Talk:United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleUnited States was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 15, 2005Good article nomineeListed
May 7, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 8, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 18, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 3, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 21, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
October 19, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 19, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 9, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
June 27, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 6, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
January 19, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
March 18, 2012Good article reassessmentDelisted
August 10, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
January 21, 2015Good article nomineeListed
February 22, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
December 19, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 3, 2015.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the United States accounts for 37% of all global military spending?
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 4, 2008.
Current status: Delisted good article

Incomplete/biased starting section[edit]

I believe that the starting section as it stands is WP:Biased. As it stands, the article does not touch up on income inequality, accusations of racism, or topics that were covered in previous revisions, meaning the section on America's wealth at the present is entirely focused on "positive" aspects. I believe it is entirely possible to mention wealth disparity and other common criticisms of America while keeping it in summary. At the moment I don't know how to incorporate accusations of racism into the summary, but I believe accusations of wealth inequality absolutely should be mentioned, especially considering how this section deals with information about the wealth of the United States and wealth inequality is a commonly discussed topic when regarding wealth in the United States.

For example:
"One of the world's most developed countries, the United States has had the largest nominal GDP since about 1890 and accounted for 15% of the global economy in 2023. It possesses by far the largest amount of wealth of any country and has the highest disposable household income per capita among OECD countries, but has been criticized for wealth inequality. The U.S. ranks among the world's highest in economic competitiveness, productivity, innovation, human rights, and higher education. Its hard power and cultural influence have a global reach. The U.S. is a founding member of the World Bank, IMF, Organization of American States, NATO, and World Health Organization, as well as a permanent member of the UN Security Council."

Kalivyah (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2024[edit]

change "African Americans constitute the country's third-largest ancestry group" to "African Americans constitute the country's third-largest ancestry group" Doctorgulielmus (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doctorgulielmus: it's linked now, Rjjiii (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"[...] the United States has had the largest nominal GDP since about 1890 [...]"[edit]

Japan had a larger average nominal GDP than the U.S. between 1990 and 1995 according to the linked article.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this linked article you've recomend to me, it's extremely reliable, that's undeniable, however, it need be updated, because (Obiviously), 1990 has gone long time ago, so the chance of this having changed is quite high, in fact, it doesn't even need to go very far, considering that Japan is going through problems, including the economy. 177.105.90.20 (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Needs correction of 'national government' and elaboration on federal government's legitimacy.[edit]

The article incorrectly names the federal government as the national government. As a nation, we have no government in the USA, we are ruled through martial supremacy by the federal government, which only falsely presents itself to the world as the nation's government. The article should clarify that the nation gets no participation or representation in the federal government, and no public acknowledgement by the federal government. The federal government is 100% comprised and representative of the middle class and upper class, with the remaining 85% of the nation (the lower class) excluded from involvement for all but non-decision-related roles.

The article makes no mention of criticism of the federal government's legitimacy, which is a common subject of discussion within the nation, especially among the lower class, as we generally reject this body of rulership as a presence of legitimate government. Related to this issue, the article should elaborate on the federal government's generous use of numerous martial law acts in response to riots in our cities when the people demanded that the federal government resign and withdraw from all governance activity related to those cities- demands which remain entirely unsatisfied, and really should get a mention in the article.

As the article is presently worded, it paints a highly inaccurate image of there being some kind of unity between the nation and the federal government by neglecting to make any mention at all of the tension and even conflict that actually exists in that space, and I suspect that deception was willfully designed into it. As a citizen of the USA, I care that this article is reasonably complete and fair. Editors, please consider these suggestions for revisions. 2601:1C2:C001:4BA0:8917:5F1E:5A56:C5E4 (talk) 05:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with everything that you say here, but this seems like a good-faith proposal,[1] and Wikipedia behavioral guidelines discourage removing the comments of others,[2] so I am restoring this comment. Regardless of its legitimacy, the U.S. federal government has been influential and notable enough to warrant significant discussion in this article,[3] though its role could perhaps be framed differently. I agree that this article could improve its adherence to the neutral point of view policy,[4] but others will take you more seriously if you suggest a concrete, specific edit to wording or content,[5] especially if you provide sources that back up your proposed change.[6]  — Freoh 16:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ WP:AGF
  2. ^ WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS
  3. ^ WP:WEIGHT
  4. ^ WP:NPOV
  5. ^ WP:EDITXY
  6. ^ WP:RS

Spanish name in infobox[edit]

Small question: should the Spanish name of the United States of America (Estados Unidos de América) be included in the infobox? I'm not quite sure myself but I thought it might be important because the secondary native languages of other countries also appear in the infobox. I want to hear opinions from other Wikipedians before I make such a change however.

Hypothetical Spanish included infobox:

United States of America
Estados Unidos de América (Spanish)
ISO 3166 codeUS

―Howard • 🌽33 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Only about 14% of the US population speaks Spanish, so though it is the second largest language in the country it is still in the minority by a huge margin. In my opinion, languages on the infobox should be reserved for constitutionally recognized ones and those that have a significant amount in the country, I would use Belgium as an example here. TheBritinator (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How much is a "significant" amount? Is there a percentage for this kind of thing? ―Howard • 🌽33 14:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am not sure if there is a strict number, but 14% seems far too low to justify inclusion on the country as a whole. I could see it for a state level where perhaps Spanish is more significant.
I would also like to add that historical context is also pretty important, such as with Louisiana, I'd imagine it has French and Spanish due to its shared history with French Louisiana (named after a French king) and New Spain, so it would make sense to include it despite the languages actually being in a small minority. TheBritinator (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course historical context is also a vague concept considering that much of the modern-day United States was historically controlled by the Spanish Empire (see: Spanish America). How much historical context is necessary for inclusion? ―Howard • 🌽33 14:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The United States itself was not formed of Spanish heritage. TheBritinator (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The modern-day United States is certainly formed of Spanish heritage. Several states (California, Nevada, New Mexico, Florida, Arizona) have clear Spanish heritage. ―Howard • 🌽33 15:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I lean towards opposing this, mainly because somewhere we have to draw the line between what we include and don't include, and it will be very hard to come up with an explanation for why we do things one way for Spanish in the US and differently for other places and languages. I realize that slippery-slope arguments aren't great, and Languages of the United States does show that Spanish has a much larger speakership than other US languages, but I think the infobox isn't a place we should include this in a possibly contentious way when the info is already available elsewhere. Toadspike [Talk] 14:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Perhaps this should be moved to a larger discussion on which languages should be included in a country's infobox, since the Template:Infobox Country merely states that the native_name parameter be filled in with "its official/defacto language(s)". Official languages have a solid definition but "De Facto" doesn't. I think a standard for inclusion should be defined. What do you think? ―Howard • 🌽33 14:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point, but 14% would by no imagination constitute a defacto language. This is what I was talking about when I said significant ones. Sure, a clear parameter could be set for this, but the United States is definitely not it. TheBritinator (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
14% would by my imagination constitute a de facto language, which is why I started this discussion in the first place. Briefly looking up a couple of sources (not in-depth research to be clear), some academic sources have considered, suggested, or outright noted Spanish as the second de-facto language (or de-facto second language) of the United States. I'm not sure if this settles the discussion on whether Spanish is a de facto language of the United States, but it is not out of many people's imagination.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
  1. ^ Lipski, John M. (2002). "Rethinking the Place of Spanish". PMLA. 117 (5): 1247–1251. doi:10.1632/003081202X61124. ISSN 0030-8129. Spanish is not only the de facto second language (when not the first language) of the United States...
  2. ^ Ornstein-Galicia, Jacob L. (2013-03-12), "The Changing Status of U. S. Spanish: de Facto Second Language?", The Changing Status of U. S. Spanish: de Facto Second Language?, De Gruyter, pp. 294–310, doi:10.1515/9783110851625.294, ISBN 978-3-11-085162-5, retrieved 2024-05-28, [I]t is difficult to know what sort of terminology best applies to a language in the position of Spanish. This writer suggests several possibilities De facto second language, non-official second language, or even auxiliary second language.
  3. ^ "The Value of Spanish: Shifting Ideologies in United States Language Teaching". Modern Language Association. doi:10.1632/adfl.38.1.32. Retrieved 2024-05-28. ...Spanish's status as the de facto second national language...
  4. ^ Silva Gruesz, Kirsten; Lazo, Rodrigo (2018). "The Spanish Americas: Introduction". Early American Literature. 53 (3): 641–664. doi:10.1353/eal.2018.0067. ISSN 1534-147X. With forty million speakers in the United States—15 percent of the resident population, and the second-highest aggregate number in any nation, after Mexico— Spanish is the de facto second language of the country.
  5. ^ Lago Peña, Ignacio; Muro, Diego (2020). The Oxford handbook of spanish politics. Oxford handbooks. Oxford: Oxford university press. p. 486. ISBN 978-0-19-882693-4. The traditional role of language comes packaged with a sense of economic utility in an era of globalization, a tool for economic and commercial progress thanks especially to the fact that Spanish has become the de facto second language in the United States.
  6. ^ Lomelí, Francisco A.; Segura, Denise A.; Benjamin-Labarthe, Elyette, eds. (2019). Routledge handbook of Chicana/o studies. Routledge international handbooks (1st ed.). London ; New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 978-1-315-72636-6. In a country where Spanish is the second de facto language...
Oppose the rise of Spanish speaking people is starting to grow especially after the wave of Mexican immigrants, so IF this is proposed in a couple years, I will probably support it. 48JCL (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
―Howard • 🌽33 16:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Dual-language names are used throughout Wikipedia, but only when both languages have official, or at least coequal, status in the country. They are not used when there is a minority (13.2%, two-thirds of them fluent in English) who speak the second language at home and can access some government services in Spanish, or if Spaniards colonized the territory centuries ago like the French or Dutch. Spanish is not even a required foreign language in U.S. schools—the hallmark of a bilingual, bicultural nation-state like Canada or Finland. (Spanish is a language option like French.) Wikipedia has no reason to manufacture a bilingual nation-state that simply doesn't exist. Wikipedia reports what is, not what some editors wish it were. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Dual-language names are used throughout Wikipedia, but only when both languages have official, or at least coequal, status in the country. "
The infobox template does not specify this. It merely states that they have to be "its official/defacto language(s)". Does Wikipedia policy have a specified standard for what counts as "de facto"? Considering the sources I have noted above, it appears there is ambiguity of what languages can be considered "de facto".
"Wikipedia has no reason to manufacture a bilingual nation-state that simply doesn't exist. Wikipedia reports what is, not what some editors wish it were."
Which editor is wishing for the United States to be a bilingual nation-state? ―Howard • 🌽33 16:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard. If you are suggesting that translation for that particular field, you are indeed creating a bilingual, bicultural nation-state. Please look at how the infoboxes of many other country articles are handled—or not handled. Your above sample is imposing a certain linguistic and cultural point of view, and "POV" in the negative Wikipedia sense. Why you don't realize this is beyond me. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am merely trying to align the information inside the US country infobox with the rules of its template documentation. This is merely a question of what exactly the infobox counts as a "de facto" language, which it does not specify if you read the documentation.
As I have noted above, multiple sources state that Spanish is indeed the second de facto language of the United States, which may (or may not) necessitate its inclusion in the infobox. I am only citing what the sources already say.
Therefore, I simply wish to know two things:
1. Is there unambiguous Wikipedia consensus that explicitly defines what is meant by "de facto language(s)" in the context of country info-boxes?
2. If there is no policy, do reliable sources consider Spanish to be a "de facto" national language of the United States?
If no to the former, then we could move this discussion elsewhere and define it ourselves. However, if we cannot form any consensus, then we have to rely on what reliable sources consider of the status of Spanish in the United States. According to my brief overview of the topic, multiple sources do consider Spanish to be a "de facto" national language of the United States. However, if you have sources which are contrary to this designation, then please share them with me.
Suppose we go by your rules and say that an infobox should only contain the translated names of the official languages (excluding vernacular and regionally recognized languages) of that country, as in Sweden and Canada, like you mentioned.
These countries' infoboxes would then not fit the bill:
  • Eritrea's infobox only includes Tigrinya as the native name of the country, despite it not being the official language of the country.
  • Algeria's infobox only includes the Arabic name despite Tamazight also being an official language of the country.
  • Jamaica's, Grenada's, Belize's infobox contains the name in their respective creoles despite them not being an official language.
  • Bolivia's infobox doesn't contain all 36 of its official languages.
  • Burkina Faso's infobox doesn't contain its name in Bissa, despite it being an official language.
  • The Danish Realm's infobox contains Faroese and Greenlandic despite the fact they are merely regional languages and Danish is the only official language.
  • Djibouti's infobox contains Somali and Afar, despite those not even being official languages.
  • Guinea's infobox contains Pular and Eastern Maninkakan despite only French being the official language.
  • Guinea-Bissau's infobox contains Fula and Mandinka despite only Portuguese being the official language.
  • Israel's infobox contains Arabic despite only Hebrew being the sole official language.
  • Latvia's infobox contains Latgalian and Livonian, despite Latvian being the sole official language.
  • Luxembourg's infobox contains French and German despite Luxembourgish being the national language.
  • Malawi's infobox contains Chichewa and Chitumbuka despite English being the sole official language.
  • Mali has thirteen official languages but only contains five of them in the infobox.
  • Mexico doesn't have an official language, but its name in Spanish is included in the infobox.
  • Monaco's infobox contains Monagesque, which is not an official language of the country.
  • Namibia's infobox contains eight languages, despite only English being the official language of the country.
  • New Zealand's infobox does not contain a SignWritten name of the country in New Zealand Sign Language.
  • Nigeria's infobox contains three languages, despite English being the sole official language.
  • Norway's infobox contains Kven, not an official language.
  • Papua New Guinea's infobox does not contain a PNG Sign Language translation of the name of the country.
  • Peru's infobox, interestingly enough, contains "co-official" names for the country, in Quechua and Aymara which aren't the official language.
  • Saint Lucia's infobox contains Saint Lucian Creole, which is not an official language.
  • Slovenia's infobox contains Italian and Hungarian, which are not official languages.
  • South Africa's infobox does not contain South African Sign Language.
  • Spain's infobox contains names in 7 other languages which are not Spanish, the country's official language.
  • Switzerland's infobox contains its name in Latin, which is not an official language of Switzerland.
  • Uganda's infobox contains a dropdown with three other non-official languages.
  • Uruguay's infobox does not contain Uruguayan Sign Language, an official language of the country.
  • Yemen's infobox contains an informal Arabic name for the country alongside the official name.
  • Zimbabwe's infobox doesn't contain any translated names despite having 16 official languages.
I would like for you to go through each and every infobox for every country and explain to me what is the consensus on which translated names are supposed to appear on the top. I guarantee you, there is an exception with any rule you come up with. ―Howard • 🌽33 20:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard — First of all, academic books declaring Spanish to be "the second de facto language" are as reliable for Wikipedia as academic publications stating that the U.S. is not a democracy or is a historical fraud. Actually, Switzerland's name in Latin is official, as this is its historical name going back to its medieval founding as a confederation. There really is a reason for each and every WP inbox format you list. While I do think there might be room to expand "Languages" in the inbox, I find your sample inbox quite misguided. You're ready to declare Spanish "de facto" when the 13.2% Spanish figure comes from a survey (not from a census), when these 41 million people are not monolingual Spanish speakers but often speak English fluently and receive their education in English. English is the de facto language of the United States. Your sample inbox also opens a can of worms for every state: Why shouldn't North Carolina also appear as "Carolina del Norte" or, for equal inclusiveness, "Philadelphia" followed by "Filadelfia"? This is how absurd your sample inbox is.
This space isn't a forum, so I will go no further except to say that I oppose your "project" in most aspects. Other editors can weigh in. Mason.Jones (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States&oldid=1226156441"