Talk:United States

Excessive references

I like this article, but in my opinion the number of references (565; 579 on 26 July 2024) is excessive. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The large number of references is unavoidable, even inevitable. The article "United States" is the most-read country article in English Wikipedia. In other Wikipedia languages, it often ranks second (after the main country that speaks that language). The U.S. is very powerful and has many detractors, so all statements and assertions—especially the positive ones—must be supported. They are otherwise challenged and can become full-blown disputes. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mason.Jones: Russia and China are also very powerful, but this doesn't justify the huge amount of sources in the U.S. and Russia articles. JacktheBrown (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mason.Jones: the Italy article last year had 151 more references. It seems strange to me that the number of references here has increased compared to last year. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Not surprising, as "United States" has become far more prone to disputes, reverts, and disruption than other country articles. Editors have learned to back up even general statements with a firm source, including thorough documentation. Mason.Jones (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Compiling bibliographies and updating sources is a major activity of historians and scholars here on Wikipedia. Moxy🍁 11:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Our purpose.....Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, provides overviews of a topic and indicates sources of more extensive information. Moxy🍁 18:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a pretty good problem to have. Around 10k words is fairly large for a Wikipedia article, and United States is the most-linked article on the English Wikipedia,[1] so it gets more scrutiny than others. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: totally agree. JacktheBrown (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: the United States page is important and it's a pity that it isn't handled as such with regard to references. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: and it's strange that with so many Americans this page hasn't been condensed. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be condensed, it is far below the limit of 15,000 words. What is the issue with having lots of references? Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

15k words isn't "the limit", really that number is there so people who do not understand that articles are not meant to be the length of a book can have something in policy pointed out to them. I'll grant that 10k seems alright for this article.

The point here is that every claim in an article should be sourced: some claims require multiple sources, most are fine with just one. It scans to me that this article likely could use someone economizing the number of different sources used for all its claims. Remsense ‥ 诉 08:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Countries are big and complex with various aspects. A good, encyclopedic summary should still be long to cover that variety, but it should link to articles on individual subtopics. I would think most country articles should be similar in size to this one and have a similar number of citations. United Kingdom has 550, Brazil has 519, Italy has 451, Egypt has 316. These seem appropriate to me. If anything, it's articles like Gabon with 68 or Togo with 97 that need help to become more adequate summaries, although you could say they are also fine at the length they are. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Forgetting about something

You forgot to put and U.S.A! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NinjaMiura (talk • contribs) 22:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

With regard to what, the initials given in the lead? See MOS:USA, which deprecates the use of periods in that and similar abbreviations. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Update

It's been bugging me for awhile. On the (Top) section, it says the US economy accounted for 15% of the global economy in 2023. But then, on Economy section, it says the economy constituted for over 25% of global economy and 15% of purchasing power parity in 2023. Can we fix on the (Top) section so that it says the US economy accounted for over 25% of global economy and 15% of purchasing power parity in 2023?

Also, on the Sports subsection under Culture and society section, since the Paris Olympics ended almost week ago, shouldn't it be updated to say U.S. athletes won 3,094 medals (1,219 of them golds) since in Paris, Team USA won 126 medals, 40 of them golds? Hopefully, someone with authority for the article can fix this. Sorry for the inconvenience. Ryumikhail (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2024

38.25.16.57 (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Stop Calling the USA @America@, America is a continent with 3 sub continents: South, North and Central America. USA is USA. Everybody living in any subcontinent of America is american. Stop hijacking the term.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Remsense ‥ 论 17:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh no, not this again! I suggest that you read American (word) which explains why "America" refers to the US in English. The anglosphere regards the Americas as two separate continents: North and South America, and only one country in the Americas, the United States of America, has "America" directly in its name. Because of that, only those from the US are considered "American" in the English language. As this is the English Wikipedia, we refer to the US as "America" and people from the US as "Americans". -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, see FAQ question number 7 on this page, as well as the numerous previous talk page threads in the archives that deal with this issue. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 August 2024

The link to China goes to Taiwan and it is very clear Mainland China is meant so the link should go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China 2A02:1810:497:7200:7181:BC3E:EFA1:31E8 (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The Republic of China, the current link, refers to mainland China from 1912 to 1949, which is the intended target. The Taiwan article refers to that republic as it is today on that island. The present-day China you've requested refers to the People's Republic of China. TheWikiToby (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 September 2024

I would like this to sat the work :MURICA; somewhere in the reading artical. 24.248.178.166 (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2024 (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. CMD (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 September 2024

Respectfully, I state that in this article I'll perfome my best and remove the same citations and add another web or citation. Pistasolanki15 (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

 Note: The protection on this page is not tied to specific accounts, however if you have suggestions please do suggest them here. CMD (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples History Links

For the further information part of the Indigenous peoples section history for further information it links Native Americans in the United States page. But for the history section would it not be better to have it link to History of Native Americans in the United States page. For the history section of the page it should link to the page specifically about Indigenous history then the current more broad just about Indigenous in general? Aojrocks (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

That makes general sense to me, maybe add it with that justification and see if anyone reverts it? (In the visual editor, just double-click the "See also" or "Further information" (I forget the name) template and change the right field). Mrfoogles (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

[j]

The [j] in the lede should be replaced to an [m] to look cleaner. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It's important you remove it because it makes the article look filthy. The letter "m" is better. Can u please hurry up? DisneyGuy744 (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense how is my comment difficult to understand? You know that tiny "[J]" in the first paragraph of this article, please replace it with an "[M]" to make this article 1000x cleaner DisneyGuy744 (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

can someone respond and change it? It's very important imo HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! @HumansRightsIsCool DisneyGuy744 (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@HumansRightsIsCool wait why can't you make the edit for me? You have 985 edits DisneyGuy744 (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

hello? DisneyGuy744 (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Remember that Wikipedia is a volunteer service. Most people here are pretty busy doing their own stuff or editing other articles; they're not gonna be monitoring this page for most of the day to answer some people's questions.

The letter chosen for the explanatory notes are chosen by the software itself to be consistent with the other footnotes. We have no say in what the individual letter displays as, unless we change all of them which would be a big hassle for something that doesn't really matter.

Also, HumansRightsIsCool had their extended confirmed permissions removed in the past which is why they can't edit the article.

Cheers brother. TheWikiToby (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2024

Change citations to put context for why the sources are used multiple times. 64.189.18.28 (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2024 (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. CMD (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Jan 6 attacks being "widely described as an attempted coup d'état"

Just put back the being "widely described as an attempted coup d'état" statement back to the contemporary history section. A longer version was first added by @BootsED, removed by @Rjensen, put back by me, then shortened by @TheWikiToby as a sort of consensus version, which I think should be kept. In any case, I think given 4 editors and a number of reversions are involved, further deletions should be discussed in talk. (Because it's not clearly mentioned in the edit summary, this diff is where Rjensen removed the additional text). Mrfoogles (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

the problem is that scholars use coup to refer to the overthrow of the CURRENT government (that is an overthrow of Trump). Everyone agrees it was NOT an attempt to overthrow Trump. see Powell, Jonathan M., et al. "A Coup At the Capitol? Conceptualizing Coups and Other Antidemocratic Actions." International Studies Review 24.1 (2022): online here Rjensen (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I just changed the wording of the sentence.

The attack was widely described as an attempted coup d'état.

Changed to,

The attack was widely described as an attempted self-coup d'état. (A self-coup being when the current government illegally tries to retain power)

Does that resolve the issue now? TheWikiToby (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Rjensen: TheWikiToby (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

So yes, technically the attempt was a self-coup, not a coup d'état. A self-coup involves someone in power attempting to stay in power, while a coup d'état involves someone who is not in power attempting to gain power. However, most media isn't that specific when referring to the difference, so they simply called it a coup d'état rather than a self-coup. This is why my initial edit wrote that it was "widely described as an attempted coup d'état", not that it was a coup d'état. I also put that it was a self-coup after that. BootsED (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

yes that works forme. Rjensen (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Nice. TheWikiToby (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of political polarization in contemporary history section

The current section essentially cites PEW and NBC polls, which talk about left-wing v. right-wing polarization, to say that polarization has increased, and then cites an Atlantic article to say that this was caused by the change of the topic of discussion to "sociopolitical debate on cultural issues", which doesn't say a lot by itself. I've changed it to explicitly describe left/right polarization, which all sources given explicitly support.

Also, I noticed the article doesn't actually have a clear source for this polarization contributing to Jan. 6: Britannica gives COVID-19 a lot of credit, so if polarization is mentioned, maybe that should also be? In any case, a source is needed and I've added a citation needed tag.

Some of the polarization bit may also be wrong. It says it "came to a head in the 2010s", but the only source for that is, I think, the PEW source saying that it as of 2014 was the worst polarization in 20 years in that year, because the study had been conducted then. According to Political polarization in the United States, "Polarization has increased since the 1970s, with rapid increases in polarization during the 2000s onwards." I'm pretty sure that sentence just needs to be deleted and replaced with maybe 2 sentences summarizing the main political polarization article. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)