Talk:United States

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)

It has now been changed back but its not really wrong, it’s just two different ways for the color of the flag. One uses Standard Color Reference, the other uses Pantone. WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 00:50, 18 May 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)

33 000 000 000 usd for Voiaki of the Ukraina;

«Rien ne va plus» ?Löwa Zadow (talk) 16:02, 2 June 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)

So anyone have User:Evad37/duplinks-alt inslated?...use that for all the duplinks then go over all the sub articles of sub articles that are linked and unlink things like FM /AM ect.. ? Moxy- 21:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Will try to go over this in a few days...will drop duplicate links if appropriate and try fixing the sea of blue....and fix hatnotes as per WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE and Wikipedia:Hatnote. Moxy- 23:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Military alliances in lead section

@Snowie81: @CollectiveSolidarity: This thread is for a discussion to take place regarding the merits of putting military alliance information in the lead section. I have tagged the two editors, but others are free to contribute to the conversation as well. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello there @Mrbeastmodeallday. I am taking an abrupt WikiBreak, so I cannot discuss this topic at the moment. However, I am gladly open to discussing this in a few weeks. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

There are presently 30 members of NATO. The Wikipedia articles for the 29 other nations all mention NATO membership in the lead. Why shouldn't we do the same here? (I don't have particularly strong feelings about the other alliances in question, but NATO at least should be included.) -- Vaulter 13:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

This is primarily in reference to mentions of other specific countries with which the US allied, and not NATO. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I have deleted mention of U.S. military bases abroad in the lead. Total military spending is the sufficient criterion, and U.S. military bases in Germany, the Philippines, South Korea, Spain, etc., were invited by the governments in every case. Selective inferences about U.S. forces abroad are polemical and have no place in the lead. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Photos of federal government leaders

The way that the current photo setup is with only Biden and Harris appears to be giving unbalanced and undue weight for the executive branch.

In the United States, all three branches work alongside each other and also “check and balance” each other so none become too powerful.

In general, the media heavily biases in favor of the executive branch because of the way that popular elections work. However, Wikipedia is supposed to represent neutrality and balance based on how the government actually is, not based on how much the average person knows about the government.

As such, I propose that the leader of each branch be displayed with equal prominence in a combined row/column (just like the Capitol/White House/Supreme Court Building photo row) or as a montage.

At an absolute minimum, it would show Biden and Roberts as the leader of the executive and judicial branches respectively. For the legislative branch, technically Harris is the highest-ranking leader but the only real/actual power the Vice President has comes from breaking ties in the Senate, which rarely occurs and even if it does the VP may be busy with other things. In the general day-to-day functions, Pelosi is generally considered the leader of the legislative branch.

For what it’s worth, those are the four government leaders implicated in the infobox.

I’m fully supportive of a Biden/Harris/Pelosi/Roberts combination, or Biden/Pelosi/Roberts.

If it’s Biden/Harris/Roberts, I wouldn’t be in full agreement, because again that still appears to give too much weight to the executive branch and not enough to the legislative branch. From the understanding of the average American or non-American person, it’s likely that Harris (and the VP position in general) is much more strongly associated with Biden and the executive branch than the legislative branch.

As a side note, I realize that Biden and Harris are in the “parties and elections” section, which obviously wouldn’t be an appropriate location for John Roberts to appear because he’s not elected. I’m open to the idea of adding an individual portrait of Roberts to the section that discusses the judicial branch. However, there is also a potential concern that there would be too many images cluttering the government section if there are multiple leaders’ photos split up individually. If that’s a legitimate issue, then doing the combined photo row/montage and placing it in a section that overviews or details all branches of government may be best. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Per neutrality, if "the media heavily biases in favor of the executive branch," that's what this article should do. TFD (talk) 20:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

President Joe Biden

Vice President Kamala Harris

Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Chief Justice John Roberts

@The Four Deuces: I’m not completely sold on that idea. The way I’ve understood the topic of neutrality in Wikipedia is that the article should present subjects based on what and how they are, and not necessarily based on how others (including media) are presenting those subjects.

The infobox of this page does a very very good job of adhering to that principle, with all four names in roughly equal prominence/significance, particularly when you compare Biden and Roberts.

Biden and Roberts is the best example because they’re both indisputably the sole highest leader of their respective government branch, but Biden obviously has much more popularity and media attention.

If there’s a clear paradigm where the executive branch has some type of unchecked power over the judicial branch (which is common in less stable republics/democracies around the world) then the current format makes sense. Like if Biden can fire any or all Supreme Court justices at will, for example.

Furthermore, just showing Biden and Harris indirectly implicates that they lead the whole government, and that they are the most powerful figures. The first statement is not true because they only lead the executive branch, and to some lesser arguable extent the legislative branch. And the second statement is also a matter of subjectivity, we’ve seen presidents be very limited when one or both houses of Congress are controlled by the opposing party. The Supreme Court decided the 2000 election, and the SC Chief Justice administers the Presidential oath of office at inauguration, so there’s definitely not a unilateral power that the president has over the other branches that goes unchecked. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm okay with adding Pelosi and Roberts. However, there isn't a lot of room in that section. I've made a collage that might be suitable, facilitated by reducing image sizes somewhat and simplifying captions. I'll place the template above your recent post. It just fits that section on my wide screen. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: Oh wow that montage looks amazing! Thank you for setting it up! That looks like a great fit for the article!

One minor question/request: is it possible to crop Roberts’ image so all four headshots are roughly similar proportions? He’s way zoomed out compared to the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbeastmodeallday (talk • contribs) 09:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a way to obtain a cropped photo, somehow. There aren't many closeups at commons, other than caricatures or of him on the DC federal appellate court. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

FYI, I was able to find the cropped version, which had been already produced, on the same page as the previous portrait, under "other versions". It did not show when I searched on Roberts's name. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Mrbeastmodeallday, when you say the way you have understood neutrality in Wikipedia obviously isdifferent, you should provide a quote. The policy says, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." (My emphasis.) If reliable sources, in this case the media, "heavily biases in favor of the executive branch," then so should the article. Another editor may believe that the media does not give enough attention to the executive. The assumption is that experts are better able to determine what weight should be given than Wikipedia editors are. Therefore, Wikipedia editors should assign weight according to the emphasis given in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 01:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I’m not sure honestly. When it comes to WP, I’m much more of a “spirit of the law” type of person than “letter of the law”. I’m not well-versed in the rulebook, but I tend to have a solid big-picture understanding of the processes and what the rules and policies are there for, and not necessarily what they say.

However, on the contrary, I must add this devil’s advocate question, on what grounds or reasoning does Biden and especially Harris get to have their image represented, and Pelosi and Roberts don’t?

Is it only because of their popular “celebrity” status among politicians whereas Roberts is more under-the-radar because of his position?

You see, if this article was about something like “media coverage of US government” or “death threats against US government leaders” then I’m all on board for featuring Biden and mentioning little to nothing about Roberts, because for those contexts there’s clearly much more action and significance pertaining to the Biden and the exec branch than to Roberts and the Court.

But the topic of this article is the United States, and in particular the section in question is about “US government”, on a functional day-to-day level, who has what powers, who’s calling the shots.

Not who has name/face recognition or who’s on TV the most or who has the biggest social media page. Just because there are more people who know that Biden leads the executive branch than there are people who know that Roberts leads the judicial branch, that doesn’t matter, because the topic of US government in this context isn’t about popularity or cultural impact or media attention. It’s about government structure, government processes, etc. Again, who’s leading, who’s making decisions, and constitutionally none of the three individual branches have unilateral unlimited power over any of the others. Biden is the clear leader of a branch that more or less represents 1/3 of the government. Roberts is also the clear leader of a branch that more or less represents 1/3 of the government. Harris is the assistant to one of those leaders, and doesn’t really have much official actual inherent power unless Biden delegates it, or if there’s a tie in the Senate (which is very rare, it’s just there as a tiebreaker, like “hey we gotta have some uninvolved government official responsible for casting a tie-breaking vote, the VP is a convenient choice”, so quite frankly it’s incidental).

To put Harris’ image and not Roberts is unencyclopedic because the weight of their significance in US government is unbalance and out of proportion. Also, mind you Harris is most likely the assistant of the executive branch for 4 or 8 years. Roberts was the #1 top leader of the judicial branch for 15 years before Harris’ image on this page was even thinkable, and he will continue to lead his branch until he either retires or dies. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

If I must cite WP policy, here: Wikipedia:Common sense Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

In Wikipedia discussions, editors may refer to essays, provided that they do not hold them out as consensus or policy. Moxy- 21:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Part of the issue may be that there’s not a good subsection to show Roberts. There’s the “parties and elections” section, which is easy to feature Biden and Harris, and to a lesser extent Pelosi. But Roberts is obviously not involved with parties and elections. I will look into possibly reformatting the gov section if possible, I’m surprised there’s not a “courts” section. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Please read Help:Talk_pages#Indentation on how to thread posts, to make it clear who you're replying to. Alternatively, there's the {{outdent}} template for when indenting would cause unsightly scrunching when you add a lot of text.

I now wouldn't include Roberts's photo. As you say, it's out of place in that section. Nor would I know whom to add as a fourth photo. One candidate would be Schumer, but while he's the majority leader, he's that just barely, and the actual majority party in the senate is the Republicans, Sanders and King being Independents. In any case, there doesn't seem to be much consensus for adding photos, at this point. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Theater section image

Obviously there are people here who seem to have something against theater. Why else would anyone insist that this be the only major subsection not to be represented by an image? It’s really this simple—either keep the current constructive placeholder—or find a better picture to insert to represent this very important section. Castncoot (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Castncoot:

To be clear:

1) Firstly, there are several other “imageless” subsections in this article. (Energy, environment, language, race and ethnicity)

2) Secondly, you are NOT the first person in recent history to attempt to add a theater image only to have it reverted. You just happen to be the most persistent about “un-reverting” it. Most people take it to talk page after the first reversion, or just leave it be, because there’s usually a legitimate overarching reason rooted in WP policy and procedure; where there's smoke there's fire. Nobody out here has a personal vendetta against you or against theater.

(Mind you, I say all of this from the perspective of being one of those people who previously attempted to add a theater image and was reverted – this was about a month ago)

Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 09:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Please insert your perspective/reason @E-960:.

I’m attempting to tag any and all other editors involved in this theater image fiasco, to help out OP.

Looking at edit history, @Moxy: was also involved in reverting a theater image attempt.

And @E-960: was the one who also reverted mine back on March 17.

So that’s two for E-960 and one for Moxy. For the two of you editors, please explain as best you can the situation and reason.

Why did this section lacking sources even get added ? Really need experienced editors monitoring the article. WP:DUE = do we really need a 5th picture of New York ?Moxy- 20:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Although earlier styles of theater such as minstrel shows and vaudeville acts have disappeared from the landscape, theater still remains a popular contemporary American art form. Broadway productions still entertain millions of theatergoers even as productions have become more elaborate and expensive. At the same time, theater has also served as a platform for expression and as a venue for identity exploration for underrepresented, minority communities. These communities have formed their own companies and created their own genres of works. (East West Players, founded in 1965, was the first Asian American theater group.) Notable contemporary American playwrights include Edward Albee, August Wilson, Tony Kushner, David Henry Hwang, John Guare, and Wendy Wasserstein. Smaller urban theaters have remained a major source of innovation, while U.S. regional theaters retain an important place in theater life. In the 21st century, drama classes are widely available in American high schools and colleges; they were rarely offered in previous eras, and today many Americans first become interested in theater by enrolling in a drama course. The Faster Times, an online newspaper that ran from 2009 to 2013, featured a weekly column that discussed issues and trends in American theater. HowlRound, an online forum, features opinions and essays by artists and academics in American theater today.

References

@Moxy:: Umm, if you want only experienced editors to edit this article…then why are you even here? Your only experience seems to be in picture layouts rather than contributing any significant substance to the page. Furthermore, your United States topic expertise appears to be notably poor, and your grammar sometimes leaves much to be desired. Sometimes I’m mystified why you even bother coming to this page. Nobody has challenged the references on the subtopic’s own source page itself – only you and only here—not a valid reason reason to misrepresent constructive and relevant content as being somehow illegitimate. And who cares what city is used to portray theater in America? What a nonsensical and irrational reason! Most logically that would be New York, obviously. And if a Broadway picture isn’t preferred, then why not just use the lead image for the Theater in the United States’’ article? There’s also been no response so far from editor E-960. There is no valid reason for the Theater subsection not to have a constructive image.

@Mrbeastmodeallday:: This is the lead picture for the American Theater project, and it’s a classic, very notable, and representative picture. Why not use this?

Castncoot (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Castncoot:, if you’re talking about this image, then no, because it is not relevant and pertinent enough to the overarching topic of United States for readers, to where average readers can make an easy mental connection to where “United States” pops up in their mind. It requires explicit explanation, or further context. The image is supposed to stand as the explanation and context in its own right. I am strongly opposed for its usage in this article. Feel free to solicit other editors’ opinions on this photo if you wish, but the blunt truth is that most would also be opposed, so it may not be worth the effort of trying to ask. You can propose multiple images and the community can discuss if there are any that meet the relevant standards and guidelines. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. Fell free to add back the copy pasted paragraph with sources. Can we get you to follow basics like Wp:BRD and WP:Burden? Your back and forth edits have been contested by multiple editors. Can you provide any sources....pls try. Moxy- 00:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The allegedly unsourced paragraph seems to be an issue with just one editor, Moxy.

However, the addition of an image requires a greater discussion because that involves at least 3-4 unique editors who have reverted theater images instead of just one.

The image is certainly igniting greater controversy. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong or bad, that just means it requires further explanation from all parties involved to work towards a concensus on the issue. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

As per pervious talks on the matter....... section was to small for an image til the unsourced content was add to make room. As for my point of view on the image....need something that displays what theatres look like inside.... having another architectural image and of NY again in the article isn't very educational. Moxy- 01:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Moxy, are you stonewalling here and unilaterally going to stall and hold up moving this section and article forward for as long as you can? It seems like you have concerns that are truly unique. First of all, the Theater section is not premised upon primarily describing what a theater looks like physically on the inside, any more than you would expect the Cinema section to display an image of a movie screen! Theaters and cinema screens are found all over the world, not just in the United States. Sometimes even concert halls can double as theaters depending upon the need, the context, and the economics. No, this subsection is about the CONCEPT of stage theatre in the US, and summarizing its multifaceted aspects in two paragraphs. What is wrong with the above image in this Talk page section? That is THE lead picture for the Theater in the United States page, for goodness sakes. Castncoot (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Yup " truly unique" to ask for sources. Took the time to find real sources over a Google search for words. Thank you again for the positive talk always a good time...love working for you...will let others talk about images and your editing habits.Moxy- 04:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I will try my best to explain issues with attempted theater images that other editors may struggle to explain clearly: the main thing is that images in an article need to contextually illustrate the main topic of the entire article in a pertinent and relevant way. This means the image must illustrate the United States through the lens of theater, not the other way around. At an absolute minimum, it needs to tie back to the main “mother” subject, in this case “United States”. For the “Theater in the United States” article, images should ultimately tie back to US theater or American theater. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Before responding, please allow me to present some other images from the “United States” article as an example to show you what I mean:

Does this image make the average reader think “United States”?

How about this image?

Or this image?

Or this one?

I think you can see what I mean

And we can also dig into the various subsections of “culture” from the United States article and see the same thing here

And here

And even here in montage form

And not just in photographic image form, but also infographic image form like here, when readers are curious about religion

or transportation

or topography

or the weather

Which is precisely why an image of Broadway should be utilized. Broadway, just like Hollywood (Cinema section), is a decidedly American institution. And that’s what should be educated encyclopedically. Don’t you want readers globally to be educated about this fact? Why don’t you propose a couple of theater images here that you like, so I can see what images you would consider to be more pertinent to this article? Castncoot (talk) 06:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Well then we need to reach concensus on one big overarching question: does said image make the average reader with only basic general prior knowledge of theater immediately think “United States!” or “America!” when they see the image? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

For some of these previously attempted and proposed theater images, what stops the average English-reading Wikipedia reader from thinking, “oh that’s a city street with lights on buildings” before thinking “oh that’s the United States”?

To the average reader, “United States” is the main theme or at least a very obvious and prominent theme of all the long-standing images in this article. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

And even if the average reader thinks “oh that’s New York City” or “Oh that’s Broadway” when seeing an image long before having thoughts about the United States, (if they have US thoughts at all), then said image is not relevant and pertinent enough for this article from an encyclopedic standpoint.

It needs to be “Oh that’s America/United States” either before or in conjunction with “Oh that’s New York City” and “Oh that’s Broadway”. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to run any theater images against that standard, and if it qualifies then that’s when being bold is incredibly productive and helpful for Wikipedia. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it’s safe to say that everyone on Earth who engages robustly with the Internet knows instinctively and immediately that an image of Times Square represents the United States, the American New Year’s Eve ball drop and American theater, and not just Midtown Manhattan- just like the Hollywood sign represents the American motion picture industry as much as it represents a district in Los Angeles. Which is why I had chosen the image that I had initially. Castncoot (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

For the record, that’s not a standard I created or invented.

I’m simply translating and interpreting the underlying language of the encyclopedia editors within the context of this page. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

But are there any images related to theater or Broadway that have that same level of instant “American” recognition? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Does LeBron James going for a lay-up on the montage in front of a sign written in Chinese scream America? That’s debatable. But I have no problem with that picture. Why does a picture have to “scream” America as much as it needs to be a legitimate representation of the American experience? I have a problem with that kind of a standard as screaming “contrived” and “artificial.” Castncoot (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It’s the montage combination of the four sports: basketball, American football, baseball, and hockey. Those are prominently the top four sports in the US, it’s a unique combination that plausibly makes the average reader think “those are the sports in America!”

If you have grievances against other specific images, you should bring them up as separate talk page discussions because going into that becomes a different topic that interferes with this topic at hand. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I’ve actually been wanting to change the basketball image within the montage because it’s not really the best representation of basketball. It looks like it was added by a LeBron fan, since it represents LeBron more than it really represents the sport of basketball. The hoop isn’t even really visible and nobody is actively defending. It just looks like the “LeBron James show” and other players are spectators, instead of showing basketball for what it is, two teams of players going against each other trying to put the ball in the hoop and stop the other team from putting the ball in the hoop. I’ve just been too lazy to get around to it. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Well honestly, the photos ideally should be both if possible, screaming American and being a genuine representation of the American experience. The roasted Thanksgiving Turkey photo strikes that balance perfectly. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The sports photo is a good representation of the American experience, if you look at the mass numbers of people who attend games in person, and watch on television. Particular football and baseball. That’s why the section does a good job of featuring those as “top two” sports, and then basketball and hockey. And the other sports are sort of beneath that because they’re more niche in the US. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

And likewise, millions from within and beyond American borders attend Broadway plays annually, as the text alludes to. Just for argument’s sake- how does a picture of the Hollywood sign scream America to someone living in Nebraska any more than an image of the Great White Way? But not including a Hollywood image would be remiss. Times Square is the same way. Castncoot (talk) 07:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Times Square doesn’t exactly fit neatly into any specific section in the page. So yes, it does need to tie back to the main article topic (United States), but it also has to be relevant to something that’s actually being discussed in the text. You’ll notice that among the longstanding universally-agreed images, there’s a combination of both topical relevance and US overarching relevance. Since this page is heavily-trafficked and reviewed. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Or..why not just trust that the editors of Theater in the United States knew what they were doing in choosing a picture of West Side Story to be the lead representative image? Castncoot (talk) 07:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

that page is that page and this page is this page. Generally speaking, in Wikipedia, things are assessed on their own merits.

Well it’s normal to see the photo and think “Hollywood, that’s in America” and maybe in between (“that’s in Los Angeles and/or California”). The process of most readers associating the photo with the United States is pretty natural and intuitive, it doesn’t really require any explanation or research for that connection to be made.

By the way, I don’t have all the answers and I don’t speak on behalf of Wikipedia, I’m just one editor. Some of these questions and issues are best discussed in a separate thread and/or with the broader talk page community. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, it’s just you and me on this forum now. Do you have an objection to keeping the lead picture of the Theater in the United States picture as a placeholder for now for the Theater section of this United States page? Whether it’s ideal is debatable, but it’s certainly acceptable and non-controversial, as evidenced by its acceptance as the flagship image of that topic page. Castncoot (talk) 07:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see an obvious lead image on that page. The first image I see is a man in the “early history” section and that doesn’t appear to be a true lead image for that article, and it almost certainly would get no support for this article. Please clarify if you can. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know what browser you’re using, but this is the sidebar lead image that I see using my browser. Obviously I’m just talking about using the actual image and caption, and not the other supporting features. Castncoot (talk) 07:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I found the image higher in the thread while you were pulling it up, and posted a reply there, I’ll copy/paste that reply here: Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC) @Castncoot:: “if you’re talking about this image, then no, because it is not relevant and pertinent enough to the overarching topic of United States for readers, to where average readers can make an easy mental connection to where “United States” pops up in their mind. It requires explicit explanation, or further context. The image is supposed to stand as the explanation and context in its own right. I am strongly opposed for its usage in this article. Feel free to solicit other editors’ opinions on this photo if you wish, but the blunt truth is that most would also be opposed, so it may not be worth the effort of trying to ask. You can propose multiple images and the community can discuss if there are any that meet the relevant standards and guidelines”.

Lin-Manuel Miranda as American Founding Father Hamilton on Broadway

How about this ? Castncoot (talk) 08:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the subject of the image, so I can’t really say either way. You may want to solicit the perspective of other editors. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Re: Reverted edits on energy policy and strategic petroleum reserves

Hi Mrbeastmodeallday, I wanted to follow up on my 19 May edit I made that you reverted for conflict of interest, since I am affiliated with the International Energy Agency which was mentioned in the edit. The IEA is an autonomous intergovernmental organization and our mission includes making clear, authoritative information available about energy security, the clean energy transition, and the energy policies of member states.

I understand the concerns about an appearance of conflict of interest, but the edit I suggested (pasted below) is purely factual and doesn't include any editorializing or self-promotion. I also believe it provides important context given current oil market instability and the two recent collective draw-downs from global strategic petroleum reserves in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. This information feels significant and noteworthy to include in the "Energy" section of this article.

For reference, my original edit read:

"The United States is a founding member of the International Energy Agency, which requires all member countries to maintain a strategic oil reserve of at least 90 days' worth of net oil imports in order to protect against unexpected supply shocks. As of February 2022, the United States' oil reserves totalled 580.87 million barrels of oil."

The United States' relationship with the IEA as a founding member is also stated on the website of the U.S. Department of Energy. It reads:

"What is the relationship between the United States and the International Energy Agency (IEA)? The United States is a founding member of the IEA. The organization was created in 1974 following the Arab oil embargo. Enactment of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (Pub.L. 94-163) authorized U.S. participation in the International Energy Program. United States representatives to the IEA are provided by DOE and the State Department. Today the IEA has 29 member countries that are committed to (1) take common effective measures to meet oil supply emergencies, and (2) reduce dependence on oil in the long-term. Members are required to hold strategic stocks equal to no less than 90 days of petroleum imports based on the previous year's net imports. IEA member countries coordinate their energy policies, share energy information, and cooperate in the development of national energy programs. A formal process for coordinated emergency response measures is used to assess and determine whether and in what way IEA members will respond to petroleum supply issues."

Given this context, how do you feel about my original edit? I would be happy to include a reference to the DOE site as well.

EnergyAnalyst1 (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:COI. From now on, I'd suggest having your edits peer-reviewed on talk pages or the COI Noticeboard per WP:COIEDIT. Conflict of interest is a touchy subject, so I'd be especially careful when editing items centered around the IEA. Your edit appears factual, so I see no problem with this addition and would suggest another editor to add it. If you ever want to add anything else about the IEA, I would add the request at an article's talk page or use an edit request. Cheers! CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

A couple of other Wikipedia-related concerns spring to mind completely independent of any conflict-of-interest issues: namely how much weight the addition carries and how technical the addition is. This is a community-based discussion, I don’t get to make unilateral judgements on how things go from here by simple virtue of being the “reverter”; I’m sure there will be other editors contributing additional ideas to this discussion. The conflict of interest, weight, and technical level are three factors that would all need to be hashed out in a concensus manner here with the greater community of editors. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 10:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Proposed Theater section images

People’s thoughts? Castncoot (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
1) File:The Lion King Musical.svg|thumb|The Lion King, the highest-grossing American musical play in history (Non-free images not allowed on Talk pages) Castncoot (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

2)

Lin-Manuel Miranda as American Founding Father Hamilton on Broadway

• Apparently indifferent/non-sequiturial response. I’m going to add the Hamilton image because it is an outstanding and quintessentially American representation on several levels. Castncoot (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there should be any images in the Theater section. In the article, we highlight through images only the most impactful items. in the case of the US, movies and music have a profound impact on the American society as well as the world culture... theater not so much. --E-960 (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Where were you in response to this discussion both in this section and the one shortly above until now when you don’t seem to be getting your way? Does one individual get to nix edits that others are OK with to claim lack of consensus by permanently banning a picture in a section? I wasn’t aware that Wikipedia sanctioned dictatorial power. Theater impacts tens of millions of people from Broadway down to the local high school level in the US. Both User:Mason.Jones and I have thoughtfully and carefully curated the caption. User:Mrbeastmodeallday has also been on board on my Talk page to putting up the right picture. So who’s the obstructionist here? Castncoot (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

"dictatorial power?" really now. --Golbez (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I have adjusted the caption to better improve its scope, weight, and relevance as it pertains to the topic of the article (United States) Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Castncoot, sorry, simply because you agree with another editor that does not equal consensus. Btw, on a side note please see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Finally, when you say "Theater impacts tens of millions of people from Broadway down to the local high school level in the US" you probably are talking about Manhattan folks, like impacting people from Broadway to the Upper West Side and Greenwich, Connecticut. Broadway only impacts NY and maybe London (and when a show premieres there they call it the "European premiere"). So again, I don't think the section should have an image, having a whole section on theater is a stretch already. --E-960 (talk) 07:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

OP may be using the term Broadway as a metonym for American theater on the whole, particularly professional theater. I don’t think the usage of that word in this context is geographically limited to Manhattan. Much like how Hollywood is a metonym for American cinema, and Washington DC is a metonym for American government. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I know... theater in the US is just not that much of an influene. --E-960 (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I think I see where you’re going with this. It’s not an issue with the image alone per se. But more about if American theater is as influential as the other cultural fields like American music, American sports, American food, American movies, etc. In the absence of some type of contextual statistics in the text detailing the scope, the different categories are implicitly and naturally on “equal footing” which may give undue weight to less popular topics. With that said, one way to improve the neutrality and balance of the various cultural topics among one another is to include meaningful sourced statistics on how many people are partaking in each cultural niche:

• In the sports section: “X amount of people attended a US professional sporting event in 2017, and Y amount of people watched on television in 2017”

• In the cinema section: “X amount of people watched a movie at a theater in 2017”

• In the theater section: “X amount of people attended a Broadway performance in 2017”

Something along those lines. Just by the alleged virtue of theater being “smaller” than other cultural niches, doesn’t make it inherently unworthy of inclusion. But it might be lending excessive undue weight, which can be neutralized by providing explicit figures and statistics regarding its overall size and scope in the big picture perspective of the US. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 10:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I have added a sourced statistic about Broadway show attendance in the 2018-19 season, to offer neutral perspective to readers insight about the true size and scope of the theater realm in the US Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Mrbeastmodeallday, at lest put an image of the West Side Story, at least people recognize that musicle, not Lin-Manuel Miranda, who most never heard of and neither did I. --E-960 (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Lin-Manuel Miranda is not a musical, he is the actor who portrays the main character.

I think what you are intending to compare is A) Hamilton and B) West Side Story. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

ht the template for north american countries is not here?

Who removed the tmp {{North America topic}}? --87.6.27.159 (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Maps, charts and tables

With the recent series of edits this article is turning into most tedious and dry country article on Wikipedia, with images being replaced with maps, charts and tables. I note that Mrbeastmodeallday has been quite active in the recent weeks initiating a lot of the changes. The only other article that was devoid (until recently) of any meaningful images was the Holy Roman Empire article, which only contained an endless assortment of maps (I guess some folks interested in that topic were obsessed with territorial changes or something). Here the article is starting to look like a data report, and the most obvious and well known things about the US are omitted, and replaced with trivia or someone's pet topic. --E-960 (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

If this is an issue, please copy/paste specific images you’d like to remove along with reasoning.

I’ve only really made significant changes to about 3-5 images out of the 30-50 total, so please be mindful of the proportionality.Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Be mindful that the US is very very diverse compared to most countries in many respects. Demographics, weather, food, culture, and other stuff, so it’s often difficult to capture the national perspective with an image of one example, whereas national infographic maps and graphs often portray the grand scheme much more clearly and efficiently.

Some photographic images only really represent the perspective of one region of the United States, and not the whole country.

So that is a unique challenge for this page that for most other countries is either a small issue or not an issue at all. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

So it’s not an easy apples-to-apples comparison with other countries in that regard. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

There are things that are the timeless hallmarks of America, which cut across everything: Grand Canyon, Harvard, Hollywood, George Washington, Martin Luther King Jr. Mark Twain, and so on, for music you could add a well thought image about Jazz, which kicked off the whole popular culture movement which evolved over the decades, instead of some boring Grammy museum image. Same for performing arts, sorry but Lin-Manuel Miranda is not it, however West Side Story is an iconic example of an American musical, which captures the diversity of America experience. It just takes some though, instead of converting the entire article into charts, maps and tables, and adding random pictures which represent someone's pet topic rather than what's really noteworthy about the US. --E-960 (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I’m in full agreement with you on this piece @E-960:“There are things that are the timeless hallmarks of America, which cut across everything: Grand Canyon, Harvard, Hollywood, George Washington, Martin Luther King Jr. Mark Twain, and so on,” That seems to be a good criteria by which we can judge and select whether an image belongs. Judging the maps, graphs, and tables is bit more nuanced and different. But for “image vs. image”, let’s start with that. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• These mass changes, implemented over series of edits, are impossible to keep up with. Such dramatic changes on an article like this should be discussed first. I'm tempted to find some version of the article from two months ago or whatever and just revert back to it. -- Vaulter 16:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I re-added a couple of the old images that were removed, so it's not all charts and maps. --E-960 (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Mrbeastmodeallday perhaps it might be a good option if you take a step back, within the last month or so you went all in on this article changing everything according to your preferences, I'm not sure the outcome was optimal. --E-960 (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@E-960: As far as I know, I didn’t change anything based on personal preference, the changes I’ve made are rooted in the spirit of WP/encyclopedic concerns and improvements. If you know of specific changes that you feel are the product of my personal preference over encyclopedic improvement, please indicate to me, and I’d be more than happy to discuss them with you. I’d like to help fix and improve the issues, but unfortunately I can’t do that if I don’t know what the issues are. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Article quality has declined greatly recently. 204.237.89.38 (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Restore article

Think it best to restore the article to before the pass 1000 plus edits....that have lead to 10 ongoing talks above....disregard for past talks...mass over linking .....seas of blue....image changes...bare urls.. etc. Impossible to keep track of the mass changes that have caused multiple disputes with talks being bulldozed and reverts simply being re-implemented. As noted above by multiple editors, the article has seen a mass change not for the better. We have talk after talk starting before others are resolved. What do others think?Moxy- 01:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Support as the current version is not an improvement. ––FormalDude talk 03:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose – There have been both good major edits and bad major edits. As a community, we can call out and collectively improve the bad ones. A blanket restoration unequivocally wipes the progress and improvement made by the good edits. Whether any significant edit stays or goes should be judged on its own merits and not arbitrarily removed as part of an all-in-one mass sweep. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Support The current version is problematic.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Such a rollback would be unusual since the edits have been allowed to go on for so long, so there must be merit in a great deal of them. Hopefully Mrbeastmodeallday (pretty good user name) will stop editing the page until this can be worked out. Seems from the edit summaries he is keeping editors informed. Maybe take one section for a before and after viewing to have a better idea of what's occurred. I'm not a regular on this page and haven't read many of the changes, just came by recently to add data about the Articles of Confederation sentence and found a major mistake (haven't checked how long it's been there). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Mass multiple reverts and multiple ongoing talks is where we are at. Just as one talk is ongoing...4 more get started. We have a slight fanatic problem with walls of text to deal with. Moxy- 03:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Understood, wall of texting my talk page now but not in a bad way (although I'm not about to once again get involved in long discussions in two or more places). Mrbeastmodeallday (fun to type the name), you must give good faith fellow editors space to breath and let them do other things on Wikipedia and in real life. The bottom-line question, do the past edits improve the page? I'll assume without knowing that many must, or the page regulars would have stopped them long ago (so maybe the time for a mass blanket revert has passed). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

That is possible. ...but what we have is multiple contested edits with 100 other edits during a talk....then a new talk about the next 100 edits. Almost like we had some gaming of the system by bulldozing. Something that the editor has been sanctioned for. As seen above... a few regulars have simply given up. Moxy- 03:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

OK hopefully we can now address the current concerns without acquiring more. As per statement at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Concern over Mrbeastmodeallday Moxy- 04:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy. Since the ANI was resolved, I think that we can restore the article now. What method should we use? Rollback? Or should we just do it manually? CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd assume it would have to be done manually. -- Vaulter 18:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Support. It's best to start over. My suggestion would be to use this version [1] from April 20, the last good version prior to Mrbeast's edits. Here is the comparison between that version and the current one FWIW [2]. Based on a skim of the differences, I see multiple instances of unreliable sources being used (or sources that may be reliable in some instances being used improperly), lots of Easter eggs, and generally bland writing. -- Vaulter 18:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Support. Vaulter provided a good revision. I think we should restore that one and bring the article up to scratch again. The lead appears hopeless and the sections appear to convoluted with random, nonessential information. Time to start over I guess. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Let's restore that one. Frustrating that this is where we ended up, though. We also may want to be on the lookout for similar edits to this article in the future. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and done it. Any whose edits got caught up in this mess can feel free to reinstate them. -- Vaulter 18:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

this and this make me think something is funny. 15+ years never seen this.

I'm not a sock puppet account of MBMAD if you think this. xD

I just skimmed the old version, compared it with the restored one and brought back some edits which in my opinion were sensible.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

OK seems reasonable. Just never seen this before. Moxy- 01:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia authors

I teach science to exchange students in America, and I regularly read this article for information to teach them. The article was very good before, but now you changed it, and I can no longer find information about American weather or the American landscape, only the eagle is still there. I want to try fixing the page myself since Wikipedia said I could, but somehow this page is locked. Please fix the page error if you are a Wikipedia author. Thank you.

— Chris

136.146.65.10 (talk) 07:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

You can use Wikipedia for entertainment, or as a place to 'start your research. Wikipedia and other encyclopedias is for getting the general facts of a problem and to gather keywords, references and bibliographical pointers, but not as a source in itself. Moxy- 14:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Sports montage vote! (canceled)

The following discussion 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.

---

PROPOSAL CANCELED, click here for current sports image discussion.

At the request of user @E-960:, I hereby nominate the existing “Montage A” to be replaced by “Montage B” on the grounds of image relevance; in particular, improved “action shots” with better focus on the interactive gameplay between players and teams that ultimately characterizes what the professional sports are. The current collection of images appears to show an excessive and undue focus on individual star athletes such as LeBron James and Mike Trout at the detriment of focusing on the true nature of how the professional sport is played.

Some examples include:

• Pau Gasol defending the layup whereas the existing basketball image shows no defense.

• The baseball catcher ready to catch the ball if Mookie Betts swings and misses, whereas the previous image only shows the hitter. Anyone who has even casually watched a baseball game knows that an obvious majority of the pitches in a game end up in the catcher’s mitt, and a minority are touched by the hitter’s bat. The Trout image only illustrates the possibility of the minority result of the pitch (ball being hit), the proposed image illustrates the possibility of both the minority and majority results (ball being hit and ball being caught).

(As a courtesy, and also in the spirit of avoiding any possible perceptions or allegations of bias against LeBron or Trout, I started my search on Wikimedia Commons for images of LeBron and Trout that may show similarly interactive gameplay experiences, but unfortunately came up empty).

Additional image relevance factors aside from the people in the photos, are:

• Clearer presence and discernment of the basket/hoop/rim in the proposed basketball image which is somewhat obscured in the LeBron image because of stickers, lines, and pads on the backboard that interrupt a view of the hoop when viewed from the back side (the hoop is attached to the front side of the backboard).

• Clear view of the puck being shot towards the goal in the hockey image compared to the previous image where the puck is not shown.

• Clearer view of the general size, shape, and proportions of the hockey net in relation to the players. The existing image shows only the rightmost 1/3 of the goal.

(Lastly, I am gladly willing to further crop the proposed basketball image for better clarity/focus prior to implementation, if that is a contentious factor among potential opposition votes. I am fully aware that in the proposed image, there are players running around near the edges of the photo who aren’t directly relevant to the game action in that moment, and that the image appears to be from a farther vantage point that lends to the rim being smaller in proportion to the whole image)

(Montage A – existing) The "Big Four" among popular sports in the U.S. are American football, baseball, basketball and ice hockey.

(Montage B – proposed) The "Big Four" among popular sports in the U.S. are American football, baseball, basketball and ice hockey.

Happy voting and discussing! Cheers! Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments about the two montage choices

Alternative proposal

Any thoughts about an image of a US President throwing out the ceremonial first pitch on Opening Day? The US President has anointed and opened the beginning of each baseball season since the beginning of the 20th century, time-honored tradition, very American. Commons has good images of Woodrow Wilson, JFK, Bush Jr. and Obama throwing out MLB first pitches as sitting presidents. I’m leaning towards either Wilson or JFK, since I realize that choosing either one of Obama or Bush (and not the other) will be far more prone to contention and bias accusation from other editors, both now and long-term. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Other comments

Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read .... WP:Wall of text. That said should drop the cluster of images as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Galleries. Should have one image that is normal size over 4 mini little images that are not accessible to many and cause undue balance to the section. Simply put an image of the national pastime.Moxy- 03:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy: Baseball is the national pastime, but American football has overtaken it for decades as the most popular, basketball has been rapidly emerging since the 80s and baseball has been declining in recent decades as well. So for there to be one image, there really has to be a concensus about which sport should be represented. It’s not easy to represent the topic of “Sports in the United States” with just one sport. Thoughts?

Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Anyway we can resolve the ten other ongoing disputes before more edits are made and more Rfcs are posted? It's at the point that a full revert needs to be done to deal with the 100 reverts, the ongoing talks and forced in edits. Our academic editors are busy with other things and don't have time to deal with a mass amount of changes. Moxy- 04:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I’ve been helping out with solutions to several of those disputes; I’ve added sources to keep good longstanding images (that other editors have restored to from older versions) for mass media and health that strengthen their weight so they won’t be changed easily.

But since we’re here, let’s stay on topic and discuss sports here and other issues in other threads: What’s your opinion on the national sport that should be presented? What do you think is the national sport in this instance?

Here’s a reference, with a quick easy-to-read “top 5” chart with stats on viewers, players, and attendees. https://sportscriber.com/list/popular-sports-usa/ @Moxy: I’d like to know your input. Thanks! Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 05:05, 5 June 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.

US President throws first pitch instead of sports montage

Any thoughts on the idea?

@E-960: I see you have reverted as part of WP:BRD, now is the discuss “D” step. Please explain why you reverted. Thanks! Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Let me just say - this is not an a good change. There are 4 major professional sports in the US, and a reader can see this just by glancing at the gallery. Also, please note not EVERYTHING in this article needs to change just because you have a sense that you can do better than what's already here, and in this case you are really re-inventing the wheel. I'm starting to get the feeling that you are just trying to get your way on everything, so that every section in this article has an image you selected or removed - what's already there is fine, just leave it. --E-960 (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• Above you created a disscussion "Sports montage vote!" because you wanted to change the images in the gallery, you did not get you idea through, so now you want to completely get rid of the gallery — facepalm... --E-960 (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@E-960: Please refrain from making false assumptions about my intent, especially if it’s something I haven’t spoken about, and something you haven’t asked about. If you have questions about why I do what I do with specific edits, please ask and I’m happy to explain as best I can to help you understand. That works better for both of us to move forward instead of relying on assumptions. My user talk page is available for that discussion.

We’re here to discuss the merits of the edits being proposed and how they pertain to the United States article, not perceptions of behavior or motives. If you have questions or concerns regarding that, again those belong on my user talk page, not here.

I will cancel my montage proposal since it is no longer relevant to the topic at hand, and seems to be a distraction. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

For clarity:

• Comments about a presidential first pitch image belong in this thread

• Comments about the overall quality of the article, and proposed restoration belong here

• Comments about me as an editor belong on my talk page here

Those are three distinct topics to be discussed in the appropriate places. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Discrepancy about area rankings

There seems to be individual editors changing the area rankings in the lead due to discrepancies, leading to an ambiguity in the sentence and an inconsistency with the sourced footnotes.

I restored the sentence to the original sourced consensus.

If it happens again, and you’re the reverter, please bring the discussion here and tag the editor you reverted. Thanks Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

If there are sources presented in this thread that match the discrepant/conflicting claim of 3rd in land area, they can be discussed here Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

User Roahgo does not have a “user page” to ping here, so in lieu of that, a message has been left on the user’s “user talk page”, which includes a direct link to this thread. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey, can you guys stop editing this page to say that America is the fourth largest country by land. Even the linked page ON Wikipedia says that the US has more land than Canada. America is the the third largest by land and by total area. It is the third by land after Russia and China, and the third by total area after Russia and Canada. Canada has a lot of lakes, but, unless I’m wrong, water is not land. Guys, it takes one second to click the link and see that you are wrong, please stop. Roahgo (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

https://www.worldometers.info/geography/largest-countries-in-the-world/ https://m.statisticstimes.com/geography/countries-by-area.php

here, these two links have land area rankings, please look at them. Also, you can just look at the Wikipedia page. Or are you implying that the land rankings on Wikipedia are wrong too? Please, before you undo that edit again show me a single source that says that Canada has more LAND than America. You won’t and you can’t, cause it’s not true. Canada has a lot of large lakes, but that’s not land, that’s area. That sentence specifically says land, and the US has more land than Canada. Roahgo (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Roahgo is right, see also the last sentence of the first paragraph of the geography section.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion does help explain the discrepancies on the page. However, if "It is the third by land after Russia and China, and the third by total area after Russia and Canada" is consensus, the footnote must be updated, as this contradicts the footnote. Pinging @Roahgo, Mrbeastmodeallday, and Maxeto0910: Toadspike (talk) 05:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Yikes, turns out there's an ANI thread holding things up. This still needs to be resolved, though. We can't have an obvious contradiction in the second sentence of one of the most-viewed Wikipedia pages of all time. Toadspike (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, it may seem a bit confusing at first, but it's not really a contradiction:

It's the third-largest country by only land area, that's a plain fact and also unmistakable stands in the article.

And it's the third- or fourth-largest by total area (land and water area). The coastal and territorial waters make the difference. Consensus on Wikipedia is to include these waters, which makes it the third-largest country by total area.

I think it's already quite clear.

However, we could make more clear in the footnote that the second figure still includes inland and Great Lakes water area.

Or we could write something like: "It is the world's third-largest country by land area and third- or fourth-largest by total area."-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I have now made the footnote a bit clearer, should be easier to understand now.

We can find a consensus here whether to implement my second suggestion.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 07:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with 50.228.130.84. I don’t know why y’all deleted such a good comment.

Listen to the Toadspike dude, the third sentence has been changing on me too and it’s kinda annoying.

It’s funny how the unregistered readers and guys with weird usernames make way more sense than the main guys running the page.

2600:1700:4261:90B0:D537:19B0:6FB7:CBF8 (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed edit request 7 June 2022

The following discussion 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.

---

Compare the differences between the passages, and see if the proposal makes sense.

(The first sentence is the same in both)

Current

In soccer, a sport that has grown rapidly in the U.S. since the 1990s, Major League Soccer (MLS) is the sport's top domestic league. Globally, the country hosted the 1994 FIFA World Cup, the men's national team has qualified for 11 World Cups, and the women's team has won the FIFA Women's World Cup four times which is the most of any nation. The United States will also co-host the men’s 2026 FIFA World Cup with Mexico and Canada.

Proposed

In soccer, a sport that has grown rapidly in the U.S. since the 1990s, Major League Soccer (MLS) is the sport's top domestic league. In the FIFA World Cup, the men's national team has qualified 11 times and the women's team has won four, the most of any nation; the U.S. hosted the men's Cup in 1994 and will also co-host in 2026.

Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

My POV Should be  On hold until other ongoing talks above are done and ongoing ANI post is over Moxy- 21:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

References

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.

justices have no party

remove the r by john roberts its false, its in the main table — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.162.46.123 (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

That was a recent addition, and I agree, it should not be there. Removed. —C.Fred (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The "R" party tag has been constantly re-introduced and is simple vandalism. Regular review of the entire infobox required. Mason.Jones (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Concern about recent activity

Hey guys 👋🏼 John here.

Way back when WP started in my postgrad days, I was one of the very first editors. I was hardcore then, but nowadays I have a family and kids, and I work long hours, so I don’t really edit anymore; I'm mostly here to read random stuff that tickles my fancy for 10-20 minutes while I rock my baby daughter to sleep every night, but sometimes I also read WP articles while I’m riding the city train during my commute, if there’s no work I have to do.

I don't even stick my nose in talk pages anymore, but I recently happened to refresh my page a few minutes after that random huge rollback occurred that changed everything, which is unprecedented for a page like this (Randy Kryn gets it), so I had to head over here to see what was up.

But let me just say, I've literally never seen anything like this before, especially with all the recent talk page activity from the IPs.

Also, I agree with Moxy (which Rockstone predicted ahead of time with 100% accuracy like he has some sort of crystal ball); Maxeto disturbingly looks like the twin brother of Mrbeast, mimicking the latter's edits not only with content but also with the same unique terrorist-attack editing style in terms of volume, speed, and frequency (plus he couldn’t even keep a straight face when claiming not to be a sock, the "XD" indicating he was smiling in real life while typing that). Obviously, the ban didn't really do a whole lot, and maybe it did more harm than good, especially considering that Maxeto has about 8x the aggregate edit count history as Mrbeast, so the former has probably already been involved in this for much longer, with the latter acting as a temporary decoy. Among other things, there seems to be an attempt to hijack the third sentence of one of the most-viewed WP pages of all-time (ToadSpike really is the only sensible non-IP in that debate) as part of an ongoing three-way battle for national supremacy between the US, Canada, and China. (In my opinion, the only way for neutrality to prevail in this case would be to have the sentence removed altogether, or just say that all three countries are "tied". Or the sentence could simply say that area ranking is a matter of an unresolved three-nation dispute.)

(There’s also this, this, this, and this, in case you guys didn't know. I definitely smell something fishy — also, Randy Kryn getting mad and yelling at ColSol in an edit summary is a WP-level miracle, considering that they both have positive personalities and don’t seem to accumulate enemies out here.)

The bottom-line question, is there a conspiracy going on?

(The current situation reminds me of this thing.)

So what's the consensus out here guys? Conspiracy, yes or no? Let’s have a vote.

(P.S. I know that WP always describes conspiracies. Never in my wildest dreams could I have possibly imagined that WP would actually be one. That never was nor is on WP's to-do list. I'll have to show my wife this talk page after this; we've been married for 13 years yet somehow I have no idea how she'll react to this or what her opinion will be, but it'll be fun to find out.)

(P.S.S. It's also very weird and un-Wikipedia-like to label a genuine uplifting note about the article subject (in this case, America) as vandalism. Back in my day, we actually had discussions about those types of things, because unless there’s clear evidence of attempted destruction, we looked at the merit of the comment instead of making snap judgments about people we don’t know.)

(P.S.S.S. I’ve never seen such an insane vandalism-merit combo as the removed comment that was written by 50.228.130.84. It’s such obviously blatant vandalism but the edit summary was left blank without labeling it as vandalism because there’s just so much merit in the comment.)

(P.S.S.S.S. It’s ironic how the removal of the blatant wild vandalism comment is left with a blank edit summary, whereas the removal of the genuine note with no intention to destroy Wikipedia is arbitrarily labeled as vandalism 😂)

71.198.178.211 (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Good comments, and I can tell you should be missed around here. Me not yelling? Ha. If your want to see one of the longest prolonged discussion (talk and talk and talk, and a dispute resolution, and 5 - count them on one hand - 5 RfC's, four of them on the same question) then step right up to the Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States page, starting at Archive 2, continuing all the way through Archive 3, and still continuing on the present long page (not to mention the overflow at the Continental Association talk page and maybe a couple of dozen others), so bring a picnic lunch and a ten-speed mountain bike for a quick getaway. As for socks, some of mine have holes in them. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this post contains (partly) serious comments, but unlike MBMAD, I did not make any controversial changes to the content, but, as already explained here [3], only brought back those changes from the old version that clearly made sense.

Please provide specific examples of how my edits were meant to be disruptive if you think so.

And as already explained in the related discussion, the area rankings were merely a neutral correction of the facts.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Maxeto0910, please understand that any mistake in suspecting you as a sockpuppet of MrBeast was a good faith mistake. More importantly, I want to thank you for what you've done or are still doing - going through the edits that caused the rollback to see what within them seems valuable and improves the encyclopedia. A large task, thanks for taking it on. Maybe when you finish you can follow up and let us know how many good edits you're finding amongst the deleted material, and, if a lot, MrBeast may deserve some thanks too. Interesting situation, with walls of text getting in the way of appreciating what are probably some good edits. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)