Talk:United States

Not mention of slavery , inequality in lead ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again there is difference between .

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

And

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something like

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

In the revolutionary war section:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"I was reading about other country lead it had all the bad thing about that country in the lead but in usa case it only positive thing. Why?" Many editors are American and, being American, writing about the negative aspects of the United States is complicated; this could be the reason (I don't want to justify anyone). JacktheBrown (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not American, but my impression of American history is a long tale of business oligarchs dominating the political system, the struggle for labor rights having meager results, and mass racial violence in the United States being surprisingly frequent. The phrase "hell on Earth" is never far from my mind when reading about the U.S. Dimadick (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Dimadick: furthermore, American society is too consumerist; for example, regarding "Italian cuisine" (TRUE Italian cuisine is in Italy, it doesn't exist in the United States) there are multinationals and brands (e.g., Domino's, which declared bankruptcy in 2022 in Italy, SpaghettiOs, etc.) that sell a lot, but almost completely sacrificing culinary quality. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I was reading about China, and its introduction seems to have focused on all the negative aspects, such as the "Tiananmen Square Massacre" and how communism caused the "Great Chinese Famine." Then, I read about the USA to compare. The introduction to the USA, however, only included positive aspects and didn't even properly mention slavery. I would argue that we should include events like the "1985 MOVE bombing," the "Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male," U.S. war crimes in Vietnam, or the "Forever Wars" in the Middle East for resource 103.165.29.209 (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many Americans don't like China, perhaps because it's the only country that could, in the future, economically surpass the United States; here's the possible reason. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Typo edit request

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

Done... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 December 2024

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

 Not done: Remsense ‥ 论 00:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@EmporerJax This will be done once they are inaugurated on January 20. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 00:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Low food control in the U.S.

"In the US, the FDA takes a notably more hands-off approach to testing and inspections, often allowing new food ingredients unless proven harmful. This includes ingredients, for example, GMOs, growth hormones and chemical preservatives.": [1]; very important information that should be added to the Cuisine section. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The website (which is rather obscure) is comparing U.S. standards and practices to the well-known stringent standards of the EU. The detail "compared to the EU" should be part of any "very important information" added, as many other countries (including wealthy ones like Japan) have rules comparable to those in the U.S. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mason.Jones: that's fine. However, the part about Michelin star-rated restaurants should be contextualized; for example, Italy, a country with approximately 275 million fewer inhabitants than the U.S., has 175 more Michelin star-rated restaurants (total: 395) than the U.S. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

France and Italy are culinary powerhouses, with a high number of Michelin-starred restaurants to be expected. The U.S. has no culinary history compared to France and Italy, so its total Michelin-starred restaurants are cited as a special achievement. Same with wine (total wine production or citing U.S. awards in international competition). Mason.Jones (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Hatnotes

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

Agree and recently I tried to narrow down to the main topics for each section, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

If these links are important enough to be at the top they should actually be incorporated into the pros text of the paragraph. Scrolling nightmare. Moxy🍁 22:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Add a section for human rights

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

You're 100% right, unfortunately in this case the fact that many users are Americans doesn't help. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Atleast we need to discuss about it. Why this is not included . 103.165.29.209 (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion link? JacktheBrown (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Dont think we should segregate info like this as outlined at WP:COUNTRYSECTIONS...but would easy to do for USA as there is not much.

"Discrimination and violence against LGBTI people, anti-LGBTI legislation, and limitations on abortion access are prevalent. Indigenous women faced gender-based violence disproportionately. Issues surrounding asylum seekers, the death penalty, and arbitrary detention at Guantánamo Bay were ongoing. Gun violence remained a major problem, and there were restrictions on the right to protest in multiple states. Excessive use of force by police disproportionately affected Black individuals".......one of many sources...."Human rights in United States of America". Amnesty International. March 29, 2024. Moxy🍁 14:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@JacktheBrown need more link ? 103.165.29.214 (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

"Соединенные Штаты Америки" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Соединенные Штаты Америки has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 2 § Соединенные Штаты Америки until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

"Соединенные Штаты" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Соединенные Штаты has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 2 § Соединенные Штаты until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

"米国" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 米国 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 2 § 米国 until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Westward expansion and Civil War (1800–1865)

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

Trump 2025

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

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

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

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

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

Edited. This is simply a proposal; if the information can be at all clearer (without listing both dollar amounts twice), that is even better. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose not all readers may know that nominal and PPP figures are the same and at a glance seems like the nominal figures are just missing. It is more clear to list both figures. Also it is currently removed already and I oppose doing that before this has even been fully discussed. Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I would prefer to actually combine them into one section of the infobox, rather than what is currently there (two sections but the dollar figure only in one). I will do my best to find a technical solution to this, but it may take a while, since infoboxes are complex templates. @Bokmanrocks01, if you don't like the current version (which I agree is odd), feel free to revert the change. Toadspike [Talk] 18:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to find the technical solution but couldn't. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Article title

Why is the article titled "United States" instead of "United States of America"? 2001:A61:3038:1A01:790E:C174:6DF3:B418 (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Consult the FAQ at the top of this Talk Page CollinMadden (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

"The country has the world's third-largest land area, largest exclusive economic zone, and third-largest population, exceeding 340 million."

I don't really like this sentence, as it reads rather like a random dropping of facts. Older article versions did a better job of putting the information into contextual sentences. Maxeto0910 (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

And its wrong - second EEZ. Moxy🍁 15:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Oligarchy vs Democracy

In the government section we may want to add that in 2025 the United states became, or moved towards, an Oligarchy governing system and away from Democracy? (See link for a paper talking about definitions.)

https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/publications/oligarchic%20vs%20democratic%20societies.pdf

It does seem like it is now the era of monopolies, and barriers to entering the entrepreneurial landscape are starting to rise, along with wealth being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. (See below links about rising monopolies, as well as the decline in new small businesses.)

https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/republicans/2022/12/entrepreneurship-and-the-decline-of-american-growth https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/08/health/primary-care-doctors-consolidation.html https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2019/04/11/america-has-a-monopoly-problem/

The new USA administration being filled with 13 billionaires, plus many more millionaires, with a drastic increase in the total wealth of the new governing figures overall, seems to be pretty conclusive evidence towards the change in governmental types being valid.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-tapped-unprecedented-13-billionaires-top-administration-roles/story?id=116872968

But I'm not a political historian so I can't be sure this is a valid definitional change. I'm hoping this topic of discussion will attract true experts who can chime in on this edit and either validate it or negate it. So please if you are knowledgeable about this topic, chime in to educate me/us. I just figured this seems like it needed to be updated, and if an uneducated person like me watching the USA political upheaval from afar (Not American! So I promise I don't really care about their weird Blue vs Red stuff!) now has questions about what to categorize the USA government as, then it might be time to change it.

Even if you disagree that it has not fully become one as of January 20th, it does seem to be moving in that direction, and it seems false to not mention it and to pretend that the USA is still a pure Republic Democracy?

So anyways, I figured it was worth discussing. Thanks for your time! 24.79.242.248 (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Not a widely held view Bashir, Omar S. (1 October 2015). "Testing Inferences about American Politics: A Review of the "Oligarchy" Result". Research & Politics. 2 (4): 2053168015608896. doi:10.1177/2053168015608896. ISSN 2053-1680. Moxy🍁 16:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

from your source: According to several journalistic accounts but not Gilens and Page themselves, the findings show that the American system of government is best understood as “oligarchy.” which means America as an oligarchy was a widely spread view after their study's findings. This study was also pre-2016. Now, in 2025, it is a widely held view that America is at least transitioning into (if not already) an oligarchy and/or has oligarchs.

Stuart, Riley "Inside the rise of US oligarchs and how it opened a dark money 'floodgate'" ABC Australia [2]

Nover, Scott "Oligarchy Comes to America" Slate [3]

Bernie Sanders statement on oligarchy in America [4]

"Oxfam: Musk’s appointment to Trump’s administration signals that “oligarchy is taking hold of American democracy”" [5]

Parton, Hannah Digby "Commentary: Making American oligarchy great again" Salon [6] Appalling (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

You could make an argument that the united states has been an oligarchy for a long time. Zyxrq (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Main problem is media as sources for something that has been covered widely by academic publications for decades. Moxy🍁 03:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The first Europeans to arrive were Spanish

The Spanish were the first Europeans to arrive in the area of ​​what is now the southern United States in the 16th century.

I think this fact should be reflected in the introduction, just before mentioning British colonization. 87.223.34.93 (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that at least a cursory mention there is desirable. I've proposed an edit. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it works as a start. It hinges heavily on readers understanding "what is now", but I suspect the meaning is clear. CMD (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Senate leader

The infobox contains a list of leaders, which includes the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. Logically, it would make sense to also include the Senate Majority leader, John Thune. The Senate is the other part of Congress, and is in fact the "upper" chamber. So it doesn't make sense to include the House leader but not the Senate leader. Please add Thune's name to the infobox. 2603:7000:6E3B:BE70:547C:C31E:F30A:28F8 (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The constitutionally enshrined senate leader is the vice-president. The majority leader is of relatively recent vintage (mid twentieth century), and whose power is uncertain. See the archives for previous detailed discussions that established consensus that the leader not be named. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

New president edit request

Can I edit the wiki page? There is a new president now Bsd.trk (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Not until he takes office in a few hours... - Adolphus79 (talk) 07:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

oh I thought he was already in office cuz it's 20 January for me Bsd.trk (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

We will change this tomorrow, 12 pm EST. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 07:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

French Florida did not preceded Spanish Florida

Spanish Florida was established in 1513 when Juan Ponce de León claimed the Florida peninsula for Spain during the first official European expedition to North America.

French Florida was a colonial territory established by French Huguenot colonists as part of New France in what is now Florida and South Carolina between 1562 and 1565.--37.132.34.83 (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, and I can understand your objection. The WP article on Spanish Florida states that "Florida was never more than a backwater region for Spain" until settlements were actually established there. The French colonists came very early to settle the south Atlantic coast; they left not because of disease or trouble with the Natives but because they were massacred by other Europeans. I'll recast the sentence. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much. But there is no doubt that the first Europeans to settle permanently in the United States were the Spanish, then the French and later the English. Thanks for the correction.--37.132.34.83 (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree. Spain-France-Britain should be clear in both the introduction and "History" sections. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)