Talk:United States

Please consider reading the frequently asked questions for this article before asking any questions on this talk page.

Current population (est.): 338,892,000 as of December 12, 2024. The USCB projects 439 million by 2050

United States of America?

The page's title is United States, but the first sentence reads "The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States..."
Shouldn't the page title be United States of America? Someone couldn't be bothered typing out the whole title? What about People's_Republic_of_China? Should that be renamed People's Republic? Flash man999 (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny stuff. See FAQ: Why is the article's name "United States" and not "United States of America"?—DCGeist (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right. We should totally rename the article on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to "United Kingdom". --Golbez (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom is the article name. the other is a redirect. Also see WP:LEAD#First_sentence. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Right. That was my point... I was being sarcastic. --Golbez (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't start this again. Look through the talk archives to see how many times this issue has come up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.119.106 (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It's come up a lot of times because it's a valid point. I have never understood the logic of this article's current title, despite having read the explanation several times. SnottyWong talk 18:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What part is confusing? "United States" is far and away the most common short-form name for the country, and absent major ambiguity - of which there isn't any - we use that. --Golbez (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Who is "we?" --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

America?

"The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America)", or America?? America is a continent, the term is misused america, no one would have to accept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.61.52.164 (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A) That is one of the names commonly used to refer to the United States, whether you like it or not. B) There is no continent of "America," there is North America, South America, and sometimes grouped together as "the Americas." --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"That is one of the names commonly used to refer to the United States, whether you like it or not" Perhaps, but that don't change the fact that only the anglophone people name themselves american (in an exclusive way) and America (to USA). It's a inaccurate appropiation of term and of course the rest of the world doesn't consider that USA like a synonimous of "America", neither considers that USA's citizens are the only american people. Of course an argentine or a mexican are american too, wether you like it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.32.46.219 (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Argentines and Mexicans are Argentine and Mexican. They won't let you forget that, either, they have pride in who they are. There isn't a pan-American Continents national movement. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As blunt as the phrase "whether you like it or not" is, it addresses the issue correctly. Generally, a Wikipedia article should be descriptive rather than normative. Since the United States is commonly referred to as "America" (among other short forms) that get included in the article, regardless of whether some people think it's unjust or bad. Similarly, there's a country officially called the Republic of Macedonia and commonly called Macedonia. Because that accurately describes how it's referred to, that gets included in the article. Just because some people normatively believe the country has no right to the name, we don't omit the description. Rome's article mentions that it has the nicknames "Capital of the World" and "The Eternal City." Just because someone thinks it doesn't merit those nicknames doesn't change the descriptive fact that those names are applied to it. I do think there's probably a place (perhaps in a footnote or a sub-article) to mention notable debates in the public sphere over whether the name "America" should be applied to the U.S. But if that's done, it should be done in a way that respects NPOV and Undue Weight policies and not in a POV-pushing way. --JamesAM (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Transportation section revisited

The current transportation section of the main United States article could use some revision. I see in the archives that this topic has been discussed in the past, but this section remains without the updates that have been suggested. In particular, this section (as currently written) places too much emphasis on comparisons between the U.S. and Europe. The United States and Europe are two different entities with different geography, different history, different demographics, etc. Although it certainly makes sense to provide comparisons, these belong in the more detailed article regarding Transportation in the United States, not in this general section on Transportation within the main United States article. Furthermore, the current text of this section implies that the author believes Europe is superior to the United States. We all know that Wikipedia is a place for facts and information, not political debate. Crm18 (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think I agree. The numbers are much more meaningful with a comparison to similarly developed countries. I think I put a lot of that information in way back when, and I assure you it wasn't meant to slight the US, it was meant to highlight the differences between the US and other comparable countries. You are right that some judgment has crept into the language, and I agree it should be changed, but I really don't think all comparisons to Europe should be deleted... TastyCakes (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The language of the article implies no judgment. Any impression of superiority or inferiority rests entirely with the prejudices of the reader.—DCGeist (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the language.LedRush (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I was referring specifically to where it said "only 9% take public transit", which does seem to imply the judgment that that's a low number. "Far below European levels" seems similarly judgmental language. And I didn't delete the bicycle ref, I turned the sentence "Bicycle usage is minimal, well below European levels" into "Bicycle use is minimal in most parts of the United States", because I'm sure you can find parts of the US with high bicycle use rates (eg Portland). I'm not totally sure I see your problem with either of those changes, DC. I've never heard the "don't start a sentence with a numeral" rule before, but if that is the case I think the sentence should be rewritten in some other way to remove the "only". TastyCakes (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"Bicycle usage is minimal, well below European levels" is accurate and respects the substance of the source, which you can access online. While many people feel that higher bicycle usage rates would represent a social improvement, others do not—our article expresses no judgment either way. I've edited the preceding sentence to retain proper style while eliminating the "only".—DCGeist (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Membership in Introduction is not listed

All country articles seem to list their alliances and memberships to international institutions (NATO, UN, WTO) in the introduction. It seems there is no reason why this standard info could not be implemented here as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.130.217 (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Presidential republic

Shouldn't the infobox include "presidential" as part of the government type? Without the qualifier, a federal republic could mean the country is parliamentary. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Times Square photo

The existing photo in the Literature, philosophy, and the arts subsection is compositionally superior to the proposed substitute. More important, it focuses on the aspect of Times Square that is crucial in the context of this section: its role as the center of the Broadway theater district. Theatrical billboards dominate the existing photo, while attention in the substitute is directed to the back of the Father Duffy Monument and the indiscernible (and, in fact, nontheatrical) advertising on the old Times Building.—DCGeist (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The current photo does not provide the scope of the subject, not any sense of scale at all. If doesn't accomplish any of the educational goals of Wikipedia as it is almost impossible to discern any piece of useful information from it. The other one provides a sense of scope of the place, let's you feel like you're in the center of it (while letting you know that the subject is centrally important), and it just looks better. The change isn't essential...I was just surprised to see you revert a photo change that was so obviously better than the current, which is pretty useless, imho.LedRush (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition to not being very informative, the existing picture uses the cliched people blur, a lazy device which remains a pet peeve of mine (and perhaps unfairly colors my criticism of it).LedRush (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, the proposed picture is damaged by its blown highlight sky. --Golbez (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

MARIA MEDINA HAS BEEN HERE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.37.193 (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)