This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
Although the wording of the Declaration was approved on July 4, the date of its signing has been disputed. Most historians have concluded that it was signed nearly a month after its adoption, on August 2, 1776, and not on July 4 as is commonly believed.
Pretty sure it was only completely signed a month later, and besides, if I'm not much mistaken, the document itself refers to "On this date, July 4th" so no matter when the people signed it, they were signing a declaration that happened on July Fourth. Joscho1987 (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Human Rights
It would be good to have a human rights section; not only is there a precedent for this as there is one on Russia and China, but also the U.S. has a controversial human rights record with extra-judicial prisons and use of torture. Also something could go in about the U.S.'s official promotion of human rights and democracy.
Why not deal with it? The Government is slowly taking away the rights of everyone. Hell, people are getting arrested now for simply getting lost and asking for directions! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.151.190 (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion last month led to the inclusion of summary mentions of the Trail of Tears and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. There was not and has never been consensus support for a "human rights" section. Nothing close to it, in fact.—DCGeist (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DCGeist, if your link is representative, then there has never been consensus for a 'human rights' section of the ilk proposed here because it has never before been proposed. I think it's a great idea, and fully in line with best practices. If anyone wants to go for it, and if you have no further, independant objections, then god bless.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't "go for it." This is already a very long article, and we need to hold the line on its length. There's lots of material that various people, including myself, would like to see included that we don't because of considerations of size and focus. Heyitspeter, you have claimed that a dedicated human rights section is "fully in line with best practices". I was not aware that best practices had been determined concerning this sort of content. I took a quick look at five Featured Articles on country topics—the first five, alphabetically: Australia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Cameroon. Not a single one supports the assertion that a human rights section reflects our best practices. Please provide us a link to a guideline or a broad-based community discussion setting forth a resolution that supports this claim.—DCGeist (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I like this argument better. :) Why do you think some of these pages cover important current issues like human rights (e.g., [1][2]) and others not. I have trouble with the length claim. What sorts of current events do you think are as or more pressing than the recent human rights abuses?--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your first link is to a section on the Honduran political crisis—a massive current events issue, to be sure, but not a human rights section, the proposal being considered here. This link is irrelevant. Your second link is on point—it sends us to an actual human rights section in the country article on the People's Republic of China.
In answer to your first question (though it ends without a question mark), I would say that articles on countries whose governments are effectively nondemocratic (such as China) are much more likely to warrant dedicated human rights sections than are articles on countries whose governments are effectively democratic (such as the United States).
In answer to your second question, let me say that I was among those who fought to retain the mention of human rights abuses relating to the so-called War on Terrorism when they were the subject of substantial international attention. I believe that at this point there is no longer sufficient domestic or foreign attention devoted to any conflict-related human rights abuses currently being committed by the United States to mention them in the portion of the article's History section related to current affairs. I also believe there is not, as yet, sufficient evidence that those abuses warrant mention in a historical context, as we mention, for instance, the Trail of Tears and the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Remember, this is a summary overview article, and we can not include every last issue of interest. Finally, I am aware that there are those, both domestically and internationally, who view U.S. incarceration and capital punishment policies as tantamount to human rights abuses. I believe these issues are handled satisfactorily in the article's Crime and law enforcement section.—DCGeist (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's start things off with a link to WP:CIVIL and WP:DICK. Nitpicking over typos would be an example of an infringement of the latter. There are far more substantive issues with your own comments, but I for one will be graciously passing them by where they are suitably irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Listen, you gerbil, I wasn't nitpicking over typos. I was merely flagging for those picking up the thread in progress that your first question might not be immediately apparent as such, because there was only one question mark in the paragraph. As you'd apparently rather piss on this page than have an adult conversation, I'm happy to end the discussion right here.—DCGeist (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More information needed in defense
An editor has noted that "41% of global military spending and greater than the next fourteen largest national military expenditures combined. The per capita spending of $1,967 was about nine times the world average; at 4% of GDP, the rate was the second-highest among the top fifteen military spenders, after Saudi Arabia.[51] "
The paragraph goes on to say:"...an additional $130 billion is proposed for the military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.[52] In September 2009 there were about 62,000 U.S. troops deployed to Afghanistan, and as of February 2010 there were 98,000 U.S. troops deployed to Iraq.[53][54] As of April 27, 2010, the United States had suffered 4,393 military fatalities during the Iraq War,[55] and 1,050 during the War in Afghanistan.[56]"
Where are the statements which state how much money the United States spent in fighting two wars "compared to the next fourteen countries." Where are the statements which say what percentage of the troops employed in Iraq and Afghanistan are from the United States "as compared to the next fourteen nations?" Where are the statements which state what percentage of the dead "are from the United States as opposed to the next fourteen countries?" Student7 (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Obviously, U.S. involvement in two wars is relevant to its overall military spending, but that fact is just as obviously far from most of the story. The existing comparison is striking and enlightening about the United States in general; those you moot are more applicable to an article surveying global military activity.—DCGeist (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
representative democracy,
Where did the Author come up with calling the USA a "representative democracy," ?
"the United States relies on representative democracy, but its system of government is much more complex than that. It is not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered.[[3]]
Also, a representative democracy may or may not be a constitutional republic. For example, "the United States relies on representative democracy, but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. [It is] not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."[5] [[4]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim0290 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
? Both those quotes seem to support the notion that the US is a representative democracy, as does the fact that Americans elect people, from amongst themselves, to represent them, which seems, to me, to be the definition. TastyCakes (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you missed the rest of the Wkiki "" " but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. [It is] not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."[5]" Where in The "The Pledge of Allegiance , that the USA is a "representative democracy" Find the word " democratic republic" in the The United States Constitution or in Bill of rights ?"You can not , our founders knew exactly what these terms Meant- and spoke out against democracy.--Kimmy (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who said 'We have founded for you a republic if you can keep it'? ... Benjamin Franklin said it.
No I am not confused .The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy.
On top of this the Citation is miss "" from the source ! I listed the part the Editor left out "but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. [It is] not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."[5] "--Kimmy (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Said John Adams: "It is...as necessary to defend an individual against the majority in a democracy as against the king in a monarchy."
The word "representative democracy" IS not listed in any "Etymology" sources ! The only sources that I can find - Are linked with Wiki - So this tells me some fringe groups are pushing a POV ! --Kimmy (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind I found a good citation supporting the Above mentioned ! Representative Democracy.link Thank you ! --Kimmy (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Last note on this -[reply]
At least the "Texas" Text book comity took my stance on this and struck the notion the USA is a "representative democracy"
New Text books will Reflect How our founders meant "America" should be addressed and what type of nation America is ,New Text books will only refer to America as a "constitutional republic"
Ben Franklin: was asked what type GOV was America? - Franklin stated " A Republic if you can keep it "
More and more our leaders are using the Term "Democracy" - Witch the usa is not a democracy We are a "constitutional republic"--Kimmy (talk) 04:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign relations photo request
[copying active thread from archive where it was precipitously placed]
It is likely that within a few days Gordon Brown will no longer be British PM. Let's be prepared. Can we see some candidates for a suitable replacement for the current photo in Foreign relations showing Obama with Brown?—DCGeist (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent choice. Here's a couple of others: Obama at the G8 summit (obviously useless at gallery size [below], but conceptually good and plausible at default thumbnail size) and with French president Nicolas Sarkozy.—DCGeist (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another, with three presidents. Perhaps a happy medium? Let's look at it and the Sarkozy at default thumbnail size:—DCGeist (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An image with Queen Elizabeth was offered in the article, but he is hardly an important figure in foreign relations. I've introduced the Sarkozy image.—DCGeist (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about a picture of President Obama with the new British Prime Minister David Cameron? US foreign relations are closer to the UK than they are to France. Space25689 (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course...except Cameron's been PM for about 1 hour. I don't think he's had a chance to have his picture taken with Obama yet. When they do eventually meet, we can certainly use such a picture.—DCGeist (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of a G8 photo since it is broader than any individual meeting, but I agree that the G8 picture here isn't the best... TastyCakes (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A G20 picture There's also G20 pictures... But there seem to be even fewer of these that are any good. The Pittsburgh summit seems fitting being that it's in America. TastyCakes (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth II might not be very active in foreign affairs, though she is the head of state of some of the United States' best allies: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Space25689 (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The simple fact is that she is not nearly as significant to the section's topic, which is U.S. foreign relations, as are the heads of government of, oh, thirty or forty different countries one might name.—DCGeist (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that our relations with Canada rather than France are much closer and cozy. Canada is our neighbor, our largest trading partner, and we culturally and socially identify with Canadians more than any other country in the world. How a picture emphasizing Franco-United States relations can be used is beyond me when it is widely felt that Canada is an obvious "second" choice of who we partner with next to our "first" partner in the world the United Kingdom.
I agree. Canada, along with the other countries listed in the Foreign relations section are close allies of the United States in a bilateral relations sense. France is an ally via mutual NATO membership rather than in a bilateral relations sense. It wasn't so long ago that U.S. and French relations had descended almost to a point of diplomatic hostility. Space25689 (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gordon Brown is now irrelevant. He's the past and no longer influences U.S. or U.K. foreign policy. It would be nice to have a picture of David Cameron with Barack Obama. However, no such picture even exists because neither of them have met each other as Prime Minister of UK and President of USA. Cameron as it turns out is expected to visit the White House this July. Then and only then will a picture showcasing UK-US relations be available to use.
In the mean time, by including Sarkozy huddled with Obama, we are sending an inaccurate message that we value our relations with France more important than our nearest and closest neighbor, our largest trading partner, and our most culturally identifiable ally, Canada. France a closer ally than Canada??? I do not think so. Canada is America's logical "second" partner of choice after the United Kingdom.--Yoganate79 (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's a consensus that once a viable picture of Obama and Cameron is available, that we'll go with that.
I don't think we're sending all those messages you think we're sending. I think the picture serves as a marker and mnemonic for the Foreign relations section—either serves fine for this purpose. As an image, I think the Sarkozy photo is a bit better than the Harper. Let's see if a couple more opinions come in on this.—DCGeist (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that consensus. I think the Obama-Sarkozy image might be slight better quality, in terms of the picture quality, but I think a picture of Obama and Harper is better than one of Obama and Sarkozy for foreign relations reasons. I think the Obama-Harper image is of good quality anyway. Space25689 (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I personally prefer the Sarkozy picture as it's of superior quality and besides Canada is too close to the US. Showing Sarkozy gives a more global perspective to the foreign relations section.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the consensus on a Cameron image (assuming there's a reasonably good one) and until then I think either the Sarkozy or Medvedev are the most appropriate. Both offer interesting (and at least somewhat candid) poses and reasonably neutral backgrounds (that is, compared to the image with Harper, which is quite bad in that respect). None of the G- summit images should be used; when the president's head takes up such little space, it doesn't offer any... recognition to viewers. Even the image with the Chinese, Mexican, and Argentinian presidents is too crowded and, frankly, too tense (obvious poses; everyone seems uncomfortable, etc.). So I'd go with Sarkozy first, Medvedev second. upstateNYer00:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do people think of the image recently added by Richie123098 of Hillary Clinton and the British foreign secretary, William Hague? It is compositionally not quite as high-quality as those of Obama and Sarkozy/Medvedev, but in every other way, I think it's a superb choice: (1) It connects the U.S. with its closest major ally, a point raised repeatedly above; (2) It introduces the leading American statesperson whose portfolio is specifically foreign relations; and (3) It helps us mitigate the sexual imbalance of the article's image selection in a very significant way. I support retaining this image even when an Obama-Cameron image eventually becomes available.—DCGeist (talk) 03:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
Support: Firstly, that earlier discussion seems to be a lot more of a slanging match than a useful conversation, so we might as well start afresh, and politely, here and now. Secondly, the proposal makes a lot of sense to me. After all, United States of America IS the name of the country.HiLo48 (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an extraordinary measure, and you're welcome to revert me if you object, but I've changed the above link to point to the actual move discussion (one of many). Your original link was to a page to which I relocated a sub-discussion because it was entirely unrelated to the proposed move (and only served as a distraction). —David Levy11:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, which I would perform myself if I were uninvolved. The belief that "'United States' may only be common usage within the United States of America" cannot be held by someone familiar with the previous move discussions, in which ample evidence to the contrary was presented. It's reasonable to re-propose a move when a new argument emerges or it appears that consensus may have changed, but in this case, the nominator (presumably acting entirely in good faith via his/her first edit under this account) is simply unacquainted with the situation. —David Levy 11:54/12:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I was acting in good faith; not trying to spark a debate. I'm happy to have this move-request rejected if that's the consensus of the community. It sounds like I didn't do enough searching before raising the request. Odd that none of my other edits are showing up on my contributions page; perhaps I'm logged out much more often than I notice. Fredden (talk) 05:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. United States IS common enough (in Australia too), but exactly what's the problem with making the title even more correct? HiLo48 (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the previous debate. No one has asserted that the title "United States of America" would be bad, but "United States" is preferable (according to our style conventions) because it's the entity's most common name.
My impression is that "The US" and "America" are just as common as "United States", if not more common, just as "The UK" is for that country. Clearly editors ARE looking for some degree of formality. It's interesting to watch how people argue for things that are just a little bit more correct. Not pushing a hard line here. Just observing... HiLo48 (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going out on a limb here, but I'd imagine that "United States" is used more often than "United States of America" - with the possible exception of academic environments ;-) However, I'm open to evidence to prove otherwise...
"The US", "America" (and "the States") are all common in the UK and NZ. "Us" is ambiguous, and currently a DAB page; "The Us" redirects as expected, and "The States" is ambiguous and a redirect to a separate article. I'm not convinced I'd expect any of these options to be more common that "united states", but I've not !voted, and remain open to being convinced to the contrary.TFOWRpropaganda13:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC) Incidentally, I searched using all lower-case words; I've capitalised slightly so that direct wiki-links work. Incidentally (2) I've edited my comment to acknowledge that I have now !voted.[reply]
Indeed, "some degree of formality" is called for. And "United States" is the name most often used in formal contexts.
Have you read the aforementioned debate? I've reiterated some key points, but I'd prefer not to rehash the entire discussion. —David Levy13:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the previous debate, I noted that the Spanish-language Wikipedia's article is entitled "Estados Unidos" (Spanish for "United States"), despite the fact that the full Spanish-language name of Mexico (the largest Spanish-speaking country) is "Estados Unidos Mexicanos." —David Levy12:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close; anyone willing to request we put in the time and effort to even debate this subject, let alone move it, should have to put the effort in to finding out why it's here. Seeing as how this was the user's very first edit, it's a pretty safe assumption that he has, in fact, not put any effort into it whatsoever. --Golbez (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But just for fun: The user stated that he didn't mind that "United States" redirected to "United States of America" (I should hope not, because no reasonable person would suggest "United States" be a disambiguation page), but since that wouldn't help in disambiguating, it is purely to 'move the article to the right name'. And we don't do that. We move articles to common names here. When our new friend heads to Mexico and asks them to rename the article United Mexican States, then my vote will change from a speedy close. Until then, this is a request borne of ignorance of Wikipedia policy and article history, and should be speedily closed. --Golbez (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but his/her comments also appear to reflect unfamiliarity with past discussion and key information contained therein. —David Levy14:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And their vote included, "after all, it is the name of the country", which in itself reflects an unawareness of Wikipedia naming policies. I don't think it's too much to ask that people know said policies before they suggest an article be moved to conform to them. The name of a country is United Mexican States; the name of a person is Barack Hussein Obama; the name of a city is San Buenaventura, California. But on Wikipedia, where there is no cause for ambiguity, we always go with the common form. Mexico. Barack Obama. Ventura. --Golbez (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, many of us who are not American (and, I would hope, some Americans) would be working pretty hard to see Ventura listed as Ventura, California, USA. A constant issue for Wikipedia is the inevitably unavoidable US-centrism of many articles. It's a global encyclopaedia and must never assume local knowledge. I've never heard of Ventura. (And I have actually visited California!) But I do acknowledge that this small point is not a major contributor to the larger discussion here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood; I meant it's at "Ventura, California", rather than its official name, "San Buenaventura, California". As for whether or not that should contain ", USA" (which would go against the style you proposed moving this article to, which would heavily confused users) is an entirely different matter. But generally, we don't include the country in any city name unless the country is so small as to not contain meaningful divisions. --Golbez (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I would like to suggest to include in the introduction the following statement:
The United States of America (also referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America /əˈmɛrɪkə/) is the Greatest Nation in the World. It is a federal constitutional republic comprising 50 states..."
with Medvedev
at G8 summit
with Sarkozy
with presidents of China. Mexico, and Argentina
