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, <[email protected]>) 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 democractic 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.

"His administration is viewed as one of the biggest political upsets in American history"

I'm sorry if this has already been discussed on this talk page, but wouldn't this line of text at the end of the 21st century section constitute as biased towards a political party? Especially with the following citation for this line coming from a democrat leaning news source, I feel the sentence could at least be rephrased and at most removed.

Most recent administrations in the United States have been viewed by the opposite party as a "political upset," with democrats challenging the election of former President Trump and republicans challenging the election of President Biden. Trump was nowhere near being a well liked candidate on both sides, but calling the entire administration of Trump one of the biggest upsets in US history just overall sounds politically biased, again with a democrat news source as the reference. Johnson524 (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, although not for the reasons you give. Nevertheless, now fixed. Mathglot (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding, and for the quick response! Johnson524 (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Johnson524. I will second Mathglot. The original wording was a blunder and also unencyclopedic. It should have been corrected, and glad you did so. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Images

great to show population density

best of the best

....etc...

Now that things are a bit more stable we should review the images and see if we can add back some featured pics that were removed in the edit flurry and see what other featured images we could use. c:Category:Featured pictures of the United States. We should also try and make the articles accessibility comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#ImagesMoxy- 13:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Something's a little off in the geography section

"The 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia occupy a combined area of 3,119,885 square miles (8,080,470 km2). Of this area, 2,959,064 square miles (7,663,940 km2) is contiguous land, composing 83.65% of total U.S. land area. The rest is occupied by Hawaii, an archipelago in the central Pacific, and the five populated but unincorporated territories of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands."

The 48 contiguous states are mentioned, Hawaii is mentioned. That's 49 states. Alaska is by far the largest state at 571,951 sq mi (1,481,346 km2, but it is not contiguous with any other state. This needs to be untangled. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Untangled. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mason.Jones (talk • contribs) 2:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Political Parties?

I find it strange that on the United States article we list a (D) or (R) right next to the Leaders section in the infobox, yet in literally every other country, political parties are not listed next to the name of individual. Is there a reason for this? I am not sure why this article is the only one to have monikers next to their leaders. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I suspect it is because the two-party system that evolved basically by accident has become the most important way of defining contemporary politicians. There Republicans used to say they had "a big tent" that was inclusive of various types of conservatives, but these days they require that all members be in complete lockstep with the party bosses on every single issue, and will actively campaign against anyone who dares to have an independent thought, deriding them as a RINO. Since it is basically impossible for third party candidates to win elections to national offices, everyone else is a Democrat. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, they don't really add anything. --Golbez (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone really object to the removal of them? If there is no objection, I would like to make the article just a little more consistent with the other country infoboxes CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't object. One of the most annoying things about this article is that it's *not* consistent with other countries for some reason. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

No objection. Support the removal. --N8_wilson 🔔 15:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

No objection. "D" and "R" simply reflect great polarization in the U.S. The zeal with which some editors keep appending an "R" after the Supreme Court chief justice—not an elected official—is proof. As the OP says, no other country article gets this POV-partisan, in any language. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Death penalty in the lead

Is there any particular reason that the death penalty is mentioned in the lead? The current wording has multiple problematic aspects:

• It deceptively implies that the death penalty is universally applied throughout the country routinely. That's simply not true in the vast majority of instances. In actuality, it is almost always locally applied by the 26 states can de facto apply it. The death penalty is de facto abolished in vast swathes of the country:states that compromise a majority of the American population. This ratio gets even more lopsided when you only consider states that have performed an execution within the past ten years. In significant (both in population and by # of states) parts of the country, it simply isn't retentionist in any sense.

• 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.

• The nation's incarceration rate is exceptional. The fact that several states (and, in exceptional circumstances: the federal government) retain the death penalty isn't.

• There was a previous discussion about this but the discussion was abandoned. Does anyone have anything countering the points above? This seems like a glaring case of WP: Undue that simply hasn't been addressed/removed due to editorial fatigue. KlayCax (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

When you removed it, your comment was, "Multiple developed, wealthy nations (Partially in the East, such as Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, along with Israel, retain the death penalty.) I'm failing to see how this merits inclusion: beyond editors personal opinions on its ethics; whatever it is, it's not exceptional, even in the Western-aligned world. Intentionally placed this in a different edit so the uncontroversial aspects of my changes wouldn't be blanketly reverted."

Israel last executed someone in 1961 (Adolf Eichmann); North Korea, in 1997: in practice they don't execute people. Singapore's last execution was yesterday, when a man was hanged for selling cannabis. He was like most executed prisoners a member of the Malay minority.[1] So I wouldn't exactly call it a liberal democracy.

The U.S. insistence on continuing to execute people is exceptional and worth noting. If Americans don't want it mentioned in articles about ehir country, they can stop doing it. TFD (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT doesn't merit inclusion in the lead. A majority of the world's population lives in countries that are retentionist. KlayCax (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

And sorry for rapid changes. Multiple editors were commenting at the same time and it jumbled up the meanings — the updated version is the intended wording. KlayCax (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It's one of the more obvious ways in which the US is different from other western nations. NOT mentioning it would be odd. HiLo48 (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Why would it be included for the United States but not a nation such as Japan or Taiwan? Both are instances of liberal democracies that retain the death penalty and actively employ it. Why does the U.S. being a "Western" nation somehow make it magically merit inclusion in the lead? Besides this, as forementioned, significant portions of the United States are abolitionist or abolitionist-in-practice, so the sentence is misleading at the very best. It's nowhere near the standards of WP: Notable in terms of inclusion.

Additionally, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Editors are fine to hold personal opinions about it. But it's not the point of this encyclopedia — and the implication utterly goes against WP: NPOV (It seems to imply that having a death penalty is "wrong" while a stance favoring abolishment is "correct"). 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. KlayCax (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The USA is the only western nation that kills it's own citizens. 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. Moxy- 01:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

When the United States is compared to foreign countries, it's more likely to be compared with other Western nations such as Europe countries, the UK, Australia, NZ and the Americas. While some U.S. states have no death penalty, there is as you mentioned a federal death penalty and non-death penalty states must return fugitives to states that have the death penalty. The fact that most countries have abolished the death penalty and the UN opposes it. Maybe it's a bigger deal outside the U.S. than within. TFD (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Since a federal moratorium by Attorney General Merrick Garland in July 2021, the United States has been abolitionist-in-practice on a federal level. The last time the military (which obviously only has jurisdiction to those in the military) executed someone was John A. Bennett in 1961. America's federalist system has the practice overwhelmingly limited to the 26 states (compromising a minority of the country's total population) that retain it. Much of the country has been abolitionist or abolitionist-in-practice for years.

A majority of polities have abolished the death penalty. A majority of the world's population lives in a polity that retains it. Even in nations that have abolished the practice (including "liberal" countries) polling shows that majorities/substantive minorities support reinstating the practice. (Which I wrote more about here.) KlayCax (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree that is a bigger deal outside the USA.....so much so that it's a detriment to the country's image. basic view Moxy- 02:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

A bigger deal to who? What makes the United States retention of capital punishment uniquely (in the context of it in of itself) notable? KlayCax (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

What reliable source lists it as a significant, substantive, and notable detriment to the country's image among the global population? A majority of Canadians and a substantive percentage of Europeans (reaching a majority in several major polities) support reinstating capital punishment. Political science research, including by Kern (2007) at the Spanish think tank Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos, has summarized the policy differences on capital punishment between the United States and most of Europe as being rooted primarily in the support of political elites. Stating: "In fact, poll after poll shows that ordinary European citizens favor the death penalty almost as much as do Americans." and that "elite support" explains the inconsistency between a majority of European states and the United States. (Conversely, political elites in Taiwan and Japan hold far more favorable views.) The lack of the death penalty in Europe has far more to do with their opposition than with widespread revulsion among members of the European general population. KlayCax (talk) 08:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Your Canadian source describes it having been "an online survey". I cannot imagine how an online survey can be a proper sample of the Canadian population. The French source just says "opinion polls" No details at all. That means no credibility. I challenge your claims. HiLo48 (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The fact that most people in Canada and Western Europe support the death penalty and governments don't bring it back shows that it would make them international embarrassments if they did. Anyway, if you support the death penalty, you might want this article to point out U.S. courage in retaining it. TFD (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• @KlayCax: I agree, it absolutely shouldn't be mentioned in the lead when it isn't mentioned in Japan's lead, at least. I'm still scratching my head as to why it's in the lead here and not in Japan or Taiwan's lead, just like you are, and I was thinking about this earlier today. @Moxy: I agree with you wholeheartedly that the fact that the US retains the death penalty is one of the greatest blights against our human rights record, but Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs and it can be properly addressed in the crime and safety section of the article. At any rate, I don't think it should be mentioned in the lead. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Japan is historically and culturally massively different from the USA. That's why the normal comparison for social matters in the USA is with other western nations, which it could reasonable be expected to be similar too. Japan is close to irrelevant on this matter. HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

WHAT'S AT STAKE. Moxy- 20:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)