Talk:United States/Archive 101

Archive 95

←

Archive 99

Archive 100

Archive 101

Archive 102

Archive 103

→

Archive 105

Preceded by?

“Preceded by” seems to suggest that something will now replace its current form…perhaps remove that. 2600:1010:B016:E189:6D9E:5EBE:23AB:D8ED (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

In what way does it suggest that? Factually, the US was preceded by something, which in no way suggests or implies that it will also be succeeded by something else. If anything, the "preceded by" list should be expanded to also include the former French, Spanish, Mexican, and Russian territories that are now a part of the US, as well as possibly a way to include Native American territories, such as the Iroquois Confederacy. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

That is not what it suggests, but I agree it shouldn't be there. Removed pending discussion. --Golbez (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is a link to your removal of the text. I don't see predecessor states in the info-boxes of other countries. The U.S. situation is probably too complex to include in the info-box. It was not formed out of 13 colonies, but out of thirteen sovereign states. So best left out. TFD (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The "predecessor"/"successor" entries can be useful shorthand, especially for former countries, especially for short-lived ones. But they're only useful if they can be used as shorthand. For example, South Sudan at present has a single predecessor - Sudan. But the US... we have thirteen colonies, parts of New Spain, New France, Mexico, Russia, Japan, UN trust territories, Texas, Hawaii, Vermont, Canada, Great Britain, Denmark, etc. etc. etc. It doesn't work. And what about places that left? Would we include the Philippines as a successor country? A country as expansive and varied in history as the US can't possibly be handled that way. Even if you confine it to "what was the immediate predecessor of the US on the day it was formed" you still have more than just the thirteen colonies - they claimed a substantial portion of British holdings at the time as well. So, like, would we include British West Florida? Would we recognize Vermont's claim to independence? --Golbez (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The preceded by is intended for use in former country infoboxes, not current countries. In any case, its exact use case has become a bit more iffy given a recent RfC on Nazi Germany, which closed against prevailing practice of territorial assessment towards requiring specific legal succession. CMD (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Image addition, image move and unsourced addition

Not sure moving the statute of liberty to the language section to make room for another picture of New New York is a good change and addition as per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE .... especially another image of New York of this quality. Also would need sources for additions like this considering the stats.Pls also dont set pixel size in images MOS:IMAGESIZE.--Moxy- 21:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@C.J. Griffin: @The Four Deuces: @Golbez:.....looking for assistance in getting @Castncoot: to discuss the above....been a few days no luck.Moxy- 06:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• @C.J. Griffin: I am entirely confused about why you don't want to mention the reality of the existence of numerous student loan-forgiveness programs using the feeble excuse that somehow the (horse's mouth) FAFSA source which goes into significant specific detail about different student loan forgiveness programs is somehow inappropriate. It almost seems that you are bent on suppressing this very real and relevant information which offers a qualifying caveat to the trillion dollars in student loan debt. Best, Castncoot (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY. Your edit "Some student loan forgiveness programs are in place" could give some readers the false impression that the problem is being addressed, when this is clearly not the case. The programs that do exist will NOT do anything about the vast majority of that debt, or benefit the vast majority of debtors, so mentioning these programs is not appropriate without putting them into proper context. It is even more inappropriate to include as the cited source the very government website which allows people to apply for such loans in the first place, when the government itself is profiting off of such loans. Any material on the existence of forgiveness programs should come from a reliable secondary source which puts such programs into context in terms of how many people benefit from them, and how much of that massive amount will actually be forgiven by them, not just stating that some exist, which can be misleading.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• • @C.J. Griffin: I'm not sure where you're getting your interpretation of WP:PRIMARY from, in fact what you're saying conflicts with WP:PRIMARY, which says "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[d] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." So you are the one adding an entirely unnecessary interpretation and then insisting that your interpretation requires a secondary source. I would simply like to state a fact neutrally, that there do indeed exist student loan forgiveness programs, for which there is aptly no better source than the primary source, and without which statement the statement about student debt does not state the entire story. Hundreds of thousands of student debts ate reduced each year through federal programs. Then why don't we just let the reader develop their own interpretation? Or do you want people to just turn a blind eye to that? Castncoot (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Moxy: I find putting the Statue of Liberty in the Culture section to be odd and forced. I admit putting it in the Language section isn't much better. Where it really belongs is in the History section. As far as the Times Square ball drop image, yes, that is a far more semblant image which actually reflects American culture with significant pertinence and gravitas. In fact, there used to be a Theater section with an image of Broadway/Times Square. It's been quite some time since I last looked at this article and I cannot believe that in the interim an entire relevant section or subsection has been removed. It makes zero sense to include cinema as a form of culture but then to exclude stage theater, which takes place all over the United States and has Broadway as its vanguard. Shall we just restore the original Theater subsection to follow Cinema to rectify this mistake? I don't have a problem with that. Best, Castncoot (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The Statue of Liberty is one of the most recognized symbol in all of American culture. Donald G. Kaufman; Cecilia M. Franz (2000). Biosphere 2000: Protecting Our Global Environment. Kendall Hunt. pp. 511–. ISBN 978-0-7872-5713-2. OCLC 42678993. to most foreign is symbolizes freedom Governor George Pataki; Trey Radel (14 April 2020). Beyond the Great Divide: How A Nation Became A Neighborhood. Post Hill Press. ISBN 978-1-64293-232-4.. Times Square ball drop is not on the same level ....not even close.Moxy- 13:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• • • If you feel that way, then why not we just restore the original Theater section? And there is no image in the Language section. How about using a United Nations picture for that? Castncoot (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

United Nations for Language section ? why how are they related MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE ?Moxy- 13:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a good pictorial representation of the multilingual American society. Plus this image used to be featured in this article for a long time, unclear why it was removed in the first place. An article about the United States without an image of the UN is a joke. Castncoot (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

example of better image for "Language section"....see how its directly related .

I dont think it represents " multilingual American society" . Have tagged it as such and removed the self published source....will let other remove. As for theater section one could be added with proper sources .....pls keep in mind when copy pasting from other articles we require attribution Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. We now also have a better sources tag needed in the education section. So far i would say your additions have been a net negative for article quality.. Perhaps you should propose any changes here first? Moxy- 15:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

An odd assertion from someone with apparently very little topic experience pertaining to this article. Do you WP:OWN this article? And did you carefully look at my edit summaries to realize that I did indeed attribute Wikipedia within Wikipedia before you unnecessarily duplicated the work? Castncoot (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Image removed by third party....We ask that you propose an image change/addition here first to avoid further disruption to the articles stability pls. WP:STEWARDSHIP. You are correct attribution was given my bad.Moxy- 18:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• An image of the UN Secretariat was hastily added under the "Language" section, and I have removed it. Never mind that there's been a flurry of new ungrammatical edits and oddball illustrations (in an article that truly needs fewer of them). Here, an international body considered separate from U.S. territory—and from U.S. policies, which it often opposes—is used to illustrate the U.S., American English, Spanish, and Tagalog. The addition might be well-meaning, but it is irrelevant and 100% inappropriate. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @Mason.Jones:.....moved your new section here....because talk already on going.Moxy- 18:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Mox! Mason.Jones (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mason.Jones: I have no idea whose edits were ungrammatical, but I'd be interested to hear your explanation as to how one image or another of the UN stayed on this article for years if each was "100% inappropriate." Do you think that the many editors who participated in those edits would have all exhibited "inappropriate" judgement in tandem? The UN may be in international territory, but the US still needs to give its approval for any foreign diplomat to travel to the UN from outside the United States. Furthermore, the US funds a significant portion of the UN organization's budget. The UN image has traditionally held a spot in the history or foreign relations section. When hou start using phrases like "100% inappropriate," you lose credibility. Castncoot (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't see the image there before, but it is inappropriate to add a stock photo of the UN Secretariat, headquarters of a separate, independent international body, to illustrate a demographic aspect of the United States as a nation-state. That includes language groups in the U.S. (which include indigenous Sioux languages). The image's appearance there is—at best—questionable, and I must call it out for what it is. Finally, the State Department's mostly pro forma "approval" of UN diplomats in New York makes your argument no more relevant. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mason.Jones: I had mentioned above in this Talk section that the United Nations image had been featured in this article for years. I then mentioned it a second time in the paragraph above your last response that it had been featured on this article's page for years. That seems to be the easy way out for you to simply claim not knowing about its longstanding existence previously. Could you perhaps have taken some time amd care to research this before assuming incorrectly that it was never there before? I do agree that neither the language nor culture section is optimal for this image; it belongs in the history or foreign relations section. But various United Nations images were featured on this page for years because it is located in international territory within New York City, which the last time I checked, was and is an American city, not to mention the largest. Additionally, it is far from a simple pro-forma approval for foreign UN diplomats traveling to New York. Depending upon the diplomat's national representation, the U.S. State Department may (and does discretionarily) issue a 25- or 50-mile travel restriction radius around the UN Secretariat building. So to completely uncouple the location and geography of the United Nations headquarters away from any purview of the United States government is fallacious. If the United Nations headquarters were to be located in Montreal or Paris or Tokyo rather than New York, I would fully expect (and support) its image to be displayed on the Canada, France, or Japan page, respectively. The Headquarters of the United Nations is a BIG DEAL for whichever country it is situated in. Castncoot (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I told you, CastnCoot, that I didn't notice the UN image before. You'll simply have to accept it. All other arguments for this image in any U.S. demographic section are just as irrelevant, notably some special omnipotence of the State Dept. when it "approves" UN diplomats, or the UN as (quote) "a BIG deal" for the country that hosts it. Such reasoning is weak and unconvincing.Mason.Jones (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mason.Jones: Umm...how is history or foreign relations a U.S. demographic section? And why do you suppose it was in those section(s) before? Castncoot (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

You originally proposed the image for "Language," one of five subsections of section "6. Demographics." None of those five has any direct connection to the UN. As another editor suggests, only "2. History" (2.6, perhaps 2.7) comes even close. "4.3. Foreign relations"? The U.S. is a founding member of the UN. It doesn't have foreign relations with itself; it fully participates. Please propose images and text that are relevant. Thanks. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mason.Jones: Thank you for engaging constructively. You do realize hopefully that by nearly explicitly saying in your most recent message that when the UN looks in the mirror, it sees the US, you're undercutting your own argument not to include the UN image in this article. Take a look at this. Castncoot (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

A fool's errand, CastnCoot, and this is not a forum. The UN shouldn't be used to evoke languages spoken or any other aspect of U.S. society. Please make illustrations and text directly relevant, not symbolic or poetic, or they will be challenged and removed. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Castncoot (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy:: WP:NPA. Castncoot (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:Not listening...Just try to hear others....try to make a valid argument here on the talk page for your changes. Let's not be sneaky with misleading edit summaries. Let's take the time and read the protocols other link for you. Again can you propose any changes here first to prevent wasting of others time with reverts and corrections in the article. All can be worked out here first. ...no need to bully in edita. Moxy- 02:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

§Please look in the mirror. Castncoot (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

What we are looking for is you to read what is linked and collaborative editing....nothing more is being asked of you. Moxy- 02:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC on the lead change

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is against inclusion of "These criticisms have prompted various responses from various stakeholders and attempts at their redress remain ongoing" in the lead section. Closed somewhat early per WP:SNOW. ––FormalDude ^talk 07:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

Should the lead include the following sentence: These criticisms have prompted various responses from various stakeholders and attempts at their redress remain ongoing (the context for the RFC can be found in the #Lead change section right above this one) Estnot (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes as nominator and for the reasons given in the lead change section Estnot (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• No unsourced general statement with zero value or tangible information.--Moxy- 12:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• No, it might be worth mentioning if it was "despite these issues, the US said fuck it and is hard ignoring any and all problems." That sentence isn't necessary per common sense. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  that does not make any sense because leaving out my proposed text would give readers the very view that "despite these issues, the US said fuck it and is hard ignoring any and all problems." If that kind of response is worth mentioning, then I don’t see why the opposite kind of response ( “despite these issues, the US said fuck it and is hard at work solving any and all problems”) should be worth mentioning any less Estnot (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  Because not trying to solve any problems facing the country and letting it devolve into racist mad max would be unusual and counter to common sense. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  I completely agree and that is why you should support my proposal. Leaving out my proposed text would give readers the absurd view that it is typical and common knowledge for the United States to not solve its problems and let it devolve into racist shithole. (This is the argument that the two other editors appeared to strongly make in the lead change section) Estnot (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  I cannot believe that anyone would seriously hold this view. --Khajidha (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• No, per the previous two users's arguments.--Khajidha (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• No, per arguments I made previously.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• No, and terms like "various stakeholders" are perplexing. "Attempts at their redress are ongoing" is painful. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• No. Sentence is wordy (one too many "various") and vague ("stakeholder" is newish jargon that isn't defined in this article). The sentence doesn't summarize what's in this article but in articles linked to from here. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• No - I don't understand what the sentence is about. Lots of words, but that's it. GoodDay (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• No. Upon reading User:GoodDay's apt characterization, the title of a certain William Faulkner novel immediately comes to mind. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• No. I agree with ScottishFinnishRadish and GoodDay. And going by his argumentation (next section) to insert a disputed tag, I am not inclined to assume good faith. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment — I am not inclined to assume good faith. Well yes no shit I wouldn’t either if I was following you from a debate on another article [1] (wp:following)Estnot (talk) 10:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Tentative support The sentence as suggested is rather clunky. But adding some information on ongoing reform efforts sounds reasonable to me. Dimadick (talk) 10:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• No, I'm not a fan of the overall list-positive-list-negative construction of the wider sentence, but this addition does not fix that and would add no information. CMD (talk) 11:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

Again as per Talk:United States#Lead change.Moxy- 12:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I saw the RFC and had no idea what was going on with that sentence, as there's no context given. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I’ve added a note to the prompt to make it clear where editors can find the background to this RFC. Perhaps you can change your mind after going through it Estnot (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

To give more needed context (needed by me, at least), the sentence would be added to the end of the third lead paragraph (according to how it was placed when reverted). So:

.... The U.S. ranks high in international measures of economic freedom, quality of life, education, and human rights; it has low levels of perceived corruption. However, the country has been criticized for inequality related to race, wealth, and income; use of capital punishment; high incarceration rates; and lack of universal health care. These criticisms have prompted various responses from various stakeholders and attempts at their redress remain ongoing[.]

Dhtwiki (talk) 02:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Taking into account the votes and comments above, it appears that my proposed text is not specific enough and too cumbersome to read. Therefore I submit the provisional text below and would like to hear any feedback any of you may have before I formally propose it through a second request for comment

....The U.S. ranks high in international measures of economic freedom, quality of life, education, and human rights; it has low levels of perceived corruption. However, the country has been criticized for inequality related to race, wealth, and income; use of capital punishment; high incarceration rates; and lack of universal health care. Some responses to these criticisms include efforts to expand access to healthcare ([2], [3]), reform of the criminal justice system (especially through policies which promote decarceration and community based policing) ([4], [5], [6]) and attempts to ensure greater progressivity of the tax system ([7], [8])

Estnot (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

All this simply isn't needed. Especially not in the lede. Your proposed text is simply pointless. Please stop.--Khajidha (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I asked for feedback not a talk back. Leaving the bolded part out would lend undue weight to the criticisms which is problematic and especially so for the lead section of a “level-3 vital article.” If you are going to be critical of my proposal, then the least you should do is give a semi-complete explanation of your reasoning. Please don’t make comments like that again. It is, to use your own words, both needless and pointless.

....The U.S. ranks high in international measures of economic freedom, quality of life, education, and human rights; it has low levels of perceived corruption. However, the country has been criticized for inequality related to race, wealth, and income; use of capital punishment; high incarceration rates; and lack of universal health care. Some responses to these criticisms include efforts to expand access to healthcare, reform of the criminal justice system through decarceration and attempts to ensure greater progressivity of the tax system

Estnot (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

For one thing, your sentence throws the text out of balance. You have a sentence enumerating American virtues, then one that is critical. Then, to add another extolling attempts to remedy the criticisms seems out of balance or somehow unfair. If the article or linked articles are out of balance or unfair, you might think of working to bring them into balance; but your lead sentence, as it stands, seems to me like attempts to remove critical sections from articles on politicians or institutions. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I never cared for the original statement (pushed by an anonymous editor who has vanished). "Has received criticism" -- from whom? And if the negative appraisal is "in comparison to other wealthy democracies," not "compared to China or Iran," this isn't clear. Criticism of world powers (if there is any) is short in WP leads. This one is not, and I understand editors who wish to clarify or emend it. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Balance does not mean parity. It does not mean a 1 to 1 exchange where a single line of praise is counteracted by a line of criticism. If the body of the article contains more praise than criticism (which in this case I think it does) then that needs to be reflected in the lead section as well for balance. I am not sure where you are getting this idea that I am attempting remove critical sections from the article - balancing criticism does not entail or imply removing the criticism. I also echo the point that User:Mason.Jones made which is that very few articles on major powers like America have long criticisms in the lead or any criticism at all, so it would appear that the need for balancing is a bit moot in the first place. Estnot (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that the criticism sentence was added by consensus. As others have said, the criticism would imply that others are attempting to address such issues. If so, we don't need to specify such attempts in the lead, especially if they're not being detailed in the article. In any case, only in your later version do you link to articles and article sections that specify the redress being attempted. How many of those weren't linked previously or linked to from such previously linked articles? Dhtwiki (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

As others have said, the criticism would imply that others are attempting to address such issues. — that’s not the way I see it. As I tried to point out to you in my comments earlier leaving out the response to the criticisms invites many issues. There’s the issue of lending undue weight to the criticism which is always problematic but especially so when it occurs in the lead section of a “level-3 vital article.” It fails good research by providing readers incomplete information (wp:bestsources) in the lead section on how the United States is attempting to remedy these problems (and again fails to provide proper balance by giving readers the absurd and highly misleading view that the United States isn’t doing anything to address the problems) And it undermines the encyclopedia’s basic mission of making the proposed information less accessible to readers, (wp:purpose) especially to those who wish to use to ameliorate the related problems afflicting the United States in real life — it is much easier to find the information when it is in the lead section than having to dig through layers of unnecessary material just to find the same thing. I do agree with the repeated criticism however that the body of the article seems to be a bit lacking in terms America’s responses to ; fortunately though there isn’t a lack of material to work with. Am I to take it that you would agree to the addition of the proposed counter response if enough of that information was included in the body of the article? Estnot (talk) 10:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd prefer that information on attempts to rectify the criticisms be placed in the articles linked to in the criticism sentence, which is already being done to some extent. For example, in your added-on sentence you link to a section ("System efficiency and equity") in Health care in the United States, an article that is already linked to from the criticism sentence. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2021 (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.

Threaded discussion continued

“I'd prefer that information on attempts to rectify the criticisms be placed in the articles linked to in the criticism sentence, which is already being done to some extent. For example, in your added-on sentence you link to a section ("System efficiency and equity") in Health care in the United States, an article that is already linked to from the criticism sentence.” User:Dhtwiki but the criticisms are on the main article to begin with. If the article for whatever reason needs to include the criticisms, then those same reasons mean the article also needs to include the responses to the criticisms. Estnot (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

And then the criticisms that the responses to the criticisms are insufficient or insincere, and so on... Dhtwiki (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Dhtwiki That’s my point and one I pointed out to you earlier when I said “very few articles on major powers like America have long criticisms in the lead or any criticism at all, so it would appear that the need for balancing is a bit moot in the first place.” If you’re worried about an infinite regress of criticisms then maybe the solution is to not start with one in the first place. Either we do away with the criticisms altogether or we document both sides of the debate in a balanced way. Estnot (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Then the answer, also given before, IIRC, is that the criticism sentence is by consensus, and that there is be very limited enthusiasm for adding more, however necessary you might find that to be. That is how it must be left. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Consensus can change (wp:ccc) and the objections to my proposal as enumerated in the survey section to which you appear to attribute “limited enthusiasm” for adding further material to the criticism sentence weren’t made on the basis of principle. As It does not appear that you have an adequate understanding of my arguments and the encyclopedia’s editing policies, it appears that the optimal way forward is for me to cease this discussion with you and take the initiative by gradually introducing material that will hopefully lead to the inclusion of the information that I have proposed in the threaded discussion section. Estnot (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Ceasing discussion here is fine, as this isn't going anywhere; and you apparently feel insulted by my attempts at explanation. However, "gradually introducing material", especially if it's done against the recently stated consensus of several editors experienced with this page, seems like a bad idea. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I’m not insulted by your attempts at “explanation.” I’m annoyed at them in the way that a person would be annoyed at having to constantly swat flies away from a meal. Terrible assumptions, atrocious inferences and bad misreadings that do everything to make the discussion go nowhere of which your flawed interpretation of what I said when I wrote that I would “take the initiative by gradually introducing material” is just another example Estnot (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Estnot: I know this is an old discussion at this point, but I want to point out that there really is only one other nation in the world that has any degree of power comparable to the United States, and that's China: the intro (rightly) condemns their human rights record. I do think that other nations should have mention of their human rights record in the lead as well. For example, there should be mention of Canada's treatment of the first nations in their lead. But that's neither here nor there. For this article, the intro is alright (though the sentence on criticism should be shortened a bit as the article is already ridiculously long). -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Rockstone35 I’m not clear on what it is that you are trying to say exactly. Are you objecting to my argument that the responses to the criticism should be included and if so why? Just because the lead section documents criticism of the subject of the article does not preclude documentation of the responses to it. And just because other article don’t exhibit the “criticism-response” pattern in their lead sections doesn’t mean it should be reproduced in this one (A point which you also appear to acknowledge when you wrote “But that's neither here nor there.”) Estnot (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

“United States” vs “United States of America”

This article is titled incorrectly. The country is called “The United States of America.”

How do we go about ameliorating this mistake? I’m not sure who changed this, but it is not correct. 2603:8000:6F01:9480:B18D:4228:CE8C:61DF (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

See Q2 in the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) near the top of the page. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2022

158.148.114.149 (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The United States of America is a fascist, capitalism-driven dictatorship enforced by a strict protestant theocracy, since many of the States' citizens adhere to this faith and so do many of the Presidents. Under President Donald Trump, whose mandate lasted from 2016 to 2020, the US was officially a fascist, military dictatorship enforced by a rigid theocratic protestant propaganda

That's mildly interesting. But no, it can't be added, because you don't cite a reliable source for each part of it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2022 (2)

Cattocomunist (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The United States of America can be viewed as a fascist, capitalism-driven police State where military corps have absolute authority to harm and brutalise civilians, especially if belonging to ethno-religious minorities, for it's a country based on racial cleansing and supremacy of the Caucasian peoples. Under the sharade of a "democratic" and "free" State the US is actually a protestant theocracy, since it's the main religion practiced in the country, the most culturally implanted and the most followed by the head of State and government himself, the President. Since it should be a secular country which grants religious freedom to its citizens, but most likely they forgot that overtime, the United States of America are officially a theocratic, military, fascist dictatorship based on the authority of Capitalism and free market, which grants supremacy only for the "Whites" and those who are rich, since they don't even have free healthcare and most native citizens live in utmost poverty without being able to afford a small flat in the sububrs.

Slightly overblown, I think. But my opinions don't matter. No, because you don't provide reliable sources for any of this. -- Hoary (talk) 08:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Joe Biden is Catholic, not Protestant, and is well known to attend mass regularly. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Census data is wrong

The US is 76% White, not 61%. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/RHI125219 SuperWikiExpert6969 (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

That looks to be estimates for 2021, whereas https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/race-and-ethnicity-in-the-united-state-2010-and-2020-census.html this from the 2020 census says 61%. Not sure why the estimate is such a big jump Cannolis (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's a link to an article that describes the methodology for the estimates. Looks like they started with the 2010 numbers then adjusted them using estimates. There's a high margin of error. TFD (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The 76% includes people who self-reported as racially white and ethnically Hispanic/Latino. The 61% is that percentage of the population that identifies as racially White and ethnically not Hispanic/Latino. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Seal of the US

Why is the seal of the US not on the infobox? It used to be, very recently. BigRed606 (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree it should be there. This is no longer rated a "Good Article" because new editors tend to remove important items when they revise key sections like the infobox. The seal is a recent victim. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Inordinate length seemed to have been the main reason for the article's delisting in August 2020. When was the seal taken out? Using WikiBlame, I could only find two instance of its being modified, in 2019 (on 17:45, 1 June 2019 and 14:17, 7 July 2019). Dhtwiki (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion notes inordinate length but also detail. There's no consensus for "too detailed", but there must be a way to retain standard information like the seal and prevent inadvertent deletions (and "stealth" deletions) in this article. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Having the coat of arms, whose caption links to a detailed article on the seal, and the seal in the infobox seems somewhat redundant. Is that why the latter was removed? I was trying to find the removal edit to see if there was an explanation. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Should I put the seal back in the infobox? BigRed606 (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that having both the coat of arms and the seal is redundant, and that adding the seal, obverse and reverse, while certainly informative, would take up considerable space. The relevant main article on the coat of arms and the seal is already linked to, for those who are truly interested, although it might not be obvious that the article on the coat of arms deals with the seal as well. This discussion is the most recent relevant one that I could find regarding the need to have the seal in the infobox, and it doesn't exactly tell why or when the seal was removed. However, that discussion indicates that it might have been around that time (2019). Dhtwiki (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Seals were removed after they were mass added all over. Same happened with secondary motos that still here for some reason.Moxy- 20:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Since the Seals of the US is more prevalently used and the fact that the name of the article that talks about the Coat of Arms, is called the “Great Seals of the United States”, makes me think it would probably be a good ideal for the seal to be in the United States, infobox. Note that Brazil shows their seal on their country’s page. BigRed606 (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Let's not make this article worse because the Brazil article is worse. Having effectively the coat of arms twice does not inform the reader, and adding a huge image element to the infobox is a poor use of visual space (especially for mobile). CMD (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Brazil's seal is redundant, too, this time to their flag. Their coat of arms, also displayed, is quite different. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Americuck

Would somebody be able to change Americuck back to America please, that includes the flag, motto, and anthem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.152.126.77 (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it to our attention. It was reverted after only about three minutes. Colorful flag, though. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Various capitalization decisions

I reverted this recent edit in which User:Ehn changed some infobox items and the names of some ethnic groups to be in lowercase. I just want to explain my reasoning here, and if others feel that I've misinterpreted MOS:CAPS, please feel free to revert my revert:

• Per MOS:PEOPLANG, Wikipedia has not yet reached a consensus on whether or not to capitalize "Black" and "White." The current guideline permits any combination of the two (although in my interpretation, black/White would not be an acceptable combination). As such, we can leave the article as-is until/unless a more specific consensus is reached.
• For "English and 20 Indigenous languages," Ehn was correct (by the precedent of indigenous languages of the Americas) to change this to "indigenous," and I have restored that part of the edit.
• For "multiracial," "other," "non-Hispanic," "no religion," and "unanswered," I believe Ehn was again correct, and I have restored that change.

In retrospect, choosing to revert rather than just re-capitalizing "Black" and "White" was overkill. To be honest, in the moment, I forgot about the percentages preceding the terms, and my instinct was to capitalize the words thinking they were already in sentence case. For that, I apologize! Gmarmstrong (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I think no religion and unanswered should remain capitalized as before unless a consensus is reached.Neplota (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh? But they aren’t proper nouns and don’t start their sentences. Gmarmstrong (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

They are stand alone words not sentences.Neplota (talk) 11:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I concur that those words should remain capitalized. I also concur with User:Neplota they are stand alone words, not sentences. There is a subtle difference in American English between capitalization as used in full sentences in formal written English prose, and capitalization as used in infoboxes (and their antecedents in hard copy encyclopedias and textbooks). --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. I can think of it like there’s an invisible “: “ between the percentage and the term. Gmarmstrong (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That sounds very strange to me. If you're arguing that it should be "8.4% Others" (capitalized), should it also be "Total area: 3,796,742 Sq mi", "GDP (PPP): 2022 Estimate", "Total: $24.8 Trillion" etc? If yes, that's not something I've seen anywhere in the English Wikipedia (including this article), and all examples look wrong to me. If no, what's the difference? ehn (talk) 06:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, ehn. Hopefully we would never capitalize "Sq". That said, Mexico and China, for example, also use this "10.6% No religion" style, so maybe this issue deserves a discussion on a more general page. Gmarmstrong (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Foremost military power?

It's not the "foremost military power in the world". I think you'll find that's Russia. They have the largest military and largest arsenal in the world. Did an American write this? God, I love you guys. You're so rubbish at history! 80.0.165.141 (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Please offer independent reliable sources to support your claims. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Imagine believing that. I bet you also think that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is just a "special military operation"... -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It's shocking to see how the modern education system has failed people.Moxy- 05:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The United States spends seven times more on its military than Russia. ––FormalDude talk 06:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Cinema

Original Text: "In more recent times, directors such as Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and James Cameron have gained renown for their blockbuster films, often characterized by high production costs and earnings."

An editor removed Cameron, saying, "I removed a reference to James Cameron, who is Canadian. He seemed out of place in an a section about American filmmaking, within an article about the United States generally. One could argue that while Cameron isn’t American, he made films that were commercially successful in America. But by that standard, why stop with him? Many, many other foreign directors would also qualify. Better, I think, to leave him out."[9]

Cameron produced the Terminator series, Titanic and other popular Hollywood films and is currently producing sequels to Avatar. I do not think his nationality is relevant.

TFD (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Whole section needs a rewrite....like the music section lots of name dropping and titles over real info ....should have something like the lead at Cinema of the United States with a few tweeks and sources.Moxy- 04:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Canadian filmmakers who are not naturalized U.S. citizens are not lazily cited, even by inference, as Americans. The Mexican filmmaker Alejandro Iñárritu is in the same category; he has worked in Hollywood for a while. Cameron, in fact, decided against U.S. citizenship; he has recently considered adding New Zealand citizenship because he adopted that country as his home. Citing Cameron in the same way as Lucas or Spielberg must be done the encyclopedic way: "...and the Canadian filmmaker James Cameron." It would be patently dishonest otherwise in any encyclopedia. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2022

The United States is the most populous country in North America (for obvious reasons). 70.71.87.75 (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2022 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

"Amerikai Egyesült Államok" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Amerikai Egyesült Államok and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 11#Amerikai Egyesült Államok until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

United States Commission on International Religious Freedom

Please monitor United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. No content is present about it's reports but its totally filled with criticism about the reports. Content additions are largely political propaganda from the reported countries. Obey levy (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Removing some of the criticism in lead?

It seems to me that most other first-world countries do not include criticism in their leads. For example, Japan and Singapore both retain the death penalty (and Singapore uses it for crimes not resulting in death); neither mention that in their lead. While WP:other stuff exists is not a good reason to change things, Japan's article is rated as a Featured Article, while Singapore's is rated as a Good Article. This was brought to my attention after I tried to change the lead of Singapore to mention its use of capital punishment and poor human rights record, and the editor who reverted me pointed out that it was undue.

If we would like to see this article become a good article (and I would), it may be worth considering following their pattern more closely.

I suggest removing mention of capital punishment in the lead (as Japan and Singapore does); and reducing discussion of inequality in the lead to simply link to Inequality in the United States. Lack of universal healthcare and mass incarceration should remain, so I suggest that the lead reads as:

The United States ranks high in international measures of economic freedom, quality of life, education, and human rights; it also has low levels of perceived corruption. However, scholars have criticized the country for inequality, mass incarceration, and lack of universal health care.

If it were up to me, I'd probably simply remove all mention of criticism, as again the Japan and Singapore articles do. Instead I'd say:

The United States ranks high in international measures of economic freedom, quality of life, education, and human rights; it also has low levels of perceived corruption.

What are your thoughts? Obviously I will not make any changes in the absence of clear consensus.

-- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Killing your own citizens is crazy....the United States is the only Western nation that applies the death penalty. Its a major factor in their human right score.Moxy- 00:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I don't disagree. I oppose capital punishment and hate the fact that I live in a state (Florida) that retains it. That being said, Japan and Singapore both retain it and it is not in their lead, despite being featured articles. (though they are not western democracies) -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"Killing your own citizens is crazy" Not really. Americans simply do not place any value on human life and dignity. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is more evidence that Americans consider it their right to kill people. Dimadick (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like you have your own biases here... -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Partially Support - I'd keep the mention of capital punishment but reword it to state that the U.S. uses capital punishment more often compared to other democracies that still have it. I think there are some sources here that might be useful. Still, reducing the inequality description is helpful. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

That could work. Japan rarely uses capital punishment, and Singapore is not really a democracy (or at least, not a liberal democracy. Maybe something like:

The United States ranks high in international measures of economic freedom, quality of life, education, and human rights; it also has low levels of perceived corruption. However, scholars have criticized the country for inequality, mass incarceration, excessive use of capital punishment compared to other liberal democracies, and lack of universal health care.

How does that sound? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Alternatively, it could say: "being the only western democracy to retain the death penalty" instead? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

In that case, Support excessive compared to other liberal democracies. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"the U.S. uses capital punishment more often compared to other democracies that still have it." Not entirely true. They simply execute more people, as executions in other countries are not infrequent. The article on capital punishment includes worldwide data on executions for 2021. The United States executed 11 people, China 6 (though the number is an estimate), and Japan 3. Their numbers are insignificant compared to Iran, which executed 353 people in a single year. (Both Vietnam and North Korea apparently failed to report how many they executed). Dimadick (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are trying to say. Sure, Iran and other countries have executed more people, but the U.S. is the global leader among liberal democracies with the number of people it executes. Thus, my point stands. If you are suggesting that this statistic is insignificant because many other countries use capital punishment more than the US, most of those nations are still developing and a significant portion of them are not considered liberal democracies. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it is significant, but it would make more sense if we just said "retains the death penalty, unlike other western democracies" (or something close to that), rather than say that it uses the death penalty more than other liberal democracies. Japan is a liberal democracy, it is not a western democracy. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"However, scholars have criticized the country for" is weasel wording. Who are these scholars? And why can't we say that the U.S. is an outlier among developed nations in things such as inequality, capital punishment, mass incarceration, and lack of universal health care? While inequality is seen as a necessary evil at best, the others are seen as positives by leaders of both major parties. America is tough on crime. America has the best health care system in the world because it is privately run. America has inequality because it doesn't pay people not to work but it allows them to keep the money they earn.

Also, as another editor said, Japan and Singapore execute far fewer people. The U.S. is sixth in the world, behind China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt and ahead of Pakistan and Somalia.[10] It consistently votes with these countries in the UN against a moratorium on the death penalty.

Also note that capital punishment and universal health care are settled issues among the public in most developed countries. That makes the U.S. position, which has popular support, more exceptional.

TFD (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Singapore executes more people than the US does per capita (for what its worth). But you're right, "scholars have criticized" is a weasel word. That's why I don't think any of this is appropriate for the lead. We certainly can say that America is an outlier among developed nations for these things, but if we do, they arguably shouldn't be in the lead or presented as a negative (even though I think I'm comfortable saying they are). One possible phrasing, if we adopted your idea (excluding mention of inequality, which I'm not sure if it is that notable compared to other liberal democracies), could be:

The United States ranks high in international measures of economic freedom, quality of life, education, and human rights; it has low levels of perceived corruption. Unique among other western democracies, the country has no universal health care, retains capital punishment and has high incarceration rates.

-- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I think your phrasing is good. We should explain how the U.S. differs from other Western democracies and other countries without being judgmental. I would mention too that there are high levels of inequality. While no one argues that is a good thing, people do argue that attempts to reduce it would be counterproductive or that its causes are American history rather than a deliberate policy. In Canada for example, descendants of former slaves also face inequality (see Africville,) but they are a tiny minority compared with the U.S. TFD (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

But are the high levels of inequality unique to the United States as a western democracy? If the US's degree of inequality is significantly higher than other western democracies, then it warrants a mention; but if it's a difference of degrees rather than kind, probably not. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I would say so, yes. Cited sources such as the OHCHR report highlight this: "The United States now has the highest income inequality in the Western world, the highest incarceration rate in the entire world, and one of the lowest turnout rates in elections among developed countries" (empahsis mine). So I would support your rewrite above if it included inequality: "The United States ranks high in international measures of economic freedom, quality of life, education, and human rights; it has low levels of perceived corruption. Unique among other western democracies, the country has no universal health care, retains capital punishment, has high incarceration rates and high levels of inequality."--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, I support that. I'll try boldly changing the lead, if it gets reverted, I'll do an RFC. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 19:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"that its causes are American history rather than a deliberate policy." But this is a relatively recent development. Per the article on income inequality in the United States, the Gini coefficient was below 40% until 1983.: "The return to high inequality began in the 1980s. The Gini first rose above 40 in 1983. Inequality rose almost continuously, with inconsequential dips during the economic recessions in 1990–91 (Gini 42.0), 2001 (Gini 44.6) and 2007." Basically the U.S. has high inequality for the last 39 years, while it maintained low levels of inequality for most of the post-World War II period. Dimadick (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The Gini coefficient in Canada and the UK after 40 years of neoliberalism is 32, and other Western democracies are lower. So even at the height of the Just Society, the U.S. was far more unequal than other developed nations are now. TFD (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose per the last RfC on this. The issues raised are largely unique to the United States and make the country an outlier in the developed world as one of vast inequality when it comes to class and race. The US is also the only Western country to still use the death penalty and have no system of universal healthcare, and has levels of incarceration unparalleled in the entire world. These are worth mentioning, and are well sourced in the lead.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The text never mentions any yardstick like "outlier among rich, Western democracies etc.," or why "criticized by scholars" makes the criticisms valid or indispensable. The viewpoint is that of the social democratic left, so it is POV and not neutral. The RFC and its wording were introduced by a perennially inactive editor who claimed he was adding critical appraisals to other WP country articles, including Russia and China. These were all shorter and, later, watered down or removed. The passage for United States remains—a strikingly long, critical, and strident passage for the lead of any country article. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

You're right, the text does not include that yardstick, that is basically my argument against removal. Nevertheless, what is stated in that passage is also the viewpoint of the UN's OHCHR per the source included in the citation bundle, so I don't think this viewpoint can be simply attributed to the "social democratic left", which seems like OR to me (not sure about the political positions of the other sources in that bundle). While I would agree the attribution to scholars should be removed given that the UN report is part of that criticism, I don't see how that relatively small passage of criticism is much different than similar passages in the very articles you mention above, China and Russia. Let's compare them: United States: "However, scholars have criticized the country for racial, wealth, and income inequality, alongside capital punishment, mass incarceration, and lack of universal health care." China: "Chinese authorities have been criticized by political dissidents and human rights activists for widespread human rights abuses, including political repression, mass censorship, mass surveillance of their citizens and violent suppression of protests." Russia: "Since his election in 2000, Vladimir Putin has dominated Russia's political system and Russia has experienced democratic backsliding, shifting into an authoritarian state." All of these seem like valid criticisms based on what reliable sources say. And the idea that the one for the US is "strikingly long" by comparison is not evidenced by what is presently in those articles. Looking at word count, the passages from both the US and Russia articles consist of 23 words, whereas the one for China has 32.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, I do feel like it is a little undue to compare the situation in the US to Russia or China, though. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 19:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

No one is comparing the situation in the US to Russia or China. The criticisms are starkly different for these countries. The point I was making is that the size of the passages of criticism for the two other countries in question are similar to the one for the US. Although looking over the China article I omitted the preceding sentence, which would make China's even larger. The relatively small passage is WP:DUE IMO as such criticisms are discussed at length in the body of the article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"capital punishment and universal health care are settled issues among the public in most developed countries." Capital punishment is not on the table as a topic for most European countries, because Protocol 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights demands complete abolition of death penalty for all signatories. The only countries which never signed it are Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Russia. Armenia independently abolished the death penalty in 2003, Azerbaijan abolished the death penalty in 1998, and Russia has an ongoing moratorium over the death penalty since 1996. Dimadick (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"If it were up to me, I'd probably simply remove all mention of criticism" Basically, your proposal amounts to whitewashing, covering up the country's "vices, crimes or scandals". It would make the article far more biased, and basically unreliable. Dimadick (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not whitewashing at all to exclude criticisms from the lead, unless you think criticism of America in its lead is relevant while excluded from Singapore? Again, not trying to argue from WP:Other stuff, but Singapore is a Good Article, and this article is not. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Note -- I have WP:Boldly changed the lead so it now reads: The United States ranks high in international measures of economic freedom, quality of life, education, and human rights; it has low levels of perceived corruption. Unique among other western democracies, the country has no universal health care, retains capital punishment, has high incarceration rates and high levels of inequality.

Does that read better? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment - I changed it to "Unlike most other liberal democracies, the country lacks universal health care, retains capital punishment, and has high levels of incarceration and inequality.". I think that's better. I still think it should be reduced, but I don't think I'll get consensus to prune it further. With this sentence, it's clear that we are comparing the United States to other countries that are liberal democracies, not all countries. I do wonder if it'd be better to say "unlike many other liberal democracies" instead of "most others" though. India is considered a liberal democracy, but it also suffers from great inequality. I appreciate anyone's comments. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

An improvement, as it adds context to an unqualified laundry list of sociopolitical grievances in United States. Some editors wish to positively assess this against one throwaway sentence in Russia ("backsliding democracy...slipping into authoritarianism"—i.e., it's had some minor problems lately) or the statement in China, which actually mentioned a yardstick ("dissidents and human rights activists"—thus: only dissidents and activists care about state violence and the suppression of opinion). Word-count comparison is a weak argument: Russia's statement is longer because it mentions who the current president is; China's is longer because it spells out a yardstick. All to be conflated with capital punishment (in half the U.S. states), lower life expectancy in the U.S. (compared to Luxembourg), and "lack of universal health care." Mason.Jones (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mason.Jones: For what it's worth, I 100% agree with you and think that none of it (other than, perhaps, a mention of high incarceration rates, which, looking objectively, has no parallel in other western democracies) should be in the lead. I just don't think we'll get consensus for removing it. At least now it's not using weasel words or presenting the faults of the US as an absolute negative. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 20:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I think including the country's high incarceration rates and inequality is needed. But the death penalty shouldn't be in the lead; Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, et al. are all liberal democracies that remain the death penalty, and the practice has been historically practiced (until recently) in vastly more. KlayCax (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

U.S. death penalty system flagrantly violates human rights law (universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948) Moxy- 16:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The expression was western, not liberal, democracies. TFD (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: We could change it back to Western democracies, but the problem is that it redirects to Liberal democracies, because they are nearly the same thing. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no need for the link. Links are there for readers who want more information about specific aspects of the United States, not so that they can look up what a word means. If we think that the term "western democracy" needs to be defined for readers, we should define it in this article. But I don't think it needs definition. The non-Western liberal democracies tend to be different. I notice India was left out which also executes people. TFD (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it is highly important to include criticism of the United States. In every other country from the Soviet Union to China, there is criticism whether it be the human rights abuses or the authoritarian nature. By criticizing the United States we point out its flaws and combat this belief in American exceptionalism which excuses the problems that exist domestically and abroad. Sure the US has undertaken many advancements some of which I would personally consider to be a net positive for humanity (such as the Internet and computer science) however it has many, many flaws and blemishes on its history. By ignoring this we feed misinformation and sweep issues under the rug. And for these reasons I support keeping criticisms in the lead section. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 22:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, most regular editors (including me) supported adding the critical RFC last year, but it had become an expanding laundry list. Today, for example, the editor FictiousLibrarian added "mass surveillance" to the list of "flaws," and from a less than neutral source. (It cannot stand without broad consensus.) Finally, Russia and China, both effectively dictatorships, include very short criticisms, so the "misinformation" charge in United States is specious. Mason.Jones (talk)

Mason.Jones While I agree with you on the inclusion of criticism, I must stress the importance. Many Americans like myself who grew up in the public education system were taught to view the United States as this holier than tho nation, one without problems and issues and if so those issues are negligible. My fear is having the lead of the United States reinforce those views. The dictatorship lines in China and Russia are real just like the fact that many Americans die or live in finical ruin from medical expenses. I agree with you that the criticism page should remain and should contain the most pressing issues, however flowery language isn't necessary. What I mean by that is "unlike other liberal democracies" should be replaced with something like "The United States is criticized for..."

FictiousLibrarian (talk). 03:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@FictiousLibrarian. Definitely not "is criticized for...," followed by a sociopolitical shopping list. There should be a reference for any such listing: "Western democracies," "liberal democracies," etc. I see no flowery language or exceptionalism in the lead. All WP articles about large, powerful countries mention superlatives and key accomplishments. You have repeatedly shown a desire to impart an ideological point of view in the lead (only in the lead). You've appended virtual paragraphs of oddball history and pseudofacts (such as yesterday's "mass surveillance" pearl). Mason.Jones (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@FictiousLibrarian: Wikipedia is not here to Right Great Wrongs. We are here to provide unbiased facts, not try to convince readers that American exceptionalism isn't (or is) a thing... especially since that's entirely subjective. Also, it's not true that all other countries have criticisms in their lead. See Singapore and Japan -- neither have any mention of (for example) their use of the death penalty; both are also Good or Featured Articles -- which this article is not. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Have you read the rest of this section? The saying that “The United States is criticized for…” is weasel wording and also is a product of opinion. By comparison, the China article includes the term “criticized for…” because it has been criticized by an overwhelming amount of human rights activists for human rights abuses, which are backed up by lots of reliable sources. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

see me Moxy- 14:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy Good point. Yes, there is some legitimate criticism towards the United States by international organizations, especially regarding its mistreatment of minorities. However, removing the term “criticism” is good from a NPOV standpoint because it stops editors from squabbling over who is making the criticism in the first place, or whether the criticism is even warranted. Just presenting the facts and not the viewpoint is good enough.

Now that I think about it, perhaps China’s lead should also remove criticism and instead simply state the sourced facts. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Active vandalism in lead

Need extended protection

PurpleDeskChair (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I just applied dispute and citation needed templates on some minor points in the second paragraph. I'm going to remove these and revisit the issues later. Thanks for asking for protection. Allreet (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Reverted unsourced, un-encyclopedic description added to lede sentence

I have reverted an edit to the lede sentence by @Alexbarbershop earlier today. I ask that he discuss the edit/revert here before restoring it or adding any similar material. Here is the text I replaced (italics used to highlight the text in question):

"The United States of America (U.S.A. or USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S. or US) or the less-accurate and increasingly controversial colloquialism ‘America’, due to its being a country only partly located in, nor one inclusive of the whole of North America, and having only a clandestine, amorphous, secretive, often unwanted and thusly undefinable territory of influence in the landmass’s southern half consisting of 50 states, the remaining half of its federal district, over five major unincorporated territories awaiting admission to the union for over a century in some cases and thereby unable to participate in the country’s governance, 326 Indian reservations, and nine minor outlying islands."

While a discussion of the use the colloquial "America" is notable, it is decidedly not of the highest order in terms of understanding the topic and therefore, only worthy of passing mention in the lede. Based on this and other edits - I'm only beginning to assess them - the editor apparently has a jaundiced of the United States that, again, is not of the utmost importance regarding the subject and may be motivated politically. As I review these additional edits, I will discuss them here, including any necessary reverts. Allreet (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

You don't need to discuss those edits on the talk page unless someone objects to your revert. I for one do not object to it. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I concur. There is no way that text would ever last in a key article. freshacconci (✉) 15:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The original editor's text is not "a jaundiced view" but simply vandalism. It also includes inaccuracies: For ex., there's no majority in any of the five major unincorporated territories who "awaits admission to the union for over a century in some cases and thereby unable to participate in the country’s governance." Support for that level of integration (i.e., statehood) is weak. Mason.Jones (talk)

Is the US really still the world’s “sole superpower”?

We need to take a hard look at the end of the second paragraph. It works if it was still the 1990s right now, but I’m not sure it’s the most encyclopedic way to end the paragraph in today’s world. China and Russia could reasonably be considered superpowers also.

I think it would be best to extend the sentence by replacing the period with a comma, and an additional phrase that states the US superpower status in the current context.

I added an inline notice to flag it and draw attention to it. Please discuss how to improve or make sense of it. I hope this can be resolved peacefully. Thanks Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 05:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Consider this: The United States spends more on defense than the next 11 countries combined. Cullen328 (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but defense spending is just one piece of the pie. If you consider global trade and economy, through recent decades China has caught up and/or surpassed the US in most meaningful measures. There are factors such as political power, and many others as well.

I’m more trying to point towards the full big-picture perspective, since that’s the aim of the lead paragraphs of an article as broad as “United States” Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources which state that the United States is not the world's sole superpower, then I'd like to see it, and we could refactor that sentence. But I think that the vast majority of sources are going to concur that the United States retains that position. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I would point towards the lead sections of the WP articles titled “hyperpower”, “foremost power” and “potential superpower”. There are very well-sourced statements (with some having as many as 5-7 inline citations at the end of the sentence) in very prominent spots of the lead paragraphs indicating that the US ceased being a clear sole superpower about 10-15 years ago. To be completely fair, I haven’t made any edits on those pages before. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I have looked over that entire article, and I can comfortably say that most of the citations are opinion sources. Sure, they are reliable enough due to their publishing institutions to not be considered WP:SOAPBOX, but after reflecting upon it, we can just go with the historical consensus until there is overwhelming evidence suggesting that China, Russia, (perhaps even India) are superpowers. You can see my unnecessarily rough page comments here, but this is a subject of controversy and we must go with the most recent period of general consensus : The US is a superpower. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not disputing the notion that the US is currently a superpower. I apologize if my idea was accidentally inferred by anyone that way.

I just think that the original ending of the paragraph wasn’t the best full reflection of the US current status in the global community, because it was based on the immediate post-Cold War, and doesn’t account for what has happened since then. As I said previously, it’s perfect for the 90s, and maybe even early 2000s, but the US doesn’t dominate in everything nowadays as much as it used to.

I would say they still are the most powerful nation, but to put it in sports terms, the score has caught up and their lead on other countries is not as big. And I think the ending of that paragraph should reflect that, because the 2022 global geopolitical landscape is far different than 1992 and even 2002. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

That makes more sense now seeing your inclusion that way. Go ahead and be bold with it. Just make sure there are some citations/resources in the 21st century sections detailing this so that a citation doesn't have to be included in the lead. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Superpower status

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to not include the sentence. Despite the small time-frame of respondents, I consider it highly unlikely that a big shift in consensus would ensue given the vast majority and the fact nobody has responded in favor of 'Yes'. If the requester is of the opinion that the RfC has not yet run its course, you can always re-open it of course. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 13:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Should the article contain the sentence "In the 21st century, the U.S. is still a superpower, but American influence has diminished with increasing globalization."? This sentence does not currently have a source in the article, so if the answer is yes, a source should be included. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why there's an rfc for a source request. Was there an effort involved in finding sources? Is this point contested in any way ? Moxy- 22:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I saw my disputed tag removed several times, so I though there was some pushback against my dispute of the United States' declining global status. I also asked (and looked) for sources, but I could not find much outside of mainstream media suggesting this. Such a complex topic should also tread lightly around that area. But if this RfC was opened inappropriately, I will close it. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

We could link American decline and use sources from there.....or is the super power the problem? Moxy- 22:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I suppose this makes a valid viewpoint. I'd personally remove this sentence altogether, but I think getting consensus that a decline is happening should be foremost. If there is consensus, then yes, American decline should be linked. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• Unreferenced information may always be challenged and removed, and the burden of finding suitable reference material then falls upon any editor who may wish to include it. That doesn't really require an RfC. Unrelatedly, I think that type of assertion is too complex a subject to try to distill into a single sentence, even if references can be found. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  The article discusses military declined with numbers and sources.... but I think the point of globalization also covers the cultural influence that many say has diminished.... that isn't sourced or mentioned in the article. Moxy- 23:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  • I'd toss the comment since there's no possible source that could adequately address the claim. American influence in what? Still a superpower by what authority or measurement? The claim is too vague as is to be included, just my two cents. Of course it's totally possible to be reframed and rephrased in a way that makes it easier to back up with sources, someone could do that and it'd be fine. As it stands I'd say it doesn't belong in the article. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 00:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

    On topic: Yes this does not need an RfC strictly speaking. Be bold and go for it. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 00:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I think if we do go the way of removing the sentence, then the end of the Soviet Union dissolution sentence (which was previously the last sentence of the paragraph) should acknowledge that this “sole superpower” status is reflective of the immediate post-Cold War geopolitical landscape, perhaps ending the sentence with “for the time being” or “at the time”. Because as it was originally constructed, readers would default into thinking that US global power/influence compared to the world is the same now as it was in the early 1990s. If we go back to having the Soviet dissolution sentence as the final sentence, ending it with “for the time being” or “at the time” or something of similar effect puts a neutral closure to it, and allows the reader to research and decide for themselves, instead of reasonably presuming based on the wording that the US is still as dominant now as they were 30 years ago. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

That may be unnecessary, because it is accurate that the US still is the sole superpower. The question of decline, in whatever sense, if any, cannot really be answered until historians look back on it decades later. Senorangel (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

This is what I mean by it being completely impossible to quantify, hence the comment should be deleted entirely. You could look to escape this into the future but even in the future it's just going to be a subjective viewpoint based on their own sense of time and location. Similarly, it's impossible to assess Mrbeastmodeallday's matter of the USA being as dominant as she was 30 years ago by any satisfying metrics (to gain a majority consensus on it anyway) ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 02:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Alternatively we could write another paragraph succeeding the sentence delineating why some (sources from American decline) would say that the US is no longer the sole superpower, or something along these lines. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 02:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I would rather not do that, honestly. This article is already too long, and the lead probably shouldn't dive into this any more than it has already. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Well then what is something that is “concensusable” regarding the current status of the United States? Because the history paragraph definitely needs some type of appropriate closure, and the previous last sentence (now the second-to-last sentence) about the USSR dissolution is outdated as a closure.

And it doesn’t necessarily have to be along the linear spectrum regarding US geopolitical global dominance and superpower status.

It can be about something more prominent and/or relevant to the 21st century United States.

Does anyone have ideas? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Please also consider the Wikipedia article titled “American decline” (which I have not edited before), and its theses. How objectively neutral is that article? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 08:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

While the United States has enormous soft power, I typically view its claim to superpower status as doubtful at best. Henry Kissinger has claimed that American influence has steadily declined since the demise of the Soviet Union. Per the main article:

• "Other international relations theorists such as Henry Kissinger theorize that because the threat of the Soviet Union no longer exists to formerly American-dominated regions such as Western Europe and Japan, American influence is only declining since the end of the Cold War because such regions no longer need protection or have necessarily similar foreign policies as the United States." Dimadick (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I have kept this RfC open for a little while longer just to judge the general consensus. Perhaps we could decide on the following :

1. Yes The sentence should be included and given a source or link to American decline.
2. No The sentence should not be included.

CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• No per my above explanation that the term is impossible to adequately define with broad consensus. I back this claim up by the fact that consensus has not been clearly established here despite our best efforts. I personally take this as an indication that the sentence doesn't belong on an encyclopedic entry. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 15:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
• No I essentially agree with the above comment. The sentence is uncited and in Wikipedia's voice. Yet it's clearly a debatable and potentially contentious opinion, as well as ambiguous as to its context. Levelledout (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• No -- I had rephrased the sentence slightly from the original, but I still think the sentence does not belong at all, because there is no consensus for it, and it's a subjective measurement. The goal of the lead should be to include only statements that are objective, which is why we state that the United States ranks high in different international measurements (since the fact that the US ranks high in these different measurements are objective), and why we state that the US has a high incarceration rate (because that's objectively true, based on the reported incarceration rate). In the lack of any consensus by historians, whether the United States continues to be the world's sole superpower is subjective. One option could be to instead include objective measurements indicating the United State's influence is declining, if there are such measurements available (perhaps we can observe that China's GDP is near the US'). -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t necessarily say the sentence needs to say the words “American decline” or similar, since that is a bit sharp if a claim and likely contentious. However, I think that that Wikipedia page is a good resource in which to inform this conversation in terms of both general ideas and reference sources. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Statement is easily sourceable. Can't believe no one even tried.....that said best to remove as its clear the average person does not understand the meaning. Moxy- 02:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• No The United States has not been a superpower since the Gulf War. Dimadick (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• No I don't get how an unsourced statement of this magnitude could even be in dispute. It's not a given and it's an extraordinary claim that would require multiple sources. Re-wording doesn't help either because you'd still need sources. I wasn't pleased with the "sole superpower" assertion either. Of course it is a superpower, but any such statement requires sources. Another issue for another day. Allreet (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2022 (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.

Photo montage for religion suggestion

If there’s any one section of this article that should have an image but doesn’t, it’s probably the religion section.

Not surprisingly, there’s a tagline note saying something to the effect of “no religion image because it’s too contentious and implies favoritism”.

But what if we have a montage highlighting the main religions just like the image of the big four US sports at the top of the sports section?

Catholic and Protestant would both certainly need to be represented. Any suggestions for a good “signature” image to include from each of those religions for a montage?

Should we include any other religions in said montage? And if so, which? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I still agree with “no religion image because it’s too contentious and implies favoritism”. HiLo48 (talk) 06:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is way too long as it is. We shouldn't make it any longer. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest using the image of a mosque or a Hindu temple to point to religious pluralism. Dimadick (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe this would fall under WP:NOTADVOCACY, Wikipedia isn't meant to push particular religions or viewpoints over another, especially not in such a minority case. Including the minority case only on the basis of promoting religious pluralism seems highly indicative of political/religious motivations which we should avoid here. Not trying to assume bad faith from you or anything, just explaining my train of thought. As for the initial request, I agree with Rockstone35 that the article is already long enough as is and including the image would not significantly contribute to the article in my opinion. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 12:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

A nightmare to maintain. The data, if I'm reading this correctly, is now eight years old. Of course it should cover all major religions. Not essential to the main article. If it is considered pertinent, text could do the job as well and would be easier to source and update. Allreet (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention there's Religion in the United States which has more up-to-date information and is separately maintained there. We could link it in this article if it's not already linked. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 13:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

“Religion in the US” article is linked as a “main article” hatnote atop the religion section Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know who put this image at the top of my initial query. If you did, please replace my signature at the bottom with yours (just type four horizontal squiggly lines to do it automatically), and then delete this notice.

PICK ME - I AM IMFORMATIVE....
Church, synagogue, or mosque attendance by state (2014)

  ≥50% attending weekly

  45-49% attending weekly

  40-44% attending weekly

  35-39% attending weekly

  30-34% attending weekly

  25-29% attending weekly

  20-24% attending weekly

  15-19% attending weekly

Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy: This one's for you. Also, please be so kind to add an edit summary when you add pictures and such please. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 21:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

LOL ... Moxy- 00:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

off my watchkist...to many marionettes. Moxy- 00:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy: I just helped the guy find who put the picture up..? ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 01:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how images help the reader to understand the section in a way the text doesn't. Images aren't supposed to be decorative, they're they to convey additional information that the text is unable to do, and I can't see how images for religion can do that in this context. We're not explaining what a mosque is, or a church etc, there are other articles for that. I could be mistaken but how does an image montage add encyclopaedic info to this top level article that can't easily be conveyed by the text? Canterbury Tail talk 21:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)