Talk:United States/Archive 110

Archive 105

←

Archive 108

Archive 109

Archive 110

Archive 111

Archive 112

Article written by a New Yorker?

Articles seems to have be written by someone in New York as its mentioned 65 times, let alone Manhattan being mentioned 6 times. 204.237.91.211 (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Given that New York is the largest city by population in the United States and the US center of both publishing and finance, it should hardly be surprising that it is mentioned frequently in this article. Also, you seem to be including the names of publications (e.g., New York Times) and the appearances of New York as a location within references (see above re: publishing). There are actually closer to 20 mentions of the city itself in this article. General Ization ^Talk 19:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The notion that one New Yorker wrote or substantially wrote this article is incorrect. Over 5000 editors have contributed to this article, and 48 of them have made 100 or more edits. This is a highly collaborative article. Cullen328 (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I also think the count does not differentiate between the city and the state, which would inflate the number. Shoreranger (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

United Kingdom mentions London 38 times. TFD (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Excellent response. Shoreranger (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a valid observation, though. Outside of lists or references, the top 5 largest cities as stated in the article are mentioned:

1. New York: 24 times
2. Los Angeles: 4 times
3. Chicago: 0 times
4. Dallas: 0 times
5. Houston: 1 time

Manhattan, a borough of New York City, is also discussed or mentioned an additional 7 times, more than any major city.

On a related note, I'm gathering sources to do the Fashion section which was originally added mainly about New York. Feel free to use any of these:

References

Regards, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

As I recall, Chicago_school_(architecture) was mentioned in the article before it was removed in an overzealous machete swipe. Another approach would be to mention redlining.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Chicago school of economics, [1]. The article could use a single clear sentence that explicitly lays out segregation, Jim Crow laws (in the south), and redlining (in northern cities like Chicago), maybe right after reference [110]. I don't think much needs to be added to the article though; it's inching back towards 10,000 words. A chunk of the New York stuff comes from images and asides, like the bit about Mormonism. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

This is the modification which removed the Chicago school of architecture and replaced it with a picture of a New York building. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I've added a single, clear sentence. It may be a bit dense. Feel free to tweak it. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I've also reworked the aside about Mormonism into something more historically relevant. In the process I looked at trying to remove the PoV that keeps popping back into the religion section, and found a misrepresented source. None of this has all that much to do with the NY bias... on that score it's surprising that neither Baltimore nor New Orleans are mentioned, given their historical importance. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

But far less current importance. TFD (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, though when the levees on Lake Pontchartrain broke in 2005 it was quite a notable catastrophe (as was Harvey in Houston a few years later). Baltimore is surely at least notable for "The Star-Spangled Banner" and The Wire. :) 15:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Pamphlet

This might not be the right department since I could not find a phone number. I am originally from Maryland. I was given a bible about 50 years ago dates 1894 found a brochure or pamphlet in in in excellent condition with the company of Pretzincer’s Gatarrh Balm company on it 8 pages. It’s been in my closet for many years. I’m donating the Bible but contents I am not. Would like to find the interesting home. This is history and would like it to go home. Julie 2601:547:1200:5850:4CD4:1C56:B48D:A33A (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons is apt to host such things. You might ask at their help desk. You might also consider listing it on eBay, where a similar such pamphlet, rather dog-eared at that, is listed for $95 (but that's not necessarily indicative of its real value). Note that the proper spelling is Pretzinger's Catarrh Balm. Possibly the most relevant article Wikipedia itself has is on the company founder's Dayton house. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC) (edited 05:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC))

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 January 2024

Change 'though' to 'through' in the education section. "The United States tertiary education is primarily THOUGH the state university system" Dhuibhshithe (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2024

Update of inaccurate percentage US land area covered by water from 4.66 to 7 percent.

Back calculating the area using the land area minus total US area (both of which are shown right next to this in the article) contradicts the 4.66 % figure. Additionally there are sources giving the more accurate figure.

https://www.geographyrealm.com/which-states-have-the-highest-percentage-of-water-area/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/379294/us-water-area-state-type/#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20and%20its,territorial%20waters%20along%20the%20coast.

Thanks, hope this helps :)) EditorJack99 (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done While Statista is not generally considered a reliable source for Wikipedia, I was able to find a table from the USGS which not only confirms the 7.0% figure but is more recent than the previous source, and so I've updated the infobox accordingly. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Potential American exceptionalism and overlinking in the lede

In this edit, KlayCa (hi, there!) changed the recent rephrasing:

the world's sole military superpower, also wielding considerable cultural, economic, and political influence.

back to:

the world's foremost political, cultural, economic, military, and scientific power.

The edit notice for this article complains that this article is overlinked. (I think that tag was added by Moxy...hello!) I agree that these links in particular at best don't contribute much and at worst are leading up a garden path. They are redundant because all of these articles are already linked as "Main article:"s from subsections in the body. They feel a bit off because e.g. Politics of the United States is not about the worldwide political influence of the United States, it's about domestic politics. Likewise, Culture of the United States is not about the worldwide cultural influence of the United States.

I flag this wording as a potential example of American exceptionalism because it seems to be making the very strong claim that the United States is somehow ranked number one in all of these areas. That may be true in some ways, but most of those claims are disputed or disputable, and lots of people are probably rolling their eyes at this sort of "USA #1" phrasing. For example, China has the largest GDP in terms of PPP, and I think the European Union has a bigger nominal economy. How would we measure whether the EU or the United States wields more cultural influence? Arguably American culture is mostly a copy of European culture, including its main languages. According to World Intellectual Property Indicators, far more patent applications are made in China than the United States now; does that mean China has more scientific or technical power? There's probably more consensus that the US has the most powerful military in the world, perhaps because it tops the list of countries with highest military expenditures. But it does not have the largest military by number of people. Does the UK have more political influence than the United States because it has given birth to more countries? Does the parliamentary system have more influence or are there more presidential republics?

We could of course gather more facts in support of the argument that the United States is number one in all these areas. But to the degree that these claims are disputed by notable commentators, it's not Wikipedia's place to declare an unconditional winner based on our own judgement; we're supposed to be neutral on controversies like that. I do think it's pretty undisputed that the United States is a very important country in all those areas, and conveying the importance of the United States in world affairs is something useful for the article to do.

I think there are three good ways to fix the POV problems. One is to make the more generic claims, which is the phrasing I had previously added. Two is to make more specific claims, like that the United States leads the world in military spending, Nobel Prize winners, exports of television and movies? Maybe there are specific claims about American diplomacy that can be paraphrased? Or something about Global policeman? This is starting to feel complicated; maybe deferring these details to the body would be better.

I dunno, any suggestions? -- Beland (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

BTW, if we want to talk about the foreign policy influence of the United States (in the body, if not the lede), Pax Americana / Global policeman are important post-WWII concepts. While Marilyn Monroe is mentioned and is certainly a notable cultural export, the Monroe Doctrine isn't mentioned, but that and the American Revolution were pretty critical to the freeing of almost all of the colonies of North and South America from their European masters. Not to mention United States involvement in regime change and military- and civilian-occupied territories. -- Beland (talk) 08:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

In addition to military spending, U.S. military forces have a global presence that China and Russia are nowhere close to achieving: over 300 military bases established worldwide, for the past 75 years policing the world's sealanes (current events included), U.S. troops recently invited on Danish, Swedish, and Finnish soil. The statement is incontrovertible. The rest of the sentence simply says the U.S. is "unsurpassed" as an economic, cultural, etc. "force" —nothing about knocking out the EU and China in every measurable sense. It's an accurate statement about the country's unmatched global power. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, it does seem the US is surpassed by China in terms of number of troops and patents awarded, so in a literal sense it's arguably not unsurpassed in military size and science. Unless there is an objective overall ranking in these areas to point to? -- Beland (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Number of troops is not significant; it's their presence and active involvement worldwide. Similar to total patents, you're taking China's (and the EU's) larger population as evidence of equal military or economic or cultural prowess in the world. That's not a yardstick. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

GDP is the yearly market values of goods/services produced. The United States still leads greatly in terms of total wealth/economic power. Saying that the United States is the most influential in terms of culture/science shouldn't be disputable, either. None of this necessarily implies "superiority" in terms of exceptionalism. One could argue that the United States has a "bad culture" (whether from something like tipping to its ideology) KlayCax (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

We would need reliable sources that support the claim that the United States indisputably has the most cultural and scientific influence worldwide. Because people from China will point to the Four Great Inventions of paper, printing, gunpowder, and compass, and a writing system that's used by billions. If you mean contemporary influence, we would need to be specific. I got curious about what sources actually say, and US News and World Report ranks Italy and France above the United States ([2]) in terms of cultural influence, so I guess that claim has to come out. -- Beland (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The lede already says the United States has the world's largest economy, supported by details in the body, which also clarifies that's nominal GDP. It also already says the US "ranks among the highest in the world in international measures of income, wealth, economic competitiveness, productivity, innovation," all of which have internal links to back them up. I don't think we then need an additional general awesomeness claim on top of that which violates the show, don't tell principle and takes up additional words. If there's something specific to add about international global economic influence, we might mention (as the article does), the U.S. dollar. If there's something else specific you had in mind, we'd need reliable external sources or at least a Wikipedia article to link to and mine for citations. -- Beland (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

If you want to say the U.S. is the country with the most foreign military bases or the most involved in occupying other countries, or something, I would be fine with saying that specifically, but "unsurpassed military force" could mean the things you think are important, or it could mean troop strength. -- Beland (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

International relations scholars are essentially unanimous in stating that the United States is the world's most powerful military. It isn't a violation of NPOV to state that. KlayCax (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

If you want to add that claim, we need some reliable sources to support it. The article just says the United States spends the most of any country on its military, and has the third-largest by number of personnel. -- Beland (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 February 2024

Under Demographics->Health, the grammar in the following phrase is incorrect: "but attains worse healthcare outcomes when compared to peer countries for reasons that are debate."

It will need to be updated to "but attains worse healthcare outcomes when compared to peer countries for reasons that are debated." or similar. Skeletrox (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Hyphenation Expert (talk) 06:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Change the title to the United States of America

The first sentence says United States of America or United States or simply America so title should be the United States of America CarterandOreo (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@CarterandOreo: Have you seen Q2 in the FAQ at the top of this page? -- Beland (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

yea Careo (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@CarterandOreo: OK, so do you have any new arguments or counterarguments supporting a title change that haven't been considered in previous discussions? The first sentence says "commonly known as the United States", and the FAQ and WP:COMMONNAME explain why titles use the common name and not the formal name. -- Beland (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Genocide wording

A sentence was recently inserted into the article implying that many historians believe that there was a singular, uniform genocide committed against Native Americans. (Which cited a 2015 article from the revisionist historian Jeffrey Ostler.)

Yet this appears to be a misinterpretation of what he's saying. Historians, even those who tend to hold the most negative views of American conduct such as Jeffrey Ostler, reject the claim that the United States uniformly committed genocide against Native Americans, as it is well known that American treatment of certain indigenous peoples varied significantly from that of others. Ostler argues that there was forced population transfers/ethnic cleansing with small-scale genocides of particular indigenous groups by state/local actors (w/national indifference) but denies there was a universal genocide (singular) of Native Americans. The predominant viewpoint among mainstream historians is that there were widespread mass atrocities (forced population transfers/ethnic cleansing, unequal land treaties, and military conquests) committed against the indigenous populations of what is now considered part of the United States. (Any claims to the contrary should be rightfully rejected as WP: FRINGE and denialist.) But they overwhelmingly refer to it as "forced population displacement/ethnic cleansing" rather than "genocide" when they mention it. Ostler himself also states that this is the predominant viewpoint:

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

At best, the sentence should be revised before being reinstated into the article.KlayCax (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The Oxford Encyclopedia reference you are deleting does indeed state that the policies of Indian removal or assimilation have been "characterized by some historians as genocide". There is no contest that the cited source verifies the claim. For others to verify that, I will include the source that you've deleted twice now (revert #1, #2) without adding it to the talk page discussion:

References

-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Ostler says exactly what I stated above: In fact, although few scholars in the fields of American Indian and western U.S. history have systematically addressed the question of genocide, for many, perhaps most, scholars in these fields, an overarching indictment of genocide seems too extreme. Some might label specific events and cases, such as the Sand Creek massacre of 1864 or widespread settler violence against Indians during the California Gold Rush, as genocidal, but they would not see U.S. policies and settler actions as consistently so. (Ostler also openly states he is a minority within the field.) Historians predominantly characterize it as forced population transfer/ethnic cleansing rather than genocide.

Even among those who consider parts of Native removal/assimilation genocidal, they overwhelmingly reject the claim that it composed a singular genocide, which the wording that was added implies.

This of course does not mean that the United States didn't commit mass atrocities against its indigenous population. The country obviously did. KlayCax (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

So using the adjective "genocidal" would satisfy you? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

If we're referring narrowly to specific events of Indian assimilation/removal, yes. (e.g. "The early treatment of Native Americans in California has been considered genocidal by some historians.")

If we're referring more broadly, no. (e.g. "American treatment of Native Americans has been considered genocidal by some historians.") KlayCax (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I have used your preferred "some cases" wording. As you can see on the linked page, there are several books with titles including genocide, holocaust, and ethnic cleansing. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The new wording still implies that it is predominantly characterized as genocide. We would need substantially more historians to hold this view before casually mentioning this in the article.

Beyond this, mentions of "genocide" in Wikipedia articles have generally only been mentioned when the claim is nearly undisputed among political scientists and historians. An extraordinary amount of agreement is required.

To give just a few examples of this:

• There is a consensus on the Belgium page that the Congo Free State shouldn't be mentioned as a possible genocide on its main page, despite many historians considering it this.
• There is a consensus on the Soviet Union page that the Holodomor shouldn't be classified or claimed to be a genocide on its main page, despite the same.
• There is a consensus on the China page that claims of Uyghur genocide should be excluded on its main page, despite the same.
• There is a consensus on the Japan (featured article) and Empire of Japan articles that "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing" shouldn't be used on the main pages, again.
• Other Anglophonic countries (Australia, Canada, and New Zealand) exclude mentions of "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing" from their articles, despite often engaging in behavior similar to the early United States.

That's why I'm under the view that it should be excluded for now. Even those who take a maximally negative view of America's treatment of its indigenous people, such as Howard Zinn, have predominantly and explicitly opposed classifying it as such in their works. Unlike Ward Churchill, or Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, Ostler is a great and rightfully respected historian, and he's done some great research on the matter, but he only cites particular instances of this as being genocidal, and states that his opinion is a small minority of current scholarship. If the Congo Free State, Holodomor, and claims of Uyghur genocide are excluded for lacking consensus, then I can't see how this does.

The debate belongs on the American Indian Wars, California, and related articles, rather than on the main United States page. KlayCax (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

KlayCax, I've noticed your revert #3. Perhaps other people share your opinion? If so, I'm sure they'll weigh in below. For the record, the sentence "some cases of which have been characterized as genocide or ethnic cleansing" does not imply that everyone agrees, the sentence in the present perfect passive would be true even if only one historian made this claim (which is far from being the case). I did note with surprise that the word genocide is not in the index of A People's History of the United States. I would like to see your reference where he "explicitly opposed classifying it as" genocide.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

It gives off the implication that they are predominantly classified as such. Even the events in California, which are to me the strongest evidence (I'd say so) of the U.S. government committing genocide, are still widely disputed among historians as of 2023. For Zinn: he always referred to it as "ethnic cleansing". I don't have the link on me. But he often prefaced it with stuff like: "Although the United States did not commit genocide, Jackson, Jefferson, and others were ethnic cleansers of Native Americans and were hungry for their land." (Citing Jackson's adopted child Lyncoya Jackson as evidence that he didn't intend to exterminate them as a people. Rather, steal their land and subdue it into the greater American polity.") A People's History of the United States never uses the word "genocide" to describe American actions. (Which was intentional.) Ostler is probably the most prominent mainstream historian to claim so, but he openly lists himself among a small minority of scholars.

While WP:OTHER exists, most editors generally rely on precedent from other articles (albeit this is not official policy: just a rule of thumb), and there's been a strong hesitation about listing anything as a "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing" without it being near-universal among political scientists and historians. That's why I gave the above examples. That's why the article should refrain from labeling it as such. I get the desire to right great wrongs. It's just not the purpose of Wikipedia.

Unless there's a major shift in historiography — with a large majority labeling it as such — contentious claims shouldn't be included in the main article. KlayCax (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

There's always a problem with ascribing modern concepts to historic events that occurred long before the concepts were invented. TFD (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning non-British colonies in the lede

@KlayCax: regarding this edit which dropped:

eventually incorporating lands of many indigenous peoples and former colonies of Spain, France, and Russia.

I added that because just saying the United States arose from British colonies seems...unbalanced. That may be its most important colonial connection, but most of the territory of the country was never British. French and Spanish laws, customs, and languages have been retained in various parts of the United States colonized by those countries, and that hardly seems trivial to me. For brevity's sake, I didn't add that the fifty states include several formerly independent countries, that the US still owns territory it bought from Denmark, that it was also colonized at times by Sweden and the Netherlands, spawned its own colony in Liberia, or that it once administered the Philippines, Cuba, the DR, Haiti, Nicaragua, the Panama Canal Zone, and a whole lot of Pacific islands. -- Beland (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Beland: No thinking person is going to oppose your addition about French, Spanish, and Russian colonies. Changing it (as you did, with a nice edit summary) is enough. It doesn't require a Talk Page discussion with one editor. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mason.Jones: Uh, well, the reason I bring it up here is that they reverted my addition. I don't think they'd appreciate the implication they are not a "thinking person". -- Beland (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The editor didn't remove your text for its content; it was removed to reduce total word count. I'd restore it, with an edit summary. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

That's correct. This information belongs in the article. It just doesn't belong in the lead. The goal was to make it below 450 words in the lead. It's already ballooning back up again.

It's not supposed to be a systematic, through historiography of American history. Just the basics of how its national polity has changed. KlayCax (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, it seems we were both editing and commenting at the same time, so there was a bit of an edit conflict. Where is the number 450 coming from? -- Beland (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It was a rule of thumb (not consensus) from past discussions, @Beland:. The previous versions of the article suffered from significant bloat (particularly in the lead, with editors adding discussions of gun laws, universal healthcare, death penalty, circumcision, drinking habit, and other trivia into it.) The general agreement was an article with a byte count of less than 300k and a lead wording of less than 450. (@Moxy: was one who advocated shortening the page.) KlayCax (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The edit summary was "More moving around/restoring. This lead seems pretty good.", so I'm not sure what the reason for removal was. I don't see why they wouldn't simply revert me putting it back in unless we had discussed it first and they were persuaded that the ideas were worth the extra words or whatever the objection was, or other editors voiced support. That's why, to avoid edit wars and to make useful progress on writing high-quality articles, if there's not an obvious way for me to address concerns raised in the edit summary of a revert, I generally follow the the bold, revert, discuss cycle. But since you have voiced support, I restored the text in question in modified form, adding context about immigration as mentioned below. -- Beland (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

In fact, the 13 colonies had either copied or received English law and it was extended to every part of the U.S. except Louisiana. The English language also became the working language of every state (except perhaps Lousiana) and there is no state continuity of any acquired part of the U.S. other than the 13 colonies and Louisiana.

It might have been different if say Quebec had voluntarily joined the Revolution and retained its laws, language and customs. But unlike the original 13 colonies and arguably Hawaii and Alaska, no territories have ever voted to join the U.S. TFD (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@TFD: You didn't cite New Mexico's special status for the Spanish language, incl. translation of all government documents. These rights were granted through negotiations in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This is indeed "state continuity" after Mexico formally ceded its territory to the U.S. And English will never be the official language there. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of Alaskans having any say in the matter on Alaskan Purchase. You'll find other independent countries joining the 50 states in the Vermont Republic and Republic of Texas. (Not trying to cram these in the lede, but for completeness I'll mention Puerto Rico retaining Spanish as its primary legal language, the USVI retaining Danish laws like driving on the left, and retention of Polynesian cultures and languages in American Samoa and Hawaii.) As I look at a map of the United States, outside of the East, I see mostly French, Spanish, and Native American place names. Legal continuity is not the only important factor in describing where the United States comes from. The diversity of its cultural heritage seems like a basic fact about the country. It seems poor to promote the idea that the British colonies expanded into a vacuum, or the misconception they were the first to colonize the Americas. Perhaps it's also worth noting how much of an immigrant country it is. People of British heritage make up a relatively small fraction of the population. -- Beland (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

What is important is that they expanded by annexing territories once Vermont was added as the 13th state. In some cases, Americans settled beyond the frontier then asked the U.S. to annex them. Texas is the only state after that voluntarily joined the U.S. But Vermont had broken away from Massachusetts, while Texas (like Oregon and Hawaii) had been settled by Americans.

Note also that when new states join, they join as states under the same conditions as existing states. No change to the U.S. constitution is made. This is very different from how the four countries of the UK came together.

Alaska and Hawaii were listed as non-self-governing territories at the UN and were removed from the list after referendums to become a states.

Finally, Puerto Rico, USVI, Guam, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands are not part of the U.S. but are "unincorporated" territories administered by them. Their inhabitants were considered too foreign and unassimilable to be incorporated into the U.S.

The diversity of the U.S. relies mostly on immigration rather than acquiring foreign territory. TFD (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, so I'm not sure what all those comments imply for the lede. -- Beland (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

It means that there is no reason to enumerate in the lead the various states that owned land acquired by the U.S. Now if half the people in the U.S. spoke Russian and followed Russian laws, then it should be mentioned. TFD (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's not half, but 41 million Americans speak Spanish, including the majority in Puerto Rico, and Spanish and French and Danish laws have been inherited into American jurisprudence in a few states and territories. Hundreds of jurisdictions including reservations, Hawaii, and some territories, also use indigenous law to one degree or another. But with sensitivity to due weight, instead of listing the countries by name, I've changed the language to "territory from indigenous peoples and former colonies of various European powers". Mostly it seems misleading not to mention that the United States expanded beyond the bounds of British North America, since we do mention that's where it started. And I added mention of population inflows, which does seem like more of a core part of American identity and history. -- Beland (talk) 05:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

"government" in infobox

must be definitively sourced, or removed soibangla (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Soibangla: The infobox says "Federal constitutional republic". The body of the article explains in some detail how the federation of states works, about the written constitution, and that the country is a republic rather than a monarchy. I'm unsure what exactly you feel has not been firmly established about that phrase? Is there another one you would prefer? -- Beland (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I just removed "presidential" from the infobox, as it is unsourced, and I do not even see "constitutional republic" is sourced anywhere in the article. where are the sources? by this point, we need definitive sources. soibangla (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

It is common knowledge. One of the many sources is in the Constitution itself. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript Led8000 (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

"It is common knowledge" is absolutely not compliant with the principles of this encyclopedia soibangla (talk) 06:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Please assess your current state of mind. It seems to me that something is going on in your personal life currently, and you are very disgruntled emotionally. Led8000 (talk) 06:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a wholly inappropriate comment to another user. — Czello ^(music) 08:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I have reported this comment to WP:AN/I. I do not see anywhere in the consitution that defines the United States using the word "republic", though a Republican form of government is guaranteed to the states, nobility is prohibited, and no role for a monarch is defined. That said, do we really need a footnote to document that the United States is a republic and not a monarchy? -- Beland (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Republican would be lowercase technically. There are many sentences in the Constitution where each word in a sentence is capitalized, as seen there, and in the direct transcription link above. Led8000 (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Length of lede

Template:Editnotices/Page/United States says that the lede is overly long. Checking MOS:LEADLENGTH, 3 to 4 paragraph is apparently normal for an article over 5,000 words. This article has about 9,800 words, according to the automated page stats. I combed through the intro and dropped some of the finer details to make it shorter, but a lot of stuff there seemed important. It's currently 4 paragraphs, which for a topic this important seems fine to me. If forced to drop it to 3 paragraphs, which the MOS says is typical for featured articles, I'd drop some of the details about Congress and merge the third paragraph into the first one. @Moxy:, it looks like you added the editnotice about this. Are you satisfied with the length reductions? Do you have some target length in mind? Anything in particular you think could be omitted? Anyone else have any thoughts? -- Beland (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, reading the "Government and politics" section made it clear the lede had too many details about Congress, so I did the trim and merge proposed above, and now we're down to 3 paragraphs. Is that satisfactory, or is there more to trim? -- Beland (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I would like to restore the mention of race relations. It is supported by the article. Black history is especially an important part of American history. This was brought up last year. Senorangel (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

In what way? Saying that race relations were "problematic" is euphemistic and there's no way to quickly summarize the history in the lead. (Which is already too long.) KlayCax (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax: I've reduced the lede from four to three paragraphs. Is that still too long? If so, what is your preferred target length? -- Beland (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Senorangel; the entire second half of the 20th century shouldn't be defined by the Cold War alone. If I'm thinking about the most important things that have happened in American history that are not mentioned in the lede, I think they'd be Jim Crow, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Industrial Revolution. I think those can be slipped in without adding to many words; I'll give that a try. -- Beland (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Many norms and practices in the United States today were not widely accepted or implemented before the Progressive Era. Industrialization had led to the rise of American tycoons, names that the world still recognizes for better or worse. It feels odd that the Civil rights movement and its major causes, Jim Crow laws or broader phenomena, are absent. I know the lead is already long. But brief inclusions of some of these would fill in the gaps. Senorangel (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, the second time around I managed to squeeze a lot into few words. Not sure what sort of pre-Progressive Era things you had in mind, but there wasn't room for very much. I did manage to point out how the federal government has grown and suffrage has expanded over time, which hints at the Jeffersonian-era reforms expanding voting to most white men, women voting, and substantial advancements in racial equality for voting. Feel free to suggest other stuff, but it sounds like we're trying to keep the intro to 450 words. I also wonder whether the intro is too heavy on history and economics compared to the body of the article. -- Beland (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I will dig more into it, probably with some of the body sections first. Senorangel (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

KlayCax reverted on the basis of previous RFCs. Most of the changes did not touch those topics, so I am restoring some of them. Senorangel (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended confirmed edit request

"Republic" at the start of the article is currently linking to the Republican party. Led8000 (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

it sure is, and that shit gotta stop soibangla (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Soibangla: Thanks for fixing that incorrectly disambiguated link. BTW, many editors find four-letter words offensive, and might consider it uncivil language and respond badly. -- Beland (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Beland: , it was not disambiguated. It was added by @KlayCax: here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1204479535 , then you did not notice it, and I did not notice it until today. Led8000 (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I expect that this text was drafted as republican, which is indeed a disambiguation page that includes both Republican Party (United States) and republic, among many other choices. The display text could have been changed as part of a grammar check without noticing that the (incorrect) disambiguation isn't even needed anymore. -- Beland (talk) 09:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Is there a grammar check like that? I usually do not use the visual editor. Led8000 (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

By "grammar check" I mean the process of an editor reading the displayed text with their eyes and mentally verifying that it follows the rules of English grammar. -- Beland (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

this stuff should make any reputable editor livid soibangla (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Adding a third section on Ancestry for the Ethnic Groups section of the Infobox / Fleshing out the National Origin section

I was thinking of making it something like this:

I believe this would not only help flesh out how diverse the USA actually is; but it would be more uniform with the infoboxes of Other countries. 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 17:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@WeaponizingArchitecture: I like the idea of having that information easily accessible, but it looks a bit long for an infobox. I checked a few countries and they seem to only include high-level (racial) breakdowns there. Mexico just links to the body text. I was going to suggest doing that for this ethnicity list, but it turns out that list actually would need to be added to the body. It's not present on Demographics of the United States and I don't know whether it should be or not. I'm not sure if the map or the table would be better to pull from Race and ethnicity in the United States#2020 American Community Survey into United States#Population, but doing both might be too much? I do like them both, though. Maybe you should stick a section link in the infobox and whatever you think is appropriate in the Population section, and we can see how it looks in context? -- Beland (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Would a Drop-down work? 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 14:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@WeaponizingArchitecture: A drop-down list would be the wrong solution, since readers are not expected to make a choice here. A list wrapped in a Show/Hide control would be a good solution to prevent it from taking up too much space in the infobox. {{hidden}} might work for that. Given that people often don't click on things, I wonder if more people would see it in the Population section, but then again people often don't keep reading the entire article. -- Beland (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Should follow the example of our best FA articles Canada, Japan, Germany... That do not list the same data three times in 3 different locations. Moxy- 18:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

It looks like those articles all put this info in the Demographics section and not the infobox. That's certainly a good way to handle it. -- Beland (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

citations and clarifications needed on governance style

Citations needed for statement that the USA is a "liberal democracy". Clarification needed where it is described as a Federal Presidential Republic - no article link to this, just the word "Federal". Also no citations to support claim.

The voting system of the USA arguably isn't a in line with definitions of liberal democracy or republic (rule of the public via representatives, as the electoral college is not the public)

Separately to the above (subjectively) perhaps an updater might consider a more descriptive definition of the USA government structure, taking into consideration the unitary presidential federation with dual factions and a lower/upper house, but more concisely and with linked definitions. 2A02:C7C:6ADF:3300:5C58:3C87:2000:AC84 (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

All sourced in the article.....just need to take time and read beyond the lead. Moxy- 23:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The United States is one of the canonical examples of a Liberal Democracy. Arguably, it was the first modern Liberal Democracy. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

"Indian reservations" wording

It should be Native American, not Indian. Finntastico2 (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

"What is a federal Indian reservation?". Indian Affairs. August 19, 2017. Moxy- 17:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The article uses the language in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Finntastico -- Some WP readers (me too) prefer the term "Native," but many Natives still prefer "Indian" and use it in their organizations. In 2024, "Indian" remains the official nomenclature of the U.S. government (including for reservations), so this article follows current usage. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2024

America is not a liberal democracy, it is a constitutional Republic. 2601:183:C57F:95F0:6856:FE71:1E03:5493 (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. it is both, as those are not mutually exclusive terms. Aoidh (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It is both a liberal democracy and a constitutional republic. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 19:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Genocide

FMSky, why did you revert information about the Native American genocide? Citations are provided in the article. The talk makes it clear that there's a universal agreement to include. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Cause you also inserted other unsourced contentious stuff --FMSky (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Such as? ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@ShirtNShoes -- Such as, over the past year you've been blocked, warned, and told to stop edit-warring. It's therefore rather impolite on your part to now insert unsourced, opinionated POV throughout this article. (You even managed to change the demonym "American" to "U.S.", a debate settled on WP-EN fifteen years ago.) Please desist. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@ShirtNShoesPls: there might be consensus to discuss the Native American genocide in the body of the article, but it's inappropriate for the lead. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Rockstone35 you might want to hold off on giving them that green light. Having done a quick look into the edits they made here, they appear to have seemingly manufactured claims and quotes in the edits they've made.

In their attempted set of edits here one of the major claims they inserted is the following, "According to David Stannard in American Holocaust, this is the largest genocide in world history, and led to an estimated 100 million deaths." however if you look at their attempted citation it's actually a different book entirely they've cited, with a citation reading: "Stannard, David E. (1996). Uniqueness as Denial: The Politics of Genocide Scholarship. Westview Press. pp. 245–281."

Now, I then googled that supposed citation and it turns out, low and behold, that's not correct either. The supposed claim by David Stannard is actually part of an essay that was published in the book "Is the Holocaust Unique", with the exact quoted page numbers appearing to be available here and on page 263 we find the following:

"Because of the unprecedented immensity of the disaster that befell the people of the Americas as a collectivity, resulting in a population collapse of somewhere between 50 and 100 million - that is, in the annihilation of 90 to 95 percent of the entire hemisphere's indigenous human inhabitants" (emphasis mine).

Basically it appears this user openly took a short passage on a single page of this essay, that applied to the effects of European colonisation of the entire Americas, and then in my view deliberately misrepresented it as being about the United States alone and did this, along with significantly changing claims in previously sourced statements elsewhere in the article, solely to push their POV that the United States deliberately at all stages enacted the 'largest genocide in world history'.

I shouldn't have to state this, but this sort of behaviour is grossly against Wikipedia's policies. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

There's a fiction factory at WP that regularly ascribes "world's worst genocides" to the United States. The Spanish and Portuguese ruled millions of indigenous peoples—with the greatest cruelty. There were only thousands of Natives living on what is now U.S. and Canadian territory when colonists first arrived. Sources in this article that seem to muddle or conflate U.S. and Latin American crimes against the indigenous peoples, in order to magnify those in the U.S., will be rejected as always. Mason.Jones (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

There's a consensus that genocide was committed. Oxford states it was a genocide. The literature has changed a lot in 20 years. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a bit disingenuous to refer to the current understanding of the situation as a "genocide". Can you please provide citations that the understanding has evolved in 20 years? --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a consensus. In fact, AskHistorians now automatically considers reducing the events to ethnic cleansing as a form of genocide denialism, with other major historical centers stating the same.

I recommend viewing @EdHistory101:'s response:

In the United States, a subtle state of denial exists regarding portions of this country's history. One of the biggest issues concerning the colonization of the Americas is whether or not this genocide was committed by the incoming colonists. And while the finer points of this subject are still being discussed, few academics would deny that acts of genocide were committed. However, there are those who vehemently attempt to refute conclusions made by experts and assert that no genocide occurred. These “methods of denialism” are important to recognize to avoid being manipulated by those who would see the historical narratives change for the worse.

Among mainstream historians: there is no debate. The Founding Fathers, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and the United States are guilty of collective settler colonialism and genocide. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The fact you think reddit counts as a reliable source to back your blatant WP:NOTHERE WP:ADVOCACY is not in the least bit surprising... Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Random Reddit posters are not reliable sources. However, posts from reliable sources on the website are considered credible. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Then why do we explicitly have a link just to remind people reddit is not a reliable source (WP:RSREDDIT)? Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Read WP: RSREDDIT again. When an expert or experts posts on there, their words are considered credible, a situation that applies here. /r/AskHistorians is WP: RS. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

So you're just straight up lying, which is not uncommon for you is it.

"Reddit is a social news and discussion website. Reddit contains mostly user-generated content, and is considered both self-published and generally unreliable. Interview responses written by verified interviewees on the r/IAmA subreddit are primary sources, and editors disagree on their reliability. The policy on the use of sources about themselves applies" Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistency between articles

The articles on Native American genocide in the United States and Denial of genocides of Indigenous peoples state that there is an academic consensus that the United States committed genocide against its native populations. Yet this is entirely left out of the article. Why?

Only one is correct. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Those articles are WP: NPOV nightmares. Jeffrey Ostler states that his opinion is a minority within the literature. KlayCax (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

democracy

We live in very divisive times, and I am aware there are extensive efforts afoot to deny the United States is a democracy, but rather insisting it is a republic. As in, by really dumb allusion, "Republican." As I was just made aware, "republic" was linked to the Republican Party in this article, suggesting the GOP is America. I haven't been to this article for months, but no one caught that? In addition, the US has been referred to in this article as a "presidential" republic, which I do not see is sourced, nor even a defined term. Given the current extensive concerns about Democratic backsliding in the United States, this is worrisome.

There's a whole lotta propaganda goin' down these days, and this article is in serious need of intense scrutiny. soibangla (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I expect that linking "republic" to "Republican Party" was probably just selecting the wrong item from a pull-down menu or somesuch. If you look at the article government, you'll see that "presidential republic" is one of the main systems of the world, for which the U.S. is the prototypical example. They are contrasted with parliamentary republics, which have no separation of powers between the executive and legislative functions. This is explained at length in the article Presidential system, the link to which you deleted. This is not propaganda, this is Civics 101. If you need an inline footnote to document this, I'll copy one in. -- Beland (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

where are the sources in the article? is Wikipedia relying on "common sense" Civics 101 we learned in 4th grade, or should it rely on reliable sources? there are no sources. Government enumerates many forms of republics, but does not specify the US as one of them. Surely, if this is such a certainty, if it's Civics 101 and common knowledge, there should be no problem in finding abundant sources that explicitly say so. Alas, none are provided. soibangla (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Soibangla: The source for "presidential" in the article is in the section United States#National government, namely James L. Sundquist. -- Beland (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The narrative of how the presidential system was more or less invented in the United States is at Presidential system#Development in the Americas. -- Beland (talk) 09:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The word "presidential" also links to that article, so readers who are confused or alarmed at that civics term of art can click through and learn all about it. -- Beland (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

if this is all so decisive, is it too much to expect a decisive cite in the infobox, where a decisive assertion is made? soibangla (talk) 09:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXREF says that repeating the reference in the infobox is not needed if the same material is referenced in the body. I have no objection to adding a cross-reference from the infobox to the existing footnote if it makes you feel better. I would not expect readers to find this designation to be in any way controversial or disputable, but here we are talking about it. -- Beland (talk) 09:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

ok, I just saw your change to Federal presidential republic from Federal constitutional republic, and before that Federal presidential constitutional republic. I suppose we'll need a Constitutional convention to finally resolve this. I give up. soibangla (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I also just have to say, the members of the Republican Party I know would consider the linking of "republic" to the article on their party to be an obvious error that should be corrected, not some sort of propaganda victory. The vocabulary controversies which seem to be active in U.S. politics at the moment actually involve the words "democracy", as in "the United States is not a [pure] democracy, it's a republic" and "constitutional", as in "constitutional carry" of firearms which emphasizes originalist interpretations in this and other contexts.

If there's anything to fret about, it's Wikipedia quality control mechanisms, which are somewhat eventualist. For better or worse, it appears that error was in the article for about 6 days. -- Beland (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax:, Could you please take more care when using drop-down menus (diff)? I'm not quite sure how you were able to confuse "republic" with "Republican Party (United States)". -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It was an accident from the visual editor, @Sashirolls:. Apologies. :) KlayCax (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Reworking lead and returning bits to the old lead?

I just want to state that I vastly prefer the old lead to the new one, but going back into the page history to view the lead as it used to be made me realize just how much the lead has changed over the course of a month. However, I do prefer the lead as it existed on December 30, 2023.

However, if this version of the lead is no longer "in vogue," I would instead would like to suggest some aspects of the old lead return to the new one, rather than completely reverting to the old lead in itself.

For starters, the second paragraph in the lead likely needs to be split into two. While I understand the we want to keep the lead short, as it currently stands it glosses over 300 years of history and needs at least a little more context added. For instance, the lead goes "American territory was first settled by Paleo-Indians who migrated across the Bering land bridge over 12,000 years ago. Colonization by the British began in 1607." Woah! That's a lot of history. It's also extremely compacted and slightly misleading. Colonization of the Americas, and parts of modern America, had more than just the English colonizing it. The lead also doesn't make clear if its talking about North America, the Americas, or land that would later become part of the United States of America.

Possible rewording could go along the lines of, "North America was first settled by Paleo-Indians migrating across the Bering land bridge over 12,000 years ago."

There also could be further rewording to state: "British colonization throughout 17th century lead to the establishment of the Thirteen Colonies, which declared independence against the British Crown on July 16, 1776 as a result of disputes over taxation and political representation. The United States' victory in American Revolutionary War (1775–83) resulted in the first country founded on Enlightenment principles of unalienable natural rights, consent of the governed, and republicanism. A belief in Manifest destiny lead to the nation expanding westwards and acquiring new territories throughout its early history."

This is just a part of the rework to the lead I believe is necessary. I believe mentioning the confederation period is a bit too specific for the broad nature of the lead itself along with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I also believe mentioning the United States' unique form of government compared to all comparable nations at the time is warranted and is not undue or biased. The United States' unique government and successful revolution did partly inspire the later French Revolution and Revolutions of 1848. BootsED (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I think some changes can be made to reflect the special nature of United States founding. Could you narrow down your suggestions, so that they are easier to read through? In my view, the progression from an initially loose confederation of states, to the passing of a constitution, and finally to a more consolidated federal government also presents a unique aspect of America's formation. Senorangel (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The lead is American exceptionalism. More weight needs to be given to the Native American genocide, enslavement of Africans, and capitalistic nature of the society, often built on exploitment and settler colonialism. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't here to WP: RIGHTGREATWRONGS. KlayCax (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

KlayCax reversion

I reverted it back, @Senorangel:/@BootsED:. 450 words wasn't a true consensus — rather a guide — so changed it back to the 500 word lead that was established through a multitude of RFC's.

I agree that the previous lead was far superior as well. KlayCax (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Was there a talk page discussion that went over why the lead was dramatically changed from how it was originally? I want to go back and review the reasoning behind it but I can't seem to find the talk page discussion that went over its rework. BootsED (talk) 05:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Someone should fix term duplication and WP:SEAOFBLUE in the lead Moxy- 16:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

POW/MIA Flag in info box

@Illegitimate Barrister added the National League of Families POW/MIA flag to the infobox, under the logic that it is a quasi second national flag, being flown at many federal buildings. I removed it, under the logic that it was too big of a change to be made without discussing on the talk page.

So, should this flag be in the infobox or not? MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Negative it is a small political action group that has a very narrow focus. Rjensen (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Definitely no. Many "awareness" flags go up at federal and state buildings on special days. Making these into national symbols of the U.S. in the WP inbox is unjustified. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. I appreciate that a citation was given, yet looking at the actual USC here, there is no evidence that the flag in question has the same status as the flag currently in the infobox. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, The flag is not recognized in any manner as "Official", thus it lacks the status to be featured on the infobox.-Samoht27 (talk) 17:35, 20 Febuary 2024 (UTC) Samoht27 (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose No. WP: SNOW close here. It's not a "quasi second national flag". (Lol.) KlayCax (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Sea of blue in lead

Not sure what happened but the lead is cluttered with links.... this a prime example of what not to do WP:Seaofblue Moxy- 14:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Some editors live to link every noun in Wikipedia (even "country" and "settlement"). A regular de-linker who could pass through here once a month would be great. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2024

I want to edit this page to write about the economic inequality and the healthcare system in America. Akaganhamilton1 (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. Jamedeus (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

"Compulsory School Attendance"

In the education section, the article says that "[...] children are required to attend school [...]", which is not true, since homeschooling is an option as well.

Although the source wrongfully uses the term "Compulsory School Attendance", the U.S. actually has a compulsory education system, not a compulsory school system, meaning that education may also take place independently of school. Therefore, this statement should be corrected accordingly.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Maxeto0910 The text was indeed lacking. See my reworded draft, which defines "K-12 education" and makes reference to widespread homeschooling. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Good. Thanks.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)