Jump to content

Talk:United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Qhnbgjt (talk | contribs) at 12:01, 9 July 2022 (WP:DENY). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleUnited States was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 15, 2005Good article nomineeListed
May 7, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 8, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 18, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 3, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 21, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
October 19, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 19, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 9, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
June 27, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 6, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
January 19, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
March 18, 2012Good article reassessmentDelisted
August 10, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
January 21, 2015Good article nomineeListed
February 22, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
December 19, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 3, 2015.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the United States accounts for 37% of all global military spending?
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 4, 2008.
Current status: Delisted good article

Frequently asked questions

Q1. How did the article get the way it is?
Detailed discussions which led to the current consensus can be found in the archives of Talk:United States. Several topical talk archives are identified in the infobox to the right. A complete list of talk archives can be found at the top of the Talk:United States page.
Q2. Why is the article's name "United States" and not "United States of America"?
Isn't United States of America the official name of the U.S.? I would think that United States should redirect to United States of America, not vice versa as is the current case.
This has been discussed many times. Please review the summary points below and the discussion archived at the Talk:United States/Name page. The most major discussion showed a lack of consensus to either change the name or leave it as the same, so the name was kept as "United States".
If, after reading the following summary points and all the discussion, you wish to ask a question or contribute your opinion to the discussion, then please do so at Talk:United States. The only way that we can be sure of ongoing consensus is if people contribute.
Reasons and counterpoints for the article title of "United States":
  • "United States" is in compliance with the Wikipedia "Naming conventions (common names)" guideline portion of the Wikipedia naming conventions policy. The guideline expresses a preference for the most commonly used name, and "United States" is the most commonly used name for the country in television programs (particularly news), newspapers, magazines, books, and legal documents, including the Constitution of the United States.
    • Exceptions to guidelines are allowed.
  • If we used "United States of America", then to be consistent we would have to rename all similar articles. For example, by renaming "United Kingdom" to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" or Mexico to "United Mexican States".
    • Exceptions to guidelines are allowed. Articles are independent from one another. No rule says articles have to copy each other.
    • This argument would be valid only if "United States of America" was a particularly uncommon name for the country.
  • With the reliability, legitimacy, and reputation of all Wikimedia Foundation projects under constant attack, Wikipedia should not hand a weapon to its critics by deviating from the "common name" policy traditionally used by encyclopedias in the English-speaking world.
    • Wikipedia is supposed to be more than just another encyclopedia.
Reasons and counterpoints for the article title of "United States of America":
  • It is the country's official name.
    • The country's name is not explicitly defined as such in the Constitution or in the law. The words "United States of America" only appear three times in the Constitution. "United States" appears 51 times by itself, including in the presidential oath or affirmation. The phrase "of America" is arguably just a prepositional phrase that describes the location of the United States and is not actually part of the country's name.
  • The Articles of Confederation explicitly name the country "The United States of America" in article one. While this is no longer binding law, the articles provide clear intent of the founders of the nation to use the name "The United States of America."
  • The whole purpose of the common naming convention is to ease access to the articles through search engines. For this purpose the article name "United States of America" is advantageous over "United States" because it contains the strings "United States of America" and "United States." In this regard, "The United States of America" would be even better as it contains the strings "United States," The United States," "United States of America," and "The United States of America."
    • The purpose of containing more strings is to increase exposure to Wikipedia articles by increasing search rank for more terms. Although "The United States of America" would give you four times more commonly used terms for the United States, the United States article on Wikipedia is already the first result in queries for United States of America, The United States of America, The United States, and of course United States.
Q3. Is the United States really the oldest constitutional republic in the world?
1. Isn't San Marino older?
Yes. San Marino was founded before the United States and did adopt its basic law on 8 October 1600. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sm.html) Full democracy was attained there with various new electoral laws in the 20th century which augmented rather than amended the existing constitution.

2. How about Switzerland?

Yes, but not continuously. The first "constitution" within Switzerland is believed to be the Federal Charter of 1291 and most of modern Switzerland was republican by 1600. After Napoleon and a later civil war, the current constitution was adopted in 1848.

Many people in the United States are told it is the oldest republic and has the oldest constitution, however one must use a narrow definition of constitution. Within Wikipedia articles it may be appropriate to add a modifier such as "oldest continuous, federal ..." however it is more useful to explain the strength and influence of the US constitution and political system both domestically and globally. One must also be careful using the word "democratic" due to the limited franchise in early US history and better explain the pioneering expansion of the democractic system and subsequent influence.

The component states of the Swiss confederation were mostly oligarchies in the eighteenth century, however, being much more oligarchical than most of the United States, with the exceptions of Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Connecticut.
Q4. Why are the Speaker of the House and Chief Justice listed as leaders in the infobox? Shouldn't it just be the President and Vice President?
The President, Vice President, Speaker of The House of Representatives, and Chief Justice are stated within the United States Constitution as leaders of their respective branches of government. As the three branches of government are equal, all four leaders get mentioned under the "Government" heading in the infobox.
Q5. What is the motto of the United States?
There was no de jure motto of the United States until 1956, when "In God We Trust" was made such. Various other unofficial mottos existed before that, most notably "E Pluribus Unum". The debate continues on what "E Pluribus Unum"'s current status is (de facto motto, traditional motto, etc.) but it has been determined that it never was an official motto of the United States.
Q6. Is the U.S. really the world's largest economy?
The United States was the world's largest national economy from about 1880 and largest by nominal GDP from about 2014, when it surpassed the European Union. China has been larger by Purchasing Power Parity, since about 2016.
Q7. Isn't it incorrect to refer to it as "America" or its people as "American"?
In English, America (when not preceded by "North", "Central", or "South") almost always refers to the United States. The large super-continent is called the Americas.
Q8. Why isn't the treatment of Native Americans given more weight?
The article is written in summary style and the sections "Indigenous peoples" and "European colonization" summarize the situation.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Done; template restored. EstWhenever (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support as the current version is not an improvement. ––FormalDude talk 03:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support The current version is problematic.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
I'd assume it would have to be done manually. -- Vaulter 18:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

this and this make me think something is funny. 15+ years never seen this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 01:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
OK seems reasonable. Just never seen this before. Moxy- 01:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Socking. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 06:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@Moxy: You're wasting your time, IP 136.146.65.10 is a sockpuppet of Mrbeastmodeallday trying to troll. Take a look at their lame "manifesto" here about IP hopping. Obviously, it has been reverted for good now. Hautaller (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the initial post-rollback edit summaries, some old errors were swept back into the article, and some good needed edits swept out. The 4/20-6/11 edit history will be reviewed to rectify the rollback's collateral damage and the merit dilemma. EstWhenever (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
odd .. will be watching.....mY ROLL BAck if need be Moxy- 00:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sports montage vote! (canceled)

The user who started this has been banned. -- Vaulter 18:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)

People playing American football
People playing baseball
People playing basketball
(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Proposed edit request 7 June 2022

The user who initiated has been banned. Anyone can feel free to start another discussion about this. -- Vaulter 18:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.[1] 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.[2]

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.[3] 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.[4]

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


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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Carlisle, Jeff (April 6, 2020). "MLS Year One, 25 seasons ago: The Wild West of training, travel, hockey shootouts and American soccer". ESPN. Retrieved May 5, 2021.
  2. ^ "World Cup 2026: Canada, US & Mexico joint bid wins right to host tournament". BBC Sport. June 13, 2018. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved June 13, 2018.
  3. ^ Carlisle, Jeff (April 6, 2020). "MLS Year One, 25 seasons ago: The Wild West of training, travel, hockey shootouts and American soccer". ESPN. Retrieved May 5, 2021.
  4. ^ "World Cup 2026: Canada, US & Mexico joint bid wins right to host tournament". BBC Sport. June 13, 2018. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved June 13, 2018.
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)[reply]

That was a recent addition, and I agree, it should not be there. Removed. —C.Fred (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Tagline added next to Roberts, to thwart infobox vandals EstWhenever (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No Lamb Chop Society Moxy- 03:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Census data discussion

For anyone who is interested, I have opened a discussion at WT:USA regarding how we use census data. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Slavery" vs "the enslavement of African Americans"

@Dhtwiki: You twice reverted my edits to a sentence in the lead section, which currently reads "Slavery was legal in the southern United States until 1865, when the American Civil War led to its abolition." I would prefer it to be changed to "The enslavement of African Americans was legal in the southern United States until 1865, when the American Civil War led to its abolition." for a few reasons:

  • A person unfamiliar with the United States and its history would not understand the crucial detail that American slavery was based on race.
  • It is frankly a little embarrassing that the sentence as it's currently written pretends that slavery was race-neutral or unrelated to race. That is simply not true, and the fact that some documents about slavery don't mention race doesn't change that.
  • Many notable documents that mention slavery do mention race, including the Confederate Constitution, several Confederate secession declarations, and the U.S. Constitution's euphemisms. Slavery and the Civil War were about white supremacy and the enslavement of Black people, and it does no good to hide that.

PBZE (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that you suggests has several problems of definition. If "enslavement" denotes reducing someone from the status of being a free citizen to that of being un-free, then enslavement approximately equals importation, which was banned by the US in 1808, as well as being forbidden by the Confederate constitution. "African American" is a modern term, and not all who identify as such are descendants of slaves. Talking about what is "legal" without sticking to legal language is problematic: that the 13th amendment has to explicitly exclude convicted criminals from the ban on "involuntary servitude" is an example of how difficult it can be to define slavery itself.
American slavery was based on more than just race, although race was often used to justify the institution. Pure Africans varied racially among themselves, as well as there being innumerable levels of admixture with whites. So, leave discussions of the racial qualities of slaves to articles that can treat it more fully.
Your various imputations of "not understand[ing]", embarrassment, "euphemisms", etc., indicate a somewhat non-neutral point of view. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate your semantic distinctions, I think it is important to note early on that slaves were entirely constituted from the descendants of Africans, however you wish to phrase it. Slavery was an hereditary status that only applied to the descendants of Africans brought to America as slaves or enslaved after importation. TFD (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then "Slavery, primarily of Africans, was legal..." ("primarily" being the term at Slavery in the United States) might be a more suitable substitute for the lead, remembering that the article itself doesn't go into much detail. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to very strongly disagree with your argument, especially the "enslavement approximately equals importation." Where did that leap in logic even come from? Enslavement means to be made a slave. Even someone born into slavery was still made into a slave. "X means Y therefore X cannot be true because Y is not true" is only accurate if you can actually show that X does mean Y. Can you provide sources that show that the concept of enslavement only applies to the importation of slaves? If not, that entire argument can and should be discounted entirely. If the issue is with the wording of "African American" that's fine, it can be reworded, problem solved. As for the comments about the racial makeup of Africans, so what? What does that have to do with the proposed wording? The comments about the 13th Amendment are equally irrelevant; that amendment was passed after the period being described, and does not preclude the legality of slavery prior to its passage in any way. If anything, it reinforces the wording that PBZE is suggesting. I support PBZE's proposed changes. - Aoidh (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's important is not what words could or should mean, but how readers understand them. Enslavement for most people means to take a free person and make them a slave. TFD (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is one definition, but in general English usage there are two definitions commonly used. The other is "the state of being a slave." When sources like this use the word enslavement, they're not talking about taking otherwise free people and making them into slaves, they're talking about the overall concept of being a slave. There's also sources like the SPLC and Centre for the Study of the Legacy of British Slavery (both groups that should know better than most what the word enslavement means) that specifically use the term "born in enslavement" which, if we only go by the "taking a free person and enslaving them" definition, makes no sense. There are two definitions, both of which are used in English and are understood by readers. - Aoidh (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why insist on the wordier alternative, though? If enslavement = slavery, why not stick with the latter? Why not "negro slavery", as it has often been termed, "African slavery", etc., if you need to introduce the racial component in the lead, rather than "enslavement of African Americans"? Dhtwiki (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"African slavery" is ambiguous. It could mean the enslavement of African Americans, or it could mean slavery in Africa. "Enslavement of African Americans" is unambiguous. PBZE (talk) 05:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unambiguous. It sounds as if African Americans were free Americans of African descent who became slaves. Compare the wording with the description of Indian Slavery in Colonial America: "European enslavement of American Indians began with Christopher Columbus’s arrival in the New World."[3] TFD (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considering they weren't considered legal Americans until after the Civil War, and the term "African American" is a much more recent construct, I would argue against using the term on those grounds. It's unambiguous, but I think it's incorrect. --Golbez (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When words can have more than one meaning, it should be clear to the reader which one we mean. The two sources you provide are written for people who are aware of historic slavery and therefore know which definition is meant. Furthermore, they are advocacy groups, which are likely to chose language differently from impartial writers. They say that Madison "enslaved" rather than that he owned slaves in order to make a moral accusation against him. To enslave someone implies intention, while someone could come to own slaves without intention, e.g., by inheriting them. Anyway, we cannot expect all readers to be aware of U.S. slavery laws, specifically that the importation of slaves had been banned. TFD (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last sentence of third paragraph

My changes to this sentence were reverted because "this paragraph was crafted after long discussion." However, I could neither find a discussion on the talk page, nor a comment in the article for editors. If there's really already a consensus, it would be nice if someone could link it and write an in-article comment for editors, because this sentence is one of the most frequently changed ones, as far as I perceive.

I clearly prefer the reverted phrasing over the current one, because it reads bulky and strange when, after an enumeration of objectively positive characteristics of the country, rather negative or at least controversial aspects suddenly follow more or less without context. So writing something like "However", "Nevertheless", "Unlike many other Western countries", etc. improves the reading flow and makes the sentence read and feel more natural and less "forced".

Mentioning gun violence in the sentence may be a more controversial change, but I think it's justified, since the US has not only one of the highest levels among Western countries, but in the world, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries annually; and it was the leading cause of death for children 19 and younger in 2020. So, it's definitely an important and notable issue of the country.

What are your thoughts?-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You often need to search the archives. This 2021 discussion and RfC may have been what was being referred to in the edit summary. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gun violence should not be addressed in the lead; it can be addressed in the relevant section on crime, which I'm sure it already is. Also, although the US suffers from high rates of gun violence compared to other countries, its homicide rate is well below the global average, at 5 per 100,000. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 04:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

transcontinental

Is this really lede worthy? No strong feelings but seems odd to be one of the first things a reader learns about the United States. Slywriter (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty in line with most other country articles. The lede to Belarus and Czech Republic describe them as landlocked, the lede to Russia describes it as transcontinental, the lede to Malta describes it as an island country, etc. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do appreciate consistency between articles but seems to be a trivial factoid in this case as 99.5% of the population and area of the United States is located in North America. Slywriter (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hawaii is a full state with full representation within our federal government, and is in Oceania, not North America. We've even had a president who was born there. That's all to say nothing of our many territories in Oceania, or the portions of the state of Alaska that are in Asia. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not lead worthy. Moxy- 01:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For those wondering: Egypt, France, Russia, and Turkey mention it in the first sentence; Chile and Spain do not; Indonesia does but without using the term "transcontinental". Danish Realm and Kingdom of the Netherlands note the continents. My take on this is, the US is at least as transcontinental as Egypt and France, in fact several times more Americans live outside of North America than French live outside Europe, proportionally, and is on par with Egypt. --Golbez (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced it matters for those countries either. If the factoid is due because of Hawaii, better instead to directly mention whatever is important about Hawaii. CMD (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Not sure that last stat is accurate concerning France vs US, Hawaii- ~1.45 million, US Pacific territories- ~250k, Aleutian islands - ~8k. France overseas departments - ~2.8 million. So equivalent, not several times larger and French are notable for spanning several continents.
great googly moogly i used the area column instead of population column. Apologies, yes, French has more proportionally outside Europe than the US does outside North America. Thanks for pointing it out. Comment struck. --Golbez (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I figured out why the phrase is bothering me, Transcontinental Railroad#North America#United States is how the term is more often encountered in US history and means Pacific to Atlantic. Slywriter (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good article

I know this sound crazy: how could an article that is this controversial, broad, and has been nominated for GA unsuccessfully be a, well, GA? I think that setting our sight to GA would highlight visible improvements that we can made. Skimming through the article, I found 3 key things that we can improve the most on:

  1. Length – it's really long. Think of a normal person reading this article, could they reasonably read through it in one go? Probably not. Many people insisted that an article this broad must be long, but this couldn't be further than the truth with articles like Earth, sea, human, etc.
  2. Citations – lots of them are really good and authoritative, but there are also those that are not-so-good. Replacing these not-so good citations with better ones are an easy way to upgrade the article. Also, check whether the text actually said things that are mentioned in the source is also a good idea for improvement.
  3. Prose – is the prose here understandable to a twelth grader? If not, we have failed. Remember, this article is probably being used a lot in classrooms, and making sure our text is understandable to those in school is absolutely vital. Should we make shorter paragraphs? Should we use shorter sentences? Should we use simpler words?

I think this article can achieve GA, if we can solve these three issues. Pushing towards GA would also solve the quality stalemate that is happening right now. Cheers, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA status is wishful thinking. This article gets far too many edits, which include intrusive digressions and grammatical "fixes" from readers who seem barely acquainted with the English language. Other editors insert weak factoids that supposedly demonstrate how their hometown, university, or country of origin contributed to U.S. history. The most-read country article in WP-EN probably can't be among the GAs, so we can only strive for accuracy. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mason.Jones. Nothing is impossible in regards to article quality. Take a look at J.K. Rowling, an absolute mess during its WP:FAR. However, I will admit the U.S. is a daunting task. @CactiStaccingCrane, if you want to make a Good article out of this, I suggest recruiting a small army of editors to help with that. Some helpful details of the WP:GAR can also be found above. But does assessing the really problem help that much? If you’re not willing to spend months on this article, I suggest forget about the possibility of GA. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that recruiting is necessary: if they see activity, they will come. I will try to propose new versions of sections and made small incremental improvements. Mason is right about achieving GA, it is difficult, daunting, and even impossible in some aspects – we shouldn't delude to think that it is easy with the magic of collaborating. CollectiveSolidarity is right about the possibility of achieving GA (heck, even QAnon is a GA), but I disagree that you have to achieve GA to get a good result. Aiming towards GA, even if we've failed, would improve the article substantially than it would have otherwise. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Persistence is everything. How many people who took on the last attempt to bring this article to GA status are still actively editing here? Another thing is that, if you remove text, reassure the rest of us that we're not losing information that can't be found on other pages, after making sure of that fact. It's one thing to pare this article, but make sure that whatever is encyclopedic can be found elsewhere. Also, see the India article for an example of a country article—about another large, populous nation with an exuberant editing community—that has maintained featured article status throughout the years. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
India bad example ... with mass size..text sandwiching..odd sized images all over with undue weight in some sections ..lead jamed with sources ...etc. That said GA here is possible .....stability after is the problem. Moxy- 13:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dhtwiki, I will try my best. All previous GAs are drive-by noms, so I hope this time will be different. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck. It's good of you to try. Even if enhanced status doesn't come to pass, the attention of committed editors is encouraging. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had a quick look at the article with some trepidation and was pleasantly surprised that it was in a much better state than it was at last GAR. I was pessimistic like Mason.Jones above until I saw that. Regarding Mason.Jones' specific note of the issue of "factoids that supposedly demonstrate how their hometown, university, or country of origin contributed to U.S. history", I would suggest one of the best ways to limit such additions is to trim the overall history section (the India example mentioned above has kept its status in part due to rigorous curtailing of such additions). Length begets length, details beget details, and the section currently makes up over a quarter(!) of this page so could use more summary style per CactiStaccingCrane's point #1. CMD (talk) 07:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think a serious discussion should be taken place to trim the history section further. I'm starting out with low-hanging fruits first (Military, Law enforcement and crime, Science and technology) to kick things into gear again. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm aware of the sock rampage that has happened recently. This LTA must not stop us from improving the article; lest them be tired leave, just like all the prior trolls that has attempted to destroy us. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
People have strong opinions about the United States—unlike Canada, a benign country that attracts much less attention to its WP article. This one is a lightning rod for POV, Righting All Wrongs, ideological disputes over terms like "American Indian" and "foreign languages", etc. The occasional obsessive sockpuppet is far more likely to land here than at "Norway." GA status for this article is quite a stretch without a dedicated editorial board for content and regular deputized "police officers." Mason.Jones (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mason.Jones. We already have a group of editors on the talk page willing to discuss recent changes to the article, (You, Moxy, CMD, Dhtwiki, and the other regulars) but I understand the biggest problem will be the potential RfCs that some of the sections will need for GA. That FAQ at the top of the page is only going to get longer if people actually take this seriously. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So let's do it then. I think we should start with the "Cold War and late 20th century" section, as it is the longest and most undue of all history sections. And yes, the lead section's history is ridiculously long, but it's unproductive to tackle that section for now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A gargantuan task regarding a vast, complicated, and controversial country. Sorry, but "J.K. Rowling" simply can't be compared to the article "United States". Not all of this page's regulars will have the time or patience to join such a project. Best wishes, as it's certainly a good cause. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geography images

So, I'm thinking of replacing United States § Geography images with these below, taken from space. What image do you think will work the best? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image 1, cropped from image 2
  • Image 2, full-disk view of Earth
  • Image three, excluding Alaska
These images are not clear or educational.Moxy- 13:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. It illustrates a lot of things that are not apparent when looking at maps, such as how cloudy it is in northern states, or the deserts in the mid-west. I think that these pictures do provide an unique perspective to the United States geography, much better in value than other maps and such. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can barely tell this is North America....got to be better ones. I personally find topographical maps educational. Moxy- 02:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it ain't broke, don't fix it then :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"low levels of perceived corruption"?

The United States is ranked 27th. Corruption is not high, but it ain't low either. As it is a developed country, it should be held to a higher standard. I don't think it's accurate to state that it has low levels of corruption. It doesn't seem entirely fair to the 26 other countries that are ranked higher and are often not lauded for their anti-corruption efforts. 42.112.52.197 (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still in the black if you will top 14% [4].Moxy- 06:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States&oldid=1097220738"