Talk:United States

Use of the word "its" vs the word "the" for referring to Washington DC

@Maxeto0910 as I stated in my edit, I do not want to start an edit war, so I have taken this to the talk page. The use of the word "the" is more correct, as it implies that Washington DC is a specific location. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Why would using "its" not imply that it's a specific location as well? Maxeto0910 (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The word "its" is generally used to show possession and/or ownership, and while the USA technically does own Washington DC, in this case, we're not trying to imply that the USA has possession of Washington DC. Instead, we're simply trying to imply that it is a specific place. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

So you think using "its" shifts the focus too much to the fact that Washington, D.C. belongs to the U.S. instead of making clear that it's a "specific place"? I think the term "federal capital district" makes that pretty clear already. Maxeto0910 (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, if DC didn't belong to the US, would we be mentioning it in the article? No, we probably wouldn't. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If you want to state that it's just as obvious that Washington, D.C. belongs to the U.S. as it is that it's a specific place, then you're right. However, at this level, it's a purely stylistic question, and "its" reads softer and is consistent with the rest of the lead. Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That is a good point. Also, @Remsense has intervened and has stated in the revision history that "its" should be used instead of "the". Lets put this conversation to rest now. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

THE Should be used! Tulurm (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Tulurm,see WP:C UnsungHistory (Wrong Edit!) 00:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

That comment was not uncivil, please don't ping a user days after you already made the same message on their talkpage. CMD (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Er...pretty sure that this conversation was ended a while ago, why are we restarting it? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Lead

Why do the leads of the Italy and Germany articles refer to Fascism and Nazism respectively, while the lead of this article doesn't mention the killing of Native Americans? Further information, although I disagree with the use of the terms "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing", in this thread: Talk:United States#No mention of "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide".
I would like a peaceful discussion. JacktheBrown (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep it very simple with the most appropriate link?

Following its victory in the 1775–1783 Revolutionary War, the country continued to expand across North America resulting in the dispossession of Native populations.

Moxy🍁 02:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy: can I add or should I wait? JacktheBrown (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Because of the link I'm using ...maybe best to wait.... or perhaps best to be bold and see what others think...not sure. Some may argue that different link like American frontier wars or westward expansion is softer to use. Moxy🍁 03:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy: thank you. I prefer to wait at least a day. JacktheBrown (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

See below. If it should link to anything, it should link to the American Indian Wars page, rather than the heavily contentious claims that the entire process was genocide. It's POV-pushing otherwise. OrangeSharp (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

This was a concern I had.... as many elderly American scholars deny Indigenous genocide in the Americas, despite agreement from international scholars that it occurred (Clarke et al). This is changing as the next generation of American scholars have begun to focus on government policies and lack of action rather than individual accomplishments. Moxy🍁 03:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm very skeptical genocide should be in wikivoice in any article.

Jeffrey Ostler in the citation below says it's a minority opinion in 2023 or has otherwise not been greatly examined.

Many young & international scholars deny it as well. The political scientist Eric Kaufmann rejects the description. I also found textbooks from Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Japan, and New Zealand that state that genocide is either a poor descriptor or not an accurate description of a majority of interactions. (With exceptions.) Settler-colonialism itself is left-leaning, favors both conflict theory and critical theory, and isn't accepted among all scholars. Conservative, liberal, and even many Marxist scholars reject its principles, although for very different reasons. Most Native Americans in the United States are also far less radical in their critiques than many white scholars. (Note that I strongly dislike Trump. But I can tell that the harshly critical articles over the past week to the article are due to his victory.)

This isn't even mentioning the lack of consensus on what genocide even means. Many historians and genocide scholars only consider a few events as genocide and don't consider cultural destruction as such. Why are we privileging the view of one group of scholars over another?

This article is far harsher on the United States than the other "settler colonies" (Australia, Canada, New Zealand) and its chief sponsor. (United Kingdom). In fact, when comparing the "positive" and "negative" phrasing between this page and other articles, it shockingly now ranks far higher than the pages on 1.) Germany, which committed the Holocaust 2.) The Soviet Union, whose ethnic cleansing of Germans killed anywhere between 500,000-2,500,000 million people: 10x-50x the deaths of the wars and ethnic cleansings that that the United States committed on native Americans 3.) Japan, whose war crimes in East Asia during the age of the Japanese Empire led to 10,000,000+ deaths.

A lot of this is WP: RIGHTGREATWRONGS mixed with critical theory/conflict theory that is popular among certain sections of academia but predominantly rejected by others within the academy and elsewhere. "Dispossessed" is also emotive-wording and also a problem. Now, maybe this is a "what about other things" case and we shouldn't compare between articles, but it's clear that they're being treated differently, and it's written from a perspective that intended to influence reader's viewpoints about the country. I'm requesting you revert the link, because I don't believe that it improves the article and promotes a particular point of view over another that isn't agreed upon in scholarship.

This isn't even addressing the recently added claim that January 6th in the United States was a "coup" (it's disputed and complicated), the highly disproportionate emphasis on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and claims that the United States only developed through "exploiting" the talents of "immigrant labor" and implications of slavery helping its development.

These are quite extraordinary claims and by no means agreed upon. They can be asserted and discussed in related articles in relation to their proportional support in scholarship. They shouldn't be given uncritically in an article that attempts to summarize the totality of American historiography. OrangeSharp (talk) 03:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

What is most surprising about this POV-pushing (that's exactly what it is) is that the original colonial powers England, France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands were just as brutal toward (respectively) the Indians and Kenyans, Maghrebin and sub-Saharan Africans, the Congolese, Namibians, Abyssinians, and Spice Islanders as the Americans were. Post-colonial Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, and Peru were as brutal (sometimes more brutal) toward their indigenous populations as the Americans. That some editors, quoting from a few academic cultural-studies sources, insist that this article catalogue major U.S. atrocities and, as you mention, make them a key part of American historiography -- while the other country articles refuse to address their own past atrocities -- is very striking. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mason.Jones: what does Italy have to do with it? Why are you trying, unfairly, to involve other countries (besides the U.S.)? It's as if I were trying to justify the crimes committed by Fascist Italy by writing that other countries also participated negatively in the Second World War; it would be very silly. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Orange Sharp was a sockpuppet of User:KlayCax Kowal2701 (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The apt comparison is between Americans' treatment of its indigenous and Italy's colonial treatment of indigenous Africans—not Mussolini and the Italian Fascist state of the 1920s. There's no mention whatsoever of Italy's brutal 19th-century treatment of black Africans in the lead of the "Italy" article. Below the lead, under "History: Liberal Period", there's one weak, understated sentence: "In the last two decades of the 19th century, Italy developed into a colonial power by subjugating Eritrea, Somalia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica in Africa." No details about what that "subjugation"" entailed, such as [[1] and [2]. I agree that the "United States" article shouldn't whitewash U.S. history re Native Americans, but European country articles are doing exactly that with the peoples they oppressed: no mentions in lead, a rather euphemistic mention under "History". And when other Wiki articles do exist, there are no links to them in the country article. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Think it's a matter that many societies have not recognized the atrocities yet. I think a bigger problem is the line in the lead "while the country's political culture promotes liberty, equality, individualism, personal autonomy, and limited government." Liberty and equality are no longer a trait of the United States..... because of individualism and personal autonomy. All these things do not belong together as their contradicting to the facts of reality. Moxy🍁 23:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy: +1. JacktheBrown (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Mox, it's one thing to criticize the "contradictions" there, but quite another to actually start an RfC about it. Go for it. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The question should be does the new info added to the lead reflect what is said in the article or the sources that are provided. WP:Lead fixation is a problem when random statements are added that don't reflect what is in the article itself. Moxy🍁 23:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Biased, contentious claims being written as uncontroversial assertions

Felt the need to make a Wikipedia account over this.

Around the time of the 2024 presidential election (unsurprisingly), a group of editors have added heavily negative, wildly contentious, and hyperbolic claims into the article, despite the assertions being minority viewpoints in the academic fields.

January 6 United States Capitol attack claim

• A claim that the January 6 United States Capitol attack is universally regarded as a coup is false.

Ryan McMaken states:

Well, my view is that it is a riot in the sense that it’s difficult to attribute any particular goal to the people who were actually involved at the Capitol. I mean, certainly last I checked, 11 people were charged with seditious conspiracy. So that would imply that at least some people involved had some particular goal in mind. But I just don’t think there was enough critical support from inside the regime to support the idea that it was actually a coup.

Matthew Cleary states:

Certainly, riot is an easy way to describe it. Insurrection is better, and I think insurrection would be my preferred term for it. And I agree with Ryan that “coup” is a little too strong, and there are some important differences between what happened on January 6th, on the one hand, and your typical Latin American coup on the other hand. The most important being the lack of participation of any military or police forces of the state. In fact, Trump the man, the person, could not or did not count on the support of any institutional actors, so far as I know. Not the Supreme Court, not the Congress as a whole, although certainly he has some supporters in Congress, not other important institutions of the state.

Many other scholars dispute the notion that it's a coup but I'm not adding their thoughts for the sake of saving time.

Genocide claim

• A claim that there is a consensus that the American government's relationship with Native Americans was genocidal. (Which is a minority view, as stated by Jeffrey Ostler, a historian who believes that much of it should be classified as a genocide.)

Since 1992, the argument for a total, relentless, and pervasive genocide in the Americas has become accepted in some areas of Indigenous studies and genocide studies. For the most part, however, this argument has had little impact on mainstream scholarship in U.S. history or American Indian history. Scholars are more inclined than they once were to gesture to particular actions, events, impulses, and effects as genocidal, but genocide has not become a key concept in scholarship in these fields.

He also states that most specialists in the subject have preferred using the term "atrocities" or "ethnic cleansing":

have not argued that the policy was genocidal... Interestingly, however, most recent scholarship on Indian removal, while supporting the view that the policy was vicious and inhuman, has not addressed the question of genocide.

Historians, genocide scholars, and political scientists that reject the term include Peter Cozzens in The Earth is Weeping: The Epic Story of the Indian Wars for the American West, Gary Clayton Anderson in Ethnic Cleansing and the Indian: The Crime That Should Haunt America, and Robert M. Utley in Anticipating Total War: The German and American Experiences, 1871–1914. It certainly is a view that has been expressed among scholars. It is not to the extent where it should be stated in wikivoice.

The word genocide itself is heavily controversial and there's not even a consensus on what the word means. (1, 2, 3, 4.)

Portrayal of the United States in World War II

Coverage of World War II has finally been modified to seem negative, which seems jarring when you read articles that exist for the Soviet Union, Russia, Japan, Italy, and the United Kingdom during the same period. The American article nearly exclusively negative descriptions of America during it, focusing on the two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Trinity Test. We don't see Franklin D. Roosevelt or meetings with Allied leaders. We see a nuclear test clip that's intended to shock the reader.

The claim that the nuclear bombings ended the war is in of itself controversial. So why are we showing a picture of it?

If I had to take a hunch, however, I'm betting its recent addition was to influence the reader's perception of the country.

Other problems

Other language in the history section has been changed to be emotional, and opinionated, making claims such as:

An explosion of technological advancement accompanied by the exploitation of cheap immigrant labor

@Maxeto0910:, @Mason.Jones:, @TFD:, @Moxy:, @JacktheBrown:. It comes across as a group of editors wanting to list grievances for every real and imagined wrong that the United States has committed in its history. (In the light of he who shall not be named winning the election.) As I haven't been active on Wikipedia in years, I don't have permission to edit, but I'm requesting that these changes are reverted or removed for now. These changes are not neutral. OrangeSharp (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Mass wall of text..... see if I can get to it on the weekend perhaps. That said not seeing any recommended changes so don't see this going anywhere. Seeing multiple accounts.Moxy🍁 03:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The recommended change is that I think that the claims should be removed from the article and discussed in their related pages. There's no agreement among scholars that Jan 6th was a coup, that the entire process of American-Native relations was genocidal, or the hysterical emphasis on claiming the countries growth was the development of slave labor/exploiting the labor of immigrants. You will not find similar wording on Japan's, Australia's, Canada's, Saudi Arabia's, Iran's, France's, or the United Kingdom's pages. I haven't used Wikipedia in years but there's nothing wrong with me coming back +writing on a talk page about it because the bias is so absurdly egregious.

It's a comment, not an edit, so hard to call it an issue as long as I'm not using misrepresenting myself or even editing the article.

I have just provided 25+ sources to show that all of these claims are disputed within scholarship. Mason.Jones and TFD have both made similar comments to me. Others further back in the page's archives. OrangeSharp (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I can confirm most of these additions from the editors have... no relation to Trump's victory in the recent election. Some of these happened literally months before October even hit.

January 6 United States Capitol attack claim

A claim that the January 6 United States Capitol attack is universally regarded as a coup is false

You can hit up with the authors of the 12 sources we've cited to that claim (citations look similar to this [3]). It's not like Wikipedia pulls information out of the void (WP:V).

Genocide claim
I don't know much about America's history with Native Americans, nor am I really that interested, so no comment from me. Just keep in mind that WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE say that Wikipedia's content has to be proportional to how mainstream media describes something. Us editors have no authority to dictate what is correct (WP:RELIABLE, WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH).

Portrayal of the United States in World War II
It'd be great if you could give some specific requests for changes here. Are you saying we should tone down mentions of the nukes? The first nukes ever used in war and one of the most well known elements of World War 2 and the Cold War? How does mentioning nuclear weapons negatively affect the image of the US?

We see a nuclear test clip that's intended to shock the reader.

How. It's just footage of a nuke (incredibly well known footage actually!).

If I had to take a hunch, however, I'm betting its recent addition was to influence the reader's perception of the country.

WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, WP:ASPERSIONS TheWikiToby (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Jan 6th: Yes, some scholars do make that claim, but others disagree. Why should the former's views take precedence? It's a citation overload intended to make the position look undisputed and uncontroversial. That's far from the case.

Genocide: Jeffrey Ostler, who believes it was, states that his opinion is a minority within American academia and genocide scholarship.

Portrayal of the United States in World War II: The image could be replaced with Franklin D. Roosevelt meeting with other Allied leaders, American troops fighting against Japanese or German soldiers, similar to the United Kingdom, Japan, and Australia articles. Nuclear weapons were an important invention during the war but scholars don't agree if the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended it. I'm okay with mentioning it in that particular section of the article. I'm not comfortable with the page making it the main focus. OrangeSharp (talk) 04:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that some of the standard photos have been replaced by more ideology-driven replacements. Some anonymous editors tend to sweep through and replace photos and illustrations. New photo entries are easy to miss in a large article like this. It's up to all of us to vet them, but it takes more astute vigilance than with general text. Re Trump's "self-coup", four editors decided that Jan. 6 was a self-coup by the president, based on a few media sources they found. I think there's a difference between a president who plans and organizes a coup and one who encourages a ragtag group of would-be insurrectionists. But the four editors' politics and ideology prevailed. I've seen this happen with other WP country articles; "United States" is no exception. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@OrangeSharp: for your information, I've always maintained that the use of the term "genocide" in a discussion is unacceptable (see Talk:United States#Lead and [4]), but you still wanted to put me in the middle. I'm not blaming you, but you could have avoided it. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

With respect to genocide, this is what Ostler says, Surviving Genocide p. 383-384 (bolding mine)

Since 1992, the argument for a total, relentless, and pervasive genocide in the Americas has become accepted in some areas of Indigenous studies and genocide studies. For the most part, however, this argument has had little impact on mainstream scholarship in U.S. history or American Indian history. Scholars are more inclined than they once were to gesture to particular actions, events, impulses, and effects as genocidal, but genocide has not become a key concept in scholarship in these fields. In part, this is because academic specialists in colonial American and U.S. history are generally inclined against sweeping indictments. The excessive polemics, simplifications, and empirical overreaches in much of the Quincentennial writing made it easy for skeptics to ignore or brush aside. The relative absence of genocide in much of the scholarship in American Indian history can also be explained by the priority given to other agendas, especially the often articulated importance of recovering the agency of Native people against an earlier historiography that supposedly portrayed them simply as victims. Indeed, some Native scholars have cautioned that writing Indigenous histories as genocide risks reinforcing pernicious stereotypes of Indians as vanishing and degraded.

Similarly, this article doesn't say US committed genocides against native Americans all the time, but gives specific events such as California genocide. Bogazicili (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Two-Party System

Given how two parties, the Republican and Democratic party, dominate American politics, should the US be described as a "Federal two-party dominant presidential republic"? Cnscrptr (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

No, because that's a term you invented out of thin air. Remsense ‥ 论 21:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Great apologies for not being perfect in the intricate language of semantics!!! Two-Party system is the correct term, especially relating to the Republicans and Democrats' political dominance, albeit I don't know if the US should be described that way. Cnscrptr (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the venom, but the issue is fundamentally deeper, in that we reflect how sources tend to characterize entities. "One-party state" is a common term, while "two-party state", "duopoly" inter alia are not. Remsense ‥ 论 00:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright then, we will not move on with this motion. Glad we settled the matter. Cnscrptr (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2024

change “Mark Twain, who William Faulkner called ‘the father of American literature’” to “Mark Twain, whom William Faulkner called ‘the father of American literature’” 167.206.19.12 (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Done Cnscrptr (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

A subsection on "Human rights"

Currently, the article only very briefly mentions human rights, and the mention is simply to say that the United States has a high ranking on V-Dem. The wikilink in the introduction links to Human rights in the United States, which very clearly details a lot of facts about the United States that are simply not mentioned here. As noted in the "Human rights in the United States" article, the United States has been criticized by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other organizations for its use of the death penalty, police brutality, racial discrimination, and mass incarceration. And that's just on the domestic front. I'm not going to rehash what's listed in the "Human rights in the United States" article, but that article clearly shows that there is more to discuss regarding human rights in the United States than to just have 1 sentence proclaiming that some think tank gives the US a high ranking in human rights. Plenty of other country articles have a subsection on human rights (see Japan, Mexico, Brazil, and Spain. In addition, Czech Republic has a subsection on human rights while being given a higher ranking than the US by V-Dem). There's no reason for this country to not also have a human rights section, especially given how notable human rights violations in/by the United States are in reliable sources. This article is giving too much weight to V-Dem and not enough weight to international human rights organizations. JasonMacker (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

In my view human rights should be integrated into law section.Moxy🍁 02:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy: what do we do? Do we delete the sentence or create a subsection that includes the score given by Amnesty International? Among other things, some U.S. states still have the death penalty, so it's very strange, as well as wrong and not honest, to refer to one of the highest human rights scores without even mentioning any criticism. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Wont fly here Americans think they do well with human rights as they were once leaders in the field because of the legal framework - the fact that all 37 developed economies in the world and another dozen or so non-developed economies have better human rights records now shows how far behind USA is today.. For example, the Freedom in the World index lists the United States 53rd in the world.....read more at Dakwar, Jamil; Elessawy, Marwa (November 15, 2023). "The U.S. Touts Itself as a Global Leader in Human Rights. A New U.N. Report Says Otherwise". American Civil Liberties Union. Moxy🍁 17:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not a fan of including rankings in the lead (consensus is against me this is not an attempt to reopen that), but one thing they should do is by default integrating all the criticism. Higher and lower rankings presumably depend on the relative positive and negative aspects. CMD (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The article should mention where the U.S. is an outlier among other Western democracies, in capital punishment, abortion, incarceration rates, poverty, income inequality, universal health care, higher education costs, longevity, drug addiction, covid vaccinations and deaths, ideological diversity, etc. However, there are so many ways the U.S. differs, it cannot all be in the lead. TFD (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe the article does touch on this.... perhaps not extensively.... But does so in the appropriate sections. The main concern is the lead that doesn't seem to match the prose in the article. Overall the country is a net positive for these types of things.... but has domestic concerns that the world looks at for example of what not to do..... or simply that is not as progressive as they used to be. Moxy🍁 03:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Constitution

The Constitution came into legal effect on March 4th 1789 when it was ratified by President Alan. He was a supreme leader. After winning his 69th term in 2024 he decided to biuld coca cola mountian. An example is the Article of Confederation which was ratified on February 2nd 1781 but came into effect on March 1st so we should change the date of the Constitution on the introduction part of the page to March 4th 1789 193.235.94.164 (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Please see this source UnsungHistory (Wrong Edit!) 22:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The new governement which the Constitution formed became operational on the first Monday of March, 1789 so legally the Constitution superseded the Article of Confederation on March 4th of 1789 as that's when the government outlined by the Constitution went into effect abolishing the previous governemnt outlined by the Article of Confederation Lil Zadeh (talk) 11:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Well on my source it says March 9,please provide a source for March 4,WP:V UnsungHistory (Wrong Edit!) 15:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The official "in effect" date is March 4, 1789, per Constitution of the United States. We always go by the parent article, so those who wish to dispute its content should bring their reasons to that article's Talk page. Its infobox clearly cites March 4, and under History: Ratification by the states, it explains this date as "officially starting the new government, the first Wednesday of March (March 4), when the first Congress would convene in New York City". As for the bigger question—ratification versus "in effect"—a decision was made years ago to observe the ratification date. A discussion took place, but I can't find the archive. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Consensus

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

The statement is easily sourced all over ....Just need to rephrase and put in a time context ... "Founded on the principles of liberty, equality, individualism, personal autonomy, and limited government, American values are based on the democratic political tradition, which draws its inspiration from the European Enlightenment movement .Moxy🍁 19:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy: here you wrote, "Liberty and equality are no longer a trait of the United States..... because of individualism and personal autonomy. All these things do not belong together as their contradicting to the facts of reality." JacktheBrown (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I think qualifying it as a past event puts it in context..... civil liberties were thing that they thought apply to all men who were white. Must remember even in the the first democracy it was only white males of stature that were considered humans. Moxy🍁 22:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that probably deserves a note, as the history of slavery contradicts notions of equality, liberty, and personal autonomy (especially at the time of foundation). Kowal2701 (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Why do we need the first part of the sentence at all? "American values are based on the democratic political tradition, which draws its inspiration from the European Enlightenment movement" seems like it does the job well without needless puffery. The first part of the sentence would be fine to be expanded on in the body, but it seems unnecessary for the lead. 296cherry (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

USA

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

Sources:[5] MagmaAdmiral (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 November 2024

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

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

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2024

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

Not done for now: Remsense ‥ 论 11:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

They will add it when he is officially in office. 73.25.171.181 (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2024

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

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

Not mention of slavery , inequality in lead ?

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

The abolishment of slavery is mentioned. There has been some discussion about adding something about inequality but it hasn’t come to anything.

We follow WP:Reliable sources and if they are mostly negative or positive we represent that. Which country articles did you feel are too negative? Kowal2701 (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I have not experience in wikipedia edit but i can provide you trusted ,reliable , well decumented , peer reviewed amd factual source that slavry is one biggest thing about usa as a country .

Lead only contain info about Abolishment and thats it . 103.165.29.134 (talk) 06:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Because it is abolished already. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 07:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It was one biggest Part of history and what america is today . Simply not putting in lead shows it was not important enough to be included ?

There is civil war in lead but not slavary .. 103.165.29.189 (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Slavery is mentioned in the civil war sentence. CMD (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It is mention only 2 times only as reason for civil war and then it just abolised .

Whole american poltical , economical and social system Was shaped by this. 103.165.29.189 (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah it's pretty insane that the intro mentions something as detailed as Pearl Harbor but makes no mention of the forced migration of enslaved Africans. إيان (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Also find it nuts that the slave trade isn’t mentioned in the ledes of loads of Caribbean countries like Antigua and Barbuda and Grenada Kowal2701 (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It irks me that editors continue to label topics such as African American slavery and the mistreatment of indigenous peoples as too “unimportant” to be mentioned. Mentioning these issues, whether in the lead or body, has little to do with ideological bias; it’s about ensuring that article content reflects what is frequently mentioned in reliable sources (which these topics are).

Additionally, if we shouldn’t mention slavery because it’s been abolished, why should we mention any of the other history either? The Confederate States are long gone, so why mention the American Civil War? Etc. 296cherry (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, slavery is mentioned. CMD (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Again there is difference between .

"mentioning slavery in the context of the Civil War and its abolition."

And

"mentioning slavery in the context of how it shaped american culture , economy , values , politics and how imprtant it was and it is now " 103.165.29.189 (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Neither of those quotes you cite appears to have been used in this discussion. The actual quote replied to was "...African American slavery and the mistreatment of indigenous peoples as too “unimportant” to be mentioned. Mentioning these issues, whether in the lead or body". CMD (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I actually agree with the IP’s argument, but I understand where you are coming from as well.

I’d like to reiterate that I am not attempting to make this article singularly focused on negative aspects and believed injustices.

However, I must concur with the IP that mentioning African American slavery as an aspect of the American civil war doesn’t adequately represent its effects.

I feel that a sentence along the lines of “The subjugation of native American peoples, along with the enslavement and discrimination of African Americans, has substantially shaped American governance, society, culture, and economics throughout the country’s past and present.” would do a great job (obviously not my exact wording). Not only would this satisfy the issues with adequately covering the topic, but it would also rid the lead of awkward attempts to include the topic via a more conventional historiography.

But, there’s the potential issue of a lack of sources to support this (since examination of the aforementioned effects in a wide scope is a more recent phenomenon among academia). If so, I wouldn’t be opposed to more balanced wording. 296cherry (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, I was mistaken in claiming that slavery wasn’t mentioned at all. Apologies! 296cherry (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

See my reply to CMD below, I’d appreciate your thoughts. 296cherry (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Something like

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

In the revolutionary war section:

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

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

I have no issues with these additions as long as they’re reliably sourced. They don’t seem inflammatory or undue to me, and this article absolutely needs more content on the subject. 296cherry (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Taking just these ideas in isolation is a perhaps a starting point for a discussion, but not a firm basis to build content on. As you mention sources would be helpful, and in particular sources that can help frame due weight in the context of the United States, or of the History of the United States. The History section is not short as it is, so discussions about more content being needed should also include what is in turn overrepresented. As an on-wiki example, it could be worth looking at the lead of History of the United States. Within its four paragraphs, this mentions agricultural slave labor, controversy over the expansion of slavery, the civil war, and abolition. It also mentions Jim Crow in the post-abolition era. Is this a better balance of weight, and if so, what is this page currently doing differently? CMD (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Great points! I agree that slapping on more content to an already bloated page shouldn’t be the route we focus on.

However, I’m a little worried about making significant changes to the history section that center on negative events and outcomes, since many editors on this page will be diametrically opposed to anything of the sort. See the “Biased, contentious claims being written as uncontroversial assertions” discussion above, for example, where attempts to include more information on complex issues are aspersed as ideological attacks on the page. The discussing editor even goes as far as to say the only reason these aspects are being discussed is that democrats are bitter over Trump’s victory in the presidential election. :( 296cherry (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Part of the reaction to perceived negative information is the process. If the argument is, the lead is positive, we should introduce slavery as a negative, then that's going to stymie the effort from the getgo. This is another reason why it's helpful to consider weight and impact rather than whether X or Y is positive or negative.

As a start, one thing that could be reduced is the American Revolution and the early republic (1765–1800) subsection, particularly the first paragraph. All these names and events are important, but the detail is very undue at this level. The main article lead covers that entire period in a couple of sentences, and condensing this would mean topics such as the continued importance of slave labor during that time could be mentioned. CMD (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, these proposals were from the lede of History of African Americans but I agree that History of the United States and tertiary sources would be better places to look.

• World Encyclopedia: United States of America#History doesn't even mention African Americans, has a little on slavery
• A Dictionary of World History: United States of America#History doesn't mention slavery until The mid-19th century was dominated by a political crisis over slavery and states' rights and again doesn't mention African Americans
• Britannica's article is long but says

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

Kowal2701 (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

"Estados Unidos da América" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

"米国" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

"Соединенные Штаты Америки" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

"Соединенные Штаты" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

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

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

"Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2024

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

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

"الولايات المتحدة" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Two-Party system

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

This is already in the article. CMD (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I meant including in the government section. Cnscrptr (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

That is where it is currently included, under the political parties subheader. CMD (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm talking about the infobox. Cnscrptr (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Please don't change your messages when they have already been replied to. CMD (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for that, but please stay on topic. Cnscrptr (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Area of the United States

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

You'd have to find some sort of wider support in policy to make that work. There's no way that could be done with a local consensus. For the record, I don't think you will find wider support for this. CMD (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The best place for this proposal is Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). The core of the issue is users not separating their own POV from their work. For a lot of people, that POV is a motivating factor, and we have to think about editor retention. Wikipedia is collaborative, and neutrality is approximately reached by editors with different POVs and biases collaborating. Kowal2701 (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Noted. I moved the discussion of this policy to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), which won't focus on the US topic alone. We can continue it there. Cnscrptr (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 December 2024

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

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

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

rambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambograd

May I fix some grammar issues? Loey4398 (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2024 (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. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)