Talk:United States/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

More info on Aboriginal Culture (edit request)

I think that there should be much more info on the way of life and the culture of the Natives in this article, as it plays a huge role in the American way of life we see today. I think this should be modeled after the article on Japan, giving more insight on the prehistory of the United States region, and including more pictures on the unique elements of Native culture being that it is a huge part of American culture today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.119.163 (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

This isn't so much an edit request (which is what you do when you have a specific edit to request), it's more a suggestion. Perhaps you'd like to write something up? --Golbez (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, sorry about that, I suppose it is indeed more of a suggestion. I just think that a good thing to do for the history of the United States in this article would be to show many different aspects of the Native American culture, perhaps showing a picture of Lacrosse, them performing their rituals, or just simple pictures. This is just to clarify that a huge chunk of American culture comes from the Natives, so I think they deserve a larger and more detailed article on the Pre-Columbian era of the USA region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.119.163 (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I think what Golbez is suggesting - subtly pointing out - is that changes such as these are made by editors such as yourself, not just posting on the talk page but making the changes that you see as positive, in the article its self. That is what wikipedia is. Also you have a better chance of getting something past me, for example, if you register. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't demand that an IP register just to make an edit to an article. There's nothing wrong with them making the request on the talk page. That the article is semi-protected is to protect it from vandalism, but we still have our ideal that you don't need an account to contribute. So no, I wasn't suggesting that, I was suggesting they put the exact edit they want here rather than saying what kind of edit they want. --Golbez (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not demanding anything, nor am I suggesting that that an editor should register is your idea. I believe that I made it pretty clear that this request was from me. Carptrash (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed change ~6/29/12

Kill all the indigenous people stuff. That, rightly, belongs in history. To lead with that is like talking about 16th century industry. Every nation currently in existence had that going on. Lead with what is noteworthy, and if nothing is noteworthy, don't say anything. Regardless: let's get it much shorter at the front. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.189.214 (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Biased Phrase

"Resisting leftist land and income redistribution projects around the world, the United States often supported authoritarian governments."

The first half of this unreferenced sentence is a lie. Kennedy's Alliance for Progress sought to promote democracy and land reform in Latin America. The US encouraged the White Revolution land reform in Iran. Somoza in Nicaragua openly blamed Carter for his downfall. The death squads of El Salvador famously made plans to kill the American ambassador due to the US continually preventing right-wing coups. Sure, when "land reform" meant killing half a million Vietnamese, the US was against it. The US ousted Arbenz in Guatemala (though Guatemala's official 1999 truth commission found that Arbenz had violated the constitution and killed hundreds of his opponents--not that Wikipedia mentions this in the relevant article). But to say that the US opposed all left-wing movements in the world is utterly ridiculous.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't say "all". Says "around the world"—i.e., in multiple places on each of the five major continents. And that is indisputably true.—DCGeist (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I partly agree with TheTimesAreAChanging. I don't mind mentioning that the US sometimes supported authoritarian regimes (particularly when there were no non-authoritarian alternatives), but the paragraph fails to point out that the US generally encouraged free market policies and supported democracies against Soviet backed authoritarian regimes: Western Europe versus Eastern Europe; South Korea (which evolved into a free democracy under US influence) versus North Korea, Israel in the Middle East, etc.. Come on, people, it's about context. Pretend a reader knows nothing about the US and this is his first glance.VictorD7 (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Please convince me that the USA's unbending support for Israel is just because it's a democracy. Actually, don't bother. This thread itself has already become a vehicle for political opinions. Can we revert to what the sources say? HiLo48 (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

All I added to the article was the word "some" in front of "leftist land and income redistribution projects around the world." VictorD7, I would advise that you tread carefully when adding "context" to articles, as doing so can easily result in the creation of a coherent political narrative. It might be true that "Pinochet 'only' killed 3,000 people whereas Castro killed over 100,000; and Chile has better healthcare than Cuba." But it is also a synthesis of claims that is ultimately irrelevant to the question of whether the US supported Pinochet (as it did). The existence of some left-wing bias in Wikipedia is not at all a justification for replacing it with a countervailing right-wing narrative. As for HiLo48, there's really no point in pretending that your opinions are not opinions but facts. It actually is (gasp!) an opinion that (say) the US intervention in Cambodia in the seventies contributed to the eventual Khmer Rouge victory. It's not a fact (and it's not the consensus of a majority of Cambodian scholars, from David Chandler to Craig Etcheson--although that is another story). I apologize in advance for these digressions, but unfortunately I have encountered many Wikipedia editors who have trouble distinguishing fact from opinion. I hope that neither of you suffer from this ailment. A few points:

• HiLo48 is not pristinely innocent of politicizing this thread. Although his comment about Israel is irrelevant, it is very easy to answer: Why do you think we support them--for their oil, their oil money, their huge population, or their global popularity? Ah, you might say, but what about the vast Zionist conspiracy? Is that a more compelling explanation? Or perhaps the "inherent" American love for "racist" "apartheid" states? I can think of no other ulterior motives, so I find your comment rather curious. Surely your remarks reveal more than they intend--and why did you make them? You weren't kidding when you said that this thread was being used as "a vehicle for political opinions"! In any case, the US gives more aid to Israel's foes.
• VictorD7: "Pretend a reader knows nothing about the US and this is his first glance." Actually, we can't pretend that. Our goal at Wikipedia should be to report salient facts, not to manipulate a reader's potential reaction to them.
• VictorD7: "The US generally encouraged free market policies and supported democracies." You completely missed the point. The point is that the US sometimes preferred free markets to democracy.
• HiLo48: "Can we revert to what the sources say?" I'm sorry, which edits and which sources are you talking about?
• Now, to return to what I originally came here for: My contention was that it was misleading to merely state that the US resisted land reform around the world, when the US actually encouraged it in many cases and was not necessarily opposed to it on philosophical grounds. It would be more accurate to say that the US opposed left-wing movements, especially in Latin America, that it perceived (sometimes correctly) as Soviet- or Cuban-sponsored or communist in nature.
• But I didn't even add that. I just added the word "some."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, how is pointing out that the US generally supported democracies while the Soviet Union generally supported authoritarian governments a "right-wing narrative?" You want to list each nation's allies and see which group was vastly more democracy heavy? Are you implying that the Soviet Union or its satellites were democracies? That division was the basic feature of the Cold War, from the Soviet rejection of American demands to hold free elections in Poland onward, and yet is absent from the paragraph. That Wikipedia is a venue for such broad stroke info was my point on context and on assuming a reader doesn't know anything about the US (which is why such basic information as the full name of the country, the form of government, etc. is present on the page) or for that matter the Cold War. I'm the one saying we shouldn't manipulate readers with skewed, cherry picked info, and that we should have a preference for or at least include the most basic and pertinent facts. The existing sentence on support for authoritarian governments, while vague enough to not be technically inaccurate (contrary to your original claim), absent the fundamental context I described, is misleading. I'm not proposing that it necessarily be deleted, just that someone might want to add some facts about which side was generally supportive of democracy, and which side generally opposed it.VictorD7 (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I get confused by the use of the term, the word, "democratic". I mean, Korean People's Democratic Republic is what? Are we really talking economics here? Communism vs Capitalism? Carptrash (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Carptrash, if the article brings "authoritarian" (what's that?) into it, then you've moved beyond economics per se. It's just as accurate to say the US often supported pro democracy movements and governments in the Cold War; in fact that was a more typical distinguishing behavior from the Soviet Union than supporting authoritarian governments was.VictorD7 (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Israeli flag in American church

This is perhaps a not useful tangent, but another reason for American support of Israel is the attitude towards that nation held by a large number of conservative Christians in the United States. They are, I believe, a fairly large, but very vocal voting block. This is illustrated by the fact that the Israeli flag is flown next to the American flag at this rural 2012 wedding in a village church. Carptrash (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

As VictorD7 hasn't proposed any specific changes, I'm not sure why he is so upset. I merely advised him to "tread carefully." The text I objected to has been rewritten to be more neutral, so I have nothing to add. Of course, I never said anything like "the USSR was really a democracy;" VictorD7 and I may well be on the same side, if he is seriously committed to neutrality.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you mistakenly assumed I'm upset. I just sought to clarify some of your misunderstandings. That said, the question still stands as to why the section mentions US support for "authoritarian governments" but not US support for "democratic governments" and/or movements, or for that matter Soviet support for "authoritarian governments" (beyond the mention of "communism", at least). Perhaps someone seriously committed to neutrality could explain.VictorD7 (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's all keep in mind that it's crucial to keep it short. Bearing in mind the various worthy points raised above, I've edited the sentence in question to read: "The U.S. often opposed Third World left-wing movements that it viewed as Soviet-sponsored." No awkward and unnecessary parentheticals, no wading into details that belong elsewhere. VictorD7, if you'd like to propose a single terse, tight sentence describing what the U.S. supported, please go ahead.—DCGeist (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 June 2012

As an 35-year long American, 3 things incorrect with this article that I did not change but that should be changed: we don't use the word 'draw' here the War of 1812 was fought to a 'tie'. Change 'draw' to 'tie'. Barack is the 1st Biracial President. He is not the 1st African-American since he is 50% white. To say he is solely black is racist thinking. 3rd, there is no assumption in the popular culture here that America is a classless society. No idea where that came from. Its pure fiction. Good article otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.170.254 (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done. Draw is fine, the Obama things been rejected before, and the last needs sources/consensus. Hot Stop 13:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Concur with Hot Stop.Boneyard90 (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the "draw" versus "tie" comment; it is very seldom, in American English, that a result of a conflict or a sporting event is characterized as "drawn." We use "tie" here. I'll defer to others who appear to be the custodians of the page, but let's please consider that change. (I've reset the "answered" field.) I don't agree with the rest of the requested changes, though. GeeZee (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: While "tie" may be used more frequently, "draw" is hardly rare in American English. (In two American dictionaries I checked, each respective entry mentions the other word.) Consensus would be required to make the other requested changes. Rivertorch (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

While "tie" is commonly used for sports, I have never heard of a war being tied. A tie is for something you keep score in. And consensus should be obtained before making an edit request for an article like this, not after. --Golbez (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem that it's not done, but just because a word is in the dictionary, doesn't mean that it's used with frequency. It isn't. Golbez, I've never heard of a war being "drawn," either, and the point of an edit request is to obtain consensus. Otherwise, people would just make the edit, which it looks like people were respectful enough not to do. All that said, it's dropped as far as I'm concerned.GeeZee (talk) 06:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Win, Lose, or Tie! No, draw is not a Briticism, nor is tie an Americanism. They are not precisely synonyms either, especially in cricket. The use of tie strikes me as childishly metaphorical in reference to war. Draw, at least, has some resonance with the drawing of weapons, and less with keeping score. However, I would rather give the matter the proper respect, and edit that the war was fought to a military stalemate. – RVJ (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I like that idea a lot. I'm familiar with the difference in cricket (I follow it), but seriously, here, no one talks of a "draw." But I really like the idea of "stalemate" in this context. Anyone else on board? Anyone object? Otherwise, I think this one rules the day. GeeZee (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"Stalemate" seems the more appropriate word. "Tie" and "draw" are both associated with games and sports, and I think we can all agree that isn't a good way to talk about war. Belchfire (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I like "draw" just fine. "Stalemate" is a chess term, which may not be a sport, but it is a game. It is sort of amusing (to me, anyway) that the wikipedia article on stalemate states, "a stalemate was standardized as a draw " Hmmm. There is also no reason why an article about America has to be written in American English. These English vs American issues come up a lot on wikipedia and I always feel that the first editor there gets to decide what word and what spelling is used. As long as it is a real and appropriate word, spelled correctly somewhere. And, in any case, as an American living in the US, I can assure folks out there that "draw" is a commonly used word here. Carptrash (talk) 06:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, millions of American chess players certainly use "draw" routinely (a "stalemate" is a certain type of draw), and, since war is a competition, applying terms also used for sports and games, many of which are inspired by war, is unavoidable. I also agree with the editor who said "draw" and "tie" aren't completely synonymous. I think "draw" typically indicates a final result, whereas "tie" can refer to a final result or a basketball team hitting a shot in the 3rd quarter to "tie" a still ongoing game.VictorD7 (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

New Copy of 'America's Birth Certificate' Found in Munich - July 2012

http://www.newser.com/story/149448/new-copy-of-americas-birth-certificate-found.html

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18700489 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.12.54 (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Changes by retrospector87: the US's preliminary boundaries and the US vs. native tribes

1.) The United States was not founded by the thirteen British colonies. Gramatically speaking, that would make the US a British nation if that were true. The country's initial shape took form in the identification of the 13 British colonies, from which the Declaration of Independence makes a deliberate break and declares, on the expectation of war with Britain, a new cooperative, and more importantly sovereign nation.

2.) Later, the US both displaced and destroyed native tribes in the 19th century. Along with the displacement came documented deaths, so in fact the word "destroyed" is an understatement. --Retrospector87 (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Although modern scholarship suggests that more than 90% of the American Indians died of disease, not war or massacre (Noble David Cook, Born to Die: Disease and New World Conquest, 1492-1650, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p206).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

- Agree. The colonies did not make the U.S. But the people did; it was created in the course of human events. By American consensus, a "state" is a legal fiction that describes the sovereign people in a particular place who are a portion of the nation created in Continental Congress, then Constitutional Convention, and ratified by the people in the states. It took four years 1777-1781 to unanimously ratify the Articles, two years 1788-1790 to unanimously ratify the Constitution.

- By two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states, or by enacted national law, or by joint resolution of Congress, the sovereign people of the United States may create states from three sources in eight ways:

(1) pre-existing colonies (a) in part (Virginia to Pacific---Virginia to Mississippi/Ohio) or (b) enlarged (Tejas---Texas);

(2) national territory acquired by (c) states ceding it (Virginia---Ohio), (d) national purchase (Louisiana), (e) Senate treaty (Oregon) or (f) conquest (California);

(3) existing states (g) initiated by the state (Virginia---Kentucky) or (h) before state consent (Virginia---West Virginia).

- In any case, the thirteen British North American colonies of 1776 did not create the United States. They were bounded by the western border along the Appalachian Mountains established in the Proclamation of 1763 establishing the British Indian Territory west to the Mississippi River. (The Continental Congress invited other British North American colonies such as Vermont, Canada, Bermuda, Bahamas and Jamaica, but the people there did not join in the event.) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this Demographic info?

This seems out of place in the Demographics>Religion section:

Doubt about the existence of God is growing rapidly among Americans under 30. Polls show that overall American confidence in organized religion is falling.

I think this material belongs in Religion in the United States or History of religion in the United States, as it has nothing at all to do with how many people identify as adherents to any religion. I excised it, but the removal was reverted (without explanation), so evidently a consensus is needed per BRD. Belchfire (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Belchfire, i reverted you because it is from a good source, and the source further quotes from Gallup, a reputable research group. It is notable because it identifies religious trends in the US. Pass a Method talk 21:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Pass. I don't doubt the source and I haven't questioned it. I do question its relevance, appropriateness and encyclopedic value, however, as I explained above. Public opinion on the existence of God doesn't identify or quantify any demographic group, and furthermore, this information is vague in that it only suggests a trend without giving any hard numbers. Belchfire (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding relevance, something like this is relevant. For example if you look just a few sentences in the same religion paragraph you will find a sentence about how non-Christian percentages have risen. We judge relevance by how often reliable sources quote a cetain subject, and belief in God and public religiosity are often mwntioned, hence has sufficient notability here. Regarding hard numbers, the United States article is already pretty large, hence it would be preferable if any sentences are kept relatively short. Pass a Method talk 00:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

One reason numbers might be warranted is the fact that those polls still show a super-majority of those under 30 believe in God. Without some mention of that people could be misled by the text. As for the encyclopedic value of singling out one demographic when an overall trend is already cited earlier in the paragraph, I don't know, but young people change their minds about a lot of things as they grow older, so the lasting effect and ultimate relevance of this, if any, remains unclear.VictorD7 (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Link to US time zones

The article misses a link to (and any mention of) Time in the United States. Please do add one under Geography and in the infobox. Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 12:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed Added to Infobox as a footnote. Thelema418 (talk) 09:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Gini coefficient is way different than on List of Countries by Distribution of Wealth

If you see the List of countries by distribution of wealth, you'll see it's given a GINI of around .80, far greater than the one given here, which is sourced to the CIA factbook. The CIA factbook is a later source (2007 vs 2000 for the list page), but I can't fathom that there's been that great of a change. I've considered the CIA factbook to be unbiased in the past, though, but this made me question it a bit. How can we resolve this issue, and for my own interest, which one should I trust?

Edit by myself: This doesn't appear to be an issue of deliberate lying, rather the Gini coefficient scale the CIA Factbook is using is drastically different: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html?countryName=United%20States&countryCode=us&regionCode=noa&rank=42#us

If you compare it, their numbers in general are quite different from the list of countries by distribution of wealth. The number gets as low as .23, while the other list only goes down to .54. I'd still appreciate some clarification from someone who knows the difference.

Third edit by myself: I was confused by the difference between income and wealth Gini. America is .45 for income and .80 for wealth. Perhaps the sidebar should say Gini (income)?

Citizen Premier (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:United States/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheSpecialUser (talk · contribs) 14:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Will give in 2 days. Thanks! TheSpecialUser ^TSU 14:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry fellows, I was on a vacation but now I'm back.  Doing... it now and hopefully will finish by tonight :) Thanks for being patient. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 22:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't like to quickly fail, but this one is. First of all this is United States. There is enormous amount of info available out there which is lacking in the article. Details:

• Lead - wow! it is good but too big. It should not have more then four paragraphs who summarizes the article and doesn't introduce topics that are not covered later in the article
• Poor refs- History, Government and politics, Foreign relations and military, Geography and environment, Political divisions, Infrastructure, Crime and law enforcement, and Culture need refs. Tons of refs are needed and this cannot be fixed in time span of a month or some. There is no uniform system of refs and date formatting is uneven. Also dead link is an issue
• Lack of details- sections such as Sports, Culture, and few more can have more info. I'm not saying to add a big amount of words, but the current version doesn't talk about the state pretty well. The topic may be covered in it's main article, but still more info should be added especially where it is famous for it's culture, religion diversity, migration and where the state has won hundreds of Gold medals.

These are the primary reasons why this has failed. This is not near to a GA but sure it'll be in future. Editors may like to use India (FA) as an example and improve this. In my spare time, I'll also be trying to improve a bit. Cheers! TheSpecialUser ^TSU 23:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree much to be done.Moxy (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

United States of America

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The formal name of the country is United States of America, not simply United States without the "of America" part. (The Constitution defines the name of the country at the end of the Preamble, so that is my source for this.) While I am well aware of WP:Common name, I don't think it applies here, because unlike many other formal names United States of America is not extremely rare. In fact, the formal name is approximately as frequently used all the various informal common names.

Can we please move it? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I would certainly support that. -- Alarics (talk) 06:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

David Levy, does the FAQ section not adequately summarize the appropriate Archive Sections? I answered the main arguments at least in the FAQ in my original post, in case you glanced over it and didn't notice.

The FAQ answer claims that the Constitution does not explicitly establish the name of the country, but actually "To ordain and establish a more perfect union, for the United States of America" is pretty explicit. Considering that even the most formal of documents will shorten the name of something after the 1st reference to it, like how scientific papers will say DNA rather than deoxyribonucleic acid except for the 1st time the molecule is mentioned, and the Constitution just does the same thing with the name of the USA...

If you're tired of this being discussed, let's do it already. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's accurate to state that the FAQ does "not adequately summarize" everything that's been discussed. I don't think that it's been updated in a while (not an easy task, given all of the points to cover). That's why I directed you to the archives instead. Have you looked at them yet? (I assure you that the "We favor subjects' common names, but 'United States of America' is common too." rationale has been debated quite thoroughly.) —David Levy 05:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Having looked at the Archives, they are not as thorough as you said. Namely, they ignore the fact that "United Mexican States" and "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" are both much rarer terms than "United States of America," much rarer, and therefore should not be considered equal examples with reference to WP:Common name. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That fact wasn't ignored.

The above examples (among others) were cited in response to the "official name" argument. We also discussed the fact that "United States of America" is used far more frequently than those names are. But it isn't the most common name, nor is it the short-form name (which we favor even when the long-form name is commonly used, as in the case of the People's Republic of China). 02:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Since I enjoy the topic, please express in a simple, policy-based form your argument for moving it. So far you said you don't think the common name guideline applies. However, you need to justify this statement before we can begin to pick it apart. Just because "United States of America" is used often does not defeat the common name guideline. Until you justify your premise then there's nothing we can really argue about. I'm making this request to stem what I saw was turning into an argument without basis rather than a discussion about the basis. Instead of having an argument over the naming process, let's make it a discussion over the reasons why it's where it is, and why it makes no sense to move it. By the way, I take offense to your "If you're tired of this being discussed, let's do it already" comment. Deficient arguments don't become correct just because they're made repeatedly. --Golbez (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll add my vote to those who support changing the title to "United States of America", mostly because the last part is needed to explain the demonym. It would be like dropping "Germany" and just calling it "The Federal Republic." The true name is extremely commonly used, even appearing on all the money, print and coin, making it different than most formal national names. The "common name guideline" is vague enough to have flexibility. "When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." There's no comprehensive list of potential "problems", but the fact that so many people want it changed seems to qualify as one, with the absence of the demonym root being another. It requires only a short addition, again, making it different than most formal names. Another difference is that most formal names are more transitory. China and Germany, for example, have had many formal names over the centuries as regimes change but their sense of identity and the history section of their Wikipedia pages transcend them. America, by contrast, has been the "United States of America" since the nation's founding. If a revolution caused a major governmental change the "United States" part would be more likely to change than the "America" part, as illustrated by the "Confederate States of America" example, so the word "America" is fundamental to the country's identity in the way "Germany" or "China" (and their non-English equivalents of course) are to those nations' populations. On top of everything else it would look better as a title. I skimmed the archives earlier and didn't see any compelling arguments for not changing it aside from inertia.VictorD7 (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll add my vote to those who support changing the title to "United States of America", mostly because the last part is needed to explain the demonym.

Check the archives for "Netherlands" to find my response to that argument.

Do you assert that readers are confused?

It would be like dropping "Germany" and just calling it "The Federal Republic."

Except, of course, for the fact that the country isn't commonly known by that name.

"When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others."

Indeed. And if the title "United States" had problems, I would unreservedly support a move to "United States of America".

There's no comprehensive list of potential "problems", but the fact that so many people want it changed seems to qualify as one,

No, that isn't the sort of "problem" to which the quoted text refers.

And believe it or not, that argument (that renaming the article would solve the problem of people constantly asking us to) has been made too. As noted at the time, even if "appeasement" were a valid rationale, we'd end up with people asking to move the article back to "United States".

with the absence of the demonym root being another.

Again, you'll need to cite an actual problem that this causes. And keep in mind that the article begins with the words "The United States of America".

If a revolution caused a major governmental change the "United States" part would be more likely to change than the "America" part, as illustrated by the "Confederate States of America" example

Might that have had something to do with the landmass on which it was located?

On top of everything else it would look better as a title.

Is that a serious argument?

I skimmed the archives earlier and didn't see any compelling arguments for not changing it aside from inertia.

Perhaps you should do more than skim. —David Levy 06:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Check the archives for "Netherlands" to find my response to that argument. Do you assert that readers are confused?

You just mentioned that "Dutch" isn't in that title. Yes, I have no doubt that many less informed people find that confusing, and have to click to other pages for explanations of the demonym. That problems exist on other pages isn't a valid reason not to address the ones here. "Dutch" doesn't come from the nation's name, and isn't easily fixable like the "American" issue is.

Except, of course, for the fact that the country isn't commonly known by that name.

The point here is that you're dropping the demonym root for no particular reason. In most other examples (Germany, France, Italy, etc.; even China outside the wiki title) when the formal name is shortened to a common form the demonym portion is the one preserved.

Again, you'll need to cite an actual problem that this causes. And keep in mind that the article begins with the words "The United States of America".

Well gee, nothing being discussed here is of earth shattering importance in terms of problems caused either way. Some people just look at headlines though. I've run into poorly informed foreigners with anti-American chips on their shoulders who have attacked us for calling ourselves "Americans" because they apparently didn't realize that "America" is part of the nation's actual name, and isn't just an anachronistic label for a once poorly defined land mass. Even these people, like everyone around the globe, knew what nation "America" referenced, which is a testament to its widespread common usage. They just didn't realize its official status, and I consider that kind of ignorance a problem that Wikipedia should work to correct rather than contribute to.

Might that have had something to do with the landmass on which it was located?

Originally, but like the Mandarin word Zhōngguó (which originally just meant "middle kingdom", and appears in the official names of both Chinese nations), "America" has obviously taken on a much deeper meaning over the centuries, and undeniably refers to a people and culture.

No, that isn't the sort of "problem" to which the quoted text refers.

Proof? As I said, the article is vague and flexible on that point.

As noted at the time, even if "appeasement" were a valid rationale, we'd end up with people asking to move the article back to "United States".

I'm still waiting to hear a legitimate motivation for the passion on the other side, but when there's such controversy it's best to err on the side of the official name, especially when it's just two more words.

Is that a serious argument?

Aesthetics shouldn't be mentioned at all? I figured that was a rationale for the "common name" policy to begin with. Unlike many official names, there's nothing unwieldy about "United States of America."

Perhaps you should do more than skim.

You failed to provide an argument here.VictorD7 (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

You just mentioned that "Dutch" isn't in that title. Yes, I have no doubt that many less informed people find that confusing, and have to click to other pages for explanations of the demonym.

I'm sure that many people are curious about the "Dutch" demonym's derivation. They aren't, however, unaware of the fact that people from the Netherlands are referred to as "Dutch" or confused as to why the article's title provides no indication.

That problems exist on other pages isn't a valid reason not to address the ones here.

My point was that the Netherlands article's title isn't problematic.

But to address your argument to the contrary, as I noted above, the article in question begins with the words "The United States of America". No one reading it, including those arriving via the United States of America redirect, is being deprived of this information.

The point here is that you're dropping the demonym root for no particular reason.

"United States" is the entity's most common name, including formal usage. (See the archives for evidence.) That's the reason.

In most other examples (Germany, France, Italy, etc.; even China outside the wiki title)

Did you not follow the link? The article was moved to China. (That was my point.)

when the formal name is shortened to a common form the demonym portion is the one preserved.

Indeed, so Germany isn't commonly known as "the Federal Republic". Conversely, this article's subject is commonly known as "the United States".

Well gee, nothing being discussed here is of earth shattering importance in terms of problems caused either way.

No argument there. As I've noted on previous occasions, I don't assert that "United States of America" would be a bad title for the article. I simply believe that "United States" is a better one.

I've run into poorly informed foreigners with anti-American chips on their shoulders who have attacked us for calling ourselves "Americans" because they apparently didn't realize that "America" is part of the nation's actual name, and isn't just an anachronistic label for a once poorly defined land mass.

Please see the article's first five words.

Even these people, like everyone around the globe, knew what nation "America" referenced, which is a testament to its widespread common usage.

No one disputes that the country is commonly referred to as both "United States of America" and "America".

They just didn't realize its official status, and I consider that kind of ignorance a problem that Wikipedia should work to correct rather than contribute to.

Please see the article's first five words.

Originally, but like the Mandarin word Zhōngguó (which originally just meant "middle kingdom", and appears in the official names of both Chinese nations), "America" has obviously taken on a much deeper meaning over the centuries, and undeniably refers to a people and culture.

Certainly, the word "America" (and derivatives thereof) is closely associated with the article's subject. But the country's most common name, including formal usage, is "United States".

Proof?

The types of "problems" to which the text refers are mentioned earlier in the paragraph. If "many people want it changed" constituted a valid "problem", this could be used to justify practically any move.

And again, if the article were renamed, "many people" would want to move it back.

I'm still waiting to hear a legitimate motivation for the passion on the other side,

This comment isn't new either. I don't know what you want us to do differently, apart from agreeing with you.

but when there's such controversy it's best to err on the side of the official name, especially when it's just two more words.

This has no basis in policy.

Aesthetics shouldn't be mentioned at all?

In this context, the belief that a title "looks better" essentially means "I prefer it". That's how I feel about the title "United States", but I wouldn't cite it as a rationale in and of itself.

Unlike many official names, there's nothing unwieldy about "United States of America."

Agreed. Likewise, there's nothing unwieldy about "United States".

You failed to provide an argument here.

You stated that you "skimmed the archives earlier and didn't see any compelling arguments for not changing it aside from inertia." My point is that it's unreasonable to draw such a conclusion on the basis of skimming. —David Levy 04:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that many people are curious about the "Dutch" demonym's derivation. They aren't, however, unaware of the fact that people from the Netherlands are referred to as "Dutch" or confused as to why the article's title provides no indication.

The Dutch/Netherlands thing is a source of great confusion among less informed people in general discourse. It has nothing to do with the Wiki title and there's not much more we can do about it on that page, but that problem illustrates the down side of separating a nation's name from the demonym.

Please see the article's first five words.

But as I said earlier, headlines matter. Ask any journalist. People don't always read past them. I'm not saying the British poster below was guilty of that specifically, but his timely arrival provided an example of someone not knowing much about the historical use and importance of "of America", to the point where he even challenged its official status. Putting it in the title could help combat that misinformed view.

No one reading it, including those arriving via the United States of America redirect, is being deprived of this information.

Nor would they be deprived if they arrived via United States, and in that case those ignorant that "of America" is part of the nation's actual name would learn something even if they immediately skipped down from the in your face title to a lower section without reading the first paragraph.

You stated that you "skimmed the archives earlier and didn't see any compelling arguments for not changing it aside from inertia." My point is that it's unreasonable to draw such a conclusion on the basis of skimming.

By "skimmed" I meant I had read much of the discussion, which is scattered around the archives, but probably not all of it, and in that massive sample there were no compelling arguments on the anti-"American" side apart from defending the status quo for the sake of the status quo. It was an invitation. My point in my last reply to you was that no such arguments had yet been provided here either.

The types of "problems" to which the text refers are mentioned earlier in the paragraph. If "many people want it changed" constituted a valid "problem", this could be used to justify practically any move.

Actually, not only are the "types" of problems mentioned neither labeled nor implied to be comprehensive, but the page speaks of "goals, not rules", and encourages "discussion" to reach "consensus". That indicates flexibility. That said, people wanting a change only justifies a move if there's no good reason not to move it. More people opposing it constitutes a good reason, but I'm trying to uncover why some people oppose it.

Did you not follow the link? The article was moved to China.

Ah, so my qualifier was unnecessary, strengthening my point about the importance of the demonym root. I had in mind old archives discussions where those on your side defended using the Chinas' formal names, which shows change on such issues is possible.

Indeed, so Germany isn't commonly known as "the Federal Republic". Conversely, this article's subject is commonly known as "the United States".

And "America", with the people called "Americans", illustrating that the USA is unique on the name issue as it is on so many others.

No argument there. As I've noted on previous occasions, I don't assert that "United States of America" would be a bad title for the article. I simply believe that "United States" is a better one.....I don't know what you want us to do differently, apart from agreeing with you.

Explain why you prefer "United States." Those of us who disagree see the title as an opportunity to preserve the demonym root in popular discourse, educate those who think "American" is a detached Dutch-like label at best, avoid "United States" ambiguity (even if slight in nature), and/or because we believe it looks better as the title of an article. The closest to a counter argument has been that "United States" is used even more frequently. Is that it, or are there other reasons?

This has no basis in policy.

It's just sound advice, and not opposed by policy, which just says formal names aren't "necessarily" required, indicating they aren't prohibited either. BTW, I noticed the "policy" page itself has an active edit and discussion tempo.VictorD7 (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

But as I said earlier, headlines matter. Ask any journalist. People don't always read past them.

So you're arguing that we should title the article for the benefit of people who don't read it?

Nor would they be deprived if they arrived via United States, and in that case those ignorant that "of America" is part of the nation's actual name would learn something even if they immediately skipped down from the in your face title to a lower section without reading the first paragraph.

Our articles' titles serve to identity their subjects, not to educate persons declining to avail themselves of information contained within the articles themselves (including those who are misinformed).

By "skimmed" I meant I had read much of the discussion, which is scattered around the archives, but probably not all of it, and in that massive sample there were no compelling arguments on the anti-"American" side apart from defending the status quo for the sake of the status quo.

Who, in your view, defended the status quo for the sake of the status quo (and why have you labeled this argument "compelling")?

It was an invitation.

I've already expressed my arguments (and unlike Golbez, I don't enjoy repeating them). If you don't find them "compelling", we'll have to agree to disagree.

Actually, not only are the "types" of problems mentioned neither labeled nor implied to be comprehensive,

If you want to believe that "problems" refers not to the intrinsic naming issues discussed earlier in the paragraph, but to matters along the lines of "a bunch of people have complained", go right ahead.

but the page speaks of "goals, not rules", and encourages "discussion" to reach "consensus".

Right, that's how Wikipedia works. And this issue has been discussed numerous times.

Ah, so my qualifier was unnecessary, strengthening my point about the importance of the demonym root.

There's no dispute that the People's Republic of China is among the many countries whose names are commonly abbreviated in that manner.

My point is that it's an example of a country whose long-form English-language name is commonly used (unlike "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", for example), but we nonetheless moved the article to the short-form name (because it's more common). We did so despite the fact that actual ambiguity exists on a practical level (because other entities are commonly known as "China" or "china"), which isn't even an issue here.

I had in mind old archives discussions where those on your side defended using the Chinas' formal names,

We explained why the long-form name "People's Republic of China" was used as a title (while the long-form name "United States of America" wasn't). Valid reasons existed, but even those have since been deemed insufficient. That's my point.

which shows change on such issues is possible.

That's a change in the direction opposite of that which you seek.

Explain why you prefer "United States."

I've done so over and over and over (...), as have many others. You needn't find our arguments "compelling", but please don't pretend that they haven't been expressed.

I find it astonishing that you go on to cite "believe it looks better as the title of an article" as a valid rationale, ignoring the fact that I've expressed such a belief about "United States" (while noting that I don't regard this as a valid rationale). —David Levy 09:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

So you're arguing that we should title the article for the benefit of people who don't read it?

I'm observing that there's a hierarchy of importance for ranking information, as evidenced by the presence of info boxes, the section layout starting with an overview, and the title being so much bigger than the body text to begin with. Most people don't read the entire article, but skip around to specific sections. Everyone sees the title.

Our articles' titles serve to identity their subjects, not to educate persons declining to avail themselves of information contained within the articles themselves (including those who are misinformed).

No reason we can't do both, all things being equal or close to it.

Who, in your view, defended the status quo for the sake of the status quo (and why have you labeled this argument "compelling")?

Several posters made the precedent argument. No one familiar with jurisprudence would dismiss it out of hand, though in this case I don't think it should be controlling.

If you want to believe that "problems" refers not to the intrinsic naming issues discussed earlier in the paragraph, but to matters along the lines of "a bunch of people have complained", go right ahead.

I asked for proof that the "problems" vaguely mentioned in the text were comprehensively listed somewhere and you've failed to provide it. And, while you've altered my words (originally "...that so many people want it changed...", later complemented by language stating change should only come if a majority doesn't oppose), the article's emphasis on discussion and "consensus" indicates that the existence of controversy rising to a level you compared with those of war torn regions indicates that does qualify as a problem. I also cited the loss of the demonym as a problem that makes America's name different from other nations'.

We explained why the long-form name "People's Republic of China" was used as a title (while the long-form name "United States of America" wasn't). Valid reasons existed, but even those have since been deemed insufficient. That's my point.....That's a change in the direction opposite of that which you seek.

No, I have no problem with using "China" for China, nor am I seeking a universal move to full names. My point was that the demonym portion of the name is universally considered vital, meaning that, despite common use of "the United States", the "of America" portion is vastly more important than parts typically dropped like "People's Republic of" or "Federal Republic of".

I've done so over and over and over (...), as have many others. You needn't find our arguments "compelling", but please don't pretend that they haven't been expressed.

All you said is that "United States" is used more frequently, an argument I explicitly acknowledged, though I don't think it holds up to the counterarguments. I was just curious if there were any other reasons to motivate the obvious passion involved.

I find it astonishing that you go on to cite "believe it looks better as the title of an article" as a valid rationale, ignoring the fact that I've expressed such a belief about "United States"

This is the first time here you've unambiguously admitted that you find "United States" more aesthetically pleasing. Your previous statement was nebulous and just indicated that you "prefer" it.

Right, that's how Wikipedia works. And this issue has been discussed numerous times.

And should continue to be discussed in the future as new members and fresh perspectives join. The discussion itself has proved educational to at least one poster below, and therefore worthwhile.

I've already expressed my arguments (and unlike Golbez, I don't enjoy repeating them). If you don't find them "compelling", we'll have to agree to disagree.

Fair enough, though I'll point out that you originally replied to me, not vice versa. Since we've established change on such things is possible, I do think future votes should be held on the issue as long as it remains this controversial, perhaps every few years or so.VictorD7 (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm observing that there's a hierarchy of importance for ranking information, as evidenced by the presence of info boxes, the section layout starting with an overview, and the title being so much bigger than the body text to begin with. Most people don't read the entire article, but skip around to specific sections. Everyone sees the title.

And that's their choice. I understand that you want to convey a particular piece of information, but we don't use our titles in the manner that you advocate.

No reason we can't do both, all things being equal or close to it.

If I believed that all things were equal (i.e. that "United States of America" and "United States" were equally common), we wouldn't be having this debate.

"Close to it" is subjective. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that it accurately describes this situation. Under our naming conventions, this justifies the use of the title "United States of America" if "United States" is problematic, not if "United States of America" provides a side benefit. And the absence of a side benefit (i.e. something not described in our naming guidelines) doesn't constitute a "problem".

Many people are unaware that Northern Ireland is part of the UK, but we don't weigh a desire to convey this information against the relative uncommonness of the name "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". That isn't what our articles' titles are for. (I realize, of course, that "United States of America" is used far more frequently than that name is. My point is that this isn't even a consideration.)

Several posters made the precedent argument.

Can you please be more specific?

I asked for proof that the "problems" vaguely mentioned in the text were comprehensively listed somewhere and you've failed to provide it.

I haven't made such a claim. I'm saying that "problems" refers to issues along the lines of those mentioned. It doesn't refer to any instance in which people dislike a title. If it did, the exception would swallow the rule. (It would literally mean "just hold a majority vote and use whatever title most people prefer".)

And, while you've altered my words (originally "...that so many people want it changed...",

I was referring to a hypothetical criterion; it wasn't intended to come across as a quotation of your words (sorry).

later complemented by language stating change should only come if a majority doesn't oppose),

Wikipedia is not a democracy.

the article's emphasis on discussion and "consensus" indicates that the existence of controversy rising to a level you compared with those of war torn regions indicates that does qualify as a problem.

As I've clarified below, I was referring to title disputes at least as controversial as this one. I'm fairly certain that most, if not all, were far more controversial.

But again, the paragraph in question pertains to problems intrinsic to particular names (such as ambiguity or inaccuracy), which can be resolved via the use of alternatives.

"When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others."

Controversy regarding which name to use, while reasonably defined as a "problem", relates to possible titles in general, not one in particular. Switching from one controversial title to another doesn't solve the problem.

I also cited the loss of the demonym as a problem that makes America's name different from other nations'.

And I disagree with you. (I recognize the distinction that you've drawn, but I don't see a problem.)

No, I have no problem with using "China" for China, nor am I seeking a universal move to full names.

I realize that. My point is that even in the case of the People's Republic of China article, in which arguments in favor of using the long-form name were relatively strong (in my view), our preference for the most common name still prevailed.

My point was that the demonym portion of the name is universally considered vital,

That's true in most cases, but obviously not in this one.

meaning that, despite common use of "the United States", the "of America" portion is vastly more important than parts typically dropped like "People's Republic of" or "Federal Republic of".

I agree, but not in the context of identifying the article's subject (the title's purpose).

All you said is that "United States" is used more frequently,

I've also rebutted others' arguments, which I don't find "compelling". You're entitled to disagree, of course.

an argument I explicitly acknowledged, though I don't think it holds up to the counterarguments.

Conversely, I believe that it holds up against arguments with no valid basis in policy. You're entitled to disagree with both opinions, of course.

I was just curious if there were any other reasons to motivate the obvious passion involved.

Again, I don't know what you (and those who've made similar comments) expect us to do differently. Somehow, the very act of disagreeing with you constitutes "passion".

This is the first time here you've unambiguously admitted that you find "United States" more aesthetically pleasing.

Okay, I thought that my previous statement was clear. I also want to be clear in stating that I'm not citing this as a rationale for keeping the current title.

And should continue to be discussed in the future as new members and fresh perspectives join.

But we so rarely receive fresh perspectives. In most instances, newcomers (such as The Mysterious El Willstro) unknowingly duplicate (sometimes almost word for word) arguments that have been made over and over and over again. If they'd only read the archives (instead of expanding them), this wouldn't occur.

I don't agree with your arguments, but I appreciate that not all of them simply rehash those from the past.

Fair enough, though I'll point out that you originally replied to me, not vice versa.

That's true. Naturally, I'm inclined to express my opinions, just as you're inclined to express yours. I've done my best to get my points across, but I don't care to repeat them. —David Levy 00:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you want to convey a particular piece of information, but we don't use our titles in the manner that you advocate.

And yet page layouts are obviously designed with readership in mind, certain pieces of information are chosen as somehow more important than others, and items like info boxes are displayed for easy viewing.

Under our naming conventions, this justifies the use of the title "United States of America" if "United States" is problematic, not if "United States of America" provides a side benefit. And the absence of a side benefit (i.e. something not described in our naming guidelines) doesn't constitute a "problem".

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." WP:Ignore all rules

That page is linked to by the words "occasional exceptions may apply" on the Naming conventions page (WP:NCGN). We've established that America is in a unique name situation in a variety of ways, including that both parts of its name are commonly used (one serving as the demonym root), that the full version isn't unwieldy or problematic, and that there's widespread ignorance regarding the official name that Wikipedia could help combat with a title change. If a worthwhile "exception" ever existed it's for the "United States of America." That said, one man's lack of benefit is another man's problem. I disagree with your interpretation of the current policy page and think that a move would be acceptable within its spirit and letter.

Many people are unaware that Northern Ireland is part of the UK, but we don't weigh a desire to convey this information against the relative uncommonness of the name "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". That isn't what our articles' titles are for. (I realize, of course, that "United States of America" is used far more frequently than that name is. My point is that this isn't even a consideration.)

Actually I wouldn't mind changing the British page too. That said, as you partially described, there are significant differences between that and the US situation, and opposing changing it doesn't necessarily mean one must oppose changing the American page, contrary to a fallacious argument made repeatedly in the archives.

Can you please be more specific?

About arguments supporting the status quo based on inertia and established precedent? Here are a few examples from Archives page 22 (sic):

"Weak Neutral. If Wikipedia was just starting life, I would support the move, but by now I guess there are thousands of articles referring to this one now. I'd rather the effort to make the necessary changes was put into improving other articles. Markb 10:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)"

"This policy was upheld by better than 2 to 1 in a poll back in May, 2004, and there is no reason to change it now. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)"

"Oppose mainly for practical reasons (ie the country is usually refered to as the United States and moving the article would complicate all these links).....--Bkwillwm 20:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)"

"Oppose While I think everything should be listed at its legal name with a redirect from commonly used names, until this becomes a standard policy that is enforced, no specific reason to change this one. PhatJew 09:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)"

I'm not sure if the tech concerns have merit, because Wikipedia's redirect software seems to work fine. The policy page does mention using established "precedent" as a guide, but it also explicitly allows for a "new consensus" to form. BTW, the 2006 vote was about tied. I wonder what results a new vote might bring.

It doesn't refer to any instance in which people dislike a title. If it did, the exception would swallow the rule.

Again, "These should be seen as goals, not as rules." The items listed are vague guides to focus on in general use. Many people disliking something is more fundamental than a specific problem, it's a symptom of a problem, signals lack of consensus, and is how change happens at Wikipedia.

(It would literally mean "just hold a majority vote and use whatever title most people prefer".)

But that's apparently happened at least a couple of times before on this issue, the last vote being about even.

Wikipedia is not a democracy.

True, it operates by consensus. Clearly there isn't a consensus on this. Wiki policy does have procedures for voting, and even in the absence of an actual vote majority sentiment presumably wins out at some point. Somebody has to have the final say. Of course here no say is permanently "final".

As I've clarified below, I was referring to title disputes at least as controversial as this one. I'm fairly certain that most, if not all, were far more controversial.

Regardless, given that you felt compelled to cite examples colored by wars and major international disputes, it's probably fair to say that the USA name issue is unusually controversial.

Controversy regarding which name to use, while reasonably defined as a "problem", relates to possible titles in general, not one in particular. Switching from one controversial title to another doesn't solve the problem.

Agreed. However, supporters of a move have cited problems with using "United States" for the title, like losing the demonym, while opponents mostly oppose "United States of America" simply because they prefer "United States", not because there's anything wrong with "United States of America," so the situation isn't quite symmetrical.

I realize that. My point is that even in the case of the People's Republic of China article, in which arguments in favor of using the long-form name were relatively strong (in my view), our preference for the most common name still prevailed.

How? Did Jimmy Wales intervene, was there a vote by someone, or was one side just more persistent than the other?

Again, I don't know what you (and those who've made similar comments) expect us to do differently.

If you're asked if you have any reasons for favoring "United States" apart from it being used more frequently, and you don't, then answer "No." Unless you want to add that you find it more aesthetically pleasing, of course.

I also want to be clear in stating that I'm not citing this as a rationale for keeping the current title.

Noted. It's just a coincidence. For the record, however, I'll point out that it is possible to favor the look of a title but oppose it for other reasons.

Somehow, the very act of disagreeing with you constitutes "passion".

No, but repeated, vigorous argument on the same topic over a period of years does. I've chimed in to make points on issues that I don't care too deeply about and probably won't comment on again if they resurface. I see a lot of of stuff I disagree with that I don't comment on at all.

But we so rarely receive fresh perspectives....I don't agree with your arguments, but I appreciate that not all of them simply rehash those from the past.

Wikipedia will need many more fresh perspectives to successfully shake its external reputation for being primarily useful as a quick proper name spell checker and link dump. And I only chose to rehash the arguments that I determined hadn't been (and still haven't been) successfully countered, something I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on.VictorD7 (talk) 09:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

And yet page layouts are obviously designed with readership in mind, certain pieces of information are chosen as somehow more important than others, and items like info boxes are displayed for easy viewing.

Indeed. And I agree that "United States of America" is an important piece of information, which is why we display it in bold in the article's lead.

But the title's purpose is simply to identify the article's subject, which is most commonly known as "United States".

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." WP:Ignore all rules

I'm a strong supporter of that policy. (If you check its talk page and related archives, you'll see that I've defended its existence as persistently as I've defended this article's current title.)

If I believed that renaming the article "United States of America" would improve Wikipedia, I would support such a change.

When I cite a policy, I'm not suggesting that we must follow the rules for the sake of following the rules; I'm expressing my belief that a particular application makes sense.

We've established that America is in a unique name situation in a variety of ways,

I don't know whether it's entirely unique (and would need to research the matter), but I agree that it's unusual. I disagree that the distinction justifies the change suggested.

including that both parts of its name are commonly used (one serving as the demonym root),

Agreed. But the most common name is "United States".

that the full version isn't unwieldy or problematic,

Agreed. The same is true of "United States", "U.S." and "USA".

and that there's widespread ignorance regarding the official name

I disagree that we've "established" this. It might be true (and for the sake of argument, I'm willing to assume that it is).

that Wikipedia could help combat with a title change.

Maybe so, but such advocacy (applying special treatment to a subject near and dear to certain editors' hearts for the purpose of addressing a bugbear) isn't part of Wikipedia's mission. We aspire to cover subjects in a neutral, dispassionate manner. To this end, we base our articles' titles upon their most common names when feasible.

Actually I wouldn't mind changing the British page too.

Perhaps, instead of seeking an exception, you should propose that Wikipedia formally modify its policy to favor official names (at least in the area of government).

That said, as you partially described, there are significant differences between that and the US situation, and opposing changing it doesn't necessarily mean one must oppose changing the American page,

Agreed.

contrary to a fallacious argument made repeatedly in the archives.

In general, it was a response to the argument that we must use the country's official name as the article's title.

Here are a few examples from Archives page 22 (sic):

Thanks for clarifying. I agree that some of those arguments were weak or invalid.

I'm not sure if the tech concerns have merit, because Wikipedia's redirect software seems to work fine.

Agreed. That shouldn't even be a concern; a move wouldn't impact the article's accessibility.

BTW, the 2006 vote was about tied.

Consensus isn't gauged by simply counting votes. Weak or invalid rationales, such as those discussed above, carry little or no weight.

Again, "These should be seen as goals, not as rules."

"The exception would swallow the rule." is an expression (admittedly most common in legal contexts). It means "The exception would cease to be an exception; it would negate or nearly negate the principle."

The items listed are vague guides to focus on in general use. Many people disliking something is more fundamental than a specific problem, it's a symptom of a problem, signals lack of consensus, and is how change happens at Wikipedia.

At Wikipedia, "many people disliking something" isn't a valid basis for editorial change. It might reflect a valid reason...or one wholly incompatible with the project's mission.

For example, people might dislike an article's title because they regard it as non-neutral. By the same token, people might dislike an article's title because they want it to be non-neutral (thereby promoting their personal beliefs).

But that's apparently happened at least a couple of times before on this issue, the last vote being about even.

Those weren't majority votes. They were discussions in which consensus that there was a policy-backed reason to rename the article wasn't reached.

If 85% of respondents were to assert that "we must use the title 'United States of America' because that's the country's official name", this fallacious argument wouldn't prevail. The rationale "United States has too many incoming links to switch to something else" is equally invalid.

Regardless, given that you felt compelled to cite examples colored by wars and major international disputes, it's probably fair to say that the USA name issue is unusually controversial.

Indeed, but the underlying context differs significantly.

This isn't a dispute that rages perpetually, fueled by intense passion. It's one that arises periodically, typically when a newcomer unfamiliar with past discussion unknowingly raises the same concerns raised countless times before. In response, others (many of whom have participated in past discussion) reiterate our positions.

To be clear, I don't fault the newcomers for their unawareness of the matter's history. And while it's frustrating that some ignore the archives, this is inevitable.

When I was new to Wikipedia, I encountered the article and was curious as to why its title wasn't "United States of America", the country's full and official name. So I visited this talk page to inquire, at which point I discovered the past discussion (far less extensive at that point, but fairly thorough nonetheless). I then came to understand Wikipedia's relevant conventions and how they applied to the article.

However, supporters of a move have cited problems with using "United States" for the title, like losing the demonym,

And opponents disagree that such things are problematic.

while opponents mostly oppose "United States of America" simply because they prefer "United States", not because there's anything wrong with "United States of America,"

That's inaccurate. We oppose the move because:

1. "United States" is the subject's most common name, and we believe that the title's quality would be reduced by switching to something that isn't the subject's most common name.

2. We disagree that the title "United States of America" would provide benefits outweighing the above.

What's "wrong" with the long-form name is that it isn't the best possible title for the article (in our view).

How? Did Jimmy Wales intervene, was there a vote by someone, or was one side just more persistent than the other?

I haven't followed the situation closely, but my understanding is that a discussion resulted in consensus to rename the article.

If you're asked if you have any reasons for favoring "United States" apart from it being used more frequently, and you don't, then answer "No."

The other reason, as I've noted, is that I don't find the arguments in favor of the alternative "compelling".

But that isn't the context in which I stated that "I don't know what you (and those who've made similar comments) expect us to do differently". I'm referring to assertions that we've exhibited uncalled-for levels of "passion" or "insistence" simply by continuing to oppose a move.

No, but repeated, vigorous argument on the same topic over a period of years [constitutes "passion"].

As noted above, the argument usually is rekindled by a newcomer thereto. I disagree with the assumption that recurring participants necessarily are passionate about the subject, but let's set that aside.

You referred to "the passion on the other side", and I'm merely disputing the notion that opponents of the suggested move are inexplicably and disproportionately passionate (i.e. that we defend our position overzealously). Perhaps you didn't intend to imply that. —David Levy 15:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If I believed that renaming the article "United States of America" would improve Wikipedia, I would support such a change.

The Ignore all rules citation was a response to your argument about a change hypothetically bringing benefits but being inappropriate because said benefits aren't specifically called for in the rules.

And I agree that "United States of America" is an important piece of information, which is why we display it in bold in the article's lead.

My point was getting at how and why some information is deemed more "important" than other information. I think educating readers is taken into account; indeed the agenda of the encyclopedia is to educate. It's determined that some facts are more important for people to know, and are therefore featured prominently in hierarchical fashion even though most people already know them. This doesn't typically come up with titles because it's deemed that knowing things like "Federal Republic of.." isn't of the utmost importance. We've established that "..of America" is vastly more important than name portions typically discarded, and indeed is commonly used. I see no reason to consider titles exempt from the education goal, and think "United States of America" should receive a slight upgrade in import ranking.

I disagree that we've "established" this.[that there's widespread ignorance regarding the official name] It might be true (and for the sake of argument, I'm willing to assume that it is).

It's telling that even during the limited duration of this discussion a poster interjected to express precisely that ignorance.

We aspire to cover subjects in a neutral, dispassionate manner.

"United States of America" doesn't violate neutrality.

Perhaps, instead of seeking an exception, you should propose that Wikipedia formally modify its policy to favor official names (at least in the area of government).

No such modification is required to support this change. Official names are already allowed, particularly when they're also common names as with "United States of America".

In general, it [claiming that the British page would then have to be changed too] was a response to the argument that we must use the country's official name as the article's title.

It was also raised as a stand alone false equivalence. Besides, at least some of those making the pure formal name argument were explicitly fine with changing the British page too.

Thanks for clarifying. I agree that some of those arguments were weak or invalid.

I should say they came from various pages.

Consensus isn't gauged by simply counting votes. Weak or invalid rationales, such as those discussed above, carry little or no weight.

I know, I've read the consensus page before. It does allow for voting as part of the process though, and ultimately these things, where it's either one way or the other, come down to a numbers game or persistence. As the page says, "In 2012, a group of researchers studying Wikipedia disputes reported: "Debates rarely conclude on the basis of merit; typically they are ended by outside intervention, sheer exhaustion, or the evident numerical dominance of one group.""

"The exception would swallow the rule." is an expression (admittedly most common in legal contexts). It means "The exception would cease to be an exception; it would negate or nearly negate the principle."

I know what the expression means. My point was that widespread opposition to something isn't so much an "exception" to a set of rules as a phenomenon associated with problems in general, including those specifically (but not comprehensively) listed, and an intrinsic part of the process governing all decisions at Wikipedia.

For example, people might dislike an article's title because they regard it as non-neutral. By the same token, people might dislike an article's title because they want it to be non-neutral (thereby promoting their personal beliefs).

And whether something is deemed "non-neutral" ultimately comes down to a numbers and/or persistence game.

If 85% of respondents were to assert that "we must use the title 'United States of America' because that's the country's official name", this fallacious argument wouldn't prevail. The rationale "United States has too many incoming links to switch to something else" is equally invalid.

Why wouldn't either of those arguments prevail, fallacious or not? Would admin step in? I thought y'all were supposed to be content neutral in rulings.

What's "wrong" with the long-form name is that it isn't the best possible title for the article (in our view).

That's my point. While supporters of a move have problems with "United States" as the title separate from its frequency of usage, opponents generally don't provide reasons for opposing "United States of America" apart from the alternative being used more.

I haven't followed the situation closely, but my understanding is that a discussion resulted in consensus to rename the article.

If the PRC/China dispute was as ferocious as you claim, which I have no trouble believing, I seriously doubt everyone suddenly laid down their arms and agreed. More likely, as the consensus page conceded is common, it either came down to a decisive shift in numbers or one side growing exhausted.

I'm referring to assertions that we've exhibited uncalled-for levels of "passion" or "insistence" simply by continuing to oppose a move.

I've never said your passion is uncalled for or inappropriate. People keep raising that question because, while they strongly support a move for reasons of substantive content, opponents mostly seem to be making a technical argument that the current title is more frequently used, and yet arguing with an intensity that belies such dry concerns, leaving supporters curious.

I disagree with the assumption that recurring participants necessarily are passionate about the subject, but let's set that aside.

I suspect that, like me, you don't comment on everything you disagree with, or join every resurrected debate you've commented on before.

To be clear, I don't fault the newcomers for their unawareness of the matter's history. And while it's frustrating that some ignore the archives, this is inevitable.

Very understandable. And, again, just for the record, I did familiarize myself with the past debate before I commented.

This isn't a dispute that rages perpetually, fueled by intense passion. It's one that arises periodically, typically when a newcomer unfamiliar with past discussion unknowingly raises the same concerns raised countless times before. In response, others (many of whom have participated in past discussion) reiterate our positions.

I suspect that's more because long time dissenters who have already debated the issue aren't likely to spontaneously raise it again than because they've all necessarily changed their minds. Many no doubt still disagree with your arguments as I do. Enough new blood could result in a new consensus.VictorD7 (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The Ignore all rules citation was a response to your argument about a change hypothetically bringing benefits but being inappropriate because said benefits aren't specifically called for in the rules.

That isn't quite what I meant. I was explaining that what you advocate doesn't fall within our normal conventions. We can deviate from said conventions, but I don't believe that it's justified in this instance.

I see no reason to consider titles exempt from the education goal, and think "United States of America" should receive a slight upgrade in import ranking.

You've touched on a matter that's been debated from time to time: whether our articles' titles should serve to educate readers or simply to indicate their subjects (thereby enabling navigation). Invariably, the latter principle has prevailed.

For example, we have an article titled Piers Anthony. To readers unfamiliar with this person, the title Piers Anthony (author) would provide key information. But because we lack articles about other persons named "Piers Anthony", no such qualifier is appended.

Of course, "United States of America" is a natural name (with no parenthetical attached), and I don't mean to imply otherwise.

No such modification is required to support this change.

Agreed. I'm suggesting that you might want to pursue wider-reaching change. (Or perhaps not.)

It was also raised as a stand alone false equivalence.

I don't doubt it. We've been through so much debate that I'd be surprised to find a recurring argument that wasn't misused at some point.

Besides, at least some of those making the pure formal name argument were explicitly fine with changing the British page too.

That's true, but it doesn't reflect policy.

Why wouldn't either of those arguments prevail, fallacious or not? Would admin step in? I thought y'all were supposed to be content neutral in rulings.

Administrators, who typically close debates, are expected to gauge consensus in accordance with policy, not by blindly tallying votes.

While supporters of a move have problems with "United States" as the title separate from its frequency of usage, opponents generally don't provide reasons for opposing "United States of America" apart from the alternative being used more.

And disagreement with the move proponents' rationales.

I suspect that, like me, you don't comment on everything you disagree with, or join every resurrected debate you've commented on before.

I certainly don't comment on everything with which I disagree (or agree), but I rarely decline to rejoin a debate in which I've taken part (unless I believe that its focus has shifted to the extent that my input no longer is directly relevant).

And, again, just for the record, I did familiarize myself with the past debate before I commented.

I sincerely appreciate it.

I suspect that's more because long time dissenters who have already debated the issue aren't likely to spontaneously raise it again than because they've all necessarily changed their minds. Many no doubt still disagree with your arguments as I do.

Oh, absolutely. When I noted that "others reiterate our positions", I was referring to editors on both sides of the debate. —David Levy 08:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course, "United States of America" is a natural name (with no parenthetical attached), and I don't mean to imply otherwise.

Which is a huge difference.

And disagreement with the move proponents' rationales.

Of course each side disagrees with the others' rationales, but there I was referring to result, not process. For example, if the article originally started at "United States of America" (which I think it may have), most supporters of a move, assuming no counterarguments were made, would presumably only cite frequency of usage. By contrast, if it started at "United States", supporters of a move would raise the various substantive, content based concerns with the title itself they've included in arguments throughout this debate whether there were counterarguments or not.

Administrators, who typically close debates, are expected to gauge consensus in accordance with policy, not by blindly tallying votes.

But if 85% of editors agreeing on something doesn't qualify as "consensus" if administrators disagree with the argument's validity, it sounds like change on this score would ultimately require a change in the minds or makeup of admin.VictorD7 (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Which is a huge difference.

Agreed. I'm addressing only the "educational" aspect.

Of course each side disagrees with the others' rationales, but there I was referring to result, not process. For example, if the article originally started at "United States of America" (which I think it may have), most supporters of a move, assuming no counterarguments were made, would presumably only cite frequency of usage. By contrast, if it started at "United States", supporters of a move would raise the various substantive, content based concerns with the title itself they've included in arguments throughout this debate whether there were counterarguments or not.

I'm not clear on what distinction you're drawing, apart from the sheer quantity of rationales.

But if 85% of editors agreeing on something doesn't qualify as "consensus" if administrators disagree with the argument's validity, it sounds like change on this score would ultimately require a change in the minds or makeup of admin.

Administrators aren't entitled to impose their will. Such closures are not permitted to stand. If an argument has a reasonable basis in policy, it will be taken into account. —David Levy 20:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm addressing only the "educational" aspect.

Education is the point of the encyclopedia. Whether it's typically taken into account specifically with titles or not, my point was that one example would represent a gross violation of naming conventions for a variety of reasons, while the other wouldn't.

I'm not clear on what distinction you're drawing, apart from the sheer quantity of rationales.

That's basically it. At face value, at least, the "United States" side doesn't have any problem with "United States of America" apart from the fact that it's used less frequently. Unlike the Chinese or other political situations, this isn't a case where both sides have content objections, so I'm not sure that swapping titles would result in as much controversy as currently exists, unless there are deeper objections being left unstated.

Administrators aren't entitled to impose their will. Such closures are not permitted to stand. If an argument has a reasonable basis in policy, it will be taken into account.

But again, whether an argument is deemed to have such a reasonable basis depends on the current minds and makeup of admin.VictorD7 (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Education is the point of the encyclopedia. Whether it's typically taken into account specifically with titles or not, my point was that one example would represent a gross violation of naming conventions for a variety of reasons, while the other wouldn't.

It's a matter of perspective. You see the use of Piers Anthony (author) as "a gross violation of naming conventions". Others would argue that it's a minor and perfectly reasonable deviation. After all, that is the title that we'd use if disambiguation were required, so how bad could it be? We'd be educating readers that Piers Anthony is an author. What's the harm? (I'm playing devil's advocate, of course.)

And yes, that example raises a style issue not present in the case of "United States of America". There's no argument there.

At face value, at least, the "United States" side doesn't have any problem with "United States of America" apart from the fact that it's used less frequently. Unlike the Chinese or other political situations, this isn't a case where both sides have content objections, so I'm not sure that swapping titles would result in as much controversy as currently exists, unless there are deeper objections being left unstated.

The pro-move side has more rationales, but not, evidently, stronger feelings on the matter (as you've pointed out).

But again, whether an argument is deemed to have such a reasonable basis depends on the current minds and makeup of admin.

Administrators aren't a separate faction. We're a cross-section of Wikipedians with the same variety of opinions. We keep each other in check, as does the rest of the editing community. —David Levy 23:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The pro-move side has more rationales, but not, evidently, stronger feelings on the matter (as you've pointed out).

Among certain posters at least. I'm not sure if that's community wide.

Administrators aren't a separate faction. We're a cross-section of Wikipedians with the same variety of opinions.

Either way enough new blood could change things, whether we're talking about an argument being deemed "invalid" by admin, editors making a change after a numbers or persistence shift based on more legitimate arguments and reasonable but alternative interpretations of existing policy, or simply enough people deciding that the change would constitute an improvement justified under the Ignore all rules policy.VictorD7 (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Among certain posters at least. I'm not sure if that's community wide.

Well, it seems to hold true in these discussions.

Regardless, we don't settle disputes based on which side's feelings are stronger or more deeply rooted. If we did, I suspect that the Muhammad image debate would have had a different outcome.

Either way enough new blood could change things, whether we're talking about an argument being deemed "invalid" by admin, editors making a change after a numbers or persistence shift based on more legitimate arguments and reasonable but alternative interpretations of existing policy, or simply enough people deciding that the change would constitute an improvement justified under the Ignore all rules policy.

Indeed, consensus can change. My point was that administrators lack the authority to discount or dismiss rationales arbitrarily. A closure itself is subject to consensus (and is overturned when the community decides that it doesn't reflect both the discussion and the relevant policies and guidelines).

And it's considered improper for an admin to close a formal debate with an outcome for which he/she has expressed a preference, even if only in a previous discussion. (It usually is considered okay for an involved admin to make the call that the other side's position has consensus.)

Of course, it's possible for an admin to simply keep quiet about his/her preference and swoop in to close the discussion accordingly. As discussed above, such "supervotes" aren't tolerated or permitted to stand. —David Levy 22:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

[Didn't reply to this earlier] And yes, that example raises a style issue not present in the case of "United States of America". There's no argument there.

But that style issue renders your parenthetical insertion example an invalid comparison. No system wide changes would be required to make "United States of America" the title. There's a difference between deciding that a particular tool for education would yield undesirable net results and opposing any hint of educational motivation in a single title choice that doesn't violate conventions.

Regardless, we don't settle disputes based on which side's feelings are stronger or more deeply rooted. If we did, I suspect that the Muhammad image debate would have had a different outcome.

That looks like a numbers game. I'm not sure how many Muslims are members of Wikipedia. Regardless, both sides seemed to think there were serious principles involved (as opposed to one side just making something like a usage frequency argument), and basically the resulting lack of consensus meant the status quo got preserved, as with the USA issue. If 500 million Muslims signed up tomorrow a "consensus" for change would probably form.

Well, it seems to hold true in these discussions.

I've noticed, though that doesn't necessarily mean the issue would remain as controversial as it currently is if the name was changed, or that new discussions on the topic would arise as frequently. It looks like the article was moved from "United States of America" to "United States" early in the 2000s without much considered discussion when the Wikipedia community was presumably much smaller than it is now. As I showed earlier, a chunk of those in subsequent debates have even hinted they prefer "United States of America", but sided with the opposition for preservation of status quo reasons you've deemed invalid here (there didn't seem to be much explicit effort to inform them of that at the time). While certain posters seem extremely passionate in opposing a change to "United States of America", some of whom have participated in multiple debates over the years, I'm not sure that would translate to as many new discussions arising on the topic from random posters as exists now. I'm not saying a change should be made before a consensus for such change is demonstrated, just that you shouldn't assume there would be symmetrical controversy if the title was switched. That's worth noting since some people no doubt take such calculations into consideration when choosing a position.

Indeed, consensus can change. My point was that administrators lack the authority to discount or dismiss rationales arbitrarily.

I'm glad to hear that. As long as this issue lacks a consensus for either side, I'd like to see discussions continue. If nothing else, as demonstrated here, the discussions themselves can educate people about the peculiar nature of the nation's name.VictorD7 (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

But that style issue renders your parenthetical insertion example an invalid comparison.

I'm not drawing a comparison on the basis of style (or claiming that the two titles are stylistically comparable).

As I noted, "United States of America" is a natural name (with no parenthetical attached). Moving this article to that title would be less of a deviation from our naming conventions than adopting the title "Piers Anthony (author)" would.

That's a valid distinction, and it's quite reasonable to cite it. But the prevailing consensus has been that we simply don't seek to use our articles' titles for the purpose that you advocate (educating readers), so such a pursuit justifies no amount of deviation from our naming conventions.

There's a difference between deciding that a particular tool for education would yield undesirable net results and opposing any hint of educational motivation in a single title choice that doesn't violate conventions.

Agreed. And given the choice between two potential titles equally compliant with our naming conventions (and comparable in all other material respects), I'd have no objection to selecting one on the basis that it's more educational. That makes more sense than a coin toss would.

But the titles "United States" and "United States of America" aren't equally compliant with our naming conventions. One is the subject's most common name and the other isn't.

Regardless, both sides seemed to think there were serious principles involved

Had the decision been based on emotional impact, the offense caused to Muslims surely would have outweighed the objections of those opposed to censorship (whose principles would have been compromised only for a single subject of no particular significance to most of them).

I've noticed, though that doesn't necessarily mean the issue would remain as controversial as it currently is if the name was changed, or that new discussions on the topic would arise as frequently.

It does seem possible that discussions on the topic would arise less frequently, simply because readers unfamiliar with our naming conventions (and who haven't viewed this talk page's archives) would be unlikely to wonder why the title "United States of America" was used (the type of concern that brought me here in the first place).

Regarding the "status quo" arguments, I'll note that I regard two of of the four that you quoted as invalid. Markb and Bkwillwm cited the quantity of incoming links, which simply isn't a legitimate concern (as all such links would continue to function properly).

Mwanner stated that there was "no reason to change it now". This wasn't the citation of a nonexistent issue compelling us to preserve the status quo; it was a statement of the opinion that there was no compelling reason to do otherwise.

PhatJew (Why didn't I think to register that handle?!) believed that "everything should be listed at its legal name", but in the absence of such a convention, saw "no specific reason" to treat this article specially.

As long as this issue lacks a consensus for either side, I'd like to see discussions continue.

I don't object to continued discussion. I take issue with the typical catalyst (newcomers' assumption that the topic has never been raised before, leading them to post questions and comments duplicating those written numerous times, sometimes nearly word for word).

As I mentioned, I experienced the same curiosity, but I checked the archives before expressing it. If someone who's done that still believes that the article should be renamed (and wishes to raise new points or express agreement/disagreement with statements made in the past), that's fine. —David Levy 05:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Moving this article to that title would be less of a deviation from our naming conventions than adopting the title "Piers Anthony (author)" would. That's a valid distinction, and it's quite reasonable to cite it. But the prevailing consensus has been that we simply don't seek to use our articles' titles for the purpose that you advocate (educating readers), so such a pursuit justifies no amount of deviation from our naming conventions.

I'm glad we agree on the first part. While citing the "(author)" example might be worthwhile as a general side note, it fails as a disqualifying comparison here. Instead of a system wide change altering the nature of titling itself, you would have been better served citing an example of a single title that's actually a common name and within stylistic norms (like United States of America) having its educational value rejected.

But the titles "United States" and "United States of America" aren't equally compliant with our naming conventions. One is the subject's most common name and the other isn't.

Arguable, since the conventions are vague and flexible enough for the policy page to include language like "There will often be several possible alternative titles for any given article; the choice between them is made by consensus", "These should be seen as goals, not as rules", and "When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." That flexibility is presumably why a page is titled Hillary Rodham Clinton, despite "Hillary Clinton" being used far more frequently.

Had the decision been based on emotional impact, the offense caused to Muslims surely would have outweighed the objections of those opposed to censorship (whose principles would have been compromised only for a single subject of no particular significance to most of them).

Or the result would have been different if there had been more Muslims on Wikipedia. Agreed. Still, there seemed to be more principles involved on the opposition side there than there is in the "USA" case.

It does seem possible that discussions on the topic would arise less frequently, simply because readers unfamiliar with our naming conventions (and who haven't viewed this talk page's archives) would be unlikely to wonder why the title "United States of America" was used (the type of concern that brought me here in the first place).

That, or they will have read the policy and archives pages, given more thought to the peculiar and possibly unique nature of the nation's name than editors apparently did in the 2000s, and decided that "United States of America" is the right way to go.

Mwanner stated that there was "no reason to change it now". This wasn't the citation of a nonexistent issue compelling us to preserve the status quo; it was a statement of the opinion that there was no compelling reason to do otherwise. PhatJew (Why didn't I think to register that handle?!) believed that "everything should be listed at its legal name", but in the absence of such a convention, saw "no specific reason" to treat this article specially.

Both still status quo based arguments, with Mwanner citing an old vote. Taken alone, they indicate that if the status quo was otherwise (title for one and policy for the other), they would support it instead. I didn't say all those arguments were invalid. Remember, I'm the one who called them "compelling" (if not decisive), though the tech based ones, the potentially strongest, are only compelling if their premises were right, and you've confirmed that I was correct to have my doubts. Of course I disagree with PhatJew's policy reading and conclusion that there was no reason for special consideration in this case.

As I mentioned, I experienced the same curiosity, but I checked the archives before expressing it. If someone who's done that still believes that the article should be renamed (and wishes to raise new points or express agreement/disagreement with statements made in the past), that's fine.

Fair enough, though I'd like to see more specificity in the future if a discussion is shut down. Saying what you said here, for example, instead of just "this has been discussed numerous times", since it sends the wrong message to readers who may falsely infer the subject is closed.VictorD7 (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

While citing the "(author)" example might be worthwhile as a general side note, it fails as a disqualifying comparison here.

It wasn't intended to serve as one.

Instead of a system wide change altering the nature of titling itself,

The title "Piers Anthony (author)" unquestionably would constitute a significantly greater departure from our naming conventions than the title "United States of America" would. The former raises a style issue not present in the latter (an unnecessary parenthetical). At no point have I asserted (or even implied) otherwise.

Different editors have suggested drawing the line in different places. It's been argued that we should append descriptions to every title. Others regard this as excessive and believe that we should do so only for unfamiliar subjects (which raises the question of how to define "unfamiliar").

You haven't advocated anything nearly as radical. Your position, as I understand it, is that it makes sense to switch an article's title from from the subject's most common name to a less common (but not uncommon) name on the basis that the latter would help to educate readers. This is a reasonable argument. My point is simply that it doesn't reflect the community's goals in selecting an article's title.

you would have been better served citing an example of a single title that's actually a common name and within stylistic norms (like United States of America) having its educational value rejected.

I thought that an explicit acknowledgment of the stylistic dissimilarity would make it clear that I wasn't attempting to draw such a comparison.

Arguable, since the conventions are vague and flexible enough for the policy page to include language like...

As discussed previously, I disagree with your interpretation of some of the text (in particular, the contextual meaning of "problems"). I agree that we often use names other than the most common ones when compelling reasons exist, but I disagree that this is such an instance.

That flexibility is presumably why a page is titled Hillary Rodham Clinton, despite "Hillary Clinton" being used far more frequently.

Indeed. You'll never see me argue that we should use subjects' most common names indiscriminately.

Still, there seemed to be more principles involved on the opposition side there than there is in the "USA" case.

That's true of the controversy as a whole, which I don't mean to compare to this one. We all have our opinions on whether "United States" or "United States of America" is a better title for the article, but few of us regard either title as bad or unacceptable.

Both still status quo based arguments, with Mwanner citing an old vote.

That argument included the status quo's preservation as an outcome, not a goal or justification.

I didn't say all those arguments were invalid.

Understood. I'm elaborating on which ones I've deemed invalid.

Remember, I'm the one who called them "compelling" (if not decisive), though the tech based ones, the potentially strongest, are only compelling if their premises were right, and you've confirmed that I was correct to have my doubts.

Yeah, we agree on that.

Fair enough, though I'd like to see more specificity in the future if a discussion is shut down. Saying what you said here, for example, instead of just "this has been discussed numerous times", since it sends the wrong message to readers who may falsely infer the subject is closed.

Fair point. In the future, I'll write something along the lines of the above. —David Levy 23:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You haven't advocated anything nearly as radical. Your position, as I understand it, is that it makes sense to switch an article's title from from the subject's most common name to a less common (but not uncommon) name on the basis that the latter would help to educate readers.This is a reasonable argument. My point is simply that it doesn't reflect the community's goals in selecting an article's title.

But education as an extra benefit isn't contrary to them either. And to clarify, the education point wasn't my only one. My larger point is that the USA's name is at least peculiar and maybe unique in that the formal appositional noun is distinct from the demonym root, with both serving important functions. The full name is commonly used and isn't overly formal or unwieldy as the policy page warns against. Indeed "America" is used even more frequently than "United States" is. Because of this special circumstance, including both parts of the name in the title is warranted. My opinion is that this undeniably peculiar situation leaves room for people to favor "United States of America" for whatever motivation, whether education, belief that the title should carry a slightly higher degree of formality than currently exists (while avoiding going overboard), or something else. If the Hillary Rodham Clinton page is any indication, the policy is flexible enough to allow this.

I thought that an explicit acknowledgment of the stylistic dissimilarity would make it clear that I wasn't attempting to draw such a comparison.

Well presumably you were trying to establish that titles aren't a legitimate venue for pursuing education, and the "(author)" example doesn't really accomplish that. It just indicates that education isn't the only concern.

I agree that we often use names other than the most common ones when compelling reasons exist, but I disagree that this is such an instance.

It seems to me that the word "America" is even more important than the word "Rodham", but I suppose we'll have to continue to agree to disagree on this.

That argument included the status quo's preservation as an outcome, not a goal or justification.

It cited the existence of the status quo without mentioning the particulars of the names themselves. If "United States of America" had been approved in that 2004 vote, one could have posted the same argument word for word. I'm not saying he necessarily would have defended the alternate status quo, only that the particular comment, viewed in isolation, leaves room for that possibility.

Fair point. In the future, I'll write something along the lines of the above.

Thanks, I appreciate it.VictorD7 (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

But education as an extra benefit isn't contrary to them either.

As stated above, all else being equal, it's a reasonable tiebreaker.

In this instance, I don't believe that all else is equal.

And to clarify, the education point wasn't my only one.

I realize that. I've addressed your other points as well, and I think that we've probably reached the stage at which it's best for us to agree to disagree. —David Levy 03:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

As stated above, all else being equal, it's a reasonable tiebreaker. In this instance, I don't believe that all else is equal.

The "(author)" example doesn't even show that it's illegitimate to consider education when things aren't quite "equal" (in usage), especially regarding a single title; just that a proposal to make a dramatic style change with system wide implications saw education trumped by other concerns.

I realize that. I've addressed your other points as well, and I think that we've probably reached the stage at which it's best for us to agree to disagree.

Well you never really commented on the Hillary Rodham Clinton example, but that's alright. We'll agree to disagree.VictorD7 (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The "(author)" example doesn't even show that it's illegitimate to consider education when things aren't quite "equal" (in usage),

Agreed. It wasn't intended to. It was an example of an option that's been discussed. As I've stated repeatedly, I'm not equating it with "United States of America".

As you've noted, this is an unusual case in some respects. I haven't managed to think of another article whose subject's name meets all of your criteria. If you know of one, please cite it.

Well you never really commented on the Hillary Rodham Clinton example,

I haven't read most of the relevant discussion, so I'm unable to comment in depth.

I will note that we treat biographical articles (particularly biographies of living persons) differently than we do articles on other subjects, including honoring the persons' preferences on certain matters (which I believe is a major factor in the case of Hillary Rodham Clinton). —David Levy 05:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read most of the relevant discussion, so I'm unable to comment in depth.I will note that we treat biographical articles (particularly biographies of living persons) differently than we do articles on other subjects, including honoring the persons' preferences on certain matters (which I believe is a major factor in the case of Hillary Rodham Clinton)

I know Wikipedia is extra careful to avoid becoming embroiled in legal controversies related to living people, but in all the policy material I've read so far the naming conventions are essentially the same for people (living or not) as they are for nations. "Hillary Clinton" is used far more frequently by the media and general public, and obviously isn't controversial or inflammatory, as evidenced by it being the title of her campaign web site. Of course I have no problem with either "Hillary Rodham Clinton" or "United States of America".

As you've noted, this is an unusual case in some respects. I haven't managed to think of another article whose subject's name meets all of your criteria. If you know of one, please cite it.

Nope. The USA's name is a special case, and I think therefore worthy of special consideration.VictorD7 (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia is extra careful to avoid becoming embroiled in legal controversies related to living people, but in all the policy material I've read so far the naming conventions are essentially the same for people (living or not) as they are for nations.

For better or worse, WP:BLP often is construed very broadly. Anything remotely unflattering or contradictory to the image that a living person seeks to maintain is scrutinized.

Keep in mind that my familiarity with the discussion is very limited. If I recall correctly (and I might not), it was noted that the person in question has been referred to as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" in most formal contexts (including Senate and State Department records), and it was argued that the use of "Hillary Clinton" as the article's title could be interpreted as anti-feminist commentary (or something along those lines). That might be slightly (or completely) off, so please don't quote me on it.

"Hillary Clinton" is used far more frequently by the media and general public, and obviously isn't controversial or inflammatory, as evidenced by it being the title of her campaign web site.

I recall having similar thoughts. But again, I haven't followed the discussion closely enough to formulate an informed opinion.

Nope. The USA's name is a special case, and I think therefore worthy of special consideration.

I recognize the unusual circumstances and agree that it's reasonable to consider them. I just don't arrive at the conclusion that they justify a title change. —David Levy 07:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

...it was argued that the use of "Hillary Clinton" as the article's title could be interpreted as anti-feminist commentary (or something along those lines). That might be slightly (or completely) off, so please don't quote me on it.

I think one or two people tried to make that outlandish argument, though the implication then is that including "Rodham" is making a pro-feminist statement. Most of the arguments were along the lines that either "Rodham" is the formal name (similar to some arguments made in favor of "United States of America"), or that her personal preference as demonstrated by past signatures and certain websites should hold sway. Of course she also publicly refers to herself as "Hillary Clinton", especially in recent years, and, again, that's overwhelmingly the most commonly used name for her by sources. I've seen nothing written in policy on the page you linked or the others I've read so far that provides a basis for treating living people differently than nations regarding article titles, and I've seen no evidence that Clinton herself has ever contacted Wikipedia to comment on the issue, not that there's an explicit policy basis for that mattering in this case anyway. In fact her husband's name is used as an example in the WP:COMMONNAME policy section.

Of course while I agree that there should be flexibility regarding people's names, I don't view the policy on nations to be as restrictive as you do.

I recognize the unusual circumstances and agree that it's reasonable to consider them. I just don't arrive at the conclusion that they justify a title change.

Well, at least we agree on the first part.VictorD7 (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Most of the arguments were along the lines that either "Rodham" is the formal name (similar to some arguments made in favor of "United States of America"), or that her personal preference as demonstrated by past signatures and certain websites should hold sway.

Yeah, as I mentioned above, the community tends to defer to human subjects' personal preferences (or potentially flawed interpretations thereof) on such matters. Whether we should is debatable, but we do.

As I recall, a controversial case was that of k.d. lang, with much debate on whether to honor her lowercase preference. I believe that the prevailing argument was that most reliable sources do, so we're actually deferring to them.

E. E. Cummings is an interesting case, as the widespread belief that he preferred the styling "e.e. cummings" evidently is incorrect. (This is explained in the article, which doesn't prevent occasional attempts to "fix" it.)

I've seen nothing written in policy on the page you linked or the others I've read so far that provides a basis for treating living people differently than nations regarding article titles,

That's because such text doesn't exist. In my view, WP:BLP is one of the project's most misunderstood and misapplied policies. It's cited as justification for all sorts of requirements and prohibitions not actually mentioned.

Here's a recent example. —David Levy 23:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed multiple policies here being interpreted differently by different people. I guess that's to be expected when so many of them are written so vaguely and/or with so much flexibility.VictorD7 (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

My two cents here. If a survey was done, I'd say that "United States" and "United States of America" would find fairly equal usage in everyday descriptions of this country. IOW, I agree that either can be correct. And I also agree that if we switched to one, there would be an argument for the other. However, I must say that seeing simply "United States" on this page seems too... well, informal, somewhat stunted. There is no doubt what we are talking about with "United States" but it feels like what we'd feel if we saw "Barack" instead of "Barack Obama" on his page - we know what the subject is, but it feels too informal. "United States of America," to my ear, doesn't sound overly formal like "Barack Hussein Obama II" or "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" would.

This issue, IMHO, should come down to what feels right, what sounds appropriate, as there is no obvious style guidance here. I write scripts for television and often what is grammatically or stylistically correct simply sounds "wrong," and that is what I sense here with "United States."

I don't often add anything to this page or its discussions, but on the title, I'd agree as someone who isn't here a lot that the title feels a bit off. Those here who are closer to the page may not have the benefit of distance, so it might be an exercise to invite people not normally on this page to see if there is similar sentiment on this issue from them. Canada Jack (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this argument is that it's purely based on opinion, on aesthetics. And you need a much larger consensus than a couple of people on a highly-trafficked page to alter based purely on opinion. Based on the guidelines, "United States" is perfectly proper. (I'd like to thank/criticize you both, by the way, for not bringing up the horrible "it's ambiguous" argument - thank because it's horrible, and criticize because that's the one I love tearing apart the most.) --Golbez (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, I primarily made a non-aesthetic argument, though Canada Jack's insights are well taken and I agree with him. Apparently a lot of others do too. Do other national titles here see this amount of controversy? And is there a reason you so vigorously prefer the shortened version when "United States of America" is perfectly proper according to the guidelines? It seems like titles should seek to minimize controversy. As for ambiguity, obviously most people know what "United States" refers to given the country's prominence, just like a stand alone "America", but "United States of America" would be even less ambiguous. There have been several historical nations with the words "United States" in the title, and there are several proposals for such names that might be realized in the future. Mexico currently has "United" and "States" in its title. In common usage it shortens to its demonym root of "Mexico", of course (like most nations), though it's worth pointing out that the full name does appear on Mexican currency, like the US and unlike many other nations. Again, my biggest problem is losing the demonym and I agree that ambiguity isn't a major issue here, but it does slightly add to the reasons for change.VictorD7 (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Do other national titles here see this amount of controversy?

Off the top of my head, the titles of the articles China, Georgia (country), Republic of Ireland and Republic of Macedonia have been quite controversial.

And is there a reason you so vigorously prefer the shortened version when "United States of America" is perfectly proper according to the guidelines?

That's a loaded question.

And what should we do differently, apart from agreeing with you?

Mexico currently has "United" and "States" in its title.

And yet, the Spanish Wikipedia's article about the United States of America is titled "Estados Unidos" ("United States"), despite the fact that Mexico's official Spanish-language name ("Estados Unidos Mexicano") contains that exact phrase. This, too, has been noted in past discussions.

I realize, of course, that the above isn't your main argument. —David Levy 04:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, the titles of the articles China, Georgia (country), Republic of Ireland and Republic of Macedonia have been quite controversial.

Comparing this dispute with those born in war marks it as extremely controversial indeed.

That's a loaded question.

No, just an acknowledgement of admitted enthusiasm.

And yet, the Spanish Wikipedia's article about the United States of America is titled "Estados Unidos" ("United States"), despite the fact that Mexico's official Spanish-language name ("Estados Unidos Mexicano") contains that exact phrase.

I know. That poses no problem from the Mexican standpoint when the demonym portion of their name is the one preserved, and is compatible with a long tradition of Mexican hostility to "Gringos" calling themselves "Americans," which is why the Spanish language version of the page lists the US demonym as "Estadounidense." All the more reason for Americans to assert their right to name themselves.VictorD7 (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Comparing this dispute with those born in war marks it as extremely controversial indeed.

I haven't followed those naming disputes closely, but I'm fairly certain that most of them have engendered far more controversy than this one has.

No, just an acknowledgement of admitted enthusiasm.

Your question is "And is there a reason you so vigorously prefer the shortened version when 'United States of America' is perfectly proper according to the guidelines?" This relies the disputed assumption that "United States of America" is perfectly proper according to the guidelines.

I know. That poses no problem from the Mexican standpoint when the demonym portion of their name is the one preserved, and is compatible with a long tradition of Mexican hostility to "Gringos" calling themselves "Americans," which is why the Spanish language version of the page lists the US demonym as "Estadounidense." All the more reason for Americans to assert their right to name themselves.

Ah, you you seek to advance a cause. —David Levy 09:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't followed those naming disputes closely, but I'm fairly certain that most of them have engendered far more controversy than this one has.

You provided those war torn examples in response to my question about equivalent levels of controversy.

Your question is "And is there a reason you so vigorously prefer the shortened version when 'United States of America' is perfectly proper according to the guidelines?" This relies the disputed assumption that "United States of America" is perfectly proper according to the guidelines.

Your emphasis wasn't clear since you followed up your "loaded question" remark by focusing on the "vigorously" portion. As for being proper, you've already said that you "don't assert that "United States of America" would be a bad title for the article", only that you prefer the alternative.

Ah, you you seek to advance a cause.

Yes, informed clarity in naming and education to avoid misunderstandings like that illustrated in such timely fashion by the foreign poster lower in the discussion.VictorD7 (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You provided those war torn examples in response to my question about equivalent levels of controversy.

And I should have noted that most (if not all) have actually exceeded this level of controversy.

As for being proper, you've already said that you 'don't assert that "United States of America" would be a bad title for the article', only that you prefer the alternative.

I regard "United States of America" as the second-best title possible, but I don't believe that its use has a valid basis in policy.

Yes, informed clarity in naming and education to avoid misunderstandings like that illustrated in such timely fashion by the foreign poster lower in the discussion.

You also want to counter "Mexican hostility". —David Levy 00:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

And I should have noted that most (if not all) have actually exceeded this level of controversy.

Still, you seem to be implying that it's an unusually high level of controversy.

I regard "United States of America" as the second-best title possible, but I don't believe that its use has a valid basis in policy.

Because you view it as second best. We obviously disagree on that, but my point was that it clearly doesn't violate policy in any other way.

You also want to counter "Mexican hostility".

More like the confusion underlying at least some of that hostility. I cited that to explain why the Spanish language page gives "Estadounidense" as the US demonym. Educating people on the fact that "America" isn't just half the name of two continents, but part of the nation's actual name, could help clear up such misunderstandings.VictorD7 (talk) 09:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Still, you seem to be implying that it's an unusually high level of controversy.

Indeed, but the underlying context differs significantly. (I elaborate above.)

Because you view it as second best. We obviously disagree on that, but my point was that it clearly doesn't violate policy in any other way.

Fair enough.

More like the confusion underlying at least some of that hostility.

Okay, but that isn't the title's purpose. —David Levy 15:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

However, I must say that seeing simply "United States" on this page seems too... well, informal, somewhat stunted. There is no doubt what we are talking about with "United States" but it feels like what we'd feel if we saw "Barack" instead of "Barack Obama" on his page - we know what the subject is, but it feels too informal.

As as been covered in previous discussions, "United States" is commonly used in numerous contexts of the utmost formality. —David Levy 04:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Since I've not previously been involved in this discussion, apologies if this post is covering old ground.

There seems to be an assumption here that the longer name must be the official one, but I'd dispute that. America has a written constitution, and the name is right there in the first line. I'm not even sure the word "America" occurs anywhere in the whole document (OK, it clearly does). For official purposes "of America" never seems to figure. So, we have the President of the United States, the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Air Force, and so on. Can anybody come up with an exception?

So, not only should the page not be moved, but I'd say the first line is currently wrong. It should read: The United States (commonly called the United States of America...). Formerip (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Check your money. Or if you're non-American, view images of USA currency online. Then read the etymology section of the article (that many people don't underscores my earlier point about the importance of the headline). The Declaration of Independence used "united States of America", the Articles of Confederation used the "The United States of America", and I'll add that the Treaty of Paris recognized the independence of the "United States of America" (http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/paris/text.html/). Both forms appear on official documents, the shortened version serving as the usual appositional descriptor for obvious reasons, but the "United States of America" is the nation's official name.VictorD7 (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I checked my money but it didn't really help because all I saw was a picture of an old woman. And I checked the etymology section, which does state that "...of America" is the official name, but that wasn't supported by a source.

I guess there's a question about what the appropriate authority for the question. Is it documents written before the country existed (one of which uses "...of North America" in any case), the Federal Reserve, or the USA Government (to give it its proper title)? Formerip (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The nation dates its birth to the Declaration of Independence, and I said to look up American currency if you're foreign. Coining money is a government function. You asked for examples and I provided them. Of course the Pledge of Allegiance, adopted by Congress, also uses "United States of America."VictorD7 (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you know of a reliable source that discusses the issue? Formerip (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

In one of the examples you showed me on another talk page it was of the US nameplate at the United Nations which does say United States, but that does not mean it is the full name of the country. Ours says United Kingdom, yet the full official name of our country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Just as the official name of Germany is not Germany, but infact the Federal Republic of Germany, and France is the French Republic. Official names are often different to common names both on wikipedia and in sources. Here is a United Nations list (not the most recent probably) but shows the full official name, and shortened accepted name in bold.[1] BritishWatcher (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No to beat this into the ground, but the official law codes also use "United States of America" in the title.[2][3]VictorD7 (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

We have been over this issue again and again and again. Wikipedia follows a common name policy, WP:COMMONNAME. The common name of the country is the United States. The vast majority of writers, whether in prose or in articles, commonly refer to the U.S. or the United States and only rarely use the full name. Just glance at the articles in any copy of the Washington Post, the New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal, and notice how they refer to "America" or the "United States" but very rarely put the two together, unless they are quoting at length from an official statement or referring to an organization that includes the country's full name in its name (like the National Youth Orchestra of the United States of America). Under the Wikipedia:No original research policy, Wikipedia cannot lead; it can only follow, which means we must follow what's already commonly in use. If the common name policy is changed to an official name policy, then we will have articles titled State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, City of San Buenaventura, City and County of San Francisco, and so on. Those are all the actual official names, found in their official governing documents, but they are not in common use. It looks like to me from watching these debates over the years that the vast majority of editors favoring the change to the longer article title are either people who do not write for a living, people who have not completed college degrees, or immature teenagers or children. The older, more mature editors who have actually studied epistemology and ontology at decent universities understand that the current article name is perfectly fine. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

After having 2nd thoughts, I moved this to his User Talk.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Brief note to VictorD7 Thank you for all your efforts above, and your arguments are more than valid; they are Earth-shatteringly compelling. The Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and Treaty of Paris are all good examples, but I should point out that the country's Constitution also very clearly establishes the name as "United States of America," at the end of the Preamble. Later Articles also reference simply United States, but when reading the Constitution all the way from cover to cover it is fairly clear that United States is merely a shortened form, with the formal name having been established in the Preamble and therefore being redundant to mention repeatedly (not entirely unlike how a man named William introduces himself as William, and then when you get to know him you can often call him Will; except in the case of the USA that is happening within the text of country's Constitution as you continue reading it). Furthermore, having studied the Constitution in some detail myself, one could also interpret that "United States of America" is the name of the country while just "United States" is a term to distinguish the country from the "Several States" which are its provinces (this is the origin of why provinces of the USA are called states, because they are referred to as the "Several States" in the Constitution); in other words, the shortened form is just how the Constitution clarifies the differences between national and regional powers. Either way, United States of America is the Constitutional name, adding 1 more supporting document to those you already mentioned. Once again, thank you for the compelling arguments for the move above! The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Point of order here. I know it can appear convenient and compelling to quote each individual line of someone's comment in green and respond to it individually, but it - at least to me - makes it really difficult to read and follow along. Furthermore, by doing this line-by-line response rather than a general response to their arguments (as done by 99.9% of the other discussions you'll see on Wikipedia) you foster repetition and you lack the time to cohere your thoughts into a single unit, causing yourself to possibly miss a revelation borne out by your own words. This is my request to please stop this style of reply. --Golbez (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ditto on that. It was a noble attempt, but . . .... We have a saying in our home, "That was a good idea, it just was wrong." The above style of discussing, for me, falls into that category. I also am in favor of keeping the article titled as is. Carptrash (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Golbez and Carptrash:

I'm sorry that you dislike the style of reply that I've utilized for years. I find it extremely helpful and don't intend to "stop".

I sometimes find others' replies difficult to follow (due to a lack of clarity as to which portion[s] of the preceding message is/are being addressed), but I wouldn't ask someone to abandon the format that he/she is comfortable using. —David Levy 15:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks like to me from watching these debates over the years that the vast majority of editors favoring the change to the longer article title are either people who do not write for a living, people who have not completed college degrees, or immature teenagers or children. The older, more mature editors who have actually studied epistemology and ontology at decent universities understand that the current article name is perfectly fine.

Well, I write and produce scripts for television for a living and I have a university degree. It's not a question of "epistemology" or "ontology" as both versions of the name are fine, it's a question of what sounds best to the ear in an article which purports to be a serious and authoritative view of the subject in question. To my ear "United States" sounds just a bit too informal for such an article, even though "United States" is "correct." "United States of America" has the beauty of having a slight patina of formality without being pedantic (like "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland") AND is in common, everyday use (unlike, say, UK of GBNI).

As I said, this is not an issue where one version is "more correct," it comes down to a call on a style issue. If casual readers of this page have no problem with "United States," then that should suffice. But if to those ears it seems more "proper" to give the full title for a page which formally covers the subject, then a change should be considered. Canada Jack (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

So.... is there any way to get "those ears" to contribute to this discussion? I rather doubt it. My rule of thumb is that if there is no compelling reason to change something, it stays the same. In this case 'United States." I asked my self, "I wonder what my library (at home) has to say so turned around and counted (sculpture & architecture section) 16 titles with "America" or "American" in the titles and none with "US" or "USA". However that's an arguement that I am not going to reopen. When in doubt, don't change and there appears to be plenty of doubt here. Carptrash (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this is still up for discussion or not, but personally I'm strongly in favor of changing it. "United States" is technically only a description of the nation -- envisioned as a federation of various sovereign states. Remember, prior to the American Civil War, the phrase was "The United States are", only since then has it changed to "The United States is" FURTHERMORE, The United States of America isn't the only "United States" in the world; someone mentioned earlier that Mexico's formal name is in fact "The United States of Mexico". If we're arguing in terms of common usage, I'd say that USA and/or US is far more common than actually saying "United States" in conversation, and "United States of America" is the proper term for diplomatic and media usage, so why not change it? Really, the only arguments that I'm seeing are Wikipedia:ILikeIt and inertia. Zaldax (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The English translation for the full name of Mexico is "United Mexican States." There is only one notable usage of "United States" in the world today; the term is completely unambiguous. And for the edge/historical cases, we have the disambiguation link. Moving the article to "United States of America" because of ambiguity is by far the worst possible suggestion, because "United States" would always redirect to "United States of America". But I'm happy someone finally brought it up. --Golbez (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, as noted above, even the Spanish Wikipedia's article is titled "Estados Unidos" ("United States"), despite the fact that Mexico's official Spanish-language name ("Estados Unidos Mexicano") contains that exact phrase. —David Levy 21:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Its to bad we follow wikirules for this rather the what everyone keeps saying - you would think that after all this time and all the people that bring it up it would have been moved by now. Whats the problem with the full name for the article and the redirect the short form? How many more times does this need to come up before editors finlay fix a problem that our readers keep bring up. To outsiders the title looks non scholarly and not what one would expect from an encyclopedia. Thus far the name has only lead to countless biting of new editors. If the article was the other way around no one would bring this point up. Moxy (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Its to bad we follow wikirules for this rather the what everyone keeps saying

"Wikirules" (as though we're doing something unusual)? "Everyone"?

- you would think that after all this time and all the people that bring it up it would have been moved by now.

That users (most of whom don't bother to read past discussions) continually raise the issue has no bearing on which outcome is best.

As I noted, when I first encountered the article, I was curious as to why its title wasn't "United States of America". But instead of rushing to complain, I availed myself of the explanations and realized that "United States" makes sense.

Whats the problem with the full name for the article and the redirect the short form?

Please see WP:HEAR.

Thus far the name has only lead to countless biting of new editors.

Asking newcomers to read past discussions instead of rehashing points for the umpteenth time doesn't constitute "biting" (unless rude wording is used).

If the article was the other way around no one would bring this point up.

I suspect that fewer discussions would arise, but I don't believe that no one would wonder why this article's title was inconsistent with those of most other countries' articles. —David Levy 22:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes WP:HEAR is a good link - So many talks on the matter you would think that those that follow our policy like a religion would understand that every 2 months this comes up because there is a problem. Right by our policy - but not to the average reader. How many more times will this come up before all see we have a problem that can easily be solved. So again I ask what would be the problem with the full title and a redirect? 23:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Now you're ignoring both the discussion as a whole and most of my reply to you. —David Levy 00:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

O well - I see there is no solution here just repeating the same arguments over and over with no solution. See you all next month and the month after that etc.. I realy dont think most understand the problem this cause all over Wiki - as seen here Moxy (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

O well - I see there is no solution here just repeating the same arguments over and over with no solution.

The solution is to stop repeating the same arguments over and over (and refusing to acknowledge others' input).

I realy dont think most understand the problem this cause all over Wiki - as seen here

What "problem" is that supposed to illustrate? Editors disagreeing on matters of style? —David Levy 18:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes Failure or refusal to "get the point" is the problem - how many more times will this come up before we simply do the obvious thing over having this argument over and over. It took 5 years to fix Yogurt after all the non editors complainants we finally fixed it and the debate stooped. Do you not think this is non productive to have this talk every 2 months? Moxy (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes Failure or refusal to "get the point" is the problem

The arguments for changing the article's title to "United States of America" have been acknowledged and addressed repeatedly. You're asking questions to which answers have been provided (both above and in previous discussions).

- how many more times will this come up before we simply do the obvious thing over having this argument over and over.

The quantity of times the issue is raised has no bearing on the complaints' validity. We don't rename articles to appease people.

We wouldn't need to have the same argument over and over if more users would bother reading the past discussions before starting new ones.

Do you not think this is non productive to have this talk every 2 months?

This is what I mean. In the above discussion, I've plainly stated — several times — that it's non-productive. Why do you keep disregarding others' input? —David Levy 21:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I dont think you get it at all - we here are the ones disregarding others' input (by closing these talks over and)over - Since 2006 we have been pointing to a consensus basically telling everyone that a talk from 6 years ago is set in concrete. We close the talks muting new input, thus disregarding others' input. So what we are doing is telling our editors that the topic is not up for discussion. WP:TALKEDABOUTIT is a policy and one that should be understood over closing the talk every time.Moxy (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Since 2006 we have been pointing to a consensus basically telling everyone that a talk from 6 years ago is set in concrete.

That simply isn't true. The issue had been revisited many times. It appears that the most recent formal move request was made in 2010 (though additional discussion has occurred since).

I await your explanation of why you asked me whether I hold a view that I repeatedly expressed above. —David Levy 03:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Pls just look at the FAQ (2006) is the link and 2010 is long ago. PS what view are you talking about? Pls judt dont close this agian so fast - pls allow our editors to express there oppnions on what they believe will inprove the article.Moxy (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Pls just look at the FAQ (2006) is the link

The FAQ's outdatedness was noted in the above discussion.

and 2010 is long ago.

Again, a great deal of relevant discussion has occurred since then. You participated in some of it.

PS what view are you talking about?

You asked: "Do you not think this is non productive to have this talk every 2 months?" In the above discussion, I plainly stated — several times — that it's non-productive.

Pls judt dont close this agian so fast - pls allow our editors to express there oppnions on what they believe will inprove the article.

I addressed this issue as well. Why are you blindly adding comments to a discussion that you evidently haven't read? —David Levy 19:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok so we are clear - in the future you will allow some comments before closing. As seen above the closer was way to fast.Moxy (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you still ignoring the above messages?

If a thread merely duplicates past discussion that its initiator didn't bother to read, it can and should be closed. As stated 3.5 weeks ago, in the future, I'll provide a more thorough explanation (to avoid implying that the matter is permanently settled and mustn't be revisited in an informed context). —David Levy 19:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Commonwealth vs. state

Yes, VA, MA, KY, and PA are technically not states, as they do not use that title, but are actually state-equivalent commonwealths (this book says). On this and most articles, however, they are referred to as states. Any thoughts? Listroiderbob (talk · contribs) 03:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

They're states that use commonwealth in their title. Hot Stop 03:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think all "commonwealths" are named (a) derivatively as KY, or

- (b) in the time of chartering as colonies, related to a Protestant movement in England or

- (c) the influence of the Enlightenment's John Locke on a royal British "Missionary" Board, or

- (d) in colonial legislatures whose politics mirrored that of anti-Stuart Oliver Cromwell's "Commonwealth" of England. But I am not sure which goes with what.

I do know of both official Virginia and U.S. documents can style Virginia, the "State of Virginia", and that the PEOPLE of the United States made ALL its constituent parts equally "states" in both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Listroiderbob (talk · contribs) 02:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

References

I see this has been renominated for GA status. Some references have been added since the delisting, but there are still a lot missing, particularly in the history section. Are there plans to add more references before someone picks up the review, because I think it would be unlikely to pass without them. AIRcorn (talk)

here's a reference, help section. overcrowded refernce. i hope that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.127.222.98 (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Leifur Eríksson

This page should discuss Leifur Eiríksson's discovery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ice-72 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Columbus is notable not just for finding the Americas, but also bringing back word of it and causing further voyages. Ericson's influence, while notable, is vastly minimal in comparison. The first European contact with U.S. soil happened because of Columbus, not Ericson. --Golbez (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Religion

Do we have to make the religion section sound so anti-religious?? Yes, christianity has gone down in America in the last two decades and the levels of non-religious, but the wording sounds so anti-religious. The article also makes it sound like the non-religious people are all atheist, and that isn't the fact. A lot of these people believe in God, they just don't like organized religion.

Also, do we really have to have that part about Americans under 30. Once again, that makes 30s sound old or middle age. That is a stigma that needs to change here in the 21st century. Even wikipedia's article on young adult includes ages 30-39: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_adult_(psychology)Bjoh249 (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicity of Obama

There is a section in the article which describes Obama as the first African American president. This is misleading, and I believe, untrue. African American refers to a distinct group of people descended from slaves brought from Africa. Obama's father is from Africa, and his mother is caucasain. He is of mixed race, and although he has 50% African ancestry, he is by no means African American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.134.132.118 (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

From the African American article: "African Americans or African-American people (also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans, and formerly as American Negroes) are citizens or residents of the United States who have total or significant partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa. The term is not usually used for black residents of other countries in the Americas." 50% (or more depending on his mother's complete ancestry) more then qualifies Obama's use of the term. 24.74.27.155 (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with IP-155. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

As has been shown by many, such as Henry Louis Gates, virtually every African American in the US has a significant European ancestry, due to intermarriage and slave owner/slave children. Indeed, he has even found examples of individuals who believed themselves to be "pure blood" African descendant and were more than 50% European. That is a reality for the entire African American population; let's not start making a "no true scotsman" fallacy. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Citing a wikipedia article to support a possible fallacy in another wikipedia article seems inadequate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.134.132.118 (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet it is more citation than you have provided. --Golbez (talk) 02:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Morgan Freeman: "They just conveniently forget that Barack had a mama, and she was white - very white American, Kansas, middle America," the Oscar winner continued. "There was no argument about who he is or what he is. America's first black president hasn't arisen yet. He's not America's first black president - he's America's first mixed-race president." http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/06/morgan-freeman-obamas-not-our-first-black-president/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.134.132.118 (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Turning point in the US politics

I added a paragraph about replacing WASP by non-WASP in the US politic. I think it deserves to mention. However I could not find better source for this fact. Seyyed(t-c) 16:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Original research

the first ten amendments, which make up the Bill of Rights, and the Fourteenth Amendment form the central basis of Americans' individual rights.

The above clause is good information, but I also feel it is unsourced original research. I wanted to see if other users agreed before removing it. Us441(talk)(contribs) 18:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Republic of Texas Annex 1945!?

now I'm no scholar of American history, im not even an american, but I'm pretty sure that Texas joined the US of A sometime BEFORE the end of WW2! The article for the annex of texas says its 1845 which seems a lot less insane! Obviously some prankster, probably from 4chan has changed it from 1845 to 1945! I'm guessing a whole load of kids are gonna be getting Fs on their history test because of this! I'm going to edit it, unless anyone has any objections I'm NOT going to edit it because honestly I think it's funny that it's there and I wanna see how long until somebody else notices! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.126.25.46 (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Corrected, thanks. SG²⁰⁹⁰ 01:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Alaska

Can some one stick the bit on Alaska in the lead into a separate sentence. Currently it reads as if the purchase of Alaska was a direct result of the Mexican American war which while an interesting historical theory probably wasn't intended. Maybe something like "the region of Alaska was purchased off Russia in 1867." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awnman (talk • contribs) 10:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I split the sentence. --Golbez (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

categories

someone took away every usa category except 2, no one has seemed to bring them back, please bring them back. --Ty Rezac (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Health section

Infant mortality rate in the US is clearly higher than in most developed nations. It is even higher than in Cuba. This should be mentioned in more detail in the article. I think most people will agree that it is a fundamental issue!. It shows one of the contradictions of the American system, leader in many things and third world like in basic things like taking care of their children. Life expectancy is also poor compared to developed nations. These things should be elaborated more as they are of the utmost importance. Or we think that per capita income is more important than infant mortality rates? Maybe that is what some dominating interest groups want us to believe!. coon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.203.72 (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That's only true if you believe the official Cuban government statistics, which are dubious to say the least. As Humberto Fontova points out, the mortality rate of Cuban children aged one to four years is 34% higher than the US (11.8 versus 8.8 per 1,000) and the maternal mortality rate in Cuba is almost four times that of the US rate (33 versus 8.4 per 1,000). While these figures aren't factored into "official" reports on "infant mortality rates", it's hard to imagine that so many mothers and young children could be dying and that the infant mortality could really be so low. Of course, totalitarian societies don't allow impartial investigation. Not only is Cuba's infant mortality rate probably significantly higher than that of the US, it is kept low by an amazingly high abortion rate of 0.71 abortions per live birth. Cuba already had a lower infant mortality rate than France, Belgium, West Germany, Israel, Japan, Austria, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and all of Latin America in 1958 (we never hear the liberal media praise Batista for "doing some good things for his people").TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That does not change the basic facts. Even if we do not trust Cuba, which is reasonable since it is a dictatorship, the USA still have a clearly higher infant mortality rate than most developed nations and its life expectancy rate is also quite lower that it would be expected in that comparison.

In fact if we take the data from the elaborated by the United States themselves through the CIA factbook, the United States have a mortality rate that is typical of developing nations. Here you have a list from worst to better rates:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

As to life expectancy, it is again surprisingly low, in comparison with developed nations. See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/13/usa.ewenmacaskill

And here again:

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

Where the US life expectancy ranks 38 in the world, close again lo levels of developing nations. Still, some people want us to believe that per capita income is more important than these rates. Anyone with half a brain knows that is not true and that these are much more important measures of the well being of a nation. Therefore, again, more should be devoted to these issues and not just a swift and short reference in the article. Coon. Coon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.203.72 (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

If anything, the "greater detail" that should accompany the current mention of the cherry-picked stat is that the CDC says the slightly higher US infant mortality rate is due to a higher level of premature births, there being a strong correlation between premature births and teenage pregnancy and the US having a significantly higher rate of teenage pregnancies, but that premature babies are more likely to survive in the US than they are in Europe.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23.htm

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2393/10/36

http://www.cdc.gov/TeenPregnancy/AboutTeenPreg.htm

Plus there are also differences in the ways nations count infant mortality. The current sentence is misleading, and would be made more so with your inclusions if bereft of counterpoints.It implies there's lower quality medical care in the US when the opposite is the case, the relatively high American rate resulting from sociological/sub cultural factors. VictorD7 (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

WASP!

I saw a paragraph at the bottom of the government section that referred to whites protestant men as WASP. Wikipedia says itself that is derogatory word, and there are also a lot of grammar mistakes from whoever wrote that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.126.101 (talk) 05:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's factually incorrect, as Kennedy was not a protestant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.24.91.140 (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably not Anglo Saxon either. He is much more likely to have had Celtic ancestry. That line is pretty inaccurate. But where does Wikipedia say WASP is derogatory? HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The Phillipines

Add and Annexed the Philippines to the end of the sentance regarding the Spanish american war Awnman (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The full content of this needs to be discussed and worked on first, but I agree, it is off to mention PR and Guam and not the Philippines. How about: "... ceded Puerto Rico and Guam, as well as the Philippines, which later became independent."? --Golbez (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Well no one discussed so I'm trying it out. --Golbez (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Go for it, just spell it right. Carptrash (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Colonial war?

The Revolutionary War was hardly a colonial war. The colonists were British settlers, not natives of North America. (92.7.26.36 (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC))

- I would distinguish between “British settlers” and “British subjects”. Your use of the word “colonial” might connote “indigenous population” separating from imperial dominion by another nation of people. The inhabitants of the British colonies in North America that would become the U.S. were NOT ethnically the same English “nation” as the governing population. Some scholars trace an English genealogy of half of the “founding fathers”, then use that aggregate to extrapolate to the whole. Scholars with your emphasis treat the American Revolution as a kind of British civil war, the "War of American Independence".

- But Americans differ from the British historical treatment in more ways than simply denominating the event as “The Revolution”. Representatives of “one nation” of North American people(s) would separate from the British Empire to govern themselves by their own election, then by force of arms.

- The ideological revolution is NOT that the “sovereign” is the king, and the people his servant. That is turned upside down in a revolution to be that the PEOPLE are sovereign and the king is the servant. The revolutionaries will form a republic. But unlike Cromwell’s commonwealth republic based on a state religion, religion took second place to Enlightenment liberties and commercial enterprise. The most democratic were the most prosperous, they were the most religiously tolerant in Quaker Philadelphia. Prosperous farmers living on adjacent farms famously drove out their lanes on Sunday and turned in different directions to go to different churches in America. (This same phenomenon is apparent today among American Shi'a and Sunni citizens who live and work and vote at peace with their neighbors of all faiths.)

- The social revolution is NOT following the British imperial example recreating the English dominion over and exclusion of ethnic minority Scots, or non-state religions -- as the Spanish hidalgos directly descended from conquistadors did later, elsewhere. That is turned upside down in the American Revolution with English, Scots, protestant Irish, French, Swedes, German and Swiss intermarrying, property owning and voting under the English representative parliamentary forms which changed with population settlement changes, regardless of inhabitant ethnicity or religion.

---In frontier Virginia for instance, this led to a majority Scottish-born Presbyterian vestry in some Anglican parishes in frontier Virginia, since the imperial colonial board required establishment of an Anglican parish before the creation of a county with resident voters represented in the colonial General Assembly. While only Anglicans and Presbyterians could hold office, as a matter of practice, Methodists and Baptists did congregate and vote, an fact of life in Albemarle County of which Thomas Jefferson was particularly proud. Virginia would be a leader among the Anglican-state governments to disestablish an official religion like Pennsylvania had before it.

- The political revolution was that the overseas rulers would be expelled by those ruled in mother-country colonies in the first successful “colonial war”. As such, the term should be used in this article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Health – Proposed Innovation addition

The Health section consists of two paragraphs, the first describing how unhealthy Americans are and the second, larger one about how the US spends more on healthcare than anyone else and doesn’t have everyone insured, unlike “all other developed countries.” The section implicitly conflates population health with healthcare, two very distinct issues, and nowhere is there any mention of actual medical care quality or even any potential benefits from this extra cost.

To start redressing this, I propose the following paragraph be placed between or after the existing ones:

"The US leads the world in medical innovation. America solely developed or contributed significantly to 9 of the top 10 most important medical innovations since 1975 as ranked by a 2001 poll of physicians, while the EU and Switzerland together contributed to 5. Since 1966 Americans have received more Nobel Prizes in Medicine than the rest of the world combined. From 1989 to 2002 four times more money was invested in private biotechnology companies in America than in Europe."

Sources/links

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/business/05scene.html?_r=0

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/bending-productivity-curve-why-america-leads-world-medical-innovation

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

That the US shoulders most of the burden for global medical advancement is a salient fact this article omits to its detriment. Adding this paragraph or one like it would provide needed enlightenment, making the article read more like an encyclopedia and less like a one sided polemic. In fact it's astonishing that the only mention of "Nobel Prize" on the current page regards Literature, a category where awards are obviously far more subjective and where the US track record is nowhere near as notable as its dominance of the hard science awards has been. This must be corrected. VictorD7 (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

- Think. Think. Think. Who was it who said that every PhD diploma should have a green card stapled to it? My Germans can beat your Germans, like in the space race, my Chinese can beat your Chinese, like in ceramic super-conductors, etc. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

What's your point? Are you trying to argue that it's somehow not notable that American society is responsible for the lion's share of hard science innovation over the past half century, including in medicine, because some scientists were born overseas (most weren't, btw, and most of the immigrants in question became naturalized US citizens, not that any of that would have supported such an argument), or are you agreeing that it's absurd that the current article's only mention of the term "Nobel Prize" is in regards to literature? Hopefully you don't think it's appropriate for the US page to have a "Health Section" entirely devoted to attacking alleged deficiencies. That's hardly standard. Many nations' pages, including Canada's, don't even have a "Health" section. Most I sampled a while back didn't even mention the terms "infant mortality" or "life expectancy" anywhere on the page. If you oppose adding this true and clearly notable paragraph, or at least an alternative one like it, then I suggest just deleting the "Health" section and adding a line about the semi-private nature of the US system to the body elsewhere, possibly under Economy. That would save space. VictorD7 (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

- (a) My point is to support your edit and your sense of the topic's importance. (b) PhDs do become naturalized, and although Bill Gates has complained about loosing some recruits who were unwillingly repatriated to their native country, I believe the most recent figures show that annually, the U.S. has more LEGAL immigration than all other nations combined. This the one reason why the U.S. civilization does not mimic other Toynbee-like historical arcs. The Roman republic granted honorary citizenship to aliens who did the state great service, but the citizenship did not pass to their children. The Greek democracies held citizenship came from the SOIL. That is the U.S. model. But I digress. (c) The American goal of individual self-sufficiency and independence includes expectations of health, education, employment and career choice, home ownership, retirement, and enlarged opportunity for one's children. I like the separate section for health. (d) I like the emphasis on outcomes reflected in infant mortality and life expectancy. It bypasses unquantifiable effects of policy, never mind partisan hobbyhorses. (e) There are many paths to a goal.The semi-private nature of the US system is useful to point out -- as I understand it, the U.S. system is related to that used in Switzerland and the Netherlands, NOT that found in Britain, France or Germany. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, and your points on the value of extending citizenship to useful immigrants are well taken. If no one provides any rational objections I'll probably add the edit soon.VictorD7 (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The Health section could be expanded, yes. The only issue I'm not sure about is whether that information is more relevant to the 'Health' section or the 'Science & Technology' section. I would think Nobel prize information says more about the scientific/research resources of America than about the health of Americans. I'm also not sure about saying "leads the world in medical innovation" at the beginning because I think the reader should be allowed to come to that conclusion themselves by reading the information. But overall I do think that information is interesting and worth mentioning. TreboniusArtorius (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think medical innovation is at least as important to "Health" as extensive discussion of insurance coverage is. There has to be something worthwhile for insurance to buy or "coverage" does little good. Someone skipping down to the "Health" section would get one and not the other if the innovation segment was tucked somewhere else. "Leads the world in medical innovation" is a general statement with an element of judgement, but this article and frankly encyclopedias in general are full of such lines. I think it's only a problem if there isn't an overwhelming supporting basis for it. Some examples in the current article include calling the US "a leading economic, political, and cultural force in the world", saying "Personal transportation is dominated by automobiles", claiming "The United States has a very diverse population", etc. That said, I'm willing to consider changing it to "The US is a global leader in medical innovation".VictorD7 (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Captions with historic context

- ‘Mayflower’ caption now refers to the historical significance found in the Mayflower Compact versus provenance of the objet d’art.

- Committee presenting Declaration of Independence caption now refers to the rationale found in the document itself. I left the link to the objet d’art article as written by the previous editor, where there is a link to the document article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Except as written, it reads like "this is a photo of the Mayflower taken in 1620". --Golbez (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

- The caption intro reads, “The Mayflower transported Pilgrims, 1620.” Clicking on the image brings the image description: "Mayflower in Plymouth Harbor," by William Halsall, 1882 at Pilgrim Hall Museum, Plymouth, Massachusetts, USA. Descriptive information of an image is not required in article captions.

- Rather a good caption at WP: CAPTION says, “A good caption (1) “clearly IDENTIFIES the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious” [the 19th C. oil painting of a 17th C. event is not a 21st C. photo], (2) “is SUCCINCT”, [which precludes imaging on this article page, the image description found on the image source page],

- (3) “establishes the picture's RELEVANCE to the article”, [which is apart from the painter or the date, likewise photos are not all captioned with the photographer and the later date after the event on which the film was processed], (4) “provides CONTEXT for the picture”, [which requires linking the image to events of the time portrayed in the image, not the time of the image creation].

- In the Credits section, we are directed, “Unless relevant to the subject, DO NOT CREDIT THE IMAGE AUTHOR or copyright holder in the article.” In the 'Mayflower transports' instance, the reader is not in danger of believing Wikipedia is passing off the image of a nineteenth century oil canvass depicting a seventeenth century event as a twenty-first century photograph. In my opinion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

"The Mayflower transported Pilgrims, 1620" is not a sentence, it is at best a sentence with a fragment added. If that weren't in a caption it would be reverted instantly, and I see no reason for captions to not follow the general rules of English. --Golbez (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

- At WP:CAPTION.1.1.6 Wording we see "Most captions are NOT grammatically complete sentences, but extended noun phrases". and I see no reason for WP articles not to follow WP style.

--and, I still think your animated map sequencing the states -- with secession resolves, membership into C.S. Congress, and in and out and in U.S. Congress, U.S. military-district governance and delegations permanently restored to the U.S. Congress -- all of which is dated by reliable sources without original research -- is the best idea ever, we worked together on it for over a month -- for use at either 'American Civil War' or 'Confederate States of America' or both -- whenever you say it is ready. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

- @ Golbez. fixing what the author stubbornly won't admit is broken misses the point of collaborative writing. Nothing has to be broken for you to amend -- improve -- another editor's earlier draft.

- the general reader knows Pilgrims, Thanksgiving, turkey, cranberries, New England. The caption-link Pilgrims establishes the place as New England, as does the accompanying text. One of the competing elements of a "good caption" is conciseness.

- A four-line caption of complete sentences is not concise per WP:CAPTION 1.1.6 Wording. Generally, extended lines of caption can impact the view in a large-frame browser.

- BUT (a) increasing the pixel size allows for your amendment without sacrificing image compactness, (b) it does not exceed the general guideline of 300 px, SO that is what I'd like to try collaborating with you for draft #4 of the 'Mayflower' caption.

- However, the Infobox notes do bleed considerably down into the opening section, and are uncharacteristically long, better suited to the Notes section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

"Controversial" label bias; some policies but not others.

The qualifier "controversial" is attached to the initiation of the Iraq war, but the sentence on Obamacare, the most controversial issue raging in the US over the past few years, simply states with matter of fact certainty what the law allegedly "will" do without any mention or hint of this swirling controversy. That's despite the Iraq war initially having significant bipartisan support and majority American support in polls for the first few years, while Obamacare was passed along party lines, has been consistently unpopular in the polls (most still favor repeal), has been the subject of numerous court challenges (including a 5-4 SCOTUS decision that reportedly saw the swing vote change his mind at one point and that struck part of the law down), has had enormous electoral impact, and is arguably the most important issue in the current election cycle. If anything Obamacare has been more controversial than the launch of the Iraq war was, at least in the US context, but it's fair to apply the qualifier to both. Or neither. I'm fine either way, but we shouldn't tolerate double standards.

When I added the edit acknowledging the ongoing controversy over Obamacare it was reverted by an Australian editor whose own user page boasts about his anti-American/anti-Christian agenda and marks him as a troll, and who characterized most Americans as "nuts" in this exchange, supposedly because it represented "pov". Alright. So I shifted to the Iraq sentence, and replaced "the Bush administration began to press for regime change in Iraq on controversial grounds" with "the Bush administration began to press for regime change in Iraq on a wide array of grounds", preserving the same embedded link to the page titled "Rationale for Iraq War", which, indeed, lays out a wide array of grounds. Less pov that way. That was reverted by the same editor, and his move was supported by Golbez, who simply stated that it's a "fact" that the Iraq war's initiation was "controversial".

I'd like to change this sentence...

"Federal legislation passed in early 2010 will create a near-universal health insurance system around the country by 2014."

...to this (or one like it)...

"Federal legislation passed in early 2010 would ostensibly create a near-universal health insurance system around the country by 2014, though the bill and its ultimate impact are issues of controversy." Sources (if necessary):

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/repeal_of_health_care_law_favoroppose-1947.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/29/debate-on-obamacare-to-intensify-in-wake-landmark-supreme-court-ruling/

Or, if that's deemed unacceptable, make the aforementioned change to the Iraq phrase. Either way I'd love for someone to explain why attaching the word "controversial" to one policy is supposedly unacceptable "pov", but attaching it to another is "fact". The only significant discernible difference seems to be that the editors in question personally favor one policy while opposing the other. That's the type of bias Wikipedia needs to clean up if it wants people to stop seeing this site as a joke.VictorD7 (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

If you really want to change it, I suggest we remove the rationale part - just say "began to press for regime change in Iraq." You changed a valid sentence to something that was less valid in wording. And yes, it is a fact that the Iraq War and its rationale are controversial. It's also a fact that PPACA is controversial. It's also a fact that most laws passed are controversial; shall we list all of them? Every single gun bill is controversial, for example. The purchase of Alaska was controversial. In some circles, the license plates the District of Columbia uses are controversial. However, in this case, it's noted as controversial because it led to the deaths or murders of well over a hundred thousand people, so maybe some perspective is required here. So maybe we say nothing is controversial or we say everything is, but don't go off on a hissy fit about "If you get yours then I get mine!" No, you discuss when making an edit that people disagree with. You don't go and revert it, or make a counter edit without discussion. The consensus is with the original version, it is required upon you to justify your changes if they are reverted rather than continue an edit war. --Golbez (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

This argument from Golbez is different from his earlier failure to understand VictorD7's edit summary. However, the human cost of the Iraq war has to be weighed against the potential human cost of leaving Saddam Hussein and his sons in power indefinitely, and the potential human cost that would have followed the inevitable (if prolonged) collapse of their totalitarian regime. (This is before we consider the fact that insurgents were responsible for 80% of the civilian casualties, in both Iraq and Afghanistan). The suggestion that the PPACA has no human cost, further, is by no means certain. I've followed this entire debate since Yesterday, and it seems that VictorD7 has been called a liar for his edit summaries and personally attacked by HiLo on his user page, but even Golbez now agrees that some changes may be in order.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad someone was paying attention. VictorD7 (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

First, why was the change any "less valid" than the previous version? There was a wide array of reasons for regime change given. You don't have to agree with the policy to acknowledge that. Second, I agree that many things are "controversial", and indeed wars are inherently controversial. Leaving aside for now your characterization of losses without mention of potential gains or lives saved in the long run by ousting Hussein's regime, why single out one recent war with a far lower body count than some others listed in this article? Should we attach the word "controversy" to WW1, the Philippines insurrection, WW2, the dropping of the atomic bombs, etc? And some on both sides of the healthcare debate would argue that far more than 100k lives are at stake. Certainly millions more people are directly impacted. Do you see how your own subjective views are influencing your judgment and "perspective" here? Third, it's better to leave the link to the rationale for regime change in than exclude it, as deleting any mention of reason would create a bizarre, stunted sentence without explanation, but you've failed to explain your objection to the more neutral, and frankly slightly more informative version in my proposed change. Fourth, does your acknowledgement that Obamacare is controversial mean you'd support the change to that sentence? If so, the Iraq debate becomes moot as I'm not the one pushing for a double standard. The bill is more controversial than any other legislation passed over the past four years, and would fundamentally transform the type of nation America is, so don't try to diminish the level of controversy surrounding it. Fifth, you again falsely accused me of misrepresenting my edit summary, when I just explained to you that I wasn't referring to an "original version", but just the earlier issue (healthcare instead of Iraq). That said, the only changes I made to my earlier attempt was to add sources and streamline the edit. I'm sure you just misunderstood me, but don't persist in what started as a misunderstanding. Sixth, don't cry about hissy fits when you went out of your way to intervene in a phantom "edit war" that seemed to be already over. Many changes occur on this page without being submitted to the Talk Page first and other reverts are undone without you jumping in (the "two party system" thing is a recent example off the top of my head, being reversed and put back in multiple times), so clearly you had strong feelings on this issue. I'd ask that you also have an open mind. VictorD7 (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

"First, why was the change any "less valid" than the previous version?" Because it was poor English, shoehorned to fit the previous format. Arguing policy ITT. also lol intervene in an edit war that was "nearly over", which is of course why you reverted me. Shrug, fine, play with the article, I'm just here to keep people like you from trying to rename it. Noted on my misinterpretation of your summary though, sorry about that one. --Golbez (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Striking comments written in poor taste due to being in a bad mood. Wikipedia does that to me lately. --Golbez (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your aesthetic judgment, but am always open to alternative wording suggestions. I reverted you so I could respond to your charge that I had misrepresented something, and did so explicitly acknowledging that you'd revert me and that I was moving to the Talk Page to hash this out. I do think page consistency is a legitimate issue, especially when it comes to standards for what's considered unacceptable "pov". VictorD7 (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, I don't agree with the OP's description of me. Rather than being anti-American and anti-Christian, I like to think my perspective is global, rather than just an American or Christian one. (This IS a global encyclopaedia, not just an American one.) This dispute was about describing items in terms of internal American perspectives, rather than how the other 95% of the world's population see them. The Iraq war WAS controversial around most of the world. Universal health care isn't. The opposition to it within the US is what everyone else sees as weird. THAT was the point I tried to make right from the start, but I just got howled down, bullied and abused. HiLo48 (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

"Anti" means against or opposed to, and you're anti-American enough that you went of your way to feature opposition to American editors as your mission statement on your user page, complaining about US spelling style and claiming, among other things, that the country's reputation had allegedly been damaged by its interpretation of the Bible. You also dismissed most Americans as "nuts" in the edit summary exchange, and went to my personal talk page to claim that I'm the kind of person responsible for the rest of the world seeing Americans as "ignorant, arrogant, US-centric pricks". After I calmly punched holes in your argument (such as it was), you complained that I was "bullying" you. Okaaaaay. Your perspective isn't any more "global" than mine is. The typical non-American knows nothing about Obamacare beyond maybe a sound bite or two, and is more consumed with problems closer to home. Those few who do follow it closely know it's the most controversial issue raging in the country, which clearly deserves a mention on the United States page. Regardless, scale wouldn't magically transform the word "controversial" from unacceptable "pov" to required "fact". VictorD7 (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

^^^ Complete misrepresentation ^^^ HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

False. There's no point in being dishonest. Anyone can see your quotes.VictorD7 (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree; HiLo, there are many hills to fight for, trying to say you haven't had something against America all over this site isn't one of them. Yield it and move on. --Golbez (talk) 04:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Silly, shallow comments. Anyone who has total love for everything about any country is a very sick puppy indeed. Of course I have found fault with some aspects of the USA. I often find fault with aspects of my own country. Neither position is a sin. HiLo48 (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, because the two options are "total love for your country" and your obvious distaste for America and Americans. There's no middle ground, no sirree. --Golbez (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing that's meant to be some form of sarcasm, but it's lost me. Words are all we have here. If you cannot be concise and clear, you have no case. Probably better that you stop being so worried about the fact that the whole world doesn't love all that your country does. You don't need to worry about it, you know. Believing in what you beleive shouldn't depend on beating everyone else around the head until they believe it too. HiLo48 (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Stop being deliberately obtuse. You were criticized because you obvious have a problem with America[ns] and your edits and interactions belie this. Then you said, and I quote, "Anyone who has total love for everything about any country is a very sick puppy indeed.". So you were saying, if someone points out how bad your statements are, they're some freak who loves everything about America. Or is there some other meaning for your otherwise meaningless edit summary? --Golbez (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You say "you obvious have a problem with America[ns]" (sic). I have a problem with anyone who says and does dumb or arrogant things when they should know better, Americans included. I also have the courage to point out such things. HiLo48 (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Really? His response was lost on you? Golbez concisely said the same thing I would have. We aren't talking about someone having "total love for everything" about a country (which no one does), but rather your obsessive opposition to another country. You're Australian, but almost your entire user page is dedicated to critiquing the US, lol. Frankly I've seen no evidence that you're qualified to comment with authority on what's allegedly "dumb" or "arrogant".VictorD7 (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

There some blatant personal attacks being delivered here. I won't play that game. I also hate reporting anyone for anything, very rarely do, and won't here. Goodbye. HiLo48 (talk) 06:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Good. Hopefully you retire from that game. VictorD7 (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)