Talk:United States

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Template:VA Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1. How did the article get the way it is? Archives: Article Name, Article Introduction, Human Rights, Culture This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. Detailed discussions which led to the current consensus can be found in the archives of Talk:United States. Several topical talk archives are identified in the infobox to the right. A complete list of talk archives can be found at the top of the Talk:United States page. Q2. Why is the article's name "United States" and not "United States of America"? Isn't United States of America the official name of the U.S.? I would think that United States should redirect to United States of America, not vice versa as is the current case. This has been discussed many times. Please review the summary points below and the discussion archived at the Talk:United States/Name page. The most major discussion showed a lack of consensus to either change the name or leave it as the same, so the name was kept as "United States". If, after reading the following summary points and all the discussion, you wish to ask a question or contribute your opinion to the discussion, then please do so at Talk:United States. The only way that we can be sure of ongoing consensus is if people contribute. Reasons and counterpoints for the article title of "United States": "United States" is in compliance with the Wikipedia "Naming conventions (common names)" guideline portion of the Wikipedia naming conventions policy. The guideline expresses a preference for the most commonly used name, and "United States" is the most commonly used name for the country in television programs (particularly news), newspapers, magazines, books, and legal documents, including the Constitution of the United States. Exceptions to guidelines are allowed. If we used "United States of America", then to be consistent we would have to rename all similar articles. For example, by renaming "United Kingdom" to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" or Mexico to "United Mexican States". Exceptions to guidelines are allowed. Articles are independent from one another. No rule says articles have to copy each other. This argument would be valid only if "United States of America" was a particularly uncommon name for the country. Well-established encyclopedias in the English language appear to generally use a "common name" policy for article titles. More specifically, the following use "United States" for the title of the corresponding article: MSN Encarta, World Book, Encyclopedia Americana, Columbia, Grolier, and the Micropaedia and online versions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. In our effort to make Wikipedia an "encyclopedia of the highest possible quality," (Jimmy Wales, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", March 8, 2005, <wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org>) we would do well to emulate what these well-established encyclopedias do. The Macropaedia version of Britannica uses "United States of America" for its article title. With the reliability, legitimacy, and reputation of all Wikimedia Foundation projects under constant attack, Wikipedia should not hand a weapon to its critics by deviating from the "common name" policy traditionally used by encyclopedias in the English-speaking world. Wikipedia is supposed to be more than just another encyclopedia. Reasons and counterpoints for the article title of "United States of America": It is the country's official name. The country's name is not explicitly defined as such in the Constitution or in the law. The words "United States of America" only appear three times in the Constitution. "United States" appears 51 times by itself, including in the presidential oath or affirmation. The phrase "of America" is arguably just a prepositional phrase that describes the location of the United States and is not actually part of the country's name. The Articles of Confederation explicitly name the country "The United States of America" in article one. While this is no longer binding law, the articles provide clear intent of the founders of the nation to use the name "The United States of America." The whole purpose of the common naming convention is to ease access to the articles through search engines. For this purpose the article name "United States of America" is advantageous over "United States" because it contains the strings "United States of America" and "United States." In this regard, "The United States of America" would be even better as it contains the strings "United States," The United States," "United States of America," and "The United States of America." The purpose of containing more strings is to increase exposure to Wikipedia articles by increasing search rank for more terms. Although "The United States of America" would give you four times more commonly used terms for the United States, the United States article on Wikipedia is already the first result in queries for United States of America, The United States of America, The United States, and of course United States. Q3. Is the United States really the oldest constitutional republic in the world? 1. Isn't San Marino older? Yes. San Marino was founded before the United States and did adopt its basic law on 8 October 1600. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sm.html) Full democracy was attained there with various new electoral laws in the 20th century which augmented rather than amended the existing constitution. 2. How about Switzerland? Yes, but not continuously. The first "constitution" within Switzerland is believed to be the Federal Charter of 1291 and most of modern Switzerland was republican by 1600. After Napoleon and a later civil war, the current constitution was adopted in 1848. Many people in the United States are told it is the oldest republic and has the oldest constitution, however one must use a narrow definition of constitution. Within Wikipedia articles it may be appropriate to add a modifier such as "oldest continuous, federal ..." however it is more useful to explain the strength and influence of the US constitution and political system both domestically and globally. One must also be careful using the word "democratic" due to the limited franchise in early US history and better explain the pioneering expansion of the democratic system and subsequent influence. The component states of the Swiss confederation were mostly oligarchies in the eighteenth century, however, being much more oligarchical than most of the United States, with the exceptions of Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Connecticut. Q4. Why are the Speaker of the House and Chief Justice listed as leaders in the infobox? Shouldn't it just be the President and Vice President? The President, Vice President, Speaker of The House of Representatives, and Chief Justice are stated within the United States Constitution as leaders of their respective branches of government. As the three branches of government are equal, all four leaders get mentioned under the "Government" heading in the infobox. Q5. What is the motto of the United States? There was no de jure motto of the United States until 1956, when "In God We Trust" was made such. Various other unofficial mottos existed before that, most notably "E Pluribus Unum". The debate continues on what "E Pluribus Unum"'s current status is (de facto motto, traditional motto, etc.) but it has been determined that it never was an official motto of the United States. Q6. Is the U.S. really the world's largest economy? The United States was the world's largest national economy from about 1880 and largest by nominal GDP from about 2014, when it surpassed the European Union. China has been larger by Purchasing Power Parity, since about 2016. Q7. Isn't it incorrect to refer to it as "America" or its people as "American"? In English, America (when not preceded by "North", "Central", or "South") almost always refers to the United States. The large super-continent is called the Americas. Q8. Why isn't the treatment of Native Americans given more weight? The article is written in summary style and the sections "Indigenous peoples" and "European colonization" summarize the situation.

United States has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones Date Process Result December 15, 2005 Good article nominee Listed May 7, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 8, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 18, 2006 Peer review Reviewed July 3, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 21, 2006 Peer review Reviewed June 19, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted July 9, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept June 27, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 6, 2009 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Good article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States GA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Countries GA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. North America GA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Template:WP1.0 United States: Government Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 4, 2008.

There is a request, submitted by Tom B, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Very important topic, one of the most visited articles on the encylopedia".

Template:Maintained

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. August 17, 2009.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113Auto-archiving period: 7 days

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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