How to Get on Radio Talk Shows All Across America w/o Leaving Home This Broad's Life: The Raucous, Riveting Autobiography of the Most Outrageous Radio Talk-Show Host in America Today You Can't Say That : Common Sense From America's Number One Gay Radio Talk Show Host How to Get On Radio Talk Shows All Across America Talk Show Selects 1999: A Guide to the Nation's Most Influential Television and Radio Talk Shows Talk Show Selects 1998: A Guide to the Nation's Most Influential Television and Radio Talk Shows (1998 Edition) Talk Show Yearbook 2000: A Guide to the Nation's Most Influential Television and Radio Talk Shows (Talk Show Selects, 2000) Conduct a National Radio Talk Show Tour Without Leaving Your Home or Office...Without Paying a Cent for Air Time (How to Make People Buy Whatever You)

Talk:United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Archive 1 | Archive 2

Definition of contiguous U.S.

I changed the definition of contiguous US to say w/o Alaska or Hawaii or island territories -- if that stands, it should be similarly changed in the same worded sentence in United States Territory.

Dubrovnik

Copied the statement "The first country to recognize the United States after declaring its independence was the city state of Dubrovnik(at that time also called Ragusa). " to History of US 1776-1861. Perhaps the statement belongs solely in that History of US article 169.207.89.79 03:20, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

States link

Okay in the Politics section there is a link states, it goes to a defination of states but in this context should it not go to a listing of the 50 states? Belizian 22:50, 2004 Feb 5 (UTC)

GDP

Is the US 2nd? anon changed it ... and I checked the article ... and it has the EU 1st ... is the EU "country"? I don' know [not big on economics ... nor of the "status" of the EU] ... So should it be 1st country; 2nd overall or ??? anyone? [or, I'm I missing something?] JDR

EU is the common economic zone, as US. The member states are as integrated as American states are. Ranking economies we should compare Oranges with Oranges and Apples with Apples. Comparing US with Germany doesn't make any sense to me. 145.254.118.240 01:00, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmm ... ok ... thanks ... so aples to oranges it's 1 ... but 2 to one for the same fruits ... JDR =-]

This is wrong, wrong, wrong. The E.U. is not like the U.S., it is instead something like NAFTA!

Inside the E.U. each country has its own president/prime minister/chancellor. There is no common foreign policy (remember: Iraq war, France and Germany vs. Italy, Spain and U.K.), there is no common currency (The Euro is not the only European currency), each member state has its own passport, its own laws, its own language, and so on!

The E.U. was founded to preserve peace in Europe after the 2nd worldwar. It has now become a trade union, since there are special laws that are mandatory for all member states. Brussels is currently working on a E.U. constitution, but that cannot be compared with constitutions of nomal countries, such as our beautiful U.S. constitution. The E.U. is currently being expanded to include 25 instead of 15 members, but that is heavily opposed by citizens. And: There is no E.U. military! Each country has its own military, some have joined NATO, some not. Some participated in the war in Iraq, others not. In the U.S. however, it was the U.S. that invaded Iraq, not just Montana and California. Or did you ever read in the newspaper: Arkansas has threatened to veto, or Alabama will not participate ... ???

Due to cultural differnces (that don't exist in the U.S.A.), language problems (same again), big differences in laws (same), and stubbornnes (same) there will NEVER be a U.S.E. (United States of Europe)!

It's an interesting argument as to whether the EU constitutes a single economy. The EU is a much tighter grouping than NAFTA, but much less tight than the US. An "economy" is not the same thing as a country. Taiwan (ROC) is regarded as an economy but most places are too afraid of mainland China to give it recognition as a country. This is all academic though... we should take our lead from accepted international practice. The UN's GDP rankings do not currently list the EU, the member countries are listed separately. Ben Arnold 22:24, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Topics table

I created a table like this one for Greek mythology, but no one has expressed any opinions on it. I think it's a good way to organize a large number of articles concerning a single major subject (rather like a article series), and propose it replacing the long and unwieldy "Related Topics" list -- this both adds and removes some links, and makes them easier to navigate IMO (mostly removes cabinet positions and departments, probably adds more than it removes). Does anybody here have an opinion? FTR, almost all of these articles link to an article either specific to the US or with a section on the US (or being a primarily or originally American phenomenon like rock and roll). The only article which doesn't exist is Law enforcement in the United States, which is a major lack IMO. Tuf-Kat 06:19, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

Are you going to put one of these in every single article listed in the table? If so, then I think it's a bad idea. Look at the width of this thing. It takes up half the page. Linking these articles to List of United States-related topics is good enough. Only the bored would bother to read all these articles, and almost no would probably do so in the order prescribed. I don't see the value in this.--Jiang 06:56, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Acutally, I like the Greek mythology table. It's comprehensive and organizes the topics well. The miscellaneous topics links on this page should not be numerous, like the rest of the countries templated by wikipedia:wikiProject Countries. That's why we have a separate list of topics. If the list on this page is too long, then cut things out. --Jiang 07:01, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't want to put this on all the articles, only here (same way as at Greek mythology). I think having a select group of links to articles relating to the United States is useful -- List of United States-related topics is more of a utility page that presumably has some value to some people (though I don't use them). It is unwieldy now and is missing tons of extant articles -- it is apparently supposed to be comprehensive, and include all battles, bands, politicians, regions and native tribes, universities and islands, rivers and mountains, etc. That is not now and will not become more useful for a reader trying to find specific information on the US. The current system (on this page) takes up six of my screens, while this entire box fits on one -- this is far easier to find information on the United States than trying a somewhat select but clumsily formatted list here or a too comprehensive one elsewhere. Tuf-Kat 07:32, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

Some listings such as Radio and Affirmative action are not US-specific and should probably not belong, IMO. --Jiang

I would be amenable to removing some. Affirmative action is mostly US-specific in fact, if not in theory. Radio can go (though I'm sure there will eventually be a radio in the United States article). Most of the others that aren't explicitly US-specific are largely so, or at least have a section just for the US (as in newspaper). I suppose capitalism could probably go.Tuf-Kat

I removed capitalism and radio. Tuf-Kat

And now I removed the borders and colors (less intrusive that way), and will move it to the article. Tuf-Kat

Netscape

I was reading this on Netscape on an Apple OS X computer at the University of Colorado, Boulder, USA (CU), and the flag, Great Seal, demographic info & other nonsense on the right side of the page sure looked weird — cut off. Changing Netscape's size did not help. Maybe it's a CU thing, but could someone else with a Mac please check this out? -- dino

On a Mac using Mozilla it looks fine. Tuf-Kat

of America

Indeed... - Woodrow 20:52, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Show me a reputable English publication referring to some other country as "u.s." or "united states".--Jiang

No reputable publication refers to another nation solely as "United States" because that is generally recognized among English speakers to be shorthand for "United States of America". Also on this continent, however, are the United States of Mexico and the United States of Brazil. Also, show me a reputable English publication referring to some war other than the American Revolutionary War as "the Revolutionary War". -- Ian Maxwell

"This continent"? Since when are the United States of America and Brazil on the same continent?

Depends on which system you use. See The Americas. Rmhermen 21:23, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

When I first got here I was like United States of America but after having been here many months I am now resolutely in the United States camp. Why? a.) It's shorter, b.) It's unambigious "united states of mexico" to the contrary, c.) it is used SOOOOO much more in running text--using the whole United States of America becomes incredibly clumsy--and, as someone mentioned somewhere once, the United States page is the most linked-to page on wikipedia, and I imagine the added burden on the servers with the resultant redirects would be substantial. It is wikipolicy to have the most common name in English as the actual page URL--the complete name of the country is absolutely explained herein, but United States is, I'm 99% sure, the very best place for this page to be. Compare South Africa, for Republic of South Africa; Germany for Federal Republic of Germany, etc. America is ambigious according to the goddamn unamericans ;), so United States is by far the best choice. :) jengod 04:14, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

The other thing is U.S. institutions--they are not U.S.A. institutions--US Air Force, U.S. Supreme Court, US Capitol, U.S. state, United States Trade Representative, etc. jengod 04:17, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

My point exactly. "United States" will automatically refer to the United States of America. Your first sentence has negated your second. French Revolutionary War?Revolutionary War in Haiti?

I say we move this page to America to piss off those ungrateful anti-American bastards.--Jiang

I second Jiang's brilliant plan. :) jengod 07:01, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

But seriously folks:

• United Kingdom is the page, official name is apparently United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
• Australia is the page, official name is apparently Commonwealth of Australia
• A little place I like to call Germany is technically the Federal Republic of Germany jengod 07:04, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Long live Usonia! -- Decumanus | Talk 07:08, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would also vote for United States of America. Regardless of whether there are other nations using "United States" term, the actual page should be the formal title and all nicknames should redirect to there - this should be done for the UK and USSR as well. --Xinoph 15:27, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Why? Redirects are not a good thing. We already state the full name in the article itself. Some of these entries not only speak of the current political entity, but its predecessors. --Jiang 16:32, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree with Xinoph. Maybe it's just me, but this is an encyclopedia, we should refer to things by their FULL AND PROPER names. The full and proper name of the US is the United States of America, and it should be listed as such. The same goes for all other countries. And why exactly are redirects such a bad thing? We're going to have the same number of names (therefore the same number of redirects) any way we go about this, so why not just use the proper name for the proper article and redirect all shortened or casual names to that? NerdOfTheNorth 03:54, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

By fiat, as Queen of all I survey, I hereby forbid, ban—and swear to abolish—any user of less than 1,000 edits and three months on Wikipedia to comment on the "of America" debate. Sincerely yours, the Queen. [her mark] :o) jengod 04:01, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). RickK | Talk 04:37, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The largest economy

US has the first ranking economy, not the second. The EU isnt even a country. Incase you guys dont know, EU constituion talks collapsed a few months ago. It has no federal powers, it cannot command the GDP of every member nation. If you're going to count the EU as a country, you might as well count NAFTA as a country. Which would mean NAFTA has the largest economy (USA + Mexico + Canada).

What are you objecting to? The page says the US has the strongest economy, afaics. Marnanel 20:51, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

America

Fiction: A new country called the United States of Europe is created in the modern territory of France, Spain and Portugal. This new country calls itself Europe and calls its citizens Europeans.

How would you feel if you were German, or Italian, or Polish and the names Europe and European were stolen from you forever (and in many different languages)? This is the same way we Latin Americans feel when the US calls itself America and its citizens Americans. This needs not be endorsed by an English language dictionary or encyclopedia to make it appear more valid or truer. It exists in the real world and it is very offensive, and worth of a mention in, yes, the English Wikipedia.

--Cantus 08:32, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The English language is described in English dictionaries. "American" is proper usage in English for the U.S., and English speakers regard what Spanish and Portuguese speakers classify as one continent, as two continents, North American and South America. The resentment sets in when you insist on using Spanish cultural differences (one America) when speaking English (N & S America, the Americas). You will need to adjust, or get the English language to adjust, if you don't like current use. But Wikipedia is here to report what is, not what you think should be. Therefore we will gladly report that someone (though a named someone or a printed source objecting to the use would be good) is displeased with standard English usage, but we must also report that the use of the word America to apply to the United States of America is not considered an offensive or a pejorative usage in any English dictionary or usage guide. - Nunh-huh 08:43, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And I stated that clearly, for US-citizens it isn't offensive; for Latin Americans, it is. I believe that that is clear as water. --Cantus 08:55, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the claim you are edit warring about. Alas, one cannot very effectively insist that other people speak their own language in a way that pleases you, or change established useage to please you. You also cannot give one side of a story (yours) in Wikipedia and erase the other. That's not a neutral treatment, and it's improper. - Nunh-huh 08:57, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Our own language? - Woodrow, Emperor of the United States 22:27, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And I'm not even arguing on how should US-citizens call themselves. That is entirely not the point. The point is--and it's all I'm saying--is that for Latin Americans, that specific term, used in that specific way, is offensive. No more, no less. (PS: Go to my user Talk page, before you accuse me of things I haven't done) --Cantus 09:09, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's not all you're saying. You are deleting information that shows that this is standard usage. That's not proper for you to do: it is standard usage. - Nunh-huh 09:14, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And how is the footer denying it is standard usage for US-CITIZENS? --Cantus 09:40, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

By erasing the portion of the footer that says so. - Nunh-huh

This is getting really out of hand. I do not believe Cantus is entitled to speak for an entire continent. Using America as short for United States of America is standard in English. Most Latin Americans have far better things to do than worry about this potential ambiguity being "offensive". Some of the edit summary comments are crazy: "By using 'America' to mean the US you are insulting all Spanish/Portuguese-speaking population." How is this insulting anyone? This claim reflects poor judgement. (And why doesn't it insult Canadians, anyway?) Are all non-Chinese offended that in their own language the Chinese call themselves the "Middle Kingdom"? You're setting yourself up to be offended by a lot of local language uses if this is how you feel. I won't be offended if you call an American a norteamericano when speaking your language; don't fret about the conventions in English. This footnote should IMHO be axed; but if it must stay, it should not say or imply that all Latin Americans are tied up in knots over this multiple usage of America. -- VV 12:06, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Anything that doesn't fit your own ideas is thought by you as 'getting out of hand'. I'm tired of your ideological wars. Another thing to add is that, if English wasn't as widely used throughout the world then this would probably be a non issue. But since it is so predominant, other people end up using these Americanisms. English Wikipedia is not for 'Americans' or Brits only, but for everybody speaking English as a second language in the world. There lies the importance of this footnote. --Cantus 22:02, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Keep the personal attacks in check, huh? By getting out of hand I meant the edit warring over this small bit. (Name one ideological war; I am working for neutral language here.) The English Wikipedia uses the actual English language, not English as modified to please others. You didn't address most of my points, though, so there's not much to say. -- VV 22:12, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I thought this was clear, but I'll repeat it. It insults Latin Americans and not Canadians, because America in Spanish means North & South America. And your ideological wars are many, including United States, Augusto Pinochet, Fidel Castro and others. --Cantus 22:21, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hm, you'll have to remind me. I rememeber insisting on neutrality in some cases, and others pushing ideology, but no matter. America might mean "ugly chicken" in Zulu; what does that have to do with anything? -- VV 22:52, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's a foolish example. Both Spanish & English America are related. The fact that the name America was initially given to just South America does nothing but increase the weight of the offense. --Cantus 23:52, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It seems I was wrong and Canadians are also offended by the unilatelarism of the empire. Some Canadian user has just edited the footer to broaden the offence to the rest of The Americas. PS: While surfing I found some interesting sites from some angry continental neighbours: [1] (Canadian), [2], [3] (Puerto Rican), [4] (Brazilian). Enjoy! --Cantus 08:58, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In an article about the USA, it is quite proper to refer to it as "America". There's an America (disambiguation) thingie, isn't there?

(Jerzy(t) notes that these two sentences are an edit by User:65.25.253.161)

Reasons why I think using the version mostly using "United States" and "U.S" is preferrable to the one using "America/American":

• Both versions are correct English
• The page title and most of the related articles the page links to use US
• Why poke the bear (needlessly)? Use the version that isn't as offensive to some people.
• Refusing to use the perfectly valid US version re-inforces the ugly American stereotype.
• American is fairly ambiguous, United States less so. However, since we aren't the only country to use those word in its name, I think one that generally uses United States of America and USA is ideal. Niteowlneils 01:03, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This usage is simply not customary in English. One does not say "This is a U.S. tourist attraction." It is clear from context what American means here; the ambiguity is simply not a problem. In fact, I question whether any other sense of American offers any significant competition with this usage. Based on the behavior of the users who have favored this change, I suspect this change is being made in bad faith. The talk of related etymology is particularly unpersuasive, given the sheer number of out-there cognates one could scrape up. Use of USA would be even more non-English. However, I'm glad you're willing to come here and talk about this, something no one else seems interested in doing. -- VV 06:28, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

1. I have intentionally not looked to see which users are advocating either side--I don't want to be affected by personal bias.
2. I don't believe sheer volume of usage to be the only factor. Or are we going to replace isn't with ain't in all articles regarding items in the southeast US?
3. I don't think the usage is as lopsided as the "America is obvious" camp suggestsat least when it comes to written English--u.s. tourist attraction gets slightly more hits than american tourist attraction, and us tourist attraction get three times as many hits as either of the others. Niteowlneils 15:02, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How to Get on Radio Talk Shows All Across America w/o Leaving Home		This Broad's Life: The Raucous, Riveting Autobiography of the Most Outrageous Radio Talk-Show Host in America Today		You Can't Say That : Common Sense From America's Number One Gay Radio Talk Show Host		How to Get On Radio Talk Shows All Across America
Talk Show Selects 1999: A Guide to the Nation's Most Influential Television and Radio Talk Shows		Talk Show Selects 1998: A Guide to the Nation's Most Influential Television and Radio Talk Shows (1998 Edition)		Talk Show Yearbook 2000: A Guide to the Nation's Most Influential Television and Radio Talk Shows (Talk Show Selects, 2000)		Conduct a National Radio Talk Show Tour Without Leaving Your Home or Office...Without Paying a Cent for Air Time (How to Make People Buy Whatever You)