Talk:United States

America and Americas

I think it would be better to have one principal page about "America" to differentiate between: - Continent including north, centre and south america (each item could redirect to the specific wiki page) - Common way to refer to the country United States of America - And maybe some other items related to the title America

This because the term "Americas" isn't well known between English nor Spanish speakers in general, and to improve US citizens knowledge about geography since a lot of them don't know how to answer when questioned about "which countries are in America", which is a rather valid question since the division of the world in 5 countries is well spread internationally (that's the one the UN use). You may want to revise the wiki page on Continent to see for yourselves that "America" in most of the models refers to a continent, and not "Americas". Fraanfeer (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

America (disambiguation) already handles that issue. —C.Fred (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, your question "which countries are in America" doesn't really make sense in English, because English has two continents (North America and South America) not one (America). Oh, and you really should pay more attention to your own apparent confusion between country and continent ("the division of the world in 5 countries is well spread internationally").--18:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khajidha (talk • contribs) 18:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

You too seem to be a newbie to Geography. If the United States were America, then Florida and Texas would be South America. This contradiction stems from the fact that non educated people refuse to accept that the whole continent was called "America" by the Europeans in 1507, long before the discovery of North America. In fact, Waldseemuller's map (1507) has the word "America" written over Brazil. Furthermore, Americo Vespucio -the guy after whom the continent was named, never travelled to North America. If he were alive, he wouldn't care less about the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.216.223.245 (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of whether your characterization of "non educated" is correct, it's the majority that determines what's colloquial and it's the colloquial that often informs usage. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

No, Texas and Florida are in the southern region of America. In English usage "southern America" and "South America" do not have the same meaning. This entire discussion stems from the fact that "non educated people" do not accept that 1) general English usage defines two separate continents (North America and South America), not one (America) and 2) how other languages define the continents is not relevant to English language usage. --Khajidha (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Americo Vespucio (Amerigo Vespucci) only explored the Atlantic coast of South America. He had absolutely nothing to do with the United States. The guy who explored North America was Sebastian Caboto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.216.223.197 (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay. So? --Golbez (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

---

I would tend to agree that having "America" and "American" apply to places and peoples of North and South America would be helpful, since we don't really have any alternative words for these. However, that's not the case. Per WP:COMMMONNAME in English these terms apply to the subject of this article -- the United States. WP must follow English sources, and cannot attempt to champion "improvements" to English. All editors' arguments on what these terms "should" apply to is irrelevant. As long as the great majority of sources use these terms for the US, WP must do the same. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Why would it be helpful? Or, more exactly, why would it be helpful but a term for places and peoples from throughout the contiguous landmass of Afro-Eurasia wouldn't be? --Khajidha (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, more words is generally better for any language, allowing for more precision and nuance. No one said that similar words pertaining to Afro-Eurasia wouldn't be helpful. But none of that matters; my point was that being more "helpful" is in no way a justification for WP editors to attempt to "improve" word usage of English. The fact that "helpful" is subjective only underscores my point. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 23:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Editing Suggestions and Desire to Renominate

Hi all,

I'd like to get this article back to GA status, esp. since it's one of the most viewed articles. At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/United_States/3 the article was delisted on account of citation needed tags, excessive length and excessive detail. I've provided sources for the citation needed tags and have removed or reworded some paragraphs which I felt were too detailed. The length is now around 315,000 bytes, down from ~405,000 at the start of reassessment. More importantly than sheer byte count, I don't feel like the article contains much excessive detail or is difficult to navigate. I'll continue to look for information that should be removed, reworded or put into daughter articles, but I am interested in what others think would be important, and whether a GA renomination would be appropriate.

In general, sections which contain a lot of raw numbers I reworded, or removed some of the less salient data. I have moved almost all the citations in the lead into the body of the article, as the body contains everything in the lead and there are no challengeable claims which deserve an immediately attached source (see WP:LEADCITE). The one remaining citation I left because the exact material is not reproduced in the body of the article, but I think it can be removed because its claims are all verified by the corresponding sections (political, cultural, and scientific). Thoughts?

Also, I would mention that I have made logical quotation consistent throughout the article. I was a bit confused since this was previously done and then reverted, but according to the Manual of Style (more specifically, MOS:LQ), logical quotations should be used for all articles irrespective of the dialect of English used. I hope I am applying that rule correctly.

Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to edit the lead section to make it a bit shorter and four paragraphs, in line with WP:LEADLENGTH. Ovinus (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Some notes on what I've done with the lead:

• a bit of rearrangement, inspired a bit by what Canada (FA-class) does in terms of organization.
• combined the second and third paragraphs, as they are both about history
• Added that the U.S. has three branches of government and a bicameral legislature, as I think this is very important information
• removed the list of socioeconomic performance factors, as it is pretty much all important factors and it just adds reading time
• removed nuclear weapons history
• Added that the U.S. ranks highly in various international indicators, because the original lead doesn't include that U.S. residents enjoy a high quality of life

Any further contributions would be appreciated!

Thanks, Ovinus (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Your approach seems sound, especially your making sure that information removed here can be found at other, linked articles. The only time I've allowed non-logical quotes to stand is when they are part of quoted material, where the punctuation (usually an sentence-ending period) can be taken to be part of the quotation. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. Ovinus (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to move about 30% of the content in History to daughter articles. Although the U.S. has a particularly complex history, I still think the section goes into a bit too much detail. I will also move the law enforcement section into the Politics section. Ovinus (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok well, 30% was definitely a bit optimistic. I think I decreased some of the bloat in the early history sections though. Might take a look at this later, but I feel like the section is hard to reduce any further without some serious discussion on the talk page... there are so many important events and to omit them would put undue weight on others. Ovinus (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Contrasting this article with Canada, which is featured and also has a complex history, I find that this history section is 63 kb while Canada's is 57 kb, which is not that far off. Seeing this, I'll continue moving some of the less important information until the sizes are similar. (I know it's a bit arbitrary, but it gives me a concrete goal.) Ovinus (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I might be new here, but I must say, a lot of effort must have taken to do this work. Keep it up! JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 21:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia all. I am one of the editors that helped raise the article to GA originally. I would like to review your edits if you don't mind. While consensus can change, there ws some pretty hard fought disputes that consensus should probably be maintained but I am enthusiastic that people are interested in improving and shortening the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Moved much of the Etymology section

The original Etymology section went into excessive detail (imo) about the origins of every component of the full name. I decided to create a new article at Names of the United States which can include all this information, since no such article existed previously, and left all the important details. A similar thing was done for the Canada article, for example, which also has a complex etymology. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 06:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to find that and most likely revert and look further into your input here. Thank you for your help but deleting the hard work of others is not productive but destructive. On Wikipedia if it has a source you cannot just delete or move it content. Please discuss first on articles of this nature. Please. Some could have been a part of the GA version of the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Needs a trim again ....too much detail. GA trimming is being restore all over.(Sad face).--Moxy 🍁 09:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow, haven't looked at this article in a while... I will say that I've learned a lot as a budding editor in the past few months, and maybe I should have provided more justification for my removal of content, but I stand by my original decision. The article is just too long in most places, and five paragraphs about etymology in an article that should be focusing on the most powerful country on Earth seems counterproductive. Keeping it a bit more manageable was the purpose of my content fork in the first place.

A while ago I and several others tried to cut the article down substantially, though still by not as much as I think is appropriate. I guess we have a disagreement over the ideal state of this article. Learning of an obscure Stephan Moylan, Esquire, isn't a part of the broad overview this topic deserves. In my view this article should be perhaps 70% its current size. I'm very thankful for your work—your sources proved invaluable in writing Names of the United States—but I think summary style and accessibility dictate we make these changes. Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Size isn't it the issue. It could use trimming but...just how to do such should be discussed.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Moxy and Ovinus, I am in no hurry but I do ask what the issue is of Moxy with returning the GA version of some, no...not all, as you claim...seriously, the article that obtained a GA rating? I seriously don't understand the comment.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Ovinus, you have support of of one editor that the section should still be trimmed. I can easily concur depending on a discussion of what is to be edited out.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Ovinus could you detail how, within Wikipedia Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style , you have come up with a 70% deletion rate of this, most viewed article, that once had a GA rating? You will have to seriously defend that position to me and I seriously hope, others. Should you have a true and real argument, of course I am willing to discuss and attempt some sort of consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: 70% was an aggressive statement, sorry! But I do believe it needs to be shorter in some sections, and we should definitely discuss given this article's very high visibility. In terms of MOS, Wikipedia:Article_size states that an article with prose size >60kb should probably be divided, although the topic's scope may justify the size. It's currently at around 80kb. Of course the US is a pretty broad scope, but having such a large article hampers accessibility, and much of the detail belongs in subarticles—particularly the History and Etymology sections. Anyway, I think I stirred up a bit too much animus on this article by my actions a few months ago, so I'll step back. (Courtesy ping to Moxy) Ovinus (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I was 70% aggressive and I can and will apologize if that puts you off. Now..get over it and let's move on. LOL! ;) You are here and I accept that as I am sure you accept me. Now, what I am actually asking is, if there is anything beyond what you feel and what actually adheres to Wikipedia policy, past consensus and current recommendations? Please do not step back. I am not dismissing you. You are also, already accepted here by other editors and that is no small thing. We should encourage students that have no choice other than virtual learning. Deep end? Yes, but we will not let anyone go under. I swear! ;)--Mark Miller (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Editors! This is the most viewed article on Wikipedia and much of the information is from several years ago. But instead people here spend their time arguing about the most trivial things. Come on!

Just scroll down to the sections in the body of the article if you don't believe me. Updating and fixing these is way more important then trying to decide whether or not "national language" should be in the infobox (just an example).

EDIT: I know nobody saw this but I'd like to apologize for it. It was too rude and accusatory and I take it back.

Mossypiglet (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

well as long as you shared specifics that we can work on, instead of asking people who apparently haven't noticed the issues you're complaining about to suddenly notice the issues. --Golbez (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@MossP: More recent stats are not always online, archived, or easily linked. As for national language, demonym, etc.: despite long debate (with solid support/oppose votes), some editors—many from outside the U.S.—have their agenda and delete items that offend their ideological certitudes. Other editors seek to "streamline" sections through mass deletions or ungrammatical summaries, throwing out key sentences. Large-country articles in WP tend to generate nitpicking and edit-warring. As the most viewed, "United States" takes the crown. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Concur with Mason Jones's analysis, especially the third sentence about improper streamlining. It took me several tries to get a link to Law of the United States into the article. And this article still does not mention how U.S. law is notable for its sheer volume and complexity. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2020

Fix Government to Dictatorship. Arturaskerelis (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

enthusiastic newcomer (refactored)

The US is an amazing place and I am recently doing a bibliography on the US even though I live here!2600:1014:B128:D297:A993:4AFC:1B8D:C5F1 (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

on reverted edit

@Dhtwiki: Thank you for your input on this. In your reversion of my edit, your reason was "Excessively detailed (esp. the quote detailing the Philippine massacre) and misplaced in this paragraph that summarizes various acquisitions." On the matter of being "misplaced" in the paragraph, I think you're right that it may be misplaced on the paragraph, but this can easily be fixed through proper sentence construction. On the matter of being excessively detailed, I don't think it is, but this can easily be resolved with a little tweak.

So I propose to input a less detailed ", while actual control of some areas was only achieved after the Philippine-American War which resulted in American victory and various human rights violations against the natives." after the already-existing sentence in the same paragraph, "Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines were ceded by Spain in the same year, following the Spanish–American War..." Of course, proper and reliable sources will be cited. PCommission (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Other than general comments that the US could be rough on indigenous populations (and in the case you cited in the Philippines, there seems to have been considerable provocation given by the inhabitants), we don't need much detail here. The detail you want to provide belongs in subordinate articles dealing, e.g., with the Philippines or genocidal American policies. It would take more than tweaks to make it relevant to text that otherwise merely enumerates the acquisition of new territories. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: On the matter of that section being for "acquisitions" only, I disagree. That section, or specific paragraph, is under the History section, specifically a period within American history. It should include important events that shaped that specific period, which includes the actions, notably, of the American government at the time. The acquisition is only there because it's part of the particular section of American history. On the matter of "general comments", I also disagree. My proposal isn't detailed at all, and it is part of history, written by various historical sources and published by respected institutions. Also, the proposed edit can actually be made relevant with just one simple edit, or one simple tweak. So again, I propose for this to be added in that section. PCommission (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Think we should review all the WP:Advocacy edits...Genocide everywhere...even the same quote added in multiple articles --Moxy 🍁 12:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy: Thank you for shedding light on this. Advocacy is the promotion of a personal agenda at the expense of verifiability and neutral point of view. I agree that these kinds of content should never be put in any Wiki article. However, it should be noted that the data I'm proposing are not "at the expense of verifiability and neutral point of view", as I have provided verifiable sources from reliable institutions. Additionally, on the matter of "genocide everywhere", I just looked up the United States article and it only showed one result for "genocide", which is not at all connected to what I'm proposing. Also, in the proposal I made in this conversation (2nd paragraph), I never mentioned the term genocide in this specific article, although it may be classified as such, but I instead used the term "various human rights violations", as to make consensus. What happened at that part of our shared history is a fact, and we should allow historical facts to be stated as they are under the policy of neutrality. PCommission (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I think your addition was unduly focused on what happened in the Philippines, and that concerns WP:UNDUE, as well as possibly adding more detail here than is in subordinate articles, which often happens, although I haven't checked to see if that's the case here. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

PS: I must have introduced the term "genocide" (in "...genocidal American policies...." above), because because that is how such depredations are often labeled, although I don't mind attempts to use gentler, and often more precise, language. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: Thank you for your inputs. On the matter of "unduly focused" in regards to the Philippines, that can be fixed by adding some sources that would refer to other areas colonized or acquired by the US, although it should be noted that the bulk of US colonial possession during that era is the Philippines itself. I already have some source concerning on the matter, which includes sources regarding Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Also, I've seen two more sources for this matter, one looking at an American perspective, the other from a Philippine perspective, and it seems that both side admit that the events were indeed atrocities.

Also, I don't think that the proposal has "more detail here than is in subordinate articles", since it is very short and far larger volume of work about the matter exist in other articles, but definitely it can be shortened more if that is what you're saying. However, since I've found more sources from different perspectives, I think the better phrase should now be, a much shorter, ", while actual control of some areas was only achieved after conflicts resulting to American victory and atrocities against the natives." I formally replaced "human rights violations" with "atrocities" because, (1) it is the exact language used in the sources, and (2) it is the more precise language as per sources. Although I also agree that these actions can indeed be labeled as genocide. We can also change the term into it, as per consensus, if you agree. With that, I hope we can move forward and start making this page better together. PCommission (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I found more scholarly sources backing the rightful use of the term "genocide", including a perspective used in an American university. With this, I maintain my proposal, but replace "atrocities" with "atrocities and genocides". PCommission (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

1. This is one general overview article, and Wikipedia is not some soapbox for promotion of thoughts or advocacy of any kind. 2 .To something be categorized as a genocide it need to hold wide support in sources and in community (academic or people who are experts in that content and who are notable and relevant) also count for explanation of some atrocities how big, how wide etc. 3. Wikipedia is not place for fighting own political struggles 4. What is important in own eyes it can be usially consider kind of personal point of view and this is also not a place for that. 109.92.242.117 (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @109.92.242.117:, this is why we are making a decent conversation here, as to make sure that what is inputted in the article is not useless advocacy. If you read our conversation thoroughly, you'll see that the discussion is a decent dialogue that seeks consensus through historical facts. On the matter of the term "genocide", it was only a proposal, which as I have stated, can be added only through consensus. If a consensus isn't reached, then "atrocities" will suffice. But thank you for your inputs on this. Edit: There is actually sufficient scholarly work referring to such acts as genocide. These include one published by the University of California Press, one by the Oxford University Press, one by the Santa Catalina University Journal of History, and one by the Johns Hopkins University Press. In other words, the presence of genocides in US colonial possessions at the time has already been a consistent historical consensus among scholars. PCommission (talk) 06:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Since there are no more demur in the last 24 hours or so, and the consensus has already been reached by the scholarly community, I'll go ahead with the edit. Thank you to everyone who contributed and shared their thoughts on the matter. It made the edit more focused and concise than before. PCommission (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy: You reverted my edit, under the call that it needs to have "real source", when three sources from respected institutions were clearly provided while scholarly consensus on the matter has already been made. Can you explain the primary reasons of why you reverted the edit. Otherwise, I'll have to revert your reversion. Please note that neutrality must be made in edits and reversions. No advocacy should be made, especially to discredit historical narratives that are already a consensus among scholars. PCommission (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

For reference for other editors, the reversion in question reverted the statement, "while actual control of some areas was only achieved after conflicts resulting to American victory, atrocities and genocides against the natives. PCommission (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: There are other reliable sources from respected institutions that back the statement, aside from the existing reliable sources already provided. If by "real source", you mean to add more sources, that can easily be done. PCommission (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Source one debates the term and its usage in this cases. Source 2 says death rates comparable to.. Source 3 does not use the term.--Moxy 🍁 20:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus here to add the material. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Dhtwiki is correct. There is no consensus. It doesn't help your credibility when, as User:Moxy has pointed out, you are unable to accurately identify and cite historical sources that actually stand for the propositions for which they are cited. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both to your insights, @Moxy: & @Coolcaesar:. On the first source given light by User:Moxy, the term itself isn't actually debated on wether it is the proper term to be used. Rather, what is debated is the taking light the displacement of the real "technologies of [U.S.] gendered white supremacist warfare, genocide, and human exploitation". The actions committed by the then-US government have been explicitly, without doubt, attributed as genocide within the study. On the second and third source, both attribute the existence of atrocities under US rule. In short, the first source gives credibility to the term "genocide", while the second and third give credibility to other actions aside from genocide, while the second does make comparability with genocide as a note. In other words, all sources are validated as "real source" and back the statement made. But as I have said before, definitely there are other sources that can back this as well, which I will also provide. PCommission (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

On the matter of consensus, the scholarly community, as seen in the sources, are in unison that such atrocities were indeed made. The question is whether there is consensus among the scholarly community if genocides or extermination due to race occurred. The first source, explicitly tells that there is and mentions it numerous times, describing the events as genocidal. There is no debate on the first source, whether the events are genocidal or not. The events being genocidal have been established. Other sources adhere to this, describing the events as racial exterminism and genocide. In light of this, I encourage for all of us to follow the consensus of the scholarly community, of which whose detailed studies all Wiki articles should be based upon. PCommission (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The consensus you need is not that of scholars but of editors here, as to whether this new material, which seems to me too detailed for this article, belongs. One point that hasn't been made is that this article is considered too long as it is, which will make people more skeptical of adding new material than they otherwise would be. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: In other words, research by the scholarly community, reached as a consensus by the scholarly community, are invalid because the editors don't agree with it? I agree that a consensus must be reached among editors, but shouldn't the basis for that consensus be the consensus among scholars and their respected research based on analysis and facts? On the matter of "too long", I don't think that the small proposed phrase will make the article too long that it will incur skepticism on other unrelated matters. The phrase, "while actual control of some areas was only achieved after conflicts resulting to American victory, atrocities and genocides against the natives." will not be tantamount to that, plus it is backed by reliable research and scholars approved and published by respected institutions (as all sources should be), hence removing any form of skepticism. But if you think it is still "too long", it can be shortened as a compromise into ", while control of some areas was only achieved after American victory and genocides against locals."PCommission (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a matter of what is appropriate to a summary article, such as this, and what is appropriate to articles such as on the Philippines under US rule, or on US policies towards indigenous populations. If you want this material, you should establish that such detail exists here for other geographical areas, which I don't see you doing, or that the detail you propose here isn't more than is found at subordinate articles. I don't think you can get consensus for its inclusion, on the basis of what I've seen. However, if you do, it has to be positively agreed to. Consensus doesn't happen because people have grown tired of debating and have stopped responding. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Again concur with User:Dhtwiki. It looks like User:PCommission seems to be unfamiliar with the categorical imperative, universalizability, and cascade effects (all of which most educated scholars are familiar with). So it's kind of funny to see User:PCommission referring to the scholarly community. (The first two concepts are normally taught in introductory philosophy courses and the third is taught in introductory engineering courses.)

The point is that everyone has their own preferred subjects which they would like to see more treatment of in the article on the United States. For example, I have always thought the article should mention a little bit more detail about U.S. law. Everyone learns to compromise because the United States is such a gigantic, complex thing that the only way to effectively discuss it in a single encyclopedia article is to keep the writing style extremely terse and at a high level of abstraction. The alternative is to allow everyone trying to shoehorn their own preferred subjects into the article, which inevitably will cause other editors to split off those subjects into separate articles. As others have already pointed out, Wikipedia already has separate articles on various aspects of the United States' human rights record. One cannot be an effective editor on Wikipedia without thinking through such cascading effects. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: I understand your concern, and I agree that the appropriateness of the phrase for the article can only be made through proper sources, which, in fact, I have already provided. As a summary, first issue raised was that the section was for "acquisitions" only, an issue that has been resolved. The second issue raised was that the proposal was too "detailed", which led me to compromise and shorten the proposal significantly. Then a third issue raised was about "advocacy", which has also been solved through respectful dialogue. The fourth issue raised was there was "genocide everywhere", which has also been answered and resolved. Then a fifth issue was raised stating the proposal was undue, which was also resolved respectfully. Then a fifth issue was raised yet again, regarding "more detailed" than other subordinate articles such as Genocides in history, which has also been resolved respectfully. Then, a string of issues (6th-9th) were raised, most of which were already answered before it was raised. The 6th issue was about advocacy, which, again, has been resolved. The 7th was on term genocide, which has been resolved. Th 8th was an accusation of a "political struggle", which has already been resolved in answering about advocacies. The 9th was a re-phrasing of what is actually another issue of advocacy (this time stated in a rude manner), which has been resolved for the nth time. Then a 10th issue was raised, and another, and again, and again. I don't want to think that the intention is the raise another issue right after one is resolved to block the edit, so I'm refraining from making such an accusation towards any editor. PCommission (talk) 06:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: But to answer for this particular issue, the geographical extent of the acts committed during that era has already been established. On the first, fourth and last source, genocide and atrocities have been clearly stated. On the second and third source, other human rights violations aside from genocide have been clearly stated, while on the second, the acts were made in comparable to genocide as a note, which tells us that separate areas have experienced the act. I have already explained with depth my answers to all issues and concerns raised by other editors, all of which I respected in a bid to reach group consensus. To further reach editor consensus, I even encouraged all editors as well to look at the sources provided and see that scholarly consensus have already been established on the matter, which should be a prime basis for editor consensus and a deterrence against long debating. After going through all of these, I patiently waited for the each editor's responses, knowing that the sources and dialogue are already provided to everyone. If people grow tired and stop debating amidst the presence of reliable sources provided and questions being answered, then what does that imply? I hope this can be finally resolved, especially since the scholarly consensus is already there. PCommission (talk) 06:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Coolcaesar: I respect your views, but the issue keeps on expanding with unrelated matters. The main point of the issue is whether the proposed phrase has credible sources that it can be inputted, while making sure that the input will in no way make the article too long. This has already been resolved. Also, yes this is a summary page, which is why the important content for the proposal is already summarized. Another issue why I'm proposing this is not to "shoehorn" a concept, but to input an important aspect for the article, validated by sources and scholarly consensus. I keep repeating that matter because scholarly consensus should be the basis for community consensus, as all scholars would know. But again, the main point has already been answered. PCommission (talk) 06:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

You still haven't adequately answered any of the objections raised. The fact that you're now resorting to the tactic of begging the question (of pretending that you have already made your point) only reinforces the weakness of your position. Your argument is entirely unpersuasive and you have failed to develop any consensus in favor of your position. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit review at Talk:Philippines#Neutral point of view in History section.--Moxy 🍁 12:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI to everybody: PCommission has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Feel free to revert any of their material per WP:Block evasion (and if you're unsure, keep in mind that the editor is known to push POVs and misrepresent sources). I suggest keeping an eye out for them in the future, as they are a repeat offender. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2020

Change "Last state admitted" to "Most recent state admitted" (since other states may be admitted in the future) and change "Last amendment" to "Most recent amendment" (since other amendments may be made in the future). 216.164.49.231 (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. At this time, both are accurate. The possibility of either is small enough that the necessity to use the longer phrases is low. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Pop stars

American pop stars such as Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, Madonna and Whitney Houston have become global celebrities, as have contemporary musical artists such as Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga, Britney Spears, Mariah Carey, Beyoncé, Jay-Z, Eminem, and Kanye West.

All of them are or were big global stars, Kanye and Jay Z have a massive global following. I see nothing wrong with this as it is.† Encyclopædius 10:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Kanye and Jay Z have a massive global following? Eminem’s commercial dominance of the pop music sphere is unrivalled within the hip hop scene. He’s sold well over 100 million albums worldwide while his nearest rap competitor, Kanye West, is lagging well behind. In fact, Eminem was the best selling musician of the 2000s across any genre. Even into this decade, with his artistic peak disappearing in the rearview mirror, his albums have been commercial hits — his latest LP, Kamikaze, still hit the number one spot in multiple countries. He was the one who truly showed hip-hop could conquer the world not just culturally, but commercially too. --JShark (talk) 10:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

In many countries of the world including Asian countries, few know rappers like Kanye West or Jay-Z while Eminem is widely known on all continents. --JShark (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

There are many artists and celebrities but few have made an impact musically, commercially and culturally around the world and on all continents.--JShark (talk) 11:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson and Madonna are cultural icons around the world and on all continents, they even have articles on Wikipedia and books where their cultural legacy is studied. The other contemporary artists can hardly be considered world icons.--JShark (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they all have a massive global following. Kanye West and Jay Z are very much global stars and famous worldwide. It's not worth arguing over but it just seemed an unnecessary edit to make.† Encyclopædius 11:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson and Madonna are cultural icons around the world and on all continents, they even have articles on Wikipedia and books where their cultural legacy is studied. The other contemporary artists can hardly be considered world icons.--JShark (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Ludwig van Beethoven, Johann Sebastian Bach, and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart are also global icons who left a significant legacy in music around the world and on every continent. The Beatles are regarded as the most influential band of all time (global celebrities) -> Cultural impact of the Beatles. --JShark (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Kanye West and Jay Z are NOT famous all over the world and they do not have the cultural and musical impact that other artists have had throughout history. --JShark (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Many Asians and Latin Americans recognize Eminem but a large percentage from Asia and Latin America know nothing about Kanye West or Jay Z. They are not world icons and they are not superstars who are going to be remembered in a hundred or two hundred years. --JShark (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Section needs a rewrite and list of names removed ....need real information ..not a list of people....like other articles "The Canadian music industry is the sixth-largest in the world producing internationally renowned composers, musicians and ensembles.[1] Music broadcasting in the country is regulated by the CRTC.[2] The Canadian Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences presents Canada's music industry awards, the Juno Awards, which were first awarded in 1970.[3] The Canadian Music Hall of Fame established in 1976 honours Canadian musicians for their lifetime achievements.[4] Patriotic music in Canada dates back over 200 years as a distinct category from British patriotism, preceding the Canadian Confederation by over 50 years. The earliest, The Bold Canadian, was written in 1812.[5] The national anthem of Canada...".--Moxy 🍁 11:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree with Moxy. Singer lists are detrimental to the article. --JShark (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources beg to differ, Kanye: [1] [2] [3]† Encyclopædius 13:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Any list of "international" U.S. pop stars opens a can of worms in an encyclopedia. Younger readers want to see their icons listed (even emphasized), even though few pop stars will stand the global test of time (like Louis Armstrong, Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, and Ella Fitzgerald). A very fuzzy business. Good luck. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree that to judiciously list individual musicians is an impossible errand at this article. Proof of that is that you didn't include Duke Ellington. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Dhtwiki: Of course the Duke! My "list of four" was in no way exhaustive. :) Mason.Jones (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

LOL agree. As seen by the junk media refs here any listing will not come from a non academic background in most cases.--Moxy 🍁 00:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Good Article?

What is the status of this being considered for renomination for WP:GA? I have read the article, and the article I believe has reached criteria 3b (no unnecessary detail). However, as I have not done any edits to this article, I would rather not be the nominator for WP:GA. Is there someone that would be willing to do so, if the criteria have been met? HouseBlaster (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

This isn’t the area for nominating the article. This is only for edit requests. FluffSquad (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Not true? This is the page for discussing the article. Whether or not to nominate it is discussing the article. --Golbez (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Premature for the moment. Far too many issues to address before nominating however, we could begin work to address the lapse in GA standards.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2020

Correct the mistake United States of America is the 4 th largest country Against 3 or 4 . 2405:205:C844:7093:0:0:D72:18AD (talk) 03:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The sources make clear that it's third or fourth depending on how coastal waters are counted. —C.Fred (talk) 03:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Food

American people eat burgers and hot dogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.4.231.56 (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

And turkey. Don't forget turkey. Dhtwiki (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

i'm american and i'm having vindaloo for dinner what of it --Golbez (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

What do you want edited exactly? Yes we eat hotdogs and burgers but you need to point out somewhere to edit. FluffSquad (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I have returned the image of the Turkey that had a long standing consensus is relevant to the section and the claim was sourced. The article has strayed far from its GA standards and we have lost the Rating but that does not mean the article should fall completely apart.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

If consensus for the image of the turkey holds by next week, I will photograph the turkey from dinner next Thursday using a newer high resolution (6000x4000) Nikon. I will photograph Hotdogs tomorrow. And see if there is interest for use, same with the turkey before replacing the other image. Since I cooked and photographed that one in 2014 (the last full turkey I made) I can either recreate a nearly exact replica of the old image with the new turkey in the same place on my counter, or in a more dinner like setting such as on a set table etc.. I'm both a major contributor to the article and a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink. I am a regular contributor for main "Food" images.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Biden & Harris hidden in the infobox

I've tried to place Biden & Harris into the infobox in hidden form & yet I've been reverted by two editors. Is really that much of a problem? I just wanted to add them, in order to turn away editors who may mistaken think they're already prez & vice prez 'or' may want to add them as prez-elect & vice prez-elect. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

one editor. in my case, you were premature as no reputable source had called the election for them yet. since then i don't care. --Golbez (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

How many sources does one need, to show that Biden & Harris won the prez election? GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The infobox reports current U.S. statistics, not sneak previews of future facts. President and vice president are the current office holders and names will be updated on Jan. 20, the day of the inauguration. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Two editors: Golbez here and myself here, each of us giving explicit rationales. If there's something to do to warn people from making similar changes and that doesn't treat the election as officially concluded at this point, I'm all for it (i.e. a neutrally worded hidden comment to the effect that changes to the relevant parameters are premature). There must be more than one article to consult on the detailed play-by-play of this election for those who are interested. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The election has concluded though. That’s a fact so I don’t mind having it put there. FluffSquad (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The election has yet to take place, however foreordained the results of that election now seem to be. In any case, we don't put the names of presidents elect in the box meant for presidents. That will (probably) be changed on January 20, 2021, although I expect there will be attempts to change it prematurely between now and then, as has happened in the past. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Come on, Dhtwiki, the election has taken place. The Electors haven't been seated, but the election itself took place weeks ago. If we are going to be this pedantic, it's going to be a never ending game, since after the Electors are sat, someone can claim the election hasn't happened until January 6th and Congress certifying the Electors result, or could claim that it hasn't happened until January 20th for whatever reason they want to come up with. The election happened. That we don't put future presidents in the infobox is another issue, but please don't pretend the election hasn't taken place. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The election certainly hasn't "concluded". And my being "pedantic" was just my way of saying that it is premature to say that it has. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

y'all realize you're arguing over whether or not to include a comment - hidden text - that has a shelf life of 62 days? this is absolutely the least valuable thing you could possibly do with your time. --Golbez (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

It started as edits to the article itself. The hidden comments came later. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

"America"

The text currently says that the U.S. was not referred to as "America" in 19th century songs, but the Wikipedia article on "America the Beautiful" says the lyrics date to 1895. Kdammers (talk) 08:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

According to Daniel Immerwahr, writing in Mother Jones,[4] use of the term America was rare until the establishment of the American Empire in 1898. Note that the poem "America the Beautiful" was set to its current melody only in 1910. TFD (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

"Rare" is not the same as never. The text currently says, "It does not appear in patriotic songs composed during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,...." Instead of having the reader parse this with partially ungiven information (The music to the song was composed in the 19th century, and the poem was written in the 19th century, but the two were not published together as a song with lyrics and music until the 20th century), we should change the text to something clear and accurate. Apparently "The Digital Turn" by Bob Nicholson (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13688804.2012.752963) has data on the use of the term, but I don't have access to the article. Kdammers (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

House Speaker & Chief Justice

Do we really need to have the House Speaker & Chief Justice listed in the infobox? I think it’s a bit much. Ciaran.london (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

A different kind of government: three separate branches (executive, legislative, judicial), with separation of powers and checks and balances. "Executive" listing only would be incomplete. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Discovery of the U.S.

The U.S was actually discovered by the Viking Leif Erickson. He sailed from Greenland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:1F94:1501:556B:46F2:F6A2:2EE4 (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The land that the United States now occupies was "discovered" by the people already living there. The Vikings landed in what is now Newfoundland (in Canada) and at that time, there was no United States. We do have an article on the Viking exploration of North America, but they certainly didn't discover the United States. freshacconci (✉) 18:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The Vikings landed in Canada and the “New World”. Thousands of years ago people from Asia crossed the Bering Straight and migrated to the south. They were the first humans in what is now the U.S. However, the first European explorers to discover the “New World” were the Vikings. https://www.history.com/topics/exploration/leif-eriksson https://www.britannica.com/biography/Leif-Erikson https://time.com/5414518/columbus-day-leif-erikson-day/ http://www.mnc.net/norway/LeifErikson.htm https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-leif-erikson-day-2020/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:1F94:1501:556B:46F2:F6A2:2EE4 (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and that is all covered in the applicable articles. freshacconci (✉) 18:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

That is not true. Europeans came to the Americas 10s of thousands of years ago. Before the Asians did. There is a massive cover up. Every time a European is found, under Federal law, it is declared 100% Asian (American Indian) and destroyed. Yeah. Destroyed. Look up "Murder in Kennewick" to learn more about it. There is so much money passing through the hands of the Indians, and the US Government, that they do not want to let the fairy tale go.

Also, the USA is the only country in the world where the natives are told "You are invaders and don't belong here!" Even though their family owned their farm for generations and they are born there and citizens.

The really fun thing about the Indians, is they are not even a race. You can marry and become one. Have only one Indian parent and be one. Be adopted into a tribe. And many people, especially Filipinos and Mexicans, claim to be Indians, and fake the paperwork, so they can get free money. 120.29.110.105 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Yours is an interesting point but in the form of an unsubstantiated rant. Looking up "Murder in Kennewick" takes me to stories on a recent, 2020, murder in Washington state. This NPR story relates some of the details of Kennewick Man, although omitting the conclusion that he was an Ainu-like Caucasian, which I read about years ago in Atlantic or Harper's, which apparently has been either conclusively disproven or is being covered up so as not to disturb an overarching and remunerative narrative, as you've suggested. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic groups

Almost none of the ethnic groups are ethnic groups. Also, "Ethnic Groups By Race and Ethnic groups by ethnicity."Ha ha what is this? They are not even races. And the ethnicity lists are also not ethnicites. Is this vandalism? I am a US citizen. Of the Caucasian race. With an Italian ethnicity. This stuff is middle school level. Not hard to figure out. 120.29.110.105 (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Take it up with the US Census. That is the reliable source that is cited. It is not the job of Wikipedia to come up with its own standards or definitions; we report what is in the reliable sources cited. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Human rights

An editor on the Talk:Russia page seemingly believes that it is WP:Advocacy to elaborate upon human rights in the Russia article but not in the United States article, and invited me to make an edit on this article. So I want to know if there is WP:Consensus that human rights should be further elaborated upon in the United States article, perhaps in the form of a section devoted exclusively to human rights which can also possibly be touched upon in the lead section. DeathTrain (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It was suggested at that talk page that your focus was on "others", such as Russia, Iran, Afghanistan, etc., and that you should be concerned as well with western democracies, such as Australia, Canada, and the United States. We have Human rights in the United States#Justice system linked under the "Law enforcement and crime" section; and that's the only mention/link that I could find. Do we need more? The problem with "human rights" is that there are all sorts of human rights abuses, but the ones that tend to be focused on seem to originate from a particular political bent. Human rights abuses tend not to be about the rights of workers to be free from competition with cheap (i.e. immigrant) labor (although at the same time extolling unionization), the rights of the unborn, bigotry against those who adhere to conservative religions, etc. Also, this article is groaning under the weight of all its previous additions and we are trying to slim down. You must take that into account, as well. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know that there needs to be much more elaboration on human rights issues in the US. However, I do think there should be another sentence in the introduction talking about accusations of human rights violations in the US. For example, in the introduction of the China article it currently says: "The Chinese government has been denounced by political dissidents and human rights activists for widespread human rights abuses, including political repression, suppression of religious and ethnic minorities, censorship, mass surveillance, and their response to protests, notably the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests." I'm ok with that sentence because it's fair and neutral. But something similar should be said about the US, like: "The United States government has been denounced by political dissidents and human rights activists for widespread human rights abuses, including mass incarceration of racial minorities, concentration camps for immigrants and refugees, and failure to provide basic needs for millions of its people, like proper healthcare." The list can obviously be longer, but that's just a snapshot of what the US has been widely criticized for in recent times.UBER ^(talk) 15:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed text for lead.Human rights in the United States

However, the United States government has also been denounced by political dissidents and human rights activists for various human rights abuses, including mass incarceration of racial minorities, concentration camps for immigrants and refugees, the support of foreign dictators, persecution of dissidents, increasing poverty and inequality and failure to provide basic needs for millions of its people, such as proper healthcare.

References

• This is a lot to add to the lead with an excessive amount of sources cluttering the lead. Is this all covered in the article? Not sure an article like China is a good example for comparison. Needless to say this needs a discussion... if anything death penalty. Just seems out of context in its current form compared to what the article says and placement in lead.--Moxy 🍁 18:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@UberCryxic: I also think China is an inappropriate model for the United States. Before anything gets added to the lead, more should be done to the body. I also believe that a human rights section should also contain nuances such as the bill of rights and how the United States still tends to get relatively good ratings for Human rights by international watchdogs, and also watch out for WP:Recentism.DeathTrain (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Well it seems "out of context" because there's a kind of political hagiography clouding the introduction, with one minor critical note about inequality in the previous version. Maybe the comparison with China is irrelevant; I agree. The point is, we should mention notable and widespread views, and it is a notable view that the United States government commits human rights violations (per reputable sources, per...reality). So this should be mentioned in the introduction. I mean every country should be written about with a "nuanced" perspective. It's common practice on national articles to identify nations that are notorious human rights violators (like...the United States).UBER ^(talk) 19:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

History

Maybe 2020 Biden's victory at the election and the refusal of Trump to to cooparate with presidential transmision leading to 2021 US Capitol storming need to be added.