Jump to content

Talk:United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:US)
Former good articleUnited States was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 15, 2005Good article nomineeListed
May 7, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 8, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 18, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 3, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 21, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
October 19, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 19, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 9, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
June 27, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 6, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
January 19, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
March 18, 2012Good article reassessmentDelisted
August 10, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
January 21, 2015Good article nomineeListed
February 22, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
December 19, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
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: Delisted good article

Consensus

[edit]

Since, this month, there have been brief discussions (here and here) about whether or not to keep the phrase "...while the country's political culture promotes liberty, equality, individualism, personal autonomy, and limited government.", it's right to find a consensus. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is easily sourced all over ....Just need to rephrase and put in a time context ... "Founded on the principles of liberty, equality, individualism, personal autonomy, and limited government, American values are based on the democratic political tradition, which draws its inspiration from the European Enlightenment movement .Moxy🍁 19:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy: here you wrote, "Liberty and equality are no longer a trait of the United States..... because of individualism and personal autonomy. All these things do not belong together as their contradicting to the facts of reality." JacktheBrown (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think qualifying it as a past event puts it in context..... civil liberties were thing that they thought apply to all men who were white. Must remember even in the the first democracy it was only white males of stature that were considered humans. Moxy🍁 22:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that probably deserves a note, as the history of slavery contradicts notions of equality, liberty, and personal autonomy (especially at the time of foundation). Kowal2701 (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need the first part of the sentence at all? "American values are based on the democratic political tradition, which draws its inspiration from the European Enlightenment movement" seems like it does the job well without needless puffery. The first part of the sentence would be fine to be expanded on in the body, but it seems unnecessary for the lead. 296cherry (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA

[edit]

it says that the USA is the third-largest land area. Isn't China bigger than the USA?

Sources:[1] MagmaAdmiral (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See #Third largest country by land area Moxy🍁 17:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 November 2024

Add section on slavery. Transic232 (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC) — Transic232 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Lam312321321 (talk · contribs). [reply]

 Not done: See United States § European settlement and conflict (1607–1765) and United States § Westward expansion and Civil War (1800–1865) Alternatively, there are many options to read other than an encyclopedia article written as the broadest summary possible. I just finished reading This Vast Southern Empire (2016) by Matthew Carp,[1] and I highly recommend it.Remsense ‥ 论 11:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Karp, Matthew (2016). This Vast Southern Empire: Slaveholders at the Helm of American Foreign Policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-73725-9.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2024

[edit]

to change the president name from joe biden to Donald trump as he won the election Npoleanthe (talk) 11:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Remsense ‥ 论 11:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They will add it when he is officially in office. 73.25.171.181 (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2024

[edit]

On the place where it says who's president, it says Joe Biden, not Donald Trump. Ruh Ro Raggy (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: that is correct until inauguration. LizardJr8 (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mention of slavery , inequality in lead ?

[edit]

I was reading about other country lead it had all the bad thing about that country in the lead but in usa case it only positive thing . Why ? 103.165.29.134 (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The abolishment of slavery is mentioned. There has been some discussion about adding something about inequality but it hasn’t come to anything.
We follow WP:Reliable sources and if they are mostly negative or positive we represent that. Which country articles did you feel are too negative? Kowal2701 (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not experience in wikipedia edit but i can provide you trusted ,reliable , well decumented , peer reviewed amd factual source that slavry is one biggest thing about usa as a country .
Lead only contain info about Abolishment and thats it . 103.165.29.134 (talk) 06:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is abolished already. (CC) Tbhotch™ 07:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was one biggest Part of history and what america is today . Simply not putting in lead shows it was not important enough to be included ?
There is civil war in lead but not slavary .. 103.165.29.189 (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slavery is mentioned in the civil war sentence. CMD (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is mention only 2 times only as reason for civil war and then it just abolised .
Whole american poltical , economical and social system Was shaped by this. 103.165.29.189 (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it's pretty insane that the intro mentions something as detailed as Pearl Harbor but makes no mention of the forced migration of enslaved Africans. إيان (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also find it nuts that the slave trade isn’t mentioned in the ledes of loads of Caribbean countries like Antigua and Barbuda and Grenada Kowal2701 (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It irks me that editors continue to label topics such as African American slavery and the mistreatment of indigenous peoples as too “unimportant” to be mentioned. Mentioning these issues, whether in the lead or body, has little to do with ideological bias; it’s about ensuring that article content reflects what is frequently mentioned in reliable sources (which these topics are).
Additionally, if we shouldn’t mention slavery because it’s been abolished, why should we mention any of the other history either? The Confederate States are long gone, so why mention the American Civil War? Etc. 296cherry (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, slavery is mentioned. CMD (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again there is difference between .
"mentioning slavery in the context of the Civil War and its abolition."
And
"mentioning slavery in the context of how it shaped american culture , economy , values , politics and how imprtant it was and it is now " 103.165.29.189 (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those quotes you cite appears to have been used in this discussion. The actual quote replied to was "...African American slavery and the mistreatment of indigenous peoples as too “unimportant” to be mentioned. Mentioning these issues, whether in the lead or body". CMD (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree with the IP’s argument, but I understand where you are coming from as well.
I’d like to reiterate that I am not attempting to make this article singularly focused on negative aspects and believed injustices.
However, I must concur with the IP that mentioning African American slavery as an aspect of the American civil war doesn’t adequately represent its effects.
I feel that a sentence along the lines of “The subjugation of native American peoples, along with the enslavement and discrimination of African Americans, has substantially shaped American governance, society, culture, and economics throughout the country’s past and present.” would do a great job (obviously not my exact wording). Not only would this satisfy the issues with adequately covering the topic, but it would also rid the lead of awkward attempts to include the topic via a more conventional historiography.
But, there’s the potential issue of a lack of sources to support this (since examination of the aforementioned effects in a wide scope is a more recent phenomenon among academia). If so, I wouldn’t be opposed to more balanced wording. 296cherry (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I was mistaken in claiming that slavery wasn’t mentioned at all. Apologies! 296cherry (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply to CMD below, I’d appreciate your thoughts. 296cherry (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the body, Along the eastern seaboard, settlers trafficked African slaves through the Atlantic slave trade. is a good opportunity for some African-American social history.

Something like

  • African slaves primarily worked on cash crop plantations. and a bit on culture/cultural diversion

In the revolutionary war section:

  • African American soldiers fought on both the British and the American sides.
  • Some description of the Underground Railroad however unsure about placement.

What are people’s thoughts on this? Kowal2701 (talk) 13:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issues with these additions as long as they’re reliably sourced. They don’t seem inflammatory or undue to me, and this article absolutely needs more content on the subject. 296cherry (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taking just these ideas in isolation is a perhaps a starting point for a discussion, but not a firm basis to build content on. As you mention sources would be helpful, and in particular sources that can help frame due weight in the context of the United States, or of the History of the United States. The History section is not short as it is, so discussions about more content being needed should also include what is in turn overrepresented. As an on-wiki example, it could be worth looking at the lead of History of the United States. Within its four paragraphs, this mentions agricultural slave labor, controversy over the expansion of slavery, the civil war, and abolition. It also mentions Jim Crow in the post-abolition era. Is this a better balance of weight, and if so, what is this page currently doing differently? CMD (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great points! I agree that slapping on more content to an already bloated page shouldn’t be the route we focus on.
However, I’m a little worried about making significant changes to the history section that center on negative events and outcomes, since many editors on this page will be diametrically opposed to anything of the sort. See the “Biased, contentious claims being written as uncontroversial assertions” discussion above, for example, where attempts to include more information on complex issues are aspersed as ideological attacks on the page. The discussing editor even goes as far as to say the only reason these aspects are being discussed is that democrats are bitter over Trump’s victory in the presidential election. :( 296cherry (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the reaction to perceived negative information is the process. If the argument is, the lead is positive, we should introduce slavery as a negative, then that's going to stymie the effort from the getgo. This is another reason why it's helpful to consider weight and impact rather than whether X or Y is positive or negative.
As a start, one thing that could be reduced is the American Revolution and the early republic (1765–1800) subsection, particularly the first paragraph. All these names and events are important, but the detail is very undue at this level. The main article lead covers that entire period in a couple of sentences, and condensing this would mean topics such as the continued importance of slave labor during that time could be mentioned. CMD (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice, these proposals were from the lede of History of African Americans but I agree that History of the United States and tertiary sources would be better places to look.
  • World Encyclopedia: United States of America#History doesn't even mention African Americans, has a little on slavery
  • A Dictionary of World History: United States of America#History doesn't mention slavery until The mid-19th century was dominated by a political crisis over slavery and states' rights and again doesn't mention African Americans
  • Britannica's article is long but says

    Part of that population growth was the result of the involuntary immigration of enslaved Africans. During the 17th century, enslaved persons remained a tiny minority of the population. By the mid-18th century, after Southern colonists discovered that the profits generated by their plantations could support the relatively large initial investments needed for slave labor, the volume of the slave trade increased markedly. In Virginia the enslaved population leaped from about 2,000 in 1670 to perhaps 23,000 in 1715 and reached 150,000 on the eve of the American Revolution. In South Carolina it was even more dramatic. In 1700 there were probably no more than 2,500 Blacks in the population; by 1765 there were 80,000–90,000, with Blacks outnumbering whites by about 2 to 1.

Kowal2701 (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I was reading about other country lead it had all the bad thing about that country in the lead but in usa case it only positive thing. Why?" Many editors are American and, being American, writing about the negative aspects of the United States is complicated; this could be the reason (I don't want to justify anyone). JacktheBrown (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not American, but my impression of American history is a long tale of business oligarchs dominating the political system, the struggle for labor rights having meager results, and mass racial violence in the United States being surprisingly frequent. The phrase "hell on Earth" is never far from my mind when reading about the U.S. Dimadick (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick: furthermore, American society is too consumerist; for example, regarding "Italian cuisine" (TRUE Italian cuisine is in Italy, it doesn't exist in the United States) there are multinationals and brands (e.g., Domino's, which declared bankruptcy in 2022 in Italy, SpaghettiOs,[a] etc.) that sell a lot, but almost completely sacrificing culinary quality. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading about China, and its introduction seems to have focused on all the negative aspects, such as the "Tiananmen Square Massacre" and how communism caused the "Great Chinese Famine." Then, I read about the USA to compare. The introduction to the USA, however, only included positive aspects and didn't even properly mention slavery. I would argue that we should include events like the "1985 MOVE bombing," the "Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male," U.S. war crimes in Vietnam, or the "Forever Wars" in the Middle East for resource 103.165.29.209 (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, many Americans don't like China, perhaps because it's the only country that could, in the future, economically surpass the United States; here's the possible reason. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ I prefer not to comment...

"Estados Unidos da América" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Estados Unidos da América has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13 § Estados Unidos da América until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"米国" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect 米国 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13 § 米国 until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Соединенные Штаты Америки" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Соединенные Штаты Америки has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13 § Соединенные Штаты Америки until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Соединенные Штаты" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Соединенные Штаты has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13 § Соединенные Штаты until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Les États Unis d'Amérique" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Les États Unis d'Amérique has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13 § Les États Unis d'Amérique until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13 § Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2024

[edit]

In the lead, convert the semicolon in “It has a bicameral national legislature composed of the House of Representatives, a lower house based on population; and the Senate, an upper house based on equal representation for each state” to a comma. When making a break in a sentence via a comma, such a break should end with another comma. 296cherry (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Dhtwiki (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"الولايات المتحدة" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect الولايات المتحدة has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 16 § الولايات المتحدة until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Party system

[edit]

The US is de-facto dominated by two-party rule, which makes it de facto under a two-party system. Feel free to discuss your opinion as to whether this belongs in the infobox or not. Consensus is necessary in Wikipedia. Cnscrptr (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is already in the article. CMD (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant including in the government section. Cnscrptr (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is where it is currently included, under the political parties subheader. CMD (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the infobox. Cnscrptr (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't change your messages when they have already been replied to. CMD (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for that, but please stay on topic. Cnscrptr (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Area of the United States

[edit]

The US has allegedly announced that it allows expansion up to 1,000,000 km to its territory by annexing more of its EEZ last year, making its territory potentially the second largest country in the world at almost 11 million km. Some sources state that this is already the case However, government documents haven't reflected this change, with documents still putting the us at 9.8 million km.

Furthermore, the topic of what constitutes as territory (where Britannica differs from Wikipedia) is a necessary issue to address. Cnscrptr (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 9.8 million and similar figures do not include the EEZ. CMD (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT: Policy Proposal to establish a US research group to edit this article

[edit]

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

In order to have a more reliable and unbiased article about the United States, I believe it necessary to have a semi-exclusive body of editors focused on researching about the United States and ensuring the article is accurate and as neutral and unbiased as possible.

I also propose that only this research group will be allowed to edit the article, with non-members being able to propose changes via RFCs. To join the research group, one must be extended confirmed and complete thorough training in the following areas - Bias reduction and neutrality training. - Finding reliable sources and comparing sources. - Professional research. - Wikipedia policy.

What do ye think of this proposal? Do you support or oppose? Cnscrptr (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to find some sort of wider support in policy to make that work. There's no way that could be done with a local consensus. For the record, I don't think you will find wider support for this. CMD (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The best place for this proposal is Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). The core of the issue is users not separating their own POV from their work. For a lot of people, that POV is a motivating factor, and we have to think about editor retention. Wikipedia is collaborative, and neutrality is approximately reached by editors with different POVs and biases collaborating. Kowal2701 (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. I moved the discussion of this policy to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), which won't focus on the US topic alone. We can continue it there. Cnscrptr (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 December 2024

[edit]

Change where it says "President: Joe Biden" to "President: Donald Trump" Ruh Ro Raggy (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Trump has been elected, but not officially inaugurated as president. That change will be applied on January 20th. Tarlby (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 December 2024 (2)

[edit]

rambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambograd

May I fix some grammar issues? Loey4398 (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 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. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typo edit request

[edit]

"subrurban" appears in the third-to-last paragraph of the Transportation section, I believe this should be "suburban" Totallyuneekname (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing it out. Mason.Jones (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 December 2024

[edit]

I Request the President and vice president role to be changed because of recent election of Trump, pls change to "President:Donald Trump Vice President:JD Vance EmporerJax (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Remsense ‥ 论 00:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EmporerJax This will be done once they are inaugurated on January 20. Tarlby (t) (c) 00:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Low food control in the U.S.

[edit]

"In the US, the FDA takes a notably more hands-off approach to testing and inspections, often allowing new food ingredients unless proven harmful. This includes ingredients, for example, GMOs, growth hormones and chemical preservatives.": [2]; very important information that should be added to the Cuisine section. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The website (which is rather obscure) is comparing U.S. standards and practices to the well-known stringent standards of the EU. The detail "compared to the EU" should be part of any "very important information" added, as many other countries (including wealthy ones like Japan) have rules comparable to those in the U.S. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mason.Jones: that's fine. However, the part about Michelin star-rated restaurants should be contextualized; for example, Italy, a country with approximately 275 million fewer inhabitants than the U.S., has 175 more Michelin star-rated restaurants (total: 395) than the U.S. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
France and Italy are culinary powerhouses, with a high number of Michelin-starred restaurants to be expected. The U.S. has no culinary history compared to France and Italy, so its total Michelin-starred restaurants are cited as a special achievement. Same with wine (total wine production or citing U.S. awards in international competition). Mason.Jones (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States&oldid=1265378884"