Talk:United States

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

Current population (est.): 339,059,000 as of January 12, 2025. The USCB projects 439 million by 2050

Vandalism

Vandalism on this article! Article destroyed! (cur) (prev) 08:26, 25 July 2009 ClueBot (talk | contribs) m (159,919 bytes) (Reverting possible vandalism by Contra10 to version by DCGeist. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot. (743512) (Bot)) Bot did not work, so vandalism still present. I am not an established registered user, so it seems I cannot revert the vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwnit (talk • contribs) 09:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Demographics Race/Ethnicity

This table is misleading because different classifications are mixed in a single table making the sum exceeding 100%.

One is the race, White/African American/Asian/AIAN/NHPI and another is Hispanic or not.

So, I changed the table using the same classification "Non-Hispanic whites/Hispanic/ African American/Asian..." as Demographics of the United States#Projections before.

However it is reverted by User:DCGeist.

So I changed the table less problematic way, splitting the table and added "Not Hispanic" Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The eccentricities of the "Hispanic origin" in the census are, I think, adequately explained in the text. Them being listed at the end of the table, with the note, is sufficient without having to design new tables and criteria. --Golbez (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I already have changed the table. Please review it again.

Also the name of "Hispanic or Latino"[1] has changed to "Hispanic"[2] in the classification from 2007.

The name of source is "Annual Estimates of the Population by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2007 (NC-EST2007-03)"[3] not "Annual Estimates of the Population by Sex, Race, and Hispanic or Latino Origin for the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2007 (NC-EST2006-03)". Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Hispanics who answer "Some Other Race" in the U.S. Census are in fact "Multiracial"...but we can say the same about most "Hawaiians", "Native Americans" and even 25% of "African Americans", all them MULTIRACIAL.--83.53.111.180 (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

---

DocKino reverted my edit by explaining "restore proper formatting of table per official sourcing"[4].

However, official source[5] classifies "NOT HISPANIC" and "HISPANIC" under "BOTH SEXES".

I reverted to "proper formatting of table".

Also you should not cite the source in 2008. Figures in 2008 has been changed from 2007. If you would like to use 2008 version, you should update whole descriptions related to the source. In addition, your citation is inconsistent, citing 2007 source with the name of 2008.

Please read above discussions carefully. —— Phoenix7777 (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Space and coding weight is at a premium here. The addition of the "NOT HISPANIC" line is completely supererogatory (and mathematically obvious). As for being careful, you be careful in the future not to revert unargued edits--as you just did--simply because you have a particular point to contest. DocKino (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Does anyone notice that the entire article was deleted and vandalized? It now says "You have been F10wed" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.77.38 (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Usa superpower anymore.

Today the first power is EU(not a superpower). Superpower (in latin means above) as written in the article is a political being able to do everithing without receiving lethal hits.Usa can't do it first of all and has't ever been able to do it also in the period of Soviet Union.The only EU states have nukes (non Nato shared) to cancel Earth several times (so the other weapons are tins).Russia has about the double of nukes of Usa and so on... Usa publicdebt/ gdp (considering as well FNM and FRE bonds guaranteed by US government,otherwise whose debts are these ones?)is TODAY about 120%.US gouvernment today is only moving private debts to public debt but the whole debt is growing all the same. US global debt (private+public) 212000 trillions $ US citizen global debt 712000 $ US citizen global debt taxpayer 1087000 $ US global debt/gdp 1550%!!!!!

Datas are very clear and you can check them in Wikipedia and in a lot of official websites.Somebody (as somebody that dislike today datas )can cancel as a stupid vandal this words,but US debts are always there.VERBA VOLANT SCRIPTA MANENT (only a latin people that studied latin can understand the real meaning and mood of these words).May be just now french submarines with M45 rockets or other EU nuclear weapons have ready nukes to cancel Usa or Earth.Not only Usa have military secrets.Now vandals or US propaganda men or US nationalists or also polite men can start with different answers.It rests the shame of who cancelled this article some minutes ago.This act doesn't change reality.I'm invalid in some acting but more intelligent than a lot of people.151.60.117.153 (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

From the Superpower article - "A superpower is a state with a leading position in the international system and the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests; it is traditionally considered to be one step higher than a great power." The US, and while it existed the USSR, is clearly a superpower. The EU could be considered one if it was, in fact, a state in it's own right but it isn't. Also it was never about nukes or the ability "to do everithing without receiving lethal hits," only the ability to influence world events to it's own benefit. OptimumPx (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You clarity and intelligence are appreciated Optimum, but more productively focused elsewhere. Please don't feed the troll.—DCGeist (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You offended me.Be careful.151.60.118.161 (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

How can accuse me of feed the trol.I wrote just an edit.Who are you to offend me?Be careful.151.60.118.161 (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Superpower" article is considered updated by the same Wikipedia .It needs cleanup.151.60.118.161 (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

151.60.118.161, Please discuss this issue on Talk:Superpower first. After that, Please return to this page. Thank you in advance for your consideration. ― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)　― Phoenix7777 (talk)

I thank YOU,but in the article it's impossible to understand if it's possible considering today Usa a superpower. In "Usa" article the term superpower is written as thing "SURE and TRUE" accepted today by ALL the world of academics,but isn't.If there's no agreement on "Superpower" article, "Usa " article CAN'T (TO BE RIGHT) report as "SURE and TRUE" a concept (Usa is a superpower)or a new.There 's an impossible contraddiction betweeen the source (the article "Superpower") and the second article "Usa" that use term superpower for Usa as "SURE AND TRUE FOR EVERYBODY OR MAJORITY IN POLITICAL SCIENCES".If we look for reality and science is one thing,if we talk for hipocricy it's a matter of encyclopedia not to me.151.60.117.148 (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Missed you buddy. TastyCakes (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Demonym / gentilic (United States is of America, not America)

I personally believe that the actual Demonym or gentilic for a United States person should be unitedstatean or something similar, due to the fact that people in other american countries are also american, as for europeans are europens despite of being from France, Italy, Spain, GB and so on. So for instance a venezuelan, cuban, argentinian, mexican, canadian, aruban, brazilean, jamaican, etc. etc., are also american citizens. If you should go and check the gentilic in other languages it actually is unitedstatean (check Wikipwdia in other languages). Why in english and french (I don't know other languages) should be any different? I know this sounds more of a personal thought or personal believe, but in fact being an american person, I feel pretty much obliged to ask for this change. I don't deny that the United States people are in fact american citizens, but they are primarily from the United States that is IN(of) America, not America (as a whole). It actually represents some form of abuse and discrimination (in the generalized way that is spoken of america, refering to the United States as a whole), being the fact that I, as an american citizen, don't live in the United States and wasn't born in there and haven't experienced the United States way of life. Just for an example, the generalization of american dream, and native american is completely narrowed, as it does not represent, for the case of the latter mentioned, the incan and mayan comunities (just to name another mayor native american comunities). If you want to use any distinction there is Anglo-Saxon America and Latin America, to use Language distinction (there are others languages, and other distinctions) Most of all being in a politically correct world, this should be changed. Thank you

Javaplana (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

What you personally think doesn't matter, is highly flawed (there is no continent called just "America"), and flies flat in the face of reality (Brazilians want to be called Brazilian, not American). --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok lets just follow your line of thought, because what you think also doesn't matter and yours is highly flawed as well (because of your generalizing). I am venezuelan and want to be called venezuelan, but that does not affect the fact that I don't what the american name(demonym) to be generalized by the things that the United States do (and this is a concern among a lot of latin and non latin american, but still american, countries). Let me put it this way, a cat and a tiger are felines, so they share common things but at the end they have their differences, so it would be a mistake to say that all felines can be domesticated and are small because you are a cat and export your main features as the characteristics of the feline family. (it can be explained with pine and cedars, just to put another example) That takes us to the division of America in two (by the way America is still one continent, and that is how is taught in a lot of countries, so you cannot argue that as a reason, but that is not the discussion here). If you divide it then there is no chance that you'd be called THE americans, you will then be called north americans, but that will also be generalizing the things for mexicans, canadians, belizeans, salvadoreans, cubans, etc., don't you?

Javaplana (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The simple fact of the matter is, in English, the demonym is "American". We don't really care how it's done in other languages. --Golbez (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is it "American" and not another more accurate(in the sense of proper and politically correct) one?? like for example unitedstatean

Javaplana (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

A Venezuelan would be South American, not American, because there is no continent of "America." There are two continents where that is part of the name. As national denonyms go, the Venezuelan would not want to be called that, because it is not a national identity for them. It does not separate them from Columbians (who they don't get along with), Brazilians, etc. What I think is based on the reality of usage in the world, meaning it is based on the facts. It is the job of Wikipedia to report the facts, not to make up new ones, not to try and change them. There is no common use of "unitedstatean," period. That is the end of the story, right there, because to use it would be Wikipedia trying to change the facts of the world, which is not its job. The English language denonym is American, flat out. If in Spanish they say something different, they are free to report it on their language edition of Wikiepdia. We say "Russian" on this version of Wikipedia, it is most definitely spelled and pronounced differently by native Russian speakers. It does not change what is written here. All of this has been rehashed many times on this talk page, all with the same result. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Besides the (in my opinion definitive) "common use" argument against using "united statean" or something similarly made up, and the fact that "America" refers to the US in all English speaking countries (and so should, in my view, be so on English Wikipedia) I do not believe the demonym has to be mutually exclusive to a country. For example, you will see on the European Union article that its demonym is given as "European", despite the fact that there are Europeans (like Norwegians and Swiss) that are not EU citizens. TastyCakes (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

dude or chic . . . Ex. Germany is in Europe, you can still refer to a German as a "European." Or some guy's from South Africa, you wouldn't be wrong calling him an "African." It doesn't have to be that complicated. It's a "term used" . . . "to coin a . . ?!" . . ."thats hot." etc. `0_o —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.248.163 (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is this 'United States' article talking about the USA?

As everyone with half a brain knows, this article should NOT be about the USA. 'United States' is a title used in front of many countries. This article should be listing all 'United States', which should then split off to 'United States of America' and such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.94.33 (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It is standard for Wikipedia to use the most notable common name of something as a title (this is why London goes to London, England and not London, Ontario). As you can see there is only one country in the world other than the US that currently has "United States" in its name, and that is Mexico. It is seldom referred to as this and so I think it is absolutely valid that the USA is the default United States. Please also see the FAQ for this article, it talks some more about the naming. TastyCakes (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And to clarify, that is the "United Mexican States". Only one country uses "United States" in a row, and that's this one. --Golbez (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, there used to be the United States of Brazil, so for a spell, there were TWO "United States" of "America".... Guess that's why they changed it in the 60s.... lotsa letters going to the wrong place... Canada Jack (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Outside of the United Mexican States all other countries that used the term 'United States' in their name started using after the USA was formed and have changed their name to something else before today. 69.132.221.35 (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Flag

The Flag of the United States Was first adopted in 1777 and has endured many revision including the 1959 revision of Hawaii and Alaska.The flag of the United States of America (more commonly known simply as the American Flag) consists of thirteen equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white, with a blue rectangle in the canton bearing fifty small, white, five-pointed stars arranged in nine offset horizontal rows of six stars (top and bottom) alternating with rows of five stars. The thirteen stripes signifying the thirteen original colonies, and the fifty stars representing the fifty states (originally thirteen as well). The flag requires specific dimensions, as well as special care; including display, position, and disposal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkeyllama (talk • contribs) 19:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What is there to add? All needed information is on the article on the flag. No other country article, that I'm aware of, goes into any detail about the country's flag. yes there is. the usa does it Flag of the United States.

... right, every country's flag has its own article. They don't talk about it in the country article. --Golbez (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

MMA in USA

Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) is very popular in the USA with big promotions such as Ultimate Fighting Championships (UFC) and Strikeforce. It has actually become more popular in pay-per-view sales than Boxing and Wrestling and should be included in USA sports section