Talk:United States - Wikipedia

The link to China goes to Taiwan and it is very clear Mainland China is meant so the link should go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China 2A02:1810:497:7200:7181:BC3E:EFA1:31E8 (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: The Republic of China, the current link, refers to mainland China from 1912 to 1949, which is the intended target. The Taiwan article refers to that republic as it is today on that island. The present-day China you've requested refers to the People's Republic of China. TheWikiToby (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would like this to sat the work :MURICA; somewhere in the reading artical. 24.248.178.166 (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  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. CMD (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Respectfully, I state that in this article I'll perfome my best and remove the same citations and add another web or citation. Pistasolanki15 (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Note: The protection on this page is not tied to specific accounts, however if you have suggestions please do suggest them here. CMD (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

For the further information part of the Indigenous peoples section history for further information it links Native Americans in the United States page. But for the history section would it not be better to have it link to History of Native Americans in the United States page. For the history section of the page it should link to the page specifically about Indigenous history then the current more broad just about Indigenous in general? Aojrocks (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

That makes general sense to me, maybe add it with that justification and see if anyone reverts it? (In the visual editor, just double-click the "See also" or "Further information" (I forget the name) template and change the right field). Mrfoogles (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The [j] in the lede should be replaced to an [m] to look cleaner. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's important you remove it because it makes the article look filthy. The letter "m" is better. Can u please hurry up? DisneyGuy744 (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Remsense how is my comment difficult to understand? You know that tiny "[J]" in the first paragraph of this article, please replace it with an "[M]" to make this article 1000x cleaner DisneyGuy744 (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

can someone respond and change it? It's very important imo HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! @HumansRightsIsCool DisneyGuy744 (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@HumansRightsIsCool wait why can't you make the edit for me? You have 985 edits DisneyGuy744 (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

hello? DisneyGuy744 (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Remember that Wikipedia is a volunteer service. Most people here are pretty busy doing their own stuff or editing other articles; they're not gonna be monitoring this page for most of the day to answer some people's questions.

The letter chosen for the explanatory notes are chosen by the software itself to be consistent with the other footnotes. We have no say in what the individual letter displays as, unless we change all of them which would be a big hassle for something that doesn't really matter.

Also, HumansRightsIsCool had their extended confirmed permissions removed in the past which is why they can't edit the article.

Cheers brother. TheWikiToby (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just put back the being "widely described as an attempted coup d'état" statement back to the contemporary history section. A longer version was first added by @BootsED, removed by @Rjensen, put back by me, then shortened by @TheWikiToby as a sort of consensus version, which I think should be kept. In any case, I think given 4 editors and a number of reversions are involved, further deletions should be discussed in talk. (Because it's not clearly mentioned in the edit summary, this diff is where Rjensen removed the additional text). Mrfoogles (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

the problem is that scholars use coup to refer to the overthrow of the CURRENT government (that is an overthrow of Trump). Everyone agrees it was NOT an attempt to overthrow Trump. see Powell, Jonathan M., et al. "A Coup At the Capitol? Conceptualizing Coups and Other Antidemocratic Actions." International Studies Review 24.1 (2022): online here Rjensen (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just changed the wording of the sentence.

The attack was widely described as an attempted coup d'état.

Changed to,

The attack was widely described as an attempted self-coup d'état. (A self-coup being when the current government illegally tries to retain power)

Does that resolve the issue now? TheWikiToby (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Rjensen: TheWikiToby (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

So yes, technically the attempt was a self-coup, not a coup d'état. A self-coup involves someone in power attempting to stay in power, while a coup d'état involves someone who is not in power attempting to gain power. However, most media isn't that specific when referring to the difference, so they simply called it a coup d'état rather than a self-coup. This is why my initial edit wrote that it was "widely described as an attempted coup d'état", not that it was a coup d'état. I also put that it was a self-coup after that. BootsED (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

yes that works forme. Rjensen (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nice. TheWikiToby (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The current section essentially cites PEW and NBC polls, which talk about left-wing v. right-wing polarization, to say that polarization has increased, and then cites an Atlantic article to say that this was caused by the change of the topic of discussion to "sociopolitical debate on cultural issues", which doesn't say a lot by itself. I've changed it to explicitly describe left/right polarization, which all sources given explicitly support.

Also, I noticed the article doesn't actually have a clear source for this polarization contributing to Jan. 6: Britannica gives COVID-19 a lot of credit, so if polarization is mentioned, maybe that should also be? In any case, a source is needed and I've added a citation needed tag.

Some of the polarization bit may also be wrong. It says it "came to a head in the 2010s", but the only source for that is, I think, the PEW source saying that it as of 2014 was the worst polarization in 20 years in that year, because the study had been conducted then. According to Political polarization in the United States, "Polarization has increased since the 1970s, with rapid increases in polarization during the 2000s onwards.^[1]" I'm pretty sure that sentence just needs to be deleted and replaced with maybe 2 sentences summarizing the main political polarization article. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the section is pretty egregiously recentist, and beyond that flat out wrong and clearly OR. Remsense ‥ 论 20:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Somebody remove those redundant sources already or fix the citations! 64.189.18.28 (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Note: Editors can clearly see the indicated issue already; you don't need to spam the talk page pointing it out further and it will not get resolved quicker as such. Remsense ‥ 论 20:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

There seems to be too many long explanatory footnotes (4) in the opening paragraph. This makes the introductory paragraph much less readable IMO.

The first regarding tribal sovereignty could be kept, as it is short, and it is not immediately clear what an "Indian reservation" is, it is genuinely explanatory information.

The second regarding territories is too long and unnecessary (it even lists uninhabited islands).

The third regarding land area can be removed or shortened, it is already in the Geography section.

The fourth can be removed and the Census and Population Clock added as sources. MarkiPoli (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The second note was lengthened because editors kept adding such minutiae to the text, overwhelming the lede with more sentences. An EFN was therefore created. The fourth note was added because official populations in U.S. articles must come from the U.S. Census Bureau, but some editors were actually replacing total U.S. population figures (decennial census or recent annual estimate) with the very unofficial population clock. The EFN put the clock in perspective. Both EFNs might be streamlined, but they are preferable to the chaos we had before. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is an example of what not to do..... if it's that complicated shouldn't be in the lead. Moxy🍁 22:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Complicated" statistics were repeatedly added to the lede, as regular text. Editors refused to roll them back, so they were rolled into EFNs. There are probably too many now, and they could be pared down. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Under the religious groups 'Mormonism' should be changed to 'LDS' as there's no such thing as Mormonism. It's called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. 98.146.164.238 (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Remsense ‥ 论 04:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Kindly include the fact that nowadays, people refer to the US as simply "The States" as a shorthand colloquialism, both spoken as well as written.

Thank you. Mammoos 007 (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Remsense ‥ 论 11:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

As part of the treaty that made Puerto Rico part of the United States the right of people to deal with the government in Spanish was guaranteed. The U.S. has been a bilingual country for over 100 years. 24.22.239.84 (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Puerto Rico is not part of the U.S. TFD (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Puerto Rico (a self-governing unincorporated territory) is not the rule but the exception to every rule. Also, "dealing with the government in Spanish" on some federal forms and toll-free calls doesn't translate into a bilingual country. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not only was Puerto Rico not incorporated into the United States, but there is is no mention in the Treaty of Paris about language rights or the other territories of Cuba, the Philippines and Guam. TFD (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Puerto Rico is absolutely part of the US, it's an unincorporated territory. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 20:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This talk page has too many headers. Some should be removed. Drewchasm (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

One potential issue is that those headers actually serve a purpose, which is organizing the article's contents. Remsense ‥ 论 14:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is a misunderstanding here. Drewchasm (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh! Indeed, sorry. They get archived automatically. Remsense ‥ 论 14:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Archiving takes place after 30 days, which is fairly aggressive. I don't think that it needs to be more so. One reason for the number of headers is that there have recently been many "Extended-confirmed-protected edit" requests, probably more than normal. These take up relatively little space on the page, even though every one gets its own entry in the "Contents" table. So, it is not as difficult to page down as the table of contents might suggest. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

In the introductory paragraph, it notes that the United States is known by a number of different titles. As mentioned, it is known as the US, USA, United States, United States of America and America. I made an addition where the country is commonly known and internationally referred to as The States. This title is well known around the world to refer to the US. I don’t believe the edit should have been reverted. Duranged (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

And as you were told, this page has discussed whether it should be included there several times. You can disagree, but your edit was removed because it explicitly went against that existing consensus. Remsense ‥ 论 02:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Horible unsourced first sentence WP:LEADCLUTTER.....should be in Etymology section or a note with sources as most of our FA articles do Germany, Japan or even Sweden....tried to fix with this edit Moxy🍁 03:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Even in Names of the United States, "The States" only gets a single sentence. CMD (talk) 04:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fully concur with Remsense and CMD. "The States" is far too casual for the lead of this overlong article (in terms of sociolinguistic register) and is more appropriate for the Names of the United States article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC), UReply

Agree. "The States" is very casual and nearly always conversational. It's often a conversational term confined to the UK and Ireland. Most others in the world use "US" or "USA". Mason.Jones (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely. We don't have to include every colloquial name that has been used in any context by any person at any time in history to refer to the U.S., such as "the States", "the U.S. of A.", or even "Murica" or "Merica". These names are only used colloquially and therefore trivial, and their relevance is simply not given in the context of a general overview article about the country, which is why we have a separate article for them. Maxeto0910 (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well Remsense ‥ 论, when you say I was “told”, I don’t know what you’re referring to. I wasn’t told anything. User Maxeto0910 (talk) had mentioned that this edit had been inserted and deleted a number of times, and said the discussion should be taken to the talk page. So I later discovered in the archives section it had been discussed in previous talks, which he failed to mention. I don’t keep track of the hundreds of conversations going on in the talk section. Now, after reviewing some of those previous comments, along with the comments here, I’m not convinced there’s a valid argument to omit that reference from the lead paragraph. People have been saying here the term of “the States” is generally used just casually or typycially colloquially. Or that it is used primarily in places like the UK or Ireland. These are just opinions mostly filled with Original Research with no reliable citations. See WP:OR. I happen to know a number of people personally who live in a bunch of countries such as Greece, Australia and Israel. And all of them refer to the US in conversation as “the States”. So it can’t just be in the UK or Ireland. Internationally, people use that phrase as often as Americans use the phrase the “US”. It’s not one bit less colloquial. I don’t think we have a consensus here, with 4 to 7 people expressing their opinions. We need reliable sources to back up these opinions. The logic here makes no sense. We need more input. Duranged (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps a proper sentence or two with sources in the Etymology section may help. I understand the articles already bloated.... But this seems more relevant than many things that are already here.Moxy🍁 20:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

An n-gram for your amusement: been back to the States/US The importance of the word "back" shows the nostalgic element in the native name being used by those abroad, cf. been to the States/US where "the States" has only been massively preferred historically.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

At the very least, the short forms "United States" and "U.S." (two periods standard in American English) should be restored to the first sentence of the lede (not part of an editorial footnote), as they become the country's default names until the end of the article. Incorporating them into a blind EFN violates standard usage in reference works, in which alternative names and initialisms in the text are called out, once, for the reader. To do otherwise is bad form in an encyclopedia. The other names (USA, U.S.A., America) are commonly used the world over, and I think they should appear outside an EFN as well, but they're a minor concern. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just boldly restored specifically the "United States" into the lede, though I'm fine with the other names staying in the footnote. TheWikiToby (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good. The short form "United States" is an exception. I can live with the other terms in a footnote, too. Maybe all that boldface type was a bit unsightly. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good call.....this is what are featured in good articles do. Moxy🍁 18:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see this has been reverted without any effort to join the two chats.... let's see if they do so now. Blind reverts are always a problem I guess we have to deal with. Weird thing is removing the source that explains things.Moxy🍁 19:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's unavoidable for an article this big. Many users will be confused by the immediately visible changes in the first sentence. We have to keep referring to the talk page to show them our motivation behind it. The problem will only gradually solve itself over time when most users got used to it. Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Most people understand that U.S. and US are equivalent in this context. This can reduce the unsightliness. Senorangel (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I suggest the lead should be "The United States of America (USA), commonly known as the United States (US) or America, is..." since "United States" and "America" are two much used short form names for the country and are commonly used by politicians, businesses, media, athletes, musicians, and everyday people. The initials "USA" and "US" should also be in the lead since the country is commonly referred to as such (especially in sports and media) and other articles about countries or political organizations also include their initials in the lead such as the European Union or Saudi Arabia. The initials with periods ("U.S.A." and "U.S.") do not have to be included in the lead and can be explained as another form of writing the country's initials in the etymology section or in a note. Colloquial forms such as "the States", "Merica", "U.S. of A.", etc, do not belong in the lead since they're very informal and not used widely. Dash9Z (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is the wording we had before—and it would be later disputed or reverted. Some editors also felt encouraged to tack on other alternative names like "the States" (which has no business near any encyclopedia). The standard American spelling "U.S.", with periods, is used throughout the article and must be cited that way on first mention. In general, your suggestion opens up the floodgates for busy "improvements" in the lede sentence. For that reason, I think the simpler version is best. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

"(U.S./US)" looks weird in the article. It should say (U.S. or US). Things were fine before HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Or" it is. However, this all may change back to previous format (United States, officially the United States of America...), as that one has its supporters. Mason.Jones (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes. I absolutely prefer the previous format. It's shorter, more concise, and makes the first paragraph of the lead look less bloated, while at the same time gives readers some context in the explanatory note, which also contains a source, and even loses one sentence about colloquial names. It's also pretty much the style how many good and featured country articles have it. The United States is just known by many names around the world, and, depending on the region, it could be argued to include a plethora of them, which is why we have to compromise here, and I think the previous format was quite neutral in this regard. Perhaps, we could restore the previous version with the note and give some initials (though this, as Mason.Jones wrote, would be subject to many changes and frequent discussions about which to include; including all four would make the first paragraph of the lead very bloated again), but personally, I absolutely prefer the simplest and most concise form: "The United States, officially the United States of America[note explaining abbreviations, colloquial names, and so on]". Maxeto0910 (talk) 05:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Maxeto0910 -- I prefer your version, just adding the initialism "U.S." (used throughout this article, so it should be introduced to the reader). Thus: "The United States (U.S.), officially the United States of America, is a country..." As you say, other alt names and abbreviations are pretty subjective; they can be addressed in the EFN and/or hashed out under "Etymology." Mason.Jones (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Above, Mason.Jones wrote alternative names like "the States" (which has no business near any encyclopedia). This claim is contradicted by evidence from corpora and dictionaries, which indicate that it is common in both speech (see Longman definition) and in writing (see corpora that follow).

• the comparison ngram between "back to America/the US/the USA/the States" shows a clear preference for "back to the States" in 2022 in the American English corpus

• 43% more common than "back to America"
• twice as common as "back to the US"
• 14.6 times more common than "back to the USA"
• "back to the States" has been the most frequent form in this phrase since 1941.

• In the British English corpus the 2022 results are a bit less pronounced: "back to the States" is:

• 15% more common than "to America"
• 90% more common than "to the US"
• 6.2 times more common than "to the USA"
• "back to the States" has only been the most frequent form in British English since 2009.

pedantic note: case is discriminating, i.e "the States" ≠ "the states" ... cf. [1]

Similarly, Longman, Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, and Collins all have a separate entry for "the States" (with Longman helpfully explaining that it is a spoken form most commonly used when speaking of the US from abroad), while Oxford explains that The United States of America is usually shortened to the U.S.A., the U.S., the States, or simply America. As such, I would encourage everyone expressing opinions to stick to data and RS. A brief mention of "the States" is justified by RS.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

By "nowhere near any encyclopedia," I was half joking. I simply meant that "The States" has no place in the introduction to this article (which a few overeager editors are pushing). "The States" is an informal, conversational term, and most often the spoken lingo of British people and American expatriates. It doesn't rise to the level of "USA" and "America"—both widely used in writing and in broadcasting throughout major English-speaking media. The style book of the Economist even gives "America" as the default name to be used in all its text articles about the U.S. "USA" is used throughout the German-speaking media. "US" is used in headline and interior articles of the UK press. "The States", on the other hand, is a slang term of chatting tourists, travel articles, YouTube features about "Taylor Swift's return to the States", etc. It can certainly be discussed under "Etymology" as a conversational term, but it should not appear in the lede along with "U.S.", "USA", or "America." Just like "Murica", it's not in that category. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fully concur with User:Mason.Jones. I couldn't have said it better. As I pointed out above, "the States" is in the wrong sociolinguistic register. Most people understand by the time they're around 15 or 16 years old that "the States" is slang and "the United States" is formal. (I already knew that by the time I was 12, but I was gifted and went to CTY.) This encyclopedia is written in formal written English. Wikipedia is not a blog where casual slang and anything else goes. See WP:NOT.

I just poked around Google Books and saw what is going on. "The States" is much more common in British use than in American use, but when you read it in context, it is still clearly an informal slang term. And to be clear, I am very familiar with British English. California is home to many British expat intellectuals who fled the UK's decaying educational system for greener pastures, which is why as a high school senior, I read Chaucer with a graduate of Cambridge. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

In the spirit of sticking to reliable sources rather than advancing an undocumented opinion, I'll just note that banks and tax accountants frequently use the term on their websites as does the Department of Homeland Security ("Study in the States"), and that an acting Secretary of State recently used the term when addressing the National Governors Association. So to call the term "slang" on a par with "Murica" (not found in Oxford, Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, Longman, etc.) is misguided. (The correct linguistic term would be "colloquial", "familiar", or indeed "conversational".) While mentioning "the States" in the etymology section does seem like putting the cart before the horse, if that should be the final consensus, that's fine with me. (done)  :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 05:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm unfamiliar with proper sources on this topic.... the section needs revision or at the very least more sources. Is there an academic publication that covers this that we can use? Moxy🍁 20:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Privately owned railroads and trains were the dominant mode of transportation in the U.S. until the mid-twentieth century." The Source I found says horses/carriages? Moxy🍁 20:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I suppose we could make it "from the early nineteenth to the mid-twentieth century", so readers don't think we're including New Amsterdam. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply