Talk:United States

Should English's status as an official language be marked as "Disputed"?

EO14224 is a bill that makes English "official", but I think this was not statutory, making its status as such to be in a limbo. Should we label (disputed) next to English? NarayanaElchana (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

An RfC regarding how to frame the official-English executive order in this article (and in Languages of the United States) was held last year. The current wording follows wider editor consensus, backed up by the WP link and U.S. media sources. I don't recall "status in limbo" being mentioned a single time during the RfC debate. Although the executive order can be overturned by a future president, it currently has the force of law. The official-English wording in this article was just recently challenged, months after the RfC, but regular editors did not wish to revisit it. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Executive orders don't have the force of law; they're just instructions to the executive branch as to how to enforce the laws that Congress writes. In the US system, laws are set by Congress, not the president. --Aquillion (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

That take was repeated ad infinitum and ad nauseam during the original RfC, but the final wording of the infobox and text is the consensus until it is overturned. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

As you have been reminded several times, that is not how an RFC works nor is there any policy or guideline that says an RFC is a binding consensus. An RFC, in fact, is one of many ways to establish a consensus, but not the only way or a binding way. The previous consensus can be overturned right now in this discussion initiated by NarayanaElchana. It does not require another RFC. You keep missing that point, and instead of allowing the discussion to proceed, you keep trying to shut it down. Viriditas (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@Viriditas: One editor alone has no power to "shut down" a discussion. Your recent effort to relaunch discussion failed miserably because you couldn't assemble editors sufficient in number to overturn a full RFC. Now you wish to launch another discussion through a new, unregistered editor like Narayana? That strikes me as kind of desperate. Have we really reached such a point? Mason.Jones (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

You shut down the discussion with numerous personal attacks and tangents that had nothing to do with the topic and diverted attention away from forming a new consensus. Now, you're back again, doing the same thing. I never attempted to "relaunch" anything, nor could have I have "failed" because I expressly did not call for or attempt to start a new RFC as it wasn't needed. Notice how you once again distracted from the subject of this thread (Should we label (disputed) next to English?) started by NarayanaElchana to attack me yet again by leveling unsubstantiated accusations again. I hope you see the pattern with your edits here. I get it, you want another RFC, but another RFC is not required or needed. Viriditas (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@Viriditas: I'm not even an administrator, and you're ascribing me special superpowers of shutdown and persuasion? Please get a grip. You obviously are very emotionally invested in the official-English issue (and I am not really), so I will let it ride. You will still need (many) more editors than just three to overturn two RFCs. But you knew that already. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I have zero emotional investment in this or any other US-related article. Zero. I think you knew that already, but wanted to demonstrate your penchant for personal attacks yet again. My entire rationale for coming here to participate was to demonstrate the ownership behavior that is occurring. You stepped into it, so to speak. Thanks for playing. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The U.S. does not have an official language, it has an unofficial one. The info-box is therefore misleading. An executive order can only determine the official language of the federal executive, while a law of Congress can determine the official language of the federal executive, legislative and judicial branches. A constitutional amendment is required to extend the official languages to the state and municipal levels. TFD (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

FAQ number 11, above, explains that RFCs were already held on this subject. Consensus is how Wikipedia works, and some editors simply refuse to accept this site's basic philosophy and ground rules. Ex.: I thought that Tina Turner should be described as an "American-born Swiss singer", because she formally relinquished her U S. citizenship, took Swiss citizenship, and this is how most WP biographies deal with the matter. An RFC decided otherwise, and the article omits any nationality reference. German Wikipedians insisted through their own RFC that Turner must be described in German Wikipedia as "an American singer" only; other Wikipedia languages came to totally different conclusions via RFC. This is how Wikipedia works, whether we like it or not. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Consensus can change. We recently found out that Trump does not have the right to determine who is a citizen of the U.S. (see Trump v. Barbara 2026) and he may not have the right to determine the language of the country either. TFD (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that final consensus from last year's two RFCs is set in stone. This past spring, a discussion about relaunching a new RFC failed. It will be a tough road for anyone who wishes to begin a new RFC soon, but editors are welcome to find out if there's any appetite to embark on a new one. My hunch is that there isn't. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

A new RFC isn't needed or required to form a new consensus. I am sorry that you think it is. The question at hand is "Should we label (disputed) next to English?", per NarayanaElchana. If you can't address that, then don't participate here. Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, we should label the statement as disputed per NarayanaElchana and TFD. Viriditas (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Change to start of lead

It has a tag on it to not edit the very start of this article's lead without consensus, so I would like to see people's thoughts on this change: Make it say in the 'also known as the United States (U.S.)' part of the lead this: (abbreviated U.S. or US) in the part with the parentheses. US is also very common nowadays as an abbreviation and it should be noted here. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The abbreviation "U.S." (two periods) is standard in American English, which this article uses without exception. "U.S." is also the official form used by the federal government and by most American media (like The New York Times). Adding "US" needlessly clutters the lead sentence and has led some well-meaning editors to re-edit the article with "US", or to add the nonstandard initialism "U.S.A." (three periods) for the sake of balance. The current wording is straightforward and has avoided disruption, even disruption in good faith. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Infobox

Is there any reason why the date of the American Civil War and the date the most recent amendment to the constitution was passed aren't in the history section of the infobox? CY223 (talk) 09:31, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Answer: Space constraints. This article is already too long and getting longer. "United States" is one the most-read articles in English Wikipedia, but it needs to be shorter, not longer. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how just two extra lines in the history section of the infobox would affect the length of the article CY223 (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Other country articles don't have details in that section unless they could be considered the founding date of the current system of governance. I don't think anyone would argue the entity which currently administers the region was founded in 1865 or 1992. It would just lengthen the infobox for no real benefit. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:43, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Length and returning to GA status

This article was delisted from Good Article status six years ago. It's fairly well-written and sourced; its main problem is that it is excessively long and detailed. This is luckily pretty easy to resolve, but would probably require some community consensus on which parts are most important to keep. I recently did something similar on the China page, but this article seems to have a lot more active discussion, so I will first put forward my ideas on how to reduce the scope of each section here. The current word count is just over 14,000; per WP:SIZERULE, a good target would be 9,000 words or less. So we have to cut off about a third of the article.

Discussion of each section and subsection

Lede:

It's about a paragraph or two too long. Not a length issue, but it is also almost entirely about history; the three history paragraphs should probably be condensed to one, so that we can talk about topics such as culture, which is currently entirely absent.

Etymology

We do not need to mention the exact date and situation that the words "United States of America" were first used. This can be condensed to two paragraphs; one about the term United States, and one about the term America. The former should probably come first, if only to maintain chronology.

History

Overall, fails to use summary style at a lot of points. We have a History of the United States article, we do not need to present a comprehensive coverage of it here, only the important, most broad-scale points. It is biased towards military and political history, gives some coverage of economic history, but is almost entirely exclusive of cultural history.

There are a bit too many long lists of proper nouns and dates (we don't need a list of every major colonial settlement and its founding date at this scale, nor a huge list of founding fathers and the virtues that they fought for. Precolonial history should probably get more than a single paragraph.

The antebellum section is a bit long. At this scale, we don't need to list every act and compromise that led to the civil war, just the broad scope. This section covers slavery heavily, but talks little of the political and economic changes which were occuring during this period independent of it. I mean, it doesn't even mention the words 'railroad' or 'industry'!

Reconstruction to 1917 section is too lengthy and over-detailed for the scope we're talking about.

WW1-WW2 section actually very solid.

Cold War section is a good size, but doesn't 'flow' very well; we should probably seek to integrate these four smaller paragraphs into two larger ones.

Contemporary history can probably condensed just a little. We don't need to list all those technologies here.

Geography

Sourcing here is not the best here; there's academic books about US geography, we can use them. We should try to summarize the conditions across parts of the country more, rather than just giving a list of geographical features.

Climate section is good

Biodiversity section pretty good, but listing numbers of species is generally a bad idea, because there are constantly more species described and many species are going to be of debated validity or even presence.

Government and politics

Probably the best written of the article at the moment. Can probably be condensed a little, esp. when describing the three branches: also, using US government sources to describe the US government is not good at all. We need to use independent academic sourcing here (there is much out there!)

Subdivisions is good, except there is no need to list each individual island in the Minor Outlying Islands.

Political parties is so short it can surely be incorporated into the top-level politics section? Also, academic sources would be preferable to newspapers here.

Foreign relations maybe a little too long. We don't need to list each country the US is friendly with.

Military can probably be condensed to two paragraphs.

The Law enforcement section should also be condensed.

Economy

Main section here is far too long, with way too many stats that an average reader would not find helpful or rly be able to comprehend at the rate we're throwing them at them. All of these numbers and only one paragraph of description of what industries and services the US economy is actually based on.

Science and technology fine, we don't need to throw random international ranking indices around so often. These are often not as important as were present them in country articles.

Spaceflight should probably describe the achievements more than just list the names of missions.

Energy is too short, Transportation is far too long. Both should be two paragraphs or so

Demographics

Might be able to cut out some stats in favor of prose, but overall pretty solid section. Could use more academic sources, though.

Education could probably do a better job of describing the grades and levels of schooling; most American students do not attend a single K-12 school, after all.

Culture and society

Messy. This has far too much emphasis on political culture.

Literature should be condensed to two paragraphs.

Theater and music can be condensed to own section (performing arts), and to two or three paragraphs.

Mass media is decent enough, but should rely on better sourcing. Cinema can probably be incorporated into it.

Cuisine is far too long and detailed. This can easily be two paragraphs.

Sports far too long. I'll sound like a broken record here, but this only needs to be two paragraphs. Also, most sporting in the US is not professional sports! We need to talk about how people culturally engage with sports.

Overall, we need to refocus towards academic sources; we only really need newspaper sources for up-to-date facts. America has one of the most expansive academic publishing industries on the planet, and it loves to discuss every topic of American history, culture, and society in great detail. We do not need to base it on online news, and we certainly don't need to cite the US government itself. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 11:10, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Just an opinion, but cutting this article by even one-fourth—with broad consensus—is a nonstarter. I appreciate your time addressing each section, but the textual detail you criticize is the result of reader demand for it over many years. This article is "United States", not "Luxembourg"; it's written in English by editors from around the world (where English is generally a required subject in school), and what many readers regard as "basic information" is different for the United States. Good Article status isn't always possible, nor is it even a priority. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Both Japan and China are under 9,000 words. The United States as a basic concept can surely be expressed in fewer words using summary style. After all, we have other articles about individual topics. There is no need to have such detail on the main article. Also, we have an obligation to follow the Manual of Style regardless of Good Article status. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:51, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Going to concur with Mason's comment above. I think you raise a few good points about a couple of sections, but looking towards the bigger picture, the high word count in the article is reflective of both reader demand, the available sourcing, and the wide range of topics that need to be addressed. I understand your concern about word count, but especially in the most-read Wikipedia article of all time, covering a topic as broad and complex as the United States, I think permitting this level of detail is warranted. And if we are following the letter of the policy, WP:SIZERULE states for an article under 15,000 words, it: "Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." So on the word count issue, this article is already compliant with the manual of style. While I certainly think there's some room to improve some of the sections you've identified, trying to cut a few thousand words from this article all at once is not something I'd support. Wichey ^{(Let's Chat!😊)} 18:24, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@Generalissima: The "China" and "Japan" articles in English don't attract anywhere near the same interest, nor do they garner the same international input. In this article, participation and consensus are of another order of magnitude. Downsizing this article to the level you propose will be the easy part; gaining wide consensus for it will be very difficult. As I mentioned, the current text is truly here by popular demand. I think any "basic concept" article about the U.S. is unrealistic. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, for example, the lede gives a very condensed summary style concept of the US. A broad description of the US is absolutely possible in 9,000 words; most of the current article is fluff not needed to understand the subject. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:00, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I think if ever "the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material" was applicable, it would on the United States page, and reviewing the article on China, I would like to see it permitted more space to breath. That being said, articles on countries lend themselves well to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, the article will likely grow during the GA/(FA?) processes, and if someone is willing to put the work in here, I will only support their efforts. Certainly agree on the comment on reframing to academic sources. Whonting (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I support this. Making the article unnecessarily long and preventing it from ever increasing in quality to satisfy a local consensus is bad. The scope of the material here makes summarizing a better decision, not worse - after all, there is a notable subtopic for any facet of the United States, unlike with say, an individual's biography. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

The OP here makes very good points - 9k might be a bit ambitious, but many of the specific suggestions are on point, and there are well established child articles (sometimes multiple levels of child articles) to which details can be decanted. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Indeed; 9,000 words might be too much cutting to ask for, but there are many areas which could be streamlined or reformulated efficiently. As Nikkimaria says, it's not like the summary style foundations don't exist. 100% agree on the need for better sourcing—I think that's unarguable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:34, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm glad that some see a 9,000-word cutoff as a bit unrealistic. Most longtime editors here would like to see a shorter article, but past efforts to pare down content were a disaster. (Reform-minded editors insisted on throwing out much solid content: "the baby with the bathwater".) This article is popular because it provides useful info about a big country, without often shunting readers off to subsidiary articles where they might find it impossible to locate their information. This should be remembered when making cuts. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but when protesting against cuts, it should be remembered that information is not made encyclopaedically useful just by being in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Over the last 20 years, several rounds of well-meaning cuts here reduced a useful article to a bland compendium of hackneyed factoids ("The three largest cities are New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago"). These were fixed, but the article is longer now. Better, too, and I hope "better" can be preserved. Also, there'll be enough "protesting against cuts" without any help from me. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I think much of the current length comes from "unnecessary factoids". Many sections are just a bunch of statistics in a trench-coat, while avoiding discussing the basic concepts they're describing in any detail. We can cut and improve prose at the same time; this often goes hand-in-hand. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:17, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Can't we just... remove the factoids? A cohesive portrait of the country doesn't digress this much. I'd say the China article manages to cover a country of equal complexity with much less meandering. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 July 2026

Change "internet tld: .us" to "internet tld: .us (de jure), .com (de facto)" citation: Mueller, M. L. (1998). The battle over Internet domain names. Telecommunications Policy, 22(2), 89–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0308-5961(97)00062-1 ~2026-41254-10 (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

United States Semiquincentennial

I see this was added on the 4th and has been removed multiple times by multiple WP:CONTENTEDITOR who oversee this page since then....so I guess we're at the point we need to discuss this before the misnomer of consensus needed for it's removal gets too embedded into the article. Moxy🍁 00:28, 30 July 2026 (UTC)