Talk:United States

Frequently asked questions

Q1. How did the article get the way it is?

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.

• Well-established encyclopedias in the English language appear to generally use a "common name" policy for article titles. More specifically, the following use "United States" for the title of the corresponding article: MSN Encarta, World Book, Encyclopedia Americana, Columbia, Grolier, and the Micropaedia and online versions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. In our effort to make Wikipedia an "encyclopedia of the highest possible quality," (Jimmy Wales, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", March 8, 2005, <wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org>) we would do well to emulate what these well-established encyclopedias do.
  • The Macropaedia version of Britannica uses "United States of America" for its article title.

• 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.

Raising the American flag during the Battle of Iwo Jima vs. nuclear mushroom cloud (Trinity nuclear test)

I would argue for the inclusion of the American flag photo instead of the nuclear mushroom cloud in The rise to world power, the New Deal, and World War II section. As I noted before, the previous image has too many connotations that are difficult to frame. It's one of those images that has a lot of different meanings and without further context within the text itself it might just conjure up images of nuclear armageddon and America (though this would also apply to other nuclear powers as well). Thus, I think the American flag image is a more neutral choice which clearly relates to the idea of America's rise following the end of WWII. E-960 (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not clear why you seem to think using Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima to represent the US in World War II doesn't have its own connotations and is somehow neutral. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unprecedented in human history, had a massive human impact, bore heavily on the outcome of the war, and ushered in the Nuclear arms race aspect of the Cold War. Between the battle of Iwo Jima and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the latter is objectively the more consequential of the two and the NPOV choice. إيان (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, especially given that § 21st century has a picture of the September 11 attacks. Every country raises flags, but the United states is unique in its use of nuclear weapons for state terrorism.      — Freoh 19:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Unit 731 took more lives than the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We don't have that on the FA-featured Japan page, either. Whatever one's opinions on that decision was: Unit 731 was far less morally ambiguous. Heck, the Bombing of Tokyo took more lives than the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. KlayCax (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Stara Marusya (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The Bombing of Tokyo took more lives than the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. KlayCax (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Shoreranger (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The aerial bombings of Tokyo likely had more casualities. KlayCax (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

This almost certainly needs to go to a RFC - I agree. @E-960:. Editors are letting their personal opinions get in the way.

We don't have an Unit 731 or Rape of Nanjing picture on the Japan page. KlayCax (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Other possible options

• 
  Yalta Conference picture
• 
  Cairo Conference picture
• 
  Potsdam Conference picture
• 
  Tehran Conference picture

These would also be good, potential options to work with if a consensus can't be reached. KlayCax (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The use of nuclear weapons against civilian populations is unique to the United States and was extremely consequential for world politics ever since. KlayCax, why do you oppose this picture?      — Freoh 14:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@KlayCax, can you please clean up your comments and put them in sequential order? The way you inserted your comment makes it seem like the previous comments agree with what you said. إيان (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure these other images are better. They are even more loaded with various connotations than the original picture. --E-960 (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions? @E-960:. KlayCax (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@KlayCax, still waiting for you to reorganize your comments so that they don't distort the conversation and mislead readers from seeing the clear consensus that had formed. إيان (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It's also unnecessary to label the pictures you like with a sub-heading. إيان (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a RFC. I just made a subheading to showcase other possible alternatives. Does using both (Iwo Jima and that) pictures work?

Usually it's considered rude to delete comments. That's why I didn't want to remove what I already posted.KlayCax (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

No, I think that it is better to include the Great Depression picture so that we get some pre-WWII coverage. I feel like it is more illustrative than the Iwo Jima picture.      — Freoh 02:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@KlayCax, I didn’t say anything about deleting. Just move them so they are chronological and aren’t disrupting the conversation, interjecting to make it look like the consensus that had formed was in agreement with you. And for future reference please don’t use headings or sub-headings in your talk page comments because it’s disruptive. Now, for example, we aren’t replying to E-960’s original topic /* Raising the American flag during the Battle of Iwo Jima vs. nuclear mushroom cloud (Trinity nuclear test) /* but rather to your /* Other possible options /*.

And I share E-960’s skepticism with regard to the conference images and agree with Freoh that Iwo Jima image doesn’t contribute anything to the article at this point. إيان (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The US Gini coefficient uses pre-tax income, whereas other country's use post-tax income

The US's Gini coefficient of 46.9 accurately reflects the 2020 census data, but is not comparable to that listed on any other country's page, which all adjust for taxes and transfers. The US Census Bureau released adjusted figures along with their pre-tax estimates, so there's no reason to be comparing apples and oranges.

"Comparing inequality measures using pretax and post-tax income in 2021 illustrates how the tax system can reduce inequality. Inequality, as measured by the Gini index, was 12.9% lower when calculated using post-tax income compared to pretax income." https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/09/income-inequality-increased.html

The table on page 48 shows that after adjusting for taxes and transfers, the US Gini coefficient drops to .394. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2022/demo/p60-276.pdf Dylancatlow1 (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Is the United States' usage of the death penalty independently notable?

Should the United States article continue to mention the country's practice of the death penalty vs. countries such as Japan and Taiwan?

This has been a simmering topic over the past year. Arguments and discussion surrounding it can be seen here.

As a quick synopsis of the pro-"removal" view:

• Other countries with similar/higher per capita execution rates — including Japan and Taiwan — have articles that intentionally exclude mention. Per me: If we're going to apply this standard to the United States, we're going to have to imply it to other developed nations such as Japan, Singapore, or Taiwan. This "standard" is utterly inconsistent and contradictory otherwise.
• Editors personal dislike of the continued usage of the death penalty doesn't mean that it's notable enough to mention in the article. A majority of the world's population lives in a polity that retains it. Per me: Draws WP: Undue attention to the issue. Even within the developed world: Israel, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, amid others, routinely (frequently greater than the current per capita incidence in the United States) apply the death penalty for various routine crimes; additionally, Peru, Brazil, Chile, and a few other developed countries at least partially retain it in exceptional circumstances. (Albeit far less frequently) Taking an even broader perspective, 60% of the global population lives in a country in which the death penalty is applied. I'm failing to see (even within the Western-aligned world) how this is nothing more than WP: Undue. The only reason it seems to be mentioned in the lead is because of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and to give the article a sense of "pro" and "con" balance.

As a quick synopsis of the anti-"removal" view:

• Per Moxy: United States remains the only advanced democracy that fails to recognize capital punishment as a profound human rights violation and as a frightening abuse of government power....things like this are beyond the pale.
• Per Moxy: In the eyes of the Western World this is a human rights violation beyond measure and is lead worthy without a doubt. This is the main human rights situation in the USA. Crazy they have legal killing in this day and age....view of the world. .... UN request. ....that happens for ever president.
• Per Mason Jones: [It] note[s] that the U.S. holds itself out to the world as a model of liberty and human rights; its government freely criticizes other nations. The current text simply says that the U.S. fails to reach its potential for such a wealthy (and critical) democracy.

A detailed examination of the arguments for and against - which I suggest editors read - can be found here and here. KlayCax (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Map of company being kept. Moxy- 23:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• No. Remove. - Think I'd lean towards removing it on the WP:UNDUE and WP:OTHERCONTENT grounds. Lots of things are weird and notable about crime and punishment in the US. Why give voice to this particular issue? Seems like a WP:SOAPBOX. If we're not mentioning this kind of things in the articles for other countries, why here? NickCT (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  Belarus Moxy- 14:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Remove. Clearly undue. Domestic policy issues in the lead should be limited to those significant to the country's history, such as slavery. And even then, it should only be to provide historical context. The previous discussions indicate an attempt to include the statement to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and probably should have been addressed as a conduct issue some time ago. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
• Remove - I strongly oppose the death penalty and believe that its retention here in the US remains the largest stain on our human-rights record; but that's my opinion. That the US retains the death penalty should not be described in the article when comparable liberal democracies such as Japan (a featured article!) and Taiwan do not. Countries are outliers on lots of things, but unless they're specially notable, they're not mentioned in their article; for example, Japan and South Korea are the only industrialized liberal democracies to not have same sex marriage, while South Korea is the only industrialized liberal democracy where pornography is broadly illegal. Neither of these facts are mentioned in their respective articles. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  This is a great argument for inclusion in those articles. Death penalty is the number one human rights issue facing the US in the view of the world and is a domestic policy dispute."U.S. Votes No, as Record Number of Nations Adopt UN Resolution for Global Moratorium on the Death Penalty". Death Penalty Information Center. 2022-12-20. Retrieved 2023-03-17. That said I can see how people find it disturbing and are simply turned off by the topic. Moxy- 01:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  Japan is a featured article, I assume this question was brought up; I'm loathe to question the review process. If that article doesn't include it, neither should this one. It does seem like you believe it should be included because it is wrong, which is truly not the point of Wikipedia. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  I believe it should be included cuz it's the number one humans rights issue facing the country. It's directly related to poverty and race relations of the country. Our objective is to educate our readers not leave them in the dark because the topic may be offensive to some. That said most Americans side with the death penalty so it may simply not be seen as an important humans rights issue to begin with. Survey seem to indicate Health Care is the number one concern of Americans when it comes to human rights.....as it impacts more people. Moxy- 02:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  Right, but our job isn't to exaggerate the extent that something is notable, either. It is notable that the US has the death penalty, but it doesn't make it a complete outlier among the developed world or even among developed liberal democracies. If it is discussed at all in the article, it definitely should not be in the lead, but I'm beginning to lean towards not discussing it at all in the main article. Throwing everything into this article is how it got to be so long and unwieldy. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Remove Per NickCT. The other countries listed are irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFF. This does appear to be a WP:SOAPBOX addition. I know it's difficult to be objective on things, but this is an WP:UNDUE inclusion. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• Keep per Mason Jones argument ("the U.S. holds itself out to the world as a model of liberty and human rights; its government freely criticizes other nations") and Moxy's "Map of company being kept" above. The paragraph on the death penalty in the United States is long-standing, well sourced and absolutely WP:DUE for the section on law enforcement. Also, the insistence on comparing the US to Taiwan (which was a literal dictatorship till the late 1980s) or Japan is nonsensical. It would be more appropriate to compare the US to peer countries such as Western democracies, all of which have abolished the death penalty.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• How is it a nonsensical argument to compare Japan and Taiwan, when Japan and Taiwan are both liberal democracies like the US that freely practice the death penalty? Again, it seems like most of the people pushing for inclusion here are trying to Right Great Wrongs, which is not our job. Yes, the death penalty is grievously wrong, but lots of things are. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 20:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  

  Whatever your strategy, don't leave our readers without any information on subjects of notability Wikipedia:Purpose

  Moxy- 12:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Size again

I know last year many worked hard to bring this down to 11000 words...just over the suggested limit. But I see the articles back over 13000 words. WP:CANYOUREADTHIS

HTML document size: 1429 kB Prose size (including all HTML code): 212 kB References (including all HTML code): 718 kB Wiki text: 330 kB Prose size (text only): 83 kB (13158 words) "readable prose size" References (text only): 89 kB. Moxy- 00:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Alas everyone agrees this page should be shorter, but the problem is that everyone also wants to see their particular focus represented in the article. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2023

biden is making a new state so there are 51 stars on the flag Evan1328 (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

NOT DONE - Please provide a reliable source for your proposed edit. Additionally, that's not something Biden is doing, nor is it something he can do. The president cannot unilaterally admit a state into the Union. The power to admit new states is explicitly held by Congress, and not the president, and this congress has not taken action towards the admission of a new state. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)