Talk:United States

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

2. How about Switzerland?

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

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

The component states of the Swiss confederation were mostly oligarchies in the eighteenth century, however, much tighter than most of the United States, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Connecticut excepted.
Q4. Isn't St. Augustine, Florida the first European settlement in the United States?
Technically, yes. However, Florida was not one of the original 13 colonies that formed the United States and thus the article mentions Jamestown and not St. Augustine.
This decision has been disputed and no explicit consensus has ever been formed on this question.
If you wish to challenge this decision, please do so on the Talk:United States page.
Q5. Why are the Speaker of the House and Chief Justice listed as leaders in the infobox? Shouldn't it just be the President and Vice President?
The President, Vice President, Speaker of The House of Representatives, and Chief Justice are stated within the United States Constitution as leaders of their respective branches of government. As the three branches of government are equal, all four leaders get mentioned under the "Government" heading in the infobox.
Q6. Why are the President's, Vice President's, and Speaker's parties listed, but not the Chief Justice's?
Though the Chief Justice of the United States may belong to a political party, his or her office is a judicial appointment, not an elected office. Therefore, the Chief Justice's party is not included when referencing him or her. (E.g. John Roberts is a Republican, but he is not referenced as John Roberts (R).)
Q7. What is the motto of the United States?
There was no de jure motto of the United States until 1956, when "In God We Trust" was made such. Various other unofficial mottos existed before that, most notably "E Pluribus Unum". The debate continues on what "E Pluribus Unum"'s current status is (de facto motto, traditional motto, etc.) but it has been determined that it never was an official motto of the United States.
Q8. Is the U.S. really the world's largest economy?
Yes. The United States has been the world's largest national economy since the Gilded Age and the world's largest economy since 2014, when it surpassed the European Union.
Q9. Isn't it incorrect to refer to it as "America" or its people as "American"?
In English, America (when not preceded by "North", "Central", or "South") almost always refers to the United States. The large super-continent is called the Americas.
Q10. Why isn't the treatment of Native Americans given more weight?
The article is written in summary style and the independence and expansion section summarizes the situation.
Former good articleUnited States was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
December 15, 2005Good article nomineeListed
May 7, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 8, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 18, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 3, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 21, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
October 19, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 19, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 9, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
June 27, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 6, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
January 19, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
March 18, 2012Good article reassessmentDelisted
August 10, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
January 21, 2015Good article nomineeListed
February 22, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
December 19, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 3, 2015.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the United States accounts for 37% of all global military spending?
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 4, 2008.
Current status: Delisted good article

Good Article?[edit]

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[edit]

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)


American people eat burgers and hot dogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (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[edit]

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)


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,[1] 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 ( 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)
Mother Jones is not reputable enough to support such a broad claim all on its own, especially from just one article that appears to have an ideological bent. You can find references to this country as "America" in the 18th century, such as in numerous quotes from George Washington. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

House Speaker & Chief Justice[edit]

Do we really need to have the House Speaker & Chief Justice listed in the infobox? I think it’s a bit much. (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.[edit]

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. — 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. (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[edit]

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. (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[edit]

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.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]


  • 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)
" notorious human rights violators" we will need to talk[2]. Lets see what we can put together that is relevant for the lead before the idea gets rejected out right. Something along the lines ...

Despite the relatively good international rankings on human rights, the country receives criticism for inequality in regards to race and income, its capital punishment policy ,incarceration rates,...few more links if need be

--Moxy 🍁 23:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@UberCryxic: I still think that more should have been done to the body first, but would you like to add your thoughts on Talk:Russia on detailing human rights in the lead section of the Russia article?DeathTrain (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Try to accomplish this with links rather than with a lot of text. The whole article Human rights in the United States, not just the sectional link we already have, might be linked to "criticism of domestic human rights abuses", as well as United States involvement in regime change to "foreign". Dhtwiki (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I've always found it weird how articles such as China, Iran, Russia have leads that mentions issues within the country such as human rights abuses and the like, but on the United States article, it has never been mentioned. I support its inclusion, even as a dual American citizen. The other articles that needs to be fixed next are probably Israel and India, the lead is filled with puffery of the country with almost no "negative" mention of its history of abuses with minorities as well as human rights issues. Indian/Israeli nationalists are probably rampant on there, you would think reading that article these countries are the best in the world. Getting on-topic, the United States may be a developed country, but its issues with human rights both domestically and internationally cannot be understated and should be appropriately mentioned in the lead. (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't reflect well on the integrity of Wikipedia that the articles on Russia, China, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, and others mention human rights in the introduction. Whereas the article about the glorious American empire where nobody has ever been persecuted for their political beliefs and where black people are definitely not murdered are the streets doesn't mention human rights in the introduction. Its either all country articles mention human rights issues in the introduction or none of them do.User:SpaceSandwich talk 1:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)—

@SpaceSandwich: Maybe this should be discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries.
@DeathTrain:I think countries, and especially powerful countries, that have a long history and continuing record of human rights violations should be identified in Wikipedia articles, even in the introduction. So yes, that includes Russia, China, the US, Britain, France, etc. I don't want to look at anybody with rose-colored glasses. The Chinese have their Great Leap Forward and the Belgians have their Congo. The Chinese have their concentration camps for poor and defenseless Uighurs and the Americans have their "detention centers" for poor and defenseless immigrants (and that's not just about Trump; the Americans have been doing this for decades). There's hardly anybody with power over the global system that doesn't have (a lot of) blood on their hands, and that continues to be the case today. I don't think it's Wikipedia's job to conduct a moral evaluation of "who's worse." That gets into a lot of thorny philosophical dilemmas that will never be resolved through debate. The point is, if it's a notable view and supported by numerous reputable sources, it should be mentioned in a prominent place like an introduction (controversies about that view can also be mentioned, of course). As for Russia, I'd support almost the exact kind of formulation as in the China and US articles, but detailing Russia's own unique issues (like, you know, Putin's fondness for murdering journalists, but stated in a more neutral tone).UBER (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Moxy: I like your idea very much. I would be ok with putting the following in there verbatim right now: "Despite the relatively good international rankings on human rights, the country receives criticism for inequality in regards to race and income, its capital punishment policy, and incarceration rates." This wouldn't even need sources in the introduction, because (again) it's a very notable view. Citations can be used later if this is expanded upon in the actual body. But I'll let you make the final call, I don't really think this is worth having a huge fight over (and I know it could easily devolve into that because it's a politically sensitive subject). So I'm bowing out of this debate. Cheers.UBER (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)c

@UberCryxic: I suppose I am okay with that, but I also think more needs to be done to the body first. Perhaps a separate Human rights section should be created due to WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. DeathTrain (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The article incorporates criticism throughout the article as it should be Wikipedia:Criticism.--Moxy 🍁 15:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@DeathTrain: No. This still sounds "rose coloured glasses". The article for China for example essentially says China sucks and everyone there is oppressed and killed. So having the article just say that America has received criticism isn't good enough. America has literally been instrumental in genocides. Also, it shouldn't just be about race it should also include the CIA's well documented use of extrajudicial killings and so-called black sites, as well as war crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as support for Totalitarian regimes. User:SpaceSandwich talk 14:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@SpaceSandwich: This discussion is about Human rights within the United States, not how the government is complicit or active in human rights abuses in its foreign policy by supporting despotic regimes or by committing war crimes. The lead section of the China article does not mention anything about how China is the biggest ally to North Korea, arguably the most totalitarian regime in the world today, or how China supports similarly dictatorial regimes in Africa or Central and West Asia.DeathTrain (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't oppose airing US dirty laundry, but it appears that some editors don't know the difference between "human rights" (conditions for citizens in 2021) and outrageous historical crimes or the poor treatment of migrants. Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea handle dissent differently. The US in 2021 doesn't arrest homosexuals upon the order of a regional strongman, or execute dissident wrestlers, or send minority-ethnic families to "reeducation" camps (after taking all their possessions). It is different, and encyclopedias treat it differently. So does the UN. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, first of all the United States absolutely does send minority families to reeducation camps. (Internment of Japanese Americans,Internment of German Americans, Internment of Italian Americans, Guantanamo Bay detention camp, Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, Trump administration migrant detentions). Second, the crimes committed by the U.S. government aren't all "historical" or "in the past, man", they're still happening to this day. Also the U.S. absolutely cracks down on dissent (2020 deployment of federal forces in the United States, Communist Control Act of 1954) As for what DeathTrain said, its not just about abuses committed abroad by the U.S., but also domestic abuses. SpaceSandwich (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Migrants (even separated children) are not Uighur families removed from their lives as Chinese citizens on Chinese territory, their homes commandeered. You're an ideologue. I get that. However, US law (and legal services) don't apply in Chechnya or Xinjiang. You wish to rewrite this article to create a narrative of moral equivalency between a democracy and a dictatorship. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Imagine calling me an ideologue when you believe in that "Uyghur genocide" bullshit. And also what a stupid fucking argument, Chinese law doesn't apply in the U.S.... As for accusing me of creating a moral equivalency, no I'm just trying to provide the truth and not allow the crimes of the largest and most oppressive empire in the fucking world today be whitewashed. SpaceSandwich (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@SpaceSandwich: Please remember to be WP:CIVIL. I do not appreciate your profane replies. I also feel that your arguments and rhetoric are not WP:NEUTRAL, and that you are instead pushing an anti-USA POV by using such language as calling the United States the "largest and most oppressive empire in the fucking world today". Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.DeathTrain (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@DeathTrain: Why should I be neutral when this site is clearly not looking for neutrality? Look at what I replied to in the first place. I apologize for using profane language, but it is becoming increasingly irritating to argue with such disingenuous people. User:SpaceSandwich (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, and therefore one of its fundamental principles. Wikipedia is not perfect, but we editors try to make it the best we can. Geopolitics and international relations are very complex, and it is not as simple as "if a powerful country supports despotic regimes, it must be bad", as all powerful countries did that and still do.

I do not know if you have noticed this, the Russia article currently does not mention human rights or give any form of criticism to the current government in its lead sections at all. Although the United States has supported despotic regimes such as Saudi Arabia, the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos, several genocidal military dictatorships in Central and South America, and many others, China and Russia/the Soviet Union also have and still support similar regimes. The Soviet Union was an ally to Cuba, East Germany, Nicolae Ceaușescu's Socialist Republic of Romania, Idi Amin's Uganda and other Soviet satellite states among others. Meanwhile, China supported regimes like Enver Hoxha's People's Socialist Republic of Albania, Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe, or even the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia. China and Russia today still support despotic regimes like Bashar al-Assad's Syria, Iran, Cuba, Belarus, North Korea and most of the authoritarian former Soviet republics in Central Asia like Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan. Neither China nor Russia give any form of elaboration to the many despotic regimes they have supported in the past or present. Why should the United States? Overelaborating on criticism that is not attested in the article itself, by related articles or by reliable sources is undue weight and pushing a POV. DeathTrain (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Space, I appreciate your interest in the article "United States". It is (or it was very recently) the most read article on WP-EN. Many people have an opinion about the U.S., and editors from abroad like you (with spellings like "rose-coloured") do contribute. However, you obviously have an editorial agenda that seeks to establish some kind of moral equivalency between the U.S. and truly repressive and authoritarian states. If that is your goal, it will not succeed. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree. As imperfect as Wikipedia could be, neutrality is important and editors should not be trying to fit their own personal opinions and perspectives into articles. SpaceSandwich appears to have a strong personal POV on the US government, which is their right, but for it to be the inspiration for how entries are made on an article is simply inappropriate. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Mason.Jones: How can you claim neutrality when you are calling these countries "truly repressive and authoritarian states"? And don't claim that it is fact, because I live in one of the countries that DeathTrain called an "despotic regime". Also, DeathTrain, for being impartial, you are clearly stating an opinion as I don't consider a number of the countries you listed to be "totalitarian regimes", and I know many people personally who agree. But nonetheless, I give up, so its cool, do what you like with article. SpaceSandwich (talk 14:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Space, your Talk page is a testament to your raving posts. It also features multiple WP warnings. In case you didn't know, Wikipedia is not the People's Daily. Find a website that reveres Stalin or something. Wikipedia seems a poor fit for you. Mason.Jones (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Mason.Jones, Thank you, I will consider applying for a job! I would recommend this really cool company for you to work at, they're looking for many people like you, it's called the Committee of Wikipedia Truthtellers SpaceSandwich {talk) 21:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@SpaceSandwich, you first admit to being an Uyghur genocide denialist, but within hours you then proceed to accuse Mason.Jones and DeathTrain of being disingenious people. This is a textbook example of the pot calling the kettle black. Why should any of us believe that your contributions in this context, or to the whole of Wikipedia for that matter, are made in good faith? (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mason.Jones, did you seriously just log out so that you could make another comment in an attempt to create an illusion of support? You do realize this is a violation of WP:LOUTSOCK? (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
No, dear anonymous "104.244.211,140," and such a slur only proves the squalid methods those on your "side" are employing in an effort to propagate your POV moral equivalency on WP. Yet you have no moral scruples—none whatsoever. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I think we should point out that compared with most industrialized nations, the U.S. has greater wealth and income inequality, higher incarceration rates, the death penalty, and lacks universal health care. I don't see that any of this amounts to significant human rights violations. TFD (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@Moxy: @The Four Deuces: @UberCryxic: @Mason.Jones: It is time to finalize this discussion. What should be put in? DeathTrain (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
@Moxy: @The Four Deuces: @UberCryxic: @Mason.Jones: I have now attempted to detail human rights in the lead section. What do you think? DeathTrain (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it's great! Fairly neutral and quick, so it doesn't feel like we're dragging out an issue across the introduction. Good job!UBER (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I support the content, if not the syntax. The passage might face some wrath (and deletion) from editors who don't wish to see the U.S. diminished in any way, and that must be monitored. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Do not support the addition by a POV editor and his sleeper account.-- (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: @UberCryxic: @Mason.Jones: Now that human rights have been elaborated in this article, do any of you want to participate in the discussion on human rights in the Russia article on Talk:Russia?DeathTrain (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@DeathTrain: A waste of time. Country articles about Russia, China, and similar regimes do not tolerate criticism, and it doesn't stay for long. It would help more to monitor this article, one of the most read and most frequently vandalized. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
If an alien reads the Russia article and compares it with the current version of the United States article, they would be easily convinced that Russia is a much more desirable place to live in. This is obviously false and not acceptable. Why was the request to add this sort of sentence fulfilled, rather than ignored in the first place, given the heavily biased POV of the few proponents who suggested it? Uyghur genocide denialists should not hold this much power in deciding the tone of articles about liberal democracies. (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Do you actually have a coherent, non-POV and not politically charged suggestion to make or are you just going to continuously make ad hominem attacks against other users behind a burner IP? If you have issues with the Russia article, start a discussion there. This is about the United States, not Russia. Whataboutism is not going to get you anywhere. (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
@"Special contributor" You are special, it's true: You accuse editors of "attacks against other users behind a burner IP", when you engage in an attack behind an anonymous burner IP. That's called hypocrisy. For your information, the lead to "United States" now has a passage re human rights. When frank passages are added to country articles for Russia, China, and similar paragons of virtue, you can lecture here. Till then, you probably shouldn't. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Flushing, Michigan....never heard of the place.--Moxy 🍁 21:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • So still seeing big problems...wonder if its best we have an RFC and in the mean time stick to status quo. This conversation does not seem to hold much weight...we have accusations of new editors with an agenda, sleeper accounts, random IP's...what we need is a proper community talk with more exprienced editors.--Moxy 🍁 18:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "Big problems" because editors (mostly from outside the U.S.) must include more POV swipes. I support a basic statement, but the string of negative add-ons—unsourced and unqualified—never stops. Nationalists then delete the entire passage wholesale. This is edit-warring with no end in sight. Mason.Jones (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Best get the community involved because all the reverts thus far are correct..... there is definitely no consensus on wording let alone inclusion as seen by its removal many times. So we are going to go in circles till we have a real talk to point to. Had a stable lead for a very long time till now. What we now have is ediotrs that don't actually contribute to the article making edits because of poor wording WP:Main article fixation.--Moxy 🍁 20:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with "poor wording", Mox. This is ideological warfare about the world's most powerful country. No "consensus" statement will survive for long. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I think less more precise wording would help..drags on right now. But I agree with will see a war.....I forsee a few editors being blocked over the next few months.--Moxy 🍁 06:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the current version is fine now. A simple note per balance should satisfy both sides. ShelteredCook (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I think ShelteredCook is trying to impose an agenda. The text added is devious drivel worthy of Radio Moscow, circa 1969. "Should satisfy both sides"—is that Cold War parody? Mason.Jones (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Mason.Jones, I've realized you're continuously not assuming good faith against other editors that you disagree with, and I suggest you cease doing that, considering your prior history with similar behavior. I have always provided context behind my contributions, and if you're going to cast aspersions against me by saying I'm trying to "impose an agenda", it's best to start an RfC over this like what Moxy has suggested, so that more editors can provide their perspectives into this discussion. It's also not helpful to this entire discussion when you're also making comments such as "text added is devious drivel worthy of Radio Moscow, circa 1969", especially considering that they are supported by sources in their own article by Freedom House themselves when they released their financial reports, as well as many other journals. ShelteredCook (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Your edits have been classic examples of bad faith: "It's best to start..." No, we do not start with a mendacious footnote inferring that Freedom House is the only source of a fair human rights appraisal for the U.S., as you then proceed to link it as a propaganda arm of the U.S. government, suggesting that the U.S. funded its own positive appraisal. That is propaganda, and dishonest editing. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

RFC:Addition of human rights in the lead[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus here is option C + healthcare. There is no clear consensus on how to mention healthcare, however, but I (personally) imagine ShelteredCook's suggestion, or a variation thereof, may be able to gain consensus. There was also some mention of including content on crime rates, but no clear consensus on this. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Should we add mention of social problems like human rights records, civil liberties, social inequality and/or bad foreign policy in the lead to reflect the coverage currently in the article? If yes what to mention and what to add? Suggestions below.--Moxy 🍁 17:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions of text[edit]

More suggestions welcome

Despite considerable income and wealth disparities in comparison to other developed countries, it ranks high in measures of economic freedom, quality of life, and quality of higher education, and receives relatively high ratings for human rights, despite issues such as racial division, a large prison population and continued use of capital punishment.


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.


Despite the relatively good international rankings on human rights, the country receives criticism for inequality in regards to race and income, its capital punishment policy and incarceration rates.


  • Yes with C my preferred need to overwhelm the lead with this....keep it short.--Moxy 🍁 17:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • B / C, in that order of preference, although either is fine. Oppose A, which is weirdly structured (eg. "despite" twice) in a way that awkwardly splits the issues the sentence focuses on into two parts, and which generally fails to attribute this as criticisms the US has faced; A also feels a bit more WP:SYNTH-y in that it implicitly suggests that measures of economic freedom, quality of life, and quality of higher education, and receives relatively high ratings for human rights are a direct rebuttal to income inequality in a way that isn't really WP:BLUE (given that these are averages.) The other two, since they lead into attribution, feel like they're more neutrally listing "good thing X, but faced criticism for Y" without leading the reader to a conclusion. Of the other two, B is more specific (especially with regards to attributing who the criticism is coming from), although I can understand the argument that it's on the long side; it could be tweaked in terms of which specific aspects are emphasized. C is brief and acceptable. --Aquillion (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd say a combination of B and C, such as trimming the former especially in regards to healthcare. I do feel putting in "failure to provide basic needs for millions of its people" is going to lead to edit wars almost immediately, so I'd say to leave it out and keep it less terse such as " well as the lack of universal healthcare among developed countries." On the Health care in the United States article, there's a sentence which mentions "A 2017 survey of the healthcare systems of 11 developed countries found the US healthcare system to be the most expensive and worst-performing in terms of health access, efficiency, and equity." The source from that article could be attributed to support the phase here. ShelteredCook (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No mention this is not some suppressive regime. .-- (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • C + A. A has the advantage of more links (10 vs. 7, assuming each link is of equal usefulness) but is clumsily worded (<despite bad things it has good and it has good things despite bad>). B is wordy, has relatively few links, and starts with a mystifying "However" that makes for a statement that isn't self-contained. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Terse C+A, as mentioned above. B opens with information attributed to specific (groups of) dissidents or activists, which is undue. There is an "Income, poverty and wealth" subsection, and a "Law enforcement and crime" subsection, so these should be mentioned in the lead. However, these sections don't explicitly link the issues with human rights, or together, per Dhtwiki. They shouldn't be played off against one another as 'good thing' 'bad thing', but presented separately and plainly. Such information would fit well in the current fourth paragraph, which goes into wealth and mentions culture. ("Human rights" as a specific topic is not covered at all in the body, so I do not think it should enter the lead explicitly either. If readers think inequality etc. are human rights issues then presenting those covers the issue nicely.) CMD (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • C because it's better than not having it at all. I feel like something such as B will be disputed by American ultra-nationalists (which the Wiki is not lacking of) downplaying the situation until the end of time, even among established and seasoned editors. However, health care needs to be mentioned for sure. (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • C But it needs something on the health care issue as well -----Snowded TALK 08:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • C - Brief, direct and descriptive without any false praise, hence suitable for the lead per Wikipedia:Manual of Style. However, it fails to mention the healthcare issues and crime rate. Oliszydlowski (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • C or A B is far too detailed and pushes an anti-American POV that is fundamentally inconsistent with WP:NPOV.DeathTrain (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • C but shorter: I think that race/income inequality is already given by the third and fourth paragraphs at the moment, so something along the lines of The United States has the world's largest prison population and is also the only Western country to continue the use of capital punishment. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk
  • No per WP:Lead - The lead summarizes the most important information in the body. This does not make the cut. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

*No or C - Brevity, and those are fairly nuanced issues compared to the entirety of the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlatSkate (talkcontribs) Striking sockpuppet comment.

  • A, as B is too polemical and C is misleading, per Mason Jones in discussion below. C would work with some slight modifications...--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • B - A is poorly worded and makes for confusing reading. B is the best in relaying information that is discusses at length further down the article. C has the advantage of brevity, but it is also so vague as to not say much. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Exclude Are any of those options covered by the body of the article? I searched for "incar" (incarceration) in the article and all I see are statistics of incarceration in the United States#Law enforcement and crime section, but nothing about the US receiving "criticism" for it. This looks like WP:OR. Some1 (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes B,C, in that order. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, something like C but with the addition of healthcare (as others have said above),perhaps using wording like ShelteredCook suggests or even incorporating the wording from the other article ShelteredCook poitns out already has a good, concise sentence/clause about this. -sche (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • A shorter version of C capital punishment "policy" is misleading as pointed out by Mason.Jones.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 14:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


A sentence in the lead of most country article about its problems seems warranted considering they are covred in the articles themselves. Even Canada could mention indigenous and language rights problems ...but one article at a time.--Moxy 🍁 18:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • C is misleading, as there is no "government policy" toward capital punishment. Some states execute for capital crimes; others authorize executions but have not approved them for decades; still others totally prohibit executions. The previous White House just carried out several federal executions; the new administration may well stop its use at the federal level. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
      • But that's the point at the federal level... all other western countries have legislation against this at the federal level....that said a slight amendment to the text couldbe done.... any suggestions for clarification?--Moxy 🍁 18:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Lots of ways: "its legal authorization" and/or "use of...", etc. "Policy", though, is too broad. The U.S. is a federation, and capital punishment is prohibited or paused in most states. Only 14 of 50 states have carried it out in the last decade, per WP article. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
          • But the criticism is about the fact that its not outlawed...great some states have entered the modern world - but the fact is at the federal or state level its legal to kill your own citizens.--Moxy 🍁 21:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I think that these kinds of statements are self-contradictory, it reads to me like the human rights rankings don't highlight the issues mentioned. Does the United States really go along with China, Saudi Arabia, and Belarus for their human rights records to be significant enough to mention in their leads? Is it's FitW score of 86 not high enough? Many lower-ranking countries including Russia, Turkey, Mexico, UAE, and Algeria don't mention HR in their lead. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk
"Does the United States really go along with China, Saudi Arabia, and Belarus for their human rights records to be significant enough to mention in their leads?" Yes Eric0928, they very much do. Please put your personal biases and nationalism aside, this is Wikipedia. I'm not sure whataboutism is really a constructive discussion. We can always discuss Human rights issues in the lead on their own articles. Right now, the topic is the United States, not Russia, not Algeria. On the topic of the organization, "Freedom in the World" is literally substantially funded by the government themselves. (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
"We can always discuss Human rights issues in the lead on their own articles." That is often untrue, as anonymous editors don't allow it. There will no doubt be a final statement on U.S. human rights here and, yes, some nationalists will not be happy. Likewise, those who wish to establish systematic moral equivalency on Wikipedia between, say, U.S. border policies and the current genocide of the Uighurs, or the continued poisoning of Russian dissidents and journalists, will be disappointed. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
"That is often untrue, as anonymous editors don't allow it." Elaborate? What makes it different, exactly? I'm not sure using a straw man is helping this discussion move along. Unless you have an opinion on the survey, continuing to babble over who's doing human rights the "worst" is going to end up nowhere. But if nationalists want to call the U.S. the "world's most powerful country", and for it to continue to stay that way, well, we're gonna have to provide context as to how it got there because it sure as hell didn't by singing kumbaya with the rest of the world. (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you linked to my old user page or replied with an IP with five edits but I just want to clarify I'm not a nationalist/centrist/whatever. I'm just here to help a website that's helped me a great deal and I feel that my edit history shows. As an American I am biased in that respect, but as a Wikipedia reader I want this article to be very, very thought out, as the English article for the largest English-speaking country. Comparing other with countries' articles is not "whataboutism" (which is mainly used in a political propaganda context) if you're going for WP:NPOV. As for the articles you have cited, slavery is already mentioned in paragraph 2, and I think U.S. war crimes can be much better presented as their own articles than in a single sentence and should at least be put somewhere in the Military section. I also think that the U.S. being mentioned as a military power makes the fact it has committed war crimes a given. Most of the countries with large militaries, have committed war crimes at some point. I understand that the U.S. is far from perfect in it's HR record, but as it is, it is a first world country with first world problems, and this must be made clear in the lead ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk
@ I don't consider myself a nationalist and simply stated the obvious: the U.S. is a most powerful, influential country, and editors like you are out for vengeance. I can promise you that "United States" will never be like the "Russia" article, which currently reads like a cheap travelogue. That said, if your goal is to elaborate some anti-U.S. screed of moral equivalency here, your effort will fail. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Comment: Participation in this discussion seems to have ended quite some time ago. What will happen to it now? DeathTrain (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Moxy: – I believe the RfC can be concluded now after such a period of inactivity. Oliszydlowski (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
@Oliszydlowski:...just need a third party to do so .....feel free to list this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.--Moxy 🍁 05:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
So what are the results of this RFC? It appears that most support a variation of "C".DeathTrain (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@ShelteredCook:@SlatSkate:@Mason.Jones:@Moxy:@Aquillion:@Dhtwiki:@Chipmunkdavis:@Eric0928:@Adoring nanny:@C.J. Griffin:@PraiseVivec:@Spy-cicle: @Oliszydlowski: @Some1: @Boynamedsue: @-sche: What I am proposing is the following:

Despite receiving relatively high ratings for human rights, persistent issues include racial and income inequality, the continued use of capital punishment, high incarceration rates and lack of universal health care

. DeathTrain (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure a new opption will have any affect on the RFC...waste of time.--Moxy-Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 02:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, and that does seem better than the options above; however the concerns in my !vote still have not been addressed. A lot of this looks like OR/SYNTH/editorializing. For example, are "high ratings for human rights" mentioned in the article? Capital punishment is not mentioned specifically as an "issue" in the 'Law enforcement and crime' section, so it does not make sense to list that as a "persistent issue." Some1 (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
No OR ..No one replied because its there for anyone to read. What do you think is not clear can we dumb it down so all understand? --Moxy-Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 02:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Let me ask this in a different way then: Option C says the "country receives criticism for... its capital punishment policy". Could you point me to the specific section in the article that supports that statement? Because I checked United States#Law enforcement and crime (the only place where the words "capital punishment" appears) and don't see any 'criticism' there regarding the US's use of capital punishment. Some1 (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The section seems clear to me ... the government kills its on citizens and at a high rate. No other Western country kills its own citizens... let alone at a high rate. Perhaps we need to make that point more clear for American readers. As i am now suspecting that Americans may not find this a problem...or understand how the rest of the world views State sanction killing at the top of Human Rights concerns around the world. Moxy-Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 03:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, the sources certainly exist, so we could always add it to the body as well. But I'll point out that DeathTrain's version does seem to reflect the body, which says Capital punishment is sanctioned in the United States for certain federal and military crimes, and at the state level in 28 states, though three states have moratoriums on carrying out the penalty imposed by their governors and goes on about about legal and social back and forths. That's reasonable to summarize as a "persistent issue" (ie. something that remains a point of conflict in US society.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • If I understand right, this is basically C but with things listed as "persistent issues" instead of "criticisms". I think it's probably fine but I don't have a huge preference between the two. --Aquillion (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm fine with it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
It's succinct and neutral, but where does it fit in the lead, and will we have appropriate linkage to all relevant, substantial articles on these topics? I counted 10 links in Option A and only 5 in this solution. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
It's definitely better than nothing. I still think it's a bit vague, but I guess you don't need to cram every single detail in the lead in the first place. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Pls review addition --Moxy-Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 16:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I like it. But to nitpick, I think some material should be added that pertains to its human rights record specifically, something like "The country has received some criticism of its human rights record, particularly in regards to race and income, its use of capital punishment, high incarceration rates and lack of universal health care."--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
👍  Done.--Moxy-Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 16:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks!--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Moxy: I would also like it to mention that human rights are still rated relatively high by human rights organizations.DeathTrain (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Moxy: I did it myself.

@ShelteredCook:@SlatSkate:@Mason.Jones:@Moxy:@Aquillion:@Dhtwiki:@Chipmunkdavis:@Eric0928:@C.J. Griffin:@PraiseVivec:@Spy-cicle: @Oliszydlowski: @Some1: @Boynamedsue: @-sche: There is another RFC on the Russia talk page for human rights. Do you have any comment on it? DeathTrain (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump has made a video statement saying he'll cooperate in a peaceful transition. There's an entire article on the capitol rioting, but we shouldn't try to replicate it here, nor directly link to it. There isn't much mention of the rioting in other subsidiary articles. United States Capitol has some of that detail, as you would guess, but not too much. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The storming of the Capitol by insurrectionists is something highly significant that has never occurred in 243 years of US history. I don't mean "never occurred" like no one had eaten a type of cheese in the US, but actual significance. That it occurred as an attempt to block certification of election results makes it doubly so significant. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
It's not particularly historically significant that a president waited until the election of the next president was certified before announcing that he would be leaving the office. Even if Trump barricades himself in the White House, unless the U.S. government and military continue to take instructions from him, it will be just a footnote in history. TFD (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Um, it is most definitely historically significant. Most (I'm pretty sure ALL) other presidents have conceded not long after the ballot results were counted. Usually within 24 hours of the ballots being counted in their respective states, if we go by recent enough history that these results could be communicated quickly. I do not know of ANY president that hadn't conceded by the time of Elector certification in their respective states, and none have waited for the Congressional certification. If you know of a large number that this example of Trump isn't significant, please provide sources saying that. I also cannot fathom the idea that you think an outgoing president barricading himself in the White House would be just a "footnote of history." --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Trump is by my count the fourth president to lose reelection in the past century. The other losses were lopsided (472-59 (1932), 489-49 (1980) and 370-168 (1992).) Al Gore btw revoked his concession and waited a month before re-conceding. Basically anyone will wait until all reasonable legal avenues have been exhausted. Trump of course should have seen reality earlier, but that's more about him than American democracy. TFD (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
"It's not good to repeat it!"

Password from Jewish Histori. (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


@Mason.Jones: I saw that you reverted my edits. I would like to know your thoughts on adding President pro tempore of the United States Senate. This is an official position unlike Senate Majority Leader. I was wondering your thoughts on adding this particular position? I don't think adding anyone else in the presidential line of succession is a good idea such as adding cabinet members. I just want to hear your thinking regarding the addition. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Even though it's long winded and convoluted, you might want to see this discussion (there may be others) for previous rationales on why the president pro tem is not included. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it has come up before. I wouldn't favor its addition. The office is not listed in the infobox because of limited space and because, traditionally, only the major officeholder of each U.S. government branch is considered significant. (For the executive, the VP is there because s/he's second in line of succession and that is significant.) I have no problem hearing from others about this, but that's my view. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't see it as that significant. He is in line to the presidency, but so is the entire cabinet. Technically he is second to the VP in the Senate, but has no real function or power. Basically he is the longest serving member of the majority party. Notice the United Kingdom info-box only lists the Queen and the PM. Prince Charles, who is first in line to the throne and vastly better known than the president pro tem of the U.S. Senate, even in the U.S., is not mentioned. TFD (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding an additional date line[edit]

I am rather garbage at introductions, so I will get straight to the point. The date format for this article is listed as:

  • mm/dd/yyyy
  • yyyy-mm-dd.

While non-standard in everyday use, the format "dd MMMM yyyy" is common in Military documentation (As an example, TC 3-21.5 [the USA's drill and ceremonies circular]). I think it may be beneficial to add this format (with a footer to specify the scope of its use).

CntrlAltDelete 04:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Last state admitted and Last amendment[edit]

The infobox has spots for "Last state admitted" and "Last amendment". However, since more states could be admitted, and there almost certainly eventually be new amendments, shouldn't it say "latest" instead? JDDJS (talk to mesee what I've done) 01:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't read "last" as meaning "absolute and final" but as a succinct way of saying "latest" or "most recent", etc. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Latest is such a short word though, and would actually be accurate. JDDJS (talk to mesee what I've done) 23:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Last can either mean "final" or "latest" according to Merriam Webster [3], it's fine as it is. PyroFloe (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"Federated States of America" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Federated States of America. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 16#Federated States of America until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 17:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

"Draft:Yhdysvallat" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Draft:Yhdysvallat. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 28#Draft:Yhdysvallat until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

"Secession crisis of 1860-61" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Secession crisis of 1860-61. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 28#Secession crisis of 1860-61 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CrazyBoy826 22:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Mentioning "climate change"?[edit]

I have recently been working on the article on climate change in the United States and thought I would check today how climate change is mentioned in this country article. Result: climate change was not mentioned at all. I then found one mention of "global warming" in the section on "wildlife and conservation". Last year, the Wikipedia article called "global warming" has been changed to "climate change" so I changed that and added a wikilink to climate change in the United States. I hope you find that acceptable. Then I also found a sentence on the Paris Agreement but without mentioning climate change. Not everyone will know what the Paris Agreement is. Yes, they can click through but we might as well give them a hint so I changed it to "Paris agreement on climate change" and wikilinked that to climate change. I know there is always debate when it comes to mentioning "climate change" in country articles. Some articles have it mentioned and some don't. I have had long debates about this for example on the talk pages of India, Bangladesh and Australia. If there is one country where the words "climate change" deserve to be mentioned in the country article, I think it's the U.S.! Given how much they are contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and to the international debate etc. I hope you would agree with me that it deserves to be mentioned. The question is then is the section on "Geography" the right place where it should be mentioned? Some country articles have a sub-heading called "Climate" under "Geography". By the way, we have also discussed this more broadly in the WikiProjects Countries, please see here. EMsmile (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

A sentence or 2 could be added to this giant oversized article....but let's steer clear of any wish lists....just a few facts. Not seeing this as more important then other environmental issues such as nuclear energy, water pollution, wildlife loss, deforestation etc...that are also just briefly mentioned. Let's see a proposal.....keeping in mind the territories covered by the article. Climate section has generally been omitted because the article covers more than the contentious United States.--Moxy-Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 01:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Moxy, what do you mean by "keeping in mind the territories covered by the article. Climate section has generally been omitted because the article covers more than the contentious United States"? I didn't understand that part. Also, in which section could these 1-2 sentences fit best? Is "geography" the most suitable place? I am not sure. EMsmile (talk) 07:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2021[edit]

Hi there, please, protect the Wikipedia site of Uzbekistan(no not Afghanistan and not Pakistan), like you did with yours, thank you, cos Im serious any man can just enter some false data about our country, appreciate it) (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. — TGHL ↗ (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

National anthem recording[edit]

@QuickSlapper: I have reverted your edit that replaced the sung, Army Field Band national anthem with an instrumental, Navy Band one. I believe that the most representative audio samples are:

  • Faithful to the composition (A performance without errors is better than a performance with errors.)
  • Unabridged (The full piece as it is commonly heard is better than a 30 second sample.)
  • Performed in the most original/common manner and style (A classical arrangement of a classical piece is better than a jazz arrangement of that classical piece.)
  • High in audio quality (A 2020 320 kb/s recording on modern digital equipment is better than a 1890 phonograph recording.)
  • High in performance quality (A recording by a professional orchestra is better than a recording by an elementary school band.)

Admittedly, this is not a guideline or policy; it is just my opinion. However, I feel like these are pretty reasonable standards that should not be particularly objectionable. Both the Navy Band instrumental and the Army Field Band choral recordings are faithful to the composition, unabridged, and high in performance and audio quality. This leaves one final consideration: the manner and style of performance. "The Star-Spangled Banner" is a song; it is sung. It is most commonly heard sung by a vocalist or choir, and as a national anthem its words carry its most significant patriotic meaning. Therefore, to use an instrumental recording when an otherwise equally good recording with lyrics exists would be a disservice to readers of this article. (Please note: this reasoning has largely been copied from Talk:The Star-Spangled Banner#Arrangement of recordings.)  Mysterymanblue  21:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Why do the lyrics for the anthem include a question mark at the end? "And the home of the brave?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManixT (talkcontribs) 00:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Because the first verse, only, asks a question—does the flag still wave?—while subsequent verses make the statement—yes, it does—several times, using almost the same wording. See The_Star-Spangled_Banner#Lyrics. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Request permission to add a paragraph[edit]

The short paragraph below at the end of this entry, which was placed in the section United_States#Etymology, between paragraphs covering the history of the name of the United States of America between 1776 and 1890, has been twice deleted by user Dhtwiki, for the following given reasons:

1. it seems misplaced in section on derivation of current name and it's somewhat confusingly worded (e.g. "after the American Revolution and the then pejorative demonym American", "metropolitan English" ("metropolitan France" is a term I know, but I'm not aware of a similar English one))

2. it's not our job to accept whatever you decide to place here; discuss on talk page if you want to build a consensus for its inclusion or find another way yourself

Answer to objection 1: The text is practically an abbreviated copy of what is presently in Freedonia#As_a_name_for_the_United_States. Metropolitan English may indeed not be a common term nowadays, but it seems to have been quite fashionable in the early 1800s in the USA among the intelectuals, one just needs to Google Ralph Waldo Emerson and I like to be beholden to get an example, or follow this link

Answer to objection 2: This Talk section.

I have been editing Wikipedia for 13 years now, and this is the first time that a user tells me that I have to go and open a discussion thread in order for him to give me his permission to have my improvements made, or find another way.

So, here I am (concerning the other way, I have £7, if anyone is interested...) Sophos II (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Litigated paragraph:

In 1803, H.R. Rep. Samuel Mitchill suggested that Fredon (or later, Freedonia) should be used to designate the United States, after the American Revolution and the then pejorative demonym American, which was used as a pejorative term by the metropolitan English to refer to their inferior and far-removed colonists.[1]

@Sophos II: My directing you here was not to seek my permission but to give you a chance to proceed without it. However, give those who have edited this article for awhile credit for understanding what is wanted and what doesn't belong. In your case, I suggest making sure there is a linkage path to the Freedonia section, not necessarily directly linked from here (as part of the sectional hatnote for "Etymology") but linked from an article that is (is there an "Other names for the United States" article?). Dhtwiki (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC) (edited 02:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC))
I've just added Names of the United States to the sectional hatnote under the "Etymology" section (I don't see it linked otherwise and it seems non-redundant to other entries in that hatnote). It is a fairly short article (but none of them is very long). It purports to document names currently in use. However, it is the sort of article that might be appropriate to link from, perhaps in the "See also" section, rather than from this article, making sure that people who would be interested can easily find their way to such information as you want to present, but which may be too much detail to include here. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
This factoid is better suited for a WP article like "Wacky U.S. Facts" or a temporary "Did You Know?" feature on the English WP main page. But as a historical event, it's completely uneventful. At the very most, it might be placed as Dhtwiki says: as a "See also". It certainly should not be mentioned in the text proper of the article "United States." This is unencyclopedic (and then some). Mason.Jones (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Mason.Jones: before evoking encyclopedic values (or lack thereof), you should better adhere to WP:NPOV: what objective algorithm do you use to discriminate facts from "factoids" as you judge them, or is your desire to have the entire world and Wikipedia be subject to your opinions?
There was a genuine interest in the 19th century to give the United States of America a unique identity: the national anthem was for example created then, the bald eagle was also adopted as a symbol of the country then as well, as was a desire to invent a unique name for the nation other than that of a simple union of states (as at the same time the 'United Mexican States', the 'United States of Colombia', etc. were sprouting everywhere else in the world).
However, I totally understand that the above may be a too intellectually challenging concept for some to see that this has a place in the Etymology section of the United States article. Sophos II (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
It's a factoid in every way: the level of importance is historically trivial, its cultural value is slight, the chances of the name's adoption by the Republic (unlike bald eagles) were quite remote, and its utility for WP readers 200 years later is zero. It's unencyclopedic junk—"intellectually challenging" is bestowing an honor it doesn't deserve. It has no place in a succinct U.S. "Etymology" section. I remain opposed. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Gosh, your answer is totally PERFECT to prove my point!!! Thank you! Sophos II (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
It wasn't totally perfect, because I failed to include "giving undue weight to a trivial event in American history." Now it's completed. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
That is brilliant, thank you very much Mason.Jones for your effort!
It is perfectly clear and totally unarguable that "Americans drink three times as much coffee as tea" and "Americans listen to radio programming on average just over two-and-a-half hours a day" are waaaaay much less trivial facts than the quest for a national identity as it happened during the 19th century, as people like James Monroe, Samuel Mitchill and other intellectuals sought then (and no, these are not influencers, sorry).
Anyway, I give up, as there is just absolutely no possibility to discuss in the slightest way with the intellectually-challenged, the psychorigid, the gifted, or as Gary Larson so nicely pictured it:
See you on another thread, just don't forget to drink three times more coffee than tea, listen to radio two-and-a-half hours a day, and cancel any sort of alternative facts that you may not like, as pride is really something beautiful. Sophos II (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I simply don't understand why an editor would wish to hype such a minor footnote in American history, and to showboat it under succinct "Etymology" or "History" sections. If consensus is to include it, OK, but I think it's truly unjustified. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. As I previously stated, I give up. There is visibly no need at all for anyone to ever know that there were failed attempts to give the United States of America a proper name, who attempted that, why did they do it, and when did it happen. I am perfectly happy with ignorants never getting out of their ignorance bubble. Thanks to this attitude towards "improving" Wikipedia, at least they will know that drinking three times as much coffee as tea makes them American, although they will most probably never know that their country was once considered to be called Freedonia, which is, by the way, a very intelligent and beautiful name. They will learn that by consulting true and proper encyclopedias though, not muppet ones. Sophos II (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Of course they're not going to find it if you're going to give up. We've given you a way of better placing it so that people can find it. Have you done that? Your reference is a good one and can be found online. Freedonia is a thing, especially with towns named similarly and how it makes its appearance in a Marx brothers movie and an episode of The West Wing. Now, if this article had detail on how the US almost became Columbia, you might have a point about inclusion; but you aren't making that case. Giving so much attitude so early makes it hard as well. It makes it hard to agree with someone who shows so much contempt for the documented process (in 13 years you must have heard of WP:BRD) and for other editors. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


"C. States" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect C. States. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 9#C. States until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 06:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

compentatory edit request[edit]

can you please change when Iraq attempted to invaded and attempted to annex Kuwait to When Iraq successfully invaded and annexed Kuwait please? TTTTRZON (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense, making the edit. --Golbez (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
thank you TTTTRZON (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


I agree that the Speaker of the House should be listed in the Infobox. But why is there no mention of Senate leadership? I’m not suggesting a policy change or anything, but this always struck me as odd. Juneau Mike (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The info-box is for key information, so there has to be a cut-off. The speaker is not included for most other countries, let alone lower ranking parliamentary officials. TFD (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
They are equal branches, which is why I was puzzled. I’m fine with the article, although why the United States is relevant at all is beyond me (that last part was meant to add levity, and Wiki rules don’t forbid that) Thanks for your response. Juneau Mike (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
In al seriousness, though, the Senate is the upper chamber. Juneau Mike (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@Michaelh2001: I think the reason why the President, Vice President (President of the Senate), House Speaker, and Chief Justice were chosen for the infobox is that these are offices that were explicitly mentioned (and, therefore, established) by the original text of the American Constitution. The Senate Majority Leader, who is typically seen as of similar importance to the House Speaker (even if their duties are not the same), is not a Constitutional office. The only officer of the Senate, except for the President of the Senate, explicitly mentioned in the Constitution is the President pro tempore, which is a position that carries with it few powers and is traditionally given to the oldest serving senator in the majority. Its lack of importance is why it is probably not included.
Not saying that I necessarily agree with this reasoning. I am partial to putting the Senate majority leader in the infobox to have a more complete list of the most important offices in the federal government.  Mysterymanblue  04:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
We list the highest ranking official of each of the three branches of government. Bear in mind this is the info-box for the United States of which government is just one part. Why not list the entire cabinet, governors of major states and majors of major cities, wealthiest billionaires, top actors, best and worst neighborhoods? Because it goes beyond a brief summary of key information. TFD (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
TFD, I believe your reply borders on hyperbole. Listing the Senate Majority Leader and/or President or President Pro-tem is the same as listing celebrities and neighborhoods? Thank you to the fine folks who gave me valid and relevant answers. Juneau Mike (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
This talk article is probably when we decided not to include the senate majority leader in the infobox. Rereading it, I think people were fairly evenly divided, although the decision was to leave the majority leader off, more on the basis of lack of constitutional standing than lack of importance. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

"Population density = population / land+water area"[edit]

Why? Every single source defines population density as population / land area. LordParsifal (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Scientifically wrong statement in introduction being upheld because "academic papers are not used as sources on Wikipedia"?[edit]

In the introduction of this article, it says the following: "It is one of the most racially and ethnically diverse nations in the world. Considered a melting pot of cultures and ethnicities, its population has been profoundly shaped by centuries of immigration."

I made the following edit, since it is an unsourced claim and more of a national myth that has been disproven by scientific studies: "Popular national myths claim that the U.S. is an exceptional melting pot of cultures and ethnicities, though scientific studies have shown that the U.S. ranks averagely in a global comparison of ethnic and cultural diversity.[1][2]"

  1. ^ James Fearon (2003). "Ethnic and Cultural Diversity by Country". Journal of Economic Growth. 8: 195–222. doi:10.1023/A:1024419522867.
  2. ^ Alberto Alesina; et al. (2003). "Fractionalization". Journal of Economic Growth. 8: 155–194. doi:10.1023/a:1024471506938.

My edit was reverted by Mason.Jones for the following reason: "Academic papers (there are thousands) are not used as sources for WP. Please review protocols (primary, secondary, tertiary, academic) before contributing to Wikipedia. Thanks"

That leads me to two questions that I would like to see discussed:

  1. Since when are highly-cited scholarly papers published in peer-reviewed journals not used as sources on Wikipedia? Wikipedia specifically names scholarly papers in its guide on how to find sources. Wikipedia has tools built specifically for easily including scholarly papers via DOI and other identifiers. Wikipedia also has a page dedicated to finding scholarly sources. Both Fearon's and Alesina's et al. studies are peer-reviewed and highly cited studies about ethnic and cultural diversity.
  2. If scholarly papers are not used as sources for Wikipedia, what justification is there for making the claim that the U.S. is one of the most ethnically/culturally diverse countries in the world? If scientific research is simply discarded, then this is a clearly subjective statement posing as fact. As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia does not consider national myths to have a higher credibility than peer-reviewed research.

--Sarrotrkux (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Long ongoing issue here ...frist brought up in 2013 with this article.--Moxy-Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 15:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
While peer reviewed papers are reliable sources, reporting their conclusions is a matter of WP:WEIGHT. Since different experts may examine the same facts and come to different conclusions, you need to show the relative acceptance of any opinions before including them. Does having large groups of immigrants from every country in the world make a country diverse? Or is having more than one major culture, such as Afghanistan or India? TFD (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Agree.... really based on ethnic diversity if they consider tribes to be different ethnicities. For example Native Americans are considered one group statistically, however are made up of a multitude of different tribes..... that in Afghanistan would all be calculated as ethnically unique.--Moxy-Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 16:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Why is this standard not applied to the claim that "the U.S. is one of the most diverse nations on Earth"? The Wikipedia page, without any source being named, makes this very claim. There is a burden of proof for such an extraordinary claim, in which one country is compared to every other country on Earth. Yet so far, nobody arguing for the inclusion of this claim has provided any empirical, peer-reviewed evidence for it. Rather than providing evidence for this claim, there are currently only attempts being made towards discrediting such studies, apparently because they came to the "wrong" conclusion.
--Sarrotrkux (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the OP that "academic papers are not used as sources on Wikipedia" is not really true, and not a good reason for removal on its own. I do agree with the removal. One paper doesn't establish sufficient weight for that point of view, and that paper is more about linguistic diversity than ethnic diversity anyhow. If I read the table right, Switzerland (having Frenchmen and Germans and Italians) is considered more diverse than America, which just has "whites" instead of all three of those plus many other races. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Editor Sarrotrkux has cherry-picked one academic paper from 2003, inserted it in the interest of "science," and prefaced it with the very unencyclopedic "Popular national myths claim that..." I sense an ideological agenda here rather than the pursuit of scientific truth, but at the very least, Sarrotrkux must also face "peer review" before making such a change to longtime consensus. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
First off, please refrain from WP:PA. It seems to me that deleting empirical studies and falsely claiming that "academic papers are not used for Wikipedia" is a bit more quaint than trying to improve articles by adding such highly impactful studies. Your accusation seems ironic at best.
Second off, when you say my two studies are cherry-picked, can you provide me with peer-reviewed, empirical studies that conduct a global comparison and do establish the United States as being "one of the most diverse nations in the world"?
Such an extraordinary claim, in which a factual statement that compares one country to literally every other country on Earth is made, certainly requires proper evidence to back it up. As of right now, the article cites no empirical evidence for this claim.
--Sarrotrkux (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Then "peer review" will remove the sentence. However, two academic studies plucked from the cherry orchard 18 years ago are not "scientific" evidence enough to make your sweeping edit—nor is an unencyclopedic cherry bomb like "Popular national myths claim..." appropriate in the lead of a country article. Let consensus take its course, but you haven't earned that yet. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Consensus is exactly why I am asking you if you know of comparable studies in scope and credibility that come to the conclusion purported in the introduction. It will be much easier to reach a consensus if WP:V is respected and other Wikipedians can verify our suggestions. As a side note, according to Google Scholar, the two studies I quoted have been cited over 8,000 times in other academic publications. They are not some unknown "cherry-picked" studies but have rather been highly impactful.
If you have a suggestion on how to improve my wording of the edit, you are also more than free to add it to the discussion. It was indeed quite difficult for me to try and juxtapose popular rhetoric with empirical evidence.
--Sarrotrkux (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, I was in the process of reverting you as well, with the statement: "rv for a few reasons, none of them prejudicial, i just think this needs some talk page discussion. but among other things, we don't usually have sources or 'corrections' like that in the intro, and you removed a statement about how it's been shaped by immigration - it absolutely has" As for your statement that these papers have been influential - we can't take your's, or even google's, name for it. We need reputable third-party reporting saying, "hey actually the US isn't a melting pot, this paper says way". You haven't supplied that.
Also, you say above, "The Wikipedia page, without any source being named, makes this very claim.". No, the header makes a statement backed up in the article, it doesn't need a source. The article itself contains multiple sourced statements about the country's diversity. --Golbez (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Sure! I'm fine with reverting an edit if one thinks discussion is needed, that's perfectly reasonable. It's just that "academic papers are not used for Wikipedia" was a highly dishonest revert. I generally refrain from looking at the contribution history of other editors and I will avoid it in this case as well, but I would be surprised if Mason.Jones has never made contributions using scholarly papers themselves or has never even seen them be used on Wikipedia before. Scholarly papers are being used on basically any page of at least moderate length and Wikipedia actively advocates for using high-quality, peer-reviewed research.
To the content: I looked at the sources cited in the section about demographics before making the edit, but none of them support the statement that the US is "one of the most ethnically/culturally diverse countries in the world". The section only compares the US to other countries when backed up by empirical evidence and the claim of "one of the most diverse" is not included in that section; so there are no problems there as far as I can see. That claim is only made in the introduction.
The "shaped by immigration" sentence seemed to piggyback on the previous sentence to me. Many countries have been shaped by immigration, yet I could not find any where that is specifically mentioned in the introduction. If the significance of that notion specifically for the United States comes from its usage in popular public and political discourse in the US, then I think that should be pointed out; otherwise it may falsely imply to readers that countries being shaped by immigration is something extraordinary or unique. National myths don't necessarily have to be false; the term simply describes narratives about a country's past that are considered important in that country's society. I'm well aware that narratives about diversity etc. are very much present in American discourse, even if the US does not necessarily rank near the top in those metrics.
As for the last part: Fearon's and/or Alesina's et al. studies were for example used in: Jonathan Wilkenfeld (2016), Myth and reality in international politics: Meeting global challenges through collective action, ISBN 978-1-317-37789-4
Fearon's and/or Alesina's et al. studies are also often praised for the role which they played in providing comprehensive measurements of diversity. See for example
  • Schneider, Gerald; Wiesehomeier, Nina (2010-08-31). "Diversity, Conflict and Growth: Theory and Evidence". Diversity. 2 (9): 1097–1117. doi:10.3390/d2091097. ISSN 1424-2818. Page 1099.
  • Beugelsdijk, Sjoerd; Slangen, Arjen; Maseland, Robbert; Onrust, Marjolijn (2014-08-01). "The impact of home–host cultural distance on foreign affiliate sales: The moderating role of cultural variation within host countries". Journal of Business Research. 67 (8): 1638–1646. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.09.004. ISSN 0148-2963. Page 1641.
To give you an exemplary excerpt: "We obtained the data on host countries' ethnic and linguistic diversity levels from Alesina et al. (2003), who calculated these levels using the hitherto most comprehensive data on the sizes of ethnic and linguistic segments in countries." (Beugelsdijk et al., 2014, p. 1641)
They are also used in some news media (even though I think that is a rather useless metric, as a ton of scientific studies never make the news even if they are highly important in their field), see e.g. the Washington Post article linked by Moxy above.
These studies have also been used on other relevant Wikipedia pages, see e.g. Papua New Guinea, Italians or Multiculturalism.
All in all, I see no reason as to why these studies should not be used on the page about the United States, especially since the claim that attempted to factually establish the US as "one of the most diverse countries" completely lacks a citation of empirical evidence in the first place.
Sarrotrkux (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
@Sarrotrkux No, I don't use sociocultural academic studies from university sources—from the early 2000s—to make sweeping ideological statements about countries in a WP article's lead. I sense from your prose that you are editing from Europe, so that could be a factor as well. That said, I thought your edit relied on cherry-picked sourcing and that it employed tendentious rhetoric better suited for a blog post, so I reverted it. Other editors will decide if that was appropriate. Mason.Jones (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I understand why you reverted my edit even if I don't agree with the reasoning, but what exactly are you arguing for? I understand that you have been arguing against using highly cited and peer-reviewed empirical studies to support the argument that according to empirical studies, the U.S. ranks averagely in a global comparison of cultural and ethnic diversity.
But based on the revert, you seem to be arguing for having the introduction say the U.S. is one of the most diverse nations on Earth with no empirical data to back it up. Is that indeed what you are arguing for or am I misunderstanding you and you are for a complete removal of this claim in its entirety?
You also critique my edit based on its wording but have not yet provided how you would like to see it improved. So far I've only seen criticism about everything without providing anything that you would see as an improvement. That is not very conductive to reaching a consensus.
--Sarrotrkux (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
The burden is on you, Sarrotrkux, to compose an edit that will pass muster here. Wikipedia hasn't appointed me as a text facilitator. I'm just one editor who reverted a poorly worded, (IMO) weakly referenced passage. Finally, though my French skills are very good, I'd never take my familiarity with France over to French Wikipedia in an effort to correct their "national myths." You have every right to do that, but you must expect a little effort and some discussion about it. Mason.Jones (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Well the burden is on everyone to try and improve Wikipedia, including things that have been written by others. I did try to find empirical studies supporting the claim that the US is one of the most diverse nations on the planet -- even though that claim was not originally put forth by me. As I could only find studies opposing this claim, I made my edit as per WP:V. I provided empirical studies as well as information about their credibility to support this edit.
As soon as on any country page it says that "country X is one of the most Y on the planet", it should clearly be backed up by empirical data IMO. And you are probably more than welcome to edit the pages of other countries -- even on other Wikipedias -- should you find that WP:V is not fulfilled and that the empirical data you found actually opposes this claim.
--Sarrotrkux (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The sourced content in the article is "The United States has a very diverse population; 37 ancestry groups have more than one million members.[221]" That supports "very diverse" but doesn't support "most diverse" on its own; India and Brazil are two countries that might have as many if not more ancestry groups. The concept of melting pot relating to the US is extremely well-sourced; I assume you are not disputing that. (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Is "very diverse" even supported by that source? I looked through the first few pages and found support for the claim about 37 ancestry groups, but not for the "very diverse" claim. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I think "common sense" applies here (in other words, "37" = "very"); how many countries do you suppose that applies to? It's certainly "very diverse" compared to South Korea. (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Does "common sense" apply in cases in which it goes against empirical studies? That may be one of the main points of disagreement in this discussion. If the US ranks about 60th to 70th place in terms of ethnic/cultural diversity in empirical studies, does that qualify as "very diverse" and can that phrase in good conscience be included on every page of countries that rank 70th and upwards in terms of diversity?
--Sarrotrkux (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
One million is only 0.3% of the U.S. population. I don't know, but I suspect there may be many countries, especially in the Americas and Africa, in which 37 or more ancestry groups represent at least 0.3% of the population. (Probably not South Korea though, which is "one of the most ethnically homogeneous countries in the world" according to Demographics of South Korea.) I think "diverse" is fine, but I'd like to see a citation for "very diverse". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Hmm ... it's easy to find sources that say parts of the US are very diverse (just look at Demographics of New York City), but it's harder to find anything at all comparing diversity at the country level. Certainly North Dakota is not as diverse. I do note one "issue" here: in 1900 when there were substantial German and Norwegian-speaking communities North Dakota would have been considered significantly more diverse by certain methodologies. (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Since no one has found a citation, I've changed it to just "diverse", which is probably better writing anyway. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
How are they measuring diversity? What groups count? European ancestry groups may be known to the level of regions within a sovereign state ("Bavarian" vs just "German"), but Asian ancestry may be much less well known ("well, I know my grandparents were from China"). And those of African ancestry are often (for obvious reasons) unable to give anything more than the continent. --Khajidha (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
It was removed March 17th and subsequent discussion moved to the section below. North8000 (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

National anthem without written lyrics[edit]

@Actia Nicopolis and Mysterymanblue: The article's version of The Star Spangled Banner has lost its lyrics as timed text. Can that be restored? Dhtwiki (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: Apologies, it seems that the TimedText was not moved when the file was renamed. The issue should be fixed now. Thanks for pointing this out!  Mysterymanblue  12:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Still does not open on my browser (Firefox), while the text for "The Stars and Stripes Forever" does. But thank you for taking a look so quickly. Dhtwiki (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that's very strange. It isn't working for me either (Chrome), but it is at the Star-Spangled Banner article. I have the "New video player" beta feature enabled, but when I log out, the default audio player doesn't give TimedText at all. However, on Wikimedia Commons the TimedText works fine. I would guess something needs to update on the server side; maybe we can wait a little bit and then reassess.  Mysterymanblue  15:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Text now displays. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Unequely or even notably diverse[edit]

Is it, in fact, true (we need RS saying it) that the US is so "racially and ethnically diverse" that it needs mentioning in the lede? Surely this is an opinion (and is unsourced anyway) and really what is it being compared to?Slatersteven (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

If it is to be included, it certainly needs a citation. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, where User:Sarrotrkux says that, according to high-quality reliable sources, the U.S. "ranks averagely in a global comparison of ethnic and cultural diversity". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

That is a vague statement; the arbitrary / subjective / POV choice of criteria can "determine" that it is true or can "determine" that it is false. Also wording sounds more like puffery than informative. Suggest leaving it out. And certainly leave out calling it a "myth". North8000 (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree leaving it out might be the best way to avoid this controversy altogether, but it's worth pointing out that narratives about immigration and diversity are in fact frequently considered part of the US' national myths in sociological literature and American studies. See for example [1][2][3]
  1. ^ Smith, David Michael (2012). "The American melting pot: A national myth in public and popular discourse". National Identities. 14 (4): 387–402. doi:10.1080/14608944.2012.732054. ISSN 1460-8944.
  2. ^ Paul, Heike (2014). Myths That Made America: An Introduction to American Studies. Bielefeld, Germany: transcript Verlag. ISBN 1-322-07916-1. OCLC 890000654.
  3. ^ Dashefsky, Arnold; Woodrow-Lafield, Karen A. (2020), "American Emigration: Past and Present", Americans Abroad, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 75–93, doi:10.1007/978-94-024-1795-1_3, ISBN 978-94-024-1793-7, retrieved 2021-03-18
--Sarrotrkux (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence; there's no citation and certainly no consensus it's appropriate in the lede. (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@North8000: There's really little question that the "myth" part was anything other than patently ludicrous. Retention or removal is the issue. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

My own opinion is that being a country of immigrants, a relatively "new" country, being the country that everyone wants to move to, and being the country with the largest amount of immigration of any in the world, that by about 3/4 of the definitions that the US is one of the most diverse in the world. And regarding the article, there is much material in the body of the article that would support a statement that the US is very diverse. And the lead should be a summary of the body and so the something regarding that would be appropriate in the lead. I just think that the vague comparative and somewhat puffery-sounding "most diverse" is not the best way to do it and be informative. North8000 (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
As a settler nation, most of the citizens of the U.S. are descended from immigrants. In addition to an aboriginal population, large numbers were transported from Africa or immigrated from Mexico. Catholics from Ireland, Germany, Eastern and Southern Europe and Quebec also formed a large part of immigration. There has also been substantial Jewish immigration and from Asia and Africa. The only comparable countries are Canada and Australia. This cultural diversity has led to a vibrant ethnic press but has also contained challenges. It is crucial for an understanding of the country. Look at the government's leadership: Biden (English, Irish and French Huguenot), Harris (Jamaican and Indian), Pelosi (Italian), Schumer (Jewish), Trump (Bavarian Protestant and Scottish), AOC (Hispanic), Sanders (Polish Jewish), Mitch McConnell (Irish). You don't get the same variety of ancestry in the Russian Duma. TFD (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
And in the UK, Sajid Javid (Pakistani Mulism), Priti Patel (indian), Alok Sharma (hindoo), James Cleverly (mixed race), Kwasi Kwarteng (African). Sorry but this is not that special about the USA now. INfact apart from native peoples I doubt there is a single ethnicity in the US that does not have a similar community in the UK.Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
The UK is unusual in Europe in that it attracted a lot of immigration first from Europe and later from its far flung empire. But while London became a majority minority city in 2012, 12 out of the 15 largest U.S. cities were majority minority by 2010, six states are currently majority minority and the entire country is expected to be the first post-industrial country to be majority minority by the middle of the century. Furthermore the majority in the UK is overwhelmingly English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh, while the U.S. majority also includes large numbers of people of other ethnic origins. Incidentally, the archaic spelling of Hindu is considered a slur today. TFD (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Is it not a national myth in the US that the US is extraordinarily diverse/a country of immigrants? Quote: "A national myth is an inspiring narrative or anecdote about a nation's past. Such myths often serve as an important national symbol and affirm a set of national values. [...] It might simply over-dramatise true incidents, omit important historical details, or add details for which there is no evidence; or it might simply be a fictional story that no one takes to be true literally, but contains a symbolic meaning for the nation."
The notion that immigration/diversity is part of the US' repertoire of national myths seems supported by relevant literature. For example:[1][2][3]
  1. ^ Smith, David Michael (2012). "The American melting pot: A national myth in public and popular discourse". National Identities. 14 (4): 387–402. doi:10.1080/14608944.2012.732054. ISSN 1460-8944.
  2. ^ Paul, Heike (2014). Myths That Made America: An Introduction to American Studies. Bielefeld, Germany: transcript Verlag. ISBN 1-322-07916-1. OCLC 890000654.
  3. ^ Dashefsky, Arnold; Woodrow-Lafield, Karen A. (2020), "American Emigration: Past and Present", Americans Abroad, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 75–93, doi:10.1007/978-94-024-1795-1_3, ISBN 978-94-024-1793-7, retrieved 2021-03-18
I see no reason why that should not be included in the article if the topic of immigration is touched upon. Could you elaborate as to why exactly you think that narratives about immigration are not part of the US' national myths?
--Sarrotrkux (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@Sarrotrkux. You're engaging in pure ideological posturing now, and the dense, Teutonic prose is torture to read. The passage was removed, and it won't be reinstated without qualification (plus a good source). Mason.Jones (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Mason.Jones, again, please refrain from WP:PA. Contribute to the content rather than writing personal attacks about other Wikipedians.
--Sarrotrkux (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Likewise, stop characterizing any criticism of your edits and writing as a personal attack. You need to WP:AGF. --Golbez (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Please explain where I characterised "any criticism of my edits" as WP:PA. I have pointed out WP:PA exactly two times, namely when they started rambling about "ideological posturing" of other Wikipedians rather than contributing anything of value to the content of the article.
There is no problem with criticism or counter-arguments if it they are about the content of a page. Look at the rest of the discussion here, in which I specifically asked for constructive criticsm. But discarding the work of other Wikipedians and claiming they only do them for "ideological posturing" is clearly a WP:PA, and when I see such remarks I will continue to call them out. --Sarrotrkux (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Comments like "pure ideological posturing" are not helpful, especially when high-quality sources have been provided. Certainly the "melting pot"/"nation of immigrants" concept is an important part of U.S. national identity. The only question is how it should be covered in the article. Currently it seems to be touched upon in the lead and discussed in more detail in the "Culture" section. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

That the US is very diverse is true by most measures bordering on sky-is-blue. To say the opposite (that such is a myth) is a far bigger stretch bordering on fringe. BTW a quick look at the references indicates that they are saying that "melting pot" is a myth. This not only does not say that "diverse" is a myth, since "diverse" is the opposite of "melting pot" such would support saying that the US is diverse. North8000 (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I think "fringe" describes the OP's entire thesis: s/he is interpreting one academic paper ("the relevant literature" it certainly isn't) to make a broader political point. The "most diverse in the world" chestnut was already deleted in its entirety, and yet the OP still insists on enlightening WP's readers about "national myths" in the lead of a country article. This is indulging in theory and rhetoric—not information—and is beneath the basic standards of any encyclopedia. Or rather, that's not what a general encyclopedia is. Mason.Jones (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
At some point you have to realise that I am perfectly fine with the deletion. I offered an alternative to it, namely leaving it in and pointing out that its importance does not stem from empirical data but from its role as a national myth. I provided proper sources for both of these options. Consensus was to delete it entirely, and that's absolutely fine by me.
You keep saying it isn't relevant literature, which is a rather bizarre claim to make in the first place, but you have not even provided a single example of what you consider relevant literature. As such it should not be surprising that consensus was reached to delete it.
--Sarrotrkux (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
@Sarrotrkux: The phrase "national myth" or "national mythos" is confusing to readers. You'll have to re-write your proposal without that phrase. (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I agree it would probably be confusing to some, but there is no real synonym to it since it is a defined concept in cultural studies. From my point of view there's no issue with the consensus of leaving out the sentence about diversity entirely, the mention of diversity's role as a national myth was just something that I thought was worth pointing out as an alternative.
--Sarrotrkux (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
No, it was never "worth pointing out as an alternative." And no, such generous cultural commentary was in no way "confusing to some." I wasn't "confused." I simply saw the issue as removing an unsourced superlative, while not replacing it with anthropological punditry. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Of course it's worth pointing out as an alternative, that's what talk pages are for. And yes it is absolutely confusing to some. If you read North8000's comments for example, it's quite clear that they confused the concept of "national myth" with the colloquial usage of the word "myth". This is the same mistake that probably a lot of other readers would do. I don't know why you seem to assume that this discussion is about you. Neither nor myself mentioned you specifically.
Secondly, the page features a ton of "cultural commentary". "National myths" are an established cultural concept just like "American dream", "melting pot" or "American creed" are. The page also features plenty of statements like the one saying that "being ordinary or average is also generally seen as a positive attribute" even though the source -- as far as I can see -- has no empirical data to back that up. What are such statements if not sociocultural commentary?
From my point of view, the discussion has reached its conclusion for now. You can keep commenting about whether you personally believe my proposal of putting the statement in its cultural context is "worth pointing out as an alternative", but honestly I don't think its of particular interest to anyone at this point considering the false claim has been removed in its entirety already.
--Sarrotrkux (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I didn't "confuse" anything and no it wasn't a "mistake" . When we use words to communicate, we must write knowing they will be read based on common meanings. And a common meaning, (and most would say the most common meaning) of "myth" is (copying from the dictionary) "a widely held but false belief or idea." North8000 (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Sarrotrkux, no one—but no one—could be "confused" by that edit. It's a Wikipedian impossibility. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
This very discussion has proven that it is a possibility, Mason.Jones. --Sarrotrkux (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
North8000, so would you say that the cultural concept of a national myth and the colloquial word myth are the same? That would be like saying the concept of American salad bowl literally means large bowl of salad because that's what the dictionary entry of salad bowl says, and that therefore the phrase American salad bowl should never be used on Wikipedia. I don't know why you seem to be trying to argue now that words only have one meaning or that cultural concepts don't exist and are never used on Wikipedia.
If you read the term "national myth" and think of the dictionary "myth", then you are confusing the two meanings just like a reader thinking of a bowl of salad when reading "American salad bowl" would be.
--Sarrotrkux (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
IMO I see 5-6 things wrong with your last post including several incorrect assertions presented as facts via implied premises. Unpacking all of that would be a lengthy post that would be a off on a tangent. But briefly, when we use words to communicate, we must write knowing they will be read based on common meanings. The widespread meaning of "myth" is clearly "a widely held but false belief or idea" and it is not merely colloquial, and putting "national" before it would widely be read as merely adding an adjective to that meaning rather than converting it to the other meaning that you are describing. That's my opinion, you can consider it to be merely that North8000 (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I agreed it might be better to completely delete the sentence about diversity, which is what was done in the end. The reason being that readers might confuse the concept of national myths with the dictionary meaning of the word myth. We both agree on that.
--Sarrotrkux (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Sarrotrkux, you took the "myth" meme in one academic paper and wished to impose it as a national trait—in the lead of a country article. You were engaged in opinion-writing. If your lecturing isn't bad enough, the thick Germanic syntax doesn't help to make your case. You might seek a different ideological cause. Mason.Jones (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Mason.Jones, I cited 3 peer-reviewed publications for you and you can easily find more if you so wish. It's not a big secret that cultures exhibit what are frequently called national myths and that in the US' case, they partly revolve around ideas of immigration.
But again, I'm perfectly fine with the complete deletion of the false statement about diversity, so I'm not even sure why you keep trying to misconstrue the alternative I offered. The original statement has been deleted – which both me and you seem to agree with – and if you have trouble reading Germanic syntax then I'm not sure anyone here can help you. Everyone else seems to get the point just fine.
--Sarrotrkux (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
One last item: You really shouldn't tell one editor (me) that another editor is, or ever was, "confused." That's a bad look. While it seems to be more common over on German Wikipedia (more opinionated articles seem to abound there as well), English Wikipedia is different. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
This is a discussion page. If an editor confuses a cultural concept with the dictionary definition of the concerned word, then I'll point out that we are talking about two different things. Otherwise we would just talk past one another. I don't know why you would consider that an insult when it's meant to be a completely harmless heads-up to ensure we have the same understanding of what is being discussed.
I would be fine with opening a case at WP:ANI so a third party can look through the two discussions and judge if there was any misdemeanor.
--Sarrotrkux (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Mason Jones was pointing out rude insulting behavior that is not the norm here. And I might add arrogant wording that someone that doesn't align with your view is "confused" and "mistaken", and you just repeated that again. It does not rise to a wp:ani issue, but you should stop repeating the "confused" insult. North8000 (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
So help me, how should I have phrased it? I was talking about potentially including the concept of national myths in the article and you seemed to think I am talking about the dictionary definition of the word "myth" and implied that a myth has to be untrue. I merely pointed out to you that this is not the case when talking about the concept of national myths.
Sorry if you felt insulted but I did not call you as a person confused, I said you confused (as in "mixed up") what I was proposing.
--Sarrotrkux (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Probably a second example of dealing with how some English is commonly read by a typical reader.  :-) North8000 (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
No problem mate, I'm happy we could clear it up. Perhaps I should have written "mix up" in the first place to make it more clear what I was talking about, but it didn't occur to me that my comment could be viewed to be about you as a person rather than just the interpretation of my proposal differing from what I actually meant.
--Sarrotrkux (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


In the WW1 and WW2 history section, the word "material" is misspelled. The article instead has the error "materiel". I can't fix this, as the page has too much protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It is not a typo. See this dictionary link. --Sarrotrkux (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2021[edit]

The last edit vandalized this redirect to forward to the United States of America.

This should forward to Americas as per the definition of Merriam-Webster, Oxford and other dictionaries and most other Wikipedia page:

Definition of America 1 either continent (North America or South America) of the western hemisphere 2 or the Americas \ ə-​ˈmer-​ə-​kəz , -​ˈme-​rə-​ \ the lands of the western hemisphere including North, Central, and South America and the West Indies

Alternatively this can become a disambiguation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:a62:1518:e901:f999:ed77:ce99:1ad2 (talk) 08:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

There is an existing consensus for the redirect to the United States. DO NOT change redirect target without discussion. See consensus at Talk:America (disambiguation)#Requested move 10 July 2015. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

First Woman Vice President[edit]

Hello, can you add and mention that Kamala Harris was elected as the first woman vice president please? TTTTRZON (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

We don't give much room to naming the current political leadership, and including such firsts could lead to considerable expansion (Joe Biden (possibly) being the first vice president elected president after a hiatus?, etc.), even though it's given much coverage in the press and is mentioned prominently (along with other firsts) at Harris's bio and at Vice President of the United States. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Reverted for "overqualified"/"overlinked"[edit]

@Mason.Jones: How do you propose improving the change, since you reverted it? Getsnoopy (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that using America to refer to the United States of America is indeed a perfect synecdoche and there shouldn't be anything wrong in pointing out that, on the contrary, in an encyclopedic article. Sophos II (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The change made was to add the word "informally" and link it to abstruse rhetorical terminology. I'm not sure "America", for "United States of..." is the best example of synecdoche (even though it's given as an example of such at the linked article). Most examples I've seen are more allusory (e.g. "boots" for "soldiers") rather than results of eliding part of a name. I also don't see that "America" is more informal than "United States". Dhtwiki (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@GetSnoopy, (1) This has come up before, and in addition to Dhtwiki's comment, consensus was that the phrase is busy and intrusive for the lead, and (2) it's hardly the role of the lead—in this case, the very first paragraph—to become a "teachable moment." ("Synecdoche" is a figure of grammatical rhetoric.) Blueline WP links should be limited, and the link here is overkill. If others disagree, fine. Mason.Jones (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
America is as informal as United States to designate the United States of America, both should therefore be qualified as vernacular expressions. Getsnoopy could have indeed done better there...
(1) "consensus was that the addition is busy and intrusive for the lead": can we please know how this consensus was established, when and by whom?
(2) There is nothing abstruse or rhetorical about linking informally to synecdoche. On the contrary, this is perfectly encyclopedic!
(3) "Blueline WP links should be limited": can we please have a reference for this Wikipedia rule?
(4) "and the link here is overkill": Nowhere in the article there is mention that America or United States is informally used to designate the country to consider this one single added word and link to be an overkill. Getsnoopy added one word to a 14,000+ word article, 541 of which form the lead, of which 149 (27.5%) are blueline. That one single word represents an increment of 0.2% of bluelines for the lead, or 0.007% for the whole article. Hardly an overkill!
It looks like you don't want this improvement made just because you personally don't like it...
Sophos II (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
"America" in the United States of America refers to the continent, so it is indeed synecdoche. "The United States" isn't a figure of speech and is a phrase that is used/accepted even at international levels such as the UN, which is why I only labelled "America" as informal. If the word in question is the problem, I'm fine with rewording it. But like @Sophos II commented, I'm curious how linking to a grammatical concept is too much for the lead, especially considering it's merely one word and actually explains the phenomenon at hand. As for it being a "teachable moment", I'm not sure that's a strong argument given the point of an encyclopedia is to teach people and that the same argument can be made about the words "primarily located" linking to the article on the contiguous United States being in the lead sentence as well. Getsnoopy (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
If we're going to characterize "America" as synecdoche, we should have a reliable source that labels it as such. The lead of the Wikipedia article on the concept does label it as such in the lead (and "America" (for "the United States of America", totum pro parte)), but the citation for that sentence, which gives many examples, doesn't include "America" as one of them. To nitpick further: "America" doesn't strictly refer to either the continent of North America or the western hemisphere ("Americas"), so it can be said to not qualify as substituting "the whole for a part". Dhtwiki (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
@SophosII, Getsnoopy. The additions are needless clutter and overexplication, with a didactic, "corrective" interpretation for common usage in the English-speaking world ("America"). Encyclopedias are information, yes, but they're also concise. The edits, I think, are extraneous minutiae, and mostly intrusive. I'll let others decide. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
If we really wanted Wikipedia to be concise and precise, the Merriam-Webster dictionary could give us some clues on how to successfully achieve this. These guidances would lead us to relegate the vernacular designations in question (and perhaps some others as well, still totally ignored in this article!) to a dedicated section of its own and out of the lead of the article:
– federation of states especially when forming a nation in a usually specified territory
1– either continent (North America or South America) of the western hemisphere
2– or the Americas, the lands of the western hemisphere including North, Central, and South America and the West Indies
3– United States Of America
– country (a federal republic) in North America bordering on the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic oceans; capital Washington area 3,796,742 square miles (9,833,517 square kilometers), population 329,256,000
I think this could be very constructive, as long as there is some good will to be so. Sophos II (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Merriam-Wester's is a dictionary; dictionaries don't "provide useful clues" about how to display info in encyclopedias. The issue is whether the term "America" is a legitimate usage, and if so, how to include it concisely in the lead. It's a minor issue that doesn't require a four-step tutorial. Mason.Jones (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
You still don't get it: the issue is not about America being in the lead (that is not a problem) but about America, United States and other contentious denominations (not yet mentioned anywhere else in the article) being there. Where should these arguments go? I say, and I am certainly not the only one, that these shouldn't be in the lead but in a dedicated section, and you are practically saying that this information should be totally ignored, that it should just not appear anywhere... It doesn't require a four-step tutorial to see that, indeed! Sophos II (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh I get it all right. However, your claim that these terms are so contentious that they require a Manual of Understanding will require broad consensus. The existing Etymology section (it follows right after the lead) seems more than "dedicated" enough for that purpose should we "successfully achieve this". Mason.Jones (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@Mason.Jones: I'd ask for you to suggest a better place to link to the article/topic if a one-word link in the lead is not an appropriate place. Getsnoopy (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Editors have long tried to rein in intrusive subtopics (and sub-subtopics) in the lead of "United States." Such topics are often footnoted as a solution, with the WP link(s) given in the footnote. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
That seems acceptable to me. I'll do that. Thanks. Getsnoopy (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

First Europeans to arrive[edit]

The article states that "The first Europeans to arrive in the continental United States were Spanish conquistadors" quite definitively. When content from Norse colonization of North America and Vinland seem to state the Norse colonists may well have actually been there 500 years earlier. Norse artifacts have supposedly been found (veracity unknown) in the continental US, and the unknown location of Vinland (or other settlements) may well have included US soil. The 'European Settlements' section should be edited to reflect this uncertainty, rather than boldly stating what is clearly not a known fact. --SgtLion (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm tweaking it. North8000 (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
We can't source such highly disputed history with a WP link (Norse colonization of North America) that specifically discusses it as pseudoscience—and under a subsection called "Pseudoscience"! That's exactly what this is to most historians. "May well have been there" and "supposedly have found" don't cut it, and neither does "evidence of probable..." I reworded the passage for what it mostly is: a pseudo-factoid. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Nice work. I think that the state of such is lot stronger than pseudo-science, but I think that your edit handled it well. North8000 (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree that it should be mentioned there. There've been many features about it in mainstream media, albeit with a strong disclaimer every time. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021[edit]

So this page is great. Tells about most of the things one may want to know. But it lacks one topic I noticed, that is "USA Television". Ofcourse there is already many things about "Cinema" but TV is whole different things. Therefore I wanted to know about Top American TV series and more in this page but I found nothing about TV which is an important part of USA because is so successful and people watch everything around the globe. My request is there should be separate detailed topic just for Television and successful television programs. I hope my request would be heard. Thanks. Bittu355 (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bittu355, you may find the information you are looking for at Television in the United States. CMD (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey thanks... but I want this very page to have some of the contents from that link or page. So that when people open this page they could read a little and go to that specific page if they find it interesting. I hope there would be an edit. Bittu355 (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The television article has a link in the sectional hatnotes under "Mass media", with a brief summary detailing some of the major television networks, etc. That means people can find there way there from here fairly easily. If you think there's an important detail that's missing, you can specify it; but we're probably not going to add a lot more to what we already have. Dhtwiki (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2021[edit]

Under the infrastructure section in transportation, the article states,

"The United States has the largest rail transport network size of any country in the world with a system length of 125,828 miles, nearly all standard gauge."

Anyone who has ever visited Asia know this statement is laughably false. When i attempted to investigate the reference(444), the link doesn't exist. The get request retrieves no document.

For these reasons, these statements should be deleted. At the very least, this section needs heavy editing. (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Not done. The US does have the largest rail network, it's just that most of it is freight only. See List of countries by rail transport network size. Also see WP:LINKROT.  Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 03:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: [4] says "over 140,000 miles"; [5] has 150000 km (with a previous high at about 190000). Most of it is freight, but yes the US has a large railway network. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
EDIT: Please add the reference to the "railroad" statement, because this article appears to be just American filthy propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Run n Fly (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2021[edit] (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pupsterlove02 talkcontribs 19:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

"America is never mentioned in patriotic songs composed during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries"[edit]

@Mason.Jones: This is a very strange claim to be making, and I object to its inclusion without context. In the first place, it is true that 'America' is not mentioned in the songs specified by the source (The Star-Spangled Banner, Battle Hymn of the Republic, My Country, 'Tis of Thee), but neither is any other name for the country, including the 'United States', rendering the sentence non-neutral (i.e. the mere fact that America is not mentioned does not imply anything about 'America' as name for the country, given no name of any kind appears in the relevant songs). Furthermore, America the Beautiful may well not have been put together as a song until 1910, but its lyrics were written 1893, and proudly proclaim 'America'. If we want to enter the realm of the more obscure, we can look at The Liberty Song (dating to 1768), which also is quite proud in its use of the names 'Americans' and 'America'. So, we can say that the claim being made is not truly supported in fact, and I would argue that WP:REDFLAG applies...for an exceptional claim of this sort, we really need a better source than an academic speaking on a radio programme. In any case, is this really the sort of stuff we should be discussing in this article? One wonders. I expect the only reason people are inserting these sorts of claims is because they, for whatever reason, believe the use of 'America' to refer to the country is incorrect, and seek to right great wrongs. Wikipedia is not a place for such endeavours, and I would argue, this behaviour is nothing more than disruption. RGloucester 22:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gloucester -- I don't disagree with you, and recall that the original sentence was added by editors who were troubled that the term "America" isn't rejected in English-speaking countries the way it is in the Spanish-speaking world. (On the contrary; it remains very common usage.) To me, the sentence is a subtle suggestion to readers that "America" has more recent jingoistic origins and must be shunned. Mason.Jones (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

In that case, I will take the liberty of removing the sentence, given that this seems to be 1) a case of WP:UNDUE weight, and 2) an unsupported WP:REDFLAG claim. RGloucester 13:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Cold War proxy wars[edit]

A proxy war in Southeast Asia eventually evolved into the Vietnam War (1955–1975), with full American participation.[1]

However, the source doesn't say the Vietnam War started as a "proxy war". It says it started as an anti-colonial war against France. (I'm also not sure what "full American participation" means.) The term "proxy war" seems to be overused here. The introduction says: "During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in various proxy wars but avoided direct military conflict". This could be taken as implying that United States avoided military conflict during the Cold War and used "proxies". Of course, on the contrary, the US fought in Korea, Vietnam, and smaller conflicts like Grenada. By definition, a "proxy war" is a war in which the US is not participating in directly, so why mention "proxy wars" in the lead instead of Korea and Vietnam?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you're right. North8000 (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


  1. ^ Chapman, Jessica M. (August 5, 2016), "Origins of the Vietnam War", Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.013.353, ISBN 978-0-19-932917-5, retrieved August 28, 2020
It means what it says, that the United States and the Soviet Union avoided direct military conflict. They didn't fight each other directly in a hot war. No nuclear confrontation or even conventional war between the two superpowers, which everyone was worried about for 45 years. --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 13:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I have tried to fix these issues.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Should not remove the academic term for these conflicts leaving our readers no access (link) to this term.Moxy-Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 02:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
There is a link in the body of the article. As I said, it is misleading to call the Korean and Vietnam Wars "proxy wars" because the USA did participate in them directly. The opening sentence of proxy war states, "A proxy war is an armed conflict between two states or non-state actors which act on the instigation or on behalf of other parties that are not directly involved in the hostilities". If we use a link to the proxy war article in the lead, it either implies we are not talking about the Korean and Vietnam Wars — if not, why not? — or that the USA was "not directly involved in the hostilities" — which is absurd.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Do you have access to this definition of the term used by academics? Or a Google search of the term in relation to these conflicts can be found Moxy-Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 05:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Milestone oldid error[edit]

Noticed the link for the edit this was given GA status is incorrectly a talk page link. Not sure what the procedure is for fixing it, but decision was concluded @ 16:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC). I assume the correct replacement would be the edit to the main page done right after the decision which added the GA icon (16:22, 21 January 2015, by Winner 42). Here is (what I believe to be) the correct link: Pernicious.Editor (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Smi-protected edit request[edit]

BORN: MAY 17, 2929 2601:645:401:93B0:A0BB:D065:46C:7509 (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pupsterlove02 talkcontribs 22:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
^ That. Also, nobody in recorded history was born in 2929. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2021[edit]

Specify the Christianity in the infobox 43% Protestant 20% Catholic 2% Mormon WhiteBritsh81.88 (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This isn't conventional for country articles. Normally only the main religions are specified not the denominations. User:GKFXtalk 18:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2021 (2)[edit]

This article should describe the United States' crimes against other peoples and nations throughout its nefarious history... This article is also American/CIA propaganda and needs improvement. This article should also be purged of racist and fascist rhetoric (mainly from the alt right and extremist "libertarian" hate groups that promote GUN VIOLENCE (All OATH KEEPERS unnecessary and hateful comments should be removed from this article - ie. no more "the government can become tyrannical and we must uphold the pledge with firearms, blah blah blah. That extremist content is DISTRESSING AND ILLEGAL!)). Special:Contributions/redacted (talk) redacted

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2021[edit]

In the "Mass Media" section, it's stated that "The four major broadcasters in the U.S. are the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), American Broadcasting Company (ABC), and Fox Broadcasting Company (FOX).". I believe it would be worthwhile to distinguish the fact that ABC, CBS, and NBC were considered as "The Big Three" up until FOX came to be fully established around the 90's. Reasoning for this being that the three networks in question were in the market since television was first evolving in the 30's and 40's until FOX's entrance into the market decades later.

My suggested edit would be to extend the sentence in question to read along the lines of "The four major broadcasters in the U.S. are the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), American Broadcasting Company (ABC), and Fox Broadcasting Company (FOX), the former three being considered the "Big Three" due to their prominance since the begginning of commercial television broadcasting." However, if this edit is felt as unnesseccary or if it can be implemented in a better sense, that's all fine and dandy. Binzy Boi (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I feel like this information is too -in the weeds- for an article about the United States. A comprehensive history of media consolidation is already in place in the article titled "Concentration of media ownership." Perhaps a link to this article would be appropriate, but I don't think adding this long form description of FOX's history is appropriate here. RobotGoggles (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Population information demographic box needs to be updated =[edit]

The information cited is two years old and there was just another major official census in 2020; plus, the population demographic info box content is not the same as what the source cited suggests. We read:

76.3% White
13.4% Black
5.9% Asian
2.8% Multiracial
1.3% Native American
81.5% Non-Hispanic or Latino
0.2% Pacific Islander
18.5% Hispanic or Latino

As opposed to what the source actually says:

60.1% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino

The infobox on this Wikipedia site simply makes up the category "Non-Hispanic or Latino" - which does not exist in the U.S. census - and completely skips over the category which the source does list, which is called White alone, not Hispanic or Latino.

What was the rationale here with the false representation of source material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The 2020 U.S. Census is very late, and only final national, state, and territory (Puerto Rico only) total populations have been released as of May 2021. Characteristics of the U.S. population are due this summer. Other stats, like metro populations, may be delayed till 2022. All of this is because of COVID-19 and politics. If the figures you cite do not match the latest available source from U.S. Census (2018 estimate? 2010 Census?), they can be removed. Mason.Jones (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Foreign relations with India[edit]

It is strange that this article mentions India first out of countries that the US has "strong ties" with, before Canada, Australia, Japan, and many other countries with significant defense and trade treaties. In my opinion, India does not meet the same level of closeness with the US as these other countries. It is also the only country listed without a citation. I believe it should be taken off this short list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

First go and click on the name of India in the (foreign relations section), then say something...all the information are there Sumit088 (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

A sentence / topic.. In memory of more than 500,000 deaths from COVID 19.[edit]

 Sir's! Does the attempt qualify as vandalism ?WikiUserNr.2345678998765 (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


At the beginning of the nation, they had to separate powers, and so gave the President monarchical powers but making the charge elective. I would call this a Republic that originally wanted a term-fixed king-like President. I'll cite only one source but you can search more online about what I said.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Localhost83 (talkcontribs) 18:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

That's an interesting article by a distinguished historian. I think however that it is too narrow an issue to include in this article, especially considering that we would have to consider other viewpoints. TFD (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Pardon if I may sound rude, but as far as I know, my point is not subjective but factual. Localhost83 (talkcontribs) 10:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
The wikipedia page "monarchism in the united states"[2] seem to confirm that around the time of the constitution, the form of government should have been monarchical, I can see that the constitution writers didn't know much about the difference except that the executive should have been elected every four years. Anyway I found this story which asked a foreign monarch to rule America[3]. I can't find proofs for my claim now that I need it, but I hope we can keep this topic open until I can prove it doubtlessly. Localhost83 (talkcontribs) 20:41, 11 June 2021 (CET)


Your point is made by a single scholar, which is definitely not enough to modify this article. And, you haven't mentioned what change you would like to make - a change to government type? Addition to history? --Golbez (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)