Talk:United States/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Etymology.

I don't have the source for this, so I'll try and find it, but isn't it believed that it was William Amerike, and not Amerigo Vespucci, who as resopnsible for the name of "America". The thory goes that not only would the claimed case be named "Vespuccia", after his surname, but that the first maps of america were made by Amerike and thus his name was on the maps. 86.8.52.105 (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Google's never heard of him."William+Amerike"&aq=f&oq=&aqi= - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This book, titled Amerike: the Briton who gave America its name mentions a Richard Amerike. The book is not previewable online, though, so I don't know what it says beyond that mention. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This is discussed briefly at Americas#Naming. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Congress declaring wars

According to the Constitution, Congress has the power to declare wars. According to my recollection, the last time Congress "declared war" was World War II; in contrast, the Korean War, Vietnam War, actions in Panama and Grenada, Gulf War I and II were essentially presidential decisions (in some cases Congress ratified the decision after the fact). So, I think it's misleading to describe Congress as having the power to declare war without some counter-balance (as per WP:NPOV that the primary decision making power regarding wars in the US is the presidency.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

There hasn't been an official war since then, just 'police actions.' It's quite disappointing that the Congress hasn't stepped in and yanked power back. You also left out Haiti, Liberia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, and Somalia, and there's probably others too. But yeah, while only congress has the power to declare war, that, like most of the constitution, has been ignored for a few centuries. So some mention of the war powers act would be good. --Golbez (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Good idea to mention war powers act; I'll bet there's a wikilink to this article. But I wonder whether we should consider modifying the part about the executive branch, something like "in practice, the president makes decisions about war". Or perhaps something worded better? But the current version which omits the president's war-making power is against the WP:NPOV; there should be a balancing viewpoint. And the consensus view in the political science world (I'm not an expert, but I read a lot) is that the presidency is currently the most powerful branch, and makes in effect (through its numerous agencies) a wide variety of rules and regulations (which is supposed to be the Congress's job), the Congress is largely ineffective, although the judiciary still has some clout. Perhaps the presidency should come first, before the Congress, in the listing of the three sections?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Congress having "two-year" terms

Yes there are elections every two years for members of Congress, but since incumbency brings so many advantages (access to cash from lobbyists, name recognition, gerrymandering, free mailings) which challengers lack, the more accurate assertion is that House members are elected for life unless they resign, have a scandal, or take a highly unpopular position on an important issue. So it's important that we leave in the reelection rates of incumbents (consensus is 90% of incumbents seeking reelection, win) which is backed by numerous sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the information is too detailed for this general overview of the United States. There are many sub-articles in which the plethora of details about the United States are located. The info on incumbancy advantage is more appropriate in Elections in the United States or Federal government of the United States. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree if it wasn't important -- if it was just a "detail" as you say; but I think the whole "two year terms" idea is misleading because it suggests that there's a healthy turnover of representatives every two years. This doesn't happen. The average age of representatives is over 60 by one estimate.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there's any suggestion "that there's a healthy turnover of representatives every two years." The turnover of federal parliamentarians varies across a wide range among representative democracies around the world. This is obviously a summary and must be restricted to laying out the fundamentals of how the system works. The question of turnover is an important but nonfundamental matter and is best reserved for the topical article, where it can be properly contextualized by reference to the turnover rates in other representative democracies.—DCGeist (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

United States vs. United States of America

Shouldn't the page be moved to United States of America, since that is the official name of the country? Tarheelz123 (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ at the top of the page. --Golbez (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If you type in the Wikipedia search box "United States of America" (without the quotes, of course), you come to this page here -- it's redirected. So it doesn't matter. I bet it's easier to leave it as it is, since lots of people are used to the current arrangement.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

1870s...

I seriously doubt the United States had the largest economy in the 1870s…Wasn’t the British Empire at the height of its power at this time? Perhaps we can find another source for this? (Any comments made in a defensive or personal way will be deleted.) --Frank Fontaine (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please remove the parenthetical; you do not have the right to remove others comments because you consider them "defensive", there are rules about what comments are allowed and that doesn't really fall under them. You're already poisoning the discussion by adding that. It's like walking into a library and asking, "Where can I find a book on the Roman Empire? And please don't give me a look like I'm an idiot, just tell me where it is." You'll just shock them and they'll be far less likely to help in a friendly way. I mean, really: Is there any reason for people to get defensive over this? (well... okay, some people here do, but you really shouldn't be pre-emptive like that) --Golbez (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I checked the source about the 1870s estimate. The US had the largest national economy -- comparing US vs France, US vs United Kingdom, US vs China. So technically it appears correct, but I think this fact could stand some more references. It's somewhat misleading because today we compare the US with Europe; and, back in the 1870s, the US economy was small compared to the European economy as a whole.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's misleading at all. The European political/economic situation was vastly different in the 1870s, and there simply was no "European economy as a whole" in any practical sense during that era.—DCGeist (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you're saying. My sense was the US economy came into prominence in the 20th century, but the facts suggest otherwise. Good statistic.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

US debt to China is important

I disagree with the decision to remove the debt owed by US to China. This is arguably the most important statistic dealing with US-China relations, and properly belongs in an overview of American foreign policy -- which is what that section was. Strongly urge reinstating this information.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to include it, it fits better into Economy than Foreign relations and military and should be expressed in much more summary fashion: "China is the largest foreign holder of U.S. public debt" (placed perhaps at the end of the first Economy paragraph). This statistic bears on the close economic relationship between the U.S. and China; there is not a comparably close diplomatic relationship as there is with, say, our NAFTA cosignatories, referenced in Foreign relations and military.—DCGeist (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree if you move the deleted section, in abbreviated form with reference, to the "economy" section; but deleting it entirely seems unproductive. I think the debt issue bears on both the economy and foreign policy and that it's a highly important issue.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Done and done, with two-day-old reference.—DCGeist (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Adroitly done, thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Reword 9/11 attacks?

"al-Qaeda terrorists struck the World Trade Center" is a highly controversial and contested statement. There is a lot of disputed information and no concrete proof al-Qaeda was responsible. Let’s not have Wikipedia full of as much propaganda as American history books people. We need to be objective here and not state opinion as fact.

I was thinking about changing it from:

On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorists struck the World Trade Center in New York City and The Pentagon near Washington, D.C., killing nearly three thousand people

to

On September 11, 2001, terrorists hi-jacked planes that struck the World Trade Center in New York City and The Pentagon near Washington, D.C., killing nearly three thousand people. Al Qaeda is largely believed to be responsible, although many 9/11 conspiracy theories have developed.

or something like that.

any ideas? suggestions?

—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 19:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe conspiracy theories deserve mention here. Even if there is some doubt that it was al Qaeda specifically (and there isn't, really), there is absolutely no respectable or mainstream support of the whole false-flag idea, which is what the majority of the conspiracy theories revolve around. TastyCakes (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TastyCakes. Aaron mcd (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Add another agreement. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Same. Alternative theories merit no inclusion on what is supposed to be a basic summary. --Golbez (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

didn't al-fail claim responsibility anyway? 98.244.55.251 (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection

In the 14 hours since the permasemi was undone without discussion, there have been five vandalisms from accounts that would otherwise have been stopped by the semiprotection. Worse, one vandalism snuck in because it was made just before another one. Let's see how the rest of the day goes, but I don't hold high hopes.

The main problem isn't so much the volume of vandalism, it's the fact that the page loads so slowly, it's difficult to revert easily. --Golbez (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want an "encyclopedia anyone can edit", you have to deal with the problem that comes with it, vandalism. :/ I'd say that five instances of vandalism in now 15 hours isn't bad and is certainly manageable. WP:PPOL says "Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view). Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users." As of this moment, I don't think that the vandalism is heavy enough to justify the reapplication of protection. Re loading times: true...I hope someone gets to cutting this article down to size sometime, as >160,000b is way too much. —Ed (talk • contribs) 15:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It definitely is an encyclopedia anyone can edit - except for people who have shown themselves to be bad editors, articles where sensitive information is repeatedly posted, etc. ... this is like saying, "The United States doesn't have a democracy because felons can't vote." I would say this article easily falls under 'subject to heavy and persistent vandalism.' As for the article, it's not the size. It's something else; I suspect it's the large number of templates used. It takes 30 seconds to even process the page so it can be sent to the browser; it does not take Wikipedia 30 seconds to send me 160kb of data. --Golbez (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

5 vandals who would have been prevented from editing in just over 2 hours; most other articles would be protected if they had vandalism like this. --Golbez (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Golbez. While it would be great if human nature was such that all articles could be left unprotected, the fact that 6 anonymous vandals have done their bit since the article was unprotected (and this at a time when there's no big event to vandalize about) and 0 have attempted constructive contributions makes it seem to me that this article should remain semi-protected. TastyCakes (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Not just the anons; don't forget the accounts that can't edit semi-protected pages until they become autoconfirmed. That's another 3 users. A total of 14 vandalisms from 10 people in the 18 hours since the article was unprotected, and zero valid edits from IPs or new users. Furthermore, vandalism existed on the page for 123 minutes - 2 hours - of that 18 hours. So, 1/9 of the time the article has been unprotected, it has been vandalized. --Golbez (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There's also the nature of the vandalism, some of which has been quite toxic.—DCGeist (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this page merits an indefinite protection. Aaron mcd (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(out) - I've reprotected; my apologies. —Ed (talk • contribs) 15:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

A quarter or a fifth?

I recently changed the introductionary note on the percentage United States GDP accounts for globally from exact percentages to rounded fractions. I rounded the percentages to a quarter but another editor changed it and rounded them to a fifth. I would like to know if editors prefer the percentages rounded to fractions of a quarter, a fifth, or restored to the orginal format of exact percentages. The percentages are 24% of nominal GDP and 21% of purchasing power parity. Bambuway (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I changed the wording to a quarter of global nominal GDP and a fifth of global purchasing power parity. I hope that makes to wording more simplified and more accurate. Bambuway (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If your rounding shouldn't it be about a quarter of global nominal GDP and about a fifth of global purchasing power parity.? Aaron mcd (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Demographic collapse of Non-Hispanic White Americans

The natural increase of non-Hispanic White Americans (Anglos)has been just 0.1% during the last decades, much lower than the natural increase of White British, French or Scandinavians (0.4% increase a year) We can wonder what is the cause of that collapse of White Americans, why is their situation so bad? why white families are dissapearing? --83.57.50.116 (talk) 12:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggest researching this issue. And, based on good secondary sources, come up with a few lines about the changing demographic mix of the United States. My sense is the nation is moving towards a melting pot in which distinctions like "white American" won't matter much, like blurring ethnic categories; like, in 50 years, maybe even the race question will be removed from the census? And language like "collapse of White Americans" sounds POVish to my ear or "situation so bad" or "white families disappearing". Makes it sound like there's a race going on, by the different "races", to out-reproduce each other. If this is happening, how come nobody told me about it?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It is just a question. Why non Hispanic whites doesn´t have babies, with the exception of Utah. When I read the data in the U.S. Census Bureau all states where there is an Anglo majority over 80% are growing just about 0.1% a year excluding immigrants, so it is evident non Hispanic whites think they cannot afford to bear children. In Western Europe it happens the same in several countries like Italy and Germany while in France, the UK and Scandinavia natural population increase is 0.4%. Of course, as an Spaniard I know that in the future the U.S. will be like most Latinamerican nations which undertook the melting pot centuries ago. By 2050 Americans will look very similar as most Puerto Ricans look today as the racial mixture will be very similar.--83.57.50.116 (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I would add that if a majority of the population in the U.S. receives affirmative action benefits that means there is wide discrimination and for non hispanic whites there will not be any future in America as all other groups will join in a permanent coalition to be in Government for ever. So never again there will be an Anglo President in America in the future...--83.57.50.116 (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I am just wondering what is the cause. Why that is happening?--83.57.50.116 (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care much about peoples' skin color. And I don't think it matters much for America's future what color peoples skins are; that's my POV. My skin color changes in summertime; I become tanner. But you're free to research this and cite references, and add information; suggest work on less popular articles first. Learn how to reference. Learn Wikipedia's rules. Why not register for a free account? I bet if you added stuff to this article without references, it would be removed quickly.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed addition to lede

B. Fairbairn has proposed an addition to the lede:

For up to 40,000 years before European settlement commenced in the 15th century, the North American continent was inhabited by tribes of indigenous Americans. From the 16th through the 19th centuries, the Native American population declined primarily due to epidemic diseases brought from Europe, genocide at the hands of Europeans, and forced displacement from their traditional lands.

The notion is worthwhile, though this is too long. The lede of the article on Canada may provide a good model. Perhaps we could add something like this to the beginning of our third paragraph:

Various Native American societies inhabited what is now the United States for millennia.

Thoughts?—DCGeist (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a little short; the 40,000 years might be worth mentioning. --Golbez (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

How about something like this:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As far back as 40,000 years before Europeans arrived in the 15th century, peoples probably of Asian descent lived in the Americas. After the 15th century, immigrants from Europe, Africa, and Asia began arriving in large numbers. sometimes committing genocide, sometimes intermarrying, and the population today is a mix of people from all over the world.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Note, there is great stuff from the book Guns, Germs and Steel about the mix/clash of cultures -- with plausible and intriguing explanations why the Europeans conquered the Americas so swiftly.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The probable descent of them definitely doesn't belong in the lede; "immigrants from Europe, Africa and Asia" is a useless statement, since where else would immigrants back then come from? Also, the vast minority were from Asia, at least the early ones. And the two 'sometimes' are way too waffly. "Sometimes they killed millions, and sometimes they fell in love!" --Golbez (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

How's this:

Indigenous peoples, probably of Asian descent, have inhabited what is now the mainland United States for as many as 40,000 years. These Native Americans were steadily displaced after European settlement began in the early 16th century. The United States was founded by thirteen colonies...

—DCGeist (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I unfortunately agree with Golbez's comment about my waffling & lackluster writing style, and I like DCGeist's abbreviated style better; I think the 40,000 year fact is wrong, like another user said below, that it's probably more like 13,000 years ago (remembering from a TV documentary a while back). (I'll try to research this when I get time.) So my vote is for the DCGeist version, and keep the ethnic battling to the history section.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the questions about dating raised in the thread below, it looks like it might be most appropriate to go with this:

Indigenous peoples, probably of Asian descent, have inhabited what is now the mainland United States for many thousands of years. These Native Americans were steadily displaced after European settlement began in the early 16th century. The United States was founded by thirteen colonies...

—DCGeist (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Displaced seems to me to suggest they were moved somewhere else. I would think the large number of deaths to disease and war should be mentioned:

Aboriginal peoples, of Asian descent, have inhabited what is now the mainland United States for thousands of years. This indigenous population was greatly reduced after European contact by warfare and foreign disease. The United States was founded by thirteen colonies... TastyCakes (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this is best put in the lead of the History section? It should be noted that their isn't consensus on American Indians being of Asian descent. See here:[http://www.mitochondrial.net/showabstract.php?pmid=9837837&redirect=yes&terms=native+americans+via+europe--Phil5329 (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(1) While "aboriginal" is more accurate etymologically than "indigenous", the latter is well-established as the American English idiom for Native Americans/Alaskans.

(2) "Aboriginal peoples/indigenous population" is not as helpful to the reader as is introducing the crucial (and directly linkable) term Native Americans.

(3) Focusing on population decline rather than displacement seems fine. The consensus, however, is that disease was the primary factor.

(4) While the language in TastyCakes' version above may be too definite, there certainly is a consensus that Native Americans are probably of Asian descent. Please note the langauge in the abstract of the 1998 study adduced by Phil5329: genetic analysis "rais[es] the possibility that some Native American founders were of Caucasian ancestry." That hardly contravenes the consensus.

Thus

Indigenous peoples, probably of Asian descent, have inhabited what is now the mainland United States for many thousands of years. This Native American population was greatly reduced after European contact by disease and warfare. The United States was founded by thirteen colonies...

—DCGeist (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I like that one. TastyCakes (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think there's a rough consensus for this. I'll make the addition, and we'll see what happens.—DCGeist (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

United States Page Header

I want to add the following paragraph to the opening section of the United States page, but for some unknown reason another user keeps removing it.
The paragraph is as follows:

"For up to 40,000 years before European settlement commenced in the 15th century, the North American continent was inhabited by tribes of indigenous Americans. From the 16th through the 19th centuries, the Native American population declined primarily due to epidemic diseases brought from Europe, genocide at the hands of Europeans, and forced displacement from their traditional lands."

The principle reason for adding this paragraph is for standardisation. The following paragraphs are present in a similar position on the following country pages:
Canada (paragraph 2):

"The land occupied by Canada was inhabited for millennia by various groups of Aboriginal people. Beginning in the late 15th century, British and French expeditions explored, and later settled along, the Atlantic coast. France ceded nearly all of its colonies in North America in 1763 after the Seven Years' War. In 1867, with..."

Mexico (paragraph 2):

"In Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica many cultures matured into advanced civilizations such as the Olmec, the Toltec, the Teotihuacan, the Maya and the Aztec before the first contact with Europeans. In 1521, Spain created the New Spain which would eventually become Mexico as the colony gained independence in 1821. The post-independence period was characterized by economic instability, territorial secession and civil war..."

Australia: (paragraph 2):

"For some 40,000 years before European settlement commenced in the late 18th century, the Australian mainland and Tasmania were inhabited by around 250 individual nations[9] of indigenous Australians.[10] After sporadic visits by fishermen from the immediate north, and European discovery by Dutch explorers in 1606,[11] the eastern half of Australia was claimed by the British in 1770 "

Why should not the foremost section of the United States page be similarly adorned with reference to the original inhabitants? B. Fairbairn (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, welcome back, can't say I missed you. Second of all, I note that none of the ones you mention say anything close to 'genocide', so while you may think your addition is well-intentioned, and the concept of it makes sense for standardization, your obvious POV bleeds heavily into it. I'm willing to see what DCGeist can come up with. --Golbez (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I knew it would not be long before you stuck your nose in, where it is not wanted. Funny how you and DCGeist are always so like-minded and on at the same time. It is almost as if you two are one and the same person.

The term genocide is from the "Native Americans in the United States" wikipedia page, so it is not my obvious POV.

i.e. "From the 16th through the 19th centuries, the population of Native Americans declined in the following ways: epidemic diseases brought from Europe; Genocide and warfare [29] at the hands of European explorers and colonists; displacement from their lands; internal warfare,[30] enslavement; and a high rate of intermarriage.[31][32]"

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

B. Fairbairn (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Make the WP:SPI report, or can it. Also, you don't get to pick who is "wanted" to edit an article. Finally, none of the three examples you mention explain why the population dwindled, but the evil Americans, they have to get their due, hm? Will you be adding mentions of this to the other three articles, to standardize with your proposal here? --Golbez (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is an entry tailored for the more sensitive among us: "For up to 40,000 years before European settlement commenced in the 16th century, the North American continent was inhabited by tribes of indigenous Americans. From the 16th through the 19th centuries, the Native American population declined, while the number of settlers, primarily from Europe, substantially increased. American Natives were moved from their traditional lands through business deals, treaties or by force." B. Fairbairn (talk) 07:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(out) - "genocide" is a rather strong word that conjers up images of continuous persecutions and killings à la the Halocaust. In this instance, however, it was much more gradual, with massacres being committed by both sides. If this is to be added, I would suggest that a weaker word be used. —Ed (talk • contribs) 07:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, your versions seem to be tailored more for the continent rather than the country... —Ed (talk • contribs) 07:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree mostly with the_ed17, "genocide" is a strong word. (My concern as a writer is that the LEDE is too long.) The genocide which did happen mostly happen at the hands of Spanish Conquistadors. The expansion by Europeans, by white Americans in the US, was seen by Tocqueville as more insidious, more thorough, legalistic. There were some outright outrageous acts of mass violence (eg Trail of Tears), US army massacres of native women/children (and some violence by natives against white settlers too). But the general pattern was: whites encroaching at the edge of Indian lands (driving away game, making it difficult to find food) then using legalistic maneuvers to "buy" lands from weakened Indians who weren't decimated by disease or from famine. And the process kept repeating. There was much less intermarriage between European-descended whites and natives than in Spanish conquered countries (where, despite the initial genocide, the peoples began intermarrying creating a new "mestizo" group -- the religions intermixed too, with a mix of Catholicism and native pagan beliefs). But the conquering of natives was most thorough in the US -- I'm not sure the history section brings in Tocqueville, or this pattern, which perhaps it should to be WP:NPOV.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don´t agree. The Spanish Conquest was legalistic decades before the English. In fact, the first laws protecting Native Americans were drafted in Spain and Spain created the first Universities in the Americas. Also, I don´t agree there was a genocide undertaken by Spain. How can it be that 300 Spanish soldiers under Hernán Cortés defeated about 4 million Aztecs and conquered a whole Empire of over 15 million people? The truth is that they considered Hernán Cortés was the Liberator of Aztecs from their bloody Imperial system. Hernán Cortés took humanism and Christianism to the Americas ending with the sacrifice of thousands of innocents. Cannibalism was something usual in the Aztec Empire. Thousands of people were fed like animals and after the sacrife were eaten like chicken. Hernán Cortés ended with that and it is the reason why the People supported him. No, it is not possible for 300 men to defeat and conquer an Empire larger than any nation in Europe and with a capital, Tenochtitlan, larger than any European city. So it was not him the one who did it, Aztecs were the ones who found in Cortés the Freedom they demanded.--81.37.39.152 (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC) I have to add that the Viceroyalty of NEW SPAIN included not just MEXICO but also the PHILIPINES, CUBA, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, PUERTO RICO, NICARAGUA, HONDURAS, EL SALVADOR, COSTA RICA, GUAM, CALIFORNIA, TEXAS, NEW MEXICO, COLORADO, UTAH, ARIZONA, FLORIDA and NEVADA (many other places, like JAMAICA, for decades)--81.37.39.152 (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I added a possible wording in the previous Talk section. Basically I think mention of the ethnic battling belongs in the history section, not the LEDE. Since the Europeans had a huge power/civilization advantage over the native peoples, conquering in many ways (Tocqueville compares the Spanish style unabashed style with a more legalistic American style which probably had less intermarriage) the resulting civilizations, particularly the US & Canada, bear a strong European imprint; and this stuff should be covered in the history section if it isn't already. Intermarriage did happen -- I have some native American blood in my veins.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Different concern about LEDE -- no mention of where the US is headed. My concern is that the article doesn't suggest where the US is headed, relative to other nations; I think the consensus by foreign policy planners and analysts is that the general trend is from a unipolar to a multipolar world -- instead of the US being the sole superpower (like the article suggests) the US will become perhaps the still-dominant player but one of six possible powers -- Europe, Russia, China, India, Japan, and the US -- with the US being seen still as the "leader" but needing the help of other rising powers. The analysis by Nina Harchigian (sp) didn't think Brazil or Iran would be counted (Brazil doesn't have a pattern of projecting power abroad; Iran not powerful enough). The analyst foresaw positive things if the six powers could cooperate on areas such as nuclear non-proliferation, terrorism prevention, trade policy, but noted it's a somewhat big IF; war could always happen based on misunderstandings, etc--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The earliest evidence of human habitation in the USA (lower 48) dates back 13,000 yrs not 40,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.136.155 (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is right about 13,000 years (not 40,000); it deserves more research.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The US isn't just the lower 48. Why no love for Alaska? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

We haven't forgotten about Alaska.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

How do you get looking at a number that specifically says it is only about the lower 48, what the anon editor said it was, and think you aren't ignoring Alaska? Alaska isn't part of the lower 48, and would have had earlier populations since it is the North American half of the land bridge. I'm not saying 40,000 is right, but the statements made here are, by their very language, ignoring Alaska. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think what the anon user meant was that the fossil evidence for 13,000 years back was found in the lower 48 states. Remember back then there were no state or national boundaries, not even census bureaus. So it's all guessing about what populations there might have been -- guesses based on fossil remains. My hunch is that since Alaska is cold during the winters, that human populations living there were much smaller than farther south -- the biggest populations were in Central America; but still, these were not large compared to European, Asian or African populations. Still, always know that Alaska will always be in our hearts and minds.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

But this IS an article about something with set boundaries. If you want to pretend that talking about that long ago means we can ignore that, then why mention inhabitants thousands of years ago at all? Any mention of inhabitation of the United States, which includes Alaska, also needs to include Alaska, not just the lower 48. I'm not making this out of some Alaska pride thing, I've never lived there, my family never lived there. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

My failure to mention Alaska was not because of some prejudice. I thought the conversation in this section was mainly about the lower 48. I didn't mention Hawaii either, and believe me when I say I Love Hawaii.

Anyway, the theory is that so much water was locked up as ice during the last Ice Age that there was dry land between what is now Asia and North America. Its called the Bering Land Bridge. People migrated to North America through Alaska using this land bridge.This happened 16 to 17,000 years ago. Still a long way from 40,000. Hawaii has been inhabited for less than 3,000yrs. There are articles in Wikipedia concerning this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.108.206.241 (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Image of Strip Mall replacement

Current version: An American strip mall, with restaurants featuring Mexican- and Chinese-based food

Proposed replacement: An American strip mall, with restaurants featuring Italian-, American-, and Chinese/Japanese-based cuisine

I hate having to do this every time I bring a better image to the article, but once again, I've been reverted. The current image of the strip mall is mere crap, with half of it being blown. I inserted a better image, which includes another form of typical American cuisine (what's more American than a pizzaria, Subway, and chinese restaurant in the same place?). Basically, this image is better quality and represents American cuisine better. Any objections to adding it back in? A-Class articles should not have such poor quality images. upstateNYer 00:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections to the substitution. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither do I. I agree the second photo is far better. Usually User:DCGeist makes decent edits, so these odd reversions are really weird and out of character. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It was largely an instinctive response to any edit of a substantive nature that (a) increases the size of the article but (b) does not significantly enhance readers' understanding. That was my reaction here. Aesthetically, I agree that the second photo is superior. The proposed caption would need to be reworked, however: "American-based cuisine" is not idiomatic; to refer to Subway even as "American cuisine" seems a very odd usage. Also, are we certain that Okinawa's menu incorporates Chinese-based cuisine?—DCGeist (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, DCGeist, I'm sometimes not a fan of your instinctive responses. A quick look at the edit and its outcome in the article would have told you it was a legitimate one. At this point in an article's development, little can be done to "significantly enhance readers' understanding" and most substantial edits will revolve around quality of formatting and quality of content, as this does. As for the rest, this review should ease your concerns about Okinawa (read the fine print or Ctrl+F "Chinese", don't just go by the quick overview at top; I've ordered plenty of Chinese food there). Also, one account of the submarine sandwich places its origin in Boston. The other says it's a recipe from Italy. Either way, Subway Restaurants is a distinctly American company by origin and is definitely culturally American. If you're worried about length, I'm interested to see any alternative suggestions. upstateNYer 05:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course, you wouldn't harp on the matters of your fandom and my instinctive responses unless it pertained to the article's maintenance and improvement. May we hope then that you will be joining those of us who regularly work to scrub the article of vandalism and insensible, or merely unfeasible, inflation? We could use the help.—DCGeist (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

While we're dickering over serious stuff like images of strip malls, let me say that DCGeist -- I like your changes to the paragraph about the indigenous peoples, and good job updating the stuff about the military spending. And, let me add that United States is a seriously good article with over 200 references; good job everytbody working on this article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. The military is serious business, of course, but I'm really looking forward to your Why women are beautiful article. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Fact tag

Editor Peregrine Fisher has recently applied a "citation needed" tag to the following sentence: "The coastal plain of the Atlantic seaboard gives way further inland to deciduous forests and the rolling hills of the Piedmont." Applying the Good Article criteria for inline citations—a bit more strict than the general guideline—we find that they are warranted in cases of "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements". I'm at a loss as to under which category this sentence or any part of it falls.—DCGeist (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't something I knew as general knowledge. I'm a westy, though. You can take it out if you think it's a generally accepted description. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is. And I'm aware of no challenges to it.—DCGeist (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur with DCGeist. I have flown over that particular region many, many times and believe that sentence is a correct description of the terrain. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's commons knowledge (at least not to people who aren't familiar with the East). But again, you can take it out if you want. It's interesting to see the response to a fact tag on this article. Sometimes citations are added, and sometimes it's argued that it's common knowledge. It probably is commons knowledge to some. As an Oregonian, Piedmont is a district in Portland, and not a defining characteristic of the East Coast. I guess that's where it gets its name. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

DCGeist is right but let me say, as a Jerseyan, well, speaking geographically, Jersey is much too flat; could you Oregonians please Fedex us some real mountains, preferably the Grand Tetons (with color-coordinated brassieres), thanx, use deciduous forests to pack them in the boxes (thanx).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Demonym

I strongly believe we should add "Usonian" to the demonym in the country infobox. I know it is not widely spread in its use, but it is the only alternative not to call them Americans, being the demonym for the inhabitants of the whole continent. I saw a few discussions about this but it wasn't centered on what it is really important; it should be added, after "Americans" as an alternative but "Americans" should not be removed as it's the most common way to call them (although I would prefer not to...). --Autusgo (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

We can't just "make up" denonyms here. Do you have any source for common usage of "usonian"? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been used in isolated situations, but it's not remotely a common demonym. Frank Lloyd Wright named a housing design after it; "The word Usonia is an abbreviation for United States of North America. Frank Lloyd Wright aspired to create a democratic, distinctly American style that was affordable for the "common people." But the 'ambiguity' of Americans does not give license to use any other term that has popped up over the last century out of a sense of default. --Golbez (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

official language

we should make it English (de facto) 75.28.77.176 (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think identifying it as the de facto national language is perfectly sufficient.—DCGeist (talk) 05:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Muslim pop. update

According to a recent (October 2009) demographic data conducted by the Pew Forum, there are 2.5 million Muslims in the United States which is 0.8% of the total population, therefore the current statistic in the article is not valid/reliable and should be updated, thank you. [1] HaireDunya (talk) 10:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

When we're providing the percentages of each faith, we can't update just one. We need to wait for a new study that provides updated percentages for each group in order to make a mathematically valid presentation. And you're using the words "valid" and "reliable" incorrectly. As the same organization that conducted the study you adduce conducted the one referenced in the article, the figures are equally "reliable". And the figures are perfectly "valid" for the year stated: 2007.—DCGeist (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Civil Rights Movement sentence, the word "fought"

Suggestion to change the words "fought segregation and discrimination" to "confronted segregation. . ." or, better yet and more accurate but it would add an extra word, "peacefully confronted. . ." The nonviolent movements of the 1950s and '60s never once fought or used anger to make their statements and start their national dialogues. They walked, stood in lines, and communicated. They sang, prayed, and accepted the violence visited upon them as a natural result of peacefully confronting such long-standing national traditions and habits. The faced the vocal and physical abuse that their actions visibly opened in the populace with love, and did this in order to drain the anger and the hate from a particular question or violation in order that the nation could see it as an error and correct it. I know the term "fought" here does not connote actual physcial acts, but the image it creates upon reading it seems to me not to totally define the era's events. 15 October 2009 (UTC) (This was me, the page did not go through, and when I sent it again my name had gone missing) Randy Kryn (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue we confront here, as throughout, is that it is not possible to "totally define" the events of any of the eras we are obliged to treat in summary style. Here, for instance, adding the word "peacefully" would create its own problems of connotation. Sit-ins, marches, and boycotts are aggressive acts, designed in part to provoke conflict. (King said, "We will wear you down by our capacity to suffer", not "our capacity to love".) The movement was not "peaceful" per se; rather, it employed the strategy and methods of nonviolence. So, perhaps, "A growing civil rights movement, led by African Americans such as Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr., employed nonviolence to fight segregation and discrimination."

On the other hand, we regularly face calls here to further condense the history section. (My feeling is the length right now strikes the proper balance between comprehensiveness and brevity.) Is this point about nonviolence significant enough to warrant an expansion, however minor? If sentiment here may be quantified, with 0 for "No! Never!" and 100 for "Yes! Immediately!", count me a 60.—DCGeist (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

A good change in direction. I haven't followed or contributed to this article enough to have anything but an outsiders opinion, but brevity seems important as does accuracy. How about "used nonviolence", and/oe "confront" rather than fight (they really never fought or fought back, one of the main points of nonviolence}. So ". . .used nonviolence to confront segregation and discrimination." ? Adds a few words, but the a mention of nonviolence or nonviolently feels right. "confront" may accurately imply to the readers mind that when violence appeared at various times in their movement, the leaders and other participants had enough control of themselves and their emotions to accept-without-opposing at the key moments when that ability was most needed. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That rewording strikes me as fine. So (mindful of the next Talk thread, which also bears on this sentence): "A growing civil rights movement, led by African Americans such as Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr., used nonviolence to confront segregation and discrimination." Opinions?—DCGeist (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Broadway photo replacement proposal

Proposed replacement

Current image

I'd like to propose replacing the current image of the Broadway theaters on 45th street with one at night. The proposed replacement shows almost the same view as the current, but displays the signs lit at night. I think it's better compositionally because there are no big vehicles in the way of the view of the buildings and the Golden sign is not cut off. Also, being next to Times Square, the character of the area revolves around the lights of the night. Additionally (though less importantly), the image is more current (having been taken yesterday). upstateNYer 04:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the new one of Times Square at night.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the older one better, sure the Golden sign may be cut off, but the Jacobs Theater isn't covered in netting. 69.132.221.35 (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Any other comments? I think this is a valid replacement. upstateNYer 21:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the night one is a bit better. Getting greedy, ideally we'd want one that also showed crowds of theatergoers. But yes, this is fine.—DCGeist (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe someone can come up with one that's better in the future. upstateNYer 02:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Times Square 1.JPG

Another possibility, showing billboard ads for Broadway

Actually, what do you think about this image of Times Square? It's much more visually interesting and is almost completely comprised of billboard ads for Broadway shows. upstateNYer 03:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes. As a visual for the topic, that's superb.—DCGeist (talk) 05:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've added it to the article. The previous caption didn't seem to work for this image, so I modified it. Feel free to change it more if you feel it's necessary. upstateNYer 05:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Great new picture! Are you a professional photographer? I prefer the new one at night with the lights.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Far from it, actually. But this one seems to have come out well. upstateNYer 15:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

'Sole superpower'

There is no doubt that the US was and still is a superpower.

But was it a sole superpower? What about the UK and China? Flosssock1 (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"The UK"? Seriously?

Apparently, you are not in the habit of reading other contributors' edit summaries. It has already been explained, for your personal benefit, repeatedly, by multiple editors, that the statement is well sourced. See the citation following the next sentence? You do understand that a citation can and often does cover more than a single sentence, right? (A citation can even cover an entire paragraph.) See, for instance, the cited BBC News country profile: "the country continued to re-define its role as the world's only superpower".

You do know, as well, that material in the lede that reflects sourced material in the main text does not need to be redundantly cited, right? (It would help if you'd familiarize yourself with our guidelines and well-established practices.) It's always advisable to read an article before presuming to make any substantive edit to its lede. If you'd done so, you would have read this well-sourced passage: "Total U.S. military spending in 2008, more than $600 billion, was over 41% of global military spending and greater than the next fourteen largest national military expenditures combined". You do understand how that further supports the description of the U.S. as the world's sole superpower, yes? (And see how it's yet another case where one citation covers two sentences.) Thanks.—DCGeist (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Flosssock1, the article talks about the status now ("The end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union left the United States as the sole superpower", "helped to preserve its position as a superpower"). I searched for "superpower", and couldn't find any instances of its use referring to pre-1945. I don't think the British Empire or China are really relevant in this context (and it's debatable whether the British Empire was referred to as a superpower - "superpower" was coined in an age after traditional empires). Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 20:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I never thought to look at that source.

It somewhat depends on what you class as a superpower. The British military is small but VERY well trained, the Chinese military is MASSIVE but possibly not so well trained, the US military is somewhat in the middle. As for the economy, the US's military spending is so high becuase of a good economy (generally, excluding this passed year). It has a good economy because it has lots of land, a large population and a somewhat low population density. I have to say, if the UK had that much land mass, well, I'm sure you could imagine such a thing.

However, it seems the situation is well handled. I'll check out that source, and if there are anymore problems then I'll be straight back. Thanks, Flosssock1 (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a book by Nina Harchigian and one other author (foreign policy experts) who say that in the coming years, the US will be moving away from "sole superpower" to the "dominant player" in a league with 5 other powers, specifically, Europe, Japan, Russia, China, India (not Brazil; Brazil has big economy but few global ambitions or tradition of influencing world politics; also, not Iran; Iran may be a regional power but not an international one, says NH). The Harchigian thesis is that the US will be seen as the "lead player" but not a "superpower" as such; NH says all of the six powers have shared interests in (1) preventing terrorism (2) securing an international trading order from which all nations benefit (3) preventing spread of nuclear weapons. That is, the trend is from unipolar --> multipolar world, and will be fine if the nations can learn to cooperate on common problems, not be suspicious, and avoid wars or stifling tariffs.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Civil Rights Movement sentence, re. adding James Bevel

A suggestion for accuracy. To add the name of James Bevel to the sentence mentioned in the last topic about the Civil Rights Movement which includes ". . .led by African-Americans such as Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr. . .". This suggestion pre-shadows the next sentence on the page which includes the words ". . .the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. . ." . Although listing only two names in the sentence seems fair, but if I would choose two names they would be King's and Bevel's, which would be, IMHO, historically correct. I'll address this first, and then state a case for Bevel's inclusion as a third name or replacement name.

Rosa Parks, a loving woman who became the original iconic symbol of the movement, did not 'lead' any of the movements as implied by the sentence's language. She decided not to accept segregation on the bus system anymore, as did three other persons in the nine months previous to her action. She was then chosen to become the symbol of the boycott led by Dr. King, Ralph Abernathy, and others. So the Montgomery Boycott is covered already in the sentence by Dr. King's name, as this, arguably, was also his most important movement. Rosa Parks had no further impact on the decision making or implementation of movements from then on, again regarding the term "led". Interestingly, it was not even Parks' court case which overturned Montgomery's restrictive law, but the case of the first person to not give up her seat that year, Claudette Colvin. Park's image was pushed to the forefront to represent courage, and this was important, needed, and courageous. Yet that moment of glory was her contribution to the movement and does not, it would seem, constitute a leadership role implied by the word "led".

So, if only two names are used, IMHO Bevel would replace Parks in the sentence, or, if added, could become the third person named. I mention and suggest this mainly due to, in addition to the word "led", the following sentences referencing the two congressional acts, both of which would surely not have occurred as they did without Bevel's work and leadership. His Birmingham Children's Crusade, and his in-progress plan to march the same children who marched in Birmingham down the highways to Washington D.C., led the Kennedy administration to tell SCLC that they would write and pass a Civil Rights Act. They then asked SCLC's leaders for its ideas for inclusion. This negated the need for Bevel's march.

The other bill mentioned, the Voting Rights Act, was brought about mainly because of Bevel's and Diane Nash's Alabama Project for voting rights, not joined by anyone else in SCLC for well over a year. When SCLC finally came on-board, and chose Selma as the movement city, Bevel's directorship and tactical leadership of the Selma Voting Rights Movement brought it along until Jimmie Lee Jackson was shot. Then the action to answer Jackson's death, the Selma to Montgomery march, also initiated and planned by James Bevel, led to "Bloody Sunday", which itself led President Johnson to almost immediatly address Congress and the nation and demand a full voting right's bill.

In addition to his all-important and leadership roles in Birmingham and Selma, Bevel directed the 1961 Open Theater Movement in Nashville, created much of the Mississippi Freedom Movement, planned and directed the 1966 Chicago Open Housing Movement, and led Dr. King into his anti-war activities near the end of King's life. Bevel and King's relationship started when James Lawson suggested that King meet with Bevel, who was the activist leading the student movement to success after success. When King and Bevel met, they came to a mutual agreement to work together as equals. Neither was aide to the other. They both worked more or less independently but combined their talents and resources. They each held stand-along titles within SCLC--Bevel's was Director of Direct Action and Director of Nonviolent Education", which in themselves define his role within the organization and the Bevel/King relationship).

Finally, to include the word "led", and later the two key bills in which arguably Bevel played the lead role, on the page, I believe either points to the need to include his as a third name, or for the replacement of Parks with Bevel (unless the word "led" is changed}. Although Americans have not learned of Bevel, or is his name a household word like the other two, for the sake of article accuracy this change or addition seems to me to contribute, rather than detract, from the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Then again, another resolution to this is to change the word "led" to "symbolized". My point is that the movement was led by pretty much two people, Martin Luther King Jr. and James Bevel. But it became symbolized, at the time and into the present, by Rosa Parks and Dr. King. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the use of three names to define a period or a series of national touchstones, the section in the article on Literature etc. references three names in numerous categories. This doesn't seem to hold up comprehension, but expands the data base appropriately. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll put up a sample sentence, taking into account the data and posts above (please read for background if time permits, long winded but I try to include most of the reasoning for the change) which seems to

1. Capture the historical data accurately. and

2. Includes data, within a sparcity of language, which contains a great deal of added information.

3. The complete sentence would read:

"A growing civil rights movement, symbolized and led by African Americans such as Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., and James Bevel, used nonviolence to confront segregation and discrimination."

Would this be adequate for inclusion? Thank you. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

United States HDI

The United States HDI has been updated to “very high” to correspond with the Human Development Index as included in a United Nations Development Program's Human Development Report released on October 5, 2009, compiled on the basis of data from 2007.

As stated on the Human Development Index page, “countries fall into four broad categories based on their HDI: very high (added in the report for 2007), high (split in the same report), medium and low human development. Starting in the report for 2007, the first category is referred as developed countries, and the last three are all grouped in developing countries.

Some older groupings (high/medium/low income countries) have been removed that were based on the gross national income (GNI) in purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita, and have been replaced by another index based on the gross domestic product (GDP) in purchasing power parity per capita.”

In the report, countries that are assessed to be “developed countries” fall into the “very high” category of which the US is a part. The US HDI was initially changed to “very high”, but was once again changed from “very high” to “high” with absolutely no reason. I don’t understand how there is any room for debate about this. If this page is to be accurate, it should correspond with accurate information that should be free of bias. If the United Nations Development Program's Human Development Report has assessed the United States’ along with 37 other countries HDI to be “very high”, then this page and those pages should accurately represent that fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Johnson (talk • contribs) 14:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks correct to me. The reference given defines "very high" as over 0.9. TastyCakes (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Article, Counterculture of the 1960s

A wiki page, Counterculture of the 1960s, which is referenced by a link in this article, needs work IMHO. I started some of that today, and will work on it further, but may I suggest that some of the experienced editors who work on this page take a look at that one and consider putting some time in on it. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Have made quite a few edits, and the article is mostly in good shape. Please take a look or two to see what is needed to remove some of the objections listed. Thanks again, Randy Kryn (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

why do i get routed here automatically I want the band? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.163.203 (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You could have stayed and educated yourself, but alas, the music calls. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ellis Island

This is a fun one.

The original Ellis Island was wholly New York territory. However, it was tiny. The island was enlarged starting in 1890. Now, here's the issue: The photograph is taken in 1902. However, almost no buildings were built outside of the New York portion before 1902. Some are recorded as having perhaps been built during 1902, but they are ancillary facilities; the main building was built mostly in New York in 1900. The only buildings built in the New Jersey portion by 1902 were the Power House, Hospital, and perhaps the Laundry. Therefore, it is highly likelyunlikely, see below... that the buildings and people contained in the 1902 photograph were taken in New York, rather than New Jersey. I nearly reverted back to say "New Jersey" but decided to look around and see if the immigration facilities themselves were in New York, and in 1902, they almost certainly were.

Map of the development is available here: [2] --Golbez (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hah, I jumped the gun. The original description for the photo clearly states that the building in the background is the hospital, which as you can see was built in 1902 on the New Jersey portion. And, that helps us determine just where in the island the immigrants themselves are. Or rather, off the island. They appear to be on a walkway over the water in the Ferry Slip area... and the water surrounding Ellis Island is indeed New Jersey territory. --Golbez (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

As Golbez has noted, the primary Ellis island facilities were in New York. Given the tension between that fact and the specific location of the image, expertly identified above, I've edited the caption to focus on the undisputed geography, which is, ultimately, more significant historically than which state has title to which parts of the island.—DCGeist (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge "Criticism of the United States"

I think the article "Criticism of the United States" (or "Anti-Americanism") should be mentioned in a section of this article, with a brief introduction about it and a link to the Main Article; after all, it's an important topic and should not be ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.101.77.105 (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sports

Alright, so it says in the sports article that basketball is an american invention. It's a canadian sport. I think that that should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.40.216 (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No it's not. --Golbez (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

While the inventor was Canadian born, he was living in America and invented it there. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

There is some dispute over the veracity of the Amerigo Vespucci naming. It was very rare for new lands to be named after first names. An alternative theory is the area was named after the patron of Cabots first voyage, Richard Ap meryke (anglicsed to Amerike). http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A42902318

78.33.171.249 (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead (Lede?)

I don't know what standard style is here, but it seems to me that the intro for this article is too long, and includes extraneous, specific information that is better covered in the article body:

• In the second sentence (first paragraph), we do not need "and Washington, D.C., the capital district". D.C. is already mentioned in the preceding sentence and is relatively insignificant to the geography of the country.
• In the last sentence of the first paragraph, we do not need "or insular areas". This is an unnecessary distinction to make so early on in the article.
• In the first sentence of the second paragraph, we do not need the parenthetical "(9.83 million km2)". The U.S. does not use SI units and the area in km is already provided in the infobox, thus inclusion in the lead is redundant.
• In the same sentence, it is completely unnecessary to point out that the U.S. ranks third by land area. This is extremely pedantic, especially for the second paragraph of the article.
• In the last sentence of the second paragraph, either nominal GDP or GDP at PPP should be picked for world comparison. Including both is redundant.
• In the first sentence of the third paragraph, the phrase "probably of Asian descent" should be eliminated. Besides the fact that it's only "probably" and thus cannot be important enough to include in the article lead for that reason alone, it's just not significant enough to occupy such prime real estate.
• In the last paragraph, second sentence, slavery should come as the first reason for the civil war, since it was the primary reason for the war's occurrence. Describing the north as "industrial" and the south as "agrarian", while true, is too pedantic for the article lead (this level of specificity would be fine for, say, the lead in the American Civil War article).
• In the last paragraph, sixth sentence -- I'm not sure that being a founding member of NATO is of such importance that it merits inclusion here.
• Finally, the last sentence has awkward construction. A specific fact is given to show the country's military dominance, but its economic, cultural and political power are simply asserted. This "un-parallelism" should be fixed since the U.S.'s cultural and economic achievements are certainly as, if not more, important than its military ones, and both their placement in the sentence and lack of a specific example makes it seem as if military might is the chief characteristic of the country.

These are obviously simply suggestions, and obviously people disagree with some of them since I've been reverted a few times when trying to implement them. However, I wanted to see what other people thought. I personally think that shortening the lead by excluding extraneous details will make the article appear much less intimidating and much more streamlined. The lead is often the most-read portion of an article (besides the infobox), so it's important to get it right. Llakais (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Those are good points. I agree with them, except for the "probably of Asian descent" one. Even though it is just "probably", it's pretty important. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(1) Incorrect. D.C. is not "already mentioned in the preceding sentence"; there is only a reference to a federal district, necessary to clarify that it is not part of one of the fifty federated states. It is quite significant to a basic understanding of the country to know the name of its capital.

(2) Fine to trim "insular areas".

(3) Wikipedia serves an international audience. The vast majority of that audience outside the United States uses SI units. We serve them best at little cost by providing the conversion.

(4) It is neither "completely unnecessary" nor "extremely pedantic" to note the land area ranking. Land area is a common calculation, favored by some to total area. A trim here would result in little benefit and a definable loss.

(5) It is not "redundant" to provide two different calculations of GDP. If you wish to argue that it is "excessive", please make your case, tell us which calculation you favor, and why.

(6) The phrase "probably of Asian descent" was developed through extended discussion here and should be retained. As a wise person said, it's important to get this right in the lede.

(7) The current construction of the sentence regarding the Civil War simply reads better than the proposed revision. Blunt references to "the South" and "the North" would ring especially flat. There is nothing "pedantic" at all in adding one-word characterizations that contribute to both euphony and comprehension.

(8) I'm inclined to agree about trimming the reference to NATO.

(9) I don't read the final sentence the same way. The country's military might can be articulated quantitatively, and I think it's worth doing so. The sentence then turns to cover economic, political, and cultural influence, without--as I see it--subordinating them. There is, technically, a lack of parallelism here, though that it is usually identified only when a parallel construction involving multiple instances is developed, then is dropped along the way--not the case here. The mild "un-parallelism" is one of the small prices we pay for concision.—DCGeist (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Just in re to "Lead (Lede?)" - Lede is a journalism term meaning the lead part of a story, but because 'lead' has other meanings in journalism, they spell it 'lede'. My only other comment is, I agree somewhat with 'probably of Asian descent' being excessive. If they were of Asian descent, then that follows from their path taken to the continent; if they aren't, then that would certainly be worth mentioning, since that would be counter to the path taken. Saying 'probably' adds nothing. I don't think we need to include the descent here. --Golbez (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Did we trim the lede yet (i am too lazy to look right now), Because I agree with DCGeist's points. Aaron mcd (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

On October 20, Llakias deleted "insular areas" and the reference to NATO. Those two trims appear to be acceptable by consensus.—DCGeist (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The lede still seems quite long (4 paragraphs), but I suppose it is a large and quite detailed article. Do you think it is too long or is it just me? Aaron mcd (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the length and nature of the article, a four-paragraph lede seems appropriate and certainly agrees with our relevant style guideline. See Wikipedia:Lead section#Length.—DCGeist (talk) 04:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding point (1), how about we change the link in the first sentence of the lead to "capital district" instead of "federal district" (links to both articles, especially considering their content, is certainly redundant -- the "capital district" article does a good job of explaining how the district would not be considered part of one of the states)? That way, we don't have to explain that the "federal district" is the same as the capital. For the actual name, the reader can glance four inches to the right at the infobox. Llakais (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I still see no compelling reason to change the well-established and informative language here. The infobox is ancillary material that no reader should be obliged to read for basic information. Is the name of a country's capital city sufficiently basic that it should appear in the lede? Of course it is. To see if there is support for that assertion, I looked at the fourteen country Featured Articles: nine name the capital in the lede—64%. Of the five exceptions, none has been promoted to FA or reviewed for that status within the past two years. In addition, given both the noncontiguous geography of the U.S. and the unique political status of the District of Columbia within its federal system, I think there's no question that the existing level of coverage in our lede is well merited.—DCGeist (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning it twice in as many sentences (and the first two of the article, no less) is certainly not well merited. If the name must be included, then let's revise the first sentence to say "...and a capital district, Washington, D.C. (Proposed changes are in italics). Then we can eliminate the reference in the second sentence and the reader will still get all info from the lead. Llakais (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you're wrong, she won't. It's nice that you take it for granted that Washington, D.C., is located among the 48 contiguous states. But we should not assume that an uninformed reader from outside the U.S. will find that obvious. Sorry, no sale.—DCGeist (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That brought my watchlist reviewing session to a grinding halt. "She won't"? Who she? Other than that, though, point taken re presumption of US-specific knowledge on the part of readers. I have not been following this discussion, but a glance at the article lede immediately brings the word overlinking to mind; it's a sea of blue. Re the specific point at issue, I would suggest saying "... federal capital district." without wikilinks but with a ref to a footnote briefly clarifying that and wikilinking both articles from there. The [[fifty states|U.S. State]] link could go there too, and probably the sidebar mention of [[forty-eight contiguous states|Contiguous United States]] I'm not going to attempt a rewrite of the lede, but it strikes me that it could be considerably shortened, simplified, and beautified by removing details to clarifying footnotes or to later sections of the article. However, this is a very complicated article on a very large subject. It is massively wikilinked to other articles and currently contains 204 footnotes. Methinks I oversimplify here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"She" be Llaikas's hypothetical "reader", 'ight. Aside from that, no, "federal capital district" is a very ungainly phrase and there's nothing here that warrants an inline citation.—DCGeist (talk) 08:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not assuming anything, and I resent your tone. Personally, I don't think the location of the capital city is important enough to include in the article lead, but I see it is included in some featured articles about countries (although it was only two out of the six I checked). To eliminate redundancy and still include the fact that D.C. is located in the lower forty-eight, how about this revision and combination of the first two sentences?:

"The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America) is a federal constitutional republic situated mostly in central North America, where its forty-eight contiguous states and Washington, D.C., the capital district, lie between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, bordered by Canada to the north and Mexico to the south."

Maybe this is acceptable? Llakais (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's my problem with that. I gather a consensus was established--and I certainly agree--that it is vital to mention the fifty states in the first sentence...which requires mention of the federal district as a primary administrative division as well...which leads to the phrasing you take issue with. I appreciate the effort, but I don't believe, all things considered, that this is an improvement on the current phrasing. DocKino (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Military spending

Editor BlackHades proposes to change the existing passage in the lede

The country accounts for two-fifths of global military spending

to

The country accounts for nearly half of global military spending

The first problem with this is that it makes the content of the article inconsistent. The existing phrasing is based on this well-sourced passage in the main text:

Total U.S. military spending in 2008, more than $600 billion, was over 41% of global military spending and greater than the next fourteen largest national military expenditures combined.

Accuracy is our goal here, so we are faced with the question, Which figure is more defensible? The source adduced by BlackHades, the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation ([3]), bases its percentage on a very questionable arrangement of figures: "The figure for the United States is the budget request for Fiscal Year 2009 and includes $170 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as funding for DOE nuclear weapons activities. All other figures are projections based on 2006, the last year for which accurate data is available." I'm afraid that's not really acceptable. The source presently adduced, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute ([4]), compares like and like, using spending figures for 2008 for all countries (estimated where necessary). It also expresses dollar figures per market exchange rates, a superior comparative method to nominal dollar figures. For our purposes, the existing source is clearly preferable.—DCGeist (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Civil Rights

I am adding a section on Civil Rights. I believe that the issue is relevant today just as it was in the past. Yes. We currently have an African American President, however, that does not mean the Civil Rights issue is any less signifigant. {Cmguy777 (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)}

Why is this site so hostile to any Civil Rights additions? The term "Protest Politics" makes it sound like people were protesting just to protest or if African Americans were being "upity". I am not sure who is controlling this web sit or blog. People were fighting for civil rights guaranteed in the Constitution, not protesting! Every edit has been deleted. {Cmguy777 (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)}

Well, it seems like you have a very singular focus. Civil rights was not the only hot-button issue. People were also protesting the Vietnam War and the corruption of various parts of the establishment. You might want to check out Civil rights movement in the United States if you're looking for an appropriate article for your expertise. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. This nation was founded with slavery as an imbedded and defended institution. There was a Civil War that ended slavery, and there was over 100 years, after 1877, where African Americans were subject to lynching and/or personal violence. Segregation is rising in American schools and that fact was deleted from this article. The term civil rights is much more suitable term then "protest politics". African Americans wanted to be able to vote, go to public places, without their lives being threatened. I am not sure how politics has anything to do with that. They were not protesting in my opinion. They just wanted to be treated fairly as citizens of the United States and have the freedom from lynching.{66.81.223.117 (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)}

Obviously, they were "protesting" their unequal status and treatment. You also appear to have ignored Evb-wiki's explanation that the subsection title reflects the fact that there were other significant protest movements during the periods covered that addressed concerns other than civil rights for African Americans. DocKino (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a valid, however, there is a difference between protesting a war and demanding civil rights. The white protesters over the Vietnam "War", more correctly a police military action, were never lynched, previously enslaved, nor excluded from eating at a local nickel & dime lunch counter. That is the difference. Political rights are an indirect result of civil rights. The article does not address that segregation is increasing in U.S. public education. If the United States is returning into a segregated society, then why not put that in the article? Respectfully.{66.81.242.238 (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)}

There are many important facts about contemporary U.S. society that, unfortunately, we cannot include in this overview article. Think of all the public health issues, for instance, that we don't have the space to address--cigarette smoking, alcoholism, addiction to controlled substances. The article used to provide the minimum voting age--it was decided that this was information that could be cut. The bar for the introduction of new topic areas at this point is quite high, and--unfortunately, I'm sure we can agree--segregational trends in education are simply not a substantial enough part of the public discourse to warrant inclusion. DocKino (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand there are times when subject matters should be branched off onto seperate articles. That is true. The question I have though asks, does this article give an accurate description of the United States as it is today? That would be my criteria for making edits. Drug use, crime, and civil rights could be addressed in this article. Poverty could be addressed under the economic issues. When I read this Article it seems like America has no problems, everyone has homes to live in, and jobs to work, and all the students are getting adequate education. America does not have any gangs or drug problems. There is no area about the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. These issues do not have to go into depth, however, should be addressed in the article. These are only suggestions. The article is good as it is, however, other issues need to be addressed.(Cmguy777 (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC))

There are brief mentions of the Iraq war. I suppose this page is just a summary of events in the United States. {Cmguy777 (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)}

After reading the article and the comments above, I think if all were considered, we could greatly expand this article. I am not saying I don't think that the Civil Rights movement should not be included but if so, it opens the door for many other issues. There is just a mention of the woman's suffrage in the WWI section; it seems a little misplaced. Also, a lot of groups were oppressed in the USA's growth, including the Native Americans and other natural inhabitants as well. Many groups in the U.S. have been discriminated on as well, including European settlers. African-Americans suffered the worst disparity in my opinion. However, such a section should include the oppression and rights of all people involved; Native Americans, women, Africans and even a section on the LGBT movements for rights (not sure if I missed some). I don't think the section should be too long considering the length of the article and everything that can be included. Maybe call it 'Civil Rights & Social Change', briefly including the counter-culture as well. I also didn't get that 'peachy' of a picture of the USA when reading this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanorton (talk • contribs) 23:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

foreign policy

I removed the comment about the "special relationship" which was a proposal of Churchill's and a rhetorical flourish used perhpas in UK politics but not in the US. It is not US foreign policy, and there is no point in singling out the UK as a foreign parrtner of the US. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Our foriegn relations with China are much more important than with the UK. There's nothing "special" about relations with the British in this day and age. The United States does not have allies nor do we have friends. We have interests with the wider, global world where the UK is just one of many countries that we have foreign relations with. --Yoganate79 (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Territories, voting

"It is fundamentally structured as a representative democracy, though U.S. citizens residing in U.S territories are excluded from voting for federal officials."

There appear to be several things wrong with this sentence. First of all, the territories are not part of the country. Therefore, their lack of voting can hardly be said to mean the U.S. is not a representative democracy.

Second of all, they do vote for a federal official: Each territory has a non-voting delegate.

I would remove this myself, except I don't know if the reference is citing the first half of the sentence or the second half. --Golbez (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The second half of the sentence (and perhaps the first) were added in response to one editor's advocacy on the matter, about two-and-a-half years ago. The cited source supports the second half of the sentence ([5]). I'm on the fence about this. I certainly wouldn't have a problem if, for instance, we deleted the second half of the sentence, and added a summary (one-sentence) description of the situation of territorial U.S. citizens at the end of the Political divisions section (which did not exist when this matter was last discussed).—DCGeist (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess I was a little wrong; even though the territories (save the federal district and Palmyra) are not part of the country, their people can indeed be citizens, but still limited to only voting for a territorial delegate. I agree, giving a better treatment to the whole citizenship issue is better than this one-off sentence. --Golbez (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Mooting a new sentence for the Political divisions section:

American citizens residing in the territories have many of the same rights and responsibilities as citizens residing in the states, with some important exceptions: they are exempt from federal income taxes, excluded from voting for president, and have only nonvoting representation in the U.S. Congress.

Thoughts?—DCGeist (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems good to me. Needs sourcing. --Golbez (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Pursuant to reading—though that verb hardly captures the pain involved—the relevant IRS documents, a rephrasing for precision and concision:

American citizens residing in the territories have many of the same rights and responsibilities as citizens residing in the states; however, they are generally exempt from federal income tax, may not vote for president, and have only nonvoting representation in the U.S. Congress.

The source currently cited at the end of the relevant passage in the Government and elections section covers all these points. I'll make the change.—DCGeist (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Only American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Northern Marianas, Guam, and the Virgin Islands have nonvoting representations. The other territories do not, Largely because there is no one to represent. Residents of Wake Island have no representation at all. There generally are a few persons every census who delcare wake as their residency.XavierGreen (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The census may have recorded 1 person on Wake in 2000, but that doesn't mean that person lacked a vote; he or she was certainly a citizen of another state, territory, or country. I doubt it's even legally possible to be a "citizen" of one of the minor outlying islands. Just as it's over-specific to mention Palmyra Atoll in the introduction, it's overspecific to point out that territories without citizens have no vote; that kind of goes without saying. --Golbez (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Re voting rights, see Voting rights in the United States#Overseas and nonresident citizens. As a U.S. expat who has been living in the Philippines for 14+ years without maintaining a residence in one of the U.S. States, I can testify that there are many practical difficulties wrapped up in that, and the difficulties have increased immeasurably since the enacting of the Patriot Act. Though, UOCAVA doesn't appear strictly to require this, I can say from experience that some (perhaps all) U.S. States currently consider a past resident of that state as his last place of permanent U.S. residence before becoming a U.S. expat to be an absentee resident of that state for voting purposes. That wouldn't apply to a US citizen residing in Puerto Rico or on Wake Island or in other unincorporated territories who has never (and, for some states, whose parents had never) been resident for voting purposes in a U.S. State.

Addressing the question which kicked this thread off, it seems to me that the sentence in question should read something like "... though U.S. citizens residing outside of the U.S. (including those residing in in U.S territories) who are not absentee residents of a particular U.S. state are excluded from voting for federal officials." Note that the U.S. Constitution speaks of "Electors in each State" in re election of Senate and House members, and the President and VP are elected by an Electoral College composed of members representing individual U.S. States.

Addressing the bit further down re the sentence which currently reads "American citizens residing in the territories have many of the same rights and responsibilities as citizens residing in the states; however, they are generally exempt from federal income tax, may not vote for president, and have only nonvoting representation in the U.S. Congress.", citing Raskin, James B. (2003). Overruling Democracy: The Supreme Court Vs. the American People. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 36–38. ISBN 0415934397.— the cited source does indeed seem to support that but, at least regarding exemption from federal income tax it is ...well... oversimplified. See Tax Guide for U.S. Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad . Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed possible to be a citizen of one of the minor outlying islands, there is actually policy in place on how to treat them under united states law. A person born to non citizens in any unincorporated territory without an organic act is an american national by birth, but not an american citizen as American Samoans are. Thus the individual would be a citizen of the respective unincorporated territory but not the united states, lacking the rights that all americans who are citizens have, yet still being an american national by birth.XavierGreen (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia reform

On the page Wikipedia:Areas for Reform near the bottom, I've been having a discussion with an anonymous Wikipedian as well as others about taking initiative, acting, doing stuff, being bold. And, one reform suggestion is this: Honoring Contributors. This came out of a discussion that there's an ongoing problem with Wikipedia in recruiting and retaining good editors; one solution proposed was to honor editors (ok, it was my idea, but hey!) That is, honoring us, the writers, the volunteers, the nameless/faceless contributors, the people who work hard on great articles like United States without payment, who keep the page free of vandalism, who check facts, add stuff, who improve the writing, who work tirelessly tapping our fingers onto plastic keyboards and installing our wisdom free of charge into the netherworld of cyberspace. We enlighten humanity. I think important contributors to great articles like United States should get recognition on the article page itself, perhaps at the bottom, with some kind of "thank you" or "This article courtesy of many fine contributors including ... (brief list of, say, top ten recent contributors)". I plan to add a brief line at the bottom of United States as a trial of this idea. But I'm looking for willing volunteers (people who give their permission for their "handle" to be displayed.) (And, btw, not my name since I don't work on this article.) And I hope it will stick for a day or so to give people a chance to experiment with this, and then perhaps it will move to some discussion forum somewhere.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Any volunteers?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC) And, feel free to nominate others whose writing you respect on this great article (there are many).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, since I asked. I'll answer: I'm nominating: User:DCGeist, User:Golbez and User:DocKino for starters. I respect your contributions to this article and I seek your permission to put your handles in the article as described. :)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

this sounds like a good idea, and a good way to retain good editors. I approve (although i am not one of those people so my opinion doesn't much matter does it? cheers! 128.61.78.133 (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

with a handle and free account?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Also nominating User:Whodoesntlovemonkeys--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but not only does that sound a bit narcisistic, it simply is not encyclopedic. Also, such information is not notable and inclusion of same in any article would necessarily be original research. My 2¢. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent comment by Evb-wiki. So, I'm nominating User:Evb-wiki along with the other editors. So I'm asking your permission, Evb-wiki, to put your handle on the United States page. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

About your comments:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• narcissitic? perhaps if we put our own own names on the page, it would be; but for me, to recognize you as a prominent contributor worthy of praise then, it's not narcissitic in my view. New York Times articles have bylines. Is this narcissitic? I don't think so.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• About notability -- the FACT that intelligent helpful volunteers such as yourself worked hard to contribute to a particular article is, for me, WP:NOTABLE since these volunteers have a huge influence on the resulting article. Who you are, what you write is highly important as to what happens in the article since we, individually and collectively, write the articles; in addition, identifying the authors (even by handles) of an article helps to expose possible biases (since we all have biases don't we?).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• About original research? That "Evb-wiki" contributed X to article Y is hardly original or new; it's somewhat obvious to us editors. It's not a breakthrough theory. Rather, it's emphasizing what's obvious to us (but not obvious to readers).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• About the idea not being encyclopedic. Not sure what this means. Isn't this a catch-all term for "stuff we don't like"? If Wikipedia tries to imitate Encyclopedia Brittanica or WorldBook or such, I think it's a mistake to merely try to follow what these publications have done without thinking through their choices and why. If one defines "encyclopedic" as meaning "articles which don't have bylines" then I'll have to disagree that this is a good thing. I think a bigger problem underlying this is: which gives more authority: anonymous editing? or identified editing? And I think identified editing is much preferred for many reasons since it's hugely consonant with Wikipedia's other clear goal of WP:VERIFY. In short, it's easy to verify a newspaper story or source which specifies a specific author; it's less credible, in my view, when a newspaper lists "staff writer". The fact that a specific story is traceable to a specific actual existing person means, for me, that there's more accountability. If there's a mistake, I can trace exactly who made it. I'm a big fan of identified editing, of bylines, of credit, and I think Wikipedia suffers bigtime from a tendency to encourage anonymity (anonymous handles and such allow vandalism and foolishness.) My POV.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There are two more benefits to listing prominent contributors: first, it reminds (in an oh-so-subtle way) that readers should feel some gratitude to us hardworking unpaid volunteer Wikipedia types and possibly consider becoming Wikipedians themselves instead of being read-only slackers. Second, it encourages and motivates current Wikipedian contributors to contribute more.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Also nominating User:UpstateNYer. Greatpictures!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey check this out: near the TOP of this page is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Look at next paragraph. I copied it from the top of this talk page. And I added a few more editors. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

{{maintained}}

But the wording about "maintained" would have to change to something like "Like this article? We hope it is useful and informative. A few of the numerous contributors worked hard to make it available for you. (then the list of handle-names follows). Consider becoming a Wikipedia contributor.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

While it's nice to be recognized, it has zero place on the article page itself. --Golbez (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Your reasons? Remember Wikipedia is having trouble attracting quality volunteers; this is one way of possibly preventing serious erosion of talent. It's not just about particular persons, but about the success of the whole wikipedia experiment. And whatever happens, I think people should have a choice whether to be included or not, so I'm taking it that you're voting "no don't include me".--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Because the identities of the people who have worked on the article are ultimately not terribly relevant to readers. I would not want my name up there, while you may not consider it narcissistic, I feel others would. I don't think anyone should be included. I don't think Wikipedia needs any proof of being successful, its mere existence, and the fact that people would have to read the article to see the banner and thus that means it has a large number of readers, is proof enough. --Golbez (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• About writers' names probably not being relevant to readers -- mostly agree; but there may be a few exceptions, such as (1) if some writers were identified as belonging to a religious cult (identified through their participation in other articles) then this information may be helpful to some readers (2) if some writers were identified as having a certain commitment to excellence, then their presence on a page would be a further indication of quality workmanship -- and this might be helpful to some readers. Remember I'm not talking about featuring names prominently, but perhaps at the bottom somewhere. But think about it this way -- why do newspaper articles have bylines? It isn't because the reader cares, in particular, who wrote the article; rather, it brings numerous other benefits to the writer, to the newspaper, to accountability in general. Most newspapers have bylines. A byline is a quasi-form of payment to a reporter (since reporters don't make much anyway -- I used to be one.) But the idea of identified contributors is that it's a benefit to contributors who work hard, without pay, as a motivation. In contrast to you, I would like my name being listed somewhere on the article's bottom as a contributor. but I don't feel good about putting it there myself. There are other benefits as well. A handle-name on an article page itself would be easier for readers to reach contributors and alert them about topics omitted or overlooked.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Because that's what they signed up for. The Economist prints articles anonymously, I guess they (and the AP does or used to, I think) consider it a single work of the group, rather than each piece being the work of any individual. That's how we tend to handle things here as well. --Golbez (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• The Economist pays reporters; Wikipedia doesn't. And Wikipedia has a significant problem retaining talented editors. And I don't consider Wikipedia a "single work of the group", but rather, lots of individuals making lots of individual (anonymous) contributions.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• And about the narcissistic claim, I don't see it. Narcissism, I understand, is a kind of self-worship, overly indulgent, and I don't see that in this case. When a New York Times reporter gets a byline, is this narcissism? Of course not; neither is it narcissism if top Wikipedia contributors get a tiny mention at the bottom of an article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, but if you start picking and choosing (i.e. only mentioning some while omitting those who find this whole thing a bit off), then are you really congratulating those who have created the article, or are you just congratulating those who want the publicity? --Golbez (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Good point. But there may be some way to assess the "top ten contributors" which is impartial and fair. One way: let editors who work on a particular page vote for their picks; the top ten win. Another way: devise a computer algorithm that weights substantive (unreverted) contributions that stick over time, balanced with newness. Good questions, but solvable. My identify-the-top-contributors idea isn't about exalting ourselves; rather, it's about giving proper credit where credit is due, a form of recognition.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• And then we get to questions like, is it only for some articles? Why some over others? Do we omit banned editors? Such a computer algorithm will never be perfect. You need to formulate the entire proposal before asking to implement it. --Golbez (talk) 06:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Good questions. I think it's for all articles, for consenting editors. Banned editors? Less sure, but I think perhaps an editor banned from all Wikipedia for some clearly dastardly action should have handles removed from articles; but an editor banned for article X but who contributes constructively to article Y, I think the editor should get credit on article Y. About formulating the entire proposal first -- agreed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• There may be reasons why Wikipedia contributors prefer anonymity. It enables them to more easily hide what they're doing. Suppose Wikipedia has contributors with different agendas which they would like to keep secret for some reasons, such as public relations people working for foreign governments, or religious cults or those with some kind of religious or anti-religious agenda–anonymity makes it easier for them to hide the pattern of their contributions.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think this really has anything to do with anonymity; I think, among other things, it has to do with crediting a select group of people (who have already been established to not necessarily be the top contributors) for the article, over everyone else who has. Anyway, have you presented this on the village pump as a serious proposal? I don't know why this kind of discussion is taking place here, since it would be a huge reversal of current policies. --Golbez (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

All of this grew out of discussions on Wikipedia:Areas for Reform. I see anonymity as being an underlying flaw with the Wikipedia model, since it allows vandalism, sock puppetry, and related weirdness, and the key to a solution (in my view) is identified contributions. There were discussions about reform proposals on the reform page that seemed to go nowhere. There was concern that too many editors were dropping out; so, what policies should we enact to retain and motivate editors? So, the idea of recognizing editors grew out of this. When I complained nothing was happening, after months of nothing happening, another Wikipedian urged me to be bold, and take action, and do "whatever it took". So, I was thinking of initiating the discussion by putting contributors at the bottom of an article as a kind of protest as well as a way to get people thinking about this; and I was going to choose the United States article as a place to do it first (that's why the discussion is here); plus I was going to make a proposal too, formally, but I don't know how to do it. So thank you for telling me about the Village Pump. So I guess I'll visit there in the next day or so.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Areas for Reform is a chat page. Anything that involves a change to established policies needs to be brought up in a larger milieu. --Golbez (talk) 06:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Result of experiment. This whole talk section was an experiment by me to see if there was any interest in the idea of Wikipedia bylines. This is a heavily trafficked article with good editors. While I think the WP-bylines/credit (at the bottom) is a good idea, others don't. My conclusion is: no interest. So I'm not wasting my time on it further.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Top airlines

One of our editors is apparently misreading the source that supports our passage about the largest airlines. Our sentence currently reads: "The four largest airlines in the world by passengers carried are American; Southwest Airlines is number one." This is correct. Our source, the International Air Transport Association, lists as the top airlines by total (international+domestic) passengers carried: (1) Southwest Airlines, (2) American Airlines, (3) Delta Air Lines, (4) United Airlines. DocKino (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This is all wrong! Delta is the worlds largest airline by passanger volume. Please see website: http://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/airlines/legacy/delta.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.7.67 (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Lee Resolution/Independence

Since i am the one who reignited this i am moving the debate from the editpage to the talk page where it belongs. After skimming the archives of the talk page, there seems to have never been much discussion on this matter. Merely one on one exchanges. Since there seems to be support for both sides, i say discuss it here. I argue that since the Lee resolution was the first article declaring independence that its date of adoption should be considered the day of independence. Thoughts? I know there is a lot of support for both sides here, so lets follow the rules instead of edit war.XavierGreen (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are the two sentences (with footnote) that I added yesterday:

On July 2, 1776, the Congress voted to approve a resolution of independence that had been proposed in June by Richard Henry Lee of Virginia. This vote marked the legal separation of the American colonies from Great Britain.

Subsequently, one editor deleted the final sentence, as it had no citation. Later, another editor removed the first sentence and its citation.

Eagle4000 (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No. This is the sort of fine historical detail that simply has no place in this summary overview article. It does deserve more coverage in the topical history article (History of the United States (1776–1789)), but certainly not here. DocKino (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, without this sort of detail, the article winds up falsely stating that July 4th is the date of independence, when it is in fact only the date independence later came to be celebrated. And so the article portrays popular misinformation as fact, and misinforms the readers. - Nunh-huh 12:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Got Source??????--Jojhutton (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You didn't like the sources in the article you were just editing? Would you prefer George Mason University? - Nunh-huh 12:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats a nice source. I'm sure that a student newspaper trumps the actual document which says the 4th, but I digress. The resolution was voted on, but not completed until the 4th. Lets use the modern example of health care reform. If the Congress approves it, does it become law? No, not until the document is completed. In this case, the completion occurs with a the presidents signiature. In the case for independence, it was completed with the finalizing of the document. None of the signers seemed to argue this point, why are you?--Jojhutton (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The actual document, the Lee resolution, says the 2nd. The vote on the 4th was to approve the document that explained the action taken on the 2nd. - Nunh-huh 13:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

John Adams:

“ The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more. ”

And Mr. Adams turned out to be very, very wrong. Wrong, likewise, is the claim that the article states that "July 4th is the date of independence". You could argue, if you like, that September 3 "is" the date of independence, because that's when, in 1783, the former sovereign power recognized it. But, really now. The article states quite accurately, "On July 4, 1776, [the colonies] issued the Declaration of Independence, which proclaimed their right to self-determination and their establishment of a cooperative union." And, again, it states quite accurately, "Proclaiming that 'all men are created equal' and endowed with 'certain unalienable Rights,' the Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, drafted largely by Thomas Jefferson, on July 4, 1776. That date is now celebrated annually as America's Independence Day." Nothing need be emended or appended here.—DCGeist (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

So you'd rather congratulate the article on its artfulness in avoiding mentioning that the resolution of independence occurred on July 2 than alter it to present that fact? - Nunh-huh 13:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we should all appreciate the article's precision and focus. In the scheme of a general overview, the July 2 action is a minor detail. Significant—like many, many, many other events—in American history, yes. But not significant enough—like many, many, many other events in American history—to be included in this summary-style article. Like it or not, July 4 is the date universally recognized, and that's what earns it its place here.—DCGeist (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Universally celebrated, you mean. Sorry you feel facts are "minor details", and that being scrupulously accurate is not a desirable goal in an encyclopedia. - Nunh-huh 13:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

NY Times says July 2 was the day of legal independence. See the second listing below. NY Times.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

But whether the July2=actualdate deserves a spot in the summary article, well, I'm less sure; there's only so much room here and there's lots of potentially interesting stuff which could go in. I suppose I favor deferring to editors who try to keep this summary from expanding into a huge sea creature with numerous tentacles of trivia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I hardly doubt the date of independence of a nation is trivia, it is listed on every country article. The room issue should be moot, if july 4th is properly replaced with July 2nd. The Declaration of Independece was simply a document informing the king the colonies grievences and what course of action they had decided to take. The Lee resolution provided the actual moment of independence as it gave the central government (conitental congress) the authority to act as an independent nation.XavierGreen (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to word it so it's tightly written, referenced, but doesn't take up too much space?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

We could put it in the infobox. That only requires one character to be changed, a 4 to a 2. The size of the text would not increase or decrease. You could add a footnote in the infobox explaining if nessesary, athough that would add one sentance.XavierGreen (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You have jumped to the end of the argument by saying "the simple solution is to change it to the 2nd". Best as I can see, the legitimacy of that proposed edit is still being challenged. Also, you seem to have ignored the obvious confusion this would cause among readers, just as much as saying "The United States consists of 50 states, one capital district, and one uninhabited territory" would cause, if we put it in the intro - though much worse. --Golbez (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

← The Declaration of Independence was the formal document informing the world of the birth of a new nation. The 4th is, thus, the formal date of creation and the traditionally recognized day of U.S. independence. We can explain that the resolution toward U.S. independence was approved on the 2nd somewhere in the body of the article. However, I guess a similar argument could be made for September 17, 1787 being the date the counrty was born, as that is the day a government/entity was actually created. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• There are numerous articles suitable for informing that portion of our readership interested in this level of detail about the country's origins with the events of July 2, 1776: in addition to History of the United States (1776–1789), noted above, there are Lee Resolution, United States Declaration of Independence, Independence Day (United States), Second Continental Congress, American Revolution, and History of the United States. But it simply doesn't rise to the explanatory level necessary for inclusion here. (And actually replacing July 4 in the infobox with July 2 would be an inexcusable imposition of pedantry on those we're meant to serve and inform.) Be mindful that there are events that ring even more loudly in the annals of American history for which there is no room in our summary: e.g., Marbury v. Madison, Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, the Martin Luther King, Jr. assassination. Adding the Lee Resolution to this article would do substantially less to expand our readers' understanding of the United States than would the addition of any one of those four items. And I have no doubt we could readily come up with a dozen more. DocKino (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, i think there is no event more important in american historty than its beginning. Every other event you have stated would not have occured if the United States did not declare independence. The Declaration of Independence would not have even been issued if the Lee Resolution was not passed. So how is that less important than anything else? Litterally every other nation has the correct date of independence on its page, so why does the United States have an incorrect one?67.84.178.0 (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, now. Your argument invites the reductio ad absurdum. "The Declaration of Independence would not have even been issued if the Lee Resolution was not passed." Sure, and the Lee Resolution would never have been drafted and passed if the following events had never happened: the Boston Tea Party, the First Continental Congress, the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the Siege of Boston, the organization of the Continental Army, the selection of the Committee of Five. It's charming that some people want to change the date on which the independence of the United States is celebrated from July 4 to July 2; charming, but irrelevant to the purpose of Wikipedia. DocKino (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I would be in favor of a new FAQ on this very matter, explaining why the date is the 4th and not some other random date. Why not April 19th? Thats the date that began the fighting. Its the 4th because the FRAMERS decided that was the most relevant date. If they wanted it to be the 2nd, then how come there are no documents arguing that point from any of the signers? Its because they saw the 4th as the actual date of adoption of the declaration and not the 2nd.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not the only one who thinks it should be changed. I would think that i a few days we hold a vote on the issue or take it to arbitration. I only changed the date once on the page, but there were several others who reverted it to July 2nd after it was changed back to the 4th, as well as a number who had supported it in the limited previous discussions. All of these other events/ bodies such as the Siege of Boston and the like did not occur in the United States and therefore should not be listed on this page. The Lee resolution is the document that created the United States as an independent nation and thus its adoption is the dejure date of self recognized independece. My basic arguement is the same as it was from the beginning that July Second is the date of Independence and that since every country page on wikipedia has their independence date issued, so should this page. Even the Cuba page lists its earliest declaration of independence in its info box.XavierGreen (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I would not be in favor of changing the date in the information box. As has been noted above, July 4 is the date that is officially recognized by the U.S. (and the world) as its date of independence. At the same time, I think it would be helpful to the reader if the following sentence and citation were added (just before the sentence that says the Declaration was adopted July 4):

On July 2, 1776, the Congress voted to approve a resolution of independence that had been proposed in June by Richard Henry Lee of Virginia.

It's only one sentence (plus a footnote), so that it would not add unduly to the length of this summary article. I realize that there are many other facts and details that also could be added to the article, but I believe that this particular fact -- relating to the world-changing act of voting to declare independence from the then-most powerful nation in the world -- rises to a higher level than any other such fact or detail. Eagle4000 (talk) 02:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, it's very nice that you believe it, but neither the people of the United States nor the rest of the world believe it. They believe that the event that signifies the world-changing act of American independence from colonial rule is the July 4 Declaration of Independence. So sorry. But that's the fact. I hope that the recognition of this incontrovertible fact does not cause you irreversible injury. DocKino (talk) 08:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, we understand that you want to keep this article at the level of a lie-to-children by omitting the Lee Resolution. But there's no excuse for having that sort of article in an encyclopedia, which ought to strive for scrupulous accuracy. - Nunh-huh 16:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The preceding debate emphatically demonstrates the basic problem with wikipedia: the abysmally low levels of education of its editors. As anyone - and I mean anyone - who has ever taken an introductory-level U.S. history course in college knows, the Declaration of Independence was in fact completed, signed, and became valid on July 2 - not July 4 - 1776. It was announced July 4th, which is why it is popularly celebrated that day. The very fact that some mental midget supra asked for a source for this fact just goes to show how completely uneducated he is. Thank you for engaging in this debate; it lets anyone who comes across it know the general intellect of wikipedia editors.208.254.207.141 (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

They voted for independence on July 2nd, this is true, but they didn't actually finalize and approve wording of the Declaration of Independence until the 4th of July two days later. This is after lengthy debate during those two days that involved deleting almost a fourth of the text. The Declaration of July 2nd isn't exactly the same as the Declaration of July 4th. Even John Adams, the man who wrote the letter saying July 2nd would be a national holiday, celebrated Independence Day on the 4th of July. There really is no room for discussion, its been 233 years and it's been celebrated on the 4th of July ever since. 69.132.221.35 (talk) 06:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The United States Declaration of Independence article says, in part, "... Although the wording of the Declaration was approved on July 4, the date of its actual signing is disputed by historians, most accepting a theory that it was signed nearly a month after its adoption, on August 2, 1776, and not on July 4 as is commonly believed." Also see United States Declaration of Independence#Signing. More detail is available in C. Edward Quinn (1996), "The signers of the Declaration of Independence", Volume 1 of Roots of the Republic, Bronx Historical Society, pp. 122–125, ISBN 9780717276103 {{citation}}: |chapter= ignored (help). Page 122 is not previewable online, but FWICS online signing took place on various dates in July-August-September 1776. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well it seems there might be a majority of people who think that the lee resolution should be mentioned in some manner or another in the article, i suppose we could deliberate later in what manner it should be included.XavierGreen (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Consistency or being true to the sources?

Consistency is good, but often it is more important to be true to the sources. When the CIA and the United Nations quote the area of the United States in square kilometres, it is as notable that they use these measures as it is that their figures do not agree. To convert these figures into square miles misrepresents the sources, just as it would misrepresent the sources to change the measures so that they agree with each other. Michael Glass (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. It is not notable for our purposes that the CIA and the UN quote the area of the U.S. in square kilometers. This is a stylistic matter, and the existing style is consistent and good. Throughout, we give the U.S.-style length first, then, parenthetically, the metric conversion. That is standard, proper style. The proposed change would impose a poor, inconsistent style for no compelling reason. The basic data offered by these sources is what is notable, not their particular mode of presentation.—DCGeist (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Its not gonna happen Michael, its just not gonna happen. POV pushing has no place here.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

DCGeist, I note you use of 'our'. For whom are you speaking? What gives you the right to dictate what is or is not significant to other readers? Some readers might be interested to know what the United Nations and the CIA actually state, not what you edit them to state.

Jojhutton, since when did asking for the sources to be quoted accurately amount to POV pushing? Do you mean that telling the truth is unacceptable because it is pushing a point of view?

When editors use the 'convert' function to change square kilometres to square miles this inevitably involves rounding errors. When editors pass off the rounded number as the primary number and convert it back, the rounding error is compounded. And that is what has happened. Thanks to DCGeist's edit, the area of the United States has come out differently from the source that is quoted. His edit states "..the CIA World Factbook gives 3,794,101 sq mi (9,826,676 km2)" but that's not the figure the CIA gives us. It states 9,826,675 sq km, and

I assert that what the source states is what the reader of Wikipedia should get, even if this involves inconsistency. I don't believe that accuracy is POV pushing. Michael Glass (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The sources are not being "quoted", their data is being summarized. The difference is a significant one. In this case, the conversion template does happen to produce a rounding error, a parenthetical error of the vanishingly small magnitude of approximately .00001%. If we feel that this requires correction, it is simple enough to replace the conversion template with directly composed numbers (thus: demonstration edit). But the stylistic inconsistency you wish to introduce is simply unprofessional. I suggest you familiarize yourself with a couple of style manuals and the general principles of good style and formatting--you will learn that consistency is a very big deal indeed. One reason is that lack of consistency makes reading unnecessarily difficult, especially when it comes to the presentation of data. DocKino (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that Michael Glass and DCGeist both have parts of the right answer—different parts. How about "<s>{{convert|9826676|km2|sqmi|0|abbr=on|disp=output only}} ({{formatnum:9826675}} km{{sup|2}})</s>yy error, see [[#wtm25Nov|below}}", which produces, "3,794,101 sq mi (9,826,675 km²)" ?? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, any method that produces that visible result is fine. DocKino (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I reverted that before seeing this, but I don't see the point. What is the use of using two templates to display exactly the same thing as what we have now? Except for the rounding error. That may be the fundamental issue here, but hiding it behind this doesn't seem to make sense. Please correct me if I have the wrong impression of what this sequence of templates is supposed to accomplish. --Golbez (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm the guy who introduced the two templates here, so I'll respond. One editor above felt that since the cited supporting source says "9,826,675 sq km" (and gives no sq mi figure), it was important that the article say 9,826,675 and not say 9,826,676. Another editor felt that it was important style-wise that sq mi be reported first and km² be reported in parens following that. I couldn't disagree with either of them, so I came up with the two template solution, both templates using the figure from the supporting source as input. Of course the same results could be achieved by literal text, but that's probably more likely to have the figures become de-syncronized by future edits than using the templates would be. It's a messy solution, but I couldn't offhand think of a better one.

I'm not in love with the solution I came up with—improve it at will. Perhaps an inline explanatory comment is needed; perhaps {{convert}} needs yet another optional parameter to tell it to reorder its outputs; perhaps this conversion needs to be hidden inside yet another special-purpose template. (Horrors!!! Forget I said that!!!).

Also, having looked at this again in response to this, I now see that I screwed up the two-template solution with a typo. AFAICS, it should be {{convert|9826675|km2|sqmi|0|abbr=on|disp=output only}} ({{formatnum:9826675}} km{{sup|2}}), producing "3,794,100 sq mi (9,826,675 km²", which would require changing the figure for the area_sq_mi= parameter in the infobox as well. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Censorship - that visible result?

It's easy to dismiss the matter of square miles and square kilometres as a matter of style, and that provided the figures come out right, then all is right, and that a consistent style is what matters above all. I want to show you what is lost when an inconvenient inconsistency is suppressed.

You see, there isn't just one message that readers may take from a passage, and smoothing out inconsistencies results in a loss of meaning. Take this passage:

the CIA World Factbook gives 9,826,675 km² (3,794,100 sq mi), the United Nations Statistics Division gives 9,629,091 km² (3,717,813 sq mi), and the Encyclopedia Britannica gives 3,676,487 sq mi (9,522,058 km²). Including only land area,

This short passage gives two surprising facts: that estimates of the area of the United States varies by as much as 304,617 square kilometres (117,613 sq mi), an area greater than the size of the state of Arizona. Secondly, it tells us that both the CIA and the United Nations present this information in square kilometres. Now look at the censored version:

the CIA World Factbook gives 3,794,101 sq mi (9,826,676 km²), the United Nations Statistics Division gives 3,717,813 sq mi (9,629,091 km²), and the Encyclopedia Britannica gives 3,676,486 sq mi (9,522,055 km²). Including only land area,

What remains is the surprising variation in the area of the United States, but what is concealed is the fact that both the CIA and the United Nations - but not the Encyclopaedia Britannica - present this information in square kilometres. Now the excuse for this censorship is that style is more important than accuracy, that quoting the sources accurately is unprofessional, that consistency is a big deal, bigger even than telling it as it is. Now I assert that suppressing the evidence of the use of metric measures is a form of censorship, that it is laughable to suggest that the uncensored version is too confusing. Michael Glass (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Picking metric or imperial conversion is... censorship? That is far more laughable than anything that has possibly been said. --Golbez (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The reading list is expanding. In addition to a good manual of style, a dictionary is called for here, from which one can learn the meaning not only of "censorship", but also of "dismiss" (the matter was hardly "dismissed" as a matter of style; its significance as a matter of style was emphasized) and "quoting" (misused again). DocKino (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"Area: total: 9,826,675 sq km" Quoted from the CIA Factbook [6] Now, which of the following statements is more accurate?

the CIA World Factbook gives 9,826,675 km² (3,794,100 sq mi)

the CIA World Factbook gives 3,794,101 sq mi (9,826,676 km²)

You can quibble about quotations but there's no quibble about which is more true to the source. As there is no question about which is more accurate, it is curious that you prefer the less accurate version.

But censorship? One website [7] says: "Censorship -- the control of the information and ideas." It then says "...censorship was achieved through the examination of ... forms of communication for the purpose of altering or suppressing ideas". Is the mere mention of metric measures that sensitive to you? Michael Glass (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be the sensitive one here. What ideas are being suppressed here? The idea that metric-imperial conversion works both ways? --Golbez (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What is being suppressed is the fact that both the CIA and the UN use metric measures. I believe the best way to indicate this would be to put their actual figures first. Failing that, there should be a note to indicate that the sources use metric measures. Michael Glass (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The CIA and UN use metric. So? Metric can easily be converted into imperial without controversy. It doesn't matter that they use metric. The method in which the area is expressed is irrelevant to the actual fact of the area. It can be 9826675 sqkm, 3794100 sqmi, or 1 Golbezunit, a unit I just invented to equal one United States in area. The unit used does not and cannot remotely in any sane fashion express a POV. --Golbez (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If the source value is as unimportant as you state, why should it be so important that it not be mentioned? All I'm asking is that we "put the source value first and the converted value second." This idea is hardly radical or dangerous. In fact, it's from the style manual. [8] Michael Glass (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

At this point, no matter how valid your point is, it is poisoned by your wild accusations of "censorship". As for your quote, you left out the valuable first half: "If editors cannot agree on the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second." Editors can and in fact have agreed; you, a single editor bringing up an insane argument about censorship, does not change that fact. --Golbez (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll ignore your ad hominem remarks and state this: if you say it's not censorship, prove it. Agree to mentioning the source values in the footnotes. Michael Glass (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not censorship because it is not the hiding of any information or data. Whether I say something is 2.54cm or 1 inch, whether I say it is 1 AU or 93 million miles, I am not censoring any information. I am presenting the exact same data, the exact same value, just in different units. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask the question again. Do you agree to mentioning the source values in the footnotes? Michael Glass (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

They are mentioned in the text, in the parentheses. Why repeat ourselves? --Golbez (talk) 07:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That is not the same. If you put the source values in parentheses it implies that they are derived values. Source values should be noted in the article, or, failing that, in the notes. For the third time I ask, do you agree to mentioning the source values in the footnotes? It's a simple question that can be answered yes or no. What is your answer? Michael Glass (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Of course not. The repetition you call for is unacceptable.

An additional point: These precious source values are also accessible via the links in the footnotes. For the hypothetical people out there who want to learn about the United States but are for some reason deeply concerned about whether the UN expresses area in metric or imperial units, the answer's just a click away. The notion that the answer to this question, blatantly trivial in context, is consequential enough to disrupt the consistent, coherent presentation of data in a general-interest article on the United States is simply bizarre.

Mr. Glass, it is clear that you are not going to win a consensus for your desired alteration. I look forward to your gracious concession of the point, and the opportunity for us all to move on to more productive Wikipedia efforts. DocKino (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your straight and unequivocal answer. You have made it clear that you will not have the information that the CIA and the UN use metric units alluded to in the text or even in the notes to this article. As far as you are concerned, this information is "blatantly trivial" and that what you describe as the "consistent, coherent presentation of data" is too important to be "disrupted" by this information. You seem to see no problem in presenting derived values as if they are source values; you see consistency as more important. As you put consistency ahead of telling things as they are, then it is obvious that nothing I can say at this time will induce you to change your mind.

You maintain that consistent, coherent presentation of "data" - well all the data that you are prepared to present - is paramount. Unfortunately, this can be used to obscure the changing balance between the use of customary measures and the metric system. Whether or not you agree with this change, it is also an interesting part of the American and the world story and I don't believe you should be afraid of alluding to it.

So while I will go elsewhere, the issue I have raised will not go away. I hope that next time you deal with this issue you will not find it so confronting. Michael Glass (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Language

If us Americans speak english then who in the world speaks American English (rhetorical question). We speak AMERICAN ENGLISH and we surely do not speak the Queens english. Why is it that the national language for America is English?

• We spell color <------ Like this.
• Colour <------- NOT LIKE THIS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.219.213 (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

what --Golbez (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think his problem is with the fact that the language is listed simply as 'English' instead of 'American English'. I don't see what the point would be though...American English is just a version of English, but its still English. 69.132.221.35 (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• It seems a bit silly to change just the America page to American English. You'd have to change the United Kingdom language to [[British English] and so on...? VanMavus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC).

• Allow me to rephrase. It WOULD be EXTREMELY silly to change the de facto national language of the United States to anything other than English. DocKino (talk) 07:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. The infobox has no heading for "Dialects of national language." — RVJ (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Jazzing Wikipedia with animations

Moving image "gif" files give a sense of vitality and change to an article.

What I think is really cool about an online encyclopedia is not just the wonderful ability to mix text with great pictures, and link everywhere, but be a dynamic environment. Check out my latest article Philosophy of Spinoza; a rather dry topic like rational philosophy can be brought to life with wonderful pictures and emotions. What I'm saying is: is there a way to make this United States article more lively with better animations and pictures?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm well I have no problem with animations, but I think they should only be used when they portray information better than still images. The flag to the right, for example, does not give information any better than a picture does. So I suppose it would depend exactly what you intend to add. You can see in the Canada article that an animated map is used to show the progression of borders in the country. I could see such a map being included in this article (the animation exists on Wikipedia in other articles) or for other information that is best portrayed in that way, but I'd be careful going overboard on the idea of animations. This isn't myspace, afterall. TastyCakes (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no specific plans to add anything. I realize there are a bunch of reactionary editors who police this page and have a kind of collective bias against changing anything. But what I'm noting are two things: (1) there is a growing collection of interesting and information animations and (2) the criterion of "only if it adds more information" seems highly restrictive in my view. I think animations, by themselves, are more interesting than still pictures. They attract the eye. They make a page come to life. So, whenever possible, I urge they be included. It's one of many new possibilities that Wikipedia affords which is superior to book-bound static encyclopedias, and I think we should take advantage of it to make the encyclopedia more interesting.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If I'm understanding you, you're arguing that the page should use animations just for the sake of using animations, and I'm sorry but I don't think that's a good idea. The article exists to summarize and present information, not entertain the user, and I'm sure many people would find lots of animations not serving a purpose distracting and ugly. That said, I'm sure there are lots of places on Wikipedia where an animation or a movie would be great ways to improve the article, and I'd urge you to seek those out. Also, if you have any animations in mind that you think would work for this page, go ahead and try them. If they are reverted, come and talk about it here and people will tell you why. Just be ready for people to give reasons like I have. TastyCakes (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you're not understanding me by saying "use animations just the sake of using animations". What I'm trying to suggest is animations are inherently more visually appealing, eye-catching, and have the possibility for conveying much more information than a still-life, and when appropriate, they can make an article more enjoyable to read as well as being more informational. Just a suggestion, that's all. I'm well aware of a pattern with this article of editors having a knee-jerk response to any kind of change; so no, I'm not going to even think of offering anything here since it seems that everybody is totally happy with the article is its present "finished" state. So much like the United States.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, animations are great - when they convey more animation than a static image can convey. They will almost invariably be lower resolution and larger in size, and so must actually convey additional information. What examples of animations would you add to the article? (The flag doesn't cut it, that doesn't convey any information whatsoever) --Golbez (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

And, if you think there are "reactionary editors who police this page", and that this article is not going to change, and you have no specific ideas... then why did you propose it here? Talk:United States is not the place on Wikipedia for generic proposals, nor is it the place to insult the people you're proposing to. --Golbez (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you're in favor of animations, I'm not insulting you, since you're obviously open-minded. But in my own mind, I'm Mr. Brilliance, and anybody who challenges my obviously brilliant ideas is fair game for any kind of put-down I can muster. (I'm kidding.) But I do have a sense, from reading this talk page, that there is a kind of aversion to change, although, to be fair, this article gets hit with a wide range of rather weird suggestions, so I'm somewhat understanding in many instances. What I was trying to do was share my experience with other articles; specifically, with Philosophy of Spinoza which I just floated a day or so ago and in which animations bring a rather dry rational-philosophy topic to life; and if this principle worked there, perhaps it could work here too? I agree about the flag being boring btw. But as more and better animations become available, I think it would add to this page, and to any page, for that matter, if its relevant. But it takes trolling through the available ones and seeing what might work, and I'm loathe to waste time trolling if it means quibbling forever on the talk page.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey fellas, what are you two gabbing about? Sulcer, are you on the rag again? Haven't you figured out yet that you're a GUY and you don't need to fret every month? And, Golbez, lighten up! --- Jimbo Wales.

I'm in favor of useful animations. The waving flag, not useful. The evolution of Canada's borders, I'm biased but yes it's useful. It seemed to be as if you were saying an animation of the capitol building would be more useful than a photo of the capitol building. What animations would be useful for this specific page? If you have nothing to offer to this specific page then why was this proposal made here? --Golbez (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole attitude of "why are you writing here if you have nothing to offer" is somewhat reactionary. The thing I was trying to offer was merely an idea -- that animations could help this page -- that's it. That's the big offer. That's all you get. If you want my help or participation, give me some sense that you're more open to ideas and that I won't waste my time hunting for new stuff that's going to get shot down or reverted.-Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"I think animations could help this page" is a generic proposal that has nothing to do with improving this particular article. If you don't have any specific proposals for United States then make your proposals in larger venues. Do you have any specific proposals? Any animations you want to suggest, or suggest be made? You have been asked this now at least three times by me but you have yet to respond; if you have no specific proposals then say so, but stop hiding behind your accusation of people being "reactionary." --Golbez (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well to be totally honest, I think you would be wasting your time trying to insert animations into this article. Of course it all depends on the specific animation, so by all means give it a shot if you think you can improve the article. Please don't try to turn the page into a hamster-dance knockoff, and please don't be too surprised or upset if your changes don't last long. TastyCakes (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

And PS, TastyCakes, I haven't done an animated map of the borders of the US yet because it would be around five minutes long. :P --Golbez (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I hadn't even realized you made the Canada one, what are the chances I'd choose that as an example? TastyCakes (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Moving images

I briefly looked through some of them. Some possibly article-worthy? What I'm saying is there is a lot of neat stuff out there, and more all of the time. I bet the numbers of animations will accelerate soon and we should be on the watch for great new stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• 
  Animated image.
• 
  US Coast Guard helicopter.
• 
  Just thought this was cool.
• 
  US was big on inventing stuff.
• 
  US exploded the first atom bomb.
• 
  Animated image either cool or possibly article-worthy.
• Animated image either cool or possibly article-worthy.
  Animated image either cool or possibly article-worthy.
• 
  History section?
• 
  Possibly too small.
• 
  History section?
• 
  Animated image either cool or possibly article-worthy.
• 
  Animated image either cool or possibly article-worthy.
• 
  Animated image either cool or possibly article-worthy.
• 
  Animated image either cool or possibly article-worthy.

Just stuff for you reactionary types to have a look at.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

All except the maps look like animation for animation's sake. They look cheap and don't add anything to the article. Especially the first two. The first is pretty much useless, and the second could be replaced with a vastly higher quality photograph of a helicopter. Did an American invent that engine? If so, you'd want to say so in a caption, and it'd better be an important invention to get mentioned in the summary article. Is that an animation of the first atomic bomb explosion? I don't think it is, and therefore it shouldn't be a generic standin for a specific moment in history. The very short animations of the war footage need context; you just can't slap them on and say "The US went to war a few times". The fundamental issue here is, animations don't work well except for maps and diagrams. Anything else is either too short/small (the war footage) or animation for prettiness sake but adds nothing and looks cheap (the first two). For actual video like the war footage, go with an actual embedded video, like at nuclear artillery. (And I'm not endorsing the animations either; they don't seem to add too much necessary info for this summary article) Finally, the first map you suggested... you realize that's for an alternate history, right? Has no use at all being in this article?

Animations can be very useful, but I don't think any of these qualify. The tiny ones remind me of CD-ROM encyclopedias from the mid-90s. --Golbez (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, stop attacking the people you're proposing to. It's getting old and starting to smack of a martyr complex. --Golbez (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Tom, I'm not sure what you mean about "the numbers of animations will accelerate soon". The technology for the animations you posted above (animated GIFS) has existed since practically the first web sites. Most of the animations you post above have been in Wikipedia for years. I see no indication that more animations like them are on the way. This is not a cutting edge area of technology, it is one that in some ways is nearing obsolescence, with the advancement of embedded movies and so on, as Golbez points out. I'm sorry, but I don't think this kind of image is suitable for any article, let alone this one which is one of the most visited articles in Wikipedia. TastyCakes (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

See this commons category for examples of such embedded movies. If you browse some of the other categories listed at the bottom of the page I think you'll agree that movies turned into a silent, stuttering series of low quality GIF files are really not comparable. TastyCakes (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Just trying to help. Pictures are increasing; animations too. Plus, it's getting easier to make better animations, with less fuss. Embedded movies–another cool technology. We live in a visual age. Words are being trumped by pictures, by color pictures, and moving pictures. This stuff not only can catch the eye but it can impart great information. And it's stuff that Wikipedia can do better than any static book-bound encyclopedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Last, the same problem that manifests itself with United States the country manifests itself with United States the Wikipedia article. It's majority-think knee-jerk aversion to criticism, automatic rejection of new approaches, reluctance to face tough problems, "we're America and we know what's best" and "We the People" are always right. Tocqueville wrote about how in America the "majority is king" and there are no real venues where it can be criticized; the press seeks to please the majority; the Congress is elected by the majority; and in America, serious critics like Noam Chomsky are sidelined, drowned out by the drumbeat of a somewhat-mindless self-approval. And I see it reflected in these talk pages again and again, how there are a group of editors unwilling to seriously consider alternative points of view, whether it's about protest politics, native Americans, new strategies with pictures. There is no "criticism of America" section. And why I think the intelligent solution is to abandon United States and work on other articles.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the editors here are perfectly willing to seriously consider alternative points of view. It's just that this one has been considered, and discarded. As for the rest of your screed, it's best ignored. --Golbez (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. If you think this article is unusual, by all means go and try your luck on other country articles, or any popular article for that matter. I guarantee that you'll get a similar response. I'm sorry, but I don't believe you demonstrated that your moving pictures improve the article. If the article isn't improved by a change, the change shouldn't be done. TastyCakes (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You could try Italy or France (first inventors) or Germany (first type that was actually working) for the four stroke engine, as it was no US invention. You might try Romania for the Romanian artillery from WWI. And I am not completely convinced that (what seems to be) a German armoured vehicle crushing an Italian car should be on the US page.

Animations should be inserted only if they serve a clear function (an acceptable example is the map on the EU page showing the expansion of the union). Never merely because it looks nice. Arnoutf (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Problem in Infobox

In the Info Box, New York City is listed as "(and largest city)", as if Washington D.C. were the Capital (and largest city).--Alang pennstate '13 (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ya I think you're totally right, it's a bug in the template so all country articles where the Largest city isn't the Capital have this problem. It was just mentioned at Template talk:Infobox country, hopefully someone can fix it soon... TastyCakes (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

United States as an Oligarchy?

I noticed that the "Government and elections" section of the page regarding the USA begins thusly:

"The United States is the world's oldest surviving federation. It is a constitutional republic and representative democracy, "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."

Yet if one goes to the page about Oligarchy you'll notice that is posits the following:

"Observers have claimed the United States of America has transformed from a representative democracy into a corporate oligarchy over many decades due the lack of limits on the power of big business."

In the wake of the current corporate bailouts, and the number of Goldman Sachs employees influencing our government, I propose that the beginning statement of the "Government and elections" section of the page regarding the USA begin thusly:

""The United States was the world's oldest surviving federation; it was originally founded as a constitutional republic and representative democracy, "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law." During the past 100 years The United States has transformed from a representative democracy into a corporate oligarchy due the lack of limits on the power of big business."

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.179.191 (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No. Just no. Andy120290 (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this is unsupported, conspiracy theory tripe that has no place in this article. TastyCakes (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably it is (at least patially) true, but that holds (and has always held) for all democracies. And anyway Wikipedia is not about truth but about reliable sourcing. So no this should not be added. Arnoutf (talk) 09:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that someone said that Wikipedia is "not about truth, but reliable sourcing," as the reference to the USA an an oligarchy in the page defining oligarchy has, what appears to be, a "reliable source." http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice. How is this unsupported? There are even websites -- specifically OligarchyUSA.com -- which define the USA very clearly and distinctly as an oligarchy. I am confused as to why the person who said "this is (at least partially) true," and that this "has always held" true for "all democracies" then goes on to say that this is unsubstantiated and should not be added. For the sake of recording history accurately -- which I think is what Wikipedia is about -- why not at least mention (like many other entries) that there is some controversy about whether or not The United States still remains a "representational democracy." Perhaps add a "controversy" section? Also, "No. Just no." doesn't really add to this discussion constructively in any way, and I am appalled that someone responded to it. Finally: I certainly don't think "conspiracy theory tripe" is any more of a reliable and educated claim when compared to the claim -- as Arnoutf astutely corroborated -- that democracies and oligarchies are necessarily linked through history. Why does that not have a place in the article about the "greatest" modern "democracy"? Please do not waste your time if you have nothing intelligent or substantial to add. Thanks. This also applies to some perceptive, intelligent, and apt things Tomwsulcer said above.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.179.191 (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You want to put that the US is run by a bunch of bankers. That is what is implied by saying it's an oligarchy - that power has been removed from elected officials and given to a handful of unelected, nefarious characters from the financial industry. Your one data point on this is the bailout of big banks - which many of the big banks have now repaid. You could make an argument that holds just as much water for any industry that has received American government assistance. Would you like to add car company execs to your list of oligarchs? Because they got loans just as big as the finance sector did, and if anything they are less likely to pay them all back.

You ignore everything else that happens in the American economy and political system that has nothing to do with your supposed oligarchy. Yes, the government agreed to extend banks loans because they thought they were at risk of going under. What about the wars, education, health care reform, infrastructure and every other mundane day to day thing the government does that are run by old-fashioned elected officials exactly the way they're supposed to be in a representative democracy? In that way, the link you post above is entirely too narrow to say "the US is now an oligarchy". If you agree with everything in it (which I don't) you could at best say "bankers have more say in the US government than they should under a perfect representative democracy."

On top of this the whole thing reeks of recentism. The economy dives and everyone hates banks, and it's banks that are pulling the strings behind the scenes. Give it another year and it'll be some other big business people like you are harping on, oil or agriculture or defense contractors.

In short, I don't think any of what you put above should be in this article, and if I cared enough about the oligarchy article I'd go and question the inclusion of the US there as well. TastyCakes (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

While you are correct that the original amendment I proposed is entirely too narrow -- after all, it was just a suggestion to prompt a dialogue to hopefully arrive at an agreement -- it I think it's terribly naive to say that this "reeks of recentism." Many political thinkers have posited that the change from "representational democracy" happened a little more than a decade after the turn of the 20th century with the Federal Reserve Act; this idea is nearly 100 years old. The idea that democracies need to actively avoid becoming oligarchies goes back a couple of thousand years. Even if you don't agree that it goes back that long -- which is far from "recentism" -- it's not difficult to cite the "speed it up" speech from the Reagan era as an indicator. As for your question about whether or not other companies (like certain members of the auto industry) should be included, I think that's a very appropriate proposal, as many historians would interpret (for example) Ford's vision of America's future as the beginnings of oligarchy as well. I am sorry you mistook my comment for the be-all-end-all of my supporting argument (and that you assumed my argument was that myopic), but I was really hoping that merely starting the discussion would evoke other examples, thoughtful responses, and more open discussion, as opposed to veiled attacks like saying this idea "reeks."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.179.191 (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Please pardon my hyperbole. The point I'm trying to make with the recentism comment is that although the idea of the US becoming and oligarchy has been around for many years, the perceived culprits are constantly shifting, and ones that appear to be pulling the strings at one point are down and out a year or a decade later. The fact that their time in the sun is so fleeting seems to be good evidence that they never really had "power" in the way oligarchs are presumed to - in some cases they fall victim to the very system they are meant to "control". It seems to me that companies are far more often severely impacted by government than vice versa. If anything, I would say the US is much less controlled by "a few rich people" than it was in the past, particularly in periods like Gilded Age. And there is a huge difference between dominating the economic matters of a nation and dominating the political ones. Big business is still a bit player in the most important parts of the US government. If mention of big business fears deserves any mention in the article, it's in the economics section, not the government section. TastyCakes (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Saying the government is impacted by lobbyists and that it bails out failing industries from time to time is one thing, saying the US is an oligarchy rather than a representative democracy is a complete exaggeration of the facts, to the point of just being wrong. TastyCakes (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then maybe this is more appropriate for the "Economics" section. Thanks for contributing. I must point out though, that if you concede that "the government is impacted by lobbyists," it's not really a stretch to oligarchy. Lobbyists impact government by making financial contributions, and government responds according to the largest financial "contributions." Those most able to make the largest "contributions" are, as a matter of fact, the wealthiest 1% of the country; a 1% which possesses more wealth (or ability to "impact" government) than 95% of the country's population combined.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.179.191 (talk) 11:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, I think it is a huge stretch to go from "lobbyist influence" to "lobbyist control" as implied in the term oligarchy.

I also think you're playing loose and fast with data - see Wealth in the United States. The top 25% highest earners account for 87% of the wealth in the US, according to the article. TastyCakes (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the mistake of using Wikipedia to determine which additions to Wikipedia are valid is obvious, and the rules state that citations need to come from other sources. No, not "fast & loose," just from different sources, but if you'd like a Wikipedia entry which corroborates it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth. Whatever the disparity -- as I'm not here to quibble about numbers; that will be up to the people who decide to edit the article -- the point remains that an agreed-upon smaller percentage (even if it is "the top 25%") has more "influence" than the larger percentage (the bottom 75%, if you require). In a true "representational democracy" there would be no disparity and no doubt about which percentage of the population had what amount of "influence" (if "control" doesn't suit you) over ANY political, governmental, or societal decisions; representational democracy is necessarily a 1:1 ratio of population to representation, and not 1:3.5 ratio of economic status to representation. If there is any influence upon representation other than the population's level of participation then we are not talking about a "representational democracy." The mere fact that we are having a discussion about "influence" (your reference, not mine) coming from something (wealth, financial status, the ability to "contribute," etc.) other than popular vote (contribution by presence and activity) suggests that the political tenets of the country about which we're speaking, by definition, do not define a "representational democracy." If "influence" is measured by anything other than presence and a majority vote, then "democracy" has been left behind in-favor of a system where 25% of the population redefine "participation" and "influence" by economic standards, thus approximating oligarchic status.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.179.191 (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It says two things in that article you link, the first is referenced and says the top 1% controlled 38%, and the second (unreferenced) says 1% controls 90%. Further, you assume lobbyists work on behalf of the super rich, when in practice it's union lobbies that have some of the biggest impacts. Others include the environmental lobby, or the ACLU or whatever, none representing the particularly "super rich". Regardless, lobbyists may control a certain percent of political funding (but not as large as you probably think), but they ultimately don't control how people vote, and the choice that people have when they vote, or the ability of people to run for office should they wish. Do they introduce some element of disparity in terms of what ideas get heard? Sure, but they don't influence people's ability to support or reject those ideas by casting their vote, which remains "one vote, one person".

I'm done arguing here, I think I've made my position clear - I don't think there is any way the article should say the US has become an oligarchy rather than a democracy, or even mention that "some people think that". It's an extreme opinion that is unsupported. If there is consensus to add something about lobbying fine, but outlandish statements have no place in the article. And political debates have no place in the talk page. TastyCakes (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify my points and add a new:

• All democracies may have something of an oligarchy in them (also see The Republic (Plato); but that should be discussed in the Democracy or criticism of democracy article; not here. If the USA would NOT have any kind of Oligarchic tendencies, now that would be worthy of mention ;-)
  
• The Atlantic article is (says so itself) an essay, or in other words the personal opinion of the author. Such article are in general not considered strong sources (see WP:reliable) for controversial claims.
  
• Wikipedia, (like all) encyclopedia's is not out here to be a front runner in ongoing debates, but should provide a thorough overview of mainstream (scientific) knowledge. Adding extremely minority opinions even if sources are not applauded per WP:fringe and WP:undue. Arnoutf (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Arnoutf (I think). I should also point out that oligarchy has major flaws in terms of its application to democratic processes (in that oligarchy usually involves a single elite), which is why many political scientists in the U.S. favor elite theory as a more precise analysis. Elite theory recognizes that the vast majority of people are too busy with other priorities (earning a living, making babies, staying alive) to become actively involved in politics, that true revolutions are historically relatively rare, and that most power structures involve relatively small segments of the population that can be characterized as elites (actually in power) or counterelites (contending for power). That is, elite theory recognizes that in democracies, there is not one elite but rather, multiple elites at any given time, and any sophisticated analysis must take into account the different objectives and abilities of each elite group. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus for move. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

---

United States → United States of America — This is the United States's official name and one recognized by all. When you just say United States it could mean a bunch of things, all listed on this page United States (disambiguation)—Red Wiki 22:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose; please read the FAQ linked at the top as to why it's here. Also, there is no extant organization or country that can be accurately referred to as "United States"; the prior existence of them does not give them equal footing for disambiguation. United States is an absolutely unambiguous short name for the country, and is used in countless articles such as President of the United States and Economy of the United States. Furthermore, it's incredibly poor form, IMO, to start a move request without even mentioning it on the talk page beforehand, otherwise all of these things could have been explained to you. --Golbez (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, this country's most common name is the 'United States'. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  Google Trends: united states vs america ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  What exactly are you saying with that? It says that the term "America" is searched for more than "United States"; however, America has meanings beyond the United States, whereas United States tends to have one meaning in the modern world. --Golbez (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose This has been request MANY times and everytime the overwhelming consensus is to not move it. The common name (which even the US government almost always uses too) is "United States". COMMONNAME also supports "United States". Same with every other country. We have United Kingdom, not "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (even though "United Kingdom" can refer to other stuff); or how we have Libya, not "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya". TJ Spyke 00:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  Comment - This argument is not valid. Comparing "United States of America" (which is a very common name used for the country) to "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" (which is a very uncommon name used for the country) is not a relevant comparison. "United States of America" is simultaneously the official name of the country and a common name for the country. Additionally, a counterexample would be the article on the country of China. By far the most common name for the country is China, but the article exists under its official name, the People's Republic of China. SnottyWong talk 02:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  You're correct that "United States of America" is a common name (while "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" is not), but the point is that it isn't the most common name.
  In the case of the People's Republic of China, the most common English-language name (China) cannot be used because it commonly refers to other entities. "United States" does not. —David Levy 03:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  Also, "United States" is by far the most common name for the country in English. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  If "United States" doesn't refer to another entity, then why is there a United States (disambiguation) page? SnottyWong talk 13:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  No one has asserted that "United States" doesn't refer to another entity. It doesn't commonly refer to another entity. And even a term that does commonly refer to multiple entities can have one meaning sufficiently predominant as to occupy the base title. For example, the term "George Washington" has various meanings (some more prominent than others), but the United States president overwhelmingly predominates (which is why his article occupies the base title instead of George Washington (United States president)). —David Levy 15:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  Also, I would submit that "America" is the most common term for the country (see Google Trends links above). Since both United States and America both have disambiguation pages, why not move this page to America? SnottyWong talk 13:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  "America" has more than one common meaning (and no sufficiently predominant meaning), which is why the disambiguation page is located at the base title. "United States" does not have more than one common meaning, which is why the disambiguation page is not located at the base title.
  Additionally, the country is commonly referred to by the "United States" designation (and not the "America" designation) in formal contexts. —David Levy 15:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support per nominator and Snottywong, United States of America is the proper name.--Edward130603 (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - "United States of America" is the official name of the country. Your argument which references WP:COMMONNAME gives equal merit to an argument for changing the name of the article to America, since that is an equally (if not more) common name for the country. The fact that there is a United States (disambiguation) page clearly shows the logic of this nomination. There is no United States of America (disambiguation) page required, because "United States of America" is not ambiguous. While "United States" is a common term for the country, it is an ambiguous term and it is not the official name of the country. If it wasn't ambiguous, it wouldn't need a disambiguation page. SnottyWong talk 02:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  All other meanings of "United States" combined don't approach the prevalence of this one. If the article were entitled "United States of America," United States would redirect to it (with the disambiguation page remaining at United States (disambiguation)). —David Levy 03:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  Your first argument (or counterargument, if you will) is invalid. "America," for starters, is not a proper way of naming the country (not in formal contexts, at least), so the "United States" case and the "America" case are incomparable.--AndresTM (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Since I started this, I might as well contribute to the overall argument. United States is merely a bland term that can mean so many different things depending on where you live. Adding the word America (which, as dewdinblue said, is given in official documents of the USA) locates where it is in the world.Red Wiki 03:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  I replaced your emboldened "Support" marker with "Comment" above. You're welcome to participate in the discussion, but you cannot support yourself or be counted twice (not that this is a majority vote).
  I also linked your signatures, as instructed at Wikipedia:Signatures#Links. Given the fact that you are not signing your actual account name (Valkyrie Red), this is especially important. —David Levy 03:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  An unnecessary and impolite action IMO. While it's generally assumed that a proposer does support the nomination, it's not always true, so some nominators cast a "vote" in addition. Just so long as they make it clear that they are also the nominator (as here), this is sometimes helpful to the closing admin, and never a problem. Andrewa (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  [subsequent non-move-related posts relocated to Talk:United States/Requested move sub-discussion] —David Levy 13:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, for reasons stated above and on many prior occasions. —David Levy 03:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, Although "United States of America" is the proper name of the country, "United States" is the correct short form. It would be like moving "United Kingdom" to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Completely unnecessary. On top of that, this has been discussed many times before and the result is the same: leave it as "United States." Andy120290 (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  Comment- I would like to point out that the argument Andy120290 gave is the same as the one given by TJ Spyke. The example is also the same (suggesting that they may be the same person).Red Wiki 04:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

  The example is the same because it's an excellent example; I would have made it myself had I not decided I'd made it ten times in the last two years. --Golbez (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  Comment It is extremely in bad taste, not to mention impolite, to accuse someone of being a sock puppet with no proof what-so-ever outside of them using the same (and might I add common) example of the UK in this debate. If you're going to accuse someone of a bannable offense you should actually look for real proof instead of going off the cuff. OptimumPx (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I also propose that User:Red Wiki/Valkyrie Red be banned indefinitely, immediately, by any available admin. Only an idiot or a troll or vandal acting in extreme bad faith (and attempting to waste editors' time) would propose such a thing in the face of WP:COMMONNAME and the numerous prior debates on this issue. If Valkyrie Red has an issue with WP:COMMONNAME, it should have been raised there first. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  I don't think proposing an RM, even in bad faith (which I am not yet accepting this as being), is prima facie reason for an indef ban. --Golbez (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  Agree. If anyone's facing a block or a ban, it's Coolcaesar. I'm not an uninvolved admin, otherwise I might do it myself. Another user has posted a warning on Coolcasar's talk page, so I can't even do that. Suggest that everyone has a quick read or reread of WP:ATTACK, I say again, it's a lot broader in scope than you might think. Andrewa (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  I'll also point out that all the users expressing support for Red Wiki's harebrained proposal appear to be Wikipedia users external to the U.S., which means there are possible issues of anti-American bias or simple ignorance. Most educated users of American English (the largest component of native English speakers) use United States or U.S. in their writing. Please keep in mind that one of the Manual of Style's longest-standing guidelines is that we go with the local dialect when a topic is closely tied to a particular geographical location. It would make no sense to use a name for the article that is not even the one in most common use in American English.--Coolcaesar (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  You make some good points here (and more personal attacks of course). The main logical problem is, English Wikipedia is for all English speakers, not just native speakers. Andrewa (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. IMO it's a case of needless ambiguity, and the primary usage is a local matter. Agree we've been down this path before, but consensus can change. Doesn't look like it has on this. The world will probably survive. Andrewa (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  What ambiguity? Several people have said "United States" is ambiguous, but no one has supplied an example. What extant thing is also called "United States"? --Golbez (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  Something doesn't have to be an extant thing to be an article subject, United States of Europe and United States of Africa for a start... Andrewa (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  Are you suggesting that references to those hypothetical entities are prevalent enough to render the term "United States" too ambiguous to lead to this article? —David Levy 12:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  No, both names are acceptable. The quesion is, which is better? IMO there's sufficient ambiguity to prefer the longer name. Andrewa (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  What do you regard as a consequence of this ambiguity? Will substantial confusion arise? To be clear, you agree that United States must lead to this article (as a redirect if it isn't the actual title), correct? —David Levy 15:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for all the reasons listed above, also because it's THE most common name for the country in English, all other uses of the name 'United States' are historical or fictional with the exception of The United Mexican States which is never called anything except Mexico in English. OptimumPx (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  And is indeed never referred to as the "United States of Mexico", so there is no ambiguity. --Golbez (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I've already !voted above, but I'd just like to point out that I don't think the popular "WP:COMMONNAME defense" really holds water. The argument is essentially that we should name the article based on the common name that it is referred to most often. However, the point where the argument fails is that "United States of America" is not an uncommon term for the country. It is used all the time. WP:COMMONNAME absolutely would apply in the case of Libya, whose official name ("Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya") is almost never used. However, in the case where the official name of the country is used commonly (even if it is not the most common term), then WP:COMMONNAME is a very weak argument. SnottyWong talk 12:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unless there were a compelling reason to extend the name of the article--which there is not--it is inconvenient to do so. Changing the name of the article would, by extension, require us to change "Supreme Court of the United States" to "Supreme Court of the United States of America," "Attorney General of the United States" to "Attorney General of the United States of America" and so forth. We could go on debating forever which name is better or less ambiguous or more practical or more widely used, but the mere fact that the issue is highly debatable clearly indicates that there is no good reason to change the name, as they are, arguably, equally good. For the sake of the editors and the readers, I propose that we leave it as it is--AndresTM (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC).
• Comment- I would first like to thank those that supported me in the previous argument above. Secondly, I would like to apologize for what appeared to be confusing in this session.Red Wiki 16:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

In the hope of reducing confuson, and more for the benefit of other relative newbies who may read this page than for you, let me summarise my concerns with this discussion:

1. You were quite right to raise this RM. Perhaps a more experienced editor would have checked the history and archives more thoroughly first and decided not to, but we are all students here. You did the right thing.

2. You were quite entitled to vote after raising it. It wasn't necessary but it wasn't wrong either. You made it quite clear that you were the proposer, and again, you did the right thing.

3. Much of the criticism you have received appears to be in ignorance of the relevant procedures and policies. This unfortunately is not uncommon here or anywhere else in human society. Those keenest to quote the rules are often also the worst at violating them.

4. In particular, some of the criticism you have received is in gross violation of the Wikipedia policy of no personal attacks. Other posts, while not in gross violation, are certainly not in the spirit of this key policy. Comment on the content, not on the contributor. Just as an example, it would be far better to say that arguments were poor rather than to comment on people who are saying... below.

Please set up your signature so you can just use ~~~~ to sign your talk page posts (drop me a line if you need help with this), and happy editing! Andrewa (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[subsequent non-move-related posts relocated to Talk:United States/Requested move sub-discussion] —David Levy 13:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment- That was my comment for apologizing. Here's mine for the discussion. Nearly all patriotic songs involve using the name America in them, not United States. Examples include: God Bless America, America the Beautiful, and our very own Pledge of Allegiance. IMO adding the word America is what differentiates it from the world.Red Wiki 17:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)
• Comment: The people who are saying "United States" is ambiguous have poor arguments; no matter what, United States would still redirect to United States of America if the page were moved, because that is, by far, the most common usage of the term. So ambiguity is no reason to support a move. The only remaining argument is correctness, and it has been established that "United States" is the correct, common short-form name. I mean, if you think United States should be a disambiguation page, then so must United Kingdom, which is in the same situation: Other things have used the name, but the current UK is by far the most common usage of the term. So far as I can tell, no one has ever requested a move for that article. Certainly not anyone proposing a move for this one. --Golbez (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support: I'm quite new to Wikipedia, so this is my first time being involved in one of these discussions, so bear with me if I disobey the rules of Wikipedia by any chance. So, I support the change because it is formally known as the United States of America which IMO is what all Wikipedia articles should contain (Again, i'm new to Wikipedia so this is just my opinion)Abl3igail (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  Welcome to Wikipedia! However, Mexico is formally known as the United Mexican States, but no one seriously entertains a proposal to move it there. --Golbez (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  By the same logic, China is formally known as the People's Republic of China, which is where its article is currently located. SnottyWong talk 12:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  Again, we use the title People's Republic of China because "China" commonly refers to more than one entity. If it didn't (just as "United States" doesn't), that article would be entitled "China." —David Levy 17:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  Yeah, this was a weak argument. "China" is ambiguous; there are at least two, possibly three, things that China can commonly refer to, the People's Republic, the Republic, and the overarching region. There is only one common usage of "United States". --Golbez (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NAMING, and per Robert William Barker. --SquidSK^(1MC•log) 00:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment- The WP:NAMING policy of Wikipedia can support the name United States of America, so therefore it's a weak argument. Also, what does Bob Parker have to do with anything here? I propose deleting this vote.Red Wiki 01:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

  I propose you stop trying to micromanage the votes. It's not your responsibility to point out votes that you think aren't valid, especially when you refuse to even sign with your real username. --Golbez (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  I suggest you stop with the personal attacks, I was merely pointing out a suggestion, nothing more. All I'm asking is what does Bob Parker have to do with this discussion?Red Wiki 04:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

  There was no personal attack whatsoever. A statement of fact: You have repeatedly, after being informed of the problem with it, refused to sign with your real name. I suppose I could propose this be withdrawn and you blocked for attempting to gain the system, but that would be merely pointing out a suggestion, nothing more. As for what it has to do, I guess he's saying, that's Bob Barker's full name, but because no reasonable person will ever be confused by the short form, we keep it at Bob Barker. Likewise with United States. --Golbez (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  My apologizes, I thought he was just trying to be funny. But on another note, I don't know why your being obsessed with me signing with my real username. According to the First Amendment I have the freedom to sign however I wish, whether it be with my real name or not.--Red Wiki 16:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

  Have you read the article to which you linked? The First Amendment to the United States Constitution says no such thing.
  But no one is asking you to sign with your real name. We're asking you to use your real Wikipedia account name (Valkyrie Red) by linking to your user page, talk page or contribution history (and optionally displaying "Valkyrie Red" instead of "Red Wiki"). I corrected your earlier signatures on this page, and you came to my talk page to thank me for showing you why a bot kept tagging your posts as "unsigned." But you haven't done anything to address the problem. —David Levy 17:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  I apologize for this, I haven't practiced with Wikipedia enough to know this stuff. The truth is, I don't know how to fix this signature thing. And yes, the first amendment gives me right of speech, so I can sign with Red Wiki if I want, and not Valkyrie Red.Red Wiki 18:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

  The first amendment gives you nothing. The first amendment prevents Congress from infringing on your right to free speech. If, even after reading that article, you cannot pick up on that simple concept... The first amendment has no meaning on Wikipedia. Because your right to free speech can and will easily be infringed by its administration should you violate the rules. --Golbez (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  Golbez has explained your misunderstanding of the First Amendment above. That leaves me to direct you to Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature in the hope that you'll edit your signature (as you must have done at some point) for compliance with Wikipedia's rules. —David Levy 18:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  Excuse me if I don't spend each night reading each amendment out loud, memorizing it word for word. BTW thanks for the link Mr. Levy, I'll be sure to check it out tomorrow!Red Wiki 21:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

  No one is demanding that you memorize constitutional amendments. We're merely addressing your erroneous claims about one in particular. —David Levy 21:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  When you cite something twice, it's somewhat expected that you actually know what you're talking about. --Golbez (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - This has been hashed out numerous times, including several times here. None of these arguments are new. Although consensus can change, I still think the arguments for "United States" are stronger. ps - Editors should also read this frequently asked question. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Here's some relevant Google results that should speak for themselves...
  • "united states" america -"united states of america" - 358 million (results containing the exact phrases "United States" and "America", but not "United States of America")
  • "united states" -"united states of america" - 1 billion (results containing the exact phrase "United States", but not "United States of America")
  • "united states of america" - 47.6 million (results containing the exact phrase "United States of America")
    -CapitalQ (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment- I haven't read the page to know what Wikipedia considers to be a good reference or resource, but I'm pretty sure that using a search engine doesn't stand for a very good argument.Red Wiki 05:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

Please see Wikipedia:Search engine test. —David Levy 05:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and as suggested above, Valkyrie Red, you should try to refrain from discrediting these votes if you're not even sure that they're a proper argument (as in this case) or what the argument means (as in the "Bob Barker" case). -CapitalQ (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support move of the US article to the USA name, since it is a better name, all around, but the US name should redirect it, since it is primary usage of the US name. 76.66.201.20 (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nominator and Snottywong. The official name of this country is "United States of America". --.dsm. 14:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment- Since this has been brought up, I want to address it. Comparing United States of America to The Peoples Republic of China would make our arguments a lot more easier to understand. If we look at the two names we (as in "common English speaking folks") commonly refer to the People's Republic of China as simply China, so why isn't that page called China? It's because the term China has many different meanings. Same with the United States. Though people refer to it as United States, it is known as the United States of America (which isn't an uncommon name for it btw).Red Wiki 18:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

  The China articles' naming conventions are a big mess, caused by arguments over Taiwan and so on. I think it's the exception rather than the rule on Wikipedia, and I don't think it's a very good article to use as a template for naming other articles. TastyCakes (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  It's called People's Republic of China because there are two nations commonly referred to as China. There is only one nation commonly referred to as United States; thus, this, like all of your other attempts at arguments so far, falls short. --Golbez (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  The term "China" has several common meanings. The term "United States" has one common meaning (and several uncommon meanings). There is no significant likelihood of confusion. —David Levy 18:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry, yes, thanks for clarifying. I had my phrasing backwards; it's not about how many countries are referred to by name X, but if term X can commonly refer to more than one thing. And, again, all of this is completely irrelevant - there is no possible way that, even if this article were moved, United States would not redirect to United States of America. So the arguments about it being ambiguous are empty. --Golbez (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  There have been various forms of the country 'China' with various political systems and covering various areas since the 18th Century BC, while with the United States, the USA was the first country to use that name. All of the other (defunct) countries to use the term 'United States' in their name were all formed after the USA became a complete country in 1781, and none of them lasted. The only one to still exist is the United Mexican States and again it was formed 1810 and again has never been referred to as the 'United States', only as Mexico. 69.132.221.35 (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry, but I want to go back to this whole China business, as it has left me confused. First TastyCakes states that China is the only exception in Wikipedia, which doesn't make any sense. Than Golbez says that there is only one nation commonly referred to as United States, which is very controversial as this is obviously an opinion, as this depends on where you live. Mr. Levy, there is more than just several meanings, there's a page worth's of meanings. Same goes to whoever gave special contributions. Therefore, I suggest all of you clarify your arguments.Red Wiki 18:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

  There are several exceptions, actually. China is a notable one; there are two countries named China, and the term is politically charged, so we disambiguate (or, rather, have an article on the overarching notion/region). Another is the Congo; there are two countries named Congo, so their names are rendered fully. However, there is only one United States, and I am willing to bet money that you're the only one here to ever suggest that the vast, vast, vast majority of people, we're talking well over 99.99%, looking for "United States" aren't looking for the current nation named that. Opinion? I doubt it, it's pretty much fact. There is no other nation called "United States", so why anyone would look for United States expecting something else confuses me. No one has ever said that they searched for United States expecting some other country, and very few have said they expected a disambiguation page. Do you think United States should be a redirect or a disambiguation page? Finally, if you think it should be moved, then you are suggesting we move things such as U.S. state, President of the United States, Economy of the United States, etc., because you consider those ambiguous and thus prone to error? --Golbez (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

  1. Why isn't United States listed as one of these "several exceptions? Sounds pretty biased in favor your own opinion.
  2. Find me a source that states 99.99% of all people are looking for United States of America and not something else.
  3. I think United States should redirect to either United States of America or a page somewhat like this or this.
  4. Frankly (Quoting Jojhutton) I don't give a damn about those other pages. If you want to bother with them, go ahead, but I personally just don't care about them.Red Wiki 19:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

  1. Huh? United States is not among the exceptions; the country's article resides at that title.
  2. I wouldn't cite a specific figure, but there is overwhelming evidence that no other meaning of "United States" approaches this one's level of commonness. Try entering the term "united states" into any web search engine, and see what comes up. In fact, you can even exclude "america" from the search.
  3. The suggestion that United States redirect to United States of America includes implied acknowledgment that this is the overwhelmingly common meaning (and also eliminates any alleged disambiguational benefit, because navigation would be unaffected). The idea of making United States a disambiguation page (or moving the existing disambiguation page there) will never, ever come to fruition (simply because it would be extraordinarily unhelpful and impractical for the United States title to lead to anywhere other than its current destination).
  4. Again, the fact that you "don't give a damn about those other pages" doesn't absolve the overall community from its responsibility to maintain consistent naming standards whenever feasible. You're essentially saying "I don't care who has to clean up the mess." —David Levy 20:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

  1. Understood
  2. Somewhat Understood
  3. I still don't see what your problem is with making United States a redirect to United States of America. I understand that a disambiguation page would be too complicated or too confusing too viewers, but to redirect it to United States of America.
  4. Well I'm trying to clean-up this mess, aren't I? There are plenty of fish in the sea to solve those other problems.Red Wiki 01:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

  2. Please let me know what element(s) you don't understand, and I'll do by best to clarify.
  3. Our problem with the proposed move is that we regard the current title as superior (for reasons explained repeatedly).
  Given the fact that someone visiting United States would continue to arrive at this article, what benefit do you believe would be gained by having it redirect to United States of America?
  4. Those of us opposing the proposed move disagree that there currently is a mess to clean up, and we believe that such a change would create a rather large mess for those "fish in the sea" to tackle. —David Levy 02:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  1. No, TastyCakes did not "[state] that China is the only exception in Wikipedia." ("The exception rather than the rule" is a figure of speech.)
  Republic of Ireland, Republic of Macedonia and Georgia (country) are other examples of cases in which the existence of multiple common meanings led the country's article to be assigned something other than the most common English-language name's base title.
  2.What other nation (past or present) is commonly referred to as "United States"? On what do you base the claim that "this depends on where you live"?
  3. Yes, there are several other uses of the term "United States," but none of them are common. All of those meanings combined are used nowhere near as often as this article's subject is.
  When one meaning of a term overwhelmingly predominates over all others, the term is made to lead to that entity's article. For example, see George Washington. There are many other uses of the term, but because the U.S. president is overwhelmingly the most common meaning, his article is located at George Washington.
  George Bush is a different story; no meaning predominates by a large margin. This is not the case with United States, which is why the disambiguation page isn't located there. —David Levy 19:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

  1. My apologies, I misinterpreted it.
  2. Such as if you live in Mexico, you will think of United Mexican States rather than United States.
  3. While that may be true, United States of America isn't uncommon. In fact, it's quite a common name so I don't see what you see wrong with it. If we're going to go with more popular name, than there are quite a few articles that would need renaming, and frankly I am not in the mood to go debate those.Red Wiki 19:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

  1. No problem.
  2. No, that simply isn't true. The country's full English-language name is "United Mexican States," which does not contain the term "United States" (as "United States of Mexico" would).
  Its full Spanish-language name is "Estados Unidos Mexicanos," but its common Spanish-language name (and article title at the Spanish-language Wikipedia) is "México" (just as its common English-language name is "Mexico"). Note that at the Spanish-language Wikipedia, the USA's article is entitled "Estados Unidos" (Spanish for "United States"), despite the fact that the full Spanish-language name of Mexico does contain that term. (And of course, United States redirects to that article.)
  3. No one has asserted that "United States of America" is uncommon or would be a bad title for this article. We're saying that it's much less common and would be less good as the article's title. —David Levy 20:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

  2. I can guarantee you that if you searched thorough enough, you could find a country that doesn't see United States as the United States of America.
  3. While it may be less common, it's not by much. Saying that it would be less good for the article is pure bias and opinion.Red Wiki 01:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

  2. Feel free to cite evidence that any such country exists. But understand that what matters is the worldwide likelihood of our readers seeking a particular meaning.
  3. No, "United States of America" is much less common than "United States" alone is. (See CapitalQ's statistics.)
  You state above that "saying that it would be less good for the article is pure bias and opinion." What distinction are you drawing? Aren't both sides arguing an opinion that one title or the other is less good? —David Levy 02:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  2. Agreed, but understand that United States has many more meanings, while United States of America has only one.
  3. As I stated before, United States may be more popular, but it can have multiple meanings. United States of America has only one. I looked at CapitalQ's statisctics, but notice how that was just from one search engine. I did the same with a few more and found that the difference got smaller and smaller with each. You have to also understand that people are lazy and want to get results fast, which would explain why "United States" has more results than "United States of America". This is why a redirect from United States to United States of America would be perfect. Lastly, with the bias and opinion subject, I never said that using United States of America instead of United States wasn't an opinion. We are both entitled to our own opinions. But the way you stated it like that sounded like you were making it a fact.Red Wiki 22:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

  [resetting the numbering]
  1. Again, "United States" has only one common meaning. When a term has one very common meaning and various uncommon (or much less common) meanings, we have that title lead to the article about the very common meaning. To do anything else would only inconvenience readers.
  You've agreed that "United States" should lead to this article, and you still haven't explained how changing it to a redirect would help anyone.
  2. Please document the results that you received from other search engines.
  3. Your argument that "people are lazy and want to get results fast" doesn't make sense. The number of results reflects the number of uses on the web, not the number of times that the terms have been searched for.
  4. Your argument that "this is why a redirect from United States to United States of America would be perfect" also makes no sense, as users typing that term (or "United States of America") will arrive at this article either way.
  5. No, I'm not stating my opinion as fact. I'm merely reiterating/clarifying the reasons behind opposition to the proposed move (which is why wrote "We're saying that..." rather than "It is a fact that..."). —David Levy 02:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

  1. Changing it to a redirect would benefit us both. You want people to be able to type United States and get to this page and we (as in people supporting the move), want this page titled United States of America.
  2. Too lazy to do so, but I swear to God (hope your not Atheist/Agnostic) that although the United States provided more results, the difference got smaller with each search engine I used.
  3. Ignore what I said. If I try to interpret it the way I meant it, it will come out confusing.
  4. The same could be said to you.
  5. My apologizes, it sounded like you were saying it was a fact.
  6. I would like to add that even history sites this country as the United States of America. Look at all of our wars and tell me what you see. What I see is The American Revolutionary War not the United States of America Revolutionary War. The same can be applied to the others. The American Civil War, not United States Civil War. Mexican-American War not Mexican-United States War. Spanish-American War, not Spanish-United States War and so on and so forth.173.95.138.76 (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

  1. Users typing "United States" already arrive at this article (as do users typing "United States of America"). The only difference would be the title, which would shift from what I (and those who agree with me) believe makes more sense to what you (and those who agree with you) believe makes more sense.
  2. If you don't want to provide links, that's your choice, but I'm unable to evaluate data to which I lack access.
  4. No, because I'm not claiming that either setup is more convenient for readers ("lazy" or otherwise).
  6. People and things of the United States are commonly referred to as "American." Likewise, people and things of the Netherlands are commonly referred to as "Dutch." Does this mean that our Netherlands article is incorrectly titled? —David Levy 00:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

  Renumbering.
  1. I find it hard to believe you lack access to Yahoo, or Ask.com, or any other search engine. Guess that makes you as lazy as me.
  2. I still don't see what you (and Golbez for that matter) have with making United States a redirect to United States of America.
  3. Personally I don't give a damn about the Netherlands being named wrong, and your first sentence just proved that America is a more common and proper term to be used in the articles title.Valkyrie Red 23:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

  1. I don't lack access to those search engines, but this is the first time that you've specified any in particular, and you still haven't specified the search parameters that you used. You're correct that I don't care to spend my time attempting to duplicate efforts that you've declined to document (your description of which doesn't seem to indicate that the results would even change anything).
  2. Again, I don't think that having United States redirect to United States of America would be bad. In my opinion, the latter title simply would be less good. You're entitled to disagree, but the proposed move's opponents have thoroughly explained why we feel this way.
  3. You've completely misunderstood. My point is that the Netherlands article is not incorrectly titled (despite the fact that people and things of the Netherlands are commonly referred to as "Dutch"), which illustrates the fact that there is not necessarily a direct linguistic connection between a country's name (or common name) and the term by which its people and things usually are known. —David Levy 06:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support At first glance, I sort of smirked at the idea, but the suggestions has merit. Valkarie is correct the The United States of America is the official name and should therfore be the title of the article. Shortened versions, of course, should be included in the lead.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Nuetral Although I still feel that the official name of United States of America, should be the title, it seems, after some searching through the guidelines, that common names are prefered for the names of articles, so i am changing my support to nuetral.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

  Would you support moving Mexico to United Mexican States? --Golbez (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  And Italy to Italian Republic? And France to French Republic? And Germany to Federal Republic of Germany? And United Kingdom to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? And Libya to Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya? And so on? —David Levy 19:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  Good Lord, some of us are fiesty today. I don't really see any discussions on those countries talk pages concerning the names of their articles, so frankly, I don't give a damn. The concern was broached here, and I have given my opinion. No need to beat your POV into the ground.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  It's just the argument that it's the "official name". Somehow that argument doesn't come up anywhere but here, which leads me to believe it's a rather short-sighted argument. We have always named countries by their common short name if it's unambiguous; in the case of the United States, it is indeed unambiguous. --Golbez (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  - As Jojhutton said, we aren't proposing changing those countries names (unless you want to, in that case be my guest).Red Wiki 21:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

  The point is that if we were to implement the standard that a country's official name should be the title of its article (the basis of Jojhutton's vote), it would apply to all of those articles (and many others) as well. The fact that Jojhutton "[doesn't] give a damn" about those other articles' titles (and you evidently don't care either) doesn't absolve the overall community from its responsibility to maintain consistent naming standards whenever feasible. —David Levy 21:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Other Solution - There are other polities that begin with the United States, by titling it United States of America there would be no ambiguity, though this could be addressed by adding a hat to the article as well linking to a disambig page with all of the other united states as well.XavierGreen (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  Such a hatlink already exists in the article ("This article is about the United States of America. For other uses of terms redirecting here, see US (disambiguation), USA (disambiguation), and United States (disambiguation)."). So in the extremely unlikely situation somebody is looking for the hypothetical United Stated of Africa or United States of Europe (neither of which are real), they already can go to the disambiguation page for them. TJ Spyke 19:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  There were indeed other real polities that used the united states in their name, such as the United States of Venezuala and the United States of Belgium.

• Oppose This has been clearly hashed out in the past, and nothing in terms of external fact or Wikipedia standard has changed. Common name = article name. Golbez and David Levy's observations about the naming of other country articles are well taken—the fact is that we do have a clear, fairly consistent naming convention here, by which the current titling of this article abides.—DCGeist (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support United States sounds very informal, especially considering there are other federations of political entities that could be described as 'United States'. I was actually rather surprised that this was the title. BodvarBjarki (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment- Mr. Levy and Golbez (not sure of your gender), you seem to be getting a little hyperactive in this discussion, so I suggest that you two calm down a little or else I may have to report you. Golbez, especially you. I've warned you several times now on this one discussion. This discussion is just for voting and expressing your opinion on the matter not your emotions. Carry on!--Red Wiki 21:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

  If you so desire, I encourage you to report us, Valkyrie Red. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents —David Levy 21:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  Seconded. I love when people report me. --Golbez (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  And you aren't? At all? At least we weren't calling for votes to be stricken because we disagreed with the reasoning. At least we don't demonstrate and repeat fundamental misunderstandings. I look forward for you to act on your warnings. --Golbez (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  See, once again your doing it, being emotional in what's supposed to be a friendly discussion. Now I hate to disappoint you, but I'm going to let it slide this one time. Be sure to try and learn from your mistakes.Red Wiki 23:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

• Support per nom. United States of America is (a) unambiguous and (b) a commonly-used name - it's not in the same league as Lybia. To counter an argument above, if we're going for the most demotic name, we should move United States to America, United Kingdom to England, The Netherlands to Holland, and Soviet Union to Russia. Those are the most common names for the countries in popular speech; I don't think they're the right names for articles in what's supposed to be a serious encyclopaedia. Tevildo (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  In those cases, while they may be common, they are incorrect. "United States" is both common and correct. No one has yet demonstrated how United States is any more ambiguous than United Kingdom. The fact is, if this article were moved, United States would obviously redirect to it... so the ambiguity argument is worthless. --Golbez (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  I would also like to add that moving "United Kingdom" to "England" and "Soviet Union" to "Russia" would be wrong and, sorry if this sounds rude, moronic. England is just PART of the United Kingdom and Russia was just PART of the Soviet Union. It would be like asking this page to be moved to New York or "Canada" to be moved to "Ontario" (Netherlands is wrong for a different reason. While they are both used for the name of the country, Holland is the old name and not correct anymore). "United States" is almost never used for anything other than this country and is by far the most common name used for the country. Even the US government almost only uses United States and really only uses the full name when dealing with international issues (when most countries use their full name). As for "America", no. While that is used a lot, it is not as common as United States (and can be used for many other things, the only other uses for "United States" are 2 imaginary unions that don't exist and never have). TJ Spyke 23:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  Really? Only 2 imaginary Unions that don't exist are the only other uses for United States? Because, this page seems to suggest otherwise--Red Wiki 02:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

  My point appears to have been missed. WP:COMMONNAME suggests that we should have the article at the most commonly-used name for the subject. What's the most commonly-used name for the subject of this article? "America". But moving it to America would indeed be moronic, which - ah, forget it. It's going to go out "No Consensus". Reasoned argument has no part to play in Wikipedia. Tevildo (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - The "serious encyclopedia" called Britannica lists its article on this country under United States. If you look for "United States of America" there, you will find yourself at a disambiguition/redirect page. [9] --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Really? Again? No. As TJ Spyke and Evb-wiki (among many others) have demonstrated, "United States" is not only a common name, it's a perfectly standard one. It is immaterial whether an individual chooses to say that it rings his or her ears as "informal". It's simply not. "United States" is supported by our guidelines, our everyday practices, and our sources. Let's leave it be. DocKino (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: keep at common name. Jonathunder (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose as per everyone else and the countless other times this has been argued about (and since nothing has changed since those arguments). Can we close this conversation/suggestion? I think it's pretty clear there isn't going to be consensus to change the article name. TastyCakes (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - When people say "United States", everyone knows what country they are referring to. The same is true in other languages. When French-speakers say "Etats Unis", everyone knows they mean the U.S. When Spanish-speakers say "Estados Unidos", people likewise know they mean the United States. Eagle4000 (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - seeing as how we're very nearly at the proscribed 7 day limit, and there is definitely no consensus to change, I think the running around in circles can come to a safe close, as this article is going nowhere. --Golbez (talk) 03:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree. Relisting would be pointless. It doesn't have a snowball's. Andrewa (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - United States rather than United States of America is used throughout Wikipedia in consistent style. It is used twice in the presidential oath ("President of the United States", "Constitution of the United States"), it is used by the Senate (the heading on Senate.gov is "United States Senate", not "Senate of the United States of America", etc.), it is used in the Capitol's official name, SCOTUS's offical name ("Supreme Court of the United States"), is used in the CIA World Factbook in all cases except when referring to the long name itself, etc. It is well established by consensus, and is very unlikely to cause confusion (the only other country which comes to mind is Mexico, officially the "United Mexican States", but it is rarely referred to using this name in common discourse). --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 12:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.