Talk:United States/Archive 108

Archive 105

Archive 106

Archive 107

Archive 108

Archive 109

Archive 110

Archive 111

liberal representative democracy

BastianMAT, please do not remove "liberal representative democracy" yet again. Bring it to Talk. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1156487084

soibangla (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see consensus for this, and it seems like others have objected. I personally think it's too clunky to include in the infobox, in addition to that editor, so I've removed it pending discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Others who have objected include those who made these several edits, and it looks like there's multiple people doing this in good faith. Absent consensus to add it in the first place, it's odd that this turned into a slow-motion edit war. The initial edit also removed a comment that instructed people to get consensus before changing the infobox description, so I don't really understand the repeated re-insertions of this given multiple objections. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I opened a Talk topic about including "representative democracy" in April. There was no material objection, so I included it. It is important to note that during current Democratic backsliding in the United States, there are certain individuals who demonstrate antagonism toward democracy, including by arguing that the US is not a democracy in the first place, it's exclusively a republic, thereby suggesting there is no democracy to lose (e.g.[1]). This narrative has been characterized by a prominent individual as semi-fascism. But as my Talk edit and this source[2] demonstrate, republic and representative democracy are not mutually exclusive, both are true, and the infobox should reflect this, consistent with the body: "The United States government is a federal republic and a representative democracy." If we cannot settle this here to avert a slo-mo edit war, we may need to proceed to RfC. I'd prefer to settle it here, as I thought we had earlier. soibangla (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

A republic is a form of a representative democracy, yes, but I'm failing to see why the existence of antidemocratic people motivates making the infobox worse by adding redundant information. We should strive to be succinct and accurate in the lead; countering specific political arguments isn't Wikipedia's purpose. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

well, rather than making a bold edit, I essentially requested permission for the edit on Talk and I believe I achieved tacit consensus for inclusion. I endeavor to write with concision and I do not believe the content unduly clutters the infobox with information that is affirmed in the body (there's lots of other stuff that unduly clutters the infobox compared to this content IMO). I do not see this as "redundant" information, but rather clarifying information. I encourage input from other editors here, as I did in my original Talk edit, but in lieu of that you and I appear to stand at a stalemate, so an RfC might be the next step. But I contend the restoration of the content would be the best solution, if for no other reason than it reflects the body. soibangla (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Multiple individuals in the excerpt you're quoting from below indicate that it may well be redundant. MOS:INFOBOX is pretty clear that The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, and we should strive to be succinct. As with other country infoboxes, like that of the United Kingdom, France, Ireland, and Canada, there is no need to add "and a liberal representative democracy" in addition to the formal government type. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not a democracy, it’s a plutocratic dictatorship. The “democracy” we live in is paid for by the billionaires for their will only. We mere mortal Americans have no say on what goes on. 2603:6081:1200:200:F17B:238E:DA13:C9C2 (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Government	Federal presidential constitutional republic under a liberal representative democracy

Government	Constitutional, federal republic under a presidential system

Government	Constitutional, federal republic and a presidential system

This section is an excerpt from Talk:United States/Archive 106 § Government type infobox.[edit]

Does having "liberal representative democracy" as it currently does seem redundant to add to this section? I don't see this added to infoboxes of other countries that are liberal democracies Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

It is redundant as its akin to say "Western-style democracies" ......what readers need to know is what type of "Liberal democracy" . Moxy- 13:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Please see the reference for that. There is an ongoing vital debate particular to the US as to whether it is a republic or a democracy. It is both. soibangla (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

A fun read....Volokh, Eugene (2015-05-13). "Is the United States of America a republic or a democracy?". Washington Post. Moxy- 21:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Soibangla: My main issue is with this “under a” language. That would suggest that it is NOT a republic in reality, which is not correct. How is it “under” a democracy? What does that mean? Your source does not contain this terminology. 25stargeneral (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

"and a" Would be fine with me. The article needs to be as simple as possible.[3]. Will be a hard change as the article has been overwhelmed with tedious editors.Moxy- 03:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I understand; "and" is better. Under was not the term I added. soibangla (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

(closed) Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 July 2023

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Add “under a plutocratic dictatorship” within the government section of the main table. 2603:6081:1200:200:F17B:238E:DA13:C9C2 (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2023 (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. What's the "main table"? Do you mean the infobox? If so, no. Cannolis (talk) 17:30, 4 July 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.

Government, political subdivisions

An editor who recently made some dozen changes/additions could use a thorough copyedit. Ex.: under Government, "Political subdivisions", the phrasing "Persons, already born, who..." is one of many bad moments in encyclopedic prose. 173.77.71.234 (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I've made some changes to that particular section, but haven't looked at the entire article. If you spot any other particularly bad sections, please mention them here, and I'll see what I can do. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Very nice fixes! Thanks very much. 173.77.71.234 (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

American in English

In § Etymology, it says the following: The word "American" rarely refers to topics or subjects not directly connected with the United States. The source says that "no other citizens of the Americas seem to want to be confused with the Americans of the USA", which seems more about American identity rather than the word American in general, so I do not think that this adequately verifies the statement in the article. (Tpbradbury removed the {{failed verification}} tag, which I think was inappropriate.)  — Freoh 21:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the source does not directly support the claim. In addition, the source seems to have a strong POV. While I agree with the claim in practice, this source is not acceptable to support it. In the process of trying to find a better source, I've noticed that the American (word) article makes the same claim, with the same source. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Human rights verification

The lead states that the U.S. ranks highly in international measures of ... human rights, but the term human rights does not appear anywhere else in the article. (Rockstone35 removed the {{not verified in body}} tag, which I think was inappropriate.)  — Freoh 21:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Freoh: -- two things. 1) If you're trying to get rid of this mention in the lead, I doubt that's going to happen and we're just going to go around in circles again; you may want to read WP:DROPTHESTICK if you haven't yet. 2) If you'd like, I can add a brief statement and citation about human rights rankings in the body of the article, under "Government and Politics". --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

1) Why the aggression? 2) I think your proposal to add something in the body of the article is an excellent one. Please do it. HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies if it came across as aggressive, that wasn't my intent. Alright, will do by this week. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2023

Methodist 2601:154:C102:C7B0:15C4:BA20:C213:6FB7 (talk) 03:38, 25 June 2023 (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. Cannolis (talk) 04:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Please be more specific about what you're trying to edit. It should just be one word like 'Methodist'. Make full sentences about your desired changes. Sheanobeano (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Dividing up the history section into periods

I would like to work on getting a good section to divide up the history section into periods. Here's what I was thinking.

• Pre-Columbian Period (Prehistory to 1492)
• Age of Exploration (1492-1607)
• Colonial Period (1607-1776)
• Revolutionary Period (1776-1783)
• Early National Period (1783-1812)
• Antebellum Period (1812-1861)
• Civil War and Reconstruction (1861-1877)
• Gilded Age (1877-1900)
• Progressive Era (1890s-1920s)
• World War I and Interwar Period (1914-1945)
• World War II and Postwar Era (1941-1960s)
• Modern and Contemporary Era (1970s-present)

What do you think? Is it a good setup? What changes should be made? Interstellarity (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

This would seem to indicate you want more content, since we already have most of these sections and what we have for, for example, what we presently have under the "Age of Exploration" isn't enough for its own section. This article is already way too big, and We have dozens of articles on the history, including History of the United States. If anything, we should be storing less in this article, not more. --Golbez (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, the History section alone is already 27kB of prose. CMD (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

What would be your maximum length of the history section be? How many sections would be sufficient for this article? My priorities are getting the history section in the main article right and then move on to more specific articles like History of the United States. Almost every country has a history section, so we need to make sure we get this one right so that it is concise and easy to understand. What do you think about ten sections such as this? I'd be interested in working with you to make the section the best it can be.

• Pre-Columbian Era (Prehistory to 1492)
• Colonial Period (1492-1763)
• Revolutionary Era (1763-1789)
• Early Republic (1789-1849)
• Antebellum Era (1849-1861)
• Civil War and Reconstruction (1861-1877)
• Gilded Age (1877-1900)
• Progressive Era (1900-1920)
• World Wars and Interwar Period (1920-1945)
• Post-War and Contemporary Era (1945-Present)

Interstellarity (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

This article is meant to be a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE coverage of the United States, and History is just one of the many aspects it is expected to cover. If you're planning a wider revamp of all history articles, I might suggest working from more specific articles first, which might help assess what information is key for a short summary. CMD (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The history section should be concise and help readers to understand modern America. Why do they speak English, why is there an argument about reparations, why are they the most powerful country in the world. I think the current history does that, although there is always room for improvement. TFD (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

So most of these sections already exist, except for two new sections between 1977 and 1920, and you seem to want to condense the post-war period into only one section. Instead of concerning yourself so much with what sections should be there, what more content do you think should be there? What is absolutely vital to an understanding of this country in summary form? And if you want to remove sections, what content do you think should be removed from the 1945-present, since that would, with the existing content, dwarf all of the other sections? --Golbez (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The sections we have now are well balanced with regard to the amount of content each contains, with only the 1945–2000 period possibly ripe for a split. Having a pre-Columbian section makes little sense. What can we say about Indigenous tribes within what became the United States before whites here encountered them, beginning in 1585 (Florida), 1609 (Virginia), or 1620 (Massachusetts)? Some of the proposed headings are flawed. I would consider the "antebellum era" as extending back at least to the 1830s, at least with regard to its being an era of sectional conflict, where reaction to Nat Turner's slave rebellion made slavery harsher, the nullification crisis established a template for both secession and the assertion of national supremacy, and Britain's abolishing slavery further made that an institution of the benighted. You shouldn't have a "World Wars and Interwar Period" section that starts in 1920. The "Post-War and Contemporary Era" would have to cover too much, especially as our longest current section is a subset of that. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

It looks great and very organized. There's only one problem. Most of the these sections already exist. Also, this will make the article too big like Golbez said. Sheanobeano (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Whitespace

There's a stupid amount of whitespace in the article between Urbanization and the metro area table. Too many pictures and too much position futzing. Please fix. --Golbez (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I attempted a fix, but reverted it, especially because putting the religion chart in previous section, which precludes white space but causes text sandwiching, would leave it in the wrong position on mobile devices. The charts themselves don't have appropriate formatting parameters. Some sort of wrapper to collapse the charts? Dhtwiki (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I recently encapsulated the religion table to make it collapse, but it's ungainly as it doesn't float right when it's unhidden. Can someone do better? Dhtwiki (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that you want the chart to float in the center, you need to set the pie chart (not collapse) template to |thumb = center. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear. I wanted it to float *to the* right, so that it would appear, when unhidden, beside the relevant section without pushing it down. I'll play with your parameters and see if I can do anything that way. But, thank you for the suggestion. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I see; before proceeding, you may want to take a look at MOS:DONTHIDE, which suggests not doing what you are trying to do. Past that, and I am not a mediawiki expert, I know collapsible tables can do this. I put an example in my sandbox that still needs proper margins and whatnot but gets the basic idea across. However, I think it's a bad idea to go down that path, and this was more of an educational exercise for me more than anything else. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It looks as though you found a plan, encapsulating the pie chart within a wikitable with its collapsible option set. However, not only have you sown doubts with your pointer to DONTHIDE, but someone reverted because the hiding didn't work well with mobile devices. I'll leave it alone for now. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Native American and Latino populations

Tweedledumb2 recently edited the ethnic groups section of the infobox to remove Hispanic and Latino Americans and change some of the ethnic percentages, for example changing Native Americans in the United States from 2.9% to 1.1%. The cited source says that "the American Indian and Alaska Native alone or in combination population comprised 9.7 million people (2.9% of the total population) in 2020", so I added a {{failed verification}} tag, which Tweedledumb2 removed. (In general, editors should try to reach a consensus before removing these templates.) It seems that Tweedledumb prefers grouping multiracial Indigenous people into the catch-all multiracial Americans group, but I find this misleading, because it suggests that only 1.1% of Americans identify as Native American, when in fact that is the proportion who identify as only Native American. I also do not understand why they removed Latino Americans entirely.  — Freoh 21:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding US racial classifications, Latino =/ a race and is not classified as one, it is a federal ethnicity which is separate from race. Additionally if your going to include multi-racial Native Americans to the count of Native Americans then you need to do it to the others (So Whites are bumped up to 71% of the population for example etc.) for consistency. The current statistics are Race (alone) figures or how you put it as 'X' only. I don't really mind which one this page settles to choose (though I prefer Race (alone) because its simpler to understand) but you must use a consistent dataset otherwise it will not be correct. Please see here from a while back where I explained it better. Tweedle (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, latino is not a race but that’s not a good excuse for why the second largest ethnic group in the U.S shouldn’t appear on the “ethnic groups” section. it doesn’t say “racial groups” does it? It reeks of erasure. Koire292 (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Koire292 "Reeks of erasure" then add it back? The title for the infobox as 'Ethnic groups' is the standard across Wikipedia on even countries where nationality data is used, that has little bearing on anything. The information is still in the Demographics section regardless. You can add it back into the infobox what was there in April (whenever it was changed to the Non-Hispanic/Hispanic race dataset). I did not do it at the time as I broke it last time I changed the figures. Tweedle (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Official Languages at the State Level

Note A states "30 of 50 states recognize only English as an official language. The state of Hawaii recognizes both Hawaiian and English as official languages, and the state of Alaska officially recognizes 20 Alaska Native languages alongside English."

You mustn't forget that Spanish (and Navajo, I believe) is an official language of New Mexico and Sioux is (are?) (an) official language(s) of South Dakota. There might be more, but those are the ones I am sure of. StrawWord298944 (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

For South Dakota, yes, and this is already mentioned in the article. Can you help to find sources for New Mexico? The last time I checked, years ago, New Mexico did not have any official languages. The New Mexico article states the same so if there's a source, that should be updated too. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I did see that the Notes from the infobox did not include South Dakota, and I've updated it. I'm not sure if the "30 of 50" statement still applies, so if someone could do the math there, that would be cool. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thirty-one out of 50 states have made English the only official language, while Hawaii, Alaska, and South Dakota have made indigenous languages official, in addition to English. Only Puerto Rico (a territory, not a state) has ever adopted Spanish as an official language. French has never been made an official language either, although it has special protected status in Louisiana. People keep rewriting the "Languages" section, removing key sentences they don't like. This is why "national language" (infobox) is now being questioned. 173.77.71.234 (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Typo on 5th sentance, 2nd paragraph of history

I believe the word "ing" is supposed to be "in" RosieMaeVale (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! --Golbez (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2023

With a population of over 333 million, ThouYankee (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2023 (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. Cannolis (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

RfC: liberal representative democracy in infobox?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the infobox include the bolded words:

• Federal presidential constitutional republic and a liberal representative democracy

The lead presently includes: "The United States government is a federal republic and a representative democracy with three separate branches of government."

The content was previously in the infobox, supported by:

"Is America a democracy or a republic? Yes, it is"[4]

There are previous discussions here and here.

soibangla (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Sorta. I think both "constitutional republic" and "representative democracy" should be included, but not "liberal", as the term is too loaded, and even whether the definition we link to still applies is hotly debatable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose (invited by the bot) "Liberal" has massively different and in some cases opposite meanings (including on the two sides of the Atlantic) and because of that is a very bad word to choose to describe anything in the English Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
  • please check the wikilink, this is not about "liberals" as many think. it's not Nancy Pelosi or FDR or such. it's about liberalism that emerged from the Enlightenment. liberation from tyranny. in this context, conservatives believe in classical liberalism. but if some insist, that term can be removed. soibangla (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. That field in the infobox should be as short as possible, as MOS:INFOBOX says of infoboxes: The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose. Just as with other country infoboxes, like that of the United Kingdom, France, Ireland, and Canada, there is no need to add "and a liberal representative democracy" to that field in addition to the formal government type. Rather, we should strive to be as succinct as possible. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

As I said earlier, there's lots of information that clutters the infobox. A lot of it is noise and should be removed. But this content is particularly significant, if for no other reason than it is referenced in the lead. I say again: it is referenced in the lead. There are times when guidelines should not be strictly interpreted, and I suggest this is one such case. We should avoid a tendency toward inflexible bureaucracy, just because that's what the MOS guidelines say. The United States of America is indisputably a representative democracy, and that's a very big deal that needs to be made clear right up top. soibangla (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

We presently do not introduce the redundant label for Italy, Germany, Austria, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, The Netherlands, Czech Republic, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, nor the ones I mentioned above, nor those of any country I searched up. This is because the MOS guides against including extraneous information in the lead. WP:INFOBOXSTYLE also explicitly notes that General consistency should be aimed for across articles using the same infobox, and I see no motivating reason to make the U.S. a special infobox case here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

So, do you not see an inconsistency between the infobox and the lead, the former being borne of MOS guidelines, or would you propose removing the lead content? This needs to be reconciled somehow. soibangla (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Descriptions in the info-box should be as precise and concise as possible. It should follow what similar states have: Mexico (Federal presidential republic), Brazil (Federal presidential constitutional republic), Argentina (Federal presidential constitutional republic). TFD (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose We already have the government_type infobox parameter = Federal presidential constitutional republic. That's not quite consistent with what's in the lead, but I don't see a compelling reason to change it. I definitely don't see adding to it. Also, boldfacing is superfluous when terms are linked. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose infobox entry should remain as “Federal presidential constitutional republic”. It is redundant to add more.

Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. For comparison, I checked our articles for the 10 highest-ranked countries in The Economist Democracy Index, and none of them have this type of language in the infobox. (The only partial exception is Switzerland, whose system of government is something of a special case. The infobox there says "with elements of a direct democracy" as a qualification.) I don't see any reason to single out the US, which is ranked 30th in that index.

In general we shouldn't make a habit of labeling countries as democracies in the infobox. The world is not divided black-and-white into democracies and non-democracies – it's a spectrum with many shades of gray, and if we try to simplify that into a simple yes-or-no for infoboxes, we will end up with pointless and irresolvable debates about whether this or that country is democratic enough to count. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. إيان (talk) 14:36, 24 June 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.

"Indigenous American nations"

The approximate locations of Native American nations in present-day North America, c. 16th century

The image on the right was recently added into the article. Yet it appears to be original research and contradicts other estimated boundaries of Native American polities. KlayCax (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Manifest Destiny in lead

Recently, someone added this statement into the lead:

During the 19th century, the United States' political philosophy was influenced by the concept of manifest destiny, as the country expanded across the continent in a number of wars, land purchases, and treaties, eventually reaching the Pacific Ocean.

This statement directly contradicts the sources within the article (including Walker Howe) and Wikipedia's own article on Manifest Destiny:

Historians have emphasized that "manifest destiny" was always contested; many endorsed the idea, but the large majority of Whigs and many prominent Americans (such as Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant) rejected the concept. Historian Daniel Walker Howe writes, "American imperialism did not represent an American consensus; it provoked bitter dissent within the national polity while the Whigs saw America's moral mission as one of democratic example rather than conquest. The term was used by the then-Democrats in the 1840s to justify the Mexican–American War, and it was also used to negotiate the Oregon boundary dispute. Historian Frederick Merk says manifest destiny always limped along because of its internal limitations and the issue of slavery, and never became a national priority of the United States.

Manifest Destiny was always controversial. KlayCax (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

It might not have enjoyed universal support but it did influence American expansion. Slavery was also a controversial yet influential part of US history. CurryCity (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

EEUU redirects here?

I cannot find any reference to EEUU and really, I never heard of that acronym. What does it mean and why does it redirects here? 91.137.120.171 (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Uhm I see in the initial edit of EEUU: "EEUU is an acronymn for "Los Estados Unidos", the spanish translation of "The United States".". 91.137.120.171 (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

See Here. It's the Spanish equivalent of "US". I agree it probably isn't the best redirect, but WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP, so it's really not causing much harm, unless you have another, better, concept that EEUU applies to. --Jayron32 18:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Many languages recognize and even use the standard initialism in English, "USA." Spanish is one of the rare European languages that doesn't; the Spanish form is "EEUU." As you say, this redirect is really causing no harm, and it may serve a good purpose for WP readers whose first language is Spanish. 173.77.71.234 (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Structure of history section

Interstellarity, per your invitation, I'm opening a discussion about your merging of the New millennium and Postwar United States sections. I don't think there was anything wrong with the previous structure; the old structure increased readability for readers who wish to concentrate on a given time period, and there is enough content to warrant its own section. The argument about "most people's lifetimes" doesn't seem relevant (and isn't even really true; 2020 census data shows that 57% of the population was born after 1976). Can you discuss more about why you made that change? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to. The division of periods of US history is and can be arbitrary. Part of the reason why I dedicated a lot of time into making a section for contemporary America that focuses on post-1945 history is that there are plenty of sources that use 1945 to the present as a way to categorize the periods of US history. I have shortened the section so that it improves readability. Britannica has a section that says US since 1945 while this site uses it as well. I have also found that the College Board divided the section in two: from 1945 to 1980 and 1980 to present which could be a possible way to divide history. As a sidenote, I am also trying to improve the History of the United States article. I have setup a lot of sections (like the Contemporary America section), so it might be a good starting point with how to improve the page. I hope this helps. Interstellarity (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Correction

There is an incorrect date listed under the “history” section. The article is talking about the civil war, and incorrectly lists the year 1965 instead of 1865. Manlydog39 (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

fixed, thanks. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Prohibition and women's suffrage dropped from the article

I notice that with this edit, any and all mention of prohibition and women's suffrage was erased from the article. Given that there are three constitutional amendments concerning these matters (18, 19 & 21), they are objectively important parts of US history and should not have been summarily deleted. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 12:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Which is why they are covered in History of the United States. Can you propose something else to remove from this article so that it isn't too long? Otherwise, WP:SUMMARY makes it clear that we needn't repeat the full text of other articles. --Jayron32 13:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I've removed >4K of trivia (some stuff from the "religion" section, mostly sourced to the same author, including a twitter post). These details about who surveys say has got the most/least religion, and/or year by year estimates based on different formulations, were removed or consolidated to make space for the aforementioned Constitutional matters. The grammatical mistake (less → lower) should be fixed should it be decided to restore this stuff about who's got religion. I also removed excessive (and trivial) quotes from the "etymology" section. Further cuts could be made in that section. The section on architecture could also be condensed.

Please restore the elements about women's suffrage and prohibition. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 06:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I've put back info on women's suffrage since it is an issue that directly affected half the adult citizen population (previously it was state by state) and is still law. Note one theme in American history is the expansion of civil rights (and sometimes contractions such as the time after Reconstruction). Prohibition came and went so vitally important then but its influence is more subtle now hence more suitable for the history article for fleshing out. Erp (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a reasonable compromise to my eyes. Personally, given the nature of this article, I think there are arguments for a soft application of summary style, and I wouldn't oppose a brief mention of prohibition either. But I feel much more confident in agreeing that some degree of discussion of the long movement towards universal suffrage is due in this article. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 August 2023 (2)

Asian Americans are the fastest growing ethnic group in the United States followed by Hispanics and Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders. Add this information to the demographics section.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/04/09/asian-americans-are-the-fastest-growing-racial-or-ethnic-group-in-the-u-s/ 2600:6C50:7EF0:4A70:4598:5B87:F2FB:F342 (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

"Fastest growing" is an ambiguous and unhelpful descriptor. It has no clear definition, and can be misused by someone trying to push a POV. (Not saying that's you.) If there is one person in a particular category, and one more turns up, that's a growth rate of 100%. If two turn up, it's a growth rate of 200%. See the problem? "Asian American" is also ambiguous. Does it include Israelis and Saudi Arabians? HiLo48 (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Marking this request as closed for now. If a future iteration of this request needs review, it can be reopened. —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 01:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 August 2023

In 2019, The top countries of origin for the U.S.’s immigrants were Mexico (24 percent of immigrants), India (6 percent), China (5 percent), the Philippines (4.5 percent), and El Salvador (3 percent). Add this information to the immigration section.

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/immigrants_in_the_united_states_0.pdf 2600:6C50:7EF0:4A70:4598:5B87:F2FB:F342 (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

RFC: What negative aspects of the United States should be mentioned in the lead?

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.

There is no consensus for any of the proposed additions. No change to the lead. Pecopteris (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

---

What "negative" aspects of the United States should be added into the lead of the article?

• Several states lacking abortion (or other reproductive rights) compared to other developed countries
• Retention of the death penalty compared to other developed countries
• Lack of paid family lead
• Higher levels of inequality and incarceration than most developed nations. (The United States has an exceptional incarceration rate from an international perspective; its Gini is "medium")

Personally, I believe that only incarceration should be mentioned. There's been back and forth on this for awhile. (Dating back to two years ago.) And I think it is best that a consensus on all of this is reached through a RFC.

I agree that a lot of these things are bad policy. But I don't think they justify mention in the lead of the article. KlayCax (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with high incarceration (and perhaps inequality) being the only aspects mentioned in the lead section. High rates of gun violence could potentially be added as well.

The other aspects are merely controversial policies which are quite exotic compared to most other Western and developed nations, but nothing universally considered objectively bad or inherently problematic issues which need to be solved.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 06:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure anything other than (maybe) lack of universal healthcare and (possibly) incarceration should be mentioned. The US doesn't have the highest incarceration rate in the world anymore (it's not even in the top 5), and there are parts of the US with abortion rights more liberal than that of most developed nations (also, Poland doesn't mention its lack of abortion in the lead). Inequality is not that high compared to most of the world, either. Retention of the death penalty is unremarkable, too; for example, it is not mentioned in Japan or Singapore's leads. The only thing about the US that truly stands out (and isn't necessarily "bad") is lack of universal healthcare; as far as I know, no other developed country does not provide some form of universal healthcare. Still, though, most other country's articles don't discuss "bad" properties about them in the lead, unless they are extraordinarily notable (such as Russia or China's poor human rights record). I don't know why the US's article should be different. The point of the lead is to summarize the situation of the country. The body can discuss the rest. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot). Without intending to give offense to the OP, I find the inquiry quite loaded and framed in a manner that doesn't align to rationalism or policy. These are all separate questions and should not be considered in the light of whether any one fact is 'negative', 'positive', or somewhere inbetween according to this or that editor's impressions. What's important for purposes of the WP:LEAD is what kind of WP:weight each of these topics has in the article at large, which the lead is meant to summarize. If none of the above topics meets that burden, then none of them should be included, just for the sake of creating some sort of artificial and arbitrary balance of "good" and "bad". If all of them are WP:DUE for the lead, then all of them should be included, for the same reason. With that in mind, and looking at the main body of the article, I don't think any of the four enumerated details (which share no common nexus aside from possibly being sources of criticism for some) seem particularly due for the lead. Probably the one that comes closest though is the issue of inequality. But if it's too be mentioned, it will need a couple of sentences worth of contextualization. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Not the right format. This article lead should not be discussing "negative" or "positive" aspects of the United States. The lead should be a very brief summary of the article, which itself should be a very brief summary of many many other articles. Maybe these items should be in the lead somehow, maybe they shouldn't, but that can't be determined by picking some factoids out in isolation without any context as to how they are helping to summarize the article. CMD (talk) 10:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
• Inappropriate I agree with most other editors here that such stuff form the RFC are selective and not appropriate for the lead. The lead is a general summary of the article which includes basic information about the US. Not a political or historical commentary to put controversial content over. The controversies can be in the article in the appropriate sections briefly mentioned, not on the lead. See WP:LEAD and WP:NOTNEWS. None of the stuff in the RFC belong in the lead as they are not noteworthy material for an introduction to the US as a country. Other material already in the intro make more sense to have on the lead - geographical size, population size, number of states, division of government, important wars (civil, WWI, WWII, etc), economic stuff like GDP, educational institutions, global achievements, etc. Examples of good basic leads are Great_Britain or France. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Wrong framework—as SnowRise and CMD have noted above, this subjective positive-negative binary is the wrong framework for deciding what does and does not go in the article and therefore in the lead. The article should reflect high quality sources without the perceptions and interpretations of editors seeking to filter content through their notions of 'good' or 'bad'.

إيان (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment The lead should outline the most significant ways in which the U.S. differs from other Western democracies, both negative and positive. TFD (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
• The good-bad dichotomy is not a good starting place. I am sure there are plenty of people who think some of the features labelled here as "negatives" are actually "positives". The lede's (and article's) job is to simply outline the socio-anthropological outline of the country, not necessarily only in terms of salient features and certainly not in a positive-negative tit-for-tat basis. I wonder if there is a sourcing basis to also frame the country in a "New World"/"Western hemisphere" [sic] post-colonial context. Gun owning, lack of universal healthcare, the catch on of the nuclear family, inequality, GDP, ubiquitous urban sprawl, energy expenditure per person... surely underpin features of the American societal landscape. Sources may need to describe them in relation to other countries, but this is not the most important bit. I suppose that quality sources will highlight the most relevant features, hopefully putting the "positive"/"negative" framework away.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
• This is a clumsy RfC that should probably be withdrawn for the reasons outlined by others. Nemov (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
• Not the right format as the lede should just be a summary of main points. Details can be (and are) elaborated later in the body of the article. Listen1st (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Wrong Framework - Echoing the same sentiments as above, the Lead should be a summary of the body. MaximusEditor (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• Not the right format per others. Maybe healthcare and incarceration ought to be mentioned, but I agree that putting "negative" characteristics of countries in the leads of their articles really really deserves critical review. We wouldn't, for example, focus exclusively on the high GDP or HDI. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:24, 22 August 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 August 2023

In the final paragraph of the History section, under Contemporary United States, the hyperlink leading to the January 6 Attack misspells the work 'attack'. Change'The atack on the United States Capitol of January 6, 2021...' to 'The attack on the United States Capitol of January 6, 2021...' 38.65.114.62 (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed --Jayron32 15:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

"Cumulative poverty"

"Cumulative poverty of a decade or more" is one clumsy word cluster, and it needs some elucidation. Also, "fourth-leading [note style fix] cause of death" looks incomplete. Perhaps "cause of premature death in the United States"? 173.77.71.234 (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Race? There are no human races...

There are no human races, only ethnicities. In 2023, talking about races is a serious mistake and is also an incentive to consider 'racism' something acceptable. Axell (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Biologically there are no human races. Culturally (at least in the US) there are and these cultural categories have played a major role in US history and current politics. One day we may look back at them as relics (much as we look back at the medieval European categories of free and serf). Erp (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I can tell you exactly how the US Census Bureau collects data on race: residents are asked to state what race they consider themselves to be. Literally any answer they give is what is recorded, including simply refusing to chose one. While I agree that the very concept of race is flawed, the methodology is self-reporting. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

UNITED STATES VS Unites States of America

UNITED STATES is commonly associated by people as The United States ofAmerica but legally these are separate things. Mjcustomcomputers (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Mjcustomcomputers Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 September 2023

To remove the name "America" when its used to name the USA, America is a continent, not a country. The USA or the US is a country. Sisyphus155 (talk) 08:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Sisyphus155 Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

America is both a continent and a country. Words can have multiple meanings. By this logic, we can't use "US" either, because Mexico's full name is "The United States of Mexico". -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, North America is a continent, South America is a continent. "America" is not a continent. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

To be fair.... I think in Spanish, the Americas are one continent instead of two, which is part of the confusion. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

It's only in the English speaking world that it is considered to be two continents. TFD (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Final sentence of the lede is an unverifiable assertion

This should be altered to read "It wields considerable global influence as one of the the world's foremost political, cultural, economic, military, and scientific powers." To state that US is, unequivocally, the world's foremost political, cultural, economic, military, and scientific power is editorialisation. EnahsReltub (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The statement is true, "unequivocally," as no other country in 2023 matches U.S. power and influence in those five areas. However, several source notes are needed to back it up. It comes off as unencyclopedic otherwise. 173.77.71.234 (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

It is not editorialization. The US is the world's sole superpower. Citations for that sentence should be in the body of the article. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Either way, what does it even mean to include political and cultural there? HiLo48 (talk) 03:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I dunno about political, but the body of the article DOES say the US is a cultural superpower. See here. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it means that when it takes a political position other countries follow and its cultural output outsells other countries. TFD (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The last state admitted in the info box

Shouldn’t it say when the last state was admitted along with when the US was established? 69.204.59.102 (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Why? --Golbez (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

That was my initial reaction, but apparently at least some other country articles do list "last polity admitted" in their infoboxes in the "independence" section. For example, see India. Hmm, now that I'm looking, I'm having trouble finding any other examples. There are some obvious ones that could have them, but don't, like Canada (which added Newfoundland in 1949, previously still being a British Dominion separate from Canada). Hmmm. This should probably be brought up in whatever Wikiproject manages these things (not sure which) so as to better standardize this. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I suppose it makes sense for federal structures like India and the U.S., but my initial thought was, why admitted? Why not left as well? Several territories got independence after 1959. --Golbez (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

It still feels particularly trivial to me, and I don't think mechanical consistency with other countries for stuff like this is either desirable or achievable. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree on it not being achievable. There are only about ~200 countries, even including the largely unrecognized ones, so it wouldn't be an insurmountable task. However, I'm not sure we even want this information on any of these country page infoboxes. Even the example that I did find, India, seems somewhat trivial to have in the infobox. However, that's a discussion better done either on that talk page or over at the relevant WikiProject page. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

It's still worth discussing here, because whatever the outcome of the infobox template discussion, it's still up to the editors on this article whether or not to adhere to it; WikiProjects do not own the articles in their scope. As an aside, what I meant by achievable consistency is that there are so many definitions of independence and whatnot. For example, the US was never a British dominion, other countries have never added polities, etc. Would France be listed as independent from the Carolingian Empire? But yes, I agree that is not a discussion for here. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The determining factor is how significant the event was to the country. Alaska had been part of the U.S. for 100 years when it was admitted as a state. The admission had no significant effect on the U.S. unlike for example the annexation of Louisiana. TFD (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 September 2023

covid 19 is not the deadliest natural disaster in us history, it is actually the great galveston hurricane Mancitysucks (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done By death count COVID was about 100 times worse than the highest estimates of deaths from the hurricane Cannolis (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Overlink crisis

Wikipedia:Overlink crisis....we should only list parent articles. This is not an index page.Moxy- 15:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

It's hopeless. Certain editors (a few of them moderated or sanctioned) come back to add links. It's an obsession-compulsion. Only firm rules, plus a WP admin just to manage new links, will fix it. 71.255.77.207 (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not watching too closely, so am probably unaware of some particulars. When you say "parent article", I assume you mean the most general article that is more specialized than this one. But would you link the atomic bombings of Japan to an article specific to that occurrence or to the article on World War II? If there are editors who have been banned from editing here, which is what is usually meant by "sanctioned", that should be reported to one of the WP:AN pages, or to WP:SPI. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry not clear.... WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE Moxy- 11:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect caption about the Pentagon.

In the military section, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#Military, there's an image of the Pentagon with a caption that states "the Pentagon is far and away the world's largest building.". However, the Pentagon is only the second-largest building. I can't fix it myself due to editing restrictions. 76.137.28.49 (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article is obviously too long. At what point is the article cleaned up enough for the cleanup tag to be removed? I would appreciate some input. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 16:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree about it being obviously too long, but it's good to try to trim the fat from time to time. It weighs in just a hair heavier than India at the moment, and 7-8% lighter than China (which are both much more populous and much older, of course), but is only roughly 75-80% as large as Israel. It's also (currently) a bit slimmer than Russia, so, there's that.  :) I'll let others who have been following the article longer decide what's worth gluing back in. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

So, you think it would be fine to remove the tag? Also, I think being "obviously too long" was a bit of an overstatement on my part. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 17:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I do. If someone disagrees, I'm sure they'll put it back. ^_^ -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

India is a featured article! That's impressive, actually. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

India is a bad example... it's an accessibility nightmare and full of media sources.....Canada or Japan should be the guides Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Structure and guidelines. Currently USA at Prose size (text only): 78 kB (12370 words) "readable prose size"WP:SIZERULEMoxy- 02:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

correction

"The United States has continued confront sociopolitical debates on various issues" should be "The United States has continued to confront sociopolitical debates on various issues"

I would change it myself but I am not allowed. 24.34.64.221 (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the observation. Once you register as a User and edit a number of articles in different areas, you too will be able to edit this and similar articles. HiLo48 (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Correction, same sentence

Please also fix the awkward "as such as", eight words after "to". Someone really should delete the first "as". 71.255.77.207 (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2023

Done. HiLo48 (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Clarification request

@Locke Cole: it's fine to warn me on my discussion page (although you could have omitted mentioning the possibility of being banned, that wasn't nice of you at all), but you should, before adding a warning on my discussion page, at least try to explain (properly) why Italy has this template (which I removed) and the United States doesn't (it's undeniable that Italy's history and culture are more important and extensive than those of the U.S. (the U.S.A. has existed for not even 400 years...). JackkBrown (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Neither has Italy. --Golbez (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not comparing two countries. You only added that tag because you wanted to violate WP:POINT. Unless you intend to continue tagging this article as being too big/long, I have nothing to talk with you about. I'm not engaging in some long-form version of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS across the wiki to validate your opinion that somehow Italy is not too long but somehow United States is. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2023

The following edits left a citation in a broken state:

- diff:1177862662 by @Giraffedata at 02:16, 30 September 2023‎ (UTC):
- - This edit accidentally duplicated the text "/ref> The Supreme Court is led by the [[Chief Justice of the United States|chief justice of the United States]]. It has nine members who serve for life. The members are appointed by the sitting president when a vacancy becomes available." inside of a citation. This text appears to have been accidentally copied from a different part of the article.

- diff:1177864002 by @Isaidnoway at 02:29, 30 September 2023‎ (UTC):
- - This edit attempted to fix the citation (leaving the duplicate text), but left the other half of the citation still broken in the article.

My suggestion then is to manually revert just the citation to what it was before (<diffs for reference>), and delete the duplicated text (it doesn't seem like it fits there).
– 2804:F14:80BD:BF01:F872:BFF4:AA12:94DA (talk) 06:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

 Implemented —— Thank you– Isaidnoway (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

USA is still a leading global, cultural, political and militarily.

I propose that we remove the term "one" describing US soft power as there is no other nation currently that is capable of overtaking us. The world is still largely unipolar. 2603:7080:CD3E:B789:A5A1:6FCE:5BFC:FB93 (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree (and it goes well beyond just soft power), but such a superlative must be backed up by solid sources. If not, many editors will complain that the sentence smacks of American triumphalism. "One of the..." can't be disputed. 71.255.77.207 (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

It states the US emerged as the sole superpower after the Cold War. Maybe that point can be made more prominent. CurryCity (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. There was no reason for the description to change. It's robustly indisputable that the United States is at the forefront of all of those things. KlayCax (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Addition of extensive ref-quotes to Religion section

In this edit, @KlayCax: added lengthy ref-quotes to the religion section taken from the sub-page Religion in the United States. Does anyone think this level of detail is necessary in the main page on the US? (I have removed them pending discussion.) In related matters, does anyone think that the Mormons should be mentioned somewhere in the page? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I personally find refquotes useful and worthy when used properly, yet I do agree that the ones you removed are far too long to be useful. Good refquotes are long enough to supported the cited claim and no longer. And yes, I'm rather surprised that Mormonism isn't mentioned at all, being a US-originated religion with notable domestic impact and a decidedly global reach. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Another thing that puzzles me is why the religion section is in demographics rather than culture and society. :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 01:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I am glad to see this section get some attention. I also find requotes useful but these were excessive. Mormonism, being one of the only religions to have developed entirely in the US that has a significant following, should be noted somehow. I'd also agree as has been mentioned that religion should be included under culture. Finally, it should be plain in whatever is written that "irreligious" is not at all the same as "atheist" or "agnostic". Shoreranger (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I see that @KlayCax: has restored their preferred version already without waiting for consensus to emerge. Could you explain what you mean by religion observation? Is this watching someone watching a televangelist on TV? I'm also curious why you think it a good idea to change from "religious beliefs" to "religion-like beliefs" as you did in your recent edit. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 01:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey, @SashiRolls:. The problem with the current wording is that it strongly implies that American religion is significantly declining, doesn't mention the exceptional religiosity of the United States, and gives the impression that most "nones" are believers in Atheism or Agnosticism, instead of individuals who mostly engage in religion-like behaviors and affirm the notion of a higher power.

The majority of sociologists and scholars of religion believe that identification with organized religion is declining in the United States. Yet they see measures of religiosity staying relatively stable or even increasing in some metrics. (As Ryan Burge says: "Belonging" doesn't mean the same thing as "belief") Gallup's description of Americans as having "low" confidence in religious institutions seems like a comparison to the past. If you actually look at the survey results, it shows that 36% have a "great deal" or "quite a lot of trust" in organized religious, 36% have "some", and "29%" have very little/none. There's multiple ways to interpret this. Yet 72% or more have at least a moderate level of trust in religious institutions.

I'd say it is somewhat subjective for the article to term this as Americans predominately having "low trust" in "organized religion" as a whole. In contrast, the updated wording more accurately reflects the American religious landscape.

Do you have any specific objections? Or are you okay with me updating the religious section for the time being? Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ramos1990: also had similar concerns to me. (If I recall correctly.)

Hope he doesn't mind a tag here. I prefer the updated wording from religion in the United States than the one in the United States article. KlayCax (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Propose new text and get consensus for inclusion. This way we can avoid the error-ridden stuff mentioned above. Should we be keeping the op-ed from the Baylor religious studies professors? I would vote no. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Something like this:

The First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion and forbids Congress from passing laws respecting its establishment. Religion in the United States is widespread, diverse, and vibrant, and the country is vastly more religious than any other comparable developed or industrialized polity. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe in a higher power and consider themselves spiritual. Most Americans pray daily, attend religious services, and consider religion important in their life. The country has the world's largest Christian population and a majority of Americans classify themselves as Christian.

Religious practice varies significantly by region. In the "Bible Belt", located within the Southern United States, evangelical Protestantism plays a significant role culturally. New England and the Western United States tend to be less fundamentalist. Mormonism—a Restorationist Christian movement started in New York during the 19th century—is the predominant religious affiliation in Utah. Around 6% of Americans claim a non-Christian faith. The United States either has the first or second-largest Jewish population in the world, the largest outside of Israel. "Ceremonial deism" is common in American culture. A growing number of Americans describe themselves as unaffiliated with organized religion — the large majority of which have religion-like beliefs and believe in a God — for disputed and unclear reasons. Trust of institutional organized religion has declined since the 1970s. Atheists and Agnostics constitute a small percentage of the population.

Would be vastly more in line with the academic literature on American religion. KlayCax (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I saw this text. Some of it is already in the article. Please indicate only those things which you wish to change. For example, I see you wish to change the current text New England and the Western United States tend to be less religious to "less fundamentalist" whereas the linked article (the unchurched belt) refers to "less religious" and "less church-going". I see you also want to make the sentence about the Jewish population longer. Without entering into the question of practicing and non-practicing, why do we need to say anything more than "the largest population outside of Israel" as it is currently written? Removing "vibrant" (clearly POV) large majority and "vastly" (ditto) will also cut down the unnecessary word-count. (concerning the claim, cf. e.g. Religion in Poland, Religion in Brazil, Religion in Saudi Arabia, etc.) The third to last sentence was more or less grammatical as found in the article (Around one-third of Americans describe themselves as unaffiliated with organized religion, atheist, or agnostic.) but your new version is definitely not. If the reasons are unclear and disputed there's no reason to mention them in a top-level article. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about some of your changes to the daughter article, which I had a quick look at due to the discussion here. See especially Talk:Religion_in_the_United_States#Distorted_source. I noticed that the Baylor U. op-ed there was also not marked as an op-ed... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the proposed wording is ok. It gets to the point and is pretty short. The sources used do support this material. And yes scholars of religion like Rodney Stark, Michael Hout, Ryan Burge do not argue for decline, but stability, transformation, or growth instead. Most of the "nones" are not irreligious, but instead they do retain belief in God and do participate in religious practices to some degree - [5]. Most are "somes" and only 6% do not believe, belong, or practice. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, @Ramos1990:. I think a lot of editors don't realize that an "American none" is often the same thing as a "European Christian" (e.g. cultural identification).

The United States is one of the most religious developed countries. Only newly industrialized, developed countries such as Poland or Romania come close. (Maybe Greece and Italy?) KlayCax (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

As an Australian apatheist (like, I believe, many of my countryfolk), it concerns me that there seems to be an expectation that all Americans have firm stances on religion. They must be either believers, atheists, or agnostics. Is it not possible that some hardly ever think about religion? HiLo48 (talk) 05:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

One article cited in the entry says: "Indeed, in several northeastern states, Christianity already looks like it does in Canada, where just over 50 percent of the population identifies as Christian" (source). The map at Unchurched Belt also shows that the Northwest tends to tend towards the apatheistic as well. It's curious that the entry does not currently present the key finding (Pew) that those under 50 are considerably less religious than their elders. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 07:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

People in the Unchurched Belt still have much higher rates of theism, et al. than people in Canada and Europe. 70-75% of people in Vermont, for instance, still believe in a God. KlayCax (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Recent reversion

Hey, @C.J. Griffin:. I noticed that you recently made a partial reversion of my proposed trim to the U.S. article. It's reliably sourced. However, I believe it lacks brevity.

The article doesn't need statistics for individual years. The longer trend is more important. I understand that's a lot of this is WP: Bold and makes substantive cuts to the article. However, I believe that the article would be better served with an expanded history section (Predominately in the pre-Civil War era. What Hath God Wrought would be a great resource here.) instead of WP: Trivia-like recitement of particular statistics. KlayCax (talk) 04:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

If we are talking about the increased suicides for 2022 then okay perhaps that can go, although it really doesn't add much bloat to the article. You also removed the entire paragraph on public expenditures for education and student debt, which is long-standing and certainly relevant. The JAMA study on cumulative poverty being the fourth leading risk factor for death annually is hardly trivia and seems significant enough to include in the health section, although I wouldn't mind a rewrite of the material if necessary.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Although it really doesn't add much bloat to the article... I wouldn't mind a rewrite of the material if necessary.

I understand. Apologies if there was any confusion. I think that a lot of this article needs rewritten. There's a lot of things — both good and bad — unique about the United States. I am under the belief it's harmful to the cohesiveness of the article to consistently compare the United States to other countries. Featured articles such as Germany, Japan, Canada, Madagascar, Japan, among others, don't do this for the reason that it generates a horrendous amount of bloat within articles. Like other editors have mentioned: an article like one of those should be where we roughly aim to land within the article. Article prose has significantly degraded in the past five years due to consistent edit warring within the article.

A complete rewrite would be a likely improvement.

You also removed the entire paragraph on public expenditures for education and student debt, which is long-standing and certainly relevant.

I understood that this is another WP: Bold edit that that would be disputed by editors. I'd be okay with it being reinstated - just shorter. Feel free to reinstate.

The JAMA study on cumulative poverty being the fourth leading risk factor for death annually is hardly trivia and seems significant enough to include in the health section, although I wouldn't mind a rewrite of the material if necessary

Similar to the religion debate on the article — sociologists have variously argue that observance is increasing, staying about the same but changing, and decreasing — it's a bold, sweeping claim that has been disputed by others in the academic literature. Unless there's a strong consensus on a subject we should probably exclude it from the article entirely. I don't disagree with the sentiment it's trying to get at, though. KlayCax (talk) 05:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so we found some common ground on the 2022 suicides (which I self reverted) and the paragraph on education, but I vehemently disagree with your characterization of the JAMA study and your position on its inclusion. You state that is has been "disputed by others in the academic literature", but this is not the case as far as I can tell. I've seen very little criticism of the paper, which is a landmark study, published in a prestigious journal, linking poverty and mortality. I also made sure to cite reliable, secondary sources on the topic to demonstrate its notability. Per WP:DUE, I would argue the material should stay. I mentioned rewriting it if necessary, although I think it is succinct and NPOV as is. I did not suggest a rewrite of the entire article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Several conservative academics have disputed the numbers. That's why it's problematic. @C.J. Griffin:. It's only been cited 7 times in the literature.

My hunch is that it's right. I just don't think we can say so in Wikivoice. KlayCax (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you take this to RS/N. In the meantime, I'd have to imagine that the Journal of the American Medical Association is a reliable source for information about health. I notice you didn't attribute the source, but removed it entirely. You also have provided no sources for your claim. You can do that at RS/N. I support restoring the UPI source discussing the JAMA article. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I propose the original version with attribution be restored:

Poverty is the 4th leading risk factor for premature death in the United States annually, according to a 2023 study published in JAMA.

--C.J. Griffin (talk) 03:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Info box of when the U.S. was “formed”

Next to the Constitution part it says June 21, 1788 however the U.S. Constitution became effective on March 4, 1789. I understand that first date was when it was ratified but for the Articles of Confederation it lists the date when it became effective and not when it was ratified. MaxwellWinnie102 (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Trail of Tears, Indian Removal Act, Foraker Act, Insular Cases, California genocide

In this edit, @KlayCax: removed quite a bit of US history. Does anyone support this removal? (I have reinstated the elements while discussion takes place.) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

A lot of this in my opinion should be moved to the racism in the United States and race in the United States articles. We just don't have space for some of this in the article. I'd be okay with the Trial of Tears and Indian Removal Act remaining. Although it should be included in a sentence that includes "Indian Removal" more broadly. (e.g. "The United States government did X or Y to indigenous people through actions such as the Indian Removal Act...) KlayCax (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Could you explain why you want to delete the story of how Puerto Ricans gained citizenship just prior to World War I? Or why you think there is space for extensive adjective- and adverb-laden sentences about how "vibrant" and "vastly more religious" the US is in its "religion observation (sic)" than other countries, with "a growing number of Americans [...] the large majority of which (sic) have religion-like (sic) beliefs". There seems to be space for detailing the "condition of the American religious landscape in 2022" (as reported in a Wall Street Journal op-ed) being "more religious, and [where] religious institutions are thriving", but not for a sentence about the California Genocide or one about the history of the acquisition of Hawaii, or American Samoa or the Virgin Islands. I disagree with this overemphasis on op-eds at the expense of basic historical and geographic information. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 03:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The issue is brevity. Maybe we could say something like, "The territories the U.S. acquired from Spain (the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam) and subsequent acquisitions were treated as colonies and U.S. citizenship was withheld from their inhabitants, although it has since been extended to inhabitants of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands." TFD (talk) 11:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

While I am a big fan of brevity, it is worth noting that the page Puerto Rican citizenship and nationality is messy, with the law granting citizenship abbreviated in a confusing way (cf. redirect from Jones Act), and buried in the middle of the sixth paragraph where it is misleadingly suggested that it was promulgated in the same year as the 1934 Nationality Act. (This is cleared up much later in the ninth paragraph.) The synthetic view presented on this page in one sentence is considerably briefer, though perhaps the word "statutory" should be added in front of citizenship. It is also worth noting that the logical daughter article mentioned above does not explain one of the underlying reasons for extending citizenship: the subsequent conscription of 20,000 Puerto Ricans.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 12:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The problem, as @TFD: also mentioned, is brevity.

Because of length requirements, we can't give an entire racial history of the United States within the article. (Race now makes up a majority of American history in the article. Compare this to Germany's or Japan's. Both of which are FA's.) It's excessive detail for the article to include the California Genocide. (Ethnic cleansing was also being committed in California before the California Gold Rush,.as well as elsewhere, so it seems WP: Undue if anything to specifically focus there.) Important aspects of American history, such as the Bank War, are presently entirely excluded. We need to make it concise. Japan's featured article is a good example of this. It doesn't go into the individual atrocities committed by the Empire of Japan, such as the Rape of Nanking or Unit 731. American history is so complex - and long - that we can't get into the nuances of citizenship or every action America took to acquire territories. (Unless it's truly exceptional.)

I haven't read the PR citizenship and nationality article. But it seems like a lot of this stuff could be transferred over. Events such as the Bank War, conflicts between the Whigs and Democrats, rise of religiosity, et al. also need to be included. Presently, these things have been entirely excluded from the article, or have been removed to make space for the above. KlayCax (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The Bank War is of little interest to the casual reader of an encyclopedia article, and religiosity has a significant presence in the article already. Conflicts between the Whigs and Democrats don't need the party labels in the content because the casual reader isn't interested, and their respective major issues are given attention. Links can get the reader to more. On the other hand, racial history, politics and policy changes over the course of US history is important to note at each stage of development, because it is the one constant that continuously and consistently influenced all facets of US society in a way that no other single thing has and continues to do so to this day. Cumulatively, it has more influence over internal US affairs than any one other thing and has changed dramatically over the centuries. Other things have made huge impacts in their time, but nothing consistently pervades US internal affairs like that does. How the US has dealt with race has a huge impact on how the US currently deals with race in a way that no other nation experiences. It's not just in the past, it's the present, and it didn't just come out of nowhere, and it hasn't always been the same, but it has always been pervasive. Shoreranger (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Shoreranger:. No one is saying that any of that isn't the case. I'm just saying that we should handle it in the way that Germany's, Japan's, et al.'s articles do. There was massive, massive issues in pre-Civil War America that weren't related to issues of race. The Bank War, the centralization of the Presidency and expansion of poor white voting under Jacksonian democracy, expanded technologies, et al. were all major issues as well. KlayCax (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, the United States would not exist as it does today without the Indian Removal Act, Trail of Tears, or other horrific acts of the US Government. The Indian Removal Act is far beyond racism, it is one of the fundamental building blocks of the country. It is a terrible part of history and American Indians deserve it to be known that this was their land and it was stolen under treaties the US government to this day do not honor, fraudulent purchases, and regulations like Andrew Jacksons Indian Removal Act. OnePercent (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 September 2023

The 2022 American Community Survey stated that the top reported ancestries in the United States were German 41.1M, English 31.4M, Irish 30.7M, American 17.8M, and Italian 16.0M. Add this to the demographics section in the population section.

Source: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20U.S.%20Census,1%2C%202022%2C%20population%20estimates.&text=The%202022%20American%20Community%20Survey,M%2C%20and%20Italian%2016.0M. 103.164.138.55 (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Could not find the supplied information in the source. Please provide a more specific link that supports your proposed addition. Liu1126 (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Moving "melting pot" and liberal democracy comparisons to the body

Hey, Rockstone. Let's get consensus on this. Both

As a melting pot of cultures and ethnicities, the U.S. has been drastically shaped by the world's largest immigrant population.

and:

It has higher levels of incarceration and inequality than most other liberal democracies, and is the only liberal democracy without universal healthcare.

Firstly, while the notion of the United States being "melting pot" has some support in the literature, it is not universally agreed upon. The article itself mentions that concepts such as the country being a "salad bowl" have also found support. One would tend to assume that per capita immigration would be more notable than total net immigration. Countries such as United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, British Virgin Islands, Monaco, Liechenstein, et al. far surpass these totals per capita.

The second sentence also has immense problems.

• Using liberal democracy as a metric here is heavily problematic and presents many problems — 1.) Why are we using liberal democracy here instead of, say, a global comparison? (As is overwhelmingly done.) 2.) What are we classifying as a liberal democracy? Chile, Israel, Uruguay, and Turkey have all been to varying extents classified as such, and have higher levels of income inequality than the United States — the country is classified as "medium" Gini — but do not have it mentioned in their respective leads. While as a social democrat I personally believe that the United States should take more steps to reduce income inequality. There is overwhelming evidence (scroll down to see image) that it ranks just about average globally in this metric.

It would also seem to necessitate other lengthy, verbose statements in this article's (and others) lead. People could argue that: (and I'm not seriously suggesting this)

• The United States is the only Western, liberal democracy to recognize the death penalty in certain states and de jure federally. Because of this, it should be mentioned in the lead.
• Shouldn't countries such as Monaco, Canada, and New Zealand have it mentioned in their leads for having some of the highest housing prices among liberal democracies?
• Chile, Uruguay, and other nations are liberal democracies that have a higher Gini than the United States. This would seem to necessitate mention in their articles. Maintaining the status quo presents many problems.

Both sentences need to be moved to the body. KlayCax (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Fixed tag. @Rockstone35:. KlayCax (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@KlayCax: I would suggest moving this to an RFC so it's not just the two of us. I will say that New Zealand's article lead mentions structural inequalities. Would you like me to make an RFC? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

If a consensus can't be reached, yes. I've been trying to hold off a RFC as a last resort. If it comes to it: I'd be in favor. Thank you for making one if it comes to it! KlayCax (talk) 04:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

My opinion is:

• Subjective metrics for "low corruption" and "human rights" should be deleted totally from the lead. (More controversially, I hold this view for other country articles.)
• Totally deleting the WP: Peacock mention of the United States (almost certainly as a way to spin the country in a positive light) as a special sort of melting pot.
• Deleting the other, verbose (in the opposite direction) POV-push that compares the American "medium" Gini to exclusively liberal democracies — for no explicable reason — instead of other metrics.

RFC's are supposed to be a measure of last resort. If editors object to these changes then I'd be in favor of a RFC. To me: all of this changes seem common sense and dramatic improvements in the lead, @Rockstone35:.

I'll leave it up to you how you want to word it. (Or if you want to add anything else to the points I've stated.) KlayCax (talk) 04:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I know RFCs are supposed to be a measure of last resort, but we've also had multiple discussion about what the lead should contain that haven't gone anywhere. It's been a long-term intractable problem with no easy answer because featured article countries such as Canada, Australia, and Japan list different things in their leads. (Australia, for example, mentions civil liberties, while Canada mentions government transparency, quality of life, and gender equality). I'm not sure what the solution is, which is why further input might be helpful. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Rockstone35:. Yeah, I'm aware of the inconsistency between articles. I agree with you. There should be a rough guideline for the leads of countries. (In my opinion.) I'm probably going to bypass RFC if no one objects to the three above proposed revisions — since RFC's are honestly a pain in the butt — but I think there should probably be a RFC about stylistic guidelines for the lead's of countries. (On the Wikiproject Country page.) KlayCax (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

if no one objects to the three above proposed revisions -- well, people ARE objecting to it. I don't think an RFC is that big of a deal. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, let's start one. @RockStone35: Something among the lines of: "Should melting pot, universal healthcare, and inequality remain in the lead?".

You have my permission to reinstate my wording. (Although I recommend modifying it a bit. I won't mind.) Thanks! :) KlayCax (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

"Melting pot" is already in the body. The body has a comparison of incarceration compared to all other countries, and a comparison of inequality against other OECD countries. The body has a comparison of universal healthcare against developed countries. CMD (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. These are included in the lead per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. It makes no sense to move this material to the body given it already exists there.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Melting pot and liberal democracy both belong in the lead. Andre🚐 00:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• @KlayCax: an RFC has been made. Thanks! --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Could you explain the reasoning for removing all? Thanks, @Rockstone35:. I'm okay with you repeating what I said. KlayCax (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Well, I'm for retaining the lead as is, so you should probably be the one to do that... not me . The RFC is supposed to be worded as neutrally as possible. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2023

Need to Edit this article and relevants --- immediately. 27.147.202.191 (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. You need to be more specific. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Disposable income per capita in the lead

How much income is defined as disposable or discretionary can vary a lot across even developed countries. It also does not reflect inequality, if any. Total GDP or wealth should be sufficient here. Senorangel (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Race in the lead

The history of races, especially Blacks, in the United States is very unique and important compared to most other countries. But this is not mentioned at all. Senorangel (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 October 2023

Change "The ensuing American Civil War fought between 1861 and 1865 became deadliest military conflict in American history." to "The ensuing American Civil War fought between 1861 and 1865 became the deadliest military conflict in American history." HarriotLovesYou (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2023

Under "Culture & Society" and under the "Mass media" section, the last paragraph's first sentence states that the United States has the second-largest gaming market by revenue. It hyperlinks to a Wikipedia page which has a table with countries and their respective gaming market revenue. However, the highest revenue gaming market is actually the United States. What is currently written may be outdated, and should be changed to represent this fact. Change it to:

The video game market of the United States is the world's first-largest by revenue. RedCat8881 (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

RedCat8881 (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Elli (talk | contribs) 18:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Religion section: en.wp reporting a Radiance Foundation-commissioned online survey

In this edit, @KlayCax: added a Deseret News article reporting the results of an online survey conducted on behalf of Skylight, "an initiative of the Radiance foundation". The article states: Skylight’s mission is to use technology to help young people embrace God-centered spiritual habits. Like the Deseret News, it’s part of Deseret Management Corporation. I do not believe this is a sufficiently impartial source to be used in the article. I also believe that targeted online surveys are generally to be taken with a couple pillars of salt. Other thoughts? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 06:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I dropped a number from the diff. (fixed)-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Deseret is considered a reliable source. We handle it the same as the Christian Science Monitor. Good journalism despite its funding. This isn't a Epoch Times situation. KlayCax (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

If anybody else supports your addition we can ask at RS/N about the reliability of online surveys funded by the Radiance foundation. For the moment, after one workweek, nobody has supported it so we don't really need to bother anyone over there, imo -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I've also noted the addition of this online survey by the Radiance Foundation in Religion in the United States. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 11:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

2nd country with the most GDP?

many sources say that the United states of America has the most GDP, while on Wikipedia, it says that China is the richest country. 174.66.101.236 (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

?? List of countries by GDP (nominal) - List of countries by GDP (PPP). Moxy- 20:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you're confusing GDP with PPP. NocturnalDef (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Should we remove the mention of the Space Race in the lead?

Should we remove this sentence: "They also competed in the Space Race, which culminated in the 1969 landing of Apollo 11, making the U.S. the only nation to land humans on the Moon."

The Space Race is the least significant event out of all mentioned in the paragraph and belongs to the Cold War anyways. It just feels off there. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Why do some editors seek to minimize a country's technological prowess? The Space Race, and the first humans on the Moon, placed America in the tech driver's seat. This was, and remains, a phenomenal achievement. Yes, it was also a signal event of the Cold War, but that only adds to its significance: Even amid the growing U.S. debacle in Vietnam, the country proved its economic and scientific superiority over its main adversaries. It still holds that advantage today. The passage is beyond relevant and should stay in the lead. 71.255.77.207 (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to do so. Technological improvement is important. Heck, I'm a space nerd too that made 2000 edits on SpaceX Starship. However, as much as I love space, I do think that it is geniunely not that significant in the most broadest view of U.S. history, because:

• JFK does not really care about space (source). He used the Space Race as a way to gain support for his presidency, and it likely does not really matter to him if the Moon landing actually happens or not. The Moon landing happens because of an interesting mix of "politicians need to flex their patriotism", "superpower needs to flex their power", "scientists want to go to the Moon and use this as an excuse to do so", etc.
• For manned space exploration, progress after Apollo has been horrid. The U.S. revert back to low Earth orbit capability with the Space Shuttle, even losing orbital capability from 2011 to 2019, and only recently humans would land back on the moon under the Artemis program at 2020s. This is a 50-year regression and further suggests that Apollo is not that significant in the history of space exploration.
• There are also other technological progress being made that the Cold War has a hidden deep reason, such as the discovery of Superheavy elements where there is a back and forth between American and Russian teams over who discovered which element first, verification of particles in the Standard Model where the U.S. discovered almost all of them, and so on. Giving the Space Race a mention in the lead while ignoring the rest is a bit unfair for me.

I hope you now understand why I made this argument. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

There was "regression," and I realize there is "other science", but the Moon landing was an example of the country's unique ability to challenge itself and compete with others in the face of very dangerous risks. There were disasters, as with the Challenger, but the only country to carry its citizens to a place other than Earth is the U.S., and that was 54 years ago. 71.255.77.207 (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

So do the Soviet Union. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

No country has taken on the expense and human risk in space that the U.S. has. None. This was a great American achievement. Calling it out as such in the lead, as a national achievement, is appropriate. 71.255.77.207 (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I think any proposal to add or remove from the lead of a mature article should be made with reference to WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The mention does go on a bit and could be trimmed: "They also competed in the Space Race, which culminated in the 1969 landing of Apollo 11 on the Moon." Dhtwiki (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

At the very least: "in the 1969 U.S. landing of..." Apollo 11's origins are not known to most readers now. 71.255.77.207 (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep the idea, if not the exact sentence. It alludes to a lot more than just the historical event, and the reader can learn that from the links in the sentence.Shoreranger (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Simplify it to "With the 1969 landing of Apollo 11 on the moon, the US succeeded in the Space Race." HiLo48 (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Keep, just read the request and am surprised that this is even a question. Of course the United States is known for landing people on the Moon, and of course this is lead worthy if not arguably first paragraph worthy. p.s. have edited the sentence and added the full six lunar landings. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think we should, the minimum is just saying The U.S competed in the Space Race, and succeeded after the landing of Apollo 11. also I’m pretty sure other countries have landed in the moon, feel free to criticise my opinion since I’m not an expert on this kind of stuff, I’m more into zoology and science than that. Cometkeiko (talk) 08:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Hello Cometkeiko. The NASA crewed missions include the only humans to so far land on the Moon. Not everyone knows what Apollo 11 was, so the extended descriptor seems needed. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  I’ll definitely do research later. Cometkeiko (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Keep it had a major impact on foreign policy and an even greater one on American STEM education and advanced technology. Rjensen (talk) 09:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Keep -- the US is the only country to have landed humans on the moon. That is relevant to discuss in the lead. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  But it’s atleast not the only country to go to space, I would say Keep, but simplify. Cometkeiko (talk) 11:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  That's whataboutery in this discussion. As a technical achievement, landing humans on the Moon is of a different order of magnitude than landing equipment there.71.255.77.207 (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• After edited the sentence is now pretty simple for containing a large amount of information ("Their" pertains to the preceding sentence about the cold war): "Their Space Race culminated in the 1969 landing of Apollo 11 on the Moon, the first of NASA's six crewed lunar landings." Randy Kryn (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

"미국" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 미국 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 November 2 § 미국 until a consensus is reached. Anonymous 19:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)