Talk:United States/Archive 96

Archive 90

←

Archive 94

Archive 95

Archive 96

Archive 97

Archive 98

→

Archive 100

Demonym

The article on Great Britain doesn't include "Brits" or "Limeys" in the demonym section.

The article on Canada doesn't list Canuck as a demonym.

The article on West Bengal doesn't list Bong (term) as a demonym.

The article on Newfoundland and Labrador does not list Newfie as a demonym.

The articles on Australia, New Zealand, and Mexico City only list Aussie, Kiwi (people), and Chilango as colloqualisms -- and those are ones actually used as |endonyms (not only as exonyms).

"Yank" for all residents and/or natives of the United States may be found throughout the Commonwealth but it is an exonym, not an endonym. Within the US, "Yankee" refers specifically folks from the northeastern states (especially New York). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

It should also go without saying that this article is written in American English, where "Yankee" does not refer to all Americans. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting problem. There is no doubt that "Yank" IS "a word that identifies residents or natives of a particular place" (Wikipedia's definition), even if it's not used that way within that place. I'm not sure Wikipedia should be denying that reality. HiLo48 (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

"Yank" can only describe someone from America though, not an object from America. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mentioning somewhere in the article that it's an exonymic colloquialism could be fine. Just listing it as a demonym doesn't fit at all with the examples I've given above. Because it's an exonym and not an endonym, it's closer to "Limey" than "Canuck" or "Aussie."

The only time an American might identify as a "Yank" is ironically in a conversation with or about Commonwealth members. Some northerners who move down south might identify as "Yankees" (similarly ironically) but no southerner would identify as such. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

"Just listing it as a demonym doesn't fit at all with the examples I've given above." Agreed. And I know that Americans don't use the word that way themselves, but an awful lot of people do. The Wikipedia definition of demonym isn't so narrow as to say we only use it for words a resident of a place might use. Is that definition wrong? Or are the examples a bit narrow? HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The examples I've provided above would suggest that we generally stick to official terms (hence GB's exclusion of Brit and Canada's exclusion of Canuck), and when we go beyond that we stick to endonyms and note colloquialisms as such.

Looking in the manual of style, the closest thing there is to any of this is a redirect to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), which really only suggests going with the most common English name (following WP:COMMON) and that alternatives should be included in the body of the article. This would fit a pattern where the Australia and New Zealand articles would list Aussie and Kiwi (which are de facto demonyms even though they're not the de jure ones), but "Brit" isn't listed for Great Britain. If someone asks "what's a Yank?" the answer would be "an American," rather than "a citizen/resident of the United States of America." If someone asks "what's an American?" the answer "a Yank" would be useless. Commonwealth countries do not list "Yank" in the citizenship field when Americans get visas there. "American" is undeniably both the de facto and de jure demonym and the most common name.

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ethnicities_and_tribes)#Self-identification says How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided. This is why we don't list "Limey" as a demonym in the Great Britain article, even if it fits in that broadest definition of a demonym given (which opens the door to ethnic slurs, btw).

The last paragraph of the first section (etymology) would be the perfect place to put in a line noting that in Commonwealth English, US citizens are colloquially referred to as "Yanks." Just listing "Yanks" in the infobox as a demonym with no explanation would give the hypothetically completely ignorant reader the wrong impression. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Before the discussion goes off the rails, Ian.thomson's revert was appropriate. "Demonym" is simply the name of the nationality, not a popular expression (or slur). "Yankee/Yank" doesn't belong in the Demonym box any more than "Frenchie" (or "Frog") goes in the box for the WP article on France. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

"Denomyn is simply the name of the nationality, not a popular expression..." Well, that's not quite what our article says. It says "A demonym...is a word that identifies residents or natives of a particular place, usually derived from the name of the place or that of an ethnic group." There are obvious differences between those two definitions, such as the word "a" rather than "the", and the bit that says "derived from...that of an ethnic group." To me, that pretty well leaves the door wide open for "Yankee". HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

On WP, the Demonym box lists standard nationalities: "American," "French," "German," "Mexican" etc. It doesn't deal in popular expressions like "Yankee/Yank." The term doesn't even mean "American" to quite a few Americans. Outside the U.S., it's a slang expression in the UK/Australia/NZ. It isn't widespread elsewhere ("Yanqui" has been used in a few Spanish-speaking countries, but its use today is marginal). The addition of this term to the Demonym box is nothing but whimsy. "Leaves the door wide open"—only if you often leave your house door open all night long. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Commentators here are citing Wikipedia articles and indeed lots of editors have private opinions but Wikipedia depends on reliable sources. They OFTEN use the term in serious fashion. Google Scholar lists 208,000 separate scholarly books and articles that use the term "Yankee." See https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C27&q=Yankee&btnG= Furthermore it lists 5270 scholarly books and articles with "Yankee" in the title. listed here. "America History and Life" indexes thousands of scholarly journals in US and Canada. It lists 1181 articles using "Yankee" in the title. Such as 1) "True Yankees: The South Seas & the Discovery of American Identity." (2019); 2) "Yankee Ingenuity in Theories of American Economic Development, from the Founding to the Closing of the Frontier." (2018) 3) "Yankee Victory in the Philippines and a Sense of Power in the Yukon Territory, 1898-1901." (2018). The companion index "Historical Abstracts" covers scholarly journals outside US & Canada, such as 4) "Yankees in Indian Ocean Africa: Madagascar and Nineteenth-Century American Commerce" [African Economic History 2018]. 5) "Versos de amores que matan los odios malditos del yanqui opresor: música insurgente y discurso político de las FARC-EP" [Anuario Colombiano de Historia Social y de la Cultura 2017]; 6) "The Yankee Expedition to Sebastopol: John Gowen and the raising of the Russian Black Sea fleet 1857–1862" [Mariner's Mirror 2016]; 7) "The Yankees of Europe? A New View on Technology and Productivity in German Manufacturing in the Early Twentieth Century" [Journal of Economic History 2016]; 8) '„Slavocrat” und „Yankee”. Feindbilder und der Amerikanische Bürgerkrieg 1830–1865' [Historische Zeitschrift 2016]. Bottom line: the scholarly world uses the term and so should Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

No one disputes "Yankee" has a history and is a familiar term. That's not the issue here. The usage of "Yankee" is fraught in this country (with regional limits), and it's really no longer used abroad that much except in the UK (as "yank"). It sure doesn't belong under Demonym in the info box. Throughout WP, demonyms have a basic usage and utility: the universal name of a country's inhabitants. Your decision to add it in the Demonym box was both out of line and unfortunate. Mason.Jones (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's getting the American English use of the word Yankee (which refers specifically to northerners) mixed up with the Commonwealth English use. Narrowing it to "Yank" brings it down to just 405 articles. Also, 6,000,000 articles use "American" in the body, 723,000 in the title. In any case, American is the overwhelmingly commonly used term. If anything, the argument "what term are scholars using?" would suggest that we shouldn't bother mentioning "Yank" anywhere. Really, anyone who has had extended conversations with Commonwealth speakers knows that the term is a colloquialism.

Again, existing consensus for other articles is to stick to self-identification and that alternatives should be in the body. The end of the Entymology section of the article would be the place to mention that Commonwealth English uses the colloquialism Yank. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Just my two cents, but I'd lean slightly towards inclusion. However, if it's included, I think there should be a note that more precisely indicates its use. Orser67 (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Mason Jones makes all sorts of personal claims with zero citations to any reliable source. Oxford OED lists it as above average in usage rates (it's a 5 with 8=highest). It states (bold added): By English writers and speakers commonly applied to a native or inhabitant of the United States generally; an American. Webster's 3rd unabridged has 4 definitions, #4 is " d : a native or citizen of the United States" Rjensen (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rjensen: What reason do you have for why it should be added to the Infobox instead of the Etymology section? You've failed to provide any reason for that. Mason.Jones and I have both said that it doesn't belong in the infobox, not denying that it's ever used (which is what you're arguing against). I've provided links to the closest thing that any policy has to say on the matter, which fits the pattern used in other articles.

Why? because the Infobox has a line specifically calling for the demonyms --as for your suggestion of the Etymology section --go ahead and add it there as well, don't be so shy. Rjensen (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mason.Jones: A line in the Etymology section noting that Commonwealth English uses the colloquialism "Yank" (derived from "Yankee") wouldn't be a problem, right? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Why do I list it? It is a commonly used term in English (so says OED explicitly) It fits the Merriam Webster definition ["Definition of demonym: a word (such as Nevadan or Sooner) used to denote a person who inhabits or is native to a particular place"--the word "demonym" was coined by a Merriam Webster editor in 1990] and it fits the Wikipedia definition: ["is a word that identifies residents or natives of a particular place, usually derived from the name of the place or that of an ethnic group"] it is often used in serious and scholarly writing and is not derogatory or slang (such as "limey"). The objections seem irrelevant: they talk about Wiki articles for other countries, not USA. Rjensen (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

If you're not going to actually read something, don't bother wasting everyone's time by responding to it. Again, why should it be in the infobox instead of in the body of the article? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

That's the issue here, nothing else: WP infobox demonyms are standard across all country articles. Why on earth should "United States" list a loaded familiar (even jocular) term in its demonym box when all the others say "Chinese," "French," "German" etc.? Mention "Yankee" somewhere else. What Rjensen wants to do is snub standard WP format and usage just for this article. It's ludicrous and unencyclopedic. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

What I (not just Rjenson) want to do is follow the definition of Demonym in our own article (and in many dictionaries). Your objection is using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, a less than persuasive argument. HiLo48 (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

And I disagree. I concur with Mason.Jones and Ian.thomson for the reasons stated. It looks like the editors supporting inclusion may have a tin ear for proper encyclopedic tone. I suggest reading about close reading, and reviewing some traditional encyclopedias like Britannica and World Book for context to understand what is appropriate for infoboxes. The underlying problem is that the terms "Yankee" and "Yank" carry strongly informal slang connotations that are inappropriate for an infobox. I also concur that the appropriate location in this article is a brief mention in prose. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Not just "strongly informal slang connotations", the word would be considered an offensive slur by a large portion of the American population. I trust that no one would suggest putting "Kraut" in the demonym field for Germany? I also wonder what "serious and scholarly writing" that Rjensen has encountered the term in. --Khajidha (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how "yankee" can be considered "an offensive slur by a large portion" of the population, unless you're talking about some Southerners; but it doesn't rank with "American" as a demonym, the latter term being pretty much ubiquitous. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Slurs, roles and power, Philosophical Studies, 2018, Volume 175, Number 11, Page 2879 Mihaela Popa-Wyatt, Jeremy L. Wyatt...--Moxy 🍁 09:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

"unless you're talking about some Southerners". Rather dismissive and insulting of you to say that. It comes across as "well, 1/3 of the population doesn't count because they're just Southerners". --Khajidha (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree, Khajidha. I'm a native southerner, and one doesn't have to be "secesh" at all to see it that way. In general, this term has so many flaws as a demonym that (at most) it should be footnoted as an "FYI." Mason.Jones (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

To convince me that most Southerners would be offended, rather than amused, you would have to square the popularity of calling US troops "yankees" or "yanks" in world wars I and II, with the propensity of those troops, especially their leadership, to be from the South out of proportion of the fraction of the general population that was Southern. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

During the world wars, "Yankee" was a meme favored by the northeastern media and spread by popular songs and Hollywood newsreels. Southerners had no choice but to accept it. While southerners have been overrepresented in the volunteer army since 1973, that wasn't the case during the world wars for ordinary soldiers. They were drafted (and served) in the same proportions as their local populations. (The South's martial tradition brought more high-ranking career officers from the region.) Mason.Jones (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

During the world wars, "Yankee" was a very common word used to describe soldiers from anywhere in the USA, by millions of people not from the USA, and it still is! This discussion seems to have narrowed down to words that people from the USA like or don't like for describing themselves. That's US centrism at its worst. Does what non-Yanks call Yankees not count for anything? Are we going to apply this rule to every other country? Only include as a demonym names that people from that country like to call themselves, or even worse, what Yankees call them? HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Even if we set aside my concerns about it being seen as a slur by many Southerners, is it really used by all those "millions of people not from the USA" in an encyclopedic context? Why would we have "Yankee" here, but not "Limey" or "Canuck"? I'm absolutely shocked that we include "Aussie" and "Kiwi", even tagged as they are. --Khajidha (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm assuming that by "the popularity of calling US troops "yankees" or "yanks" in world wars I and II" Dhtwiki is referring to such things as the songs Over There and The Yankee Doodle Boy. To that I'll just ask Dhtwiki to look into where George M. Cohan was from. --Khajidha (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Question that should be asked is .....does the link that would be featured prominently in the lead help readers understand this topic or is it a sub topic of America that can be handled in the main demonym article?--Moxy 🍁 00:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Moxy--the goal is to help users -- Yankee is used very widely worldwide and is NOT seen a a slur by Southerners overseas, according to reports from England in ww2 [see Kennett GI p 81 and Potts, Yanks Down Under, 1941-1945: The American Impact on Australia]. [common in Australia -- see scholarly titles A Yankee Merchant in Goldrush Australia Yankee maritime activities and the early history of Australia (Australian National University Press)] Limey and Canuk are not very common and not as friendly. Rjensen (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that the term is common today outside the UK/Australia. In the U.S. in the 21st century, it has nowhere near the media-driven usage it did in the world wars. As Khajidha noted, many people in the American South simply do not identify with the term, period. For the infobox, it is fine as a footnote. But citing it there along with "American"—in the same font size—is totally inappropriate. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Do those works continue to use Yank(ee) in the text itself or is it just cutesy titling? What is the normal, formal, encyclopedic term? I have no problem with having Yank(ee) in the article text, where it can be considered in depth, but it would need much more explanation than is really appropriate for an infobox. --Khajidha (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

here is a useful quote from an American traveler in 1859 the British call every body from Anglo-Saxon America, "Yankees" from Three years' wanderings of a Connecticut Yankee in South America, Africa, Australia, and California... By C M Welles (1859) p 181 in google. Rjensen (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

This historical citation from 1859 is just like all the rest: vintage, in the U.S. today "quaint" at best. Include them in an article on American demonyms, or in a section in the body text of this article. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

And there would be no reason for an American to call attention to the fact that the British call all Americans "Yanks" if the same usage were normal in America. Note that the author is a self-described "Connecticut Yankee". --Khajidha (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

the usage is even older than I thought. "Let a man from any part of Jonathan's dominions [USA] visit the kingdom of John Bull [UK], and he will forthwith received the appellation of Yankee." Massachusetts Spy, June 6, 1827. The terminology is both centuries-old and current -- Google scholar gives 212,000 citations from the English language scholarly literature since 2015. Furthermore there are 6400 citations in the French scholarly literature as compiled by Google Scholar Rjensen (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if the problem is on your end or mine, but that last link does not go to French scholarly literature for me. What it does go to is a page showing 6 titles that are specifically about New England (including the Mark Twain book), 2 discussing anti-American sentiments, 1 comparing the North (Yankees) to the South (Cavaliers), and 1 discussing the growth of the US government before and after the Civil War, especially in relation to Southern separatism. --Khajidha (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

might be Google's end--try this link for French scholarship which gives titles like "L'alliance anglo-yankee-japonaise, maîtresse de l'Indo-Chine"; "Les «teenagers» et le racisme yankee"; " La France sous la griffe yankee"; "James Russell Lowell: un humoriste yankee face au Sud et à l'esclavage"; "Genèse et évolution de l'humour Yankee: étude d'une mentalité (1620-1860).(Thèse d'Etat présentée à l'Université de Lyon II, le 29 avril 1978)"; " L'humour américain: des puritains aux yankees"; " Finances. Du Samourai au Yankee"; I think it shows the term has currency in French scholarship. Rjensen (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Exactly: historical, literary, vintage, whimsical, and patently dated usage—we get that. The idea to give "Yankee" equal billing/weight with "American," however, is unencyclopedic. It is not a basic or parallel synonym in this century, this is an encyclopedia, and it should have no prominence in either infobox or lead. Mason.Jones (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

And around the circle we go again. (How long must we keep playing this game?) Right near the start of this discussion I pointed out that, according to Demonym, it is "a word that identifies residents or natives of a particular place". It doesn't qualify that by saying that some forms are encyclopaedic demonymns and some aren't. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The standard demonym "American" (only one is standard) belongs in the infobox; all others are informal and nonstandard usage in this century, so they should be footnoted. Discuss and analyze "Yankee," "USonian," or possibly "Murican" elsewhere. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

That's simply not a response to what I just wrote. No wonder we keep going around in circles. And by what authority do you declare something the "standard"? HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• For the sake of the poor reader, and it typically not an American reader who has need to read these things, I think the full set of "colloquial" or "slang" or "informal" demonyms should be easily accessed. Granted, Yankee has more subtlety, or historical meaning, than Aussie or Kiwi, but it is not terribly more complicated than Pommy in being more of an exonym that refers to only a (large) subset of the people. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

You'll notice that "Pommy" is not in the demonym field of the UK. --Khajidha (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

That would be at least partly because it's a demonym for people from England, not the whole of the UK. HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not in the infobox for England, either. --Khajidha (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC) Oh, and (as stated before) "Yank" and "Yankee" aren't always demonyms for all of the US. --Khajidha (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The one WP country article whose infobox features an informal demonym is New Zealand:

New Zealander

Kiwi (informal)

Articles on Canada and the UK list a standard demonym—no informal dems cited. "Yankee" was proposed because (1) it's a historical term used at times as a literary meme and (2) people in the UK and Australia call Americans "yanks" (but not "Yankees"), so we should cater to colloquial usage there. In the U.S., "Yankee" is fraught with restrictions (I listed those in the footnote). I don't oppose SmokeyJoe's suggestion, but if used, the infobox should label these appropriately. "Yank/ee" is neither as universal nor as benign as "Kiwi"; its usage is far more complicated, as Khajidha said, and as a parallel demonym it is highly disputable. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Agree. Yank, like Pom, is not benign and is complicated. That’s why it needs to be covered, but appropriately. I don’t think they belong in the info box, but suggest coverage via an infobox demonym entry “other”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• The Greek term for "Yankee" is "Γιάνκης", and typically means "American". Here is for example a newspaper article [1] called "Ενας «Γιάνκης» στο Λευκό Οίκο" (A "Yankee" in the White House", 21 January, 2001) in reference to George W. Bush. They basically describe this "Yankee" as an "abysmal" pawn, appointed by oil corporations. Dimadick (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Non-Americans are likely to think Yank is an American demonym, and are likely to come to this article to check. They should find the term "yank" somewhere better than footnote c. When they find the term, they find the proper demonym ("American"). The article, the infobox, should not be encouraging the misconception that "Yank" is an accepted demonym. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not following how you are interpreting Yankee here as a simple synonym for American. ALL US presidents are Americans, it's not something that would distinguish Bush. Seems more like a reference to Yankee traders. Notice that those traders (and Bush himself) come from New England. --Khajidha (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

First off, I don't think many people refer to the British as 'Limeys,' yet I do agree on the 'Brits' needed to be there. Yet I don't think 'Yank' is a good denonym for the United States. Like Khajidha said, it seems like a reference to Yankee traders. They come from New England, but not everyone comes from New England. There are other people in the U.S.A. that are not from New England, and New England is also not the entirety of the U.S.A., just a portion. But without a doubt, 'Brits' should be added. SaigonSuomi (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, I think Kiwi should be removed from the New Zealand denonym box. We need to fix these errors. SaigonSuomi (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Official name of the country in the 1770s

I was wondering, since the "U" in "United States" as written in the Declaration of Independence was lowercase, does that mean the country's official name was simply "States of America" until the Articles of Confederation entered into force in 1781? I've found one source asserting its official name was "United Colonies" until September 1776. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 18:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you are trying too hard to apply modern notions of capitalization to this 18th century document. When the DoI was promulgated, it was often printed with a capital U. I think the signers did not really impart such meanings to the case of letters. On top of that, there is still the question of whether they saw themselves as one nation composed of thirteen parts ("united" = "joined as one") or thirteen nations united against one enemy ("united" = "allied"). --Khajidha (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Sounds fair, I suppose. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 23:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Khajidha I think it means 'joined as one' because they were fighting in the American Revolution as one nation. However, I am not from 1776, and I have never met Thomas Jefferson, so I may be incorrect. SaigonSuomi (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Amerigo Vespucci

Not sure why the image of Amerigo Vespucci is so prominently displayed on this page. The United States was NOT named in honor of Vespucci (in other words, the founding fathers did not say lets name the new nation after this explorer). This is not comparable to Bolivia, named in honor of Simón Bolívar, or the Philippines named in honor of Philip II of Spain. The article does not have an image of Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, etc... but it has an image of Vespucci. This just comes across as undue weight, Vespucci is rather a side note to the history of the US — not to mention that Vespucci landed in what is today Brazil not US. --E-960 (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

"The name of the continent - "AMERICA", was coined by Europeans. The Spanish and Portuguese came first, and decided to name South America after Américo Vespucio (Amerigo Vespucci), the first explorer who realized that Columbus didn't reach India, but a new continent between Europe and Asia. The first map with the name "AMERICA" on it was drawn by Martin Waldseemuller in 1507. The word "AMERICA" was written over what today is Brazil. So, I agree with you that the United States have nothing to do with "AMERICA" and should invent a proper country name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.47.58.192 (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

You left out the other historical fact: most Europeans of the 16th and 17th centuries increasingly applied the term "America" to the United States and called its inhabitants "the Americans" even before the Revolutionary War. The Founding Fathers didn't pull "United States of America" and "Americans" out of a hat; they were using the standard European nomenclature of the British (and the French, Germans, and Scandinavians). Asking the United States today to "invent a proper country name" is preposterous—the U.S. didn't "invent" the name and has no intention of "inventing" a replacement. This article as well as "United States" across all Wikipedias (except Spanish and Portuguese) reflect that reality rather than wishful thinking. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Mason.Jones, that's why we have a paragraph on the origins of the name America, however to include a picture of Vespucci is a bit excessive, since the name of the country (USA) is not a direct reference to him, but to the continental mass named after him (as opposed to countries like Bolivia or Philippines, named specifically to honor of a person). That's why I think a paragraph is fine but the picture is a bit much, especially since we don't have images of any of the founding fathers in the article. --E-960 (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I agree about the picture, which is excessive. I was responding to the other editor.The reference itself is pertinent. Also, "America," as part of this country's name/demonym, won't change soon. Those who await a UN resolution (much less an act of the U.S. Congress) to replace it will wait a long time. Thomas Paine's name wasn't based on just usage but worldwide usage with a historical precedent. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Map image width

The map image is supposed to be 220px according to the infobox, but it's appearing with 460px width. You can see a screenshot of my end here: https://i.imgur.com/yw69G4S.png Vypr (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

"U.S.A.)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect U.S.A.). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The Republic of the United States

Hello, On your page that is titled "United States". Scroll down to the category "Government and Politics". In the first sentence it says that the United States is a Republic and is a "Representative Democracy". This is incorrect. The United States is a "Representative Republic". When I punch in 'Representative Republic' it redirects me back to 'Representative Democracy' and says it is a synonym. No it is not a synonym. Yes an automobile is a car, but a Democracy and a Republic are not a synonym.

I don't know when this was changed but I remember it used to say that the United States is a Republic and is a "Representative Republic".

Someone is playing word games. Similar to a communist country saying they are the "Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea"...ok in reality it is a communist slave state.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.49.81.242 (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

mate considering that uscis.gov says "The United States is a representative democracy" I think your problem might not be with us. --Golbez (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

A republic is any form of representative system, without regard to how those representatives are picked. The republic system in the US is a representative democracy, because the representatives are picked by means of a democratic vote. So, while not all republics are representative democracies, all representative democracies (except constitutional monarchies, though in function even they often are as well) are republics. The US is a republic, and specifically is a representative democracy. Calling it a representative republic is calling it a republic republic. It would be like describing a square as a "rectangular square." --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2020

A user has just blanked the entire page, and I would like to roll it back (if not done by then, but likely will though) ThybeVB (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

 Already done, thanks for pointing it out! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Women in the United States

At Talk:Women in the United States, I proposed a restructuring of the article. I just wanted to make sure this is acceptable.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 15:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

"Estados Unidos" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Estados Unidos. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Interstellarity (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2020

I would like to be able to edit this page Carlys91 (talk) 02:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Article size

The original complaint from November 2019 is archived at Talk:United_States/Archive_95#420K_bytes_and_counting?. The readable prose size is currently 110,654 bytes, which is a reading time of nearly two hours. Based on WP:SIZERULE, I think a good goal for removing the problem tags would be to get this article down to 90-100k by moving the least important details to subarticles and reducing any duplication.

I've started a little cleanup...one major change might be to avoid listing any individual people or movies in the Cinema section, and just cover topics like global dominance and popular genres. Other details can be moved to Cinema of the United States, the intro of which looks a lot more general than the summary in this article. List of states and territories of the United States also has a sortable table which could be shared to replace the several separate name-and-flag lists here. That wouldn't reduce the prose size, but it would reduce the wiki markup complexity. -- Beland (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

requesting more substantive changes, if they are justified with reference to reliable sources, and not the subject of ongoing discussion

The main page - At 3.8 million square miles (9.8 million km), it is the world's third or fourth-largest country by total area. Change this one to --> At about 3.8 million square miles (9,834,000 km2), it is the world's third largest country by total area.

The vertical page-

Area
 • Total area
 3,796,742 sq mi (9,833,520 km2)[c][10] (3rd/4th)
 • Water (%)
 6.97
 • Total land area
 3,531,905 sq mi (9,147,590 km2)

Change this one to -->

 Area
 • Total area
 3,796,742 sq mi (9,834,000 km2)[c][10] (3rd)
 • Water (%)
 6.97
 • Total land area
 3,531,905 sq mi (9,147,590 km2) 

FungChakShing (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

This is discussed in this note on List of countries and dependencies by area, which says it can only be counted as 3rd if the US includes coastal waters and China doesn't. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Rename Article

Can someone say why this article is called "United States" and not "United States of America" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orange.County.Steve (talk • contribs)

• Wikipedia goes by the most common name is general use. The country formally called the United States of America is commonly referred to as the United States in English. freshacconci (✉) 12:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

And also frequently as America. Georgia guy (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

America can also refer to both North and South America combined. 331dot (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

In English usage, America singular usually refers to the United States. North and South America are respectively called by those names, and together, as Georgia guy points out, they are the Americas. freshacconci (✉) 19:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

And that super-continent has an article at Americas. Georgia guy (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

This question is specifically addressed at length in the Frequently Asked Questions section at the top of this talk page. Go read the FAQ and the archive for most recent in-depth discussion of this issue (linked from the FAQ section). --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request, to add the demonym.

I'm nearly a complete newbie. My suggestion is to add the demonym(s) section. Most (nearly all?) articles about countries give the demonym. The 3 I sampled have it between Religion and Government. Since this article has those two sections adjacent and in that order, the placement seems clear. FWIW, I'm American. AFAIK, the only serious demonym for us is American.

Informal terms include Yank and Yankee, while 'Murican is humorous and derogatory, indicating uneducated people with naive patriotism. I'm not saying that any of these words should appear as demonyms, I'm just mentioning them to be thorough.

Thanks, Evan W Morton (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I've added "American" to the infobox. The template determines where it appears. -- Beland (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I changed the link target from Americans to Names for United States citizens, since the word "demonym" specifically means "word for people from a country", so a page discussing the words, as opposed to characteristics of the people themselves, is more relevant. — tooki (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Evan W Morton, bear in mind that within the US, the word "yank/yankee" does not mean "American", but rather has the specific meanings of someone from the north, especially New England, or the states that fought for the North in the American Civil War. So a great many Americans expressly do not identify as "Yankee". (Watch The Golden Girls, whose character Blanche Devereaux provides countless exaggerated examples of Southern antipathy towards Yankees. ;) ) The article Yankee goes into it in detail, but the aforementioned Names for United States citizens article also covers the topic. Since those articles already cover the topic in detail, it doesn't make sense to add this info to this article. — tooki (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

Please don´t say that the U.S. is America because America is the continent not the country. 181.167.153.147 (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

English differs from Spanish here, the continents are "The Americas". – Thjarkur (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Additionally, this is the English Wikipedia, and among native English speakers, there is essentially zero disagreement on "American" being the correct demonym for the US. See the excellent summary on Names for United States citizens. — tooki (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

"America" disamgiuator redirects

"America (2011 film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect America (2011 film). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

"America (album)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect America (album). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

"America (film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect America (film). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

"America (Song)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect America (Song). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The above were all speedily closed as redirect to disambiguator; nothing more to see here. --Golbez (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

"United States Of Amerca" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United States Of Amerca. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 17:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

USA link from sub-articles - no request for edit, just an observation.

Hi, abrowsing anight articles on e.g. individual US states, it struck me as curious that the 3 - 4 I read did not have any link to the USA article. No big deal, just a "so close you can't see it"/bad GUI type of problem, I guess; but perhaps there are one or two people on the planet who are not completely certain of the relationship between e.g. Virginia and the USA. I should probably have posted this in the USA portal talk page, but there were three postings in the last three years, so ... dead end, methinks. So excuse me for this, and that. All in the spirit of Wiki. Stay in, stay safe, folks. Best wishes. T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 04:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

This is unfortunately not specific to the USA; many years back, someone convinced the community it was a good idea to delink "obvious" things like countries rather than let it build the web. I don't remember who, why, or when, but it was annoying and a lot of useful links were removed. --Golbez (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thx, ok; saves me some editing-to-be-undone-time

) Best wishes, T

Question regarding the comment in the External links section

Greetings and felicitations. The hidden comment in the External links section states in part

The MediaWiki software that powers Wikipedia has several parameters that limit the complexity of a page, thus limiting the number of templates that can be included.

The template group at the top of this talk page includes the banner template "Section sizes", but that does not have a further explanation, nor do I see such an explanation in the "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" banner.

Is this software limitation still in effect? (I have no plans to expand the page—I'm just asking out of curiosity, and because at the moment I can't think of a set of search terms to extract the requisite information from this page's archives, if indeed it is there.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

State capitals and large cities

User:Golbez Thank you for correcting me on the Juneau being the capital of Alaska, that’s pretty funny, and it kinda exemplifies why this information in the lede would be important. I thought that Anchorage was the capital, I was mistaken, which furthermore hints that this kinda of stuff should be in the lede. I don’t want to cherrypick at all, Santa Fe being the oldest is important, but I do think Phoenix should be mentioned as the largest capital. Should we perhaps work in the oldest and largest territorial capital, San Juan, Puerto Rico, as well? Sunspotter (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Why should Honolulu and Juneau be mentioned above, say, Boston? Richmond? Providence? Austin? These are all notable in different ways. No matter which way you cut it, this is excessive detail for the intro. --Golbez (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

this article is about the nation as a whole and in my opinion state capitals are trivial in that regard. Rjensen (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Capital cities and large cities aren’t trivial info for a nation, they demonstrate the size and scope of the nation. We should develop a good criteria though, because Golbez is right to worry about cherrypicking, and we don’t want that to happen. The 5 largest cities are NY, LA, Chicago, Houston, and Phoenix; they should probably be mentioned. We should mention capitals of note, which I think we should iron out a criteria, the oldest is easiest to decide on since that’s just Santa Fe and Boston; all other state capitals come 50+ years later. Maybe listing capital cities beyond the contiguous states is good to mention, such as the state capitals of Honolulu and Juneau, and out of the territorial capitals the oldest/largest is San Juan. I think we can come up with a criteria if we put our heads together. Sunspotter (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that state capitals are trivial info in the context of the country as a whole and are excessive detail. The next "level" down from United States is the individual states, not the capitals of those states. Schazjmd (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Capital cities and large cities aren't trivial, correct, which is why the intro correctly points out the capital of the country and the largest city of the country. Not the capitals of the states, not the largest cities of the states, not the capitals of the most unusual states. It also goes back to an old argument about largest cities, but why should Phoenix get mentioned before Atlanta? Phoenix is the larger city, but Atlanta is the larger metro. But I see no point to list any individual capitals in the lede or even the article. --Golbez (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The capitals of the states, and other large cities are very much worth mentioning. I think sticking with just DC and NY makes the whole country appear as though its located within a relatively small coastal geographic area, which it is not. Many US states are the size of entire European countries. The lede should reflect that. You’re right about Philadelphia, we shouldn’t have to muddle that issue. Maybe we should just mention the top 3 cities, since they are the largest cities and principal parts of the top metros as well? That could limit to the oldest three capitals as well, so that’d be good. Top 3s are manageable and avoids cherrypicking. Maybe also add the three largest non-contiguous capitals? I just want to better highlight, in the lede, the geographic and historic spread of the country. Sunspotter (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Sunspotter, why do you feel that so much info has to be covered in the lead? Schazjmd (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

We once had more cities in the lead, but left just New York and Washington after some discussion, IIRC, a discussion that I'm not able to locate in the archives. I don't think their exclusive mention will mislead anyone. A country this size will not be located in a small coastal area; anyone who thinks otherwise needs a rules-of-inference tuneup. New York isn't just the most populous city, but is that by a considerable margin, IIRC. In terms of mentioning other cities, we should think historically as well as present day. When and why did New York surpass Philadelphia in population (and where was the other mention of Philly?; I didn't find it), and when and why did NY state exceed the Old Dominion in population (the latter's once supremacy in that statistic helping to explain the location of the national capital)? New Orleans and St. Louis were once quite important, before all river-superseding rail traffic was routed through Chicago (St. Louis for a time being US Army headquarters, not DC; NOLA once being the largest southern city). I should be able to explain how Los Angeles became so important, but can't. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

To Schazjmd’s point, I really don’t think its all that much info to include. Especially if we all work towards a common sense criteria for inclusion. And to Dhtwiki’s point, I don’t believe the inference is an issue, its just that only mentioning that small geographic area leaves too much information omitted. It is interesting that other cities used to be included, which means that this is something people are interested in. Golbez mentioned Philly, we’re ironing out criteria. You also raise another good point Dhtwiki, perhaps including the 3 historically important cities, those could include Philadelphia, New Orleans or Baton Rouge, and St. Louis. But I don’t know how we could easily explain the criteria for their inclusion. Large cities and old capitals are easy criteria to define and manage, since its quantifiable data. We don’t need to overly explain their significance, that’s what Wikilinks are for, we need to make sure this is in the lede for people to easily access. And we need to make sure its compact and has easily discernible criteria. Sunspotter (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I did not share the consensus to remove the list of major metro areas under Demographics. I thought it was useful info as it was a quick, linked table (and it appears in virtually all WP country articles). However, I am totally opposed to the latest suggestion for scattershot sampling of factoids about state capitals, etc. A lede/introduction in an encyclopedia deals with salient points, not to catch the flavor of history. It doesn't matter that it's "not that much info to include." Such changes to the lede make the article look amateurish, even childish. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This must be the discussion that led to the removal of 13(!) cities from the lead, the discussion I was looking for earlier. List of capitals in the United States is a comprehensive article on the national and state capitals, including former state capitals. It's not linked from this article, as far as I could see, nor is it linked from List of states and territories of the United States, as far as I could tell, which is where it might best be placed. We don't need a lot of information on various capitals in the lead, but we might be able to do a better job of directing readers to that informative list article. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Mason.Jones is right that we should have a broader set of cities in the lede, and so as to avoid the scattershot I think we need to define good criteria. My point is to be encyclopedic, quantifiable data points such as population and date historicity are number that can be reliably sourced. Dhtwiki is right, 13 cities is way too much for the lede, I think staying well-under 10 would be the way to go. As that’s manageable, and linking to those list articles would be a really great idea. I think we’re really getting somewhere here. Maybe national capital, 3 top cities, 3 top metros that aren’t also top cities or in the same state *ahem* Texas, and two oldest state capitals. Note three capitals and three large cities, bringing the total to 6 cities. How about something like this:

The capital of the United States is Washington, D.C., while the oldest U.S. state capitals are Santa Fe, and Boston, Massachusetts. The most populous cities are New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago

Though I’m not sold on anything beyond this, I would like to include something about metropolitan areas and megaregions as well. But I don’t know, not sure we can do that in a compact manner, maybe that needs a section instead, I’m sure we can figure it out. Sunspotter (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

leave out "oldest" capital cities--useless info and misleading . (Sante Fe was a capital city for Spain/Mexico and not even part of USA until 1848 when Congress set up the territorial capital there. Boston is important for being an intellectual center not so much for being a state capital. Rjensen (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Rjensen, I have not been convinced as of yet that capitals are trivial. Capital cities are often laid out as such, to perform as seat of government. Boston and Santa Fe have a common element in that they were both laid out as Capital of their respective areas, technically Boston was laid out as a capital for the British province of Massachusetts and Santa Fe was laid out as a capital of the Spanish province of New Mexico. They were provincial capitals, to provinces that later became US states. Similar to how DC was laid out as capital for the US as a whole. Otherwise New York City would be capital of the US, Española would be capital of New Mexico, and Salem would be capital of Massachusetts. Because at the time, they were the largest cities in their respective areas. This is why the best way to quantify capital status is by date, to represent when they were laid out to act as seat of government. We need to make sure were using numbers to quantify this list, because Dht is right, we don’t need a crazy list of 13 cities. I think these six are a good middle ground. National capital and two state capitals, chosen by date of foundation, bringing the total list of capitals to 3. And the 3 largest cities. These six are easy to quantify, purely by numbers, and don’t lend themselves to being haphazard choices. Sunspotter (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

capital cities each have their won articles where all this can be covered in depth. As for the oldest US capital it's probably Pago Pago. Rjensen (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

They do have their own articles, however I believe that their should be example on the lede. As I said before that quantified data is important, and this capital status is always important, as it is typically a meticulously selective process as was the case for Washington DC, Santa Fe, and Boston. I did mention beforehand that I did also concure that I’d like to find a way to include territorial capitals or capitals from outside the contiguous US, and Pago Pago would certainly fit both molds, if we could come up with a criteria that makes sure that it doesn’t get unwieldy, I’d be inclined to find a method. Perhaps just mentioning a single territorial capital, again selected by age of foundation? That might give that broader point of view, giving the opportunity to link to an article about US territories, without being cherrypick-ish as mentioned earlier. But I don’t know, that would bring our total to 7, we want to build a consensus that keeps the list small and non-arbitrary in the lede. 7 isn’t that crazy a number though, so it is definitely doable. Sunspotter (talk) 12:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

It makes more sense to have state capitals discussed in state articles, because those are the polities that determine their establishment. It makes more sense to include here cities where the federal government has established itself (e.g., Denver has the most federal agencies outside of DC (IIRC), and there are Federal Reserve cities and headquarters of federal appeals court districts). If you want more information on state capitals in this encyclopedia, you should be looking at adding to state articles, creating an addendum to the list article I linked to above, or creating a new article. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

There are already ad hominem lists for state capitals, that’s not the issue. The issue if linking to it and discussing it in the lede as a basic level. State capitals in the US are representative of federal enforcement anyhow, the numbers are raw data which is why I feel as though age is a static enough number. Denver is a very important locale, with large federal presence, but I don’t feel that’s a reliably stable numerical value to satisfy the issue. We are trying to come up with a criteria for how to include city data, and I still am under the impression that age of capital status and population centers are the best qualifiers. This limits us to a very low number of cities, in a quantitative manner. I’m open for other criteria to be discussed, but we need to make sure it is not arbitrary and easy to replicate across capitals and cities. We don’t want a massive 10+ list. Sunspotter (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The consensus trend for the article "United States" has been to reduce lists and factoids. This has included the removal, by consensus, of lists (like the 15 largest metro areas) I think are basic and available under every WP country article in every language. I must oppose the addition of "flavorsome" details about state capitals to the article, most especially to the lede. There's no logical, judicious reason advanced so far to support such trivial pursuits. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I said as much, but age of capital foundation is not flavorsome nor trivial, it is typically how capitals are quantified due to their establishment for seat of government. To put it plainly, there have been no arguments that I’ve seen that can’t be overcome with numbers. I have to insist that ignoring “State” capitals in the lede is completely asinine for an article about the United “States”. Far more trivial than lending the mention of Santa Fe and Boston. Sunspotter (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

No it is NOT true that state capitals have received special national treatment. The argument is not just trivial but probably false and as this entire page reveals wholly unsupported by any reliable sources. Rjensen (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Editors have ignored state capitals in the lede for that reason: they deserve no special treatment in this national article. State capitals are administrative (sub)centers; many legislators meet there for only part of the year. That itself might be worth mentioning, but the cities themselves are not—pure trivia for readers outside the state, bureaucratic noise for those outside the United States. Adding such mentions to the lede is pointless. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I never said that state capitals have received special national treatment. My criteria is purely based on numbers, not bureaucratic noise, and any arguments to the contrary is entirely conjecture. The States of the United States are important parts of the national whole, as are their capitals. I don’t believe their subjective role needs to be mentioned, as that’s highly opinion based plus those individual articles can better handle that, the links to city and list articles supplies that need without cluttering the lede. Having these three six cities, until further numerical criteria for inclusion can be decided on, is still the best option I can see. Sunspotter (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The main problem is that no Reliable Source supports this private interpretation of the importance of state or territorial capitals--which even if true has no relation to an article that has to cover all of U.S.A. in very limited space. Rjensen (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

State capitals (and cities within the states in general) do not require this level of detail in the article for the country as a whole for the simple reason that they aren't relevant to the country as a whole. The US isn't actually a country that is subdivided into states that are then subdivided into counties and cities. It is the association of those states. The states (as wholes, not as collections of parts) come together to make up the US. The cities of any particular state are of virtually no importance to people in other states and the country as a whole. Only a very few cities (like New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago) have any real impact on the country as a whole and the greater world beyond the US. And notice that none of the three that I mentioned are state capitals. For most states their most influential city is not their capital. In my own state Charlotte is probably more influential than Raleigh, though it is probably a closer call than many other states due to Raleigh being part of the Research Triangle. --Khajidha (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

State capitals are just as good as any other criterion, and they are required for the United States to function. The state capitals are one of the basic principals of the country, but if you’d rather find other criterion then I’d rather hear those proposals. Rather than simply mocking my usage of the mathematical unit of time. Because we need to hear other potential non-biased measures for city inclusions to been presented. It is not a question if more cities should be included, as there have been numerous discussions to have more, it is a question of which cities, and how we can decide on their criteria of inclusion. New York City and DC are not the only major cities in the country, and the lede needs to show that. Otherwise it is too little information as to be useful. Maybe another potential criteria could be the Air Traffic Control Center locations https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/air_traffic_services/artcc/ but that would be around 20 cities, so the prior discussed lists would probably be better as they were were much more meaningful and less crowded. Sunspotter (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

State capitals serve an administrative function for each state, they are not "basic principals<sic> of the country". I'm not proposing other criteria for inclusion of cities in the lead because I don't agree with you that there should be more than are currently there: the capital of the country, and most populous. (And I'd be open to removing most populous as well.) Schazjmd (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

You are allowed to disagree, but at this point you’re not seeming to be acting in good faith. Though this is the only discussion where I’ve heard people doubting the importance of state capitals at a national level, it’s a very basic part of the understand of the United States. It forms the very basis of our legislative branch. As in, the sovereignty therein is important. There are hundreds of documents detailing this importance. https://study.com/academy/lesson/capitals-of-us-states.html https://www.oldest.org/geography/us-capitals/ https://constitutingamerica.org/capital-cities-capitol-buildings-seats-state-government-across-america-part-1-guest-essayist-greg-davidson/ https://books.google.com/books?id=Bi5nAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=how+important+are+state+capitals+United+States&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiI-K7_leHnAhUMvp4KHZx1BeQQ6AEwAHoECAEQAQ https://books.google.com/books?id=FQ0mAQAAMAAJ&q=how+important+are+state+capitals+United+States&dq=how+important+are+state+capitals+United+States&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiI-K7_leHnAhUMvp4KHZx1BeQQ6AEwBnoECAUQAQ Sunspotter (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

(added indent for your comment) The lead of the article needs to summarize the most important information from the article. In the scope of the article, individual cities are minor information. The most important thing to understand about the country is what Khajidha says above: the states. And all the lead says right now about those is that there are 50. Schazjmd (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Sunspotter, your own sources argue against you. The study.com site says that "capital cities play a vital role in running the fifty states", but nothing about how they impact the country as a whole. Oldest.org discusses events that happened at these locations, but these events really had nothing to do with the cities as capitals. Constituting America again talks about their role in their states, not in the country. Again, the US is built of its states, not its cities. Albany doesn't have a place in the governance of the US, but New York does. Same for Raleigh and North Carolina. Or Phoenix and Arizona. Or Lincoln and Nebraska. Or .... --Khajidha (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The editors (a majority) opposing more detail about state capitals have acted in good faith. Their point is that except for big cities with large economies (Phoenix, Boston) or historically interesting cities (Santa Fe), state capitals serve only a bureaucratic function for one state (like Montpelier and Frankfort). Some state capitals were also the site of state universities (Austin, Tallahassee). While this could be mentioned under "Government," its inclusion in the lead is questionable. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, I shouldn’t have to explain how a federalist republic‘s respective capitals are important. I understand that nothing I say will be accepted in this discussion. Sorry for causing the trouble. New York City should probably not be mentioned either, to prevent this sort of discussion from arising again. Becuase I though there was an interest to add more capitals, I suppose I was wrong and I never intended to get into a toxic debate. Sunspotter (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

It's the fact that the US is a federal republic that makes the capitals of the states not relevant to the country as a whole. --Khajidha (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2020

I found several issues with this Wikipedia article that I would like to correct. WikiEditor0231 (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

You need to tell us what you want to be changed, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2020

• Last state admitted March 18, 1959 (Hawaii) Should be Last state admitted August 21, 1959 (Hawaii) 2600:1700:F0E1:3B90:CDA3:8788:6C7D:30E7 (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

"美国" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 美国. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Interstellarity (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

"THE AMERICAN UNITED STATES" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect THE AMERICAN UNITED STATES. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 1#THE AMERICAN UNITED STATES until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

"Civitates Foederatae Americae" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Civitates Foederatae Americae. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 1#Civitates Foederatae Americae until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2020

Under 'parties and elections', the article states there are 27 Republican Governors and 23 Democrats. This is inaccurate, in light of the 2019 elections - the figures are now 26 Republicans and 24 Democrats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.141.212 (talk) 10:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done – I've made some relevant changes. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:United States/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Considering there are two issues:

• It is too long to navigate comfortably
• Excessive amount of detail

I would like to re-asses the good article status, because those issues violates 1a and 3b of the good article criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Streepjescode (talk • contribs)

• Hi Streepjescode. Country articles tend to be quite long due to there nature, but I do agree that this one could make better use of daughter articles and summary style. I have dropped a note at the Wikiproject informing them of this reassessment, sorry if you had already done so. AIRcorn (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I think this might be better for a community assessment so I'm posting it there as well. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support delisting if no improvements are made: the article is currently 111 kB when the absolute maximum article size is 100kb. It would really benefit from more aggressive summary style, hopefully cutting it down to around 80kb or less. buidhe 13:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Significant progress has been made, but there are still uncited statements and excessive images breaking across sections. (t · c) buidhe 13:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support delisting. The length is egregious, the lead has references not used anywhere else suggesting information there may not be in the rest of the article (eg. worker productivity), there are numerous single sentence paragraphs and numerous tiny sections (the table of contents is very long), and there are areas missing citations. The article thus fails the first 3 GA Criteria. CMD (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support delisting. In particular, the Demographics section is pretty excessive considering that most of its subheadings have their own articles. I think cutting down that section by even 50% would be helpful. Ovinus Real (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose delisting. While this article is very long, the United States is a topic that generates a very long article. It could be reduced, but it is still at overall GA quality. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Many topics generate very long articles, that is why we have WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and related guidelines. I would suggest it's a decent enough bet that the United States has more subarticles than any other country. I would also add that in addition to the concerns raised above about 1a and 3b, I have concerns on this article relating to 1b and 2c, so I don't see the article as having an overall GA quality at all. CMD (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• I'm going to do some copy editing and taking a look at sources/citations over the next week or two. Not going to touch the lede because I haven't edited this article much and I'm not yet comfortable messing with stuff there, but I'll be working on making things more succinct in the rest of the article. I'll also be on the lookout for MOS violations and fix them as I see them. CJK09 (talk) 06:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Don't have time for this atm. Too much else on my plate. CJK09 (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Over the past couple days I have reorganized sections of this article and tried to remove excessive detail. Over the coming days I'll probably whittle it down a bit more and do some copy editing. I think it's a bit easier to navigate now though. Any suggestions are welcome (please ping me) Ovinus (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Hi Ovinus, regarding navigation, a significant issue is the number of sections and subsections in the article (54). Some of this is due to the sheer length of the article, but some are very short, which is discouraged by MOS:BODY. Examples include Wildlife (2 sentences), Conservation (2 short paragraphs), Population (2 sentences), Major population areas (2 short paragraphs), etc. There are also 3 sections named "Statistics", and 4 sections named "Trends", which is explicitly instructed against by MOS:HEAD, due to how it impedes navigation. CMD (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Ovinus Real has been doing a lot of summarizing and has brought this article down from 400kb to around 350kb. This is a major improvement, but the article is still too long. I support delisting unless the article is cut down to around 250kb or less, and the excessive detail is removed. CrazyBoy826 16:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • You have lots of over data that can be moved....language chart with stats about less then 1 percent of the population could be made to prose text. Do we need "State flags and statehood dates" templates that in mobile view are always expanded...this could be a simple link. Section on "Water supply and sanitation" is so general that is contains zero informative information and could be removed. "Income, poverty and wealth" is so detailed that non Americans are lost by all the numbers and how they compare to other countries.--Moxy 🍁 14:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I agree, the language table is not helpful. Your other changes would also be beneficial. (t · c) buidhe 03:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
      • This is a discussion on the length and manageability of the "United States" article—nothing else. A cursory comment on this particular page ("I agree the language table is not helpful") is not sufficient basis for wholesale deletion of a table present in the article for 10 years. No consensus has been reached on this. Go to the *main* Talk page. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Mason.Jones, WP:ONUS says that the onus to keep disputed content rests with the editors seeking to keep it. I don't see any such consensus. (t · c) buidhe 16:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
          • You deleted major content without discussion on the main Talk page, and with no edit summary (other than a cursory acronym). Moreover, discussion on this same issue (the ACS language table) already existed on the main Talk page with the same poster above (Moxy). No consensus was reached. Shooting the breeze with posters on this talk page re length/navigation issues i s not consensus either. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
            • Mason.Jones again you're missing the point. You need consensus to KEEP this content, according to WP:ONUS. Consensus is not necessary to DELETE content because the burden of proof (that the content is WP:DUE) is on those seeking to keep it in the article. (t · c) buidhe 19:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
              • You've made mass deletions of statistical data, edits "embedded" in sweeping global fixes without proper edit summaries. Other editors have to go to a talk page related to GA4/navigation issues (not the main Talk page, which deals with content), then figure out what you changed and, worse, why. This is underhanded editing and definitely not in good faith. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – Are we done yet? The result of the reassessment has been pending for nearly six months, and most seem to be in favor of delisting. jackchango talk 10:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• North America 1748.PNG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2020

117.20.117.38 (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2020 (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. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020

grammar and update the facts Yesyesbiggyboy1244 (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Request is short on actual details. El_C 13:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

we are all the same race (homocapien) and have different ethnicities. With everything going on we should be correcting this please. If you need validity, I learned about race in anthropology. Thank you!! 174.3.193.104 (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2020 (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. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Slavery & Jim Crow in the lead

The lead includes the sentence During the second half of the 19th century, the American Civil War led to the abolition of slavery in the United States.

Firstly, that doesn't work chronologically because it fails to introduce the fact that slavery existed in the first place. We cannot start with the abolition.

Secondly, it whitewashes slavery by merely focusing on its most positive aspect (abolition) and portrays it as something that only existed in connection with the civil war in the mid 19th century, or as a "natural state," instead of focusing on or even mentioning the centuries of inhumane genocide that preceded its abolition and explaining its extreme nature.

Clearly slavery is of fundamental importance to any description of the U.S. and needs to be addressed appropriately in the lead. The sentence about abolition should be preceded by a sentence that establishes that slavery existed in the first place and explains why it is important. It should mention that slavery was based on racism, and that it is viewed as a genocide today. For example something like (not necessarily this exact wording):

The United States and its predecessor colonies enslaved millions of Africans over four centuries in what has later been described as a genocide based on racism.

The lead also needs to be mention the official racial discrimination in the US until the 1960s (Jim Crow laws), in the same way that the lead section of South Africa mentions the apartheid system. --Tataral (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Good point, Tataral. I made a slight tweak, but there is more that can be said. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • That looks much better! --Tataral (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I have made a further edit, with explanation given in edit summary. I question the use of "genocide", which usually denotes an attempt to annihilate a race. IIRC, 400,000 Africans were brought to the US over the years; they were 4 million by the time of the Civil War, a 10-fold increase in population. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I agree, "genocide" is far too contentious a label in this context to be in the lede in Wikipedia voice. There remain some pretty serious issues with the lede's summary of racial issues, which I've elaborated on as part of my comments in the below section. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 10:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Issues with the lede

The lede has some pretty glaring issues right now. Given the high visibility of this article (and especially its lede) I don't want to introduce anything I'm not absolutely sure of, so I'm bringing it to the talk page. I get this may be seen as nitpicking but on an article as highly viewed as this one it's important to get things right, especially since a large proportion of the readers of any given article only read the lede.

The United States embarked on a vigorous expansion across North America throughout the 19th century—gradually acquiring new territories,[21] killing and displacing Native Americans, and admitting new states—until 1848 when it spanned the continent. This sentence is quite a mess on all counts. Vigorous westward expansion began long before the 19th century - it started immediately upon US independence, when the country no longer had to abide by George's edict of 1763. The Northwest Indian War lasted from 1785 to 1795, the Northwest Ordinance was passed in 1787, and Tennessee and Kentucky were granted statehood in the 1790s. Ohio wasn't yet a state (1803) but settlement was already well underway. 1848 is incorrect. The Oregon Treaty in 1846 gave the portion of the Oregon Country south of the 49th parallel to the US. The sentence is also confusing in that it (falsely) implies that the acquisition of territory, Indian wars and admission of states stopped in 1848. Major Indian Wars continued into the mid 1880s. The Gadsden Purchase of 1853 was the final land acquisition excluding Alaska and Hawaii. The first West Coast state (California) wasn't admitted until 1850, and there wasn't a continuous chain of admitted states stretching from coast to coast until the admission of Idaho in 1890.

The Spanish–American War and World War I confirmed the country's status, a status confirmed by the outcome of World War II What status? And this sentence is a mess overall. I assume this is talking about the US's rise to its status as a global power. But the period from 1877 to 1914 is a big gap in my knowledge of US history and I know nothing about the Spanish American War. There's no post-civil war info in the previous paragraph to contextualize this.

A highly developed country, the United States is the world's largest economy by nominal GDP, the second-largest by purchasing power parity, and accounts for approximately a quarter of global GDP. My understanding of PPP is that it's useful only for comparing standard of living between countries in the form of GDP (PPP) per capita, not for comparing the power of national economies on the global stage. China's lower cost of living doesn't give it a 2/3 discount on its imports.

Slavery had been legal in much of the United States from the 17th to second half of the 19th century, when the American Civil War led to its abolition.[22][23] Systemic racism, exemplified by the Jim Crow laws of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, continues to plague the country, partly remedied by the Civil rights movement of the 20th century. Even with the inherent length limitations of the lede, this is a very poor summary of US racial issues. First, the issue of slavery: it was legal in all colonies in 1776. Although it wasn't equally established in all states - it was a bedrock societal institution south of the Mason-Dixon line, while in New England it was nonexistent in some states and barely existent in others - it wasn't until the first decade of the 19th century that the familiar "free north/slave south" pattern was in place. Next, no mention of Reconstruction whatsoever. Its vast promise, significant achievements, and ultimate downfall followed by the rise of the Redeemers and Jim Crow is an indispensable part of American civil rights history, and deserves at least a brief mention. Finally, although societal racism is definitely still an issue today, I think the current text seriously underplays the massive significance of the Civil Rights Movement.

I'll draft up some improvements over the next day and post them here as well. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 10:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• CactusJack, "this is a very poor summary of US racial issues"--yeah. Yesterday there was nothing. If you're going to complain about how the "current text seriously underplays etc.", why didn't you come by earlier to make sure it was done absolutely perfect the first time around? Drmies (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Real helpful for an admin to discourage editors from making suggestions to improve one of our most viewed and most important articles Drmies. I made good faith suggestions and I'm looking for further input. And I'm not on Wikipedia 24/7. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 14:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• You made good suggestions, and while doing so made a mockery of the actual improvements I made. I don't care if you are on Wikipedia 24/7: you could have looked at the history, or on this very talk page, in the same section where you commented. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not interested in contributing to a project where constructive suggestions for article improvement are met with this sort of response. I'm out of here. I spend too much time on Wikipedia anyway. I'll be scrambling my password after this edit. The rest of you folks can figure out how to address these issues, if you even care to address them. Peace. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 15:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEAD, "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." That's a tall order for this article, and IMO the existing lead makes great strides in the right direction. If the Reconstruction needs more WEIGHT, that can be more fruitfully done in the body than in the lead. Making some tweaks, feel free to untweak them with improving comments. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Well this escalated quickly. I'm generally with Drmies here. "Why doesn't wikipedia have X" the answer is nearly always "because you haven't written it yet." --Golbez (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hm, well bringing stuff to the talk page is generally intended to avoid escalation. Saying "go ahead and fix it up" would have a reasonable way of replying. Saying "you should have fixed it before" is not. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC).

Population map

I think the population map, File:United States Map of Population by State (2015).svg, should be replaced with a population density map. Having a shaded area visually signifies that the map is a measure of density, and when a total count is used, that makes it inaccurately seem as though states with a large geographic area but relatively sparse population (e.g. Texas) are far more urbanized than small states with a dense population (e.g. Rhode Island). A population density map would solve this issue. (This is the same logic that led us to adopt primarily a per capita map for the COVID-19 pandemic article.) Ideally, it would use counties as the unit rather than states, so that e.g. upstate New York wouldn't appear super densely populated. I don't see any great options in commons:Category:Population density maps of the United States, though, so it might need to be created. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

In which year did the U.S. first span the continent?

The lede currently states that the U.S. first spanned the continent from coast to coast in 1848, the year of the Mexican Cession. This is incorrect unless you completely disregard the Oregon Country; the problem then is determining which date to use for the Oregon Country. Also, I'm not too experienced in dealing with issues at the edge of WP:OR, so I'm not sure whether we have to find a source explicitly stating that the US first spanned the continent in <insert year here> (strict application of WP:NOR), or if we just need to source that the US achieved undisputed sovereignty over the Oregon Country in <insert year here> (treating it as an obvious inference that no reasonable person would disagree with). The tricky thing is that there are several different years you could point to for US possession of the Oregon Country - it's not a single clearcut date like the Mexican Cession.

• 1818: Treaty of 1818 with the UK establishes joint American–British sovereignty over the Oregon Country, with no defined northern boundary despite Russian presence in Alaska and along the coast.
• 1821: Transcontinental Treaty with Spain resolves numerous border disputes and fixes the southern border of the Oregon Country at the 42nd parallel.
• 1843: in the year of first large-scale migration along the Oregon Trail, American settlers in Oregon Country establish an unofficial provisional government.
• 1846: the Oregon Treaty divides the Oregon Country between the US and UK, ending joint sovereignty and giving the US full sovereignty of the portion south of the 49th parallel. This area becomes unorganized territory.
• 1848: Oregon Territory is established as an organized territory.

I'm inclined to say 1846 but it seems pretty up in the air. I also just lost access to my college's libraries and databases upon graduating a few days ago, and I'm still waiting for my Wikipedia Library applications to be approved, so I don't have access a ton of sources right now. Any other opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CactusJack (talk • contribs) 02:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

We should use the date found in reliable sources, per no original research. It's likely that 1848 was the year Oregon was formally incorporated into the United States under sec. 14 of the Oregon Bill of 1848.[2] Before that it would have been an external territory, owned by but not part of the U.S. TFD (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Ignorant violations of NPOV because you can't stomach accurate negativity

In the past, I have been accused of violating NPOV (Neutal Point of View) for being honest about descriptions. It seems to be a common problem with various editors that being neutral in tone is preferable to being factually accurate. So let's cut to the chase here:

US President Donald Trump instructed the US Police and Military to fire on US citizen for protesting against inequality, before declaring anti-fascism to be a terrorist group.

Read that a few more times.

If you're telling me it's violating some policy to NOT describe the United States AT PRESENT as being a Fascist Dictatorship, then you are ALL guilty of violating NPOV. I'm not interested in what the US *should* be, I would like this page updated to what it IS. Stop pandering to ideals and maintain some damn accuracy.

I tried to do this, got accused of "vandalism". If you support this view, then you are part of the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiPhu (talk • contribs) 11:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

We can only report on what reliable sources say, and wikpedia user wikiphu does not appear to meet the criteria at WP:RS. Please contact their talk page for inclusion before trying again. Thank you. --Golbez (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

This is what I hate about Wikipedia culture. Everyone knows what's going on in America right now. You can search for a hundred articles about what's going on. It's common knowledge. And what's the WikiClique response? "Speak condescendingly to the user who speaks the truth". Reliable sources my hairy a**. This is the WikiClique refusing to admit there's a problem in America and in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8B0:1627:1:5085:9BD3:6A5E:70A7 (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. --Golbez (talk) 02:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

"Systemic racism" and "partly remedied". It is a phrase that clearly favors the radical left that makes us believe that the United States, its institutions and its people are racist without proof.

Systemic racism, exemplified by the Jim Crow laws of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, continues to plague the country, partly remedied by the Civil rights movement of the 20th century. -> It is a motivated political statement. "Systemic racism" are words used by the radical left without reliable sources, and "partially remedied" are words used by the radical left without reliable sources to accuse the United States and its citizens of racism. The sources used by people who use these phrases frequently belong to a left or progressive media. It is a phrase that clearly favors the radical left that makes us believe that the United States, its institutions and its people are racist without proof. --JShark (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Pls Talk:United States#Slavery & Jim Crow in the lead. --Moxy 🍁 02:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Leftists like Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas President Robert Kaplan quoted in the WSJ? Is Time magazine an example of the radical left? The article lead summarizes the most important facts in the body of the article. Systemic racism is an important fact about America and people who demand we all shut our eyes to it don't have a right to demand that Wikipedia should censor history. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I know the term "systemic racism" gets bandied about but it's usually without a clear definition. If it means that those of certain races are doing less well than others, that begs the question of, say, determination to acquire an education or cultural attitudes towards industriousness (Russians' general lack of a Calvinistic work ethic has been attributed to why the Russian revolution wasn't as successful as the American one). If it means that there are laws, or other attitudes, that institutionalize racial, or gender, or whatever, prejudice, there are laws (such as Title IX) and attitudes (such as "diversity", = racial set asides) that seem as mindlessly fetishistic as those laws that once branded African Americans and other "people of color" (some of whom are doing quite well in this systemically racist society) as inferior or as not being allowed to mix with whites. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm to the left politically, but the verb "plague" (unless it refers to bacteria or locusts) is already tendentious and unencyclopedic. And "systemic racism," with neither source nor definition and presented as a universal truth, is totally wrong in Wikipedia. Mason.Jones (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

So your argument is that the reason blacks are disadvantaged is not the whites are racist but that the blacks are inferior. While there is an internal consistency to that view, it's not generally accepted. So per weight and no synthesis, we can't use it to overturn the consensus of opinion in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

If you don't believe in systemic inferiority, why do you believe in systemic racism? And where are the sources, especially those that try to define what it means? "Systemic racism" isn't used in the body of the article, with supporting citations, as far as I could see. Why should it appear suddenly in the lead? (I left it there when I made my edits to the text that has now been removed, because I feel that it is used so frequently that there must be a reliably sourced definition that could be supplied, even though I might find the definition not very useful, such as that which says racism is only something that can be attributed to the powerful, even though most people are aware of race, act in racial cohorts, and exhibit racial prejudice.) Dhtwiki (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I am not expressing my opinions on systemic racism, merely repeating those that are accepted by experts. Second, I don't understand your view that the belief there is racism in America is a racist view. Usually it is accompanied by an opinion that something should be done to correct it. TFD (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@TFD: What experts? Sourced experts are never identified. Conventional wisdom is not a basic tool for writing country articles in encyclopedias. And social ills that "plague" a country is writing worthy of a high school essay. And as Dwiki noted, that came straight out of the blue. Mason.Jones (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

There's a wealth of literature about the topic, such as the book, Systemic Racism in the United States (Springer Publishing, 2018) If you think there is any dispute outside right-wing talk shows, then please provide them. By the way, I did not say conventional wisdom I said expert opinion. If you want me to respect your arguments, don't misrepresent me. TFD (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

"Per USA Today, "systemic racism" refers to "systems and structures that have procedures or processes that disadvantages African Americans." Synonyms include "structural racism" or "institutional racism." Using one of these synonyms, or a descriptive paraphrase, would be more informative -- especially because the phrase "systemic racism" has been widely targeted and misinterpreted by Fox News. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The edit in question neither provided such a source nor did it give definition or parameters to "systemic" racism. "Plague" is totally unencyclopedic. Conventional wisdom—"You know this to be true," unqualified and unsourced—is what was presented, and that is inadequate for a WP country article. You have to do better. Mason.Jones (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

There's also the article Institutional racism, with "systemic racism" as a redirect, that we could link to, if it's decided that that term should be used. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no concrete proof that American institutions are racist. The right thing to do would be to sue if you think your rights are really being destroyed. You lost me when you wanted to take the acts of a few misguided perhaps malicious individuals and ascribe that to all Americans. --JShark (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Racism is not suffered only by African Americans in the world. Racism can be suffered by all people, including Europeans. But you still can't say that American institutions are designed and created to be racist. --JShark (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Systemic racism does not mean that "institutions are designed and created to be racist" but rather that some institutions have effects that create burdens for some races more than for others. The term describes outcomes that statistics can measure. It also has zero to do with ascribing malicious behavior "to all Americans." But your inaccurate belief is common, and promoted by rightwing media. Wikipedia should therefore avoid the expression, which should not mean avoiding this important topic. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange There is no concrete proof of anything you say. American institutions do not affect any race. Those supposed statistics are the typical ones that the radical left manipulates. --JShark (talk) 04:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Think the culture section should mention the Harlem Renaissance

Just a short paragraph recognizing black intellectual contributions to history of US culture. My draft would read:

During the 1920s, Harlem, New York became home to the Harlem Renaissance, an intellectual and artistic movement characterized by an explosion of creativity among black intellectuals best exemplified by one its leading poets, Langston Hughes. Later in the 20th century, prominent black writers with global influence emerged such as James Baldwin, Maya Angelou, and Nobel Laureate Toni Morrison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.79.149.142 (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

That's more than is said about it at Culture of the United States. If we were to mention it here, I imagine something like "In the 1920s, the Harlem Renaissance took place", somewhere in the "Culture" section. Something brief and appropriate to how this article handles other outpourings of creativity in that section. Dhtwiki (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Tags

Hi folks, Tags at the top of a large article are not useful. A random passerby isn't going to go "oh, I know how to fix it" and any one more experienced would be checking the talk page anyways. And, per WP:TC "For heavily monitored articles, please do not add or remove template messages of this sort without using the talk page." I've searched, and I've seen no consensus built that we should have these tags. As such, it seems they were added improperly and should be removed. Do you *really* think having those tags there are going to attract people to edit this, or is this just a badge of shame? There are millions of articles, only a small fraction of which have tags like this. Is this one *really* in the worst 5% of all our articles? Hobit (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, and "undergoing GAR review" isn't a reason for tags on the article. Hobit (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Pls see archive for many talks on the matter. .... ‎United States ‎[351,459 bytes] (so yes top 5%)...WP:TOOBIG - Wikipedia:Too much detail.--Moxy 🍁 13:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not arguing it doesn't need to be smaller. I'm arguing that tagging it is extremely unlikely to pull in editors who are qualified and willing to work on it. Tags aren't there to act as a "badge of shame" and that's what this is. And could you point out to me where consensus was gained to add those tags in the archive? I've searched and can't find anything close to the dates listed. Hobit (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why you belive a consensus talk is needed to add tags but they have been here a few years now so dont know what talk is best to link out of the many many talks...with the first talk about size back in 2005. Many attempts and talks over the years to cuddle the article to no avail thus tags still there. Best quote from all the talks is "The main reason is that new editors with a special interest arrive and add more and more marginal details about their favorite subjects." As for why pls see Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems.--Moxy 🍁 14:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

So the tags have been here for years (I was going by the date on the tags themselves)? It doesn't look like the tags are helping... Hobit (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

It has actually lead to the start of 5 conversations on the topic. So yes it is making editors pause and think of the problem. Not sure how no tag will help facilitate that.--Moxy 🍁 16:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: remove maintenance tags

Proposing to remove the maintenance tags on this article. It seems unlikely that the vast majority of readers looking at the this article would A) be interested in helping and B) have the knowledge and context to help figure out how to fix it. Not only are the fixes needed complex and requiring significant consensus building, but also the fact us that the tags have been there for a long time (years if I'm understanding Moxy correctly) and the the tags haven't helped. WP:TC says the tags are "...to inform readers and editors of specific problems with articles or sections, but do not use them as a badge of shame" (bold in the original). That the article is too long doesn't inform the reader of something that isn't self-evident. Also, worth looking specifically at Wikipedia:Template_index/Cleanup#Best_practices_in_heavily_monitored_articles Hobit (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• support as proposer. Hobit (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Tag has helped bring up the topic just like here a half dozen times (with us trimming a bit every time)...not sure how no tag will lead us to fixing the problem if no one is encouraged to do so. it also informs new editors that the article is to large and that additions should be done with great thought. --Moxy 🍁 16:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support I would have to agree with Hobit here. If the tags have been here this long and haven't actually solved anything, they are simply a badge of shame at this point. -DJSasso (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

GA status being lifted due to length....so could remove it at this point since the article has many other problems that could use a hand.--Moxy 🍁 16:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Please change "the US had slavery in the 17th to 19th centuries to read "18th to 19th centuries". The USA didn't exist in the 17th century (1600s).

The United States started in 1776. Saying the USA had slavery in the 17th to 19th centuries is incorrect because it didn't exist in the 17th century. The independent states existed as separate countries instead. EDIT: I should've said colonies. Either way the country "United States of America" didn't exist before 1776. The 13 colonies did instead.

Agree, it's a bit poorly worded. Tried a fix. --Golbez (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Politics link in header

The last sentence of the header links to politics and culture of the united states. Instead of linking to "Politics", why not link to "Politics of the United States, as is done with the culture link in the following word, and science in the word after that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_United_States — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:6500:A038:3:90B8:73A9:401D:A83F (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done--regentspark (comment) 13:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Internet and Web aren't the same thing.

From the "contemporary history" section: "Originating within U.S. military defense networks, the Internet spread to international academic platforms and then to the public in the 1990s" It is in fact the web (parts of the internet starting with either http or https) that started in the 90s. In the 80s we had the internet but not the web. We used BBSes (Bulletin Board Systems) before webpages were invented. In fact the public internet goes as far back as the late 70s, although back then you had to be a student at one of two California universities to access it (so it's questionable if that counts as "public", unless you define "public internet" simply as "the parts that weren't part of the military internet"). That bulletin board between those two universities is what became Usenet (aka "newsgroups"), which are still around today although a bit on the obscure side. (edit: wrote to instead of two)

The internet spread to the public in the 1990s, though. As in, not that the public first had access to it, but it became widely used. The statement appears accurate. --Golbez (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)