Talk:United States

How about Spanish to be listed in the official languages section

There have been a lot of instances about the Spanish language being used in some signage in the US, including announcements. I’m not sure if you should include it, even though the US doesn’t have an official language, and I think the way they called it official languages is incorrect. ~2026-48346-33 (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

English is described per two recent RFC discussions (see Frequently Asked Questions above, no. 11). The mentions of Spanish are appropriate: taught as a foreign language in schools but never an academic requirement (unlike French in English-speaking Canada or Swedish in Finland). Mason.Jones (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

But shouldn't we also include Spanish in the official languages section, where English is obviously listed here? Tourists who visiting the US can instantly communicate in Spanish without learning English, especially once from a Spanish-speaking country. There is obviously signage and announcements that appear in Spanish alongside English. ~2026-50826-58 (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

That does not show that it is an "official" language, simply that it is used in some areas. And I doubt very much that Spanish can be understood "instantly" everywhere in the US. Meters (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Hatnote suggestion

There are currently six different disambiguation pages linked at the top of this page, leading to a three-line hatnote on desktop, and a whopping five on mobile. This isn't a good use of space for the top of an article this big, nor is it very useful for navigation. It must be a minute fragment of people that end up here because they typed "The States" or "The United States of America" or whatever when they wanted something else called that, but everyone has to scroll past the hatnote. This is especially bad because there's so many of these useless dab links that there's no room for a direct link to Americas, which is actually an important alternate topic and something someone could accidentally mistake this article for (if they search "America"). Instead of that, what if we had a separate page just listing disambiguation pages for which the primary topic is this article, and linked to it and Americas in the hatnote? So it would be something like:

"Several terms redirect here. For the landmass comprising North and South America, see Americas. For other uses, see this page."

And then we'd have all the dab pages listed there. Does that seem like a good idea? Ladtrack (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Mention of 9/11 and GWOT in lead

@StefenTower: 9/11 and the GWOT are clearly not among the major events that define the United States' history overall. They are nowhere near as historically significant or relevant for understanding how the U.S. became the country it is today as the Civil War, its role in WWII, or its superpower rivalry with the Soviet Union. Referring to the sentence mentioning the rise of China as a contending superpower in the 2020s is a mere whataboutism; maybe it should be removed as well. Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

They clearly are among the major events the define the United States of today. And an online encyclopedia article is expected to be up-to-date on a subject. This is not a history article, by the way. Also, the "whataboutism" is a fair point. If we can't discuss the past quarter century, then why are the past six years so important? the Stefen 𝕋ower 19:46, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct that said events define the United States of today. But since this is a high-level overview article, its lead should merely cover the key events that were crucial to the U.S. history overall.

I did not say that China's rise as a contending superpower should be kept in the lead, neither did I say that it should be removed. I am open to removing that sentence as well. Either way, whether an event is crucial to a country's history or not is not decided by how many years ago it happened, but by how much it shaped the country's role in world affairs and its self-identity, and I'd argue that the U.S. losing its status as the world's sole undisputed superpower is a bigger turning point than 9/11 and the GWOT combined. Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Are you making an argument that 9/11 and the GWOT (and follow-on effects) did not shape the country's role in world affairs, or its domestic affairs (which also are covered here)? I think most Americans (of any political stripe) or world citizens affected by America's decisions would differ.

As for ongoing discussion, I'll let further comments from me settle, as this article has numerous watchers -- let's see what others have to say. the Stefen 𝕋ower 20:04, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I did not say that said events did not shape the U.S. history, just that they did not nearly shape it to the same degree on a macrolevel as the other events mentioned. Maxeto0910 (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I must side with those who would include 9/11 among the major events of U.S. history: the country's major population and financial center breached, 2,600 office workers perished, 224 more killed at the Pentagon and in a Pennsylvania field. The citation in the lead can be short, but it seems totally justified. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

The lead is already too long, and said events are not historically relevant on a macrolevel in the sense that they fundamentally shaped the country, neither quantitatively nor qualitatively. Mentioning 9/11 and the GWOT after a concise summary of the most significant events in U.S. history such as the Civil War, the U.S. rise to a great power and a superpower after both World Wars, and its status as the world's sole remaining superpower after the Cold War is ridiculously out of place and completely unjustified by any reasonable metric. Maxeto0910 (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@Maxeto: 9/11 was a national disaster and spiritual watershed that led to two foreign wars with U.S. boots on the ground (thousands of servicemen and servicewomen killed, many more thousands wounded). I won't fight for it in the lead, as this article already has enough problems, but I believe its removal is mistaken. Mason.Jones (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Someone removed 9-11 from the article on the United States? No words. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:14, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

It wasn't removed from the article, it was just removed from the lead again (this time by another editor than me). Maxeto0910 (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

[...] a national disaster and spiritual watershed [...]

The same can be said about the January 6 Capitol attack. Or the Great Recession following the 2008 financial crisis. Or the COVID-19 pandemic. Or Hurricane Katrina. Or the 1980s AIDS crisis. These events are more comparable in historical significance and scale to 9/11 than the Civil War, WWI and WWII, or the Cold War. 9/11 marked a major national crisis in contemporary U.S. history, but not an epoch-defining transformation. 9/11 and the GWOT are merely two notable events of many other significant events and developments since the so-called post–Cold War era. Maxeto0910 (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

For reference: The German, French, Italian, Russian, Polish, Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese, and Simple English Wikipedia articles do not mention 9/11 in their lead sections (the Italian one does mention the Vietnam War, and the Portuguese and Simple English ones do mention the Space Race instead). Among Wikipedia's major language editions, only the Spanish one does mention 9/11 in the lead, though it does also mention the 2008 financial crisis, Donald Trump's election as president, and even George Floyd's death, suggesting they're following a more inclusive approach in general that gives recent events more weight. Maxeto0910 (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Please move the bar with voice to the top of picture

When watching the GOLF, it is in line with people putting.

Very annoying for a golfer to watch. We just never know if he made the putt, Thank you.

~2026-50654-87 (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Infobox: population before ethnicitiy and religion

Shouldn't population come before ethnicity and religion in the infobox? Rolluik (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 September 2026

Observers since Alexis de Tocqueville have characterized American society as materialist, noting a strong cultural emphasis on material prosperity and physical comfort. In the 20th century, historians and social scientists described the United States as a consumer society, in which mass consumption became central to economic policy, citizenship, and national identity. Psychological research has also examined the prevalence of materialist values in the U.S. and their relationship to well-being.

Rationale:

• Due weight: The characterization of American culture as materialist is one of the most persistent themes in scholarship on the United States. It runs from Tocqueville (1840) through Thorstein Veblen's The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899) and postwar histories of consumer culture to contemporary psychology. An article of this scope that covers American culture without mentioning it omits a major, well-documented perspective.
• Neutrality: The text is attributed to named observers and scholars rather than stated in Wikipedia's voice, and it uses "materialist" in its descriptive cultural sense (an emphasis on material goods and prosperity), not as a pejorative or a claim about the country's founding philosophy.
• Verifiability: All claims are supported by major works from mainstream academic and trade publishers.
• Placement: The addition is short (three sentences) and sits in the culture section, where it summarizes an established scholarly theme without unbalancing the article. ~2026-51527-65 (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also read WP:NOLLM. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 17:02, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

References

Changing the title from "United States" to "United States of America"

Replace United States with {{subst: United States of America}} RickScott8276 (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

@RickScott8276 See the FAQ at the top of this talk page. Thanks, Knitsey (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

usa

how big is the USA in square miles in 2025 ~2026-52279-97 (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Approximately 3,809,525 square miles (including 600,000~ square miles of rivers, lakes etc). Also, it's 2026. aesurias (she/her) (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2026 (UTC)