Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States

Main pageTalkEmbassyRequested
ArticlesMembersPortalRecognized
contentTo doHelp

Welcome to the discussion page of WikiProject United States

Establishing consensus on abortion in U.S. state articles

This is a massively complicated RFC that can't be distilled into a simple "yes" or no question. So I'm breaking it down into five main questions.

1. Should the subject of abortion ever be mentioned in any state article's political section? (Outside of historical information surrounding abortion.)
2. If #1 is "yes", should information about state's abortion laws be included in every state's body? (Provided that the information from WP: RS on present law is available, verifiable, and clear.)
3. Should U.S. states that are exceptional in abortion law have that mentioned in their respective leads? (Either through the criteria I suggested or an alternative method.)
4. If #3 is "yes", is the criteria I proposed for #3 to determine what is "exceptional" in the "my proposal" section reasonable and should be used as policy going forward?
5. (Optional) Is there any other suggestions/et al. that you want to add?

KlayCax (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

While Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey was in effect, the articles of states generally did not mention the subject of abortion — whether in their respective lead or body — due to the belief that it was a de facto settled issue within the United States (despite continued opposition to abortion at the time: there was a general belief that abortion access would remain relatively uniform throughout the country) and that mention of the topic would therefore fall under the WP: Trivia. Needless to say, it's now obvious that this previous editorial standard has become remarkably outdated after Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Abortion is now: 1.) Considered perhaps the most important aspect of state's laws 2.) Differs widely throughout the country 3.) A minority of states have laws on abortion that are dramatic outliers in both American and international law 4.) In ways that both expand and limit abortion access. (Presently less than 20% of present U.S. states.)

There are several ways to arguably tackle this problem. Since I don't think many people commenting (at least not enough to get a consensus or anywhere near a majority) will hold the position that:

• Abortion should not be mentioned in every possible state's body. (An obvious absurdity)
• Abortion should be prominently displaced in every state's lead. (Another obvious absurdity)

I think a solution that would probably find wide agreement would be based upon this criteria:

• The state's laws on abortion are exceptional. They have very little parallels among Western countries, liberal democracies — or even internationally — at all.
• Or the state's abortion laws played a key role in its history. (In theory/in case it does become historically important)

Judging by WP: Due and other common Wikipedia rules and guidelines, it seems to me that we can easily narrow it down to states that:

• Have no exceptions for rape, likely incest, along with arguably fetal impairment. (The red, the orange, and arguably the pink and brown here.)
  • This would also include "saving the life of the mother" if a state passed a hypothetical ban on this. Presently, no state does.
• Have no gestational limits at all. (Canada comes the closest. Yet they de facto often refuse to perform abortions after 23 weeks and 6 days. Several states have what appears to be the loosest abortion laws in the world. That certainly seems notable.)
• In contrast, several U.S. states have stricter abortion laws than any area of the Western world — and countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and Egypt. To me, laws with a greater restriction that that obviously seem to warrant inclusion.

My proposal

This seems to me a reasonable proposal:

• State's laws on abortion are mentioned in every article's body but not lead. (Unless the below)
• State's laws on abortion are only mentioned in the lead of a state's article if:
  • It is legal at all stages of pregnancy. (Alaska, Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, New Jersey, Vermont) Almost no jurisdiction in the world has laws similar to this.
  • There are total or near-total bans with no exceptions for rape, incest, et al. (Wisconsin, South Dakota, Missisippi, Arkansas.) Laws that are similarly almost unparalleled throughout the Western World/liberal democracies.
  • Precendent setting (If a future case hypothetically results in major and overwhelming change to law — such as a nationwide change à la Dobbs v. Jackson or Roe v. Wade.)

Essentially, just the red, light blue, and orange on the chart, along with arguably the pink and brown.

Looking forward to a consensus being reached! KlayCax (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose 3 & 4: I think you lay the case out exceptionally well, but I draw a different conclusion. Abortion law and its governance on the local level in the US is an exceptional circumstance with regard to Western nations. However, the individual restrictions or permissions are not exceptional. Take the cases of Liechtenstein and Luxembourg: both nations, due to an overwhelming religious majority, restrict abortion in the same way some of the most restrictive states do in the US. However, one does not find mention of this in their leads. There is a reason for this: these nations have a lot more going on than abortion (or, rather, the lack of legal abortion). The same can be said for US states, which often massively outsize in both population and area these two European countries. It comes down to a matter of WP:UNDUE. I think that each state's abortion law should be afforded due body mentions in this new post-Dobbs context, but unless we're talking about a major societal shift in a state hinging largely on abortion laws going either way (and not just in a RECENTISM-leaning way), there's no real reason for mention in the leads. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Neither Luxembourg or Lichenstein "restrict abortion in the same way some of the most restrictive states do in the US" Luxembourg allows abortion up to 12 weeks. Liechtenstein, from what I can tell, allows abortion in the case of rape. If they were hypothetical states, neither of them would have it mentioned in their leads under the criteria proposed. It is also, as you said, an apples-to-oranges comparison. Detailed policy is almost never described in a country's leads beyond its fundamental government structure. (For example: Canada's FA-article — as good of a metric as any for what an country's article should look like — merely describes the fact that it is a " parliamentary liberal democracy and a constitutional monarchy in the Westminster tradition".) In contrast, the leads of states often denote their individualized policies, culture, and political-leanings. (Whether it's Vermont, South Dakota, New Hampshire, West Virginia, New York, et al.) Washington's present article already mentions abortion in its lead.

  the individual restrictions or permissions are not exceptional Why do you say that? As mentioned above: several states are clearly exceptional (in an international sense) on both metrics. The scope of states relaxation and restrictions on abortion - depending on the state - is internationally exceptional. The United States has among the most relaxed (the most?) de facto/jure abortion laws in the world (Within certain states.) and the most strict of any Western country or liberal democracy. (Within certain states.)

  A single sentence in the lead is entirely WP: Due in those cases. KlayCax (talk) 06:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support 1, 2, and 5: based on notability: I agree that abortion laws are a significant enough part of a state's legal code now that they should always be mentioned in the body. However, for whether a state's laws should be mentioned in the lead I don't think whether they're exceptional should really be our criteria. Indeed, like most things on Wikipedia, I don't think that we should really even leave the decision up to us: we should include abortion laws in the lead when they're a significant part of the state's coverage in reliable sources, including especially nation-wide and international news sources. Unlike Pbritti, I think there are probably states that clear this burden: so for instance, googling "abortion" right at this moment without even mentioning a specific state gets me three national sources about a recent Idaho law, which I think is significant enough to justify mentioning this law in the article on Idaho (especially if coverage is sustained for a bit after it passes). Loki (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• I think it’s perfectly alright to include abortion now that they can be widely different based on states. but I don’t feel so okay establishing a set of criteria as we haven’t had many cases to study. It’s simply too early and most of the discussion are just going to be based on hypotheticals at best. MarvelousPeach (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm wary of prescribing anything here. There's an old wiki (and encyclopedia) debate about what sorts of information should be considered standard within a set of articles vs. how much we should try to weigh aspects of the subjects based on available sourcing. I tend to err on the side of the latter. Odds are quite good that any summary of laws in a state should mention abortion not because of something inherent to the subject but because it's an area of the law that tends to get a whole lot of coverage. The lead is trickier. States have a long history, and I think it will be the exception, rather than the rule, where it makes sense to always include a certain type of law. Perhaps it makes sense for some states to include an overview of that state in the 21st century, and in that context abortion may come up? But again, I don't think this is something we can prescribe (or proscribe). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is an overbearing prescription to apply to the various state articles. Abortion is clearly a huge and notable political/legal issue in many US states, so it's probably going to end up in many article bodies in some form or another. However, that is due to the individual relevance for each particular state. That is just the body. The lead is even further from consideration. I suspect for many states it might not even merit a mention, for those where it does it would likely be limited to "elections have been significantly influenced by debates over, X, Y, abortion, Z, etc". WP:RECENTISM is worth keeping in mind, as is WP:Summary Style. CMD (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as excessive bureaucracy. This should be decided on a case by case basis for each state article, not prescribed as a rule. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, as it should be decided on a state by state basis using the weight sources assign to the importance of abortion in the state. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
• Support 2 because it's an important topic. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose (which is effectively the same as "option 1") - this is an effort to over-emphasize a contemporary political debate. Certainly there are some states where this should be in the "politics" section. But I doubt it needs to be in the lead of any state's article at this time. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with much of the oppose arguments. Changes to those state articles should be discussed at those state articles. Nemov (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

For quality reviews in Transnational authoritarianism

Sorry for leaving the messages for discuss issues on Transnational authoritarianism about orginal reaserch problem,as the local memmber suggest it should geting WIKIPROJECT involved,

The party in the case is well known in zhwiki communities for long of violatimg rules and acting like Wolf warrior,that keep on ideological battles and conflicts for no end with anyone against it. Those matters could be comfirmed by other memmbers in zhwiki communities if they could well defend the complicated annoying and unwanted contacts, attacks, intimidation from this user.

And in the case,it keep on editing with the idea of US repression on Edward Snowden AND Julian Assange，insisting the topic should be in name of repression and without authoritarian states, and would not satisfy only if there wouldn't be writting arguments agaist the authoritarian states

I would be ok for local professional memmbers to assist the topics,but as I have reported locally,the pattern of the user could make anyone involing the processes suffer,I suggest the parties of communties should holding enough strong mental powers for the matters. Longway22 (talk) 10:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Locations in the United States with an English name#Requested move 7 May 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Locations in the United States with an English name#Requested move 7 May 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 18:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Seeking editor input on United States Postal Service edit requests

Hello! I'm a United States Postal Service employee working as a COI editor to suggest improvements to the agency's article. I currently have two open edit requests on the USPS Talk page, the first of which proposes updates to the article's During the Trump administration section and the second of which does the same for the Coronavirus pandemic and voting by mail one. My goal with these requests is to clarify descriptions of certain recent events in the agency's history and, where possible, to add new information that's been reported by reputable press outlets.

This WikiProject is listed on the USPS Talk page, so I thought it might be a good forum in which to find interested non-COI editors. If anyone here has the time and inclination, I would appreciate a thorough review of my proposed changes. Thanks! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

FAR for David Lovering

User:Buidhe has nominated David Lovering for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

FAR for David Lovering

User:Buidhe has nominated David Lovering for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Change a title

I was proposing to change the name of Bathroom Bill to either "Bathroom Bill in United States" or "United States Bathroom Bill." The part with Canada can possibly have a separate page although it is short. Cwater1 (talk) 06:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

CFM International CFM56 at FAR

I have nominated CFM International CFM56 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Japanese beetle, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

2020 Census demographics question

I'm going to update some city and county articles with the 2020 census demographics. For the race and ethnicity, I'm wondering which is preferred:

1. List the percentage of non-Hispanics/Latinos of each race (White, Black, Asian, Native American, Pacific Islander, Other, Two or more races), and then group all Hispanics/Latinos together
2. List the percentage of each race (including Hispanics/Latinos): White, Black, Asian, Native American, Pacific Islander, Other, Two or more races; also list the total percentage of Hispanics/Latinos.
3. Either of the above options, but for each racial group, include people who are that race and another race (so people who are White and Black would be included in both the White and Black percentages).

For example, look at Fremont, California#Race_and_ethnicity.

There is SO MUCH census information that it would be excessive to include it all in the article (as an example, we could list the number of people in a city that are Hispanic/Latino and both Asian and some other race). So what is the best way to present this? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 23:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sea Turtle, Inc.#Requested move 1 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sea Turtle, Inc.#Requested move 1 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Matt Hardy

Matt Hardy has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Resolute desk peer review requested

I am lookign for a review of the article Resolute desk before i put it up for FAC. Please feel free to take a look if you have time. The review can be found HERE. Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Most common name for Governor and Senator Brewster of Maine

Please review the sources and comment here regarding the name to be used by Ralph Owen Brewster.--User:Namiba 13:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

There is a content dispute about whether the name of the article Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory be changed in response to recent non-conspiratorial allegations against Biden. The input of others at Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Not all content is "conspiracy theory"; title and content need changing would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

RM Re: October surprise conspiracy theory

There is currently a discussion as to how to retitle the page October surprise conspiracy theory, which is part of this WikiProject. A prior RFC closed with a consensus to change the name of the page, but those supporting the change were roughly split between two options: 1980 October surprise theory and 1980 October surprise allegations. In a follow-up discussion, the vast majority of editors said that they would prefer either name, but a few expressed an opinion for just one or the other. As such, we are seeking wider community input. Thanks for reading!--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:KLUV#Requested move 28 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:KLUV#Requested move 28 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Nicky Hilton Rothschild#Requested move 23 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nicky Hilton Rothschild#Requested move 23 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Content assessment

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Crunchyroll LLC#Requested move 2 July 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Crunchyroll LLC#Requested move 2 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

JFK Assassination Featured Article Candidacy

If anyone is interested, the Assassination of John F. Kennedy has been nominated for Featured Article promotion. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks, ~ HAL333 18:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Gene King country musician

Please see question posted at Winnsboro, Louisiana#Status of Gene King, country music singer and band leader?. (This mention would no doubt be better posted at an active WikiProject Louisiana, but that WikiProject was long ago hijacked by WikiProject United States's banner directing readers to here instead.) --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Undo hijacking of WikiProjects Louisiana and New Orleans

Long ago the WikiProject Louisiana talk page banner AND the WikiProject New Orleans talk page banner were both hijacked, so readers are directed to post here at WikiProject United States instead. This undermines development, discussion of Louisiana and NOLA community matters. Therefore I propose/request cessation of hijacking by eliminating the automatic conversion of talk page banners {{WikiProject Louisiana}} and {{WikiProject New Orleans}}. Hopefully this would give readers and editors a fighting chance to have successful, intermittent discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Louisiana and wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Orleans. -- Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Pinging User:Sceptre, User:MatthewVanitas, User:TenPoundHammer, User:GlobeGores, User:Otr500, User:ProprioMe OW, User:WhisperToMe, User:OtherAJ, User:Arundhati lejeune, User:Casliber, User:Totnesmartin

1. Aaron charles (talk · contribs)
2. AlphaEta (talk · contribs)
3. Antley (talk · contribs)
4. AquaTeen13 (talk · contribs)
5. ArkansasTraveler (talk · contribs)
6. Arverniking (talk · contribs)
7. Avazina (talk · contribs)
8. Bhockey10 (talk · contribs)
9. Blackwarrior (talk · contribs)
10. Braxtonianman (talk · contribs)
11. btilm (talk · contribs)
12. Bwash88 (talk · contribs)
13. CarbonX (talk · contribs)
14. Chetblong (talk · contribs)
15. DavidDelaune (talk · contribs)
16. Dthomsen8 (talk · contribs)
17. DudeWithAFeud (talk · contribs)
18. Frank042316 (talk · contribs)
19. Fl1942 (talk · contribs)
20. Frunzeapparat (talk · contribs)
21. Grifter1405 (talk · contribs)
22. Kiidd777 (talk · contribs)
23. Lŋgwstks (talk · contribs)
24. Loosecannon93 (talk · contribs)
25. Madison Roy (talk · contribs)
26. Melissa4S4 (talk · contribs)
27. Mr. Wikipediania (talk · contribs)
28. odhfan_01 (talk · contribs)
29. otr500 (talk · contribs)
30. Parkwells (talk · contribs)
31. PGNormand (talk · contribs)
32. Pikachudad (talk · contribs)
33. PohranicniStraze (talk · contribs)
34. sf46 (talk · contribs)
35. skb8721 (talk · contribs)
36. Srm gunner (talk · contribs)
37. Tcr25 (talk · contribs)
38. TheLionHasSeeen (talk · contribs)
39. ukulele (talk · contribs)
40. vernajast (talk · contribs)
41. VerruckteDan (talk · contribs)
42. TheCoolestKidHere
43. Infrogmation (talk · contribs)
44. Samwisep86 (talk · contribs)
45. Aaron charles (talk · contribs)
46. winstonho0805 (talk · contribs)
47. Muffuletta (talk · contribs)
48. Alainna (talk · contribs) 07:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
49. Avalyn (talk · contribs)
50. ShreveNewsMan (talk · contribs)
51. VerruckteDan (talk · contribs)
52. Patriarca12 (talk · contribs)
53. ArkansasTraveler (talk · contribs)
54. Presidentman (talk · contribs)
55. Bobster687 (talk · contribs)
56. Sumori (talk · contribs)
57. CarbonX (talk · contribs)
58. AlphaEta (talk · contribs)
59. Leodmacleod (talk · contribs)
60. D.c.camero (talk · contribs)
61. Nowhereman86 (talk · contribs)
62. LadyRose2001 (talk · contribs)
63. Bruin2 (talk · contribs)
64. Nolabob (talk · contribs)
65. Grifter1405 (talk · contribs)
66. Paulscrawl (talk · contribs)
67. TheCoolestKidHere

Vive la Louisiane! Il nous faut sauver wt:Louisiana! Revive wt:NOLA!

N'Oubliez pas L'Alamo!

--Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Quoi? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

No part of this required pinging like 80 people, nor did it require the bizarre tone of this entire message from start to finish. My favorite part is the one user you pinged that has been indefinitely blocked since 2015. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

My issue is that WikiProject United States (in fact without agreement, but it was long ago) obtained an override over the WikiProject Louisiana and WikiProject New Orleans talk page banners. All the existing banners were replaced, and any new ones placed today are automatically replaced, by {{WikiProject United States|LA=yes|LA-importance=}} or {{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|LA=Yes|LA-importance=|NOLA=Yes|NOLA-importance=}}. Which directs readers/editors at the 14,756 Louisiana articles, and at 2,724 New Orleans articles, to read at and post to this Talk page, instead using local Talk pages. People are less likely to brazenly post about local Louisiana things at a United States page (with my posting above at #Gene King country musician being an exception), and they are less likely to see and read any Louisiana postings anywhere. The experiment about moving Louisiana-topic discussions to here has failed.

There are still new editors occasionally arriving and signing up as members at both Louisiana wikiprojects, who are not welcomed and integrated, and are likely frustrated. I am frustrated that they don't find much activity and that they, too, go away.

I and others nonetheless occasionally do make postings at the local projects about local matters, and do want to have discussions or get comments, etc., but no discussion happens. Which is partly, perhaps largely, due to the misdirection of traffic by the WikiProject United States banners on all the projects' pages.

The 80 or so persons pinged have either posted about Louisiana matters or they signed up (mostly long ago but also some recently) as current members of the two WikiProjects. It is fine and good for me to call for some discussion and reach out to them all. This is in fact the Talk page for all Louisiana matters, big and small, according to WikiProject United States.

The same problem applies for many other states' WikiProjects, by the way, and it will be fine and good to ping many more hundreds of editors to come here on similar proposals. One or more times in the past I have tried to get these changes done by requests at the templates, but that didn't work, if I recall correctly, because I wasn't then able to convince an administrator-gatekeeper of the problem.

So, anyhow, here, is there any other support besides mine, and/or are there no objections, to removing WikiProject United States banner from 17,480 articles' Talk pages, replacing it by Louisiana and New Orleans banners instead, and to disabling the automatic processes that have enforced the current bannering? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 03:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but looking (for example) at Template talk:WikiProject Louisiana, it says "This template is supported by WikiProject Louisiana." Clicking that links brings one to the appropriate Wikiproject. What is the issue exactly? I do not necessarily have any strong opinion on the matter, but I do object to the idea that you can revert a wrapper that has been (more or less) static since 2011 simply because no one replies in two days (over the weekend, to boot). (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be decided in 2 days. Thanks, that 2011 date helps me find my way to some of the archived discussions from back then. I strongly disliked the hijackings back then and have considered them to be a disaster all along.

Perhaps the first discussion section was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Archive 5#Suggestion for some of the Inactive, Defunct and semi active US related Wikiprojects, which started out

I have noticed that there seem to be a large number of US related WikiProjects that are either Inactive, Defunct or have minimal activity. I would like to recommend redirecting the talk pages of these to the WikiProject United States talk page. This will allow a more timely response to questions and suggestions....

(Emphasis added by me) That was nonsense, IMHO.

It developed further in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Archive 5#A consideration for cross project consolidation of talk page templates. The suggestion was that it would supposedly save on template maintenance (not ever a problem IMHO). Several strong objections were given, including:

I consider these [example proposed new WPUS templates] mostly to be constructed backwards. I want it to say (big letters) the article Michigan is parrt of WikiProject Michigan (small letters) maybe consider looking at Project United States. Not: (big letters) this is WikiProject United States (small letters) oh maybe look at Michigan's wikisubproject too. I am not going to see Michigan-related (misposted?) discussion posted on the first prominent link in the template (United States) because I do not follow or want to follow that project. Rmhermen (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry I am not following what your trying to say. --Kumioko (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I follow his logic, and I tend to agree with it. What he's saying is that in all likelihood a consolidated banner would put WPUS front-and-center and relegate all of the subprojects to second-banana status on less visible lines below WPUS's main template message, since that's the way WPBannerMeta treats a project's task forces and subprojects. For that reason, I also ask that WP:NY be excluded from a potential consolidation.

[and]

Personally I don't see the point of this. All I can see this doing is choking out the small wikiprojects making them task forces of one huge project. (While they may have their own letters having a banner is a big way that wikiprojects advertise}--Guerillero | My Talk 21:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Those objections were spot-on, IMHO. As I recall, what happened was: most or all of the relatively active state and city WikiProjects opted out. All the others, where there was not a reply within something like two days (over a weekend, to boot, probably), got folded in and, well, demolished.

IMO the natural level of discussion in Wikipedia for many things like individual biographies and historic places is at a U.S. state level. The discussion may be intermittent, but in my experience (in some state wikiprojects that weren't folded in, I guess) it can still be constructive, even if slowly, over one or two or even five or more years! Local editors appreciate responses and take encouragement when they're pinged after long delay. Folding all such discussions into one WikiProject US forum, which oversees more than 400,000 articles, simply does not, did not, work. That eliminated all the slow discussions. The experiment failed, and I personally want to revive many of the WikiProjects that were subsumed, starting with Louisiana and New Orleans in this proposal. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 07:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Missing article on major topic

Wikipedia does not have an article on Criminal justice in the United States, at least, not under that title. There is nothing of a general nature in Category:Criminal justice in the United States. That seems like a major gap in our coverage. There are subtopics, like Federal judiciary of the United States (and numerous state-level articles, such as those in Category:State judiciaries in the United States), Criminal justice reform in the United States, United States Department of Justice Criminal Division, Incarceration in the United States, Criminal law of the United States, and so on. Probably a new article could be created as a parent article in summary style, with brief sections on the major topics already covered elsewhere, and link to them with {{Main}} links. The existing Criminal law article is maybe the closest, but doesn't really deal with criminal procedure, or sanctions, or the organization of the judiciary, or history, and is mostly about the code.

Some "find source" links:

• general – Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• history – Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• judiciary – Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• procedure – Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)