Talk:United States/Archive 94

Archive 90

←

Archive 92

Archive 93

Archive 94

Archive 95

Archive 96

→

Archive 100

California Genocide

I have made an edit with a brief mention of the California Genocide. This edit was reverted on the pretext that it included "excessive detail" and poor "wording." The claim has no basis: I have added no more than five words to the article. At the same time, I have trimmed a shockingly awkward sentence of thirty six words, splitting it up into two more concise sentences, one of which is only fifteen words.

Five words is not “excessive.” And a genocide is not a detail, particularly when it happened in one of the largest and most populous states in the union. - GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Without making a statement on if this is a worthy addition, yes, five words can easily be excessive. "Cedar Rapids is in Iowa." Factual, sourcable, and yet entirely excessive for this article. No, I'm not drawing equivalence - I do not care about this addition. I just want to make it clear that "five words is not excessive" is a poor argument that you shouldn't make. --Golbez (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be having some trouble processing my actual argument, so I'll reproduce it here with emphasis added—

Five words is not “excessive.” And a genocide is not a detail, particularly when it happened in one of the largest and most populous states in the union.

-GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Cool. --Golbez (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

You added more than 5 words; you added two references. Your text and references emphasize the California "genocide" above others, in a section that treats the Indian wars and massacres rather generally, as it should. I had a hard time finding where the California Genocide article was linked-to from History of Native Americans in the United States, the most relevant hat note in this article. The shortest path I found was a "See also" link from the Mission Indians article linked from the hat-noted article. So, the California Genocide article is not considered a comprehensive article even within that group.

My reference to your change not being well worded specifically mentioned "spacing" in parenthesis, which was a minor but not negligible flaw that would still have to be corrected.

I'm going to revert your latest edit and ask that you gain consensus for further additions like this. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Dhtwiki please direct me to a Wikipedia policy which states that mention of an event is contingent on some sort of hat note order of operations. I see no sign of such on the hatnote page.

Your presumptions seem to be based on the fallacy of using Wikipedia as a reference for determining content. The fact that there are two university press monographs naming this as a major event—the gold standard as far as notability and reliable sources— is what should be concerning us.GPRamirez5 (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

My reference to the hat note was to show the weight that this encyclopedia gives California genocide within Native American history in general, which should reflect how much weight it's given in reliable sources. WP:UNDUE states:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

Monographs are studies-in-depth that can't be relied on to give an overview and thus can't be relied on to determine the weight that should be given California Indians in the greater scheme of things. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry Dhtwiki, can you clarify what you just said? You do not believe that the systematic extermination of the Indians of California—who are multiple tribes, not just one—is significant enough for five words in a thousand word section on Westward expansion? Is that correct? - GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not just the five words, as I said above, it's the two citations; and sources, while they're usually considered good, also are a burden on the time it takes for an article to render, especially one with ~700 citations already. But even just the five words are inappropriate if other depredations go unmentioned here.

We should also take into consideration that the state of California's policies towards the Indians were more systematically vicious than those of the United States, whose government was relatively more compassionate, if ineffectual in the face of attitudes in the state. There's also the fact that most of the population decline among Indians, up to 90%, was due to disease, rather than overtly murderous acts. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

That is an appalling and ignorant comment. There is no contradiction between disease and genocide:

Venereal disease was contracted mainly from white men who abducted and raped Indian women…The destruction of Native food sources…contributed to Indian susceptibility to communicable diseases…Many hundreds died as a result of the removal operations by the military because…they found no provisions, houses, or other facilities once they reached their destinations and consequently became the victims of disease and starvation…The worst stage took place between 1845 and 1855, during the American period of the gold rush.

- "California Indians, Genocide of" in Encyclopedia of American Indian History edited by Bruce E. Johansen, Barry M. Pritzk (ABC-CLIO, 2007), p.226-231

For much of the period between 1845 and 1855, there was no State of California. It was territory administered by the US federal government.GPRamirez5 (talk) 03:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

California was acquired by the U.S. in January 1847, and statehood came about in September 1850. --Golbez (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

While I disagree with labeling all of that genocide, those things happened to other Indian tribes. Why should California Indians get special mention here when we don't detail the abuses of other tribes? Dhtwiki (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The California atrocities are of sufficient general interest to warrant a feature article in Newsweek—An article which tells us that "The United States Army often participated in the mass killing, making Capitol Hill complicit in what was happening in the goldfields...On May 15, 1850, they 'poured in destructive fire indiscriminately upon men, women and children,' according to one account. As many as 800 members of the Pomo tribe were killed at what has come to be known as Bloody Island."-GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

All of this stems from Mexican American War. California used to be Mexican territory or possibly by 1846 a semi-independent Mexican State, but it was ceded to the United States after the War ended. It was a costly war for both sides, Americans and Mexicans, died in those battles. Wikipedia goes by sources. The Encyclopedia of American Indian History could be a reliable source. Was there an author to that particular article ? I think for this article there needs to be a reliable source and author name. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Most genocides take place in the context of war, including the Holocaust. As it turns out, though, the Mexican War was over at the time of the 1850 Pomo massacre I just mentioned,and was sure as hell over in 1873 (the last year of the genocide in Benjamin Madley's estimation).-GPRamirez5 (talk) 08:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Cmguy777, the principle source, as indicated in the original edit, and in the Newsweek article, was Madley's book An American Genocide: The United States and the California Indian Catastrophe, 1846-1873 (Yale University Press, 2016). As noted on the Yale Graduate School website, it has won the following accolades and notices:

The 2017 Los Angeles Times Book Prize for History, the 2017 Commonwealth Club Gold Medal for Californiana, the 2016 Heyday Books History Prize, a New York Times Book Review Editor's Choice, a 2016 Indian Country Today Hot List book, and a 2016 Choice magazine Outstanding Academic Title. In addition, Madley was called the “Best New Western Author of 2016” by True West Magazine and was named a San Francisco Public Library Laureate for 2017.

-GPRamirez5 (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

GPRamirez5. It is best to use the actual book, not a web site for source reference. I don't have a copy of the book. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The Newsweek article strikes me as sensationalistic; its facts dubious. It's far fetched to think that Congress ordered specific massacres or even that higher army command could control such events. The massacre death toll referred to in the quote ("As many as 800 members of the Pomo tribe were killed") is contradicted by much lower figures at List of Indian massacres (60-100) and Bloody Island massacre (150–200), which are apparently sourced. Let's hope the book gives a more nuanced account; otherwise, it's useless. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Imbalance of Photographs

The preponderance of photographs used in this article shows images of New York. Apart from photos of the President and Vice-President, 10 out of 35 photographs are dedicated to New York. This represents a staggering 28%. The majority of other US states have absolutely no photographic representation at all in this good-rated article. The currently skewed situation should be better balanced, especially for an article named United States. New York certainly has an important place here, but not taking up more than a quarter of the total photographs. I leave it to American Wiki editors who certainly know their country better than I do to rectify this. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that 28% of the photos being of New York is "staggering". A tremendous amount of history of the country has taken place there. You say you think New York having a lot of pictures is bad, then say you don't know the country well enough to know how to fix it, which ... I guess you're allowed to have that position, but it's not a great one. We probably aren't going to add more pictures - the article is crowded as is - so I guess it's a matter of removing pictures. The least helpful one is of Rockefeller Center, or maybe NY Presbyterian, but then that section would have no picture. Texas Medical Center would be a good option. --Golbez (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I do think that some other cities could use some increased representation; without taking up too much more space in the article. I think that a few more city skyline images could be used in the leading population centers table, maybe adding Houston and DC and shrinking the image sizes might be a good idea? Fritzmann2002 16:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you referring to {{Largest metropolitan areas of the United States}}? The convention with "largest cities in x" templates is to display images for the four largest cities, although since the US article is using a custom version, it can certainly be tweaked. There is a proposal above to standardize on one of the versions based on {{Largest cities}} listed in the sandbox, which may affect this. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 22:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was referring to. I think that instead of just 4 images the template could easily fit 5-7 images. The images don't need to be huge; if you really want to see the skylines you can click on the thumbnail. Having more would balance out how few cities are represented in the article. Fritzmann2002 17:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

At the moment the photos on this article have a pretty tight consensus. Additions can be made if they are agreed on but changes should not be attempted until editors understand the outcome of several image discussion that were very detailed.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The number of photos taken in New York has now risen to 11; almost one third of the total photos in this article. It's moving in the wrong direction. I haven't seen any consensus for this over-representation. We can open it up to a larger group to look at if that would be helpful. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

You still have not demonstrated how it's over-representative. What proportion should New York be? --Golbez (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

This has already been demonstrated with statistics. Perhaps a table would be easier.

Break down of photos demonstrating the disproportionate number from New York

Photo content	Number of photos	Percentage of total photos
New York	11	30.5%
8 other states represented*	17	47.2%
Misc. (Food, sports, portraits, etc.)	8	22.2%
41 States not represented at all	0	0%

_{*Including: District of Columbia, Mississippi, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Texas, Virginia}

_{N.B. This table does not include, paintings, satellite imagery, or maps}

The current article is missing photographs of 82% percent of the States, while New York has not 1, but 11. That is disproportionate. The article's title is United States. New York does have its own page. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, you have not demonstrated how New York is over-represented, because as I see it, it's properly represented considering the amount of history that's happened there, and the importance it still has in the country. So I ask again: Instead of telling us what you think an incorrect proportion is, how about telling us what you think a correct proportion would be? --Golbez (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

For reasons already given, it is not for me to suggest how many photos of New York should be included. Moreover, it is not the point I raised. The problem is one of disproportion. If you do not believe that the article could benefit from the addition of other photos selected from the remaining 41 states, then perhaps other editors do. Some contenders might be: Massachusetts (Boston, MIT), Alaska (Gold Rush, natural gas & oil, wildlife, Mount Denali), Michigan (Detroit, Ford factory), Washington State (Boeing, Starbucks, killer whales), Louisiana (Mardi Gras), and Montana (Rocky mountains). These ideas are meant to be a springboard, not a list to be shot down. “Contribute and let go” is my editing philosophy. Our input in this discussion is getting repetitive. It might be better now to leave it to others. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: I am an educated layman and rare editor of Wiki, but I do understand much of the way a wiki works.) I am with Verity. As an American in the midwest, just a few hours from Chicago, I'm in the middle of the country and see/hear a lot about all areas with a mild mainstream perspective. And having 30% of all the pictures in an article about a large country/world power all be from one state is kinda ridiculous. I mean, New York is very important as far as history is concerned. But that is somewhat moot as this is not the History of the United States article. And it may be one of the most important US states (about 8% of the US GDP is made up in NYC alone.) But, as much as I don't care for the culture of California, it actually is the number one in population and agriculture, and contributes more to our culture and country by way of silicon valley, Hollywood, a staggering number of Fortune 500 companies, etc. Texas is another example of an extremely important state for it's oil and other natural resources, history, among many other things. And if you want to talk about history... Pennsylvania has more to do with the founding and building of the nation than all other states combined. From the Revolutionary War to the Civil War and beyond.

So, yeah, New York is over-represented in the images department. It would be like going over to the Italian Cuisine article and finding 30% of their pictures were of pasta dishes. Yes, pasta is a large part of Italian cuisine, and it may be what most outsiders know it for, but wouldn't warrant nearly a 1/3 of it. Just my $0.02. 98.215.130.156 (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

If one town in Italy invented spaghetti, pizza, and parmesan cheese, you might see pictures of that town unduly represented at an article on Italian cuisine. The New York pictures aren't just limited to one state, they're of one town. The ones that are questionable are those of the NYPD cruiser, the large hospital, and ABC headquarters, none of which are as iconic on a national, or even international, scale as the Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island, Wall Street, Broadway, the World Trade Center, the Chrysler and Empire State buildings, and the United Nations buildings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhtwiki (talk • contribs) 23:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

New photographs

A month has passed since this discussion began. There is a clear consensus (Fritzmann2002, 98.215.130.156, Dhtwiki, and myself) that the article can be improved by the addition of photos from places not yet represented. Thanks to the editors who have contributed so far. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Summary of changes to date

Replacements:

• New York-Presbyterian Hospital in New York City replaced with Massachusetts General Hospital
• New York law enforcement patrol car replaced with Santa Fe patrol car

Additions:

• Martin Luther King, Jr. speaking to an anti-Vietnam War rally at the University of Minnesota, St. Paul on April 27, 1967
• U.S. President Ronald Reagan (left) and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, meeting in Geneva in 1985
• The national mammal, an American bison in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming
• Higest peak in the country, Denali, Alaska

Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I meant my post to help explain why New York legitimately was over-represented with regard to images. I also expected to have replacement photos OK'd here first. Replacement, not additional. I'm generally against adding photos to this creaky, overweight article, because they are probably second to citations in being the cause of slow downloads and renderings.

However, you have made some good choices, although sometimes you chose a bad photo of a good subject, such as that of MassGeneral or the bison with motheaten fur. I see that the NYPD police car is still there. If replaced, there should be a reason other than regional representation. I don't know about Santa Fe's PD being a replacement. The ABC hdqtrs is still there. The most suitable replacement would be Rockefeller Center's main building (I guess it's the Comcast Building now), but that doesn't get us out of New York City.

Of the additions, those are good, except we've got too many photos in some sections (the Denali photo makes three photos in a small (sub)section), when there are a couple of sections without any or with relatively few. We need to determine the US region represented by the Reagan–Gorbachev photo. Did they meet in New York or Illinois? Dhtwiki (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Use "Federal presidential constitutional republic" in infobox

United States of America
Government	Federal presidential constitutional republic

The past few days or weeks the previous government type description was shortened to just "Federal republic". This technically is correct but is definitely too simplistic and below the standards of the average Wikipedia article on a country. Just look at any article on a country and the government description is similar to the one I'm proposing we return to. Editors keep reverting changes to correct this, so I think we should have a consensus on what the proper terms to use are. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Is there an example of a non-constitutional republic? --Golbez (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support presidential, oppose constitutional – As Golbez points out, there is no such thing as a non-constitutional republic. (Bear in mind that a country can have a constitution without having a codified constitution; see, e.g., the United Kingdom.) The term presidential, however, indicates that it is a presidential republic, a particular type of republic (in contrast to, e.g., semi-presidential republics and parliamentary republics). 142.160.89.97 (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Typo on religion

Religion (2016) 73.7% Christian 18.2% Unaffiliated 2.1% Jewish 0.8% Muslim 2.5% Other 2.6% Unkown

Should say Unknown, but I am a newer account

IForgotten (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for noticing. Dimadick (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to replace the Largest Cities in the US template

I have made an alternative version of {{Largest metropolitan areas of the United States}} at {{Largest metropolitan areas of the United States/sandbox}}. The new version is based on {{Largest cities}} and would provide consistency with many other country articles also using this type of template. Should we replace the template with the version in the sandbox? — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 23:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

What are the advantages to using the {{Largest cities}} template? I don't like the images being on both outside margins and the smaller print. Can formatting be modified? Dhtwiki (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Images in these template are to small to be recognizable or useful in any anyway. --Moxy (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: Mainly consistency. The template is currently configured with class=nav which is the navbox class. Leaving it empty gives a more infobox-like color scheme. Actually, I went ahead and did that.

I wouldn't change for mere usage consistency unless the new template promises to be more feature-rich, such as automatically updating itself; and I don't see much ability to specify that, or formatting, at the template documentation. I'm with Moxy on the relative uselessness of the images, and I see that they don't have to be specified. However, I don't see a place to specify a larger text size that the default used. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: That is easily solved by clicking on them. The template would take up far too much space if they were larger anyway. They could be left out completely as well. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 00:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I was not clear.....yes no images is best....like FA article Canada Template:Largest Metropolitan Areas of Canada.--Moxy (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Well I'm personally not attached to them, so removing them is easily done. Although, it does make the template seem a bit more empty without them. The sandbox shows both versions now. Anyone else have comments on the proposed replacement? — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 04:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Consensus is attached to all images on the article. Removal should only be attempted with a full discussion and new consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm primarily concerned with swapping the existing version with the standardized version. Removing the images is not dependent on that and can be done with a separate discussion, if someone feels the need for it. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 02:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Now that I look, I'm not sure that template was on the page for that last major image discussion anyway so....--Mark Miller (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Anyone else want to weigh in on the proposed replacement? Note that changing or removing the images is orthogonal to this proposal. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 04:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I like the Navbox style the best. However, I think the text size does need to be a little bit bigger; i.e. more on par with the standard tables' text size. I also think more skyline images could be fit in, at least 3 or 4 per side. I think this would help out with the imbalance of photographs as mentioned below in the other discussions. Fritzmann2002 15:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I like the navbox style, but the flat style would line up better with the other table styles in use on the page. As far as images, I believe the {{Largest cities}} template only supports specifying 4 for the table, although, that could probably be extended. It would make sense to limit the number of images included in the table though. We've plenty of them elsewhere already. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 03:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Although per discussion occurring below, there is a need for images representing states that are not in the article at all. I think that a list of 20 most populous cities could definitely have more than just 4 pictures. Also, I don't think the pictures should necessarily be of the top 4 or however many cities. I think we should pick 6-10 pictures by quality and representation for the state. We already have enough pictures of New York City buildings, etc, so an image of, say, Phoenix might be more beneficial to the article. Those are just my two cents. Fritzmann2002 19:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

While I agree about the image imbalance problem mentioned below, the {{largest cities}} meta-template (which is what my proposed replacement, and most other largest cities tables, are based on) is configured to display images for (and automatically links to the pages of) the four largest cities. While extending that to 6 (or possibly more) would be trivial, I'm not sure it should be modified to display arbitrary cities (since adding anything other than the top cities by population would be irrelevant in the context of the table). This is, perhaps, the one place where the cities represented shouldn't change, although I'm not necessarily opposed to displaying other cities from the list (so long as they are actually from the top 20 table). If New York or another city is over-represented, perhaps they should loose a few images from another section. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 23:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2018

The final paragraph in the summary section of this article is categorically false and cites an article from the "opinion" section of The Guardian. It literally says "opinion" on top of the article that is cited. This should be removed as it undermines the integrity of the article.

The paragraph that should be removed is "Starting with the conclusion of United States presidential election, 2016 there has been reports of increased authoritarianism[39] in the United States, along with protests against executive orders by Donald Trump along with racial protests and rallies." Xamgerg (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done the lead section is not the place for current events for country overview articles. Many pages that link from here that the information could be added to.--Moxy (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

U.S. or US?

I've been wondering about whether we should be using 'U.S.' (with periods) or 'US' (without) as our abbreviation for 'United States' in wiki articles, as there seems to be a mixture of both across the board. The US disambiguation page implies that both are acceptable as it says: "US or U.S. usually refers to..." so it seems that either version is correct. Presumably there's a proviso that we should be consistent across any single article. However, this article that's specifically about the United States uses both terms interchangeably and I think we should probably do something about that! There are over 200 instances of 'U.S.' and less than 30 instances of 'US' so I suggest changing them all to 'U.S.' Does anyone have any strong views on this before I make the change? Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rodney Baggins:, in general for stylistic questions, you should check Wikipedia's Manual of Style, a.k.a., "MOS:". With respect to your specific question, you can find the answers at MOS:US. Mathglot (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that is helpful. I am of course aware of the MOS but I didn't know it covered anything as specific as that. I should perhaps have taken a closer look! According to the MOS we really ought to be using U.S. throughout an America-specific article so I'll go ahead and do that (leaving alone citation titles). Thanks again. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rodney Baggins: Could you quote from MOS:US to justify your stated intention above, please? You said: According to the MOS we really ought to be using U.S. throughout an America-specific article so I'll go ahead and do that. I hope I'm not reading your interpreting the MOS guidance as carte blanche to go through the entirety of Wikipedia and changing US to U.S. in every article about North America? Consistency is required within an article, and the guidance gave a rationale and examples of how not to deploy U.S. in articles, not for you to change it to U.S. everywhere because you happen to like that idea. Please reassure me that you're not going to wreak havoc or consternation by trying to making global changes like these because of a simple mis-interpretation of style guidance. I note this article has just two uses of US, versus over 200 of U.S., so it would be absolutely fine for you to bring those two in line within the rest this one article. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

No need to panic Nick, I'm only referring to this one article and am mostly concerned with consistency above all else. My initial enquiry was more general, but I am now aware that each article should be considered separately on its own merits. As you pointed out, the United States article has more cases of U.S. than US anyway, so I am really just making the change to U.S. for the sake of consistency, but the MOS has backed me up as it states "U.S. remains common in North American publications" and as this is a publication about North America, it seems to make sense in this particular case. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course even the first sentence of the lead in this article is contradictory: "The United States of America (USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S.) or America..." – it seems odd that USA has no full stops but U.S. commonly does use them! Regards from a fellow Brit, Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

If I had to guess, I'd say the long-term trend would be the removal of the full stops (U.S. to US) even in American English. Based on my own anecdotal observations from reading old texts, I've noticed that even 19th century British sources would use full stops in the abbreviation (U.K.). But now of course, it's simply just UK. I'd wager the same thing will eventually happen to the US. Interestingly, The Chicago Manual of Style (since 2010) now deprecates U.S. in favour of US. Spellcast (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Government description in Infobox

For the longest time the government description in the infobox was "Federal presidential constitutional republic". Recently, it has been changed simply to "Federal republic" which is not inaccurate but I would prefer a slightly more precise description, being "Federal presidential republic", because the US most certainly is a presidential system and is hugely relevant in the way the Federal government functions. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

"Federal presidential republic" is not a real term....nor is it used in the article in this manner. Plus do this links help explain what your saying in detail about the USA. Think the lead should change long before we spam terms in the infobox with little info on this country as a whole. In fact we shold be linking to Federal government of the United States as it actually has lots of info.....much better then generic terms. --Moxy (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The vast majority of articles for countries uses similar descriptions that I have suggested. Also, from the article on the presidential system: "A presidential system is a democratic and republican system of government where a head of government leads an executive branch that is separate from the legislative branch." Sounds like the U.S. doesn't it? So the description I suggested is more accurate and precise and informative than what we have now and is no way "spamming generic terms". I kinda think that's the whole point of the infobox, actually. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

So really that article says what is said here with no good sources about this country.....not a good link. Again Federal government of the United States would be much more beneficial link for readers to understand this country.....unlike most countries this country has an article on just this topic. Why would we link generic articles over a topic specific article that explains in detail this country and has nice sources for research?--Moxy (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I support the long-standing wording "Federal presidential constitutional republic" as it appeared in the article for some number of years, up to and including 29 March 2018. Reasons:

• The wording was stable for several years and then was changed without consensus, or perhaps against consensus (see next bullet). There was a brief discussion in August with only three participants, without indication that a consensus had been reached. (Note that the discussion was titled with "RFC" but it's unclear whether the WP:RFC process was engaged; it could be beneficial.)
• On the question of "presidential", two participants in the August discussion supported that word (as evidenced by their comments and/or their edits), and one did not express an opinion on it. The consensus (if any) appears to have leaned in favor of keeping it.
• On the question of "constitutional", one participant opposed that word, while the other two expressed neither support nor opposition. One participant asked a question about it, and the opposing participant answered with an unsupported assertion ("no such thing as a non-constitutional republic") and erroneously attributed that assertion to the question-asker. Note that the article on Republic clarifies the term "constitutional republic" and why it is more specific than "republic" (compare the first and second paragraphs of that article).
• I disagree with the arguments given above against linking to "generic articles". The article text also contains links to the generic terms "archipelago" and "superpower", and those links are informative. And I strongly disagree that linking to generic articles is "spam". The reason to link to generic articles about government types (e.g., Republic) is to inform the reader that the US system of government falls into certain categories, and readers may wish to read articles about those categories.
• Note that Brazil is also categorized as a "Federal presidential constitutional republic" yet nobody is complaining about it. In my opinion, increased specificity helps inform the reader what the US system has in common with, say, Brazil, that it does not have in common with, say, the UK, or China for that matter.
• The comment in the edit history advising me to read "Ownership of content" is not relevant, as there were no issues around that. Some of the edits I disagreed with had edit summaries that were either blank or uninformative, e.g., 10:53 30 March 2018, 23:38 23 July 2018‎, and 03:07 25 July 2018‎ whose edit summary references a consensus but does not cite where that consensus occurred. Informative edit summaries would have made it easier to take their reasons into consideration.

For the above reasons, I propose going back to the long-standing wording (as I had attempted to do in my 5 Sep edit, but got reverted). -- HLachman (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The term presidential is important because reliable sources generally distinguish between presidential and parliamentary systems. Constitutional may be redundant since modern republics are always constitutional, but at least it is accurate. TFD (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

So can we get an agreement to at least use "Federal presidential republic"? I want to get a general consensus here so my edit wouldn't get reverted - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The weight of support seems to favor re-adding at least "presidential". I also support "constitutional" (i.e., to restore my 5 Sep edit), and am interested to know of any support/opposition to that. It's unclear that, as mentioned above, "modern republics are always constitutional" (e.g., N. Korea?), as the mere presence of a constitution is not sufficient for a state to be a "constitutional republic" (if I understand the Republic article correctly). So apparently the term is not redundant as was suggested above (and that comment did not seem to oppose re-adding it). In the interest of keeping consistency with the infoboxes of other country articles (e.g., Brazil, Mexico), and in light of the fact that "constitutional" was in there for years and then removed without consensus, I move that this term be re-added as well, unless we find a consensus to omit it. -- HLachman (talk) 07:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. Restored the long-standing wording ("Federal presidential constitutional republic"), per above discussion. If any further issues, please discuss here (or in a new section that references this section). -- HLachman (talk) 09:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2018

About the Name America, they said Columbia is for Columbo, and thats also true but the real name is Cristoforo Colombo and Colombia the Country is for him too.201.221.122.166 (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

You don't say how this applies to the content of this article, on the United States. "Columbus", etc., is the English spelling of the name and should be seen as standard. I've had a difficult time, on pages dealing with Colombia, getting people to leave "pre-Columbian" alone, as that refers to the era prior to Columbus's arrival, when there are inappropriate changes to "pre-Colombian". I seem to have solved that somewhat by placing HTML comments near relevant text. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

About America

A few weeks, fortnights, or months ago, I edited this page and put "simply known as America" and you deleted it? What the heck??? Anyways sorry but I will remove America (continent) because it is a continent, you low iq Americans. Bye IAmCool2015Malaysia (talk) 07:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@IAmCool2015Malaysia: first of all, this language is entirely inappropriate towards other editors as it is defamatory to an entire group of people. Secondly, I have undone your content removal that was done without reason. "America" is indeed a common synonym for the United States. It's use is debated in academia as misleading, nevertheless, it is being used. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

RFC on California Genocide

There is a clear consensus to use the new text in replacement of the text previously there.

Cunard (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

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.

---

I propose to add the following text to the article--

In 1869, a new Peace Policy nominally promised to protect Native-Americans from abuses, avoid further war, and secure their eventual U.S. citizenship. Nonetheless, conflicts and state-sanctioned murder, including the California Genocide, continued throughout the West into the 1900s.

—in replacement of the text currently there:

In 1869, a new Peace Policy sought to protect Native-Americans from abuses, avoid further war, and secure their eventual U.S. citizenship, although conflicts, including several of the largest Indian Wars, continued throughout the West into the 1900s.

The alteration of the word "sought" to "nominally promised" is to acknowledge the evidence that President Grant, author of the "Peace Policy" was not committed to what he promised, but actually sought war and violent removal, as in the Black Hills in 1875. GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Support new text

• I'm not sure why there is even debate about this, other than WP:STONEWALLING and nationalist POV. The original text is actually misleading to the point of falsehood: I referred to evidence of Grant's duplicity above in order to give a neutral presentation, but there appears to be straight scholarly consensus that the "Peace Policy" was disingenuous. Paul L. Hedren writes

  [General] Crook later quoted Grant as saying that the Sioux must go to their reservation 'or be whipped,' an outcome that the president had actually been contemplating for some time...Grant approved of war."

GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support Call a spade a spade. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support We should be reflecting the scholarly consensus Rosguill (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support per apparent scholarly consensus. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Support. The proposed text seems neutral and supported by reliable sources. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support It's succinct, NPOV and backed by WP:RS.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. There seems to be support for this among recent scholarly work, and we shouldn't hesitate to call a spade a spade just because of hurting someone's feelings. Vanamonde (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Support Aside from agreement with the sentiments above, the proposed text is just better written. The original is a run-on sentence, this one appears as two. It links to other relevant pages (I'm all for more WP:PCR) and, lack the ambiguity of the previous text. Cooper⁴²(Talk)(Contr) 13:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

• The section on Grant's Indian peace policy (which should be relinked in the article) gives Grant marks for being well intentioned, if ineffectual. The new words "nominally promised", instead of "sought" seems to imply bad faith. I think it's fair to add "state-sanctioned murder" somewhere, without implicating the federal government as much as proposer seems to want. I think particular mention of the California genocide unnecessary and may be due to WP:RECENTISM (e.g. the August 2016 Newsweek article quoted in the previous section). Also, the new text has four citations, instead of one, when this article already has an excess of citations. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

I do not know why the text is in that section which supposedly covers 1776 to 1865. TFD (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Well that was how I found it. I would be willing to see the passage moved to the post-Civil War section once this is resolved.GPRamirez5 (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be better to start over. The article should make the point that following the civil war there was a western flow of European Americans and explain how the U.S. government dealt with the indigenous population. Instead of killing them, Grant gave them a choice between exile on reservations or assimilation into American society. Nonetheless the Indian wars continued for at least until the end of the century. TFD (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree that the text in question is somewhat out of place; disagree that we necessarily need to start over, unless we wind up trimming some text while shifting the information to subordinate articles. But we've not been successful in the past doing that. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Some selective quoting seems to be going on here (as well as casting aspersions on opponents: what does "nationalist POV" mean? you probably don't mean "in favor of having saved the Union and putting an end to slavery", as many of the Indian fighters were). The quote is from a paragraph that goes on to say:

[Grant, in an annual report to the interior secretary, declared] ...the probable necessity of compelling the northern nontreaty Sioux to cease marauding and settle down.

IOW, Grant was responding to warlike actions on the part of the Sioux, not just unleashing troops on peace-loving, defenseless folk. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The same paragraph concludes:"The ultimatum was a pretext for war, and everyone knew it." A pretext is duplicitous by definition.GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The result of the RfC is overwhelmingly in support of the edit.GPRamirez5 (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Outcome

More than 30 thirty days have passed with the indication of a clear consensus for the proposal. There was no consensus on whether to completely rewrite the section. There was some support for adding it to another section with the proviso that such a change would entail further edits. As per the proposal, the edit will replace the existing text. Policy states, "Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion." Consequently, I have introduced the edit. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

NB. Both GPRamirez5 and I were apparently editing at the same time to introduce the same change, just to clear up what appears to have been an edit conflict with my intention to introduce the edit myself. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

Requested move 11 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) NOT MOVED - snow closure. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC) power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

---

United States → The United States of America – This is the full title of the country and distinguishes it from similarly named countries such as the United States of Mexico Jared kearns (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Hhkohh (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Note This a bold move, we should discuss first Hhkohh (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose We use common names of countries. For example, Germany not Bundesrepublik Deutschland and Australia not the Commonwealth of Australia. The official name of Mexico is actually Estados Unidos Mexicanos (United Mexican States). AusLondonder (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• I propose SNOW close because there is less than "a snowball's chance in hell" of users agreeing to this rename without some sort of site-wide change to title style. This has already been discussed many times; information can be viewed in the FAQ at the top of the talk page. The above user summarized the main argument / foundation for the current title and the titles of many other articles. Master of Time (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, and agree this should be SNOW closed. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• Weak support Move to United States of America (per WP:THE, which gives this as an example) while the UK is usually now known by its full name (I'd never heard of its full name despite being a UK resident) I am surprised the article on the US doesn't include the full name is its perfectly common use. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

  To clarify in response to the point about distinguishing it from others, the US is the clear primary topic for "United States" even if moved so I definitely oppose moving United States (disambiguation) to United States, though that doesn't appear to be being proposed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Indeed, what is its proper proper name? The constitution’s preamble has it both ways. Neither has “The” as part of the proper name. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment USA is the primary topic of the article title United States. The other entries in United States (disambiguation) did not notable enough to replace that status. For with or without "The", grammatically it seem it should, but the version without "the" is common in secondary source. Matthew_hk tc 10:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• Snow Oppose on false premises, the name of the other country is "United Mexican States." This should be rejected out of hand. --Golbez (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose While United States of America is the official full name of the country, WP:COMMONNAME is still the United States. Another good example is Virginia. While the official name of the state is the Commonwealth of Virginia, it is still commonly referred to as Virginia. Neovu79 (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, in the English speaking world, "United States" is absolutely unambiguous. Just as "Virginia" is, despite the existence of many other Virginias. No one who speaks English would ever see the phrase "United States" and think, "Could they possibly mean Mexico?" --Golbez (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, especially because of the "The" at the beginning, which isn't part of the name. I'm surprised that there's other pages that start with that. -Xbony2 (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose -- the common name is the United States. There is no snowball's chance in hell of this passing. CookieMonster755✉ 18:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - and agree with Master of Time for the WP:SNOW close. --intelati^talk 18:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - common name is "United States" just like United Kingdom page is not titled "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Small change: "fractionally" to "slightly".

The text currently reads:

"...the United States is the world's third- or fourth-largest country by total area and just fractionally smaller than the entire continent of Europe..."

"Fractionally" isn't as clear as "slightly". If it were half as big, it would still be "fractionally" smaller -- the fraction would be 1/2. --tgeller (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

What about using "marginally?" That is somewhat more specific than "slightly." I also think that the work "entire" could do with cutting, but that isn't really related to the suggestion. It could read like:

 "...the United States is the world's third- or fourth-largest country by total area and is marginally smaller than the (entire) continent of Europe..."

Just my 2 cents... Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 20:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC) slightly is better will change it עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2018

The United States of America (or more commonly known as "America") is vestigial of New Spain Aima Vispucci co xolarado ma neder vico lara (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Not done. Suggested additions or changes must be verifiable and supported by reliable sources. Please please see WP:V and WP:RS. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations to the main article and it deserve more!!!!!!!!!!

I like the distinctive style of the main article especially in the introduction section, it is very organized, it does not confuse me as a reader of the article; especially that I do not know any information or background on the United States. Mr. James Dimsey (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Map of North American sports teams is outdated

The map of NA sports teams, which is from March 2008, should be updated. Specifically it does not have Las Vegas as having a sports team, when it now has an NHL team. Maybe no one with editing privileges on this page has it noticed it yet, maybe everyone is just too lazy to change it. Just throwing it out there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaws1 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2018

update current population numbers, as they are out of date, and the source no longer works. change to 328,941,142 Internets Up (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done – I've changed the infobox reference URL so it doesn't point to an error page. However, that new page gives the 2017 estimate. I didn't find a 2018 estimate table online and I'm not going to link to the population clock, since that would invalidate any population figure we give here. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

U.S. articles of cities and states give two populations in info box: latest (2010) U.S. Census count and latest (2017) U.S. Census estimate. There won't be an official 2018 population estimate published by the Census Bureau till December. Any figure greater than 326 million you see out there (they are on the Internet) is either the Commerce Department's daily population clock (a projection) or non-Census Bureau source (business magazine, of which there are many). There should be one standard, and we are using that standard. Other figures can be referenced under "Demographics," but non-standard, non-Census sources must be specifically identified, and not just in footnotes. Otherwise, it's apples/oranges, one of Wikipedia's persistent flaws. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2018

I need to add languages to the United States article. Thank you! LeeJohn2313 (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2018 (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. Deli nk (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Why does a search on "America" automatically bring me to this page (USA) instead of "America (disambiguation)?

There is an ambiguity between the articles on the word "America" in Wikipedia.

1. According to the article on Americas, the word "America" in singular collectively refers to the continent (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Americas)

2. According to the article on continents, North America and South America are treated as separate continents in the seven-continent model. However, they may also be viewed as a single continent known as America or the Americas (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Continent)

3. The name of the country described on this page is "United States of America"

Why then am I automatically brought to this page when I do a search on the word "America" rather than to the disambiguation page?

I know that the government and citizens of this country have taken the denomination of the whole continent to describe themselves in English (there are is a special noun in other languages, such as Spanish - Estadounidense) but I think the disambiguation page should take precedence in the search rather than leading readers directly to a specific page...

Thanks 95.61.165.100 (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

You make good points, but a clarification - many languages do use a form of "American" to refer to people in the US. Japanese uses "Amerikajin", French uses "Américains", Azerbaijani uses "Amerikalılar", etc. --Golbez (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

In English, America = United States so the search result is OK as it gets the expected result for most of our readers, for the very small number who dont want the USA article a link at the top of the page takes you to the disambiguation page. Just to note most English readers would think it strange to use the term "America" for a collective of North and South America as it normally means the United States. MilborneOne (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree with the above two posts, although not out of line to bring up a better solution if you have one. My suggestion is to type in "americas" and you will be directed to the more general article. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The reasoning is that the overwhelming majority of readers who type in "America" are looking for this article. It's more convenient for them to reach the article they are looking for. TFD (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Change the Total area, Total land area, and Density to metric units for the benefit of international readers.

International readers of Wikipedia know primarily the metric system and want metric units to benefit themselves. United States article must have the primary units for area, density, etc. metric to benefit the international readers. MetricSupporter89 (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@MetricSupporter89: By that logic, should articles about countries other than the US have the primary units as imperial to benefit US readers?

The guidance at WP:ENGVAR says to use the spelling and other language choices that tie to the primary subject of the article. It thus stands to reason that an article about the US should also use the most common units in American general usage. If it were a scientific article, that would be different, if the field of science uses metric. But for a general article, imperial units make sense. —C.Fred (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

C. Fred, articles other than the US can remain metric in sections that involve units because it’s their country and they want to be benefited. Other Articles about countries that don’t use the metric system are Liberia and Myanmar and on the article info box sections that involve units use metric and I think the article about America should use metric for sections on the info box that involve units just like the other countries’ (Liberia and Myanmar) articles. MetricSupporter89 (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@MetricSupporter89: Can you point specifically to where in the MOS that primary unit systems should switch on a section-by-section basis in an article? —C.Fred (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Where It would be changed to metric as primary is the beginning description, total area, total land area, and density. MetricSupporter89 (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@MetricSupporter89: Again, where in the MOS, or specifically in WP:ENGVAR, does it say that writing the intro in one style and switching for the rest of the article is an acceptable practice? —C.Fred (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

On WP:METRIC, it says America related articles use American system primary. The area comparison to Europe can be in metric though, but it’s areas and density can be in American. MetricSupporter89 (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@MetricSupporter89: If you mean List of countries by area, that article is primarily in metric because it is not US-centric. This article, however, is US-centric. —C.Fred (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Over sourcing

I noticed there are a number of places where sourcing has been rather stuffed in the article (multiple references for a single claim) and then there are completely unique sources for the lede summary, stating the same but with references not even formatted the same as the rest of the article. The content seems to be verifiable and the sources seem OK but there are weaker sources that could be strengthened to book of journal sources. The content is not fringe or off topic so I am not sure why we use three or four sources to make single claims and then even more sources in the lead that are not formatted correctly.

I'm going to try and go through the first part of the article looking for over sourcing and format issues. I won't change content unless I see something wrong or unsourced or sourced badly. --Mark Miller (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The section; "Indigenous peoples and pre-Columbian history" had an issue of undue weight to National Geographic Magazine. I have replaced all of the references with book sources. There was and is a small amount of bias I am attempting to research out for more encyclopedic tone and accurate content. One small example was the suggestion that pre-Clovis culture is accepted academic consensus in one sentence that was only supported by what appeared to be a self published source. While the author was an expert in the field, his own declaration is not enough to claim academic consensus. This made the article state as fact a much earlier settlement than is truly academic consensus. I have researched it out and updated the content with as few changes as possible but some content is having to be updated or corrected.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Note type

I propose changing the footnote style used from those that appear under links such as "fn 1" to the simpler efn template, which uses letters "a"-"z". They are much simpler in appearance and have the same functionality. Thanks, UpdateNerd (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Definitely, the fn # style is very obsolete. --Golbez (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Whatever is most current and we want here, I'll use.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Native vs. Native American

Dhtwiki, you claim that the term Native American is "necessary" to avoid confusion with the term native-born. As I said, the bolded "by race" statement would clear away any confusion. Musicfan122 (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The "by race" "statement" must be the table's title (I'm not looking at the article right now). There might be a "white" race, etc.; but the "native" race doesn't exist, for obvious reasons. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: the races in the table are all shortened from "[blank] American" to [blank]. Your main argument is that the term "Native" may cause the reader to confuse it with the term "native-born", which is highly unlikely due to the reasons discussed before. Also, Native Americans are referred to as simply Natives by numerous official U.S. documents, such as in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Musicfan122 (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Census data should use the terms that people choose ... American Indian and Alaska Native.....no need for any guesswork when its a response to a specific question.....Demography of the United States.--Moxy (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Musicfan makes a reasonable point about "Native(s)" being used in U.S. code as he would have us use it here; but Moxy points to what are more general public–facing documents, where "Native" is always qualified. In any case, the matter should be settled here before edits are made to the article. So, I'm going to revert the latest article change to just "Native". Dhtwiki (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Reading your post I assume you agree with our points, do we now have a consensus to use the term "Native"? Musicfan122 (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: pinging Dhtwiki... Musicfan122 (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Musicfan122: I don't agree with your wanting to use "Native" by itself and have it be unambiguous. I said you made a valid point about "Native" being used by itself in an official context (I'd also like to see to what extent the US code you quote went to in another section to carefully define their use of the term "Native", as legal texts often do and what we can't do here). However, Moxy pointed out that in other official contexts, especially ones that convey information to the general public and are thus more like Wikipedia, the term "Native" is not used without qualification. I can't speak for Moxy, but I think they disagree with you, too. Dhtwiki (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Moxy's comment on not needing to guess made me believe that they support the term "Native". Moxy, what do you think? Musicfan122 (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• Against the use of "Native" alone in the infobox to refer to the indigenous populations.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• Against the use of "Native" alone. I actually chose that formulation myself in a few older WP edits ("a Native people"), but even that seems questionable for an encyclopedia. Mason.Jones (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 4161E1AD00000578-0-image-m-5 1497348697128.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Area category in the infobox doesn't have a wikilink

I noticed that other countries' articles' have their area category be a wikilink to the article on the respective country's geography, but not this one. I tried to add the link but couldn't figure out how to edit a category. Should it be added? If so, how? Bachn (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems fixed now. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Linking_country's_infobox_"Area"_heading_to_geography_article for why it wasn't working. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Pictures of Hitler in the "Population" section

Can someone with an account fix this? 2600:1700:95A1:1B50:489D:FC05:B5F8:DA4 (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

There are no pictures of Hitler (and no mentions of him in text) in the article United States, which this talk page is for. Perhaps you have another article in mind. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Demographics Section

It makes no sense to say "by race" and "by ethnicity" when race is a social construct and you're arbitrarily deciding what to put down. The US census doesn't consider hispanics to be the same as white people of non-hispanic ancestry so why here? No one IRL considers hispanics white and that is why the US census data specifies and gives an option for hispanic.

Colloquial definitions of race in the US should be used so that it makes sense. The table says "ethnic" groups so just like any other country that should be followed.

White, Hispanic/Latino, Black, Asian, Native American, Pacific Islander Abh9850 (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You're wrong. For the question on race, Hispanics are not separated from other groups as Hispanics may be of virtually any race. A separate question asks about if the respondent is Hispanic/Latino. When numbers are reported, you will often see "White, Hispanic" and "White, non-Hispanic" (and similarly for Black, etc) so that the two data points (race and ethnicity) can be examined together.--Khajidha (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Cinema and China

So i was looking over the page and realised that in cinema, you guys forgot to mention how china is having a massive impact on current day hollywood directly and indirectly (directly by directing or co-directing a movie, indirectly by threatening to censor or deny the movie access to the chinese market (this would be massive loss for big studios for the chinese are a massive market)). This may be partial wrong, but there is no denying that china would do this, how they do may be debatable, but my point still stands. Please add something like that to the page, because it could and proably has had a impact on american culture in one way or another and such, though if you tell me no wiki mods please tell me why atleast... also sorry if i misspelled anything LonerStars (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

LonerStars, please provide reliable sources for the information you would like to add. Right the post reads like it is your opinion that this is happening. ~ GB fan 16:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Picture of Denali

Is there a reason why we chose that picture to represent Denali? It's not a particularly good picture and the one in the infobox for Denali I feel is quite a bit clearer. What are your thoughts? --Bentendo24 (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Starting from "The Seven Years War"

We still have not completely understood the theatres of the "Seven Year's War" and the repercussions of that war before we enter and admit the facts about the "American Revolutionary War", which itself was fought out like the Seven Years War...

War frightens me but it is worth the freedoms by breaking out the chains of authoritarian kingdoms of the past.

Fjgdh5 (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)\Fjgdh5 (talk)\~

Create a section about "The Seven Year's War" in this Article... Fjgdh5 (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It's mentioned. A whole section is way too much - no war gets its own section except the Civil War. --Golbez (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

New York

An edit war took place over the "Largest City" Infobox parameter and whether it should display "New York City" or just "New York". Since it is clear we are talking about the city, the redundant "city" should be removed IMO. IWI (chat) 09:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Please also observe the discussion above entitled "New York or New York City in the Infobox?". IWI (chat) 09:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

New York or New York City in the Infobox?

So recently, in the largest cities section at the top of the infobox, some editors thought shortening the entry to "New York" instead of "New York City" as the city is commonly known as, was more appropriate. I disagree, since, it would make as much sense as putting "Mexico" and "Washington" instead of Mexico City and Washington DC. Apparently I need consensus to put in the entry by what the city is commonly referred as, and the other editors don't need consensus to shorten it to simply New York. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

In my view the mini images should be removed as their pointless because they don't demonstrate anything about population and can't be seen properly. A much cleaner look can be seen in our FA article like Canada ...Template:Largest Metropolitan Areas of Canada.... note no sandwiching of columns and no white space.... that's a much more professional look. And let's be honest do we need a tenth image of New York City in this one article that is not about New York. -Moxy (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• The name of the city is actually "City of New York", however "New York" is one of the most common ways to refer to the city. Having said that, so is "New York City". I tend to go with the long standing consensus if there is no new conensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I think calling it New York City would make the article clearer for new English readers or those who do not know the difference between a city and a state of the same name. --BMO4744 (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems to me the fact that it is listed under "largest city" makes the usage of "New York City" or "City of New York" or "New York, New York" rather pointless. Of course the "largest city" parameter is referring to the city. --Khajidha (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The analogy with Mexico City and Washington D.C. is flawed because those are indeed the names of those two cities. The City in New York City is added mostly to distinguish it from the state. When the context is clear (as in Largest city), adding a City after New York is not only unnecessary but is also incorrect. --regentspark (comment) 15:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Technically I'm not sure that's correct. The official native name of the capital of our southern neighbor is Ciudad de Mexico, "City of Mexico". Likewise, the official name of our largest city is the "City of New York". (And "Washington, D.C." is not the name of anything. Washington hasn't existed since 1871, that entity is officially simply known as "The District of Columbia". However, like "Mexico City" and "New York City", it has a very very well known unofficial name.) --Golbez (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Regardless, Mexico City is never referred to as Mexico and that's never an unofficial name for it. New York, on the other hand, is commonly, as well as both officially and unofficially referred to as New York. Still, this seems a minor point to fret about so, though I think that New York is better than New York City, whatever plays out, plays out. --regentspark (comment) 18:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

And I agree with you, I just wanted to be pedantic for funsies. Though "New York City" does have an official air to it, when you see all the things around the city labeled "NYC". And BM04744, that shouldn't be an issue because it clearly says largest city - they shouldn't be confused on if the "New York" is the city or the state. If they are, then they've an opportunity to learn. --Golbez (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

"New York" removes all redundancy, it also sounds a little silly to say "its largest city is New York City", when you can just shorten it to "New York". IWI (chat) 09:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Does the US face a geographic complication?

The US is located in what people in history books would describe as the "New World", America is far away from geographically pivotal countries in the Middle East... Fjgdh5 (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

... yes? I'm not sure what your point is. --Golbez (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Fjgdh5 is not aware that he should be improving the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.237.28 (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

N Proposing a Merger

I propose to merge Sexuality in the United States into United States. I think that the content of Sexuality in the United States can easily be explained in the context of the United States, and the United States article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Sexuality in the United States will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. ElectroChip123 (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Can't have that ....would be way to much detail for this overview article about a country.....in fact as per Wikipedia:Article size we need to trim lots here already.--Moxy (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. If there has to be a merger, it should be with Culture of the United States, the main article of the Culture section, where the merger announcement is. That article doesn't mention sexuality, per se. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. I'll re-propose the merger over there. It will definitely fit in with the other content over there, and it's better than leaving it a standalone page. ElectroChip123 (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Although there is no official language at the federal level, some laws—such as U.S. naturalization requirements—standardize English

Although there is no official language at the federal level, some laws—such as U.S. naturalization requirements—standardize English  ? -- What does 'laws standardize English' mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.201.56.210 (talk) 08:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2019

Change "culture developed as the culmination of centuries of agricultural experimentation which produced greater dependence on farming"

To "culture developed as the culmination of centuries of agricultural experimentation, which produced greater dependence on farming"

Because it's a nonrestrictive phrase beginning with, "which." Deuce42x (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

1776 Establishment Category

Should the United States be in the category "1776 establishments in the United States" because the United States is not really "in the United States" but is itself.Bluecrab2 (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Move to “The United States”

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.

---

Many people don’t say “United States” but they say “the United States”. I personally say it as “the United States” as well. Even if you say “where is this based in”, you would say “the United States”. That’s why I want the page be moved to “The United States”. Metric Supporter 89 (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It's unnecessary. We have redirects for that. We don't do this with almost any other countries, deliberately: Gambia, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Philippines, Comoros. (The Bahamas looks like it's the only exception). --Golbez (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Concur with Golbez. There are literally thousands of things that normally take a definite article when described in prose, but Wikipedia follows the lead of all traditional encyclopedias by not using the definite article in the relevant article titless. Go look at a traditional encyclopedia in a library, like Britannica, to see what I mean. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Also concur. In every encyclopedia and reference book -- in every language -- the title omits the definite article: United States, Philippines, United Kingdom. Any "new, improved" usage here is completely misguided (and also illiterate). Mason.Jones (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

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.

USA German/Mexican/African, etc. Heritage Graphic is Incorrect

There are now 42 million people who identify as Black or African American living in America, making up 12% of the total population. According to the most recent American Community Survey, the Black population in Virginia is 1,568,053 – at 18.9% of the total population of Virginia.Dec 9, 2018 These Are The 10 Virginia Cities With The Largest Black Population ... https://www.roadsnacks.net/most-african-american-cities-in-virginia/

Example: There is no way that only 18.9% of Virginians constitutes a majority of Americans in that state that define themselves as possessing African American ancestry. Would someone please change this? The other states are likely wrong, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CC:8200:2510:45E0:A59C:E426:8F13 (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

First of all, you're going to need to supply a source for any change you want made. Second of all, I'm not really understanding your point. --Golbez (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I THINK the original poster is objecting to the presentation of "African" as the most common ancestry in Virginia as depicted on the map in the demographics section. However, said poster seems to misunderstand what is being shown. "African" is not being presented as the ancestry of the majority of people in Virginia, it is simply being presented as the ancestry with the highest number of people reporting. This seems quite possible, as people with African ancestry rarely know which part(s) of Africa their ancestors came from (for obvious, and regrettable, reasons). Thus, almost any ancestry from that continent gets reported as simply "African". Those of European ancestry are likely to know their more specific origins and report such things as "English" or "Italian" or "Polish" or some combination of such. The same pattern applies for those of Asian ancestry. They will report such things as "Vietnamese" or "Korean" or "Thai" or combinations of such. Those of Latin American ancestry may report the specific country or may go back further and say "Spanish" or "Spanish and Native American" (or similar for other colonial powers). Those of Oceanian origin will probably report "Samoan" or "Polynesian", etc. Those of predominantly Native American ancestry will often report more specific identities like "Sioux" or "Cree". Given that African-Americans constitute nearly one fifth of the total population of VA and are pretty much constrained to using the single label "African", I can readily believe that that would be the most reported single ancestry. --Khajidha (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

mm/dd/yy

Sometimes an American may write the full year in their traditional mdy format. I’m thinking that the date format section of the info box should be modified to include the type of mdy that’s written with the full year. Metric Supporter 89 (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't really see the need. To me this is just as obvious as the fact that the month and date numbers may be written with or without leading zeroes. --Khajidha (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It is always necessary to write the full, four-digit (or more) year when the two digit form would be ambiguous: 7/4/76 is ambiguous, as it could indicate the first, second or third Independence Day (United States). Or multiple dates for July 4 in future centuries. The birth year of a person is less likely to be ambiguous, but still, four digits is preferable. - Neonorange (Phil) 13:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

For most people the form 7/4/76 would most naturally be interpreted as the nearest such occurrence of the date. Or is otherwise determined by context. --Khajidha (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood my first point, though. I wasn't saying that I didn't see the need to write four digit years, I was saying that I didn't see the need to tell people that years are sometimes given in four digits. That is, I don't see the need to say that "Americans write dates in the format mm/dd/yy, or mm/dd/yyyy if the full year is specified". --Khajidha (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The real America

Hat ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's a fact that the term America wasn't named after USA, so why they call it America? When in reality the western hemisphere, new continent or new world was named America. AlverichA (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC) This talk page is for improving the article, if you have a "why" question then suggest you ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Also, see Question 9 of the "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" in this talk page header. If that's not enough, there should be several threads in the archives, as this question keeps coming up. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Cellphone percent

The current percent of how many Americans own a cellphone is now 95% as of February 2018 CFCraft (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Source for this? Dhtwiki (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Pew Research Center Internet and technology is a reliable cite for "The vast majority of Americans – 95% – now own a cellphone of some kind."

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2019

change "Native American" to the preferred term of "Amerindian" 2A02:C7F:147E:4F00:3076:E0B0:BE10:C797 (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: See Native Americans in the United States, which does not even mention the term. The name would have to not only be preferred but also be in common usage before the article is changed. —C.Fred (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Society

Most people think US society is fair.

C.J. Griffin, where does this belong? Benjamin (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

References

It might be undue for this particular article, as it is just one Rasmussen poll. If we started including more polls like this, the article would be bloated beyond belief. Plus the poll apparently asked if society is "fair and decent" vs "unfair and discriminatory". This doesn't seem the pertain to the section you inserted it in, which is a sub-section of "Economy" that discusses income inequality, poverty and wealth, not "fairness and discrimination".--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

A better question to start the discussion is does it belong in the article? My opinion is that it doesn't unless there are sources that discuss the poll. Just the fact that a poll was conducted and one result of that poll is not significant enough to include in the article. ~ GB fan 14:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Would it be more appropriate in a sub article, or do you think there's some more significant opposing perspective being left out? Benjamin (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the former, but even then notability is an issue, as it is not known whether this one poll received any coverage outside the Rasmussen website.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Which article? Is the source not reliable on its own? Benjamin (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would help collaborate, rather than just reverting and opposing. Benjamin (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Population Clock

I realize that some editors like the unofficial (and gimmicky) Population Clock, but the last 2018 official population estimate is the figure that has been statistically researched by the U.S. Census Bureau (like its figures for cities, states, and metro areas). If the Pop Clock must appear at all in this article, it might be cited as an "alt" source under "Demographics". It really has no place as the baseline population estimate indicated in infobox or in the Historical Population chart. Mason.Jones (talk)

I'm sorry your comment got edited, Mason.Jones, but I didn't do it. I just unclicked "Watch this page", presumably overriding a change made by someone else. I theoretically might have deleted a word, in which case I would apologize, but it's impossible that I both deleted one word and added another word afterward in the same sentence. So you'll need to find your culprit elsewhere. Cheers, Roy McCoy (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

America > United States ???

What?! I have a "Music Trivia Game" on Facebook. Today's question, #446, was "Who wrote the song, 'America'?" The answer on the game card was Dr. Samuel Francis Smith (which probably nobody is going to know), but somebody answered "Paul Simon". This surprised me, though after a few seconds I supposed that yes, Simon would have enough nerve to use that title. So I went to Wikipedia to look for info on this song before replying to the person who gave the "wrong" answer, entered "America" and... wound up at "United States"! Excuse me, but "America" should surely lead to a disambiguation page, with the USA, songs, seventies rock band (love that "Today's the Day"!), etc. I'm pretty sure this must have come up here before, possibly several times with possible strong disagreement – so what's the word on this? Who on earth would insist on "America"'s directing here? How on earth was consensus reached on this (if it was)? Thanks. –Roy McCoy (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

America has a disambiguation page America (disambiguation) linked to at the top of the article, this then gives you a link to America (Simon & Garfunkel song). Just some up loads of discussion in English the term America is a common name for the United States hence the redirect to here. MilborneOne (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Lots of terms are common names for lots of things, but that doesn't necessarily justify a redirect such as this one. I'm a seventy-year-old US citizen, so I don't need to be informed that "America" is a common name for the United States. Where's the indication of consensus? Discussion can be continued in any event, and a new consensus can be established if necessary (and if possible, of course). If this keeps coming up, it's for a reason. I suppose it's likely that this page is occupied by one or a couple of America > United States enthusiasts, in which case, if anyone opposed to this is (still) around, they should chime in now. I'll check for possible discussion at the "America" talk page before closing here, and... it redirects to here. That's weird, but indicates that this is the place for related discussion. Thanks. –Roy McCoy (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing to fix here. This sort of redirect situation is very common in WP. "X" is a very common name for "Y", so WP has "X" redirect to "Y" to help the most readers; the fact that "X" is sometimes used for other things dosen't change its primary use; we have an "X (disambiguation)" page for those other things, which is noted at top of "Y". --A D Monroe III^(talk) 19:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Once again I'm being spoken to as if I had no idea what I'm talking about. I haven't personally dealt with redirects up to this point, rather than questioning one at... I can't even remember... uh... High Noon? It was some western... yes, The Searchers. I thought that should go to a disambiguation page too, not considering it all that obvious that the film trumped the Merseybeat group to the degree implied (love that "Needles and Pins-ah"!). Both, after all, were from a past era, and both are still remembered today. But anyway I know what a redirect is. And "America", aside from having more than merely occasional other uses, isn't even unitary as regards geography: there are six other Americas listed on the disambiguity page, and this doesn't include another one I'm aware of in Santiago de Cuba. A D Monroe III says there's nothing to fix. I say there is. That's a difference of opinion. But MilborneOne is apparently also of the America > United States camp, and no one else has come in on my side here, and the America > United States camp apparently won the last war on this, and I have no intention of devoting any significant amount of attention to it – so I suppose it will stand as it is (erroneously, in my opinion and that of others). I suspect, however, that a Google search will indicate that "America", aside from being somewhat controversial and offensive, is not equivalent to the other terms redirecting to this page. I'll do this now. Number of finds:

"citizen of the United States of America" – 3,220,000

"citizen of the United States" -"citizen of the United States of America" – 14,000,000

"citizen of the US" – 7,560,000

"citizen of the USA" – 1,610,000

(Note the first find here: "Mexicans and Canadians are Americans, and some of them object strenuously to equating 'American' to 'citizen of the USA'.")

And now let's try:

"citizen of America" – 6,650,000

That's more than I expected for "America" and so the Google search didn't bear me out as anticipated, though there's still a 4-to-1 preponderance of the US variants and "the United States" alone is more than twice as common as "America" here. The redirect is questionable regardless, any assertion to the contrary notwithstanding, but I don't intend to challenge it further in the absence of any other immediate opposition here. –Roy McCoy (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

We all understand that this, as most things on WP, has absolutely nothing to do with editors' opinions (nor Google searches), but only about what the RSs say. If they overwhelming use "America" to mean "US", then WP follows them; indeed, it must follow them, as any encyclopedia, by definition, reflects the most common well-sourced information as it currently stands without any attempt to ever "correct" it. Other wikis exist to do just that, but not WP. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 17:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

There are purportedly reliable sources that are actually reliable and others that are not, and I would hope we all understood this also. But what are the purportedly reliable sources in this case? Have they actually been documented (they may well have), or is it just an "everybody knows that" kind of thing? The New Oxford American Dictionary in my Mac defines America primarily as "a landmass in the western hemisphere that consists of the continents of North and South America joined by the Isthmus of Panama", with "used as a name for the United States" appended below in second place. This is only the first source I have at hand and the one most immediately accessible to me, but I'm sure it's not the only one with such a primary definition of the term in question (which is and remains in question, if not actively here), and it strongly suggests the preferability of a disambiguation page rather than an immediate jump to this one. –Roy McCoy (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

There are also ways of measuring traffic patterns that are used in evidence of what people are looking for, as in determining that most people who type in "New York" are looking for the city not the state. Perhaps there has been a pushback by Oxford against US-centric definitions of terms. My copy of Fowler's Modern English Usage says that the use of "America" for "United States" is a matter of laziness rather than arrogance and that people should accept it, analogously as they accept "English" to mean a resident of Great Britain. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

But I don't accept that! As a matter of fact, I've never even heard of it. Scots have always been Scottish, in my experience. I don't have experience with Welshpeople, but I now see they're not good with this either. By the way, I think it's the Brazilians who protest "America/n" for the US and US American, more than the Canadians and Mexicans as suggested by the Google find above. I myself favor "Usonia/n". –Roy McCoy (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it's been widely debated. The term "USonian" is also something of an ideological cause. It's interesting that French Wikipedia had a long debate about the French equivalent of "USonian," which failed. (The official term remains "American.") The Hispanic world has a different history and usage of the term "America" than the English-speaking and French-speaking realms. You have to accept that they are not the same. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

You can say I favor a different term – I don't have any problem with that – but don't misquote me. I wrote "Usonian", not "USonian". And this can be said to be a linguistic and not merely ideological preference, with Oxford openly approving the alternative term. I don't think it matters at all whether I conceal my opinion on this or not, but you're right at least in that there are things in languages that I don't like but nonetheless have to put up with, like flammable/inflammable, identical written forms for present and past tenses of "to read", etc. I'm still quite amazed, however, at your casual support for the contention that "English" means also "Welsh" and "Scottish". That, at least, still remains quite debatable, the granted lack of practical perspective for "Usonia/n" notwithstanding. The vastly preferable term is clearly "British", and in no way is "English" worthy of acceptance. –Roy McCoy (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Whether Oxford approves the term isn't relevant. Actually, all French dictionaries "approve" of the alternate French term(s) as well, but that doesn't mean many French-speakers wish to use them. Your preference is a minority viewpoint, and one that English Wikipedia is unlikely to adopt soon. Mason.Jones (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Noted! Thank you. Could you or someone else please explain to me what's been going on with Od Mishehu, by the way? I can't make it out. –Roy McCoy (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

"America" redirects to this page because this is the page most readers are looking for when they type in "America." That is in accordance with Wikipedia:Redirect. The redirect is not telling people what the term America should refer to. TFD (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2019

. PaulGrasu' (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2019 (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. aboideau^talk 13:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Pre-foundation dates in infobox?

I noticed that listed on the infoboxes of many countries' articles are dates that long predate the foundation of the contemporary state, such as the dates of earliest human settlement and formation of predecessor state(s). Examples of this can be seen on the article infoboxes of Ukraine, Montenegro, Serbia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and South Korea. Thus, I was wondering if we should do something similar here. Add references to earliest Native American settlement, formation of English/British colonies, things of that sort. An example can be something like "Settled by humans 12,000 BC", or some other things along those lines. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 09:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree...Note that United Kingdom is listed as 1535 (a rather useless date) France = Baptism of Clovis I in 496--also rather useless. Germany as 1871 [corresponds to 1776 for USA]. Let's just drop that very confusing factoid since the RS do not have a consensus. Rjensen (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Great seal (reversed)

What does that great seal (reversed) mean? What do you mean reversed? Pizzasuperman (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Reverse, not reversed. It means the back of the seal, the front is the obverse. Great Seal of the United States has more info. --Golbez (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You must be referring to the infobox caption, which reads Great Seal (reverse), not "reversed", which would require a correction. "Obverse" and "reverse" are terms that usually signify the "heads" and "tails" of a coin. For the US seal, the design of the reverse is only specified, not a part of the seal as used in practice. See Great Seal of the United States. Dhtwiki (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)