Talk:United States

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120: 30 days

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q1. How did the article get the way it is?

Archives:

Article Name, Article Introduction, Human Rights, Culture

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

Detailed discussions that 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 Wikipedia "Naming conventions (common names)" guideline portion of the Wikipedia 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.

Well-established encyclopedias in the English language appear to generally use a "common name" policy for article titles. More specifically, the following use "United States" for the title of the corresponding article: MSN Encarta, World Book, Encyclopedia Americana, Columbia, Grolier, and the Micropaedia and online versions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. In our effort to make Wikipedia an "encyclopedia of the highest possible quality," (Jimmy Wales, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", March 8, 2005, <[email protected]>) we would do well to emulate what these well-established encyclopedias do.
- The Macropaedia version of Britannica uses "United States of America" for its article title.

With the reliability, legitimacy, and reputation of all Wikimedia Foundation projects under constant attack, Wikipedia should not hand a weapon to its critics by deviating from the "common name" policy traditionally used by encyclopedias in the English-speaking world.
- Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. The United States is the oldest constitutional republic in the world! Why isn't this the case in the article?

Many American students are told the United States was the first constitutional republic in history. This is not true, however. San Marino adopted basic law on October 8, 1600, and Switzerland adopted its constitution through the Federal Charter of 1291.

Within Wikipedia 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 U.S. Constitution and political system both domestically and globally. One must also be careful using the word "democratic" due to the limited franchise in early U.S. history and better explain the pioneering expansion of the democratic system and subsequent influence.

The component states of the Swiss confederation were mostly oligarchies during the 18th 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 of the Supreme Court are stated within the U.S. 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 the current status of "E Pluribus Unum" (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 supercontinent 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.

Q9. Aren't U.S. territories part of the United States?

The territories under U.S. sovereignty are sometimes described by reliable sources^[1] as part of the United States, and territories are treated as domestic for certain purposes like export controls. For other purposes, some territories are considered to be possessions of the United States under U.S. sovereignty, but not part of the country. As Territories of the United States explains, under the Insular Cases, some territories (e.g., Territory of Hawaii, 1900–1959) have been incorporated and made fully part of the United States. All five currently inhabited territories are legally unincorporated, so provisions of the U.S. Constitution like birthright citizenship do not apply there. Unincorporated U.S. territories field their own teams at the Olympics. Puerto Rico is within the main customs territory of the United States, but all other territories are outside of it. Wikipedia remains neutral on whether U.S. territories are part of the United States, as the claim is disputed. Wikipedia generally avoids the issue by stating that the U.S. asserts sovereignty over the unincorporated territories and explaining the details of the relationship where appropriate. (The U.S. territories are also different from the Freely Associated States, which undisputedly retain their own sovereignty and are not part of the United States, even though they make use of U.S. federal services for mail delivery, disaster relief, telecom and aviation regulations, and defense.)

FAQ References:

^ e.g. NBC News: Puerto Rico Is Part Of the U.S.: Here's A Few Things to Know

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a contentious topic.

The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:

This page is protected. You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)

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

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.

United 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 15, 2005	Good article nominee	Listed
May 7, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
May 8, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
May 18, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
July 3, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
September 21, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
October 19, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
June 19, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
July 9, 2008	Good article reassessment	Kept
June 27, 2009	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
September 6, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed
January 19, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed
March 18, 2012	Good article reassessment	Delisted
August 10, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed
January 21, 2015	Good article nominee	Listed
February 22, 2020	Good article reassessment	Delisted
December 19, 2020	Peer review	Reviewed
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia'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?*
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 4, 2008.
Current status: Delisted good article

United States: Government Top‑importance

	United States portal This 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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.
	This article was a past U.S. Collaboration of the Month.

North America Top‑importance

	North America portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Wikipedia. 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. 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:

Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy.
Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region.
Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

"The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. August 17, 2009.
"Topics that spark Wikipedia 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. July 18, 2013. Retrieved July 18, 2013.

Other talk page banners

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 (52 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	23,037	23,037
Etymology	5,951	5,951
History	113	75,959
Indigenous peoples	2,504	2,504
European exploration, colonization and conflict (1513–1765)	9,749	9,749
American Revolution and the early republic (1765–1800)	5,691	5,691
Westward expansion and Civil War (1800–1865)	15,570	15,570
Reconstruction, Gilded Age, and Progressive Era (1863–1917)	13,527	13,527
World War I, Great Depression, and World War II (1917–1945)	5,132	5,132
Cold War and social revolution (1945–1991)	7,749	7,749
Contemporary (1991–present)	15,924	15,924
Geography	7,132	18,498
Climate	4,307	4,307
Biodiversity and conservation	7,059	7,059
Government and politics	6,744	49,614
National government	10,294	10,294
Subdivisions	4,886	4,886
Political parties	2,316	2,316
Foreign relations	10,643	10,643
Military	7,408	7,408
Law enforcement and criminal justice	7,323	7,323
Economy	23,265	46,851
Science and technology	5,841	11,032
Spaceflight	5,191	5,191
Energy	3,249	3,249
Transportation	9,305	9,305
Demographics	63	37,196
Population	6,599	6,599
Language	5,908	5,908
Immigration	3,421	3,421
Religion	6,789	6,789
Urbanization	1,817	1,817
Health	5,495	5,495
Education	7,104	7,104
Culture and society	16,836	77,281
Literature	6,291	6,291
Mass media	5,620	5,620
Theater	2,695	2,695
Visual arts	4,498	4,498
Music	8,839	8,839
Fashion	3,399	3,399
Cinema	8,756	8,756
Cuisine	10,540	10,540
Sports	9,807	9,807
See also	238	238
Notes	472	472
References	30	16,275
Sources	16,245	16,245
External links	505	2,628
Government	496	496
History	322	322
Maps	1,305	1,305
Total	354,000	354,000

Reconstruction

An unsourced claim has been restored that it was due to the shock of Lincoln's assassination that the Reconstruction amendments passed both houses of Congress and were ratified. This is interesting given that the 13th amendment had passed both the House and Senate prior to Lincoln's assassination, and the book-length source that was cited by an expert on the subject (Foner) does not accord any specific importance to Lincoln's assassination. (There is no mention of it in the pages cited at all.) Perhaps, @Shoreranger: could find a popular history source attributing the amendments to a cult of personality effect, rather than considering them the consequence of the North winning the war after four long years and hundreds of thousands dead following the failed attempt at secession over the issue of slavery? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that two of the three links now cited for the opening lines of this section are broken and that two of them lead to primary sources. (The other archived link leads to a very brief summary of the three amendments.) Unfortunately, the one substantive secondary source that I had added was moved down in such a way that the pagination cited is now incorrect. (the large sections point to the discussion of the individual amendments, it is in the preface that there is mention of African-American participation in post-confederate politics. WEB Dubois' book Black Reconstruction in America would probably be a stronger reference for this) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I just followed WP:SOFIXIT. If there are complaints, feel free to list them below. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mason.Jones:, I didn't notice at the time that I thanked you for adding the reference for one part of your addition that at the same time as you removed the CN tag you added a new unsourced bit of wikitext in this edit. Could you find a source for your claim, please? Thank you. Also, I'll mention that while I know that some people are allergic to this "future in the past" use of would, considering it overly florid when a simple past would obviously suffice, it doesn't particularly bother me, as long as the claim is sourced. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sashi -- I thought I was restoring the established wording I had seen there for ages, but before I understood your posts/edits describing this "military occupation" as pretty limited (and, to younger historians, exaggerated). You removed it, and that's fine with me. Mason.Jones (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Sport

Regarding the following sentence that appears in the Sports section:

"However, baseball has been regarded as the U.S. "national sport" since the late 19th century."

This sentence makes it seem like baseball is the sole national sport in the United States. However, American Football is (currently) regarded as the U.S. national sport as much or more so as baseball is. I propose that the wording of the sentence in question be changed to:

"It, along with baseball, have been regarded as "national sports" in the U.S. since at least the mid-20th century."

Thank you. AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no officially designated "national sport" in the US. Baseball has the established nickname of "the national pastime". I would say citation needed to your statement that "American Football is (currently) regarded as the U.S. national sport as much or more so as baseball is" as I am unaware of any such statement being applied to football. Admittedly, football is probably the most watched sport in the country. But is that what the term "national sport" means? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording is fine in context given that the previous sentence explains how football is more popular. If anything I would change the description of baseball from national sport to national pastime. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Language

The United States language is not English it is English (de facto) and needs to be corrected as such. 2600:387:15:2F16:0:0:0:B (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order in March declaring that English is the official language. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 14:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which means jack shit.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was an extensive RFC for this that was ended in a consensus to list it as such. AG202 (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Khajidha: The RfC's consensus was that Trump's executive order was far-reaching—at least while Trump is in office. The RfC prevailed, and the current text was adopted. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2025

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

> Remove footnote [b] from the demonym section on the main infobox. Xomegas (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: no reason given for the proposed content removal. M.Bitton (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead's opening paragraph

@Mason.Jones: please stop the ad hominem and address the guideline instead; as per MOS:OPEN, "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific."; placing Native American communities and reservations in the article's opening paragraph and having that have the same weight as the country's location, bordering states, etc., is WP:UNDUE. The latter states "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements [...]". Snowstormfigorion (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. So much unnecessary details, makes the page look weird and clearly violates guidelines GloryToCalifornia (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indian country is there in the lead paragraph with the states and territories because the Indian reservations and Native tribes have a special status—just like the U.S. territories do, but with long-established sovereignty rights. The text has been there for a long time, and you must have good reason to jettison it completely. And yes, Snowstorm, your editing history is about as bad as it gets on Wikipedia.Mason.Jones (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the text has "been there for a long time" doesn't mean it should remain on the page for the end of time. He has a good reason to remove it, he gave examples on how it violates guidelines. Instead of making good arguments like he did, your reasons are "its been there for a long time" as in 2 or 3 months, and ad hominem attacks. Maxeto0910 removed "Indian Country", Snowstorm removed it, and if I had 500 edits I would remove it. You have no consensus, he gave examples on why it should be removed based on guidelines, your only argument is "it's been there for a long time, if you dont stop im going to sanction your account, I dont like any of your edits, your edit history is bad". End of discussion it should be removed immediately GloryToCalifornia (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, Snowstorm, your editing history is about as bad as it gets on Wikipedia This is just an insult. How does this relate to the dispute?

You also did not address why Snow's reasoning is wrong. Explain how their argument is not a good reason to remove it. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 21:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian reservations have a special status, right along with the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories. Arguably, the reservations are granted even more sovereignty rights than the territories are. Finally, the reservations are not only a significant part of U.S. history but they pre-date the territories. Their importance passes any country article's "prominence of placement" test. I believe the passage—and it's a very short passage—should remain where it is. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's so significant why was the Indian reservations added to the lede in 2025. I checked the wayback machine. It wasn't there in 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, all the way down to the page first started. It had a brief mention in 2024, but was removed. If it's a "big part of U.S. history", why was it nowhere to be seen since the start of Wikipedia in 2001. Maybe you can make the sentence shorter or put it in a footnote, but it seems everyone agrees it should be gone except you GloryToCalifornia (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, "everyone" does not agree "it should be gone". You and Snowstorm are just two editors. Others must weigh in. Yes, I am fine making the passage shorter ("Indian country includes 326 reservations with tribal sovereignty rights."), but not relegating it to a footnote and certainly not eliminating it outright. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

tarlby called you out and Maxeto0910 removed "Indian Country" as well. four against one. We have consensus to remove your edit. We explained how it clearly violates guidelines. Your only argument is threats, insults, and personal opinions about significance which counts as WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. @Snowstormfigorion this guy clearly won't listen, do what you have to do. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reservations' special status making them on par with or equal in political or legal standing to states and overseas territories is a false equivalence; the sentence should be removed, as per MOS:OPEN and WP:UNDUE. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the structure of {{Political divisions of the United States}}, Indian reservations are also first-level divisions, and I think worth discussing in a top-level overview. They have less sovereignty than states, but more than the US territories (which have virtually none) which are definitely worth mentioning. I'm fine with the shorter wording, and would also be fine with moving this mention to the third paragraph which explains federalism, but these domestic sovereign nations should be mentioned in the intro. This article is only rated B-class, so we should expect there are still items missing or unpolished. -- Beland (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's move it to the third paragraph like you said per per MOS:OPEN and WP:UNDUE GloryToCalifornia (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having it in the third paragraph as a brief mention seems like a reasonable compromise for now. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with tweaked wording for better flow. -- Beland (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Beland. This is a good outcome. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed the text to be similar length to the states as per WP:UNDUE, as well as joined the wording with the former in the autonomy portion for improved flow. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowstorm: Your change totally junked the important text about tribal sovereignty rights included in Beland's edit. The Indian tribes have a special status, and that mention is indispensable. Yet you continue the same rude behavior you've been warned about countless times on your Talk page. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What rude behavior? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 16:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever one calls one Talk page full of notices about edit-warring and extreme disruption. In this article: transposing Beland's wording about Native tribes but deleting the precise language about tribal sovereignty rights. That is pernicious and rude. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking what bad behavior there is in this talk page thread. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "I've trimmed the text to be of similar length to states...for improved flow," but never mentioning that Beland's key language about sovereignty rights was totally deleted. Mendacious and rude. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I moved that sentence, I changed it in a way I thought flowed better without consulting anyone first, but added a note here so that people could review my change. Snowstormfigorion changed the wording in a way they thought flowed better, and added a note here so people could review it. I don't see why they are getting yelled at for being rude and I'm not. Let's focus on the merits of the content and not personalities.

One sentence out of 27 doesn't seem like undue weight to me; I added a link to Tribal sovereignty in the United States, which seems useful. The trim didn't exactly bring mention of Indian Country down to the same length as the states, because the states are also mentioned in the first paragraph. -- Beland (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

US does not own Palau

states on the map of the us and its overseas territories that the us owns palau. 91.125.223.60 (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. I have clarified the captions to indicate the three sovereign countries which are in free association with the United States are different from US territories. -- Beland (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove

@Yovt remove "Its three largest metropolitan areas are New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, and its three most populous states are California, Texas, and Florida." It's unnecessary and it makes the first paragraph long and violates WP:OPEN GloryToCalifornia (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OPEN links to Wikiproject Open. I assume that's not what you meant. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 06:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) That sentence is fine. It's short and sufficiently germane to the article's subject to be mentioned in the lead. 2) In the 42 minutes between the time @GloryToCalifornia made the above talk comment, and when they subsequently removed the sentence they objected to, they made nearly 200 edits to their user page / sandbox in an obvious effort to get just over the 500 edits required for Extended Confirmed status. I'd strongly recommend that any admins around revoke that status and/or enact other appropriate sanctions. CAVincent (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was playing with my sandbox after i reached 500 edits what are you talking about? GloryToCalifornia (talk) 06:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OP's extendedconfirmed group membership revoked. Meters (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

check my edit history. After I edited the page about the United States I went back to playing with the sandbox lol. I wasn't gaming anything GloryToCalifornia (talk) 06:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support removing this sentence as it's unnecessary, the info rather trivial, and just bloats the first paragraph of the lead. Yes, some good and featured country articles do have similar listings (e.g., Germany's last sentence of the lead's first paragraph), but they mostly include selected states/regions/cities whose mentions make sense regarding context. Meanwhile, this listing's purpose is not apparent and to me feels more like an end in itself. Maxeto0910 (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the info is rather trite for the lead, too. The choice of three populous metro areas and three states definitely makes it look (just as Maxeto says) like an end in itself. The text already shows populations of the 10 most populous states and the 20 most populous metropolitan areas (the largest metros and their populations being basic to all country articles, and many readers look for them). Mason.Jones (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in question isn't just longstanding content; it reflects longstanding, prominent understandings of the article topic in reliable sources. I favor retention. Newimpartial (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Close this conversation. We shouldn't reach consensus on this because if we do, the article might change and it might look good on the page or bad on the page depending on what content gets removed or added, and people can't change it or add it back forever if we reach a permanent consensus. Let the future decide what the page says, not a current consensus GloryToCalifornia (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GloryToCalifornia, I'm confused on your rationale here. Consensus changes over time, so there is not much to worry about. This discussion is what changes the article's future. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 05:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For consensus to change future editors will have to start a long future discussion it's not worth it shut it down. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 06:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also do you know how to delete a Wikipedia account. Now that I'll never have extended confirmed it's best to delete this account and completely start over GloryToCalifornia (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence is certainly not "longstanding content": It has been added and removed every now and then. I have made more than 1.4K edits to this article, so I think I might have a reasonably good overview of such things. Maxeto0910 (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this sentence does not seem to be in the body prose, so it is likely undue in the WP:LEAD. CMD (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't in the body prose, but it is in tables within the body. CAVincent (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only part is in a table, and that is as noted not body prose. If it's not due for the body prose, it's obviously not due for the lead prose. CMD (talk) 08:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis I don't know that there is any site-wide consensus that only body text is to be summarized in the lead section. That seems EXTRAORDINARY to me. Newimpartial (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's basic MOS:LEADREL. Something not due enough weight to be in the body text is obviously not due enough weight to be in the lead, the two should be roughly proportional. CMD (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] .g. NBC News: Puerto Rico Is Part Of the U.S.: Here's A Few Things to Know

[1]