Talk:United States/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

the US in not 80% white

This section says that whites comprise 80% of the US population. That is wrong. The US is less than 65% white, white Mexicans comprise only 9-17% of the population of Mexico from where most of the Hispanic immigration originates, most Hispanics in the US are Mestizo Note123 (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Take it up with the census bureau. They mark most Hispanics as both White and Hispanic. --Golbez (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, take it up with people who mark 'yes' to Hispanic, and then White for race, and no other 'race' boxes; all US census ethnographic information is self‐reported. From my own personal anecdotal‐perspective, the majority of US Hispanics are mestizo, but that paradigm is non-normative within the Spanish‐language‐influenced cultural‐sphere. 24.20.158.21 (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not just that. "Hispanic" is, in itself, not a race, according to the Census bureau. It's merely a modifier. Someone from Mexico might be White + Hispanic; someone from the Dominican Republic might be Black + Hispanic; someone from the Philippines might label themselves Asian + Hispanic; etc. They do it because they're told to. Check out the figures; White + Black + Asian + Native + Alaskan + Islander etc etc all add up to 100% without counting Hispanic. --Golbez (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request Economy

The sentence "The United States ranks second in the Global Competitiveness Report." is outdatet. It now ranks fourth http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2010-11.pdf

Please correct Katzmann83 (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Us gdp as of febuary 2011 is $14.6 Trillion i have no idea what it is per capita —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.144.69.58 (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You wouldn't have a reference for that by chance would you? --Kumioko (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Usdebtclock.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewbarber79 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Er, I don't know where to put this, but the derivitive for United States citizens is not Americans. That offends the Canadians, they are americans too.

Canadians quite proudly consider themselves "Canadians," you even called them that. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

This article needs a good deal of work before it could be considered anywhere near a standard worthy of peer review. The article has a number of issues, notably related to bias in that many of its authors are citizens of the United States and have a vested interest in supporting personal views over facts. This is one of the few Wikipedia articles about a nation that is locked. As a result the purpose of Wikipedia appears to be somewhat defeated in that the article is written by a select few Americans who have appointed themselves arbiters of culture in the United States, and who would dictate to the rest of the reading world their vision.

I believe the article should be taken out of lock down and opened to a more democratic form of contribution again. I would suggest recording a link to the current locked version on this talk page, so that the article can be reverted if seriously vandalised, and then unlocking the article for open editing. Americans have nothing to lose but their fears in doing so. The topic is a large one and would benefit from as many authors as possible. Many hands make light work, as the saying goes.

My second recommendation would be the inclusion of a summary of human rights issues. Articles for a number of other nations have such a section and it would be good for Wikipedia formatting and article style to maintain some consistency with article format for articles of this genre. The article for Yemen, for example, has a section summarising human rights - are human rights any less important in the United States that they have been omitted in this article? I would suggest keeping the section to summary length and linking it to the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_States. As a starting point, for any contributor willing to take on the task, the summary should begin by introducing and picking out main points from the Human rights in the United States article and then allowing refinement through contributions and discussion (with a neutral point of view and justice to the quality of the article being foremost in the minds of all authors).

My best wishes to all those who hope to improve the quality of this article. It certainly is a sizable subject. 122.57.176.175 (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I listed this for a peer review recently and all of these comments are currently useful as they are corrections that need to be made. Many thanks to Kumioko for the peer review. Please strike corrections as you make them.

1. The lede is a bit too long and should be trimmed
2. The lede should not contain any inline citations. Inline citations should be in the article body that the lede summerizes
3. There are a few places that appear to be missing inline citations
4. I think we should update the numbers mentioned for the population statistics to reflect the new 2010 census
5. A few of the references appear to be dead links. See here
6. IMO we have a few too many pictures. I think if we try and limit to 1 or 2 pictures in each section, that represent that section, that would be best. There are currently 5 different maps of the US being used in different ways and I think is too many of the same thing.
7. The template in the demographics section needs to be updated with the new 2010 census results and contains a dead link
8. IMO the Culture section should come after the history section and before the Government and political sections
9. I think we should combine the information found in the government/election subsection regarding politics and elections and move it to the Political divisions section.
10. I ran it through AWB and didn't find anything.
11. I ran it through the peer reviewer and nothing came up
12. There are no Disambiguous links
13. The article size is 169 KB so its extremely big. Eliminating some uneeded images will help but we might need to do some trimming of content as well.
14. The template include size has been exceeded so some templates are not being displayed.
15. I think we should move some of the see also's to the see also section and or incorporate the "Main article" links that appear in many of the sections into links within the sections somehow. There are so many its very distracting from the content of the article IMO.
16. I also think the article is a see of blue links with many things being links 3 or more times, sometimes in the same sections. --

1. Some of the sentences are choppy and need to be cleaned up
2. We need to do a thourough copyedit and fix all the prose, grammer and punctuation issues.
3. IMO some of the information is a bit out of sequence and should be restructured to be a little more clear to the reader. For example IMO Culture should come after History and before the government section.
4. I recommend we add the Measurement sysems to the Science and technology section
5. I recommend combining the Parties, ideology, and politics subsection of Govnerment and elections with Political divisions section and then rename the Govnerment and elections section to just Govnerment.
6. I recommend adding the Language, Education and religion sections under Culture.
7. IMO the History section is too long and too comprehensive for a general article about the US. I recommend we trim out some of the content of the us History section from this article and add it to the History of the United States article.
8. I recommend separating the Foreign relations and military into 2 different sections. These really don't belong together IMO.--

Kumioko (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Some of the corrections were done by Kumioko but to my knowledge not fully. (I may be wrong) Check the review here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/United_States/archive4 --Iankap99 (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with many of these opinions (such as moving Culture before Government), as I do with the elimination of many significant items of media content without proper discussion. I have restored several, though not all, of those items (in a couple of cases, there seem to be relatively apparent issues with clutter and/or informational value). No further such deletions should take place without discussion and consensus here (not on individual editors' Talk pages).—DCGeist (talk) 07:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you comment on the ones you disagree with so that we can fix the others?--Iankap99 (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I understand there is some disagreement and thats ok we can work through that. The bottom line is that this article has too many templates (so many in fact it exceeds wikipedias ability to display them all) and the size is such that some people with slow connections cannot view the page. Even with a high speed connection my machine takes several seconds to open it in edit mode. --Kumioko (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

HOW IS THIS ARTICLE TOO BIG!!! Go to the national page of any European country and it is twice as long and has photos all over. Germany even has mp3's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.101.94 (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

See my comments just above about the size of the article but to address your specific mention of Germany. Germany is 65k smaller with less than half the templates and about 3/4ths the pictures. It is a Featured article and therefore is a good example to use as a guide for this article IMO. France is over 200K is not a featured article and needs lots of work including several of the areas I mentioned for this article. --Kumioko (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Can no one comment on contested changes?--Iankap99 (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

One more comment. The page is riddled with random, irrelevant information. This isn't interestingfacts.com. For instance, under Economy it says: Coca-Cola and McDonald's are the two most recognized brands in the world. Useless, random information that is completely incoherent and makes the page look unprofessional. P.S. Kumioko, please do not try to fix the grammar or spelling as yours is atrocious.--Jacksoncw (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to worry about me I won't be around much anymore. There's just no fun in it anymore...too much drama. --Kumioko (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Revision to the header

The concluding statement in the lead must be changed from "The country accounts for 43% of global military spending and is a leading economic, political, and cultural force in the world." to "The country accounts for 43% of global military spending and is the leading economic, political, and cultural force in the world." I know wikipedia wants to be as as relativist, non-comittal, wide, accomodating, and general as possible, however it is simply more specifically true to mark it out at "'the' leading..." I would invite anyone who does not support the move to 'the' as to prescisely what country has an 'economic' 'political' and 'cultural' influence that can even hold a candle to that of the US. Vulpesinculta51 (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It isn't the job of other Wikipedians to support or disprove your assertions. Present a reliable source supporting your change in language. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I remember creating the very first website for a company I worked for back around 1996. It naturally said something positive about the company, and when I showed it to the boss he said "Change it to say we are the leading company in our industry. It's a totally meaningless and unquantifiable term. No-one can argue with it and it might impress the customers." I guess he was right. HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

HiLo48 this is not whatever very small business you worked for, there is a vast and undeniable gulf between the United States and every other single country in the world when it comes to these areas of concern. It is such basic common sense that the US is the most influential country in the world when it comes to the global economy (it is by far the largest) global politics (its military gives it easily the most influence, and we all know what Clauswitz said about war and politics) and culture (US culture has colonised all corners of the parts of the world worth caring about). This is all so obvious it counts as common knowledge, which as well you all know is acceptable to use without citation. Vulpesinculta51 (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. But moving on - Change the word political to military, and I think it will be more accurate. The rest of the world doesn't follow American political trends, but the American military is everywhere.. HiLo48 (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Vulpes. Certainly no country compares culturally; presently, no country compares in force projection and military might (a single carrier battle group could singlehandledly take out the militaries of most of the world); and by sheer numbers, no country yet compares economically, though China is rapidly coming up on that. --Golbez (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I take hilo's point, and I have changed 'political' to 'militiary.' The header is much better for getting rid of weasel words like 'a...' 'the...' is much better style, and more specifically accurate. Also every time i hear about China's emergence all i can think of is "we will bury you!" Yeah, good one. Vulpesinculta51 (talk) 09:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

We may want to change this, but let's get it right. An edit that effectively yields, "The country accounts for 43% of global military spending and is the leading military force in the world," is not a good edit. I've reverted until we nail something down here.—DCGeist (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You certainly don't think there is a lack of reliable sources that could back that statement, Ouroboros. The question is, is it worth substituting "a" with "the", something that will doubtlessly infuriate thousands and trigger several debates that will end up in the change being reversed?--AndresTM (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

2.1 is not the replacement rate for white non-hispanic women

"and 1.8 for non-Hispanic white women (below the replacement rate of 2.1)."

this "replacement rate" assumes no mixed race parentage. A white woman needs only 1.05 daughters to replace herself. 76.126.215.43 (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

2.1 is the overall replacement rate needed to maintain the current population level. --Khajidha (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Lede corrections

The statement "It is one of the world's most ethnically diverse and multicultural nations," in the lede is unsourced and based on no comparison to other countries. See here for example "which suggest that no that no country in the world is more multicultural than the United States. However, India, Russia, South Africa and Nigeria are much more multicultural than the United States by such criteria as the number and variety of extensively and enduringly used primary languages and long-standing, territorially based ethnic identities" Also, the lede doesn't accurately summarise the article because topics discussed in the article like incarceration rate are discussed in the article but not in the lede. Munci (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

As for the first... what would it be compared to? We're not saying it's more or less diverse than any particular country, just that it's more than average. As for the incarceration rate... it almost sounds like you want every piece of data mentioned in the lede, which is of course not possible. So why that particular piece? --Golbez (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually multicultural is not a term use to often to describe the USA. --- Multiculturalism a "cultural mosaic" is often contrasted with the concepts of American assimilation and social integration and has been described as a "salad bowl" rather than a "melting pot." The idea of a cultural mosaic is intended to champion an ideal of multiculturalism, differently from other systems like the melting pot, which is often used to describe the United States' ideal of assimilation.Moxy (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought that the salad bowl replaced the melting pot in the US decades ago. And whose to say which "brand" of multiculturalism is better or more real?LedRush (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is where we simply ask if we have a reliable source that says "It is one of the world's most ethnically diverse and multicultural nations". HiLo48 (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Um...call me crazy, but the person who first posted above against the language posted a citation which directly supports the current language. According to that source, under the cultural democracy concept, the US is the most diverse country in the world. However, according to the source, when using primary language and other criteria, 4 other countries are more diverse [which still supports the "one of" language in the lede]. Quite honestly, I'm shocked that this is an issue.LedRush (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Anthem

Shouldn't be too hard for someone to link in an audio file of the anthem, as seems standard on these national pages. I don't know how, but someone ought to. --86.156.88.42 (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why it is; if people want to listen to the anthem, they can click through. That's just my opinion, though, and kind of falls apart if someone asks, "Why show the flag, then?" --Golbez (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 207.45.92.193, 5 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Under the "government" section of this article. It states that the USA is both a "constitutional republic and a representative democracy". This is in fact INCORRECT. The USA is a constitutional republic as the word "democracy" does not appear in any of our founding documents including the federalist papers, bill of rights, and constitution. Please delete the words "representative democracy" in that section.

207.45.92.193 (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done The US is a representative democracy, which means legislators are elected by the public. A country can be a representative democracy regardless of whether it is a republic or not (e.g. UK); they are not mutually exclusive. There is a supposed quote by Jefferson which argues that democracy is "mob rule", but the Jefferson encyclopedia states "We currently have no evidence to confirm that Thomas Jefferson ever said or wrote (the quote)"; either way, the quote refers to direct democracy, not representative democracy (which is what Jeffersonian democracy is all about). Per the CIA World Factbook, the US is a "Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition". --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 20:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The introduction should be changed to match the government section. The Islamic Republic of Iran is definitely a republic, as was the Roman Republic but neither are/were democracies. Given the importance of democratic culture in the US it should be in the first sentence, e.g. George W. Bush wanted to spread freedom and democracy, not freedom and republicanism. 188.174.26.173 (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The user who requested this change is no doubt part of a group of people in the Utah Legislature trying to remove the words "democracy" from school text books because they feel it promotes "democrats" over "republicans." It's sick that they've gone so far as to try to convince people with common sense and reason on Wikipedia to follow their misguided lead. Someone add "representative democracy" back in.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.136.119.227 (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for all that? Probably, this article should be semi-protected.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Has been for years. --Golbez (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

New Race Table

This was put in; I reverted it because I thought it was someone doing simple math on Hispanics and not caring about black Hispanics, et.al. Turns out, as stated in the subsequent edit summary, that it is a division mentioned by the census bureau. So we should figure out how to include this, however, adding yet another entry into the table that forces it not to add up to 100% doesn't seem to be the right idea. At the very least, it needs a note saying to see the prose for more information. --Golbez (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Links to certain countries missing

Among sever other similar instances, under the "crime" subheading, in the last paragraph, there is a list of the five other countries with the highest rates of excecution; China, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, and Sudan. However, in that paragraph, there are only links to two of those countries, Pakistan and Sudan, whereas there is no present link to the other three countries. Further, there seems to be no reason that there should be links to those two, and yet not the other three. Why, if I may ask, are those three countries not linked? And, for that matter, why are the other ones linked, and could that please be fixed? I have noticed several other spots, on this and other locked pages, in which only a portion of the subjects in a list have links to their respective pages, while all of the subjects of said list have their own pages to be linked to. And because, as of now, I do not have the authority to edit these pages and add links onto them, I would like to ask someone else, whom has that authority vested in them, to please correct these links. -M. Schneider (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The countries that are not linked in the section you mentioned "should" be linked the first time they are mentioned in the article. - See WP:REPEATLINK for more info.Moxy (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Moxy for clarifying that for me. I had not read through that part of the MoS Yet. However, while that clarifies China, Iran does not have a dirrect link, instead going to United_States-Iran_relations; and neither does Iraq. I am merely asking why it is that Pakistan and Sudan have links, but Iran and Iraq do not; and if there is no reason, then could someone please fix it.--M. Schneider 09:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed linked first time seen.. NP there are so many guidelines and policies here that i after 5 years dont know them all..Just FYI many have argued that links like Iran hostage crisis, United_States-Iran_relations and Iran-Contra scandal are in the article and they in a round about way to link to Iran - SO is there a need to have both the parent and child articles linked. Anyways linked now see what others say. Moxy (talk) 09:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done (yet): Just while we are on this subject, Iraq also does not have a link to the parrent article, though there are links in the "Contemporary era" subheading, to the Invasion of Iraq, the Rationale behind the Iraq War, and in a subsequent link to the Iraq War under the Military and Foreign Relations heading. I am certainly not saying that this is the best place to put the link to the Iraq parrent article, which would probably be a better fit under either of the afore mentioned subheadings, but I would like to point out that, as of now, I have not found any links to the Iraq parrent article. --M. Schneider 18:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schneider anc (talk • contribs) --M. Schneider [Schneider anc] (talk • contribs) 05:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Foreign relations confusion

I've noticed that Sudan is labeled as lacking diplomatic relations with the United States on this page. However, several other related pages on Wikipedia point to the two sovereign states having diplomatic ties. For example, this page shows Sudan in green, like the other states with American ties. I would appreciate it if someone with the appropriate knowlege clear up this confusion. Thanks. CuboneKing (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Misleading Louisiana Purchase Placement

The Louisiana Purchase is not mentioned in the proper context in this article. Here is the current context:

"Americans' eagerness to expand westward prompted a long series of Indian Wars. The Louisiana Purchase of French-claimed territory under President Thomas Jefferson in 1803 almost doubled the nation's size.[32] The War of 1812, declared against Britain over various grievances and fought to a draw, strengthened U.S. nationalism...."

The Louisiana Purchase was a *peaceful* acquisition of land, not prompted by a long series of Indian Wars. Thomas Jefferson was able to purchase the land from the French to help finance the French Revolution; it was not due to an Indian War.

Strongly recommend putting a snippet about the Louisiana Purchase BEFORE the thesis statement about a long series of Indian Wars...something like this:

"The Louisiana Purchase of French-claimed territory under President Thomas Jefferson in 1803 almost doubled the nation's size peacefully.[32]

"Americans' eagerness to expand westward prompted a long series of Indian Wars. The War of 1812, declared against Britain over various grievances and fought to a draw, strengthened U.S. nationalism...."

07:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Race/ethnicity 2010

Well the results are finally here! http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/

However, if I place it in the Race/Ethnicity category it'll just get reverted or something. Can anyone place this in there please? Thank you. Cyanidethistles (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for providing the link.—DCGeist (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Cyanidethistles (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The chart Race/ethnicity 2010 is confuse, if you add all percents is above 100% It is because It is different of http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/ hispanic/latin is another clasification NATIONAL POPULATION BY HISPANIC OR LATINO ORIGIN It must be same like the source 09:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

The article states:

"After the British defeat by American forces assisted by the French and the Spaniards, Great Britain recognized the independence of the United States and the states' sovereignty over American territory west to the Mississippi River".

This is not correct. The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783, recognized the sovereignty, freedom and independence of the individual states of the United States-- not the United States as a single sovereignty; indeed, the United States had no sovereignty of its own, since all national sovereignty belonged exlusively to the indidual states themselves. To wit:

Article 1:

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

Here, the term "free, sovereign and independent states", addressing the states individually by name and in the plural, clearly recognizes each state as an independent sovereign nation unto itself-- just as they had declared themselves to be in 1776, and expressly retained under the Articles of Confederation in 1781.

Also to wit:

"We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do." ( The Declaration of Independence)

Here, the term "free and independent states" clearly uses the context of sovereign nations in the modern sense.

Continuing:

"ARTICLE II Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

(Articles of Confederation) 

Under this order, each state was a popularly sovereign nation unto itself-- i.e. the individual people themselves were the state's reigning national sovereigns, or supreme rulers; and they simply delegated their sovereign power to state and federal governments in order to represent them. However actual sovereignty remained with the people of the state themselves, and therefore they could overrule either state and federal government at any time as they wished-- as is the supreme prerogative of any nation's ruling sovereign(s).

In contrast, the claim that the colonies formed a single nation of subordinate states, is a false distortion of history by the Jackson and Lincoln administrations, which has been institutionalized into American mainstream "history" by mass murder and imperialism, as well as totalitarian suppression of the truth and forced mass-indoctrination of the mainstream populace, including forced swearing of loyalty-oaths such as the "Pledge of Allegiance."

In short, the post-Jackson United States is an illegal and murderous imperial regime, which exists in suppression of the truth and freedom alike-- as well as in continued hostile and suppressive occupation of the individual states as legitimate sovereign nations, since their sovereignty has never been officially changed -- simply denied by lies and propoganda of the invading empire.

Therefore, it is simply unconscionable for Wikipedia to lend credence to this distortion, by publishing it without reasonable inquiry as to them-- particularly after having been given notice that they are inaccurate. Rather, this is willing suppression of the truth-- which is worse than censorship.

Rather, this is a deliberate misinforming of the people, which actively deprives them their rightful sovereignty as nations, via perpetuating the misinformation by which they have been wrongfully denied it-- in short, anyone who perpetuates the empire's propoganda, is part of the empire.

As for the Constitution: it contains no relinquishment or transfer of any nation's sovereignty; even the Lincoln administration admitted this, since no literate and unprejudiced person could possibly construe such intent from the text of the Constitution. Rather, such a construction must assume such intent from the start-- and again, the states expressly intended to acquire and maintain separate and independent status as separate sovereign nations.

In conclusion, therefore, Wikipedia should correct this longstanding falsehood, and for once speak with the voice of truth on this matter, in order to crack the 150+ year old dike of deception by which the Amerikan empire has crushed the voice of truth... by the mass-murder of over 1/4 million state-citizens simply for defending against this empire, by a media of "royal-reporters" and an academia of "king's lawyers and court-historians."

So this is a matter of courage as well as accuracy; however the merit of the internet has been to give voice to the common citizen who doesn't "eat of the King's bread." Therefore it is essential to make reasonable inquiry into these facts, prior to parroting state-sanctioned history along with the mainstream media, academia and courts like a loyal subject.BradAnderson (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

BradAnderson (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BradAnderson (talk • contribs) 23:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The comment was moved to the bottom as per WP:TPG. You need a source for all of this and you also need to adhere to a neutral point of view.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The whole point is moot any way. The context makes perfectly clear what the "independence of the United States" meant at the time. The immediately preceding sentence explains that the states were then united only be a "weak confederal government." And then the very same sentence in question refers to the "states' sovereignty", affirming that their sovereign claims were at that point distinct and thus plural. The sentence as it stands is correct; the interpretation of it that necessitates this response is tendentious in the extreme.—DCGeist (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The GDP of the USA

The article lists the U.S. as a country with the highest GDP, even though in the current source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_ 28PPP% 29), the European Union have the highest GDP. I hope the article will be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ModusCulti (talk • contribs) 17:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You answered your own question in your statement. Its the country with the higest GDP. The European Union is not a country. At least not the last time I checked.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Chaotic Layout

Why does the USA article looks so badly organised ? Please take a look at the European country articles, these appear much more structured. And why is there a "Crime" section in the main article ? It seems to be an issue of minor relevance. Expedian (talk)

I took a look at the Featured Article Germany. I found a structure that looks elegant on the surface, but only raises questions as you look more closely: Military, for instance, is misplaced under Politics; Science does not belong under Economy, etc. The organization of this article is much more defensible conceptually. However, if you have specific, constructive recommendations, please offer them up.

As for the Crime and law enforcement section, please read it. It should take you no more than a couple of minutes. You will discover that far from "an issue of minor relevance", it covers several significant matters, aside from the general structure of the law enforcement and criminal justice system, which is fundamental. You will learn, for instance, that gun ownership rights are the focus of contentious political debate in the United States, and that the country stands out among other wealthy nations and even globally for its homicide rate, incarceration rate, and enforcement of the death penalty.—DCGeist (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There will be always systemic contradictions within such a diverse issue like a "country" article. What I find convincing in the European articles and Japan, China, Brazil is the single name in the section heading. To me a large Geography, Politics and Demographics main section with some subsections would improve this article here. Expedian (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the articles of India, Canada, Russia and Israel have a compact layout as well. Expedian (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that there "will be always be systematic contradictions" in any country article, and certainly not to the same degree. I have identified specific organizational errors in the Germany article, errors of the sort that are duplicated in the other articles you admire. Can you identify such errors in this article?—DCGeist (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

As already mentioned, the significant insufficiency seems to be the chaotic layout itself. It makes sense to have a single Geography part with subsections (Climate for instance). It makes also sense to have a large bloc of state/politics related issues named Politics. A real error seems to be cluttering Military and Foreign Relations, these topics are certainly unrelated and should be divided. Expedian (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

An outside view, the only things I can think of in terms of improving this article's sectioning (assuming only using preexisting sections) is to make Language, Religion, Education, and Health subsection of demographics. Maybe Crime too. Foreign relations and military are often easier to write about together, and nowadays military actions often play a huge impact on foreign relations (for example, Libya as a military action and part of international diplomacy with the UN etc.). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Chipmukdavis thought is also mine, it sounds reasonable as well, a large bloc of Demographics looks better. I see the Law enforcement part rather together with all state related issues, in a Politics bloc. Expedian (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Global Competitive Report

The United States is now 4th, not 2nd, on the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report. The "Economy" overview section incorrectly lists 2nd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.85.251.25 (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Biggest debtor

It says in the article it's Japan, but this more up-to-date source (http://exclusiveeconomy.com/2011/01/whose-the-biggest-holder-of-u-s-debt/) disagrees! Reidlos (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Why add the ! at the end seems petty and not in the spirit of wikipedia 24.101.172.61 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC).

South Korea

Article mentions Canada, USA, and Mexico as part of NAFTA but South Korea of Asia is now part of North American Free Trade Agreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcelo11 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No they aren't. NAFTA only includes the US, Mexico, and Canada. There is a pending agreement that would create a similar (but separate and distinct) free trade arrangement between the US and South Korea, but it has not been ratified nor does it add South Korea to NAFTA. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 07:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary era

The comp. part is polically motavied. And why does Competary only includes 91 to present??? Also to say Clinton over saw the greatest expansion in usa history is misleading. The term over saw implies he had something to do with it. While many claim he shorted it with government interferance. 24.101.172.61 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC).

Wow, that took some detective work! I'm guessing that by "comp. part", and "Competary", you are referring to the "Contemporary era" section of the article, a title I've now added as a sub-heading for this discussion. I'd say that 1991 to the present, being 20 years, is a reasonable span for a Contemporary era. What would you suggest? And I don't see wording that says "Clinton over saw" anything. It says "encompassed the Bill Clinton administration..." Pretty vague, and hardly attributing credit or blame. Nice style, I would have thought. HiLo48 (talk) 04:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Estados Unidos

Since the United States does not have a de jure official language and since the country has a large Spanis population, shalln't we add Estados Unidos de América below United States of America? Just figured I'd ask ;-)

That name isn't used in English is it?Jasper Deng (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as this is an English server that makes absolutely no sense. That would just clutter the article even more than it already is. If you speak Spanish and want a wikipedia that caters to your needs, please revert to the Spanish server here: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Portada --Jacksoncw (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

While the United States may not have an official language, it does have official documents (such as the US Constitution) which spell out its name. Unless one of those official documents or a supporting legal statement establishes Estados Unidos de América as a legal and officially used name, it should not be put in the article. Taking Mexico as an example, the title below the main (Estados Unidos Mexicanos) is supported by a source at the Presidency of Mexico. Similarly, countries like Afghanistan are listed with officially sanctioned titles. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sudan

I have brought up the topic of U.S.-Sudan relations before, with no answer. I removed Sudan from the list of states the United States does not have diplomatic relations with due to every page that concerns the subject leaning towards Sudan having diplomatic relations with the U.S. with the sole exception of this one. Such a page would be Foreign relations of the United States. I was reverted. I am going to remove Sudan again (Libya needs to mentioned in its place, also). Anyone with a substantial argument, feel free to revert me again, but explain why. Thank you. CuboneKing (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Columbus Mention

What is with this? Columbus has no place in the history of the United States itself, a good explorer, yes, but for Spain, not America. Perhaps his exploration somehow lead to the formation of the Unite States, but then again so did the Roman Republic, and the war of roses, amound other things, should we mention those too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.87.242 (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

When we have national holidays dealing with the Roman Republic, War of the Roses, amound other things, then you can say they're equivalent. --Golbez (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

2010 Census

Can we get the 2010 census results for the lagest cities section. The results have been out for several weeks. Thanks! Peetlesnumber1 (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Transportation

I'm curious as to why European usage of bicycles and ownership of vehicles is being used as a comparative standard in this section. It seems to imply some sort of superiority, especially the bit about bicycle use being "well below European levels." If nothing else, it's apples to oranges, being that Europe is a continent, while the United States is a single country. 132.3.49.68 (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

A continent with a comparably sized population and economy to the United States. --Golbez (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

prose in article still remains unclear why comparing an apple (united states, a country) to oranges (europe, a continent). reader shouldn't have to go analyze citation to understand rationale of comparison (or come here to the talk page, assuming an average reader even finds a talk page). surely a phrase such as "a comparably sized population and economy to the u.s." could be added to prose.--96.232.126.111 (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Intro change

I know the change I just made is going to create some contention or a revert, but slavery deserves top billing for causes of the civil war. I'm well aware that the Civil War's causes were more complex than just slavery, but it was a common point in almost all pre-succession literature; slavery was universal among seceding states, and almost not present in union states. Slavery was at the very least the most apparent factor in the divide that led to the civil war, and it was of major importance, even if the ranking of its importance could be debated. For a summary, I think it deserves top billing. i kan reed (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Cold War foreign policy

This section states that the United States supported liberal democracy during this period, which I take to be a biased description. It would be more accurate to say that the United States took whatever steps it deemed necessary to prevent the expansion of leftist governments. This is true in Africa and Asia but is especially the case in reference to Latin America: in Guatemala in the 1950s, then all across Latin America after Castro came to power in Cuba. Opposition to the politics of Castro and Guevara led the United States to support military dictatorships in Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Peru, Colombia, Venezuela and the Dominican Republic during the period.

This article's strength is that it is concise. There's no need to include a discussion of US relations with all of these countries.

I'm proposing that the sentence on supporting liberal democracy be replaced with: "As part of its opposition to the Soviet Union, the United States opposed left-wing projects of land and income redistribution all over the world. This often took the form of supporting military dictatorships, especially in Latin America." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thectexperience (talk • contribs) 01:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Even if you had a point about the phrase "liberal democracy" being biased, you're suggesting replacing bias with different bias? I don't really follow. i kan reed (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This just looks like soapboxing to me. It just seems like you are trying to get a random political opinion of yours into the article. FYI, dictatorship is left wing, not right wing,so you mean to say that America opposed right-wing policies in countries "around the world". Second of all, do you have any documentation from this or are you just telling us what you heard on History channel? Bottom line, not only is it debatable, but it certainly does not belong in this article. If any, I would put it in the Cold War article.--Jacksoncw (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the O.P.'s concerns are warranted because the U.S., during the cold-war, did try to maintain a policy of containment. The U.S. government's leaders stated that they supported democracy abroad. In general, the C.I.A. and the U.S. military tried to keep dictators in power during the Cold-War to stop the spread of communism and attempted to destabilize countries that had democratically elected leaders that had socialist or communist leanings (as in the case of Cuba). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerry Barrons (talk • contribs) 01:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Fidel Castro was not democratically elected. 64.180.40.100 (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be a could idea to change that, but i think it could be stated better as "As part of its opposition to the Soviet Union, the United States opposed left-wing projects of land and income redistribution all over the world. In some cases this took the form of supporting military dictatorships."
-The lost library (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I would just change that last statement to "As part of its opposition to the Soviet Union, the United States opposed left-wing projects of land and income redistribution all over the world. In some cases this took the form of supporting authoritarian governments in the Middle East, Latin America, and Asia."

Because many of these regions had authoritarian governments instituted/supported by C.I.A coups, assassinations, and funding of "rebel groups". As an example the U.S. funded the Contras in Nicaragua, supported the Shah of Iran (which led to the 1979 revolution), and actively sought to maintain Diem Zemin's (spelling?) government in power even after significant evidence of massacres and authoritarianism. Note that in the case of the Shah of Iran, the U.S. sought to keep Iran secular and capitalist so, religious leanings may have been a part of the decision to support the Shah. <--This paragraph is not to be included, I'm just trying to clarify my point. (Jerry Barrons (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC))

Cold War and protest politics and Contemporary Era

In both of these articles there is not a single citation except for one at the very end of Cont. Era. It doesn't say "citation needed" and there is no notification at the beginning of the article. I suggest we put that notification there (I would but am not familiar with wikicode) and start trying to find citations for 100% of the information because currently none of it has any basis.--Jacksoncw (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Demographics Mistake

The demographics section claims that the "United States is the only industrialized nation in which large population increases are projected", and goes on to claim an annual growth rate of 0.98 per cent. I clicked on the link to check this extraordinary claim, only to find that the link does not work. However, numerous industrialised nations are projecting growth rates similar to that of the U.S. For example, New Zealand's projected growth rate is 1.0 per cent a year (this is government policy). Can someone tidy this up, or at least provide a credible source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.80.91 (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Human Rights

Does this article need a human rigths section if you look at the abusses being committed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan Guantanamo Bay and in the United States itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.87.110 (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

A human rights section on United States would be WP:UNDUE. At best a short mention in foreign relations and military would be appropriate. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I was about to post pretty much the same thing. Not even the China article has a Human rights section. There are plenty of other articles where reports of such concerns are documented. HiLo48 (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, China's skirted around the issue hasn't it ;) People's Republic of China#Sociopolitical issues and reform. Issues and reform! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

== First Quota Law== 

I bet this will be deleted in under 20minutes ;

The immense influx of aliens flooding most American cities was creating social, cultural and economic tensions in a country which, although it claimed to be a haven for "the homeless and tempest-tost", was not prepared to accommodate so many immigrants in so short a time. Those who had been born in the USA considered themselves as "all-American" and many of these did not appreciate the coming of the so-called "new Americans". The new arrivals gravitated towards the cities, thus aggravating the problem of over-crowding with the consequent problem of un-employment and lack of acceptable hygienic standards because no decent accommodation was available.

A spokesman for the Maltese Government had warned that the economic situation in North America was in a state of flux and he advised intending emigrants to avoid settling in the big cities where hostility to new arrivals was coming out in the open. That same source warned of impending legislation on the part of the American Government as Washington was under steady pressure to stem the tide of uncontrolled immigration.

That impending legislation became law on May 19, 1921. President Warren G. Harding approved what was then commonly called the First Quota Law or the Provisional Immigration Measure. The application of the Bill seriously affected large scale immigration. It was to bring Maltese emigration to the USA to a virtual standstill for some years.

After the Treaty of Versailles of 1919, the USA emerged as the most powerful nation on earth. Most Americans willingly acknowledged their indebtedness to the millions of immigrants -who had built the nation. Since the Declaration of Independence in 1776, immigration had been a normal aspect of the American way of life and any restrictions on the admission of immigrants were meant not to control their numbers but to safeguard the health and character of an emerging nation.

It was in 1875 that Congress decided that some categories of immigrants had better not be allowed into the country. These categories included communists, prostitutes and those showing mental and serious physical defects. In 1876, the policy governing immigration was declared to be one of national interest falling within the exclusive responsibility of the Government.

Pressure from Californian interests resulted in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 which banned the future immigration of Chinese into the USA This Exclusion Act remained in force till 1943. Ten years after the passing of the first anti-Chinese legislation an amendment was made which required the registration of Chinese labourers already in the country. This amendment authorised the expulsion of any Chinese if after one year no certificate of registration was produced.

The enactments against the Chinese were passed because Americans on the Pacific Coast complained that the Chinese were prepared to work under inferior conditions for minimal wages and were therefore a threat to the accepted living standards of the time. Another undeclared motive was racial prejudice against Orientals who were considered as being too different from the rest and therefore unable to become full American citizens. Eventually such discrimination based on racial bias was to be extended to immigrants coming from certain regions of Europe. Their presence on American soil was not particularly cherished by those who felt their position and privilege threatened by the new arrivals.

In 1907 the USA had received the staggering total of 1,285,349 immigrants. In that same year an Immigration Act was passed which prohibited the entry of aliens who were over sixteen years of age'and were illiterate. The Literacy Test was aimed at non-European immigrants as it was then becoming fashionable to welcome certain races and bar others. Americans and Imperialist Europeans spoke menacingly about the Yellow Peril threatening to swamp the world with millions of hungry Orientals. Theodore Roosevelt, President of the USA, urged japan not to issue passports to those Japanese who intended to emigrate to California.

Since 1894 opponents of unrestricted and non-selective immigration had banded themselves together in an influential Immigration Restriction league which clamoured for a policy based on racial selection. According to the people behind the League, the only acceptable types of immigrants were those originating from Great Britain, Scandinavia, Germany and North-Western Europe. European Latins and others were a threat the American nation because of their physical appearance, their language, culture and manners. Such foreigners were a potential danger to American democracy because they were unable to become respectable citizens. It was hard for such inferior people to respect private business and industry because many of them had been tainted with radical ideas. Particular antipathy was expressed towards immigrants from the Southern parts of Catholic Europe who were supposed to tain true Americanism with Romanism and Revolution.

The First Quota Law of May 19, 1921, was a capitulation to such bigotry. President Warren G. Harding gave in to pressure from the Immigration Restriction League when he limited the annual number of immigrants to 3% of the number of foreign-born persons of most nationalities living in the USA in 1910.

Eventually the League pressed for even stricter controls and in 1924 the Johnson-Reed Act was passed with the approval of President Calvin Coolidge. This Act drastically limited the intake of aliens. The Act also showed that America now sanctioned racial discrimination as it officially accepted the principle that not all nationalities were equal.

According to the Johnson-Reed Act only 150,000 were to be allowed in one year. A nationality was permitted to send 2% of the number of immigrants present in the USA in 1890. This was planned to allow most of the quota to go to nationalities from North and Western Europe. The South and the East of Europe were only allowed to send 20,000 immigrants per year. Only 4,000 non-Europeans were to he allowed entry. Naturalisation was denied to Orientals.

It was obvious that the Act had pushed the key census year from 1910 to 1890 because up to 1890 America still had a largely homogenous population, but after that year up to 1914 some 15,000,000 immigrants had entered the USA from the Middle East and from the South and the East of Europe. The Johnson-Reed Act deliberately chose 1890 as the key year in order to exclude the undesirable types of inferior immigrants.

Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution by natural selection had been warmly welcomed by racists in Washington and elsewhere. According to Darwin higher forms of life had developed from the lower ones and man was the highest form of all. Mankind was made of various races and not all races had progressed equally. Proponents of the Immigration Restriction League considered themselves as the acme of human perfection and they felt that America was destined to be the special reserve of superior human development.

The National Origins Law established for the first time permanent numerical restrictions upon immigration to the USA National quotas were to be based on the ethnic composition of the USA Prospective immigrants were required to obtain a sponsor living in the country and they needed a visa from an American consulate abroad before being allowed in. Aliens considered as ineligible for American citizenship were denied a visa and anybody caught contravening such requirements was to be deported.

The authorities in Malta were following such developments with intense interest. It became obvious that the Act of 1924 was to reduce Maltese emigration to the USA to a mere trickle.

Mr. Henry Casolani had been trying to obtain some concessions for Malta since 1922. The First Quota Law of 1921 had seriously hindered the flow of Maltese migration to the shores of America, and consequent legislation had reduced that flow to a mere trickle. Mr. Skinner, the American Consul General in London, had told Mr. Henry Casolani that the Maltese could not avail themselves of the generous quota allowed to emigrants from the United Kingdom. Instead, Mr. Skinner said, Malta had been placed with a group of miniscule countries known as "Other Europe" which was made up of Andorra, Iceland, Monaco and Liechtenstein. Under the Provisional Immigration Measure of 1921 those countries were allowed 86 emigrants to be shared between them.

The Superintendent of Emigration told Mr. Skinner that over 4,000 adult males and 900 women had emigrated from Malta to the USA during the two and a half years which had preceded the First Quota Law. Mr. Casolani also said that many other Maltese had entered the USA from other countries and the Emigration Department in Malta was unable to state exactly the numbers of such emigrants. However, although the Maltese presence in the USA was insignificant prior to 1910, the number of permanent Maltese resident in that country in 1921 was probably close to 6,000. The legislation signed by President Warren G. Harding ignored this fact.

In stark language the Maltese authorities were told that the supposed number of Maltese residing in the USA when the census of 1910 was taken up was calculated as being less than five hundred. This meant that Malta could only send fourteen emigrants each year. There was no guarantee that the fourteen emigrants which were allowed to procede to the USA would not be rejected by Immigration officers once they were examined on Ellis Island.

A large number of Maltese married men living in Detroit, New York and San Francisco, were caught unawares by the new restrictions. The insignificant quota of fourteen emigrants per year would make the chance of such families to be reunited very remote. The quota also excluded the possibility of sending unrelated emigrants to America.

The human hardship involved by such separations must have been very painful and many families must have suffered accordingly. Between 1918 and 1921, 900 Maltese women had left their Island to join their husbands and fathers in the USA There were now a large number of wives and children, fathers and mothers, fiancees and brothers and sisters who had every right to join their loved ones who were legally living in the USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.255.136 (talk) 10:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Americans and Imperialist Europeans spoke menacingly about the Yellow Peril threatening to swamp the world with millions of hungry Orientals. Theodore Roosevelt, President of the USA, urged japan not to issue passports to those Japanese who intended to emigrate to California.

Since 1894 opponents of unrestricted and non-selective immigration had banded themselves together in an influential Immigration Restriction league which clamoured for a policy based on racial selection. According to the people behind the League, the only acceptable types of immigrants were those originating from Great Britain, Scandinavia, Germany and North-Western Europe. European Latins and others were a threat the American nation because of their physical appearance, their language, culture and manners. Such foreigners were a potential danger to American democracy because they were unable to become respectable citizens. It was hard for such inferior people to respect private business and industry because many of them had been tainted with radical ideas. Particular antipathy was expressed towards immigrants from the Southern parts of Catholic Europe who were supposed to tain true Americanism with Romanism and Revolution.

The First Quota Law of May 19, 1921, was a capitulation to such bigotry. President Warren G. Harding gave in to pressure from the Immigration Restriction League when he limited the annual number of immigrants to 3% of the number of foreign-born persons of most nationalities living in the USA in 1910.

Eventually the League pressed for even stricter controls and in 1924 the Johnson-Reed Act was passed with the approval of President Calvin Coolidge. This Act drastically limited the intake of aliens. The Act also showed that America now sanctioned racial discrimination as it officially accepted the principle that not all nationalities were equal.

According to the Johnson-Reed Act only 150,000 were to be allowed in one year. A nationality was permitted to send 2% of the number of immigrants present in the USA in 1890. This was planned to allow most of the quota to go to nationalities from North and Western Europe. The South and the East of Europe were only allowed to send 20,000 immigrants per year. Only 4,000 non-Europeans were to he allowed entry. Naturalisation was denied to Orientals.

It was obvious that the Act had pushed the key census year from 1910 to 1890 because up to 1890 America still had a largely homogenous population, but after that year up to 1914 some 15,000,000 immigrants had entered the USA from the Middle East and from the South and the East of Europe. The Johnson-Reed Act deliberately chose 1890 as the key year in order to exclude the undesirable types of inferior immigrants.

Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution by natural selection had been warmly welcomed by racists in Washington and elsewhere. According to Darwin higher forms of life had developed from the lower ones and man was the highest form of all. Mankind was made of various races and not all races had progressed equally. Proponents of the Immigration Restriction League considered themselves as the acme of human perfection and they felt that America was destined to be the special reserve of superior human development.

The National Origins Law established for the first time permanent numerical restrictions upon immigration to the USA National quotas were to be based on the ethnic composition of the USA Prospective immigrants were required to obtain a sponsor living in the country and they needed a visa from an American consulate abroad before being allowed in. Aliens considered as ineligible for American citizenship were denied a visa and anybody caught contravening such requirements was to be deported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.250.54 (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes, this will be deleted if you don't make clear any specific, relevant changes to the United States overview article

Countries With Ties to the United States.

I would propose a change to the countries with "strong ties" to the United States. Certainly all those countries, I believe, belong in that category however there are a few others which have an equally or greater connection. I'm assuming that this would apply to governmental relations, given it is in the foreign relations category; Germany and the Philippines. In addition, I think there are several states in the baltic and caucuses region which have a large amount of military cooperation with the U.S. Perhaps there are other prerequisites to being included which I am not seeing.Lockeian (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Lockeian 4:25 June 5

How strong does it need to be? Does the fact that 3 of the largest 4 ancestry groups are Germany, Ireland, and England give us strong ties with those places? Military and political alliances by the President come and go with the tide, but Wikipedia is likely still regurgitating what we all saw on the History Channel and NBC news growing up. That is to say Russia is good and the Germans and Japan are bad, no wait the Germans and Japan are good and Russia is bad, no wait... I think we have strong ties with Russia now. What about the Indians? Oh I don't know... It all seems a little too opinionated and wish-washy to be on the main Wikipedia page. Int21h (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Could the article be more specific when it comes to countries with strong ties? For example, Canada is the largest (?) trading partner of the USA, or Israel has received large amounts of money for its military from the US for decades (?). Otherwise it is just meaningless.--GoodandTrue (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

United States Language

According to the page, English is the National language. According to a book I read, the States have no official language. It ain't English, Spanish, German, Czech, French, you name it. Not one language ever created is Our official. After all, we WERE formed by immigrants. Right? Ten987654321 (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I was just checking back here to see if there was any response to my post - and I'm not American. But the article says there's no official language (Note (a) and section 'Language'). To me a language is official if it's the one the state uses. But that's just my personal view. I find this page interesting: http://www.proenglish.org/ and this page is relevant: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_lang.html Ansotu (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"Official language" means there's a law saying a language is the official language. There's no law at the federal level making English the official language nationwide. Under the Tenth Amendment, this is then an issue for the individual states.--Coolcaesar (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"National language" is an out used to describe the language overwhelmingly used by a populace and by its government in the absence of a codified official language. The national language of the United States is English, for it has no official language. All federal government activity is conducted in English (if it is conducted in another language then it is in addition to English), and the vast majority of the citizens use it as a first or second language. Some states maintain official languages; some have codified English, and one has also codified Hawaiian. (According to Languages of the United States, French enjoys legal recognition in Maine and Louisiana, and Spanish in New Mexico, but none of the three has an official language) Some governments may issue papers in other languages as per the needs of their population, but this does not denote official recognition of a state language. According to the same article: "According to the 1990 census, 96% of U.S. residents speak English "well" or "very well". Only 0.8% speak no English at all as compared with 3.6% in 1890." --Golbez (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

English is our de facto national language is the idea I guess. Any attempts to make it official have failed afaik. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

the globe

on the map showing the usa (in green) Porto Rico is excluded, should this be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.184.133 (talk) 06:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is not part of the United States. You won't find it on a map of the country any more than you'd find Gibraltar on a map of the UK. --Golbez (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Err... yes it is, it's just not a state of the United States. You will find it in some maps, just not others which only show our states. Puerto Rico is thought of differently from our other territories. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not an incorporated territory; it is an organized, unincorporated territory with the status of commonwealth. It is under the American sphere of influence, and is a possession of the United States, but it is not a part of the United States. The United States consists of fifty states, one federal district, and one incorporated territory (Palmyra Atoll). The unincorporated territories (Puerto Rico, USVI, Guam, CNMI, etc.) are possessions, not integral parts, of the US. The comparison I like to draw is with the UK: Gibraltar and the Channel Islands and Man, etc., are possessions of the country but are fundamentally not *part* of it. --Golbez (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

As for thought differently: Yes, because it is so large. There's 4 million people there in a form of limbo, not being fully a part of the country but not being independent either. That doesn't change its fundamental status as an unincorporated territory. --Golbez (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

How can it not be part of the United States? While it is under the jurisdiction of the nation and does not maintain sovereignty it is as much part of the United States as an atoll. People born in Puerto Rico are also considered United States Citizens. It's also the only unincoporated territory shown on File:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County-1396x955.png; a map created by the federal government. I don't mind it not being included in the map, but denying that it is part of the United States seems a bit extreme. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 09:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

But "unincorporated territory" literally means it isn't part of the US. Hot Stop (c) 13:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That's true, Puerto Rico is not "part" of the United States because it is not a U.S. state. Puerto Rico voted to decline Statehood on at least one occasion, maybe more. They have their own flag and their own Olympic team (among other distinctions that set it apart from the US). You won't find it on most maps, just like you won't find Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or other U.S. territories on most maps, all protectorates of the U.S. and left over from events such as the Spanish-American War and World War II. They govern themselves autonomously, and they find it in their own defensive and economic self-interest to remain territories and it would be a major transition to grant full independence, so everybody is pretty satisfied with the status quo. They have all voted to remain under territory status, but only on detailed maps and atlases are the territories depicted, with the term "U.S. territory" in parentheses. Boneyard90 (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to address one point. While no states in the US have their own Olympic team, all have their own flags.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 11:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

To clarify: Puerto Rico has its own flag recognized in international forums. Individual U.S. states do not. Boneyard90 (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If I get your meaning, the same could be said of England, Scotland and Wales (international sports, yes?). :p

Sorry, but I'm not touching that with a 10-foot pole. My British friends are still trying to explain how the "United" Kingdom fits together. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

User boxes question

Moved to ---> Wikipedia talk:Userboxes#WHAT HAPPENED.Moxy (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Human Right Abuses

I need help restoring contents about human right violations and wars/murders committed by the government and also about the lies that Iraq endangered the world by its atomic bomb and weapons of mass murder like the ones USA have. Possibly up to 1 million people died in Operation Iraqi Liberation. I think they deserve to be mentioned here. This is serious and it's the least we can do. Please advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XxDestinyxX (talk • contribs) 10:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. See core policies WP:NOT, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Furthermore, there is already an article on the country's mediocre human rights record. The trend during the last five years has been towards SHORTENING this article, because everyone recognized that they had to sacrifice their own interests in the larger interest of readability. The article kept getting WAY too long because hundreds of Wikipedia editors have their own pet issue they wanted to include. The result is a compromise that no one is happy with. For example, there are at least eight different points that were cut out in those edits that I felt should have been included and of which three I personally believe are far more important than the issue of how many people got killed in the Iraq War. But there is simply no way to write an article that will (1) make all editors happy by including over 5,000 different factual points and (2) result in an article that any human being would actually want to read (since the result would be over 1,000,000 characters long). This is an encyclopedia, not a book-o-pedia; if people want that much information, they'd just go to the library and read a book on the United States. Ever heard the expression TMI? So we all have to make painful compromises. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the policy links, but I've read them, none of them contrary my text, you also can't implement some of these rules here, you realize it's a temporary discussion page, otherwise it will be like "Hey, I think we should... Oh-uh, give your phone nr I can't write my opinion here to improve the page, because of WP:NOT" and Mr Coolcaesar. The article you provided is for people intending to read it, it is not for those that doesn't know about these violation in advance. All violator countries have this section on their page. I know you think there are other things that are more important than the people murdered, for you they are just numbers, and I strongly disagree with you. Wikipedia says if a article is too long... Actualy it says if the article is significantly longer it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries. And that's what am gona do later. You also were wrong about "result in an article that any human being would actually want to read". Wikipedia says it's because of the loading time on dial-up and mobile browsers and other technical issues. I know you're thoughtful and only worried about the readers, but don't worry, I will make it in a way that doesn't make the size any bigger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XxDestinyxX (talk • contribs) 23:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

1 million people died in Operation Iraqi Liberation? Hahahaha, only just over 5,000 people died in the entire Iraqi war. Before you start trying to change article, let's get our facts straight shall we? Wikipedia is about giving the fact, not stressing the memorials of civilians that may or may not have been killed in a war. You should definitely get consencus before you put something like that in the article. I think there could be a lot of cleaning up to do, especially with your lack of grammar.--Jacksoncw (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Jacksonw, please respect WP:CIVIL. It is also very inadvisable to make unsolicited remarks about peoples' grammar as it reflects very poorly on you and can lead to similar remarks against you in the future. Also, please make sure you have your figures straight before criticising someone else's as no group has put the number that low... See Casualties of the Iraq_War. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Good to know that Iraqis don't qualify as 'people'. --Golbez (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I will refrain from this in the future. I meant to say that just over 5,000 Americans died in the Iraqi war. I still highly doubt that the death toll in the Iraqi war was even remotely close to 1 million. Clearly I am not trying to say that Iraqis aren't people, try not to over-dramatize. This is not a forum for debate, I am simply asking for proof from reliable sources of the death toll and human rights violations that you so avidly accuse Americans of committing before editing the article. Also, please stop self-righteously accusing people of not caring. As you did with Coolcaesar and I.--Jacksoncw (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Just making sure. It would have been better to put Americans then as saying people is very ambiguous and does not communicate the idea that you are just talking about Americans (especially when it was clear the 1 million mark was in reference to total Iraqi casualties, even if the number is only supported by one source. The HR violations are covered in the article that was linked, though it appears to be lacking in a fully NPOV (the wording is terrible). It's best to put an @ sign when you are talking to multiple users in the same post btw so people know which parts are meant for them. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

@Say Shalom! I did not notice the article linked in your previous post. Looking at it, the majority of the sources count the death toll as dramatically less than 1 million. Most sources count the total death toll as 1/10 of what Golbez proposed. I see no specific attributions of deaths to Human Rights violations that Golbez accuses. So my request for reliable sources on Human Rights Violations still stands.--Jacksoncw (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Part of making it clear who you're talking to is also making it clear who you're reading, because I ain't never said anything about the death toll, friendo. --Golbez (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Goodness, my reading comprehension skills are atrocious today. I mean to attrribute that to XxDestinyxX not Golbez.--Jacksoncw (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

@Shalom, Thank you so much for the clarifications, I really like accurate and detailed people.

@Golbez, This is very sad and unnecessary of you. If you ask yourself why you said that, you won't find any good reason. No 9/11, no WMD, no terror, until of course the war your government made. I guess the look and the language make us feel we're different, Otherwise 90% of the problems in the world would have been resolved, like Chechnya and Russia, Israel and Palestine, Kurdistan and Turkey Iran Syria, etc. We are all humans! The whole world must be one country if we really want peace. Anyways back to HR.

@Jacksoncw, It's ok, it happens sometimes. I think that's why you didn't notice the "Possibly" word in my first post which resulted in so much debate. I think you mean 5000 invaders, Iam much more sad about the civilians and the defenders (have no safe place to go to) than the invaders (have safe place) whom willingly went to kill and probably killed and got killed. Please stick to the subject human rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XxDestinyxX (talk • contribs) 00:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Second time in a day I've been apparently accused of writing something I didn't. (Though I can't figure out what our new friend thinks I wrote) Also, start signing your comments with ~~~~ so SineBot doesn't have all the fun. --Golbez (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the points made by XxDestinyxX at the top of this section can be dismised as political POV. They're accepted by millions. Polls say the majority of people in Britain and if I remember right also in The US. "70% say we were mislead into war" would be a typical newspaper report of such issues. Ansotu (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

@Ansotu XxDestinyxX is clearly biased because he refers to American troops as killers and claiming that they soley went there to kill and implying that they had no right to be there. He also takes every chance he gets to low shot Americans and their government. As I stated above, there seems to have been only around 150,000 casualties total in the war which is drastically less than the 1 million that destiny mentioned earlier. @ Destiny I still see no proof or source at all (much less reliable source) stating any human rights violations. I request that you provide at least someresearch or news report or something to back up your claim.--Jacksoncw (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"Of Asian origin"?

It seems inappropriate to address the Asiatic origin of American Indians by speaking of them as "indigenous people of Asian origins", as this implies that the American Indian population is still meaningfully an "Asian" one. If that same standard was to apply to the Asian population itself, then should not they be called African?

A more meaningful and historically accurate statement would be to say that peoples who became American Indians crossed the Bering Land Bridge in prehistory.24.42.93.217 (talk) 09:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, feel free to fix the problem.--Jacksoncw (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Prehistory isn't even descriptive enough. Between 20.000 and 10.000 BC. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 04:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

International Measurements

I see you still use imperial measures here. Should I change these to kilometres? How do people feel? Please see the England page where this has been raised. Details below. Ansotu (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"Just pointing out that this is a global encyclopedia - the article does not exist for the benefit of UK residents, or US residents, but everyone in the world, most of whom use kilometres. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEngland&action=historysubmit&diff=434774940&oldid=434774523

This now seems to be resolved. Although feel free to comment if you wish. English speakers use miles so it's best to put miles first in articles. Ansotu (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "English speakers"? Speakers from England, or people from anywhere who speak English? It seems odd to write such an absolute statement either way. Many people in both categories use kilometres. I'd have no argument with a claim that Americans use miles. HiLo48 (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Since Americans use miles, let's incorporate miles into the United States article. Since the UK uses Kilometers, let us incorporate them into UK countries. There was a similar solution on the debate of using B.C. and B.C.E. etc.--Jacksoncw (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No, not kilometers, but kilometres. Only those who don't actually use them spell it the former way. HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a false assumption. The U.S. military uses kilometers, and we spell it "kilometers". And we spell it that way because that's the standard American-English spelling. Boneyard90 (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, HiLo48, by 'english speakers' I meant native-English speakers. The people of The US, Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. I may be out of date on this unfortunately. I'm still checking this out. Hi, Jacksoncw, The UK uses miles not kilometres. Only kilometres are in the UK article, not one mention of miles, hence the issue being raised. And the USA article already has miles in it. Ansotu (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with the statement that "most people use kilometers". Even if it were so, we in the United States, for the most part, do not use them whatsoever. Note that in 100% of cars in america the Speed is gauged by Miles per hour and not Kilometers per hour. I see no issue at all in using Miles and only Miles seeing as that is the United States standard.--Jacksoncw (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

What an odd discussion. We have one American, saying about kilometers (his spelling), "we in the United States, for the most part, do not use them whatsoever." We have another saying "The U.S. military uses kilometers..." Given the size of the US military, and the number of veterans among the general population, it seems unlikely that both those statements could be true. Whatever, having driven in America, it's obvious that the roads are signposted in miles and miles per hour, so again, I'd have no argument with a claim that Americans use miles. So miles can quite validly be the primary units in an article on America, but conversions should also be shown for those from elsewhere who not familiar with miles. And that's not just native English speakers in the US, Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. There are plenty of native English speakers in Israel, South Africa, Sri Lanka and India. And there are now masses of people with English as a usable second language in many countries, including India, Pakistan, China and across Europe. That builds the numbers up very quickly.

I am not sure wether it is true that the United States Military uses Kilomoters. If that is the case, there are only around 2 million active military personale in the U.S. Military which is less than .5% of the population.--Jacksoncw (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Still an odd conversation. I made a statement about "the size of the US military, and the number of veterans among the general population", and the response ignored more than half my words. (Oh, and 2 million would be closer to 0.7%.) I must add that I don't have any strong points to make here any more, but cannot come to grips with the (lack of) logic in the discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify, The US Army (and I believe Marines) use "kilometers" in terms of marching distance, as military maps are divided into grid-squares, scaled to 1 square km each. The distance over terrain is thus seen on a map in terms of km. Perhaps you've heard of the military slang for a km; it's: "Klick (kilometer)", as in, "We marched 20 klicks with full gear." Also, such things as the range of a rifle or adjusting mortar and artillery fire is gauged in terms of meters. So, a rifle range has targets ranging from 50 to 300 meters. Once we're driving or whatever, in civilian mode, distances and speeds are discussed in terms of miles. So veterans will still use miles in most cases, but are familiar with meters and kilometers, especially as regarding visible distance. We don't talk so often about one town being so many km from another, or how fast a car goes in km/hr. The point I was making was regarding spelling. The statement was made (by HiLo48, I believe) that people who use km spell it "kilometre", and I was pointing out that it was a false statement; US military personnel can use kilometers, mostly under specific contexts, and we spell it "kilometers". Boneyard90 (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Just use both and put this issue to rest.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering why this is an issue. There a "convert" template, after all. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Metrication in the United States. The kilometer/kilometre deal is a theater/theatre thing. (I still run into "slug" as a unit of mass) - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Faux Gini "category"

Seems to be that time of year when an effort is made to introduce that perennial, the faux Gini "category"—in the case of the United States, invariably "high." Sadly, just because the editor in question happens to think the U.S. figure is high and just because I happen to think it's high, as well, doesn't mean we're allowed to call it "high" without an authoritative source that places it in that category. Some other individual might look at the figure relative to others around the world and decide that it's "medium." Someone else might say "medium-high." No one has ever provided an authoritative basis for these Gini categorizations that seem to be popular among country infoboxes. Yes, they are popular, but they still fail our sourcing and verifiability standards.—DCGeist (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

White presidents...

...is a useless statement because it stands alone - we say that Barack Obama was black earlier, but this statement seems random without that being restated. So either both statements must be in, or both must go away. It's already said earlier in the article that he's black, I don't see the need to specify that the 43 previous were white. That's not news. --Golbez (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The more crucial part of the datum there is that every U.S. president to date has been a man.—DCGeist (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Then state it outright, and remove the bit about ancestry. --Golbez (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me.—DCGeist (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Technically and historically the US is not a secular country

"The United States is officially a secular nation; the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion and forbids the establishment of any religious governance."

First. Historically and including in 8 current state Constitutions a politician must believe in God but is not subjected to any religious test regarding denomination. Modern times the Constitution has been interrupted differently to say even non-believers may be politicians.

Second. Wikipedia definition of secular is the state being separate from religion. This does not describe the US nor is it comparable to the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution nor does the word secular appear in the US Constitution. The US state has not established a religion but it is still religious in that its laws were influenced by religion, In God We Trust is the motto, religious holidays are recognized, and politicians have the right to religion.

The section should be revised, accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.199.188 (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

In response to your first point, the state constitutions do not represent policy of the nation itself. The Massachusetts constitution is only the policy of Massachusetts, the Texas constitution is only the policy of Texas, neither is the policy of the United States itself. Officially, no religious test is required by the United States to serve in office, and no law mandates a belief in God to serve in office. Whether the electorate is likely or not to elect an atheist isn't relevant to the legal status of the US as secular. As for your second point, there is copious amounts Supreme Court case history and legal interpretations of the US Constitution establishing that the First Amendment does, in fact, separate the state from the church (at least as far back as Everson v. Board of Education). The US is comparable to this, as opposed to a nation like the UK (which has a state religion, and requires that its head of state be a protestant), or Iran (which has religious mandated laws). The US has neither. That "secular" doesn't appear within the Constitution doesn't mean the US isn't secular. Your points about the motto and religious holidays are somewhat interesting, but tend to be non-denominational or not mandating practice of said religious holidays. Politicians having the right to religion has no relevance at all. A secular state does not require that politicians be atheist, it requires that their actions not be motivated by religion alone. For example, murder is not illegal in the United States only because of the Ten Commandments, but also because of non-religious moral and humanist arguments that became part of Common Law. US politicians are also not required to be religious (thus, they have a right to be non-religious), whereas in the UK Parliament there are seats in the House of Lords that are mandated to members of the Anglican Church, and as said earlier, the head of state is required to be a protestant. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You know I notice people use technically to mean in practice when it means as fact and by law. This is one of those cases. Technically speaking we are secular, practically speaking, we are not. @OP: Your reasons are filled with WP:OR, and more specifically WP:SYNTH I am afraid. @Quro: We all know that the Monarch must be Protestant so as to prevent the damnable Stuarts from returning. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 21:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The one point on this topic that could be argued from that lead sentence is in the section "...guarantees the free exercise of religion..." It's a fine gesture, but does it guarantee the free non-exercise of religion, or the exercise of atheism? Is the requirement for people in office to swear the oath "In God we trust" absolute? Or can one refuse? HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

First, it's "so help me God", not "in God we trust" that exists in the oaths of office. Second, as someone who took the oath of enlistment twice, I can assure you it's optional. I know people who swore "so help me Goddess". --Carbondate (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This is more for the RefDesk. Atheism is a religious belief, a little different from others, but it is still a belief. "free exercise" means do what you like. The addition of under God was during the Cold War-era. As for the oath of office, you should ask some gov office. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 23:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. Constitution doesn't separate church and state but no religion can be made the official faith of the United States. The Constitution conspicuously omits any reference to God. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-4-the-constitution-doesnt-separate-church-and-state/240481/ Mightymights (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Coroborous states: "...there is copious amounts Supreme Court case history and legal interpretations of the US Constitution establishing that the First Amendment does, in fact, separate the state from the church (at least as far back as Everson v. Board of Education)." Not only has there only been a few supreme court cases in which justices have interpreted the first amendment like that, but there have been just as many Supreme Court rulings in which it has been interpreted as not separating the church and state. I would also like to point out that when Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter stating something about a wall of separation between the church and state that everyone loves to misquote, misattribute and misinterpret, he was referring to the Nation, not the individual states. He believed that it was up to the states themselves to require religion or not. The United States has no official religion, which is how it was intended and how it should remain, but it certainly is no "secular". We should change the terminology, but I agree that we have no official religion.--Jacksoncw (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"Not only has there only been a few supreme court cases in which justices have interpreted the first amendment like that, but there have been just as many Supreme Court rulings in which it has been interpreted as not separating the church and state." Can you cite one such case? I'll cite Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971, which established the "Lemon test" for legislation regarding religion. Follow the link, I'm sure you'll find the standards enlightening. --Carbondate (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that depends on how one defines a secular state. The functions of the United States government are separate from the functions of religion, although there are some state-sponsored religious charities which must meet certain non-discriminatory standards in how they distribute their charity. For perhaps the best example of how the separation of church and state is codified into law, look to the tax exemption for religious organizations. In exchange for paying no taxes, churches are required to be officially non-partisan and cannot endorse candidates for elected office. Churches often do this anyway, but they're not supposed to. As to religious requirements to hold elected office in eight state constitutions, the U.S. Constitution still over-rules anything written in a state constitution. On the other hand, if you define a secular state as an officially atheist state, then no, it is not that, either. --Carbondate (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

@Carbondate: As soon as I recieve my book in the mail with the source I will cite such cases. I would also like to say that secularity is the absence of religion. In this case, the United States is not secular because, while it has no official religion, a majority of the citizens claim a religion and previously in our history states have claimed official religions. The constitution specifically leaves it up to the state wether or not to include religion in its government. You cannot rightly call the United States a secular nation, especially with a motto like "In God We Trust".--Jacksoncw (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Secular state is what allows practice of different religions, or non-practice of any. The United States allows this therefore it is a secular nation. Calling it non-secular would be judging on impressions, In God We Trust or anything else does not make any requirements to citizens. E.g. There are no punishments for breaking religious code of dressing, and there is no such thing in the United States. Also, noone is punished for not practicing an official religion or for practicing an other. Secular is a legal term referring to the legal system (religion is different from the state, no church organ like Bishop Assembly is identifyable with e.g. the Constitutional Court), not to the culture. The United States has a religious culture. This culture promotes religion. The legal system is still secular. N.11.6 (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

N.11.6, I would love to know where you got that definition because never have I heard secular described that way. I got my definition from definitions.com which states that it is the absence of religion which, as I stated, is not the case in the United states. No, we do not have an official religion, but we are not secular, the United States cannot be described as a place that is absent of religion.--Jacksoncw (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"definitions.com" is a website for personal gym trainers, not dictionary definitions. dictionary.reference.com does not define it as an absence of religion, but as something not connected to or pertaining to religion. Merriam Webster defines it as not overtly religions, not bound to monastic rules, not ecclesiastical or clerical, etc. Oxford defines it as not connected with religion, or not bound by religious rules, etc. All of these match N.11.6's definition, and none match yours. None call it an absence of religion. That would be atheism. While an atheist state would be a secular state, a secular state need not be atheist. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with the definitions N.11.6 and OuroborosCobra are using. The Constitution defines the structure and supreme laws of a secular system of government.

In Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) Justice Hugo Black explains this was always the intent (330 U.S. 1,8)...

The First Amendment, as made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth, Murdock, 319 U.S. 105, commands that a state 'shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' These words of the First Amendment reflected in the minds of early Americans a vivid mental picture of conditions and practices which they fervently wished to stamp out in order to preserve liberty for themselves and for their posterity. Doubtless their goal has not been entirely reached;... Once again, therefore, it is not inappropriate briefly to review the background and environment of the period in which that constitutional language was fashioned and adopted."

Hugo's brief review is a ten page history lesson and definite must read. Really. Read it. You know you wanna...(330 U.S. 1,8)

In closing he uses the phrase that "everyone loves to misquote, misattribute [sic] and misinterpret"...

The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it here. AFFIRMED.

The decision in Everson was 5-4 with Justices Frankfurter, Jackson, Rutledge and Burton dissenting. The following year in McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948), all four reversed (333 U.S. 203,212)....

Separation means separation, not something less. Jefferson's metaphor in describing the relation between Church and State speaks of a 'wall of separation,' not of a fine line easily overstepped. The public school is at once the symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny. In no activity of the State is it more vital to keep out divisive forces than in its schools, to avoid confusing, not to say fusing, what the Constitution sought to keep strictly apart.

We renew our conviction that 'we have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion.'

Secular by definition and design but more practice is needed. Wacky but I like it. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense, I agree. But I would like to point out, again, that in the quote "wall between church and state" is referring to the State of the Union, not each of the individual states. And by not allowing people to publicly pray in school it is a blatant breach of the First Amendment. Not allowed to pray in school (along with other laws made) = Prohibited from free practice of religion, so I cannot agree with you that "more practice is needed". --Jacksoncw (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no ban on practice of religion in school by students. There is a ban of staff organized practice of religion, which would be state practice of religion and not citizen practice of religion. Get the laws right before you denounce them. In addition, this is a discussion on whether the United States as a country is secular, not on state by state practices and laws. This is also not an article on the debate of school prayer. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your first point, at the time First Amendment it did not apply to the individual states. On your second point.... What!? Who is not allowing people to pray in school? What laws are prohibiting free practice of religion? - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

What is ensured by the first amendment of the constitution, is that a kid cannot be forbidden to pray, privately, between classes. What is forbidden is making a group praying compulsory, under one church or religion. This is also ensured by the first amendment, which makes freedom of religion, therefore makes the United States a secular country. N.11.6 (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Rebellion vs. Revolution

In the third graph, the word "rebellious" is used to describe the American Revolution. This word has a negative suggestion to it, and should not be used. Instead, the phrase should read, "The issuance of the Declaration of Independence led to the American Revolution, which saw the colonies defeat the British Empire, the first successful colonial war of independence."

A similar section of the article "India" describes a "nationwide struggle for independence." The article "Mexico" describes conflict between armed troops, but never once uses the word "rebellion" in its dealings with Spain. Yet, the article "Texas" uses the word "revolt" several times to describe it's war of independence from Mexico. It seems that negative words like "revolt" and "rebellion" are used to deal with articles that refer to the United States, but other, more respecting words are used when describing other nations' struggle for independence.

This shows an anti-American attitude among these articles that are reportedly "neutral". The word "rebellion" is used only three times in the "Confederate States of America" article, and two of those references were in the "Relations with the United States" section, where one would naturally assume the word would appear more than just a few times, as the United States considered the CSA in rebellion. Generally, "rebellion" is used when an armed conflict for independence is unsuccessful, while "revolution" is used when the struggle is successful. Can someone tell me how to dispute an article's neutrality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.101.69.77 (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Deciding which words have negative and positive connotations can be a difficult area. I'm certain it varies around the world, and it varies depending on whose side we're on. I don't see a problem with using the word rebellious in connection with the American Revolution, but I'm from a very different part of the world. The USA has opposed a few revolutions over the years and supported a few rebellions. The middle east right now delivers a few classic examples. HiLo48 (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point. I'd think many Americans (myself included) might actually prefer (or wouldn't have a problem with) "rebellion/revolt/revolutionary" type labels applied when referencing the Revolution. The Civil War is a very different topic. I have only myself as a source. Your mileage my vary. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The American Revolution is as much a struggle for freedom as it is a rebellion, in fact they normally go hand in hand anywhere. Had we lost we it would've been known in history books as the American rebellion. It's totally irrelevant too to compare it to the Indian independence movement as that movement was never a full on war against British control, except for once in what is fittingly called The Indian 'Rebellion' of 1857 TheMadcapSyd (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Paul.hargarten, 5 July 2011

In 1492, Genoese explorer Christopher Columbus, under contract to the Spanish crown, reached several Caribbean islands, making first contact with the indigenous people. On April 2, 1513, Spanish conquistador Juan Ponce de León landed on what he called "La Florida"—the first documented European arrival on what would become the U.S. mainland. Spanish settlements in the region were followed by ones in the present-day southwestern United States that drew thousands through Mexico. French fur traders established outposts of New France around the Great Lakes; France eventually claimed much of the North American interior, down to the Gulf of Mexico. The first successful English settlements were the Virginia Colony in Jamestown in 1607 and the Pilgrims' Plymouth Colony in 1620. The 1628 chartering of the Massachusetts Bay Colony resulted in a wave of migration; by 1634, New England had been settled by some 10,000 Puritans. Between the late 1610s and the American Revolution, about 50,000 convicts were shipped to Britain's American colonies.[29] Beginning in 1614, the Dutch settled along the lower Hudson River, including New Amsterdam on Manhattan Island.

Paul.hargarten (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Please copy picture from question #2

Found in the History Section under "Native Americans and European settlers".

Text is very descriptive, but confusing to follow. A visual map, one of which can be copied from the Internet, would help clarify the text. It can be placed under the text or to the right of the next paragraph, as the editors of the article see fit.

If the picture is in violation of copyright for any reason, please select another photo that the text describes.

Source of picture: Macmillian/McGraw-Hill Chpater 4 Quiz. <http://www.mhschool.com/ss/ca/esp/g5/u4/g5u4_quiz.html>

Not done: I am going to assume that that picture is under a copyright of some sort. While I agree the text is a little confusing I do not see a way of making it easier at the moment. If you find a picture that is within Wikipedia:Image use policy feel free to re-open this request and someone will look at it again. Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.226.171.2, 6 July 2011

I am requesting that the following be added in the 'Popular Media' section, right above the succeeding section, 'Literature, philosophy, and the arts'

"The popular American TV show Wipeout best represents American spirit and valour in contemporary popular media. While bipartisanship efforts in the House and Senate are currently hard to come by, Wipeout may present the country's best hope of reunification. Picture this: Uncle Sam throwing apple pies at contestants dressed up as the statue of liberty as they try to jump over a sweeper arm on a revolving carousel covered in whipped cream. While this may sound far-fetched, this scenario has already taken place on the show's patriotic special episode that took place on July 5, 2011. American spirit was at an all-time high."

Thanks! 173.226.171.2 (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No. --Golbez (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

POV?

Since DCGeist decided to not follow rule one of Wikipedia by claiming that my removal was "Baseless," I wanted to put my question here. Is the sentence regarding Barack Obama, "All previous presidents were men of solely European descent" at all necessary for this article? I'm not doubting the validity of the statement, because it is true. But is there any purpose to placing this statement haphazardly in there when the paragraph reads just fine without it? I don't see why there's any reason to continue to shove the "HEY, LOOK, HE'S AFRICAN AMERICAN" point across any more than the election already has.

You might say that it is is NPOV and I am actually the POV one by not wanting it included, but I thought this was an encyclopedia. Imo, an article should strive to be solely informational and as concise as possible so as to avoid any possible POV, including my own. THIS is why I nominate this sentence for deletion because it is extraneous material.

--Krakaet (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say calling an edit 'baseless' is being a dick, in fact I would posit that calling someone a dick for calling an edit baseless is kind of dickish. That said, it was discussed a few sections up, though I've been too lazy to implement it. Though now that I think of it, there's no reason to point out the maleness either. Removing. --Golbez (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the "men" word was meant to be the important part of that sentence, but the rather "European descent" that followed. Not saying I agree or disagree with removing it, just thought I'd point that out. - SudoGhost™ 14:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What Sudo said. Really the whole sentence, imo, is unnecessary because, as I said, it is extraneous and, correct me if I'm wrong, but one good way to keep an encyclopedia free from POV is to keep entries concise and without statements that seem oddly placed regardless of their validity. --Krakaet (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

POV Issues

I'm noticing what I believe to be some significant / structural POV issues in the article. Here are some examples:

• The paragraph on the American welfare state under Income and human development: This paragraph serves only to unfavorably compare the American welfare state with those of other countries. It goes without saying that communicating a preference for welfare states in a Wikipedia article violates WP:NPOV. I added a {{POV-statement}} template to that paragraph for reference.
• The paragraph on life expectancy under Health: "The United States life expectancy of 77.8 years at birth is a year shorter than the overall figure in Western Europe, and three to four years lower than that of Norway, Switzerland, and Canada. Over the past two decades, the country's rank in life expectancy has dropped from 11th to 42nd in the world. The infant mortality rate of 6.37 per thousand likewise places the United States 42nd out of 221 countries, behind all of Western Europe. Approximately one-third of the adult population is obese and an additional third is overweight; the obesity rate, the highest in the industrialized world, has more than doubled in the last quarter-century. Obesity-related type 2 diabetes is considered epidemic by health care professionals." This paragraph - included here in complete form! - is composed entirely of criticism, and gives the impression that health in the United States is literally crumbling to pieces, which is not true according to any objective analysis.
• The paragraph on health care coverage under Health: "Unlike in all other developed countries, health care coverage in the United States is not universal. [...] A 2009 study estimated that lack of insurance is associated with nearly 45,000 deaths a year." Once again, the facts are positioned in favor of one and only one conclusion (namely, that universal health care is normatively favorable to all other systems and should be implemented in the United States).

An underlying issue, which has less to do with ideology and more to do with focus/emphasis, is the overwhelmingly critical approach adopted in talking about aspects of the United States. For instance, the lead section on Culture uses a "yes, but..." structure, as if every supposed virtue of American culture must be exposed as a mirage. Take these excerpts from that section:

• "While the mainstream culture holds that the United States is a classless society, scholars identify significant differences between the country's social classes"
• "Americans' self-images, social viewpoints, and cultural expectations are associated with their occupations to an unusually close degree."
• "Though the American Dream, or the perception that Americans enjoy high social mobility, plays a key role in attracting immigrants, various studies indicate that the United States has less social mobility than Canada and the Nordic countries."

I mean all respect to the countries of the world, but comparing the United States, feature for feature, with the Nordic countries (as is done in the welfare state paragraph) is simply not an encyclopedic approach. What is lacking is not a patriotic, nationalistic ode to America - what's lacking is the balanced, macroscopic viewpoint that actually considers the overall situation and its major characteristics. I'd like to hear some more viewpoints on this issue, as well as ideas for changes to the article. Thanks for reading. Pengkeu (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You make good points and I agree. The comparative approach is only useful in certain articles, mostly with hard numbers, as when perhaps a battle or natural disaster is put into perspective by comparing number of deaths or property damage with other incidents. But in this case, the encyclopedia entry should be descriptive, not comparative. If the reader is interested, he or she can look up the other articles as needed, or I'm sure there's a relevant list somewhere on Wikipedia. From a personal perspective, I get a little tired of comparisons to Western Europe anyway, as ethnically speaking, about 1/3 of Americans today have little or no connection to European countries. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Some points... It's perfectly normal to compare countries with others in articles like this. Statements like "...ranks xth among OECD countries for..." (or similar groupings) are expected. While the ancestral backgrounds of many Americans may not now be European, the background of the culture still is. The fact that the USA's health care system differs so much from those of other developed countries is highly important. The impact can be documented in different ways, but the negatives cannot be ignored. If you have some positives to add, please do so. The same suggestion applies to the other areas. HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

With regards to the health care policy as an example, you are correct in that it varies significantly from that of that of other countries. But it's one thing to say that American health is poor or that spending is high - it's another to say that the American approach is aberrant and implicitly dangerous because it is not universal. I understand what you mean about giving world context to the United States (5000th in health care, 1st in GDP, 20th in education, etc. etc.) I support comparisons with the world as a whole (i.e. members of the United Nations) and developed nations. You could even throw in the G20 for comparison. There are strong reasons for comparing with these groups. That's not the problem. The problem is singling out specific regions that are "better" than the United States. Consider the difference between these hypothetical sentences with fabricated facts: "The American highway system is relatively safe, but falls behind those of South Korea, Romania, Germany, and Switzerland. It is only marginally better than that of Mexico." and "The American highway system is relatively safe, ranking 8th among the 58 nations with developed highway systems." The later is actually more informative, and vastly more objective. Pengkeu (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Peng, also, I would add that the current statement about Universal Health Care clearly implies that it is the best or better than the current plan that the United states is using. HiLo, this is not a forum for debate over what health care system is better, the statement is unnecessary and not NPOV.--Jacksoncw (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not debating any issue at all. I agreed that there were negatives, and invited people with better knowledge than me to add positives. Do I detect paranoia? HiLo48 (talk) 07:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that a large number of the detracting statements can be worded more objectively - less as value judgments and more as contextual comparisons. Verifiable statements that may cast a negative light on the United States can and should be included, but must not be introduced for the sole purpose of counterpoint or criticism. Similarly, positive statements run the risk of subjective idealism, and must be factual and carefully referenced. In other words, the way to correct any perceived imbalances in a highly partisan article is not to introduce more partisanship, which results in escalation (negativity --> positive response --> negative response --> very positive response --> extraordinary negative response --> complete partisanship), but to find a common ground that is as objective and uncontroversial as possible. Ideally, this article wouldn't take a significantly "positive" or "negative" approach. Pengkeu (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Comparisons can be useful, but without significant context a comparison to a single other country doesn't present a great amount of information. A comparison with the rest of the world usually can give much better information than say some statistic is above or below another particular country. If relevant, smaller comparisons are also useful, such as comparing the Economy to say other G8 members, or even the other two NAFTA members. Perhaps if we simply removed the individual comparisons and replaced it with a wider comparison this would make the article much more objective? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Pizzlepaps, 8 July 2011

Paragraph four, first section of 'United States'.

"Through the 19th century, the United States displaced native tribes, acquired land from France, Spain, the United Kingdom, Mexico, and Russia, and annexed the Republic of Texas and the Republic of Hawaii."

The United Kingdom link leads to Oregon Country page instead of the United Kingdom page.

Pizzlepaps (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there's no reason for decietful wikilinks. The point that was originally trying to be communicated was that Oregon was acquired from the (then) british empire. Only servers to confuse. now. I'll make the change. i kan reed (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Then why call it deceitful, which is a personal attack on the original editors? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No. The links decieve the reader into thinking they go elsewhere. I never said a thing about editors deceiving the reader. Not all adjectives are intended to be about people. You don't need to read a layer of meaning beyond what I literally said. i kan reed (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the internet, when the word is not used for a person, it implies intent. It's different to say "the links deceived" and "the links were deceitful". The latter implies a motive. I agree that it looked odd to call them deceitful, but I also see that wasn't remotely your intent. Dictionary definitions are hardly something to get into a fight over. Let's move on. --Golbez (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree (though I guess the point is rather moot now). The links as they were previously weren't deceitful; they were more informative than they currently are. For someone unfamiliar with US history, links back to the current manifestations of those countries would prove even more deceitful: the US added to its territory from the First French Empire, the Russian Empire, etc. and not from modern France and Russia.Mosemamenti (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mosemamenti and am restoring the long-standing, far more informative links.—DCGeist (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, ok, but it does violate some guidelines. i kan reed (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:EGG being one of those guidelines. - SudoGhost™ 02:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Economy

At the end of the second paragraph in the economy section it says: "The United States ranks second in the Global Competitiveness Report.[73]" while according to the Global Competitiveness Report article, the US is no longer second, instead it is fourth. --190.25.50.62 (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I updated it to the current ranking for 2010-2011. Thanks for pointing it out. -- Luke ^Talk 05:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Political Divisions

"One set of exceptions comprises Vermont, Texas, and Hawaii: each was an independent republic before joining the union." For completeness, California should probably be added to this list, perhaps with a qualifier (eg, short-lived, not recognized by other nations). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.6.194.230 (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I added it. Hot Stop (c) 03:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really; Hawaii and Texas were undisputedly countries, and Vermont probably qualifies, but the "Republic of California" was so short-lived and irrelevant as to not merit mention, any more than West Florida would. --Golbez (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Two Party System

I would like to address section 4.1. The United States does not use a two party system. Nowhere in rule or law does the country define itself as 'a two party system'. United States Constitution We are a multi-party country where any party can run for office. Just because the Republicans and Democrats have dominated the political system for X amount of years doesn't mean they now are the only two choices as the paragraph suggests.

It would be better to write that we are a democracy that is open to all parties while two parties have a dominate position regardless of reason. Sluglg1 (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The term is not a legal term, it is a descriptive term of the form of government being practiced. (As the relevant link underlines.) Democracies, by definition, are open to all parties. The term refers to a political system where two parties dominate politics, for whatever reason. Contrast this to, say, Canada, also open to all parties but where a multi-party system is in operation. Other systems include dominant-party systems, non-partisan systems and single-party systems (typically non-democratic). Canada Jack (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Canada. Slug, you may want to read up on effective number of parties, of which the United States has two. As the article states, "The number of parties equals the effective number of parties only when all parties have equal strength." This is not the case in the United States, where the Democratic and Republican Parties have more strength than the Green, Constitution, and Communist Parties (among others). In fact, they wield so much more strength than the others that they are the only effective parties. Pengkeu (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

As has been said, the two party system doesn't define legally what the US is, it describes the pragmatic state of politics in the nation, and the US is by far not the only nation described as a two party nation. Yes there are other political parties, many of them holding local office. Pragmatically though there's two dominant parties, two overwhelmingly dominant parties. Even in nations where smaller parties may hold a few seats in their parliaments/congresses/assemblies, if two parties alone command an overwhelming amount of vote and representation total it'd still be described as a two party system.TheMadcapSyd (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Resolved

"Since 1776, the United States of America is widely considered to be God's favorite country." - funny, but needs to be removed Silverstreet82 (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure it was meant to read "Dog's favorite country". Oh well, removing it works too. i kan reed (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It sounds better to include the word "country" in the beginning of the intro

Why did Golbez revert my edit, what is wrong to call usa a country, what is so special with usa that makes it a "non country" anyway am well informed about that not all country articles on wikipedia describe it as a country but if someone changes it to a country whats the big problem here Golbez ? Shanesterman (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It's certainly a lot simpler than England, Scotland and the United Kingdom, etc. HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to add "country" to the first sentence, as that fact is already glaringly obvious.

It is poor English to add "country" to the first sentence, as that yields the awkward phrase "The United States is a country and federal constitutional republic...", as if it could possibly be a federal constitutional republic but somehow not a country. (Consider this analogous construction: "Barack Obama is a human being and the 44th and current President of the United States.")

It is redundant to add "country" to the first sentence, as the word appears at the beginning of the very next sentence.

In sum, this is a counterproductive suggestion and I have reverted it, just as Golbez properly did.—DCGeist (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Political divisions section

The Political divisions section and its accompanying map, which have resided for some years roughly mid-article, following the Government and elections section, were recently moved up and made a subsection of the Geography section.

There was no discussion of the move, and I have mixed feelings about it. While I think it's nice to have the map appear higher up in the article, the text of the section/subsection naturally flows (or flowed) from the History and Government and elections sections that formerly preceded it. I wonder if the text is now confusing or more "difficult" in its new position.

What are people's thoughts? Do you prefer the new position or the old position? If you prefer the new position, do you feel any adjustments need to be made to the text?—DCGeist (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Broken link

I found out, that the first link to UK in this article is broken. I don't know how to repair it, if anyone does, please do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.0.223.151 (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey look, another person confused by the links in the intro. I think it's time we came to a full consensus about whether we're going to allow WP:EGG links. I say we don't. If no one responds I'm going to be bold and fix it a day or two from now. i kan reed (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. I don't know who thought it'd be a good idea to have something say United Kingdom but link to Oregon Country, but as far as WP:EGG's make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link goes, there is absolutely no way a reader would expect Oregon Country when clicking on United Kingdom. - SudoGhost 14:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but I made the change a while back at the request of another confused editor, and it got reverted. I'd like to build a bit of a consensus so there's a legimate point to unreverting and pointing at the talk page. i kan reed (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where it was reverted back, did the editor that restored it to Oregon Country provide an explanation? - SudoGhost 14:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• The previous no-consensus discussion regarding this subject is located in the archives i kan reed (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with those links being there, but the description needs to be rewritten if they're going to stay. The only people those links aren't confusing seem to be people already very familiar with the subject matter. I'm posting a rewrite below before putting it on the article, mainly because I'm unsure that Alta California is the best description.

Through the 19th century, the United States displaced native tribes, acquired the Louisiana territory from France, Florida from Spain, the Oregon Country from the United Kingdom, Alta California and New Mexico from Mexico, Alaska from Russia, and annexed the Republic of Texas and the Republic of Hawaii.

It's a more thorough description, and won't confuse readers the same way the current version seems to. Any objections to this? - SudoGhost 13:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That's much better, actually, great! i kan reed (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I was the one who reverted, on the basis that links to France, Spain, etc., are quite low-quality in context and that preserving high-quality links—whose selection and inclusion is a fundamental principle of our approach to linking—is a much more important consideration than EGG, though one that often involves a greater degree of analysis and judgment.

SudoGhost's latest proposal maintains the high-quality links. While it might be felt that the level of detail it brings in is too much for the lede, it is not glaringly excessive, and I'm ready to support it in the interest of consensus and stability. Two changes:

(1) I would say "part of the Oregon Country", as a substantial part of the territory defined by that name remained in British hands.

(2) While I think Alta California is the appropriate term in this context, I would change the piped link there from the long-standing "Mexican-American War" to the more specific and immediately relevant "Mexican Cession".

Thanks, SudoGhost, for putting some thought into this and coming up with a viable solution.—DCGeist (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of Details

When looking through Wiki on both the 'People's Republic of China' page and the 'United States' page, China was listed as the world's third- or fourth-largest country by total area, depending on the definition of what is included in that total, and the second largest by land area, and had the following areas listed for its square miles. (3.7 million square miles) (3,704,427 sq mi)

The United States, on the other hand, is also listed as the third or fourth largest country by total area, and the third largest by land area, yet had the following square miles indicated. (3.79 million square miles) (3,794,101 sq mi)

As 3,794,101 sq miles for the US is larger than the 3,704,427 sq miles listed for China, and my understanding of both articles is that these figures are representing the total land area not total overall, or land and water area, would not the US be considered 2nd largest and China 3rd largest?

If, on the other hand, I am misunderstanding the information given, it is quite possible that others might also misunderstand, so a clarification to prevent this from happening in the future might be in order.

Scottiish Trekker (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

First, you are indeed misunderstanding the information given in the United States article. The figure of 3.79 million square miles is for total area (land and water). That is stated plainly in the main text, and there is no indication that other people are frequently misunderstanding that fact. In the infobox, it says simply "Total". It would be nice if we could make that "Total (land and water)" for greater clarity, but as far as I can tell the template does not allow for that.

Second, the main text plainly states that the 3.79 million square miles calculation is one of three authoritative calculations for the total area of the U.S.; the other two calculations happen to place the country's total size below that of China, "depending on how two territories disputed by China and India are counted," as the article states.

In sum, when discussing national areas, "total" is customarily used for "land and water" (i.e., "overall") area, not for land area alone. We never speak of "total land area", as you do, but simply "land area" where that is relevant. Hope that clears things up for you.—DCGeist (talk) 07:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

Let's fix these things, mark when you fix them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/United_States/archive4

Fix what exactly? The lede, for instance, is by no means too long. The reviewer's opinions about the article's structure are just that--personal opinions, not identifications of objective problems. I happen to disagree with many of the editor's opinions about structure. And so forth.

If you see something that indisputably needs fixing, by all means fix it. If you'd like to start a discussion about what you see as potential improvements, please do see here and name the specifics.—DCGeist (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Error in homicide comparison figures

I was looking at the figure showing the compared homicide rate in different developed countries. Here are the stats for the EU countries, from the European Comission. Although for most cases the numbers given in the figure in the article match the EU data, the rate for Spain is clearly totally wrong and needs correcting!. Greetings --XanaG (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Not only is that a gross error you caught, but the table is now significantly out-of-date with 7-year-old statistics. Given the combination of those factors, I'm removing it. If anyone expert at table creation would like to create a replacement figure with more current data, it would be greatly appreciated.—DCGeist (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of Details

When looking through Wiki on both the 'People's Republic of China' page and the 'United States' page, China was listed as the world's third- or fourth-largest country by total area, depending on the definition of what is included in that total, and the second largest by land area, and had the following areas listed for its square miles. (3.7 million square miles) (3,704,427 sq mi)

The United States, on the other hand, is also listed as the third or fourth largest country by total area, and the third largest by land area, yet had the following square miles indicated. (3.79 million square miles) (3,794,101 sq mi)

As 3,794,101 sq miles for the US is larger than the 3,704,427 sq miles listed for China, and my understanding of both articles is that these figures are representing the total land area not total overall, or land and water area, would not the US be considered 2nd largest and China 3rd largest?

If, on the other hand, I am misunderstanding the information given, it is quite possible that others might also misunderstand, so a clarification to prevent this from happening in the future might be in order.

Scottiish Trekker (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

First, you are indeed misunderstanding the information given in the United States article. The figure of 3.79 million square miles is for total area (land and water). That is stated plainly in the main text, and there is no indication that other people are frequently misunderstanding that fact. In the infobox, it says simply "Total". It would be nice if we could make that "Total (land and water)" for greater clarity, but as far as I can tell the template does not allow for that.

Second, the main text plainly states that the 3.79 million square miles calculation is one of three authoritative calculations for the total area of the U.S.; the other two calculations happen to place the country's total size below that of China, "depending on how two territories disputed by China and India are counted," as the article states.

In sum, when discussing national areas, "total" is customarily used for "land and water" (i.e., "overall") area, not for land area alone. We never speak of "total land area", as you do, but simply "land area" where that is relevant. Hope that clears things up for you.—DCGeist (talk) 07:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

Let's fix these things, mark when you fix them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/United_States/archive4

Fix what exactly? The lede, for instance, is by no means too long. The reviewer's opinions about the article's structure are just that--personal opinions, not identifications of objective problems. I happen to disagree with many of the editor's opinions about structure. And so forth.

If you see something that indisputably needs fixing, by all means fix it. If you'd like to start a discussion about what you see as potential improvements, please do see here and name the specifics.—DCGeist (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Error in homicide comparison figures

I was looking at the figure showing the compared homicide rate in different developed countries. Here are the stats for the EU countries, from the European Comission. Although for most cases the numbers given in the figure in the article match the EU data, the rate for Spain is clearly totally wrong and needs correcting!. Greetings --XanaG (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Not only is that a gross error you caught, but the table is now significantly out-of-date with 7-year-old statistics. Given the combination of those factors, I'm removing it. If anyone expert at table creation would like to create a replacement figure with more current data, it would be greatly appreciated.—DCGeist (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Zarbaramon's edits/The Philipines connection

First off, Zarbaramon. The primary problem with your edits has not been the substance, but the fact that instead of reinserting information into the particular section that concerns you, you are reverting to older versions of the article you favor while ignoring the fact that there have been other, productive, unchallenged edits to the article in the interim which your edits inappropriately erase. That creates confusion and unnecessary work (and potential ill feeling) for everyone.

Until you become more experienced, please restrain your edits to the specific section of an article that concerns you, rather than doing reverts to earlier versions of the whole article. (You are also effectively edit warring at this point. Please read our policy prohibiting that, Wikipedia:Edit warring; in particular, please familiarize yourself with the "three-revert rule"—you don't want to run afoul of that.) Also, be aware, that if an addition you wish to make to a well-established article is challenged and reverted, best practice is never to keep reinserting it, but rather to discuss the matter here and abide by the consensus that develops over whether the addition should be made.

Second, to the substance. Zarbaramon wishes to add the Philipines to the "maintain strongs ties" passage (or immediately before it) in the second paragraph of the Foreign relations and military section. While I am not necessarily opposed to that addition in principle, I saw two problems with it at this point:

• The weight given to Philipine-U.S. relations in the addition was clearly undue and disproportionate to the other countries mentioned.
• We should have a discussion about the standard for inclusion in the passage and the appropriate sort of sourcing, to strengthen the conceptual basis for the passage, make it less contentious, and more stable.

Zarbaramon, let's start with your position. Your last edit gives the Philipines 14 words in this passage, while Australia and Japan, for instance, each get just one. There does not seem to be any good reason for this disproportionate emphasis. (And, if you haven't noticed, the U.S.'s colonial relationship to the Philipines is already noted in the History section.) On the braoder point, what do you think should be the standard for including some countries and not others in this passage?—DCGeist (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi DCGeist. Thanks for the input and also the education. Im only new to Wiki and my contributions do look pretty amateur. In relation to giving 14 words in the passage , I have contributed enough about the Philippines just like "The United States has a "special relationship" with the United Kingdom[51]". the point is that I'm contributing a piece on the Philippines just like someone contributed a piece on the united Kingdom. I'm not trying to overshadow other countries to my contribution but I thought thats what Wiki pedia is about.... I have solid information and added it. please provide feedback... thnx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabararmon (talk • contribs) 01:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Further more, I dont suggest we exclude countries but include countries on this subject with information just like the sentence regarding the United Kingdom and hence my reason for including the Philippines. The other countries mentioned aren't referenced, so I'de say that it would be more positive for the readers and the rest of the world to share information and not exclude it. I have shared the same amount of information relating to the History between the PI and the States as with the UK and the States. So why single out the Philippines? If you can answer this question then Id be happy to hear input on how to best resolve this. -Zabararmon —Preceding undated comment added 02:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC).

(1) First, you are to be congratulated for providing a very high quality source to support your addition. In terms of content, per our WP:Verifiability standards, that's one of the best ways to improve the quality of the encyclopedia, and you did it.

(2) Second, the issue with the weight given to one country or another in this passage must be considered in light of the fact that the United States article must summarize a vast array of information within the constraints of what is considered here as a maximum effective and acceptable length for an article. There is no absolute size limit, but this very long article is already pushing the boundaries of our community standards. Given that, we need to make tough decisions about how much space to devote to any given fact (indeed, we are forced to entirely leave out many interesting and worthwhile facts about the United States). I believe—and I think most other editors would agree—that no other relationship of the U.S.'s rises to the level of importance as its "special relationship" with Great Britain. If we are to include the relationship with the Philippines here, it is certainly closer to the level of such (still important) allies as Australia, Japan, and Israel. Just as we don't have room in this summary article to explain the history of the relationship with each of those individual countries, as well as the others that were already present in the passage, we don't have the room to do so for the Philippines.

(3) That said, you have made a strong, and well-sourced, case to include the Philippines and I've readded it at what I believe is the proper length and position, given the summary context. I am hoping that this addition sparks commentary by other editors. Aside from the UK and the "special relationship," the passage now specifically names seven countries. Do other editors think that is an appropriate number? Do you think the seven are well-chosen? Do you believe we should set some relatively objective standard for inclusion in the passage, perhaps based on one single high-quality source that can provide support for the precise selection of names we choose to include?—DCGeist (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

DCGeist,

Firstly, I would like to say thank you for acknowledging the said work that I have provided and therefore am quit pleased that information, properly sourced, can be shared for the whole world.

Secondly, I'm not so sure that we had agreed to to fixing the issue and am therefore quiet surprised that you had gone ahead and added information without our mutual agreement. As you had quoted above that with all editing articles, "to discuss the matter here and abide by the consensus that develops over whether the addition should be made", I would have to oppose your work which you have included without my "consensus".

In addition, you mentioned in your above correspondences "The weight given to Philippine-U.S. relations in the addition was clearly undue and disproportionate to the other countries mentioned" but as I have mentioned earlier, "I have shared the same amount of information relating to the History between the PI and the States as with the UK and the States".

Continuing on, you mention in your above corresondences that the small section has "unchallenged edits to the article in the interim which your edits inappropriately erase". I suggest that since my portion is appropriately 'referenced' that it be at the fron of the 'unchallenged" portion so as not to confuse the readers about the sources used should they decide to look it up and only find information pertaining to the US-Philippine' history which does NOT include the countries seemed favoured by yourself to be ahead of a perfectly well referenced source with the word 'Philippines'.

To conclude, I have forwarded this argument and discussion page to wikipedia editing forums so I can also understand why it is that, in your view and clearly shown in the above correspndances, that you seem to want to disregard the relationship that the Philippines and the US has which does stem prior to WW2 and also runs deep with what is the 'Golden Age' of US politics and foreign relations. --Zabararmon (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the dispute board that I have forwarded the article to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FUnited_States.23Foreign_relations_and_military

Also please do be "Nice to Newcomers" as mentioned in this page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents/The_Wikipedia_community )

--Zabararmon (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Zabararmon, may I suggest you first read our policy on WP:Consensus to see if that can clarify for you the way we use this important term within the context of Wikipedia. In sum, you need to recognize the following things:

• You failed to convince one single editor beside yourself that the original version of the change you wished to make to the article would be beneficial.

• I discussed that change with you extensively and in good faith, I agreed to support an edit to the article that adds information based on the change you initially wanted to make, and I made that edit believing that it benefited the article and reflected a consensus position between no change at all and precisely the change you wanted to introduce. In most cases of editorial disagreement here on Wikipedia, that would constitute a positive outcome, however...

• It appears that left you (extremely) dissatisfied. I see from your recent edit that you now wish to place the Philippines at the head of the string of country names following Britain and the "special relationship". Given that it is the one of those countries that is currently sourced, there is some logical basis for that; however, a superior solution is to provide sourcing for all the names. I had asked other editors to weigh in on the sourcing question for this section but have received no response to date. For the moment, I'll return the Philippines to the middle of the string of names, following the three majority-English-speaking countries (a logical sequence, I believe), and provide individual sourcing for each of the countries named.

While this colloquy has yielded good results, there was probably no need to bring it to the dispute resolution process. And for the future, keep in mind: In general, when a change you want to make is opposed, and you can muster no support for it, the status quo tends to prevail (see this essay for more: WP:STATUSQUO) and prudent editors know to turn their time and energy to other, more productive efforts—and allow their fellow editors to do the same.

Good luck with your future editing on Wikipedia.—DCGeist (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

DCGeist, it seems we are at a complete disagreement and your arguments are a failure at best.

1) "You failed to convince one single editor beside yourself that ..." I am not trying to convince a single editor of any changes made. It seems that the only editor in challenge of this is yourself. Please re-asses your this point.

2) "I discussed that change with you extensively and in good faith, I agreed to support an edit to the...." It wasn't objectively discussed or appropriately, hence my argument that I would take it to 'Dispute resolution notice board' for further clarification and included are further discrepancies of your justification and "Discussion of extensively good faith"

3) (i) "It appears that left you (extremely) dissatisfied. I see from your recent edit that you now wish to place the Philippines...." Please refer to my notices, posts and arguments above for reasons. It seems that you need further excuses to hijack a perfectly good argument and justification.

   (ii) "I'll return the Philippines to the middle of the string of names, following the three majority-English-speaking countries (a logical sequence, I believe)..."  Please, have a much better argument than that, as its extremely weak.  The population of the Philippines is 94 million, the combined population of Canada and Australia is 70 Million.  English is one of the official languages in the PI with 93% (UN statistics) speaking the language, introduced and indoctrinated by the former colonial masters, the US.  Your justifications seem very racially biased.  

I will not adjust this article at all and will, once again post these arguments on the notice board as referred above.  I'm amazed that for a credible 'editor' you're not looking at the arguments objectively as the debate I have created can't be easily argued by yourself.  I will also ask a few, more credible, editors to view this and will await their answers.

Till then, I too wish you luck with editing and hope we can come to a more, realistic and 'educated' decision on this said article. --Zabararmon (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I observe that the primary addition to your redundant plaints is an utterly baseless and provocative accusation of racial bias. You are no longer discussing how to improve this article in good faith, so I feel perfectly comfortable in ignoring you henceforth unless you recognize the crassness of your behavior and apologize.—DCGeist (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. For those who might be interested, my primary internal referent for identifying countries as majority-English-speaking was English-speaking world; secondarily, Anglosphere. I'll note that the Philippines now resides fourth in the relevant passage here, while Ireland—identified in both aforementioned articles as majority-English-speaking—does not appear at all. I look forward to Zabararmon telling me how much I despise my Irish great-grandfather.—DCGeist (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Concur with DCGeist's fair and accurate assessment of the situation.--Coolcaesar (talk) 07:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

History section

I have some concerns with the content of the following sections: (1) Independence and expansion, (2) Cold War and protest politics, and (3) Contemporary era. I'm wondering if the (1) should talk about the Supreme Court's early decisions (especially Marbury) a bit more, or perhaps even the entire constitutional structure, which I understand was rather unique for its time. There is also the matter of the American Industrial Revolution (along with the American System), which isn't really mentioned at all. As far as (2) goes, I feel that it gives a bit too much weight to the 60s and 70s. And for (3): while Dodd-Frank and the PPACA are undoubtedly important, I would think that both (or at least the former) don't entirely belong in the article. Thoughts? NW (Talk) 15:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

(1a) Marbury—possibly, but more detailed discussion of the uniqueness or conceptual significance of the constitutional structure lies outside the purview of this descriptive survey article, I believe.

(1b) I could see adding one very tightly worded sentence on America's early industrialization.

(2) I strongly disagree, and reverted the cuts you made there. We can discuss further here, if you like.

(3) While I concur with your cut of the Deepwater Horizon spill, which no longer seems to be resonating nationally, the significance of both the healthcare and financial reform measures remains abundantly clear. The very brief mention of each should be retained.—DCGeist (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

(1a) I added it to the "Government, elections, and politics" section instead; does that work with you?

(1b) I'm having a hard time coming up with a good wording for it (though I'm a bit rushed at the moment); could you think of something?

(2) Sure. You're probably right about the cuts I made to anti-communism, but I think we can stress that differently. McCarthy is important, but containment should be mentioned at the very least. The 60s were undoubtedly important, but right now we devote as much time to them as we do Reconstruction, the New Deal, and the 80s combined. We give an entire sentence to the feminist movement, including mentioning two of their leaders (Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem). The same goes for the Civil Rights Movement. They were important, yes, but compare that to before then. Before World War II, the only four people we mention are Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and FDR. We should definitely mention both, but I don't see why we can't do it in a concise manner like here (prelim wording, obviously).

(3) Health care reform, perhaps, if it gets upheld by the Supreme Court in 2012/2013. But is Dodd-Frank more important than, say, the Sherman Antitrust Act or the change in the economy and federal government after the Sixteenth Amendment? NW (Talk) 20:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

(1a) Looks good. I trimmed a little verbiage—I think we can do the verb action in one word: I've gone with "declared", from your text, though we may come up with something better. I also restructured the graf, which it had already been wanting.

(1b) Pressed for time myself. It'll happen...

(2) I understand your point. On the other hand, I'm loath to see a history section in which only government figures are named, and if there's any period in American history where nongovernment (and nonmilitary) figures made the greatest difference, I'd say this is it. Will ponder further. And perhaps we can agree on several small trims. For instance, I concur with your cut of historically minor Ford and will reinstitute. Am also beginning to wonder about Bevel in particular—he is there essentially at the insistence of one Randy Kryn. I see now that virtually all the claims for his notability in the Wikipedia article devoted to him rely on an essay written 22 years ago by...Randy Kryn. Any specific thoughts on Bevel?

(3) In overarching historical terms, probably not. But relative to the period in question, most certainly. I believe it is fitting—and I don't think it's inappropriate recentism—to have one very concise sentence on the period encompassed by the current administration. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

(2) I'll come up with a sandbox version of the 60s–now paragraphs and a couple alternatives that we can play around with?

(3) OK, that's fine. It's short enough anyway, just three words or so. Speaking of financial reform though, do you think that the creation of the Federal Reserve is worth mentioning? NW (Talk) 01:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

(3) In this sort of summary overview article? No, I do not.—DCGeist (talk) 05:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Twofold: Too many comparisons to Europe and lacking in diversity of pictures

I feel like in almost every category there are so many comparisons to Europe that it makes me feel like I am reading about what Europe is not, compared to what America is. Also, there are much better pictures that can be added, not only to replace but to complement the existing ones. Just because they have been there for so long doesnt mean the page does not need a bit sprucing up. Look to Germany's page as a reference to the wide range of pics and as an example.

(Dillan.Murray (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC))

Lets face a certain truth about this article. It has been written by people of varying perspectives on the United States of America. One of those perspectives represented is that the US of A is an evil country that has taken and plundered native american lands, and bullied it's helpless pacifistic neighbors. :eyeroll: In short everyplace is better than the USA is the message I got from this.

Edit request from Bmoq, 1 September 2011

{{FIFA Worldcup Host nations}} Bmoq (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: This template is too specific for this article. — Bility (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Article Name "United States" to "United States of America"

I know many people here have well formed opinions please read the below and hear me out.

I have read the archives on this issue going back as far as 2005. I see that this has been discussed much and will try not to rehash the old argument . So I have the following what I hope are unique points to make. 1.)The names United States (U.S.) an United States of America (U.S.A) are used almost interchangeably by the United States government since the beginning. Neither name is ambiguous. For example: "The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America." (Article 1, of the Articles of confederation)

"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." (Article 2, of the Articles of confederation) The current federal constitution does this as well: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Then it goes on to use "United States" in places and "United States of America" in places (USA is used mostly in reference to the President):

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. " Article. II. Section. 1. US federal constitution. 2.)Both names are understood to refer to the United States of America IF and when "the" is included before "United States" (i.e as quoted above). It goes without saying that in English only one nation is called "the United States". In English and this edition of Wikipedia is officially in English even when it comes to naming conventions only the United States of America would ever be called "the United States". So what to do? The pertinent naming policy gives us these guidelines. WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA

Recognizability – Is the candidate title a recognizable name or description of the topic?

Plain "United States" is as recognizeable as "United States of America". That is a tie.

Naturalness – What title(s) are readers most likely to look for in order to find the article? Which title(s) will editors most naturally use to link from other articles? Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English. "United States" and "United States of America" are equally naturally and used about as often (Along with simply "America" which is not proper use for the territory of the United States of America)

Precision – How precise is the title under discussion? Consensus titles usually use names and terms that are precise(see below), but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. For technical reasons, no two Wikipedia article titles can be identical.[2] For information on how ambiguity is avoided in titles, see the Precision and disambiguation section below and the disambiguation guideline.

"United States" is not as precise as either "the United States" or "United States of America". "the" appears before United States in most (well) written material one can find. Now the abbreviation US will be found without "the" but almost never just "United States". We could have the title be "the United States". On the other hand "United States of America" refers to one and only one country "stiled the United States of America".

conciseness – Is the title concise or is it overly long? This is practically a tie. "United States", "the United States", and "United States of America" are all around 10 or 20 bytes (characters) which is not allot for anyone who can type to write.

Consistency – Does the proposed title follow the same pattern as those of similar articles? Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principles behind the above questions.

In many of the articles linked here they are titled "United States SOMETHING". United states is more consistently used, but again almost never by itself. Which says that something is not right with this title. United States without "the" or "United States SOMETHING" just isn't used in proper US English or British English. (In this context just "America" is often used as well as "United States of America"

"United States of America" is more precise, and consistently used than "United States" (without "the" in front or something following it). Further simply using "United States" without any specifier is not proper English grammar websters. Therefore the term "United States of America" is the better title on the grounds of precision, conciseness, consistent use as a grammatically correct construction in English.*

I will close by saying I understand the emotion which says the the name "United States of America" seems to claim all of north and south America and is offensive. I also understand that it was just used as a place name to give it specificity and emphasize separation from Britain". Remember the people who named this country, over 90% of them at the time of the American Revolution lived within 100 miles of the coast. It was not the hegemonic world power it is now, but a force for revolutionary decolonization which set the stage for the independence of all American countries north and south. Until Theodore Roosevelt reinterpreted the "Monroe Doctrine" and used it to justify intervention and meddling in Latin American affairs. However, WP addresses many many very offensive things from Nazism to Abortion to Racism....offensiveness is not an argument for not covering an issue in a academically rigorous way on Wikipedia.

• I will admit that it is interesting that Estados Unidos translates directly to United States and is grammatically correct in Spanish, but this edition of WP isn't in Spanish.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by hfarmer (talk • contribs) 01:45 PM CDST

Re Precision: I can't think of any instance where one would say "United States of America" in a sentence without the preceding it, so both names are equal on this front: Both require 'the' in a sentence, but not on their own. If we required the in front, the same argument would be made for United Kingdom or Soviet Union.

Thus. all of your comparisons seem to come out as a tie, so the conclusion you come up with in your boldest paragraph does not seem to be supported by the evidence supplied. --Golbez (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

As observed by hfarmer, this is a perennial topic. This thought that went through my head... If the article name was formally changed to the more precise United Sates of America (with appropriate redirects), I cannot imagine anyone wanting to change it to United States. While I agree that both that name and United States can be seen as correct, using the more precise name would reduce the "perenniality" of requests to change it, which could only be a good thing. HiLo48 (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"I cannot imagine anyone wanting to change it to United States." I would. I would wonder, why is this different from United Kingdom? Or Soviet Union? As for 'reducing the perenniality of requests', that's a poor reason to make a bad move. --Golbez (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

@Golbez

The term "United States" does not occur "by itself", as you said, while the term "United States of America" does on wikipedia and in the wider world. Google results "United States of America" without the. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22united+states+of+america%22+-The&hl=en&biw=1360&bih=640&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs=

"I can't think of any instance where one would say "United States of America" in a sentence without the preceding it" - The formal title of a federal lawsuit or other action such as "[PDF] United States of America v. Lewis Libby. United States of America Vs. John Burge, United States of America VS Apollo Theater corporation. Now, you can find sources where it is abbreviated, "United States" or US VS whoever...never in actual court filings is that done.

Another instance would be our name as listed by the United Nations.http://www.un.org/en/members/index.shtml

On the other hand "United States" if it does not have "the" in front, has "SOMETHING" in the back it is never ever used alone.

As for mentioning other articles, we can go around in circles all day about that, ie. "Peoples Republic of China" is called by it's full long form name in its title but Austria isn't etc etc. can we please focus only on the issues internal to and directly bearing on this article?

@HiLO

While I sympathize with your last comment that's not a great reason to do something.

TBH I just want WP to be as reliable and rigorous as possible. The title off this article is bad English grammar as it is. United States alone is just never seen unless it's in the form of an abbreviation or initial ism. According to WP style guidelines and policy an abbreviation is only to be used if it's the only well known name for something (i.e. LASER).--Hfarmer (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

re 'by itself': Sure it does, all the time. Allow me to list the countries in North America: Canada, Mexico, United States. There, it appeared by itself without 'the' or 'of America.' That's not going to be the only place that ever happens, either.

As for the lawsuit, you have a point, but the fact that it is only used in formal situations isn't terribly relevant, because on Wikipedia we often don't use the formal name of something, unless disambiguation is required.

As for the PRC, that goes to my previous point: It requires disambiguation. There are two countries which claim the name "China", but there is only one named "United States" in any form of common parlance, so disambiguation is not required. I'm not necessarily saying "we can't do it because it's not done at UK"; I'm using that as an example of why things are done this way. --Golbez (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Two of you have now disagreed with my suggestion in the (sadly) extremely common and irritating, shallow Wikipedia way of criticising only one point of a more complex proposal that I made. I really wish we could do better. Knee jerk reactions to deprecate serious suggestions do not help this project. HiLo48 (talk) 08:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, I want to play. The entirety of your statements in this thread was: "As observed by hfarmer, this is a perennial topic. This thought that went through my head... If the article name was formally changed to the more precise United Sates of America (with appropriate redirects), I cannot imagine anyone wanting to change it to United States. While I agree that both that name and United States can be seen as correct, using the more precise name would reduce the "perenniality" of requests to change it, which could only be a good thing." Let's go through bit by bit:

• "As observed by hfarmer, this is a perennial topic." Statement of fact and disputed by no one.
• "This thought that went through my head... If the article name was formally changed to the more precise United Sates of America (with appropriate redirects), I cannot imagine anyone wanting to change it to United States." This part was responded to, by me, saying that I could imagine such.
• "While I agree that both that name and United States can be seen as correct, using the more precise name would reduce the "perenniality" of requests to change it, which could only be a good thing." This part was responded to by two of us, pointing out that to make a change, not on its merits, but simply to get people to stop asking for it, is a bad thing.

So, to summarize: ... what "more complex proposal"? Everything you said was responded to in some way. If you're going to nail yourself to a cross, make sure it's made of wood and not Jello. --Golbez (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

@HiLo It's just that doing something because it would be easier on us isn't helpful. I am trying to do this in a logical way without appealing to emotions. You could help by citing the sources which use "United States of America". Notice, only in informal speech or abbreviations is "US" or "United States" used. In anything more formal or where there is room "of America" is always included. Citing sources is the Wikipedia way of doing things.

You AGAIN ignored the part of my post about United States and United States of America being equally correct. If two options are equally correct, and the one causes less trouble, why not use it? HiLo48 (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You're forgetting to consider one major aspect: The fact that, were it at United States of America, there would be people asking for it to be moved to United States. Would you then say "Let's do it, just to shut them up?" Somehow I doubt it. No, this is't about it being "equal" at all. --Golbez (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that would happen at all. HiLo48 (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Some of us have stated that we would propose such a move. Do you believe that we're lying?

Regardless, we don't base our articles' titles on such a criterion. —David Levy 05:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Not lying. Just somewhat obsessed. I really cannot understand the strength of your commitment to just one form of the name. HiLo48 (talk) 05:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Each Wikipedia article has a single title. What distinction are you drawing between proponents of a change to United States of America and those advocating the retention of United States?

One could easily argue that continually proposing the same move (after it's been rejected on numerous occasions) is far more indicative of "obsession." I won't, as I neither believe that nor condone ad hominems. So let's either debate the merits or drop the issue. —David Levy 06:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It's always worth trying to understand the true motivations of other parties in a discussion. My reasons for change are just above (before the places where I was misrepresented). I don't have strong feelings either way on a name, although the fuller name does sound better to me. It was in the expectation that nobody else here would have super strong feelings that I made my proposal, but some still seem inexplicably attached to the shorter form. I wish I could understand why. I wonder if it's the different perspective from inside and outside the country? HiLo48 (talk) 08:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, I don't understand what distinction you're drawing between the two preferences.

Each Wikipedia article requires a single title (apart from redirects), so we have to pick something. In my "18:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)" message, I explained (as I have on earlier occasions) why I believe that United States is the best choice. Does that mean that United States of America is a bad or incorrect option? No. I don't recall anyone ever arguing that. We simply regard United States as a better one. Why is this so "inexplicable"? (Incidentally, some of the most passionate proponents of the United States of America title have been American.)

Any strong emotion that you're sensing likely reflects frustration stemming from seeing the same debate rehashed over and over and over and over and over — usually because someone didn't bother to read the prominent FAQ section, let alone the previous discussions. In this instance, Hfarmer provided a glimmer of hope by citing those discussions and vowing to present the argument from a different angle...only to end up falling back on the same rationales overwhelmingly rejected time and again.

On a related note, the "let's change the title so people will stop asking" rationale isn't new either. Apart from its lack of a basis in policy, this logic is directly contradicted by your belief that some of us are "somewhat obsessed" in our "commitment" to the United States title. —David Levy 15:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

@Golbez There already is disambiguation involved for the words "America" and redirects from "United States of America" to this article. So there is no danger of creating more cost of computing power. Otherwise I don't see the problem with needing a disambig page, and redirects in particular if these already exist....US (disambiguation), USA (disambiguation), United States (disambiguation). That's allot of disambiguation for a term you feel is not ambiguous. Could you explain to me just what would need to be disambig'ed if this article were named "United States of America". What other country is called by that phrase?

As for your listing of just "united states" please cite a source that does that. We are listed as the "United States of America" by the United Nations[1].

As to your assertion that only the US of A is known as a US in English I present to you the North American Free Trade Agreement. Preamble of NAFTA.

"The Government of Canada, the Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the United States of America, resolved to:..." Signed off on by the leaders of the three big NA countries. Now if there was a real issue about the name of the US among any significant number of people in any of those countries that wouldn't be so.

Please provide citations that are more authoritative than the United Nations, and a treaty among the three big NA countries, which names United States of America as only United States.

As for common parlance...every day school children in this country stand and say the pledge of allegiance "to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for witch it stands"[2]. They say that 200 days out of the year, every day. That's pretty darn common.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Computing power"? No one said that was an issue. If the article is at United States, United States of America will always redirect to it; if it is at United States of America, United States will always redirect to it. So disambiguation cannot possibly be a reason to move it, it what I was saying.
• "That's a lot of disambiguation for a term you feel is not ambiguous" The term "United States" is not ambiguous: When someone says it, 99.99% of the time, they mean this country. That is not ambiguous. For the edge cases, we have the dab article, and for the acronyms - which by their very nature are ambiguous - we have articles. Those can't be considered in determining whether or not the name is ambiguous.
• "We are listed as the "United States of America" by the United Nations" Yes, we are. And I can't say "They only list formal names", either. But that doesn't mean it's not the common short form of the country, which is what we use on Wikipedia when possible. Other examples from that same page: Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brunei Darussalam, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Lao People's Democratic Republic, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya [not for much longer], Micronesia (Federated States of), Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Syrian Arab Republic, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, and, of course, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. These are all extended or formal names, not the common names we use on Wikipedia. The UN is clearly not the sole resource we use for country naming.
• So, wait, you're saying we should rename Mexico "United Mexican States"? Because surely you can't say "We need to follow what NAFTA says for one country, but not the other one".
• I don't need to give a source more authoritative than the UN, as I have already pointed out we don't rely on them for naming (to list: Bolivia, Brunei, Iran, Laos, Libya, Micronesia, Moldova, Russia, Syria, Tanzania, Venezuela, Vietnam, and United Kingdom) We don't rely on single sources for these kind of things.
• Finally, reciting a written pledge is not in any way common speaking, it's ... recitation. --Golbez (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• If the term is not ambiguous then it would not need THREE disambiguation pages. That is hard evidence that it's not as clear as you think.
• The guidelines on article naming don't say that we have to use the "common short form" of a countries name as the title. In fact they say that such forms should be used if and only if they are the only names known. Read the guidelines.
• I am not saying we should rename the article about Mexico. By the by there is indeed a whole article dedicated to this subject Name_of_Mexico. We here are concerned with these United States of America not those Estados Unidos Mexicanos. They have their own pages here.
• No one recites the pledge off paper, they hear it from their teachers and know it by heart at the age of 6 or 7.
• Can you please cite sources to back up what you assert Globez? You don't seem to think that you need any. Cite one credible source on the proper name of the USA which backs up what you have been saying.
• Here is one more place where "United States of America" is used as what it is, the name of the country between Canada and Estados Unidos Mexicanos. "British Broadcasting Company: United States of America country profile--Hfarmer (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• "If the term is not ambiguous then it would not need three disambig pages" Er, no, it has one, United States (disambiguation). The others are disambigs for acronyms.
• Please forgive me, which specific guideline are you looking at?
• I agree, we are here concerned with the USA. However, you cannot say "We must name it this because it's used in the NAFTA document... but that same doesn't apply to Mexico." If you're going to use a source to say something must be named a certain way, you must go that way with everything in that source, you can't just pick out one country. If we're going to rely on the UN naming, then we have a dozen articles to move.
• One credible source? How about 25,000?
• And to counter that, how about the CIA calling it "United States"?
• I'm becoming confused as to your actual argument. That people use "United States" without 'America' is not remotely within the realm of challenge; your BBC link does so. That 'United States of America' is the formal name of the country is not in dispute. So what exactly is your argument for moving it? --Golbez (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I have counterd the CIA thing below. Yes US is a short form. No one disputes that. What is disputed is weather that is the name that WP policies and good English grammar calls for.

• The Specific policies are WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA and WP:ENGLISH.
• I have used many many sources to say this not just one.
• There is more than one disambiguation page associated with this.US (disambiguation), United States (disambiguation). That's allot right there. Where as only 1 article would ever be refered to as the United States of America, this one.--Hfarmer (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, since you quoted Wikipedia:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA, which says that article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by, let's see what the reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by...here are the first four references[3][4][5][6], the first two are government agencies (CIA and Census Bureau), the next is the International Monetary Fund, and the fourth is the United Nations. Each of these sources refer to the article's subject as United States. Looking through the other references, easily 8/10 of what I saw refers to the article's subject as United States. United States is overwhelmingly what "reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by". This is why the article's title is United States, even if it is not the "official" title, and this is why it should remain as such, per WP:COMMONNAME. - SudoGhost 16:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The references I cite above already refute this but here they are again. Since you like government agencies the website for the WHOLE USA Government is USA.GOV not US .gov. Further here is how it is used in every court filing the federal government brings.[PDF] United States of America v. Lewis Libby. States of America Vs. John Burge, United States of America VS Apollo Theater corporation

In treaties with other American countries:

Preamble of NAFTA

As listed by the United Nations:

List of member Nations at the United Nations

British Broadcasting Company: United States of America country profile

All of the above are "reliable English-language sources". I can cite 155,000 places where "United States of America" is used. [7]globez counted a mere ,25,000 above. So per WP:COMMONNAME We should change the name. Thanks for at least trying to cite sources instead of just shouting me down. The trouble, for your assertions, is that the evidence and WP Policy support using United States of America. --Hfarmer (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That is but a choice selection, ignoring the overwhelming majority of sources that use "United States". Your examples are official bureaucratic examples, not examples of common use, making them useless for establishing the common name. Where you can cite 155,000 places, I can cite well over two million instances of "United States" without "of America" found anywhere in the article. There is no policy that supports changing the article as requested that is not superseded by common usage, which is the most basic criteria for establishing an article's title. - SudoGhost 17:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

See below, if we just want to Google and count then there is an argument for simply nameing this article "America". 2.4 BILLION pages refer to America and 800 Million use America then refer to the United States.[[8][9] Most of those pages will be simply refering to these United States of America as simply America. If you want to look at pop culture usage "America's next top model anyone"?

If you've noticed, I've already responded to your argument below, and shown its flaws. You were the one that first referenced the number off google hits as a test of common name, not I. Further, as I stated below, the number of hits for "America" -"United States" is less than the number of hits for "United States" -"of America", and most of the former are very likely not reliable sources, making them useless. Also, I am not using Google to argue that the name should stay, I am using the reliable sources already found in the article. WP:COMMONNAME, your WP:GHITS argument, and the sources in the article all support the title United States. - SudoGhost 17:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Now I don't favor doing that, but you need to see the flaw in your argument. We need to consider the authority and quality of each source. The United Nations, the government of the country, etc All refer to this country as "United States of America. The weight and authority of those sources is what makes the difference not just numbers. --Hfarmer (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, as has already been shown, the United Nations refers to the country as United States for common usage, and United States of America for the official title. Therefore, your entire statement above is invalid, as both refer to the country as United States more often than the official title. - SudoGhost 17:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. It's also why we have "United Kingdom" instead of the formal name of said state: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Canada Jack (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That's also as irrelevant as what the name of Mexico is. The name of this country of which I am sitting in is the United States of America. If anything... the most common name for the United States of America in the United States of America is just..."America".

A Google search brings up 2.4 BILLION!! with a B pages that refer to America If one googles America United states about 800 MILLION hits are related to this country. So...if you want to follow blindlyWP:COMMONNAME 2.4 Billion or 800 Million is allot of usage of "American" just for US here in the United States of America.--Hfarmer (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Edited to add, they may be highly offended by it, but even if you say your "American" in Latin America they will certainly know you ain't from around there and have a pretty good idea where you are from. (Most, won't give a darn.)--Hfarmer (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure? I was under the impression that, at least in Mexico, the term Estadounidense is used, rather than American, for people from this country. --Golbez (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This Wikipedia is in English and per the policy WP:ENGLISH what is said in Spanish in Mexico is irrelevant on this page. [ There is a Spanish Language article on this country] and I would argue that there Estadounidense and Estadosunidos would be proper since that one is in spanish.--Hfarmer (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, OK, I understand: You can talk about what people in Latin America would say, but I can't , because that's not relevant to this page. Got it. --Golbez (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That logic falls apart very quickly, due to the fact that America is the name for many things, and is not the common name. These Google results are less than the results I showed above, and even on the first page, a few of them refer to America as the continental region, rather than the country, making the number that refer to the United States as "America" much less than the 2 million listed. I'm also not seeing any that would be reliable sources for this article, making that logic even more flawed. - SudoGhost 17:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I was never arguing that it was a good idea to name this article just America( see Devil's_advocate). Googleing then counting up occurences without considering the quality and authority of sources is not the way to settle this. Since Billions of pages improperly equate United States of America with just America should we follow? If Millions of pages did (and only 25,000 do according to Globez) refered to this country as just United States should we follow? Or should Wikipedia hold itself to a higher standard as the reference of record and use the correct, propper,unabmiguous and more than common enough as to be instantly recognizeable name...United States of America?--Hfarmer (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Since you are now misrepresenting what I said, I will take my leave from this argument. I didn't say "only 25,000"; that was the Google News hits. If you honestly believe there's only 25,000 pages on the Internet which say "United States" without "America" then you're beyond conversing with. The fact is, you haven't provided a single reason why it should be at the formal name other than "it's the formal name", which is not a valid standalone argument, and you continue to harp on this without realizing your error. --Golbez (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It was you that used the WP:GHITS argument first, I was simply refuting your numbers, and then again refuting your arugment that my logic was invalid with this "America" logic. I have demonstrated that United States is the common name for the article, and as such, remains the title. See Wikipedia:Official names for more information. In this case, even the article's subject more often than not refers to itself as the United States, not the United States of America, when dealing with the public. - SudoGhost 17:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You initiated this thread by stating that you read the archived discussions and didn't intend to rehash the arguments raised therein. Sadly, that's exactly what you're doing now.

"United States" is the country's common short-form name in the English language. Unless disambiguation is required (as in the case of "China"), that's what we routinely go by when determining country articles' titles.

There is no disambiguation/navigation issue here, as the relative prominence of all other uses of "United States" combined is tiny (which is why the disambiguation page resides at United States (disambiguation), not United States). If the article's title were United States (country), I would wholeheartedly support a move to United States of America (a far more natural form of disambiguation), but that isn't the case. No matter what, United States will continue leading to this article, so a title change would have absolutely no impact in the areas of disambiguation and navigation.

In no way would the proposed move improve clarity. Around the world, "United States" overwhelmingly refers to this country. (The same is true of equivalents in other languages.) The current title causes no confusion, and even if it were to confuse someone, the opening sentence would resolve the issue.

As has been noted, there is no material grammatical distinction between "United States" and "United States of America"; both are used with and without "the" (depending on the context). Appending "The" to the title would contradict Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name).

And yes, if the article had been titled United States of America, I would have argued for it to be renamed United States (though I wouldn't have continued to do so if clear consensus to the contrary had been established over and over again). —David Levy 18:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Consensus changes. For now I am going to let this lie and see if any other passer by agree's with me. This is not a concession that the above last points are good, I don't think they are.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Au contraire, the last points made by David Levy are excellent. As are the ones made previously by Sudo Ghost. As are the ones made previously to those by Golbez. And there is no sign at all that this particular consensus is changing—most likely because there's no compelling reason for it to change.—DCGeist (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh dang man, people is mad. Apparently formality is useless, technicality is useless, shortness is useless, ease is useless, since everyone disagrees would is not be best to fall back to the most easily recognizable term? That term is the United States of America. Because there are other countries that are United States, there is also the United States of Europe. The most easily recognized, and unrefuted term would be The United States of America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.24.190 (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

United States of Europe is a hypothetical entity that doesn't exist, and if you say United States, nobody thinks you mean a country that doesn't exist, nor does anyone refute that United States refers to the United States of America. Please see Wikipedia:Official names and WP:COMMONNAME for more information. Thank you. - SudoGhost 23:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)