Talk:United States/Archive 121

Archive 115

←

Archive 119

Archive 120

Archive 121

Archive 122

Archive 123

→

Archive 125

Reconstruction

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

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

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

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

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

National Sport

Regarding the following sentence that appears in the Sports section:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Language

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2025

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

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

US does not own Palau

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

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

Lead's opening paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remove

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe you are misinterpreting MOS:LEADREL, which states "Significant information should not appear in the lead, apart from basic facts, if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text." (Emphasis added.) Also, "This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article." I'd say the current status quo is just fine MOS-wise, but perhaps someone will be inspired to add the largest cities and states to the body text for harmonization. Since I'm commenting on this again, I'll add my reasoning: readers from both the US and, perhaps more importantly, from outside the US, are very likely to have heard of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, California, Texas, and Florida. Putting a short statement in the lead confirming that these well-known locales are the largest cities and states for readers who are just perusing the lead and not going to start digging into the article for this information strikes me as sufficiently valuable to readers to keep the lead as-is on this. For example, it would quickly explain to someone in Sydney why American late night talk show hosts mention NY and LA so much. CAVincent (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

That emphasis misses the text immediately proceeding it. If the goal is to harmonize by demonstrating relevance in the body, there's nothing stopping anyone doing that. Find a source on demographics that supports the weight and add it. CMD (talk) 06:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

why no explicit reference to "climate change" in the climate section?

Despite references that are clearly describing climate change, the reader is left to wonder why extreme weather in the US is changing. "climate change" should be explicitly mentioned, and linked to the Climate change in the United States wikipedia article. This is done in the climate sections of a number of other major country articles that i checked (UK, Canada, Australia, India).

Please can someone with edit permissions implement this. DecFinney (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Already did by TatjanaClimate: The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 12:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@The Corvette ZR1 Yep. Thanks @TatjanaClimate - that's exactly what i was thinking. DecFinney (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Update to "Government and politics"

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.

---

Under "Government and politics"

Add the following at the end of the first paragraph: While officially recognizing themselves as a Federal Republic, in practice the United States functions as a Plutocratic Federal system with corporations writing bills (https://publicintegrity.org/politics/state-politics/copy-paste-legislate/you-elected-them-to-write-new-laws-theyre-letting-corporations-do-it-instead/), the majority of congressional members being millionaires (could also be phrased as having a specific magnitude more wealth than the average citizen)(https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances, if Opensecrets is not sufficient then, use the sources from 'List of current members of the United States Congress by wealth' wiki), and the economic elite having greater influence over public policy and media (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B).

Below is a response to the suggestion from another user:

UNFORTUNATELY THIS HAS TO BE MADE CAPITALIZED FOR ANYONE TO READ IT. THE FOLLOWING TEXT IS A RESPONSE TO Untamed1910's SUGGESTION, IN PREVIOUS REQUEST FOR INPUT, TO LIST THE GOVERNMENT AS AUTHORITARIAN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SydCarlisle (talk • contribs) 00:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

At this time the country cannot be classified as "under an authoritarian dictatorship" as suggested by Untamed1910, due to the economic elite still exerting more influence over policy and the current administration failing to usurp power in 2021 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack). However, it should be mentioned that in Trump v United States (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf) the Supreme Court enabled the Executive branch full immunity to a broad and undefined category of "official acts". As well as the executive branch using it's civilian policing branch, and recently it's military branch, to forcibly silence opposition (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c86p821p660o) and deprive citizens of civil rights (https://civilrights.org/trump-rollbacks/ , https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-finds-trump-administration-breached-aclu-family-separation-settlement-agreement and https://cbc.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=2774). SydCarlisle (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

This reads more like an opinion piece than text from a formal encyclopedia (WP:NOTOPINION). We would need an overwhelming catalogue of analyses from scholarly sources that conclude the United States has become a dictatorship.

I myself dispute any labels calling the current administration fascist. We still have elections. Just wait a few years and citizens would have the choice to vote the Republican party out of office. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 20:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Im not sure how this comment is relevant to the suggested edit. The only mention of dictatorship was how it didn't apply as a response to another user's suggestion. Also, fascism was not mentioned at all.

It appears as if you hadn't even read the suggestion and instead

are advocating against something that isn't being requested.

I can however, offer many more links. However this isn't an essay or SydCarlisle (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Edited to separate suggestion and commentary, this should help avoid confusion or spurious (WP:NOTOPINION), like above. SydCarlisle (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

"to forcibly silence opposition" ..."and deprive citizens of civil rights" There is nothing new under the sun. American presidents have previously enforced political repression with events such as Abraham Lincoln's Habeas Corpus Suspension Act (1863), Grover Cleveland's violent suppression of the Pullman Strike by sending in the United States Army against the strikers "without the permission of local or state authorities", Woodrow Wilson's Palmer Raids, Dwight Eisenhower's Communist Control Act of 1954, and Ronald Reagan's Rex 84 plan of "rounding up to 500,000 undocumented Central American residents and 4,000 American citizens whom the US Attorney General had designated as "national security threats" ". The repression was there long before Donald Trump was born, it will probably still be there long after his death. Dimadick (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you for this addition.

This "has historically been a part of the system of governance for the US" can also be added if the article is edited. However, that part of the topic was only added as commentary to refute a suggestion from a previous user.

Commentary on the topic is appreciated but, let's stay focused on the suggested edit and not the commentary part. Unless you believe, as the previous user suggested, that "Federal presidential republic" should be changed to "Federal presidential republic under an authoritarian dictatorship". SydCarlisle (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd suggest that this thread be closed, if not deleted, and the same for further entries from SydCarlisle that are not WP:ECP edit requests. CAVincent (talk) 06:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

For what purpose? The suggested edit is no different than what is done for countries such as Russia, China, and Pakistan.

For what reason would the US receive special treatment? SydCarlisle (talk) 07:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

As a resident of US CAVincent's opposition to a factually supported view of his nation is a clear conflict of interest. I suggest their opposition to any critical views of his nation be deleted. Wiki is supposed to be neutral and refusing to view any topic due to bias violates the core principle of it's existence. SydCarlisle (talk) 08:29, 13 June 2025 (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.

Applicability of MOS:LINKCLARITY

@Maxeto0910: As stated in this edit summary, MOS:LINKCLARITY is contextual. There is no general article for "reservation", instead a disambiguation page; as such, the former is null in this case. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The MOS:LINKCLARITY guideline is not "contextual" in a sense that it doesn't always apply. It merely states that the linked article "should correspond as closely as possible to the term showing as the link, given the context", and as such always applies since links should always be as intuitive as possible and adapt to their context. And in this context, it's necessary to link "Native American" along so that readers know that it links to an article specifically about the Native American reservations and not reservations in general.

It doesn't matter if there is a general article or not since the average reader can't know this. Not linking "Native American" along implies that it links to such an article–whether it exists or not–, making the link unintuitive. Maxeto0910 (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The "[...] given the context" portion of the MOS doesn't seem to be in the context that you're implying, although this can be clarified in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. Regardless, whether a general article exists or not is most definitely pertinent, as the MOS goes on to expound. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Again: Whether a general article exists or not is completely irrelevant, as the average reader can't know it and and this guideline specifically concerns the orientation of this group. The average reader will only see that "reservation" is linked and therefore assume that the link leads to an article about reservations in general. It also isn't mentioned in the MOS:LINKCLARITY guideline section that this has any relevance.

Said guideline is unambiguous: "Native American" must be linked along here. This is even more true when "Native American" stands directly before "reservation" and you specifically decide not to link the former along, as this implies that we deliberately try to make it particularly clear that this links to a general article, which is exactly the opposite of what we want.

This is like having "economy of the United States" in a sentence and wanting to link the article about the U.S. economy, but you only link the word "economy": It's so obvious that you could link the whole thing to make clear that you want to link to said article that by only linking "economy", it literally screams that the link should lead to the general article. Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Should be clear that it's not linking to a generic article..... this is a no-brainer. Don't normally get involved in link wars as they generally don't affect our readers. But if it's possible to use the title of the article in the link it should be done. Moxy🍁 18:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

"Should be clear that it's not linking to a generic article..... this is a no-brainer."

Why do you think it is a no-brainer? When it would be possible to link the full topic title but we specifically decide not to, I (and I guess like >99% of readers) would logically assume that this is done to make clear that the link leads to a general article. Because why would you deliberately do that if not for this purpose?

Therefore, the part "Native American" must be linked along. Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with your position.... it's a no-brainer that the full title of the article should be linked. It should not look like a link to a generic article. Moxy🍁 19:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

All right, then I misunderstood you. Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Moxy, I would too agree with you, however and as mentioned above, there isn't a said general article; I still don't see the applicability of MOS:LINKCLARITY here, though if other editors see it otherwise I won't be protesting it also. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Always do what's best for our readers to understand..... let's assume they don't know that it's only related to the United States or that a page does not exist or does exist..... let's also not assume that everyone is on a PC with a mouse and we'll see a preview if they hover over the link. Moxy🍁 23:54, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Just think a little bit about why this guideline exists: It exists to give our readers a better user experience. A reader who doesn't even know that one can hover over a link (on PC) or hold the link (on mobile) to see where the link will lead–and the fact that there are many such users is precisely the reason why this guideline exists–will certainly not know whether or not Wikipedia has a general article about reservations off the top of their head either. Maxeto0910 (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

WP search box: United States

For days now, it's become impossible to access this English-language article by typing in the normal characters "US" or even "United" in the search box. Was a decision made to make accessing this article more difficult (perhaps so not to disadvantage "United Kingdom" and other articles titled "United")? Mason.Jones (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

US is a redirect here, not sure why it doesn’t come up re United Kowal2701 (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

But it used to come up in every way possible: "United", "US", and even simply "U". Now the country's name isn't called up at all as a search option. This is a significant change, and someone at WP made the decision to exclude "United States" as a search result. Mason.Jones (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Probably raise it at WP:VPT Kowal2701 (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Mason.Jones (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Misunderstanding about the description of the US military

Why does the article state that the US has "one of the strongest militaries" when there is a general consensus that the U.S. Armed Forces are *the* world's strongest military? 24.73.39.22 (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. The article states: "The U.S. military is widely regarded as the most powerful and advanced in the world."
Of course, in the lead it says "one of the strongest militaries" since it should be concise. Maxeto0910 (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm aware that English isn't your first language, so I'll do my best to clarify: "One of the strongest" indicates that they are among the strongest but not necessarily at the very top. In this case, the U.S. Armed Forces are at the very top in terms of strength, so it should say "the world's strongest military" instead.

As for being concise, the phrase I'm suggesting is more concise than the current one by definition. 24.73.39.22 (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

The status quo on this is totally fine, and far better than putting an unqualified "the world's strongest military" into the lead in wikivoice. That is neither an uncontested nor uncomplicated claim. CAVincent (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

1) I know that "one of the strongest" isn't synonymous with "the strongest"; my English skills are sufficient for understanding this, even though it's not my native language.
2) The phrase you're suggesting would not be neutral as we can't write "the U.S. has the strongest military"; instead, we'd have to write something like "the U.S. is widely considered to have the strongest military", which would be longer than the current wording. Maxeto0910 (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

No criticisms in lead?

It seems odd that Cuba for example has a laundry list of criticisms in the lead (these seems appropriate; don’t see a need to change them) but this page elides any robust *contemporary* criticism. It seems pretty common for there to be something in the lead of country pages about criticism, human rights violations. I could see something about recent authoritarianism possibly. 2600:100C:B01F:E61A:A45F:2D48:2713:13E0 (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, please: "New-Super-Star" Lifferant, right after the Netherlands!

There are other opinions, too.

But they aren't widely represented. Whether Wikipedia online is a dictionary : "US$ 52.1 billion in 2025" ala Budget , plus ".. budget of $14.7 billion"Bohemia de Paris (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I am not qualified by the rules here to edit the actual page but i concur. I actually just decided to pop over here after seeing how poor the lede on the China page was. Just for balance (not as intense as the requests below) one might want to note that both US scholars have prominently and robustly (through empirical data not only theoretical commentary) shown that the US is functionally not a democracy but an oligarchy. (One could also add the debates about that work if there are neutrality concerns). The lede mostly uses liberal republic which is accurate but the "representative democracy" claim should be modified with the above as well as prominent (and far from anti-American) international observers downgrading the US to a "flawed democracy." (I see there's a separate page which includes that but it seems very peculiar (setting aside more controversial current events) as for many other country pages, such criticisms are cited. Profloab (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Just saw that the oligarchy material is here but relegated to a hover over note with a large amount of citations (and I have to say there are far better, easily accessible sources for that than some of what's there) but I am genuinely confused (like I still don't know all the rule around here) why such important information is basically invisible and not simply in the text (it's not a lot of text). I also don't understand why it's relegated to a subsection when that is not some minor detail or debate. Again, for almost any other country outside Europe, it would be in the lede. Profloab (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

us in israeli war

us bombs iranian nuclear sites https://apnews.com/article/israel-iran-war-nuclear-talks-geneva-news-06-21-2025-a7b0cdaba28b5817467ccf712d214579 2601:8D:501:C20:860B:EE85:BDAF:B406 (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

It has indeed done that. However, let us wait and see if it grows into something big before adding this to this article. Lova Falk (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

It's a violation of the NPT and a war of aggression. This would seem noteworthy even if the hot war is over. Profloab (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Contemporary (1991 to present)

Today's lesson in contemporary history by the editor Hornets23 totally cherry-picks U.S. history to suit one ideological viewpoint: that of the Democratic Party and its three most recent presidents. I am not a Republican, but this is pure and simple POV, the most egregiously polemical text I've encountered in the article United States. I think it should all be deleted, except perhaps the mention of Hurricane Katrina. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree way too much contemporary information. The man may have dominated politics for a little while.... but this breakdown is overwhelming. Moxy🍁 16:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

im not trying to make the Democratic party as this big beautiful party or promoting on good things by one party, im just saying the January 6, 2021 capital attack should be mentioned just like other events mentioned in the article. Hornets23 (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

it was an unfortunate but important day in our country's history that shouldn't be forgotten as many people died that day. Hornets23 (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

It's fair that the history section probably shouldn't end in 2011, but that was far too long and far too polemical. As for length, I'd note that the article manages to cover 1917 to 1945 in just two paragraphs, and several rather important things happened in those years. As for polemics, aside from the obvious NPOV problem, trying to hide the polemics in citations is a very bad approach indeed and unlikely to win support. It might even cause editors to doubt good faith. As for your aside on January 6, the importance isn't the death toll but the nature of the event. We as a society have chosen to routinely forget mass shootings with far greater body counts. CAVincent (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

"chosen to routinely forget mass shootings with far greater body counts". Unsurprising, when noting how frequent mass shootings are in the United States. In Europe, they are rare enough for a single shooting to dominate the news cycle across the continent for a few days. In the States, there are multiple shootings per week. List of mass shootings in the United States in 2025 had covered 205 shootings by the end of June. Americans seem to be rather desenzitized to how horrific the situation is, given their rather blasé attitude about the crimes. Dimadick (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the Capitol attack should be mentioned. Maxeto0910 (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

It shouldn't be difficult to include present criticisms without making it partisan. Many current issues are longstanding (so are neither Republican or Democratic controversies, simply American ones) and many controversial policies have bipartisan support. Profloab (talk) 10:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 June 2025

Change government from "Federal presidential republic" to "Federal presidential republic under an authoritarian dictatorship" 67.191.144.165 (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:SOAPBOX 2600:100A:B11A:9A19:0:E:A95C:CF01 (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

This is not a common consensus among media or other reputable sources. And per WP:FORUM, Wikipedia isn't a place for original thought. Rheild (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2025 (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. Untamed1910 (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Should the edit request be a reply to this or a new topic? SydCarlisle (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

SydCarlisle If you have a new request, please create a new section with a new template. Lova Falk (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)