Talk:United States

Let's get the name of the country right.

How embarassing. Let's at least get the name of the country right! If this wikipedia article is about the country whose name is "The United States of America", then that should also be the article's title (including capitalized "The", not missing "The", and not lower case "the"). Read Article I of the Articles of Confederation here: http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=3&page=transcript# The founders even put the name in quotes, so nobody should get it wrong. This wikipedia article should not be called "United States", because that is not the name of the country. "United States" is only a substitute that is used for convenience because the name is cumbersome. It's basically slang. It's fine for a disambiguation page for "United States" to point here, but here should be "The United States of America". Who agrees? 108.185.45.70 (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

As sources go, using ones with zero legal authority (such as the failed Articles of Confederation) isn't the strongest of supports. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read the FAQs linked at the top of this talk page for the reason why it's located at "United States" and not "The United States of America". --Golbez (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Ignore the trolls. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Concur. Ban them if they come back.--Coolcaesar (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Fallacious appeals to authority are fallacious. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Constitution ratified?

Under Independence and expansion it says that: “After intense debate the United States Constitution was ratified in 1788 by all 13 states. The first Senate, House of Representatives, and president—George Washington—took office in 1789.”

This is not true, Rhode Island did not ratify (and refused to recognize the new federal government - sine the since the Articles of Confederation could only be amended by unanimous vote of all the states) until May 1790.--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm checking the source we're using for that statement. It's apparently a high school history textbook... not ideal. I think the source agrees with you. Page 188 says North Carolina entered the Union in 1789, and Rhode Island in 1790. Page 186 says the Constitution was valid in 1788 when New Hampshire became the ninth to ratify. Someone else want to make this change? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Mendaliv. Nine states were to be sufficient to initiate the new government by the Articles Congress, that was to be true. But also, Articles Congress in session had to certify the state ratification convention results, call on states to elect representatives to New York to begin, then dissolve itself.

_ _ Misunderstanding may arise because under the new Constitution, Amendments are ratified by states apart from congress, president or supreme court. At passage by 2/3 of both houses, and certification of the 3/4 states' ratification in Congress, a proposed Amendment takes effect without further action on the part of any branch of government.

_ _ But before inauguration of Congress under the new Constitution, there was no Constitutional Article V in the Articles of Confederation. [Aside] The new constitution is unanimously adopted in two years, much quicker than the Articles were unanimously ratified. I think it was Maryland that was the last hold out in the first place, and Rhode Island in the second as noted by Lord Don-Jam. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Passage now reads, "Nationalists calling for a much stronger federal government with powers of taxation led the constitutional convention in 1787. After intense debate in state conventions the United States Constitution was ratified in 1788." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I would have ended it with "was ratified in 1788 by 11 of the 13 states." but yours works.--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

ME gusta

That last paragraph in the introduction just before the table of contents makes me feel so accomplished. -Player072, too lazy to sign in --98.109.49.168 (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Spurious text in the middle of the Independence and expansion section

Please see the text in bold below:

Americans' eagerness to expand westward prompted a long series of Indian Wars.[46] The Louisiana Purchase of French-claimed territory under President Thomas Jefferson in 1803 almost doubled the nation's size.[47] The War of 1812, declared against Britain over various grievancnbsp;million people (mostly in Puerto Rico). ^ e. See Time in the United States for details about laws governing time zones in the United States. ^ f. Does not include Insular areas and United States Minor Outlying Islands, which have their own ISO 3166 codes. The War of 1812, declared against Britain over various grievances and fought to a draw, strengthened U.S. nationalism.[48] A series of U.S. military incursions into Florida led Spain to cede it and other Gulf Coast territory in 1819.[49] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.132.172.82 (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Well that's odd. And it's been there for weeks. Removed. Thanks! --Golbez (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 March 2013

Spain set up settlements in California, Texas and New Mexico that were eventually merged into the U.S. There were also some French settlements along the Mississippi River. Sito3 (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You need to make a specific request for an edit. This is not an edit request, it is a statement. --Golbez (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we add language such as,

"In 1607-9, English at Jamestown and Spanish at Santa Fe established permanent settlements later incorporated into the U.S.[note-1] Dutch established trading posts at Albany and New York, French at Quebec, Natchez and New Orleans, Spanish at St. Augustine and Pensacola.[note-2] The European colonial powers ensured the North American continent would be as contested as Africa in a later century."

[Note-1] Kelly, James. et al., Jamestown, Quebec, Santa Fe 2007. ISBN 978-1-588-34241-6, [Note-2] Kennedy, Roger G., Mr. Jefferson's Lost Cause 2004, p.94 ISBN 978-0-195-17607-0.

Editors might enjoy an on-topic look real-quick at tri-fold photo-brochure, Three North American Beginnings Virginia Historical Society Exhibit, 2007-2009. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Does anyone have a source to cough up the Russians at Kodiak for Alaska 1790s? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Should look at the references used at the Russian America or Russian colonization of the Americas article; these sources should work (1, 2, 3). Also, the first permanent European settlement in what is now the United States is St. Augustine, Florida, perhaps that should be mentioned.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I squeezed St. Augustine in the second sentence, as a trading post because of sources. I think simple surveys leave out the nasty business, it was Spanish, Brits take it, convert or die, slaughter, Spaniards retake it, convert or die, slaughter. Also, another free black community of the Atlantic world (Ira Berlin), black regulars in battalions as in New Orleans, escaped American slave maroon communities from Georgia and the Carolinas, etc. Too complicated.

Here is another crack at "encyclopedic style". The text can be re-oriented to "influencing U.S. growth". That would give us nice 3-3 east-west, 3-3 north-south parallelism and touch on Dutch, Spanish, French and Russian actors:

• "Before the United States grew west, early European non-English settlements and trading posts were established in the 1600s and 1700s that would influence its growth. They left their mark in ethnic settlement and competing commercial interests from New Amsterdam, St. Augustine and Quebec in the east, to New Orleans, Santa Fe and Kodiak in the west." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you please supply the diffs for these changes? I don't see them in this article; is it in the History of the United States article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Two-Party system? The line needs to go.

The United States has 56 political parties, and I had a choice of 7 last year during the presidential election. The myth that we only have two parties is absurd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Political scientists show to capture the national government, continental coalitions must be formed to pick up a majority of the House, Senate and presidential Electoral College, contesting all three even in "losing years". Last few cycles, the "National Party System" of the United States seems to have been a Two-Party system in the way candidates ran for office in the House, Senate and Presidential races.

_ _ When 'independents' of your seven parties were elected most recently, they all chose to caucus among one of the two parties in the "Two-Party" system. So we can't say its a "myth" if your own fellas act like it's so. Would you like to expand the article with a couple of sentences on "third parties" or, "local parties in large metro areas"? That would be welcome overall, I think. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

"A two-party system is a system where two major political parties dominate voting in nearly all elections at every level of government and, as a result, all or nearly all elected offices are members of one of the two major parties." That seems to describe the U.S. and even countries such as the UK, where multiple parties regularly win seats. TFD (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with TFD in article and Scientiom at infobox. Scientiom removed from Infobox "government type", [two-party system], noting “this isn’t institutionally entrenched”.

_ _ So Scientiom drops the term from the infobox because "two-party" is not prescriptive. For instance, at the 36th U.S. Congress 1859-61 of 238 total seats, WITHOUT a two-party system to find an operating majority on almost any question including electing a Speaker, the House was divided --- Republicans (former whigs, free soil, anti-masons, know-nothings) 48.5%, Democrats 35%, Opposition (southern former whigs and non-secessionist democrats) 8%, Anti-Lecompton democrats 3.5%, Independent Democrats 3%, Americans (know-nothings) 2%.

_ _ But agree with TFD -- "two-party system" can be left in political sections as descriptive of the U.S. party system currently in operation in the modern U.S. apart from strict constitutional construction. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree completely. The US system is inherently geared to result in a two party dynamic at the national level most of the time, but it's not mandated and doesn't belong in the info box. A description in the body is fine. VictorD7 (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes should only contain unambiguous noncontroversial facts. The same issue came up in an article about a de facto one party state that allowed several junior parties to operate. TFD (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Can TFD please provide us a link of that past discussion, and others like it? Has it fallen in the realm of "common outcomes", or is it a case of it happened there but consensus here...?

That being said, I do see the valid argument of at the national level it is really a two party system, even though multiple smaller parties exist.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Federal republic

I wanted to mention that the lede refered to the US as a Constitutional republic and/or a Federal constitutional republic. But it is a Federal republic and is supported by the reference that was in place. I have added additional sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Is not the United States both a constitutional republic and a federal republic? --Scientiom (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

No. I am not even sure there is such a thing as a constitutional republic. This term seems to have been propagated by partisan politcs to remove the term Federal. The US is verifiably a Federal republic. Ancient Rome was considered a constitutional republic. They didn't have a formal federation of states.....and they never even had a written constitution.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Ancillary comment to Amadscientist. Ancient Roman republic never granted citizenship to those of the empire, citizenship of the soil only to those born on the seven hills tribes which elected Roman senators, in similar manner to Samoan tribe representatives to the territorial legislature in addition to the population-apportioned representatives. Citizens who gave extraordinary service to Rome were granted honorary citizenship, but it did not pass to children as naturalized U.S. citizens in Samoa. Big debate in Articles Congress and Constitutional Convention and first Congresses whether newly admitted states should be provinces or admitted on equal footing with the thirteen original states. Admit as equal citizens in equal states won the votes in convention and in congress. Musings on 'original intent of the founders' notwithstanding, all founders did not have voting majorities to enact.

Aside comment. This article suffers from those who confuse federal polity (government) as in dual national and provincial (state) citizenship, versus 'federal government' as conventionally used in the modern U.S. to mean 'national government'. It is of some tangent interest that Switzerland is a "federal republic" with citizenship of blood, it will not allow citizenship of the soil as in U.S. territories, or even citizenship by one parent of the soil, creating a second-class of residents similar to non-citizen descendants of Koreans in Japan? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Cold War and protest politics

An editor has now twice reverted an addition of an image, removal of an external media file, and re-size of images.

The first reversion had no explanation for the removal.

The editor's second reversion summary states:

Undid revision 543554569 by RightCowLeftCoast (talk) Right Cow, the section is on Protest politics, you removed MLK's protest speech against the Vietnam War. Please leave it.

I will be tagging the section with a POV tag, to only include content about the protest politics gives undue weight to one portion of the content. The other portion of the section is about the U.S. involvement in the Cold War. I thought including the image of Reagan asking for the Berlin Wall to come down is appropriate for the end of that era.

An Administrator, John, has called my edit controversial, why I do not know, nor do I agree. I responded by explaining my reasoning and providing alternative images.

It is my opinion only focusing on MLK Jr. in the external media file and sole image for the section creates an undue weight towards one aspect of that era.

Moreover, a more appropriate image for protest politics would be something like these:

• 
• 
• 

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)