This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Main articles: History of the United States (1776–1789) and 1789–1849
Further information: American Revolution, American Revolutionary War, and Territorial evolution of the United States
Your rationale was "all of them already appear in the text no need to duplicate them at the top, as done recently," but clearly there are topics in Further information templates elsewhere in the article that are also linked to in the section text. It's simply a feature of summary style. إيان (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
إيان, I think the image set up in the Colonial America is better now as the picture placement is more balanced at this time, however I think you are starting to over do it on the topic of American Slavery, highlighting it in the "Further reading" section, when those exact same links are already included in the article text (that's just doubly repetitive), and I would share Dhtwiki concerns regarding overemphasising a single topic in this article. After all, there were other nations that thrived on Slavery for centuries, like Sudan and the Ottoman Turk Empire (which by the way, trafficked millions of slaves from Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia, becoming a world hub for the slave trade). So, I can agree with highlighting American Slavery in the article, however saturating the article with duplicate links is POV-ish; bringing down the US to just one topic. --E-960 (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, there is no point in having a link to European colonization of the Americas. If you look at other country articles for example, you don't have similar like Renaissance in Europe for France just Renaissance in France is sufficient for that country. --E-960 (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Ok, so it seems that your concern is not about duplicate links as you initially stated, but rather about the inclusion and weight given to slavery and European colonization in this article.
If I understand your argument correctly, you're saying that Slavery in the United States was not significant enough to the history of Colonial America to merit the weight it has been accorded in the section at present because there was also slavery in Sudan and the "Ottoman Turk Empire," and that the European colonization of the Americas is irrelevant to Colonial America because the article about France doesn't link to an article called "Renaissance in Europe." Is this the gist? إيان (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
1619 picture
@إيان:, numerous scholars have pointed out that using 1619 ("the First Africans in Virginia") is a heavily misleading date. (See here, here, here, here, here, et al. for others not listed below.)
1619 was not the beginning of slavery in the New World. It was 1526.
Et al. As other editors have stated: there's a lot of good reasons to keep it out and not a lot of good reasons to have it in. KlayCax (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
إيان, it's both, you are duplicating the links and focusing on one issue. What if someone's focus was on religious freedoms and did the same for that topic, or women's rights, or Native American plight following the settlement of Western Europeans?? Links for those topics are not highlighted in "Further reading" at the start of every history sub-section.
Btw, I'm pretty sure Jordan Peterson called out a TV host for what you are now doing now by making comments like: "If I understand your argument correctly, you're saying that Slavery in the United States was not significant enough to the history of Colonial America to merit the weight". No, I think Slavery WAS a significant issue, and that's why I'm fine with adding an image related to the topic, though not it being the first image in the section like you and other editor(s) wanted. Also, each Wikipedia article does not exist in a vacuum all by itself, and especially with country articles there is a general pattern that follows. So, I find your approach to addressing slavery in the US article a bit POV-ish, when other countries with a legacy of slavery don't have so many "Further reading" links at the top of each section, please see Ottoman Empire/Turkey, United Kingdom, France, Portugal, etc. and the country where slavery still can be found Sudan has only one "Further reading" link related to the topic (and this is a country article where I found this disturbing statement: "slave raiding and abduction 'effectively ceased' in 2002, although an 'unknown number' of slaves remained in captivity"). --E-960 (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
So, the US article has more "Further reading" links to the topic of Slavery than a country where Slavery STILL exists and which had it for far longer. --E-960 (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
We already have an image related to slavery in the article as well. KlayCax (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
KlayCax, which is the image related to slavery that you say is already in the article? إيان (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
(Other than the image I reinstated—until a consensus forms against it, if that happens—as approved of by a majority of users in the conversation.) إيان (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Responded to the rest below. KlayCax (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
KlayCax, 1619 eclipses 1526 for the same reason Jamestown eclipses St. Augustine in American history. Florida did not join the Union until 1819, and was therefore external to developments political, economic, national, etc. in the Thirteen Colonies, through the American Revolution, and well into the 19th century.
The use of the symbolic date of 1619 did not begin with The 1619 Project and these claims of "presentism" are nonsense. "1619" was already used in the Kerner Commission Report in 1968 and goes all the way back to George Washington Williams' 1882 History of the Negro Race in America.
To address your claims point by point:
1619 was not the beginning of slavery in the New World. It was 1526
I didn't say it was. This article is about the United States, and the section in question is about the colonial history of the United States.
The Spaniards, not English, were the first to bring slaves to the New World
See above.
1619 postdated the beginnings of African enslavement
Again, this is not about the beginnings of the enslavement of Africans, but about the colonial history of the United States.
1619 had almost no long-term impact on African enslavement
This is categorically false. إيان (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)\
Per historian Adam Dean: ...it’s “not that big a deal, to be honest… I don’t like so much focus on 1619 because it kind of obscures the larger story.” That larger, more important story, Dean said, is the expansion of slavery into the gargantuan institution that dominated the South’s economy and culture and led to the Civil War. The slavery that began in Virginia in 1619 did not grow in a big way until decades later, when economic forces eventually favored slavery over indentured servitude, Dean said. Slavery truly exploded in the South in the 1800s – 200 years and more after the “first Africans” — with the advent of the cotton gin and British demands for cotton, among other factors, Dean said. And, Dean said, slavery in Virginia did not by itself metastasize into the institution that defined the South. In what became a huge trans-Atlantic trade, merchants brought other captive Africans to Georgia, South Carolina and elsewhere — even illegally, after the U.S. banned the importation of slaves in the early 1800s. “I think the public is missing a big part of the story if they think that the arrival of slaves in 1619 directly led to the slave societies that characterized the South of the 1700s and 1800s.”
Of course the date "1619" has been mentioned elsewhere. But the date is more symbolic — enslaved Africans were part of other British New World colonies before 1619 — and there's various other dates that could be plausibly be used to establish an "origin" point. It's heavily misinformative towards readers. Since many (most?) will assume that the slave economies of the early-to-mid 1800s originated out of the events in Jamestown. That's not true. KlayCax (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
إيان, you inserted the 1619 image, but did not remove any of the "further reading" links at the top of each section, even though I noted earlier that they are duplicates of the same article links already found in the section text, and that they are causing WP:UNDUE. I don't have an issue with highlighting this subject, however making this topic the center piece of each section is not balanced. Pls consider one or the other. --E-960 (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
If we're going to add another picture related to slavery, it should be in relation to the cotton gin.
1619 had little long-term impact on American slavery. KlayCax (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
KlayCax, the source you are championing is a cherry-picked, weak source from the Virginia Mercury, a non-notable online news site, quoting an associate professor at the University of Lynchburg who is not an authority on the history of slavery in the US. Your cherry-picked source is not representative of current scholarship. The authoritative source for your POV would be James Sweet—critic of the 1619 Project and president of the American Historical Association, who issued an apology for his critical 2022 letter after drawing wide rebuke.
There is not mention of any African-American or Latino author in the literature section (Invisible Man author Ralph Ellison comes to mind as do WEB Dubois, Frederick Douglass, Maya Angelou, Toni Morrison). Likewise the director of Birth of a Nation is given pride of place without mention of the Ku Klux Klan. Perhaps these last two sections are questions that need adding to the FAQ? Why no images of slavery? Why no black authors, artists or actors? -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 19:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Toni Morrison has been added. Well justified by recognition received i.e. Nobel, Pulitzer, etc. Shoreranger (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Shoreranger. I also share the concerns of SashiRolls. إيان (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm genuinely shocked that Uncle Tom's Cabin isn't even mentioned; it's easily one of the most influential novels in American history. As I've said above on this talk page, I think most of the culture section should be moved to Culture of the United States and its sub-pages, but Uncle Tom's Cabin and Frederick Douglass both warrant a mention on this main article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Introduction Word Choice
Currently, the introduction describes the United States as a "nation-state" with a "national capital." This is incorrect. It should describe it as a "country" with a "federal district." A nation-state implies initial sovereignty based on an distinct ethnic background, language or group of people (more akin to Hawaii, Florida, Spain, Louisiana, Texas, etc.). The Union as a whole does not have and never had this. It is a federal union based on social-political freedoms agreed to by 13 original states. The spirit of an encyclopedia should be about stating facts first and then offering differences in opinions with citations - in this case facts from constitutional and legal foundations. No1CopyEditor (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Size again
I know last year many worked hard to bring this down to 11000 words...just over the suggested limit. But I see the articles back over 13000 words. WP:CANYOUREADTHIS
HTML document size: 1429 kB
Prose size (including all HTML code): 212 kB
References (including all HTML code): 718 kB
Wiki text: 330 kB
Prose size (text only): 83 kB (13158 words) "readable prose size"
References (text only): 89 kB. Moxy- 00:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Alas everyone agrees this page should be shorter, but the problem is that everyone also wants to see their particular focus represented in the article. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 22:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I think we need to get more aggressive with splitting off large parts of the article into sub-articles. There's already a History of the United States article (which also needs massive splits), and then individual history by time period articles like History of the United States (1991–2008). If we wanted to get really granular, articles like 1846 in the United States have a lot of untapped potential. The Culture and society section also looks like it should be replaced by a much shorter summary while the content is given more detail in sub-articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Thebiguglyalien, these are good suggestions. إيان (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Most, if not all, of the second paragraph of the health section explaining why people miss work should be deleted as trivia.
Similarly, the paragraph about the video game industry should be reduced to a single sentence. Either that or we should start listing comparable arms industry exports (whether firearms or tanks) . -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 16:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Let's try an emergency life-saving diet before it's too late The first two paragraphs of culture where the text goes on and on and on about self-evident truths would be a good place to cut some calories. I think that the etymology section, particularly the numbing detail on the various drafts of the Articles of Confederation and JefferSon's first-ever (!) AlLcApS version could be sawed off without loss. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 17:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Its simply hard to keep up with edits with full time enthusiast editors. Most of us academics can't deliver 8 hrs a day to the project as we have real world work to do. Moxy- 23:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Language translations of 'United States of America'
What happens if we do a thing like the Soviet Union page where we add translations of the official name of the United States of America into different languages (E.g: Spanish: Estados Unidos de América, French: Etats-Unis d'Amérique) (I can not speak these languages and are possibly incorrect). I think that this is a good idea, Does anyone agree? 139.216.109.0 (talk) 05:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Where do you see all of those translations? There is Official names of the Soviet Union but that's kind of different; it lists the names in the various official languages of the USSR, a situation that doesn't apply to the US. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Philosophy gets one sentence??
The coverage of philosophy here in one sentence is very poor (it mentions zero ideas and zero movements and it misses leaders like Edwards, Jefferson, Emerson, Thoreau, Peirce, James, Dewey, Santayana, Kripke etc) it makes the field appear to be trivial. So I just deleted the one sentence and one photo. Rjensen (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
There's realistically at least another 20,000 bytes that could be cut without any controversy - so a philosophy section could easily be reinstated. KlayCax (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
A bare list of names of a dozen miscellaneous philosophers without any ideas or movements or context or reliable sources makes philosophy look trivial --. It's like having a section on sports that names a dozen famous superstars but does not name any specific sports or teams. Let's wait for an editor who is fully aware of the topic. Rjensen (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Religion stats
We have new data added "pie chart" with a source from NORC at the University of Chicago that is a great research institution. However the 2023 survey was done with only 1,019 adults source. I see the previous data from 2022 also had a very small sample set source. The 2020 Census of American Religion published in 2021 has a much bigger data set and I belive would be the normal type of dataset used in country articles over the newest small survey or projection. Moxy- 03:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
There are well-understood methods to analyze the statistical significance of a sample size, and sometimes the results can be surprising. But I would suggest that instead of performing this work ourselves, we should instead rely on the framework of WP:SECONDARY. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Will swap out with analysis of the 2020 study when time permits. Moxy- 21:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Remove specific states from lead sections
In the lead section so it states: The United States is also in free association with three Pacific Island sovereign states: the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau.
I propose to remove the specific names of those sovereign states, it’s highly unusual in the lead sections since we don’t mention any other names and people interested could easily clicked into the link. I wondered why were they added in the first place. MarvelousPeach (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
For clarification.
Just an idea; in the "The Civil War and Reconstruction" paragraph shouldn't there be a line to show people that The Map is accurate? The territorial borders and the state borders are very different. 1TSnaker (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Current RFC discussion: Should abortion be mentioned in U.S. state articles?
There's currently a debate on whether abortion policy should be mentioned in the articles of states. See here for the discussion.
(Comment there. Not here.) KlayCax (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
You have ongoing RFCs all over the place in a range of topics.... have you seen WP:RFCBEFORE? If your being reverted all over..perhaps take a step back and think why....dont just jump to RFC everytime.Moxy- 12:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
It was requested by @Pbritti:. The guidelines for abortion in state's articles haven't been updated since the early 2010s. A new RFC was going to be filed regardless, in the light of Dobbs v. Jackson. KlayCax (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Is the United States' usage of the death penalty independently notable?
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.
Self-close. General consensus that the death penalty should be kept in the article but trimmed and/or incorporated into the article's mention of variant state policies. KlayCax (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Should the United States article continue to mention the country's practice of the death penalty vs. countries such as Japan and Taiwan?
This has been a simmering topic over the past year. Arguments and discussion surrounding it can be seen here.
As a quick synopsis of the pro-"removal" view:
Other countries with similar/higher per capita execution rates — including Japan and Taiwan — have articles that intentionally exclude mention. Per me: If we're going to apply this standard to the United States, we're going to have to imply it to other developed nations such as Japan, Singapore, or Taiwan. This "standard" is utterly inconsistent and contradictory otherwise.
Editors personal dislike of the continued usage of the death penalty doesn't mean that it's notable enough to mention in the article. A majority of the world's population lives in a polity that retains it. Per me: Draws WP: Undue attention to the issue. Even within the developed world: Israel, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, amid others, routinely (frequently greater than the current per capita incidence in the United States) apply the death penalty for various routine crimes; additionally, Peru, Brazil, Chile, and a few other developed countries at least partially retain it in exceptional circumstances. (Albeit far less frequently) Taking an even broader perspective, 60% of the global population lives in a country in which the death penalty is applied. I'm failing to see (even within the Western-aligned world) how this is nothing more than WP: Undue. The only reason it seems to be mentioned in the lead is because of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and to give the article a sense of "pro" and "con" balance.
As a quick synopsis of the anti-"removal" view:
Per Moxy: United States remains the only advanced democracy that fails to recognize capital punishment as a profound human rights violation and as a frightening abuse of government power....things like this are beyond the pale.
Per Moxy: In the eyes of the Western World this is a human rights violation beyond measure and is lead worthy without a doubt. This is the main human rights situation in the USA. Crazy they have legal killing in this day and age....view of the world. .... UN request. ....that happens for ever president.
Per Mason Jones: [It] note[s] that the U.S. holds itself out to the world as a model of liberty and human rights; its government freely criticizes other nations. The current text simply says that the U.S. fails to reach its potential for such a wealthy (and critical) democracy.
A detailed examination of the arguments for and against - which I suggest editors read - can be found here and here. KlayCax (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
No. Remove. - Think I'd lean towards removing it on the WP:UNDUE and WP:OTHERCONTENT grounds. Lots of things are weird and notable about crime and punishment in the US. Why give voice to this particular issue? Seems like a WP:SOAPBOX. If we're not mentioning this kind of things in the articles for other countries, why here? NickCT (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
BelarusMoxy- 14:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC) .....now remove with same reasons...same person ...o well [1]Moxy- 05:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Belarus is a C-tier article and has a ton of issues. I think it should be removed from that country's lead as well.
Things like wealth and income, income and wealth inequality/gini, innovation/economic competiveness, quality of life, et al clearly merit mention. I don't think there's a generally neutral way (in Wikipedian terms) to chose "sub-global metrics" to compare countries against: particularly in leads. As mentioned above - just take the issue of LGBT rights. We don't say that Ghana is the only liberal democracy to criminalize homosexuality. Do we? There's a lot of subjective comparsions we could use. From this perspective, one could argue that it's a notable that Ghana does this. Yet if you chose another basis of comparsion — its status in Africa or its relatively poor status — it's extensively non-notable. Using sub-global metrics (Northern Hemisphere, Anglosphere, Western world, wealthy, liberal democracy, whatever) has already caused this article to be overfilled with tenuous connections to all sorts of issues.
There are ways that we could mention the death penalty in the article without this problem. What do you think about the suggestion here? KlayCax (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Only European country to kill its own citizens seems worthy to me. Your talking about what is missing from other articles...would be great to upgrade these articles...over down grading here. Moxy- 19:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
What makes having the death penalty more notable than not having it — beyond subjectively chosen subinternational comparisons?
Remove. Clearly undue. Domestic policy issues in the lead should be limited to those significant to the country's history, such as slavery. And even then, it should only be to provide historical context. The previous discussions indicate an attempt to include the statement to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and probably should have been addressed as a conduct issue some time ago. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Remove - I strongly oppose the death penalty and believe that its retention here in the US remains the largest stain on our human-rights record; but that's my opinion. That the US retains the death penalty should not be described in the article when comparable liberal democracies such as Japan (a featured article!) and Taiwan do not. Countries are outliers on lots of things, but unless they're specially notable, they're not mentioned in their article; for example, Japan and South Korea are the only industrialized liberal democracies to not have same sex marriage, while South Korea is the only industrialized liberal democracy where pornography is broadly illegal. Neither of these facts are mentioned in their respective articles. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 00:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
This is a great argument for inclusion in those articles. Death penalty is the number one human rights issue facing the US in the view of the world and is a domestic policy dispute."U.S. Votes No, as Record Number of Nations Adopt UN Resolution for Global Moratorium on the Death Penalty". Death Penalty Information Center. 2022-12-20. Retrieved 2023-03-17. That said I can see how people find it disturbing and are simply turned off by the topic. Moxy- 01:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Japan is a featured article, I assume this question was brought up; I'm loathe to question the review process. If that article doesn't include it, neither should this one. It does seem like you believe it should be included because it is wrong, which is truly not the point of Wikipedia. --RockstoneSend me a message! 01:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I believe it should be included cuz it's the number one humans rights issue facing the country. It's directly related to poverty and race relations of the country. Our objective is to educate our readers not leave them in the dark because the topic may be offensive to some. That said most Americans side with the death penalty so it may simply not be seen as an important humans rights issue to begin with. Survey seem to indicate Health Care is the number one concern of Americans when it comes to human rights.....as it impacts more people. Moxy- 02:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Right, but our job isn't to exaggerate the extent that something is notable, either. It is notable that the US has the death penalty, but it doesn't make it a complete outlier among the developed world or even among developed liberal democracies. If it is discussed at all in the article, it definitely should not be in the lead, but I'm beginning to lean towards not discussing it at all in the main article. Throwing everything into this article is how it got to be so long and unwieldy. --RockstoneSend me a message! 05:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Remove Per NickCT. The other countries listed are irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFF. This does appear to be a WP:SOAPBOX addition. I know it's difficult to be objective on things, but this is an WP:UNDUE inclusion. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Keep per Mason Jones argument ("the U.S. holds itself out to the world as a model of liberty and human rights; its government freely criticizes other nations") and Moxy's "Map of company being kept" above. The paragraph on the death penalty in the United States is long-standing, well sourced and absolutely WP:DUE for the section on law enforcement. Also, the insistence on comparing the US to Taiwan (which was a literal dictatorship till the late 1980s) or Japan is nonsensical. It would be more appropriate to compare the US to peer countries such as Western democracies, all of which have abolished the death penalty.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
How is it a nonsensical argument to compare Japan and Taiwan, when Japan and Taiwan are both liberal democracies like the US that freely practice the death penalty? Again, it seems like most of the people pushing for inclusion here are trying to Right Great Wrongs, which is not our job. Yes, the death penalty is grievously wrong, but lots of things are. --RockstoneSend me a message! 20:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Whatever your strategy, don't leave our readers without any information on subjects of notability Wikipedia:PurposeMoxy- 12:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Without the death penalty:
Capital punishment repealed, never instituted, or struck down as unconstitutional (23 states, 5 territories)[a]
With the death penalty:
Capital punishment in statute, but executions formally suspended (7 states)
Capital punishment in statute, but no executions within the last 10 years (8 states, 1 territory)
Capital punishment in statute, but executions informally suspended (1 state)
Executions carried out within the last 10 years and capital punishment currently in statute (11 states)
So can't this be described in the article on the US's use of the death penalty? Like Japan and Taiwan do? If we listed everything notable about the US, the article would somehow be longer than it is now. --RockstoneSend me a message! 01:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Keep it is a significant part of the section on Law enforcement and crime. I note the article on Japan does not have a fully corresponding section (only one on law enforcement; I have added a link in the Law of Japan article to the Capital punishment in Japan). The section in the Japan article could be modified to add info on the types of penalties --Erp (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
This would be the best way forward ..that is to inform our readers by adding information that's missing in other articles rather then thinking omission is better. This topic is much more notable then the name spam in te music section that leads to articles about artists with zero information about the country.Moxy- 02:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Wouldn't that necessitate a mention of the death penalty's legality on every country's article? (e.g. We would also have to conversely mention that a country does not practice the death penalty?) One could make a similar argument that — because a majority of the world's population lives in a polity where the death penalty is applied — that not having the death penalty is more notable than having it. Besides, a majority of the American population already lives in states that have abolished the death penalty. An overwhelming majority if you count states that are abolitionist in practice. (Depending on how you count: 31 to 39) Although I wouldn't be against wording that is like: The United States has a federalist system that gives substantial powers on policy to the states... states have widely ranging policies on drug use (including marijuana legalization), abortion, the death penalty, et al. That should convey a lot more information in a lot more words. No? The current article is already too long as it is. KlayCax (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Aside from WP:OTHERSTUFF that seems to be the main argument here for deletion. We wouldn't need to update too many articles as the vast majority of countries don't have the death penalty and the vast majority of countries with the death penalty have much more substantial human rights problems that are already mentioned ... Saudi Arabia, North Korea. I'm not sure how sanitization helps here. Moxy- 03:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't applicable when we're talking about precedent. Mention of the death penalty has been intentionally excluded from almost every other country's page outside of exceptional circumstances. Saying that the United States is (in which a large majority of its population lives in states that are abolitionist-in-practice) would necessitate essentially every country (both retentionist and abolitionist) to have mentions of the death penalty somewhere on their pages.
That's why overturning previous precedent here would be a big deal.
Again, a sentence to replace it like The United States has a federalist system that gives substantial powers on policy to the states... states have widely ranging policies on drug use (including marijuana legalization), abortion, the death penalty, et al. wouldn't present this problem... and would convey a lot more information to readers. KlayCax (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Although the article is about the country as a whole....yes we should explain further about progressive states..... as for size just need to remove some of the copy pasting that just regurgitates other articles. Moxy- 04:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
The death penalty also exists for federal crimes and 43 are on federal death row. What currently exists is a two paragraph section on the punishment of crimes so any proposed change should look at both sections. The US is notable among its peer nations both for its incarceration rate and capital punishment. Similarly say Norway which is notable for its humane prison system and low recidivism rate and those are mentioned in that article. Another option is a new section on human rights (something the Norway article has straight after "Judicial system and law enforcement" including negative bits about the treatment of the Sámi people though other countries often have a section on human rights elsewhere or a hat note on a section such as Society [e.g., France]). Erp (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
The US is notable among its peer nations both for its incarceration rate and capital punishment. Depends on the metric. Should we base it on the status of the United States as a liberal democracy? Western nation? Wealthy nation (per capita or median)? By some metrics, it is exceptional; others, typical.
That's why comparisons made in the article should be predominately international. KlayCax (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Keep in some form, though I endorse KlayCax's suggestion that " … states have widely ranging policies on drug use (including marijuana legalization), abortion, the death penalty, et al.", an explanation of that kind, which gives info as to why there are such wide discrepancies on "moral/legal" issues would be more informative than simply recording the blunt fact that the death penalty exists. Pincrete (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Remove - If there was a section in the article dedicated to human rights or even public morality it would be different, I think. Otherwise, its undue weight.Shoreranger (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Actually one good thing about this article is that it integrated human rights throughout the article over just in section. Moxy- 19:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment - If removing the information outright does not gain consensus, then my second choice would be to support KlayCax's suggestion, since it provides needed context. I remember on Twitter a while back that someone from France was flabbergasted that Texas was still executing people even though Biden had taken office. --RockstoneSend me a message! 00:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I think that's the best course of action now. Having the article list the death penalty as one of a list of policies that differ greatly among states in the body.
Wondering if we can get an early close in the RFC here with the consensus that:
The death penalty does not belong in the lead
The death penalty should be mentioned as part of a discussion surrounding federalism and differing statewide policies. (See here.)
Tagging dissenting editors and Rockstone here. @Moxy:@Rockstone35:@Erp:@C.J. Griffin:. We could probably reach an early consensus here.KlayCax (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Keep It is frequently noted as one of the major things that distinguishes the U.S. from other western democracies. TFD (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
This claim will need citations from verifiable sources to be worthy of supporting the "keep" argument. Penguino35 (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
As stated in the rfc sources are in this section above and article....but let me help....Galliher, J.F.; Koch, L.W.; Keys, D.P.; Guess, T.J. (2015). America Without the Death Penalty: States Leading the Way. Northeastern University Press. p. 4. ISBN978-1-55553-639-8. Retrieved 2023-03-29. ....use of capital punishment distinguishes the United States from all other Western , industrialized nations...Moxy- 02:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
That source is specifically about the U.S. and the death penalty, so it's not valid for determining weight of the issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
If I posted a source about botany saying that a certain plant is unique to the United States, that wouldn't qualify it for the lead. Likewise with this. If sources agreed that it was a defining aspect of the United States, that would be another matter. A source about that topic talking about that topic signifies that it exists, not that it's significant. Also, posting passive aggressive messages about how morally wrong the death penalty is does absolutely nothing to progress a discussion about what carries weight. It's disruptive, which is why this is now an issue at ANI. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Has a had considerable consequences for its foreign relations for decades 2001 source. Moxy- 04:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Amnesty International is an activist organization. Wikipedia doesn't take ethical positions: even if they're the correct ones to take. We can mention the death penalty elsewhere. Dedicating an extended section to it is clearly WP: Undue. KlayCax (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Any sources for any of your POV? Moxy- 20:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep. A lot of the "remove" opinions are not based in policy; what we do at other articles is a question to be settled there. And for the record, I would support inclusion of a similar paragraph about Japan. The real question here is "does our policy on due weight require discussion the death penalty?" and I believe it does. We have a sub-section on crime and law enforcement, which I assume is non-controversial; given that, a couple of sentences is entirely reasonable, as there are hundreds of thousands of high-quality sources discussing the use of the death penalty in the US. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:07, 1 April 2023 (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.
^Map only displays the status of the death penalty for crimes committed in the present and future. Some abolitionist states may still allow one to be sentenced to death for crimes committed before the abolition of the capital punishment in that state.
They also competed in the Space Race, which culminated in the 1969 American spaceflight in which the U.S. became the only nation to ever land humans on the Moon.
Afghanistan/Iraq mentions are trimmed. Like Vietnam, they're important. But to remain under 700 words we almost have to trim anything non-essential.
sometimes through war, sometimes through purchase, and frequently by displacing Native Americans. Only indigenous replacement remains in the article. Clarified that it was "large-scale" in nature.
Removed "surprise" from Pearl Harbor.
Trimmed spending information. It makes the lead even longer.
A common rule of thumb I've heard is that leads in the country's articles should always be under >700 words. (Officially, most FA-tier articles are supposed to have leads somewhere around 300 words.)
We're still nowhere close to that. Presently, we're at 724. (vs. 426 for Canada). But it's a start. KlayCax (talk) 08:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Trimming some sections
I have added content related to a more global/international perspective which had been missing previously, as domestic issues were given a priority. As such, notable US achievements, such as having by far the most Nobel Prize winners, or playing a pivotal role in many of the modern era's technological breakthroughs and innovations, were left out. Yet, I understand that some content may and should be trimmed. Please, suggest what I can focus on. Pizzigs (talk) 11:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the exact opposite of trimming ...Random examples, comparisons and stats is the opposite of what we're looking for in the lead. Could you read over Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Lead section. Moxy- 11:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! I have removed comparisons from the lead. Pizzigs (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Lead should be restored..... the additions are the US is so great because.... just puffery. Number 1 Number 1. Moxy- 11:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I’ve removed even more info. It's not about the US being great or not (this article covers all the negative aspects as well), it's about mentioning important factors that shape the country's global image, that is why its movie and music industries should be mentioned in the lead. Pizzigs (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I have to run somewhere. But could you revert your editions to the lead for the moment? @Pizzigs:. I'll respond to yours and @Moxy:'s comments when I get back.
I actually don't think it's a bad idea to focus a bit more on the cultural and technological influence of the US in the lead section. However, the current introduction is too long, doesn't sound neutral, and should not include references if possible. Therefore, I suggest restoring the old one and discussing potential changes carefully on the talk page first.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 12:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
"The United States is the world's dominant political, cultural, and scientific force, as well as its leading military power" accomplishes the same. We're supposed to have the lead under 500 words. Right now, we're on the verge of going over a 1,000 words. I'm reverting the lead for the time being. Although honestly even the body needs trimmed. KlayCax (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I think there should be more consistency, because right now lead sections of such articles as Italy end with "The source of many inventions and discoveries, the country is considered a cultural superpower and has long been a global centre of art, music, literature, philosophy, science and technology, tourism and fashion, as well as having greatly influenced and contributed to diverse fields including cinema, cuisine, sports, jurisprudence, banking, and business. It has the world's largest number of World Heritage Sites, and is the world's fifth-most visited country.", in addition to being filled with references. Pizzigs (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I have moved that content to separate sections, so the lead now stands unchanged. Hopefully, something can be worked out in the future to mention the country's cultural and technological influence in the lead section. Pizzigs (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Gini error
Hi, @C.J. Griffin:. The original wording was added on an error. It was based on the American Gini being 46.9 instead of 39.1 after taxes and transfers. KlayCax (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Corrected, its Gini is in the middle internationally, (U.S. is now in 35.0-40.0 category) and the 4th highest in OECD. (Lower than Chile, Turkey, Mexico, and Costa Rica) KlayCax (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
This does not justify the removal of inequality from the lead without consensus given past controversies over this passage. Reliable sources in the body support the assertion that the US has some of the worst economic inequality in the Western world.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Could I get a link to the discussion? I couldn't find it, and I want to check it out before I respond, to make sure I'm not bringing up old points. @C.J. Griffin:.
To my knowledge the Gini was listed as 46.9 at the time. ("High") It's now listed as medium in the infobox. KlayCax (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
The RfC on the passage is in the archives. You can find it there. The Gini is irrelevant given that reliable sources make it clear that inequality has increased significantly in the last few decades and is far worse in the US than peer countries.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I, mean. I'm a Social Democrat who is to the left of most Democrats. I think it's bad that we're not tackling wealth inequality more. But the U.S. is not necessarily exceptional from an international perspective on this metric: and countries with a Gini far higher than ours don't have it mentioned in their respective leads.
The only RFC I found about it doesn't address the sentence at all. (Inequality was mentioned in all of the options.)
Like universal healthcare, it's a sentiment that I definitely agree with. But policy should be handled in the body instead of the lead. KlayCax (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I would argue that the level of inequality in the US is indeed exceptional and numerous sources in the text make this point, as do many others not included. A small sample: [2][3][4].
We've been down this road before, here and here, and the very RfC [5] was discussed last time around. To my knowledge this consensus hasn't changed.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I support inclusion. As for other articles that may or not mention it, that's irrelevant. As for Gini, it's not perfect. And now we have a link to existing consensus. (Relatedly, I do prefer it when editors link to archived discussions upon first mention. Wikipedia lives and dies by verifiability, and we should practice the same in our editorial discussions.) Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Unique among population groups in the United States due to a history of slavery and ensuing legalized segregation, African-Americans had been likewise prohibited from participating meaningfully in mainstream artistic expressions and so developed their own parallel artforms. Eventually, many African American artistic expressions, forms and styles would become mainstream and be enjoyed and adopted outside the subculture that formed it. African-American music, African-American dance, African-American art, African-American literature, African-American cuisine and African American cinema all created significant bodies of work that has a great influence on the culture at large that can stand alone or be considered in conjunction with the broader culture that surrounds it.
There really isn't any denying the truth of this text. The unique place of African-American culture and the African-American experience it was spawned from should also be undeniably compelling to include in this article, especially considering the outsized influence it has had on mainstream culture nationally and internationally that no other minority or subculture can claim. Shoreranger (talk) Shoreranger (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
@Shoreranger:@إيان: Not opposed. But we should just include this information in the extant Literature and visual arts, Cinema and theater, and Music sections. Splitting it into a separate section implies that African-American history isn't American history. KlayCax (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
This is unwarranted as its own subsection. Saying at first that A.A. were excluded and then that their culture became influential glosses over how that happened, if it happened as much as the contested section suggests. Jazz probably tops the list in terms of importance, with food possibly following, the others not so much so, other than in recounting the A.A. experience (e.g. did the literature of Wright, Baldwin, Morrison, Angelou contribute to literary form? was A.A. art as influential as the African art forms that directly influenced European and American art?). Dhtwiki (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
"This is unwarranted as its own subsection. Saying at first that A.A. were excluded and then that their culture became influential glosses over how that happened, if it happened as much as the contested section suggests."
=The point is not simply how much influence AA culture *eventually* had on mainstream American culture and later world culture, which is undeniably significant, but much more so how the unique social, political and cultural forces that existed in the United States and *only* the United States created and environment that *forced* this segment of its society to create outside the mainstream because of the institution and legacy of slavery. Its not our job to judge the relative influence of the various AA artforms here, readers can go to the wikilinks in the section and the "Main article" tag. The important thing in *this* article is to introduce the significant and unique place AA culture holds relative to the rest of the culture and make the casual reader aware of it and where to learn more. Shoreranger (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
African slavery wasn't unique to the US, nor should we assume the stress it placed on Africans was greater than similar stresses placed on others, especially Native Americans, who had certainly equal, if not greater, influence on American, and even world, culture. That African Americans should hold a special place from having been subjected to slavery is a dubious proposition. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Africans and African-Americans were and are unique as a group *IN* the US because they were the only group to be subjected to importation for slavery and the resulting legacy of it. A lasting legacy of that unique circumstance in American culture is the creation of an entire collection of artistic expression that persisted despite legal, social and political attempts to minimize its value and importance and prevent its creation and/or dissemination both within and outside of the community that created it. If anything, a deeper dive is warranted to explore the trivializing of African-American artistic expression to validate and perpetuate racist assertions that African-Americans were not sufficiently "developed" as a people to produce something as sophisticated as a culture worth recognizing, in order to justify the very laws that were created to keep them in an inferior position to the rest of the society around them. How "special" is that? Shoreranger (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't know that you can really call artistic expression by blacks under slavery as trivialized, or even outside the mainstream where blacks outnumbered whites, even though literacy *was* definitely discouraged. However, this "deeper dive" is certainly possible, and probably exists, outside this page. It just doesn't need to be signaled in the undue way that you want to do so. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
"literacy *was* definitely discouraged"
"Discouraged"? It was illegal, and people lost their lives over it.
This is going to mediation to get consensus, which I believe has technically been reached with 3 editors in agreement and only one remaining unwilling to provide any compromise, and I want to avoid an edit war. Shoreranger (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Shoreranger, what mediation is needed? You have consensus for your changes. Dhtwiki, the lone objector, is in the minority and I find their arguments bizarre and thoroughly unconvincing.
The section is entitled Culture and society—a short text introducing African American culture with appropriate links, brief historical context, and situation within US culture and society more broadly is entirely appropriate.
Otherwise, the section's introductory text as it stands is outdated and has major NPOV issues, but that's another matter. إيان (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm the lone objector? I don't remember being the one removing the text, which apparently was removed. Would you provide a quote from the encyclopedia you've referenced, as it doesn't seem to be online? Dhtwiki (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
In this discussion, yes you are the lone objector. An active editor should be able to use the above citation to access the source using the Wikipedia Library, but here are the entry's introduction and section headings:
African American Thought and Culture
The dominant strands of black American thought have been motivated by the peculiar position African Americans hold within the United States: first as a largely enslaved population in a nation that touted its commitment to human freedom and then as a despised and marginalized group of second-class citizens living in the midst of the most significant democratic experiment in the West.
Intellectual Life in the Era of Slavery.
African American Intellectual History after Emancipation.
Black Thought from the Harlem Renaissance through World War II.
Black Thought in the Civil Rights Era.
Black Power, Black Studies, Black Arts.
From Margin to Center: The Emergence of Black Women Writers.
Opposed in current form..... this needs to be integrated into the article inappropriate place. Clearly undue to emphasize one groups cultural plight over all others.Moxy- 19:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Interesting .... what sources are being put forth for this paragraph that seems just to be an attempt to link article after article? Moxy- 21:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
If anyone somehow has a hard time finding sources on the uniqueness and monumental importance of the Black experience in the United States and needs further assistance, they can let me know. إيان (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: The mediated discussion was closed as not started due to no-shows from two editors, including the lone editor in opposition at the time it was started. Closer noted: At this point, there seems to be a rough consensus for the inclusion of the subsection. The disagreement can be handled either by the editor who has the local minority viewpoint recognizing that they are in a minority, or by a Request for Comments.إيان (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
I think you misread the room somewhat. Since that aborted mediated discussion started, another editor has expressed doubts, as well as this isn't a particularly well attended discussion given this article's prominence. There's the yet unidentified editor who originally removed the proposed text. There's the implicit consensus that the culture section does not give a breakdown by ethnicity. Add to that the fact that, while your references extol the virtues of African American culture, they don't exactly say that it's more unique, valuable, or influential than other cultures that have contributed. I think one would be hard put to say that A.A. culture is more influential or more neglected than Native cultures or the areas colonized by the Spanish and French, all of which, of course, drew from each other extensively. It think it would be hard to identify a pure strain of any of those cultures. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Opposed to current form/hierarchy. AA culture should not be featured as an isolate appendage of American culture. Warranted elements of AA culture deemed to be formative to US culture should be incorporated to the corresponding subsection or the opening preface of the culture section, which otherwise currently reads somewhat indulging. This shall not be a reason for avoiding to mention conflictual elements (repressed cultural forms) or any other possible asymmetries, whose basic sketch should be weaven within the main section too as a feature (or stain, depending on the POV) of American cultural history. In a nuthsell, has Afro-American culture been subject to "legal, social and political attempts to minimize its value and importance"? If so, that's a feature of American culture (a conflictual American culture somewhat straying from the indulging outline present in the opening preface of the culture section). It is however not necessarily a reason for a standalone Afro-American culture clunky subsection..--Asqueladd (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
There is much to agree with here, but I feel compelled to point out that the intent of the subsection is not to indicate or imply AA culture/subculture is so much separate or alien to mainstream US culture, but rather that AA culture/subculture was developed under unique circumstances that are entirely unique to the US that forced unique and unorthodox methods and products that resulted in cultural expressions not found in the mainstream. Shoreranger (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Opposed Slavery is not a uniquely American evil. In fact, it was introduced there by British colonizers long before the United States of America was founded. Perhaps, we should consider introducing a similarly critical section to British Empire or United Kingdom? Pizzigs (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Its a case of linking as many articles as posible with generic information....Wikipedia:Main article fixation for links. Moxy- 23:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Opposed: Per Asqueladd's reasoning. Note that other countries with previous widespread race-based slavery — such as Brazil — don't have separate sections either. KlayCax (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Linking style in lead
After a good discussion with Maxeto0910 about some recent edits, I've found that a lot of wikilinks in the lead are confusingly formatted. I see things like "most populous city" rather than "most populous city". In addition to the guidance provided at MOS:MORELINKWORDS, it is my view that linking complete concepts to target articles also helps readers that use tools such as screen readers, which will often treat linked text differently. Such readers will now only hear "most populous" as a link target, instead of "most populous city". That's problematic, as "most populous" could mean most populous anything. And such tools aside, I believe my view is supported by the spirit of MOS:MORELINKWORDS in any case. Is there a specific reason why the links are formatted that way? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
composition of House and Senate
the composition of the House is not determined by state population, but rather by local population as determined by the constitutionally-mandated Census, whereas the composition of the Senate is regardless of any population, two for Rhode Island and two for California, permanently.
The first few sentences of this section use Wikipedia voice improperly. Only one of the sources is a historian and he is very controversial.[[6] The others are not historians and one is even arguing the opposite of the wording here. I am going to remove them. Sectionworker (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
An editor has returned the information that I removed without explanation here on talk. It should be deleted per my reasoning. We build our encyclopedia on reliable sources and this editor needs to explain his/her return of this information or it should again be deleted. Sectionworker (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
You had removed not only the first sentence which is partly based on Huntington's work, but also multiple other references and citations in addition to ignoring the American Creed article. I've added another source, given the controversies surrounding Huntington's views on the post-Cold War world order, although I do not think that the issues covered in the opening paragraph of the Culture section are related to that. Pizzigs (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Huntington, famously torn apart by Edward Said in 1998, has been widely repudiated and is irrelevant as an academic source in 2023. إيان (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
"Widely repudiated" is entirely correct. I didn't realize he was being used as a reliable source here. Thanks for the video clip - I'd not seen it before. Shoreranger (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2023
This edit request to United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
change
<ref name="Gaidar">{{cite book |last1=Gaĭdar |first1=E. T. |title=Collapse of an empire : lessons for modern Russia |date=2007 |publisher=Brookings Institution Press |location=Washington, D.C. |isbn=9780815731146 |pages=190–205 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bDSfnxYjVwAC&pg=PA102}}</ref>
to
<ref name="Gaidar">{{cite book|last=Gaĭdar|first=E.T.|year=2007|title=Collapse of an Empire: Lessons for Modern Russia|url={{GBUrl|bDSfnxYjVwAC|pg=PA102}}|pages=190–205|location=Washington, D.C.|publisher=[[Brookings Institution#Publications|Brookings Institution Press]]|isbn=978-0-815-73114-6}}</ref>
I recommend it be downgraded to administrator review of pending edits. soibangla (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
You can object all you want, but unless and until you can force the people involved in the edit war to stop editing the article, it will not be unprotected. While it may be inconvenient for you to have the article fully protected, it is more inconvenient to have to deal with the kind of disruptive activity that led to the protection. It's okay though, in 1 short week, you'll be able to edit it just fine. --Jayron32 15:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Why not just block the editors breaking WP:3RR? It's not like uninvolved editors are flocking in by droves to edit war this article RPI2026F1 (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I think there’s concern they’d return as sock puppets and waste more time. إيان (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
If someone has an army of extended-confirmed sock puppets I would be very concerned. RPI2026F1 (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
When there are more than a small handful of editors edit warring, page protection is easier. In this case, as you can see in the page history, there are a large number of people edit warring over various aspects of this article rapidly and without cessation, at least until the moment it was protected. Now, those people have to come to a consensus on the talk page if they want their edits to be enacted, rather than merely rapidly and disruptively trying to repeatedly force their own edits through by wearing down their perceived opponents. --Jayron32 12:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I think that reporting and blocking individual users may be necessary if the disruptive behavior continues. Some of the edit warriors expressed no intention to stop when I confronted them on their talk pages. — Freoh 20:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I broadly agree with Jayron's comments. In most cases, a short period of protection is preferable to issuing a small pile of blocks. Also, usually if you object to an admin action, the place to start is talking to that admin, in this case @Deepfriedokra:. They aren't necessarily watching the talk page. All that being said, if the same users start up with the same behavior when the protection expires, I'd suggest reporting them at WP:ANEW. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
1) No, not watching this talk. Was not approached on my talk. 2) I see no indication the edit warring would not resume, but would not object at all if another admin unprotected. 3) Agree with Beeblebrox. 4) I thought trying to give everyone a chance to to calmly discuss content and avoid cyclical edit warring was preferable to blocking. If blocking some people is what's needed, then they can and should be blocked. All I am saying, is let's y'all work together so blocking won't become necessary. 5) The protection expires Thursday. Let's hope that disputes are resolved before then and that blocking will not be needed. 6) I for one am not gonna review and approve pending edits as picking and choosing content would WP:INVOLVE me and that ain't happening. Was not aware such a feature was available, but it's not my job to dictate/gate keep content. Deciding what to leave in and what to leave out is the job of the editors of this page. If they need someone to help them resolve these disputes, they can seek WP:DRN They can open an WP:RFC on the appropriate Wikiproject(s} talk page{s). So on and so forth. 7) I'm here in response to @Beeblebrox:'s ping, which required an WP:ADMINACCOUNT reply, but I've been ill on the one hand and I try to take Sundays off anyway on the other. 8)As I am aware of the "objection" to the FP of this page, the next step is to request unprotection at RfPP. I think it would be a tough sale, but not my decision. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
is America a floor wax or a dessert topping?
Some may remember a 1976 SNL fake commercial in which Dan Ackroyd and Gilda Radner argue whether a can of whipped cream is a floor wax or a dessert topping, whereupon Chevy Chase enters to say, "hey, hey, calm down, you two. New Shimmer is both a floor wax and a dessert topping!"
So we have it with whether the United States is a democracy or a republic. It's both,[7]] and representative democracy should be included in the infobox, along with Federal presidential constitutional republic. I've read through the Talk archives a bit and see the discussions largely assume it's a mutually exclusive proposition, it's one or the other. It's not. Our Talk FAQ loudly proclaims: "The United States is not a democracy!" Of course it is. Why else would we bother to hold elections?
The republic article reads a state in which power rests with the people or their representatives; specifically a state without a monarchy, and the Constitution says The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government. So, no kings, no emperors, but rather a democracy: a form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation ("direct democracy"), or to choose governing officials to do so ("representative democracy")
Now, there are initiatives and referendums in the United States, a form of direct democracy, but in the vast majority of cases laws are created by representatives elected by popular vote. The electoral college is irrelevant, because presidents don't make law.
Some may be aware that there has been a great deal of discussion in recent years asserting America is seeing "attacks on democracy," with a counter-assertion that America isn't even a democracy in the first place, so democracy can't be under attack. I assert America is clearly a democracy, as well as a republic, and the infobox should reflect that. soibangla (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I tend to agree, and the FAQ answer is the laziest possible way to address this: "look at the archives!" Well, I did, and I find a lot of the arguments given in the archives to be lame (e.g. "democracies tend to be more left-leaning than the US"; as if that has anything to do with anything), but it feels like a tall hill to re-litigate millions of disorganized archived arguments. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Hearing no objection from any of the 5,117 article watchers, I am adding representative democracy to the infobox and removing "The United States is not a democracy!" from the Talk FAQ. soibangla (talk) 03:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
It's worth noting what other sources say: "constitutional federal republic," (CIA Factbook)[8] "federal republic," (Encyclopedia Britannica) Can you show that any sources use your description?
The problem with the term democracy is that it is on a continuum. For example, various indices list "flawed democracies." Was the U.S. a democracy when only 10% of men over 21 were entitled to vote? Was it a democracy when 10% of the population was enslaved? If you relied on the original Greek meaning, then it was, but it probably doesn't meet modern criteria.
You say that democracy and republic are synonyms. If so, why use both terms? TFD (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
It is a liberal and representative democracy. Both can be mentioned. Pizzigs (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Rockstone35: Rewrite of U.S. article
[Moved to new section by KlayCax] Yeah, the problems with NPOV (on both sides) is the main reason I was proposing starting over. I have created a draft article here: User:Rockstone35/United_States. --RockstoneSend me a message! 21:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Is there a consensus for such a rewrite? Is the template at the top of the article justified? I don't think so. I'm all for improving the article, but see a total rewrite as unnecessary, and I would vehemently oppose such massive changes to the article based on what I see now with the link above.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
The rewrite has already been commandeered by a WP:tendentious editor and is rife with WP:ORWP:POV editorializing. The process should have been begun with gathering and discussing reliable sources and establishing an outline, which is standard for writing any research paper. Otherwise, the whole point of the rewrite of producing a fresh, clear, WP:verifiable, balanced NPOV article is lost. إيان (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. The current article is the product of relative consensus. Some editors do not like a perceived trend in content inclusion and now wish to throw the baby out with the bath water. I suspect the hope is to then dominate the rewrite process more easily than the existing editing process. Shoreranger (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
I think you hit the nail on the head, especially with your last comment. This is immediately apparent when you look at the edit history of this "rewrite" and see who has been most aggressively contributing to it. My one edit has already been put into brackets, meaning that there is "no consensus whether to add," even though consensus on this material has already been established by myriad discussions on talk and an RfC. To be clear, I see this as an attempt by some editors to subvert the established consensus and remove material they don't like, and in some cases have been attempting to remove for months with no success. And some of the comments in this very thread by some of the most prolific contributors to the "rewrite" are also quite telling.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
There's no established consensus, and the article has become a battleground for editors of various political bents. Instead of being written by academics in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and using reliable sources, the article degraded into a fight over the perceived goodness and evil of the country with little regard for WP:DUE or WP:PROPORTION. Furthermore, the article was delisted in 2020, and the concerns raised back then have not been addressed since: it is still a mess, and instead of reducing its size, editors keep adding more and more information. Pizzigs (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
To voice my opinion on this, I agree with the concerns voiced by C.J. Griffin and Shoreranger. DecafPotato (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
In any case, I see a pattern. Users who frequently edit Mass killings under communist regimes and defend pro-communist positions on its talk page, tend to oppose any changes to the United States article. If anything, this convinces me that changes are urgently needed. Pizzigs (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I do not think introducing sourced content is POV, especially when it is done to adhere to WP:PROPORTION. On the other hand, cherry picking and consciously adding only negative stuff is definitely POV. Pizzigs (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Here you reverted edits under the pretext of them having been introduced by an IP (despite that not having been the case), and another user reverted you afterwards. Your entire editing history follows a simple pattern of introducing content related to criticisms of capitalism/the United States (primarily wealth inequality, poverty etc.) and minimizing/erasing criticisms of communism. Pizzigs (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, you're right with regard to WP:GF. We should respect our differences and collaborate to produce a balanced and impartial article. However, it is also important to remember WP:RGW, given that some users introduce content because they feel some underrepresented aspects need to be specifically highlighted. Pizzigs (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:RGW, you mean like your contributions to articles pertaining to communist regimes you have been hitting recently?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
"cherry picking and consciously adding only negative stuff is definitely POV"... So, what have you added to communism related articles other than stuff that is overtly negative?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Without experienced editors helping it won't work out. Need editors with collaboration skills.Moxy- 14:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
When experienced editors with collaboration skills agree to mediate and invitations to participate are ignored it won't work out either, and also exposes those who refuse to participate as disdainful of the process at best and intent on sabotaging the process at worst. Shoreranger (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
When I find an article needs a lot of work, I find it's easier to rework it one section at a time rather than doing a rewrite all at once. With that said, I've never attempted to rewrite an article anywhere near this size. And on that note, I think a lot of the "rewrites" really just need to be more concise summarizing and removal of undue content. This article has dozens of immediate subarticles where the excess can be moved. The WP:DETAIL guideline is our friend. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
That is an option given some editors' reluctance to accept a full rewrite. Pizzigs (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
If I had known that this was going to result in a bunch of drama, I wouldn't have bothered making that page. The goal of the rewrite was simply to bring this article to the same quality as all the other Featured Articles, which I think I might just have to accept is never going to happen. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 04:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
There's still a path forward, @Rockstone35:. I propose (provided everyone else here can agree) that @Rjensen: crafts the 1820-1861 section. (If he's okay with it.) He's been completely uninvolved from the drama, is a historian, and has extensive knowledge of the era.
Writing more on it tomorrow. I really want to get this article to GA-tier status by the end of the year/early 2024. KlayCax (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Alternatively, we go section by section - even if it requires RFC's - in order to improve the page. KlayCax (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm flattered but I have other big projects to work on. The trick is to get a recent university textbook and follow its outline. (a NEW textbook costs $150, but a used older edition will cost under $10 at abe.com. ) Rjensen (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
@Rockstone35 United States is the most-viewed article on Wikipedia to-date, and as such is going to be a target for debate and discussion until the end of the project. Unless you expect to be constantly updating the article and reviewing new edits on a regular basis, gaining and maintaining a Featured quality article over the long term will be extremely difficult. I'm not one to suggest that obtaining B-Class or even GA status is impossible, but concentrating your efforts elsewhere may be more productive. I took a break from this talk page back in July 2022 (Under my old username CollectiveSolidarity), and with the time on my hands I was able to curate a FA of small size and attention, which still proved to be a tricky task to perform. Perhaps you could try something similar? The Night Watch(talk) 02:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
@The Night Watch: It's just frustrating because other country's articles are Featured Articles. Of course, unlike Canada, I suppose everyone has some type of opinion of the US. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 03:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
@Rockstone35 I would read in between the lines on those articles. A lot of them were promoted more than a decade ago, and FAC standards were much looser then. I'd say at least two of them would not survive a WP:FAR without some work, and all of them may need updating at the very least. The Night Watch(talk) 03:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, as a relatively new editor (similarly to me), you cannot know that for sure. Unless those articles are delisted, they remain featured, unlike the United States. Furthermore, your reply does not address the key concern here, which is this article's WP:DUE and WP:PROPORTION issues, in addition to several editors violating WP:NPOV by pushing their agenda using cherry picked and/or manipulated data. Pizzigs (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Gaps in coverage
Since I've been twice reverted for attempting to address a failing of this article, I figure I should leave a note and back off. The Transportation section has no mention of the Interstate Highway System, which is used by a majority of the country's citizens daily and has been the driving factor (pun intended) behind the post-1960 development of urban and suburban areas, nor the US's unusual lack (for a developed country) of high-speed rail. The urbanization section fails to mention suburban sprawl, a major ecological and livability issue that plagues every metropolitan area in the country. While going into too much detail would run afoul of the summary style, surely we can at least try to integrate some improvements into the article instead of reverting on sight and forcing readers to use subpages just to find out about basic facets of American life. SounderBruce 20:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I can't see anything wrong with this edit. IMO it should go back in the transportation section. Sectionworker (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps, when the article becomes a joke like Human rights in the United States because everyone randomly adds whatever failings or criticisms of the country they can find on the Internet, you will understand the short-sightedness of that approach. Pizzigs (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
"nor the US's unusual lack (for a developed country) of high-speed rail." Personal transportation in the United States is dominated by automobiles, that is well explained in the subsequent paragraph. The U.S. also has many of the world's largest and busiest airports, meaning air travel is popular. Rail travel is not, hence the lack of high-speed rail, that's how market economy works. Just because you feel it's bad doesn't mean the article should have yet another critical paragraph (see WP:DUE). Pizzigs (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
That's an obvious chicken and egg scenario. If the US had better rail systems, rail travel would inevitably be more popular. HiLo48 (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
That is speculation and clearly undue. Pizzigs (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
No it's not. I wouldn't put it in the article, but it's a perfectly rational thing to say. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Mentioning how the U.S. differs from other Western democracies is not criticism. The fact that there are reasons for the differences does not mean they should not be mentioned. We wouldn't strike out for example that the U.S. is the third largest country in the world because this can be explained by the fact that only two other countries were larger. TFD (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
That section's purpose is overviewing transportation in the United States in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style. Mentioning a lack of high-speed rail "compared to other developed countries" is WP:UNDUE. One can cover many economic, cultural, political, and social aspects where the US leads/does not lead compared to other developed nations and nations in general; only the most critically important should be in the article. Pizzigs (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Leaving you (or me) to be the one to decide what is due or undue would be undue. I can assure you that the lack of high speed rail is often discussed by visitors to the US and the travel agencies they use. HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Relying on hearsay is not the best course of action. I've explained why rail travel is unpopular in the United States, and it is completely normal given the prominence of highways and air travel. Pizzigs (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I have to agree that we visitors often find the American railway system a bit curious, and I'm used to quite some stuff from german and italian railways. But here's an idea: Why not just change the choice of words? A "lack" does sound negative or at the least critisizing, but if we went with "a comparatively small amount due to the dominating use of cars", or something like that, couldn't we all agree?CarolingianCitizen (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Maybe that would work, but I don't think we should try to include a reason. We may not agree on that. I have perceived quit negative stigma AGAINST trains in the US, and feel that's at least part of the reason. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
There are expert opinions from people who study matters such as these to be found in WP:reliable sources and that is what should shape the article, not WP:OR from editors. إيان (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
I know perfectly well what a reliable source is. Please find me one that addresses this matter and is not written by an American. HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:ONUS states that The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content—that means you need to find reliable sources and present them yourself to convince other editors. You can access sources through the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library.
There would still be the good old "various reasons", though that's a wee bit too vague and perhaps not the most elegant solution... alternatively, just leave out the comparison entirely and say that there's a more established motor vehicle infrastructure than railway system, that's neutral and as far as I can say from a european perspective not wrong. After all, it's about the US and not a comparison of countries CarolingianCitizen (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Agreed here. That's what I tried to explain. Pizzigs (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Agree that this information is worth mentioning. This is neutral and notable information, notyet another critical paragraph. With that said, this article is quite long, and it would not hurt to tighten this section and limit it to key details. — Freoh 20:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Agree for all the reasons given by Freoh. To intentionally omit such a glaring contrast to transportation in other developed nations is editorializing by omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoreranger (talk • contribs) 13:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Disagree for the reasons stated above. Pizzigs (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Disagree I'm not opposing to adding it on another Wikipedia article. But this page is already way, way too stuffed. KlayCax (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
00:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
11:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
The redirect United States America has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 9 § United States America until a consensus is reached. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: The mediated discussion was closed as not started due to no-shows from two editors, including the lone editor in opposition at the time it was started. Closer noted: 
Done Actualcpscm (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Agree that this information is worth mentioning. This is neutral and notable information, not 
