Wikipedia

Talk:United States/Archive 9

< Talk:United States
Latest comment: 19 years ago by Wobble in topic Article title
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Vandalism protection

I know the vandalism is now infrequent, but is it necessary? I don't think so since so many people watch this page anyway... -- AllyUnion (talk) 20:31, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Republicans and religious Jews

Excuse me. In the "Politics" section, the following sentence appears:

The Republicans generally receive more funding and support from business groups, religious Christians and Jews, and rural Americans, while the Democratic party receives more support from labor unions and minority ethnic groups.

In the history, 216.229.90.10 sliced out the phrase "and Jews" and then Mackensen promptly reverted it. Now, I'm a little confused. Historically, when Jews are considered as a voting bloc, they tend to lean Democratic. However, this analysis has always considered Jews as a single ethnic class and not separated out religious Jews from non-religious Jews. Therefore, my question:

Does anyone have evidence that religious Jews tend to vote Republican (or Democratic)?

— DLJessup 21:28, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

Social Issues

I added some more information about the incarceration/prison situation in the US. Feel free to verify if you need to, I tried to include all necessary sources though some of the math you'll have to check yourself :P. --Ben 09:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What about Indians and slaves

I was reading the article and was really surprised that it doesn't mention the fate of Native Americans anywhere (except the state of being of descendants today). Neither does it mention the slavery part of the history (except by using the word enslaved when speaking about slaves' descendants today). I don't want to rush into editing, because may be this issues was already brought forward here and wanted to ask first.

Are these issues considered minor irrelevant details, unworthy of inclusion into the main article? Or is it just an unfortunate omission? Paranoid 01:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pretty much every country at one point had slavery, there were also many that had the original inhabitants forced out of the lands to make way for other people. I don't see why it has to be mentioned. That is a history question, not a current events question.

It is a current events question for those who are still feeling the effects of those events. Fergananim

I just added a bit about slavery and the Civil War to the history. I feel that the Civil War (and by association slavery) caused fundamental changes in America, and it needs to be in the summary. -- Dpark 23:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

Is there something wrong? The infobox doesn't align to the right.--Jerryseinfeld 20:18, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Article title

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Shouldn't this article be properly entitled "United States of America" instead of "United States"? 129.143.4.68

United States → United States of America & United States (disambiguation) → United States

The second half of this proposal was not made sufficiently clear, so it has been added to the title -- Curps 23:27, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The reason is quite simple: I believe that, although the countries should be referred to by their shortened names rather than full, official names, in this context the term United States is highly ambiguous. I believe it would be better to move all of the United States to their respective official names and list them on top of the disambiguation page at United States (after it is moved from United States (disambiguation). Halibutt 19:12, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • You gotta be kidding. You sure you want to open this can of worms again? Oppose. older≠wiser 19:19, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose; While not the official name the United States is a nice little abbreviation which is gonna offend no American - if you change this then you should really change United Kingdom to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland --Neo 19:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
But not as little or as accurate as USA, surely? Oh, and United Kingdom can be UK just like United States of America can be USA.--Alun 20:53, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Supportthe move since it's the country's proper name (but not so formal as to be an affected use), but I wouldn't move the disambiguation page. 98% of the time United States means the U.S. of A. —Michael Z. 2005-01-22 16:54 Z
    • Oppose, since I'm not in favour of making it a disambiguation page. —Michael Z. 2005-01-22 16:54 Z
  • Support, for the reasons Michael Z. cited - Guettarda 19:57, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd be OK with it, despite having adjusted many links from variations, but, looking at United States (disambiguation), I don't see any ambiguity. I guess I oppose unless a stronger case is made for contemporary "ambiguity". And why move it if United States still links there?Oppose both. Still haven't seen a specific case made for any contemporary ambiguity. Niteowlneils 23:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) Niteowlneils 20:03, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: even the disambiguation page has the link [[United States|United States of America]] so that the link shows as "United States of America". I've always promoted the use of official/full names and redirecting common names to it. Ambiguity isn't very valid point since "United States" is pretty ubiquitous to "The United States of America", but I support the move nonetheless. Cburnett 20:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. Definitely not. Proteus (Talk) 20:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Pointless move. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:18, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Please can this be dicussed at the article before a move is requested? violet/riga (t) 21:42, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose because I believe this proposal is being made in extreme bad faith. Not only is it being proposed to move United States → United States of America, but then to also move United States (disambiguation) → United States. In other words, the page at United States would become a disambiguation page. This second proposal is frankly preposterous. The title and introduction of this section did not properly reflect this second proposal at all. Since both moves are being proposed as a package deal, I would urge those who voted to support to reconsider. -- Curps 23:27, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I did not have any hidden agenda, anti-american sentiments or any bad faith when I proposed the move. Please provide any proof for such bad intentions. Or withdraw your comment. As to the reasons why to move the dismabiguation page to United States - I stumbled upon that page while searching for United States of Brasil. Then I realised, that while there are at least three important states to use the term "United States", wikipedia promotes only one of them. IMHO this is simply not right. Please note that I'm not proposing to move the article on the United Mexican States to United States. I only want all country articles to follow the same rules. That's all. Halibutt 09:48, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • See my comments in the separate section below. As to your reasons to move the disambiguation page: it is established Wikipedia practice that when one meaning very greatly predominates in public usage and perception, then we do not detour through a disambiguation page. Please, would you agree to move Poland (disambiguation) to Poland? And which "three important states" are you referring to? "The United States of Europe" is an obsolete proposed name that was never in any actual use, and the new permanent name is European Union. "United States of Brazil" has not been used in 37 years, and was mostly used only in Portuguese and hardly ever in English, and even then only in formal diplomatic usage and never in common usage. As for Mexico, it's called "United Mexican States" in English, not "United States of Mexico", so there is no ambiguity... and as someone has already pointed out, Estados Unidos in Mexican Spanish unambiguously refers to the USA. It is stretching credulity to the limit and beyond to claim that the term "United States" is highly ambiguous, as you do in the introduction to this requested move. -- Curps 22:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons stated. →Raul654 23:32, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless only the first half is done. --SPUI 23:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This would affect many redirects and dependent pages and a huge number of links. Jonathunder 23:56, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
  • Oppose: United States should not be a disambig page. Cburnett 00:26, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Reasons reasonably statated by previous voters. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 02:49, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Reasons stated above. Mackensen (talk) 06:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. This has been covered before, but America is clearly the primary topic for English speakers (and even Spanish speakers; the term Estados Unidos in Mexico refers to the U.S. of A.). ADH (t&m) 06:07, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support both as a package deal or failing that, just the first —Ashley Y 07:29, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
  • Support - though I think that the same should be applied to United Kingdom - Estel (talk) 10:19, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - IMO the ideal situation would be that the page is called United States of America and then United States redirects to it. However the status quo is preferable to this proposal which would cause problems both for linking and for people that type United Status into the search box. There's hardly anybody who would respond to "United States" by saying, "which one?" mattrix 10:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose with extreme prejudice. United States is used unambiguously on literally thousands of pages, which shows there's no need to move the article. And the latter half of the move would mean having to change all of those links to avoid a disambig page, which is beyond stupid. (This vote is intended to be read as an insult.) sjorford:// 16:33, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, unless someone knows of another United States more deserving of the article name. Xezbeth 16:39, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose so much that I also oppose the next page move request made by this user. -- Netoholic @ 16:43, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose. This is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Carrp 16:47, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose there is a clear reference to the disambig page at the top and this creates more problems than it solves Troedel (talk · contribs) 19:23, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • In the proud tradition of John Kerry, I supported the proposal before I opposed it, but given Halibutt's clarification of the proposal, I once again Support the idea. And why not call the country by its proper name? There is some sort of a weird undertone that this is anti-American and thus must be opposed...Actually more than an undertone now that sjorford has written: This vote is intended to be read as an insult. (And the insult is due to what...accuracy? Wikipedia is in bad shape when accuracy falls into second place behind rather odd ideas of nationalism). If it were my country I'd want it have it placed under the correct name. It's not quite the same as putting the UK under The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - it's more like moving the UK to the United Kingdom. Has the shot been called - Don't mess with the US? Shall we soon see Wikipedians disappearing into [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki-Gitmo]. Scary stuff. Weird... Guettarda 20:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The above is a history of the discussion at wikipedia:requested moves.

Bad faith

Halibutt,

At Wikipedia talk:Requested_moves#Need_help you are now claiming that you never proposed the second move (United States (disambiguation) → United States). But this is simply not true.

Let's look at your contributions:

You edited both pages at the exact same time (19:08). You added {{move|United States}} to United States (disambiguation), so that page reads:

So you are indeed proposing United States (disambiguation) → United States, and sending people to comment and vote on it at Wikipedia:Requested moves.

Yet on the Wikipedia:Requested moves page itself, the header reads only:

The header makes no mention of the second move at all, and your intro text mentions the second move only in a disguised and confusing way:

I believe that… in this context the term United States is highly ambiguous. I believe it would be better to move all of the United States to their respective official names and list them on top of the disambiguation page at United States (after it is moved from United States (disambiguation).

You seem to be trying to trick people into voting for something without realizing what they are voting for. This is extreme bad faith.

-- Curps 20:45, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But I did not list that move on the RM for a good reason - I wanted to decide those matters separately, one by one. By changing the vote I proposed you made the users misinterpret my intentions. Full stop. Halibutt 11:19, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
Then why did you add the "move" header to United States (disambiguation) (simultaneously to adding the header to United States) if you did not want this move to be done? Also, your intro text (quoted above) mentioned the second move in a way that certainly seemed to imply that it would be done. If there was indeed confusion about your intentions, you must admit that you yourself greatly contributed to that confusion. Since there is a new vote now, let's move on. -- Curps 21:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New vote: swap "United States" with "United States of America"

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Though the WP:RM was a mangled mess, I'll propose a new vote here. The vote entails:

Consequences:

Support swap

No discussion here, only votes. See below for discussion

  1. Cburnett 22:31, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 22:32, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
  3. Estel (talk) 10:09, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Halibutt 14:40, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ExplorerCDT 15:33, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. SECProto 15:55, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Michael Z. 21:01, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
  8. Heimdal 11:23, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) Acronym "U.S.A." would also do.
  9. Timrollpickering 15:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. Guettarda 19:40, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. Jayjg (talk) 00:59, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  12. Trilobite 06:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) I've never understood why it's at United States.
  13. Refdoc 22:25, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  14. Calmypal 17:44, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Thryduulf 17:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) Like Triolbite, I've always expected it to be at United States of America.
  16. Rainer 10:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) I'm thinking the same as Thryduulf.
  17. Ddye 00:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Oppose swap

No discussion here, only votes. See below for discussion

  1. Proteus (Talk) 10:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Carrp 15:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. sjorford:// 15:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Jonathunder 15:42, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
  6. Use common names. Google just "United States" = 31,700,000 hits — "United States of America" = 10,500,000 hits. -- Netoholic @ 16:50, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
  7. older≠wiser 17:20, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  8. jguk 21:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. violet/riga (t) 21:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. Not unless we move United Kingdom to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Neutralitytalk 21:20, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Jiang 08:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  12. Xezbeth 09:53, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  13. ADH (t&m) 10:59, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Niteowlneils 22:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  15. Minesweeper 03:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  16. Milkmandan 19:06, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  17. Flyers13 22:08, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC). Agree with Neutrality.
  18. –Hajor 20:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC).
  19. Daniel Quinlan 20:34, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  20. Funnyhat 20:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  21. --Jleon 20:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  22. Dpark 19:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) (Late vote, but whatever)
  23. Srl 09:14, 28 May 2005 (UTC) Later vote

Other vote

No discussion here, only votes. See below for discussion

  1. Curps 10:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) (either this or status quo is fine)

Discussion

Another option would be to swap "United States" with "U.S.A.". That would look better, imo. Sorry but "United States" sounds too much like "United Kingdom". 129.143.4.68

I oppose on the grounds that it's far too early for a vote; a change like this could do with a bit more (calm) discussion first. I'm actually fairly neutral on whether this would be a good thing. sjorford:// 15:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • To Netoholic: How many of those "United States" hits on google are for "United States of Mexico" (10,100) or other countries using "United States" in their names? Also, how many of those are for "United States Army" (2,110,000) or "United States Marine Corps" (394,000) or "United States Air Force" (1,130,000) or "United States Navy" (1,020,000), or "United States Department of State" (and other cabinet departments) or other organizations or corporations (United States Steel - 90,700) that just use the "United States" part of the "United States of America"? Or for phrases like "President of the United States" (3,940,000) or "Supreme Court of the United States" (670,000)? Eventually (despite your blanket attempt to say there are more U.S. references than U.S. of A. hits), those totals (like the pennies I so hate to have in my pocket) do add up. —ExplorerCDT 17:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I think your examples (except perhaps Mexico :| ) proove the point. If government stations and military forces don't use "United States of America" in their name, then it is just more evidence that the longer name is not used in common speech or writing - even to the government agencies themselves. The United States self-identifies more frequently using the shorter name. -- Netoholic @ 17:15, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
      • (agreeing with Netoholic--written before he posted the above, but caught in an edit conflict) Formations such as "President of the United States" or "Supreme Court of the United States" (as opposed to "President of the United States of America" or "Supreme Court of the United States of America") should count as evidence for the shortened form. Even if you eliminate all the non-governmental incidents (like U.S. Steel), there'd still be an overwhelming difference. But beyond Google, how about some common sense: if you go to any English-speaking part of the world and ask what "United States" refers to--the response would be nearly unanimous. None of the other "United States" are commonly referred to as such except in limited situations where the context makes the reference clear. older≠wiser 17:20, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • I disagree that google is a good measure of what to name an article. Especially when expanding the name of an article. Searching for "United States" or "United States of America" will still land this article in both result sets. This is the *only* reason given in the convention for caring about search engines and it's null & void. The convention only proposes to use common names to ensure it gets listed on search engines. Again, with this move, this is a null & void point: it will be in both results by same virtue "United States Army" is. Netholic, you're using the naming convention (along with a lot of people I see) for purposes other than intended. Cburnett 21:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • The convention only proposes to use common names to ensure it gets listed on search engines. Nonsense. From the third paragraph of Wikipedia:Naming conventions: Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. No mention whatsoever there of search engines. "United States" is unambiguously recognized by most English-speaking people (and even those with only a limited familiarity with English). "United States" is the simpler name and is easier to link to than "United States of America". older≠wiser 22:05, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
          • What you quoted from WP:NC is a summary and you didn't link to the fuller explanation at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). The first reason listed is for listing on external search engines. Cburnett 22:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
            • While it is not readily apparent, the subpage, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), was originally developed primarily to address the names of people (as can be seen where it is linked to from Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use common names of persons and things). Back in August 2002, Mav created the subpage by transferring and editing the section then labelled "Use common names of persons" [1]. In a later edit, Mav merged what had been a separate section labelled "Use simple titles" into the new Common Names subpage [2]. Although there is certainly some overlap, this is more clearly a case of "use simple titles" rather than strictly "use common names". Adding "of America" does not help to clarify the topic of the article, as "United States" is unambiguous to nearly all speakers of English; it merely makes a longer and more difficult to link to title. While you dismiss WP:NC as merely a summary, it is the primary page and the clearest statement of basic naming conventions. older≠wiser 23:01, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

In addition to 'common names', I'd be extremely reluctant to move any page with more than 500 incoming links, at least until the paging feature is added to the 'what links here' pages. It was only by luck that I found a broken redir to Washington, DC caused by its weak consensus move. Niteowlneils 20:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's a page swap and can't create a double redirect unless there was already one there. Cburnett 21:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, this is incorrect. If there are any redirects to the United States, when that is moved to United States of America, those redirects would become double-redirects and would no longer work. older≠wiser 22:10, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
Imagine my surprise when I entered "United States" into the search category expecting to find an article on the Republic of the United States of Brazil (what Brazil was called pre-1968), and suddenly finding an article about a ragtag collection of 50 states that are scattered across the most southerly third of North America! Let's keep things simple and where people expect to find them, shall we? jguk 21:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Er, the most southerly third of North America includes Mexico and Central America. I've always suspected this newfangled "Wikipedia" thing was unreliable. Or maybe this is indeed something new and notable and we need to create United States (southerly third) and add it to the disambiguation page. I look forward to your original research :-) -- Curps 21:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Mexico's in Central America - North America is Canada, the United States, St Pierre et Miquelon, Greenland and (arguably) Bermuda. Of course, two of the ragtag areas aren't in the southerly third of North America. One's a former outermost province of Russia, and another one, properly called the Sandwich Islands isn't in a continent at all, jguk 22:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Mexico is a Latin American country, but it's definitely in North America. Geophysically speaking, the continent ends at the Panama Canal, so all of Central America is in North America, too. —Michael Z. 2005-01-22 16:54 Z
Central America is in North America, Mexico is not in Central America. e.g. Flora of North America North of Mexico [3]

We have the United States Air Force (USAF) not the United States of America Air Force (USAAF), United States Postal Service (USPS), not United States of America Postal Service (USAPS), President of the United States (POTUS), not President of the United States of America (POTUSA)...even the Constitution itself makes repeated references to the "Congress of the United States" instead of the "Congress of the United States of America". Using "United States" is perfectly correct and most common--Jiang 08:26, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"America", "US", "USA" are all in as common usage as "United States" alone. Why pick one and not the others? The name of the country (or federation, if you prefer) is the United States of America. Isn't accuracy supposed to be of some value in an encyclopaedia? Why is this even an issue? Do the people who are so passionate about this thing want to be called "United Statesians" rather than Americans? Fine with me - I'd be happy to get my continent back. Guettarda 19:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do the people who are so passionate about this thing want to be called "United Statesians" rather than Americans? Actually, I'd rather not be called either, what with being Irish and all. Proteus (Talk) 12:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

United Kingdom does not need to be moved to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Ever heard of the UKGBNI? The full title is so unwieldy that there's not even a decent acronym for it - neither would you hear it often in official speeches. On the other hand, "United States of America" and "U.S.A." are commonly used, and widely referred to. Heimdal 11:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You know, they tend to use, "Miss United States" -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

sounds like good advice to me:) jguk 13:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is a Straw Poll taking place on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves on where votes for "Requested Moves" should be placed. As this page was listed on the RM page and the debate was moved to here, the people who voted here, have practical experience of the issue and you might like to contribute to the straw poll on the RM page. Philip Baird Shearer 11:48, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Quote: Title 28 United States Code Section 3002(15) "United States means - (A) a Federal Corporation. Bouviers: "The republic whose organic law is the constitution adopted by the people of the thirteen states which declared their independence of the government of Great Britain on the fourth day of July, 1776." Richard Fuselier — 216.78.8.110 (talk)

28 USC 3002(15) does not create a legal definition of the term "United States". That subsection simply defines the words "United States" when they are used in that particular chapter of the United States Code. This is simply a way of saving words in the remainder of that chapter of the U.S. Code. Mateo SA | talk 01:53, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Previous archive page is Talk:United States/Archive 8

Next archive page is Talk:United States/Archive 10

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States/Archive_9&oldid=1137286152"