Jump to content

Talk:United States/Archive 99

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95←Archive 97Archive 98Archive 99Archive 100Archive 101→Archive 105

Human rights

An editor on the Talk:Russia page seemingly believes that it is WP:Advocacy to elaborate upon human rights in the Russia article but not in the United States article, and invited me to make an edit on this article. So I want to know if there is WP:Consensus that human rights should be further elaborated upon in the United States article, perhaps in the form of a section devoted exclusively to human rights which can also possibly be touched upon in the lead section. DeathTrain (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It was suggested at that talk page that your focus was on "others", such as Russia, Iran, Afghanistan, etc., and that you should be concerned as well with western democracies, such as Australia, Canada, and the United States. We have Human rights in the United States#Justice system linked under the "Law enforcement and crime" section; and that's the only mention/link that I could find. Do we need more? The problem with "human rights" is that there are all sorts of human rights abuses, but the ones that tend to be focused on seem to originate from a particular political bent. Human rights abuses tend not to be about the rights of workers to be free from competition with cheap (i.e. immigrant) labor (although at the same time extolling unionization), the rights of the unborn, bigotry against those who adhere to conservative religions, etc. Also, this article is groaning under the weight of all its previous additions and we are trying to slim down. You must take that into account, as well. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't know that there needs to be much more elaboration on human rights issues in the US. However, I do think there should be another sentence in the introduction talking about accusations of human rights violations in the US. For example, in the introduction of the China article it currently says: "The Chinese government has been denounced by political dissidents and human rights activists for widespread human rights abuses, including political repression, suppression of religious and ethnic minorities, censorship, mass surveillance, and their response to protests, notably the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests." I'm ok with that sentence because it's fair and neutral. But something similar should be said about the US, like: "The United States government has been denounced by political dissidents and human rights activists for widespread human rights abuses, including mass incarceration of racial minorities, concentration camps for immigrants and refugees, and failure to provide basic needs for millions of its people, like proper healthcare." The list can obviously be longer, but that's just a snapshot of what the US has been widely criticized for in recent times.UBER (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed text for lead.Human rights in the United States

However, the United States government has also been denounced by political dissidents and human rights activists for various human rights abuses, including mass incarceration of racial minorities, concentration camps for immigrants and refugees, the support of foreign dictators, persecution of dissidents, increasing poverty and inequality and failure to provide basic needs for millions of its people, such as proper healthcare.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

References

  1. ^ "World Report 2020". Human Rights Watch.
  2. ^ "State Department's attack on the BDS movement violates freedom of expression and endangers human rights protection". Amnesty International.
  3. ^ "Record of human rights violations in US in 2019". China Daily.
  4. ^ "USA: State Department's flawed 'unalienable rights' report undermines international law". Amnesty International.
  5. ^ "Japanese Internment Camps". History.
  6. ^ "The Indonesian Counter-Revolution". Jacobin.
  7. ^ "What the United States Did in Indonesia". The Atlantic.
  • This is a lot to add to the lead with an excessive amount of sources cluttering the lead. Is this all covered in the article? Not sure an article like China is a good example for comparison. Needless to say this needs a discussion... if anything death penalty. Just seems out of context in its current form compared to what the article says and placement in lead.--Moxy 🍁 18:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@UberCryxic: I also think China is an inappropriate model for the United States. Before anything gets added to the lead, more should be done to the body. I also believe that a human rights section should also contain nuances such as the bill of rights and how the United States still tends to get relatively good ratings for Human rights by international watchdogs, and also watch out for WP:Recentism.DeathTrain (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Well it seems "out of context" because there's a kind of political hagiography clouding the introduction, with one minor critical note about inequality in the previous version. Maybe the comparison with China is irrelevant; I agree. The point is, we should mention notable and widespread views, and it is a notable view that the United States government commits human rights violations (per reputable sources, per...reality). So this should be mentioned in the introduction. I mean every country should be written about with a "nuanced" perspective. It's common practice on national articles to identify nations that are notorious human rights violators (like...the United States).UBER (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
" notorious human rights violators" we will need to talk[1]. Lets see what we can put together that is relevant for the lead before the idea gets rejected out right. Something along the lines ...

Despite the relatively good international rankings on human rights, the country receives criticism for inequality in regards to race and income, its capital punishment policy ,incarceration rates,...few more links if need be

--Moxy 🍁 23:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@UberCryxic: I still think that more should have been done to the body first, but would you like to add your thoughts on Talk:Russia on detailing human rights in the lead section of the Russia article?DeathTrain (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Try to accomplish this with links rather than with a lot of text. The whole article Human rights in the United States, not just the sectional link we already have, might be linked to "criticism of domestic human rights abuses", as well as United States involvement in regime change to "foreign". Dhtwiki (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I've always found it weird how articles such as China, Iran, Russia have leads that mentions issues within the country such as human rights abuses and the like, but on the United States article, it has never been mentioned. I support its inclusion, even as a dual American citizen. The other articles that needs to be fixed next are probably Israel and India, the lead is filled with puffery of the country with almost no "negative" mention of its history of abuses with minorities as well as human rights issues. Indian/Israeli nationalists are probably rampant on there, you would think reading that article these countries are the best in the world. Getting on-topic, the United States may be a developed country, but its issues with human rights both domestically and internationally cannot be understated and should be appropriately mentioned in the lead. 104.244.211.140 (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't reflect well on the integrity of Wikipedia that the articles on Russia, China, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, and others mention human rights in the introduction. Whereas the article about the glorious American empire where nobody has ever been persecuted for their political beliefs and where black people are definitely not murdered are the streets doesn't mention human rights in the introduction. Its either all country articles mention human rights issues in the introduction or none of them do.User:SpaceSandwich talk 1:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)—

@SpaceSandwich: Maybe this should be discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries.
@DeathTrain:I think countries, and especially powerful countries, that have a long history and continuing record of human rights violations should be identified in Wikipedia articles, even in the introduction. So yes, that includes Russia, China, the US, Britain, France, etc. I don't want to look at anybody with rose-colored glasses. The Chinese have their Great Leap Forward and the Belgians have their Congo. The Chinese have their concentration camps for poor and defenseless Uighurs and the Americans have their "detention centers" for poor and defenseless immigrants (and that's not just about Trump; the Americans have been doing this for decades). There's hardly anybody with power over the global system that doesn't have (a lot of) blood on their hands, and that continues to be the case today. I don't think it's Wikipedia's job to conduct a moral evaluation of "who's worse." That gets into a lot of thorny philosophical dilemmas that will never be resolved through debate. The point is, if it's a notable view and supported by numerous reputable sources, it should be mentioned in a prominent place like an introduction (controversies about that view can also be mentioned, of course). As for Russia, I'd support almost the exact kind of formulation as in the China and US articles, but detailing Russia's own unique issues (like, you know, Putin's fondness for murdering journalists, but stated in a more neutral tone).UBER (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Moxy: I like your idea very much. I would be ok with putting the following in there verbatim right now: "Despite the relatively good international rankings on human rights, the country receives criticism for inequality in regards to race and income, its capital punishment policy, and incarceration rates." This wouldn't even need sources in the introduction, because (again) it's a very notable view. Citations can be used later if this is expanded upon in the actual body. But I'll let you make the final call, I don't really think this is worth having a huge fight over (and I know it could easily devolve into that because it's a politically sensitive subject). So I'm bowing out of this debate. Cheers.UBER (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)c

@UberCryxic: I suppose I am okay with that, but I also think more needs to be done to the body first. Perhaps a separate Human rights section should be created due to WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. DeathTrain (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The article incorporates criticism throughout the article as it should be Wikipedia:Criticism.--Moxy 🍁 15:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@DeathTrain: No. This still sounds "rose coloured glasses". The article for China for example essentially says China sucks and everyone there is oppressed and killed. So having the article just say that America has received criticism isn't good enough. America has literally been instrumental in genocides. Also, it shouldn't just be about race it should also include the CIA's well documented use of extrajudicial killings and so-called black sites, as well as war crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as support for Totalitarian regimes. User:SpaceSandwich talk 14:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@SpaceSandwich: This discussion is about Human rights within the United States, not how the government is complicit or active in human rights abuses in its foreign policy by supporting despotic regimes or by committing war crimes. The lead section of the China article does not mention anything about how China is the biggest ally to North Korea, arguably the most totalitarian regime in the world today, or how China supports similarly dictatorial regimes in Africa or Central and West Asia.DeathTrain (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't oppose airing US dirty laundry, but it appears that some editors don't know the difference between "human rights" (conditions for citizens in 2021) and outrageous historical crimes or the poor treatment of migrants. Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea handle dissent differently. The US in 2021 doesn't arrest homosexuals upon the order of a regional strongman, or execute dissident wrestlers, or send minority-ethnic families to "reeducation" camps (after taking all their possessions). It is different, and encyclopedias treat it differently. So does the UN. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, first of all the United States absolutely does send minority families to reeducation camps. (Internment of Japanese Americans,Internment of German Americans, Internment of Italian Americans, Guantanamo Bay detention camp, Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, Trump administration migrant detentions). Second, the crimes committed by the U.S. government aren't all "historical" or "in the past, man", they're still happening to this day. Also the U.S. absolutely cracks down on dissent (2020 deployment of federal forces in the United States, Communist Control Act of 1954) As for what DeathTrain said, its not just about abuses committed abroad by the U.S., but also domestic abuses. SpaceSandwich (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Migrants (even separated children) are not Uighur families removed from their lives as Chinese citizens on Chinese territory, their homes commandeered. You're an ideologue. I get that. However, US law (and legal services) don't apply in Chechnya or Xinjiang. You wish to rewrite this article to create a narrative of moral equivalency between a democracy and a dictatorship. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Imagine calling me an ideologue when you believe in that "Uyghur genocide" bullshit. And also what a stupid fucking argument, Chinese law doesn't apply in the U.S.... As for accusing me of creating a moral equivalency, no I'm just trying to provide the truth and not allow the crimes of the largest and most oppressive empire in the fucking world today be whitewashed. SpaceSandwich (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@SpaceSandwich: Please remember to be WP:CIVIL. I do not appreciate your profane replies. I also feel that your arguments and rhetoric are not WP:NEUTRAL, and that you are instead pushing an anti-USA POV by using such language as calling the United States the "largest and most oppressive empire in the fucking world today". Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.DeathTrain (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@DeathTrain: Why should I be neutral when this site is clearly not looking for neutrality? Look at what I replied to in the first place. I apologize for using profane language, but it is becoming increasingly irritating to argue with such disingenuous people. User:SpaceSandwich (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, and therefore one of its fundamental principles. Wikipedia is not perfect, but we editors try to make it the best we can. Geopolitics and international relations are very complex, and it is not as simple as "if a powerful country supports despotic regimes, it must be bad", as all powerful countries did that and still do.

I do not know if you have noticed this, but the Russia article currently does not mention human rights or give any form of criticism to the current government in its lead section at all. Although the United States has supported despotic regimes such as Saudi Arabia, the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos, several genocidal military dictatorships in Central and South America, and many others, China and Russia/the Soviet Union also have and still support similar regimes. The Soviet Union was an ally to Cuba, East Germany, Nicolae Ceaușescu's Socialist Republic of Romania, Idi Amin's Uganda and other Soviet satellite states among others. Meanwhile, China supported regimes like Enver Hoxha's People's Socialist Republic of Albania, Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe, or even the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia. China and Russia today still support despotic regimes like Bashar al-Assad's Syria, Iran, Cuba, Belarus, North Korea and most of the authoritarian former Soviet republics in Central Asia like Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan. Neither China nor Russia give any form of elaboration to the many despotic regimes they have supported in the past or present. Why should the United States? Overelaborating on criticism that is not attested in the article itself, by related articles or by reliable sources is undue weight and pushing a POV. DeathTrain (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Space, I appreciate your interest in the article "United States". It is (or it was very recently) the most read article on WP-EN. Many people have an opinion about the U.S., and editors from abroad like you (with spellings like "rose-coloured") do contribute. However, you obviously have an editorial agenda that seeks to establish some kind of moral equivalency between the U.S. and truly repressive and authoritarian states. If that is your goal, it will not succeed. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree. As imperfect as Wikipedia could be, neutrality is important and editors should not be trying to fit their own personal opinions and perspectives into articles. SpaceSandwich appears to have a strong personal POV on the US government, which is their right, but for it to be the inspiration for how entries are made on an article is simply inappropriate. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Mason.Jones: How can you claim neutrality when you are calling these countries "truly repressive and authoritarian states"? And don't claim that it is fact, because I live in one of the countries that DeathTrain called an "despotic regime". Also, DeathTrain, for being impartial, you are clearly stating an opinion as I don't consider a number of the countries you listed to be "totalitarian regimes", and I know many people personally who agree. But nonetheless, I give up, so its cool, do what you like with article. SpaceSandwich (talk 14:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Space, your Talk page is a testament to your raving posts. It also features multiple WP warnings. In case you didn't know, Wikipedia is not the People's Daily. Find a website that reveres Stalin or something. Wikipedia seems a poor fit for you. Mason.Jones (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Mason.Jones, Thank you, I will consider applying for a job! I would recommend this really cool company for you to work at, they're looking for many people like you, it's called the Committee of Wikipedia Truthtellers SpaceSandwich {talk) 21:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@SpaceSandwich, you first admit to being an Uyghur genocide denialist, but within hours you then proceed to accuse Mason.Jones and DeathTrain of being disingenious people. This is a textbook example of the pot calling the kettle black. Why should any of us believe that your contributions in this context, or to the whole of Wikipedia for that matter, are made in good faith? 160.39.55.39 (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mason.Jones, did you seriously just log out so that you could make another comment in an attempt to create an illusion of support? You do realize this is a violation of WP:LOUTSOCK? 104.244.211.140 (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
No, dear anonymous "104.244.211,140," and such a slur only proves the squalid methods those on your "side" are employing in an effort to propagate your POV moral equivalency on WP. Yet you have no moral scruples—none whatsoever. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I think we should point out that compared with most industrialized nations, the U.S. has greater wealth and income inequality, higher incarceration rates, the death penalty, and lacks universal health care. I don't see that any of this amounts to significant human rights violations. TFD (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@Moxy: @The Four Deuces: @UberCryxic: @Mason.Jones: It is time to finalize this discussion. What should be put in? DeathTrain (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
@Moxy: @The Four Deuces: @UberCryxic: @Mason.Jones: I have now attempted to detail human rights in the lead section. What do you think? http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=United_States&type=revision&diff=999920733&oldid=999861448 DeathTrain (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it's great! Fairly neutral and quick, so it doesn't feel like we're dragging out an issue across the introduction. Good job!UBER (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I support the content, if not the syntax. The passage might face some wrath (and deletion) from editors who don't wish to see the U.S. diminished in any way, and that must be monitored. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: @UberCryxic: @Mason.Jones: Now that human rights have been elaborated in this article, do any of you want to participate in the discussion on human rights in the Russia article on Talk:Russia?DeathTrain (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@DeathTrain: A waste of time. Country articles about Russia, China, and similar regimes do not tolerate criticism, and it doesn't stay for long. It would help more to monitor this article, one of the most read and most frequently vandalized. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
If an alien reads the Russia article and compares it with the current version of the United States article, they would be easily convinced that Russia is a much more desirable place to live in. This is obviously false and not acceptable. Why was the request to add this sort of sentence fulfilled, rather than ignored in the first place, given the heavily biased POV of the few proponents who suggested it? Uyghur genocide denialists should not hold this much power in deciding the tone of articles about liberal democracies. 160.39.55.39 (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Do you actually have a coherent, non-POV and not politically charged suggestion to make or are you just going to continuously make ad hominem attacks against other users behind a burner IP? If you have issues with the Russia article, start a discussion there. This is about the United States, not Russia. Whataboutism is not going to get you anywhere. 104.244.208.212 (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
@"Special contributor" 104.244.208.212. You are special, it's true: You accuse editors of "attacks against other users behind a burner IP", when you engage in an attack behind an anonymous burner IP. That's called hypocrisy. For your information, the lead to "United States" now has a passage re human rights. When frank passages are added to country articles for Russia, China, and similar paragons of virtue, you can lecture here. Till then, you probably shouldn't. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Flushing, Michigan....never heard of the place.--Moxy 🍁 21:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • So still seeing big problems...wonder if its best we have an RFC and in the mean time stick to status quo. This conversation does not seem to hold much weight...we have accusations of new editors with an agenda, sleeper accounts, random IP's...what we need is a proper community talk with more exprienced editors.--Moxy 🍁 18:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "Big problems" because editors (mostly from outside the U.S.) must include more POV swipes. I support a basic statement, but the string of negative add-ons—unsourced and unqualified—never stops. Nationalists then delete the entire passage wholesale. This is edit-warring with no end in sight. Mason.Jones (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Best get the community involved because all the reverts thus far are correct..... there is definitely no consensus on wording let alone inclusion as seen by its removal many times. So we are going to go in circles till we have a real talk to point to. Had a stable lead for a very long time till now. What we now have is ediotrs that don't actually contribute to the article making edits because of poor wording WP:Main article fixation.--Moxy 🍁 20:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with "poor wording", Mox. This is ideological warfare about the world's most powerful country. No "consensus" statement will survive for long. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I think less more precise wording would help..drags on right now. But I agree with will see a war.....I forsee a few editors being blocked over the next few months.--Moxy 🍁 06:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the current version is fine now. A simple note per balance should satisfy both sides. ShelteredCook (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I think ShelteredCook is trying to impose an agenda. The text added is devious drivel worthy of Radio Moscow, circa 1969. "Should satisfy both sides"—is that Cold War parody? Mason.Jones (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Mason.Jones, I've realized you're continuously not assuming good faith against other editors that you disagree with, and I suggest you cease doing that, considering your prior history with similar behavior. I have always provided context behind my contributions, and if you're going to cast aspersions against me by saying I'm trying to "impose an agenda", it's best to start an RfC over this like what Moxy has suggested, so that more editors can provide their perspectives into this discussion. It's also not helpful to this entire discussion when you're also making comments such as "text added is devious drivel worthy of Radio Moscow, circa 1969", especially considering that they are supported by sources in their own article by Freedom House themselves when they released their financial reports, as well as many other journals. ShelteredCook (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Your edits have been classic examples of bad faith: "It's best to start..." No, we do not start with a mendacious footnote inferring that Freedom House is the only source of a fair human rights appraisal for the U.S., as you then proceed to link it as a propaganda arm of the U.S. government, suggesting that the U.S. funded its own positive appraisal. That is propaganda, and dishonest editing. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

RFC:Addition of human rights in the lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus here is option C + healthcare. There is no clear consensus on how to mention healthcare, however, but I (personally) imagine ShelteredCook's suggestion, or a variation thereof, may be able to gain consensus. There was also some mention of including content on crime rates, but no clear consensus on this. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


Should we add mention of social problems like human rights records, civil liberties, social inequality and/or bad foreign policy in the lead to reflect the coverage currently in the article? If yes what to mention and what to add? Suggestions below.--Moxy 🍁 17:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions of text

More suggestions welcome
A:

Despite considerable income and wealth disparities in comparison to other developed countries, it ranks high in measures of economic freedom, quality of life, and quality of higher education, and receives relatively high ratings for human rights, despite issues such as racial division, a large prison population and continued use of capital punishment.

B:

However, the United States government has also been denounced by political dissidents and human rights activists for various human rights abuses, including mass incarceration of racial minorities, concentration camps for immigrants and refugees, the support of foreign dictators, persecution of dissidents, increasing poverty and inequality and failure to provide basic needs for millions of its people, such as proper healthcare.

C:

Despite the relatively good international rankings on human rights, the country receives criticism for inequality in regards to race and income, its capital punishment policy and incarceration rates.

Survey

  • Yes with C my preferred version....no need to overwhelm the lead with this....keep it short.--Moxy 🍁 17:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • B / C, in that order of preference, although either is fine. Oppose A, which is weirdly structured (eg. "despite" twice) in a way that awkwardly splits the issues the sentence focuses on into two parts, and which generally fails to attribute this as criticisms the US has faced; A also feels a bit more WP:SYNTH-y in that it implicitly suggests that measures of economic freedom, quality of life, and quality of higher education, and receives relatively high ratings for human rights are a direct rebuttal to income inequality in a way that isn't really WP:BLUE (given that these are averages.) The other two, since they lead into attribution, feel like they're more neutrally listing "good thing X, but faced criticism for Y" without leading the reader to a conclusion. Of the other two, B is more specific (especially with regards to attributing who the criticism is coming from), although I can understand the argument that it's on the long side; it could be tweaked in terms of which specific aspects are emphasized. C is brief and acceptable. --Aquillion (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd say a combination of B and C, such as trimming the former especially in regards to healthcare. I do feel putting in "failure to provide basic needs for millions of its people" is going to lead to edit wars almost immediately, so I'd say to leave it out and keep it less terse such as "...as well as the lack of universal healthcare among developed countries." On the Health care in the United States article, there's a sentence which mentions "A 2017 survey of the healthcare systems of 11 developed countries found the US healthcare system to be the most expensive and worst-performing in terms of health access, efficiency, and equity." The source from that article could be attributed to support the phase here. ShelteredCook (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No mention this is not some suppressive regime. .--204.237.48.192 (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • C + A. A has the advantage of more links (10 vs. 7, assuming each link is of equal usefulness) but is clumsily worded (<despite bad things it has good and it has good things despite bad>). B is wordy, has relatively few links, and starts with a mystifying "However" that makes for a statement that isn't self-contained. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Terse C+A, as mentioned above. B opens with information attributed to specific (groups of) dissidents or activists, which is undue. There is an "Income, poverty and wealth" subsection, and a "Law enforcement and crime" subsection, so these should be mentioned in the lead. However, these sections don't explicitly link the issues with human rights, or together, per Dhtwiki. They shouldn't be played off against one another as 'good thing' 'bad thing', but presented separately and plainly. Such information would fit well in the current fourth paragraph, which goes into wealth and mentions culture. ("Human rights" as a specific topic is not covered at all in the body, so I do not think it should enter the lead explicitly either. If readers think inequality etc. are human rights issues then presenting those covers the issue nicely.) CMD (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • C because it's better than not having it at all. I feel like something such as B will be disputed by American ultra-nationalists (which the Wiki is not lacking of) downplaying the situation until the end of time, even among established and seasoned editors. However, health care needs to be mentioned for sure. 185.188.61.18 (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • C But it needs something on the health care issue as well -----Snowded TALK 08:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • C - Brief, direct and descriptive without any false praise, hence suitable for the lead per Wikipedia:Manual of Style. However, it fails to mention the healthcare issues and crime rate. Oliszydlowski (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • C or A B is far too detailed and pushes an anti-American POV that is fundamentally inconsistent with WP:NPOV.DeathTrain (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • C but shorter: I think that race/income inequality is already given by the third and fourth paragraphs at the moment, so something along the lines of The United States has the world's largest prison population and is also the only Western country to continue the use of capital punishment. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk
  • No per WP:Lead - The lead summarizes the most important information in the body. This does not make the cut. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

*No or C - Brevity, and those are fairly nuanced issues compared to the entirety of the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlatSkate (talk • contribs) Striking sockpuppet comment.

Discussion

A sentence in the lead of most country article about its problems seems warranted considering they are covred in the articles themselves. Even Canada could mention indigenous and language rights problems ...but one article at a time.--Moxy 🍁 18:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • C is misleading, as there is no "government policy" toward capital punishment. Some states execute for capital crimes; others authorize executions but have not approved them for decades; still others totally prohibit executions. The previous White House just carried out several federal executions; the new administration may well stop its use at the federal level. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I think that these kinds of statements are self-contradictory, it reads to me like the human rights rankings don't highlight the issues mentioned. Does the United States really go along with China, Saudi Arabia, and Belarus for their human rights records to be significant enough to mention in their leads? Is it's FitW score of 86 not high enough? Many lower-ranking countries including Russia, Turkey, Mexico, UAE, and Algeria don't mention HR in their lead. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk
"Does the United States really go along with China, Saudi Arabia, and Belarus for their human rights records to be significant enough to mention in their leads?" Yes Eric0928, they very much do. Please put your personal biases and nationalism aside, this is Wikipedia. I'm not sure whataboutism is really a constructive discussion. We can always discuss Human rights issues in the lead on their own articles. Right now, the topic is the United States, not Russia, not Algeria. On the topic of the organization, "Freedom in the World" is literally substantially funded by the government themselves. 185.188.61.18 (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
"We can always discuss Human rights issues in the lead on their own articles." That is often untrue, as anonymous editors don't allow it. There will no doubt be a final statement on U.S. human rights here and, yes, some nationalists will not be happy. Likewise, those who wish to establish systematic moral equivalency on Wikipedia between, say, U.S. border policies and the current genocide of the Uighurs, or the continued poisoning of Russian dissidents and journalists, will be disappointed. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
"That is often untrue, as anonymous editors don't allow it." Elaborate? What makes it different, exactly? I'm not sure using a straw man is helping this discussion move along. Unless you have an opinion on the survey, continuing to babble over who's doing human rights the "worst" is going to end up nowhere. But if nationalists want to call the U.S. the "world's most powerful country", and for it to continue to stay that way, well, we're gonna have to provide context as to how it got there because it sure as hell didn't by singing kumbaya with the rest of the world. 185.188.61.18 (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you linked to my old user page or replied with an IP with five edits but I just want to clarify I'm not a nationalist/centrist/whatever. I'm just here to help a website that's helped me a great deal and I feel that my edit history shows. As an American I am biased in that respect, but as a Wikipedia reader I want this article to be very, very thought out, as the English article for the largest English-speaking country. Comparing other with countries' articles is not "whataboutism" (which is mainly used in a political propaganda context) if you're going for WP:NPOV. As for the articles you have cited, slavery is already mentioned in paragraph 2, and I think U.S. war crimes can be much better presented as their own articles than in a single sentence and should at least be put somewhere in the Military section. I also think that the U.S. being mentioned as a military power makes the fact it has committed war crimes a given. Most of the countries with large militaries, have committed war crimes at some point. I understand that the U.S. is far from perfect in it's HR record, but as it is, it is a first world country with first world problems, and this must be made clear in the lead ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk
@185.188.61.18. I don't consider myself a nationalist and simply stated the obvious: the U.S. is a most powerful, influential country, and editors like you are out for vengeance. I can promise you that "United States" will never be like the "Russia" article, which currently reads like a cheap travelogue. That said, if your goal is to elaborate some anti-U.S. screed of moral equivalency here, your effort will fail. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conclusion

Comment: Participation in this discussion seems to have ended quite some time ago. What will happen to it now? DeathTrain (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Moxy: – I believe the RfC can be concluded now after such a period of inactivity. Oliszydlowski (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
@Oliszydlowski:...just need a third party to do so .....feel free to list this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.--Moxy 🍁 05:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
So what are the results of this RFC? It appears that most support a variation of "C".DeathTrain (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@ShelteredCook:@SlatSkate:@Mason.Jones:@Moxy:@Aquillion:@Dhtwiki:@Chipmunkdavis:@Eric0928:@Adoring nanny:@C.J. Griffin:@PraiseVivec:@Spy-cicle: @Oliszydlowski: @Some1: @Boynamedsue: @-sche: What I am proposing is the following:

Despite receiving relatively high ratings for human rights, persistent issues include racial and income inequality, the continued use of capital punishment, high incarceration rates and lack of universal health care

. DeathTrain (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure a new opption will have any affect on the RFC...waste of time.--Moxy- 02:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, and that does seem better than the options above; however the concerns in my !vote still have not been addressed. A lot of this looks like OR/SYNTH/editorializing. For example, are "high ratings for human rights" mentioned in the article? Capital punishment is not mentioned specifically as an "issue" in the 'Law enforcement and crime' section, so it does not make sense to list that as a "persistent issue." Some1 (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
No OR ..No one replied because its there for anyone to read. What do you think is not clear ..how can we dumb it down so all understand? --Moxy- 02:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Let me ask this in a different way then: Option C says the "country receives criticism for... its capital punishment policy". Could you point me to the specific section in the article that supports that statement? Because I checked United States#Law enforcement and crime (the only place where the words "capital punishment" appears) and don't see any 'criticism' there regarding the US's use of capital punishment. Some1 (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The section seems clear to me ... the government kills its on citizens and at a high rate. No other Western country kills its own citizens... let alone at a high rate. Perhaps we need to make that point more clear for American readers. As i am now suspecting that Americans may not find this a problem...or understand how the rest of the world views State sanction killing at the top of Human Rights concerns around the world. Moxy- 03:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, the sources certainly exist, so we could always add it to the body as well. But I'll point out that DeathTrain's version does seem to reflect the body, which says Capital punishment is sanctioned in the United States for certain federal and military crimes, and at the state level in 28 states, though three states have moratoriums on carrying out the penalty imposed by their governors and goes on about about legal and social back and forths. That's reasonable to summarize as a "persistent issue" (ie. something that remains a point of conflict in US society.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • If I understand right, this is basically C but with things listed as "persistent issues" instead of "criticisms". I think it's probably fine but I don't have a huge preference between the two. --Aquillion (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm fine with it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
It's succinct and neutral, but where does it fit in the lead, and will we have appropriate linkage to all relevant, substantial articles on these topics? I counted 10 links in Option A and only 5 in this solution. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
It's definitely better than nothing. I still think it's a bit vague, but I guess you don't need to cram every single detail in the lead in the first place. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Pls review addition --Moxy- 16:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I like it. But to nitpick, I think some material should be added that pertains to its human rights record specifically, something like "The country has received some criticism of its human rights record, particularly in regards to race and income, its use of capital punishment, high incarceration rates and lack of universal health care."--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
👍  Done.--Moxy- 16:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks!--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Moxy: I would also like it to mention that human rights are still rated relatively high by human rights organizations.DeathTrain (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Moxy: I did it myself. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=United_States&type=revision&diff=1009296467&oldid=1009289559

@ShelteredCook:@SlatSkate:@Mason.Jones:@Moxy:@Aquillion:@Dhtwiki:@Chipmunkdavis:@Eric0928:@C.J. Griffin:@PraiseVivec:@Spy-cicle: @Oliszydlowski: @Some1: @Boynamedsue: @-sche: There is another RFC on the Russia talk page for human rights. Do you have any comment on it? DeathTrain (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2021

Under the infrastructure section in transportation, the article states,

"The United States has the largest rail transport network size of any country in the world with a system length of 125,828 miles, nearly all standard gauge."

Anyone who has ever visited Asia know this statement is laughably false. When i attempted to investigate the reference(444), the link doesn't exist. The get request retrieves no document.

For these reasons, these statements should be deleted. At the very least, this section needs heavy editing. 63.208.139.208 (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. The US does have the largest rail network, it's just that most of it is freight only. See List of countries by rail transport network size. Also see WP:LINKROT. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: [2] says "over 140,000 miles"; [3] has 150000 km (with a previous high at about 190000). Most of it is freight, but yes the US has a large railway network. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
EDIT: Please add the reference to the "railroad" statement, because this article appears to be just American filthy propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.218.30.203 (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Run n Fly (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Cold War proxy wars

A proxy war in Southeast Asia eventually evolved into the Vietnam War (1955–1975), with full American participation.[1]

However, the source doesn't say the Vietnam War started as a "proxy war". It says it started as an anti-colonial war against France. (I'm also not sure what "full American participation" means.) The term "proxy war" seems to be overused here. The introduction says: "During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in various proxy wars but avoided direct military conflict". This could be taken as implying that United States avoided military conflict during the Cold War and used "proxies". Of course, on the contrary, the US fought in Korea, Vietnam, and smaller conflicts like Grenada. By definition, a "proxy war" is a war in which the US is not participating in directly, so why mention "proxy wars" in the lead instead of Korea and Vietnam?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you're right. North8000 (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Chapman, Jessica M. (August 5, 2016), "Origins of the Vietnam War", Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.013.353, ISBN 978-0-19-932917-5, retrieved August 28, 2020
It means what it says, that the United States and the Soviet Union avoided direct military conflict. They didn't fight each other directly in a hot war. No nuclear confrontation or even conventional war between the two superpowers, which everyone was worried about for 45 years. --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 13:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I have tried to fix these issues.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Should not remove the academic term for these conflicts leaving our readers no access (link) to this term.Moxy- 02:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
There is a link in the body of the article. As I said, it is misleading to call the Korean and Vietnam Wars "proxy wars" because the USA did participate in them directly. The opening sentence of proxy war states, "A proxy war is an armed conflict between two states or non-state actors which act on the instigation or on behalf of other parties that are not directly involved in the hostilities". If we use a link to the proxy war article in the lead, it either implies we are not talking about the Korean and Vietnam Wars — if not, why not? — or that the USA was "not directly involved in the hostilities" — which is absurd.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Do you have access to this definition of the term used by academics? Or a Google search of the term in relation to these conflicts can be found Moxy- 05:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Milestone oldid error

Noticed the link for the edit this was given GA status is incorrectly a talk page link. Not sure what the procedure is for fixing it, but decision was concluded @ 16:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC). I assume the correct replacement would be the edit to the main page done right after the decision which added the GA icon (16:22, 21 January 2015, by Winner 42). Here is (what I believe to be) the correct link: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=United_States&oldid=643521120 Pernicious.Editor (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Smi-protected edit request

BORN: MAY 17, 2929 2601:645:401:93B0:A0BB:D065:46C:7509 (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 22:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
^ That. Also, nobody in recorded history was born in 2929. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2021

Specify the Christianity in the infobox 43% Protestant 20% Catholic 2% Mormon WhiteBritsh81.88 (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This isn't conventional for country articles. Normally only the main religions are specified not the denominations. User:GKFXtalk 18:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2021 (2)

This article should describe the United States' crimes against other peoples and nations throughout its nefarious history... This article is also American/CIA propaganda and needs improvement. This article should also be purged of racist and fascist rhetoric (mainly from the alt right and extremist "libertarian" hate groups that promote GUN VIOLENCE (All OATH KEEPERS unnecessary and hateful comments should be removed from this article - ie. no more "the government can become tyrannical and we must uphold the pledge with firearms, blah blah blah. That extremist content is DISTRESSING AND ILLEGAL!)). Special:Contributions/redacted (talk) redacted

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2021

In the "Mass Media" section, it's stated that "The four major broadcasters in the U.S. are the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), American Broadcasting Company (ABC), and Fox Broadcasting Company (FOX).". I believe it would be worthwhile to distinguish the fact that ABC, CBS, and NBC were considered as "The Big Three" up until FOX came to be fully established around the 90's. Reasoning for this being that the three networks in question were in the market since television was first evolving in the 30's and 40's until FOX's entrance into the market decades later.

My suggested edit would be to extend the sentence in question to read along the lines of "The four major broadcasters in the U.S. are the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), American Broadcasting Company (ABC), and Fox Broadcasting Company (FOX), the former three being considered the "Big Three" due to their prominance since the begginning of commercial television broadcasting." However, if this edit is felt as unnesseccary or if it can be implemented in a better sense, that's all fine and dandy. Binzy Boi (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I feel like this information is too -in the weeds- for an article about the United States. A comprehensive history of media consolidation is already in place in the article titled "Concentration of media ownership." Perhaps a link to this article would be appropriate, but I don't think adding this long form description of FOX's history is appropriate here. RobotGoggles (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Population information demographic box needs to be updated =

The information cited is two years old and there was just another major official census in 2020; plus, the population demographic info box content is not the same as what the source cited suggests. We read:

76.3% White
13.4% Black
5.9% Asian
2.8% Multiracial
1.3% Native American
81.5% Non-Hispanic or Latino
0.2% Pacific Islander
18.5% Hispanic or Latino

As opposed to what the source actually says:


60.1% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino


The infobox on this Wikipedia site simply makes up the category "Non-Hispanic or Latino" - which does not exist in the U.S. census - and completely skips over the category which the source does list, which is called White alone, not Hispanic or Latino.

What was the rationale here with the false representation of source material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.64.121 (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The 2020 U.S. Census is very late, and only final national, state, and territory (Puerto Rico only) total populations have been released as of May 2021. Characteristics of the U.S. population are due this summer. Other stats, like metro populations, may be delayed till 2022. All of this is because of COVID-19 and politics. If the figures you cite do not match the latest available source from U.S. Census (2018 estimate? 2010 Census?), they can be removed. Mason.Jones (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Foreign relations with India

It is strange that this article mentions India first out of countries that the US has "strong ties" with, before Canada, Australia, Japan, and many other countries with significant defense and trade treaties. In my opinion, India does not meet the same level of closeness with the US as these other countries. It is also the only country listed without a citation. I believe it should be taken off this short list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.14.159 (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

"America"

The text currently says that the U.S. was not referred to as "America" in 19th century songs, but the Wikipedia article on "America the Beautiful" says the lyrics date to 1895. Kdammers (talk) 08:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

According to Daniel Immerwahr, writing in Mother Jones,[4] use of the term America was rare until the establishment of the American Empire in 1898. Note that the poem "America the Beautiful" was set to its current melody only in 1910. TFD (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
"Rare" is not the same as never. The text currently says, "It does not appear in patriotic songs composed during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,...." Instead of having the reader parse this with partially ungiven information (The music to the song was composed in the 19th century, and the poem was written in the 19th century, but the two were not published together as a song with lyrics and music until the 20th century), we should change the text to something clear and accurate. Apparently "The Digital Turn" by Bob Nicholson (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13688804.2012.752963) has data on the use of the term, but I don't have access to the article. Kdammers (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Mother Jones is not reputable enough to support such a broad claim all on its own, especially from just one article that appears to have an ideological bent. You can find references to this country as "America" in the 18th century, such as in numerous quotes from George Washington. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Washington — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.14.159 (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

A sentence / topic.. In memory of more than 500,000 deaths from COVID 19.

 Sir's! Does the attempt qualify as vandalism ?WikiUserNr.2345678998765 (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-Monarchy

At the beginning of the nation, they had to separate powers, and so gave the President monarchical powers but making the charge elective. I would call this a Republic that originally wanted a term-fixed king-like President. I'll cite only one source but you can search more online about what I said.[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Localhost83 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

That's an interesting article by a distinguished historian. I think however that it is too narrow an issue to include in this article, especially considering that we would have to consider other viewpoints. TFD (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Pardon if I may sound rude, but as far as I know, my point is not subjective but factual. Localhost83 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
The wikipedia page "monarchism in the united states"[6] seem to confirm that around the time of the constitution, the form of government should have been monarchical, I can see that the constitution writers didn't know much about the difference except that the executive should have been elected every four years. Anyway I found this story which asked a foreign monarch to rule America[7]. I can't find proofs for my claim now that I need it, but I hope we can keep this topic open until I can prove it doubtlessly. Localhost83 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 11 June 2021 (CET)
Your point is made by a single scholar, which is definitely not enough to modify this article. And, you haven't mentioned what change you would like to make - a change to government type? Addition to history? --Golbez (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
You're more than welcome to "keep the topic open" in that we don't close topics, but they will time out. Eventually it will be archived. If you have "proofs for your claim" I'm expecting you'll be able to supply them before that happens? --Golbez (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
lol never mind, our friend's been indeffed. --Golbez (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Government type

I think ‘two party' should be typed in the government type section. Michael58137543 (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

It's already there. Unless you mean in the infobox? In which case there's no reason to add that. One-party states are mentioned because other parties are typically banned; that is not the case here. --Golbez (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
To add to what Golbez has said, there is no legal reason why the US is dominated by two parties. No parties are named in our Constitution, and we have more than two parties in existence today. Rather, it seems to be an emergent property of first-past-the-post voting systems. Many other countries have similar two-party dominated systems. The UK, for example, hasn't had a Prime Minister (and therefore not a government dominated by) anyone other than Labor or Conservative party for almost a century now. In the US, prior to our current two parties, we had other two party dominated eras, such as the Democratic-Republicans vs the Federalists, or the Whigs vs the Democrats, etc. As Golbez said, in states labeled "one party," it's a case where they actually have laws banning the formation of other parties. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021

So this page is great. Tells about most of the things one may want to know. But it lacks one topic I noticed, that is "USA Television". Ofcourse there is already many things about "Cinema" but TV is whole different things. Therefore I wanted to know about Top American TV series and more in this page but I found nothing about TV which is an important part of USA because is so successful and people watch everything around the globe. My request is there should be separate detailed topic just for Television and successful television programs. I hope my request would be heard. Thanks. Bittu355 (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bittu355, you may find the information you are looking for at Television in the United States. CMD (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey thanks... but I want this very page to have some of the contents from that link or page. So that when people open this page they could read a little and go to that specific page if they find it interesting. I hope there would be an edit. Bittu355 (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The television article has a link in the sectional hatnotes under "Mass media", with a brief summary detailing some of the major television networks, etc. That means people can find their way there from here fairly easily. If you think there's an important detail that's missing, you can specify it; but we're probably not going to add a lot more to what we already have. Dhtwiki (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC) (edited 06:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2021

Update the first paragraph under "Government and Politics" in regards to the United States' position in the Democracy Index. It is still 25th worldwide as of 2020, being categorized as a "flawed democracy" for the last 5 years.

Here's the link to the news source Here's the link from which page you can access the official report Here's the link to the respective, updated, Wiki page 2.152.97.67 (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)  Done.--Moxy- 19:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Relevance of Israel content?

I'm not sure how relevant this sentence, which mostly has to do with other nations, is to the overall summary of US history:

In 1979, President Jimmy Carter brokered a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, marking the first time an Arab nation recognized Israeli existence.

This seems like it would make more sense at Egypt or Israel, but even though President Carter was involved I don't think this is major for the US, especially considering how much consolidation we have to do here in this section. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

It was a major achievement of the 1970s Carter years and should be mentioned with the Panama Canal treaties, the oil crisis, and U.S. hyperinflation. I do agree that what follows the second comma is undue weight for another country's superlative and better mentioned under "Israel," not here. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the sentence could be trimmed as Mason.Jones suggests. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2021

In the section about the world wars it makes no mention that the US was a vital supplier to the entente powers in WW1, prior to their entrance. but it does make mention of the US's supplies in WW2. It feels like there should be some sentence mentioning the supplies in WW1. Just a suggestion. Tambles (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
To elaborate, this might be something worth considering, but that's not what the semi-protected edit request is for. That's for when there's a specific change to be made, not asking for a discussion. --Golbez (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Criticism in lead accepts left-wing premise?

No longer expecting any meaningful discussion, and neither should you. Honestly, this exchange was enlightening. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

However, the country has received criticism concerning inequality related to race, wealth and income, the use of capital punishment, high incarceration rates, and lack of universal health care.

I'm concerned that this sentence in the lead accepts the premise that politically left-wing ideas should be perceived globally as correct. This is especially with regard to universal health care, but some of the other issues apply as well; "income inequality" is bad, but many view income equality as worse. Surely people of varying political stripes have criticized the US on a range of other issues, and would defend the things listed as good, necessary, or better than the alternative (capital punishment over terrorism, incarceration over higher crime, lack of universal healthcare over limits on personal provider). Also, the idea that "criticism" here is widespread as opposed to a majorly debated topic on both sides I don't think presents it in a due light. Regardless of our opinions on the validity of these arguments, they are hotly contested, and not monolithic as this sentence makes it seem. In any case, it presently isn't clear who is doing most of the criticism here – inside/outside the country, academics/average joes, left-wing/right-wing. Would like further input. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Since universal health care is obviously not a left-wing idea in 95% of the world, I stopped reading at that point. HiLo48 (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Let's hope they don't edit content.Moxy- 02:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
One user who takes pride in their ignorance of what others say, another who sees talk pages as the water cooler to snicker behind others' backs. You're fortunate I don't care much for the drama boards because you know comments like that could put your 15-year streak on this site in jeopardy. Thanks for demonstrating to me better than I've seen before what this encyclopedia really is – a few people willing to raise their concerns on important articles like, oh I don't know, the United States of America, and others unwilling to feign even the bare minimum amount of consideration. Now I know not to expect any further deliberation, consensus or anything that requires mental exertion. The status quo remains, simply because no one could be bothered otherwise. This endeavor was more helpful than perhaps you realize. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Last sentence in introduction is poorly constructed

"Making up more than a third of global military spending, it is the foremost military power in the world and is a leading political, cultural, and scientific force internationally.[23]" Either it should be "Making up more than a third of global military spending, it is the foremost military power in the world, and it is a leading political, cultural, and scientific force internationally.[23]", because the fact that it spends on the military is not connected to the fact that it is a leading cultural and scientific force, or the two fact should be in separate sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.152.85 (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I have changed the text as you've suggested. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Still better as a separate sentence altogether. Semicolons should be kept at a bare minimum, especially in the intro. Also, current semi implies a linkage that isn't there. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Chicago (Great Lakes) and infobox

Hi y'all,

Should we write in the infobox that Chicago (Great Lakes) is the biggest megalopolis in the United States? New York might be the biggest metropolitan area, but megalopolis is important too.

Best regards, Steve RealIK17 (talk) 05:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The Great Lakes Megalopolis is the largest listed for the United States at Megalopolis, but it includes some of Canada's largest cities. So, that limits its appropriateness to this article (and its being listed as a purely US megalopolis at the latter article, as well). Dhtwiki (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Not only "limits" its appropriateness, but excludes it. Greater Toronto (actually, it's much of urban Canada) shouldn't be a part of U.S. infobox demographic superlatives. This is creating factoids where the "facts" are already fuzzy. Mason.Jones (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

White Latinos vs. No Latinos?

Demographically, is this article really trying to re-classify Latino (including those with Central American and Indigenous North American ancestry) as 'White'? Since when? The new Census (2020) released this month indicates that the country's popluation grew by 50 million in the past 20 years, and of that, African-Americans are still at 13%? Sounds fishy.72.174.131.123 (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? From what I can tell no one is trying to "re-classify Latino as White", because that's not how the Census does it. Latino/Hispanic is considered a separate indicator from race. Most Hispanics count as White; some count as Black, some Asian, etc. That's why the term "white non-hispanic" is commonly used. And yes, African Americans are still at 13%, were you expecting it to change? --Golbez (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
U.S. demographics historically classify Hispanics as a group separate from whites and blacks. Sometimes whites are referred to as non-Hispanic whites. Obviously this creates some anomalies. TFD (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

2020 census redistricting data

With the recent release of the 2020 census redistricting data, the Census Bureau has cautioned against comparing race and ethnicity data to that of the 2010 census. This appears to be due to the fact that a much larger number of respondents identified as multiracial since the previous census. Therefore, I'm not sure that we should immediately add this data anywhere until consensus can be reached. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if I see a problem with adding the data, and when noting changes over time add a link to that caution. --Golbez (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I would hold off on it. But if we do continue to present this data as all data from previous censuses has been presented, there definitely needs to be at least a footnote. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2021

TBA 64.83.217.138 (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Should it be mentioned that U.S soldiers left Afghanistan?TTTTRZON (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

US soldiers haven't quite left Afghanistan. The article, in the "Contemporary history" subsection, has a link to War in Afghanistan (2001–2021), which is the likeliest place to place details of the current situation. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

If the soldiers actually leave on 31th/30th August it should be updated in the article too. Regards, WikiSilky (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Now that almost all soldiers have left Afghanistan, an edit seems appropriate. PtolemyXV 25 October 2021

Article lead

An editor's recent contributions to the lead have created two problems: (1) the very wordy expansion of the lead, which had once been concise; and (2) the introduction of rather selective moments in U.S. history, omitting other major events while introducing ideological saws regarding imperialism. For ex., the unsourced and perfectly erroneous observation that the U.S. purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867 was part of some imperialistic objective must be removed. Also questionable is the assertion (no source again) that the U.S. created and escalated the Cold War with the Soviet Union. The sudden addition of ahistorical "facts" in what should be a summarized history must be questioned—and removed—without proper consensus from other editors. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC) .

"Independence" in infobox

The United States has one commemorated date of national founding/independence: July 4, 1776. The dates of the last state admission and constitutional amendment are irrelevant to independence, and the others are superfluous because they are not widely commemorated. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 05:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that we have certain dates that don't really relate to our "Independence from Great Britain" but are missing some that do, such as July 2, 1776, when independence was actually voted for. The treaties with Great Britain and other powers recognizing our independence were possibly more important than our feeble declaration of such, no matter how many hot dogs have been consumed in its honor. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2021

Indian from India 🇮🇳 for reservations be changed to Native American 🇺🇸Reservations since an Indian from India 🇮🇳 could be Indian American. 🇺🇸 🇮🇳 47.6.69.45 (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Indian reservation is the common term. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

America redirect

This is not a forum. If you believe America (disambiguation) should be re-moved to the base name, open a WP:RM at Talk:America (disambiguation); if you believe it should target the Americas, open a WP:RFD. (CC) Tbhotch™ 02:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This page redirects from America, shouldn't it redirect to Americas since it is a continent. --Bento Emanuel (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no continent called "America", just North America and South America, which are collectively sometimes called the Americas. America singular, in North American English usage, refers to the United States. freshacconci (✉) 20:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
In the first few words you must change "continent" to "super-continent"; that's what the Americas are. Georgia guy (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
From Americas (terminology): "The Americas, also known as America, are lands of the Western Hemisphere, composed of numerous entities and regions variably defined by geography, politics, and culture.
The Americas are recognised in the English-speaking world to include two separate continents: North America and South America. The Americas are also considered to be a single continent named America in parts of Europe, Latin America and some other areas.", in other places outside of north america America means the continent not the country --Bento Emanuel (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, America should definitely redirect to Americas. Any reason it doesn't? As it stands it seems too US-centric. - Bluest Bird (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
According to the FAQ above, "In English, America (when not preceded by "North", "Central", or "South") almost always refers to the United States. The large super-continent is called the Americas." --Golbez (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
To freshacconci, There is a continent called "America". I know. I'm Italian. The continent America is named after one of my countrymen, the Italian scholar and navigator Amerigo Vespucci. North and South America are connected by a narrow strip of land called the Isthmus of Panama. You're a Canadian. This means you're an American, too. You should embrace it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R. Martiello (talk • contribs) 13:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Africa is joined to Asia by a "narrow strip of land" and Europe is joined to Asia by a massive expanse of land. Do you also consider all of that as one continent? Does that mean that you, an Italian, are an Asian? --Khajidha (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

To Khajidha, The landmass you're talking about, which connects Africa, Asia, and Europe, is called Afro-Eurasia. The Isthmus of Suez connects Africa and Asia. The Caucasus is often referred to as an isthmus which connects Asia with Europe.

No, I, as an Italian, am not an Asian. Nor, am I a Caucasian. (I am not from Caucasia.) We Italians are Europeo/a, Italiano/a, and Latino/a. We use use the alfabeto latino (Latin alphabet). Our alphabet is derived from the Etruscan alphabet, which is derived from the Greek alphabet, which is derived from the Phoenician alphabet (from Mediterranean countries such as Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon) which, itself, is derived from Egyptian hieroglyphs. Does it mean that you are a Latino/a for using Rome's Latin alphabet?

Now, getting back to America. The earliest known use of America is 1507 when it was applied by German cartographer Martin Waldseemuller to South America. I can't stress enough that America is, indeed, a continent, not a country. The fact that the term originated for what is now known as South America and grew to Central America and North America attests to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R. Martiello (talk • contribs) 17:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

1) You missed the point entirely. If North and South America are one continent, then Europe, Africa, and Asia must also be one continent. Whether you chose to call it "Asia", "Afro-Eurasia", or anything else. If your system of continents recognizes Europe, Africa, and Asia as separate, then you cannot logically call North and South America one continent. 2) As for your statement that you are "not Caucasian", you are simply confusing two different meanings of the word. One meaning is "native of the Caucasus region", but another is "group of peoples originating in Europe and the Middle East". 3) And I cannot stress enough that in English (not German, Spanish, Italian, Latin, or any other language), there is no continent of America. There are two continents: North America and South America. Words and concepts in different languages do not need to map out in a one to one fashion. --Khajidha (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Khajidha, this is why we use the term "super-continent". Georgia guy (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I know that. But R. Martiello doesn't seem to understand English usage. --Khajidha (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Please, Khajidha. South, Central, and North America are on one continent. The continent is called America. As I'd indicated before, the continent I live on is called Afro-Eurasia. I'm not a Caucasian just because some English dictionaries feel I should be. In German, Spanish, Italian, Latin, or any other language's dictionaries and Wikipedias, America is one continent and Caucasian people are from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia, Iran and Turkey. Don't get preachy with me about what you think I should be...a Caucasian. Simply put, I'm not. As many European countries' dictionaries and Wikipedias will show you, the English language dictionaries and Wikipedia are incorrect about many, many things. And for you and Georgia guy, according to your very own English-language Wikipedia, Supercontinent does not exist today. So, you're the one who doesn't seem to understand English, Khajidha. Not I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R. Martiello (talk • contribs) 22:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

How do encyclopedias and dictionaries in other languages show that English is "wrong"? That's just silly. English words have what meanings native English speakers give them. Whether that matches similar words in other languages doesn't matter.--Khajidha (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Khajidha, How do they show that English-language encyclopedias and dictionaries are wrong, you ask? That's easy! The English language knows how to protest and garble what is tried, true, and correct. You want silly? The incorrect meanings that English-language speakers give to words that are not their own is silly. Erroneous English definitions of words that aren't from England and the United States does matter to those of us from older civilizations and countries. You don't grasp much. You should try another alphabet. Ciao! — Preceding unsigned comment added by R. Martiello (talk • contribs) 23:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

What is said in Spanish has no impact on the English Wikipedia; we go by the English usage. - Aoidh (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Leaving aside the discussions about continents (they are arbitrary constructions and there are no worldwide consensus about their number and limits), it is clear that when the founders of the USA called the country "United States of America" (and not "United States of the Americas"), they considered that the country were inside a bigger geographical entity called "America". The identification America = USA seems to be modern, and has been imposed by the usage. However, even in English, America is still used as a synonym of the Americas, according to some references: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/america?q=america — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.62.136.214 (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, which is why we have hatlinks to handle ambiguity. I can guarantee that the vast, vast majority of people who are looking up "America" on the English wikipedia are looking for the USA. It being minorly ambiguous does not warrant a move or a redirect change. --Golbez (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Golbez, You cannot guarantee that the vast, vast majority of people who are looking up "America" on the English Wikipedia are looking for the USA. There are people from other North American countries, and Central and South American countries, as well as European and other countries, who look at the English Wikipedia and laugh at the silly nerve of English language speakers who consider America a country instead of a continent. You need to be conditioned to the fact that when we Europeans visit America, we visit Argentina, Martinique, Mexico, Canada, etc.
If you look at Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, German, etc. Wikipedias, you'll see America is, indeed, a continent. On the American continent, they speak Spanish, Portuguese, French, Dutch, etc. The people from those American countries are certainly Americans. Don't be fooled that everyone on the American continent and the Afro-Eurasian continent think America is a country. We don't! It would be as foolish as one European country considering itself Europe, one African country considering itself Africa, or one Asian country considering itself Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R. Martiello (talk • contribs) 12:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
First, please learn to sign your post with four tildes. Then, I don't know if it's been done, but it's possible to measure how many click through to this article after searching on "America". Although Italian Wikipedia adheres to "America" as the continent, the article at French Wikipedia, at least, does make allowance for calling the US "America", although "less exactly" so (ou moins exactement l’Amérique). We've discussed this before (see talk archives). English usage is that the country is America, apparently after Cotton Mather's use of "American" to refer to both Native Americans and colonists, where previously it had referred to the former only (see, for example, Stuart Berg Flexner's I Hear America Talking: An Illustrated Treasury of American Words and Phrases, under "America and the United States"). Dhtwiki (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Dhtwiki, If you google "Amérique at Wikipedia", it should take you to the link of the French Wikipedia article. The map there shows the entire American continent as being America. As do Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, German and other foreign language Wikipedias. An American (Americano/a in Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Americain/e in French) are people from the entire American continent. Not just people in the USA. Whether one is a Native American, an offspring of European colonist, or African American, it is not just a USA thing. The other American countries (outside the USA) are loaded with Native Americans, offspring of European colonists, and African Americans (think Cuba, Brazil, Martinique, etc).

The same thing happens with the words Latino and Latina. In the Italian Wikipedia, they are all about Ancient Rome and Romans (1200 BC) and, thereafter, Romance-speaking Europe and its people and, by a mid-19th century extension, Romance-speaking America. There is a Romance-speaking Africa, too. Just one "special usage" nod in the Italian Wikipedia's "Latino" article called "Latinos o Ispanico" ("Latins" (USA shorthand for "Latin Americans") and "Hispanics") for Latin Americans who live in the USA. The words Roma ("Rome" in English) and Roman are right there in the word Romance. Roma is the oldest city in the world named in Rome's alfabeto latino (Latin alphabet). Did you you think Italy was giving up its superpower of cultural influence on the world so Washington, D.C. could corrupt the Italian words "Latino" and "Latina" for its quaint USA census (mis)usage? You're using Rome's alphabet, Rome's year 2021 AD (2021 anno domini) as well as Italy's calendar, and our ancient language Latino (Latin) in your courts of law.

It's not happening in the Spanish Wikipedia, either, where "Latino" is again all about ancient Rome and Romans, Romance-language speaking Europeans and their cultures (and those later, by extension). There is a "special usage" Spanish Wikipedia article called "Latino (Estados Unidos)" ("Latino (United States")) for Washington D.C.'s 1997 Anglo-Saxon corruption of Rome's remarkable contribution to world culture. You'll find the Portuguese Wikipedia will give the same information as Italian and Spanish Wikipedias. The French Wikipedia defines "Latino" as Italians, Spaniards and Portuguese and others by extension. The French cognates for "Latino" and "Latina" are Latin and Latine which, too, means Ancient Rome and Romance-speaking Europe (including the French), and later extensions. As noted many places elsewhere, the Spanish language is rapidly replacing the English language in the USA. The French Canadians are already Latins (and Americans). Your great grandchildren will be left smelling the flatulence their forebearers left for them when the USA has to adhere to we Latino people's correct usage of America, Latino and Latina. Better (you and) them than us!R. Martiello (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Let me remind you that this is not a forum. Proposals to make changes go to WP:RFD, not this talk page. (CC) Tbhotch™ 15:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Tbhotch makes a good point about there being a place to fix redirects you think are in error. But unless you can show that presently English speakers think of America as other than the US, your attempt would fail. We've had this and similar arguments before, and I don't fancy your chances. Foreign usage, no matter how logical, or anticipated changes in usage won't determine the outcome. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC) (edited 16:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC))

Tbhotch, I hope your message wasn't meant for me. Golbez was treating this talk page like his/her personal forum when s/he erroneously said that s/he could guarantee that the vast, vast majority of people who are looking up "America" on the English Wikipedia are looking for the USA. Not everyone is from the USA. Nor, for that matter, the American continent. You're from Mexico City. You're an American. You shouldn't be fooled into thinking America is meant totally for the USA. I should know what America is. As said above, America is a continent named after the Italian navigator and explorer Amerigo Vespucci. It got named using Rome's alfabeto latino (Latin alphabet). We Italians have been Latino/a since 1200 BC. We invented Latino/a. I ought to know when a continent is named after one of my countrymen. I didn't make any "Proposals to make changes" here, so I don't have to go to WP:RFD. (In case your message was meant for me, as you didn't address it to anyone in particular.) I've told the truth on this talk page. Which is something others are certainly intimidated by. R. Martiello (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

And you still fail to understand that different languages are different. A sequence of letters in one language does not necessarily have the same meaning as the same sequence of letters in another. --Khajidha (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, Martiello, my message was meant for you. And thanks for the patronizing message about my status as an American. Yes, in Spanish I'm americano, but in English, I'm from the Americas or Latin American, which seems to be the problem here: you are thinking as an Italian, not as an English speaker. This is the English Wikipedia, English is preferred. Even in Spain "americano" may and is used as a synonym of "estadounidense" [8][9][10] because Spaniards don't identify themselves as Americans and therefore the American controversy is irrelevant to them. As a matter of fact, it's not Golbez the one using this page as a forum, it's you, who have started to divert from the original messages and has started to give irrelevant examples about how "America" refers to the continents and not the country. Although you say that Golbez "erroneously said that s/he could guarantee that the vast, vast majority of people who are looking up "America" on the English Wikipedia are looking for the USA", it's actually demonstrable. The reason America redirects here is this discussion that took place in July 2015. There you can find real-world evidence on how "America" refers to the US in the English world. The pageviews further support this because only on six occasions the disambiguation page did present more views over the redirection. If people wanted information about other uses of "America", the disambiguation page and redirect would have similar views. Similarly, if most people were interested in the continent, both entries would have similar views, which is not the case. This is why I'm telling you that this page is not a forum: because if you "[are not making] any 'Proposals to make changes' here" what's exactly the point of keeping this section alive? (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Khajidha, No! Absolutely not! You're the one who still fails to understand that disrespect is disrespect. Inflammatory false definitions in the English language are just plain obnoxious and wrong. English-speaking people hording and misusing words such as America, Latino, and Latina solely for the USA is a dreadful Anglo-Saxon form of disrespect to people who live in other countries in America and those of us from Latin Europe, Latin America, and Latin Africa. You may think that English is the international language, but there are now more Spanish speakers than English speakers. Like in the rest of the Romance-speaking world, Spaniards define America as a continent and Latino/a as Latin Europeans, Latin Americans, and Latin Africans. The sociopathic behavior of the Anglo-Saxons regarding the definitions America, Latino, and Latina will succumb when the USA fully transitions into a Latin country, itself. Everyone worldside of stateside is talking about it.R. Martiello (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

This little rant of yours seems much more sociopathic than anything I've said. The only one misusing English words here is YOU. As Tbhotch said, you are trying to force English words into Italian meanings. And that just doesn't work. --Khajidha (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
After seeing this and reading Talk:Latino (demonym)#Origins, it's clear to me that you are not here to write an encyclopedia, but to promote your ideas without serious evidence beyond "I think this" and "other Wikipedias do that". Wikipedia's talk pages are not forums and there is no clear evidence on you attempting to stop using them as such. You are literally blocked from editing several pages and now you are doing it again with this one, but unlike Latino, this page has active discretionary sanctions "against editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia". We are not "intimidated" by your concept of WP:TRUTH. We don't have to keep reading the same fallacies over and over again. (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Tbhotch, okay, this one's for you, Mexican boy/girl. You're NOT an American and you're not a Latino/a. Spain wouldn't even apologize to Mexico for the Spanish atrocities at Mexico's recent 500th anniversary. You New Worlders are a vapid Eurocentric bunch. And the United Staters give the word vapid a whole new meaning! By the way, when the USA becomes a Latin country (as you Spanish-speaking "other Americans" are so passionate for it to be), you're just going to be called Americans anyway. No more of this Latin American baloney. Americans will mean people from the American continent. Is this message "patronizing" enough for your bendy Anglo-American mentality? I hope it is! R. Martiello (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Gosh I knew this name looked familiar. Looks like we need to add another block to your log! --Golbez (talk) 05:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Imagine being more reasonable, logical and having more common sense and still ended being blocked. The state of English Wikipedia is either laughable or unfortunate. The bias towards the US is terrible. It seems that the only valid English is the US, Canadian, UK, Australian and New Zealand. The day that these editors will discover that in Belize, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, and other small Eng-Speaking countries (Specially in the Caribbean), and small English-Speaking zones in countries like in the North Panama, Limon Province in Costa Rica, don't use the same models as the US, or other "more important" English-Speaking countries, and those the English of those countries are as valid as the one from the US or UK. In fact this has nothing to do with language, this has to do with only considering the English usage in the US and the other "more important" English-Speaking countries. To conlude what I am "ranting" about, it is laughable the thousands of contradictions and nonsense the English Wikipedia has for being biased specially towards the US. AndreáaC7 (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Imagine being an account with 3 total edits that somehow knew about this thread. As a matter of fact, everyone commenting negatively here have something in common: They are all WP:SPAs that don't attempt to demonstrate that America should not be redirected here, but they are merely expressing their opinion on a website where users can freely remove talk page accesses per WP:NOTFREESPEECH and WP:TPG. Because of this, I will close this discussion. (CC) Tbhotch™ 02:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States/Archive_99&oldid=1137286223"