Loading

  • 21 Aug, 2019

  • By, Wikipedia

Talk:United States
Archiving icon

Archives:

Article Name, Article Introduction, Human Rights, Culture

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. Detailed discussions which led to the current consensus can be found in the archives of Talk:United States. Several topical talk archives are identified in the infobox to the right. A complete list of talk archives can be found at the top of the Talk:United States page.
Q2. Why is the article's name "United States" and not "United States of America"?
Isn't United States of America the official name of the U.S.? I would think that United States should redirect to United States of America, not vice versa as is the current case.
This has been discussed many times. Please review the summary points below and the discussion archived at the Talk:United States/Name page. The most major discussion showed a lack of consensus to either change the name or leave it as the same, so the name was kept as "United States".
If, after reading the following summary points and all the discussion, you wish to ask a question or contribute your opinion to the discussion, then please do so at Talk:United States. The only way that we can be sure of ongoing consensus is if people contribute.
Reasons and counterpoints for the article title of "United States":
  • "United States" is in compliance with the Wikipedia "Naming conventions (common names)" guideline portion of the Wikipedia naming conventions policy. The guideline expresses a preference for the most commonly used name, and "United States" is the most commonly used name for the country in television programs (particularly news), newspapers, magazines, books, and legal documents, including the Constitution of the United States.
    • Exceptions to guidelines are allowed.
  • If we used "United States of America", then to be consistent we would have to rename all similar articles. For example, by renaming "United Kingdom" to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" or Mexico to "United Mexican States".
    • Exceptions to guidelines are allowed. Articles are independent from one another. No rule says articles have to copy each other.
    • This argument would be valid only if "United States of America" was a particularly uncommon name for the country.
  • With the reliability, legitimacy, and reputation of all Wikimedia Foundation projects under constant attack, Wikipedia should not hand a weapon to its critics by deviating from the "common name" policy traditionally used by encyclopedias in the English-speaking world.
    • Wikipedia is supposed to be more than just another encyclopedia.
Reasons and counterpoints for the article title of "United States of America":
  • It is the country's official name.
    • The country's name is not explicitly defined as such in the Constitution or in the law. The words "United States of America" only appear three times in the Constitution. "United States" appears 51 times by itself, including in the presidential oath or affirmation. The phrase "of America" is arguably just a prepositional phrase that describes the location of the United States and is not actually part of the country's name.
  • The Articles of Confederation explicitly name the country "The United States of America" in article one. While this is no longer binding law, the articles provide clear intent of the founders of the nation to use the name "The United States of America."
  • The whole purpose of the common naming convention is to ease access to the articles through search engines. For this purpose the article name "United States of America" is advantageous over "United States" because it contains the strings "United States of America" and "United States." In this regard, "The United States of America" would be even better as it contains the strings "United States," The United States," "United States of America," and "The United States of America."
    • The purpose of containing more strings is to increase exposure to Wikipedia articles by increasing search rank for more terms. Although "The United States of America" would give you four times more commonly used terms for the United States, the United States article on Wikipedia is already the first result in queries for United States of America, The United States of America, The United States, and of course United States.
Q3. Is the United States really the oldest constitutional republic in the world?
1. Isn't San Marino older?
Yes. San Marino was founded before the United States and did adopt its basic law on 8 October 1600. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sm.html) Full democracy was attained there with various new electoral laws in the 20th century which augmented rather than amended the existing constitution.

2. How about Switzerland?

Yes, but not continuously. The first "constitution" within Switzerland is believed to be the Federal Charter of 1291 and most of modern Switzerland was republican by 1600. After Napoleon and a later civil war, the current constitution was adopted in 1848.

Many people in the United States are told it is the oldest republic and has the oldest constitution, however one must use a narrow definition of constitution. Within Wikipedia articles it may be appropriate to add a modifier such as "oldest continuous, federal ..." however it is more useful to explain the strength and influence of the US constitution and political system both domestically and globally. One must also be careful using the word "democratic" due to the limited franchise in early US history and better explain the pioneering expansion of the democratic system and subsequent influence.

The component states of the Swiss confederation were mostly oligarchies in the eighteenth century, however, being much more oligarchical than most of the United States, with the exceptions of Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Connecticut.
Q4. Why are the Speaker of the House and Chief Justice listed as leaders in the infobox? Shouldn't it just be the President and Vice President?
The President, Vice President, Speaker of The House of Representatives, and Chief Justice are stated within the United States Constitution as leaders of their respective branches of government. As the three branches of government are equal, all four leaders get mentioned under the "Government" heading in the infobox.
Q5. What is the motto of the United States?
There was no de jure motto of the United States until 1956, when "In God We Trust" was made such. Various other unofficial mottos existed before that, most notably "E Pluribus Unum". The debate continues on what "E Pluribus Unum"'s current status is (de facto motto, traditional motto, etc.) but it has been determined that it never was an official motto of the United States.
Q6. Is the U.S. really the world's largest economy?
The United States was the world's largest national economy from about 1880 and largest by nominal GDP from about 2014, when it surpassed the European Union. China has been larger by Purchasing Power Parity, since about 2016.
Q7. Isn't it incorrect to refer to it as "America" or its people as "American"?
In English, America (when not preceded by "North", "Central", or "South") almost always refers to the United States. The large super-continent is called the Americas.
Q8. Why isn't the treatment of Native Americans given more weight?
The article is written in summary style and the sections "Indigenous peoples" and "European colonization" summarize the situation.
Former good articleUnited States was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You KnowOn this day... 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
October 19, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 19, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 9, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
June 27, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 6, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
January 19, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
March 18, 2012Good article reassessmentDelisted
August 10, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
January 21, 2015Good article nomineeListed
February 22, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
December 19, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 3, 2015.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the United States accounts for 37% of all global military spending?
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 4, 2008.
Current status: Delisted good article

Add a section for human rights

I understand that Wikipedia editors are mostly Americans, but it seems like many of them are either American nationalists or hired by the American government to write these pages. I was reading the Wikipedia articles about some countries (not Western ones), and most of them had a special section dedicated to that nation's human rights violations. However, I don't see anything like that for the United States. The United States committed more human rights violations in the last two decades than any other nation, and its history and current system is filled with human rights violations against its own citizens, against Black people, or against citizens of other countries. 103.165.29.160 (talk) 08:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're 100% right, unfortunately in this case the fact that many users are Americans doesn't help. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Atleast we need to discuss about it. Why this is not included . 103.165.29.209 (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion link? JacktheBrown (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dont think we should segregate info like this as outlined at WP:COUNTRYSECTIONS...but would easy to do for USA as there is not much.
"Discrimination and violence against LGBTI people, anti-LGBTI legislation, and limitations on abortion access are prevalent. Indigenous women faced gender-based violence disproportionately. Issues surrounding asylum seekers, the death penalty, and arbitrary detention at Guantánamo Bay were ongoing. Gun violence remained a major problem, and there were restrictions on the right to protest in multiple states. Excessive use of force by police disproportionately affected Black individuals".......one of many sources...."Human rights in United States of America". Amnesty International. March 29, 2024. Moxy🍁 14:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JacktheBrown need more link ? 103.165.29.214 (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
El chouvinismo americano no ayuda a que se mencionen las afrontas de USA contra los derechos humanos. No se habla de su larga historia de financiar golpes de Estado, dictaduras, etc. ArturoHuhucumu (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the aforementioned. 2601:147:4400:45E0:A529:6FD7:C817:56A3 (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@103.165.29.160 Category:Human rights abuses in the United States. There are simply too many human rights abuses (100+ pages) committed by the United States to merge it into the article. Though a small section to alert people of the category page would be nice. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Westward expansion and Civil War (1800–1865)

I've added several key events of the 1850s that helped draw the North and South into the Civil War, the greatest sectional conflict in U.S. history. The previous text was parsimonious and weak, and in no way does it help explain what "culminated" in the Civil War. I am proposing these few new sentences, plus an overall mention of the 1850s abolitionist movement. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trump 2025

Today he becomed president, change it Anthony J. Price (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He did not, he is scheduled to become President on January 20. CMD (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need nominal and PPP GDP in the infobox?

The infobox currently lists both nominal GDP and GDP (PPP). Since PPP is adjusted into US dollars, we have the same numbers, twice. The only difference is that the US ranking differs slightly. Would there be any way to merge the two? Or, since this is technically limited by being an infobox, could we find consensus to remove one outright? Toadspike [Talk] 21:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By "merge" I mean combining the parentheticals: (PPP, nominal), (2nd, 1st), and (8th, 6th) retaining the current links. Toadspike [Talk] 21:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edited. This is simply a proposal; if the information can be at all clearer (without listing both dollar amounts twice), that is even better. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not all readers may know that nominal and PPP figures are the same and at a glance seems like the nominal figures are just missing. It is more clear to list both figures. Also it is currently removed already and I oppose doing that before this has even been fully discussed. Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to actually combine them into one section of the infobox, rather than what is currently there (two sections but the dollar figure only in one). I will do my best to find a technical solution to this, but it may take a while, since infoboxes are complex templates. @Bokmanrocks01, if you don't like the current version (which I agree is odd), feel free to revert the change. Toadspike [Talk] 18:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I tried to find the technical solution but couldn't. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

Why is the article titled "United States" instead of "United States of America"? 2001:A61:3038:1A01:790E:C174:6DF3:B418 (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consult the FAQ at the top of this Talk Page CollinMadden (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The country has the world's third-largest land area, largest exclusive economic zone, and third-largest population, exceeding 340 million."

I don't really like this sentence, as it reads rather like a random dropping of facts. Older article versions did a better job of putting the information into contextual sentences. Maxeto0910 (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And its wrong - second EEZ. Moxy🍁 15:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oligarchy vs Democracy

In the government section we may want to add that in 2025 the United states became, or moved towards, an Oligarchy governing system and away from Democracy? (See link for a paper talking about definitions.)

https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/publications/oligarchic%20vs%20democratic%20societies.pdf

It does seem like it is now the era of monopolies, and barriers to entering the entrepreneurial landscape are starting to rise, along with wealth being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. (See below links about rising monopolies, as well as the decline in new small businesses.)

https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/republicans/2022/12/entrepreneurship-and-the-decline-of-american-growth https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/08/health/primary-care-doctors-consolidation.html https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2019/04/11/america-has-a-monopoly-problem/

The new USA administration being filled with 13 billionaires, plus many more millionaires, with a drastic increase in the total wealth of the new governing figures overall, seems to be pretty conclusive evidence towards the change in governmental types being valid.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-tapped-unprecedented-13-billionaires-top-administration-roles/story?id=116872968

But I'm not a political historian so I can't be sure this is a valid definitional change. I'm hoping this topic of discussion will attract true experts who can chime in on this edit and either validate it or negate it. So please if you are knowledgeable about this topic, chime in to educate me/us. I just figured this seems like it needed to be updated, and if an uneducated person like me watching the USA political upheaval from afar (Not American! So I promise I don't really care about their weird Blue vs Red stuff!) now has questions about what to categorize the USA government as, then it might be time to change it.

Even if you disagree that it has not fully become one as of January 20th, it does seem to be moving in that direction, and it seems false to not mention it and to pretend that the USA is still a pure Republic Democracy?

So anyways, I figured it was worth discussing. Thanks for your time! 24.79.242.248 (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a widely held view Bashir, Omar S. (1 October 2015). "Testing Inferences about American Politics: A Review of the "Oligarchy" Result". Research & Politics. 2 (4): 2053168015608896. doi:10.1177/2053168015608896. ISSN 2053-1680. Moxy🍁 16:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
from your source: According to several journalistic accounts but not Gilens and Page themselves, the findings show that the American system of government is best understood as “oligarchy.” which means America as an oligarchy was a widely spread view after their study's findings. This study was also pre-2016. Now, in 2025, it is a widely held view that America is at least transitioning into (if not already) an oligarchy and/or has oligarchs.
Stuart, Riley "Inside the rise of US oligarchs and how it opened a dark money 'floodgate'" ABC Australia [1]
Nover, Scott "Oligarchy Comes to America" Slate [2]
Bernie Sanders statement on oligarchy in America [3]
"Oxfam: Musk’s appointment to Trump’s administration signals that “oligarchy is taking hold of American democracy”" [4]
Parton, Hannah Digby "Commentary: Making American oligarchy great again" Salon [5] Appalling (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could make an argument that the united states has been an oligarchy for a long time. Zyxrq (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Main problem is media as sources for something that has been covered widely by academic publications for decades. Moxy🍁 03:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first Europeans to arrive were Spanish

The Spanish were the first Europeans to arrive in the area of ​​what is now the southern United States in the 16th century.

I think this fact should be reflected in the introduction, just before mentioning British colonization. 87.223.34.93 (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that at least a cursory mention there is desirable. I've proposed an edit. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it works as a start. It hinges heavily on readers understanding "what is now", but I suspect the meaning is clear. CMD (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Senate leader

The infobox contains a list of leaders, which includes the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. Logically, it would make sense to also include the Senate Majority leader, John Thune. The Senate is the other part of Congress, and is in fact the "upper" chamber. So it doesn't make sense to include the House leader but not the Senate leader. Please add Thune's name to the infobox. 2603:7000:6E3B:BE70:547C:C31E:F30A:28F8 (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The constitutionally enshrined senate leader is the vice-president. The majority leader is of relatively recent vintage (mid twentieth century), and whose power is uncertain. See the archives for previous detailed discussions that established consensus that the leader not be named. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New president edit request

Can I edit the wiki page? There is a new president now Bsd.trk (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not until he takes office in a few hours... - Adolphus79 (talk) 07:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oh I thought he was already in office cuz it's 20 January for me Bsd.trk (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We will change this tomorrow, 12 pm EST. Tarlby 07:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

French Florida did not preceded Spanish Florida

Spanish Florida was established in 1513 when Juan Ponce de León claimed the Florida peninsula for Spain during the first official European expedition to North America.

French Florida was a colonial territory established by French Huguenot colonists as part of New France in what is now Florida and South Carolina between 1562 and 1565.--37.132.34.83 (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I can understand your objection. The WP article on Spanish Florida states that "Florida was never more than a backwater region for Spain" until settlements were actually established there. The French colonists came very early to settle the south Atlantic coast; they left not because of disease or trouble with the Natives but because they were massacred by other Europeans. I'll recast the sentence. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. But there is no doubt that the first Europeans to settle permanently in the United States were the Spanish, then the French and later the English. Thanks for the correction.--37.132.34.83 (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Spain-France-Britain should be clear in both the introduction and "History" sections. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for


—2603:6080:57F0:7C30:ADA4:AE5C:3084:2425 (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 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. (CC) Tbhotch 17:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

name

I believe that seeing Trump's actions, police violence, looting of other countries, etc., it is timely to remember that "America" ​​is the continent. "American" is the name of those who live in the country, so the USA should be called Amerikkka or the United States of Amerikkka. ArturoHuhucumu (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses the terminology also used by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, not a usage coined by Ice Cube in 1990. Cullen328 (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See last sentence of "Etymology" section. Maxeto0910 (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS and End of Afghanistan

Hi folks. I made some edits, just copying from the ISIS and Afghanistan war-related articles already and their sources, and thought it would be timely to add them to the page. Here is my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&oldid=1272770507 It was (you guessed it!) quickly reverted, the complaint being I didn't copy enough sources from the pages on Islamic State and War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) and United States–Taliban deal. Or I guess the latter are fine, just the ISIS one, but both were reverted of course together (nobody here is very nuanced in their reversions, are they?). Anyways, let's discuss. Shall we keep my edits somewhat? Change them a bit? Just put them as a link under the subheading? Discuss away, contributors (and interlocuters, I guess--but let's be civil!). DivineReality (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection edit request

This part: "Show territories with their exclusive economic zone". It should say "internationally recognized EEZ" instead. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Per MOS:EGG, a reader wouldn't know what an "EEZ" was until they clicked the link which would spend an unnecessary click out of their life. Tarlby 05:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tarlby then say "Internationally recognized Exclusive Economic Zone" SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is in need of being clarified here, and does it matter at a 220px scale? CMD (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States&oldid=1273617172"