Jump to content

Talk:United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.215.94.13 (talk) at 23:11, 30 December 2009 (→Miscellaneous). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Template:VA Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Please consider reading the frequently asked questions for this article before asking any questions on this talk page.
Current population (est.): 338,752,000 as of November 16, 2024. The USCB projects 439 million by 2050
Good articleUnited 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
DateProcessResult
December 15, 2005Good article nomineeListed
May 7, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 8, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 18, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 3, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 21, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
June 19, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 9, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
June 27, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Template:Maintained Talk:United States/Archive Box

Censoring my add of theme of "cotnroversy"

What right have you give me an ultimatum? I have the right to write true infromace about this country. Why is it on wikipedia sponsored censorship and manipulation of the facts?

And then you still have the audacity to threaten someone who writes true, but unfortunately "politically embarrassing" information.?

EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO WRITE ANY TIP INFORMATION, AND NOT POSSIBLE Threatening BANNING JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE BECAUSE ITS CONTRIBUTION TO THE STATE OF SHOWING IN HIS negative characteristics.

WHERE EVERYTHING YOU audacity Banning WRITE ME HERE YOU Menno "BEAUTIFUL" FACTS ABOUT U.S.? --Fredy.00 (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is it exactly that you try to achieve here. I guess you want to suggest an addition to the article, and you boldly added it as you are apparently protesting a revert of that addition. It seems logical that it is now the time to discuss here what you want to add, why it is important (and neither trivial, nor undue, nor suffers from other problems) before adding it again per WP:CYCLE. I don't see a reason for being this aggressively shouting at this stage in the editing process and would suggest that you explain to the larger group of editors involved in the article what you want to add here. Arnoutf (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Population

I noticed that included in the population of the U.S.A. is 10-13 million illegal immigrants (known to Americans as "illegal aliens") by the US census bureau. Why is this? In all other western nations they are not included, or sometimes made into a separate survey of "temporary migrant workers" (the case in Russia). They are not citizens, therefore should not be included in the population by international law. (This would significantly raise the GDP per capita to reflect the "real terms".) Slaja (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the census bureau is not allowed to ask if you are in the country legally or illegally, and does not take identification, only a simple count. I know I've never personally identified myself to a census taker beyond my name, so they have no way of knowing if someone is a legal citizen. --Golbez (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


See WP:NOTFORUM. Nonwistanding that, on the offchance that this discussion is related to improving this article, see [1], [2], [3], [4], and elsewhere—some lawmakers apparently don't see legal or constitutionality problems with this. Also see 13 U.S.C. § 141: "The Secretary shall, in the year 1980 and every 10 years thereafter, take a decennial census of population [...], in such form and content as he may determine, ..." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is related to the improvement of this article, it could be misinterpreted information (such as the area of the U.S. declared by the "CIA Factbook", versus the UN estimate). Citizens and foreigners with proper paper work are what constitute the UN definition of a "Sovereign nation-state population." Perhaps the U.S. doesn't agree with this. However all that was put foreword to address this was ambiguous: "The Secretary shall, in the year 1980 and every 10 years thereafter, take a decennial census of population [...], in such form and content as he may determine, ...". And:"some lawmakers apparently don't see legal or constitutionality problems with this."Is some lawmakers sufficient to dictate the laws for all of the U.S? Does that mean the U.S. refutes or accepts the UN international definition? Slaja (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The US census predates the formation of the UN by some 160 years. I figure they've felt no reason to change. The UN does not determine what the census laws of the United States are. --Golbez (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to second Golbez. The US Census Bureau is one of the oldest and most efficient national demographic centers anywhere, and with a few (quibbling) exceptions, it has been just that since 1790. Its ten-year census and yearly estimates cover every aspect of U.S. population. It is a wonder of the world. Moreover, it doesn't generally involve itself in sociopolitical trifles--for ex., its policy toward illegal immigrants is to try to count them--period.Mason.Jones (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus for move. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States → United States of America — This is the United States's official name and one recognized by all. When you just say United States it could mean a bunch of things, all listed on this page United States (disambiguation)—Red Wiki 22:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose; please read the FAQ linked at the top as to why it's here. Also, there is no extant organization or country that can be accurately referred to as "United States"; the prior existence of them does not give them equal footing for disambiguation. United States is an absolutely unambiguous short name for the country, and is used in countless articles such as President of the United States and Economy of the United States. Furthermore, it's incredibly poor form, IMO, to start a move request without even mentioning it on the talk page beforehand, otherwise all of these things could have been explained to you. --Golbez (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this country's most common name is the 'United States'. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Google Trends: united states vs america ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly are you saying with that? It says that the term "America" is searched for more than "United States"; however, America has meanings beyond the United States, whereas United States tends to have one meaning in the modern world. --Golbez (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This has been request MANY times and everytime the overwhelming consensus is to not move it. The common name (which even the US government almost always uses too) is "United States". COMMONNAME also supports "United States". Same with every other country. We have United Kingdom, not "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (even though "United Kingdom" can refer to other stuff); or how we have Libya, not "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya". TJ Spyke 00:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - This argument is not valid. Comparing "United States of America" (which is a very common name used for the country) to "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" (which is a very uncommon name used for the country) is not a relevant comparison. "United States of America" is simultaneously the official name of the country and a common name for the country. Additionally, a counterexample would be the article on the country of China. By far the most common name for the country is China, but the article exists under its official name, the People's Republic of China. SnottyWong talk 02:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're correct that "United States of America" is a common name (while "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" is not), but the point is that it isn't the most common name.
    In the case of the People's Republic of China, the most common English-language name (China) cannot be used because it commonly refers to other entities. "United States" does not. —David Levy 03:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, "United States" is by far the most common name for the country in English. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If "United States" doesn't refer to another entity, then why is there a United States (disambiguation) page? SnottyWong talk 13:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No one has asserted that "United States" doesn't refer to another entity. It doesn't commonly refer to another entity. And even a term that does commonly refer to multiple entities can have one meaning sufficiently predominant as to occupy the base title. For example, the term "George Washington" has various meanings (some more prominent than others), but the United States president overwhelmingly predominates (which is why his article occupies the base title instead of George Washington (United States president)). —David Levy 15:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I would submit that "America" is the most common term for the country (see Google Trends links above). Since both United States and America both have disambiguation pages, why not move this page to America? SnottyWong talk 13:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "America" has more than one common meaning (and no sufficiently predominant meaning), which is why the disambiguation page is located at the base title. "United States" does not have more than one common meaning, which is why the disambiguation page is not located at the base title.
    Additionally, the country is commonly referred to by the "United States" designation (and not the "America" designation) in formal contexts. —David Levy 15:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator and Snottywong, United States of America is the proper name.--Edward130603 (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - "United States of America" is the official name of the country. Your argument which references WP:COMMONNAME gives equal merit to an argument for changing the name of the article to America, since that is an equally (if not more) common name for the country. The fact that there is a United States (disambiguation) page clearly shows the logic of this nomination. There is no United States of America (disambiguation) page required, because "United States of America" is not ambiguous. While "United States" is a common term for the country, it is an ambiguous term and it is not the official name of the country. If it wasn't ambiguous, it wouldn't need a disambiguation page. SnottyWong talk 02:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All other meanings of "United States" combined don't approach the prevalence of this one. If the article were entitled "United States of America," United States would redirect to it (with the disambiguation page remaining at United States (disambiguation)). —David Levy 03:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your first argument (or counterargument, if you will) is invalid. "America," for starters, is not a proper way of naming the country (not in formal contexts, at least), so the "United States" case and the "America" case are incomparable.--AndresTM (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since I started this, I might as well contribute to the overall argument. United States is merely a bland term that can mean so many different things depending on where you live. Adding the word America (which, as dewdinblue said, is given in official documents of the USA) locates where it is in the world.Red Wiki 03:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I replaced your emboldened "Support" marker with "Comment" above. You're welcome to participate in the discussion, but you cannot support yourself or be counted twice (not that this is a majority vote).
    I also linked your signatures, as instructed at Wikipedia:Signatures#Links. Given the fact that you are not signing your actual account name (Valkyrie Red), this is especially important. —David Levy 03:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    An unnecessary and impolite action IMO. While it's generally assumed that a proposer does support the nomination, it's not always true, so some nominators cast a "vote" in addition. Just so long as they make it clear that they are also the nominator (as here), this is sometimes helpful to the closing admin, and never a problem. Andrewa (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    [subsequent non-move-related posts relocated to Talk:United States/Requested move sub-discussion] —David Levy 13:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for reasons stated above and on many prior occasions. —David Levy 03:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Although "United States of America" is the proper name of the country, "United States" is the correct short form. It would be like moving "United Kingdom" to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Completely unnecessary. On top of that, this has been discussed many times before and the result is the same: leave it as "United States." Andy120290 (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment- I would like to point out that the argument Andy120290 gave is the same as the one given by TJ Spyke. The example is also the same (suggesting that they may be the same person).Red Wiki 04:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)
    The example is the same because it's an excellent example; I would have made it myself had I not decided I'd made it ten times in the last two years. --Golbez (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment It is extremely in bad taste, not to mention impolite, to accuse someone of being a sock puppet with no proof what-so-ever outside of them using the same (and might I add common) example of the UK in this debate. If you're going to accuse someone of a bannable offense you should actually look for real proof instead of going off the cuff. OptimumPx (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I also propose that User:Red Wiki/Valkyrie Red be banned indefinitely, immediately, by any available admin. Only an idiot or a troll or vandal acting in extreme bad faith (and attempting to waste editors' time) would propose such a thing in the face of WP:COMMONNAME and the numerous prior debates on this issue. If Valkyrie Red has an issue with WP:COMMONNAME, it should have been raised there first. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think proposing an RM, even in bad faith (which I am not yet accepting this as being), is prima facie reason for an indef ban. --Golbez (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. If anyone's facing a block or a ban, it's Coolcaesar. I'm not an uninvolved admin, otherwise I might do it myself. Another user has posted a warning on Coolcasar's talk page, so I can't even do that. Suggest that everyone has a quick read or reread of WP:ATTACK, I say again, it's a lot broader in scope than you might think. Andrewa (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll also point out that all the users expressing support for Red Wiki's harebrained proposal appear to be Wikipedia users external to the U.S., which means there are possible issues of anti-American bias or simple ignorance. Most educated users of American English (the largest component of native English speakers) use United States or U.S. in their writing. Please keep in mind that one of the Manual of Style's longest-standing guidelines is that we go with the local dialect when a topic is closely tied to a particular geographical location. It would make no sense to use a name for the article that is not even the one in most common use in American English.--Coolcaesar (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You make some good points here (and more personal attacks of course). The main logical problem is, English Wikipedia is for all English speakers, not just native speakers. Andrewa (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. IMO it's a case of needless ambiguity, and the primary usage is a local matter. Agree we've been down this path before, but consensus can change. Doesn't look like it has on this. The world will probably survive. Andrewa (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What ambiguity? Several people have said "United States" is ambiguous, but no one has supplied an example. What extant thing is also called "United States"? --Golbez (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Something doesn't have to be an extant thing to be an article subject, United States of Europe and United States of Africa for a start... Andrewa (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting that references to those hypothetical entities are prevalent enough to render the term "United States" too ambiguous to lead to this article? —David Levy 12:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, both names are acceptable. The quesion is, which is better? IMO there's sufficient ambiguity to prefer the longer name. Andrewa (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you regard as a consequence of this ambiguity? Will substantial confusion arise? To be clear, you agree that United States must lead to this article (as a redirect if it isn't the actual title), correct? —David Levy 15:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for all the reasons listed above, also because it's THE most common name for the country in English, all other uses of the name 'United States' are historical or fictional with the exception of The United Mexican States which is never called anything except Mexico in English. OptimumPx (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And is indeed never referred to as the "United States of Mexico", so there is no ambiguity. --Golbez (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've already !voted above, but I'd just like to point out that I don't think the popular "WP:COMMONNAME defense" really holds water. The argument is essentially that we should name the article based on the common name that it is referred to most often. However, the point where the argument fails is that "United States of America" is not an uncommon term for the country. It is used all the time. WP:COMMONNAME absolutely would apply in the case of Libya, whose official name ("Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya") is almost never used. However, in the case where the official name of the country is used commonly (even if it is not the most common term), then WP:COMMONNAME is a very weak argument. SnottyWong talk 12:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Unless there were a compelling reason to extend the name of the article--which there is not--it is inconvenient to do so. Changing the name of the article would, by extension, require us to change "Supreme Court of the United States" to "Supreme Court of the United States of America," "Attorney General of the United States" to "Attorney General of the United States of America" and so forth. We could go on debating forever which name is better or less ambiguous or more practical or more widely used, but the mere fact that the issue is highly debatable clearly indicates that there is no good reason to change the name, as they are, arguably, equally good. For the sake of the editors and the readers, I propose that we leave it as it is--AndresTM (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment- I would first like to thank those that supported me in the previous argument above. Secondly, I would like to apologize for what appeared to be confusing in this session.Red Wiki 16:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)
In the hope of reducing confuson, and more for the benefit of other relative newbies who may read this page than for you, let me summarise my concerns with this discussion:
1. You were quite right to raise this RM. Perhaps a more experienced editor would have checked the history and archives more thoroughly first and decided not to, but we are all students here. You did the right thing.
2. You were quite entitled to vote after raising it. It wasn't necessary but it wasn't wrong either. You made it quite clear that you were the proposer, and again, you did the right thing.
3. Much of the criticism you have received appears to be in ignorance of the relevant procedures and policies. This unfortunately is not uncommon here or anywhere else in human society. Those keenest to quote the rules are often also the worst at violating them.
4. In particular, some of the criticism you have received is in gross violation of the Wikipedia policy of no personal attacks. Other posts, while not in gross violation, are certainly not in the spirit of this key policy. Comment on the content, not on the contributor. Just as an example, it would be far better to say that arguments were poor rather than to comment on people who are saying... below.
Please set up your signature so you can just use ~~~~ to sign your talk page posts (drop me a line if you need help with this), and happy editing! Andrewa (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[subsequent non-move-related posts relocated to Talk:United States/Requested move sub-discussion] —David Levy 13:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- That was my comment for apologizing. Here's mine for the discussion. Nearly all patriotic songs involve using the name America in them, not United States. Examples include: God Bless America, America the Beautiful, and our very own Pledge of Allegiance. IMO adding the word America is what differentiates it from the world.Red Wiki 17:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: The people who are saying "United States" is ambiguous have poor arguments; no matter what, United States would still redirect to United States of America if the page were moved, because that is, by far, the most common usage of the term. So ambiguity is no reason to support a move. The only remaining argument is correctness, and it has been established that "United States" is the correct, common short-form name. I mean, if you think United States should be a disambiguation page, then so must United Kingdom, which is in the same situation: Other things have used the name, but the current UK is by far the most common usage of the term. So far as I can tell, no one has ever requested a move for that article. Certainly not anyone proposing a move for this one. --Golbez (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I'm quite new to Wikipedia, so this is my first time being involved in one of these discussions, so bear with me if I disobey the rules of Wikipedia by any chance. So, I support the change because it is formally known as the United States of America which IMO is what all Wikipedia articles should contain (Again, i'm new to Wikipedia so this is just my opinion)Abl3igail (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome to Wikipedia! However, Mexico is formally known as the United Mexican States, but no one seriously entertains a proposal to move it there. --Golbez (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    By the same logic, China is formally known as the People's Republic of China, which is where its article is currently located. SnottyWong talk 12:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, we use the title People's Republic of China because "China" commonly refers to more than one entity. If it didn't (just as "United States" doesn't), that article would be entitled "China." —David Levy 17:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this was a weak argument. "China" is ambiguous; there are at least two, possibly three, things that China can commonly refer to, the People's Republic, the Republic, and the overarching region. There is only one common usage of "United States". --Golbez (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NAMING, and per Robert William Barker. --SquidSK(1MC•log) 00:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- The WP:NAMING policy of Wikipedia can support the name United States of America, so therefore it's a weak argument. Also, what does Bob Parker have to do with anything here? I propose deleting this vote.Red Wiki 01:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)
    I propose you stop trying to micromanage the votes. It's not your responsibility to point out votes that you think aren't valid, especially when you refuse to even sign with your real username. --Golbez (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you stop with the personal attacks, I was merely pointing out a suggestion, nothing more. All I'm asking is what does Bob Parker have to do with this discussion?Red Wiki 04:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)
    There was no personal attack whatsoever. A statement of fact: You have repeatedly, after being informed of the problem with it, refused to sign with your real name. I suppose I could propose this be withdrawn and you blocked for attempting to gain the system, but that would be merely pointing out a suggestion, nothing more. As for what it has to do, I guess he's saying, that's Bob Barker's full name, but because no reasonable person will ever be confused by the short form, we keep it at Bob Barker. Likewise with United States. --Golbez (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologizes, I thought he was just trying to be funny. But on another note, I don't know why your being obsessed with me signing with my real username. According to the First Amendment I have the freedom to sign however I wish, whether it be with my real name or not.--Red Wiki 16:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)
    Have you read the article to which you linked? The First Amendment to the United States Constitution says no such thing.
    But no one is asking you to sign with your real name. We're asking you to use your real Wikipedia account name (Valkyrie Red) by linking to your user page, talk page or contribution history (and optionally displaying "Valkyrie Red" instead of "Red Wiki"). I corrected your earlier signatures on this page, and you came to my talk page to thank me for showing you why a bot kept tagging your posts as "unsigned." But you haven't done anything to address the problem. —David Levy 17:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for this, I haven't practiced with Wikipedia enough to know this stuff. The truth is, I don't know how to fix this signature thing. And yes, the first amendment gives me right of speech, so I can sign with Red Wiki if I want, and not Valkyrie Red.Red Wiki 18:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)
    The first amendment gives you nothing. The first amendment prevents Congress from infringing on your right to free speech. If, even after reading that article, you cannot pick up on that simple concept... The first amendment has no meaning on Wikipedia. Because your right to free speech can and will easily be infringed by its administration should you violate the rules. --Golbez (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Golbez has explained your misunderstanding of the First Amendment above. That leaves me to direct you to Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature in the hope that you'll edit your signature (as you must have done at some point) for compliance with Wikipedia's rules. —David Levy 18:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me if I don't spend each night reading each amendment out loud, memorizing it word for word. BTW thanks for the link Mr. Levy, I'll be sure to check it out tomorrow!Red Wiki 21:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)
    No one is demanding that you memorize constitutional amendments. We're merely addressing your erroneous claims about one in particular. —David Levy 21:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When you cite something twice, it's somewhat expected that you actually know what you're talking about. --Golbez (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This has been hashed out numerous times, including several times here. None of these arguments are new. Although consensus can change, I still think the arguments for "United States" are stronger. ps - Editors should also read this frequently asked question. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Here's some relevant Google results that should speak for themselves...
Comment- I haven't read the page to know what Wikipedia considers to be a good reference or resource, but I'm pretty sure that using a search engine doesn't stand for a very good argument.Red Wiki 05:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)
Please see Wikipedia:Search engine test. —David Levy 05:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and as suggested above, Valkyrie Red, you should try to refrain from discrediting these votes if you're not even sure that they're a proper argument (as in this case) or what the argument means (as in the "Bob Barker" case). -CapitalQ (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move of the US article to the USA name, since it is a better name, all around, but the US name should redirect it, since it is primary usage of the US name. 76.66.201.20 (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator and Snottywong. The official name of this country is "United States of America". --.dsm. 14:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Since this has been brought up, I want to address it. Comparing United States of America to The Peoples Republic of China would make our arguments a lot more easier to understand. If we look at the two names we (as in "common English speaking folks") commonly refer to the People's Republic of China as simply China, so why isn't that page called China? It's because the term China has many different meanings. Same with the United States. Though people refer to it as United States, it is known as the United States of America (which isn't an uncommon name for it btw).Red Wiki 18:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)
    The China articles' naming conventions are a big mess, caused by arguments over Taiwan and so on. I think it's the exception rather than the rule on Wikipedia, and I don't think it's a very good article to use as a template for naming other articles. TastyCakes (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's called People's Republic of China because there are two nations commonly referred to as China. There is only one nation commonly referred to as United States; thus, this, like all of your other attempts at arguments so far, falls short. --Golbez (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The term "China" has several common meanings. The term "United States" has one common meaning (and several uncommon meanings). There is no significant likelihood of confusion. —David Levy 18:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, yes, thanks for clarifying. I had my phrasing backwards; it's not about how many countries are referred to by name X, but if term X can commonly refer to more than one thing. And, again, all of this is completely irrelevant - there is no possible way that, even if this article were moved, United States would not redirect to United States of America. So the arguments about it being ambiguous are empty. --Golbez (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been various forms of the country 'China' with various political systems and covering various areas since the 18th Century BC, while with the United States, the USA was the first country to use that name. All of the other (defunct) countries to use the term 'United States' in their name were all formed after the USA became a complete country in 1781, and none of them lasted. The only one to still exist is the United Mexican States and again it was formed 1810 and again has never been referred to as the 'United States', only as Mexico. 69.132.221.35 (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I want to go back to this whole China business, as it has left me confused. First TastyCakes states that China is the only exception in Wikipedia, which doesn't make any sense. Than Golbez says that there is only one nation commonly referred to as United States, which is very controversial as this is obviously an opinion, as this depends on where you live. Mr. Levy, there is more than just several meanings, there's a page worth's of meanings. Same goes to whoever gave special contributions. Therefore, I suggest all of you clarify your arguments.Red Wiki 18:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)
    There are several exceptions, actually. China is a notable one; there are two countries named China, and the term is politically charged, so we disambiguate (or, rather, have an article on the overarching notion/region). Another is the Congo; there are two countries named Congo, so their names are rendered fully. However, there is only one United States, and I am willing to bet money that you're the only one here to ever suggest that the vast, vast, vast majority of people, we're talking well over 99.99%, looking for "United States" aren't looking for the current nation named that. Opinion? I doubt it, it's pretty much fact. There is no other nation called "United States", so why anyone would look for United States expecting something else confuses me. No one has ever said that they searched for United States expecting some other country, and very few have said they expected a disambiguation page. Do you think United States should be a redirect or a disambiguation page? Finally, if you think it should be moved, then you are suggesting we move things such as U.S. state, President of the United States, Economy of the United States, etc., because you consider those ambiguous and thus prone to error? --Golbez (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Why isn't United States listed as one of these "several exceptions? Sounds pretty biased in favor your own opinion.
    2. Find me a source that states 99.99% of all people are looking for United States of America and not something else.
    3. I think United States should redirect to either United States of America or a page somewhat like this or this.
    4. Frankly (Quoting Jojhutton) I don't give a damn about those other pages. If you want to bother with them, go ahead, but I personally just don't care about them.Red Wiki 19:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)
    1. Huh? United States is not among the exceptions; the country's article resides at that title.
    2. I wouldn't cite a specific figure, but there is overwhelming evidence that no other meaning of "United States" approaches this one's level of commonness. Try entering the term "united states" into any web search engine, and see what comes up. In fact, you can even exclude "america" from the search.
    3. The suggestion that United States redirect to United States of America includes implied acknowledgment that this is the overwhelmingly common meaning (and also eliminates any alleged disambiguational benefit, because navigation would be unaffected). The idea of making United States a disambiguation page (or moving the existing disambiguation page there) will never, ever come to fruition (simply because it would be extraordinarily unhelpful and impractical for the United States title to lead to anywhere other than its current destination).
    4. Again, the fact that you "don't give a damn about those other pages" doesn't absolve the overall community from its responsibility to maintain consistent naming standards whenever feasible. You're essentially saying "I don't care who has to clean up the mess." —David Levy 20:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Understood
    2. Somewhat Understood
    3. I still don't see what your problem is with making United States a redirect to United States of America. I understand that a disambiguation page would be too complicated or too confusing too viewers, but to redirect it to United States of America.
    4. Well I'm trying to clean-up this mess, aren't I? There are plenty of fish in the sea to solve those other problems.Red Wiki 01:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)
    2. Please let me know what element(s) you don't understand, and I'll do by best to clarify.
    3. Our problem with the proposed move is that we regard the current title as superior (for reasons explained repeatedly).
    Given the fact that someone visiting United States would continue to arrive at this article, what benefit do you believe would be gained by having it redirect to United States of America?
    4. Those of us opposing the proposed move disagree that there currently is a mess to clean up, and we believe that such a change would create a rather large mess for those "fish in the sea" to tackle. —David Levy 02:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. No, TastyCakes did not "[state] that China is the only exception in Wikipedia." ("The exception rather than the rule" is a figure of speech.)
    Republic of Ireland, Republic of Macedonia and Georgia (country) are other examples of cases in which the existence of multiple common meanings led the country's article to be assigned something other than the most common English-language name's base title.
    2.What other nation (past or present) is commonly referred to as "United States"? On what do you base the claim that "this depends on where you live"?
    3. Yes, there are several other uses of the term "United States," but none of them are common. All of those meanings combined are used nowhere near as often as this article's subject is.
    When one meaning of a term overwhelmingly predominates over all others, the term is made to lead to that entity's article. For example, see George Washington. There are many other uses of the term, but because the U.S. president is overwhelmingly the most common meaning, his article is located at George Washington.
    George Bush is a different story; no meaning predominates by a large margin. This is not the case with United States, which is why the disambiguation page isn't located there. —David Levy 19:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. My apologies, I misinterpreted it.
    2. Such as if you live in Mexico, you will think of United Mexican States rather than United States.
    3. While that may be true, United States of America isn't uncommon. In fact, it's quite a common name so I don't see what you see wrong with it. If we're going to go with more popular name, than there are quite a few articles that would need renaming, and frankly I am not in the mood to go debate those.Red Wiki 19:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)
    1. No problem.
    2. No, that simply isn't true. The country's full English-language name is "United Mexican States," which does not contain the term "United States" (as "United States of Mexico" would).
    Its full Spanish-language name is "Estados Unidos Mexicanos," but its common Spanish-language name (and article title at the Spanish-language Wikipedia) is "México" (just as its common English-language name is "Mexico"). Note that at the Spanish-language Wikipedia, the USA's article is entitled "Estados Unidos" (Spanish for "United States"), despite the fact that the full Spanish-language name of Mexico does contain that term. (And of course, United States redirects to that article.)
    3. No one has asserted that "United States of America" is uncommon or would be a bad title for this article. We're saying that it's much less common and would be less good as the article's title. —David Levy 20:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    2. I can guarantee you that if you searched thorough enough, you could find a country that doesn't see United States as the United States of America.
    3. While it may be less common, it's not by much. Saying that it would be less good for the article is pure bias and opinion.Red Wiki 01:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)
    2. Feel free to cite evidence that any such country exists. But understand that what matters is the worldwide likelihood of our readers seeking a particular meaning.
    3. No, "United States of America" is much less common than "United States" alone is. (See CapitalQ's statistics.)
    You state above that "saying that it would be less good for the article is pure bias and opinion." What distinction are you drawing? Aren't both sides arguing an opinion that one title or the other is less good? —David Levy 02:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Agreed, but understand that United States has many more meanings, while United States of America has only one.
    3. As I stated before, United States may be more popular, but it can have multiple meanings. United States of America has only one. I looked at CapitalQ's statisctics, but notice how that was just from one search engine. I did the same with a few more and found that the difference got smaller and smaller with each. You have to also understand that people are lazy and want to get results fast, which would explain why "United States" has more results than "United States of America". This is why a redirect from United States to United States of America would be perfect. Lastly, with the bias and opinion subject, I never said that using United States of America instead of United States wasn't an opinion. We are both entitled to our own opinions. But the way you stated it like that sounded like you were making it a fact.Red Wiki 22:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)
    [resetting the numbering]
    1. Again, "United States" has only one common meaning. When a term has one very common meaning and various uncommon (or much less common) meanings, we have that title lead to the article about the very common meaning. To do anything else would only inconvenience readers.
    You've agreed that "United States" should lead to this article, and you still haven't explained how changing it to a redirect would help anyone.
    2. Please document the results that you received from other search engines.
    3. Your argument that "people are lazy and want to get results fast" doesn't make sense. The number of results reflects the number of uses on the web, not the number of times that the terms have been searched for.
    4. Your argument that "this is why a redirect from United States to United States of America would be perfect" also makes no sense, as users typing that term (or "United States of America") will arrive at this article either way.
    5. No, I'm not stating my opinion as fact. I'm merely reiterating/clarifying the reasons behind opposition to the proposed move (which is why wrote "We're saying that..." rather than "It is a fact that..."). —David Levy 02:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Changing it to a redirect would benefit us both. You want people to be able to type United States and get to this page and we (as in people supporting the move), want this page titled United States of America.
    2. Too lazy to do so, but I swear to God (hope your not Atheist/Agnostic) that although the United States provided more results, the difference got smaller with each search engine I used.
    3. Ignore what I said. If I try to interpret it the way I meant it, it will come out confusing.
    4. The same could be said to you.
    5. My apologizes, it sounded like you were saying it was a fact.
    6. I would like to add that even history sites this country as the United States of America. Look at all of our wars and tell me what you see. What I see is The American Revolutionary War not the United States of America Revolutionary War. The same can be applied to the others. The American Civil War, not United States Civil War. Mexican-American War not Mexican-United States War. Spanish-American War, not Spanish-United States War and so on and so forth.173.95.138.76 (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Users typing "United States" already arrive at this article (as do users typing "United States of America"). The only difference would be the title, which would shift from what I (and those who agree with me) believe makes more sense to what you (and those who agree with you) believe makes more sense.
    2. If you don't want to provide links, that's your choice, but I'm unable to evaluate data to which I lack access.
    4. No, because I'm not claiming that either setup is more convenient for readers ("lazy" or otherwise).
    6. People and things of the United States are commonly referred to as "American." Likewise, people and things of the Netherlands are commonly referred to as "Dutch." Does this mean that our Netherlands article is incorrectly titled? —David Levy 00:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Renumbering.
    1. I find it hard to believe you lack access to Yahoo, or Ask.com, or any other search engine. Guess that makes you as lazy as me.
    2. I still don't see what you (and Golbez for that matter) have with making United States a redirect to United States of America.
    3. Personally I don't give a damn about the Netherlands being named wrong, and your first sentence just proved that America is a more common and proper term to be used in the articles title.Valkyrie Red 23:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)
    1. I don't lack access to those search engines, but this is the first time that you've specified any in particular, and you still haven't specified the search parameters that you used. You're correct that I don't care to spend my time attempting to duplicate efforts that you've declined to document (your description of which doesn't seem to indicate that the results would even change anything).
    2. Again, I don't think that having United States redirect to United States of America would be bad. In my opinion, the latter title simply would be less good. You're entitled to disagree, but the proposed move's opponents have thoroughly explained why we feel this way.
    3. You've completely misunderstood. My point is that the Netherlands article is not incorrectly titled (despite the fact that people and things of the Netherlands are commonly referred to as "Dutch"), which illustrates the fact that there is not necessarily a direct linguistic connection between a country's name (or common name) and the term by which its people and things usually are known. —David Levy 06:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support At first glance, I sort of smirked at the idea, but the suggestions has merit. Valkarie is correct the The United States of America is the official name and should therfore be the title of the article. Shortened versions, of course, should be included in the lead.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuetral Although I still feel that the official name of United States of America, should be the title, it seems, after some searching through the guidelines, that common names are prefered for the names of articles, so i am changing my support to nuetral.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you support moving Mexico to United Mexican States? --Golbez (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And Italy to Italian Republic? And France to French Republic? And Germany to Federal Republic of Germany? And United Kingdom to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? And Libya to Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya? And so on? —David Levy 19:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good Lord, some of us are fiesty today. I don't really see any discussions on those countries talk pages concerning the names of their articles, so frankly, I don't give a damn. The concern was broached here, and I have given my opinion. No need to beat your POV into the ground.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just the argument that it's the "official name". Somehow that argument doesn't come up anywhere but here, which leads me to believe it's a rather short-sighted argument. We have always named countries by their common short name if it's unambiguous; in the case of the United States, it is indeed unambiguous. --Golbez (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - As Jojhutton said, we aren't proposing changing those countries names (unless you want to, in that case be my guest).Red Wiki 21:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)
    The point is that if we were to implement the standard that a country's official name should be the title of its article (the basis of Jojhutton's vote), it would apply to all of those articles (and many others) as well. The fact that Jojhutton "[doesn't] give a damn" about those other articles' titles (and you evidently don't care either) doesn't absolve the overall community from its responsibility to maintain consistent naming standards whenever feasible. —David Levy 21:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other Solution - There are other polities that begin with the United States, by titling it United States of America there would be no ambiguity, though this could be addressed by adding a hat to the article as well linking to a disambig page with all of the other united states as well.XavierGreen (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Such a hatlink already exists in the article ("This article is about the United States of America. For other uses of terms redirecting here, see US (disambiguation), USA (disambiguation), and United States (disambiguation)."). So in the extremely unlikely situation somebody is looking for the hypothetical United Stated of Africa or United States of Europe (neither of which are real), they already can go to the disambiguation page for them. TJ Spyke 19:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There were indeed other real polities that used the united states in their name, such as the United States of Venezuala and the United States of Belgium.
  • Oppose This has been clearly hashed out in the past, and nothing in terms of external fact or Wikipedia standard has changed. Common name = article name. Golbez and David Levy's observations about the naming of other country articles are well taken—the fact is that we do have a clear, fairly consistent naming convention here, by which the current titling of this article abides.—DCGeist (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support United States sounds very informal, especially considering there are other federations of political entities that could be described as 'United States'. I was actually rather surprised that this was the title. BodvarBjarki (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Mr. Levy and Golbez (not sure of your gender), you seem to be getting a little hyperactive in this discussion, so I suggest that you two calm down a little or else I may have to report you. Golbez, especially you. I've warned you several times now on this one discussion. This discussion is just for voting and expressing your opinion on the matter not your emotions. Carry on!--Red Wiki 21:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)
    If you so desire, I encourage you to report us, Valkyrie Red. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents —David Levy 21:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded. I love when people report me. --Golbez (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And you aren't? At all? At least we weren't calling for votes to be stricken because we disagreed with the reasoning. At least we don't demonstrate and repeat fundamental misunderstandings. I look forward for you to act on your warnings. --Golbez (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See, once again your doing it, being emotional in what's supposed to be a friendly discussion. Now I hate to disappoint you, but I'm going to let it slide this one time. Be sure to try and learn from your mistakes.Red Wiki 23:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)
  • Support per nom. United States of America is (a) unambiguous and (b) a commonly-used name - it's not in the same league as Lybia. To counter an argument above, if we're going for the most demotic name, we should move United States to America, United Kingdom to England, The Netherlands to Holland, and Soviet Union to Russia. Those are the most common names for the countries in popular speech; I don't think they're the right names for articles in what's supposed to be a serious encyclopaedia. Tevildo (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In those cases, while they may be common, they are incorrect. "United States" is both common and correct. No one has yet demonstrated how United States is any more ambiguous than United Kingdom. The fact is, if this article were moved, United States would obviously redirect to it... so the ambiguity argument is worthless. --Golbez (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to add that moving "United Kingdom" to "England" and "Soviet Union" to "Russia" would be wrong and, sorry if this sounds rude, moronic. England is just PART of the United Kingdom and Russia was just PART of the Soviet Union. It would be like asking this page to be moved to New York or "Canada" to be moved to "Ontario" (Netherlands is wrong for a different reason. While they are both used for the name of the country, Holland is the old name and not correct anymore). "United States" is almost never used for anything other than this country and is by far the most common name used for the country. Even the US government almost only uses United States and really only uses the full name when dealing with international issues (when most countries use their full name). As for "America", no. While that is used a lot, it is not as common as United States (and can be used for many other things, the only other uses for "United States" are 2 imaginary unions that don't exist and never have). TJ Spyke 23:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? Only 2 imaginary Unions that don't exist are the only other uses for United States? Because, this page seems to suggest otherwise--Red Wiki 02:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
    My point appears to have been missed. WP:COMMONNAME suggests that we should have the article at the most commonly-used name for the subject. What's the most commonly-used name for the subject of this article? "America". But moving it to America would indeed be moronic, which - ah, forget it. It's going to go out "No Consensus". Reasoned argument has no part to play in Wikipedia. Tevildo (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The "serious encyclopedia" called Britannica lists its article on this country under United States. If you look for "United States of America" there, you will find yourself at a disambiguition/redirect page. [5] --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Really? Again? No. As TJ Spyke and Evb-wiki (among many others) have demonstrated, "United States" is not only a common name, it's a perfectly standard one. It is immaterial whether an individual chooses to say that it rings his or her ears as "informal". It's simply not. "United States" is supported by our guidelines, our everyday practices, and our sources. Let's leave it be. DocKino (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: keep at common name. Jonathunder (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per everyone else and the countless other times this has been argued about (and since nothing has changed since those arguments). Can we close this conversation/suggestion? I think it's pretty clear there isn't going to be consensus to change the article name. TastyCakes (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - When people say "United States", everyone knows what country they are referring to. The same is true in other languages. When French-speakers say "Etats Unis", everyone knows they mean the U.S. When Spanish-speakers say "Estados Unidos", people likewise know they mean the United States. Eagle4000 (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - seeing as how we're very nearly at the proscribed 7 day limit, and there is definitely no consensus to change, I think the running around in circles can come to a safe close, as this article is going nowhere. --Golbez (talk) 03:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - United States rather than United States of America is used throughout Wikipedia in consistent style. It is used twice in the presidential oath ("President of the United States", "Constitution of the United States"), it is used by the Senate (the heading on Senate.gov is "United States Senate", not "Senate of the United States of America", etc.), it is used in the Capitol's official name, SCOTUS's offical name ("Supreme Court of the United States"), is used in the CIA World Factbook in all cases except when referring to the long name itself, etc. It is well established by consensus, and is very unlikely to cause confusion (the only other country which comes to mind is Mexico, officially the "United Mexican States", but it is rarely referred to using this name in common discourse). --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 12:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hi, I suggest to mention the USA is the second largest Spanish-speaking nation

The USA is currently the second largest Spanish-speaking nation in the world, ahead of Spain, and just behind of Mexico. The US is the largest English-speaking nation in the world and the second largest Spanish-speaking nation in the world. :) 86.177.203.160 (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that seems an interesting fact to include, and is backed up by the Spanish language article. However, this article currently says there are 34 million Spanish speakers, which is a lower number than in Spain. Could we sort out which number is correct first? Also, it might bear mentioning in that section that America is the largest English speaking country, with x% of the world's English speakers. TastyCakes (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

WP:BATTLE
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I don't like to use this talk page as a place for idle discussion, but I would like to thank everyone that participated in the requested move (everyone but Golbez, David Levy, and TastyCakes that is). It was fun discussing and debating this matter with you and I would once again like to thank you all for participating. Although I lost, I can guarantee you that I will bring this matter up again (that is when unpatriotic people like Golbez, Levy, and TastyCakes leave Wikipedia) when the time is right. Cheers!Valkyrie Red 18:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

Euhm you like discussing for discussion sake, and want to restart the discussion at your convenience. To me that sounds very close to trolling, not constructive editing. Just accept it and find something to do that you will get universal support for, much nicer work, much better for the project. Arnoutf (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I could help, any time. --Golbez (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly are they being unpatriotic..?--Misortie (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very very clever!151.60.118.131 (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant Counterfactual edited

removed entirely ", while labor and, particularly, consumption tax rates are lower" clause from sentence whose sense I reversed after reading the reference. Perhaps it was simply a typo on the part of the original author since the matter of fact would have been presumed to be what I edited to and what a reading of the first paragraphs of the reference clearly shows to be the case. I knew this independently so, the Time content is just ... . The Netherlands for example taxes all income over 55K at 52%. Lycurgus (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see your problem. The line should be understood as "Compared to Europe, [in the] U.S. property and corporate income tax rates are generally higher [than in Europe], while labor and, particularly, consumption tax rates are lower [in the US than in Europe]". This is exactly what the Time article says. In Europe tax pressure has become relatively higher than in the US (since the 1970s when they were roughly equal) because (quote from Times 1st para) Income taxes have jumped, but so too have taxes on social insurance contributions and vat on goods and services. (note that income tax is not corporate but labor tax in this context, and VAT equals consumption tax). So honestly I do not see your point. Arnoutf (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The text of 1st ¶ of the given reference copied verbatim:

"France, Germany and some other nations are trying to resist such pressures by calling for a "harmonization" of E.U. taxes — in other words, raising everyone else closer to their higher levels. But there's no majority in Brussels for tax harmonization, and swimming against the tide is hard, especially given the heavy impact of taxes on Europe's economy. In 1970, total tax revenue measured as a percentage of the economy was roughly on a par in Western Europe and the United States. Today, it's far higher in Europe, at about 40% of gross domestic product in the E.U. compared with about 29% in the U.S. Income taxes have jumped, but so too have taxes on social insurance contributions and vat on goods and services. "Everyone feels like they are paying too much tax — and they are," says Baudouin Velge, chief economist at the Federation of Belgian Enterprises."

This is the reverse of what you are saying, maybe you've overestimated your English capabilities. Lycurgus (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The Time article quite clearly states: "In much of Europe, labor and consumption are taxed — through social-security contributions and vat — at far higher rates on average than in the U.S., where property and corporate income taxes tend to be higher." - Nunh-huh 19:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides that if you carefully read that first para:
It starts out with stating that several EU countries hold a certain point of view and then states that the EU and US were similarly taxed around 1970
In 1970, total tax revenue measured as a percentage of the economy was roughly on a par in Western Europe and the United States
But that today
Today, it's far higher in Europe, at about 40% of gross domestic product in the E.U. compared with about 29% in the U.S.
Because (note the article is written from a European point of view - see first line and lines below) in Europe
Income taxes have jumped, but so too have taxes on social insurance contributions and vat on goods and services.
Which is followed by the comment of a Belgian spokesperson confirming it is indeed a European point of view.
Together with Nunh-huh's observation this shows that there is in any case nothing "blatantly counterfactual" going on; at most the facts in the Time article are unclear, unless of course you misunderstood the Time article (how tempting to say that maybe you've overestimated your English capabilities). Arnoutf (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS sorry for the early reversion summary, I reverted between your original edit and your creation of this talk thread; so I couldnt find it when looking. Arnoutf (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A misrepresentation like this IS a matter of great principle. As far as the matter of consumption and VAT comparisons are concerned that's entirely spurious, there isn't a VAT in the US and sales taxes vary by state from nothing to as much as 7 or 8% on some things, but the bottom line is the situation expressed above by the Time author. The best thing, and the thing I imagine will happen is that the sentence will be removed in its entirety. Lycurgus (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arnoutf and Nunh-huh have represented and interpreted the source correctly; Lycurgus has clearly misunderstood it. Content restored. DocKino (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Miscellaneous

Why is America's nickname 'the mixing pot' not referenced. Isn't this the entire idea this country was founded on?Ace ofgabriel (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean Melting pot? It might bear mention, maybe in the demographics section, but saying it's the entire idea the country was founded on is clearly an unprovable opinion. TastyCakes (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is 'none at the federal level' listed under 'Language' in the Fact Box? We all know there is no official language and since this article relates to the country as a whole, why not just list the REAL answer: None. Anything below the federal level can have its language(s) kusted in its own respective article's fact box. Or am I just beating a daed hourse against some know-it-all 'editor'?65.215.94.13 (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: Contrary to popular opinion, we really are friendly, openminded folks. And you do actually have a good point. So you were doing pretty good until the last sentence. Shame. --Golbez (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't answer the question. I've just found that there is an alarming number of inaccurate articles that, when changed to a more correct form with citation, are often reverted with no explanation.65.215.94.13 (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm well I think you've got a point, but I don't think this item in the article is inaccurate, except in the most pedantic of views. I think there's a valid case for excluding the information, using arguments you have made above, but I personally like the idea of erring on the side of including more information in articles, particularly if it describes a somewhat complicated case such as this. Also, all levels of government are mentioned in the article as a whole, and the individual states are of course components of the whole, an overview of language policies at the state level doesn't seem so unreasonable. Whether it should be in the infobox or in a separate section (language?) is another matter. But I'm afraid I must side with the stodgy establishment on this item as well - I kind of like the compactness of how the information is presented in the infobox and its bottom notes at the moment. TastyCakes (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you would disagree, and with a lot of confused-sounding words at that (lol). You can still 'err on the side of inclusion' by including it as 'Official Language: None'. The '(on the federal level)' is already obvious and therefor unnecessary since the article is about the USA, which lists no official language(s).65.215.94.13 (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States&oldid=334999511"