Talk:United States/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Audio File

DCGeist is vandalising this article by repeatedly removing content while refusing to exaplin the problem or start a discussion to correct the problem. The problem, he says, is "style", which he believes "very clearly explains the problem". He prefers to delete content rather than help to edit the page to allow its inclusion. Is United States to be the only country in the Western Hemisphere without an audio file for pronunciation of the name?

When did "style" become so important that it justifies the deletion of content over style correction? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• The addition is ungrammatical.
• It clutters the article's opening sentence. It is visually off-putting and difficult to read. This is a very significant stylistic concern; by contrast, the addition of an audio clip pronouncing two common English words is a minor and unnecessary matter of content.—DCGeist (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think the addition is ungrammatical in the parenthetical comment? Do you have a proposed solution that will avoid deleting content, or is deleting content your purpose? The opening can be reworded, rather than deleting content. Please note that the pronunciation, even of "common" words in English is of value to both non-native speakers as well as native-born speakers, since even common words may change pronunciation within a proper name. Please justify having only one country in North America whose article is forbidden to contain an audio file. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

While remaining mostly neutral on this front, please don't call something "vandalism" when it's not. This is a disagreement, and under the terms of "Bold, Revert, Discuss", the onus is actually now upon you to justify its inclusion, not the other way around. But either way, it's not obvious vandalism. It annoys admins when people throw that term around. Or at least me. And as for "Is United States to be the only country in the western hemisphere", I point out that "United States" is the only country name in the Western hemisphere made up entirely of common words, without proper names. ("of America" is different, of course, but the audio file isn't about that name) So there is an argument to say that it is the country least in need of a pronunciation guide, since there's no unusual or proper words in that particular name. --Golbez (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

But "united" contains vowels which do not behave in the way that non-native speakers expect. I have taught English overseas, and have seen the problems firsthand. The word "united" has no encyclopedia article here, nor pronunciation given, for a non-native speaker to examine. Also, the word "states" is a plural, and English plurals have two possible pronunciations for the added final "-s": /s/ or /z/, according to rules that native speakers learn but which non-native speakers struggle with. For these reasons alone, non-native speakers would need pronunciation assistance.

Add to this the unanswered point that proper names, even when they contain "common" words, do not always pronounce those words in the same way. In the case of "United States", the placement of stress changes on the first element. Specifically, "united" in the proper name "United States" bears a secondary stress, rather than primary stress as it would in isolation. This cannot be interred from the pronunciation of the individual components. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

EncycloPetey, your latest version eliminates the grammatical problem. Thank you. (I should not have had to spell out to you that "United States pronounced" is ungrammatical—once a problem was flagged, you should have seen it immediately [the addition involved only two words!], rather than kept on repeating it). It also reduces, though it obviously does not eliminate, the clutter problem.

Golbez, thank you for addressing the false accusation of "vandalism." Petey, we do have an entire policy page devoted to the topic—Wikipedia:Vandalism. You should read that and familiarize yourself with the meaning of the term before you misapply it again to someone else. And you know, you made a second false statement: that I "refused to explain the problem", when in fact, I explained it in plain terms in edit summary ("the style is not fine: it is ungrammatical and it looks quite awkward"). If you need extra help with grammar—it did not occur to me that you would, given that you profess on your profile page to being a "teacher"—please ask for it directly.

So...What are you talking about when you say, "Please justify having only one country in North America whose article is forbidden to contain an audio file"? Nothing is being "forbidden". We make editorial judgments about what to include and what not to include in every part of every article. In my judgment, this is not a productive contribution to the article. You have now offered a reasonable argument for the value of the clip. Reasonable but, in my view, insufficient. I believe the added value of the audio clip, for those few likely to access it, is outweighed by the way in which it increases the difficulty of reading the opening sentence. Note that this lead sentence already includes a more pertinent pronunciation guide at the end of the parenthetical, where the appearance of such a gloss is significantly less disruptive. In addition, these remain two common dictionary words, for which we do not customarily find it productive to supply audio clips. I thus support returning to the status quo.—DCGeist (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The pronunciation guide at the end of the parentheses is for a different component of the name. Most pronunciations, when added to articles, come at the outset of the parenthetical phrases, to place them in close conjunction with the name of the article. The lede for this article is badly structured, which is what makes the normal placement difficult. Rather than keep the poor structure, and use that poor structure as justification for excluding the pronunciation, I favor correcting the the lede. It is customary for the opening bolded text of an article to match the article's page name. For this article the title and opening bold text do not match, which is unusual, and as a result other aspects of the opening paragraph will necessarily be affected.

If I understand now (correctly) your concern about the addition being "ungrammatical", it seems that you objected to the lack of a comma. Couldn't you have added the comma, rather than deleting the addition? Condescension and belittling of other editors does not reflect well on you. I would advise you on this matter, but that would be the same rudeness that you have given. I do not wish to follow in those footsteps, thank you. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition, which created a complete mess. Separate pronunciation information for "United States" and "America"? No way. The info needs to be in one spot, for either (a) "United States of America" or (b) simply "America". For the reasons given by Golbez and DCGeist, I favor the latter--it's all that's needed, and it makes the opening of the article much easier to read. That's essentially what we have now, though adding audio to the "America" IPA transcription would certainly be a fine idea. DocKino (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.171.116.39, 27 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The National Anthem is listed as America, Fuck Yeah, even though in the source it says The Star-Spangled Banner. Please fix this so it says The Star-Spangled Banner. 24.171.116.39 (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the note; however, as with most "fix this vandalism" requests on Wikipedia, it was fixed long before you even reported it. :) --Golbez (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It's still there. Obviously not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.0.24 (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

mmmnope, it's not. See, here's where it was removed: [1] and you can see that's the current version. You need to reload the page and refresh its cache on your system, holding shift while clicking reload should do it. --Golbez (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong demonym

WP:NOTAFORUM: this isn't about improving the article, it's about promoting an idea
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
International Competition: "Finding a Name for the Citizens of the United States" http://es.ideas4all.com/ideas/42978-international_competition_finding_a_name_for_the_citizens_of_the_united_states?via=38713-44F2H The citizens of the United States call themselves "Americans". This is completely wrong. This simple idea is going to fix this mistake. I agree the offical name is the United States of America--- why is the article name reflective of this. Look at the side of the President's aircraft--- umm what does it say: United States of America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain.reggie.1701 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC) America is a huge continent that includes regions like Alaska in the North and Tierra del Fuego in the South and a lot of countries like Argentina, Mexico, Honduras, Canada, Chile, Jamaica and many, many others. All the inhabitants of those countries are "Americans", including and "only including" the inhabitants of the United States. This basic concept must be transmited to the citizens of the United States by the persons who understand it. It is not a difficult concept to understand (why the citizens of the United States do not understand it? Do they?), it is a simple, basic concept: The citizens of the United States should not call themselves "Americans" so they must find an alternative name. The International Competition "Finding a Name for the Citizens of the United States". Everybody could participate in the competition, choosing a name for the citizens of the United States, helping them understand that they are not the only citizens of the continent called America and teaching them not to steal a name that belongs to hundreds of millions. Some posible demonyms: Ami, Amurrrikan, Gringo, Merkin, Seppo, Septic, Ummy, United Statesian, USAn, USian, Yank, Yankee, Yanqui (from Demonyms of the United States) Some sources: Demonym, Names for U.S. citizens, Demonyms of the world http://es.ideas4all.com/ideas/42978-international_competition_finding_a_name_for_the_citizens_of_the_united_states?via=38713-44F2H —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.115.240.165 (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• I collapsed this as it seems to have nothing to do with the article. If citizens of the USA start using new and exciting words to describe themselves, we'll add it to the article - once it happens. TFOWR 17:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Transportation in the US (July 12, 2010)

The article currently states: “The four largest airlines in the world by passengers carried are American; Southwest Airlines is number one.” This is untrue--- Delta Airlines is the world’s largest airline currently and is headquartered in Atlanta, GA, USA (This will change when UAL and Continental Merge). This can be confirmed by the federal governments Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA)--- noted in this URL: http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2010/bts029_10/html/bts029_10.html#table_03 (look at table 3)

Also note this expert from the article: In March, Delta Air Lines carried more total system and international passengers than any other U.S. airline (Tables 4, 16). Southwest Airlines carried the most domestic passengers (Tables 10). During the first three months of 2010, Delta carried more total system passengers than any other U.S. airline (Table 3). Southwest carried the most domestic passengers and Delta carried the most international passengers in the first three months (Tables 9, 15). See notes under tables for more details on Delta's report. Please resolve this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain.reggie.1701 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we put something in about international perceptions?

This article doesn't really mention foreign perceptions of the US. Could we mention some of the foreign perceptions? Just try googling "why do amearicans" or "why are americans" and see what comes up as common searches, and you'll see this is a key issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banak (talk • contribs) 15:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Are there any other country articles with similar sections? --Golbez (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

We have anti-Americanism, just like we have Francophobia and Anglophobia, but like in France and United Kingdom, it doesn't belong in the country's article. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 18:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

On September 11th 2001 foreign perceptions of the USA became a major issue for the nation. In the aftermath, many asked "Why". Please don't continue to ignore such perceptions. They became an integral part of what America is that day. HiLo48 (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(1) External perceptions don't suddenly become an "integral part" of "what a country is" because of a given event. External perceptions always affect a country's position in the geopolitical sphere, but they do not constitute the sort of basic information essential to understanding the country that a summary overview article such as this must focus on.

(2) Just because something is not included in this article, does not mean that it is being "ignored". This article is part of an encyclopedia, not a catch-all for every single item of interest involving the United States.

(3) Please show us a Featured or Good country article here that has a section on foreign perceptions, or an article on the United States in any other mainstream encyclopedia that has such a section.—DCGeist (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Have to agree that others perceptions of a country is important information about a country and should be included on a page about that country. Kinda related is human rights - I think there should be a section on this issue, especially in the light of Guantanamo/rendition/potentially illegal wars etc. There is a section on human rights on the pages for many countries on Wiki, there should be one for every country....

The United States is not just any country. It's the most powerful nation on Earth, which means it has a huge cultural and political impact on others and, at more times than most other countries, chooses to impose its military will on others. I'm not arguing the right or wrong of that latter point here, but many do. It is inevitable that the foreign perceptions of the USA will be more powerful and more significant than most other countries. If there was ever a place to start looking at international perceptions, it would be with the USA. I went looking for a country's article where international perceptions may be significant, and thought of some African ones. Keeping it (mostly) objective, Zimbabwe has a table of its rankings on the Global Peace Index, Corruption Perceptions Index, and Global Competitiveness Report. None very flattering, of course. Cuba has a similar table. The US doesn't. Maybe it could become standard to include those rankings for all countries. That would be a start. HiLo48 (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think something as unsubstantial as "international perceptions" belongs in an encyclopedia article. What kind of sources Hilo48 would you cited when discussing what Europeans bicker about Americans at the dinner table? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.22.21.11 (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone needs to remove the viagra vandalism on the article please, im not autoconfirmed 02:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KageUrufu (talk • contribs)

Purge the page. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 03:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

United States' Percentage of World's Land Planted With Biotech Crops

The last line in the Science and Technology section says "more than half of the world's land planted with biotech crops is in the United States." Then cites "ISAAA Brief 35-2006: Executive Summary—Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2006". International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications. Retrieved 2007-06-19."

As you can see it's a rather old brief. In the 2008 Brief (Which can be found on Google Scholar), on page 11, it says that the US is responsible for exactly 50% of the world's land planted with biotech crops, which is obviously not more than half.

Additionally, in the press release for the 2009 ISAAA Brief, you'll find this paragraph.

"The top eight countries, each growing more than 1 million hectares, were: United States (64.0 million ha.), Brazil (21.4 million ha.), Argentina (21.3 million ha.), India (8.4 million ha.), Canada (8.2 million ha.), China (3.7 million ha.), Paraguay (2.2 million ha.), and South Africa (2.1 million ha.). The remaining countries included: Uruguay, Bolivia, Philippines, Australia, Burkina Faso, Spain, Mexico, Chile, Colombia, Honduras, Czech Republic, Portugal, Romania, Poland, Costa Rica, Egypt and Slovakia."

Using only the top 8 countries (which is most of the biotech land), the United States owns 48.7% of the world's land planted with biotech crops.

Therefore I propose that a newer article is referenced, and that the wording of that sentence be altered.

--Glopal (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Verifiable. Please proceed! Word it well. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not have access to the page. So if someone could edit it for me that would be great. As far as wording goes... I figured we could just change 'more than' to 'almost.' Then just cite the above press release link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glopal (talk • contribs) 22:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Or if someone could grant me temporary access I'll do it myself. Glopal (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Move

Move to United States of America, the official name. --138.110.206.102 (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Per consensus (discussions above and in the archive (AGAIN) Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 23:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Glopal, 16 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please see: Talk:United_States#United_States.27_Percentage_of_World.27s_Land_Planted_With_Biotech_Crops Glopal (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done pls see Two revision from July 15, 2010 Moxy (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

article location

shouldn't someone move this article from "United States" to "The United States of America", as it is referred to in the constitution, or "United States of America", as it is called on the president's plane? "United States" is one of the slang ways to talk about the country. I don't know why it isn't switched to an article titled by it's full name, which, if you look at other countries' articles, like China or Taiwan, they are in an article titled by their full name. Yahoowill54321 (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion above and in the archive. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, some people don't want to, they want to keep a 'common name'. To be fair, its the name of the country, "The United States of America" that leads to the issues (denonym issues, common name issues, etc.). The discussion is actually quite a read.Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I hate seeing new and enthusiastic editors told to not bother with their ideas. It's not a great way to offer the welcome mat. But I think I need to say - don't bother persisting with ideas of moving (changing the name of) this article. I too think it should be changed, but I know there's a very assertive group of people who don't want it changed. That's their prerogative, and I see no point in arguing, because that is the reality here. I love Wikipedia, but some bits aren't quite the way I would like, and I have to just put up with that. I really have been trying to figure out why some are so certain about their position of insisting on no change, and am now wondering if there is a different perspective depending on whether one lives in the USA or not. Not saying either view is right or wrong, nor criticising in the slightest. Just speculating about drivers of opinion. And to Yahoowill54321, save your energy. Take it to other articles where plenty of help is always appreciated. HiLo48 (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for showing the new kid the ropes in your inimitable style, HiLo. Hey, maybe someday you'll be able to explain why you are so certain that your position is so exceptionally worthy that you'll find any opportunity to toot its horn, whether or not your redundant musings make the slightest contribution to maintaining or improving this article. How did you become so very assertive and pleased with yourself? We all have a lot to learn from you.

Yahoowill54321, you're more than welcome here, where plenty of actual help is always needed and deeply appreciated. There's lots of data fields in the article to keep updated, vandalism to be reverted, news developments to be considered for inclusion, and trolls on the Talk page to be restrained. Please do join us.—DCGeist (talk) 07:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually presented a new perspective there DCGeist, but it seems you didn't notice it. I have no intention of pushing my views here any longer. I am not certain of my position at all. That you think I am shows some misunderstanding of what I have said. I am simply observing, trying to work out, and even making suggestions, as to why some others DO feel so certain. Also telling our new editor to not waste his time here, a view I'm sure you share. I love the psychology of it all. HiLo48 (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

ummm so just to be clear, both of you agree with the article change, but say noone will allow it, right? is there anybody out there that doesn't agree with it? if noone doesnt agree, could someone switch it, or atleast tell me how?Yahoowill54321 (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I personally would agree with the move, it has been debated long and hard before with the final decision being no. The long and hotly debated history can be found here. danno 23:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.207.250.119, 17 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

one: The point of origin that is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is totally sperate and independent private organization and private land from the point of origin that is the UNITED STATES which is private organization and private land that is defined in title 28 chapter 176 section 3002 15 (A). that is under the point of origin that is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA that is private organization and private lands. the many different organizations that is controlled and formed through contracts with each other that is under The owner of the organizations that is The One, Sovereign Soul Energy of origin that is The State and/or the states (depending point of origin energy prospective) and the point of origin that is The State church host body that is known to be at this point of origin The One, (ordered to edit out his designation put in place of is true designation the word or words The People but his incials is (C.C.T.) of The C.H.L. Thornton Family Clan is The Owner of The Owners which if your religious individuals then proficy may have been full filled again for what is king but the owner of the point of origin designation and what is the meaning The King of Kings or The King of The Kings really mean The owner of The Owners and what point of origin is owned and not owned is the question. the rest is social programming to buffer lies and truths in fashion depending how open your mind is to many different points of origins to obtain the whole truth, who is who at each level is really running the organizations which is really at this point of origin the owners of the financial systems and currency that is crated every time the military under the control of the The Fund defined in title 21 and title 31 as The international Monetary Fund; and the city of London corporation and The Council of Foreign Relations and many other organizations that is not in the code and is in the of the United states title codes which you will not see any articles then titles and sections which is Lucifer trickery illusion for Constitution that does not exists to over through another organization indirectly by placing foreign government agents that is loyal to the owners of the financial currency and the financial currency system called the federal reserve systems and federal reserve banks which the ownership is hidden by stock issued to banks in those regions to hide the financial owners identity which is not The [the C.C.T. Thornton Family Clan their bank was taken from them by stock puts options to crash the stock and controlling the legal system by the owners of the federal reserve system and the bankers association or The (C.C.T. of The C.H.L. Thornton Family Clan which is very financially poor and Holiness The Faithful to The Divine Creator [The God] the original point of origin soul energy of origin that is the original point of origin creator against the Lucifer offspring and servants of manon "the owners of the currency systems and intellectual property that is the currency and hidden by the buffer financial organizations and transformational as bible for told in genus] foreign government servants that is placed in key high power title positions in the executive and department of Justice and federal courts and military and Department of Treasury and Federal Reserve Banks and Central banks world wide and exchanges world wide and hedge funds which is the owners of the fffinancialrganizations that has started many of the wars and ccchaos to obtain order and population reduction and ordered 911 and the alleged financialrises when a few of the key fffinancialwners died and it was dddecided the hheheirs the financial property buffer by the ffifinancialoorganizationsto hide ttheiractions and ownership to make profit while ttransferringgownership that is what the banking hearing was about one year and half in the senate banking committee that was broad cast on C-span that the financial creation of financingcrises was going to happen and then was moved to closed session as it was done with the 911 event to bbriefwhat is about to happen and how the owners of the financial iintellectualroperty and property was going to change ooownershipand make profit at the eexpensef the slaves called citizens which the financially poor (C.C.T.) of Thornton Family Clan could not pppreventince he did not have the money to assert control of the owners of the interllecal property owners of the fianciall currency system that is called The Federal Reserve System. The owners of the Federal Reserve System that is hidden by the Bankers Association patents and trade marks and copy rights routing number and account number system is the one is in management command and control since they control the financial system patents which is what is happening when Iraq and Afghanistan and Korea and Japan and Germany and Italy connected to the Vatican which is a bank was invaded and concordhen installed a new pre patented financial system and currency thus providing priyer command and cocontrolf the organizations that is put in place as gogovernmentnd central banking system thus controls the military and courts and enenforcers called police that is stud up.

I am sorry I can not write well in the correct structure, Back to the main topic The Owner of The Owners which if your religious individuals then profcicy may have been full filled again for what is king but the owner of the point of origin designation and what is the meaning The King of Kings or The King of The Kings really mean The owner of The Owners. the rest is soical programming to buffer who is who at each level is really running the organizations. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and UNITED STATES IS NOT A REPUBLIC, it is many different corporations that each asserts is own presumtive assertion over and with in points of origins that is each under the point of origin that is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The points of origins that is decribed in descpritive description with the word or words "THE STATES OF "INSERT HERE IN ALL CAPTIAL LETTERS the descrptive description that is lucifer layers trickster double meaning game the point of origin land mass point of origin descriptive description title name" or the point of origin organization corporaiton that has the decriptive description that is the word or words that is ""INSERT HERE IN ALL CAPTIAL LETTERS the descrptive description that is lucifer layers trickster double meaning game the point of origin land mass point of origin descriptive description title name" then "COUNTY" or the point of origin that is

The owners of the financial system does not care who owns the organizations as long as the federal reserve act 1914 I think it is with all the amendments to date and the new financial act as the owners of the financial systems written it remains in tacked that increased the owners of the financial currency and federal reserve system and bankers association has their management control of the currency and currency system and make them selves more profit to obtain ownership of the greatest property and most valuable property that there is that is human souls sweat equity and human souls that is forced into causing chaos between souls to gain ownership and command and control of souls by using debt instruments and each soul own actionable conduct to obtain their daily bread and just to survive the day with out being forced into sinners choice against another soul that is basically in the same boat trying to live with in The God laws and provide for their own soul and their family members of souls.

Well you get the point, it is not a repbulic and is corporations that is at war with each other some for the god side of the war and some for the lucifer side of the war by the owners of the financial systems and ceneral banking systems.

71.207.250.119 (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Get consensus for your proposed change, then repost the request. I'd strongly suggest making your request much, much shorter as well - for the benefit of other editors while building consensus, and for the poor soul who considers the reposted request. TFOWR 10:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

He's not going to get consensus for that...I skimmed it and it's a long, rambling conspiracy theory. "The US isn't a country its a corporation" "THEY ordered 911 to kill off people" "THEY work for the devil" etc. 174.108.65.29 (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Pan American Games

I was reading under the section of sports in this article. And it dawned upon me. This article mentions the United States hosting several Summer and Winter Olympics, not to mention the country winning the most medals at the summer Olympics.

However, what I saw conspicuously missing is that there is no mentioning of the United States actively participating every four years as well as hosting the Pan American Games, first in Chicago in 1959 and second in Indianapolis in 1987. Equally, American athletes have won the most medals in the Pan American Games. So why do the Olympics get mentioning and inclusion yet the Pan American Games do not? I would think 1 or 2 sentences wouldn't hurt.Yoganate79 (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

GDP PP equal to nominal

I' m not an expert but isn't it a mistake that US GDP PP per capita is equal to its nominal GDP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.231.97.183 (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

To-Do List

Can someone put a to-do list template at the top of the page? I'd love to help out to get this to FA, but i don't see anything to do.--Iankap99 (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Something that should be looked at.

The United States is officially a secular nation; the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion and forbids the establishment of any religious governance. This isn't quite right, it should read, The United States is officially a secular nation; the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion and forbids the establishment of any religious governance except it's own. Regardless of what the Unites States government likes to say, it's a Christian country. If it were in fact truly secular then we wouldn't have laws against buying alcohol on Sunday, and same sex marriage wouldn't be illegal. Other than religion, there is no reason for those two specific things to be made illegal. Third, on our currency it says "In God We Trust." So, yet again, stating the rather religious nature of this nation. There is also the fact that most politicians refer to the constitution as God's constitution, and the media tends to lash out at any politician who isn't as Christian as they want them to be. Not trying to be opinionated, just stating plain obvious facts. America is not as secular as our country's leaders like to make it seem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.30.180.126 (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The current wording is correct: The United States is officially a secular nation. The very next sentence makes clear how unusually important religion is to its citizens, considered as a whole.—DCGeist (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Blue laws and laws on sexual mores, while (in my opinion) dumb, are not in themselves religious. They have generally been religiously-motivated, but it is easy to justify a non-religious purpose for them, and I'm sure modern legislators are quite able to do that. --Golbez (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, I in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". Many religions, or religious denominations, oppose same-sex marriage, so its illegality does not make the US a Christian nation. "In God We Trust" was only added to the currency in the mid-19th century, and didn't become the national motto until the mid-20th century, so again, it doesn't prove that the US is a Christian nation. Some of the most prominent founders, Jefferson and Paine among them, were highly skeptical of Christianity. It's certainly true that several states (TX, MA, MD, NC, SC, and TN) include religious tests in the Bill of Rights/Declaration of Rights/Constitutions, but the country as a whole is secular. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 15:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Liberal Democracy?

According to Wikipedia, in order to be a liberal democracy, a nation must have a multi-party political system. The only place in the U.S. with a multi-party democracy is Vermont. Thus, by definition, the United States is not a liberal democracy and should not be classified as such. Sbrianhicks (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

While I'm with you on simply calling 99% of elected politicians members of the "Incumbent Party", technically we do have a multi-party system. D, R, a smattering of L and G here and there. --Golbez (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but there are no Grenns or Libertarians in the Federal Government. That's what liberal democracy is about, the national gov't. Sbrianhicks (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

A) As you point out, Vermont is represented in the federal legislature by someone who is a non-Democrat and non-Republican. So is Connecticut, by the way. It only takes one to make it true. B) Just because people only decide to vote from two parties does not make the United States not a multi-party state. Legally we are, and the people have the legal right to vote for any party they want. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Bernie Sanders. He is a member of the Democratic Party caucus, and is counted as a Democrat. I'm talking about at the state level: the Vermont Progressive Party, a socialist party that has several seats in the state legislature. And we don't always have the legal right to vote for a third party. There are, in some states, laws designed to either keep thrid parties off of the ballot or seriously hurt their chances (look at Oklahoma). Sbrianhicks (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but by simple math, despite your own personal feelings on the similarities between D and R, it's a multi-party state. I voted L in the last 3 federal elections, that an L didn't win doesn't mean L wasn't an option. There are laws designed to keep third parties off the ballot, but those, as you point out, are state laws, and don't have a direct bearing on the fact that the country is a multi-party democracy. Please abandon this argument, as it will not win. --Golbez (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Multi means more than two. USA can't be a multi-party state if you can't legally vote for more than two parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.79.237 (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, no, that's not what multiple means. Second of all, it is perfectly legal to vote for someone of another party. There are many limits on them, but that doesn't change the fact that at least 4, maybe 5, parties were on the ballots in enough states to mathematically become president. --Golbez (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The Contemporary Era section needs to be edited because there are obviously things that have been taken out and totally different texts are combined incorrectly as a result. CLEANUP needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.227.214.147 (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So then why do the third parties call for a multi-party democracy if we already have it? And I don't think that the Dems and GOP are the same, I much prefer the former to the latter.Sbrianhicks (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Best to ask them that question. --Golbez (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Parent of Federal Reserve WikiProject

I am just seeing if there would be any interest in this project serving as a parent project to a proposal I have for the Federal Reserve to gain "Project Status". See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Federal Reserve for more info. Feedback welcome. Frank0051 (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm also interested in getting feedback about a taskforce within this group as opposed to a WP. Frank0051 (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Info Box

In the info box, can we change the link "Motto" from Motto to United States national motto? The motto link just explains what a national motto is, whereas the link "United States national motto" tells a bit of the history of both US mottos, which is probably more relevant on this page. samwaltz (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually this is not possible as its the template that is generating the link to Motto - pls see Template:Infobox country, that said i would image that this could changed with some new coding and should be talked about here.Moxy (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

USA versus U.S.A.

In the introduction, the article uses the term USA as one of the alternative terms for the United States. However, isn't the term U.S.A. (with periods/full-stops seperating the letters) more correct for an acronym, and thus would be better to use in the introduction? [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 00:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Bruce and Miley both used full stops. But honestly I'm not sure what the rule is for USA/U.S.A. Though I know U.S. is preferred over US. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 04:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

American English (aka "Yank") is moving slowly in the direction of dotless initialism style. British English (aka "Pom") and Australian English (aka "Roo") are already there. At this point, the prevailing (though by no means uniform) style in Yank is dotless for all initialisms three letters or longer (like, for instance, USA and aka). For two-letter initialisms, especially ones that are potential homographs for actual words or common syllables—like "us" , "ma", or "ba"—the clear preference is still for dotted style: U.S., M.A., B.A. I would not be surprised to see a shift in that preference over the next couple of decades, I'm preparing myself emotionally to deal with the tragic possibility, but I certainly see no need for us to lead the way.—DCGeist (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Arnoldissimo, 14 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Great american authors's books

• [http://york.web.officelive.com/AmerikalarKitaplar.aspx Abraham Lincoln: “I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts.”

] Gateway to american writers's sites

Arnoldissimo (talk) 10:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No offense but I think if we were going to add a link to a "Gateway to american writers' sites" we could find one in English. --Golbez (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Demonym

Close as non-productive
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Should be "United Statesan" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.133.35.113 (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC) But it's not. --Golbez (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Independence

"Independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain"

Shouldn't this be "Independence from the United Kingdom"? --75.33.216.97 (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope. The United Kingdom didn't exist in 1776. --Golbez (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

About Economic System

The economic of US is actually wrong US follows market economy rather than mixed economy please go through the source properly before making any judgment.--Kkm010 | Talk with me 15:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition to "Religion"

This proposed addition is very weak, aside from the fact that it is generally recognized that the article's great length argues against such major additions of new content.

• The selective historical references to the Smith and Kennedy campaigns clearly have no place in a Demographics subsection that focuses on the present state of the nation.
• There is no evidence that the hyped-up "Ground Zero mosque" controversy will be regarded as a particularly noteworthy event even six months from now.
• The inclusion of a magazine opinion poll obviously has no place in a general summary overview article on the United States. On the logic of its inclusion, we could have multiple opinion polls in virtually every topical subsection of the article. That's not what a country article exists for.

This article is not the place for any of the proposed content. Wikipedia features topical articles such as Religion in the United States and History of religion in the United States that are much more suitable.—DCGeist (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

DCeist makes a contradictory set of arguments. On the one hand he wants to reject the importance of history--especially the central role of religion in 1928 in 1960--even though the article recognizes the importance of history by giving over one of its longest sections to two history . On the other hand he is predicting the future, telling us what is going to be important in a year or 10 years from now. Of course it is not the business of Wikipedia to predict the future, and the fact that the New York city mosque issue is a very high profile issue in in 2010 and a factor in the 2010 elections, suggest it is important for readers to understand the United States and 2010. But even more important, is the question of the mutual interrelationships and mutual tolerance of the different religious groups in the United States. This is a worldwide issue, of course, and its status in the United States is of great importance. There have been numerous surveys on the topic, such as those by the Pew poll, which can also be cited. As for the argument that the article is too long, that is easily solved, which I will do now, by removing less important material. Rjensen (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

General notes ..Yes article to big but is this worthy ...First..No references provided for the first run-on sentence that i am not sure is accurate . Then a statement again with no refs... talking about an ongoing debate that currently has an article (yes this is of significants i think and should remain if sourced and reworded) .. Then we have a poll consisting of only 1000 people that is now reflecting the view of all Americans based on the way its currently worded. Dont see how this was comprehensive or was scientifically scrutinized over 2 days..so is undo weight given to this polls significants... I would say yes.. So the reversal was justified i believe because of lack sources and undo weight given by a poll of only 1000 people. Moxy (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The rewrite of the lead section was very poorly done--just at a first glance, it introduced unsupported and unnecessary leaps in logic, inconsistent citation style, poor phrasing, factual errors, typographical errors, several instances of inconsistent text style, and several instances of outright improper style. In short: an utter, utter mess. Anyway, editors should know not to pursue that sort of change to the lead without discussion. I agree with DCGeist's analysis of the paragraph that Rjensen wishes to add to "Religion"--it doesn't belong in this article. Rjensen's apparent edit warring to force it in is not doing the argument for inclusion a bit of good, by the way. DocKino (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Your changes were pretty atrocious, Rjensen, and as a professor, you should be flogging yourself right now. Some commentary:

• "The United States, in cooperation with France defeated"... Missing a comma.
• "headed by Presiden t" Extra space.
• "provoked the American Civil War 1861-65" Simply no excuse.
• "that left the Freedmen (freed slaves) second class citiens" Could have just said 'freed slaves', it's not like "freedmen" is reused later on. Also, 'citiens'.
• "started in the U.S. and persisted despite major efforts by the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt to provide relief, recovery and reform." That's quite the opinion you're stating in the lead section; many believe that his efforts exacerbated the depression. (Also, did you really need three words to describe what FDR was attempting?)
• "The U.S. emerged from World War II as a superpower, but it faced the Sooviet Union in a long Cold War that finally ended in 1989, at which point the U.S. became the sole superpower." Run-on sentence, "Sooviet", and you excised the bit about being a founding member of the UN, as well as the Spanish-American War.
• You laughably - despite the comment - uppercased 'united'.
• "Religious tensions were major issues in the presidential elections of 1928 when" Exactly how many presidential elections were there in the U.S. in 1928? Perhaps you're missing a comma here? After 1928?
• The Park51 mosque? Really? Of all the possible religious issues that have ever been at play in this country, you pick the one that's two months old? Not, say, Waco? Mormonism and Utah? Gay marriage? Our involvement in the Middle East? Or ... 9/11 itself? You realize you're essentially stating that Park51 is more important than pretty much any other religious issue, by focusing on it. Also, the Time magazine poll.. why stop there? Let's include their polls on the war, on how the economy is doing, maybe keep President Obama's approval rating updated to the minute?
• "The discoveries of Christopher Columbus led to many explorating expeditions" Good lord.
• You changed "In 1674, the Dutch ceded their American territory to England" to "In 1674, the British seized Dutch territory, renaming it New York.". Neither version has a source, but that doesn't excuse reversing the sentence.
• "Every colony had slavery but African slaves became the primary work force" I don't think you mean 'but' here.
• "where crows like tobacco and rice" cawcaw
• You removed one of the fundamental slogans of the county's founding, "No taxation without representation."

And, perhaps worst of all, you fought to include these poor changes multiple times. --Golbez (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Recognition of Independence of the USA

Official recognition of the USA's independence made by sultan Sidi Mohammed( King of Morocco) on 20 February 1778 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.59.96.38 (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

True, but 'recognized' in the case of the infobox generally means, recognized from the county it was seceding from. I think. --Golbez (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

crime

crime compare chart is dumb. U.S has hundreds of millions more population then the countrys being compared.. show a fair scale? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.108.240 (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're referring to the chart titled "Homicide Rate In Developed Countries", it seems a quite fair comparison. The horizontal axis is labelled "Homicide rate per 100,000 inhabitants", which is precisely how one does adjust for different population sizes. HiLo48 (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

demographics

need more of an outline detailing the caucasian demographics e.g. irish , german , english , scottish , polish. 12.41.255.10 (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if those stats exist anywhere. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 20:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if it's what 12.41 is after, but (via Scottish American) I've got this data from census.gov. It covers the examples 12.41 lists, and a few more. It's probably too much detail for this article, however. TFOWR 20:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be it. Interesting that there are more Germans than English or Irish. Perhaps we could mention the top 3 or 4 countries? ~DC _{Let's Vent} 21:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Aye, German American is a fascinating read - just got side-tracked there ;-) I assume the addition would be to the demographics section? It'd be nice if we could expand the table, but I suspect we'd struggle to find one source that covered the current contents and the "expanded" content while avoiding WP:SYNTH. A new table covering ancestry might be preferable (incidentally, it occurs to me that ancestry doesn't necessarily imply caucasian). Alternatively, the three largest groups are currently covered in the prose, so we could leave it at that? TFOWR 21:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

How can 79.8 % of the usa be white on the table showing the demo breakdown and then in the body of the description it says 34% of the usa's population is minorities..........that would mean 66% of the population is white.........so please tell me which way is it????????75.110.144.109 (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"Minorities" probably includes Hispanic whites. --Golbez (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ya, its rather confusing though seeing the different figures. Hispanic whites getting classed as separate in the text and counted as minorities but in the table many must be included in the white figure. Having "Hispanic (of any race)15.4%" listed in line with all other ethnicities/races messes the table up when they must already be included in the figures as it comes to over 115% when adding everything together including Hispanics. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm at present the table and the wording make no sense yes. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It's clearly time to move on from using skin color as an indicator of anything (apart, perhaps, from it's correlation with the incidence of skin cancer.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

22.4 million employed by government????

I was reading the Economy section of the USA article and it states 22.4 million are in government, but the source they provided makes no mention of such a figure. I've done research and the actual number employed in government is actually around 12-14 million, depending on the source. I am requesting the you check and verify information that is posted on Wikipedia. Those who vandalize and post false information have obviously already figured out that simply attaching some random source will make their edit seem more credible. We should not only review the edits made to a Wikipedia article, but also verify with the source provided if the information being added to Wikipedia actually matches the information featured in the source. Please remove this false statement of 22.4 million employed in government. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.29.201 (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Data updated. Your numbers are way off (if I was inclined to echo your overheated language, I could call them "false" without fear of contradiction). The current figure for U.S. citizens employed in government is 21.2 million (see here).—DCGeist (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the updated source. Interestingly I never came across it or such a high figure, not to mention any claim of more than 14 million in the US working for the government, but as the bls.gov source you provided points out, obviously there are more around 20 million working in government. One of the sources I found said that only about 12 million work for government and I think you would like to know that it too was the website of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Thus, obviously the BLS.gov website needs to get its numbers straightened out because it is already perhaps the 2nd or 3rd time I have found conflicting numbers on its website (perhaps the result of various uncoordinated researches being done by the BLS?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.29.201 (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Demonym American

Close unconstructive discussion per WP:TALKNO ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 04:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

An inhabitant of american is wrong for America because America is the continent and over the americas is called the original name is in honor of america who discovered America on the continent is a bad gentile adopted and unaware of the monroe doctrine exclusionary the adjective is true that it is enacting abrebiacion usamerica in the United States of America and usamerican as adjective is to add only two points us, ok not exceed the true history and remember because it gave the name to the continent but also for the continent as a whole because land itself is a continent or supercontinent made up of several not remove the justification that is called america america is the continent, and Americans are the inhabitants of the continent not only the United States of America point and stop making a mess you have there own adjective, and representative of you crativo usamerican —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanediaz (talk • contribs) 20:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It's true to say that to use the word American as an adjective that means a citizen of the United States of America or something else to do with that country is technically wrong. It's also true that Spanish speakers across both North and South America use the word American as an adjective to describe anyone or anything from the whole of that area. But languages evolve and languages aren't necessarily logical and common usage is often not technically correct. There is no doubt that to most residents of English speaking countries, the word American is an adjective that primarily describes someone or something from the United States of America. It IS how the word has evolved to become used in those countries. Wikipedia cannot fight the evolution of languages. HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There is also not a continent called "America." There are two continents, one with "North" and one with "South" in front of their names. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2010

People from the USA are often suprised that in much (most?) of the world, "America" is considered one continent (there is no North America and South America. It is all just America). Thats the reason there are five rings in the olympics: One for each continent that participates (Africa, Asia, Europe, America, and Australia). See the wikipedia page for "continent:" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent . In many countries in europe and south america they still teach the 5 continent model. I dont know about australia or asia. Just like some people now consider "eurasia" one continent. There is no one model for defining 'continents,' so it would be wrong to say as a matter of fact that there is no 'continent called America,' as at least a large portion (if not a majority) of educated people in this world would disagree.74.244.126.207 (talk) 04:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)30 September 2010

(UTC)They are two continents it is true, but in turn these two terrestrial masses shape alone c great continent it looks mas for information, america is a continent or supercontinent in function that this shaped by several.

That appears to be an English speakers' view of things. It's a distinction much less common in other languages. HiLo48 (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"It's true to say that to use the word American as an adjective that means a citizen of the United States of America or something else to do with that country is technically wrong" Elaborate on your assertion that this is "technically wrong", please. --Golbez (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you be happier if I modified "technically wrong" to "technically ambiguous"? HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, since one is a correct statement and the other is not. I, and the majority of my countrymen, use the term American for ourselves. Therefore, it cannot be remotely "wrong" to, well, call me an American. --Golbez (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

We are talking about two things. Calling yourself an "American" is correct (in english). Referring to your country as "America" is incorrect. There is no country named America. 74.244.126.207 (talk) 04:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)30 September 2010

"That appears to be an English speakers' (sic) view of things. It's a distinction much less common in other languages." Last I checked this is the English Wikipedia. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 03:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It would seem apparent that the original questioner is not a native English speaker. There are times when we have to consider different perspectives on the world. More than one can be right. And there are times when those with differing linguistic backgrounds have to communicate effectively. This is all part of that. HiLo48 (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Okey the one that me escribio that america are two continents is true but if you were investigating mas you are going to see that is considered to be a supercontinent or as a set of lands is said whatever it may be america it is the name of the set of lands for something this one the organization of American conditions and other one culturally america or the americas possess different cultures but simultaneously many similarities in customs it forms of life. Brothers are not closed usamericanos the name it is put in honor to the continent not to close conditions understand it it is difficult to change but there is many polemic one with this that has to be decisive the American term is ambiguous though the whole world uses it in reference to close conditions also they say it for those who live the supercontinent This way it is said by the dictionary, and good of the Spanish academy is not for hatred if not because it is an ambiguous term in mexico for example there is called Mexicans those who live to mexico (republic) and mexiquenses to those who live the condition of mexico. tendrian that to do the same america is an alone continent shaped by several and point do not be so confused read a book of history and see because the name comes america all the other conditions since brasil canada mexico between others they put his own name in function to his been joined origins I do not look for an own name this it is the topic that does not have a name that he identifies this way it is all they say it, in new york I investigates that this the usamericano being used to solve the polemic like that it must be usamerican because Americans do not forget we are all those of the continent or super continent not only it of close conditions we are joined not separatists, union is strength —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.127.24.46 (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

the truth that with my 18 years of age understand why this world is so complicated I do not understand why so many disunion the term is ambiguous is the truth I agree with wikipedia that you can not change but I want to bring to this that is an ambiguous term and Americans are all people in South and North America not only the U.S. mind you thanks for your answers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.127.24.46 (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

it is true that the term american change the new term that is rampant and is the most specific and identified usamerican our country is that wikipedia is responsible for changing this. the ambiguity is very confusing american do not know if they speak of the americas or usamerican us very original and specific —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.127.24.46 (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It really isn't that confusing. "US American" is fine if you want to call us that, but we, and the majority of the world's English speakers, call us Americans. I'm not sure what your continued statements here are for; we simply will not be changing the demonym in the article, and this talk page is for discussing the article, not necessarily its subject. --Golbez (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia agree that this article does not change but the term is wrong very wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.127.24.46 (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, it's not wrong at all. I call myself that, how can I possibly be wrong? Your comments appear to have been addressed and you are no longer talking about the article. --Golbez (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

People from the United States of America are known around the world as Americans. Its use here is not wrong. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, we don't call them United Statetians. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know what term should be put there by those who think American is incorrect. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

well, have reason to fight was also a little bet to what I said because it was to raise awareness and do not forget that all those who inhabit this vast continent we must respect and love and good Americans all dispusta hope this is resolved is not our fault wikipedia is true or is the eminent politicians and also some day want to meet new york los angeles are fantastic places and good do not get angry I wanted to just write what I thought and what peace we are very confused and please america (usa) america continent and peace luck and this will solve the U.S. government or organization of American states —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.127.24.46 (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yankee is good as an adjective and is widely used —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.127.24.46 (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Watch any current news. They will either refer to this as the country, or as "American". They will never say Yankee; Yankee is a colloquial term. We are more often called Estadounidense than Yankee in serious discourse. Get over it. Also, please start signing your posts by typing ~~~~. No awareness has been raised; nothing you've brought up hasn't been brought up countless times before, and your point doesn't really have a leg to stand on. --Golbez (talk) 06:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Gobez, I am not the other guy you have been talking with. We are talking about two things. Calling yourself an "American" is correct (in english), as this is the accepted adjective for people from the USA in english. Although it is ambiguous as it is also the accepted adjective for anything from North/South America (see, for instance, the "Organization of American States"). Thats one issue. The other issue is referring to your country as "America," which is incorrect. There is no country named America. This is unambiguous. 74.244.126.207 (talk) 04:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)30 September 2010

These days, a Yankee is a baseball player (New York Yankees). -- GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

In the USA this is true. Outside of the USA, a yankee is still used to commonly refer to all people from the USA. Although it certainly isnt a replacement for American.74.244.126.207 (talk) 04:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Genocide Of Amerindian

why isn't there a section for introducing genocide of amerindian in the north america. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.111.38 (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The section Independence and expansion deals with it, and the article European colonization of the Americas goes into far great detail. This is a summary article, covering the topic without much detail (because the topic is extremely wide-ranging). Other articles will cover individual topics in far great detail. TFOWR 18:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Update

I have noticed in the information box on the right ahnd side of the article, the current population of our country is 310,387,000 (as of 10/01/2010).

However, when I read through the article, a sentence popped out conspicuously that probably needs changed to reflect the current population.

The sentence.... "At 3.79 million square miles (9.83 million km2) and with over 309 million people, the United States is the third or fourth largest country by total area, and the third largest both by land area and population."

should be changed to.... "At 3.79 million square miles (9.83 million km2) and with over 310 million people, the United States is the third or fourth largest country by total area, and the third largest both by land area and population."

I would go ahead and change it myself, but whenever I make a constructive edit, DCGeist always reverts them since he thinks that he is the sole judge of what can and cannot be included in this article. So can somebody take the bold initiative and change it? Many thanks!!! Yoganate79 (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Talktome^(Intelati) 06:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

West Florida

Hey the U.S also annexed the Republic of West Florida! Plz add this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.154.21 (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

West Florida was only barely a republic, slightly more than California but slightly less than Vermont, I would say. Since it 'officially' obtained that land from Spain anyway, it doesn't really matter. --Golbez (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Southwest

was reading the article and noticed that it stated that Southwest airlines was the largest airline in the world, but fails to state that this is only by the number of passengers transported. As airlines are larger by fleet size, number of passenger miles, and other rankings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.154.21 (talk) 04:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You've misread the sentence. It makes quite clear that the metric is the "number of passengers transported": "The four largest airlines in the world by passengers carried are American; Southwest Airlines is number one" [emphasis added].—DCGeist (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Can of worms?

Why is the article title not United States of America? Simply south (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ at the top of this page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Move

The page needs to be moved to "United States of America" or "The United States of America"--Eduardog3000 (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read the "Frequently Asked Questions" at the top of the talk page, it's small but the [show] button will expand it. --Golbez (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do people always complain about this one. I can't remember ever seeing some requesting that United Kingdom be moved to its full title (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 21:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

i would believe that the reason it keeps coming up ...is that its odd to see an encyclopedia use the wrong title. That said it is becoming the norm as at www.britannica.com and CIA that also uses the term "United States" as it main target for searches and title.Moxy (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Since when is it the "wrong title"? It's the name name of the country. Most countries have a long form and a short form. For Mexico, the long form is United Mexican States, and the short form is Mexico. For this one, the long form is United States of America, and the short form is United States. This is unambiguous and factual, and many have said otherwise and have been unable to back up their assertions. --Golbez (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You just proved my point for me "United Mexican States" as you mention not just the United States of America use the term "United States"...Moxy (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

They don't use the term United States; no extant country does, so it is not ambiguous. No one ever refers to Mexico as "United States" or "United States of Mexico"; indeed, that would be very strange, since in Spanish, "United States" is Estados Unidos, and the full name of Mexico is Estados Unidos Mexicanos. If there were ambiguity, then Estados Unidos would not be what most Mexicans call the country to their north. In other words, no Mexican will ever think that "Estados Unidos" is referring to Mexico. The name unambiguously refers to the United States of America. --Golbez (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, please don't change your tune mid-stride - your original argument was that it was wrong, you don't then get to change that to ambiguous in the same breath. Ambiguous, I can play with, as there have actually been, in the past, some entities named "United States of X", though calling this country "United States" is not ambiguous at all - 100% of the people you poll asking, which country is the United States? will answer, this one. Not the United States of Colombia, or United States of Central America, or the United States of Indonesia. But calling it "wrong" was just plain, well, wrong. --Golbez (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As I've noted in past discussions, the Spanish-language Wikipedia's article about this country is titled "Estados Unidos" (Spanish for "United States"), despite the fact that the long-form Spanish-language name of Mexico (the largest Spanish-speaking country) is "Estados Unidos Mexicanos."

Amid numerous assertions of ambiguity, no one has presented evidence that the term "United States" (or even a translation thereof) commonly refers to anything other than the USA anywhere in the world. —David Levy 21:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

They are not American, they're U.S. citizens

Why on EARTH are they referred to as Americans?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkLightA (talk • contribs) 10:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the fact that the formal name of the country is "United States of America" has something vaguely to do with it. After all, people from the Commonwealth of Australia are called Australians; and people from the Federation of Malaysia are called Malaysians; and people from the Republic of South Africa are called South Africans. I could go on at quite some length but I'm sure you get the picture. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ...

Oh Jack, you know that doesn't work. There are many places outside the USA that carry the adjective American. I'm not aware of many places at all outside the Commonwealth of Australia that are called Australian. But I do accept that American works for people from the USA. And it also works for anyone from anywhere in South or North America. That's the difference. It's simply ambiguous. HiLo48 (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In English the term is anything but ambiguous. 'American' refers to people from the USA in English 9 times out of 10 unless you are referring to something broader about the Americas in general, and in those cases people are very specific about what version they mean because if they weren't people would think they were talking about the US. Let me put it like this, if someone walked up to you and said, "I'm an American." would you scratch your head and wonder which country of the Americas he could possibly be from, or would you assume that he is from the US? 99% of the time he'd be from the US. There is no ambiguity except that which people choose to create when it comes to this term. OptimumPx (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it's not a big problem. Just a tiny bit ambiguous in unusual situations. Watching subtitled movies from South America will do it for you. But I guess not many people do that. HiLo48 (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Really, these sorts of discussions are fruitless, because whatever amount of ambiguity there may be, which as far as I can tell is vanishingly small anyway, there is no prospect of the demonym of the country ever being changed. Nor should there be; it's as thoroughly set in stone as it's possible for any demonym to be. Hence, there've been a succession of US Presidents referring to the American people, American justice, even the American century. Nobody seems to quibble when people sing "God Bless America", yet forming the most natural adjective from that proper noun is somehow supposed to be a no-no? Please. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree with all of that, but I hope you get a chance one day to read or see The Motorcycle Diaries, the story of the Che Guevara before Cuba. I don't understand much Spanish, but once it's translated into English there are frequent mentions of "the American people". They certainly don't mean people just from the United States. It's not our culture, but it's another use of the word we use to mean USAians. I found it very educational. And that's what encyclopaedias should be. HiLo48 (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

And no one's saying it's inaccurate for South Americans and Mexicans and Cubans et.al. to refer to themselves as American. It is not, however, a national demonym for them like it is for people from the US. A continental demonym, yes, like European or Asian or African. The fact that they have the same word does not change the fact that it is a national demonym for people from the US, nor does it require people from the United States to change their own word. So the Spanish language uses a different term; bully for them. In English, we don't. In English, we appear to use the same word for both (example: Organization of American States). But when dealing with a national demonym, there's no ambiguity, just as there's no ambiguity (as is often brought up) with the name "United States". There is one nation of people referred to as American, there is one country referred to as the United States. And finally, treating the whole western continent as 'America' to my ears comes across as similar to calling Germany a part of Eurasia. --Golbez (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Jack, in English there is no ambiguity with the demonym. If this were Spanish Wikipedia, there'd be more to argue about, and indeed it looks like they don't use "Americans" there. TastyCakes (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No were does the United States nationality law mention the term American 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act Chapter 1.Moxy (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to sound snippy, but... so? Did anyone say it was an official government term? --Golbez (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

While again it's not a huge issue, when I first heard the term Organization of American States, I WAS confused. I now know it refers to more than just the USA, which means there is at least some ambiguity, so it's simply wrong to say there is none. HiLo48 (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, but that's not the issue here. The OP, who has not honoured us with a return visit, seems to arguing that people from the USA should not be referred to as "Americans". I have a message for the OP: You're wasting your time. The change you propose is never going to happen. They already are called "U.S. citizens" in some contexts, but you can't generally extend that usage beyond those contexts. Imagine a foreign head of state, on an official visit to the USA, presenting some grand gift, not to "the American people" but to "the group of U.S. citizens" or whatever. Simply absurd. Get over it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Jack, you're right. HiLo48 (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

america is the continent not a country. US people should not use americans to reffered themselves. It's wrong usage again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.111.38 (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they shouldn't. But it's not just US people, it's most people in the Anglo-phone world. I'm a New Zealander, and New Zealanders use "American" to refer to US citizens. I live in the United Kingdom, and British people use "American" to refer to US citizens. Until that changes, the English Wikipedia is going to continue to reflect common usage. Wikipedia reports actual verified usage, not the term you and I might want people to use. TFOWR 18:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"America" is not the continent. The continent is "North America". There is another continent to the south, strangely enough called "South America". Together, these two continents are called "The Americas". 75.25.101.110 (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

America is not just USA

When I made an edit pointing this out, I got quickly reverted... Perhaps the word imprecisely is better than inaccurately? (I will make this change in a few days, unless I get convinced otherwise here.) Buzz-tardis (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Please don't; you'll just get reverted again. Regardless of whether or not it's technically correct, it is common usage, not only in the US but in other parts of the world. Search the archives of this talk page and you'll find lots of discussion on it, with a consensus for the current lead. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

How does reverting a correct change make the article better? Buzz-tardis (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Because the edit adds a point of view, and Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view. We don't say (or rather, we shouldn't say) whether things are correct or incorrect - we just say them. If folk call the USA "America" then we say that folk call the USA "America". By the same token we don't describe organisations as "terrorist organisations". However... we can cite sources saying "to call the USA 'America' is incorrect", just as we can cite sources saying "Organisation X is a terrorist organisation". We report, we don't editorialise. TFOWR 20:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Buzz you wont win..just like the articles title "United States" could this be more generic and incorrect. You will find that in USA related articles common usage seems to outweigh correct terminology.Moxy (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Buzz, it IS common usage, and that's how language evolves. The mass of self titled Americans here are convinced that their somewhat imprecise usage is OK. No point in trying to convince them otherwise here. But your thoughts and those of many others pointing out the issues are recorded here, so it is at least shown somewhere. Maybe if you can find a reliable source that discusses the naming issue a comment could be added to the article.HiLo48 (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention all the Europeans and Asians and Africans who refer to people from the United States as American, rather than just the "self-titled Americans". But hey, whatever your straw man needs to survive. --Golbez (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

(Answering all (I hope.) (Wow, for something on which there exists consensus, this sure evokes a lot of discussion.))

• Where in those 38 pages of archives can I find this consensus?
• If the statement is POV, how come Canada is in America (as are Mexico, Brazil, etc)? Did Columbus discover the USA? No, it didn't exist back then. So USA is not America. QED.
• The fact that it's common languange doesn't make it correct language... I wonder why you think adding a note on that fact would be detrimental to the article.
• I was not discussing a (probably wise) move of the article, or the term american... Most US-citizens seem to be unaware that when they refer to american, they also include (people/things from) the rest of the continent. To aid in their education, a note on this page might help.
• I'm pretty sure there is consensus against US(A)-centrism.

Buzz-tardis (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Now looking for sources... Will still go ahead if not convinced otherwise. The purpose is to improve the article. Buzz-tardis (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because it was both wrong and expressed a biased POV. It is not "incorrect" that the US is called America, it reflects actual English language usage in the vast majority of the English-speaking world. Substituting your personal judgement that the usage is incorrect instead of accurately describing actual usage is biased. older ≠ wiser 23:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So imprecisely is better, in your opinion?

No. It is what it is, a term by which the country is commonly known throughout the English-speaking world. older ≠ wiser 23:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

An ambigious term at best... would it be an idea to turn America into a link (to the (existing) disambig.-page)? Buzz-tardis (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

(Note: The CIA: does not claim the country is called America: (under Government :: United States) Country name:

conventional long form: United States of America

conventional short form: United States

abbreviation: US or USA

)... Buzz-tardis (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

For your info Buzz....the talks are located at Talk:United States/Archive 35#"American" and Talk:United States/Archive 35#Demonym / gentilic (United States is of America, not America)...Moxy (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, tnx for the info (including the reverted bit)... actual consensus seems to be this point: (concerning an edit changing "Americans" to "Yankees") Haha, sorry I hadn't realized that. I thought it was a little random... I have removed it as per the reasons above. On top of those reasons, it doesn't seem right to have "informal" demonyms. Where do we stop? Limeys? Frogs? Square heads? TastyCakes (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)...

But then, we're not talking about demonyms (names for peoples) here. We're discussing whether the name of the country is America. I'm not saying people from The United States of America are not Americans, however I would like the article to clarify soonest (especially for young Americans) that their country is part, not all of America... some might even suggest removing America from the list of names completely, per above (no informal names) (probably not a wanted outcome...) (Trying to be constructive here...) Buzz-tardis (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The question is not whether "the name of the country is America." It's whether the country is commonly "referred to" as such. It is. —David Levy 03:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

True. But a note about the ambiguity/informality might still be in order, don't you think? (see also the CIA-link, above)... Just linking up America to the disambig.-page might be enough to stifle some (not all) critcism of USA-centrism. America is not just the USA... But I said that already, didn't I? Buzz-tardis (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest linking "America" to Americas#Terminology, which addresses the issue in great detail. —David Levy 03:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Dave that is a great idea ..y did we not think of this before..Cant see y anyone would object to a link to a better explanation of the term used. Perhaps a hard coded redirect?Moxy (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm unsure of what you're suggesting, but I've added the link (subject to reversion and discussion, of course). If you have a better method in mind, please feel free to implement it. —David Levy 04:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That was worded wrong..you did what i meant..that is to link directly to the section.Moxy (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying. Yes, that's what I had in mind. Now let's see whether the change is accepted.  :-) —David Levy 04:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Looks good to me... Let's see how long it lasts. Buzz-tardis (talk) 04:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd been tracking the boring, redundant thread below, but not this boring, redundant one, so when I saw in my watchlist that the word "America" had been linked—and, as I discovered, in the article's first sentence!—I assumed I would instantly resist. As it happens, I have no problem with the link at all. It strikes me as successfully edifying.—DCGeist (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

How many of the people protesting the use of "American" to mean "US citizen" are actually native English speakers? Because in English there is NO ambiguity because there is no continent of America. There are two continents - North America and South America. Yes, other languages consider these one continent. Bully for them. In those languages, American is ambiguous. When writing in those languages one should not use American for US citizen. Conversely, when writing in English (where the ambiguity does not exist) such usage is normal and expected. When using a language other than your own, you need to learn how the native speakers use it. --Khajidha (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Khajidha - just be careful when making such absolute statements. Up above, in this very section, there is reference to the Organization of American States. It is headquartered in Washington, but American in that name does not mean "from the USA". Your point is mostly correct, but there ARE overlaps. Dismissing them with "Bully for them" is a little rude. HiLo48 (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

And their telling me what to call my own nationality in my own language is rude, too. --Khajidha (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 19:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, I didn't dismiss them. I stated that their usage was correct, in their languages. I respect their right to determine what things are called in their languages. All I am asking for is to be shown the same respect, but apparently being rude to an American (English usage style) is considered to be a good thing. --Khajidha (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe the word being linked to Americas#Terminology that then has links to Americas (terminology) and American (word) really does solve the problem of any ambiguity... as mentioned by Khajidha (not all see it as non-ambiguity who are not native English speakers as one of many possible reasons) there are many that will benefit from the link...As an encyclopedia we are here to help all readers regardless of education or language comprehension levels. Just cause you understand English at an expert level apparently, does not mean all our readers do. We try to engage them with the intent of spreading correct knowledge not to demean them. Moxy (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Khajidha - Perhaps you need to learn your own language a little better. Firstly, I suspect you mean they're rather than their. Makes a bit more sense. And in this case, they, the Organization of American States, includes the USA, and Canada, where English is obviously pretty common. The important thing to accept is that, while using American to mean from the USA IS a common usage, and perfectly acceptable, it's not the only usage of the word American in English. As in many situations, awareness and tolerance of difference is the key. HiLo48 (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, their is the correct form in that sentence. Read it again, substituting "complaining" for "telling me ... language". I didn't mean for they to refer to the OAS, but to those who are saying that the normal English usage is incorrect. I did forget about the OAS, but it is one of a very few usages of that meaning of American in English. --Khajidha (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Why did someone remove my last posting?--Khajidha (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't called incorrect, it was called inaccurate or imprecise... there is a (be it subtle) difference... The phrase read as ...also refered to as ... (inaccurately) America. You might not like it, still it is true... There was no disrespect intended... If you perceived it as that, I apologize. I do think the current solution, linking to America#Terminology, is a good one, and won't try other changes is this area. (I was actually surprised by the strong response) Buzz-tardis (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't so much directed at you in particular as at the numerous people I've encountered who HAVE said it was incorrect. See my post from 19:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC) for the basic problem I have with this. --Khajidha (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Folks, the OP's premise is false. 'America' by itself means one and only one thing - the USA. North America, Central America, Latin America, South America, the Americas - none of these are ever called just 'America'. True, the adjective 'American' can sometimes refer to things that are not the USA, or not just the USA. But it is misleading to take that fact and somehow twist it claim that 'America', by itself, means something other than the USA, because it does not. Never. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite as absolute as that, but that's not the point. This article is fine. The discussion might be better continued over at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. HiLo48 (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think it's very much the point. This thread is titled "America is not just USA", and I am taking issue with that assertion. People in Canada, Costa Rica, or Paraguay cannot claim that they are in "America". People in the USA can. But they are all in "the Americas". Can you give me any examples of where "America", without qualification, means something other than the United Staes of America? (Jack of Oz) -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see American countries. Also, I've met several people who, when asked where they were from, first answered America... when asked where in America, they would answer, Argentina, Brazil or Canada... Buzz-tardis (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Then there's a language issue. Presumably, they were Spanish speakers, with English as a second or later language. In English, "America" (unqualified) means one and only one place. It may well be different in other languages, but this is English Wikipedia and that's what we're writing for here. Re American countries: that claims that the Americas are sometimes called "America". School kids sometimes say "Columbus discovered America" and in that sense it's extra-USA (because he never came within a bull's roar or what is now the USA), even though most of those kids are actually thinking, erroneously, of the USA when they say "Columbus discovered America". -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone take the time to read what we linked up before commenting?? Americas#Terminology..anyways i though this was solved does anyone have a problem with the link used or the info on the linked page?? Moxy (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I like the link. But people are still going to come here and explain to us why America and/or American is wrong, just like people continue to come here asking for this page to be moved to United States of America. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 04:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I've had some thoughts on the matter over the night. Generally, English seems to use "America" to mean the United States in monolingual (English only) situations and to mean "the Americas" in multilingual situations (such as the OAS and IOC). It also uses "America" in the wider sense when referring to pre-1776 events (such as Columbus' voyages). --Khajidha (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think is a difference between English and other languages... I guess being /in/ America, it's easy for US-citizens to get mixed up about this issue... English-speakers outside of America are probably less likely to make this mistake. (You know, not seeing the forest through the trees, or somesuch.) Another data-point: America (əmérikə) the two continents North America and South America, extending from... (Webster's, 1990 edition, New York)... The only mention of the USA in the lemma is: Linguistically and culturally the Americas are known as Anglo-America (the U.S.A. and Canada) and Latin America (Mexico, ... Buzz-tardis (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. In my experience calling the US "America" and US citizens "Americans" is widespread - at least in New Zealand and the UK. It'd sound odd asking someone if they were "a US citizen". Laziness maybe - I'd call myself "a Kiwi", and never "a New Zealander". TFOWR 19:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"Are you from the USA?" would work. HiLo48 (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sure - as would "are you a US citizen?" It's just not what tends to get asked. TFOWR 20:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite true. Wasn't trying to make a major debating point. Just responding to that single post. HiLo48 (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

But that proves my point. You meet a Canadian; to your ears he sounds like an American; you assume he's an American; but to make sure, you ask "Are you an American?". If some of the above respondents are correct, he would be perfectly within his rights to answer "Yes". And that would be the most misleading answer he could possibly give. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. And you wouldn't expect an Egyptian to say he was an African, or a German to say he was a European, or a Pakistani to say he was an Asian. When asked "where are you from?", the most natural answer is with the name of your country not your continent. Thus, I don't see why a Brazilian would say he was an American. So where is the possible confusion coming from, the American who is using the proper demonym for his country or the Brazilian/Mexican/Chilean/etc saying "But I'm an American too!" --Khajidha (talk) 10:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Article needs to be cleaned up

I think some stuff is sliding by in this aritcle such as some of the facts and some of the links. Could someone give my account permission for maybe just a little bit to edit this article to put some citations on some things, and cange a few gramatical errors? Also can some of those links be removed? There is some very irrelevant links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kofbritain (talk • contribs) 19:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Kofbritain, 9 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} some of the links go to religious sites that have very little to do with the article, but the biggest problems is alot of the information has no sources cited. I have a few websites and books I could add as sources, but since i am blocked from editing this page, perhaps someone else can add some good sources.

Kofbritain (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If you make one more edit you will be able to edit this page. Unless you can specify which links need to be removed or what sources should be added and where, however, there is not much I can do. Intelligentsium 23:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

1812

can you really say it was a draw?? washingtion was burned... thats a pretty good way to judge who was the winner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.197.76 (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we can. The territorial status at the end of the war was the same as it was before. Lives were lost, cities were burned, but no side made any substantial gains. --Golbez (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, most sources say it was a draw. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Even furthermore, York, the capital of Upper Canada, was burned by the Americans. Judging a war by "burned cities" is a pretty weird way to go about it. After all, London was bombed and set fire to by the Germans many times in World War II. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I will also add, most if not all of the naval battles fought on the Great Lakes, the Royal Navy was resoundedly defeated by the U.S. Navy. Equally, I live in New Orleans where the British were badly beaten in January 1815. If the British won the War of 1812 like they enjoy gloating about, then why is there no Union Jack flying over Jackson Square???? They were also booted out of Baltimore and Thames and Tippecanoe were disasters for them as well, yet they conveniently gloss over these historical factsYoganate79 (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well...no, it is a bit of a misnomer to suggest that the British or Canadian sense of "winning" the war of 1812 is disproved by saying "there's no Union Jack over Jackson Square." Especially from a Canadian perspective (and they are the ones I usually on the other side claiming to have "won" the war), the war of 1812 was a defensive war on their part to keep out American invaders that had crossed their border, seemingly with conquest on their minds. From their point of view, they succeeded in that effort. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

From the Canadian perspective, America chose to invade Canada while Britain was distracted by Napoleon etc., expecting a relatively easy campaign. But they faced stiffer resistance than expected and, as all countries do, put a positive gloss on their efforts, claimed no such designs on Canadian territory, and stating that justification for the war came from Britain's illegal seizing of Americans on the high seas, etc.

Those excuses are seen by most Canadians as bullshit, the international equivalent of seizing your neighbour's house because his dog keeps crapping on your lawn. When that neighbour responds by tossing you out, throwing some rocks through your window, it is a bit disingenuous to claim a "draw" because that neighbour's dog no longer craps on your lawn. But that is what we hear from American partisan historians, explaining away a loss. If the lack of a loss of any territory was a criterion for a "draw," or the fact that the government remained intact in America, then we should consider the outcome of the 1990/1 Gulf War a "draw" too, as Iraq's border simply reverted to their initial position after the war, Saddam remained in power. Canada Jack (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, territory did change in the 1990/91 Gulf War. Saddam had invaded and occupied Kuwait, and was thrown out of it by the international force. Besides which, using territorial changes in a vacuum makes no more sense than using cities burned. In the case of 1991, for example, Iraq's objective was to hold on to Kuwait (which it failed to do) and the UN objective was to throw Iraq out of Kuwait and to a fair level disarm Iraq (which it did do). That Iraq did not lose any of the territory that the rest of the world considered its sovereign land is irrelevant, the objectives of neither side was the taking or keeping of pre-1990 Iraqi sovereign land. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Good to know Canada sees the UK as its dog. :D --Golbez (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Then you agree with my argument that it is ludicrous for America to claim a "draw" with the War of 1812. Just as it would be to argue Iraq and the United States (well, the force led by America) fought to a "draw."

In the case of 1991, for example, Iraq's objective was to hold on to Kuwait (which it failed to do) and the UN objective was to throw Iraq out of Kuwait and to a fair level disarm Iraq (which it did do). In the case if 1812, America's objective (in the eyes of many Canadians and British) was to seize Canada territory (which it failed to do) and the British objective was to throw America out of Canada and prevent a repeat (which it did). Indeed, as America expanded their territory in subsequent years, no serious attempts were made to seize the British territories to the north, in contrast to the west and south.

What many in Canada and Britain argue is that America, having failed in their goals, simply pretended that their stated goals were their real goals. To stop British impoundment, etc. But few, if any, wars are started with the rhetoric matching the true goals of the belligerent. Indeed, few, if any, belligerents describe their actions as anything but a measured and justified reaction to the provocations of the victim or their patrons. So, in Canada and Britain, many see America as the belligerent, and in America, Britain the supplier of the intolerable acts. Canada Jack (talk) 23:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Any reliable sources to back this up? If not, go troll elsewhere ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 23:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

??? You are kidding, are you, D.C.? I know what Americans believe, clearly you don't know what Canadians believe. Don't throw the term "troll" around lightly, son. Grow up. Canada Jack (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

If only there were a more relevant place to discuss this... --Golbez (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Genocide Of Amerindian

why isn't there a section for introducing genocide of amerindian in the north america by the US people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.111.38 (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I answered this last time you asked. TFOWR 21:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Image to use for 9-11

We currently use a photo of the World Trade Center billowing smoke on 9/11. Unfortunately, it doesn't really do the day much justice. It's a grainy and low-rez photo, which is not really the fault of the project because most of the photos that we know to represent that day were press photos that won't see the public domain for many decades. After doing some searches at Flickr, I was able to coax two users into releasing two very good (relatively speaking) shots of the day; these photos are unique and difficult to find in the "I was lucky to have gotten this shot" world at the time. Listed below are the current photo and the two potential replacements. I'd appreciate input as to which we should use. The middle one is a view of the smoke plumes from Brooklyn after both planes hit but before either collapse. The third is a view of the south tower (seen from the north) upon getting hit by United Airlines Flight 175. The explosion is on the north side of the tower as a result of the plane crashing in the south side (i.e., it's blowing out the opposite side the plane entered), just for context. Please leave comments after the images. upstateNYer 23:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• 
  Photo 1: Current image
• 
  Photo 2: Smoke plumes seen from Brooklyn
• 
  Photo 3: South tower hit by Flight 175
• 
  Photo 3 cropped

• Support Photo 3 crop, strong oppose photo 1. upstateNYer 23:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support 3, if cropped to eliminate the objects on the right. For our purposes, the small building and foliage are not so problematic, but the object in the lower-right foreground, on which we can read "THERMO K", is. It looks to me like cropping out the right produces a better result than cropping out the bottom.—DCGeist (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done upstateNYer 02:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes! Looks great. (I mean...aw hell...I need a drink.)—(Native New Yorker) DCGeist (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I made that drink (yes, a Manhattan). I find something fascinating in the comparison of these images: What color was the smoke plume? White? Black? Ecru? Is the variation more a matter of film stock, of angle versus the sun, or of time vs. impact?—DCGeist (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm of the opinion that Photo 2 is right after the second plane hit, but long enough that the fireball has dissipated; the darker smoke could easily be attributed to the jet fuel, which is what I expect. The current photo is closer to when the towers were about to collapse. The whiter smoke is probably more from papers and office products, after the jet fuel burned off. You'll notice the smoke coming out of the north tower in Photo 3 is noticeable darker than the smoke in Photo 1. But that's just an educated guess on my part. upstateNYer 20:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Agree per above.--Talktome^(Intelati) 23:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support 3 but...We should be using a pic of solders from the Iraq War - as this event/historical timeline has affected the general population to a much greater extent. That said i think photo #3 is the best of the bunch here.Moxy (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Given, for starters, both the PATRIOT Act and the ongoing War in Afghanistan, it is highly arguable that the Iraq War "has affected the general population to a much greater extent" than 9/11—especially as the emotional argument for invading Iraq was fueled in large part by 9/11. We also have two pictures of soldiers in the history section already.—DCGeist (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice points i agree with them 100 percent and will strike above.Moxy (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

civil war section

There should probably be some small mention of state's rights, since that's what the south claims the war was about. Equal treatment of viewpoints and all that. I'm not asking for a full exploration of the topic, just some passing mention. Dizzizz (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This matter is already explicitly addressed both in the article's lede ("Disputes between the agrarian South and industrial North over states' rights [...] provoked the American Civil War of the 1860s") and the relevant history subsection ("Tensions between slave and free states mounted with arguments over the relationship between the state and federal governments [...]"; "The war and its resolution led to a substantial increase in federal power").—DCGeist (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. That's what happens when I try to be useful at 3 a.m. Dizzizz (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

suggestion on adding a "regions" section

IMO, it would be nice to have [even if brief, or a sub-article in the "see also" section] a regions of the US. Possibly using a format similar to what National Geographic partitions it off as. There are already articles in wiki [such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England] that would suffice in compiling it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 03:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a Regions section in the United States Topics box in the footer. --Golbez (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

i just found it, thx. you can delete this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 03:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible POV Issues with coverage of treatment of Native Americans

As a Australian living in the USA, i was surprised to see that this history page of the USA so briefly passes over the wrongs commited against the original inhabitants of the USA.

As i read the Australian wikipedia page which names the wrongs done by european settlers as "genocide" i could'nt help but feel that the history of the wikipedia usa page should include more of what actually happened. I understand that you cannot include everything for brevity sake. However A US History should be able balance the strong sense of national identity with the wrongs and mistakes of the past.

What do you think? Would it be possible to add a line or two about this? Kind regards Jonathan McCallum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanmccallum (talk • contribs) 17:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Seconded, that can't be glossed over. Dizzizz (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you people? If you did, you'd have seen the second section on this page, which links to Talk:United_States/Archive_38#Genocide_Of_Amerindian which explains the situation. DC T•C 20:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I certainly can read. I'm saying it's glossed over, not ignored. What if it read something like "The Trail of Tears in the 1830s, characterized by massive loss of native lives, exemplified the Indian removal policy that stripped the native peoples of their land and forced them onto reserves." That's not a lot extra, and starts to suggest how terrible what happened was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizzizz (talk • contribs) 21:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sequence of demographics table

The long-standing sequence is logical and has been discussed on these Talk pages in the past:

(1) Hispanic is not a racial category, but a distinctive ethnic category. It does not belong in the middle of the racial sequence. With this category at the bottom, it may be readily determined that the racial categories sum to 100% (+/- a possible fractional).

(2) Multiracial is uninformative until all the base racial types have been listed. All available authoritative sources of which I am aware list this "crossover" category after the named racial groups.—DCGeist (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

(1) The table reads racial/ethnic categories. That is, both categories are considered in the same table. The percentage list is the same. There are not two separate percentage lists. Result: all "ethinc/racial" categories are to be considered as part of the same distribution. The separation you propose does not hold.

(2) Multiracial is a self-adscribed definition. It is not less informative than "Asian American" or "African American". You are incurring in WP:OR by pretending that this category is residual/uninformative.

In sum, all categories are to be considered equally part of the same table and distribution. Any further discrimination between categories is either WP:OR or WP:POV. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You are simply incorrect. Like the Census Bureau and other compilers of demographic data, we bring both racial and ethnic categories into the same table, but they are absolutely not part of the same percentage list. The racial categories sum to 100%. The figure for Hispanics is distinct--it would sum to 100% with the supererogatory category Non-Hispanics". I am restoring the well-established, proper, well-sourced status quo. Do not revert again unless you achieve consensus here for your desired revision.—DCGeist (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You are right regarding hispanic/non hispanic. I've just noticed. But maybe you should integrate this into a true racial/ethic single table. --IANVS (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Oil Spill

peace time oil spill? arent we at war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.55.110 (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but not where the oil spill is. Dizzizz (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

We also aren't in a declared state of war. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 07:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Terminology of demographics table

The Census Bureau specifically says "Asian" and "Hispanic or Latino". We go by what the source says. I'm changing the terms back to how the Census Bureau specifically states the terms.

The Universe Is Cool (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)The Universe Is Cool

"We go by what the source says"? Really? The actual cited source does use "Asian." You're right about that, and that's all you're right about. It uses "Hispanic", not "Hispanic or Latino", so you actually changed the table's nomenclature so that it was no longer in accord with that of the actual cited source. It uses "Black", but for some reason you didn't change our table to agree with that. It uses "AIAN", but for some reason you didn't change our table to agree with that. It uses "NHPI", but for some reason you didn't change our table to agree with that. It uses "Two or more races", but for some reason you didn't change our table to agree with that.

The nomenclature we use is well-established and respects prevailing usage both elsewhere on Wikipedia and in various Census Bureau documents. Don't change it again unless you establish consensus on this Talk page to do so.—DCGeist (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the source. You're right. It says "Black", "Hispanic", "AIAN", "NHPI", and "Two or more races", so should we change the terms on the table to fit those used in the exact source?

The Universe Is Cool (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)The Universe Is Cool

With respect to the use of "Asian" rather than "Asian American", The Universe Is Cool is exactly correct. The U.S. Census figures cited do not differentiate by citizenship, so non-citizen Asians living in the United States are counted equally with those born or naturalized here. "Asian American" incorrectly suggests that everyone reported to be Asian is also a U.S. citizen. bd2412 T 20:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point, and our table now fully represents the terminology used in the source.—DCGeist (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The US in international organizations

The introduction does not mention the US being a member in international organizations such as G8, G20, NATO, OECD, NAFTA. This information on the other hands seems to be a standard part in the introduction of every country article. Please add the missing facts as soon as possible. Italiano111 (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Military & Foreign Relations in one section ?

It is very odd to see these two parts united in one section. It appears that the US believes Military is a crucial part of FR and vice versa. Please separate these issues in two independent single sections, to avoid misinterpretations. Italiano111 (talk) 11:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 IMF update

I noticed that the GDP and GDP per capita data for the U.S. are outdated, as 2010 numbers have been released. Upon updating this, I found that it was quickly changed, much as I expected to be. My question is, how can there be a reference link "[4]" (source IMF) next to the said numbers, but when referenced, the information on the Wikipedia page does not reflect what was supposedly used to reference the information that was used? If 2010 numbers are released, is there a reason to stick with the 2009 numbers? There is no need to update the reference link because it is the same. The source information has only been updated on the IMF website. Is there a reason it is not being updated when the information is clearly there to be seen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Johnson (talk • contribs) 03:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Because you came to this talk page to complain about it rather than fixing it yourself. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 08:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Negative. I changed it and it gets changed by some wikipedia nazi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Johnson (talk • contribs) 03:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the source for the GDP info based on IMF estimates? If so, why do the updates to GDP estimates keep getting deleted when the IMF has updated 2010 estimates? What's the point in not updating it? If the source is the IMF and they put out different info, then why do we keep year old estimates on this page? What's the point? That's really being bold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Johnson (talk • contribs) 04:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Howdy, Doug. My dear, dead Jewish daddy would be real shocked to find out I turned into a "nazi," especially considering as he marched through Europe in 1944 and 1945 to fight those evil fu**ers.

Do you mind waiting until the end of 2010 before we use the IMF's 2010 GDP estimates? And if you do really, really, REALLY mind, do you think you are capable of arguing your position without resorting to calling your fellow Wikipedians "nazis"? Or are you wedded to filth as your communicative mode?—DCGeist (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was reading this but when my eyes caught "nazi" I decided that whatever this request was, it wasn't worth anyone's effort. --Golbez (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the word "nazi" by itself seems a bit inappropriate for the article. Not quite sure where it was originally stated though. 12.41.255.10 (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Er, above? It wasn't in the article, it was in Doug's request. --Golbez (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Economic Bias

Why does the US have 2009 gdp data with national debt data from a week ago? Also why is it that the US has 2009 IMF data when China has almost 2011 gdp data from an unofficial source? I call national bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NJguy281 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

What "unofficial sources" have to say about China's projected GDP for next year is obviously immaterial to us. We use the latest authoritatively established data. The U.S. only released authoritative GDP data for the third quarter of 2010 two days ago—we'll be making that update shortly. After the full year's data is well-established, some time in January, we can switch to 2010 in the lede, where we use IMF data to facilitate international ranking.—DCGeist (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Benjamin3795, 11 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} I would like to edit some of the info like the US per capital and other various info..

Benjamin3795 (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected, meaning that once your account has enough other general edits you will be able to edit this one. Just edit elsewhere for a little while. That said, I'm not sure your edits will be accepted based on what you have said so far. What exactly are you going to change? Info on the US capital is accurate, it is Washington DC. Do you mean per capita information, like economics? What specifically? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Right to seceede

The right of the states to seceede is an extremely controversial issue. The content of this post should be changed in order to be neutral.

It would be best to have the article state that it is highly controversial rather then stating that the states do not have that authority.

Woverdude (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

What individuals believe on the subject is no more relevant than if individuals believe murder is legal. The actual case history was ruled upon by the Supreme Court. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a pretty hot topic right now. It is spoken about on several major news networks including CNN, Fox, etc. and also on other popular sites (Lew Rockwell, Huffington Post, etc.). A brief Google search got me the following results, in no particular order or relevance: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, and eight. This is just a sampling of the vast amount of information out there. For anyone interested in improving the article, I would recommend a Google News search. I am not trying to argue for or against any particular policy regarding secession, but it cannot really be denied that it is a hot topic right now, especially in Texas. Cheers! --Andrew Kelly (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Being a "hot topic" does not mean that the right "legally exists" in the United States. An article focusing on the topic would be a suitable place to discuss public opinion, but this isn't an article about the intricacies of secession and public opinion. It is stating what is, like it or not, a legal fact. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

O.C. is correct. The law is settled and it is clear. The fact that there are some who feel VERY VERY STRONGLY that the law should be different is interesting, but not interesting enough to include in a summary overview article on the United States.—DCGeist (talk) 06:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I should have said "For anyone interested in writing a relevant article..." instead of "For anyone interested in improving the article...." I was not trying to advocate adding anything more than a sentence, if even that, to this particular article. I simply meant to point out that the issue is starting to crop up more and more. But I would definitely change my tune if a state were to actually secede in the coming years. If that were to happen then it should be included in the article! Cheers! --Andrew Kelly (talk) 07:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The “right to secede” issue was decisively settled during the American Civil War. 209.175.212.135 (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

fatalities

What does the term mean? Dead soldier? Please avoid jargon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arebenti (talk • contribs) 23:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It's using the same terminology as the source, and is well defined in context. The sentence before establishes that it is discussing troop numbers, and a dictionary definition of the word means "deaths". --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

'Fatality' is a fairly common word, and not jargon. 66.183.108.169 (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

page move

this might in the archives somewher ebut nonetheless WP:Consensus can change as the country is officially known as the United States of America, for the life of me i can't understand why it says United States. Its hardly used as such with even States (amongst foreigners) America or USA being more commonLihaas (talk) 09:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Per consensus. This has been discussed many, many, many times and the consensus does not change. No relevant facts have changed, no new evidence has been offered, no new argument has been made. If you really, for the life of you, can not understand why this article has the name that it has, please see the FAQs at the top of this page.—DCGeist (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Lihas - I tend to agree with your view, but I think you can see from the tone of that response that some will never change their position. I don't understand the logic, the absolute certainty, nor the logic, and I wouldn't call it anything like a consensus, but I do suggest that you don't waste your time any more on this. HiLo48 (talk) 10:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Would a be nice if we did not bite the new people to this page. Not everyone knows about past talks. dame kids Moxy (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The "official name" argument does not work, as very few countries on Wikipedia are at their official names, so it's not a Wikipedia standard to do so. This request cannot be entertained unless you provide a better or stronger reasoning. Thank you for your interest in improving the article. --Golbez (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

DCGeist's comment holds no water because 1. consensus can cahnge, and 2. consensus is not built though arbitrary vote counts as he suggests.

As per Golbez, however, your arguement about the "official name" maybe so. But id also like to ask why should it be "United States" instead. Its a half-name, and not in common parlance when refering to the country itself.Lihaas (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

To say that "United States" is not common parlance when referring to the country itself is simply false. Examples: http://whitehouse.gov says, "The White House is the official residence of the President of the United States". http://house.gov says, "United States House of Representatives". http://supremecourt.gov says, "Supreme Court of the United States." If it weren't common parlance then why would the three branches of the country's own government refer to it in such an arcane and unused fashion? Also, let's see: Al Jazeera refers to the country as the United States, and the BBC and NHK both use - in my 90 second peek - at least the term "US", rather than "USA" or "United States of America". So, three major global news organizations also use a style that, according to you, is not common parlance. In the future, when people want to make a wild assertion that goes against years of consensus, I don't think it's harsh to demand they actually back up their assertions, rather than making us do all the work. --Golbez (talk) 05:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(1) Don't edit other people's comments, as you did mine.

(2) Don't misrepresent other people's positions, as you did mine. I in no way suggested that consensus is "built through arbitrary vote counts".

(3) Don't fabricate claims to support your argument, such as your baseless assertion that "United States" is "not in common parlance".

(4) Do read through our FAQ on the matter, as has already been requested of you, so you will understand why the article is called "United States" and so you will see that you are offering nothing new or compelling on this matter.

Yes, consensus can change, but not without a good reason. As I noted above, the prevailing consensus has been reaffirmed on many occasions. Since the last time there was a large-scale discussion of the matter, about six months ago, no relevant facts have changed, no new evidence has been offered, no new argument has been made—again, as I noted above. You have failed to come up with a single good reason to reopen this settled debate.—DCGeist (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Reminder: last 15 hours of voting in the ArbCom elections

Dear editors,

Now is your final chance to vote in the December 2010 elections for new members of ArbCom. Voting will close just before midnight UTC tonight, Sunday 5 December (earlier for North America: just before 4 pm west coast, 7 pm east coast). Eligible voters (check your eligibility) are encouraged to vote well before the closing time due to the risk of server lag.

Arbitrators occupy high-profile positions and perform essential and demanding roles in handling some of the most difficult and sensitive issues on the project. The following pages may be of assistance to voters: candidate statements, questions for the candidates, discussion of the candidates and personal voter guides.

• Proceed here to cast your vote. Once you have decided how to vote, casting your vote is quick and convenient, using the Foundation's software.

For the election coordinators, Tony (talk) 09:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Need for audio clips

The article has no audio clips for pronunciation of the country name and no anthem in the side bar. However, the Ukraine article does as do a number of others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.249.29 (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The country name contains no proper nouns except for America, which should be pronounced in the article on said word. The title of the article has only common words in it, and if we're going to pronounce those then why stop there? As opposed to Ukraine, which is not a word in English apart from being a proper noun. As for the anthem, Ukraine probably shouldn't be wasting space in their infobox on it. The anthem has an article, the audio file can go there. --Golbez (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jmills769, 13 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change the speaker of the House from nancy Pelosi to john boehner because he is now the speaker of the house and he is Republican.

Jmills769 (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

 Not done He is not Speaker of the House and won't be until January 3. upstateNYer 00:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

peace time

how are wwe in peace time while we are still fighting in iraque; its an oxymoron if you as me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.14.63 (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Good lord. But, technically I think it's peacetime, as no war has been declared by the United States since the 1940s. (also, we mostly withdrew combat operations from Iraq several months ago, perhaps you mean Afghanistan) I'm assuming you're referring to the oil spill comment; that was to contrast it against the deliberate spill in Kuwait during the Gulf War, which was the largest spill in history. --Golbez (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

(editconflict) We are not in a state of declared war. We are in some armed conflicts, but there is virtually no point in US history when we have not been to some extent. The two uses of the word "peacetime" in this article refer to the BP oil spill and who has authority over the US Coast Guard. In the first case the use of "peacetime oil disaster" makes sense, as we are both not in a formal state of war, and the BP disaster had no connection to ongoing hostilities. An oil disaster that would not be "peacetime" would be something like the Japanese torpedoing an oil rig in 1944; that would be a wartime disaster. As for the Coast Guard, the article is referring to the status of being under Homeland Security or the Department of the Navy, something that only changes if Congress declares a state of war. Congress has not done so, so the Coast Guard remains under Homeland Security at present, its "peacetime" status. While the Coast Guard has had some very notable actions in the War on Terror, it has generally operated in a domestic capacity. Compare this to their World War II actions under the Department of the Navy, and you see the difference; at Normandy alone 60 USCG cutters formed as part of the D-Day armada. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible Issue with the US Flag

Hello all, I am trying to view the USA Flag (used here in this article) using Adobe Illustrator (here CS5). Although the file is SVG, which shouldn't be any problem, I am reporting that there are issues displaying the file correctly using Illustrator. I was wondering if there is an actual problem with the SVG file (which would need to be corrected), or if this is only a personal experience. I tried on 2 different computers of mine, both running up-to-date Illustrator softwares, but it appears that they cannot be opened nor edited correctly.

Please report if this is occurring to anyone else, in which case we might have an actual issue with the US Flag file.

Additionally, on a side note, I was wondering if anyone noticed the colors for both Blue and Red were much darker and lacking vividness compared to most flags you can see anywhere around the country? Thank you! Live2create (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

First Welcome to Wikipedia - I assume you mean File:Flag of the United States.svg there is also a png version you might have better luck with -->File:Flag of the United States.png. As for colour we welcome any additions (as per Wikipedia:Images). If you need help in uploading a picture pls see Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload. I do suggest you upload a new version and not replace the current one. (This way we will have 2 version, that will allow our editor a choice between the two and will insure the original one is not lost). I personal have no problem editing them so will leave that to another to answer.Moxy (talk) 06:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

2010 Census Figures

Update Population: 308,745,538

http://2010.census.gov/2010census/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.121.184 (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Territorial size

This page need to stop using the CIA numbers for the territorial size reference and start using the UN or Brittanica numbers, this number of 9826675km² is misleading to the true size of the US. Conventional calculation of territorial size is landmass + inland waters. CIA calculation is landmass + inland waters + coastal waters + territorial waters. This standard only applies to the US numbers and not to any other country in the CIA Worldbook of 'facts'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

In that case, the UN's official figure doesn't even use "conventional calculation". Swarm ^X 19:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

uncited statements and false/bias insinuations.

In the section "Cold War and protest politics" it was stated that "Both the US and Soviet Union supported dictatorships" and called the Vietnam war a "proxy war" and "unsuccessful". These are bias in situations that are hotly contested. For example, the treat of Paris ceded the US it's war objectives of a peace treaty between South Vietnam and North Vietnam, with the North agreeing to respect the territorial integrity of the South. The agreement was of course not respected by the North, who attacked as soon as the US ground forces had been withdrawn.

The entire section needs a major revisal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is worth approaching with more care than "unsuccessful," though citing the Paris Peace Accords is probably not the best way to defend the US efforts in Vietnam. A number of the major provisions never ended up happening, or were violated within two years. For example, the reunification of Vietnam did not end up taking place step by step through peaceful means, but rather by military takeover. The cease fire was largely ignored by both sides. Among the only things that actually came out of the treaty was the release of American POWS, and the eventual withdrawal of American forces. In otherwords, "they got what they wanted," and we didn't, just within the provisions and following of the treaty. As for the rest of your complaints, certainly there should be more citation, but the content does not appear to me to be in error. The US and USSR did support a number of dictatorships around the world. I won't get into the Soviet list (too long and generally well known by the public at large anyways), but the US supported regimes throughout Latin America such as the military junta of Argentina (who "disappeared" tens of thousands of their own people simply for holding different political ideals), the Shah of Iran (while possibly preferential to the current Islamic Republic, the Shah was still a dictatorship), Batista in Cuba (again, possibly being better than Castro doesn't make you not a dictator), various Middle East regimes, various military regimes in South Vietnam, the Greek military junta, and many more. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"Health" section bias

Could the pro-"Medicare for all" talking points be trimmed from the Health section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.51.6 (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Medicare doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article. What exactly are you looking for? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Is that a racist mistake? You were doing so well til that last sentence. --Golbez (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Do you really think so Mr Golbez? O.k,let talk about birth rate by countries; 1 Niger 7.45 7.19 2 Vatican City 7.10 7.07 3 Afghanistan 7.48 7.07 4 Burundi 6.80 6.80 5 Liberia 6.80 6.77 6 Democratic Republic of the Congo 6.70 6.70 7 East Timor 6.96 6.53 8 Mali 6.70 6.52 9 Sierra Leone 6.50 6.47 10 Uganda 6.75 6.46 Well I guess you are right,Mr Golbez any one can made mistakes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.248.176 (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no clue what you're talking about. --Golbez (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The anon appears to be talking about the previous crime and homicide rate discussion, and trying to sound like he isn't a racist. In the end, the anon comes off entirely as sounding racist, since rather than homicide rates they are ranting about birth rates, which rings of the "they're going to outnumber us so much that they'll take over" mentality. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr Golbez I'm guess you are not Catholic(thanks God). How could Vatican had the second highest birth rate in the World???

That's an insult to the Papacy and to 1.3 billion people.In Vatican only life Catholic priests,few nuns and the Pope. How could anyone make such mistake?the second highest birth rate in the World Vatican City,its an Insult. Crime and homicide rate discuss;In 2005 the economist published the quality of life index 2005,Spain was number 10 best country to life,now 'your' homicide rate its for 2004.Spain has one of the lowest crime rate in the World.Its an Insult to Spaniard and to the truth.Now,WHO and How could any one make such 'mistake' and if indeed a mistake Why hasn't been change?

                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.241.242 (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC) 

GDP DATA

For the love of God it is 2011 and we still have 2009 gdp data on here. Not surprisingly the national debt data is up to date. Bias anyone?? China's gdp data on its article is basically 2012 data. Let's cut the nonsense. Put the IMF 2010 gdp data up already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.101.94 (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Crime and law enforcement

Please checked your homicide rate in developed countries,showed to my surprise Spain as the second with most homicide!!! Spain today is one of the lowest not just among developed countries,but in the world and in 2004 was much lower than today!

             http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Is that a racist mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.247.206 (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You were doing so well til that last sentence. --Golbez (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

A misunderstanding, address in this article: Cold War and protest politics, second paragraph.

There seems to be a misunderstanding about the president who was in office during the first landing on the moon. Because the name of the president Kennedy is mentioned before and after the achievement a reader may think that Kennedy was the president of the United States that time (7/20/1969). It’s suggested that you write the name of the president Nixon in parentheses to avoid this misunderstanding.[refer to wikipedia article about it] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satabitaraf (talk • contribs) 10:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As the paragraph mentions "Kennedy's assassination in 1963", I find it unlikely that this confusion actually arises.—DCGeist (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

In this section it states "more than 2.3 million people were incarcerated, more than one in every 100 adults" while it states the population is at 310 million. While the years these stats are taken from are different the only way for this to be acurate is if the current U.S. population was beloew 230 million, which has not been the case for decades.

Under the source (174) it states..."For the first time in history more than one in every 100 adults in America are in jail or prison—a fact that significantly impacts state budgets without delivering a clear return on public safety. According to a new report released today by the Pew Center on the States’ Public Safety Performance Project, at the start of 2008, 2,319,258 adults were held in American prisons or jails, or one in every 99.1 men and women" ...It is stating in the same paragraph the conflicting statistics that "more then 1 in 100" and "1 in 99.1" are incarerated, besides the fact that 2.3 million is not 1% of America's 300+ million poulation.

While these statistics are probably not far from truth I believe I have proven that this section is factually inacurate and should be annotated, edited, or better sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.17.0 (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You forget that around 80 million people in the United States are under the age of 18. So yes, 2.3 million is one in 100 adults. --Golbez (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The only problem is the source used has conflicting information. If it can't even get it's stats right it shouldn't be used as a source. If it's true (as I stated it was probably close regardless) then there should be an acurate source which was one of the suggestions I gave as a solution or annotated to reflect the linked source's inacuracy which I also suggested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.17.0 (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Article named "United States" vs etymology of "America"

I know that every time someone raises the issue of "United States" not being the proper name of the country, and suggesting that the article be renamed to "United States of America", they get howled down by some extremely strong supporters of the current name, so I don't really want to reopen that can of worms. But today my attention was drawn to the Etymology section, where almost all of the effort goes into explaining the name America, which, of course, isn't even part of the name of the article, and the full name of United States of America. Yes, there is a tiny sentence that says "The short form the United States is also standard", but it doesn't really balance up at all with the name of the article. As I said, I don't want a fight with the United States fans here, but something really needs sorting out. HiLo48 (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The location of the article ("United States") is set according to Wikipedia policy and common practices, but should not be taken as a statement by Wikipedia editors on what the legal or full name of the country is. The title of the article is the common name, but that does not change the fact that "United States of America" is a more formal name. Therefore, an etymology section can and should still include an explanation of parts of the formal name, such as "America". In otherwords, the two issues are really independent of each other. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as I've already said. I know a lot of you feel very strongly on this matter. (For the life of me I still really can't see why.) But we're talking about the very first section of the article here, right after the lead. It launches straight into an explanation of America, when the article is called United States. On the surface, it actually looks quite odd. Couldn't maybe just a tiny bit of explanation help in that section? I'll postulate that the extremely strong feelings about the name United States come from within that country, but to those people I'll just say, remember that a big part of your audience is going to be people from outside the country, with a possibly different perspective. HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It also seems strange to me that every once in a while, in the opening paragraph where the reader is presented with the various alternative names for the contry, that one finds "America" in blue with a link to the "Americas" page. I also do not wish to reopen the debate with the mostly Spanish-speaking crowd who believe that the name America does not belong to this country. It seems to me that if we are not going to put United States of America as the official title on the page (such as the Italian page "Stati Uniti d'America) we should at least safeguard the alternative name of "America" without making it a link to the Americas page. (Usonano85)

Don't postulate too hastily, HiLo48, I'm from the United States of America and I have never understood the maniacal obsession some people have with keeping the title of this article the way it is. SnottyWong ^confer 00:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Snotty. And my apologies for any misunderstanding that I was referring to all Americans when mentioning those obsessed with the title of this article. This time I'm not even suggesting that it must change. Just that some explanation is needed as to why we're explaining the etymology of a word that's not in the title. HiLo48 (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

So many insults, so little reason. It's been tried many times, but no one's managed to give a justified reason for a movie. The name is not ambiguous (ergo, if it were moved, a redirect would still exist here, nullifying a practical reason for the move), and Wikipedia guidelines are to use the short form, and contrary to some's strange belief, "United States" is a very common form for the country's name. So instead of accusing us, who are only ever reacting to the question, as being maniacs, perhaps you could either 1) proffer a valid reasoning, or 2) look within, for it is HiLo48 who has had a maniacal obsession over the very topic he decries others for having strong feelings on. --Golbez (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Do I need to tell you how insulting you are when, after I go to a lot of trouble, writing a lot of words, all of which are reasons for a change, to be told "no one's managed to give a justified reason for a movie (sic)". Disagree maybe, since it seems you must, but don't totally disparage others' posts like that. Anyway, this time the issue was that of the article being called United States and the very first section being the etymology of America. There, I've now written it three times. Your responses, and your choice of ignoring what I posted and have now repeated twice, truly show an unthinking obsession with doing things your way or no way, plus a real lack of care about what others say. Your obsessive attitude and behaviour on this matter is becoming quite unacceptable. How about you try to actually have a conversation? HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually want to apologize a bit for responding to your current statements and not the ones that started this section. In what I had written earlier, before I reverted myself due to the tone of my comments (which may have been resurrected), I suggested that if you have a suggestion for a change, you are welcome to suggest it, or indeed to actually make it. So please, suggest a change, rather than simply say "this is bad!" --Golbez (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Golbez's position--and am ready to bear his typo (as I would any of my own, dear Lord) as stigma on my very flesh.

So, HiLo, good buddy. Have you wasted enough of our time and energy this go-round yet? Or will we have the pleasure of your useless, but exciting, company for a few more days yet? XOXO, DCGeist (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you bullies have success in other parts of life with this approach? Any chance we have a discussion here, or just abuse and gang play? I hope you realise that while bullies may temporarily get their way, they never actually convince others that they are right. HiLo48 (talk) 10:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That depends, does your martyr complex win you friends and colleagues in other parts of life? I would love to have a discussion with you over this, I really would, I've had them with others here, but your attitude has always been far more confrontational. Has DCGeist been confrontational? Yes, he does that on occasion. But he doesn't make a profession of it. I try not to be, contrary to popular belief. You can go back and look and I've responded to other people with reasoned statements as to why the article is here, and why their reason for moving it isn't good. (And, sometimes, like Lihaas's "United States is not a common form" argument, tell them in no uncertain terms how amazingly wrong they are.) You take that, accuse us of being obsessive and bullies, and come right back again weeks later, if not always to make the same argument, then to passively-aggressively support the person who is, whining about how the closed-minded bullies here will never let the poor new person get their way. If you've ever actually supplied a well-written reason for where the article should be, it's been shrouded in paragraphs of snide insults. So, perhaps we can start off on the right foot and you can write a suggestion without insulting the very people you're writing it to. I'm willing to entertain your statements with civility and a fully open mind, but not if you introduce them the way you have thus far. --Golbez (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm known as a very nice guy in other parts of life. So, it's fair to ask you, troll--do you have success in other parts of life with your insidious, draining, enervating, pointless, narcissistic, self-indulgent approach?—DCGeist (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, you are now the second person I've ever heard use "enervate", after Maynard James Keenan. --Golbez (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm no prog-metal fan, but that's a pretty cool song. And anyone named Maynard James Keenan is OK by me.—DCGeist (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I left this for a while, noticing that it was the usual aggressive behaviour by these self appointed owners of this article. (Do have a look at the number of posts, and rapidity of responses.) But now I read them carefully, they again say I gave no reason. Well, sorry, that's just not true. I gave a new reason. One that has not been responded to. (You did spend a lot of time arguing against something I didn't say.) I feel completely justified in my position on this particular issue, and even more justified overall because of the behaviour of these All American Heroes. I hope your countrymen are proud of you. HiLo48 (talk) 09:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you indicated a perceived issue with the article and did not even supply a suggestion to repair it. That an article should be moved solely because a section in it seems to confuse you is no reason at all. And if you continue your baseless, "oh woe is me, these mean people are attacking me, when I did nothing!" attacks, then I suppose, if you don't have the sack to take this to higher authorities (which is the usual response when one feels helplessly harassed) then perhaps I'll do it for you. --Golbez (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you think I suggested moving the article highlights the problem that you, one of the great protectors, has with it. You are a paranoid protector. I made a very clear point of NOT suggesting moving it, but you read otherwise. Please take it to higher authorities. They will hopefully read my words with a clearer head than yours. I wish we had some editors around who really did care about making this a better article. There was one appeared briefly above. but seems to have been scared off by the bullying. A success to you guys I guess. HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

In case you missed it, here's your post:

"I know that every time someone raises the issue of "United States" not being the proper name of the country, and suggesting that the article be renamed to "United States of America", they get howled down by some extremely strong supporters of the current name, so I don't really want to reopen that can of worms. But today my attention was drawn to the Etymology section, where almost all of the effort goes into explaining the name America, which, of course, isn't even part of the name of the article, and the full name of United States of America. Yes, there is a tiny sentence that says "The short form the United States is also standard", but it doesn't really balance up at all with the name of the article. As I said, I don't want a fight with the United States fans here, but something really needs sorting out. "

Sentence one: A whine. Sentence two: A statement of fact. Sentence three: A statement of fact. Sentence four: A request that something needs "sorting out". Since you did not supply a suggestion to sort it out, I apologize if I assumed - as per your past obsessions - that you wanted the article moved. So since that is not the case, perhaps you'd like to suggest a change rather than make two statements of fact and a passive-aggressive attack on people who dare to disagree with you. --Golbez (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I will accept the apology, although it's not enough yet. The real problem is the fundamental attitude of those who aggressively jump on any suggestion of change for this article, including newbies and people who have no idea of why the current name is used for it because they haven't been studying it for as long as you. And that's an important point. The article must read well for people seeing it for the first time. The simple fact that so many people suggest changing it must tell you that it's not yet perfect.

But, a starting suggestion for the article. It's normal for articles to explain their name at the very start. How about the first sentence (which is very clumsy, like this one, with bits in brackets, etc - see my point?) becoming....

"The United States is a common shorthand form of the name of The United States of America, which is is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district. It is also commonly known as the U.S., the USA, or America." (It would include existing bolding and Wikilinks, of course.)

I feel the Etymology section also has a clumsy start. It seems to leap straight into a history lesson. I think it needs an introductory sentence of some sort. Not sure about the wording yet, but based on the usual form of etymologies, it should start off with something like "The name of the United States of America comes from....." HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to apologize in advance here, because that is simply ... nonsensical. Utterly. Can you show me any, any other article on Wikipedia of a similar topic that takes that kind of strange, non-informative turn in the first sentence? At all? I'm going to have to bring up one of the stock responses in this situation: The articles on the United Kingdom, Montenegro, and, hell, the city of Ventura, California, would not entertain that kind of construction, and neither will this one, yet this is the only one where it's brought up. It's not going to happen, neither their nor here. 99.999% of the reading population of Wikipedia has seen it perfectly reasonable as it is, or at the very least, haven't been so confused by the matter that they came here to inquire about it. We don't need to care to the .0001% who is curiously confused by the name of one of the most well-known countries on Earth. And to give a final reason why your construction is horrible: You're making it look like the article is about the shorthand, not the country. --Golbez (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh well. I tried. You didn't. Every now and again I see dummy spits in Wikipedia where someone doesn't get their way and declares that they agree with those who claim WIkipedia is useless. I don't have that point of view. I regard the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia as being very valuable, with cooperative editing leading to good, middle of the road content. There are just some articles, however, where some editors won't allow that process to occur. HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You gave a horrible idea; I gave three reasons why it didn't work (it matches no style guideline; it's never been done on any similar article; and it makes the article look like it's about the shorthand), yet somehow that means you tried and I didn't. I think this conversation is over, I have no further need to have my intelligence insulted to my face. --Golbez (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the conversation is over. That is my point. Again you have succeeded in closing it down. You must be proud. HiLo48 (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I am certainly proud of Golbez, who consistently stands up for common sense, Wikipedia policy, and our best practices, while maintaining his cool in the face of your pointless, disruptive behavior. You should be ashamed.—DCGeist (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Good article is not working correctly

Template:Good article is not working correctly in this article. Please fix it. Thanks. James Michael 1 (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.2.156.11, 1 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The population is wrong is not 308+ million it is 310,559,000

71.2.156.11 (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 18:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The 310m+ figure appears to have come from the official US government population clock, which is an estimate, though it is working off very recent census data. Anyway 308m+ should stay as that's the official census count. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 18:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

BradAnderson: This article makes the mistake of simply repeating state-propogated misinformation regarding American history, while making no mention of this discrepancy. In reality, the people of the original 13 colonies, as well as their respective representative "Founders," each intended that their respective colony would become, and remain, a separate free and independent sovereign nation unto itself-- not a "national union" of subordinate states. The notion of "limited sovereignty" is likewise a malicious and absurd oxymoron invented by historical revisionists c. 1820-60, but which was imposed by imperialism and totatlitarian suppression of the truth in the War of 1861, known as "The American Civil War" under popular state revisionism. By representing this federal state-propaganda as truth, without even mention of this blatant conflict with actual history, this article defeats the purpose of private internet media, by perpetuating the false pretense by which it derives national authority, and thereby occupies these sovereign nations which the states are by international law. Repetition of falsehood does not change history, but only execerbates ignorance thereof, and continues the cycle of ignorance by which the people continue to labor in slavery under the false belief that they are free-- and that their government operates in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BradAnderson (talk • contribs) 01:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Everything you said was opinion and hearsay void of legitimate fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.101.94 (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

use with singular/plural

Good sources:

• http://blslibraryblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/united-states-singular-or-plural.html
• http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002663.html
• http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20912FA3B591B728DDDAD0894DD405B818CF1D3
• http://www.economist.com/research/styleguide/index.cfm?page=805687
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/radio/specials/1535_questionanswer/page51.shtml --Espoo (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Shawnmyers, 16 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

In contemporary era section rearrange sentences to fall in chronological order. Shawnmyers (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary Era

People need to avoid putting in references to current events that, though important, do not belong in a summary of the broad sweep of American history. The Deepwater Horizon spill was a big issue, but does it really belong in a two-paragraph summary of contemporary times? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.98.51 (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering that "contemporary era" seems to basically cover only the last decade, and that the oil spill is one of the largest man made disasters in history with effect over an enormous amount of the US coastline...yes it does. As a counter example, the shooting of congresswoman Giffords may not belong, but the Deepwater Horizon most definitely does. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jabolba (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The United States has been under Emergency Law via the National Emergencies Act since September 14, 2001. This has been continued under President Obama on September 14, 2009 and 2010 respectively. Please See the following articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_emergency#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act

Actually, we seem to be in at least, maybe at least four, different states of emergency. The term has begun to lose its meaning. --Golbez (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included.

Pls see Wikipedia:Template limits for more info on the problem. Moxy (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The page currently has to many templates - So basically those that work on this page must decide which "Templates" can be removed. I would suggest to start by eliminating some of the "Footer' templates and see if that solves the problem (the footer templates are {{United States Template Group}} {{English official language clickable map}} {{United States topics}} {{National personifications}} {{USPoliticalDivisions}}.

Templates used in the page

* Template:! (view source) (protected) * Template:* (view source) (protected) * Template:, (view source) (protected) * Template:- (view source) (protected) * Template:Age in days (view source) (protected) * Template:Ambox (view source) (protected) * Template:Ambox/core (view source) (protected) * Template:Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (edit) * Template:BRA (view source) (protected) * Template:Basepage subpage (view source) (protected) * Template:CAN (view source) (protected) * Template:CHN (view source) (protected) * Template:CIA World Factbook link (view source) (protected) * Template:Cat handler (view source) (protected) * Template:Cat handler/blacklist (view source) (protected) * Template:Cat handler/numbered (view source) (protected) * Template:Citation/core (view source) (protected) * Template:Citation/identifier (view source) (protected) * Template:Citation/make link (view source) (protected) * Template:Cite book (view source) (protected) * Template:Cite journal (view source) (protected) * Template:Cite news (view source) (protected) * Template:Cite web (view source) (protected) * Template:Clear (view source) (protected) * Template:Column-width (view source) (protected) * Template:Convert (view source) (protected) * Template:Convert/LoffAoffDbSoff (view source) (protected) * Template:Convert/LoffAonDbSoff (view source) (protected) * Template:Convert/LoffAonSoff (view source) (protected) * Template:Convert/km (view source) (protected) * Template:Convert/km2 (view source) (protected) * Template:Convert/mi (view source) (protected) * Template:Convert/numdisp (view source) (protected) * Template:Convert/out (view source) (protected) * Template:Convert/pround (view source) (protected) * Template:Convert/round (view source) (protected) * Template:Convert/sqmi (view source) (protected) * Template:Coor URL (view source) (protected) * Template:Coord (view source) (protected) * Template:Coord/display/inline (view source) (protected) * Template:Coord/dms2dec (view source) (protected) * Template:Coord/input/dm (view source) (protected) * Template:Coord/link (view source) (protected) * Template:Coord/negzeropad (view source) (protected) * Template:Countries of North America (edit) (semi-protected) * Template:Country data Argentina (view source) (protected) * Template:Country data Australia (view source) (protected) * Template:Country data Brazil (view source) (protected) * Template:Country data Canada (view source) (protected) * Template:Country data China (view source) (protected) * Template:Country data European Union (view source) (protected) * Template:Country data France (view source) (protected) * Template:Country data Germany (view source) (protected) * Template:Country data India (view source) (protected) * Template:Country data Indonesia (view source) (protected) * Template:Country data Italy (view source) (protected) * Template:Country data Japan (view source) (protected) * Template:Country data Mexico (view source) (protected) * Template:Country data Russia (view source) (protected) * Template:Country data Saudi Arabia (view source) (protected) * Template:Country data South Africa (view source) (protected) * Template:Country data South Korea (view source) (protected) * Template:Country data Turkey (view source) (protected) * Template:Country data United Kingdom (view source) (protected) * Template:Country data United States (view source) (protected) * Template:DEU (view source) (protected) * Template:DMCA (view source) (protected) * Template:Dablink (view source) (protected) * Template:Data United States (edit) * Template:Dated maintenance category (view source) (protected) * Template:Dead link (view source) (protected) * Template:Dmoz (view source) (protected) * Template:English official language clickable map (edit) * Template:FRA (view source) (protected) * Template:FULLROOTPAGENAME (view source) (protected) * Template:Fix (view source) (protected) * Template:Flag (view source) (protected) * Template:Flag/core (view source) (protected) * Template:Flagicon (view source) (protected) * Template:Flagicon/core (view source) (protected) * Template:G20 (edit) * Template:G8 nations (edit) (semi-protected) * Template:G8+5 (edit) * Template:GBR (view source) (protected) * Template:GER (view source) (protected) * Template:Good article (view source) (protected) * Template:Gregorian serial date (view source) (protected) * Template:Hide in print (view source) (protected) * Template:IND (view source) (protected) * Template:ITA (view source) (protected) * Template:Icon (view source) (protected) * Template:If pagename (view source) (protected) * Template:Increase (view source) (protected) * Template:Infobox country (view source) (protected) * Template:JPN (view source) (protected) * Template:Lang (view source) (protected) * Template:Largest Metropolitan Areas of the United States (edit) * Template:Largest cities of the United States (edit) * Template:Line-height (edit) (semi-protected) * Template:Link FA (view source) (protected) * Template:Link GA (view source) (protected) * Template:Loop15 (view source) (protected) * Template:Lower (view source) (protected) * Template:MEX (view source) (protected) * Template:Main (view source) (protected) * Template:Max/2 (view source) (protected) * Template:Mbox (view source) (protected) * Template:Mdash (view source) (protected) * Template:NAFTA (edit) * Template:Namespace detect (view source) (protected) * Template:National personifications (edit) * Template:Navbar (view source) (protected) * Template:Navbox (view source) (protected) * Template:Navbox subgroup (view source) (protected) * Template:Navbox subgroups (view source) (protected) * Template:Navbox with columns (view source) (protected) * Template:Navboxes (view source) (protected) * Template:Nbsp (view source) (protected) * Template:Nobold (view source) (protected) * Template:North Atlantic Treaty Organization (edit) * Template:Note (view source) (protected) * Template:Nowrap (view source) (protected) * Template:Nowrap begin (view source) (protected) * Template:Nowrap end (view source) (protected) * Template:Ns has subpages (view source) (protected) * Template:OSCE (edit) * Template:Only in print (view source) (protected) * Template:Order of magnitude (view source) (protected) * Template:Order of magnitude/x (view source) (protected) * Template:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (edit) * Template:Organization of American States (edit) * Template:Osmrelation (edit) * Template:Pad (view source) (protected) * Template:Poptoday (edit) * Template:Portal box (edit) (semi-protected) * Template:Portal/Images/Geography (view source) (protected) * Template:Portal/Images/North america (edit) * Template:Portal/Images/United states (view source) (protected) * Template:Portal/core (view source) (protected) * Template:Pp-meta (view source) (protected) * Template:Pp-meta/pagetype (view source) (protected) * Template:Pp-move-indef (view source) (protected) * Template:Pp-protected (view source) (protected) * Template:Pp-semi (view source) (protected) * Template:Precision (view source) (protected) * Template:Precision/0 (view source) (protected) * Template:Precision/00 (view source) (protected) * Template:Precision/a (view source) (protected) * Template:Precision/tz (view source) (protected) * Template:Precision/tz/1 (view source) (protected) * Template:Precision1 (view source) (protected) * Template:Quartet on the Middle East (edit) (semi-protected) * Template:RUS (view source) (protected) * Template:Ref label (view source) (protected) * Template:Reflist (view source) (protected) * Template:Rellink (view source) (protected) * Template:Rnd (view source) (protected) * Template:Rnd/b1 (view source) (protected) * Template:Rnd/c4dec0 (view source) (protected) * Template:SCOTUS URL (edit) (semi-protected) * Template:SUBJECTSPACE formatted (edit) * Template:Sec link auto (view source) (protected) * Template:Sec link image (view source) (protected) * Template:Sec link/normal link (view source) (protected) * Template:Sec link/normal url (view source) (protected) * Template:Sec link/text (view source) (protected) * Template:See (view source) (protected) * Template:See also (view source) (protected) * Template:Side box (view source) (protected) * Template:Sister (view source) (protected) * Template:Sister project links (edit) (semi-protected) * Template:Spaces (view source) (protected) * Template:Talk other (view source) (protected) * Template:Template group (view source) (protected) * Template:Transclude (view source) (protected) * Template:UK (view source) (protected) * Template:UN Security Council (edit) * Template:USA (view source) (protected) * Template:USA midsize imagemap with state names (edit) * Template:USPoliticalDivisions (edit) * Template:United States Template Group (edit) * Template:United States topic (edit) (semi-protected) * Template:United States topics (edit) * Template:Update (view source) (protected) * Template:WTO members (edit) * Template:Wikiatlas (edit) (semi-protected) * Template:Wikipedia-Books (edit) (semi-protected) * Template:Wikisource (view source) (protected) * Template:ZAF (view source) (protected) * Template:\ (edit) (semi-protected) * Template:· (view source) (protected) * Template:·w (view source) (protected) * Template:·wrap (view source) (protected) * Template:• (view source) (protected) Moxy (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we need to trim the templates and this is only one of many many problems with this article including the sheer size of it. I have tried to remove some but my edits were repeatedly reverted by another user. I have left a message on their talk page but they usually don't respond so well see what happens. --Kumioko (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)