there being one sentence that states "United States of America," immediately followed by another sentence that mentions only "United States," this isn't because they are being idfferentiated as two different things, it is only out of convenience and practicality, and we could alternately write "USA," or even just "US."-- Supersexyspacemonkey 00:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is not being moved. -- Golbez 12:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Rattleman, please read Talk:United States/Frequently asked questions. The link is at the top of the article for a reason. -- Coolcaesar 01:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

While I know that the word American technically refers to anyone on either of the American continents, even the OED clearly states that American describes "An inhabitant of the United States." The word American cannot be replaced with citizen as doing so would exclude permanent residents who are included in all the studies and statistics on this page; thus the word "American" is the best to use. In an article soley pertaining to the United States it is clear what we mean by American and the OED, Webster and Cambridge dictionary support the notion of using the term American to describe a US-resident. Regards, Signature ^brendel 19:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• A LOT of Anglophones (and others) refer to people from the United States, and as an adjective relating to the country, as Americans or American, not only Americans (people of the United States), even if they will occasionally use the term to relate to people of the Americas (which even Americans do when it is warranted, i.e. the OAS, the Organization of American States). However, when the "American" used is not clear, almost always in the English language, the default is relating to the United States. Even a local Spanish language television channel (Univision), has a program called "Despierta América," and covers the United States (the América in the title). If you go to some Japanese and point at a person from the United States and ask "what nationality is that guy" (in English), they are bound to answer "American." If the guy was from Chile, they would answer "Chilean," not "American." If you go to an Australian and ask about some clothes he bought, he would more probably answer (if they were from the United States) "an American sweater and some American pants" before "a United States sweater and some United States pants" Even the BBC, which has a global viewership, vacillates between using United States and American as an adjective, and even uses America to refer to the United States (noun). It definitely isn't only Americans that use the term in reference to the United States. It is the most common use in English (be that American, British, Irish, Canadian, Australian, South African, Indian, Filipino, Chinese (for a non-Anglosphere country), etc. English ). Chiss Boy 17:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• In Mandarin Chinese (Putonghua?), the word for the United States is based on "America." And before the Anti-Americans get into an uproar, the Arabic word for Europe is based on "France." Chiss Boy 17:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The wiki poverty in america article is linked to this one?? It needs to be if it is not. Over 35 million americans live in poverty.

Also in the ethnic group section, how does the USA come to the conclusion who is white or black by their standards? For a fact that they changed or in constant flux as to who is considered white. For a fact a great deal of people in Amercian have Native American blood. Also if one went by the American one drop rule who would be black???? -- Margrave1206 01:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The "One drop rule" is no longer used by the US government, instead self-identification is used. It used to be that if a person had "one drop" of non-white "blood" in them they were non-white. In other words everyone w/ one drop of black blood in them would have been black a person with one drop of white blood in them would not, however, be considered white, as that group was kept more exclusive. The poverty article is in the templates at the bottom. Regards, Signature ^brendel 01:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

For the census and for almost all other purposes, ethnicity in the U.S. is self-declared (as Brendel mentioned). If you say you're white, black, native American, or whatever, that's what you are. See Race (United States Census). Raymond Arritt 01:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Margrave, a lot of Americans have Amerindian blood--and are proud of it; they don't try to hide it as many Latin Americans do. In fact, they often mention it readily even though their Amerindian ancestor was their great, great, great, great (something) grandparent. And onto the one drop rule. The one drop rule was: a) only for African descent, and b) a long time ago. Furthermore, many Americans of African descent have European blood (around 20%?), most Amerindians (who report themselves as such) have substantial European blood, too. Chiss Boy 17:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

?????? Of course they're proud, who isn't proud of their ethnic group???...but many of them are only proud because they don't have alot. I have many 'White' friends with Amerindian blood, and they are proud, but they look down on others with more Amerindian blood. Being Mestizo myself, I think it's very rude of you to say that we try to hide that fact. At least we don't claim to be proud about it and then put down Latin Americans for being 'brown'. But that's neither here nor there.... Have you nothing better to do than to go to every discussion and try to drive your views into everyone??? Please, your anti-American accusations are too wild....be sensible, too. Signed Cali567 04:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You may think it's rude all you want, but it is a fact that a lot of Mestizos look down on those with more Amerindian blood than themselves, and conversely look up to those with less. There is a lot more institutionalized racism in Mexico and other Latin American countries with a large non-European (predominantly European) population than there is in the United States. Similarly, you can consider all this "ignorant American" and American is for people from the Americas (much less used in the global English language than American used for people from the United States) stuff as not being anti-Americanism, but it still is, along with the EUers acting as if their union is a country merely so they can state that the EU has a larger GDP than the USA (NAFTA has a larger GDP than the EU), and is the third largest population (again bumping the United States). Chiss Boy 21:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that it should be mentioned how many states the USA consists of in the introduction. I was looking for that, but I couldn't find it. Either I'm blind or it isn't mentioned at all in the whole article (except in Administrative divisions, where it is said that there are 48 continental states plus Alaska and Hawaii) -- 80.219.120.34 19:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about in the introduction, but its certainly an important oversight in the article. I would suggest we attempt to emulate the excellent (and concise) Administrative Divisions section of the Mexico article, Link —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Primalchaos ( talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

I think we may need to include the fact that, legaly, there are only 46 states. Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Massachusetts are all Commonwealths. It may be helpful to mention that to people who believe there are 50.

There are 50 states, not 46. That four states refer to themselves as "commonwealths" is of no legal or technical difference. Nicholas F 17:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The map nearest the top doesn't show the Hawaiian Islands, which I find very wrong for an encyclopedia. Does anyone know where to find a better one? I'll look around too... | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 23:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a very strange map. The land masses are shaped like they would be in a Eckert IV, but this map is square. The location of Hawaii would actually fall outside the bounds of the map. I changed the map, but it could still use some work. I have lots of trouble with SVG. Jecowa 16:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll upload/find something more appropriate. Quizimodo 20:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried Google Image earlier today, but I couldn't find an image of the entire world. Good luck Quizmodo. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Quizimodo fixed it. Jecowa 03:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, since when is Deleware (or Maryland for that matter) part of the South?

Since the US Census Bureau said so. If you consider the Mason-Dixon line the boundary, then yes, MD and DE are in the south. -- Golbez 09:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Delaware and Maryland are definitely part of the South. Just because they didn't secede in the War Between the States doesn't change that. Kentucky is also part of the South. Chiss Boy 17:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is too government oriented. In the Economy section all it seems to talk about are state accomplishments. We are not a fascist nation. There IS a private sector accomplishing a lot of great things. There is a picture of a state university. How about a private university? The United States is more than just the government. The government is actually less important than the private sector in a capitalist economy. So why so much focus on state accomplishments? This looks like it could be an article put out by the Nazis glorifying Nazi germany. Improper Bostonian 02:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

WP has rules about this. We should not give "undue weight" to any aspect of the topic. But the "topic" here seems to be the political regime resulting from the Euro colonization of North America, so the stateist bias is legitimate. I have complained about this before without success - I think there must be a clear definition of the topic of each article. Otherwise our rules about neutrality and balance are unenforceable. You need to go to to the articles where the Wikicracy decides these issues. Fourtildas 04:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"This looks like it could be an article put out by the Nazis glorifying Nazi germany."- What this mean? Signature ^brendel 06:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, if you think private sector info is needed you should write something. Put it here for discussion first (to avoid squabbles). I suspect you will find you have difficulty coming up with something that is purely American and without public sector involvement. Except for things like microwave popcorn, aluminum beer cans, Pringles potato chips, plugin air fresheners, Hummers, etc. Fourtildas 05:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Beginning early the Cold War, the U.S. achieved successes in space science and technology, leading to a space race which led to rapid advances in rocketry". This should be replaced by "Russia launched the first artificial satellite and the US scrambled to catch up". Fourtildas 04:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Be that as it may, the latter version is POV. Regards, Signature ^brendel 06:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Russia launched the first artificial satellite and the US scrambled to catch up". Fourtildas

Fourtildas, how about "Russia launched the first artificial satellite and the US scrambled to catch up, and succeeded, landing the first man on the Moon. Since then, the Russian exploration of space has waned, with the American space agency, NASA, becoming the dominant space agency in the world. "? (and the '.' goes before the " in a quote). Chiss Boy 17:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"Beginning early the Cold War, the U.S. achieved successes in space science and technology, leading to a space race ... " is not correct. It should say "Beginning early the Cold War, the U.S.S.R. achieved successes in space science and technology, leading to a space race ... " Fourtildas 04:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If Mexico's name was the United Mexican States OF America and they began calling themselves America I think it would alienate the rest of the continent. However, the tranlation of Estados Unidos Mexicanos is United Mexican States it is not OF America.

United States (the country) OF (emphasis on the OF) America (the continent) So the country of the United States is part OF the continent of America yet Americans (also incorrect it shouldn't even be Americans) refer to their country as the name of the Continent.

United States is one country United Mexican States is another [for short Mexico because it is the set of united states encompassing a ENTIRE (you could say that the US emcompasses america which it does but not its entirety) region known as Mexico]. So Mexico can call itself Mexico because the country is situated in an entire region known as Mexico. The United States can't call itself America because it only takes a part of the continent (not even a majority of the continent is part of the United States).

I think you got my main point that Americans (not all) can be ignorant and closed-minded.

Some Americans are certainly close minded, but that is the case in every society as it is fault in the nature of human beings. American however does refer to the US and American to a resident of the US given the right context, such as this article. The OED, Cambrdige and Webster all state that American, given the proper context, refers to the US and its people. Perhaps it shouldn't be that way and perhaps it is indeed the remainder of an ethnocentric past, but we are not wiriting about the way things ought to be. Instead we present them as they currently are, whether we like what we see or not. Regards, Signature ^brendel 20:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously some Latinos can be ignorant, too. You may not use America for the United States in Spanish (though Univision does), but in English, not only American English, America and the United States are interchangeable. Chiss Boy 18:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree 110 percent with whoever created this topic, but how are you gonna make 'em understand, since they don't even have a proper name, they had to steal the name of the whole continent!.

Americans?? anyone whose born in America is an American, people from Canada to Argentina are Americans, but of course if they don't call themselves "Americans" then how are they gonna be called?... United Statians?? it sound awkward I know, what that's their fault for not creating a proper name for their country.

The easiest way to understand it, is imaging that there was a country called "the United States of Europe" and they auto call themselves "Europeans"... anyone who'd been born in Europe would be an "European" not just people from that country. Supaman89 00:34, 15 January 2007(UTC)

I understand your point and you're right Argenitnians are also Americans. Yet the term American, given the proper context, describes a person from the US. That's now embedded in the English language. If you want to change that, go ahead but on Wikipedia we cannot re-arrange the English language to suit our thoughts. Whether or not USanians "had to steal the name of the whole continent" is really quite irrelevant. The word American in the context of this article pertains to residents of the US. Regards, Signature ^brendel 00:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The states themselves are what the people are from. A person born in New York is a New Yorker and so on. The union is just a collaboration to govern specific things for such things as interstate trade and immigration. However that has since long been ignorrantly forgotten and now the union itself in a whim of personifcation has become a country of itself by the inhibitants of the various states. Lord Metroid 16:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

News-flash for you, Supaman89, people from the EU do call themselves Europeans, though they also recognize other Europeans (Swiss, Russians, Norwegians, etc.) as Europeans. Similarly, Americans call themselves Americans while recognizing that the term can also apply to people from the Americas. Chiss Boy 18:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this issue is a bit too bogged down in nitpicking with words. Mexicans and Canadians may very well be North Americans or americans, but American has come to be known as a word to mean from the USA. Following the logic of those who wrote about the problem of this word usage, wouldn't anyone from sub-saharan Africa be "South African"? Seems like some misplaced anti-Americanism to me.

Again, it's really quite simple. The most authorative English dictionaries including the British OED state that the term American can correctly be used to describe the USA and it's people. Signature ^brendel 21:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It is anti-Americanism, but an old one. Many early Americans intended for the country to be larger than its current size (some ideas going from Canada to Peru). This, along with the fact that the United States was the first independent country in the Americas, contributed to the interchangeability of America and the United States. Add onto that that foreigners (definitely other Anglophones) such as Tocqueville (a francophone) referred to the United States as America, and it just goes to show that it isn't some supposedly "ignorant" American thing. Chiss Boy 18:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"OF"--there is much confusion regarding this English pronoun. Many people have argued that because the phrase is "...of America," therefore the proper name of the country cannot itself be "America." They argue that this phrase merely denotes a country that is located "in" America (continent), or proceeding "from" America, or "related to" America, or having to do "with" America. Were this clearly and unequivocally the case, then I would agree with your argument that "America" is nothing but a miscellaneous, geographical descriptor, on the same level of importance as "republic," as far as the nation's identity is concerned. However, this is not the case, and the word "of" can also mean "which is called," or "which is known as."

• Kingdom of Sweden --means "Kingdom named Sweden," not "Kingdom that lies within Sweden"
• Federative Republic of Brazil --means "Federative Republic named Brazil," not "Federative Republic that happens to be located within a larger, distinct area that is called Brazil."
• Republic of Guatemala --means "Republic whose name is Guatemala," not "Republic that is located somewhere in Guatemala"
• Federal Republic of Germany means "Federal Republic that is named Germany," not "Federal Republic that exists in a certain part of Germany
• Commonwealth of Australia --means "Commonwealth named Australia," not "Commonwealth associated with Australia."

What the colonists and the Founding Fathers meant when they named the Republic is debatable, and can be argue either way. What is not arguable is the fact that, as a matter of usage, the preposition "of" is both used and understood, in modern times, by Americans, and indeed by English-speaking peoples, in the sense that it is used in the names of the countries I listed (or any other country containing "OF" in its official title). Whether or not that is a good thing, bad thing, in poor taste, fair, diplomatic, polite, etc., is a matter of personal opinion. But, like any other sovereign nation, the United States of America can take any name it wants, which is not already in use by another sovereign nation, and the american continent is not a political entity, much less a sovereign nation.

As a Mexican-American I fully encourage other American peoples to call themselves "American" regardless of which American country they call home, and to educate those who are not aware that "American" has two valid definitions, one as an adjective for the citizens of the USA, and another as an adjective for the inhabitants of all America. But, these things should not be mutually exclusive, and we should all respect the names of foreign countries regardless of what they are, even if they are named after continents

A side note: it must be observed that not all countries observe the nomenclature whereby "The Americas" are considered a single continent named "America." Without making any value judgement or getting into the irrelevant topic of which naming system is superior, we must all recognize the fact of the matter, which is that, in English, and in most English-speaking countries, as well as some others, there are two continents, North America and South America. In many other countries, there is only one continent called "America." People disagree, end of story. Neither naming convention was ordained by God. BUT, since the USA is one of those countries where "America" is actually two continents, then it should be more comprehensible why Americans from the USA see nothing weird or odd about using that name for themselves, since in their experience it does not correspond exactly to the name of any specific continent.

Finally, we must all remember that the United States of America was born from THE FIRST successful colonial revolution in the Americas; it was THE FIRST sovereign nation to gain independence from European powers, and was at the time of its founding THE ONLY sovereign nation to exist in all of America--the rest were all colonies and conquered lands. Someone gave the example of a European country called the "United States of Europe." Well imagine if all of Europe were conquered colonies, held by Asian powers, until a dozen different European colonizes allied with each other in a common desire for independence, and rose up in rebellion against the foreign rulers, then united into a federal state called "The United States of Europe," then the analogy would be more accurate. What's more, I think that the citizens of the USE would have every right to call their nationality "European"--which would not erase the alternate and equally valid meaning of "European" meaning inhabitant of the continent. In fact, we already see the European Union (which is not a country but is certainly a political entity, and is certainly not a continent) parading itself everywhere as "Europe," at sporting events, political forums, business forums, and elsewhere, even though it is only a portion of Europe and not the whole. But who goes about spewing hateful diatribes, or insuniating ignorance/stupidity against all of those "Europeans," for just that reason??? Being the only free nation in America at the time, I think the USA was more than entitled to represent that continent, and could take any name it darn well pleased, even the name of said newly freed continent.

In conclusion, I believe that the argument raised is a valid one, deserving of an explanation. I also believe that people (in general) are sometimes too quick to pass judgement and condemnation upon nations and peoples based on assumptions, gut-reactions, and misunderstandings. In this particular case, I believe that the controversy usually arises from a mixture of strong political sentiment plus linguistic confusion, which leads to people prematurely declaring what the "correct" answers "should" be without first seeking clarification from the source, that is, from people being judged. It would be wiser to simply ASK, "Why is it that the USA is named the USA, could someone please explain this to me because it does not makes sense?" instead of self-righteously declaring as "fact" that it is "wrong," and insulting those who disagree.

It is ironic that "Americans" are being labelled as closed-minded, because I personally believe that lambasting entire peoples/nations, or even just a significant portion of them, over something as trivial as a grammar dispute, is itself monumentally closed-minded. I also find it somewhat ridiculous that a name can only mean one thing, and cannot be used with multiple meanings. I would imagine that anyone who has opened up a dictionary even once is familiar with the concept of multiple meanings. People argue the issue with much anger and indignation, as if calling US citizens "Americans" somehow made it impossible or inappropriate for non-US citizens to call themselves "Americans" as well. People can call themselves whatever they want, nobody is stopping them, and unless Americans from the United States are beating down your door, pointing guns to your head, and forcing you to relinquish the right to call yourselves "American," then this whole issue is incredibly infantile and pedantic.-- Supersexyspacemonkey 10:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe American is exclusive to United States citizen and common wealth territories. Though if you must call us something other then American, the British called the United States soldier, a "Yank" or "Yankee" which goes back to the rebel forces in the American Revolutionary War and also what the confederate army called all Union soldiers. Today, it is commonly used for a member of of the MLB team. Renegadeviking 13:46 20 January 2007

Why is this discussion still ongoing. Once and for all, here's what the OED says:

“

American: adjective: relating to or characteristic of the United States > relating to the continents of America. noun: a native or inhabitant of the United States > a native or inhabitant of any of the countires of North, South, or Central America. - Oxford English Dictionary, 11th edition

”

That is what the word American means according to the highest authority on the English language. It clearly proves that the term America(n) can correctly be used pertaining to the US. Regards, Signature ^brendel 20:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This discussion shouldn't be ongoing. This is the English Wikipedia, and the default definition of American refers to the United States. Latin Americans (in particular) have to just realize that. As for the suggestion of Yank/Yankee, while commonly used for Americans in general, it actually refers to those who fought for the Union in the War Between the States, especially those from New England, the Mid-Atlantic states, and the Midwest. Chiss Boy 18:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This page isn't for arguing with Merriam-Webster. They are not GNU lovers :P. The term "Americans" has been used to refer to both citizens of the United States and citizens of the continent of North America. When written, it usually can be inferred which definition is being used (here, it is obviously the first). Hojimachong ^talk _con 04:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The most commonly spoken language in America is Spanish, but every time I add (Spanish most commonly spoken) to the official language section, its deleted. Its true, America is a spanish-speeking country.-- Count Mall 21:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, living in California I can certainly atest to the fact that Spanish is a very, very commonly spoken language in parts of the US, mainly the South-West, CA and Texas. On a national level, however, 80% of Americans do not have any native language other than English; thus making the US a mostly English speaking nation. Regards, Signature ^brendel 03:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop being petty. This article is for the United States of America, which in English is colloquially referred to as America. English is the dominant language of this country. And has the status of official language in more states than any other (one each for Spanish, French, and Hawaiian, jointly with English). And what is this "America" of which you type? In English, there is the Americas. Chiss Boy 18:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually since the US don't have a "Official Language", English would be the most commonly spoken language followed by Spanish. Supaman89 00:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactely! Signature ^brendel 03:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Pres Bush personally said English is the official language. US Congress also pasted a law recently that every US citizen must speak fluid English. Renegadeviking

The President is not the ruler, the people are. He can say whatever he wants, it's us that rule this land and to this day we have not made English the nation's offical language becuase many voters like me are still oposed to ethnocentrisim. Yes, we liberal upper middle class nancies still have some power! ;-)) That's said, there is no offical language in the US- English is simply the most commonly used language, followed by Spanish in a distant second place. Regards, Signature ^brendel 20:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As Brendel points out, it would not matter whether Bush called English the official language or not, it isn't. And, to my knowledge, he hasn't. He has said that it's almost always necessary to live in the U.S. successfully, but that's a simple statement of fact. The legislation you refer to is probably the immigration reform bills from last year. Two notes: they did not require everyone to learn English; they declared that English was the "national language," but made no requirements. Also, the bills in the House and Senate were different, and the chambers never reconciled them, so they both died at the end of the session anyway. Archangel127 01:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Renegadeviking, President Bush said no such thing. He might have stated that he supported official language status for English (that in itself is dubious), but he definitely didn't say that English is the official language of the United States. Look at you people; you automatically take what Renegadeviking typed at face value because it went along with your own anti-American views. You can be anti-American or anti-Bush if you want, but at least try to be an anti-American/anti-Bush fairly. Chiss Boy 18:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me. Please be civil, no one here harbors "anti-America" views. Signature ^brendel 07:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the earlier statement was not uncivil--although it did have a scolding tone. And how do you explain the Wikipedian who considers Americans by and large "ignorant?" It depends on what it takes for you to consider something "anti-American," but at least that Wikipedian seems to fit the criteria. If you're typing about uncivil comments, you should be looking there, not at the one criticizing those who automatically accept an obviously crazy statement that Bush said that English is the national official language. Chiss Boy 22:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Why does ethnocentrism make you opposed to having English as our official language? Making English the official official is one of the best things for this country to do. 69.69.82.99 19:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Bellahdoll

Becuase it is indicative of nativism- the sentiment that "my culutre is better than yours, so you better learn to speak my langauge when you're here." It [the pressure to assimilate on new comers and the extend to which their native cultures are marginalized] is actually even worse in Europe (November riots by immigrants in France) than here in the US. But requiring Hispanics to learn English nonetheless implies that forcing Anglo culture on them must be "one of the best things for this country." It is wrong for us to put these people between a rock and a hard place. Unlike middle class Japanese businessmen they cannot return home to the same quality of life they enjoyed here once they're sick of speaking Enlish. If English becomes the dejure offical language new Hispanic arrivals would have the choice between linguistical assimilation or returning to a life of poverty- it is wrong to put people in such a position. Signature ^brendel 19:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Latinos aren't forced to come here. If they do, they have an obligation to pick up the language--especially if they are going to stay here indefinitely. And some cultures (not races) are more successful than others. It isn't bad to recognize that cultures are not created equal--which is why they can adopt various aspects from other cultures along with adding on stuff themselves, and adapt to the changing world around them, to make themselves more successful. Chiss Boy 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No! They are not obligated to learn English. This is a free country where everybody is equal. If you don't want to speak or even know English, than that's your right! Also, stating your culture to be superior is called ethnocentrism and yes it is wrong! There a few exceptions (canibalism) when it is okay to see another culture as less worthy. Signature ^brendel 07:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

By the same token, the United States has thae right to let who it chooses to immigrate to this country. Only those willing to take up English should be let in. Ethnocentrism definitely is NOT a bad thing. Why exactly do you think so many people come over to the United States--because the country is economically successful, has a stable government, and people are free to air their opinions. Not every nation/culture has such values. Cultures not created equal. Nor are they static--they have the potential to change if their people decide to do so. Chiss Boy 22:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course we have that right. The question is "how should we excercise it?"- and that's where you and I differ! Ethnocentrisim can be a bad thing as it is here. If people chose to adhere to a "less successful" culture than that's their right. Wanting to save people from their own culture is an arrognat re-incarnation of the Manifest Destiny. We must abstain from trying to change people's ways so long as they do not harm us. Are Mexicans harming us-no! Is their culture inferior? No! (of course you and I may disagree over that ;-)) Also, try to think globally here. Nations are there for the purpose of government, not the excercise of ethnocentrisism. The planet belongs to all of us, Mexican, American, Candaian, etc... As is right now we ought to let Mexicans in w/o preassuring them to assimilate-because we ought not to limit peoples' freedom unless absolutely neccessay. Freedom means moving around the planet as you please (many, many nations of course completely violate that right-and that's a bad thing) Then again this is a non-factual issue-so we can and will disagree. Signature ^brendel 00:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the ethnocentricism is quite mutual between the two of you...how in the world would it be the "best thing" our country can do?...that is ridiculous. If the "Americans" (Yes, I do call myself that -but for the reason my family was not yet here I won't in this case...) didn't want such a problem, why did they do what they did at the time? They knew what language most people in those parts spoke...yet they HAD to have it...just Let people speak what they want...it may be a bit cliché, but with all due respect...did the German or Italian immigrants learn the English language by the time a couple years rolled around? Probably not in most cases. Either way, people here don't always end up speaking their families native tongue...I can attest to that. Ethnocentricism may have a part to play...but that goes for EVERYONE....no excuses. period. Cali567 11:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ethnocentrisim is the attitude that everyone should only speak English- or as some call it "Nativism." I am an advocate of pluralism not assimilation; thus I agree that one should "Let people speak what they want." That is what America is about after all, freedom-freedom to adhere to any culture and customs and the freedom to speak whatever language you chose to speak! The point of this conversation, however, is that there is no offical language in this country. English is merely the most commonly used one. Regards, Signature ^brendel 19:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally agreed with. Cali567 23:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No, ethnocentrism is the idea that a culture (ethnicity) is number one above all others. A lot of Americans are ethnocentrists without being racists, as are a lot of Europeans (particularly French and Germans), Chinese, and Indians. Chiss Boy 18:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes and when you force or preassure people into adopting "your" language you are being ethnocentric as it implies that your language, part of your ethnicity, is superior and thus should be adopted by those around you. Signature ^brendel 07:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Lets be clear here Brendel. If the current trend in the US is to be English centric, then that is the exercise of freedom and adherence to cultural right (in this case of the established American culture), you speak of. If a group of people come to the US and prefer to speak a non-English language, yes that is fine, but when that communication barrier becomes burdensome to the already established language majority, essentially you have a group of people showing a lack of respect for the culture that welcomed them in the first place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ikyork ( talk • contribs) 08:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

No the majority must learn to life with it. A majority is not to force itself on a minority. Signature ^brendel 07:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You must see how the above statement is in conflict with the concept of democratic decision making. Not to mention how the rhetorical context of your comment is in complete contradiction with itself. Listen to what you say, and lets think of the implications of such an attitude: "No the majority must learn to [live] with it..." Essentially what we have here is a person (you) making a declaration of what is an appropriate way for others to behave. This statement inherently dismisses the position of anyone else involved(their concerns, beliefs, experiences, etc), because you feel you are in the right. And that is exactly what would be taking place if, in the context of this topic, a majority in society promoted English as an official language. Basically a "we think this is right, and this is how things are going down." kind of attitude. In an abstract context that may seem unjust or fair, but within the context of how society has agreed to organize itself via majority rule (lets not allow ourselves to get into the electoral college, we can for the sake of this argument focus on federal and state level legislative branches, public proposition voting, etc etc), it is 'fair' to all those who have embraced that system of decision making. In some countries they have laws in which people of other countries find repulsive, but if those repulsed were to travel there, they would have to follow those laws because it had be determined by (in the case of democratic societies) by the majority of the people.

As for a majority forcing itself on a minority, that's piffling on your part. I hardly can see you making such a statement when a majority acts moralistically in line with your beliefs 'against' a minority. The examples could be endless. Here is one so ridiculous, but illustrative: Polygamy. It's not the majority's right to force itself on people who support those beliefs. Right? No, of course it is the right of the majority to shape itself in the manner it sees fit. The key is, most everyone within the society regardless of the decisions en vogue at the time, is guided by a basic set of principals and goals generally based from its founding. And perhaps for some perspective, you could travel to other countries and see their attitude towards a minority coming from another country and insisting the majority of that country bend to them. Completely a silly notion. And for the sake of clarity, I don't hold this position unique to the US/Mexico immigration situation. The idea that country has a right to make decisions internally in a way it has determined appropriate for itself, I feel is quite reasonable. -- Ikyork 01:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You took my statement out of context. It pertains only to this issue. If Hispanics are preassured into learning Enlish, that is the English-speaking majority imposing itself on them to an unacceptable extend. In this case-that's unjust. My statement is not made regarding polygamy-this is about langauge. Of course there are cases in which the majority must make a decision. But the cases in which the majority forces itself on a given minority should be kept to minimum. The actions and options available to persons should only be restricted if absolutely necessary. Example, the majority thinks that polygamy is wrong as it causes emotional damage to women. Okay, so we have out-lawed it, becuase it we needed to. Do we need to preassure Hispanics into adopting out langauge? No. No need. Thus we need to leave them be and abstain from forcing our language on them. The "we think this is right, and this is how things are going down." kind of attitude needs to be kept to a minimum. And "a minority coming from another country and insisting the majority of that country bend to them" is not "silly." We are all equal as human beings and need to work and attempt to accomodate each other- we only have this one little planet-think globally! This traditional, my country-your country thinking is out-dated. I know people use group affiliations to build their personal identity-but perhaps it's time to rethink the way do thinks. As for "it is the right of the majority to shape itself in the manner it sees fit"- consider that in the past that has lead to slavery, the holocaust, Japanese internment camps, etc... The majority can be dead wrong my friend. My favorite is the conclusion of your argument: "The idea that country has a right to make decisions internally in a way it has determined appropriate for itself, I feel is quite reasonable"- that's totally irrelevant! Of course we have the authority to pressure people into learning English, but that doesn't mean we should. There are cases when we need to impose ourselves on a given minority (e.g. cocain usage), but this is not one of those cases. Point is if the majority is so ethocentric as to impose its language on another group, then the majority is wrong. But as of now, the majority has not made English the federal de-jure language yet-Thank Godness-there is reason left in this nation! Signature ^brendel 07:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Then the natural burden is sufficient pressure to learn English and more effective than any law. So, law is unnecessary to achieve what you are looking for. After all, the banks speak English.

They also speak Spanish. English should be encouraged for all people in the United States. Language is the number one binder of culture (religion is not tied to culture, at least Christianity isn't). As such, having a bunch of Americans use Spanish (or other non-English languages) only served to fracture the American culture and society. Chiss Boy 18:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you see it as fracutring. A society must not be homogenious in order to be strong. People who chose to retain their native culture do not "fracture the American culture and society" but make it richer and more diverse. Signature ^brendel 07:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, not learning a language can be a mark of poverty and lack of opportunity and time, but rarely disrespect. I can respect Greek culture without learning Greek.-- Primal Chaos 14:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I would encourage you to speak to immigrants who have come to the United States without a dime, a job, or knew the language and ask them how the managed. I've had several such conversations with people in San Francisco who managed to learn English under such conditions. But the point was, that it BECOMES disrespectful when the attitude of the immigrant culture ignores the established consensus of the welcoming society. -- Ikyork 01:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No it does not. Social groups must not emulate each other in order to show respect for one another. Suppose you have a room with two social groups. Members of group A wear ties, members of group B do not. Are the members of group B disrepecting those of group A becuase they are not wearing ties and therefore abstain from emulating group A. Certainly not. Does it matter which group was there first? No. Suppose you have a nation in which two languages are spoken... Different social groups have different ways of doing things. Just becuase one social group speaks English doesn't mean that other social groups must emulate it. That said, I understand the "in-group" psychology at work in the nativist mind-set, but nonetheless beleive that it is a false and dangerous ideology. Signature ^brendel 05:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My last comment, this is tedious and off topic. Brendel you are obviously emotionally convoluted in terms of this topic. In your over-simplified example, does not relate. In no terms did I ever insinuate that by the mere existence of an alternative alone, to a majority was inherently of disrespect. -- Ikyork 03:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does apply. You stated that Hispanics are disrespecting the majority by not emulating them through learning English. The example above shows you how silly that is. But listen, just because I totally disagree with you doesn't mean that I am "emotionally convoluted in terms of this topic". I beleive there is one humankind and one planet-everything else is arbitrary (that's the ultimate reality). As equals, we must accept and accomodate each other as much as possible and that includes letting people speak whatever language they wish to speak. I just wonder who long people will continue to be blinded by nationlism and ethnocentrisism. Just becuase the majority speaks English doesn't mean everybody needs to. Everybody their own thing. But we are never going to agree on this and as this is not a question pertaining to the editing of this article there is really no point in this discussion. Signature ^brendel 07:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

When did talk pages become discussion boards? i must have missed that change.

You're right. I'm sorry, I did lose sight of what this talk page ought to be and got cought up in the argument. Signature ^brendel 01:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If English became the US Official language, I would renounce my citizenship and become a citizen of Canada. English as the official language would just be another thing to make this country into the white, male America that it should NOT be. (Please note that I am saying this as a white male myself). America is supposed to be a "melting pot" of culture. I'm fine with English being the most widely spoken language (It creates a sense of unity) but citizens should be allowed to speak whatever language they want. But if you live in a southern state, learn Spanish. Educate yourself. America is way too culturally uneducated as it is. Don't act like learning another language is making you less American. It's doing the exact opposite. It's making you a better American for understanding and respecting other cultures. It's pretty sad what we've become. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.128.234.186 ( talk) 18:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

I absolutely agree. Signature ^brendel 19:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree. You can be any race, any religion, any gender, it doesn't matter. However, we need a common language. English being official would be excellent. Everyone needs to speak the same language in order to communicate effectively. I would hate to imagine the country with no common language to unite it. Your beliefs may vary, but the language used should not, if only so everyone else can understand your beliefs, thoughts, etc. without a translator.

Well then we disagree on that. But we do need to close this discussion. I have an opinion, some agree others disagree-that's the nature of things. But the anon user further above is right: Wikipedia talk pages are not discussion boards. I know I got caught up in the argument as did quite a few people here-but please, we need to stop using this talk page as an opinion forum. Thank you. Regards, Signature ^brendel 06:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Recently the mention that the UK was America's closest ally was removed under 'Foreign Relations and military'. I think Anglo-American relations is an integral part of the modern United States. The UK deserve a mention as they followed America into their War on Terror. Also Britain has an influence on the US and the US greatly influences the UK, especially regarding a very similiar foreign policy and military strategies.

It's also important to mention this as the article doesnt really state that after the war of independance we ever got back on 'good terms', but now the UK and US are fighting side by side 'shoulder to shoulder' against a common enemy, despite what was, and somewhat still is, overwhelming opposition.

Would anyone else agree that the special relations with the UK should be put back into that section??

strongmike248@hotmail.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.14.220.113 ( talk) 17:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

No there shouldn't, there is a seperate article for UK-US relations. Many Western European nations such as Germany, the Neatherlands and Irland have had great influences on the US and are very close allies. The US is probably the least Anglo nation in the Anglosphere due to ancestry, culture and the fact that much of the US wasn't even colonized by England. Besdies, this article describes the US in a nutshell, it is too long as it is and having sections on all the nations to which the US has culutral, political and/or linguistical ties need to be placed in seperate articles. Regards, Signature ^brendel 00:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The UK isn't just one of many allies -- opinion polls consistently show that Americans regard the UK as the closest ally of the U.S., by a very wide margin (see cites at Special relationship. This is worth a brief mention. Raymond Arritt 18:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is America's closest ally. But is America the UK's closest ally? (Probably outside the EU) True, despite only 13 out of 50 states being colonized by England and 90% of Americans being primarily of non-English ancestry, the UK is America's cloests ally in geo-political terms. This article, however, is already too long. This is American in a nutshell and as you have mentioned there is a seperate article for the UK-US relationship. In this article, long as it already is, a brief mention is one sentence. Considering the wide scope of this article the sentence, "The UK is America's closet ally" should/needs to suffice. Regards, Signature ^brendel 22:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine -- no need to go on and on. One sentence is plenty, with a wikilink to Special relationship for those who want to know more. Raymond Arritt 01:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I am writing a book about America and the Internet for the University of Toronto Press, and would like more information on the events leading up to the United States entry being locked. Please keep in mind that this is not a query intended to challenge the decision.

I wish to document the event in my book, as an example of the online debate over America's identity. To that end, I would ask any editors who recall the circumstances leading up to the decision to lock the page if they could recount what happened (email me at michael@strangelove.com). I assume that there were so many changes being made to the article that the process had to be more carefully managed. I also assume that these changes reflected a debate between the 'left' and the 'right' over the character of the US, that they were in some way political (as indeed all history is in some way political). I am seeking to have these assumptions confirmed or corrected.

My purpose is not to reignite that debate, and hopefully I have the correct forum for posting this question. Comments from any participants in the editing process that led to the lock are welcome and of interest to my work.

Respectfully,

Dr. Michael Strangelove
University of Ottawa
www.strangelove.com

One of the main reasons was simple vandalism. The "United States" article is a high profile target and was therefore prone to many "jokes" by newly registered or unregistered users. Amazingly we have not had many left vs. right disputes on this page. Also, please note that the article is only semi-protected; thus any user with a couple of hundred edits can edit this page. Regards, Signature ^brendel 00:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly locked. You might not be able to edit it as an IP, but if you made an account and waited 4 days you could. It's protected from IPs and really new accounts because people were just making stupid changes like this one. -- tjstrf talk 01:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactely, it isn't locked. The semi-protection is largely the result of bored people googeling the USA and thinking its fun to vandalise this article. Regards, Signature ^brendel 02:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a list of articles protected multiple times since September. Often, edit conflicts on Wikipedia reflect real-world conflicts such as Armenia/Turkey, the Balkans, Israel/Palestine, etc. They also tend to involve religion topics. The September 11, 2001 attacks and related pages have been subject to edit wars over if/how much to include about conspiracy theories. -- Aude ( talk) 03:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I performed minor edits throughout the article to clean up language and some bias. They should be visible in the page history.

I have also tagged the article as POV, since the entry does nothing but glamorize the United States and presents no critique at all. Aufheben 17:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This article does not glamorize the US any more than the articles of other countries glamorize their subject country. I checked. LoyolaDude 17:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Since your reversion to my POV notation was on the grounds of no "credible, cited argument," I present the following:

"It remains the world's only superpower" is a debateable statement, even if the classification of "superpower" is legitimate. China is certainly a contender, and fundamentalist Islam could be as well.

There is no mention of environmental problems in the Environment section.

"The economic history of the United States is a story of economic growth that began with marginally successful colonial economies and progressed to the largest industrial economy in the world in the 20th and early 21st century..." glosses over vast amounts of history and economic problems both past and present.

The section on Indigenous Peoples does not describe their problematic status, conditions on reservations, or current socio-economic condition.

Problems in the American political system (corruption, voting irregularities, et. al.)

And as you admit in your own statement, the article does glamorize the United States. Just because other nations' articles do as well is no excuse. Aufheben 18:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet, you don't seem to be complaining about other articles, do you? Why are you so anti-American, might I ask?

Under "Political System" (paragraph one) it's stated that, "Executive...offices are decided by a plurality vote of citizens in their respective districts." This simply isn't true at the national level. I propose that the following be inserted: "The offices of President and Vice President are decided by a majority vote of Electors appointed by the states and the District of Columbia," with appropriate changes being made to the aforementioned sentence.

In fact, that whole paragraph is just a mess and should almost certainly be rewritten. Eastcheap 05:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your proposed change of the sentence pertaining to the electoral college. Regards, Signature ^brendel 22:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Both the old and the new versions are incomplete. The popular vote and the electoral vote are tied together by party and by state. This is how it really happens:

The offices of President and Vice President are decided by a majority vote of Electors, appointed by the states and the District of Columbia. Under all current state constitutions, political parties each appoint redundant sets of electors. A plurality vote of citizens in their respective states, determined by the sum of plurality votes in their respective districts, determines which political party is entitled to send its electors, and thereby determines the winning candidate.-- Supersexyspacemonkey 11:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree in principal, but the Readers Digest version can be shoehorned into the existing paragraph (and was the best I could manage in a single sentence without using a phrase like "elected Electors"). The really important thing, I believe, is the link to the Electoral College article. Going any further gets us into the 14th, 19th, and 26th Amendments and their interpretations and implementations, not to mention the fact that the procedure for electing Electors isn't uniform (i.e. I'm not sure the term "plurality" is strictly accurate). Way beyond the scope of a broad overview. Eastcheap 01:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In 1776 the United colonies demanded their independece by the 'Declaration of Independence stating: "[...] That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

And in the 'Treaty of Paris 1783' which was the peace treaty gives what they actually got: "[...] His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof. [...]"

However this treaty is void as of 1812 when the Congress of the United States declared war upon Britain. Becuase, if one makes a treaty which says I can fish and live on your land. If I then start a fight with you. That would mean I broke the treaty, certainly I wouldn't recognize the treaty that was signed before you started a fight with me. I would throw you out of my land if I could!

Although the 'Treaty of Ghent 1814', that treaty further reinsures that the agreements made under Treaty of Paris will also be the state of things from here on but in many more words so I don't really know what was included in that treaty. Lord Metroid 15:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

While foreign relations can definetly involve the military, I dont believe these two should be combined. Also, should foreign relations be expanded to include more than just the UN maybe Kyoto, etc...?

Indeed not. The military is only one aspect of many in foreign relations. As for Kyoto, etc. how about other things such as APEC, ANZUS (military), NATO (also military), WTO, IMF, World Bank, etc. Besides trying to make the United States look bad (as if you people aren't doing that enough), Kyoto is probably not something you'd want to mention. Many European countries (and Canada, Japan, etc.) signed and ratified the Protocol, and it does not look as if they will fulfill their part of the bargain. Basically it shows the worth of nations who are quick to accept agreements and then not abide by them as being more base than countries who did not accept the agreement and then do not match the standards the agreement called for. Chiss Boy 18:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I finally have the time to check up on United States and what a mess it has become again. Aargh. And it was getting so nice the last time I read it thoroughly in August.

Here are the edits which I am disputing as either unsourced, inadequately sourced, poorly written, or just plain dumb:

• Thethirdperson put a rather detailed discussion of the U.S. economy straight into the lead paragraphs on 15 January 2007. The last time I checked, all the U.S. editors were trying to reduce the level in the first paragraph, not increase it.
• Thethirdperson's discussion was sourced to Encarta. The last time I cited an encyclopedia was when I was in the fifth grade of elementary school (that's primary for the English folks). Only children and poorly trained journalists cite tertiary-level sources like encyclopedias. Adults (including most Wikipedia editors) cite to primary and secondary sources. I'm sure the Encarta people are really laughing at Wikipedia now.
• Brainboy109 made edits [9] such as this one around 15 November which ended up purging the link to Law of the United States from the article for the third time. Having to keep reinserting that link is becoming really, really irritating. U.S. law is much, much more than the Constitution; that's why it takes three years of law school to learn it. The section in the article on the Constitution as currently phrased grossly overemphasizes the importance of the federal Constitution. The states have constitutions too.

-- Coolcaesar 12:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ick, I hadn't been paying attention, just vandal-watching. Thanks, I just tried my hand at cleaning it up. -- Golbez 14:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Same here, I was just watching for vandals and let most legit-looking edits fly. Signature ^brendel 23:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Coolcaesar, I was unaware that you were a member of the intellectual elite. Shall I bow the next time I see your username? You're wasting wikipedia's space by criticizing my edits. I simply added a very lengthy discussion of the economy in the introductory paragraphs with the hopes that somebody else would read and edit them. I cannot determine myself which parts are most important to the common reader because I think all the data are important. And I only cited Encarta Online for its usage of the term "most technologically advanced" economy. Otherwise, other sources were being used. Also, this encylopedia is for editing at anyone's discretion. There is no official group of U.S. editors. We're all editors. If you would like to edit it as well, you may. Discussion of it in a childish tone isn't necessary.

Thethirdperson 10:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In order to reduct the size or long apperance of the article we could put a lot of economic info (e.g. personal income, GDP growth, unemployment, etc...) in a table and remove it from the text. One of the images (there are two right now) would give way to a table featuring much of the statistical info now mentioned in text. Furthermore, a table is more attractive to readers who are commonly intimidated by text containing statistics. The following would be covered in the table:

• GDP (nominal, PPP & per capita)
• Median Household & Individual income
• Persons below poverty teshold
• Income distribution (top 20% & bottom 20%)
• Unemployment
• Homeownership rate

I'll wait for comments until this evening Pacific time before putting this idea into place. Thanks, Regards, Signature ^brendel 23:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I instituted the table and managed to shorten the article by 3Kb. Signature ^brendel 06:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• ENwiki: 9,631,420

• Afrikaanswiki: 9 629 091 km²
• ANGwiki: 9 629 047
• ARAGONwiki: 9.372.610
• ...
• DEwiki: 9.629.891
• ...
• ESwiki: 9.631.418
• HUwiki: 9 363 155
• ...

All different. -- 195.56.207.92 20:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Same goes with the population. -- 195.56.207.92 20:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes the figures for a country as large and diverse as the US are naturally going to differ from source to source. Though I'd go with the offical US government stats. The US population varies greatly depending on year as it is growing very fast. Furthermore if undocumented immigrants were included the figure would jump an additional 12-15 million. Regards, Signature ^brendel 20:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

But we have one official data a data over the other datas the ONE DATA, don't we? :-) -- 195.56.207.92 00:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article have at least a brief discussion of craft to compliment its discussion of American art? Arguably craft traditions (e.g., pottery, quilting, glass-blowing) are more distinctive elements of national culture than are the high arts. Some American craft, such as wood-turning or North Carolina pottery, represent important American contributions to visual culture. Klmarcus 22:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please add to the Sports section at the bottom of the page? It seems good enough, but I would be happy to see it improved. I will add stuff where I can, but I would appreciate it if anyone else could help too.

-- Robin63 05:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need Nancy Pelosi and John Roberts there? Especially Roberts' party, since that's a wholly nonpartisan position? -- Golbez 06:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that putting Robert's party affiliation up there is nonesense. But Pelosi does belong up there. The President is not the ruler-the people are. The people are represented through congress (not the President!) and Nancy Pelosi as speaker represents the people with whom the ultimate power in our state is vested. The President is simply the top civil servant (ture, a very powerful civil servant, but still a civil servant nonetheless). He is not our ruler! ;-) Signature ^brendel 07:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't this subject come up when a Republican was Speaker, I wonder? ;) Anyway, what powers does the Speaker have, anyway? So far as I know, she has no special legislative or executive power, unlike, well, a President or Vice President. (the VP because he holds the tiebreaking vote in the senate, something a speaker does not have). It seems like subject creep, do we add the President pro tempore as well? -- Golbez 14:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The speaker decides what bills get voted on before they reach comittee! That's a lot of power. When the president (who propsed most of today's bills) submitts a bill proposal, the speaker gets to decide whether or not that bill will make it to congress. Pelosi has the authority to kill any bill before it reaches the house. The VP has no real dejure power. Signature ^brendel 18:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not quite true. In his (or her) capacity as President of the Senate, the VP resolves tie votes in the Senate. Raymond Arritt 18:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes the VP resolves ties (though considering the amounts of votes 50/50 ties are relatively rare). It is not, however, near as much power as the speaker of the house. Signature ^brendel 02:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi remain. She's third in line for the Presidency, after all, and the most powerful (on paper) opposition leader in the US government right now. (BTW, I think DeLay was up there previously, don't know why Hastert wasn't added.)-- Primal Chaos 03:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It also makes sense to have the leaders off all gov branches up there. After all we don't have a "single leader government." All three branches have their leaders and they should be mentioned. Signature ^brendel 03:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the USA in central North America? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.110.218.100 ( talk) 02:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes, Supaman, I guess you could say that, except for Alaska, Hawaii, and American overseas territories and dependencies. You may want to sign in next time, because I don't think many other Wikipedians recognize your IP address... ;-) -- Confiteordeo 02:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The contiguous United States are, and there are two references in the introduction (added with recent edits) that corroborate this:

• " United States". Encyclopædia Britannica: "Besides the 48 contiguous states that occupy the middle latitudes of the continent, the United States includes the state of Alaska, at the northwestern extreme of North America, and the island state of Hawaii, in the mid-Pacific Ocean."
• " United States". The Columbia Gazetteer of North America: "Excluding Alaska and Hawaii, the conterminous U.S. stretches across central N. Amer. from the Atlantic (E) to the Pacific (W) oceans, and from Canada on the N to Mexico and the Gulf of Mexico on the S."

Indirectly, the United States Geographical Survey (USGS) states that the geographic center of North America is “6 miles west of Balta, Pierce County, North Dakota” at approximately 48° 10′ N, 100° 10′ W, near Rugby, North Dakota.

Corticopia 02:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should change the name of the title from 'United States' to 'The United States of America'. That is the formal name listed in the article and people who search for 'the united states of america' do not get this page as a result. I believe that if it was changed, both searches for the origional name and the above mentioned would lead to this page. Just thinking. Simonsays19 03:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Simonsays19

This has been already extensively, exhaustively and teidously discussed and can be found in the Talk page archives. Please consult them.-- Primal Chaos 03:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You want the formal name? I'll give you the same answer I give everyone: Come back when you managed to get Mexico moved to United Mexican States. -- Golbez 17:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, Simonsays19, see the link to the FAQ for this talk page at the top of the page. -- Coolcaesar 18:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"and people who search for 'the united states of america' do not get this page as a result." Yes they do. The United States of America redirects here. -- Random832 21:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The official name of the country is the United States of America, and the article even refers to it as such. The article should probably be renamed with a redirect from United States. It should also be noted that many other nations use "United States" in their title, such as Mexico. -- Timmmy! 23:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You may want to refer to the large blue box at the top of this page that says "Please peruse the frequently asked questions for this article before contributing to this talk page." The information in the FAQ should address your concerns. -- Confiteordeo 00:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, the name of Mexico is United Mexican States - not United States of Mexico. For another, did you just completely miss the section RIGHT ABOVE THIS ONE?! -- Golbez 02:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a big flashing sign at the top of this page "Click here to find out why this article is called United States and not United States of America." ;-) Having two sections in a row w/ the question of why this article isn't called US of A is quite amousing. Signature ^brendel 06:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh.. remember that the vote ended up in basically a 50/50 split last time. The one and only reason why this page is located here now is because it was located here when it was first written. I am rather disappointed with your responses (although I also wonder why this person thought taht the above section didn't apply...) ... Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk?) 07:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I bet we could have a flashing logo, the Star Spangled Banner coming through the speakers, Smell-o-Vision^TM, and automated voicemail to their home phone saying "please look at the FAQ", yet people would continue to bring up this point. Raymond Arritt 04:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I just updated the FAQ. The last vote was in November, and it was unanimous for "no move". -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the vast majority of people who type in "United States" will be looking for this article, it probably shouldn't be moved. Besides, there are four disambiguation pages right at the top of the article. Hojimachong ^talk _con 04:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In the Innovations section, it only talks about government projects. Most of the R&D in the U.S. is done entirely in the private sector (69% of it is private). So I put a tag in that section because there is missing information, such as accomplishments by Microsoft, IBM, etc. Improper Bostonian 17:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

United States → United States of America — correct name. — User:89.168.0.166 - This discussion section added by SigPig | ^{SEND - OVER} 00:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

How many fucking times do we need to take this vote? We should do one every Sunday night... until it passes. Idiots.-- 24.91.161.79 04:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support. ... Nah, I'm just kiddin', speedy close this. -- Golbez 04:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. It is not logical to have a name without any geographic indication, only a state form. − Woodstone 08:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
   • Will you attempt to move United Kingdom? -- Golbez 15:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. The infobox calls it the United States of America, and the article name should match. Widsith 12:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
   • Will you attempt to move United Kingdom? -- Golbez 15:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Absolute oppose. Everyone knows it as simply the United States. There is no United States of Alberta. Georgia guy 00:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Speedy close, this is a repeatedly settled issue. -- tjstrf talk 00:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong Oppose This has been rejected many times. WP says to go by the most common name, that's why United Kingdom isn't at "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (it's full name). TJ Spyke 00:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose Has been discussed and rejected repedeately. Most common name- It's Germany not the Federal Republic of Germany. It's Mexico, not the United Mexican States. Using the most common name is WP policy and it makes sense, as the most common name is what people type into their search engines. Signature ^brendel 02:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose for the reasons stated above. I also recommend a block on User:89.168.0.166, for possible vandalism or acting in bad faith. The frequently asked questions page was created to prevent ridiculous polls like this one. -- Coolcaesar 19:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• Humblest apologies. I put the discuss section in here because it wasn't added when the RM went in -- as a Canadian I have no opinion one way or the other. I can only plead lack of sleep and CityPulse24 talking about the anniversary of some oilstrike or somesuch as I was entering the info. I have made the correction above. -- SigPig | ^{SEND - OVER} 00:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• As mentioned we use common names for countries. One top of what has been mentioned we also use the names North Korea, Iran, and Italy over The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Islamic Republic of Iran, and Italian Republic etc. -- 67.71.77.144 04:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Following the system of the remark just above would lead to the name America. The state form is dropped, the geographic part is kept. − Woodstone 08:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)