Talk:United States

Human rights

[[1]] {{Quotation|

Since I had asked this question 5 months ago and no one replied, I am proceeding with adding "Human rights" - status and violations, in the article. Anyone who wants to add to it or have any issues with my edits, are requested to put their arguments here. Aravind V R (talk) 06:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

As long as its non-bias and not a left wing rant about the evils of America...

Anyone have more information/better explanation/sources?

I was just reading the article and I came across this sentence in the Cold War section:

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

I get the second part of the sentence but what in the world is the first part about? There's no explanation, links, or sources. What projects? Whose? In what way were they resisted? It's just a generally unhelpful sentence. Can anyone fill it out or provide a link to a more explanatory page? Or a book? Something? 70.90.87.73 (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Problems with Revolutionary War section

War went from 1775-1783, not 1781. Battles near my house in Charleston, SC occured in late 1782. Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.9.168.60 (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The Map

Last year it appears that someone proposed adding Puerto Rico to the green area of the map on this page (it appears in gray). looks like there was a consensus but no one had the technical know how to make the changes. Anyone want to change it (or oppose the change?)MonteMiz (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is not part of the United States. If we added it as a third color signifying possessions, we would also have to add the USVI, Guam, etc. I don't think it should be added; its stats aren't included in the infobox, it shouldn't be included in the map. --Golbez (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Golbez's analysis and conclusion.—DCGeist (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

United stes of America must be used in the title?

These pages are not made for domestic use mainly, they know what USA is. The expression united states are a non clear expression and the complete name must be used, United states of America. There are a large number of united states around the world. The problem is that in the case of USA there is no other name that are recognised for the country, like Germany, France, Italy or India, the word America means for most people a continent of south and north America. There are indeed a lot of sloppy or highly domestic expressions and could be refered to in links and in the beginning of the article, in also known as statements. If governments or the congress is supporting local expressions by law, it makes no difference, it is still domestic expressions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.129.54.220 (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

"There are a large number of United States around the world." Incorrect. Name one. --Golbez (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

United States! CMD (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Lets not be mistaken or misinform. Many countries have in the past /or use it now in many cases even though its not official - but only the USA is commonly referred to as such on a daily non academic way.Moxy (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Many countries in the past, yes. We shouldn't really care about those unless they were equally notable, they aren't. No country, so far as I know, uses, either officially or unofficially, the phrasing "United States" or "United States of X". The closest you'll get is United Mexican States. --Golbez (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• • United States of Europe
  • United States of Colombia
  • United States of Matsya
  • United States of Belgium
  • United States of Mexico
  • United States of Venezuela
  • United States of Albania
  • United States of Brasil

I think this issue is cleared up by United States (disambiguation). There's also a convienient little link at the top of the article... Hucklebur (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

And the fact that none of the above are extant. They are all past-tense. --Golbez (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The Mexico one is current, but also wrong. The proper English translation is "United Mexican States," not "United States of Mexico." --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I too think that the name we record here should be the officially adopted name for this country under it's current government. Namely as adopted by the Second Continental Congress article 1 of the Articles of Confederation , specifically, "The Style of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America." That is our name we adopted.

The reason we do not do that is really just one, it offends people in Latin America who hear the English word "America" and in their head add an o at the end. The word "Americano" in Spanish refers to everyone born on the American continent (singular). It is an applicaiton of their cultural and linguistic understanding of an English word that sounds the same that causes offence when we use the word American to refer to our country. They feel that we are claiming the whole continent. Which is simply not the case at all. Using America in our name was not a claim of the whole continent. It was the claim to not being British. At the time USA was chosen as a name most 90% of the population of this country lived within 50 miles of the ocean or a navigable river connected to the ocean. The USA was weak as a kitten in the 1790's. Yet in discussions over this I have had people here talk like the USA kept them colonized instead of Spain!

My frank advice to anyone who wants to correct this articles name is to drop it. The people who are eternally po'ed that we won the war against Santa Anna and his dictatorial government are simply more motivated. They call our countries heartland Azatlan Aztlán#Use_by_the_Chicano_movement and want to reclaim it. Let them have this small victory. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Edited to correct some spelling. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The reason we do not do that is really just one, it offends people in Latin America who hear the English word "America" and in their head add an o at the end.

No. The reason — as discussed many, many times — is that "United States" is the country's common short-form name in the English language (and refers to nothing else with a significant degree of commonness).

For the same reason, we lack articles titled Federal Republic of Germany, French Republic, Italian Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Mexican States, et cetera.

As someone who claims to "have read the archives on this issue going back as far as 2005", you surely are aware of this. —David Levy 23:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

United states and support for regimes

I think USA and its support for regimes in south america and Middle east as well as Africa need to be discussed in the foreign relations section Ruffruder0 (talk) 09:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 April 2012

On the demographic section it is stated that "Fertility is also a factor; the average Hispanic woman gives birth to 3.0 children in her lifetime, compared to 2.2 for non-Hispanic black women and 1.8 for non-Hispanic white women (below the replacement rate of 2.1)." this was the case a few years ago,but as of 2010 the fertility rates for all racial groups have seen declines. For hispanics especially the rate has dropped from 3.0 children per women to 2.3 per woman.Furthermore from the year of 2009-2010 hispanics have seen a 0.2 reduction in total fertility.

The statement that "fertility is also a factor" may be true,but the statistics that are cited are not.

As of 2010 the fertility rates of the United States by race:

Whole United States: 1,932.0

Non-Hispanic white: 1,791.0

Non-Hispanic black: 1,971.5

American Indian or Alaska Native: 1,404.0

Asian or Pacific Islander: 1,689.5

Hispanic: 2,352.5

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_02.pdf

Helloagain56 (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention and, especially, for your citation of a high-quality source. The passage has been brought up to date.—DCGeist (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)