Talk:United States

Current population (est.): 338,249,000 as of August 15, 2024. The USCB projects 439 million by 2050

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request from 71.2.156.11, 1 January 2011

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Good article is not working correctly

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

use with singular/plural

Good sources:

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

Edit request from Shawnmyers, 16 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

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

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request Economy

The sentence "The United States ranks second in the Global Competitiveness Report." is outdatet. It now ranks fourth http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2010-11.pdf

Please correct Katzmann83 (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)