Talk:United States/Archive 97

Archive 90

←

Archive 95

Archive 96

Archive 97

Archive 98

Archive 99

Archive 100

"National Language"

The box at the beginning of this article lists English as the U.S "National Language". English is the most widely spoken language but as we have no federally mandated official language, other languages widely spoken here should be included, especially Spanish. Excluding other languages from this category gives a false impression that English is the only recognized language here, and that is profoundly counterfactual. I would submit an edit myself but I do not have the credentials. Would someone who does please look into this? Thanks! JohnRovell (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

You're right, of course. The Language sub-section of the Demographics sections goes into considerable detail on languages, clearly explaining the diverse situation across the country. I think the entry should simply be removed from the Infobox. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

English is the only national language for official business—even though it's not the official national language—as well as being widely spoken. Other languages have only regional prominence, as well as official standing in some states and localities (four are recognized as such in my locality). Dhtwiki (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with pronouncements like "English is the most widely spoken language; other languages are widely spoken." That is simplistic and misleading. A "national language" means not just the language used by the IRS but of school systems (instruction is in English, "bilingual education" means a second language used as a bridge (to English), "dual-language" schools instruct in American English and either Spanish, French, Mandarin, or Arabic (a choice, whereas English is not optional). Colleges and universities outside Puerto Rico instruct and operate in English. The ACS Survey, which details all languages spoken in U.S. homes, includes English-speaking ability (rated "very good," "good," "less than good"). Deleting "National language" and leaving everything cosmically vague ("Everyone speaks whatever they like") is not a solution; it's a problem. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

A person who speaks only English will have virtually no problems in any aspect of their life in the US. Conversely, a person who speaks no English will be virtually helpless in many situations. Law or not, "official" or not, English is the only national language in the US by virtue of being the only one you can use to get around nationwide. --Khajidha (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

There's a lot of OR in those three most recent posts. The situation is not simple enough for it to be described in the space available in the Infobox. (One word is obviously not enough.) We have an extensive subsection on the matter. Leave it out of the Infobox and let readers absorb the more complex reality in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Info-boxes are supposed to clearly summarize important information. The main language of the U.S. is English, although that is not enshrined in law. Some states and tribal territories officially recognize English and other languages. Without getting into great detail, can anyone suggest how this can be presented in a single field? What about "Language: English (unofficial)?" TFD (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The "recent OR" is more the status of English here than the jargon of "complex reality." The U.S. has a de facto national language. There's also a demonym, "American," though some don't accept it for ideological reasons. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

All that's needed is to put (de facto) after English. I could have sworn that it used to be there. --Khajidha (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Checking the history, this was removed sometime in December or January: "| official_languages = {{nowrap|None at [[Federal government of the United States|federal level]]{{efn|English is the [[Official language of the United States|official language]] of 32 states; English and [[Hawaiian language|Hawaiian]] are both official languages in [[Hawaii]], and English and [[Alaska Native languages|20 Indigenous languages]] are official in [[Alaska]]. [[Algonquian languages|Algonquian]], [[Cherokee language|Cherokee]], and [[Sioux language|Sioux]] are among many other official languages in Native-controlled lands throughout the country. [[French language|French]] is a ''de facto'', but unofficial, language in [[Maine]] and [[Louisiana]], while [[New Mexico]] law grants [[Spanish language|Spanish]] a special status.{{sfn|Cobarrubias|1983|p=195}}{{sfn|García|2011|p=167}}}}}} | languages_type = [[National language]] | languages = [[English language|English]]<!--- NOTE: Just English, don't add "American English". --->{{efn|name="language"}}" --Khajidha (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I think reverting to what was removed in January is more realistic and truthful. Or simply eliminate that part of the box altogether. I would argue that there are places all over the United States where you could get by without speaking much English especially in urban areas and in the Southwest. Especially when it comes to Spanish. We have native Spanish language media here, in many states you can indeed to business with the government entirely in Spanish, and as someone else pointed out, Puerto Rico, which might become the 51st state one day is overwhelmingly Spanish speaking. As such, calling English "the National Language" with no further caveats or clarifications is counterfactual and honestly seems subjective. It really should be rectified somehow. JohnRovell (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

All of your counter examples are of less than national extent and are thus not what this field is about. On the national level, there is only one language that is important: English. As I said, just slap a de facto tag on it and be done with it. --Khajidha (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

That's an original research and POV answer. And simply wrong. Too many examples have been presented of people successfully managing without English for us to presumptuous enough to call it the NATIONAL language. HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't lose sight of the purpose of an info-box. It's to quickly tell readers key information not to get into details. That's what the article is for. Readers want to know that if they speak English when they visit as tourists they'll get by. TFD (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The de facto national language is the issue, not tourism. The U.S. is not a bilingual country. There are enclaves in metro Miami, in parts of the Southwest, and in Los Angeles, etc., where a parallel world can be accessed in Spanish, no English necessary. Still, most everyone uses English, most Latinos speak it "very well" (the ACS chart under Languages makes that clear), non-Latinos generally can't speak Spanish at all, non-Latino immigrants learn English, and English is the language of the government and schools. At the very least, "de facto" should be in the infobox. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I used tourists as an example of people who might read this article. So you think that for someone who knew absolutely nothing about the U.S., one of the key pieces of information they need/want to know is that there are enclaves where people speak Spanish? It's up there with telling them that people drive on the left in the U.S. Virgin Islands, which for some reason is added as footnote to the info-box. TFD (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't disagree with tourism as an example. The "enclaves" I refer to are exceptions to the rule of the premier status of English here. The infobox needs more than a "No official language at the federal level" tagline. English as the de facto language is indispensable. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding "de facto" to the Infobox entry would solve the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

James Crawford; Whewell Professor of International Law and Fellow James Crawford, (Wr (June 1992). Language Loyalties: A Source Book on the Official English Controversy. University of Chicago Press. pp. 37... ISBN 978-0-226-12016-4..--Moxy 🍁,

National, main, etc... yes, english is the USA's primary language. Please, let's not fill the infobox up with minor languages. GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary, yes, but the Infobox entry is for a NATIONAL language, which implies something somewhat more official. HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The article that the heading "National Language" in the infobox links to (which I am assuming reflects the definition that should be used when filling out that field) disagrees with you, stating that: "A national language is a language (or language variant, e.g. dialect) that has some connection—de facto or de jure—with people and the territory they occupy" and specifically includes ""Language-in-common or community language" (demolect) used throughout a country". --Khajidha (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The word "throughout" would be the critical one there. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

And English is used "throughout" the US. True, it is not used by every person, but that is not what "throughout" means.--Khajidha (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

But it's obviously not a Language-in-common throughout the country. HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay's formulation 'English is the primary language'. If the info box parameter asks for a national language, there is none for the U.S. and the parameter and its label should not be used. Any legal proceeding in which a party has no English, then interpreters are required. The U.S is a nation of immigrants—except for the peoples whose land expropriated, annexed, or bought. English as an official language is a political football and has no place in an infobox for the nation. There are approximately 10 languages other than English spoken as a mother tongue by a million or more U.S. residents, from Spanish through German, Arabic, and Russian. And hundreds more spoken by smaller numbers. I see no solution other than the label Primary language, then English, or the Label Most common language, then English. A fuller treatment is for the main text. — Neonorange (Phil) 06:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

"Primary" or most especially "most common" language is waffling nonsense. The U.S. is a country where Spanish is one option in the foreign-language program in schools and universities. As much as JRowell, HiLo (in Australia), and Neonorange wish to create a linguistically divided country like Belgium or a multilingual state like India, where English is the lingua franca of the educated, the U.S. has a de facto language, and it is "national." Mason.Jones (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mason.Jones—Please use argument that helps reach a consensus, avoiding tangental formulations such as wish to create a linguistically divided country like Belgium or a multilingual state like India? where English is the lingua franca of the educated' As for the U.S. has a de facto language, the U.S. has many 'de facto' languages—languages which are, in fact, used in the U.S. The U.S. does have one primary languages—all others are less common, but of no lesser status, there being no 'official' national language. English First is the proper venue. — Neonorange (Phil) 17:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Neonorange—Please stop linking "English First" to those who might disagree with you. One can be suspicious of EF's agenda and still be aware that Spanish is part of the foreign language program in U.S. schools, and that the premier language census of the federal government, the ACS Survey, records English proficiency along with figures of those speaking another language at home. Your assertion "All languages are used ... but of no lesser status" is simplistic and flawed. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the CIA Factbook could be a guide for how the info is presented.

Languages: English only 78.2%, Spanish 13.4%, Chinese 1.1%, other 7.3% (2017 est.)

note: data represent the language spoken at home; the US has no official national language, but English has acquired official status in 32 of the 50 states; Hawaiian is an official language in the state of Hawaii, and 20 indigenous languages are official in Alaska[1]

TFD (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The CIA figures, "Languages spoken in the home," are often misread as "13.4% of Americans speak only Spanish," which only helps to present the U.S. infobox as a linguistically balkanized country. At least the ACS chart (under "Languages") does better: Of those who speak Spanish at home, fully 60% also speak English very well. It's interesting that JRovell, the OP in this discussion, has no other contribution to WP except to "stir the pot" here -- seconded by an Australian editor with no other contributions to U.S.-related articles. JRovell also mentioned Puerto Rico. That is off topic, as this article pertains to the 50 states and D.C.; all figures in infobox and text exclude the territories. Puerto Rican statehood is also off topic. I might favor it, but a hostile U.S. Congress and most Puerto Rican voters will not approve statehood anytime soon. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually the article begins, "consist[s] of 50 states, a federal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions." We had an RfC and incorporated Puerto Rico into the U.S. TFD (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair mention of territories in the lead was the RfC. (I agreed with it). "Incorporation" it most certainly was not; the island is not reflected in demographic figures anywhere in this article, including the infobox. The CIA language figures, ACS survey, etc., exclude the territories as well. One can't make Puerto Rico a weighty argument here. Worse, we shouldn't make "languages spoken at home" appear to be an all-or-nothing stat: 13.4% speak only Spanish and can't communicate in English. Actually, most are bilingual. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It's confusing to say that Puerto Rico is part of the U.S. then provide information in the info-box that excludes it. Incorporate btw means to be part of. TFD (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

WP article Puerto Rico states "unincorporated territory of the United States" (infobox subtitle plus lead sentence). Federal statistics—demographic, economic, ethnic—exclude Puerto Rico. The ACS language census does NOT reflect Puerto Rico. UN and WHO list separate life expectancy data for Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico has a separate Olympics team. In this article, editors had requested "fair mention": as a U.S. possession in lead; reference to its acquisition after the Span.-Amer. War. I don't find that "confusing." Mason.Jones (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

English is both the national and official language of the United States. The U.S. constitution is written only in English, so this is the official language of the United States. Many constitutions don't explicitly mention the official language, because you have to take for granted it is the one in which the constitution is drawn up. In the United States, English is the language that dominates everywhere, the only language everybody is deemed to know if they want to be part of the mainstream. All other languages spoken in the United States are foreign immigrants' languages with no officialdom. There are a lot of Arabic-speaking immigrants in France, not because of that is Arabic considered an official language there. - Zorobabele — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.131.83 (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

That is one interpretation but it's original research to say "if the constitution is in a particular language, that language is official." You say 'many constitutions don't mention the official language', perhaps, but laws do, and 178 nations have laws specifying an official language. The US does not. We can't make up a rule that includes the US in those 178 countries. --Golbez (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2020

The minority population of the U.S. (people of African and Asian descent) is the majority of U.S. young people, U.S. military recruits, and the majority population of the most important US economic and cultural population centers. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/children-of-color-projected-to-be-majority-of-u-s-youth-this-year !-- Write your request ABOVE this line and do not remove the tildes and curly brackets below. --> 193.217.221.58 (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

OK; so what edit are you proposing? --Golbez (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

WELL; well instead of some distant demographic projections for the year 2040-2045 which cannot be certain, nor can describe the situation of today, those 3 facts can describe position Afro-Asiatic minority has already today, as a more factual and measurable (scientific) description of the U.S. trends in demographics ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.138.41.42 (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, this isn't an edit request. This is a request for a discussion as to what edit to make. Not saying it's not worthy to have, but it's not an edit request yet. --Golbez (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not know how a request for edit should look like? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.138.41.42 (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Just asking to talk about it, but not using the template. We can have the discussion. :) --Golbez (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so you mean I should go to the discussion area? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.138.41.42 (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Quite, like here, yes. But not with the template. So I answered the template. Not really interested in the discussion, that can be for others, but just explaining why the template was answered the way it was. --Golbez (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2020

I want to Update the Page because if you look at both the 2016 Elections & 2020 Elections, then you know that America may be a Democracy on the Surface, but hidden deep below is the truth, "America is an Oligarchy." JBJB1029 (talk) 06:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: see WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP Cannolis (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

U.S. is sometimes referred to as "the States"

According to Merriam-Webster, the U.S. can be referred to as "the States". I recommend adding this to the lead like so:85.166.161.28 (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

"The United States of America (USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S. or US) or America, as well as the States, is a country..."

172.98.151.190 (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

It's colloquial. TFD (talk) 03:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Concur. It's highly colloquial. This encyclopedia is written in formal written English. Go read the article on register (sociolinguistics). In any event, the informal usage "the States" is already noted farther down in the article. The lead is too long as is. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I thought colloquial terms were allowed in the lead. For example, in the SARS-CoV-2 article, it mentions that "coronavirus" is a colloquial term. Why stop at countries? Also, the mention of "the States" that you said was in the article is just the title of a source in the "References" section. I don't see the term mentioned anywhere else. If the lead is too long, we can simply add it as a footnote. 172.98.151.190 (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the usage "the States" is expressly mentioned in the Etymology section of the article. The third sentence of the fourth paragraph of that section is as follows: "Colloquial names are the 'U.S. of A.' and, internationally, the 'States'." Please refresh your memory on close reading, a basic life skill.

Also, we are much more strict about cracking down on colloquial tangents in this article because (1) it is way too damn big as is and (2) virtually every minor point is already mentioned somewhere else on Wikipedia. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Typical poor excuse of this braindead site. 'America' is as much of a colloquial term as 'the States'. Waiting for the cheeseburger logic. 129.93.203.19 (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The States is to United States as Royale With Cheese is to Cheeseburger. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the title of the page should be changed from United States to United States of America. See also United States of Venezuela, United States of Colombia, United States of Indonesia, United States of the Ionian Islands, and this comment from 9 July 2005 and this comment from 24 January 2017. Laurier (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2020

The sentence "The Americans are a racially and ethnically diverse population" is potentially racial. Even the Wikipedia article on race says that: "race becoming increasingly seen as a largely pseudoscientific system of classification." We, as a society, should simply stop using terms race: it doesn't matter if one has brown eyes or darker skin; there's no difference, we are all humans belonging to the same species. 109.81.208.126 (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done It's interesting that you point to darker skin specifically. Hiding the ethnic diversity of the United States makes it easier for white supremacists to pretend this is supposed to be a white country. Saying that it's racially diverse confronts that anti-human belief. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

See also "How saying ‘I don’t see color’ went from woke to whitewashing" and this Psychology Today piece. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The edit proposal is about ommitting the term "racially", it's not arguing the ethic diversity. I propose to replace the sentence "The Americans are a racially and ethnically diverse population" with "The Americans are ethnically diverse population". Quoting the wikipedia article on race: "Modern scholarship views racial categories as socially constructed, that is, race is not intrinsic to human beings but rather an identity created, often by socially dominant groups, to establish meaning in a social context." So writing that "America is racially diversed" ackowledges & objectifies the concept of race. Also the author of "I don't see color" talks in terms of ethnic minorities, not in terms of races. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.81.208.126 (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Melmann 18:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7/25

Under population, there exists a typo where the article states "Until 2017 and 2018, the United States led the word in refugee resettlement for decades..."

It should say that the United States led the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinPika (talk • contribs) 18:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! --Golbez (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Languages Chart

An editor decided to delete the ACS Language Chart and replace it with (of all things) the Mickey Mouse "Language Tree" of weighted languages boxes. First, there's been no consensus for a wholesale excision and replacement with the famous Eazy-Read "reference" chart. The tree's not simple so much as simplistic. Last time I looked, this site wasn't Wikipedia for Elementary Schools. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Further, the language tree is a straight graphics image and is not accessible. —C.Fred (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

My bad just trying to trim over data not seen in most FA and GA country articles. Usually this type of data is in prose text in country articles with charts put on main demo articles, If people think stats that cover less then 1 percent of the population is not undue here all good.--Moxy 🍁 13:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Include neither, the chart fails WP:DUE and should be covered in the spinout articles per summary style. (t · c) buidhe 16:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, the ACS chart is featured in "United States" across WP, all languages. It is far more useful (for Americans but especially for non-Americans, who obviously wish to know the stats) than "Lots of languages are spoken in the U.S., dude." These main sections of the article "United States" shouldn't be reduced to vapid summaries (and virtual uselessness) just to reduce length and "improve navigability." Mason.Jones (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The language chart is cited and has been on the page for years, I see no reason for its removal now, especially without prior consensus. There is a pie graph for religion, I see no reason the languages subsection shouldn't also have an easy visual reference. TempDog123 (talk) 08:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

This table is pointless and potentially misleading. The section should largely be about the use of American English. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

That is myopic and simplistic. The consensus for the last 10 years has been to include the ACS chart of languages that meet the benchmark o 1 million U.S. speakers. The chart is useful and gives the full picture of "language" in this country—without dumbing the section down to the point of elementary uselessness. The ACS chart also reports the number of these speakers who have a very good command of English, the de facto national language. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a wrong focus for the article. There are many more millions of people who speak in varying dialects of American English, which should be much more the focus for this section than whether or not less than 1% of the country speaks Korean. A reference to many languages being spoken in the United States is all that is required for this article to cover that, and the use of these languages in the United States can be covered in far greater detail in other articles. A simple pie chart would be fine, similar to religion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

There are no "varying dialects of American English," unless you refer to isolated hollers in the Appalachians. This shows that you don't grasp the situation, which is not so simplistic. This isn't 19th-century America, but 21st. One in five Americans speaks a language other than English at home, so the "focus" can't be on American English alone (with cursory mention of others). Your "either/or" focus on a major theme while eliminating all others is also problematical. It appears to be a POV agenda masquerading as knowledge. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

If there's no varying dialects of American English then there aren't any non-English languages in the United States apart from Spanish, which would be absurd. This article should not be detailing linguistic groups of less than 1%. From what you have said, it does not appear you are aware of what I propose or support for the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

First, you don't know the difference between language, variety, and dialect. Second, you have no knowledge of a subject but have strong opinions about what you don't want to see. Finally, as an editor (your talk page is evidence of a pattern) you simply zap sourced info you disagree with. You don't edit in good faith. Mason.Jones (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Mason Jones. This isn't a section about dialects of the United States, it's about languages spoken in the United States. There are many more languages other than English spoken in the United States, and the table provides a succinct summary. This is limited to languages with more than a million speakers in the U.S., which is not an insignificant number. TempDog123 (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The reason I'm interested in this particular section is my professional interest in linguistics. I haven't described what languages, varieties or dialects are, so that's two reasons why it's a complete nonsense that I don't know what the difference between them are. You clearly don't know anything about my editing if you think I am generally in favour of removing content from Wikipedia, given that I have been quite public about being strongly inclusionist. Anyway, one million speakers isn't significant enough for this article, but definitely belongs elsewhere. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2020

Hi! I noticed that the United States of America page has been changed to read that our nation is a "Federal Republic" and "Democracy Representative." The United States of America was never meant to be a Democracy, this is a false statement that has been made public knowledge. The truth of America is it is a Constitutional Federal Republic. Please change it back to it's correct format. After all, the Pledge of Allegiance says it all "And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands." I used to believe America was a Democracy but then it hit, holy cats I had it wrong all of these years. We do not need to change history, it needs to stay clean, and as it happened. We cannot let it be erased or our rights and liberties, along with the Constitution and Declaration of Independence will be in jeopardy. Thank you so much for your time, A concerned Citizen, Victoria Davis. Grrrlie (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

 Comment: Federal republic and representative democracy have their own articles that tell exactly what those terms mean. A constitution is implied at the first article: "Most federal republics codify the division of powers between orders of government in a written constitutional document." I don't see how the United States falls short of those articles' definitions, nor how "constitutional federal republic" is an improvement. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The lead sentence reads "The United States is a federal republic and a representative democracy.", so there doesn't seem to be a problem. Closing request. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Correct article to link to when mentioning the abolition of slavery in lede

Shouldn't the phrase its abolition in "Slavery was legal in much of the United States until the second half of the 19th century, when the American Civil War led to its abolition" link to Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution rather than Emancipation Proclamation? The EP was more of a limited wartime measure. It only affected states that had succeeded from the Union, and was not a law, but a temporary executive order. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 16:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

"AmericA" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect AmericA. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 3#AmericA until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Discontinuous region category

I miss a category of (political) geographical areas composed of multiple topologically separate parts on continuous land (others would be e.g. Russia, Azerbaijan, Puducherry), i.e. region that has exclaves, in principle. Could some geographer gnostic of the corresponding terminus technicus do that? —Mykhal (talk) 09:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

"Definitions of North America and Northern America" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Definitions of North America and Northern America. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 28#Definitions of North America and Northern America until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Maka, the Two Star Meister! (talk·✉) 02:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Ranks high / Highly ranked

As this seems to be changed often: the former is an intransitive verb, so it's the noun "U.S." that takes an adjective, "high." Every dictionary on earth says so (ex., item 4, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/rank). Otherwise, make it "highly ranked." Mason.Jones (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Since it's not the U.S. that does the ranking, "...is ranked high" might be another way of putting it. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Only if "high" is an official category and uses quotation marks: The car is ranked "high" by the consumer group. In the case of the U.S. in the lede sentence, "it is ranked" is a passive construction and "high" is a general assessment (i.e., not middling or low among nations). Thus, it must be an adverb: "it is ranked highly." Mason.Jones (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2020

Footnote h "The five major territories are American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands. There are eleven smaller island areas without permanent populations: Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Atoll, and Palmyra Atoll. U.S. sovereignty over Bajo Nuevo Bank, Navassa Island, Serranilla Bank, and Wake Island is disputed."

should be changed to "The five major unincorporated territories are American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands. There are eight small unincorporated territories without permanent population: Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Atoll, Navassa Island, and Wake Atoll. Palmyra Atoll is an incorporated territory and, as such, is an integral part of the United States rather than a dependent territory. U.S. sovereignty over Bajo Nuevo Bank, Navassa Island, Serranilla Bank, and Wake Atoll is disputed." Atelerixia (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

In all honesty, I think this footnote is already pedantic. The names and statuses of these islands aren't really relevant to 99% of readers and information about them can be found in the corresponding article, which is linked in the lead. I have replaced them with a shorter description that doesn't name each one individually. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert and reopen the edit request. Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The second sentence of this article is incorrect as it presently stands. At the present time, the United States legally consists of only the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the incorporated Territory of Palmyra Atoll. The United States has 13 unincorporated territories which are under U.S. sovereignty but which are not legally part of the United States. Those 13 territories are, instead, considered to be dependencies of the United States and are listed as such in the U.S. Department of State fact sheet Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty. Therefore, the previous two edit requests that were made on 8 September 2020 should be implemented.Atelerixia (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

As we discussed above, this is a technicality that belongs in another article than the main article on the U.S., which is already overcomplicated. The fact that Puerto Rico isn't incorporated is not relevant to 99.9% of readers, and the most important information about these territories as distinguished from the states is provided in section 5.1: Political divisions. Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

sigh if you want to restart a literal months-long process fine, but you have to put in the effort first. please, dear atelerixia, give us the multiple reliable sources required to justify your claim. --Golbez (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2020

The second sentence of this article "It consists of 50 states, a federal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions." should be changed to "It consists of 50 states, a federal district, and one incorporated territory." All of the other territories and possessions of the United States are unincorporated territories, meaning that they are not integral parts of the United States but are, instead, dependent territories under U.S. sovereignty. Atelerixia (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this change, but I'm leaning towards keeping the current version. The question is whether the unincorporated territories like Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are technically part of the United States, which is more of a question of interpretation than fact. People born in these places are U.S. citizens, and (imo) that's sufficient to consider them part of the United States. Ovinus (talk) 07:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

We went through months of contentious debate over this. The final result was to not consider Palmyra better than the others, and that "incorporation", or rather lack thereof, had a racist motive, and a century of jurisprudence since then has borne out that it doesn't matter. --Golbez (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Much thanks for the information Golbez. One of the discussions is at Talk:United_States/Archive_45#Progress_to_"include_territories" for anyone interested. Ovinus (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. DannyS712 (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

"American" demonym

It seems these sentences at the base of the Etymology section are incomplete and leave the reader with a fairly inaccurate use and significance of "American". They may be altogether extraneous here, given the separate article on the topic of American_(word).

Though perhaps colloquially less common within the US, the term "American" merely refers to anything pertaining to "America" or the "Americas", which comprise one or two continents (depending on one's point of view), as discussed better in other articles such as Americas.

"A citizen of the United States is an 'American.'" The phrasing here implies that "American" is exclusively synonymous with a citizen of the US, which is not the case. Citizens of the US are Americans, but not all Americans reside in the US. Indeed, the majority do not. Because a nation-specific demonym referring exclusively to the US has not come into the English lexicon - unlike in other European languages - does not mean that this implication should occur. "In English, the word "American" rarely refers to topics or subjects not directly connected with the United States.[46]" This sentence is false; it is hardly rare (hence the separate more explanatory page on the term). Perhaps often in reference to the US, it is still nonetheless understood to reflect (the) America(s) broadly. This discussion should be either (1) made more complete, perhaps explaining it as erroneous despite its common use or (2) removed. Though the rise in the English language (and its lexical inconsistencies) continue, it is prudent as a public service within a wiki to dissuade such errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:19E0:90E0:F950:FEA0:EC4B:B754 (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The term American in English refers to somebody or something related to the United States so clearly not erroneous. MilborneOne (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Concur with MilbourneOne. The article on American (word) explains the issue at length and the very first source cited and linked in the article points out that the "overwhelming" usage is to refer to the United States. It is not Wikipedia's job to "dissuade" such usage. The point of WP:NOT (see the part about WP is not a soapbox) is that Wikipedia follows, it never leads. And the American (word) article already accurately summarizes the alternative views elsewhere. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Not dissuading usage, but dissuading inaccuracy. As Wikipedia "never leads", then better to remove the leading text - and its leading implications - in this section and link to American (word) for readers to develop understanding there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:19E0:90E0:F950:FEA0:EC4B:B754 (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm following up here to keep the conversation in one place. I've reverted the changes you made to American (word). The paragraphs you changed were cited, and your edits changed the cited meanings. Please don't do that. In addition, the wordings are based on consensus on that article's talk page, and you need to provide higher quality sources and get a consensus before making any changes. And no, using American as a demonym for people of and things related to the US is not "inaccurate", but correct English language usage. Many words have multiple meanings in English, and this one is no different. In most countries in the world, "American" refers to the United States. The major exceptions are people from Latin America, and some other Romance language speakers, mostly in those parts of Europe. When the president of Iran screeches "Death to America", he's not including about Brazil, Mexico, or Argentina. - BilCat (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

1. This is English Wikipedia. "American" is used throughout the English-speaking world as the default demonym, because it is exactly that stylistically (not just "colloquially," at the local bar). In some publications (e.g., The Economist), the style book stipulates "America" as the only term for the United States except for the main section head. 2. Spanish and Portuguese are the only Wikipedias that have stipulated a special demonym (estadounidense is the default). French Wikipedia had a debate on this, with a vote of editors. "American" is the default. 3. Debate over this ("inaccurate," "insensitive," and my new favorite: "public service") on WP-EN is usually ideologically driven. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Fully concur with above. The notion of "dissuading inaccuracy" begs the question and would be used only by someone who is not well read. The overwhelming consensus is that "American" in English refers to the United States. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

English is the only European language were America refers to only one of the 35 American countries. In all other languages, America is a continent spaning from Canada to Argentina. It's time that English speakers begin to speak correctly. I haven't seen the name America referring to the US in formal documents. The writing in the US desk at the United Nations says "United States", not America. Furthermore, there is the "Organization of American States" that groups all 35 countries of America, and it is headquarted in Washington D.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.216.223.245 (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"It's time that English speakers begin to speak correctly." Perhaps, but that's not our job. We can only say what the usage is, not what 201.216.223.245 says it should be. --Golbez (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Languages are different. What "all other languages" do is not relevant to English usage. --Khajidha (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Culture section should mention patriotism

The US is exceptionally patriotic for a modern developed country. This should be noted as it is very important to how America is viewed and how America influences the rest of the world. Mossypiglet (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 20:25, 03:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I personally agree, but you would need a reliable source to say that. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Language chart

TempDog123, my suggestion is to remove the language chart, this information is already contained in the second paragraph of the Language section. Perhaps augmenting the text to include more information from the table is a solution, but just having this huge chart in the middle of the article creates quite a bit of clutter, also the chart is somewhat overly detailed (categories of how well English is spoken) for a high level article such as this one, and is more appropriate for the Language Spoken at Home (in the US) article. --E-960 (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Mason.Jones, after reverting the text (based on the table) and re-adding the table itself you noted that "the source is not identified, nor are the stats for 2016 (they're from back in 2010)" if the data is not accurate or clear for the text, why are we restoring the Language table based on that same data? All I did was to copy the data from the chart into the paragraph, and cited the same source as for the table. --E-960 (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The original source has gone missing (it was a compendium of some "2010–2016 ACS summary" that is no longer available online). Until I can locate a complete ACS source, will revert my edit. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Update: The U.S. Census Bureau often de-lists statistical tables from the internet. So it is with language stats, and the current archived reference (2010) remains the only WP source that isn't a dead link. Percentages don't appear in the source, and those previously indicated in this section were off. (I've deleted them.) Finally, the source itself should be identified: the American Community Survey. It is not a formal census, so the previous wording was misleading. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

America and Americas

I think it would be better to have one principal page about "America" to differentiate between: - Continent including north, centre and south america (each item could redirect to the specific wiki page) - Common way to refer to the country United States of America - And maybe some other items related to the title America

This because the term "Americas" isn't well known between English nor Spanish speakers in general, and to improve US citizens knowledge about geography since a lot of them don't know how to answer when questioned about "which countries are in America", which is a rather valid question since the division of the world in 5 countries is well spread internationally (that's the one the UN use). You may want to revise the wiki page on Continent to see for yourselves that "America" in most of the models refers to a continent, and not "Americas". Fraanfeer (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

America (disambiguation) already handles that issue. —C.Fred (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, your question "which countries are in America" doesn't really make sense in English, because English has two continents (North America and South America) not one (America). Oh, and you really should pay more attention to your own apparent confusion between country and continent ("the division of the world in 5 countries is well spread internationally").--18:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khajidha (talk • contribs) 18:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

You too seem to be a newbie to Geography. If the United States were America, then Florida and Texas would be South America. This contradiction stems from the fact that non educated people refuse to accept that the whole continent was called "America" by the Europeans in 1507, long before the discovery of North America. In fact, Waldseemuller's map (1507) has the word "America" written over Brazil. Furthermore, Americo Vespucio -the guy after whom the continent was named, never travelled to North America. If he were alive, he wouldn't care less about the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.216.223.245 (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

What? "America" in the English-speaking world has referred to the United States for centuries. Different places around the world use different geographic models about the continents -- and people in the English-speaking world are far from alone in dividing North America and South America into separate two continents. That's the norm in much of central, eastern, and northern Europe, Japan, China, Africa, and, honestly, most of the world uses that model. Further, North America and South America were not even connected physically until about 3 million years ago. 68.110.29.138 (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of whether your characterization of "non educated" is correct, it's the majority that determines what's colloquial and it's the colloquial that often informs usage. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

No, Texas and Florida are in the southern region of America. In English usage "southern America" and "South America" do not have the same meaning. This entire discussion stems from the fact that "non educated people" do not accept that 1) general English usage defines two separate continents (North America and South America), not one (America) and 2) how other languages define the continents is not relevant to English language usage. --Khajidha (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Americo Vespucio (Amerigo Vespucci) only explored the Atlantic coast of South America. He had absolutely nothing to do with the United States. The guy who explored North America was Sebastian Caboto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.216.223.197 (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay. So? --Golbez (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

---

I would tend to agree that having "America" and "American" apply to places and peoples of North and South America would be helpful, since we don't really have any alternative words for these. However, that's not the case. Per WP:COMMMONNAME in English these terms apply to the subject of this article -- the United States. WP must follow English sources, and cannot attempt to champion "improvements" to English. All editors' arguments on what these terms "should" apply to is irrelevant. As long as the great majority of sources use these terms for the US, WP must do the same. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Why would it be helpful? Or, more exactly, why would it be helpful but a term for places and peoples from throughout the contiguous landmass of Afro-Eurasia wouldn't be? --Khajidha (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, more words is generally better for any language, allowing for more precision and nuance. No one said that similar words pertaining to Afro-Eurasia wouldn't be helpful. But none of that matters; my point was that being more "helpful" is in no way a justification for WP editors to attempt to "improve" word usage of English. The fact that "helpful" is subjective only underscores my point. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 23:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Editing Suggestions and Desire to Renominate

Hi all,

I'd like to get this article back to GA status, esp. since it's one of the most viewed articles. At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/United_States/3 the article was delisted on account of citation needed tags, excessive length and excessive detail. I've provided sources for the citation needed tags and have removed or reworded some paragraphs which I felt were too detailed. The length is now around 315,000 bytes, down from ~405,000 at the start of reassessment. More importantly than sheer byte count, I don't feel like the article contains much excessive detail or is difficult to navigate. I'll continue to look for information that should be removed, reworded or put into daughter articles, but I am interested in what others think would be important, and whether a GA renomination would be appropriate.

In general, sections which contain a lot of raw numbers I reworded, or removed some of the less salient data. I have moved almost all the citations in the lead into the body of the article, as the body contains everything in the lead and there are no challengeable claims which deserve an immediately attached source (see WP:LEADCITE). The one remaining citation I left because the exact material is not reproduced in the body of the article, but I think it can be removed because its claims are all verified by the corresponding sections (political, cultural, and scientific). Thoughts?

Also, I would mention that I have made logical quotation consistent throughout the article. I was a bit confused since this was previously done and then reverted, but according to the Manual of Style (more specifically, MOS:LQ), logical quotations should be used for all articles irrespective of the dialect of English used. I hope I am applying that rule correctly.

Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to edit the lead section to make it a bit shorter and four paragraphs, in line with WP:LEADLENGTH. Ovinus (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Some notes on what I've done with the lead:

• a bit of rearrangement, inspired a bit by what Canada (FA-class) does in terms of organization.
• combined the second and third paragraphs, as they are both about history
• Added that the U.S. has three branches of government and a bicameral legislature, as I think this is very important information
• removed the list of socioeconomic performance factors, as it is pretty much all important factors and it just adds reading time
• removed nuclear weapons history
• Added that the U.S. ranks highly in various international indicators, because the original lead doesn't include that U.S. residents enjoy a high quality of life

Any further contributions would be appreciated!

Thanks, Ovinus (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Your approach seems sound, especially your making sure that information removed here can be found at other, linked articles. The only time I've allowed non-logical quotes to stand is when they are part of quoted material, where the punctuation (usually an sentence-ending period) can be taken to be part of the quotation. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. Ovinus (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to move about 30% of the content in History to daughter articles. Although the U.S. has a particularly complex history, I still think the section goes into a bit too much detail. I will also move the law enforcement section into the Politics section. Ovinus (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok well, 30% was definitely a bit optimistic. I think I decreased some of the bloat in the early history sections though. Might take a look at this later, but I feel like the section is hard to reduce any further without some serious discussion on the talk page... there are so many important events and to omit them would put undue weight on others. Ovinus (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Contrasting this article with Canada, which is featured and also has a complex history, I find that this history section is 63 kb while Canada's is 57 kb, which is not that far off. Seeing this, I'll continue moving some of the less important information until the sizes are similar. (I know it's a bit arbitrary, but it gives me a concrete goal.) Ovinus (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I might be new here, but I must say, a lot of effort must have taken to do this work. Keep it up! JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 21:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia all. I am one of the editors that helped raise the article to GA originally. I would like to review your edits if you don't mind. While consensus can change, there ws some pretty hard fought disputes that consensus should probably be maintained but I am enthusiastic that people are interested in improving and shortening the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Moved much of the Etymology section

The original Etymology section went into excessive detail (imo) about the origins of every component of the full name. I decided to create a new article at Names of the United States which can include all this information, since no such article existed previously, and left all the important details. A similar thing was done for the Canada article, for example, which also has a complex etymology. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 06:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to find that and most likely revert and look further into your input here. Thank you for your help but deleting the hard work of others is not productive but destructive. On Wikipedia if it has a source you cannot just delete or move it content. Please discuss first on articles of this nature. Please. Some could have been a part of the GA version of the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Needs a trim again ....too much detail. GA trimming is being restore all over.(Sad face).--Moxy 🍁 09:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow, haven't looked at this article in a while... I will say that I've learned a lot as a budding editor in the past few months, and maybe I should have provided more justification for my removal of content, but I stand by my original decision. The article is just too long in most places, and five paragraphs about etymology in an article that should be focusing on the most powerful country on Earth seems counterproductive. Keeping it a bit more manageable was the purpose of my content fork in the first place.

A while ago I and several others tried to cut the article down substantially, though still by not as much as I think is appropriate. I guess we have a disagreement over the ideal state of this article. Learning of an obscure Stephan Moylan, Esquire, isn't a part of the broad overview this topic deserves. In my view this article should be perhaps 70% its current size. I'm very thankful for your work—your sources proved invaluable in writing Names of the United States—but I think summary style and accessibility dictate we make these changes. Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Size isn't it the issue. It could use trimming but...just how to do such should be discussed.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Moxy and Ovinus, I am in no hurry but I do ask what the issue is of Moxy with returning the GA version of some, no...not all, as you claim...seriously, the article that obtained a GA rating? I seriously don't understand the comment.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Ovinus, you have support of of one editor that the section should still be trimmed. I can easily concur depending on a discussion of what is to be edited out.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Ovinus could you detail how, within Wikipedia Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style , you have come up with a 70% deletion rate of this, most viewed article, that once had a GA rating? You will have to seriously defend that position to me and I seriously hope, others. Should you have a true and real argument, of course I am willing to discuss and attempt some sort of consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: 70% was an aggressive statement, sorry! But I do believe it needs to be shorter in some sections, and we should definitely discuss given this article's very high visibility. In terms of MOS, Wikipedia:Article_size states that an article with prose size >60kb should probably be divided, although the topic's scope may justify the size. It's currently at around 80kb. Of course the US is a pretty broad scope, but having such a large article hampers accessibility, and much of the detail belongs in subarticles—particularly the History and Etymology sections. Anyway, I think I stirred up a bit too much animus on this article by my actions a few months ago, so I'll step back. (Courtesy ping to Moxy) Ovinus (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I was 70% aggressive and I can and will apologize if that puts you off. Now..get over it and let's move on. LOL! ;) You are here and I accept that as I am sure you accept me. Now, what I am actually asking is, if there is anything beyond what you feel and what actually adheres to Wikipedia policy, past consensus and current recommendations? Please do not step back. I am not dismissing you. You are also, already accepted here by other editors and that is no small thing. We should encourage students that have no choice other than virtual learning. Deep end? Yes, but we will not let anyone go under. I swear! ;)--Mark Miller (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Editors! This is the most viewed article on Wikipedia and much of the information is from several years ago. But instead people here spend their time arguing about the most trivial things. Come on!

Just scroll down to the sections in the body of the article if you don't believe me. Updating and fixing these is way more important then trying to decide whether or not "national language" should be in the infobox (just an example).

EDIT: I know nobody saw this but I'd like to apologize for it. It was too rude and accusatory and I take it back.

Mossypiglet (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

well as long as you shared specifics that we can work on, instead of asking people who apparently haven't noticed the issues you're complaining about to suddenly notice the issues. --Golbez (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@MossP: More recent stats are not always online, archived, or easily linked. As for national language, demonym, etc.: despite long debate (with solid support/oppose votes), some editors—many from outside the U.S.—have their agenda and delete items that offend their ideological certitudes. Other editors seek to "streamline" sections through mass deletions or ungrammatical summaries, throwing out key sentences. Large-country articles in WP tend to generate nitpicking and edit-warring. As the most viewed, "United States" takes the crown. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Concur with Mason Jones's analysis, especially the third sentence about improper streamlining. It took me several tries to get a link to Law of the United States into the article. And this article still does not mention how U.S. law is notable for its sheer volume and complexity. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2020

Fix Government to Dictatorship. Arturaskerelis (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

enthusiastic newcomer (refactored)

The US is an amazing place and I am recently doing a bibliography on the US even though I live here!2600:1014:B128:D297:A993:4AFC:1B8D:C5F1 (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

on reverted edit

@Dhtwiki: Thank you for your input on this. In your reversion of my edit, your reason was "Excessively detailed (esp. the quote detailing the Philippine massacre) and misplaced in this paragraph that summarizes various acquisitions." On the matter of being "misplaced" in the paragraph, I think you're right that it may be misplaced on the paragraph, but this can easily be fixed through proper sentence construction. On the matter of being excessively detailed, I don't think it is, but this can easily be resolved with a little tweak.

So I propose to input a less detailed ", while actual control of some areas was only achieved after the Philippine-American War which resulted in American victory and various human rights violations against the natives." after the already-existing sentence in the same paragraph, "Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines were ceded by Spain in the same year, following the Spanish–American War..." Of course, proper and reliable sources will be cited. PCommission (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Other than general comments that the US could be rough on indigenous populations (and in the case you cited in the Philippines, there seems to have been considerable provocation given by the inhabitants), we don't need much detail here. The detail you want to provide belongs in subordinate articles dealing, e.g., with the Philippines or genocidal American policies. It would take more than tweaks to make it relevant to text that otherwise merely enumerates the acquisition of new territories. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: On the matter of that section being for "acquisitions" only, I disagree. That section, or specific paragraph, is under the History section, specifically a period within American history. It should include important events that shaped that specific period, which includes the actions, notably, of the American government at the time. The acquisition is only there because it's part of the particular section of American history. On the matter of "general comments", I also disagree. My proposal isn't detailed at all, and it is part of history, written by various historical sources and published by respected institutions. Also, the proposed edit can actually be made relevant with just one simple edit, or one simple tweak. So again, I propose for this to be added in that section. PCommission (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Think we should review all the WP:Advocacy edits...Genocide everywhere...even the same quote added in multiple articles --Moxy 🍁 12:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy: Thank you for shedding light on this. Advocacy is the promotion of a personal agenda at the expense of verifiability and neutral point of view. I agree that these kinds of content should never be put in any Wiki article. However, it should be noted that the data I'm proposing are not "at the expense of verifiability and neutral point of view", as I have provided verifiable sources from reliable institutions. Additionally, on the matter of "genocide everywhere", I just looked up the United States article and it only showed one result for "genocide", which is not at all connected to what I'm proposing. Also, in the proposal I made in this conversation (2nd paragraph), I never mentioned the term genocide in this specific article, although it may be classified as such, but I instead used the term "various human rights violations", as to make consensus. What happened at that part of our shared history is a fact, and we should allow historical facts to be stated as they are under the policy of neutrality. PCommission (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I think your addition was unduly focused on what happened in the Philippines, and that concerns WP:UNDUE, as well as possibly adding more detail here than is in subordinate articles, which often happens, although I haven't checked to see if that's the case here. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

PS: I must have introduced the term "genocide" (in "...genocidal American policies...." above), because because that is how such depredations are often labeled, although I don't mind attempts to use gentler, and often more precise, language. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: Thank you for your inputs. On the matter of "unduly focused" in regards to the Philippines, that can be fixed by adding some sources that would refer to other areas colonized or acquired by the US, although it should be noted that the bulk of US colonial possession during that era is the Philippines itself. I already have some source concerning on the matter, which includes sources regarding Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Also, I've seen two more sources for this matter, one looking at an American perspective, the other from a Philippine perspective, and it seems that both side admit that the events were indeed atrocities.

Also, I don't think that the proposal has "more detail here than is in subordinate articles", since it is very short and far larger volume of work about the matter exist in other articles, but definitely it can be shortened more if that is what you're saying. However, since I've found more sources from different perspectives, I think the better phrase should now be, a much shorter, ", while actual control of some areas was only achieved after conflicts resulting to American victory and atrocities against the natives." I formally replaced "human rights violations" with "atrocities" because, (1) it is the exact language used in the sources, and (2) it is the more precise language as per sources. Although I also agree that these actions can indeed be labeled as genocide. We can also change the term into it, as per consensus, if you agree. With that, I hope we can move forward and start making this page better together. PCommission (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I found more scholarly sources backing the rightful use of the term "genocide", including a perspective used in an American university. With this, I maintain my proposal, but replace "atrocities" with "atrocities and genocides". PCommission (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

1. This is one general overview article, and Wikipedia is not some soapbox for promotion of thoughts or advocacy of any kind. 2 .To something be categorized as a genocide it need to hold wide support in sources and in community (academic or people who are experts in that content and who are notable and relevant) also count for explanation of some atrocities how big, how wide etc. 3. Wikipedia is not place for fighting own political struggles 4. What is important in own eyes it can be usially consider kind of personal point of view and this is also not a place for that. 109.92.242.117 (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @109.92.242.117:, this is why we are making a decent conversation here, as to make sure that what is inputted in the article is not useless advocacy. If you read our conversation thoroughly, you'll see that the discussion is a decent dialogue that seeks consensus through historical facts. On the matter of the term "genocide", it was only a proposal, which as I have stated, can be added only through consensus. If a consensus isn't reached, then "atrocities" will suffice. But thank you for your inputs on this. Edit: There is actually sufficient scholarly work referring to such acts as genocide. These include one published by the University of California Press, one by the Oxford University Press, one by the Santa Catalina University Journal of History, and one by the Johns Hopkins University Press. In other words, the presence of genocides in US colonial possessions at the time has already been a consistent historical consensus among scholars. PCommission (talk) 06:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Since there are no more demur in the last 24 hours or so, and the consensus has already been reached by the scholarly community, I'll go ahead with the edit. Thank you to everyone who contributed and shared their thoughts on the matter. It made the edit more focused and concise than before. PCommission (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy: You reverted my edit, under the call that it needs to have "real source", when three sources from respected institutions were clearly provided while scholarly consensus on the matter has already been made. Can you explain the primary reasons of why you reverted the edit. Otherwise, I'll have to revert your reversion. Please note that neutrality must be made in edits and reversions. No advocacy should be made, especially to discredit historical narratives that are already a consensus among scholars. PCommission (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

For reference for other editors, the reversion in question reverted the statement, "while actual control of some areas was only achieved after conflicts resulting to American victory, atrocities and genocides against the natives. PCommission (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: There are other reliable sources from respected institutions that back the statement, aside from the existing reliable sources already provided. If by "real source", you mean to add more sources, that can easily be done. PCommission (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Source one debates the term and its usage in this cases. Source 2 says death rates comparable to.. Source 3 does not use the term.--Moxy 🍁 20:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus here to add the material. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Dhtwiki is correct. There is no consensus. It doesn't help your credibility when, as User:Moxy has pointed out, you are unable to accurately identify and cite historical sources that actually stand for the propositions for which they are cited. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both to your insights, @Moxy: & @Coolcaesar:. On the first source given light by User:Moxy, the term itself isn't actually debated on wether it is the proper term to be used. Rather, what is debated is the taking light the displacement of the real "technologies of [U.S.] gendered white supremacist warfare, genocide, and human exploitation". The actions committed by the then-US government have been explicitly, without doubt, attributed as genocide within the study. On the second and third source, both attribute the existence of atrocities under US rule. In short, the first source gives credibility to the term "genocide", while the second and third give credibility to other actions aside from genocide, while the second does make comparability with genocide as a note. In other words, all sources are validated as "real source" and back the statement made. But as I have said before, definitely there are other sources that can back this as well, which I will also provide. PCommission (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

On the matter of consensus, the scholarly community, as seen in the sources, are in unison that such atrocities were indeed made. The question is whether there is consensus among the scholarly community if genocides or extermination due to race occurred. The first source, explicitly tells that there is and mentions it numerous times, describing the events as genocidal. There is no debate on the first source, whether the events are genocidal or not. The events being genocidal have been established. Other sources adhere to this, describing the events as racial exterminism and genocide. In light of this, I encourage for all of us to follow the consensus of the scholarly community, of which whose detailed studies all Wiki articles should be based upon. PCommission (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The consensus you need is not that of scholars but of editors here, as to whether this new material, which seems to me too detailed for this article, belongs. One point that hasn't been made is that this article is considered too long as it is, which will make people more skeptical of adding new material than they otherwise would be. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: In other words, research by the scholarly community, reached as a consensus by the scholarly community, are invalid because the editors don't agree with it? I agree that a consensus must be reached among editors, but shouldn't the basis for that consensus be the consensus among scholars and their respected research based on analysis and facts? On the matter of "too long", I don't think that the small proposed phrase will make the article too long that it will incur skepticism on other unrelated matters. The phrase, "while actual control of some areas was only achieved after conflicts resulting to American victory, atrocities and genocides against the natives." will not be tantamount to that, plus it is backed by reliable research and scholars approved and published by respected institutions (as all sources should be), hence removing any form of skepticism. But if you think it is still "too long", it can be shortened as a compromise into ", while control of some areas was only achieved after American victory and genocides against locals."PCommission (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a matter of what is appropriate to a summary article, such as this, and what is appropriate to articles such as on the Philippines under US rule, or on US policies towards indigenous populations. If you want this material, you should establish that such detail exists here for other geographical areas, which I don't see you doing, or that the detail you propose here isn't more than is found at subordinate articles. I don't think you can get consensus for its inclusion, on the basis of what I've seen. However, if you do, it has to be positively agreed to. Consensus doesn't happen because people have grown tired of debating and have stopped responding. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Again concur with User:Dhtwiki. It looks like User:PCommission seems to be unfamiliar with the categorical imperative, universalizability, and cascade effects (all of which most educated scholars are familiar with). So it's kind of funny to see User:PCommission referring to the scholarly community. (The first two concepts are normally taught in introductory philosophy courses and the third is taught in introductory engineering courses.)

The point is that everyone has their own preferred subjects which they would like to see more treatment of in the article on the United States. For example, I have always thought the article should mention a little bit more detail about U.S. law. Everyone learns to compromise because the United States is such a gigantic, complex thing that the only way to effectively discuss it in a single encyclopedia article is to keep the writing style extremely terse and at a high level of abstraction. The alternative is to allow everyone trying to shoehorn their own preferred subjects into the article, which inevitably will cause other editors to split off those subjects into separate articles. As others have already pointed out, Wikipedia already has separate articles on various aspects of the United States' human rights record. One cannot be an effective editor on Wikipedia without thinking through such cascading effects. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: I understand your concern, and I agree that the appropriateness of the phrase for the article can only be made through proper sources, which, in fact, I have already provided. As a summary, first issue raised was that the section was for "acquisitions" only, an issue that has been resolved. The second issue raised was that the proposal was too "detailed", which led me to compromise and shorten the proposal significantly. Then a third issue raised was about "advocacy", which has also been solved through respectful dialogue. The fourth issue raised was there was "genocide everywhere", which has also been answered and resolved. Then a fifth issue was raised stating the proposal was undue, which was also resolved respectfully. Then a fifth issue was raised yet again, regarding "more detailed" than other subordinate articles such as Genocides in history, which has also been resolved respectfully. Then, a string of issues (6th-9th) were raised, most of which were already answered before it was raised. The 6th issue was about advocacy, which, again, has been resolved. The 7th was on term genocide, which has been resolved. Th 8th was an accusation of a "political struggle", which has already been resolved in answering about advocacies. The 9th was a re-phrasing of what is actually another issue of advocacy (this time stated in a rude manner), which has been resolved for the nth time. Then a 10th issue was raised, and another, and again, and again. I don't want to think that the intention is the raise another issue right after one is resolved to block the edit, so I'm refraining from making such an accusation towards any editor. PCommission (talk) 06:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: But to answer for this particular issue, the geographical extent of the acts committed during that era has already been established. On the first, fourth and last source, genocide and atrocities have been clearly stated. On the second and third source, other human rights violations aside from genocide have been clearly stated, while on the second, the acts were made in comparable to genocide as a note, which tells us that separate areas have experienced the act. I have already explained with depth my answers to all issues and concerns raised by other editors, all of which I respected in a bid to reach group consensus. To further reach editor consensus, I even encouraged all editors as well to look at the sources provided and see that scholarly consensus have already been established on the matter, which should be a prime basis for editor consensus and a deterrence against long debating. After going through all of these, I patiently waited for the each editor's responses, knowing that the sources and dialogue are already provided to everyone. If people grow tired and stop debating amidst the presence of reliable sources provided and questions being answered, then what does that imply? I hope this can be finally resolved, especially since the scholarly consensus is already there. PCommission (talk) 06:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Coolcaesar: I respect your views, but the issue keeps on expanding with unrelated matters. The main point of the issue is whether the proposed phrase has credible sources that it can be inputted, while making sure that the input will in no way make the article too long. This has already been resolved. Also, yes this is a summary page, which is why the important content for the proposal is already summarized. Another issue why I'm proposing this is not to "shoehorn" a concept, but to input an important aspect for the article, validated by sources and scholarly consensus. I keep repeating that matter because scholarly consensus should be the basis for community consensus, as all scholars would know. But again, the main point has already been answered. PCommission (talk) 06:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

You still haven't adequately answered any of the objections raised. The fact that you're now resorting to the tactic of begging the question (of pretending that you have already made your point) only reinforces the weakness of your position. Your argument is entirely unpersuasive and you have failed to develop any consensus in favor of your position. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit review at Talk:Philippines#Neutral point of view in History section.--Moxy 🍁 12:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI to everybody: PCommission has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Feel free to revert any of their material per WP:Block evasion (and if you're unsure, keep in mind that the editor is known to push POVs and misrepresent sources). I suggest keeping an eye out for them in the future, as they are a repeat offender. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2020

Change "Last state admitted" to "Most recent state admitted" (since other states may be admitted in the future) and change "Last amendment" to "Most recent amendment" (since other amendments may be made in the future). 216.164.49.231 (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. At this time, both are accurate. The possibility of either is small enough that the necessity to use the longer phrases is low. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Pop stars

American pop stars such as Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, Madonna and Whitney Houston have become global celebrities, as have contemporary musical artists such as Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga, Britney Spears, Mariah Carey, Beyoncé, Jay-Z, Eminem, and Kanye West.

All of them are or were big global stars, Kanye and Jay Z have a massive global following. I see nothing wrong with this as it is.† Encyclopædius 10:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Kanye and Jay Z have a massive global following? Eminem’s commercial dominance of the pop music sphere is unrivalled within the hip hop scene. He’s sold well over 100 million albums worldwide while his nearest rap competitor, Kanye West, is lagging well behind. In fact, Eminem was the best selling musician of the 2000s across any genre. Even into this decade, with his artistic peak disappearing in the rearview mirror, his albums have been commercial hits — his latest LP, Kamikaze, still hit the number one spot in multiple countries. He was the one who truly showed hip-hop could conquer the world not just culturally, but commercially too. --JShark (talk) 10:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

In many countries of the world including Asian countries, few know rappers like Kanye West or Jay-Z while Eminem is widely known on all continents. --JShark (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

There are many artists and celebrities but few have made an impact musically, commercially and culturally around the world and on all continents.--JShark (talk) 11:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson and Madonna are cultural icons around the world and on all continents, they even have articles on Wikipedia and books where their cultural legacy is studied. The other contemporary artists can hardly be considered world icons.--JShark (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they all have a massive global following. Kanye West and Jay Z are very much global stars and famous worldwide. It's not worth arguing over but it just seemed an unnecessary edit to make.† Encyclopædius 11:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson and Madonna are cultural icons around the world and on all continents, they even have articles on Wikipedia and books where their cultural legacy is studied. The other contemporary artists can hardly be considered world icons.--JShark (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Ludwig van Beethoven, Johann Sebastian Bach, and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart are also global icons who left a significant legacy in music around the world and on every continent. The Beatles are regarded as the most influential band of all time (global celebrities) -> Cultural impact of the Beatles. --JShark (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Kanye West and Jay Z are NOT famous all over the world and they do not have the cultural and musical impact that other artists have had throughout history. --JShark (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Many Asians and Latin Americans recognize Eminem but a large percentage from Asia and Latin America know nothing about Kanye West or Jay Z. They are not world icons and they are not superstars who are going to be remembered in a hundred or two hundred years. --JShark (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Section needs a rewrite and list of names removed ....need real information ..not a list of people....like other articles "The Canadian music industry is the sixth-largest in the world producing internationally renowned composers, musicians and ensembles.[1] Music broadcasting in the country is regulated by the CRTC.[2] The Canadian Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences presents Canada's music industry awards, the Juno Awards, which were first awarded in 1970.[3] The Canadian Music Hall of Fame established in 1976 honours Canadian musicians for their lifetime achievements.[4] Patriotic music in Canada dates back over 200 years as a distinct category from British patriotism, preceding the Canadian Confederation by over 50 years. The earliest, The Bold Canadian, was written in 1812.[5] The national anthem of Canada...".--Moxy 🍁 11:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree with Moxy. Singer lists are detrimental to the article. --JShark (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources beg to differ, Kanye: [2] [3] [4]† Encyclopædius 13:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Any list of "international" U.S. pop stars opens a can of worms in an encyclopedia. Younger readers want to see their icons listed (even emphasized), even though few pop stars will stand the global test of time (like Louis Armstrong, Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, and Ella Fitzgerald). A very fuzzy business. Good luck. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree that to judiciously list individual musicians is an impossible errand at this article. Proof of that is that you didn't include Duke Ellington. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Dhtwiki: Of course the Duke! My "list of four" was in no way exhaustive. :) Mason.Jones (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

LOL agree. As seen by the junk media refs here any listing will not come from a non academic background in most cases.--Moxy 🍁 00:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2020

Correct the mistake United States of America is the 4 th largest country Against 3 or 4 . 2405:205:C844:7093:0:0:D72:18AD (talk) 03:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The sources make clear that it's third or fourth depending on how coastal waters are counted. —C.Fred (talk) 03:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Biden & Harris hidden in the infobox

I've tried to place Biden & Harris into the infobox in hidden form & yet I've been reverted by two editors. Is really that much of a problem? I just wanted to add them, in order to turn away editors who may mistaken think they're already prez & vice prez 'or' may want to add them as prez-elect & vice prez-elect. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

one editor. in my case, you were premature as no reputable source had called the election for them yet. since then i don't care. --Golbez (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

How many sources does one need, to show that Biden & Harris won the prez election? GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The infobox reports current U.S. statistics, not sneak previews of future facts. President and vice president are the current office holders and names will be updated on Jan. 20, the day of the inauguration. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Two editors: Golbez here and myself here, each of us giving explicit rationales. If there's something to do to warn people from making similar changes and that doesn't treat the election as officially concluded at this point, I'm all for it (i.e. a neutrally worded hidden comment to the effect that changes to the relevant parameters are premature). There must be more than one article to consult on the detailed play-by-play of this election for those who are interested. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The election has concluded though. That’s a fact so I don’t mind having it put there. FluffSquad (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The election has yet to take place, however foreordained the results of that election now seem to be. In any case, we don't put the names of presidents elect in the box meant for presidents. That will (probably) be changed on January 20, 2021, although I expect there will be attempts to change it prematurely between now and then, as has happened in the past. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Come on, Dhtwiki, the election has taken place. The Electors haven't been seated, but the election itself took place weeks ago. If we are going to be this pedantic, it's going to be a never ending game, since after the Electors are sat, someone can claim the election hasn't happened until January 6th and Congress certifying the Electors result, or could claim that it hasn't happened until January 20th for whatever reason they want to come up with. The election happened. That we don't put future presidents in the infobox is another issue, but please don't pretend the election hasn't taken place. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The election certainly hasn't "concluded". And my being "pedantic" was just my way of saying that it is premature to say that it has. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

y'all realize you're arguing over whether or not to include a comment - hidden text - that has a shelf life of 62 days? this is absolutely the least valuable thing you could possibly do with your time. --Golbez (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

It started as edits to the article itself. The hidden comments came later. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Food

American people eat burgers and hot dogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.4.231.56 (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

And turkey. Don't forget turkey. Dhtwiki (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

i'm american and i'm having vindaloo for dinner what of it --Golbez (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

What do you want edited exactly? Yes we eat hotdogs and burgers but you need to point out somewhere to edit. FluffSquad (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I have returned the image of the Turkey that had a long standing consensus is relevant to the section and the claim was sourced. The article has strayed far from its GA standards and we have lost the Rating but that does not mean the article should fall completely apart.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

If consensus for the image of the turkey holds by next week, I will photograph the turkey from dinner next Thursday using a newer high resolution (6000x4000) Nikon. I will photograph Hotdogs tomorrow. And see if there is interest for use, same with the turkey before replacing the other image. Since I cooked and photographed that one in 2014 (the last full turkey I made) I can either recreate a nearly exact replica of the old image with the new turkey in the same place on my counter, or in a more dinner like setting such as on a set table etc.. I'm both a major contributor to the article and a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink. I am a regular contributor for main "Food" images.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Good Article?

What is the status of this being considered for renomination for WP:GA? I have read the article, and the article I believe has reached criteria 3b (no unnecessary detail). However, as I have not done any edits to this article, I would rather not be the nominator for WP:GA. Is there someone that would be willing to do so, if the criteria have been met? HouseBlaster (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

This isn’t the area for nominating the article. This is only for edit requests. FluffSquad (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Not true? This is the page for discussing the article. Whether or not to nominate it is discussing the article. --Golbez (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Premature for the moment. Far too many issues to address before nominating however, we could begin work to address the lapse in GA standards.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

House Speaker & Chief Justice

Do we really need to have the House Speaker & Chief Justice listed in the infobox? I think it’s a bit much. Ciaran.london (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

A different kind of government: three separate branches (executive, legislative, judicial), with separation of powers and checks and balances. "Executive" listing only would be incomplete. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Discovery of the U.S.

The U.S was actually discovered by the Viking Leif Erickson. He sailed from Greenland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:1F94:1501:556B:46F2:F6A2:2EE4 (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The land that the United States now occupies was "discovered" by the people already living there. The Vikings landed in what is now Newfoundland (in Canada) and at that time, there was no United States. We do have an article on the Viking exploration of North America, but they certainly didn't discover the United States. freshacconci (✉) 18:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The Vikings landed in Canada and the “New World”. Thousands of years ago people from Asia crossed the Bering Straight and migrated to the south. They were the first humans in what is now the U.S. However, the first European explorers to discover the “New World” were the Vikings. https://www.history.com/topics/exploration/leif-eriksson https://www.britannica.com/biography/Leif-Erikson https://time.com/5414518/columbus-day-leif-erikson-day/ http://www.mnc.net/norway/LeifErikson.htm https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-leif-erikson-day-2020/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:1F94:1501:556B:46F2:F6A2:2EE4 (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and that is all covered in the applicable articles. freshacconci (✉) 18:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

That is not true. Europeans came to the Americas 10s of thousands of years ago. Before the Asians did. There is a massive cover up. Every time a European is found, under Federal law, it is declared 100% Asian (American Indian) and destroyed. Yeah. Destroyed. Look up "Murder in Kennewick" to learn more about it. There is so much money passing through the hands of the Indians, and the US Government, that they do not want to let the fairy tale go.

Also, the USA is the only country in the world where the natives are told "You are invaders and don't belong here!" Even though their family owned their farm for generations and they are born there and citizens.

The really fun thing about the Indians, is they are not even a race. You can marry and become one. Have only one Indian parent and be one. Be adopted into a tribe. And many people, especially Filipinos and Mexicans, claim to be Indians, and fake the paperwork, so they can get free money. 120.29.110.105 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Yours is an interesting point but in the form of an unsubstantiated rant. Looking up "Murder in Kennewick" takes me to stories on a recent, 2020, murder in Washington state. This NPR story relates some of the details of Kennewick Man, although omitting the conclusion that he was an Ainu-like Caucasian, which I read about years ago in Atlantic or Harper's, which apparently has been either conclusively disproven or is being covered up so as not to disturb an overarching and remunerative narrative, as you've suggested. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic groups

Almost none of the ethnic groups are ethnic groups. Also, "Ethnic Groups By Race and Ethnic groups by ethnicity."Ha ha what is this? They are not even races. And the ethnicity lists are also not ethnicites. Is this vandalism? I am a US citizen. Of the Caucasian race. With an Italian ethnicity. This stuff is middle school level. Not hard to figure out. 120.29.110.105 (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Take it up with the US Census. That is the reliable source that is cited. It is not the job of Wikipedia to come up with its own standards or definitions; we report what is in the reliable sources cited. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

History

Maybe 2020 Biden's victory at the election and the refusal of Trump to to cooparate with presidential transmision leading to 2021 US Capitol storming need to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.43.217 (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump has made a video statement saying he'll cooperate in a peaceful transition. There's an entire article on the capitol rioting, but we shouldn't try to replicate it here, nor directly link to it. There isn't much mention of the rioting in other subsidiary articles. United States Capitol has some of that detail, as you would guess, but not too much. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The storming of the Capitol by insurrectionists is something highly significant that has never occurred in 243 years of US history. I don't mean "never occurred" like no one had eaten a type of cheese in the US, but actual significance. That it occurred as an attempt to block certification of election results makes it doubly so significant. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not particularly historically significant that a president waited until the election of the next president was certified before announcing that he would be leaving the office. Even if Trump barricades himself in the White House, unless the U.S. government and military continue to take instructions from him, it will be just a footnote in history. TFD (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Um, it is most definitely historically significant. Most (I'm pretty sure ALL) other presidents have conceded not long after the ballot results were counted. Usually within 24 hours of the ballots being counted in their respective states, if we go by recent enough history that these results could be communicated quickly. I do not know of ANY president that hadn't conceded by the time of Elector certification in their respective states, and none have waited for the Congressional certification. If you know of a large number that this example of Trump isn't significant, please provide sources saying that. I also cannot fathom the idea that you think an outgoing president barricading himself in the White House would be just a "footnote of history." --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump is by my count the fourth president to lose reelection in the past century. The other losses were lopsided (472-59 (1932), 489-49 (1980) and 370-168 (1992).) Al Gore btw revoked his concession and waited a month before re-conceding. Basically anyone will wait until all reasonable legal avenues have been exhausted. Trump of course should have seen reality earlier, but that's more about him than American democracy. TFD (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

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

Even though it's long winded and convoluted, you might want to see this discussion (there may be others) for previous rationales on why the president pro tem is not included. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it has come up before. I wouldn't favor its addition. The office is not listed in the infobox because of limited space and because, traditionally, only the major officeholder of each U.S. government branch is considered significant. (For the executive, the VP is there because s/he's second in line of succession and that is significant.) I have no problem hearing from others about this, but that's my view. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see it as that significant. He is in line to the presidency, but so is the entire cabinet. Technically he is second to the VP in the Senate, but has no real function or power. Basically he is the longest serving member of the majority party. Notice the United Kingdom info-box only lists the Queen and the PM. Prince Charles, who is first in line to the throne and vastly better known than the president pro tem of the U.S. Senate, even in the U.S., is not mentioned. TFD (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding an additional date line

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

• mm/dd/yyyy
• yyyy-mm-dd.

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

CntrlAltDelete 04:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Last state admitted and Last amendment

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

I don't read "last" as meaning "absolute and final" but as a succinct way of saying "latest" or "most recent", etc. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Latest is such a short word though, and would actually be accurate. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Last can either mean "final" or "latest" according to Merriam Webster [5], it's fine as it is. PyroFloe (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)