Talk:United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:US)
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Q1. How did the article get the way it is?
Detailed discussions which led to the current consensus can be found in the archives of Talk:United States. Several topical talk archives are identified in the infobox to the right. A complete list of talk archives can be found at the top of the Talk:United States page.
Q2. Why is the article's name "United States" and not "United States of America"?
Isn't United States of America the official name of the U.S.? I would think that United States should redirect to United States of America, not vice versa as is the current case.
This has been discussed many times. Please review the summary points below and the discussion archived at the Talk:United States/Name page. The most major discussion showed a lack of consensus to either change the name or leave it as the same, so the name was kept as "United States".
If, after reading the following summary points and all the discussion, you wish to ask a question or contribute your opinion to the discussion, then please do so at Talk:United States. The only way that we can be sure of ongoing consensus is if people contribute.
Reasons and counterpoints for the article title of "United States":
  • "United States" is in compliance with the Wikipedia " Naming conventions (common names)" guideline portion of the Wikipedia naming conventions policy. The guideline expresses a preference for the most commonly used name, and "United States" is the most commonly used name for the country in television programs (particularly news), newspapers, magazines, books, and legal documents, including the Constitution of the United States.
    • Exceptions to guidelines are allowed.
  • If we used "United States of America", then to be consistent we would have to rename all similar articles. For example, rename " United Kingdom" to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" or Mexico to "United Mexican States".
    • Exceptions to guidelines are allowed. Articles are independent from one another. No rule says articles have to copy-cat each other.
    • This argument would be valid only if "United States of America" was a particularly uncommon name for the country.
  • With the reliability, legitimacy, and reputation of all Wikimedia Foundation projects under constant attack, Wikipedia should not hand a weapon to its critics by deviating from the "common name" policy traditionally used by encyclopedias in the English-speaking world.
    • Wikipedia is supposed to be more than just another encyclopedia.
Reasons and counterpoints for the article title of "United States of America":
  • It is the country's official name.
    • The country's name is not explicitly defined as such in the Constitution or in the law. The words "United States of America" only appear three times in the Constitution. "United States" appears 51 times by itself, including in the presidential oath or affirmation. The phrase "of America" is arguably just a prepositional phrase that describes the location of the United States and is not actually part of the country's name.
  • The whole purpose of the common naming convention is to ease access to the articles through search engines. For this purpose the article name "United States of America" is advantageous over "United States" because it contains the strings "United States of America" and "United States." In this regard, "The United States of America" would be even better as it contains the strings "United States," The United States," "United States of America," and "The United States of America."
    • The purpose of containing more strings is to increase exposure to Wikipedia articles by increasing search rank for more terms. Although "The United States of America" would give you four times more commonly used terms for the United States, the United States article on Wikipedia is already the first result in queries for United States of America, The United States of America, The United States, and of course United States.
Q3. Is the United States really the oldest constitutional republic in the world?
1. Isn't San Marino older?
Yes. San Marino was founded before the United States and did adopt its basic law on 8 October 1600. ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sm.html) Full democracy was attained there with various new electoral laws in the 20th century which augmented rather than amended the existing constitution.

2. How about Switzerland?

Yes, but not continuously. The first "constitution" within Switzerland is believed to be the Federal Charter of 1291 and most of modern Switzerland was republican by 1600. After Napoleon and a later civil war, the current constitution was adopted in 1848.

Many people in the United States are told it is the oldest republic and has the oldest constitution, however one must use a narrow definition of constitution. Within Wikipedia articles it may be appropriate to add a modifier such as "oldest continuous, federal ..." however it is more useful to explain the strength and influence of the US constitution and political system both domestically and globally. One must also be careful using the word "democratic" due to the limited franchise in early US history and better explain the pioneering expansion of the democractic system and subsequent influence.

The component states of the Swiss confederation were mostly oligarchies in the eighteenth century, however, much tighter than most of the United States, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Connecticut excepted.
Q4. Isn't St. Augustine, Florida the first European settlement in the United States?
Technically, yes. However, Florida was not one of the original 13 colonies that formed the United States and thus the article mentions Jamestown and not St. Augustine.
This decision has been disputed and no explicit consensus has ever been formed on this question.
If you wish to challenge this decision, please do so on the Talk:United States page.
Q5. Why are the Speaker of the House and Chief Justice listed as leaders in the infobox? Shouldn't it just be the President and Vice President?
The President, Vice President, Speaker of The House of Representatives, and Chief Justice are stated within the United States Constitution as leaders of their respective branches of government. As the three branches of government are equal, all four leaders get mentioned under the "Government" heading in the infobox.
Q6. Why are the President's, Vice President's, and Speaker's parties listed, but not the Chief Justice's?
Though the Chief Justice of the United States may belong to a political party, his or her office is a judicial appointment, not an elected office. Therefore, the Chief Justice's party is not included when referencing him or her. (E.g. John Roberts is a Republican, but he is not referenced as John Roberts (R).)
Q7. What is the motto of the United States?
There was no de jure motto of the United States until 1956, when "In God We Trust" was made such. Various other unofficial mottos existed before that, most notably "E Pluribus Unum". The debate continues on what "E Pluribus Unum"'s current status is (de facto motto, traditional motto, etc.) but it has been determined that it never was an official motto of the United States.
Q8. Is the U.S. really the world's largest economy?
Yes. The United States has been the world's largest national economy since the Gilded Age and the world's largest economy since 2014, when it surpassed the European Union.
Q9. Isn't it incorrect to refer to it as "America" or its people as "American"?
In English, America (when not preceded by "North", "Central", or "South") almost always refers to the United States. The large super-continent is called the Americas.
Q10. Why isn't the treatment of Native Americans given more weight?
The article is written in summary style and the independence and expansion section summarizes the situation.
Good articleUnited States has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 15, 2005 Good article nomineeListed
May 7, 2006 Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 8, 2006 Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 18, 2006 Peer reviewReviewed
July 3, 2006 Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 21, 2006 Peer reviewReviewed
June 19, 2007 Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 9, 2008 Good article reassessmentKept
June 27, 2009 Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 6, 2009 Peer reviewReviewed
January 19, 2011 Peer reviewReviewed
March 18, 2012 Good article reassessmentDelisted
August 10, 2012 Good article nomineeNot listed
January 21, 2015 Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " Did you know?" column on February 3, 2015.
The text of the entry was: Did you know [...] that the United States accounts for 37% of all global military spending?
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on July 4, 2008.
Current status: Good article


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

According to Merriam-Webster, the U.S. can be referred to as "the States". [1] 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

  1. ^ "The States". Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster.

"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 21 April 2020

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

 DoneDeacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 04:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

"美国" listed at Redirects for discussion

Information.svg

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

"THE AMERICAN UNITED STATES" listed at Redirects for discussion

Information.svg

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

"Civitates Foederatae Americae" listed at Redirects for discussion

Information.svg

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

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2020

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

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

GA Reassessment

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

Considering there are two issues:

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

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

Hi Streepjescode. Country articles tend to be quite long due to there nature, but I do agree that this one could make better use of daughter articles and summary style. I have dropped a note at the Wikiproject informing them of this reassessment, sorry if you had already done so. AIRcorn  (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I think this might be better for a community assessment so I'm posting it there as well. Therapyisgood ( talk) 20:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support delisting if no improvements are made: the article is currently 111 kB when the absolute maximum article size is 100kb. It would really benefit from more aggressive summary style, hopefully cutting it down to around 80kb or less. b uidh e 13:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Significant progress has been made, but there are still uncited statements and excessive images breaking across sections. ( t · c) buidhe 13:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support delisting. The length is egregious, the lead has references not used anywhere else suggesting information there may not be in the rest of the article (eg. worker productivity), there are numerous single sentence paragraphs and numerous tiny sections (the table of contents is very long), and there are areas missing citations. The article thus fails the first 3 GA Criteria. CMD ( talk) 12:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support delisting. In particular, the Demographics section is pretty excessive considering that most of its subheadings have their own articles. I think cutting down that section by even 50% would be helpful. Ovinus Real ( talk) 14:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose delisting. While this article is very long, the United States is a topic that generates a very long article. It could be reduced, but it is still at overall GA quality. PointsofNoReturn ( talk) 21:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Many topics generate very long articles, that is why we have WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and related guidelines. I would suggest it's a decent enough bet that the United States has more subarticles than any other country. I would also add that in addition to the concerns raised above about 1a and 3b, I have concerns on this article relating to 1b and 2c, so I don't see the article as having an overall GA quality at all. CMD ( talk) 07:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to do some copy editing and taking a look at sources/citations over the next week or two. Not going to touch the lede because I haven't edited this article much and I'm not yet comfortable messing with stuff there, but I'll be working on making things more succinct in the rest of the article. I'll also be on the lookout for MOS violations and fix them as I see them. CJK09 ( talk) 06:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Don't have time for this atm. Too much else on my plate. CJK09 ( talk) 20:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Over the past couple days I have reorganized sections of this article and tried to remove excessive detail. Over the coming days I'll probably whittle it down a bit more and do some copy editing. I think it's a bit easier to navigate now though. Any suggestions are welcome (please ping me) Ovinus ( talk) 08:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ovinus, regarding navigation, a significant issue is the number of sections and subsections in the article (54). Some of this is due to the sheer length of the article, but some are very short, which is discouraged by MOS:BODY. Examples include Wildlife (2 sentences), Conservation (2 short paragraphs), Population (2 sentences), Major population areas (2 short paragraphs), etc. There are also 3 sections named "Statistics", and 4 sections named "Trends", which is explicitly instructed against by MOS:HEAD, due to how it impedes navigation. CMD ( talk) 12:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Ovinus Real has been doing a lot of summarizing and has brought this article down from 400kb to around 350kb. This is a major improvement, but the article is still too long. I support delisting unless the article is cut down to around 250kb or less, and the excessive detail is removed. Crazy Boy 826 16:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
You have lots of over data that can be moved....language chart with stats about less then 1 percent of the population could be made to prose text. Do we need "State flags and statehood dates" templates that in mobile view are always expanded...this could be a simple link. Section on "Water supply and sanitation" is so general that is contains zero informative information and could be removed. "Income, poverty and wealth" is so detailed that non Americans are lost by all the numbers and how they compare to other countries.-- Moxy 🍁 14:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree, the language table is not helpful. Your other changes would also be beneficial. ( t · c) buidhe 03:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a discussion on the length and manageability of the "United States" article—nothing else. A cursory comment on this particular page ("I agree the language table is not helpful") is not sufficient basis for wholesale deletion of a table present in the article for 10 years. No consensus has been reached on this. Go to the *main* Talk page. Mason.Jones ( talk) 15:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Mason.Jones, WP:ONUS says that the onus to keep disputed content rests with the editors seeking to keep it. I don't see any such consensus. ( t · c) buidhe 16:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
You deleted major content without discussion on the main Talk page, and with no edit summary (other than a cursory acronym). Moreover, discussion on this same issue (the ACS language table) already existed on the main Talk page with the same poster above (Moxy). No consensus was reached. Shooting the breeze with posters on this talk page re length/navigation issues is not consensus either. Mason.Jones ( talk) 17:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2020

117.20.117.38 (
talk) 23:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

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

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Slavery & Jim Crow in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issues with the lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • CactusJack, "this is a very poor summary of US racial issues"--yeah. Yesterday there was nothing. If you're going to complain about how the "current text seriously underplays etc.", why didn't you come by earlier to make sure it was done absolutely perfect the first time around? Drmies ( talk) 14:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Real helpful for an admin to discourage editors from making suggestions to improve one of our most viewed and most important articles Drmies. I made good faith suggestions and I'm looking for further input. And I'm not on Wikipedia 24/7. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 14:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • You made good suggestions, and while doing so made a mockery of the actual improvements I made. I don't care if you are on Wikipedia 24/7: you could have looked at the history, or on this very talk page, in the same section where you commented. Drmies ( talk) 14:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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)

Tags

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

  • Oh, and "undergoing GAR review" isn't a reason for tags on the article. Hobit ( talk) 12:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Pls see archive for many talks on the matter. .... ‎United States ‎[351,459 bytes] (so yes top 5%)... WP:TOOBIG - Wikipedia:Too much detail.-- Moxy 🍁 13:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not arguing it doesn't need to be smaller. I'm arguing that tagging it is extremely unlikely to pull in editors who are qualified and willing to work on it. Tags aren't there to act as a "badge of shame" and that's what this is. And could you point out to me where consensus was gained to add those tags in the archive? I've searched and can't find anything close to the dates listed. Hobit ( talk) 14:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Not sure why you belive a consensus talk is needed to add tags but they have been here a few years now so dont know what talk is best to link out of the many many talks...with the first talk about size back in 2005. Many attempts and talks over the years to cuddle the article to no avail thus tags still there. Best quote from all the talks is "The main reason is that new editors with a special interest arrive and add more and more marginal details about their favorite subjects." As for why pls see Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems.-- Moxy 🍁 14:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
So the tags have been here for years (I was going by the date on the tags themselves)? It doesn't look like the tags are helping... Hobit ( talk) 16:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
It has actually lead to the start of 5 conversations on the topic. So yes it is making editors pause and think of the problem. Not sure how no tag will help facilitate that.-- Moxy 🍁 16:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: remove maintenance tags

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

  • support as proposer. Hobit ( talk) 16:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Tag has helped bring up the topic just like here a half dozen times (with us trimming a bit every time)...not sure how no tag will lead us to fixing the problem if no one is encouraged to do so. it also informs new editors that the article is to large and that additions should be done with great thought. -- Moxy 🍁 16:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I would have to agree with Hobit here. If the tags have been here this long and haven't actually solved anything, they are simply a badge of shame at this point. - DJSasso ( talk) 11:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
GA status being lifted due to length....so could remove it at this point since the article has many other problems that could use a hand.-- Moxy 🍁 16:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Population map

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

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

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

Pls Talk:United States#Slavery & Jim Crow in the lead. -- Moxy 🍁 02:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Leftists like Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas President Robert Kaplan quoted in the WSJ? Is Time magazine an example of the radical left? The article lead summarizes the most important facts in the body of the article. Systemic racism is an important fact about America and people who demand we all shut our eyes to it don't have a right to demand that Wikipedia should censor history. HouseOfChange ( talk) 02:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I know the term "systemic racism" gets bandied about but it's usually without a clear definition. If it means that those of certain races are doing less well than others, that begs the question of, say, determination to acquire an education or cultural attitudes towards industriousness (Russians' general lack of a Calvinistic work ethic has been attributed to why the Russian revolution wasn't as successful as the American one). If it means that there are laws, or other attitudes, that institutionalize racial, or gender, or whatever, prejudice, there are laws (such as Title IX) and attitudes (such as "diversity", = racial set asides) that seem as mindlessly fetishistic as those laws that once branded African Americans and other "people of color" (some of whom are doing quite well in this systemically racist society) as inferior or as not being allowed to mix with whites. Dhtwiki ( talk) 03:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm to the left politically, but the verb "plague" (unless it refers to bacteria or locusts) is already tendentious and unencyclopedic. And "systemic racism," with neither source nor definition and presented as a universal truth, is totally wrong in Wikipedia. Mason.Jones ( talk) 14:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
So your argument is that the reason blacks are disadvantaged is not the whites are racist but that the blacks are inferior. While there is an internal consistency to that view, it's not generally accepted. So per weight and no synthesis, we can't use it to overturn the consensus of opinion in reliable sources. TFD ( talk) 16:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
If you don't believe in systemic inferiority, why do you believe in systemic racism? And where are the sources, especially those that try to define what it means? "Systemic racism" isn't used in the body of the article, with supporting citations, as far as I could see. Why should it appear suddenly in the lead? (I left it there when I made my edits to the text that has now been removed, because I feel that it is used so frequently that there must be a reliably sourced definition that could be supplied, even though I might find the definition not very useful, such as that which says racism is only something that can be attributed to the powerful, even though most people are aware of race, act in racial cohorts, and exhibit racial prejudice.) Dhtwiki ( talk) 22:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
First of all, I am not expressing my opinions on systemic racism, merely repeating those that are accepted by experts. Second, I don't understand your view that the belief there is racism in America is a racist view. Usually it is accompanied by an opinion that something should be done to correct it. TFD ( talk) 23:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@TFD: What experts? Sourced experts are never identified. Conventional wisdom is not a basic tool for writing country articles in encyclopedias. And social ills that "plague" a country is writing worthy of a high school essay. And as Dwiki noted, that came straight out of the blue. Mason.Jones ( talk) 02:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The edit in question neither provided such a source nor did it give definition or parameters to "systemic" racism. "Plague" is totally unencyclopedic. Conventional wisdom—"You know this to be true," unqualified and unsourced—is what was presented, and that is inadequate for a WP country article. You have to do better. Mason.Jones ( talk) 14:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
There's also the article Institutional racism, with "systemic racism" as a redirect, that we could link to, if it's decided that that term should be used. Dhtwiki ( talk) 09:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
There is no concrete proof that American institutions are racist. The right thing to do would be to sue if you think your rights are really being destroyed. You lost me when you wanted to take the acts of a few misguided perhaps malicious individuals and ascribe that to all Americans. -- JShark ( talk) 14:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Racism is not suffered only by African Americans in the world. Racism can be suffered by all people, including Europeans. But you still can't say that American institutions are designed and created to be racist. -- JShark ( talk) 15:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Systemic racism does not mean that "institutions are designed and created to be racist" but rather that some institutions have effects that create burdens for some races more than for others. The term describes outcomes that statistics can measure. It also has zero to do with ascribing malicious behavior "to all Americans." But your inaccurate belief is common, and promoted by rightwing media. Wikipedia should therefore avoid the expression, which should not mean avoiding this important topic. HouseOfChange ( talk) 19:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
@HouseOfChange There is no concrete proof of anything you say. American institutions do not affect any race. Those supposed statistics are the typical ones that the radical left manipulates. -- JShark ( talk) 04:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read that a few more times.

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

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

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

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

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

Think the culture section should mention the Harlem Renaissance

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

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

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

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

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

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

Internet and Web aren't the same thing.

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

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

Politics link in header

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

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

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)

Remove potentially racial sentence

The sentece "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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.81.208.126 ( talk) 16:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)