Talk:United States

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

Current population (est.): 339,049,000 as of January 10, 2025. The USCB projects 439 million by 2050

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)

Human Rights Abuses?

Why do countries such as Cuba and Israel have sections on the history of human rights abuses committed, but not the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.5.37 (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

A fair question, but one could also ask why there is no mention of aboriginal treatment on Canada's wiki or various past transgressions by the British Empire. I've only made a short glaze over each, but I see no mention made here either. JPetersen (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That said, it may be prudent to consider adding something referring to the more obvious events, such as the Trail of Tears or the camps for Japanese-Americans during WWII. I don't think we need a separate section for it, but mention of these events seems informational and helpful to the article. JPetersen (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added a reference to Japanese American internment under World War I, Great Depression, and World War II. I would also like to see some sort of reference to the Trail of Tears in the section regarding Indian removal policy, since it's one of the most iconic events of that policy; however I'm unsure of how to go about adding it. Any suggestions? JPetersen (talk) 09:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe it's necessary. The relevant History paragraph already includes the following:

Americans' eagerness to expand westward prompted a long series of Indian Wars and an Indian removal policy that stripped the native peoples of their land.... New railways made relocation easier for settlers and increased conflicts with Native Americans. Over a half-century, up to 40 million American bison, or buffalo, were slaughtered for skins and meat and to ease the railways' spread. The loss of the buffalo, a primary resource for the plains Indians, was an existential blow to many native cultures.

The first clause covers the Trail of Tears. Remember, in an overview article on a vast subject such as the United States, summary style must be applied most stringently.—DCGeist (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, however seeing as it's such an iconic example of the policy, I think it would help the article to mention it in passing. Maybe smething along the lines of:

Americans' eagerness to expand westward prompted a long series of Indian Wars and an Indian removal policy, exemplified in events such as the Trail of Tears, that stripped the[...].

I agree since this is a large article and an in-depth article already exists, summarization is necessary; however since it was such a major event (and one representative of an entire policy), it seems fitting it be at least touched upon, in a similar manner to my edit of Japanese American internment. JPetersen (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Proper grammar requires only "exemplified by the Trail of Tears". I have no problem with using "exemplified by" on Wikipedia in its simple meaning of "illustrated by the example of", but I note that some editors do, presumably because they feel it has an editorializing tone. I'll make the change and we'll see what the response is.—DCGeist (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Oy. Except now I see the problem is that it violates the chronology. The general statement at the beginning of the paragraph is fine for encompassing the whole period. But putting the Trail of Tears into the sentence places specific events of 1831–38 before events of 1803, 1812, and 1819. No can do.—DCGeist (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I figured out how to work it in. Take a look.—DCGeist (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly the sort of brief mention I was thinking. Looks great to me! JPetersen (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Immigrant USA ?!

I protest the image of an "immigrant USA" the authors of this article are trying to portray. The US is not an immigrant country anymore, the age of immigrant america has long been over. There exists a certain Anglo-Scottish-Irish-German-French-Black-Mexican class high in the power in the US and they would do anything to stay in power (like electing a non-white president), the rest of the population , specially the newly arrived immigrants are to provide labour and wealth.

212.80.5.149 (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Goshtaasp

This is not a forum to discuss the things you are alluding to. Regarding the article, it is clear and cited that America has had a strong tie with immigration and is iconic of the States. JPetersen (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Personal, but my own family has been in the US since the American Revolution, and since everyone who is in America now descends from someone who immigrated at one point in history, it is reasonable to say that America is a "immigrant USA", albeit we are all Americans.Prussian725 (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Map of US territorries

Why isn't there a map of the US territorries on this article? Similar to the one used on France. I think this map should be added. Niceley 20:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with it. Does anyone else have any input?Prussian725 (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

"Of America"

The proper name of the country is United States "of America". shouldnt that be included in the title?JDDJS (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No. See Talk:United States/Frequently asked questions. —Kevin Myers 00:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Then why does the very top of the article say this in italics: "This article is about the United States of America. For other uses of terms redirecting here..." ??? And why is the heading of the infobox labeled "United States of America"? And why does the first sentence of the article read: "The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America [/əm'erɪkə/])..." ??? The reasoning behind this decision to keep the article title as "United States" has never made sense to me, and apparently doesn't make sense to a lot (perhaps a majority) of people, since it seems like every time I visit this discussion page, there is at least one active discussion on the topic. The United States of America is the full name of the country. It is commonly referred to as the United States. It's obviously not the other way around. "United States" is not the official full name of the country, with "United States of America" being the commonly-referred-to nickname that gives a little more detail in case you didn't know which United States I was talking about. This whole discussion is ridiculous, and should be revisited in my opinion. If you switched the name of the article to "United States of America", do you think we'd have anyone at all starting random discussions asking why the name of the article isn't "United States"? SnottyWong talk 23:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You can, of course, initiate yet another move request. Best of luck. —Kevin Myers 10:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, of course. All other countries on Wikipedia use their full name, and United States is of course the only one which is at all ambiguous. But enough sarcasm: "United States" is quite plainly the common name for the country, just as Mexico is the common name for the United Mexican States, and United Kingdom is the common name for their eight-word monstrosity. That other 'United States' have existed in the past does not demand a rename or a disambiguation page; renaming the article would accomplish nothing to assist in disambiguation, as 'United States' would still obviously redirect to it. So, when it comes down to it, these proposals are 100% only about having the article at the official name of the country - and to that, I ask, please don't ask that until you've tried it on Mexico and United Kingdom first. --Golbez (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So 'United States' couldn't even redirect to 'United States of America'?Prussian725 (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing. If the article were moved to "United States of America", United States would obviously redirect to the new title; anyone who thinks otherwise has an extremely incorrect concept of how common names, redirects, and disambiguation work on Wikipedia. So that means that nothing would change except for the name of the article, so any claim that it would help lessen ambiguity is a false argument. It wouldn't; people who type in "United States" would still be taken to the country article. The question then becomes, do we name it "United States" or "United States of America?" That is a fine argument to have (I personally think we should stick with Wikipedia's standard of using the common short names), but it has nothing to do with helping make things less ambiguous or confusing. --Golbez (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

a Democracy?

I was the impression that the U.S. were a constitutional (and representative) republic, not a democracy. In a classical representative democracy (such as Britain), the Parliament has the power to enact any law, even to change the constitution (although Britain does not have a constitution per se). On the contrary, the U.S. constitution cannot be modified by the Congress (except for the Amendments), or even by the people. This is what makes it a constitutional representative republic as opposed to a democracy, etiher a representative parliamentary democratic monarchy (like britain) or a representative democratic republic (like France), which are both democracies, meaning that their Parliament can, if people approve it, change the constitution altogether legally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.251.17 (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The US is clearly a representative democracy, ability to change the constitution has nothing to do with it. On top of that, as you point out, it is possible for the US government to amend its constitution ("amend" meaning, in effect, "change"). It's just that it requires a super majority of 66% in both houses of Congress, and then it has to be ratified by 3/4 of the state governments, so it is pretty rare for an amendment to be successful. TastyCakes (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, that refers to something that's not already in the constitution. But no amendment can be passed that (for instance) transfers all judicial power from the Supreme Court to the Congress). So nothing can be passed that would change the original text. Only the further amendments can be added or previous ones modified or removed (although I would guess trying to modify or remove any of the first 10 would provoke a constitutional crisis). So technically the representative democracy aspect of the American system is just a part of the larger constitutional republic mechanism. On the whole, it's not a parliamentary democracy or a presidential democracy, it's a constitutional republic. The difference is that for example, tomorrow, if 66% of the British public wanted it, the British Parliament can LEGALLY vote absolute powers to the Queen. This can't happen legally in the U.S., even if 70% or 80% of the public and / or Congressmen wanted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.251.17 (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Ouick EDIT: And the trick here is that a constitutional republic protects the majority from itself, which a classical (representative or direct, it doesn't matter) democracy does not. Once absolute powers are voted for someone (to take my previous example), it's not a certain thing that Parliament can eventually take those powers back. For example Weimar Germny had this kind of respect for majority rule that a classical representative democracy usually has. And its constitution had all kinds of loopholes that allowed the Legislative to pass laws that would modify the system itself. We all know what followed. The Reichtag could not take powers back from Hitler if they wanted to. According the the American system, that can't (theoretically) happen. Because in representative democracies the Parliament comes first always, as the voive of the people (or sometimes even the President as in some countries). In the American system first comes the Constitution, and then institutions such as Congress and Presidency. So I agree that the U.S. are representative democracy TOO, as part of the constitutional republican system. BUT they aren't A representative democracy, in the meaning that it's not JUST that... Anyways suit yourself to modify the text or not.