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

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

The USA is currently the second largest Spanish-speaking nation in the world, ahead of Spain, and just behind of Mexico. The US is the largest English-speaking nation in the world and the second largest Spanish-speaking nation in the world. :) 86.177.203.160 ( talk) 20:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that seems an interesting fact to include, and is backed up by the Spanish language article. However, this article currently says there are 34 million Spanish speakers, which is a lower number than in Spain. Could we sort out which number is correct first? Also, it might bear mentioning in that section that America is the largest English speaking country, with x% of the world's English speakers. TastyCakes ( talk) 00:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What right have you give me an ultimatum? I have the right to write true infromace about this country. Why is it on wikipedia sponsored censorship and manipulation of the facts?

And then you still have the audacity to threaten someone who writes true, but unfortunately "politically embarrassing" information.?

EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO WRITE ANY TIP INFORMATION, AND NOT POSSIBLE Threatening BANNING JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE BECAUSE ITS CONTRIBUTION TO THE STATE OF SHOWING IN HIS negative characteristics.

WHERE EVERYTHING YOU audacity Banning WRITE ME HERE YOU Menno "BEAUTIFUL" FACTS ABOUT U.S.? -- Fredy.00 ( talk) 17:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What is it exactly that you try to achieve here. I guess you want to suggest an addition to the article, and you boldly added it as you are apparently protesting a revert of that addition. It seems logical that it is now the time to discuss here what you want to add, why it is important (and neither trivial, nor undue, nor suffers from other problems) before adding it again per WP:CYCLE. I don't see a reason for being this aggressively shouting at this stage in the editing process and would suggest that you explain to the larger group of editors involved in the article what you want to add here. Arnoutf ( talk) 18:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that included in the population of the U.S.A. is 10-13 million illegal immigrants (known to Americans as "illegal aliens") by the US census bureau. Why is this? In all other western nations they are not included, or sometimes made into a separate survey of "temporary migrant workers" (the case in Russia). They are not citizens, therefore should not be included in the population by international law. (This would significantly raise the GDP per capita to reflect the "real terms".) Slaja ( talk) 21:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the census bureau is not allowed to ask if you are in the country legally or illegally, and does not take identification, only a simple count. I know I've never personally identified myself to a census taker beyond my name, so they have no way of knowing if someone is a legal citizen. -- Golbez ( talk) 22:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. Nonwistanding that, on the offchance that this discussion is related to improving this article, see [1], [2], [3], [4], and elsewhere—some lawmakers apparently don't see legal or constitutionality problems with this. Also see 13 U.S.C.  § 141: "The Secretary shall, in the year 1980 and every 10 years thereafter, take a decennial census of population [...], in such form and content as he may determine, ..." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is related to the improvement of this article, it could be misinterpreted information (such as the area of the U.S. declared by the "CIA Factbook", versus the UN estimate). Citizens and foreigners with proper paper work are what constitute the UN definition of a "Sovereign nation-state population." Perhaps the U.S. doesn't agree with this. However all that was put foreword to address this was ambiguous: "The Secretary shall, in the year 1980 and every 10 years thereafter, take a decennial census of population [...], in such form and content as he may determine, ...". And:"some lawmakers apparently don't see legal or constitutionality problems with this."Is some lawmakers sufficient to dictate the laws for all of the U.S? Does that mean the U.S. refutes or accepts the UN international definition? Slaja ( talk) 04:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The US census predates the formation of the UN by some 160 years. I figure they've felt no reason to change. The UN does not determine what the census laws of the United States are. -- Golbez ( talk) 15:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to second Golbez. The US Census Bureau is one of the oldest and most efficient national demographic centers anywhere, and with a few (quibbling) exceptions, it has been just that since 1790. Its ten-year census and yearly estimates cover every aspect of U.S. population. It is a wonder of the world. Moreover, it doesn't generally involve itself in sociopolitical trifles--for ex., its policy toward illegal immigrants is to try to count them--period. Mason.Jones ( talk) 23:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:BATTLE
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't like to use this talk page as a place for idle discussion, but I would like to thank everyone that participated in the requested move (everyone but Golbez, David Levy, and TastyCakes that is). It was fun discussing and debating this matter with you and I would once again like to thank you all for participating. Although I lost, I can guarantee you that I will bring this matter up again (that is when unpatriotic people like Golbez, Levy, and TastyCakes leave Wikipedia) when the time is right. Cheers!Valkyrie Red 18:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red ( talk • contribs) Euhm you like discussing for discussion sake, and want to restart the discussion at your convenience. To me that sounds very close to trolling, not constructive editing. Just accept it and find something to do that you will get universal support for, much nicer work, much better for the project. Arnoutf ( talk) 18:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Glad I could help, any time. -- Golbez ( talk) 18:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC) How exactly are they being unpatriotic..?-- Misortie ( talk) 18:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Very very clever! 151.60.118.131 ( talk) 20:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Forgive the loaded words, but I think for an article of this status and popularity to omit the information concerning the several million murdered Native Americans is unforgivable and should be rectified immediately. See [5] for the debate on the numbers, but we're talking at least 2 million, maybe even 15 million. The only two sentences that allude anything to the suffering of the Natives of America are these: "Excluding the Native Americans (popularly known as "American Indians"), who were being displaced" and "The loss of the buffalo, a primary resource for the plains Indians, was an existential blow to many native cultures." Just for the record, the article on Cuba has a section dedicated to 'Human rights abuses', which includes the jailing of journalists. For such information to be said of Cuba but (at least) 2 million murdered Native Americans be forgotten altogether on this article amounts to a massive American bias on these two articles. The lands of the United States were inhabited by the Native Americans, therefore the history of the country should at least tell us what happened to them, this article seems to pretend they barely exist. Autonova ( talk) 15:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree the article could go into further detail on the matter, but it seems that the 2 to 15 million number (from here) is for the Americas as a whole, not just the US. If we could get a referenced estimate (or range of estimates) I think inclusion in the history section would be fine. I'm not sure Cuba is a very good example, since the abuses mentioned there were carried out by the current government of the country over the past 50 years while the ones against native Americans were by many governments over hundreds of years, but I understand the notion - articles shouldn't harp on problems in other countries while ignoring those in America. TastyCakes ( talk) 15:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

removed entirely ", while labor and, particularly, consumption tax rates are lower" clause from sentence whose sense I reversed after reading the reference. Perhaps it was simply a typo on the part of the original author since the matter of fact would have been presumed to be what I edited to and what a reading of the first paragraphs of the reference clearly shows to be the case. I knew this independently so, the Time content is just ... . The Netherlands for example taxes all income over 55K at 52%. Lycurgus ( talk) 19:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see your problem. The line should be understood as "Compared to Europe, [in the] U.S. property and corporate income tax rates are generally higher [than in Europe], while labor and, particularly, consumption tax rates are lower [in the US than in Europe]". This is exactly what the Time article says. In Europe tax pressure has become relatively higher than in the US (since the 1970s when they were roughly equal) because (quote from Times 1st para) Income taxes have jumped, but so too have taxes on social insurance contributions and vat on goods and services. (note that income tax is not corporate but labor tax in this context, and VAT equals consumption tax). So honestly I do not see your point. Arnoutf ( talk) 19:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The text of 1st ¶ of the given reference copied verbatim:

"France, Germany and some other nations are trying to resist such pressures by calling for a "harmonization" of E.U. taxes — in other words, raising everyone else closer to their higher levels. But there's no majority in Brussels for tax harmonization, and swimming against the tide is hard, especially given the heavy impact of taxes on Europe's economy. In 1970, total tax revenue measured as a percentage of the economy was roughly on a par in Western Europe and the United States. Today, it's far higher in Europe, at about 40% of gross domestic product in the E.U. compared with about 29% in the U.S. Income taxes have jumped, but so too have taxes on social insurance contributions and vat on goods and services. "Everyone feels like they are paying too much tax — and they are," says Baudouin Velge, chief economist at the Federation of Belgian Enterprises."

This is the reverse of what you are saying, maybe you've overestimated your English capabilities. Lycurgus ( talk) 19:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Time article quite clearly states: "In much of Europe, labor and consumption are taxed — through social-security contributions and vat — at far higher rates on average than in the U.S., where property and corporate income taxes tend to be higher." - Nunh-huh 19:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Besides that if you carefully read that first para:

It starts out with stating that several EU countries hold a certain point of view and then states that the EU and US were similarly taxed around 1970

In 1970, total tax revenue measured as a percentage of the economy was roughly on a par in Western Europe and the United States

But that today

Today, it's far higher in Europe, at about 40% of gross domestic product in the E.U. compared with about 29% in the U.S.

Because (note the article is written from a European point of view - see first line and lines below) in Europe

Income taxes have jumped, but so too have taxes on social insurance contributions and vat on goods and services.

Which is followed by the comment of a Belgian spokesperson confirming it is indeed a European point of view.

Together with Nunh-huh's observation this shows that there is in any case nothing "blatantly counterfactual" going on; at most the facts in the Time article are unclear, unless of course you misunderstood the Time article (how tempting to say that maybe you've overestimated your English capabilities). Arnoutf ( talk) 19:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

PS sorry for the early reversion summary, I reverted between your original edit and your creation of this talk thread; so I couldnt find it when looking. Arnoutf ( talk) 19:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

A misrepresentation like this IS a matter of great principle. As far as the matter of consumption and VAT comparisons are concerned that's entirely spurious, there isn't a VAT in the US and sales taxes vary by state from nothing to as much as 7 or 8% on some things, but the bottom line is the situation expressed above by the Time author. The best thing, and the thing I imagine will happen is that the sentence will be removed in its entirety. Lycurgus ( talk) 20:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Arnoutf and Nunh-huh have represented and interpreted the source correctly; Lycurgus has clearly misunderstood it. Content restored. DocKino ( talk) 20:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Negatively acknowledging the above before the thread is archived. 72.228.150.44 ( talk) 18:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is America's nickname 'the mixing pot' not referenced. Isn't this the entire idea this country was founded on? Ace ofgabriel ( talk) 16:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean Melting pot? It might bear mention, maybe in the demographics section, but saying it's the entire idea the country was founded on is clearly an unprovable opinion. TastyCakes ( talk) 17:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is 'none at the federal level' listed under 'Language' in the Fact Box? We all know there is no official language and since this article relates to the country as a whole, why not just list the REAL answer: None. Anything below the federal level can have its language(s) kusted in its own respective article's fact box. Or am I just beating a daed hourse against some know-it-all 'editor'? 65.215.94.13 ( talk) 23:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Contrary to popular opinion, we really are friendly, openminded folks. And you do actually have a good point. So you were doing pretty good until the last sentence. Shame. -- Golbez ( talk) 02:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Still doesn't answer the question. I've just found that there is an alarming number of inaccurate articles that, when changed to a more correct form with citation, are often reverted with no explanation. 65.215.94.13 ( talk) 17:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm well I think you've got a point, but I don't think this item in the article is inaccurate, except in the most pedantic of views. I think there's a valid case for excluding the information, using arguments you have made above, but I personally like the idea of erring on the side of including more information in articles, particularly if it describes a somewhat complicated case such as this. Also, all levels of government are mentioned in the article as a whole, and the individual states are of course components of the whole, an overview of language policies at the state level doesn't seem so unreasonable. Whether it should be in the infobox or in a separate section (language?) is another matter. But I'm afraid I must side with the stodgy establishment on this item as well - I kind of like the compactness of how the information is presented in the infobox and its bottom notes at the moment. TastyCakes ( talk) 17:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course you would disagree, and with a lot of confused-sounding words at that (lol). You can still 'err on the side of inclusion' by including it as 'Official Language: None'. The '(on the federal level)' is already obvious and therefor unnecessary since the article is about the USA, which lists no official language(s). 65.215.94.13 ( talk) 23:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is obvious to others, but it isn't to me. I'm sorry if I sounded confused, I don't think I am on this particular matter. Or perhaps you meant confusing? "Erring on the side of inclusion" by not including information does not sound like erring on the side of inclusion at all, but maybe I don't understand what you're suggesting - are you suggesting the bottom notes be left but the (on the federal level) removed?. In any case, if it comes to a vote, I vote for leaving it how it is, but it seems fairly trivial and I won't revert it if you change it. TastyCakes ( talk) 23:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly will. The United States is a federation and many of the components of that federation do have an official language (one component has two). The current language is more accurate than the proposal.

Eh, what do I know? just years of study and a PhD in American politics. And no, the US is NOT a 'federation.' But you're the 'editor' and the inaccuracies of Wikipedia are a testament to why some colleges and universities have banned the wikipedia domain from on-campus networs so that students aren't exposed to trivial 'facts', donations are down, and why I donated less this year than last, as the seemingly endless amount of editors revert facts back to vague and esoteric rumors.

Additionally, hats off to the 'editor' who made the 'de facto' entry in the Fact Box, as this, to me and to most academics who study American government and policy, seems best appropriate. 65.215.94.13 ( talk) 18:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the article has said "English de-facto" as the national language for a long time. Your complaints are about the "official language". And you might find you have more luck on Wikipedia if you don't act like a pompous jerk. Regardless, right now the infobox says there is no official language at the federal level. Is that not completely accurate? So what's all this talk about vague esoteric rumours? Please limit the discussion to the topic at hand, not things that annoy you about wikipedia in general. TastyCakes ( talk) 23:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

And 13, if there's any more unprovoked rudeness from you, I'll also simply revert any further comments you feel the irresistible compulsion to inflict on this page per Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. In fact, why don't you read those enlightening pages and familiarize yourself with our policies and more before you think of returning here—you might find they make life more pleasant offline as well. Come to think of it, as you've expressed your opinion on this small matter as robustly and clearly as possible, there really should be no need for you to return at all, eh? DocKino ( talk) 01:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's calm down here and get back on focus. The question is why we write "None at federal level" instead of the seemingly more simple "None". My guess is that this article isn't about the federal government in and of itself, but the country as a whole; that includes the federal government, the state governments, cultures, etc. @ harej 03:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Right. Also, per the articles on those topics, an official language is a language that is given a special legal status in a particular country, state, or other territory; a national language is a language (or language variant, i.e. dialect) which has some connection—de facto or de jure—with a people and perhaps by extension the territory they occupy. The current infobox content on those points looks good to me. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act essentially ensure universal health care? It's not that the U.S. doesn't have universal health care, it's that it has a really bad way of paying for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.145.96 ( talk) 06:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Not all health care is emergency life saving care, so no. -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 07:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

--And not all health insurance--government insurance included--covers all medical treatments. ER care is still caring for your health. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.209.169 ( talk) 18:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

re the edits that have been reverted: It doesn't really matter that 46 million people don't have health care, but 10 million may not want it. The point is, in other developed countries, regardless of if people want it or not, they have it, and the USA is (I think?) unique in that respect. We don't point out how many Americans don't want military protection. (I say this as someone uninsured, somewhat by choice, who opposes any nationalization of health care, so don't go trying to paint me as biased on this) -- Golbez ( talk) 17:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that we have definitions for a reason. With that said, our nation was once defined as a federal constitutional republic. Look up that type of government and tell me if you think that matches your United States of America. Then I ask you to visit the Wikipedia article for Social Democracy, scroll down to ideology. Read that section and the table underneath. Then tell me if you think that this matches our country's current form of government. I think it does all to well. Not being biased and just stating fact; most of the US opposes the Universal Health care legislation, yet congress is putting it through to the voted upon. Why is a "republic" that is made up of elected officials, that is supposed to represent the citizens that elected them, still pushing to pass the opposed bill? There are other examples of misrepresentation of voters in the US. Today's America, with the progressive taxes and big spending, we are much different than a republic. So please consider to change the government type for this page. After all, who decides what the type of government a particular country uses is called? Should it not be the people to decide whether what the government is what it calls itself. In other words. If the people of the US do not believe that they are citizens of a Federal Constitutional Republic, then they are not under a Federal Constitutional Republic. The actual US government can choose to call itself whatever it wishes, but leave it up to the people and users of Wikipedia to decide what is listed as it's government type. After all, who does Wikipedia serve, the government or the common man? Does it not stand for the belief of common knowledge, or knowledge that is pressed on others from a single lofty source? Thanks, A concerned citizen of the US Cranders ( talk) 05:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that talk pages are, as per the top of this page, "not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." The United States remains a federal constitutional republic. Per the World Factbook, the United States is a "Constitution-based federal republic". Minor reforms to the health insurance industry (i.e., banning preexisting conditions, limited subsidies) do not constitute social democracy. Note that you can have a country which is both a federal republic with a constitution, and has social democratic policies, Germany, for instance. -- Jatkins ^{( talk - contribs)} 12:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Leaving it to "the people and users of Wikipedia to decide" would be original research and is strictly prohibited in this encyclopedia. The World Factbook (cited by Jatkins) is considered a reliable source, so we rely on it. If you have a source you believe is reliable that identifies the U.S. government elsewise, we can discuss it. Thanks for using the talk page on this. -- Evb-wiki ( talk) 14:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Further, I think the argument you're making is pretty groundless. From the republic article: A republic is a form of government in which the head of state is not a monarch and the people (or at least a part of its people) have an impact on its government. None of the points you make suggest the US is not a republic by this definition. You are very far off the mark if you believe that being a republic means that elected officials will always do what the majority opinion is. There are very few direct democracies in the world because they are generally seen as unworkable, and that is what you seem to be calling for. I don't believe decisions should be made based on opinion polls for reasons I'm sure you'll agree with if you give it some thought. The Democrats made it clear in numerous recent elections that they are for health care reform. People voted them in. Now they are going ahead with their plans, and if people don't like that they won't vote for them next time. That is how democracy works in America, and just because you don't agree with a particular issue currently being addressed doesn't mean the US is no longer a republic (by which I think you mean a democracy). Oh, and high government spending and progressive taxation has nothing to do with if a government is a republic (or a democracy) or not. TastyCakes ( talk) 18:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I´ll agree that minor changes in government policy do not constitute a change in the type of government, but I think it should be at least considered that congress has not exactly followed the constitution very much over the last century. This goes for both sides of the isle. Republicans tried to limit terms in Congress when that would clearly require a constitutional amendment and there have be various breaches of the constitution committed by the democrats with programs such as the New Deal and Obamacare that supersede what would otherwise be the supreme law of the land. The ideology connected to these bills is irrelevant, the fact is that our representative branch doesn´t feel the need to make their legislation fit under the construct of the constitution. I would like to suggest, while maybe only tongue in cheek, that the classification be changed to a Federal Presidential Republic, simply leaving out the misleading classifier of Constitutional. Wordupvb08 ( talk) 00:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The article says that the United States of America is "commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America". It's interesting that the "U.S." has periods while the "USA" does not. Is this the "proper way" of saying this? -- Germpolice ( talk) 21:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Germpolice

In formal writing, yes. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 22:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks! -- Germpolice ( talk) 14:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Germpolice

I call it GOUSOA, short for the Good Ol' US Of A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.80.44 ( talk) 18:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am looking on the internet and it is not telling me the first state in the usa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.204.126.107 ( talk) 03:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Delaware. Should be pretty easy to find out. Try harder. -- Golbez ( talk) 07:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I typed "first state in the usa" into a google search and found this. -- Evb-wiki ( talk) 15:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoa. "First to ratify the Constitution" does not equate to being the first state of the United States. The Constitution came into effect for all thirteen states at the same time as soon as the ninth state ratified. More importantly, the Constitution did not create a new country. It just created a new government within an already existing country. There were 13 states before the Constitution, and 13 states after it. So the Constitution has no bearing at all when identifying the first state of the United States. The proper answer to that question will look to the birth of the country in 1776. The legislation that created the new nation (on July 2nd, not the 4th) turned a bunch of colonies into states in an instant. So I would say that it is improper to hold that any one of those preceded the other. But there were colonies that took the bold step of declaring independence from Great Britain prior to July 1776. Leaders in that move were New Hampshire and Rhode Island earlier in that year. More significantly, Massachusetts was calling the building of their seat of government in Boston the "State House" long before any of these other acts of defiance. Something to ponder the next time you drink a Sam Adams... So where does that leave Delaware? The state's own website says:

Delaware became a state in 1776, just two months after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

This would mean that it was the last of the 13 to become a state (after New York and the 11 other colonies that voted for the independence legislation on July 2nd). The three counties that formed the state of Delaware had been a dependent part of Pennsylvania, so severing ties there had complications of its own. It would be far less misleading if Delaware would change their slogan to "First to Ratify". It obviously doesn't have quite the same impact on the license plates, but in the interest of accuracy they should at least have an * when proclaiming themselves as "the first state"!-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 19:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

South Africas official language is South African english. I am an AMERICAN and I surely don't speak Englands english. I speak American/American English. Changing the official language to American English. By the way, can a fellow American spell COLOR for me. We surely don't spell it colour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlushinQwnzNyc ( talk • contribs) 23:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that's happening. -- Golbez ( talk) 23:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't spell it "color" either since it's written in American English. In fact the article doesn't use the word "color". The South Africa article on Wikipedia doesn't list its official language as "South African English", it just says "English". Where did you see otherwise? TastyCakes ( talk) 23:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, Flushin, you may not speak the Queen's English, but based on your entry here I'm not sure you're all that familiar with the spelling and grammar rules of American English, either. Before claiming to actually know what language we speak here, perhaps you should brush up on it. -- Golbez ( talk) 23:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

But I agree with FQN! Fie on all those science books that claim I'm a carbon-based life form. I'm an American carbon–based life form. DocKino ( talk) 23:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Race/Ethnicity (2008)[123] White 79.8% African American 12.8% Asian American 4.5% Native American and Alaska Native 1.0% Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander 0.2% Multiracial 1.7% Hispanic (of any race) 15.4

Why is Hispanic listed second. (of any race) can be applied to nearly all of the groups. Is this graph an attempt to exclude Hispanics role as the countries largest minority????19:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC) 24.101.172.61 ( talk) 19:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Because, according to the United States Census, Hispanics can be of any race. They can be white, black, asian, etc. So they are counted separately. Note that if you add all of the numbers up without Hispanics, you get 100%. That's because, officially in the United States, "Hispanic" is not a race unto itself; you are a Hispanic AND white, or a Hispanic AND Asian, etc. I'll ignore your ignorant attempt to paint a motive on this. -- Golbez ( talk) 20:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice attempt to paint me as a racist and I could care less what you think about me. Wikipedia does not allow personal attacks which you are leveling at me. Although your attack on me was blatant, I agree with your assement as far as the Census' views on the Hispanic race. So I will ignore your personal accessment and thank you for your knowledge. 24.101.172.61 ( talk) 19:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of being a racist; I accused you of attempting to paint US as racists. Wow. -- Golbez ( talk) 19:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If that makes you feel better about yourself. 24.101.172.61 ( talk) 19:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Check out United States and state terrorism essentially an extremely slanted anti-US progaganda sheet; but it gets 100+ views per day. It is relevant to this article "United States" since it's on roughly the same subject. Suggest people consider the "US and state terrorism" article for AfD or merging.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 17:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Same comment for War crimes committed by the United States; again relevant to this article since it's talking about the US; the title, by itself, violated WP:NPOV. Again, another candidate for AfD in my opinion. Please check it out.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 16:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of the things listed are well documented events. I see no reason to have them completely deleted. The articles are rather long so I did not read them through, but if their is bias, it will eventually be sorted out. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 08:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The civil rights section (Cold War and protest politics) names Bevel along with Parks and King. While important I think it should be decided among the editors whether or not Bevel merits such a prominent mention. It seems the article tries to state the minimum, listing only those most vital to history (i.e. similar to listing only Parks and King, Friedan and Steinem are listed for Women's Liberation). US2010 ( talk) 04:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The summary regarding US early history is not incorrect, but it includes only references to 2 of the 3 early european nations settlements, the English and the Dutch. The Swedish settlement New Sweden of 1638 is not mentioned at all, which I find very misleading. In fact then first Eurpoean settlers of Pennsylvania was Swedish/Finnish, they founded Wilmington (Fort Christina), Delaware and lay the foundation for the Delaware colony and later state. They also settled the southern part of New Jersey, where several names in the New Jersey rural areas still carry the heritage of the Swedish/Finnsh settlers.

The colony was lost in war with the Dutch in 1655 but remained Swedish/Finnish speaking far after that. William Penn and the quakers bought the land from wedish farmerswhen founding Philadelphia.

It is the cultural mix of British, Dutch and Swedish/Finnish that is the baseline of what came to be an American culture. The area north of Maryland up to New York represents this cultural mix. New England to the North was more British, thereby representing another flavor of the American culture.

There is a good chapter on New Sweden in Wikepedia, please at least make a reference to that.

Some time ago we used to include a reference to New Sweden. However, it was decided by consensus that given our length limitations, this was one of the things that had to go from this general overview article that must summarize the entire scope of American history with somewhat brutal efficiency. (I should point out that I favored its inclusion, but the weight of well-reasoned opinion favored its removal.) In addition to its dedicated article, New Sweden is also covered in Colonial history of the United States, European colonization of the Americas, and Swedish colonization of the Americas.— DCGeist ( talk) 20:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The number of senators needs to be fixed, maybe also representatives. With Kennedy's special election, there are 57 democrats (plus 2 independents), and 41 republicans, right? I'm not so sure of the distribution of representatives, especially with the recent defections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.210.23 ( talk) 03:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The origin of the word "America" is a matter of debate. It's unlikely to have come from Amerigo Vespucci because that would have derived the name from his first name whereas (excluding nobility) lands named after people are named after their family name, ie America would have been Vespuccia. There are other theories for the origin of "America" - see this ^[1]. Perhaps the etymology section should indicate this uncertainty. Darmot and gilad ( talk) 08:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It would seeem that the world's largest cargo airport, Memphis, should have equality with the same for passengers. I would appreciate it if DocKino would cease his deletions of this properly referenced and notable fact. If Memphis International isn't notable, then neither is Atlanta. -- Zeamays ( talk) 03:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe Zeamays's concluding claim is both (a) simply false and (b) a red herring—I do not claim that Memphis International "isn't notable", simply that it isn't quite notable enough for inclusion in this general overview article on the United States, with its attendant length restrictions. I believe most readers are more interested in airline passenger traffic than in air cargo; a search of Google News confirms that much more attention is paid to the former than to the latter in the mainstream English-language press. The status of Memphis International is certainly notable enough for inclusion in our wonderful topical article Transportation in the United States. DocKino ( talk) 05:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the first sentence be changed from

The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America) is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district.

to

The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America) is a corporatist state [6] comprising fifty states and a federal district. JCDenton2052 ( talk) 00:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Just no. Please kindly take your political statements elsewhere. Andy120290 ( talk) 01:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Andy120290. That's a prima facie violation of core Wikipedia policies NOR and NPOV. Uncyclopedia would probably be happy to have it, though! -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 17:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see wp:soap. TastyCakes ( talk) 17:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The article states "In 1507, German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller produced a world map on which he named the lands of the Western Hemisphere "America" after Italian explorer and cartographer Amerigo Vespucci". This is often quoted, but incorrect. It is indeed on his map, but why he named it that is mis-attributed. Because it has been "revised" by modern scholarship, it probably needs a detailed explanation of the issue.
— Długosz ( talk) 21:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's disappointing to see an edit to the article that provides three links to "sources", one of which the new text baldly plagiarizes and the other two of which are non-functional. (I was able to track both down. One is an amateur work that clearly fails our WP:V standards. The other, on the BBC website, is very poor: it makes the shallowest of claims for the Amerike theory and flatly asserts that St. Brendan reached North America in the 6th century. If not technically an amateur work, it is still entirely amateurish.) That said, it may be time to tweak our sentence a bit. Perhaps so:

In 1507, German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller produced a world map on which he named the lands of the Western Hemisphere " America". He credited Italian explorer and cartographer Amerigo Vespucci as the name's source, an etymology scholars now regard as uncertain.

The Cohen article is strong, and would be a useful citation.— DCGeist ( talk) 22:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hy there, I wish to point out that the acurracy of the following information seems to unclear:

The United States population is projected by the U.S. Census Bureau to be 308,555,000, including an estimated 11.2 million illegal immigrants. The United States is the third most populous nation in the world, after China and India. Its population growth rate is 0.98%, compared to the European Union's 0.11%. The birth rate of 13.82 per 1,000, 30% below the world average, is higher than any European country's except Albania and Ireland.

The presentation of the data seems to be a bit biased, way too jingoist and a bit anti-UE and/or anti-Europe.

• the second sentence completly ignores the UE (which isn't a nation, so no big problem here).
• the third sentence fails to follow the same criteria and compares the USA solely with the UE (the rest of the world suddenly doesn't seem to matter at all).
• the fourth sentence seems to based upon a single source which may or may not be wrong. It compares the USA solely with Europe and neglects the rest of the world completly (A comparision with a whole continent? I somehow fail to see the logic of this.).

I suggest that we rewrite these sentences without the anti-EU/Europe bias, prefereably with a healthy focus upon the USA (which is after all the subject of this article). Something more like this:

The United States is the third most populous nation in the world, after China and India. Its population is projected by the U.S. Census Bureau to be around 308,555,000, including an estimated 11.2 million illegal immigrants. With a birth rate of 13.82 per 1,000, 30% below the world average, its population growth rate is 0.98%,

The relevant articles are: List of countries by population, List of countries by population growth rate, and List of countries by birth rate. Flamarande ( talk) 22:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

First off, I think the notion that there is any anti-EU/Europe bias here is simply mistaken. I've never detected any, and I am unaware of a single other reader having reacted to this supposed bias.

As for the content itself, the gross figures (total population) are one thing, the demographic trend comparisons another--there's no inconsistency of "criteria". We have well established here that the appropriate bases for comparison are comparitively wealthy, democratic nations such as those of the European Union and that certain comparisons are worthy of note in this article--that is, in those fields where the United States diverges statistically to a substantial degree from those otherwise largely comparable nations. I think the comparisons here, which are informative and striking, are perfectly consistent with our general approach. DocKino ( talk) 23:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Flamarande, if not for relatively different reasons. Compare to the world or compare to no one would be best, but comparing to the EU—which, yes, is similar in that it comprises wealthy democratic nations—is not similar because many EU nations are experiencing some of the lowest birth and growth rates in the world. The EU, in this case, is an anomaly when dealing with these numbers. So in essence, we're comparing the US numbers to the exception, not the rule. The suggested rewording above is much better and doesn't leave you thinking that 1) the EU has typical birth rate numbers (as is technically implied by the passage) and 2) that because of that, the US has ridiculously high numbers. Plus—as noted many times in the past—this page can always do with a little trimming when available, though obviously that's an added bonus, not a supporting reason. upstate NYer 01:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any bias in how those figures are presented, but I am on the other hand, not opposed to the suggestion to change the information, as suggested. Not so much on the bias argument, rather on the fact that the article should be more centrally focused on the United States.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 02:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I don't really see bias either, I just see a (unintentionally) misleading representation of the numbers. upstate NYer 03:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, forgive me but I find it interesting that the paragraph avoids to compare the total population (presumably because the higher UE figure) but then fails follow this reasoning in other sentences (presumably because the US figures are better). Another point I wish to point out is that the sentence about the birth rate may indeed be mistaken (check the UN list - Iceland is "above" the USA). The CIA list may be right but then it may not. So is anyone opposed to the change? Flamarande ( talk) 14:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait a few days to see if other comments come in. Then we can talk about changing it. upstate NYer 23:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm opposed to Flamarande's suggested change--and slightly nauseated by the continuing, baseless suggestions of bias: there is nothing in the content that suggests any figure is "better" or worse than any other. Now, fantasies of prejudice having been set aside, let's turn to that content...

I believe it is absolutely worthy of note that the U.S. birth rate and population growth rate are significantly higher than those of other wealthy Western nations. Upstater, you're right, of course, that in these regards the EU is an exception in global terms—but, given its wealth and the general nature of its culture, one would expect the United States to closely mirror that exception. That it does not is quite noteworthy. (And, once again, not better or worse.)

Everybody with basic education knows which are the better ones (it may be a fantasy or not, but whatever we do, just don't compare the total population of the UE with the US :)

Several member-states of the UE are neither wealthy nor western (e.g.: Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, etc). Several states of Europe (continent) are neither wealthy nor western ( Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine, etc). So what's the point of making a comparison between the US and UE? Why is this article making a comparison between the US and Europe?

On the other hand Australia and New Zealand are without any doubt wealthy and western. Their growth rates are higher than the US and while Australia's birth rate is lower, New Zealand's figure is above the US figure.

Your argument that the comparisons (between USA and UE/Europe) are made to show that "the U.S. birth rate and population growth rate are significantly higher than those of other wealthy Western nations" is hereby refuted (unless you wish to challenge this). The UE is not (and it hasn't been for quite some time) a collection of wealthy western nations. Can you give us another credible reason? Flamarande ( talk) 13:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

In addition, Flamarande's plaints about the accuracy of the Factbook data are obviously specious. The Factbook currently presents the most recent data available (i.e., estimated data from 2009); the UN currently presents an average of estimated data from 2005 and a projection for 2010. That the latter calculates Iceland's averaged birth rate as 2% higher than the U.S.'s hardly suggests that the former's data is "mistaken". I certainly don't know whether your repeated misrepresentations are merely sloppy (as I must assume) or intentionally deceitful, Flamarande, but—to use a word you favor—they certainly are interesting.— DCGeist ( talk) 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"repeated misrepresentations"? You picked up a single sloppy mistake that I made. I find the last sentence "the birth rate of 13.82 per 1,000, 30% below the world average, is higher than any European country's except Albania and Ireland" a bit strange. Why are we comparing a whole continent with the US? What is the criteria of said comparison? Flamarande ( talk) 13:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DCGeist completely. LedRush ( talk) 05:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't see bias, and I agree that the Factbook should be source of choice. I still disagree on the comparisons though. Or, if you do include them, include a short explanation pointing out exactly what you said in your second paragraph, otherwise, you're still offering an implicit statement that (quoting myself from above) 1) the EU has typical birth rate numbers and 2) that because of that, the US has ridiculously high numbers compared to the rest of the world. I don't feel this is clear enough. Basically, I see the two issues have problems with clarity and nothing else. Just my 2¢. upstate NYer 22:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The United States is the third most populous nation in the world, after China and India. Its population is projected by the U.S. Census Bureau to be around 308,555,000, including an estimated 11.2 million illegal immigrants. With a birth rate of 13.82 per 1,000, 30% below the world average, its population growth rate is 0.98%.

Please notice that no one could find anything wrong with the proposed text (DocKino and DCGeist seem to be against it, but didn't present a single argument why). One could further improve the last part ("population growth rate is 0.98%, ? % below the world average). Flamarande ( talk) 13:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I should think the argument against your change had been made quite clear to you: you would eliminate informative comparisons, raising noteworthy distinctions, and leave us with only a non-noteworthy trendline comparison to a world average. That the U.S. birth rate is 30% below the world average is informative within the context of the more significant observation: that the country's birth rate is higher than virtually every European country's, rich, near-rich, or otherwise. DocKino ( talk) 17:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The section already has a sentence which gives that information: "The United States is the only industrialized nation in which large population increases are projected." A comparison between the USA and the EU/Europe is unwise. Europe is the continent with the smallest population growth of the world, and several European countries are economically average while others are poor. Many of them have also a different cultural background. Flamarande ( talk) 19:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Though I am still in support of his change; the current wording implies things that are not necessarily true. Implications should not be made in statements like this, especially in an A-class article. More straight-forward and less interpretable verbiage is needed. upstate NYer 20:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this article shouldn't have "tailor-made" sentences at all. Flamarande ( talk) 19:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"The United States is the only industrialized nation in which large population increases are projected" refers to all sources of population growth, both birth rates and immigration. The comparison of birth rate alone is not redundant. My suggestion would be to alter the offending sentence to: With a birth rate of 13.82 per 1,000, 30% below the world average, its population growth rate is 0.98%, significantly higher than those of Western Europe, Japan and South Korea. We can keep the comparison by specifying and expanding it to other industrialized democracies. Low birth rates are the rule among advanced, industrialized democracies, and the US is quite the exception; this should be noted in the article. If other such countries are in the same boat as the US (after a quick glance it seems Australia and New Zealand would be), similar comparative sentences can be added to their respective articles. Hyzhenhok ( talk) 10:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The exception is duly noted alredy: "The United States is the only industrialized nation in which large population increases are projected." Still your suggestion is a step in the right direction and way better than the present text. Flamarande ( talk) 03:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As stated above, it is not sufficiently noted because birth rate is not the only possible source for "population increases." We should clarify and un-generalize the offending statement without removing information as you propose. If no one objects, I think we can go ahead and make the edit that I outlined above. Hyzhenhok ( talk) 12:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I think your proposal is a good one.— DCGeist ( talk) 18:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Both theManual of Style and the Manual of Style (Dates and Numbers) state:

• Where footnoting or citing sources for values and units, identify both the source and the original units. [ [7]] [ [8]

In the light of stated policy it seems entirely reasonable to note the units of measurement used for the area of the United States in the footnotes to this article. It should be noted that:

• Expanding a footnote does not disturb the text or the layout.
• Including this information is clearly in line with stated Wiki policy.

If anyone has a problem with putting this information in the notes to the article could he or she please explain what this problem could be? Michael Glass ( talk) 03:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have a point, and that entry was not added recently. And certainly, citing policy is vastly superior to your previous argument of 'censorship.' -- Golbez ( talk) 06:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You appear to agree with this change. Have I understood you correctly, and are there any other comments or suggestions? Michael Glass ( talk) 21:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have now changed the notes to mention the source values as per Wiki policy. Michael Glass ( talk) 23:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if people feel that (some version of) the following would be appropriate/helpful under 'Demonym'?

Yankee or Yank (colloquial)

Thanks. -- Tyranny Sue ( talk) 01:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be highly inappropriate because adding Yank would be offensive to a lot of Southerners. In the U.S.... a Yank is generally anyone residing or originating in the North, although originally, the term Yank referred to a New Englander. To Americans, not everybody is thought of or labelled as a Yank.

Now if we're talking about the rest of the world, then yes, all Americans are referred to and seen as Yanks. But for all inclusive purposes, the term Yank does not apply to all Americans since not every American thinks of him or herself as a Yank. -- Yoganate79 ( talk) 09:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

And the term is mildly offensive even to northerners. Why not add "seppos" while you're at it? LedRush ( talk) 20:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The page's title is United States, but the first sentence reads "The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States..."
Shouldn't the page title be United States of America? Someone couldn't be bothered typing out the whole title? What about People's_Republic_of_China? Should that be renamed People's Republic? Flash man999 ( talk) 03:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny stuff. See FAQ: Why is the article's name "United States" and not "United States of America"?— DCGeist ( talk) 04:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right. We should totally rename the article on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to "United Kingdom". -- Golbez ( talk) 05:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom is the article name. the other is a redirect. Also see WP:LEAD#First_sentence. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Right. That was my point... I was being sarcastic. -- Golbez ( talk) 00:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't start this again. Look through the talk archives to see how many times this issue has come up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.119.106 ( talk) 18:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It's come up a lot of times because it's a valid point. I have never understood the logic of this article's current title, despite having read the explanation several times. SnottyWong talk 18:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What part is confusing? "United States" is far and away the most common short-form name for the country, and absent major ambiguity - of which there isn't any - we use that. -- Golbez ( talk) 19:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Who is "we?" -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 18:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America)", or America?? America is a continent, the term is misused america, no one would have to accept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.61.52.164 ( talk) 17:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A) That is one of the names commonly used to refer to the United States, whether you like it or not. B) There is no continent of "America," there is North America, South America, and sometimes grouped together as "the Americas." -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 21:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"That is one of the names commonly used to refer to the United States, whether you like it or not" Perhaps, but that don't change the fact that only the anglophone people name themselves american (in an exclusive way) and America (to USA). It's a inaccurate appropiation of term and of course the rest of the world doesn't consider that USA like a synonimous of "America", neither considers that USA's citizens are the only american people. Of course an argentine or a mexican are american too, wether you like it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.32.46.219 ( talk) 03:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Argentines and Mexicans are Argentine and Mexican. They won't let you forget that, either, they have pride in who they are. There isn't a pan-American Continents national movement. -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 04:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As blunt as the phrase "whether you like it or not" is, it addresses the issue correctly. Generally, a Wikipedia article should be descriptive rather than normative. Since the United States is commonly referred to as "America" (among other short forms) that get included in the article, regardless of whether some people think it's unjust or bad. Similarly, there's a country officially called the Republic of Macedonia and commonly called Macedonia. Because that accurately describes how it's referred to, that gets included in the article. Just because some people normatively believe the country has no right to the name, we don't omit the description. Rome's article mentions that it has the nicknames "Capital of the World" and "The Eternal City." Just because someone thinks it doesn't merit those nicknames doesn't change the descriptive fact that those names are applied to it. I do think there's probably a place (perhaps in a footnote or a sub-article) to mention notable debates in the public sphere over whether the name "America" should be applied to the U.S. But if that's done, it should be done in a way that respects NPOV and Undue Weight policies and not in a POV-pushing way. -- JamesAM ( talk) 18:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The current transportation section of the main United States article could use some revision. I see in the archives that this topic has been discussed in the past, but this section remains without the updates that have been suggested. In particular, this section (as currently written) places too much emphasis on comparisons between the U.S. and Europe. The United States and Europe are two different entities with different geography, different history, different demographics, etc. Although it certainly makes sense to provide comparisons, these belong in the more detailed article regarding Transportation in the United States, not in this general section on Transportation within the main United States article. Furthermore, the current text of this section implies that the author believes Europe is superior to the United States. We all know that Wikipedia is a place for facts and information, not political debate. Crm18 ( talk) 20:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think I agree. The numbers are much more meaningful with a comparison to similarly developed countries. I think I put a lot of that information in way back when, and I assure you it wasn't meant to slight the US, it was meant to highlight the differences between the US and other comparable countries. You are right that some judgment has crept into the language, and I agree it should be changed, but I really don't think all comparisons to Europe should be deleted... TastyCakes ( talk) 20:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The language of the article implies no judgment. Any impression of superiority or inferiority rests entirely with the prejudices of the reader.— DCGeist ( talk) 21:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the language. LedRush ( talk) 23:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I was referring specifically to where it said "only 9% take public transit", which does seem to imply the judgment that that's a low number. "Far below European levels" seems similarly judgmental language. And I didn't delete the bicycle ref, I turned the sentence "Bicycle usage is minimal, well below European levels" into "Bicycle use is minimal in most parts of the United States", because I'm sure you can find parts of the US with high bicycle use rates (eg Portland). I'm not totally sure I see your problem with either of those changes, DC. I've never heard the "don't start a sentence with a numeral" rule before, but if that is the case I think the sentence should be rewritten in some other way to remove the "only". TastyCakes ( talk) 20:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"Bicycle usage is minimal, well below European levels" is accurate and respects the substance of the source, which you can access online. While many people feel that higher bicycle usage rates would represent a social improvement, others do not—our article expresses no judgment either way. I've edited the preceding sentence to retain proper style while eliminating the "only".— DCGeist ( talk) 20:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The mass transit comparison is flawed to begin with. It says "Mass transit accounts for 9% of total U.S. work trips, compared to 38.8% in Europe". If you look at the source, p2, the 38.8% figure is only for large cities, plus the data is 11 years old. Thus apples and oranges. If you look at the modal split at Eurostat for passenger transport, you can see the European modal split is 83.6% car and 16.4% mass transit. Chriszwolle ( talk) 16:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

All country articles seem to list their alliances and memberships to international institutions (NATO, UN, WTO) in the introduction. It seems there is no reason why this standard info could not be implemented here as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.130.217 ( talk) 10:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if we should update this section, I have a feeling we're on the verge of something big with the passing of the health care and the general unrest of the entire nation at this moment. Honestly I would do it myself but I know there are better writers out there than myself, I really feel that the unrest and the attacks on political figures should be noted. If anyone has any suggestions please, help me out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.120.170 ( talk) 03:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The section has recently been updated to recognize the significant development that has occurred: the enactment of major health care reform. We may indeed be "on the verge" of other significant developments. If they occur they will be added in due course. So far, the sum of incendiary rhetoric, vulgar invectives, spitting, death threats, and the cutting of a gas line to the house of a congressman's brother do not add up to a historically notable "event". So far.— DCGeist ( talk) 04:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just noting how the general feeling throughout the US lately seems to be filled with hate and disgust. I would never honestly really have noticed until nearly everywhere I go everyone is angry with just about any issue with the U.S., universities, town halls, even the grocery stores. I completely understand how what you have stated would not be considered a historical event haha, it was more of a forewarning to keep and eye out I guess as to the future state of the nation. Thanks for the quick reply, and I don't know if i'm allowed to chat on here however, I have also noted a clear division in a lot of individuals mindsets. Such as when a person disagrees with what is being said by nearly any political figure they are usually called a radical or even in the most extreme case (should be hanged for treason). Isn't it our right to talk out against the government and why are some people right now deciding that if you speak out you're a traitor or radical? An interesting thing to ponder indeed. (BTW, i'm not a Republican haha or a Democrat) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.120.170 ( talk) 04:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the infobox include " presidential" as part of the government type? Without the qualifier, a federal republic could mean the country is parliamentary. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The existing photo in the Literature, philosophy, and the arts subsection is compositionally superior to the proposed substitute. More important, it focuses on the aspect of Times Square that is crucial in the context of this section: its role as the center of the Broadway theater district. Theatrical billboards dominate the existing photo, while attention in the substitute is directed to the back of the Father Duffy Monument and the indiscernible (and, in fact, nontheatrical) advertising on the old Times Building.— DCGeist ( talk) 17:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The current photo does not provide the scope of the subject, not any sense of scale at all. If doesn't accomplish any of the educational goals of Wikipedia as it is almost impossible to discern any piece of useful information from it. The other one provides a sense of scope of the place, let's you feel like you're in the center of it (while letting you know that the subject is centrally important), and it just looks better. The change isn't essential...I was just surprised to see you revert a photo change that was so obviously better than the current, which is pretty useless, imho. LedRush ( talk) 18:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition to not being very informative, the existing picture uses the cliched people blur, a lazy device which remains a pet peeve of mine (and perhaps unfairly colors my criticism of it). LedRush ( talk) 18:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, the proposed picture is damaged by its blown highlight sky. -- Golbez ( talk) 18:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do countries such as Cuba and Israel have sections on the history of human rights abuses committed, but not the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.5.37 ( talk) 03:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

A fair question, but one could also ask why there is no mention of aboriginal treatment on Canada's wiki or various past transgressions by the British Empire. I've only made a short glaze over each, but I see no mention made here either. JPetersen ( talk) 08:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That said, it may be prudent to consider adding something referring to the more obvious events, such as the Trail of Tears or the camps for Japanese-Americans during WWII. I don't think we need a separate section for it, but mention of these events seems informational and helpful to the article. JPetersen ( talk) 08:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added a reference to Japanese American internment under World War I, Great Depression, and World War II. I would also like to see some sort of reference to the Trail of Tears in the section regarding Indian removal policy, since it's one of the most iconic events of that policy; however I'm unsure of how to go about adding it. Any suggestions? JPetersen ( talk) 09:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe it's necessary. The relevant History paragraph already includes the following:

Americans' eagerness to expand westward prompted a long series of Indian Wars and an Indian removal policy that stripped the native peoples of their land.... New railways made relocation easier for settlers and increased conflicts with Native Americans. Over a half-century, up to 40 million American bison, or buffalo, were slaughtered for skins and meat and to ease the railways' spread. The loss of the buffalo, a primary resource for the plains Indians, was an existential blow to many native cultures.

The first clause covers the Trail of Tears. Remember, in an overview article on a vast subject such as the United States, summary style must be applied most stringently.— DCGeist ( talk) 14:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, however seeing as it's such an iconic example of the policy, I think it would help the article to mention it in passing. Maybe smething along the lines of:

Americans' eagerness to expand westward prompted a long series of Indian Wars and an Indian removal policy, exemplified in events such as the Trail of Tears, that stripped the[...].

I agree since this is a large article and an in-depth article already exists, summarization is necessary; however since it was such a major event (and one representative of an entire policy), it seems fitting it be at least touched upon, in a similar manner to my edit of Japanese American internment. JPetersen ( talk) 15:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Proper grammar requires only "exemplified by the Trail of Tears". I have no problem with using "exemplified by" on Wikipedia in its simple meaning of "illustrated by the example of", but I note that some editors do, presumably because they feel it has an editorializing tone. I'll make the change and we'll see what the response is.— DCGeist ( talk) 16:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Oy. Except now I see the problem is that it violates the chronology. The general statement at the beginning of the paragraph is fine for encompassing the whole period. But putting the Trail of Tears into the sentence places specific events of 1831–38 before events of 1803, 1812, and 1819. No can do.— DCGeist ( talk) 16:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I figured out how to work it in. Take a look.— DCGeist ( talk) 16:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly the sort of brief mention I was thinking. Looks great to me! JPetersen ( talk) 20:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I protest the image of an "immigrant USA" the authors of this article are trying to portray. The US is not an immigrant country anymore, the age of immigrant america has long been over. There exists a certain Anglo-Scottish-Irish-German-French-Black-Mexican class high in the power in the US and they would do anything to stay in power (like electing a non-white president), the rest of the population , specially the newly arrived immigrants are to provide labour and wealth.

212.80.5.149 ( talk) 06:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Goshtaasp

This is not a forum to discuss the things you are alluding to. Regarding the article, it is clear and cited that America has had a strong tie with immigration and is iconic of the States. JPetersen ( talk) 08:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Personal, but my own family has been in the US since the American Revolution, and since everyone who is in America now descends from someone who immigrated at one point in history, it is reasonable to say that America is a "immigrant USA", albeit we are all Americans. Prussian725 ( talk) 12:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

United States was repopulated by thousands and millions of people from around the world. Today it is difficult to find people who has only one ethnic origin and are not children of immigrants.-- Isinbill ( talk) 23:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The proper name of the country is United States "of America". shouldnt that be included in the title? JDDJS ( talk) 00:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No. See Talk:United States/Frequently asked questions. — Kevin Myers 00:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Then why does the very top of the article say this in italics: "This article is about the United States of America. For other uses of terms redirecting here..." ??? And why is the heading of the infobox labeled "United States of America"? And why does the first sentence of the article read: "The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America [/əm'erɪkə/])..." ??? The reasoning behind this decision to keep the article title as "United States" has never made sense to me, and apparently doesn't make sense to a lot (perhaps a majority) of people, since it seems like every time I visit this discussion page, there is at least one active discussion on the topic. The United States of America is the full name of the country. It is commonly referred to as the United States. It's obviously not the other way around. "United States" is not the official full name of the country, with "United States of America" being the commonly-referred-to nickname that gives a little more detail in case you didn't know which United States I was talking about. This whole discussion is ridiculous, and should be revisited in my opinion. If you switched the name of the article to "United States of America", do you think we'd have anyone at all starting random discussions asking why the name of the article isn't "United States"? SnottyWong talk 23:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You can, of course, initiate yet another move request. Best of luck. — Kevin Myers 10:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, of course. All other countries on Wikipedia use their full name, and United States is of course the only one which is at all ambiguous. But enough sarcasm: "United States" is quite plainly the common name for the country, just as Mexico is the common name for the United Mexican States, and United Kingdom is the common name for their eight-word monstrosity. That other 'United States' have existed in the past does not demand a rename or a disambiguation page; renaming the article would accomplish nothing to assist in disambiguation, as 'United States' would still obviously redirect to it. So, when it comes down to it, these proposals are 100% only about having the article at the official name of the country - and to that, I ask, please don't ask that until you've tried it on Mexico and United Kingdom first. -- Golbez ( talk) 11:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So 'United States' couldn't even redirect to 'United States of America'? Prussian725 ( talk) 12:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing. If the article were moved to "United States of America", United States would obviously redirect to the new title; anyone who thinks otherwise has an extremely incorrect concept of how common names, redirects, and disambiguation work on Wikipedia. So that means that nothing would change except for the name of the article, so any claim that it would help lessen ambiguity is a false argument. It wouldn't; people who type in "United States" would still be taken to the country article. The question then becomes, do we name it "United States" or "United States of America?" That is a fine argument to have (I personally think we should stick with Wikipedia's standard of using the common short names), but it has nothing to do with helping make things less ambiguous or confusing. -- Golbez ( talk) 18:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I was the impression that the U.S. were a constitutional (and representative) republic, not a democracy. In a classical representative democracy (such as Britain), the Parliament has the power to enact any law, even to change the constitution (although Britain does not have a constitution per se). On the contrary, the U.S. constitution cannot be modified by the Congress (except for the Amendments), or even by the people. This is what makes it a constitutional representative republic as opposed to a democracy, etiher a representative parliamentary democratic monarchy (like britain) or a representative democratic republic (like France), which are both democracies, meaning that their Parliament can, if people approve it, change the constitution altogether legally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.251.17 ( talk) 13:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The US is clearly a representative democracy, ability to change the constitution has nothing to do with it. On top of that, as you point out, it is possible for the US government to amend its constitution ("amend" meaning, in effect, "change"). It's just that it requires a super majority of 66% in both houses of Congress, and then it has to be ratified by 3/4 of the state governments, so it is pretty rare for an amendment to be successful. TastyCakes ( talk) 17:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, that refers to something that's not already in the constitution. But no amendment can be passed that (for instance) transfers all judicial power from the Supreme Court to the Congress). So nothing can be passed that would change the original text. Only the further amendments can be added or previous ones modified or removed (although I would guess trying to modify or remove any of the first 10 would provoke a constitutional crisis). So technically the representative democracy aspect of the American system is just a part of the larger constitutional republic mechanism. On the whole, it's not a parliamentary democracy or a presidential democracy, it's a constitutional republic. The difference is that for example, tomorrow, if 66% of the British public wanted it, the British Parliament can LEGALLY vote absolute powers to the Queen. This can't happen legally in the U.S., even if 70% or 80% of the public and / or Congressmen wanted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.251.17 ( talk) 00:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Ouick EDIT: And the trick here is that a constitutional republic protects the majority from itself, which a classical (representative or direct, it doesn't matter) democracy does not. Once absolute powers are voted for someone (to take my previous example), it's not a certain thing that Parliament can eventually take those powers back. For example Weimar Germny had this kind of respect for majority rule that a classical representative democracy usually has. And its constitution had all kinds of loopholes that allowed the Legislative to pass laws that would modify the system itself. We all know what followed. The Reichtag could not take powers back from Hitler if they wanted to. According the the American system, that can't (theoretically) happen. Because in representative democracies the Parliament comes first always, as the voive of the people (or sometimes even the President as in some countries). In the American system first comes the Constitution, and then institutions such as Congress and Presidency. So I agree that the U.S. are representative democracy TOO, as part of the constitutional republican system. BUT they aren't A representative democracy, in the meaning that it's not JUST that... Anyways suit yourself to modify the text or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.251.17 ( talk) 00:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

A constitutional amendment may add to, remove or alter the text of the Constitution in any way. As to the question, the United States is a republic whose government is elected democratically. 199.90.28.195 ( talk) 19:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, 199.90, that is my understanding as well and I don't know what 82.77 is talking about. I also do not agree with 82.77's interpretation of what is a representative democracy - nothing in the definition I have in mind says anything about requiring it to be able to modify the fundamental structure of the system that elected it. To me the definition is simply: people elect people to represent them in the running of a government. That is clearly what happens in the US. TastyCakes ( talk) 19:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The original text of the constitution has been changed several times. The 12 amendment changed how a president and VP are elected! 17 changed how we elect senators. It is hard to imagine more dramatic changes to the original text than those. LedRush ( talk) 19:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

All right I also agree with 199.90 that the "United States is a republic whose government is elected democratically". The "democracy" part refers only to one aspect of the republic: how people are elected to office, and that is in a representative way. But there are other constitutional aspects that can affect the system's name. For example we pride ourselves here that we are a "parliamentary democracy". The thing is here in the UK, the Parliament and, of the Parliament, the House of Commons, can enact ANY statute they desire and it would be legitimate. It's actually how the Restoration came about and afterwards the "Glorious Revolution" and finally the representative system we have today. If tomorrow the House of Commons would decide it's necessary to give Her Majesty absolute powers for a couple of years, it would be perfectly legal, constitutional and legitimate (because the understanding is that since they are the elected representatives of the People, whatever they vote for is mandated by the People). [of course I believe Her Majesty would not accept such powers and probably such statute would never ever even be proposed in the first place anyway, BUT... it's theoretically possible.] Because if we only ask ourselves how the leaders assume office (by democratic election or otherwise) we only get part of the picture of a system of government. Also important is what acts and statutes can the Legislative legally and constitutionally pass, to what extent the will of the majority goes (and to what extent the opinion of the minority is respected), how much power the executive has and how power is distributed between the three branches of government and so on. For example in Switzerland last year the people voted in a referendum a statute that forbids the building of minarets (and therefore of mosques) in Switzerland. That is a democracy: the will of the majority goes, even if the rights of the minority not violated. And in Switzelrand at this moment when we're speaking, that is the law of the land. Of course in the United States such statute, even if voted for by the people, would (in theory) be found unconstitutional (by the Supreme Court) because it violates the freedom of religion and free exercise thereof and thus the First Amendment of your constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.251.17 ( talk) 15:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

So is there anything you think should be changed in the article or is this all for the sake of discussion? The problem with your examples as I see them is that they're not true: the US government at its various levels could ban minarets by changing the constitution to limit freedom of religion clauses. Or they could install a leader with absolute powers by a similarly unlikely set of amendments. The only difference is that in the US there are a lot more formal checks and balances than the British system (and, evidently, the Swiss one) that prevent such changes. TastyCakes ( talk) 16:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be worded strangely. The fact that it is the third largest country in area is repeated (although the first time it is said to be the 3rd or 4th largest). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.55.38 ( talk) 11:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is a confusing sentence, but it is accurate. The US is undisputedly the third largest country by land area, after Russia and China. The US is the third or fourth largest when it comes to total size, that is including land and water, after Russia, Canada and in some opinions China. I don't know if the sentence could be made clearer or not. TastyCakes ( talk) 16:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't seem so. And our original correspondent is, of course, mistaken. "The third or fourth largest country by total area, and the third largest ... by land area": no facts are repeated there.— DCGeist ( talk) 16:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Although it may be true, the sentence is still confusing. Take my grade 12 Geography class for example; they believed that it repeated a fact as well, but apparently it doesn't. Rude, rude response! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.55.38 ( talk) 13:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "total area" could be replaced with "land and water area". TastyCakes ( talk) 16:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

But total area is the standard term, and land and water would actually increase the lexical repetition, which apparently befuddles our correspondent. There's hardly a need to make any change in order to accommodate someone who misperceives both repetition and rudeness. (Dear 115, would you have us believe that no one, including you, in your supposed "grade 12 Geography class", actually bothered to read the Geography, climate, and environment section near the top of the article, whose first paragraph further details the distinction? And that not one of the 17- or 18-year-olds in this purported class thought to click on one of the relevant links and explain the difference between total area and land area to their mystified "teacher"? Well, lord help the American education system.)— DCGeist ( talk) 17:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, that last response does actually border on rude. But it was funny and true. I don't know what other rudeness to which IP115 was referring, or how a class of young adults could fail to see the difference in these two terms. The article is accurate and clear as written. LedRush ( talk) 18:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

in the international membership there is writen "9/11 is an intern job"....it has to be deleted 151.53.147.18 ( talk) 22:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for pointing it out. Hadrian89 ( talk) 22:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we use at least 2009 GDP numbers for the United States if they present them every 3 months? I don't see how 2008 is the best information we have. Dante2308 ( talk) 21:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States/Archive_37#Human_Rights_Abuses.3F And please sign your post; I'm assuming you're the same person who posed the question above. Magaroja ( talk) 19:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No. This is among the very first time i posted on wiki. So, i forgot to sign. Sorry! Trananh1980 ( talk) 10:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

But after following the link and reading the talk page, i dont find the answer to my question. I think a "Human rights" section should be included in the article officially. I can list some cases here: American soldiers have been involved in torture in US prisons , mass killings of civilians during wars. Or at least, if there is no human rights abuse, there still should be such a section saying that "There is no charge concerning human rights. Trananh1980 ( talk) 11:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am looking forward to changes to this article. Trananh1980 ( talk) 06:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't there a map of the US territorries on this article? Similar to the one used on France. I think this map should be added. Niceley 20:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with it. Does anyone else have any input? Prussian725 ( talk) 12:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a little hard to read, but outside of that I have no problem. It might also be a good idea to have a map of the states. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 19:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Should Hawaii get a dark blue arrow on the map? LedRush ( talk) 19:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it should. Will somebody make it? And can you upload the map? Not sure if I'm able to do it. Niceley 16:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think such a map should be added. The matter is well covered in Territories of the United States, which includes exactly the sort of map you're interested in. The analogy to France fails. The relationship between the territories and the respective countries is very different. The French territories are represented in Parliament (and the European Parliament, as well). The U.S. territories are not represented in Congress and have no vote for the U.S. president. In other words, the French territories are part of France in way that the the U.S. territories are simply not part of the United States. DocKino ( talk) 15:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that should matter, rather we should be more concerned about whether people have an interest in where US territories are. As a side note, the territories have delegates to the House, and are allowed to vote in committee (I believe), including the committee of the whole. And the delegates to get to vote during Presidential primaries. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 15:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Committee and primary voting constitute very small change and don't alter the simple fact identified by Doc: The territories are possessions of the United States, not part of it. The French territories are part of France. As for what you properly identify as the primary concern—I'm sure a few people are interested in where the territories are...and we've got a whole article that tells 'em all about it. There's no need to clutter up this one further with more media.— DCGeist ( talk) 16:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not the territories form an integral part of the US (by whatever definition people invent), our discussion should revolve around whether or not readers would find this information useful in this article. LedRush ( talk) 16:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Nicely or DC, where do you see this map fitting? I personally don't see a logical space for it. LedRush ( talk)

The UK and France have ones in their infobox. I guess that makes sense here. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 16:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The map is perfectly useless when scaled for the infobox. While France is a special case, as described above, the presentation of the United Kingdom article would benefit if the territory map was removed from its cluttered, visually off-putting infobox. (And, by the way, the fact that that the territories possessed by the United States are not integral parts of the country is not an "invention". It's law.)— DCGeist ( talk) 16:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

DCGeist, if you are talking about the difference in legal status of territories in France and US, my point is who cares? The question is not about the legal status but if the info is helpful to the reader. If your point is in defining certain information as "integral" in the commonly used sense, it is a subjective standard and merely naming it such does not advance your argument. You are a very valuable contributor on this article, but your comments here are defensive and off-putting. Why not try and make more constructive comments to the discussion? LedRush ( talk) 17:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

While I am largely neutral on this issue (it could work in the infobox) I don't see it adding much to the article and so I am slightly against its inclusion. LedRush ( talk) 17:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I also like the idea of it, but it's nearly impossible to read (and I'm on a widescreen monitor). ~DC _{Talk To Me} 17:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Have we ever seen a Map of the US which includes it's territories? I haven't. They pay no Federal Taxes- so they don't have representation- so, while they are citizens of the United States- they aren't truly a part. -- Rockstone talk to me! 23:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The image could possibly be useful in a territories section, were one split off from Divisions. However, it would clash with the existing map showing the actual extent of the country; in that respect, I think it works far better on the article about the territories rather than in this article. The thing is, the US makes it very clear - the territories are not part of the country, save Palmyra. So it would be incorrect to portray them as the territory of the United States; it seems poor form to include a map in the infobox that wouldn't be reflected by the data in the infobox. The population, area, etc. would omit the territories. So while a map of the possessions might be useful somewhere in the article, I don't see it being too great in the infobox. -- Golbez ( talk) 18:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how the political representation of the territories have anything to say. But I'm not sure whether the picture fits in the infobox. I'm not able to put it in. It would be great if somebody tried :-) Niceley 23:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by your first sentence. As for the second sentence, simply asking repeatedly to have it put up isn't going to work, you need to actually respond to the content of the criticisms. -- Golbez ( talk) 05:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe he means that whether the territories are a part of the US or if the US just controls them doesn't matter. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 06:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

But it does. They are not part of the country. Therefore, they should not be in the infobox. -- Golbez ( talk) 07:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe DC's interpretation of Nicely's statement is correct. I believe Golbez's assessment of the virtue—rather, the lack thereof—of that statement is correct. I believe we make a more coherent and more focused presentation to our readers without the addition of such a map.— DocKino ( talk) 08:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The Articles of Confederation clearly shows that the office name of the country is "The United States of America". I know the name of the article has been discussed a lot, but this is simply a bolding. Z gin der 2010-04-15T18:57Z ( UTC)

The Constitution is the fundamental document of the country, not the Articles of Confederation. Also, they had a lot of crazy capitalization back then. -- Golbez ( talk) 19:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It was not capitalization it was quotes. Z gin der 2010-04-15T19:58Z ( UTC)

Oh. Either way, the AoC is not a legal document of the US anymore, and has no authority, and in general usage 'The' is not bolded on Wikipedia. It is on The Gambia; however, "The" is capitalized throughout the article, and that would not happen here. -- Golbez ( talk) 21:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are all the transportation figures compared to Europe? If they were compared to 'the rest of the world', it would make sense, but Europe is just one continent. Europe's transportation statistics don't seem to have any relevance to the article. 162.136.193.1 ( talk) 17:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and removed them. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 17:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, and restored them. The brief comparisons are useful and effective at elucidating cultural differences between the United States and countries that are roughly similar politically and economically. Such comparisons are frequently made in both the mainstream press and scholarly writing, as indeed, our sources demonstrate. Speaking of which, your removal of references was completely inappropriate. Please keep in mind our policies concerning the verifiability of data.— DCGeist ( talk) 18:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Should the slang demonym Yankee/Yank be included? It has its own wiki entry Yankee, but doesn't appear on this page. Perhaps this is because it is sometimes (often?) used disparagingly? I have noticed that some articles include slang demonyms, while others do not. For example, the slang demonyms for the UK/Britain has a wiki entry Limey, but (as with Yankee here) it does not appear in the UK wiki page. Perhaps for the same reason? Moretz ( talk) 12:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the demonym here is for the most commonly used word (or words). I don't think "Yankee" is used enough, especially by Americans. The fact that it's used with negative connotations (like "Gringo") probably is an issue too. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 14:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a weird case in which the term is virtually never used by Americans to describe American citizens, but is sometimes used by some citizens to mean people from the "north", namely, the northeast part of the US. However, the term is very widely used outside of America to describe Americans. However, seeing as it has a negative connotation and isn't used within the country the way it is outside the country, it seems that including the term would be more problematic than helpful. LedRush ( talk) 15:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

How is it used in a negative connotation? Ive never heard of someone being offended by being called a yankee,except perhaps some folks from the south. Yankee is not a deragatory slur in the same way Gringo would be. XavierGreen ( talk) 23:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yankee has been a derogatory term since its inception, even if nowadays the negative connotation is much less than before. Not everyone will be offended by it, but surely some will. Check out dictionary.com or the wikipedia article if you want a history. LedRush ( talk) 05:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Im sure the New York Yankees are immensly offended when called yankees, there are tons of references to americans by americas using the term yankee that are in no way used as offensive. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Connecticut_Yankee_in_King_Arthur's_Court XavierGreen ( talk) 14:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm and stupidity are no way to win an argument, much less discuss something constructively. LedRush ( talk) 15:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Im not making sarcastic remarks, there are many examples of American published literary works that use yankee in a nonperjoritive term. I can provide more examples if requested. Theres no need to be uncivil sir. XavierGreen ( talk) 00:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Came to check back on this talk section and was surprised to find a negative reference to sarcasm from the very same editor who proposed adding "seppos" in the demonym discussion above :-D (which discussion, by the way, I should have seen before adding this section... and I'd never heard of "seppo" before, either). I find it somewhat curious that some country articles include slang demonyms while others do not. I'm not sure lack of usage in the country, itself, should be a consideration, though derogatory connotations are a legitimate issue (and perhaps why "limey" and "mick" don't appear either). 143.239.96.226 ( talk) 15:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The very first sentence "The United States is officially a secular nation." has no citation.

My only legitimate grievance is that there is no intellectually honest citation backing up the claim.

I wish for someone to replace the uncited sentence with the following. THE UNITED STATES HAS NO OFFICIAL NATIONAL RELIGION.

If you were wondering, I am agnostic, former militant atheist.

Until someone bothers to actually back up their claim, I will continue to comment on this subject in order to weed out MISINFORMATION.

-- HerrQuixota ( talk) 09:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

How is it misinformation? What exactly do you take "secular nation" to mean? -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 06:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Cobra. We need some kind of proof that the statement is inaccurate beyond a claim of it being misinformation. - BilCat ( talk) 03:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It is likely that within a few days Gordon Brown will no longer be British PM. Let's be prepared. Can we see some candidates for a suitable replacement for the current photo in Foreign relations showing Obama with Brown?— DCGeist ( talk) 02:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

How about this one that shows Obama with Russian President Dimitry Medvedev? Andy120290 ( talk) 04:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent choice. Here's a couple of others: Obama at the G8 summit (obviously useless at gallery size [below], but conceptually good and plausible at default thumbnail size) and with French president Nicolas Sarkozy.— DCGeist ( talk) 05:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• 
  with Medvedev
• 
  at G8 summit
• 
  with Sarkozy
• 
  with presidents of China. Mexico, and Argentina

I would vote for either Medvedev or Sarkozy...just not the G8 photo as it is too small to be meaningful. LedRush ( talk) 14:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's another, with three presidents. Perhaps a happy medium? Let's look at it and the Sarkozy at default thumbnail size:— DCGeist ( talk) 19:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The military section refers to Afghanistan and Iraq but is incomplete in terms of contemporary military history. While I am here, I am requesting edit access to the page. It is semi protected at the moment. I have been on Wiki for years without any issue.

If it was intended to be complete and fell short of that goal, it would be fair to describe the section as "incomplete". But this is a summary overview article on the United States with no pretense to completeness in its coverage of "contemporary military history". There are many other articles that serve that purpose.

As for the other matter, virtually anyone who has actually "been on Wiki for years without any issue" should be able to edit the page without any issue. Users on certain kinds of encrypted networks need to accumulate 100 total edits on Wikipedia before editing semi-protected pages.— DCGeist ( talk) 02:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Foreign Relations & Military

Why are these two issues are tied together in one section? Military and FR should be dealt separately. Otherwise it looks like a very unhealthy relationship. Right now a reader can get the impression that either of the issues/aspects are necessarily tied, this is wrong and misleading.

Traditionally, as well as today, the failure of foreign relations leads to employment of the military. Student7 ( talk) 01:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, you could also mixup Economy & FR, or any other policy field with these arguments. Military and FR ought to be separated. Think about all relevant FR with the G20 countries none of the relations involves military actions against each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.129.116 ( talk) 22:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I inserted "In 2005, 9 million of adults ages 17 to 24, or 27%, were too overweight to serve in the military.Shalikashvili, John M. (30 April 2010). "The new national security threat:obesity". Washington, DC: Washington Post. pp. A19.." An editor deleted this saying that it was way too specific for this article. I can see his point. There is, however, no lower level article. The others mentioned at the head of the subsection are way too narrow to include this information. Student7 ( talk) 20:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Obesity in the United States is a perfect fit.— DCGeist ( talk) 21:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Student7 ( talk) 01:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Origin of Cristopher Columbus is disputed. No available sources confirms his Genoese origin. I propose European Explorer should be better for the second paragraph of the History section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolomann ( talk • contribs) 21:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Although the wording of the Declaration was approved on July 4, the date of its signing has been disputed. Most historians have concluded that it was signed nearly a month after its adoption, on August 2, 1776, and not on July 4 as is commonly believed.

title

Pretty sure it was only completely signed a month later, and besides, if I'm not much mistaken, the document itself refers to "On this date, July 4th" so no matter when the people signed it, they were signing a declaration that happened on July Fourth. Joscho1987 ( talk) 02:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

An editor has noted that "41% of global military spending and greater than the next fourteen largest national military expenditures combined. The per capita spending of $1,967 was about nine times the world average; at 4% of GDP, the rate was the second-highest among the top fifteen military spenders, after Saudi Arabia.[51] "

The paragraph goes on to say:"...an additional $130 billion is proposed for the military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.[52] In September 2009 there were about 62,000 U.S. troops deployed to Afghanistan, and as of February 2010 there were 98,000 U.S. troops deployed to Iraq.[53][54] As of April 27, 2010, the United States had suffered 4,393 military fatalities during the Iraq War,[55] and 1,050 during the War in Afghanistan.[56]"

Where are the statements which state how much money the United States spent in fighting two wars "compared to the next fourteen countries." Where are the statements which say what percentage of the troops employed in Iraq and Afghanistan are from the United States "as compared to the next fourteen nations?" Where are the statements which state what percentage of the dead "are from the United States as opposed to the next fourteen countries?" Student7 ( talk) 01:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Obviously, U.S. involvement in two wars is relevant to its overall military spending, but that fact is just as obviously far from most of the story. The existing comparison is striking and enlightening about the United States in general; those you moot are more applicable to an article surveying global military activity.— DCGeist ( talk) 01:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be good to have a human rights section; not only is there a precedent for this as there is one on Russia and China, but also the U.S. has a controversial human rights record with extra-judicial prisons and use of torture. Also something could go in about the U.S.'s official promotion of human rights and democracy.

I agree, go for it if you feel bold enough. G.R. Allison ( talk) 07:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Er, no. This has been raised and dealt with (see two threads near bottom of Talk:United States/Archive 37). We're not going to feed this.— DCGeist ( talk) 07:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not deal with it? The Government is slowly taking away the rights of everyone. Hell, people are getting arrested now for simply getting lost and asking for directions! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.151.190 ( talk) 19:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It's because of lunatics like you that you we shouldn't feed the fire by posting BS like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.138.117 ( talk) 07:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The US has a policy of arresting tourists? When did that start? LedRush ( talk) 19:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe the consensus reached was that a short summary should be included. G.R. Allison ( talk) 22:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion last month led to the inclusion of summary mentions of the Trail of Tears and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. There was not and has never been consensus support for a "human rights" section. Nothing close to it, in fact.— DCGeist ( talk) 07:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

DCGeist, if your link is representative, then there has never been consensus for a 'human rights' section of the ilk proposed here because it has never before been proposed. I think it's a great idea, and fully in line with best practices. If anyone wants to go for it, and if you have no further, independant objections, then god bless.-- Heyitspeter ( talk) 09:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No, don't "go for it." This is already a very long article, and we need to hold the line on its length. There's lots of material that various people, including myself, would like to see included that we don't because of considerations of size and focus. Heyitspeter, you have claimed that a dedicated human rights section is "fully in line with best practices". I was not aware that best practices had been determined concerning this sort of content. I took a quick look at five Featured Articles on country topics—the first five, alphabetically: Australia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Cameroon. Not a single one supports the assertion that a human rights section reflects our best practices. Please provide us a link to a guideline or a broad-based community discussion setting forth a resolution that supports this claim.— DCGeist ( talk) 15:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I like this argument better. :) Why do you think some of these pages cover important current issues like human rights (e.g., [9] [10]) and others not. I have trouble with the length claim. What sorts of current events do you think are as or more pressing than the recent human rights abuses?-- Heyitspeter ( talk) 22:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Your first link is to a section on the Honduran political crisis—a massive current events issue, to be sure, but not a human rights section, the proposal being considered here. This link is irrelevant. Your second link is on point—it sends us to an actual human rights section in the country article on the People's Republic of China.

In answer to your first question (though it ends without a question mark), I would say that articles on countries whose governments are effectively nondemocratic (such as China) are much more likely to warrant dedicated human rights sections than are articles on countries whose governments are effectively democratic (such as the United States).

In answer to your second question, let me say that I was among those who fought to retain the mention of human rights abuses relating to the so-called War on Terrorism when they were the subject of substantial international attention. I believe that at this point there is no longer sufficient domestic or foreign attention devoted to any conflict-related human rights abuses currently being committed by the United States to mention them in the portion of the article's History section related to current affairs. I also believe there is not, as yet, sufficient evidence that those abuses warrant mention in a historical context, as we mention, for instance, the Trail of Tears and the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Remember, this is a summary overview article, and we can not include every last issue of interest. Finally, I am aware that there are those, both domestically and internationally, who view U.S. incarceration and capital punishment policies as tantamount to human rights abuses. I believe these issues are handled satisfactorily in the article's Crime and law enforcement section.— DCGeist ( talk) 23:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's start things off with a link to WP:CIVIL and WP:DICK. Nitpicking over typos would be an example of an infringement of the latter. There are far more substantive issues with your own comments, but I for one will be graciously passing them by where they are suitably irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Back to content. It seems to me that Bagram torture and prisoner abuse and Habeas corpus in the United States would be worth reading, just to give you a sense of the 'liveness' of the debate over the USA's treatment of human rights. Unlike the trail of tears, these are examples of current, widely reported infringements on human rights by the United States. Let me know if these examples simply escaped your memory or if you believe they too are not notable.-- Heyitspeter ( talk) 02:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Listen, you gerbil, I wasn't nitpicking over typos. I was merely flagging for those picking up the thread in progress that your first question might not be immediately apparent as such, because there was only one question mark in the paragraph. As you'd apparently rather piss on this page than have an adult conversation, I'm happy to end the discussion right here.— DCGeist ( talk) 02:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you really need to calm down here, DC. The second half of his comment was entirely substantial to the discussion, it was not "pissing on this page". Also, please don't call other users names while arguing with them, no matter how innocuous they are to you. You are indeed closing in on being a dick here. -- Golbez ( talk) 17:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're so concerned about the substance of this jerk's comments, why don't you address them, rather than giving me your pompous little lecture? Or do you think you're not flirting with dickhood yourself? So far in this discussion, I've contributed a close analysis of petey's case and a detailed discussion of the article content. The gerbil, by not assuming good faith, decided to take us down the road to WP:DICK links. And, besides defending him, you have contributed exactly what?— DCGeist ( talk) 17:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

And now you've called him a jerk, which is a blatant violation of WP:NPA. And as for what I've contributed, I haven't been a party to this conversation but seeing as how it was on a public forum I saw no difficulty in calling you out on your civility. My actual regret is that I called you out on it before Heyitspeter, who was the first one to act dickish. So for that, I apologize. However, it's not like it's the first time you've snarked at a user, and insulting them is nothing doing. -- Golbez ( talk) 18:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

So, now we're to Heyitspeter. DC was actually being very civil with you until you yourself opened the WP:DICK door by obsessing over his statement about the question mark. There was no reason whatsoever to spend a paragraph calling him out on incivility that did not actually exist. Look at it, raise an eyebrow, shrug perhaps, but no reason to call him out on a single, very innocuous comment. So the same warnings are extended to you - Don't call someone out for being a dick when they have actually been very civil and non-dickish up to that point, because you risk creating that which you claim exists. And you were guilty of another sin, WP:DTTR. -- Golbez ( talk) 18:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my bad. The various technicalities DC raised really bothered me for whatever reason; maybe a bad mood. I apologize for that.

On the subject of the article, do you have any opinion/suggestion on the appropriateness of a human rights section? I'm really not sure either way, though I'm inclined to say that it's notable enough. (I wasn't aware of WP:DTTR. It seems reasonable as a general rule. I as a regular didn't know about these policies until very recently.)-- Heyitspeter ( talk) 01:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Where did the Author come up with calling the USA a "representative democracy," ?

• "the United States relies on representative democracy, but its system of government is much more complex than that. It is not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered.[ [11]
• Also, a representative democracy may or may not be a constitutional republic. For example, "the United States relies on representative democracy, but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. [It is] not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."[5] [ [12]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim0290 ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

? Both those quotes seem to support the notion that the US is a representative democracy, as does the fact that Americans elect people, from amongst themselves, to represent them, which seems, to me, to be the definition. TastyCakes ( talk) 16:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• I guess you missed the rest of the Wkiki "" " but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. [It is] not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."[5]" Where in The "The Pledge of Allegiance , that the USA is a "representative democracy" Find the word " democratic republic" in the The United States Constitution or in Bill of rights ?"You can not , our founders knew exactly what these terms Meant- and spoke out against democracy.-- Kimmy ( talk) 16:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Who said 'We have founded for you a republic if you can keep it'? ... Benjamin Franklin said it.

My guess is that Kim0290 confused representative democracy (which the US has) with proportional representation (which it has not) Arnoutf ( talk) 17:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• No I am not confused .The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy.
• On top of this the Citation is miss "" from the source ! I listed the part the Editor left out "but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. [It is] not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."[5] "-- Kimmy ( talk) 17:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• Said John Adams: "It is...as necessary to defend an individual against the majority in a democracy as against the king in a monarchy."
• The word "representative democracy" IS not listed in any "Etymology" sources ! The only sources that I can find - Are linked with Wiki - So this tells me some fringe groups are pushing a POV ! -- Kimmy ( talk) 00:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Never mind I found a good citation supporting the Above mentioned ! Representative Democracy. link Thank you ! -- Kimmy ( talk) 01:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Last note on this -

• At least the "Texas" Text book comity took my stance on this and struck the notion the USA is a "representative democracy"
• New Text books will Reflect How our founders meant "America" should be addressed and what type of nation America is ,New Text books will only refer to America as a "constitutional republic"
• Ben Franklin: was asked what type GOV was America? - Franklin stated " A Republic if you can keep it "
• More and more our leaders are using the Term "Democracy" - Witch the usa is not a democracy We are a "constitutional republic"-- Kimmy ( talk) 04:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand what Arnout and I are saying: none of these things are cut and dry, black and white, and none of them are mutually exclusive. You can be a "democracy" and a "constitutional republic". You don't have practice the most extreme form of democracy to be considered a democracy. No America isn't a simple representative democracy, but it is a representative democracy with other important characteristics. TastyCakes ( talk) 18:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

[copying active thread from archive where it was precipitously placed]

It is likely that within a few days Gordon Brown will no longer be British PM. Let's be prepared. Can we see some candidates for a suitable replacement for the current photo in Foreign relations showing Obama with Brown?— DCGeist ( talk) 02:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

How about this one that shows Obama with Russian President Dimitry Medvedev? Andy120290 ( talk) 04:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent choice. Here's a couple of others: Obama at the G8 summit (obviously useless at gallery size [below], but conceptually good and plausible at default thumbnail size) and with French president Nicolas Sarkozy.— DCGeist ( talk) 05:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• 
  with Medvedev
• 
  at G8 summit
• 
  with Sarkozy
• 
  with presidents of China. Mexico, and Argentina

I would vote for either Medvedev or Sarkozy...just not the G8 photo as it is too small to be meaningful. LedRush ( talk) 14:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's another, with three presidents. Perhaps a happy medium? Let's look at it and the Sarkozy at default thumbnail size:— DCGeist ( talk) 19:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

An image with Queen Elizabeth was offered in the article, but he is hardly an important figure in foreign relations. I've introduced the Sarkozy image.— DCGeist ( talk) 19:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

What about a picture of President Obama with the new British Prime Minister David Cameron? US foreign relations are closer to the UK than they are to France. Space25689 ( talk) 20:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course...except Cameron's been PM for about 1 hour. I don't think he's had a chance to have his picture taken with Obama yet. When they do eventually meet, we can certainly use such a picture.— DCGeist ( talk) 20:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of a G8 photo since it is broader than any individual meeting, but I agree that the G8 picture here isn't the best... TastyCakes ( talk) 21:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There's also G20 pictures... But there seem to be even fewer of these that are any good. The Pittsburgh summit seems fitting being that it's in America. TastyCakes ( talk) 21:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth II might not be very active in foreign affairs, though she is the head of state of some of the United States' best allies: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Space25689 ( talk) 22:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The simple fact is that she is not nearly as significant to the section's topic, which is U.S. foreign relations, as are the heads of government of, oh, thirty or forty different countries one might name.— DCGeist ( talk) 22:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I still prefer the Medvedev or Sarkozy picture. At least until one of Cameron becomes available. Andy120290 ( talk) 01:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ditto LedRush ( talk) 19:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that our relations with Canada rather than France are much closer and cozy. Canada is our neighbor, our largest trading partner, and we culturally and socially identify with Canadians more than any other country in the world. How a picture emphasizing Franco-United States relations can be used is beyond me when it is widely felt that Canada is an obvious "second" choice of who we partner with next to our "first" partner in the world the United Kingdom.

I nominate this picture to use. It shows the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, with the President of the United States, Barack Obama.-- Yoganate79 ( talk) 22:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Canada, along with the other countries listed in the Foreign relations section are close allies of the United States in a bilateral relations sense. France is an ally via mutual NATO membership rather than in a bilateral relations sense. It wasn't so long ago that U.S. and French relations had descended almost to a point of diplomatic hostility. Space25689 ( talk) 22:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I feel a picture of Cameron and Brown should be included. G.R. Allison ( talk) 22:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Gordon Brown is now irrelevant. He's the past and no longer influences U.S. or U.K. foreign policy. It would be nice to have a picture of David Cameron with Barack Obama. However, no such picture even exists because neither of them have met each other as Prime Minister of UK and President of USA. Cameron as it turns out is expected to visit the White House this July. Then and only then will a picture showcasing UK-US relations be available to use.

In the mean time, by including Sarkozy huddled with Obama, we are sending an inaccurate message that we value our relations with France more important than our nearest and closest neighbor, our largest trading partner, and our most culturally identifiable ally, Canada. France a closer ally than Canada??? I do not think so. Canada is America's logical "second" partner of choice after the United Kingdom.-- Yoganate79 ( talk) 22:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there's a consensus that once a viable picture of Obama and Cameron is available, that we'll go with that.

I don't think we're sending all those messages you think we're sending. I think the picture serves as a marker and mnemonic for the Foreign relations section—either serves fine for this purpose. As an image, I think the Sarkozy photo is a bit better than the Harper. Let's see if a couple more opinions come in on this.— DCGeist ( talk) 22:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that consensus. I think the Obama-Sarkozy image might be slight better quality, in terms of the picture quality, but I think a picture of Obama and Harper is better than one of Obama and Sarkozy for foreign relations reasons. I think the Obama-Harper image is of good quality anyway. Space25689 ( talk) 01:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I personally prefer the Sarkozy picture as it's of superior quality and besides Canada is too close to the US. Showing Sarkozy gives a more global perspective to the foreign relations section.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 06:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the consensus on a Cameron image (assuming there's a reasonably good one) and until then I think either the Sarkozy or Medvedev are the most appropriate. Both offer interesting (and at least somewhat candid) poses and reasonably neutral backgrounds (that is, compared to the image with Harper, which is quite bad in that respect). None of the G- summit images should be used; when the president's head takes up such little space, it doesn't offer any... recognition to viewers. Even the image with the Chinese, Mexican, and Argentinian presidents is too crowded and, frankly, too tense (obvious poses; everyone seems uncomfortable, etc.). So I'd go with Sarkozy first, Medvedev second. upstate NYer 00:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What do people think of the image recently added by Richie123098 of Hillary Clinton and the British foreign secretary, William Hague? It is compositionally not quite as high-quality as those of Obama and Sarkozy/Medvedev, but in every other way, I think it's a superb choice: (1) It connects the U.S. with its closest major ally, a point raised repeatedly above; (2) It introduces the leading American statesperson whose portfolio is specifically foreign relations; and (3) It helps us mitigate the sexual imbalance of the article's image selection in a very significant way. I support retaining this image even when an Obama-Cameron image eventually becomes available.— DCGeist ( talk) 03:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with it; however, I replaced the image with a cropped version to better the composition. upstate NYer 03:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent.— DCGeist ( talk) 03:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Woops, just straightened it, too. It was a few degrees counterclockwise. upstate NYer 21:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, but I have noticed that in the foreign relations section of this article, there is no mentioning that the nation's capital, Washington D.C., hosts and is the home to the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the Organization of American States.

It seems rather conspicuous that these organizations are not mentioned yet the United Nations, headquartered in New York City, is broadly mentioned in the article. The IMF, World Bank, and the OAS are global institutions all based in the USA. So why does the UN only get included in mentioning yet the IMF, World Bank, and OAS are excluded from being mentioned?-- Yoganate79 ( talk) 19:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What about NATO? Isn't that headquartered in the US as well? -- 173.73.154.241 ( talk) 23:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is headquartered in Brussels, Belgium. The U.S. is merely a founding member of NATO and does not host its operations on American soil. But I must say, the IMF, World Bank, and OAS are noteworthy enough to include a sizeable reference to them in the foreign relations section since the the U.S. hosts them. And quite frankly, I am almost shocked because this article glosses over our membership in NAFTA and NORAD as well. -- Yoganate79 ( talk) 23:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Eeeeh, NAFTA and NORAD consist of only 3 and 2 nations, respectively, whereas the others are truly pan-national organizations. A single sentence on those, maybe, but no more. But I agree that the headquarters of the others need to be mentioned, if not in the same breath as the UN, then slightly thereafter. -- Golbez ( talk) 23:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good point. Anyone opposed to the inclusion of this information, which seems quite appropriate to an overview article?— DCGeist ( talk) 20:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No opposition here, I hadn't thought about it before now but I'm pretty surprised at it. While the UN is the larger organization, these do merit mention. Belgium's article, after all, notes being the headquarters of NATO, in the second sentence even. -- Golbez ( talk) 23:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think in the opener of this article it should say something like....

"The United States is host to several important global institutions such as the United Nations (UN) in New York City as well as the headquarters of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the Organization of American States (OAS) located in the nation's capital, Washington D.C."

Also, what about ICANN? It is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Essentially, the U.S. under the Department of Commerce monitors, directs, and manages the internet by assigning IP numbers around the world. Is this not notable for inclusion? -- Yoganate79 ( talk) 00:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hosting high-profile international organizations such as the U.N. and IMF is important enough to mention in the Foreign relations section, but not so important to an understanding of the United States that it belongs in the lede. And, while ICANN is certainly significant in its field, I think its area of responsibility is just a bit too esoteric to include it in a general overview article on the U.S.— DCGeist ( talk) 04:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say NAFTA should be mentioned, because of the size of the economies involved. NORAD and ICANN I'd say no to. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 07:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur with DCGeist and DC. NORAD and ICANN are very important in their respective fields (keep in mind I personally photographed ICANN HQ for Wikipedia), but are a bit too arcane for an already too-big, too-complex general-purpose article like this one! -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 18:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, not done this before (I'm new) but on the United States page it says (under climate and geography section I think) that the USA is the 3rd largest country in the world with canada being the fourth. Actually usa is 4 and canada is 2. It has been like it for some time looking at the pages edit history and was wondering if it could get changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt7272727272 ( talk • contribs) 18:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, if you read the sentence carefully you'll see that the article is correct, in accordance with this list by total area and this list by land area. It's a little known fact that by land area (not total area), both the US and China are bigger than Canada. TastyCakes ( talk) 17:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

A significant number of such "deployments" are in fact merely small detachments of Marine guards to protect the U.S. embassy in the country... AnonMoos ( talk) 13:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The embassies of most countries in most places don't have military personnel from their home countries guarding them. If the US case is different, that in itself is notable. HiLo48 ( talk) 21:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That may well be, but if the current article wording implies that the U.S. has military bases in 150 countries, then it's misleading on that point. Compare the successive versions of image File:Weltweite_militärische_Präsenz_der_Vereinigten_Staaten.png to see how discounting small Marine guard detachments, and small numbers of officers serving in a diplomatic or quasi-diplomatic role, radically changes the picture of U.S. world "military deployments"... AnonMoos ( talk) 01:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

How about Outside of the United States the military has personnel deployed to more than 150 countries and operates 865 bases and facilities. That hopefully makes it less misleading? The personnel deployed do appear to include marine guards: for example, Albania (yes, yes, I didn't scroll too far down the PDF!) includes 1 navy, 1 army, 1 airforce and 6 marines - this is my guess, but that's entirely consistent with 3 military/diplomatic staff (naval attache, etc) and a small guard contingent. Regardless, mentioning personnel deployed before bases/facilities operated should alleviate the original concern? (you may need to punctuate my suggestion: I'm less familiar with US English). TFOWR 12:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I tested it, and I think it's possible that it might promote a more significant misreading: that the military operates 865 bases and facilities, domestic and international combined.— DCGeist ( talk) 03:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well that seems easily enough fixed by changing it to "865 overseas bases". But that still doesn't address the problem that the sentence implies a more significant presence than a handful of guards and diplomats at an embassy warrant. How about, "the military deploys personnel to more than 150 countries with X of these deployments amounting to more than 50 soldiers" or something along those lines? TastyCakes ( talk) 14:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

How about, "The military operates 865 bases and facilities abroad, and maintains deployments greater than 100 active duty personnel in 28 foreign countries"?— DCGeist ( talk) 17:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I like that. TastyCakes ( talk) 17:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Done.— DCGeist ( talk) 18:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

How about we ALSO highlight the fact that, unlike almost every other country, the USA feels the need to send it's OWN military personnel to "guard" its embassies? Other embassies don't seem to "warrant" any. It IS significant that the US puts military personnel everywhere. HiLo48 ( talk) 18:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The question is, Is it significant enough to warrant mention in a general overview article? Considering the views expressed here, I've come to agree that it is not. On the one hand, given the necessary constraints of summary style, we simply can't indulge in explaining that many of those "deployments" constitute 5 or 10 soldiers; on the other hand, the figure of 150 countries does tend to mislead in the absence of such an explanation. This is the sort of thing properly reserved for topical articles that are able to go into greater detail. Besides, the paragraph as a whole continues to make very clear the substantial level of the U.S. military's international presence. — DCGeist ( talk) 18:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

John McCain and Sarah Palin are definitely not the President and Vice President- Obama and Joe Biden are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.241.243 ( talk) 01:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't this article titled "United States of America"? Seems more official-ish. 173.175.52.101 ( talk) 11:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Short version: because we go with common names, not official names.

Longer version: see above.

TFOWR 11:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the common names section! I might disagree that "United States" is the most common formulation, but I appreciate and endorse the principle at work. 173.175.52.101 ( talk) 15:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Please also see the Frequently Asked Questions section above, where this is addressed in detail. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 15:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. :) Though, and I admit 1) that my Google Fu may not be strong in this area, and 2) Google is not the sole arbiter of what is common, but searching for "United States of America" brings up 50 million hits, whereas searching for "United States" -"United States of America" brings up over a billion. Even when I add a "site:.gov" to it, the sans-"of America" one has 80 million, versus 5 million for with "of America". So not only does Google record more hits without 'of America', but it records more hits in the government's own websites. So, what it fundamentally comes down to is: If someone wants the article moved because they disagree the short form is the more common form, they really need to step up and provide evidence. :) -- Golbez ( talk) 15:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, based on gut, that "United States" is generally more used than "United States of America." I don't agree that either is the 'most' common formulation, but I am not really complaining or suggesting a move. Twas just a question, really. 173.175.52.101 ( talk) 14:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Since English has no de jure recognition at a federal level in the United States, is it not reasonable to include Spanish and Hawaiian in the language section in the infobox? Since there is recognition of regional languages, and these are commonly placed in the infobox, Spanish and Hawaiian should be included, as they are regionally recognized languages within the U.S. There are several countries infoboxes which, due to the fact there is no de jure official language, include one or more regional language below the de fact official language. I fear that some could view the current listing as discriminatory. Slaja ( talk) 04:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no such fear. This article is about the United States as a nation. This nation has no official language and one de facto national language. Spanish is not a regional language in the usual sense, but a second language whose speakers are widely dispersed. It is given appropriate coverage in our Language section. Hawaiian is a regional language, but it has so few speakers that it does not merit mention above that of a footnote in the national infobox.— DCGeist ( talk) 04:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Furthermore, there is no principled way to distinguish Hawaiian, from, say, Navajo; if we put in one indigenous language, then we would have to put in the others, which makes zero sense. The number of actual speakers of any one of those languages is a very tiny percentage of the entire U.S. population. The only language that has universal recognition and usage from coast to coast is American English. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 04:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article.

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich  Farmbrough, 00:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

i really think this should be called "The United States of America"

"United States" is way too general - it could refer to many things

yes, i know when people hear "united states" they think of the U.S.A, and that it is referred to in many ways. and, all those different ways are explained right away in the article. but the article heading should say Unites States of America; if im not mistaken mexico's proper name is united Mexican states or something similar. the term united states isnt limited to USA

just seems like the proper way to do things, since this is an encyclopedia and one of the most viewed websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.169.161 ( talk) 04:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Old discussion. forget this. Tbhotch ^{Talk C.} 04:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with our new editor, but will point out to him that there are a lot of editors here obsessed with the current name. I really can't figure out why. The logic is usually on a par with the above response. But the response is right in one respect. There's no point trying for the name change. HiLo48 ( talk) 04:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I support the current name, not out of any obsession, but because it is supported by our policy on article titles. And keep your opinions about how "obsessed" and "stubborn" (that's from your inappropriate edit summary) your fellow editors are to yourself.— DCGeist ( talk) 04:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Almost any name could be made to fit policy in this area. The rest of the logic presented on this issue has been very sloppy. There has been no solid argument. HiLo48 ( talk) 05:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you're relatively inexperienced, with less than a year of editing experience. Anyone who has tracked this talk page for the past five years (as I have) has seen this issue thoroughly examined and argued from every possible angle---over 30 or 40 of them. The most important points on each side are neatly summarized in the FAQ section at the top of this page. Your statements that that the logic on this issue have been "very sloppy" and that "there has been no solid argument" are grossly incorrect, either breathtakingly ignorant or deliberately made in bad faith, highly offensive to those editors who have debated these issues at length and in good faith (including myself), and may constitute trolling on your part. See WP:TROLL. Please also review WP:COMMONNAME, which matches the policy of every other major encyclopedia in the English language (with the possible exception of Britannica Macropaedia). Unless you actually have a NEW legitimate point that has not already been raised before and refuted over a dozen times (see the archives above), please do not engage in trolling. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 08:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The USA has many common names. My concern with the most recent discussion was the absolute certainty that some editors had that this one was the only possible valid one for this article. I can cope well with the current name, but to my mind several others would also be perfectly acceptable. The name is not the real issue. It's the rigidity of thinking. With that thought, I will leave this discussion for now. HiLo48 ( talk) 10:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Simply put, no "the name is ambiguous!" argument will ever work, because no matter what, if the article were moved, United States would redirect (not disambiguate, redirect) to United States of America, thus nullifying the purported savings in ambiguity. "United States" is not ambiguous 99.99% of the time, roughly the same amount of time any other country name is ambiguous, minus the obvious ones (Georgia, China, Korea, etc). The only reasonable argument is that it's not the common name, and all evidence points to the contrary - that "United States" is indeed the most common name for the country. And HiLo, perhaps you are the rigid one! You've neglected to provide much actual evidence for a move being worthwhile, but don't hesitate to swoop in and speak on your own rigid preference while scoffing at the preferences of pretty much everyone else. -- Golbez ( talk) 14:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If this article is renamed " United States of America", then the article United Kingdom shall and will need to be renamed the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". See how well that argument holds up with our British brethren because I can guarantee you, the title "United Kingdom" would win in that fight!

I also propose that the article France be renamed the "Republic of France", the article Mexico should be renamed the "United Mexican States", and the article Brazil should be renamed the "Federative Republic of Brazil". Are all of you who desire to rename this article willing to make the same argument on those articles as well?

On that note, all articles containing "United States" in their titles will need to be renamed with the phrase "United States of America". They're hundreds of articles on Wikipedia containing the phrase "United States" in their titles that would need to be changed to "United States of America". Now if we want to get technical, then we need to inform the editors of Encyclopedia Britannica that they too need to change the title of their online web page from "United States" to "United States of America".

I'm sick and tired of this weekly argument. About every week somebody comes on here and proposes to rename and change the title of this article. Does anybody read the FAQ section before jumping the gun? Yoganate79 ( talk) 10:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope. That would be silly. Those names you propose for other countries are not COMMON names. HiLo48 ( talk) 10:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

And neither is "United States of America" a common name used in casual reference of this nation. Otherwise, consensus would have been made in your favor a very long time ago and this article would have been renamed "United States of America". I'm done arguing this because like Golbez, Coolcaesar, and DCGeist, it has been gone over, rehashed, and battled to no end. Even the argument of "United States of America" being a common name for the country, has no merit. It is the nation's formal name and Wikipedia conventions restricts us to uses common names, as Coolcaesar above has repeatedly reminded you. If and when the time comes for me to vote on renaming this article, as was done last week, I will be here for that. Otherwise, I am done here. Yoganate79 ( talk) 10:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

And this is where my point about the poor quality of arguments is reinforced. Obviously "United States of America" is far more common than the other examples you used. Again, I don't want to push this point too hard, but we must think logically, and welcome new ideas. Noting that this section was started by an IP editor, properly someone new to Wikipedia, we really have to be open minded. To squash someone with comments like "We discussed this last year" is far more suited to Conservapedia. None of us can pretend to have thought of everything. HiLo48 ( talk) 11:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

...but less common that "United States". And "Republic of France" is quite common: I used to see it frequently when I checked IDs in local bars (in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - another quite common name). Regardless, it is less common than "United States". Can we please drop the stick and walk away from the equine cadaver? TFOWR 11:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You ignored the last three quarters of my post, which reflects my main point from the start here. And you can't seriously suggest that "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is used anywhere near as often as "United States of America" HiLo48 ( talk) 11:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You ignored the last three quarters of my post That's hugely presumptive. I discounted it because we did not discuss it last year, we discussed it a few weeks ago. I'm surprised you don't remember: you participated in that discussion. Still, if you don't want to drop it, feel free to continue a discussion with yourself. TFOWR 11:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I know that when the attacks become personal, my logic is almost certainly sound. I have said " I don't want to push this point too hard". Please do think about welcoming new posters and new ideas. Bye for now HiLo48 ( talk) 11:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Those new posters and ideas have to be open minded as well. Our anonymous friend who started this thread was well-received due mainly to his civility and open-mindedness; he disagreed with me, but he did it with grace, and I appreciate that. Likewise, I hope I was graceful in disagreeing with him. That whole "agree to disagree" thing. I'm not here to win fights. I'm guessing no fewer than a dozen editors have expressed arguments to you as to why the article should be at "United States", some more civil than others, and you continue to repeat the same mantra that it's not the most common name, without ever giving any evidence whatsoever for this stance. And then you accuse those who disagree with you of being the closed-minded ones? True, the argument about moving Mexico, Brazil, etc. is a bit facetious when talking about common name, rather than official name, but the point remains, there are multiple arguments for keeping the article at its current location, and you have failed to justify your argument about commonality. Perhaps when you actually do that, people will take you more seriously, but as it is... -- Golbez ( talk) 12:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

There is only one country that uses the term United Kingdom, while more than one uses the term United States. United States should be changed to the Untied States of America to avoid confusion with other United States like Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.67.22 ( talk) 17:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There's only one extant country that uses the name United States; our neighbor to the south uses the phrasing "United Mexican States". To conceivably confuse the term 'United States' with any other extant nation would require a willful disregard for the English language. Anyway, the possibility that .00001% of readers will be confused is not sufficient to move an article. By that logic, we should move the article on Mexico to "United Mexican States", because "Mexico" has multiple meanings (country, state, city in New York... I mean, someone could go to Mexico expecting to find Mexico, New York! That exactly the same situation you're describing, a complete edge case that will never, ever happen.) -- Golbez ( talk) 17:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that just because a lot of people think something is right doesn't mean it is. Personally I never hear people say "United States", usually it is shortened to "the states" or "the US(A)". I would personally like it to be titled the "United States of America" but it seems that your arguments are compelling. Just please avoid the "Rename Mexico 'United Mexican States'" argument, the United States of America is more commonly used than other official names, the UN ( http://www.un.org/en/members/index.shtml) calls it the United States of America while calling Mexico Mexico. But agreed, as it stands, the debate is at an impasse. Just as a note, if it was changed, then surely a redirect could be set up, thus nullifying the problem of all the internal wikipedia links relating to this article. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 23:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

But then what's the point? If it redirects, then how is it helping any possible (we're talking well, well below .01%) ambiguity? If someone goes to "United States" right now, they get an article on the country, with a disambig link at the top if, somehow, they meant a different United States. If the article were moved and a redirect set up, and someone went to "United States", they would get ... an article on the country, with a disambig link at the top if, somehow, they meant a different United States. And yes, "United States of America" is used more than other offical names, but that doesn't necessarily change the standing of its common name. If official for US is used 10x more than official for, say, Russia, that doesn't change the hypothetical situation that unofficial for US is used 10x more than official for US. (numbers purely to illustrate a point and are not real, though a Google search shows "United States" without America to be used 45x more on .gov sites than "United States of America".) The "rename Mexico" argument is solely for people who say "it should be the official name", without offering any nuance or reason. -- Golbez ( talk) 23:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Support I really agree with this, There are many united states, to be specific to the country, it should be united states of america. -- Iankap99 ( talk) 01:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, but there are not many united states, nor even many United Stateses.— DCGeist ( talk) 02:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh but there are check the disambiguation page. -- Iankap99 ( talk) 02:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There's one country that, if you rearranged the words in its name, could be considered a United States; fortunately, the three people who confuse the United Mexican States with the US for that reason don't own computers. There are several past countries which have used the name "United States" in their name somewhere, but that just increases the number of people confused by the name to five. The existence of a disambiguation page means nothing; Canada has one, are you proposing we move it? If it's possible that someone could possibly confuse the United States of America with the United States of Colombia, then it's equally possible someone could confuse the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with the United Kingdom of Libya, but no one has ever seriously suggested that. There simply is no case whatsoever in the modern English language to suggest someone will be confused by which "United States" the title of this article is referring to. -- Golbez ( talk) 04:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the downside of changing the name?-- Iankap99 ( talk) 04:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Downside Number One: All the people who would come here noting, quite aptly, that we have violated our common-naming policy for no compelling reason and demanding that we change the article's name to United States.— DCGeist ( talk) 04:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

What's the upside? -- Golbez ( talk) 04:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree this should be called United States of America. 119.155.41.172 ( talk) 19:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Why? -- Golbez ( talk) 20:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As an outsider who has never realy edited this page .. It is odd to see that the title does not match the lead...Not that i care either way, but the lead say :

The United States of America (also referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, the States, or America /əˈmɛrɪkə/) is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district. Moxy ( talk) 20:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Many, many articles are the same way. See... heck, Barack Obama opens "Barack Hussein Obama II". I would daresay most articles on people and countries are like that. -- Golbez ( talk) 00:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As i said before i don't care either way ...But this title is something we are trying to avoid during GA and FA reviews now --> --> wiki lead section and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Lead section of course there are many exceptions like you said personal names are omited, but in general for countries its best to use the giving name of the country and Avoid abbreviations or short forms were ever possible. Wikipedia:Article titles is the only place that mentions using the most Common name, however on the same page its says Abbreviations and acronyms are generally avoided unless the subject is almost exclusively known by its abbreviation. Moxy ( talk) 00:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for a change to this article title. BritishWatcher ( talk) 20:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yet again we have poor manners and absence of logic in a response to a polite, perfectly good faith suggestion and observation from a new Wikipedia editor. What is it with the editors who think they own this article? There may be perfect reasons for the current name (I'm not convinced), but the attitude being shown to "outsiders" politely and logically suggesting change is very aggressive. Is the "ownership" perhaps by a group of American citizens who are familiar with a different internal usage of the language than non-Americans? HiLo48 ( talk) 23:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

They are neither poor manners nor illogic in any of the recent responses by those wishing to maintain the status quo, which is fully in line with policy. Yet again, you are dissembling, HiLo. Please stop disrupting the efforts to maintain and improve this article with your false claims.— DCGeist ( talk) 23:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have just said "absence of logic". BritishWatcher gave us "There is no need for a change to this article title." No manners or logic at all there. HiLo48 ( talk) 23:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

... and the IP before him said, "Change the article title." Yet you somehow don't attack them for not offering any logic. I civilly asked, "Why?" You, with a total lack of civility, attacked an editor without provocation. More of this trolling from you and there will start to be consequences. -- Golbez ( talk) 00:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Threats are not good manners either, nor unsurprising.

I really am at a loss to understand the rigid attitude of the "owner editors" here. And that's all I'm trying to do. Understand the attitude and rigidity. It's an essential step in any negotiation process. HiLo48 ( talk) 00:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If the threat of consequences causes you to stop your blatantly uncivil behavior, then great. -- Golbez ( talk) 00:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry if i showed no logic or manners but you should not get the new editor's hopes up, we all know there is no chance this article is going to be moved after all this time. I recently took part in a RM on another country article, in that case we were seeking the article be moved from its French name (despite being on the English language wikipedia) to its clear English name. A majority supported the change but it was still deemed "no consensus" and is stuck with the French name because someone got there first with their title years ago.

In this case there is no serious reason for a name change, whilst United States of America as a title would be perfectly acceptable, so is the United States. United States is known internationally and the American government uses "United States" all the time.

For example: United States Department of Defense [13] U.S Department of State [14] and even at the United Nations Security Council [15]

United States has enough official usage to justify the current title and everyone will be wasting their time if they want a battle over such an important article which has had this title for years. I have made very few (if any) comments on this talk page or changes to the article itself, so theres no ownership issues for me and i am not an American. Was just giving my opinion. BritishWatcher ( talk) 00:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation BW. It's a thorough one. To me, it's still unsatisfying, because I've never liked "We've always done it that way" as a reason for anything, but that's just me. (Although I think I can tell from your comment that at times you may be a little inclined that way too.) I do find it unpleasant when newcomers to an article are told "That's already been decided. Look it up in the archives." That isn't a healthy approach. Wikipedia should never philosophically lock up an article like that. It gives new editors a very limited purpose in life. HiLo48 ( talk) 00:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I do agree yes, i think it is wrong that a little consensus made by a small group of people perhaps 5 years ago is able to trump a majority today but that is exactly how wikipedia works. It is not a democracy and if there is no obvious consensus for change the old consensus stands, even if a majority now oppose it. :\

It is very annoying. I have my own little list of issues where a consensus was formed before i arrived on wikipedia that i would like to see changed but its like getting blood out of a stone to even start up a debate on the issue now. It is sadly the price we pay for being too slow to catch on to a trend and join wikipedia when it first started.  :) BritishWatcher ( talk) 00:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, the majority still wants it at this name; every move request has failed. -- Golbez ( talk) 00:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, on this article title i think there would be overwhelming support for it to remain at its present location. There really is no strong case for a change despite United States of America being just as good a title. Past consensus wins. BritishWatcher ( talk) 00:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want the article moved, and are not just here to troll and insult people without reason like you did BW, then go through the process at WP:RM. Otherwise, please leave the talk page and/or change your behavior. No newcomer was recently told "that's how it is". We hear their arguments and counter them, some with more civility than others. But someone comes on without an argument and you immediately insult them. -- Golbez ( talk) 00:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)