Talk:United States

Foremost military power?

It's not the "foremost military power in the world". I think you'll find that's Russia. They have the largest military and largest arsenal in the world. Did an American write this? God, I love you guys. You're so rubbish at history! 80.0.165.141 (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Please offer independent reliable sources to support your claims. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Imagine believing that. I bet you also think that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is just a "special military operation"... -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It's shocking to see how the modern education system has failed people.Moxy- 05:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The United States spends seven times more on its military than Russia. ––FormalDude talk 06:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Cinema

Original Text: "In more recent times, directors such as Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and James Cameron have gained renown for their blockbuster films, often characterized by high production costs and earnings."

An editor removed Cameron, saying, "I removed a reference to James Cameron, who is Canadian. He seemed out of place in an a section about American filmmaking, within an article about the United States generally. One could argue that while Cameron isn’t American, he made films that were commercially successful in America. But by that standard, why stop with him? Many, many other foreign directors would also qualify. Better, I think, to leave him out."[1]

Cameron produced the Terminator series, Titanic and other popular Hollywood films and is currently producing sequels to Avatar. I do not think his nationality is relevant.

TFD (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Whole section needs a rewrite....like the music section lots of name dropping and titles over real info ....should have something like the lead at Cinema of the United States with a few tweeks and sources.Moxy- 04:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Canadian filmmakers who are not naturalized U.S. citizens are not lazily cited, even by inference, as Americans. The Mexican filmmaker Alejandro Iñárritu is in the same category; he has worked in Hollywood for a while. Cameron, in fact, decided against U.S. citizenship; he has recently considered adding New Zealand citizenship because he adopted that country as his home. Citing Cameron in the same way as Lucas or Spielberg must be done the encyclopedic way: "...and the Canadian filmmaker James Cameron." It would be patently dishonest otherwise in any encyclopedia. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2022

The United States is the most populous country in North America (for obvious reasons). 70.71.87.75 (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

US flag

"Flag of the United States.svg"

"Flag of the United States (Pantone).svg"

The US flag uses the pantone colors now, instead of the Standard Color Reference ones used previously, why has this change happened? Was this a mistake? WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@WikiMakersOfOurTime: Is this related to content in this article that you want to change? (Or perhaps in Flag of the United States?)

Or are you just asking a general question? If you're just asking a question, it should be done at Reference desk/Humanities. This talk page is only for specific suggestions for improving the article United States. ––FormalDude talk 03:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah maybe this would work better in US flag. WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the original file "file:flag of the United States.svg" is using the wrong color for blue. This appears to have been corrected with "file:flag of the United States (Pantone).svg". Nicole Sharp (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Superpower in Lede

The inclusion of the word "superpower"in the lede is up to debate considering the enormous variety of political opinions surrounding the topic/lack of consensus on classification of "superpower". Couldn't this article take a more neutral stance and replace the term superpower with the term "dominant power"? CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Is there sources for this term? In many countries it has a very different meaning then what is proposed here. What is a dominant power?. Moxy- 22:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it can be worded something like this?

"The Spanish–American War and World War I established the U.S. as a world power, and the aftermath of World War II left the United States and the Soviet Union as the world's dominant nations. During the Cold War, both sides fought in the Korean and Vietnam Wars but avoided direct military conflict. They competed in the Space Race, culminating in the 1969 American spaceflight that first landed humans on the Moon. The Soviet Union's dissolution in 1991 ended the Cold War, leaving the United States as the world's preeminent power."

I chose the the term "preeminent" because this article uses the term as synonymous with "superpower". If sources are still needed, I will begin looking for some. Comments anyone? CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The United States is well regarded as the world's sole superpower -- see more at superpower. I wouldn't change it to "dominate nation", nor would I support that. If you plan to do so though, you should start an RFC beforehand. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Removing some of the criticism in lead?

It seems to me that most other first-world countries do not include criticism in their leads. For example, Japan and Singapore both retain the death penalty (and Singapore uses it for crimes not resulting in death); neither mention that in their lead. While WP:other stuff exists is not a good reason to change things, Japan's article is rated as a Featured Article, while Singapore's is rated as a Good Article. This was brought to my attention after I tried to change the lead of Singapore to mention its use of capital punishment and poor human rights record, and the editor who reverted me pointed out that it was undue.

If we would like to see this article become a good article (and I would), it may be worth considering following their pattern more closely.

I suggest removing mention of capital punishment in the lead (as Japan and Singapore does); and reducing discussion of inequality in the lead to simply link to Inequality in the United States. Lack of universal healthcare and mass incarceration should remain, so I suggest that the lead reads as:

The United States ranks high in international measures of economic freedom, quality of life, education, and human rights; it also has low levels of perceived corruption. However, scholars have criticized the country for inequality, mass incarceration, and lack of universal health care.

If it were up to me, I'd probably simply remove all mention of criticism, as again the Japan and Singapore articles do. Instead I'd say:

The United States ranks high in international measures of economic freedom, quality of life, education, and human rights; it also has low levels of perceived corruption.

What are your thoughts? Obviously I will not make any changes in the absence of clear consensus.

-- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Killing your own citizens is crazy....the United States is the only Western nation that applies the death penalty. Its a major factor in their human right score.Moxy- 00:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I don't disagree. I oppose capital punishment and hate the fact that I live in a state (Florida) that retains it. That being said, Japan and Singapore both retain it and it is not in their lead, despite being featured articles. (though they are not western democracies) -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"Killing your own citizens is crazy" Not really. Americans simply do not place any value on human life and dignity. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is more evidence that Americans consider it their right to kill people. Dimadick (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like you have your own biases here... -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Partially Support - I'd keep the mention of capital punishment but reword it to state that the U.S. uses capital punishment more often compared to other democracies that still have it. I think there are some sources here that might be useful. Still, reducing the inequality description is helpful. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

That could work. Japan rarely uses capital punishment, and Singapore is not really a democracy (or at least, not a liberal democracy. Maybe something like:

The United States ranks high in international measures of economic freedom, quality of life, education, and human rights; it also has low levels of perceived corruption. However, scholars have criticized the country for inequality, mass incarceration, excessive use of capital punishment compared to other liberal democracies, and lack of universal health care.

How does that sound? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Alternatively, it could say: "being the only western democracy to retain the death penalty" instead? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

In that case, Support excessive compared to other liberal democracies. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"the U.S. uses capital punishment more often compared to other democracies that still have it." Not entirely true. They simply execute more people, as executions in other countries are not infrequent. The article on capital punishment includes worldwide data on executions for 2021. The United States executed 11 people, China 6 (though the number is an estimate), and Japan 3. Their numbers are insignificant compared to Iran, which executed 353 people in a single year. (Both Vietnam and North Korea apparently failed to report how many they executed). Dimadick (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are trying to say. Sure, Iran and other countries have executed more people, but the U.S. is the global leader among liberal democracies with the number of people it executes. Thus, my point stands. If you are suggesting that this statistic is insignificant because many other countries use capital punishment more than the US, most of those nations are still developing and a significant portion of them are not considered liberal democracies. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it is significant, but it would make more sense if we just said "retains the death penalty, unlike other western democracies" (or something close to that), rather than say that it uses the death penalty more than other liberal democracies. Japan is a liberal democracy, it is not a western democracy. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"However, scholars have criticized the country for" is weasel wording. Who are these scholars? And why can't we say that the U.S. is an outlier among developed nations in things such as inequality, capital punishment, mass incarceration, and lack of universal health care? While inequality is seen as a necessary evil at best, the others are seen as positives by leaders of both major parties. America is tough on crime. America has the best health care system in the world because it is privately run. America has inequality because it doesn't pay people not to work but it allows them to keep the money they earn.

Also, as another editor said, Japan and Singapore execute far fewer people. The U.S. is sixth in the world, behind China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt and ahead of Pakistan and Somalia.[2] It consistently votes with these countries in the UN against a moratorium on the death penalty.

Also note that capital punishment and universal health care are settled issues among the public in most developed countries. That makes the U.S. position, which has popular support, more exceptional.

TFD (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Singapore executes more people than the US does per capita (for what its worth). But you're right, "scholars have criticized" is a weasel word. That's why I don't think any of this is appropriate for the lead. We certainly can say that America is an outlier among developed nations for these things, but if we do, they arguably shouldn't be in the lead or presented as a negative (even though I think I'm comfortable saying they are). One possible phrasing, if we adopted your idea (excluding mention of inequality, which I'm not sure if it is that notable compared to other liberal democracies), could be:

The United States ranks high in international measures of economic freedom, quality of life, education, and human rights; it has low levels of perceived corruption. Unique among other western democracies, the country has no universal health care, retains capital punishment and has high incarceration rates.

-- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I think your phrasing is good. We should explain how the U.S. differs from other Western democracies and other countries without being judgmental. I would mention too that there are high levels of inequality. While no one argues that is a good thing, people do argue that attempts to reduce it would be counterproductive or that its causes are American history rather than a deliberate policy. In Canada for example, descendants of former slaves also face inequality (see Africville,) but they are a tiny minority compared with the U.S. TFD (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

But are the high levels of inequality unique to the United States as a western democracy? If the US's degree of inequality is significantly higher than other western democracies, then it warrants a mention; but if it's a difference of degrees rather than kind, probably not. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I would say so, yes. Cited sources such as the OHCHR report highlight this: "The United States now has the highest income inequality in the Western world, the highest incarceration rate in the entire world, and one of the lowest turnout rates in elections among developed countries" (empahsis mine). So I would support your rewrite above if it included inequality: "The United States ranks high in international measures of economic freedom, quality of life, education, and human rights; it has low levels of perceived corruption. Unique among other western democracies, the country has no universal health care, retains capital punishment, has high incarceration rates and high levels of inequality."--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, I support that. I'll try boldly changing the lead, if it gets reverted, I'll do an RFC. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 19:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"that its causes are American history rather than a deliberate policy." But this is a relatively recent development. Per the article on income inequality in the United States, the Gini coefficient was below 40% until 1983.: "The return to high inequality began in the 1980s. The Gini first rose above 40 in 1983. Inequality rose almost continuously, with inconsequential dips during the economic recessions in 1990–91 (Gini 42.0), 2001 (Gini 44.6) and 2007." Basically the U.S. has high inequality for the last 39 years, while it maintained low levels of inequality for most of the post-World War II period. Dimadick (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The Gini coefficient in Canada and the UK after 40 years of neoliberalism is 32, and other Western democracies are lower. So even at the height of the Just Society, the U.S. was far more unequal than other developed nations are now. TFD (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose per the last RfC on this. The issues raised are largely unique to the United States and make the country an outlier in the developed world as one of vast inequality when it comes to class and race. The US is also the only Western country to still use the death penalty and have no system of universal healthcare, and has levels of incarceration unparalleled in the entire world. These are worth mentioning, and are well sourced in the lead.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The text never mentions any yardstick like "outlier among rich, Western democracies etc.," or why "criticized by scholars" makes the criticisms valid or indispensable. The viewpoint is that of the social democratic left, so it is POV and not neutral. The RFC and its wording were introduced by a perennially inactive editor who claimed he was adding critical appraisals to other WP country articles, including Russia and China. These were all shorter and, later, watered down or removed. The passage for United States remains—a strikingly long, critical, and strident passage for the lead of any country article. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

You're right, the text does not include that yardstick, that is basically my argument against removal. Nevertheless, what is stated in that passage is also the viewpoint of the UN's OHCHR per the source included in the citation bundle, so I don't think this viewpoint can be simply attributed to the "social democratic left", which seems like OR to me (not sure about the political positions of the other sources in that bundle). While I would agree the attribution to scholars should be removed given that the UN report is part of that criticism, I don't see how that relatively small passage of criticism is much different than similar passages in the very articles you mention above, China and Russia. Let's compare them: United States: "However, scholars have criticized the country for racial, wealth, and income inequality, alongside capital punishment, mass incarceration, and lack of universal health care." China: "Chinese authorities have been criticized by political dissidents and human rights activists for widespread human rights abuses, including political repression, mass censorship, mass surveillance of their citizens and violent suppression of protests." Russia: "Since his election in 2000, Vladimir Putin has dominated Russia's political system and Russia has experienced democratic backsliding, shifting into an authoritarian state." All of these seem like valid criticisms based on what reliable sources say. And the idea that the one for the US is "strikingly long" by comparison is not evidenced by what is presently in those articles. Looking at word count, the passages from both the US and Russia articles consist of 23 words, whereas the one for China has 32.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, I do feel like it is a little undue to compare the situation in the US to Russia or China, though. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 19:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

No one is comparing the situation in the US to Russia or China. The criticisms are starkly different for these countries. The point I was making is that the size of the passages of criticism for the two other countries in question are similar to the one for the US. Although looking over the China article I omitted the preceding sentence, which would make China's even larger. The relatively small passage is WP:DUE IMO as such criticisms are discussed at length in the body of the article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"capital punishment and universal health care are settled issues among the public in most developed countries." Capital punishment is not on the table as a topic for most European countries, because Protocol 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights demands complete abolition of death penalty for all signatories. The only countries which never signed it are Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Russia. Armenia independently abolished the death penalty in 2003, Azerbaijan abolished the death penalty in 1998, and Russia has an ongoing moratorium over the death penalty since 1996. Dimadick (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"If it were up to me, I'd probably simply remove all mention of criticism" Basically, your proposal amounts to whitewashing, covering up the country's "vices, crimes or scandals". It would make the article far more biased, and basically unreliable. Dimadick (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not whitewashing at all to exclude criticisms from the lead, unless you think criticism of America in its lead is relevant while excluded from Singapore? Again, not trying to argue from WP:Other stuff, but Singapore is a Good Article, and this article is not. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Note -- I have WP:Boldly changed the lead so it now reads: The United States ranks high in international measures of economic freedom, quality of life, education, and human rights; it has low levels of perceived corruption. Unique among other western democracies, the country has no universal health care, retains capital punishment, has high incarceration rates and high levels of inequality.

Does that read better? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment - I changed it to "Unlike most other liberal democracies, the country lacks universal health care, retains capital punishment, and has high levels of incarceration and inequality.". I think that's better. I still think it should be reduced, but I don't think I'll get consensus to prune it further. With this sentence, it's clear that we are comparing the United States to other countries that are liberal democracies, not all countries. I do wonder if it'd be better to say "unlike many other liberal democracies" instead of "most others" though. India is considered a liberal democracy, but it also suffers from great inequality. I appreciate anyone's comments. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

An improvement, as it adds context to an unqualified laundry list of sociopolitical grievances in United States. Some editors wish to positively assess this against one throwaway sentence in Russia ("backsliding democracy...slipping into authoritarianism"—i.e., it's had some minor problems lately) or the statement in China, which actually mentioned a yardstick ("dissidents and human rights activists"—thus: only dissidents and activists care about state violence and the suppression of opinion). Word-count comparison is a weak argument: Russia's statement is longer because it mentions who the current president is; China's is longer because it spells out a yardstick. All to be conflated with capital punishment (in half the U.S. states), lower life expectancy in the U.S. (compared to Luxembourg), and "lack of universal health care." Mason.Jones (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mason.Jones: For what it's worth, I 100% agree with you and think that none of it (other than, perhaps, a mention of high incarceration rates, which, looking objectively, has no parallel in other western democracies) should be in the lead. I just don't think we'll get consensus for removing it. At least now it's not using weasel words or presenting the faults of the US as an absolute negative. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 20:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I think including the country's high incarceration rates and inequality is needed. But the death penalty shouldn't be in the lead; Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, et al. are all liberal democracies that remain the death penalty, and the practice has been historically practiced (until recently) in vastly more. KlayCax (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

U.S. death penalty system flagrantly violates human rights law (universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948) Moxy- 16:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The expression was western, not liberal, democracies. TFD (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: We could change it back to Western democracies, but the problem is that it redirects to Liberal democracies, because they are nearly the same thing. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no need for the link. Links are there for readers who want more information about specific aspects of the United States, not so that they can look up what a word means. If we think that the term "western democracy" needs to be defined for readers, we should define it in this article. But I don't think it needs definition. The non-Western liberal democracies tend to be different. I notice India was left out which also executes people. TFD (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it is highly important to include criticism of the United States. In every other country from the Soviet Union to China, there is criticism whether it be the human rights abuses or the authoritarian nature. By criticizing the United States we point out its flaws and combat this belief in American exceptionalism which excuses the problems that exist domestically and abroad. Sure the US has undertaken many advancements some of which I would personally consider to be a net positive for humanity (such as the Internet and computer science) however it has many, many flaws and blemishes on its history. By ignoring this we feed misinformation and sweep issues under the rug. And for these reasons I support keeping criticisms in the lead section. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 22:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, most regular editors (including me) supported adding the critical RFC last year, but it had become an expanding laundry list. Today, for example, the editor FictiousLibrarian added "mass surveillance" to the list of "flaws," and from a less than neutral source. (It cannot stand without broad consensus.) Finally, Russia and China, both effectively dictatorships, include very short criticisms, so the "misinformation" charge in United States is specious. Mason.Jones (talk)

Mason.Jones While I agree with you on the inclusion of criticism, I must stress the importance. Many Americans like myself who grew up in the public education system were taught to view the United States as this holier than tho nation, one without problems and issues and if so those issues are negligible. My fear is having the lead of the United States reinforce those views. The dictatorship lines in China and Russia are real just like the fact that many Americans die or live in finical ruin from medical expenses. I agree with you that the criticism page should remain and should contain the most pressing issues, however flowery language isn't necessary. What I mean by that is "unlike other liberal democracies" should be replaced with something like "The United States is criticized for..."

FictiousLibrarian (talk). 03:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@FictiousLibrarian. Definitely not "is criticized for...," followed by a sociopolitical shopping list. There should be a reference for any such listing: "Western democracies," "liberal democracies," etc. I see no flowery language or exceptionalism in the lead. All WP articles about large, powerful countries mention superlatives and key accomplishments. You have repeatedly shown a desire to impart an ideological point of view in the lead (only in the lead). You've appended virtual paragraphs of oddball history and pseudofacts (such as yesterday's "mass surveillance" pearl). Mason.Jones (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@FictiousLibrarian: Wikipedia is not here to Right Great Wrongs. We are here to provide unbiased facts, not try to convince readers that American exceptionalism isn't (or is) a thing... especially since that's entirely subjective. Also, it's not true that all other countries have criticisms in their lead. See Singapore and Japan -- neither have any mention of (for example) their use of the death penalty; both are also Good or Featured Articles -- which this article is not. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Have you read the rest of this section? The saying that “The United States is criticized for…” is weasel wording and also is a product of opinion. By comparison, the China article includes the term “criticized for…” because it has been criticized by an overwhelming amount of human rights activists for human rights abuses, which are backed up by lots of reliable sources. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

see me Moxy- 14:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy Good point. Yes, there is some legitimate criticism towards the United States by international organizations, especially regarding its mistreatment of minorities. However, removing the term “criticism” is good from a NPOV standpoint because it stops editors from squabbling over who is making the criticism in the first place, or whether the criticism is even warranted. Just presenting the facts and not the viewpoint is good enough.

Now that I think about it, perhaps China’s lead should also remove criticism and instead simply state the sourced facts. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

"Amerikai Egyesült Államok" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Amerikai Egyesült Államok and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 11#Amerikai Egyesült Államok until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

United States Commission on International Religious Freedom

Please monitor United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. No content is present about it's reports but its totally filled with criticism about the reports. Content additions are largely political propaganda from the reported countries. Obey levy (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Reverted unsourced, un-encyclopedic description added to lede sentence

I have reverted an edit to the lede sentence by @Alexbarbershop earlier today. I ask that he discuss the edit/revert here before restoring it or adding any similar material. Here is the text I replaced (italics used to highlight the text in question):

"The United States of America (U.S.A. or USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S. or US) or the less-accurate and increasingly controversial colloquialism ‘America’, due to its being a country only partly located in, nor one inclusive of the whole of North America, and having only a clandestine, amorphous, secretive, often unwanted and thusly undefinable territory of influence in the landmass’s southern half consisting of 50 states, the remaining half of its federal district, over five major unincorporated territories awaiting admission to the union for over a century in some cases and thereby unable to participate in the country’s governance, 326 Indian reservations, and nine minor outlying islands."

While a discussion of the use the colloquial "America" is notable, it is decidedly not of the highest order in terms of understanding the topic and therefore, only worthy of passing mention in the lede. Based on this and other edits - I'm only beginning to assess them - the editor apparently has a jaundiced of the United States that, again, is not of the utmost importance regarding the subject and may be motivated politically. As I review these additional edits, I will discuss them here, including any necessary reverts. Allreet (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

You don't need to discuss those edits on the talk page unless someone objects to your revert. I for one do not object to it. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I concur. There is no way that text would ever last in a key article. freshacconci (✉) 15:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The original editor's text is not "a jaundiced view" but simply vandalism. It also includes inaccuracies: For ex., there's no majority in any of the five major unincorporated territories who "awaits admission to the union for over a century in some cases and thereby unable to participate in the country’s governance." Support for that level of integration (i.e., statehood) is weak. Mason.Jones (talk)

Active vandalism in lead

Need extended protection

PurpleDeskChair (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I just applied dispute and citation needed templates on some minor points in the second paragraph. I'm going to remove these and revisit the issues later. Thanks for asking for protection. Allreet (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Is the US really still the world’s “sole superpower”?

We need to take a hard look at the end of the second paragraph. It works if it was still the 1990s right now, but I’m not sure it’s the most encyclopedic way to end the paragraph in today’s world. China and Russia could reasonably be considered superpowers also.

I think it would be best to extend the sentence by replacing the period with a comma, and an additional phrase that states the US superpower status in the current context.

I added an inline notice to flag it and draw attention to it. Please discuss how to improve or make sense of it. I hope this can be resolved peacefully. Thanks Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 05:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Consider this: The United States spends more on defense than the next 11 countries combined. Cullen328 (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but defense spending is just one piece of the pie. If you consider global trade and economy, through recent decades China has caught up and/or surpassed the US in most meaningful measures. There are factors such as political power, and many others as well.

I’m more trying to point towards the full big-picture perspective, since that’s the aim of the lead paragraphs of an article as broad as “United States” Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources which state that the United States is not the world's sole superpower, then I'd like to see it, and we could refactor that sentence. But I think that the vast majority of sources are going to concur that the United States retains that position. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I would point towards the lead sections of the WP articles titled “hyperpower”, “foremost power” and “potential superpower”. There are very well-sourced statements (with some having as many as 5-7 inline citations at the end of the sentence) in very prominent spots of the lead paragraphs indicating that the US ceased being a clear sole superpower about 10-15 years ago. To be completely fair, I haven’t made any edits on those pages before. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I have looked over that entire article, and I can comfortably say that most of the citations are opinion sources. Sure, they are reliable enough due to their publishing institutions to not be considered WP:SOAPBOX, but after reflecting upon it, we can just go with the historical consensus until there is overwhelming evidence suggesting that China, Russia, (perhaps even India) are superpowers. You can see my unnecessarily rough page comments here, but this is a subject of controversy and we must go with the most recent period of general consensus : The US is a superpower. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not disputing the notion that the US is currently a superpower. I apologize if my idea was accidentally inferred by anyone that way.

I just think that the original ending of the paragraph wasn’t the best full reflection of the US current status in the global community, because it was based on the immediate post-Cold War, and doesn’t account for what has happened since then. As I said previously, it’s perfect for the 90s, and maybe even early 2000s, but the US doesn’t dominate in everything nowadays as much as it used to.

I would say they still are the most powerful nation, but to put it in sports terms, the score has caught up and their lead on other countries is not as big. And I think the ending of that paragraph should reflect that, because the 2022 global geopolitical landscape is far different than 1992 and even 2002. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

That makes more sense now seeing your inclusion that way. Go ahead and be bold with it. Just make sure there are some citations/resources in the 21st century sections detailing this so that a citation doesn't have to be included in the lead. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Michael Phelps

We already have a name spam problem in the music section that gives zero info on the era of music. Lets try not to do the same in other sections. Simply no need to list name of sport figures ....we have tried hard no to do this in this section.....many names have been added and removed like Jackie Robinson , Tiger woods etc....all lead to no info on the country as a whole. Can we get you to slow down on the edit wars plsMoxy- 11:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Michael Phelps represented the US and dominated sports on a prominent global sports stage while representing the US (Olympics). Tiger Woods, Jackie Robinson, Babe Ruth, and others didn’t. The only other comparison in terms of sports competitions would be the World Cup. That’s the key point here. Phelps has a unique legacy that isn’t matched by all those other athletes Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Sports section of “Russia” shows Maria Sharapova, because she dominated tennis on the global stage. Same thing here Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Sports section of Argentina mentions many names, and also features photos of Maradona and Messi. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Sports section of China mentions Yao Ming Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Germany sports section names two racecar drivers who have broken records in their sport Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

You have to understand it from a sports perspective to make sense of it. I don’t think that any other American athlete names deserve to be in the section, not even Michael Jordan, because his significance is only meaningful within the US, his six NBA Finals championships are from a domestic league entirely within the US. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

What we are looknig for is national infomation and sentances that link info on the country itsself. No need to list people at all as it leads to zero info on the country. FA exmaples to follow are Canada#Sports (of for music Canada#Music) Japan#Sports. How does listing Michael Phelps help in the understading of the country?Moxy- 11:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

This is not a name spam issue for sports. I have no intention to name spam. This is about how dominant Michael Phelps is against competitors from all around the world in his sport.

Your title is misleading. I will change the title of this discussion to “Michael Phelps” and start another one called “Music names” that you can comment those ideas on. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The addition of one name will lead to many more added...we have gone thru this many times before. Moxy- 11:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

To answer your question, it’s because of the achievement and accomplishment he did on the global stage while representing the United States. He was representing the United States in the Olympics. So it’s totally relevant. If that doesn’t make sense to you, then I don’t know how to make it make sense to you. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

So to be clear you belive Michael Phelps is the greatest American athlete ever and is the only person that we should name? Moxy- 11:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m aware that you’re a heavy editor of the Canada pages, I saw it on your talk page, so let’s not go there, that’s a very biased example. I mentioned pages I’ve never touched. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

No, because the level and scope of Phelps’ accomplishment is unique in the sports world. I don’t want the floodgates to open either, I have the same exact sentiment. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, precisely. The reason why I put Phelps in the first place is a reason unique to him that is invalid for any other American athletes as far as I’m aware. Even other greats. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

He does make the top ten on most list....but we are not going to list all thoses before him are we. Simply does not help readers understand the country as a whole. Moxy- 12:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The top ten of what? If you’re comparing him to Michael Jordan and Babe Ruth and other athletes who’s most notable success was in domestic sports leagues, you’re completely missing the point. Jordan and Ruth and Jackie Robinson didn’t dominate on the global stage. (And they actually weren’t as dominant as Phelps from a competition standpoint but that’s a secondary concern). It’s a different context.

When we talk about Phelps, we have to look at him the way we see Federer, Usain Bolt, Sharapova, Maradona, Pele, Messi, etc. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Non of these names help in understading a country Moxy- 12:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

If you are only able to gather all of this in comparison and perspective with other American athletes, then this discussion is completely useless. Because the nature of Phelps’ success and accomplishments is in a completely different category from what all the other names are in. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Article is about a country not a person We need input from others at this point...do others think Phelps should be the one and only person mentioned in the section...or do we add others or have none. Looking for historical significance with an educational link like Baseball color line...I would say Jackie Robinson for the change it made in society VS a swimmer with lots of medals linking swimming (sport).Moxy- 12:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but Phelps dominated and broke records while representing said country in a prominent global sports competition against other major countries.

To say it’s about a country not a person as a new reason to not name Phelps, means by that standard we’d have to remove all other cultural references to people.

It really seems like you’re grasping at straws and creating random new arguments with each reply to try to shoot down the idea of putting Phelps, and these arguments lack cohesion and they’re not linear or connected. I’ve been putting forth the same main argument, and explaining it in different ways as necessary to clarify it to you in response to each of your replies. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

We should only name the most Influential people in American History. Moxy- 13:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson’s significance and notability is not really sports-related. His notability is more along the lines of race.

Again, you’re going at it the wrong way. Please compare to other athletes who have had similar levels of international success in prominent international competitions such as Federer, Usain Bolt, Messi, Maradona, Pele, Sharapova, and the like. For the purpose of this discussion, those athletes are way more similar to Phelps than Jackie Robinson. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I think if we receive input from others, my ideas will be more clearly understood. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

This might explain the Jackie Robinson thing better, if Jackie Robinson was white, his name wouldn’t be in this conversation.

Jackie Robinson’s notability isn’t specialized in sports. Sports was just his platform. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

It’s just like Colin Kaepernick nowadays. He’s become far more famous and notable because of what he did beyond strictly sports, and from the athletic standpoint he’s not considered the all-time greatest. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Ping main editors for input ...@Golbez: @Mason.Jones: @C.J. Griffin: @E-960: @Chipmunkdavis:...Moxy- 13:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I do have to take it with a grain of salt how you’re tagging specific editors, and potential biases that may come into play assuming you’ve had previous contact with them. But if it is neutral and legitimate, thank you for helping the cause. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Just main editors of the page.....not a click or anything of that nature in fact we all dont agree on many things Moxy- 13:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Do we have a high-level overview source for Sports in the United States that we can use to gauge dueness? CMD (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Adding Michael Phelps to the sports section... he's big, but looking at the entire picture of sports in the US, he's not that big to include in the article. In the end, it will always be a judgment call with stuff like that. --E-960 (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Either the page names sports names or it doesn't. It doesn't. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I have an idea that may be compromise-able, what about not mentioning Phelps at all in the text, but having a photo of him holding/wearing an Olympic gold medal near the bottom of the sports section with the accomplishment as the caption? I think Maria Sharapova’s photo in the Russia sports section is a perfect parallel. There are zero names in the body text (not even Sharapova’s). Please take a look at that, and see if that type of thing is doable. It wouldn’t open up any floodgates for further names, because let’s face it, you can easily fit 3-5 names in one paragraph sentence, but any reasonable editor would know it’s impractical and unencyclopedic to have 3-5 photos of different athletes in the section.

Thoughts? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

As a new editor there is a big learning curve...pls see MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE Moxy- 19:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I would appreciate if we can discuss the points based entirely on their merits instead of trying to make assumptions based on longevity and labeling me as a “new editor”. Also it’s best to not prematurely assign other value-laden labels such as “spam”, it’s not helpful for the encyclopedia. Our labels should be in neutral terms. Spam gives off the vibe that something is destructive, irrelevant, and commercial in nature. If edits are well-intentioned and relevant, and non-commercial, then they’re not inherently spam. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Thank you for requesting a third opinion. I will address each perspective and give my final thoughts by the end. As I understand it, User:Mrbeastmodeallday desires to implement the athlete Michael Phelps as a separate example while there is currently none specifically named. His reasoning includes but may not be limited to other articles listing individual athletes, relevance of this particular athlete, and relevance of this athlete coming close to or being equal to relevance of other individual athletes noted on other articles. User:Moxy is of the opinion that Michael Phelps should not be included. His reasoning for this includes but may not be limited to prior additions being removed too, concerns over one addition leading to others following, individual athletes not necessarily representing countries and thus not being relevant (enough) to warrant inclusion here. My opinion will rely exclusively on the arguments I've outlined here. I agree in principal with User:Moxy in this case for the following reasons: Individual athletes being listed on other articles does not guarantee or signal desire for inclusion here per WP:MOS. All articles are separate and the 'goal' and means may be different from topic to topic. In terms of relevance I do not observe that it has been conclusively established that Michael Phelps is truly a 'one of a kind', this, to me, seems like use of subjective buzzwords that carry no objective relevance in deciding what should be on Wikipedia and what shouldn't. It also seems to me that this is (nigh) impossible to establish with consensus which indicates it has no place on Wikipedia. Furthermore, I also do not observe sufficient objective evidence or grounds that Michael Phelps represents American culture or sports performance better or more than other athletes (whether looking at national or international). This concludes my reasoning as to why I believe Michael Phelps should not be added to this article. I apologize for the lack of proper formatting used, this is primarily due to poor formatting and tabbing prior to my arrival, and limitations on the substituted 3OR template. If any have further questions or such, feel free to ping me or post on my Talk page. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 21:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

For the record, before the third opinion reply which Ama kindly offered, I had already addressed and/or found areas of common agreement with Moxy regarding these two reasons that Ama states:

• “concerns over one addition leading to others following”

• “individual athletes not necessarily representing countries and thus not being relevant (enough) to warrant inclusion here” Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mrbeastmodeallday and Moxy: I will respond with my addendum here per your request on my talk page.

• Nearly all other great American athletes that have been the subject of this type of debate had their sports notability resting primarily based on their performance in domestic leagues (Michael Jordan won 6x NBA championships in a US domestic league, Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in a US domestic league, etc etc). The one partial exception would be Tiger Woods, however, the highest-level golf tournaments don’t exactly have a total global reach the way the Olympics and World Cup do; also three of the four major golf tournaments are held in the US.

My response: Being an athlete that had great success outside of your country does not make one representative of said country, which is kind of what the article is all about.

• However, Phelps’ success comes in the context of a massive global high-stakes contest (the Olympics) where countries from all around the world are competing for those same medals, and not all countries and athletes can get medals every time, it is very very competitive. The Olympics (primarily the Summer Olympics) and the men’s FIFA World Cup are by far the top two sports events in this regard of having countries from all around the world, (every major continent, religion, race, etc) competing with their top-level athletes and not holding anything back. So Michael Jordan, Babe Ruth, Jackie Robinson, and Tiger Woods were great in sports where maybe only 300-500 million people in the world were in a community that produced those types of athletes. Michael Phelps was great in a sport and event where 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 billion people in the world are in a community that produces athletes who are vying to be the best swimmer.

My response: First off, I never contended that Michael Phelps is/was not an amazing swimmer, he absolutely is. Secondly, you make a good argument for including him on the articles for the Olympics and sport events/accomplishments, that still doesn't mean he's representative of the United States or that he should be on her page.

• On top of that, the massive lead he has in gold medals. Understand this, the #1 absolute greatest Olympic athletes of all-time not named Michael Phelps have struggled to get 7, 8, 9 Olympic golds. It’s very crowded at that amount on the list. And then Phelps has 23 golds.

My response: Again, amazing argument to put him on the article for the Olympics.

• Comparing Phelps to the greatest athletes on global international platforms: i.e. Federer, Usain Bolt, Maradona, Pele, Messi, Sharapova is how this discussion should be framed. NOT his fellow greatest American athletes, because none of them have really represented the US, but more importantly haven’t dominated on a prominent global competition as the sole reason for their notability and success. Again, Tiger Woods is more of a hybrid in terms of domestic and international, but all the others that I’m aware who could realistically be in this conversation only have significant sports-related notability for dominance in sports played in domestic platforms.

My response: I disagree with the notion that how you put it is how the discussion should be framed from the get-go. The relevance comes from representation of America(n culture, society, and such) which this doesn't make a case for still.

(As a side note, if Jackie Robinson is brought up in this conversation, it has to be with complete disregard for his racial accomplishments and notability, they are applaudable certainly but his frame of reference becomes completely murky unless we completely disregard the racial accomplishments as if they didn’t exist, this is just about sports accomplishments)

My response: My opinion about including Jackie Robinson would be exactly the same, neither more positive nor more negative considering I'm not a racist. You're the one involving race here.

I didn't add this last time but I'd like to add that I have no connections or affiliations with either side of the discussion/argument, nor have I spoken with either of you before. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 00:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

If "Sports" section mentions the Olympics Games—especially the historical achievement of the U.S. and medal hauls—then Michael Phelps must be called out. His achievement is extraordinary on its own, and Phelps' domination of his sport over two Summer Games is important enough. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Music names

To address name spam concern related to music names Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Listing the names does not help in understanding the country....need real info like "music infrastructure", "placement in world sales", "governing body", "lifetime achievement awards", "hall of fame (to link all thoses names)", "patriotic music like Anthem".....not sure how a bunch of names tells us anything.--Moxy- 12:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be too many recent names (undue). Is there any criteria for names being included in the Music section? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Our best FA level articles dont have name spam of this nature Canada#Music, Japan#Performing arts, India#Performing arts and media That seen ..a very bad eg for an FA article is Germany#Music (just name spaming with zero info except for "As of 2013, Germany was the second-largest music market in Europe, and fourth-largest in the world") Moxy- 19:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realize that there were music markets larger than Germany. Anyway, why would awards mean anything for American music history? Dimadick (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

To add onto this, I realize that in the big picture, over the past 20ish years due to new modern ways in which music is shared and listened to, music in the United States is far too fragmented and diverse to be able to encyclopedically and neutrally whittle it down to a few specific names. The selection of names seems rather arbitrary. With so many genres and platforms out there since the Internet began, no one person or artist is really “dominating” the entire US music scene in a significant way. The way that music is shared and listened to is far too democratized. I’ll try to rewrite the last section, and focus on key genres and general trends instead of specific names. Further input would be welcomed. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 09:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• The names of 21st century artists should be reinserted. The real spam was unnecessary information on particular streaming services, which I've just removed. The rise streaming platforms is not unique to the US and thus not appropriate in this article. -- Vaulter 18:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

See also spam

Can we slow down on the see also section links. These are all linked from the main article or linked in the article already.Moxy- 19:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Many of them aren’t already linked. But I’ll check and remove the ones that are Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

A lot of it is also restructuring and recategorizing hatnote links that were already there to better match the different relevance levels among them. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

We now have four sections in this talk page related to your edits. It's very hard to follow all your edits with no summaries. Can we pay more attention to what is needed over editing as fast as you can. Lots to review...... during the last GA review we removed exactly what is being added. Moxy- 19:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Superpower status

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to not include the sentence. Despite the small time-frame of respondents, I consider it highly unlikely that a big shift in consensus would ensue given the vast majority and the fact nobody has responded in favor of 'Yes'. If the requester is of the opinion that the RfC has not yet run its course, you can always re-open it of course. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 13:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Should the article contain the sentence "In the 21st century, the U.S. is still a superpower, but American influence has diminished with increasing globalization."? This sentence does not currently have a source in the article, so if the answer is yes, a source should be included. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why there's an rfc for a source request. Was there an effort involved in finding sources? Is this point contested in any way ? Moxy- 22:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I saw my disputed tag removed several times, so I though there was some pushback against my dispute of the United States' declining global status. I also asked (and looked) for sources, but I could not find much outside of mainstream media suggesting this. Such a complex topic should also tread lightly around that area. But if this RfC was opened inappropriately, I will close it. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

We could link American decline and use sources from there.....or is the super power the problem? Moxy- 22:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I suppose this makes a valid viewpoint. I'd personally remove this sentence altogether, but I think getting consensus that a decline is happening should be foremost. If there is consensus, then yes, American decline should be linked. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• Unreferenced information may always be challenged and removed, and the burden of finding suitable reference material then falls upon any editor who may wish to include it. That doesn't really require an RfC. Unrelatedly, I think that type of assertion is too complex a subject to try to distill into a single sentence, even if references can be found. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  The article discusses military declined with numbers and sources.... but I think the point of globalization also covers the cultural influence that many say has diminished.... that isn't sourced or mentioned in the article. Moxy- 23:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  • I'd toss the comment since there's no possible source that could adequately address the claim. American influence in what? Still a superpower by what authority or measurement? The claim is too vague as is to be included, just my two cents. Of course it's totally possible to be reframed and rephrased in a way that makes it easier to back up with sources, someone could do that and it'd be fine. As it stands I'd say it doesn't belong in the article. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 00:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

    On topic: Yes this does not need an RfC strictly speaking. Be bold and go for it. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 00:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I think if we do go the way of removing the sentence, then the end of the Soviet Union dissolution sentence (which was previously the last sentence of the paragraph) should acknowledge that this “sole superpower” status is reflective of the immediate post-Cold War geopolitical landscape, perhaps ending the sentence with “for the time being” or “at the time”. Because as it was originally constructed, readers would default into thinking that US global power/influence compared to the world is the same now as it was in the early 1990s. If we go back to having the Soviet dissolution sentence as the final sentence, ending it with “for the time being” or “at the time” or something of similar effect puts a neutral closure to it, and allows the reader to research and decide for themselves, instead of reasonably presuming based on the wording that the US is still as dominant now as they were 30 years ago. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

That may be unnecessary, because it is accurate that the US still is the sole superpower. The question of decline, in whatever sense, if any, cannot really be answered until historians look back on it decades later. Senorangel (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

This is what I mean by it being completely impossible to quantify, hence the comment should be deleted entirely. You could look to escape this into the future but even in the future it's just going to be a subjective viewpoint based on their own sense of time and location. Similarly, it's impossible to assess Mrbeastmodeallday's matter of the USA being as dominant as she was 30 years ago by any satisfying metrics (to gain a majority consensus on it anyway) ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 02:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Alternatively we could write another paragraph succeeding the sentence delineating why some (sources from American decline) would say that the US is no longer the sole superpower, or something along these lines. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 02:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I would rather not do that, honestly. This article is already too long, and the lead probably shouldn't dive into this any more than it has already. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Well then what is something that is “concensusable” regarding the current status of the United States? Because the history paragraph definitely needs some type of appropriate closure, and the previous last sentence (now the second-to-last sentence) about the USSR dissolution is outdated as a closure.

And it doesn’t necessarily have to be along the linear spectrum regarding US geopolitical global dominance and superpower status.

It can be about something more prominent and/or relevant to the 21st century United States.

Does anyone have ideas? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Please also consider the Wikipedia article titled “American decline” (which I have not edited before), and its theses. How objectively neutral is that article? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 08:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

While the United States has enormous soft power, I typically view its claim to superpower status as doubtful at best. Henry Kissinger has claimed that American influence has steadily declined since the demise of the Soviet Union. Per the main article:

• "Other international relations theorists such as Henry Kissinger theorize that because the threat of the Soviet Union no longer exists to formerly American-dominated regions such as Western Europe and Japan, American influence is only declining since the end of the Cold War because such regions no longer need protection or have necessarily similar foreign policies as the United States." Dimadick (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I have kept this RfC open for a little while longer just to judge the general consensus. Perhaps we could decide on the following :

1. Yes The sentence should be included and given a source or link to American decline.
2. No The sentence should not be included.

CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• No per my above explanation that the term is impossible to adequately define with broad consensus. I back this claim up by the fact that consensus has not been clearly established here despite our best efforts. I personally take this as an indication that the sentence doesn't belong on an encyclopedic entry. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 15:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
• No I essentially agree with the above comment. The sentence is uncited and in Wikipedia's voice. Yet it's clearly a debatable and potentially contentious opinion, as well as ambiguous as to its context. Levelledout (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• No -- I had rephrased the sentence slightly from the original, but I still think the sentence does not belong at all, because there is no consensus for it, and it's a subjective measurement. The goal of the lead should be to include only statements that are objective, which is why we state that the United States ranks high in different international measurements (since the fact that the US ranks high in these different measurements are objective), and why we state that the US has a high incarceration rate (because that's objectively true, based on the reported incarceration rate). In the lack of any consensus by historians, whether the United States continues to be the world's sole superpower is subjective. One option could be to instead include objective measurements indicating the United State's influence is declining, if there are such measurements available (perhaps we can observe that China's GDP is near the US'). -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t necessarily say the sentence needs to say the words “American decline” or similar, since that is a bit sharp if a claim and likely contentious. However, I think that that Wikipedia page is a good resource in which to inform this conversation in terms of both general ideas and reference sources. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Statement is easily sourceable. Can't believe no one even tried.....that said best to remove as its clear the average person does not understand the meaning. Moxy- 02:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• No The United States has not been a superpower since the Gulf War. Dimadick (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• No I don't get how an unsourced statement of this magnitude could even be in dispute. It's not a given and it's an extraordinary claim that would require multiple sources. Re-wording doesn't help either because you'd still need sources. I wasn't pleased with the "sole superpower" assertion either. Of course it is a superpower, but any such statement requires sources. Another issue for another day. Allreet (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Photo montage for religion suggestion

If there’s any one section of this article that should have an image but doesn’t, it’s probably the religion section.

Not surprisingly, there’s a tagline note saying something to the effect of “no religion image because it’s too contentious and implies favoritism”.

But what if we have a montage highlighting the main religions just like the image of the big four US sports at the top of the sports section?

Catholic and Protestant would both certainly need to be represented. Any suggestions for a good “signature” image to include from each of those religions for a montage?

Should we include any other religions in said montage? And if so, which? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I still agree with “no religion image because it’s too contentious and implies favoritism”. HiLo48 (talk) 06:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is way too long as it is. We shouldn't make it any longer. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest using the image of a mosque or a Hindu temple to point to religious pluralism. Dimadick (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe this would fall under WP:NOTADVOCACY, Wikipedia isn't meant to push particular religions or viewpoints over another, especially not in such a minority case. Including the minority case only on the basis of promoting religious pluralism seems highly indicative of political/religious motivations which we should avoid here. Not trying to assume bad faith from you or anything, just explaining my train of thought. As for the initial request, I agree with Rockstone35 that the article is already long enough as is and including the image would not significantly contribute to the article in my opinion. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 12:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

A nightmare to maintain. The data, if I'm reading this correctly, is now eight years old. Of course it should cover all major religions. Not essential to the main article. If it is considered pertinent, text could do the job as well and would be easier to source and update. Allreet (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention there's Religion in the United States which has more up-to-date information and is separately maintained there. We could link it in this article if it's not already linked. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 13:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

“Religion in the US” article is linked as a “main article” hatnote atop the religion section Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know who put this image at the top of my initial query. If you did, please replace my signature at the bottom with yours (just type four horizontal squiggly lines to do it automatically), and then delete this notice.

PICK ME - I AM IMFORMATIVE....
Church, synagogue, or mosque attendance by state (2014)

  ≥50% attending weekly

  45-49% attending weekly

  40-44% attending weekly

  35-39% attending weekly

  30-34% attending weekly

  25-29% attending weekly

  20-24% attending weekly

  15-19% attending weekly

Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy: This one's for you. Also, please be so kind to add an edit summary when you add pictures and such please. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 21:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

LOL ... Moxy- 00:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

off my watchkist...to many marionettes. Moxy- 00:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy: I just helped the guy find who put the picture up..? ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 01:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how images help the reader to understand the section in a way the text doesn't. Images aren't supposed to be decorative, they're they to convey additional information that the text is unable to do, and I can't see how images for religion can do that in this context. We're not explaining what a mosque is, or a church etc, there are other articles for that. I could be mistaken but how does an image montage add encyclopaedic info to this top level article that can't easily be conveyed by the text? Canterbury Tail talk 21:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC regarding disambiguation hatnote for “USAA”

Both me and one other editor have been in favor of this being hatnoted at the top “not to be confused with USAA” as a potential mistargeted search where “USA” is typed.

One other editor has been opposed.

I would like to hear the perspective of other uninvolved editors + the greater outside WP community with regard to this.

See Wikipedia:Hatnote and Wikipedia:Hatnotes are cheap to assess it from the Wikipedia policy side and judge for yourself, and offer an informed statement based on that information.

Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

United Services Automobile Association may be confused for United States? Not likely. We need to de-clutter the lead not add more meaningless or unassociated links. Lets not make articles hard to access by making people scroll and scroll before they actual reach tangible information on the topic. In fact the article needs lots of duplicate and random words ulinked ...sea of blue all over.Moxy- 04:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

It’s not about the topics per se, but about how similar the search terms are. The search terms USA and USAA can easily be confused. Especially in spoken form they sound very similar and can be difficult to distinguish at normal spoken speed. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a spoken/written search term disambiguation issue, not a topical disambiguation issue. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I’ve also found the original user who added it. I’m tagging the user to possibly hear their perspective: @Mod creator:

Pinging other regular editors of this page for input, including the entire group you chose for the Michael Phelps discussion, plus possibly a few others. @Golbez: @Mason.Jones: @C.J. Griffin: @E-960: @Chipmunkdavis: @CollectiveSolidarity: Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC) @Randy Kryn:@Amadeus1999: Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)