Misplaced Pages

Talk:United States: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:35, 13 June 2022 edit2600:1700:4261:90b0:58f1:9f0b:85b2:3145 (talk) →About this whole situation: grammar fixTag: Reverted← Previous edit Revision as of 21:08, 8 January 2025 edit undoToadspike (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers9,866 edits →Do we really need nominal and PPP GDP in the infobox?: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}} {{talk header}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{Talk header|archive_age=30|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ap|long}}
{{Vital article|topic=Geography|level=3|class=B|link=Misplaced Pages:Vital articles|anchor=Countries (40 articles)}}
{{Ds/talk notice|ap|long}}
{{FAQ}}
{{section sizes}}
{{American English|date=September 2011}} {{American English|date=September 2011}}
{{Article history {{Article history
Line 110: Line 107:
|dykentry=... that the ''']''' accounts for 37% of all ]? |dykentry=... that the ''']''' accounts for 37% of all ]?
|dyknom= Template:Did you know nominations/United States |dyknom= Template:Did you know nominations/United States
|otd1date=2008-07-04|otd1link=Misplaced Pages:Selected anniversaries/July 4 |otd1date=2008-07-04|otd1oldid=223021097
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1= {{WikiProject banner shell |class=B |collapsed=yes |vital=yes |listas=United States |1=
{{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=Top|listas=United States|past-collaboration=yes}} {{WikiProject United States |importance=Top |past-collaboration=yes|USGov=yes}}
{{WikiProject Countries|class=B {{WikiProject North America |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Countries}}
|b1<!-- Referencing and citations. -->=yes
|b2<!-- Coverage and accuracy. -->=yes
|b3<!-- Structure. -->=yes
|b4<!-- Grammar and style. -->=yes
|b5<!-- Supporting materials. -->=yes
|b6<!-- Accessibility. -->=yes}}
{{WikiProject North America|class=B|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=Top|USGov=yes|USGov-importance=Low|category=}}
{{WP1.0|class=B|importance=Top|v0.5=pass|category=Geography|VA=yes|coresup=yes}}
}} }}
{{press|date=August 17, 2009|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Misplaced Pages-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html|title=The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008|org='']''|title2=Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed|org2=]|url2=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23354613|date2=July 18, 2013|accessdate2=July 18, 2013}} {{Press|date=August 17, 2009|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Misplaced Pages-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html|title=The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008|org='']''|title2=Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed|org2=]|url2=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23354613|date2=July 18, 2013|accessdate2=July 18, 2013}}
{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes| {{Banner holder|collapsed=yes|
{{Backwardscopy {{Backwardscopy
Line 145: Line 134:
|bot=LivingBot |bot=LivingBot
}} }}
{{Outline of knowledge coverage|the United States}}

{{All time pageviews|237}} {{All time pageviews|237}}
{{Annual report|], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]}} {{Annual report|], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]}}
{{Top 25 report|Apr 7 2013|Apr 28 2013|May 5 2013|Sep 8 2013|Oct 6 2013|until|Feb 23 2014|Mar 9 2014|until|Mar 30 2014|Apr 27 2014|May 4 2014|Sep 21 2014|Oct 12 2014|Nov 9 2014|Nov 16 2014|Nov 30 2014|until|Dec 14 2014|Jan 25 2015|Apr 19 2015|May 10 2015|Nov 8 2015|Mar 27 2016|Apr 10 2016|May 15 2016|May 22 2016}}
{{Top 25 report
| April 7, 2013
| April 28, 2013
| May 5, 2013
| September 8, 2013
| October 6, 2013 | until | February 23, 2014
| March 9, 2014 | until | March 30, 2014
| April 27, 2014
| May 4, 2014
| September 21, 2014
| October 12, 2014
| November 9, 2014
| November 16, 2014
| November 30, 2014
| December 7, 2014
| December 14, 2014
| January 25, 2015
| April 19, 2015
| May 10, 2015
| November 8, 2015
| March 27, 2016
| April 10, 2016
| May 15, 2016
| May 22, 2016
}}
{{Annual readership}} {{Annual readership}}
{{section sizes}}
{{Xreadership|days=60}}
}} }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=/Archive index|mask=/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=/Archive index|mask=/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes
Line 180: Line 145:
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}} |archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize=125K |maxarchivesize=50K
|counter=102 |counter=116
|minthreadsleft=4 |minthreadsleft=2
|algo=old(30d) |algo=old(30d)
|archive=Talk:United States/Archive %(counter)d |archive=Talk:United States/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}

<!-- Talk page begins here. --> <!-- Talk page begins here. -->


== Not mention of slavery , inequality in lead ? ==
== US flag ==


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 ? ] (]) 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.
The US flag uses the pantone colors now, instead of the Standard Color Reference ones used previously, why has this change happened? Was this a mistake? ] (]) 22:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
:We follow ] and if they are mostly negative or positive we represent that. Which country articles did you feel are too negative? ] (]) 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 .
:{{Re|WikiMakersOfOurTime}} Is this related to content in this article that you want to change? (Or perhaps in ]?)
::Lead only contain info about Abolishment and thats it . ] (]) 06:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:Or are you just asking a general question? If you're just asking a question, it should be done at ]. This talk page is only for specific suggestions for improving the article ]. ––] <span style="border-radius:7em;padding:2.5px 3.5px;background:#005bed;font-size:76%">]</span> 03:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
:::Because it is abolished already. ]&nbsp;]<sup>]</sup> 07:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yeah maybe this would work better in US flag. ] (]) 04:32, 2 April 2022 (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 .. ] (]) 21:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
It looks like the original file "<code>]</code>" is using the wrong color for blue. This appears to have been corrected with "<code>]</code>". ] (]) 03:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::Slavery is mentioned in the civil war sentence. ] (]) 06:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::It is mention only 2 times only as reason for civil war and then it just abolised .
:It has now been changed back but its not really wrong, it’s just two different ways for the color of the flag. One uses Standard Color Reference, the other uses Pantone. ] (]) 00:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
::::::Whole american poltical , economical and social system Was shaped by this. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 12:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
== Superpower in Lede ==
::::::::Also find it nuts that the slave trade isn’t mentioned in the ledes of loads of Caribbean countries like ] and ] ] (]) 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).
The inclusion of the word "superpower"in the lede is up to debate considering the enormous variety of political opinions surrounding the topic/lack of consensus on classification of "superpower". Couldn't this article take a more neutral stance and replace the term superpower with the term "dominant power"? ] (]) 19:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::::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. ] (]) 00:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:Is there sources for this term? In many countries it has a very different meaning then what is proposed here. . <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>-] 22:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::Again, slavery is mentioned. ] (]) 03:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::Perhaps it can be worded something like this?
::::::::::Again there is difference between .
::"The Spanish–American War and World War I established the U.S. as a world power, and the aftermath of World War II left the United States and the Soviet Union as the world's '''dominant nations'''. During the Cold War, both sides fought in the Korean and Vietnam Wars but avoided direct military conflict. They competed in the Space Race, culminating in the 1969 American spaceflight that first landed humans on the Moon. The Soviet Union's dissolution in 1991 ended the Cold War, leaving the United States as the world's '''preeminent power'''."
::::::::::"mentioning slavery in the context of the Civil War and its abolition."
::I chose the the term "preeminent" because ] article uses the term as synonymous with "superpower". If sources are still needed, I will begin looking for some. Comments anyone? ] (]) 23:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::And
:::The United States is well regarded as the world's sole superpower -- see more at ]. I wouldn't change it to "dominate nation", nor would I support that. If you plan to do so though, you should start an RFC beforehand. -- ]] 23:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::"mentioning slavery in the context of how it shaped american culture , economy , values , politics and how imprtant it was and it is now " ] (]) 09:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::: 33 000 000 000 usd for Voiaki of the Ukraina;
:::::::::::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". ] (]) 19:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
: «Rien ne va plus» ?] (]) 16:02, 2 June 2022 (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.
== See also spam ==
::::::::::::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.
Can we slow down on the see also section links. These are all linked from the main article or linked in the article already.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>-] 19:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::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. ] (]) 03:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Many of them aren’t already linked. But I’ll check and remove the ones that are ] (]) 19:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC) :::::::::::::Also, I was mistaken in claiming that slavery wasn’t mentioned at all. Apologies! ] (]) 03:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::See my reply to CMD below, I’d appreciate your thoughts. ] (]) 03:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

{{outdent}} In the body, {{tq|Along the eastern seaboard, settlers trafficked African slaves through the Atlantic slave trade.}} is a good opportunity for some African-American social history.
A lot of it is also restructuring and recategorizing hatnote links that were already there to better match the different relevance levels among them. ] (]) 19:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Something like

* {{tq|African slaves primarily worked on cash crop plantations.}} and a bit on culture/cultural diversion
:We now have four sections in this talk page related to your edits. It's very hard to follow all your edits with no summaries. Can we pay more attention to what is needed over editing as fast as you can. Lots to review...... during the last GA review we removed exactly what is being added. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>-] 19:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
In the revolutionary war section:
::So anyone have ] inslated?...use that for all the duplinks then go over all the sub articles of sub articles that are linked and unlink things like FM /AM ect.. ? <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>-] 21:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
* {{tq|African American soldiers fought on both the British and the American sides.}}
:::Will try to go over this in a few days...will drop duplicate links if appropriate and try fixing the sea of blue....and fix hatnotes as per ] and ]. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>-] 23:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
* Some description of the ] however unsure about placement.

== Military alliances in lead section ==

{{ping|Snowie81}} {{ping|CollectiveSolidarity}}
This thread is for a discussion to take place regarding the merits of putting military alliance information in the lead section. I have tagged the two editors, but others are free to contribute to the conversation as well. ] (]) 00:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

:Hello there @]. I am taking an abrupt ], so I cannot discuss this topic at the moment. However, I am gladly open to discussing this in a few weeks. ] (]) 02:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

:There are presently 30 members of ]. The Misplaced Pages articles for the 29 other nations all mention NATO membership in the lead. Why shouldn't we do the same here? (I don't have particularly strong feelings about the other alliances in question, but NATO at least should be included.) ] 13:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

This is primarily in reference to mentions of other specific countries with which the US allied, and not NATO. ] (]) 13:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
::I have deleted mention of U.S. military bases abroad in the lead. Total military spending is the sufficient criterion, and U.S. military bases in Germany, the Philippines, South Korea, Spain, etc., were invited by the governments in every case. Selective inferences about U.S. forces abroad are polemical and have no place in the lead. ] (]) 17:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

== Photos of federal government leaders ==

The way that the current photo setup is with only ] and ] appears to be giving unbalanced and undue weight for the executive branch.

In the United States, all three branches work alongside each other and also “]” each other so none become too powerful.

In general, the media heavily biases in favor of the executive branch because of the way that popular elections work. However, Misplaced Pages is supposed to represent ] and balance based on how the government actually is, not based on how much the average person knows about the government.

As such, I propose that the leader of each branch be displayed with equal prominence in a combined row/column (just like the ]/]/] photo row) or as a montage.

At an absolute minimum, it would show Biden and ] as the leader of the executive and judicial branches respectively. For the legislative branch, technically Harris is the highest-ranking leader but the only real/actual power the Vice President has comes from breaking ties in the Senate, which rarely occurs and even if it does the VP may be busy with other things. In the general day-to-day functions, Pelosi is generally considered the leader of the legislative branch.

For what it’s worth, those are the four government leaders implicated in the infobox.

I’m fully supportive of a ]/]/]/] combination, or Biden/Pelosi/Roberts.

If it’s Biden/Harris/Roberts, I wouldn’t be in full agreement, because again that still appears to give too much weight to the executive branch and not enough to the legislative branch. From the understanding of the average American or non-American person, it’s likely that Harris (and the VP position in general) is much more strongly associated with Biden and the executive branch than the legislative branch.

As a side note, I realize that Biden and Harris are in the “parties and elections” section, which obviously wouldn’t be an appropriate location for John Roberts to appear because he’s not elected. I’m open to the idea of adding an individual portrait of Roberts to the section that discusses the judicial branch. However, there is also a potential concern that there would be too many images cluttering the government section if there are multiple leaders’ photos split up individually. If that’s a legitimate issue, then doing the combined photo row/montage and placing it in a section that overviews or details all branches of government may be best. ] (]) 18:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

:Per neutrality, if "the media heavily biases in favor of the executive branch," that's what this article should do. ] (]) 20:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

{{outdent}}
{{multiple image
| align = right
| direction = horizontal
| caption_align = center
| perrow = 2
| image1 = Joe Biden presidential portrait (cropped).jpg
| width1 = 100
| caption1 = <small>] ]</small>
| alt1 = Portrait of Joe Biden
| image2 = Kamala Harris Vice Presidential Portrait (cropped).jpg
| width2 = 100
| caption2 = <small>] ]</small>
| alt2 = Portrait of Kamala Harris
| image3 = Official photo of Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2019.jpg
| width3 = 100
| caption3 = <small>] ]</small>
| alt3 = Portrait of Nancy Pelosi
| image4 = File-Official roberts CJ cropped.jpg
| width4 = 100
| caption4 = <small>] ]</small>
| alt4 = Portrait of John Roberts
}}
{{ping|The Four Deuces}} I’m not completely sold on that idea. The way I’ve understood the topic of neutrality in Misplaced Pages is that the article should present subjects based on what and how they are, and not necessarily based on how others (including media) are presenting those subjects.

The infobox of this page does a very very good job of adhering to that principle, with all four names in roughly equal prominence/significance, particularly when you compare Biden and Roberts.

Biden and Roberts is the best example because they’re both indisputably the sole highest leader of their respective government branch, but Biden obviously has much more popularity and media attention.

If there’s a clear paradigm where the executive branch has some type of unchecked power over the judicial branch (which is common in less stable republics/democracies around the world) then the current format makes sense. Like if Biden can fire any or all Supreme Court justices at will, for example.

Furthermore, just showing Biden and Harris indirectly implicates that they lead the whole government, and that they are the most powerful figures. The first statement is not true because they only lead the executive branch, and to some lesser arguable extent the legislative branch. And the second statement is also a matter of subjectivity, we’ve seen presidents be very limited when one or both houses of Congress are controlled by the opposing party. The Supreme Court decided the 2000 election, and the SC Chief Justice administers the Presidential oath of office at inauguration, so there’s definitely not a unilateral power that the president has over the other branches that goes unchecked. ] (]) 22:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

:I'm okay with adding Pelosi and Roberts. However, there isn't a lot of room in that section. I've made a collage that might be suitable, facilitated by reducing image sizes somewhat and simplifying captions. I'll place the template above your recent post. It just fits that section on my wide screen. ] (]) 08:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

::{{ping|Dhtwiki}} Oh wow that montage looks amazing! Thank you for setting it up! That looks like a great fit for the article!

::One minor question/request: is it possible to crop Roberts’ image so all four headshots are roughly similar proportions? He’s way zoomed out compared to the others. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)</span>

:::I'm sure there's a way to obtain a cropped photo, somehow. There aren't many closeups at , other than caricatures or of him on the DC federal appellate court. ] (]) 22:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

::::FYI, I was able to find the cropped version, which had been already produced, on the same page as the previous portrait, under "other versions". It did not show when I searched on Roberts's name. ] (]) 03:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

:{{u|Mrbeastmodeallday}}, when you say the way you have understood neutrality in Misplaced Pages obviously isdifferent, you should provide a quote. The policy says, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, '''in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources'''." (My emphasis.) If reliable sources, in this case the media, "heavily biases in favor of the executive branch," then so should the article. Another editor may believe that the media does not give enough attention to the executive. The assumption is that experts are better able to determine what weight should be given than Misplaced Pages editors are. Therefore, Misplaced Pages editors should assign weight according to the emphasis given in reliable sources. ] (]) 01:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

{{outdent}}
I’m not sure honestly. When it comes to WP, I’m much more of a “spirit of the law” type of person than “letter of the law”. I’m not well-versed in the rulebook, but I tend to have a solid big-picture understanding of the processes and what the rules and policies are there for, and not necessarily what they say.

However, on the contrary, I must add this devil’s advocate question, on what grounds or reasoning does Biden and especially Harris get to have their image represented, and Pelosi and Roberts don’t?

Is it only because of their popular “celebrity” status among politicians whereas Roberts is more under-the-radar because of his position?

You see, if this article was about something like “media coverage of US government” or “death threats against US government leaders” then I’m all on board for featuring Biden and mentioning little to nothing about Roberts, because for those contexts there’s clearly much more action and significance pertaining to the Biden and the exec branch than to Roberts and the Court.

But the topic of this article is the United States, and in particular the section in question is about “US government”, on a functional day-to-day level, who has what powers, who’s calling the shots.

Not who has name/face recognition or who’s on TV the most or who has the biggest social media page. Just because there are more people who know that Biden leads the executive branch than there are people who know that Roberts leads the judicial branch, that doesn’t matter, because the topic of US government in this context isn’t about popularity or cultural impact or media attention. It’s about government structure, government processes, etc. Again, who’s leading, who’s making decisions, and constitutionally none of the three individual branches have unilateral unlimited power over any of the others. Biden is the clear leader of a branch that more or less represents 1/3 of the government. Roberts is also the clear leader of a branch that more or less represents 1/3 of the government. Harris is the assistant to one of those leaders, and doesn’t really have much official actual inherent power unless Biden delegates it, or if there’s a tie in the Senate (which is very rare, it’s just there as a tiebreaker, like “hey we gotta have some uninvolved government official responsible for casting a tie-breaking vote, the VP is a convenient choice”, so quite frankly it’s incidental).

To put Harris’ image and not Roberts is unencyclopedic because the weight of their significance in US government is unbalance and out of proportion. Also, mind you Harris is most likely the assistant of the executive branch for 4 or 8 years. Roberts was the #1 top leader of the judicial branch for 15 years before Harris’ image on this page was even thinkable, and he will continue to lead his branch until he either retires or dies. ] (]) 04:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

If I must cite WP policy, here: ] ] (]) 04:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

:In Misplaced Pages discussions, editors may refer to essays, provided that they do not hold them out as consensus or policy. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>-] 21:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

:::Part of the issue may be that there’s not a good subsection to show Roberts. There’s the “parties and elections” section, which is easy to feature Biden and Harris, and to a lesser extent Pelosi. But Roberts is obviously not involved with parties and elections. I will look into possibly reformatting the gov section if possible, I’m surprised there’s not a “courts” section. ] (]) 04:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

::::Please read ] on how to thread posts, to make it clear who you're replying to. Alternatively, there's the {{tlx|outdent}} template for when indenting would cause unsightly scrunching when you add a lot of text.
::::I now wouldn't include Roberts's photo. As you say, it's out of place in that section. Nor would I know whom to add as a fourth photo. One candidate would be Schumer, but while he's the majority leader, he's that just barely, and the actual majority party in the senate is the Republicans, Sanders and King being Independents. In any case, there doesn't seem to be much consensus for adding photos, at this point. ] (]) 05:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
{{clear}}

==Theater section image==
Obviously there are people here who seem to have something against theater. Why else would anyone insist that this be the only major subsection not to be represented by an image? It’s really this simple&mdash;either keep the current constructive placeholder&mdash;or find a better picture to insert to represent this very important section. ] (]) 23:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

{{ping|Castncoot}}

To be clear:

1) Firstly, there are several other “imageless” subsections in this article. (Energy, environment, language, race and ethnicity)

2) Secondly, you are NOT the first person in recent history to attempt to add a theater image only to have it reverted. You just happen to be the most persistent about “un-reverting” it. Most people take it to talk page after the first reversion, or just leave it be, because there’s usually a legitimate overarching reason rooted in WP policy and procedure; ]. Nobody out here has a personal vendetta against you or against theater.

{{wiktionary|where there's smoke, there's fire}}

(Mind you, I say all of this from the perspective of being one of those people who previously attempted to add a theater image and was reverted – this was about a month ago)

] (]) 09:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Please insert your perspective/reason {{ping|E-960}}.

I’m attempting to tag any and all other editors involved in this theater image fiasco, to help out OP.

Looking at edit history, {{ping|Moxy}} was also involved in reverting a theater image attempt.

And {{ping|E-960}} was the one who also reverted mine back on March 17.

So that’s two for E-960 and one for Moxy. For the two of you editors, please explain as best you can the situation and reason.

:Why did this section lacking sources even get added ? Really need experienced editors monitoring the article. WP:DUE = do we really need a 5th picture of New York ?<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>-] 20:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
{{quotation |Although earlier styles of theater such as ]s and ] acts have disappeared from the landscape, theater still remains a popular contemporary American art form.{{fact|date=May 2022}} Broadway productions still entertain millions of theatergoers even as productions have become more elaborate and expensive.{{fact|date=May 2022}} At the same time, theater has also served as a platform for expression and as a venue for identity exploration for underrepresented, minority communities.{{fact|date=May 2022}} These communities have formed their own companies and created their own genres of works. (], founded in 1965, was the first ] group.<ref name="Huang2008">{{cite book | editor = Guiyou Huang | date = 30 December 2008 | title = The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Asian American Literature | publisher = ABC-CLIO | pages = 323– | isbn = 978-1-56720-736-1 | oclc = 1125820379 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=d5RxDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA323}}</ref>{{Relevance inline|date=May 2022}}) Notable contemporary American playwrights include ], ], ], ], ], and ]. Smaller urban theaters have remained a major source of innovation, while U.S. regional theaters retain an important place in theater life. In the 21st century, drama classes are widely available in American high schools and colleges; they were rarely offered in previous eras, and today many Americans first become interested in theater by enrolling in a drama course.{{fact|date=May 2022}} '']'', an online newspaper that ran from 2009 to 2013, featured a weekly column that discussed issues and trends in American theater.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://thefastertimes.com/theatertalk/ |title=Archived copy |access-date=2009-07-12 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090713175628/http://thefastertimes.com/theatertalk/ |archive-date=July 13, 2009 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>{{Relevance inline|date=May 2022}} ], an online forum, features opinions and essays by artists and academics in American theater today.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://howlround.com/about|title=About|website=Howlround.com|accessdate=May 20, 2022}}</ref>{{Self-published inline|date=May 2022}}{{Reflist-talk|closed}}}}

:{{ping|Moxy}}: Umm, if you want only experienced editors to edit this article…then why are you even here? Your only experience seems to be in picture layouts rather than contributing any significant substance to the page. Furthermore, your United States topic expertise appears to be notably poor, and your grammar sometimes leaves much to be desired. Sometimes I’m mystified why you even bother coming to this page. Nobody has challenged the references on the subtopic’s own source page itself &ndash; only you and only here&mdash;not a valid reason reason to misrepresent constructive and relevant content as being somehow illegitimate. And who cares what city is used to portray theater in America? What a nonsensical and irrational reason! Most logically that would be New York, obviously. And if a Broadway picture isn’t preferred, then why not just use the lead image for the ]’’ article? There’s also been no response so far from editor E-960. There is no valid reason for the Theater subsection not to have a constructive image.
::{{ping|Mrbeastmodeallday}}: This is the lead picture for the American Theater project, and it’s a classic, very notable, and representative picture. Why not use this?
] ] (]) 00:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Castncoot}}, if you’re talking about this image, then no, because it is not relevant and pertinent enough to the overarching topic of United States for readers, to where average readers can make an easy mental connection to where “United States” pops up in their mind. It requires explicit explanation, or further context. The image is supposed to stand as the explanation and context in its own right. I am strongly opposed for its usage in this article. Feel free to solicit other editors’ opinions on this photo if you wish, but the blunt truth is that most would also be opposed, so it may not be worth the effort of trying to ask. You can propose multiple images and the community can discuss if there are any that meet the relevant standards and guidelines. ] (]) 07:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

:Thank you for the kind words. Fell free to add back the copy pasted paragraph with sources. Can we get you to follow basics like ] and ]? Your back and forth edits have been contested by multiple editors. Can you provide any sources....pls try. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>-] 00:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The allegedly unsourced paragraph seems to be an issue with just one editor, Moxy.

However, the addition of an image requires a greater discussion because that involves at least 3-4 unique editors who have reverted theater images instead of just one.

The image is certainly igniting greater controversy. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong or bad, that just means it requires further explanation from all parties involved to work towards a concensus on the issue. ] (]) 01:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

:As per pervious talks on the matter....... section was to small for an image til the unsourced content was add to make room. As for my point of view on the image....need something that displays what theatres look like inside.... having another architectural image and of NY again in the article isn't very educational. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>-] 01:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

::Moxy, are you stonewalling here and unilaterally going to stall and hold up moving this section and article forward for as long as you can? It seems like you have concerns that are truly unique. First of all, the Theater section is not premised upon primarily describing what a theater looks like physically on the inside, any more than you would expect the Cinema section to display an image of a movie screen! Theaters and cinema screens are found all over the world, not just in the United States. Sometimes even concert halls can double as theaters depending upon the need, the context, and the economics. No, this subsection is about the CONCEPT of stage theatre in the US, and summarizing its multifaceted aspects in two paragraphs. What is wrong with the above image in this Talk page section? That is THE lead picture for the ] page, for goodness sakes. ] (]) 02:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
:::Yup " truly unique" to ask for sources. Took the time to find real sources over a Google search for words. Thank you again for the positive talk always a good time...love working for you...will let others talk about images and your editing habits.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>-] 04:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I will try my best to explain issues with attempted theater images that other editors may struggle to explain clearly: the main thing is that images in an article need to contextually illustrate the main topic of the entire article in a ]. This means the image must illustrate the United States through the lens of theater, not the other way around. At an absolute minimum, it needs to tie back to the main “mother” subject, in this case “United States”. For the “Theater in the United States” article, images should ultimately tie back to US theater or American theater. ] (]) 06:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Before responding, please allow me to present some other images from the “United States” article as an example to show you what I mean:

]
]
]
]
]
]
]
{{multiple image
| perrow = 2
| total_width = 300
| image1 = Second Photos 100 (50833233407).jpg
| image2 = LeBron James Layup (Cleveland vs Brooklyn 2018).jpg
| image3 = Mike Trout (15008092199).jpg
| image4 = Khabif-hawks2008.jpg
| footer = And even here in montage form }}
]
]
]
]
:::Which is precisely why an image of Broadway should be utilized. Broadway, just like Hollywood (Cinema section), is a decidedly American institution. And that’s what should be educated encyclopedically. Don’t you want readers globally to be educated about this fact? Why don’t you propose a couple of theater images here that you like, so I can see what images you would consider to be more pertinent to this article? ] (]) 06:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Well then we need to reach concensus on one big overarching question: does said image make the average reader with only basic general prior knowledge of theater immediately think “United States!” or “America!” when they see the image? ] (]) 06:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

For some of these previously attempted and proposed theater images, what stops the average English-reading Misplaced Pages reader from thinking, “oh that’s a city street with lights on buildings” before thinking “oh that’s the United States”?

To the average reader, “United States” is the main theme or at least a very obvious and prominent theme of all the long-standing images in this article. ] (]) 06:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

And even if the average reader thinks “oh that’s New York City” or “Oh that’s Broadway” when seeing an image long before having thoughts about the United States, (if they have US thoughts at all), then said image is not ] for this article from an encyclopedic standpoint.

It needs to be “Oh that’s America/United States” either before or in conjunction with “Oh that’s New York City” and “Oh that’s Broadway”. ] (]) 06:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to run any theater images against that standard, and if it qualifies then that’s when ] is incredibly productive and helpful for Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 06:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

::I think it’s safe to say that everyone on Earth who engages robustly with the Internet knows instinctively and immediately that an image of Times Square represents the United States, the American New Year’s Eve ball drop and American theater, and not just Midtown Manhattan- just like the Hollywood sign represents the American motion picture industry as much as it represents a district in Los Angeles. Which is why I had chosen the image that I had initially. ] (]) 06:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

For the record, that’s not a standard I created or invented.

I’m simply translating and interpreting the underlying language of the encyclopedia editors within the context of this page. ] (]) 06:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

But are there any images related to theater or Broadway that have that same level of instant “American” recognition? ] (]) 06:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

::Does LeBron James going for a lay-up on the montage in front of a sign written in Chinese scream America? That’s debatable. But I have no problem with that picture. Why does a picture have to “scream” America as much as it needs to be a legitimate representation of the American experience? I have a problem with that kind of a standard as screaming “contrived” and “artificial.” ] (]) 06:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It’s the montage combination of the four sports: basketball, American football, baseball, and hockey. Those are prominently the top four sports in the US, it’s a unique combination that plausibly makes the average reader think “those are the sports in America!”

If you have grievances against other specific images, you should bring them up as separate talk page discussions because going into that becomes a different topic that interferes with this topic at hand. ] (]) 06:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I’ve actually been wanting to change the basketball image within the montage because it’s not really the best representation of basketball. It looks like it was added by a LeBron fan, since it represents LeBron more than it really represents the sport of basketball. The hoop isn’t even really visible and nobody is actively defending. It just looks like the “LeBron James show” and other players are spectators, instead of showing basketball for what it is, two teams of players going against each other trying to put the ball in the hoop and stop the other team from putting the ball in the hoop. I’ve just been too lazy to get around to it. ] (]) 06:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Well honestly, the photos ideally should be both if possible, screaming American and being a genuine representation of the American experience. The roasted Thanksgiving Turkey photo strikes that balance perfectly. ] (]) 06:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The sports photo is a good representation of the American experience, if you look at the mass numbers of people who attend games in person, and watch on television. Particular football and baseball. That’s why the section does a good job of featuring those as “top two” sports, and then basketball and hockey. And the other sports are sort of beneath that because they’re more niche in the US. ] (]) 06:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

::And likewise, millions from within and beyond American borders attend Broadway plays annually, as the text alludes to. Just for argument’s sake- how does a picture of the Hollywood sign scream America to someone living in Nebraska any more than an image of the Great White Way? But not including a Hollywood image would be remiss. Times Square is the same way. ] (]) 07:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
:::] doesn’t exactly fit neatly into any specific section in the page. So yes, it does need to tie back to the main article topic (United States), but it also has to be relevant to something that’s actually being discussed in the text. You’ll notice that among the longstanding universally-agreed images, there’s a combination of both topical relevance and US overarching relevance. Since this page is heavily-trafficked and reviewed. ] (]) 07:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

::Or..why not just trust that the editors of ] knew what they were doing in choosing a picture of West Side Story to be the lead representative image? ] (]) 07:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
:::that page is that page and this page is this page. Generally speaking, in Misplaced Pages, things are assessed on their own merits.
Well it’s normal to see the photo and think “Hollywood, that’s in America” and maybe in between (“that’s in Los Angeles and/or California”). The process of most readers associating the photo with the United States is pretty natural and intuitive, it doesn’t really require any explanation or research for that connection to be made.

By the way, I don’t have all the answers and I don’t speak on behalf of Misplaced Pages, I’m just one editor. Some of these questions and issues are best discussed in a separate thread and/or with the broader talk page community. ] (]) 07:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

::Well, it’s just you and me on this forum now. Do you have an objection to keeping the lead picture of the Theater in the United States picture as a placeholder for now for the Theater section of this United States page? Whether it’s ideal is debatable, but it’s certainly acceptable and non-controversial, as evidenced by its acceptance as the flagship image of that topic page. ] (]) 07:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see an obvious lead image on ]. The first image I see is a man in the “early history” section and that doesn’t appear to be a true lead image for that article, and it almost certainly would get no support for this article. Please clarify if you can.
] (]) 07:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

{{UStheater}} I don’t know what browser you’re using, but this is the sidebar lead image that I see using my browser. Obviously I’m just talking about using the actual image and caption, and not the other supporting features. ] (]) 07:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I found the image higher in the thread while you were pulling it up, and posted a reply there, I’ll copy/paste that reply here: ] (]) 07:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
{{ping|Castncoot}}: “if you’re talking about this image, then no, because it is not ] of United States for readers, to where average readers can make an easy mental connection to where “United States” pops up in their mind. It requires explicit explanation, or further context. The image is supposed to stand as the explanation and context in its own right. I am strongly opposed for its usage in this article. Feel free to solicit other editors’ opinions on this photo if you wish, but the blunt truth is that most would also be opposed, so it may not be worth the effort of trying to ask. You can propose multiple images and the community can discuss if there are any that meet the relevant standards and guidelines”.

] as American Founding Father ] on Broadway]]
::How about this ? ] (]) 08:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the subject of the image, so I can’t really say either way. You may want to solicit the perspective of other editors. ] (]) 08:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

{{clear}}

== Re: Reverted edits on energy policy and strategic petroleum reserves ==

Hi ], I wanted to follow up on my 19 May edit I made that you reverted for conflict of interest, since I am affiliated with the International Energy Agency which was mentioned in the edit. The IEA is an autonomous intergovernmental organization and our mission includes making clear, authoritative information available about energy security, the clean energy transition, and the energy policies of member states.

I understand the concerns about an appearance of conflict of interest, but the edit I suggested (pasted below) is purely factual and doesn't include any editorializing or self-promotion. I also believe it provides important context given current oil market instability and the two recent collective draw-downs from global strategic petroleum reserves in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. This information feels significant and noteworthy to include in the "Energy" section of this article.

For reference, my original edit read:

"The United States is a founding member of the ], which requires all member countries to maintain a ] of at least 90 days' worth of net oil imports in order to protect against unexpected supply shocks. As of February 2022, the United States' oil reserves totalled 580.87 million barrels of oil.<ref>{{Cite web |last=] |date=13 April 2022 |title=Frequently Asked Questions on Energy Security |url=https://www.iea.org/articles/frequently-asked-questions-on-energy-security |access-date=27 April 2022 |publisher=IEA |location=Paris}}</ref>"

The United States' relationship with the IEA as a founding member is also stated on the of the U.S. Department of Energy. It reads:

"'''What is the relationship between the United States and the International Energy Agency (IEA)?''' The United States is a founding member of the IEA. The organization was created in 1974 following the Arab oil embargo. Enactment of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (Pub.L. 94-163) authorized U.S. participation in the International Energy Program. United States representatives to the IEA are provided by DOE and the State Department. Today the IEA has 29 member countries that are committed to (1) take common effective measures to meet oil supply emergencies, and (2) reduce dependence on oil in the long-term. Members are required to hold strategic stocks equal to no less than 90 days of petroleum imports based on the previous year's net imports. IEA member countries coordinate their energy policies, share energy information, and cooperate in the development of national energy programs. A formal process for coordinated emergency response measures is used to assess and determine whether and in what way IEA members will respond to petroleum supply issues."<ref>{{cite web |author1=U.S. Department of Energy |title=Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Frequently Asked Questions |url=https://www.energy.gov/fecm/strategic-petroleum-reserve-3 website |website=energy.gov |publisher=U.S. Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management |access-date=24 May 2022}}</ref>

Given this context, how do you feel about my original edit? I would be happy to include a reference to the DOE site as well.

] (]) 10:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

:I suggest you read ]. From now on, I'd suggest having your edits peer-reviewed on talk pages or the COI Noticeboard per ]. Conflict of interest is a touchy subject, so I'd be especially careful when editing items centered around the IEA. Your edit appears factual, so I see no problem with this addition and would suggest another editor to add it. If you ever want to add anything else about the IEA, I would add the request at an article's talk page or use an ] Cheers! ] (]) 22:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

A couple of other Misplaced Pages-related concerns spring to mind completely independent of any conflict-of-interest issues: namely ] and ]. This is a community-based discussion, I don’t get to make unilateral judgements on how things go from here by simple virtue of being the “reverter”; I’m sure there will be other editors contributing additional ideas to this discussion. The conflict of interest, weight, and technical level are three factors that would all need to be hashed out in a concensus manner here with the greater community of editors. ] (]) 10:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

==Proposed Theater section images==
People’s thoughts? ] (]) 00:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)<br>
1) ]|thumb|], the highest-grossing American ] in history
(Non-free images not allowed on Talk pages) ] (]) 03:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

2) ] as American Founding Father ] on Broadway]]
{{clear}}

*Apparently indifferent/non-sequiturial response. I’m going to add the Hamilton image because it is an outstanding and quintessentially American representation on several levels. ] (]) 15:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
::I don't think there should be any images in the Theater section. In the article, we highlight through images only the most impactful items. in the case of the US, movies and music have a profound impact on the American society as well as the world culture... theater not so much. --] (]) 08:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
:::Where were you in response to this discussion both in this section and the one shortly above until now when you don’t seem to be getting your way? Does one individual get to nix edits that others are OK with to claim lack of consensus by permanently banning a picture in a section? I wasn’t aware that Misplaced Pages sanctioned dictatorial power. Theater impacts tens of millions of people from Broadway down to the local high school level in the US. Both ] and I have thoughtfully and carefully curated the caption. ] has also been on board on my Talk page to putting up the right picture. So who’s the obstructionist here? ] (]) 14:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
::::"dictatorial power?" really now. --] (]) 19:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I have adjusted the caption to better improve its scope, weight, and relevance as it pertains to the topic of the article (United States) ] (]) 05:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
:], sorry, simply because you agree with another editor that does not equal consensus. Btw, on a side note please see ]. Finally, when you say ''"Theater impacts tens of millions of people from Broadway down to the local high school level in the US"'' you probably are talking about Manhattan folks, like impacting people from Broadway to the Upper West Side and Greenwich, Connecticut. Broadway only impacts NY and maybe London (and when a show premieres there they call it the "European premiere"). So again, I don't think the section should have an image, having a whole section on theater is a stretch already. --] (]) 07:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

OP may be using the term Broadway as a ] for American theater on the whole, particularly professional theater. I don’t think the usage of that word in this context is geographically limited to Manhattan. Much like how ] is a metonym for American cinema, and ] is a metonym for American government. ] (]) 07:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
:I know... theater in the US is just not that much of an influene. --] (]) 09:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I think I see where you’re going with this. It’s not an issue with the image alone per se. But more about if American theater is as influential as the other cultural fields like American music, American sports, American food, American movies, etc. In the absence of some type of contextual statistics in the text detailing the scope, the different categories are implicitly and naturally on “equal footing” which may give ] to less popular topics. With that said, one way to improve the neutrality and balance of the various cultural topics among one another is to include meaningful sourced statistics on how many people are partaking in each cultural niche:

• In the sports section: “X amount of people attended a US professional sporting event in 2017, and Y amount of people watched on television in 2017”

• In the cinema section: “X amount of people watched a movie at a theater in 2017”

• In the theater section: “X amount of people attended a Broadway performance in 2017”

Something along those lines. Just by the alleged virtue of theater being “smaller” than other cultural niches, doesn’t make it inherently unworthy of inclusion. But it might be lending excessive undue weight, which can be neutralized by providing explicit figures and statistics regarding its overall size and scope in the big picture perspective of the US. ] (]) 10:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I have added a sourced statistic about Broadway show attendance in the 2018-19 season, to offer neutral perspective to readers insight about the true size and scope of the theater realm in the US ] (]) 10:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
:], at lest put an image of the ], at least people recognize that musicle, not Lin-Manuel Miranda, who most never heard of and neither did I. --] (]) 18:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Lin-Manuel Miranda is not a musical, he is the actor who portrays the main character.

I think what you are intending to compare is A) ] and B) ]. ] (]) 20:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

== ht the template for north american countries is not here? ==

Who removed the tmp {{tl|North America topic}}? --] (]) 21:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
== Maps, charts and tables ==

With the recent series of edits this article is turning into most tedious and dry country article on Misplaced Pages, with images being replaced with maps, charts and tables. I note that ] has been quite active in the recent weeks initiating a lot of the changes. The only other article that was devoid (until recently) of any meaningful images was the ] article, which only contained an endless assortment of maps (I guess some folks interested in that topic were obsessed with territorial changes or something). Here the article is starting to look like a data report, and the most obvious and well known things about the US are omitted, and replaced with trivia or someone's pet topic. --] (]) 20:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

If this is an issue, please copy/paste specific images you’d like to remove along with reasoning.

I’ve only really made significant changes to about 3-5 images out of the 30-50 total, so please be mindful of the proportionality.] (]) 20:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Be mindful that the US is very very diverse compared to most countries in many respects. Demographics, weather, food, culture, and other stuff, so it’s often difficult to capture the national perspective with an image of one example, whereas national infographic maps and graphs often portray the grand scheme much more clearly and efficiently.

Some photographic images only really represent the perspective of one region of the United States, and not the whole country.

So that is a unique challenge for this page that for most other countries is either a small issue or not an issue at all. ] (]) 20:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

So it’s not an easy apples-to-apples comparison with other countries in that regard. ] (]) 20:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
:There are things that are the timeless hallmarks of America, which cut across everything: Grand Canyon, Harvard, Hollywood, George Washington, Martin Luther King Jr. Mark Twain, and so on, for music you could add a well thought image about Jazz, which kicked off the whole popular culture movement which evolved over the decades, instead of some boring Grammy museum image. Same for performing arts, sorry but Lin-Manuel Miranda is not it, however West Side Story is an iconic example of an American musical, which captures the diversity of America experience. It just takes some though, instead of converting the entire article into charts, maps and tables, and adding random pictures which represent someone's pet topic rather than what's really noteworthy about the US. --] (]) 21:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
:: I’m in full agreement with you on this piece {{ping|E-960}}“There are things that are the timeless hallmarks of America, which cut across everything: Grand Canyon, Harvard, Hollywood, George Washington, Martin Luther King Jr. Mark Twain, and so on,” That seems to be a good criteria by which we can judge and select whether an image belongs. Judging the maps, graphs, and tables is bit more nuanced and different. But for “image vs. image”, let’s start with that. ] (]) 19:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
*These mass changes, implemented over series of edits, are impossible to keep up with. Such dramatic changes on an article like this should be discussed first. I'm tempted to find some version of the article from two months ago or whatever and just revert back to it. ] 16:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
::I re-added a couple of the old images that were removed, so it's not all charts and maps. --] (]) 17:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
::*] perhaps it might be a good option if you take a step back, within the last month or so you went all in on this article changing everything according to your preferences, I'm not sure the outcome was optimal. --] (]) 18:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
:::{{ping|E-960}} As far as I know, I didn’t change anything based on personal preference, the changes I’ve made are rooted in the spirit of WP/encyclopedic concerns and improvements. If you know of specific changes that you feel are the product of my personal preference over encyclopedic improvement, please indicate to me, and I’d be more than happy to discuss them with you. I’d like to help fix and improve the issues, but unfortunately I can’t do that if I don’t know what the issues are. ] (]) 18:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

:Article quality has declined greatly recently. ] (]) 00:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

== Restore article ==

Think it best to restore the article to before the pass 1000 plus edits....that have lead to 10 ongoing talks above....disregard for past talks...mass over linking .....seas of blue....image changes...bare urls.. etc. Impossible to keep track of the mass changes that have caused multiple disputes with talks being bulldozed and reverts simply being re-implemented. As noted above by multiple editors, the article has seen a mass change not for the better. We have talk after talk starting before others are resolved. What do others think?<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>-] 01:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

:'''Support''' as the current version is not an improvement. ––] <span style="border-radius:7em;padding:2.5px 3.5px;background:#005bed;font-size:76%">]</span> 03:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' – There have been both good major edits and bad major edits. As a community, we can call out and collectively improve the bad ones. A blanket restoration unequivocally wipes the progress and improvement made by the good edits. Whether any significant edit stays or goes should be judged on its own merits and not arbitrarily removed as part of an all-in-one mass sweep. ] (]) 09:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

:'''Support''' The current version is problematic.] (]) 19:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
:Such a rollback would be unusual since the edits have been allowed to go on for so long, so there must be merit in a great deal of them. Hopefully Mrbeastmodeallday (pretty good user name) will stop editing the page until this can be worked out. Seems from the edit summaries he is keeping editors informed. Maybe take one section for a before and after viewing to have a better idea of what's occurred. I'm not a regular on this page and haven't read many of the changes, just came by recently to add data about the Articles of Confederation sentence and found a major mistake (haven't checked how long it's been there). ] (]) 02:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
::Mass multiple reverts and multiple ongoing talks is where we are at. Just as one talk is ongoing...4 more get started. We have a slight ] problem with walls of text to deal with. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>-] 03:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
:::Understood, wall of texting my talk page now but not in a bad way (although I'm not about to once again get involved in long discussions in two or more places). Mrbeastmodeallday (fun to type the name), you must give good faith fellow editors space to breath and let them do other things on Misplaced Pages and in real life. The bottom-line question, do the past edits improve the page? I'll assume without knowing that many must, or the page regulars would have stopped them long ago (so maybe the time for a mass blanket revert has passed). ] (]) 03:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
::::That is possible. ...but what we have is multiple contested edits with 100 other edits during a talk....then a new talk about the next 100 edits. Almost like we had some gaming of the system by bulldozing. Something that the editor has been sanctioned for. As seen above... a few regulars have simply given up. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>-] 03:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
::::::::OK hopefully we can now address the current concerns without acquiring more. As per statement at ] <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>-] 04:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::@]. Since the ANI was resolved, I think that we can restore the article now. What method should we use? Rollback? Or should we just do it manually? ] (]) 17:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::I'd assume it would have to be done manually. ] 18:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
:'''Support'''. It's best to start over. My suggestion would be to use this version from April 20, the last good version prior to Mrbeast's edits. Here is the comparison between that version and the current one FWIW . Based on a skim of the differences, I see multiple instances of unreliable sources being used (or sources that may be reliable in some instances being used improperly), lots of ], and generally bland writing. ] 18:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
:'''Support'''. Vaulter provided a good revision. I think we should restore that one and bring the article up to scratch again. The lead appears hopeless and the sections appear to convoluted with random, nonessential information. Time to start over I guess. ] (]) 19:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
:*'''Support'''. Let's restore that one. Frustrating that this is where we ended up, though. We also may want to be on the lookout for similar edits to this article in the future. -- ]] 02:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
*I've gone ahead and done it. Any whose edits got caught up in this mess can feel free to reinstate them. ] 18:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
and make me think something is funny. 15+ years never seen this.

:I'm not a ] of MBMAD if you think this. xD

:I just skimmed the old version, compared it with the restored one and brought back some edits which in my opinion were sensible.-- ] (]) 01:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

:OK seems reasonable. Just never seen this before. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>-] 01:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Misplaced Pages authors

I teach science to exchange students in America, and I regularly read this article for information to teach them. The article was very good before, but now you changed it, and I can no longer find information about American weather or the American landscape, only the eagle is still there. I want to try fixing the page myself since Misplaced Pages said I could, but somehow this page is locked. Please fix the page error if you are a Misplaced Pages author. Thank you.

— Chris

] (]) 07:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

:You can use Misplaced Pages for entertainment, or as a place to '''start your research''. Misplaced Pages and other encyclopedias is for getting the general facts of a problem and to gather keywords, references and bibliographical pointers, but not as a source in itself. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>-] 14:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

==<s>Sports montage vote!</s> (canceled)==
{{atopg
| status =
| result = The user who started this has been banned. ] 18:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
}}


'''PROPOSAL CANCELED, ]''' for current sports image discussion.

At the request of user {{ping|E-960}}, I hereby nominate the existing “Montage A” to be replaced by “Montage B” on the grounds of ]; in particular, improved “action shots” with better focus on the interactive gameplay between players and teams that ultimately characterizes what the professional sports are. The current collection of images appears to show an ] focus on individual star athletes such as ] and ] at the detriment of focusing on the true nature of how the professional sport is played.

Some examples include:

* ] defending the layup whereas the existing basketball image shows '''no defense'''.

* The ] ready to catch the ball if ] swings and misses, whereas the previous image '''only shows the hitter'''. Anyone who has even casually watched a baseball game knows that an obvious majority of the pitches in a game end up in the catcher’s mitt, and a minority are touched by the hitter’s bat. The Trout image only illustrates the possibility of the minority result of the pitch (ball being hit), the proposed image illustrates the possibility of both the minority '''and''' majority results (ball being hit '''and''' ball being caught).

(As a courtesy, and also in the spirit of avoiding any possible perceptions or allegations of bias against LeBron or Trout, I started my search on Wikimedia Commons for images of LeBron and Trout that may show similarly interactive gameplay experiences, but unfortunately came up empty).

Additional image relevance factors aside from the people in the photos, are:

* Clearer presence and discernment of the basket/hoop/rim in the proposed basketball image which is somewhat obscured in the LeBron image because of stickers, lines, and pads on the backboard that '''interrupt''' a view of the hoop when viewed from the back side (the hoop is attached to the '''front''' side of the backboard).

* Clear view of the puck being shot towards the goal in the hockey image compared to the previous image where the puck is '''not shown'''.

* Clearer view of the general size, shape, and proportions of the hockey net in relation to the players. The existing image shows '''only the rightmost 1/3''' of the goal.

(Lastly, I am gladly willing to further crop the proposed basketball image for better clarity/focus prior to implementation, if that is a contentious factor among potential opposition votes. I am fully aware that in the proposed image, there are players running around near the edges of the photo who aren’t directly relevant to the game action in that moment, and that the image appears to be from a farther vantage point that lends to the rim being smaller in proportion to the whole image)

{{multiple image
| perrow = 2
| total_width = 300
| image1 = Second Photos 100 (50833233407).jpg
| image2 = LeBron James Layup (Cleveland vs Brooklyn 2018).jpg
| image3 = Mike Trout (15008092199).jpg
| image4 = Khabif-hawks2008.jpg
| footer = '''(Montage A – existing)''' The "Big Four" among popular sports in the U.S. are ], ], ] and ].
| align = right
| direction =
| alt1 = People playing American football
| caption1 =
| caption2 =
| alt2 = People playing baseball
| alt3 = People playing basketball
| Alt text 4 = People playing ice hockey
}}

{{multiple image
| perrow = 2
| total_width = 300
| image1 = Brady Bucs.jpg
| image2 = Mookie Betts hitting the ball (36478781664).jpg
| image3 = Carter vs Gasol, Lakers vs Magic.jpg
| image4 = Pittsburgh Penguins, Washington Capitals, Bryan Rust (33744033514).jpg
| footer = '''(Montage B – proposed)''' The "Big Four" among popular sports in the U.S. are ], ], ] and ].
}}

Happy voting and discussing! Cheers! ] (]) 03:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

=== Comments about the two montage choices ===
=== Alternative proposal ===
Any thoughts about an image of a US President throwing out the ] on ]? The US President has anointed and opened the beginning of each baseball season since the beginning of the 20th century, time-honored tradition, very American. Commons has good images of ], ], ] and ] throwing out MLB first pitches as sitting presidents. I’m leaning towards either Wilson or JFK, since I realize that choosing either one of Obama or Bush (and not the other) will be far more prone to contention and bias accusation from other editors, both now and long-term. ] (]) 19:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
=== Other comments ===
:] .... ]. That said should drop the cluster of images as per ]. Should have one image that is normal size over 4 mini little images that are not accessible to many and cause undue balance to the section. Simply put an image of the national pastime.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>-] 03:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
::{{ping|Moxy}} Baseball is the national pastime, but American football has overtaken it for decades as the most popular, basketball has been rapidly emerging since the 80s and baseball has been declining in recent decades as well. So for there to be one image, there really has to be a concensus about which sport should be represented. It’s not easy to represent the topic of “Sports in the United States” with just one sport. Thoughts?
] (]) 04:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

:Anyway we can resolve the ten other ongoing disputes before more edits are made and more Rfcs are posted? It's at the point that a full revert needs to be done to deal with the 100 reverts, the ongoing talks and forced in edits. Our academic editors are busy with other things and don't have time to deal with a mass amount of changes. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>-] 04:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
::I’ve been helping out with solutions to several of those disputes; I’ve added sources to keep good longstanding images (that other editors have restored to from older versions) for mass media and health that strengthen their weight so they won’t be changed easily.

::But since we’re here, let’s stay on topic and discuss sports here and other issues in other threads: What’s your opinion on the national sport that should be presented? What do you think is the national sport in this instance?

::Here’s a reference, with a quick easy-to-read “top 5” chart with stats on viewers, players, and attendees. https://sportscriber.com/list/popular-sports-usa/ {{ping|Moxy}} I’d like to know your input. Thanks! ] (]) 05:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== US President throws first pitch instead of sports montage ==
Any thoughts on the idea?

{{ping|E-960}} I see you have reverted as part of ], now is the discuss “D” step. Please explain why you reverted. Thanks! ] (]) 20:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
::Let me just say - this is not an a good change. There are 4 major professional sports in the US, and a reader can see this just by glancing at the gallery. Also, please note not EVERYTHING in this article needs to change just because you have a sense that you can do better than what's already here, and in this case you are really re-inventing the wheel. I'm starting to get the feeling that you are just trying to get your way on everything, so that every section in this article has an image you selected or removed - what's already there is fine, just leave it. --] (]) 20:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
::*Above you created a disscussion "Sports montage vote!" because you wanted to change the images in the gallery, you did not get you idea through, so now you want to completely get rid of the gallery — facepalm... --] (]) 20:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

{{ping|E-960}} ], especially if it’s something I haven’t spoken about, and something you haven’t asked about. If you have questions about why I do what I do with specific edits, please ask and I’m happy to explain as best I can to help you understand. That works better for both of us to move forward instead of relying on assumptions. My user talk page is available for that discussion.

We’re here to discuss the merits of the edits being proposed and how they pertain to the United States article, ]. If you have questions or concerns regarding that, again those belong on my user talk page, not here.

I will cancel my montage proposal since it is no longer relevant to the topic at hand, and seems to be a distraction. ] (]) 20:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

For clarity:

* Comments about a presidential first pitch image belong in this thread

* Comments about the overall quality of the article, and proposed restoration belong ]

* Comments about ] belong on my talk page ]

Those are three distinct topics to be discussed in the appropriate places. ] (]) 20:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

==Discrepancy about area rankings==
There seems to be individual editors changing the area rankings in the lead due to discrepancies, leading to an ambiguity in the sentence and an inconsistency with the sourced footnotes.

I restored the sentence to the original sourced consensus.

If it happens again, and you’re the reverter, please bring the discussion here and tag the editor you reverted. Thanks ] (]) 21:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

If there are sources presented in this thread that match the discrepant/conflicting claim of 3rd in land area, they can be discussed here ] (]) 02:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

User Roahgo does not have a “user page” to ping here, so in lieu of that, a message has been left on the user’s “user talk page”, which includes a direct link to this thread. ] (]) 02:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

:Hey, can you guys stop editing this page to say that America is the fourth largest country by land. Even the linked page ON Misplaced Pages says that the US has more land than Canada. America is the the third largest by land and by total area. It is the third by land after Russia and China, and the third by total area after Russia and Canada. Canada has a lot of lakes, but, unless I’m wrong, water is not land. Guys, it takes one second to click the link and see that you are wrong, please stop. ] (]) 09:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
:https://www.worldometers.info/geography/largest-countries-in-the-world/ https://m.statisticstimes.com/geography/countries-by-area.php
:here, these two links have land area rankings, please look at them. Also, you can just look at the Misplaced Pages page. Or are you implying that the land rankings on Misplaced Pages are wrong too? Please, before you undo that edit again show me a single source that says that Canada has more LAND than America. You won’t and you can’t, cause it’s not true. Canada has a lot of large lakes, but that’s not land, that’s area. That sentence specifically says land, and the US has more land than Canada. ] (]) 09:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Roahgo is right, see also the last sentence of the first paragraph of the geography section.-- ] (]) 09:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion does help explain the discrepancies on the page. However, if "It is the third by land after Russia and China, and the third by total area after Russia and Canada" is consensus, the footnote must be updated, as this contradicts the footnote. Pinging {{Reply to|Roahgo|Mrbeastmodeallday|Maxeto0910}} ] (]) 05:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

:Yikes, turns out there's an ANI thread holding things up. This still needs to be resolved, though. We can't have an obvious contradiction in the second sentence of one of the most-viewed Misplaced Pages pages of all time. ] (]) 05:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, it may seem a bit confusing at first, but it's not really a contradiction:

It's the third-largest country by only land area, that's a plain fact and also unmistakable stands in the article.

And it's the third- or fourth-largest by total area (land and water area). The coastal and territorial waters make the difference. Consensus on Misplaced Pages is to include these waters, which makes it the third-largest country by total area.

I think it's already quite clear.

However, we could make more clear in the footnote that the second figure still includes inland and Great Lakes water area.

Or we could write something like:
"It is the world's third-largest country by land area and third- or fourth-largest by total area."-- ] (]) 07:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I have now made the footnote a bit clearer, should be easier to understand now.

We can find a consensus here whether to implement my second suggestion.-- ] (]) 07:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with 50.228.130.84. I don’t know why y’all deleted such a good comment.

Listen to the Toadspike dude, the third sentence has been changing on me too and it’s kinda annoying.

It’s funny how the unregistered readers and guys with weird usernames make way more sense than the main guys running the page.

] (]) 11:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

==Proposed edit request 7 June 2022==
{{atopg
| status =
| result = The user who initiated has been banned. Anyone can feel free to start another discussion about this. ] 18:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
}}


What are people’s thoughts on this? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ]. 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? ] (]) 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. :( ] (]) 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.{{pb}}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. ] (]) 05:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the advice, these proposals were from the lede of ] but I agree that ] and tertiary sources would be better places to look.
:::* doesn't even mention African Americans, has a little on slavery
:::* doesn't mention slavery until {{tq|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 {{tq2|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.}}
:::] (]) 14:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:"I was reading about other country lead it had all the bad thing about that country in the lead but in usa case it only positive thing. Why?" Many editors are American and, being American, writing about the negative aspects of the United States is complicated; this could be the reason (I don't want to justify anyone). ] (]) 18:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::I am not American, but my impression of American history is a long tale of ]s dominating the political system, the struggle for ] having meager results, and ] being surprisingly frequent. The phrase "hell on Earth" is never far from my mind when reading about the U.S. ] (]) 22:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{Ping|Dimadick}} furthermore, American society is too consumerist; for example, regarding "]" (TRUE Italian cuisine is in Italy, it doesn't exist in the United States) there are multinationals and brands (e.g., ], which declared bankruptcy in 2022 in Italy, ],{{efn|I prefer not to comment...}} etc.) that sell a lot, but almost completely sacrificing culinary quality. ] (]) 12:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::I was reading about China, and its introduction seems to have focused on all the negative aspects, such as the "Tiananmen Square Massacre" and how communism caused the "Great Chinese Famine." Then, I read about the USA to compare. The introduction to the USA, however, only included positive aspects and didn't even properly mention slavery. I would argue that we should include events like the "1985 MOVE bombing," the "Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male," U.S. war crimes in Vietnam, or the "Forever Wars" in the Middle East for resource ] (]) 12:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Unfortunately, many Americans don't like China, perhaps because it's the only country that could, in the future, economically surpass the United States; here's the possible reason. ] (]) 13:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


=== Notes ===
Compare the differences between the passages, and see if the proposal makes sense.
{{Notelist}}


== "]" listed at ] ==
(The first sentence is the same in both)
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13#Estados Unidos da América}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
== "]" listed at ] ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13#米国}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
== "]" listed at ] ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13#Соединенные Штаты Америки}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
== "]" listed at ] ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13#Соединенные Штаты}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
== "]" listed at ] ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13#Les États Unis d'Amérique}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
== "]" listed at ] ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13#Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2024 ==
===Current===
In ], a sport that has grown rapidly in the U.S. since the 1990s, ] (MLS) is the sport's top domestic league.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.espn.com/soccer/major-league-soccer/story/4082408/mls-year-one25-seasons-ago-the-wild-west-of-trainingtravelhockey-shootouts-and-american-soccer|title=MLS Year One, 25 seasons ago: The Wild West of training, travel, hockey shootouts and American soccer|last=Carlisle|first=Jeff|date=April 6, 2020|publisher=]|access-date=May 5, 2021}}</ref> Globally, the country hosted the ], the ] has qualified for ], and the ] ] the ] four times which is ]. The United States will also co-host the men’s ] with Mexico and Canada.<ref>{{cite news|date=June 13, 2018|title=World Cup 2026: Canada, US & Mexico joint bid wins right to host tournament|publisher=BBC Sport|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44464913|url-status=live|access-date=June 13, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210114150230/https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/44464913|archive-date=January 14, 2021}}</ref>


{{edit extended-protected|United States|answered=yes}}
===Proposed===
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. ] (]) 04:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
In ], a sport that has grown rapidly in the U.S. since the 1990s, ] (MLS) is the sport's top domestic league.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.espn.com/soccer/major-league-soccer/story/4082408/mls-year-one25-seasons-ago-the-wild-west-of-trainingtravelhockey-shootouts-and-american-soccer|title=MLS Year One, 25 seasons ago: The Wild West of training, travel, hockey shootouts and American soccer|last=Carlisle|first=Jeff|date=April 6, 2020|publisher=]|access-date=May 5, 2021}}</ref> In the ], the ] has qualified ] and the ] ] ], the most of any nation; the U.S. hosted the men's Cup in ] and will also co-host in ].<ref>{{cite news|date=June 13, 2018|title=World Cup 2026: Canada, US & Mexico joint bid wins right to host tournament|publisher=BBC Sport|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44464913|url-status=live|access-date=June 13, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210114150230/https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/44464913|archive-date=January 14, 2021}}</ref>
:{{done}} – ] (]) 04:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


== "]" listed at ] ==
] (]) 21:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 16#الولايات المتحدة}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 13:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:My POV '''Should be ''' {{OnHoldUntil|other ongoing talks above are done and ]}} <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>-] 21:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


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


== justices have no party == == Area of the United States ==


The US has allegedly announced that it 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
remove the r by john roberts its false, its in the main table <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
However, government documents , with documents still putting the us at 9.8 million km.
:That was a recent addition, and I agree, it should not be there. Removed. —''']''' (]) 20:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
:::The "R" party tag has been constantly re-introduced and is simple vandalism. Regular review of the entire infobox required. ] (]) 14:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


Furthermore, the topic of what constitutes as territory (where Britannica differs from Misplaced Pages) is a necessary issue to address. ] (]) 13:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
== Concern about recent activity ==


:The 9.8 million and similar figures do not include the EEZ. ] (]) 14:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Hey guys 👋🏼 John here.


== IMPORTANT: Policy Proposal to establish a US research group to edit this article ==
Way back when WP started in my postgrad days, I was one of the very first editors. I was hardcore then, but nowadays I have a family and kids, and I work long hours, so I don’t really edit anymore; I'm mostly here to read random stuff that tickles my fancy for 10-20 minutes while I rock my baby daughter to sleep every night, but sometimes I also read WP articles while I’m riding the city train during my commute, if there’s no work I have to do.
{{archive top}}
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
I don't even stick my nose in talk pages anymore, but I recently happened to refresh my page a few minutes after that random huge rollback occurred that changed everything, which is unprecedented for a page like this (] gets it), so I had to head over here to see what was up.
- Bias reduction and neutrality training.
- Finding reliable sources and comparing sources.
- Professional research.
- Misplaced Pages policy.


What do ye think of this proposal? Do you support or oppose? ] (]) 13:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
But let me just say, I've literally never seen anything like this before, especially with all the recent talk page activity from the IPs.


: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. ] (]) 14:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Also, I agree with ] (which ] predicted ahead of time with 100% accuracy like he has some sort of ]); ] disturbingly looks like the twin brother of ], mimicking the latter's edits not only with '''content''' but also with the same unique ] editing '''style''' in terms of volume, speed, and frequency (plus he couldn’t even keep a straight face when claiming not to be a sock, the "XD" indicating he was smiling in real life while typing that). Obviously, the ban didn't really do a whole lot, and maybe it did more harm than good, especially considering that Maxeto has about 8x the aggregate edit count history as Mrbeast, so the former has probably already been involved in this for much longer, with the latter acting as a temporary ]. Among other things, there seems to be an attempt to ] the third sentence of one of the most-viewed WP pages of all-time (] really is the only sensible non-IP in that debate) as part of an ongoing three-way battle for national supremacy between the ], ], and ]. (In my opinion, the only way for neutrality to prevail in this case would be to have the sentence removed altogether, or just say that all three countries are "tied". Or the sentence could simply say that area ranking is a matter of an unresolved three-nation dispute.)
:The best place for this proposal is ]. 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. Misplaced Pages is collaborative, and neutrality is approximately reached by editors with different POVs and biases collaborating. ] (]) 14:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::Noted. I moved the discussion of this policy to ], which won't focus on the US topic alone. We can continue it there. ] (]) 15:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 December 2024 ==
(There’s also ], ], ], and ], in case you guys didn't know. I ''definitely'' smell something fishy — also, Randy Kryn getting mad and yelling at ] in an edit summary is a WP-level miracle, considering that they both have positive personalities and don’t seem to accumulate enemies out here.)


{{Edit extended-protected|United States|answered=yes}}
The bottom-line question, is there a ] going on?
Change where it says "President: Joe Biden" to "President: Donald Trump" ] (]) 17:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{not done for now}}:<!-- Template:EEp --> Trump has been elected, but not officially inaugurated as president. That change will be applied on January 20th. ] (]) 18:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 December 2024 (2) ==
(The current situation reminds me of ].)


{{edit extended-protected|United States|answered=yes}}
So what's the consensus out here guys? Conspiracy, '''yes''' or '''no'''? Let’s have a vote.
rambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambograd


May I fix some grammar issues? ] (]) 18:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
(P.S. I know that WP always '''describes''' conspiracies. Never in my wildest dreams could I have possibly imagined that WP would actually '''be''' one. That never was nor is on WP's to-do list. I'll have to show my wife this talk page after this; we've been married for 13 years yet somehow I have no idea how she'll react to this or what her opinion will be, but it'll be fun to find out.)
:] '''Not done''': it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 19:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


== Typo edit request ==
(P.S.S. It's also very weird and un-Misplaced Pages-like to label a genuine uplifting note about the article subject (in this case, America) as ]. Back in my day, we actually had discussions about those types of things, because unless there’s clear evidence of attempted destruction, we looked at the merit of the comment instead of making snap judgments about people we don’t know.)


"subrurban" appears in the third-to-last paragraph of the Transportation section, I believe this should be "suburban" ] (]) 17:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
(P.S.S.S. I’ve never seen such an insane vandalism-merit combo as the removed comment that was written by 50.228.130.84. It’s such obviously blatant vandalism but the edit summary was left blank without labeling it as vandalism because there’s just so much merit in the comment.)
:Done... - ] (]) 18:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you for pointing it out. ] (]) 02:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 December 2024 ==
(P.S.S.S.S. It’s ironic how the removal of the blatant wild vandalism comment is left with a blank edit summary, whereas the removal of the genuine note with no intention to destroy Misplaced Pages is arbitrarily labeled as vandalism 😂)


{{Edit extended-protected|<span class="recent_addition">United States</span>|answered=yes}}
] (]) 00:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I Request the President and vice president role to be changed because of recent election of Trump, pls change to "President:Donald Trump Vice President:JD Vance ] (]) 00:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Good comments, and I can tell you should be missed around here. Me not yelling? Ha. If your want to see one of the longest prolonged discussion (talk and talk and talk, and a dispute resolution, and 5 - count them on one hand - 5 RfC's, four of them on the same question) then step right up to the ] page, starting at Archive 2, continuing all the way through Archive 3, and still continuing on the present long page (not to mention the overflow at the ] talk page and maybe a couple of dozen others), so bring a picnic lunch and a ten-speed mountain bike for a quick getaway. As for socks, some of mine have holes in them. ] (]) 00:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
:{{not done}}:<!-- Template:EEp --> <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 00:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:@] This will be done once they are inaugurated on January 20. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 00:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Low food control in the U.S. ==
I'm not sure if this post contains (partly) serious comments, but unlike MBMAD, I did not make any controversial changes to the content, but, as already explained here , only brought back those changes from the old version that clearly made sense.


"In the US, the FDA takes a notably more hands-off approach to testing and inspections, often allowing new food ingredients unless proven harmful. This includes ingredients, for example, GMOs, growth hormones and chemical preservatives.": ; very important information that should be added to the ] section. ] (]) 22:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Please provide specific examples of how my edits were meant to be disruptive if you think so.
:The website (which is rather obscure) is comparing U.S. standards and practices to the well-known stringent standards of the EU. The detail "compared to the EU" should be part of any "very important information" added, as many other countries (including wealthy ones like Japan) have rules comparable to those in the U.S. ] (]) 00:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{Ping|Mason.Jones}} that's fine. However, the part about Michelin star-rated restaurants should be contextualized; for example, Italy, a country with approximately 275 million fewer inhabitants than the U.S., has 175 more Michelin star-rated restaurants (total: 395) than the U.S. ] (]) 15:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::France and Italy are culinary powerhouses, with a high number of Michelin-starred restaurants to be expected. The U.S. has no culinary history compared to France and Italy, so its total Michelin-starred restaurants are cited as a special achievement. Same with wine (total wine production or citing U.S. awards in international competition). ] (]) 16:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== Hatnotes ==
And as already explained in the related discussion, the area rankings were merely a neutral correction of the facts.-- ] (]) 00:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
:{{u|Maxeto0910}}, please understand that any mistake in suspecting you as a sockpuppet of MrBeast was a good faith mistake. More importantly, I want to thank you for what you've done or are still doing - going through the edits that caused the rollback to see what within them seems valuable and improves the encyclopedia. A large task, thanks for taking it on. Maybe when you finish you can follow up and let us know how many good edits you're finding amongst the deleted material, and, if a lot, MrBeast may deserve some thanks too. Interesting situation, with MrBeast's walls of text and overwhelming wikienthusiasm getting in the way of appreciating what I suspect are probably some good encyclopedic additions. ] (]) 02:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


Seem to have hatnote spam all over the place. ], ], ] and example at ]. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 20:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer and this clarification.


:Agree and recently I tried to narrow down to the main topics for each section, ] (]) 22:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't know in detail what exactly MrBeast did (except of course that he made a lot of controversial edits and was often unwilling to back down in discussions). But from what I've seen, MrBeast certainly also made a lot of good edits among the many bad ones. Picking those out and restoring them seems only sensible for everyone here. So don't be surprised that I've made a lot of edits to this article in the last days. If you don't think a change I've brought back makes sense, you can just revert it, I won't insist on them like MrBeast did and start countless discussions.-- ] (]) 03:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
::If these links are important enough to be at the top they should actually be incorporated into the pros text of the paragraph. Scrolling nightmare. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 22:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


== Add a section for human rights ==
==About this whole situation==
{{Template:Essay}}
{{hatnote|If you’re not familiar with ], it’s 99% likely that this is ] for you}}


I understand that Misplaced Pages editors are mostly Americans, but it seems like many of them are either American nationalists or hired by the American government to write these pages. I was reading the Misplaced Pages articles about some countries (not Western ones), and most of them had a special section dedicated to that nation's human rights violations. However, I don't see anything like that for the United States. The United States committed more human rights ] in the last two decades than any other nation, and its history and current system is filled with human rights violations against its own ], ], or against ]. ] (]) 08:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Guys, it’s me. The person behind Mrbeastmodeallday. I’m behind all those IP edits. There’s no conspiracy. I will tell you exactly how I do it:


:You're 100% right, unfortunately in this case the fact that many users are Americans doesn't help. ] (]) 19:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
* I create "characters" with stories as I follow the talk discussion, and I save them in notes on my phone
::Atleast we need to discuss about it. Why this is not included . ] (]) 16:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Discussion link? ] (]) 14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Dont think we should segregate info like this as outlined at ]...but would easy to do for USA as there is not much.
::::"Discrimination and violence against LGBTI people, anti-LGBTI legislation, and limitations on abortion access are prevalent. Indigenous women faced gender-based violence disproportionately. Issues surrounding asylum seekers, the death penalty, and arbitrary detention at Guantánamo Bay were ongoing. Gun violence remained a major problem, and there were restrictions on the right to protest in multiple states. Excessive use of force by police disproportionately affected Black individuals".......one of many sources....{{cite web | title=Human rights in United States of America | website=Amnesty International | date=March 29, 2024 | url=https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/north-america/united-states-of-america/report-united-states-of-america/ }} <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 14:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::@] need more link ? ] (]) 21:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


== "]" listed at ] ==
* ] is ridiculously easy for me with a ]. ], an ], and 2022 Internet technology is a deadly combination for IP hopping. Every building and public space in the crowded city has its own wifi network, you can literally stand in one spot of a busy street corner (even when businesses are closed, and sometimes while doing something as innocuous and incidental as waiting for the train) and have access to a choice of 20 total networks including 5-6 public networks from ], ], ], and many others, '''each''' with its own unique IP.
]
* This is what I do: choose a network, test and check WP history for that IP, and dump my full comment, delete that network, choose a different network, rinse and repeat
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 2#Соединенные Штаты Америки}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 13:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
* Even in the suburbs, I can drive around to ] that are 2-3 minutes apart, pull up in front without shutting off my car engine, log onto the wifi, dump my WP comment in, rinse and repeat
== "]" listed at ] ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 2#Соединенные Штаты}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 13:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
== "]" listed at ] ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 2#米国}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 13:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


== Westward expansion and Civil War (1800–1865) ==
(It is also very easy to change the IP of an individual wifi router)


I've added several key events of the 1850s that helped draw the North and South into the Civil War, the greatest sectional conflict in U.S. history. The previous text was parsimonious and weak, and in no way does it help explain what "culminated" in the Civil War. I am proposing these few new sentences, plus an overall mention of the 1850s abolitionist movement. ] (]) 18:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
The technical limitations and rules of WP are only sufficient at stopping what I’m doing in the pre-] 2000s.


== Trump 2025 ==
I have already ] within 2 days, I think Moxy knows that I've been gaming the system. However, it is not good for me or any of you to continue, because I will only get bigger, faster, stronger, and you guys will get more burned out, and it is not good for anyone's ]. I also don't like being this way, and I genuinely don't like stirring the pot. I want to work with you guys, but when you or the WP system tries to chase me, I only devise better more creative ways to do what I do, and it divides us as a community. I will become more efficient at what I do now if you guys keep trying to chase me, I already did that with my "ban". I was "banned" and that is what compelled me to do what I am doing now. It’s a never-ending ], I can pop up 3-5 moles in the amount of time you guys can hit one. So for the time and mental health of everyone involved, let's all agree to stop the Whac-A-Mole. There’s also no way for the admins to clear out this whole mess because the IP addresses have no paper trail and are dozens of dead-end roads. So it would cause the admins undue stress and burden, after all, they are humans too.


Today he becomed president, change it ] (]) 06:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The MBMAD mainspace bulldozer has self-destructed. I am now equipped with an edit request bulldozer, so let's call a ] and let the ERB work with you guys at whatever speed is best for the entire community to install the edits into the mainspace. I used to control both the mainspace bulldozer '''and''' the talk page bulldozer, but you guys were very good at killing my mainspace bulldozer, and I sincerely respect and congratulate your strong efforts. Now you guys as a community are in full control of the mainspace bulldozer and I control the edit request talk page bulldozer.


:He did not, he is scheduled to become President on January 20. ] (]) 08:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
If I end up getting blocked on individual IPs, then I’ll be stashing more edit requests and dumping them in bulk in one fell swoop as I find open IPs to maneuver around the blocks, so instead of getting 1-2 per day, I’d have to resort to dumping 10 at a time in a single edit. So again, WP sanctions are '''not''' helpful and only make things more annoying for everyone involved.


== Do we really need nominal and PPP GDP in the infobox? ==
Maxeto0910, please stop cleaning up after me, you don’t have to do the dirty work anymore. I will take it from here and clean up my own mess. For the 20 minutes it takes you to find one “good” edit from me, I can probably do it in 2-3 minutes. Because I have a good visual memory of how I laid out the article. My sincerest thanks belong to you, and if there is a 2022 Misplaced Pages MVP Award, you most certainly deserve it. I also apologize for stirring you up in my "conspiracy" claim.


The infobox currently lists both ] and ]. Since PPP is adjusted into US dollars, we have the same numbers, twice. The only difference is that the US ranking differs ''slightly''. Would there be any way to merge the two? Or, since this is technically limited by being an infobox, could we find consensus to remove one outright? ] </span>]] 21:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Meters, I apologize for my past personal attacks. I kindly ask that you please forgive me (although you are not required to), and I hope we can work positively together from here on out, or at a minimum agree to have mutual respect for one another as human beings.


:By "merge" I mean combining the parentheticals: (PPP, nominal), (2nd, 1st), and (8th, 6th) retaining the current links. ] </span>]] 21:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Anyone else, if you had good edits that got caught in the rollback, simply indicate an identifiable subject/idea/location in a thread titled “Mrbeastmodeallday” or “MBMAD” and I’ll fish out the content differences for you, and package it into a “current/proposed” edit request for you. Thank you

Revision as of 21:08, 8 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
? view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1. How did the article get the way it is?

Archiving icon

Archives:

Article Name, Article Introduction, Human Rights, Culture

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.
Detailed discussions which led to the current consensus can be found in the archives of Talk:United States. Several topical talk archives are identified in the infobox to the right. A complete list of talk archives can be found at the top of the Talk:United States page. Q2. Why is the article's name "United States" and not "United States of America"? Isn't United States of America the official name of the U.S.? I would think that United States should redirect to United States of America, not vice versa as is the current case.
This has been discussed many times. Please review the summary points below and the discussion archived at the Talk:United States/Name page. The most major discussion showed a lack of consensus to either change the name or leave it as the same, so the name was kept as "United States".
If, after reading the following summary points and all the discussion, you wish to ask a question or contribute your opinion to the discussion, then please do so at Talk:United States. The only way that we can be sure of ongoing consensus is if people contribute.
Reasons and counterpoints for the article title of "United States":
  • "United States" is in compliance with the Misplaced Pages "Naming conventions (common names)" guideline portion of the Misplaced Pages naming conventions policy. The guideline expresses a preference for the most commonly used name, and "United States" is the most commonly used name for the country in television programs (particularly news), newspapers, magazines, books, and legal documents, including the Constitution of the United States.
    • Exceptions to guidelines are allowed.
  • If we used "United States of America", then to be consistent we would have to rename all similar articles. For example, by renaming "United Kingdom" to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" or Mexico to "United Mexican States".
    • Exceptions to guidelines are allowed. Articles are independent from one another. No rule says articles have to copy each other.
    • This argument would be valid only if "United States of America" was a particularly uncommon name for the country.
  • With the reliability, legitimacy, and reputation of all Wikimedia Foundation projects under constant attack, Misplaced Pages should not hand a weapon to its critics by deviating from the "common name" policy traditionally used by encyclopedias in the English-speaking world.
    • Misplaced Pages is supposed to be more than just another encyclopedia.
Reasons and counterpoints for the article title of "United States of America":
  • It is the country's official name.
    • The country's name is not explicitly defined as such in the Constitution or in the law. The words "United States of America" only appear three times in the Constitution. "United States" appears 51 times by itself, including in the presidential oath or affirmation. The phrase "of America" is arguably just a prepositional phrase that describes the location of the United States and is not actually part of the country's name.
  • The Articles of Confederation explicitly name the country "The United States of America" in article one. While this is no longer binding law, the articles provide clear intent of the founders of the nation to use the name "The United States of America."
  • The whole purpose of the common naming convention is to ease access to the articles through search engines. For this purpose the article name "United States of America" is advantageous over "United States" because it contains the strings "United States of America" and "United States." In this regard, "The United States of America" would be even better as it contains the strings "United States," The United States," "United States of America," and "The United States of America."
    • The purpose of containing more strings is to increase exposure to Misplaced Pages articles by increasing search rank for more terms. Although "The United States of America" would give you four times more commonly used terms for the United States, the United States article on Misplaced Pages is already the first result in queries for United States of America, The United States of America, The United States, and of course United States.
Q3. Is the United States really the oldest constitutional republic in the world? 1. Isn't San Marino older?
Yes. San Marino was founded before the United States and did adopt its basic law on 8 October 1600. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sm.html) Full democracy was attained there with various new electoral laws in the 20th century which augmented rather than amended the existing constitution.

2. How about Switzerland?

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

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

The component states of the Swiss confederation were mostly oligarchies in the eighteenth century, however, being much more oligarchical than most of the United States, with the exceptions of Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Connecticut.
Q4. Why are the Speaker of the House and Chief Justice listed as leaders in the infobox? Shouldn't it just be the President and Vice President? The President, Vice President, Speaker of The House of Representatives, and Chief Justice are stated within the United States Constitution as leaders of their respective branches of government. As the three branches of government are equal, all four leaders get mentioned under the "Government" heading in the infobox. Q5. What is the motto of the United States? There was no de jure motto of the United States until 1956, when "In God We Trust" was made such. Various other unofficial mottos existed before that, most notably "E Pluribus Unum". The debate continues on what "E Pluribus Unum"'s current status is (de facto motto, traditional motto, etc.) but it has been determined that it never was an official motto of the United States. Q6. Is the U.S. really the world's largest economy? The United States was the world's largest national economy from about 1880 and largest by nominal GDP from about 2014, when it surpassed the European Union. China has been larger by Purchasing Power Parity, since about 2016. Q7. Isn't it incorrect to refer to it as "America" or its people as "American"? In English, America (when not preceded by "North", "Central", or "South") almost always refers to the United States. The large super-continent is called the Americas. Q8. Why isn't the treatment of Native Americans given more weight? The article is written in summary style and the sections "Indigenous peoples" and "European colonization" summarize the situation.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Former good articleUnited States was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 15, 2005Good article nomineeListed
May 7, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 8, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 18, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 3, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 21, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
October 19, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 19, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 9, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
June 27, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 6, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
January 19, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
March 18, 2012Good article reassessmentDelisted
August 10, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
January 21, 2015Good article nomineeListed
February 22, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
December 19, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 3, 2015.The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the United States accounts for 37% of all global military spending?
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 4, 2008.
Current status: Delisted good article
This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Government Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.
Note icon
This article was a past U.S. Collaboration of the Month.
WikiProject iconNorth America Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconCountries
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
WikiProject Countries to-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
          Other talk page banners
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following sources:
  • Surhone, L. M., Timpledon, M. T., & Marseken, S. F. (2010), Orson Scott Card: United States, author, critic, public speaking, activism, genre, Betascript Publishing{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. (2009), Biosphere 2: Biosphere 2, closed ecological system, Oracle, Arizona, Arizona, United States, Biome, space colonization, Biosphere, rainforest, Ed Bass, BIOS-3, Eden project, Alphascript{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. (2010), Military journalism: Combatant commander, psychological warfare, United States, public affairs (military), propaganda, journalist, Civil-military operations, Alphascript Publishing{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Additional comments
OCLC 636651797, ISBN 9786130336431.
This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 237 million views since December 2007.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 46 times. The weeks in which this happened:
Section sizes
Section size for United States (50 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 22,584 22,584
Etymology 6,244 6,244
History 113 68,935
Indigenous peoples 2,410 2,410
European settlement and conflict (1607–1765) 8,136 8,136
American Revolution and the early republic (1765–1800) 5,880 5,880
Westward expansion and Civil War (1800–1865) 15,341 15,341
Post–Civil War era (1865–1917) 9,615 9,615
Rise as a superpower (1917–1945) 5,708 5,708
Cold War (1945–1991) 6,524 6,524
Contemporary (1991–present) 15,208 15,208
Geography 7,020 18,684
Climate 4,326 4,326
Biodiversity and conservation 7,338 7,338
Government and politics 2,855 41,815
National government 9,913 9,913
Political parties 2,145 2,145
Subdivisions 2,007 2,007
Foreign relations 10,783 10,783
Military 6,766 6,766
Law enforcement and criminal justice 7,346 7,346
Economy 22,604 50,011
Science, technology, spaceflight and energy 12,292 12,292
Transportation 15,115 15,115
Demographics 63 36,864
Population 6,841 6,841
Language 5,636 5,636
Immigration 3,417 3,417
Religion 6,516 6,516
Urbanization 1,833 1,833
Health 5,446 5,446
Education 7,112 7,112
Culture and society 16,081 73,966
Literature 6,321 6,321
Mass media 5,621 5,621
Theater 2,695 2,695
Visual arts 4,372 4,372
Music 8,731 8,731
Fashion 3,400 3,400
Cinema 6,410 6,410
Cuisine 10,511 10,511
Sports 9,824 9,824
See also 89 89
Notes 459 459
References 30 16,321
Sources 16,291 16,291
External links 504 2,861
Government 496 496
History 556 556
Maps 1,305 1,305
Total 338,833 338,833
Daily pageviews of this article (experimental)Pageviews summary: size=61, age=109, days=60, min=33051, max=91687, latest=35754. The pageviews file file is stale; please update it; see § Instructions.

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

Notes

  1. I prefer not to comment...

"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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages) 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. - Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

Typo edit request

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 December 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

Low food control in the U.S.

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

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

Hatnotes

Seem to have hatnote spam all over the place. WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE, WP:HATNOTERULES, WP:HATLENGTH and example at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countries#Hatnote. Moxy🍁 20:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree and recently I tried to narrow down to the main topics for each section, Rjj (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
If these links are important enough to be at the top they should actually be incorporated into the pros text of the paragraph. Scrolling nightmare. Moxy🍁 22:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Add a section for human rights

I understand that Misplaced Pages editors are mostly Americans, but it seems like many of them are either American nationalists or hired by the American government to write these pages. I was reading the Misplaced Pages articles about some countries (not Western ones), and most of them had a special section dedicated to that nation's human rights violations. However, I don't see anything like that for the United States. The United States committed more human rights violations in the last two decades than any other nation, and its history and current system is filled with human rights violations against its own citizens, against Black people, or against citizens of other countries. 103.165.29.160 (talk) 08:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

You're 100% right, unfortunately in this case the fact that many users are Americans doesn't help. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Atleast we need to discuss about it. Why this is not included . 103.165.29.209 (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion link? JacktheBrown (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Dont think we should segregate info like this as outlined at WP:COUNTRYSECTIONS...but would easy to do for USA as there is not much.
"Discrimination and violence against LGBTI people, anti-LGBTI legislation, and limitations on abortion access are prevalent. Indigenous women faced gender-based violence disproportionately. Issues surrounding asylum seekers, the death penalty, and arbitrary detention at Guantánamo Bay were ongoing. Gun violence remained a major problem, and there were restrictions on the right to protest in multiple states. Excessive use of force by police disproportionately affected Black individuals".......one of many sources...."Human rights in United States of America". Amnesty International. March 29, 2024. Moxy🍁 14:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
@JacktheBrown need more link ? 103.165.29.214 (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2025 (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 Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 2 § Соединенные Штаты Америки until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2025 (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 Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 2 § Соединенные Штаты until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2025 (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 Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 2 § 米国 until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Westward expansion and Civil War (1800–1865)

I've added several key events of the 1850s that helped draw the North and South into the Civil War, the greatest sectional conflict in U.S. history. The previous text was parsimonious and weak, and in no way does it help explain what "culminated" in the Civil War. I am proposing these few new sentences, plus an overall mention of the 1850s abolitionist movement. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Trump 2025

Today he becomed president, change it Anthony J. Price (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

He did not, he is scheduled to become President on January 20. CMD (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Do we really need nominal and PPP GDP in the infobox?

The infobox currently lists both nominal GDP and GDP (PPP). Since PPP is adjusted into US dollars, we have the same numbers, twice. The only difference is that the US ranking differs slightly. Would there be any way to merge the two? Or, since this is technically limited by being an infobox, could we find consensus to remove one outright? Toadspike 21:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

By "merge" I mean combining the parentheticals: (PPP, nominal), (2nd, 1st), and (8th, 6th) retaining the current links. Toadspike 21:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories: