Talk:United States/Archive 95

Archive 90

←

Archive 93

Archive 94

Archive 95

Archive 96

Archive 97

→

Archive 100

Representative Democracy?

Following the Supreme Court decision on gerrymandering on June 27 2019 I deleted the reference to the USA being a representative democracy as the decision clearly states that it not need be so under the Constitution. My deletion was reverted with the suggestion that we need a discussion. So be it. I invite discussion. What are the grounds for describing the USA as a representative democracy? It clearly was not one before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and it is not clear that it is now if a) A president can be elected with many fewer votes than another Candidate, and b) Congress and other legislative bodies (example the Wisconsin Senate and Assembly) can be elected with large majorities that do not reflect political opinion within the collective electorate.

I deliberately did not attempt to provide an alternative description. Some international indexes have used the term "flawed democracy" but I am not sure that their standing is sufficient for Wikipedia so I left it blank. It is my contention that the person who reverted my post has effectively expressed an opinion which may not stand up to close examination.Wickifrank (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Representative democracy simply means that people with voting rights elect officials to represent them, and (unlike a direct democracy) do not themselves participate in the decision making. It does not mean that the political system is fair or that everyone has voting rights. One of the key criticisms on representative decocracies is that they are themselves a form of oligarchy:

• "In his book Political Parties, written in 1911, Robert Michels argues that most representative systems deteriorate towards an oligarchy or particracy. This is known as the iron law of oligarchy."
• "A drawback to this type of government is that elected officials are not required to fulfill promises made before their election and are able to promote their own self-interests once elected, providing an incohesive system of governance."
• "Legislators are also under scrutiny as the system of majority-won legislators voting for issues for the large group of people fosters inequality among the marginalized." Dimadick (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I was going to say something similar but not nearly as well researched. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

References

The phrase used in the article is " It is a representative democracy, "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law" ". This expressly refers to "Majority Rule" . The SCOTUS ruling is that this need not be the outcome of an election in the USA and that a minority ruling over a majority is acceptable even when it is the consequence of a decision made by that very minority. I do not think the description can be allowed to stand any more than one describing the moon as being made of blue cheese.Wickifrank (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that the SCOTUS ruling requires the article to drop "representative democracy". While I do agree with the “tendency to oligarchy” analysis above, the most recent holding is flawed because the issues brought before the court were flawed. The recent litigants on gerrymandering challenged the practice on the basis of “uncompetitive political parties” in districts as defined by social science metrics.

But districts defined by “political community” metrics are required by the U.S. Constitution Art. IV, Sec. 4, “The U.S. shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government” , which may or may not produce “uncompetitive party” political landscapes. At Art. II, Sec. 4, there may be Congressional regulation of federal elections, “at any time by law”.

The 1776 Patriots in state legislatures and the 1788 Founders for the Congress agreed with John Locke: a)The people have a right to be distinctly represented as communities, and b) society should be represented in an equal and proportionate manner by population alone, or at the time, the general principle from imperial colonial times had been variously modified by property in farming, commerce or slavery.

However, c) American Patriots had seen the king’s party influence over Parliament’s elections, and they knew that the just power in a legislature is “only to make laws, and not to make legislators”; and d) the king’s partisan legislators who were financially rewarded from “rotten boroughs”, who gave their votes before they examined and debated a measure, were, in John Locke's phrase, “not capable” of freely acting in the public good. (See “Two Treatises sec. 141, 158, 222) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The U.S. is a "representative democracy". We see the U.S. has repeatedly sought to overturn undemocratic and unrepresentative districts fashioned by self-serving state majorities who sought permanent partisan dominance, a decade gerrymander at a time, decade after decade, and sometimes enshrined in their state constitutions.

At various times previously, Congressional Districts were by law to be (a) “contiguous” (Jackson Ds 1842), (b) “compact” (Lincoln Rs 1872), (b) “equal population” (R- & D-Progressives 1911), plus “respect local boundaries” (two most recent House bills). (For 21st century US, see “one-man-one-vote” SCOTUS rulings that conformed to the 1911 legislation passed into law but never enforced by Congress.)

— Further, Art. II, Sec. 5, “Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members” . . . the manner of elections and “under such penalties as each House may provide.” Thus in a technical sense, SCOTUS reaffirmed that the House of Representatives may choose not to seat members elected from either (a) unlawful districts or (b) not compliant with House rules.

— Either the law or House rules may require districts for its membership that are (a) “community based”, respecting local boundaries, without snaking down corridors along highways slicing through multiple counties; (b) “compact”, with tendril off-shoots of odd-shaped precincts and census tracts; and (c) “contiguous”, without jumping rivers multiple times to aggregate partisan turnout among slices of unrelated cities and counties.

The House procedural rule may require the vote to seat a candidate in a contested district by a quorum “of a majority” to prohibit seating any Member carrying the election vote in an unqualified district. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It meets the historic definition of representative democracy, even if it falls short of our modern ideals. It's not as if the legislators were appointed or hereditary. TFD (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This source says the United States is no longer a democracy: American Democracy Has Been Eclipsed There is today no institutional counterpower to a presidential tyrant. Bernard E. Harcourt (February 21, 2019) Cmguy777 (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Quotes:

• "The United States, at this moment, is no longer a democracy, conventionally understood as a political regime of majoritarian popular rule with counter-majoritarian checks. All three branches of US government are now formally counter-majoritarian. There is today no institutional counterpower to a presidential tyrant."
• "This moment presents a constitutional crisis for the American people."
• "In rare circumstances, all three branches of government can be counter-majoritarian. At that moment, there is no longer democratic rule."
• "That is precisely what has happened."
• "Thus, the majority of the American people are no longer formally represented by any branch of the government."

The above are quotes from the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

One article doesn't overturn centuries of scholarship. --Golbez (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

for such a dramatic conclusion we can expect many leading experts a) agreeing with him, and a lot fewer b) disagreeing. The latest google shows a = zero and b =zero. for the period since Feb 23 2019 when Harcourt's article appeared, google says: No results found for "The United States, at this moment, is no longer a democracy" Harcourt Zero people repeat Harcourt's claim and therefore Wiki should not do so. It resembles that what a fringe theory would get. Rjensen (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Aside from a Google search or popularity contest why is Harcourt wrong ? Research has shown that only 10 percent of the wealthy get representation in Congress. I thought the article was interesting. It did not seem fringe to me. I am not promoting Hartcourt though. Is everyone in America getting representation in Congress ? Wealth does not affect politics ? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens I take that Cambridge.org is affiliated with Cambridge University Press. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Study By MIT Economist: U.S. Has Regressed To A Third-World Nation For Most Of Its Citizens Cmguy777 (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Most Americans Don’t Feel Well-Represented By Congress Ariel Edwards-Levy (12-11-2018) Cmguy777 (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

None of that is the point. If no one is talking about Harcourt's article, then to modify this article based on it would constitute original research. We can only care about it if other reputable sources say we should. Same for all the other articles - their mere existence is insufficient. I mean, I agree with it all on a personal, emotional, and even intellectual level - but it's absolutely insufficient to modify an encyclopedia over. --Golbez (talk) 04:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia wants reliable sources. Why is Harcourt's article unreliable ? It is not original research to use a reliable article in this article. What Wikipedia policy says: "We can only care about it if other reputable sources say we should." Where is that in Wikipedia policy ? Would someone please tell me why Harcourt is fringe, unreliable, or wrong ? Harcourt is a web article. Not a book. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The article's reliability is not something for us to decide. That's for third-party sources. WP:RS, WP:IS are the applicable policies. --Golbez (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The three other sources I gave indirectly support Harcourt. My question on reliablity is whether the source is pushing and agenda, political and/or social, or objectively researching the government. Bernard Harcourt has a wikipedia aritcle. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, but again - even 4 sources can't overturn centuries of scholarship. We can't take the lead on this. When textbooks, newspapers, etc. start universally switching over to a new understanding of the government, then we can follow. Not sooner. If one article isn't sufficient for them, why should it be sufficient for us? --Golbez (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

First research can change overtime. Age of a source does matter on Wikipedia. Age matters All Wikipedia requires is that the source is reliable. Where in the Wikipedia guidelines does it say third-party sources verify reliablity of sources or that reliable sources are only found in text books and newspapers? Reliable sources Bernard E. Harcourt is an Isidor and Seville Sulzbacher Professor of Law faculty member at Columbia University. He has authored books. Is Harcourt fringe ? Wikipedia:Fringe theories The Cambridge study shows that a minority of wealthy people are represented in Congress and people who are not wealthy do not get represented. The Huffington Post web article said people feel they are not represented in Congress. Again, I am not pushing any agenda but the above articles are worthy of discussion and could represent a reliable change in research. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

First, "Age of a source does matter" doesn't make sense in the context of what else you're saying. Secondly, you're arguing ad hominem. Harcourt holds a named chair endowed by rich folk and that makes him more credible? That just makes the Donald's tweets more credible, because he's rich too (FSVO). Thirdly, Harcourt says the government is anti-majoritarian. How does he know? What dismayingly low percentage of voters puts any of them in office; and what is he going by: polling data? Only individual self-delusion seems more anti-majoritarian than that. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

How reliable is Harcourt? on his recent book the Washington Post reviewer states: "In the end, however, readers are likely to be left unsatisfied. Harcourt works a little too hard to make everything fit. Apparent contradictions and internal disagreements about counterinsurgency strategies are dismissed: Harcourt acknowledges, for instance, heated debates within national security circles about whether drone strikes are a counterinsurgency tactic, but he blithely dismisses this...." online review in Wash Post Note that his article did not appear in a scholarly journal where articles have to pass review by editors and anonymous scholars.--it's n a far-left political magazine The Nation. Rjensen (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I was responding to Golbez "overturn centuries of scholarship" Wikipedia says the age of source matters and I gave a Wikipedia link.Age matters Harcourts article was published February 21, 2019, not a century ago. Wikipedia wants articles to have updated sources. I am not defending Harcourt. Yes. The Washington Post reviewer has a negative review of Harcourts book. But reviewers are suppose to be critical to a certain extant. That is their job. It appears that Hartcourt seems to be motivated by some political ideology. Not that is bad in itself, but his objectivity may be in question. Maybe this is an ongoing issue that needs more clarifiation from another source or sources. Thanks for the discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Government Section in the Right Box

The title "majority leader" exists in the House and Senate, but the top person in the House is the Speaker. The government box lists the President, Vice-President, Speaker, and Chief Justice. The Senate is the upper house, and I think the Senate Majority Leader should be included there also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvanJ35 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Unlike majority leadership, Speaker of the House is a constitutional office. And we already mention the constitutional top job in the Senate - the Vice President. --Golbez (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The other constitutionally mandated Senate leadership position, the President pro tempore, is also mentioned, although not in the infobox. I remember there being some discussion as to whether it should have been (see Talk:United_States/Archive_67#List_of_Government_Officials_in_the_Sidebar). Dhtwiki (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization

• Note "Israeli prime minister" is uncapitalized because "prime minister" is preceded by modifier "Israeli", per MOS:JOBTITLES bullet 3 and table column 2, example 6: "A controversial US president, Richard Nixon, resigned."
• Note "Palestinian president" is uncapitalized because "president" is preceded by modifier "Palestinian", per MOS:JOBTITLES bullet 3 and table column 2, example 6: "A controversial US president, Richard Nixon, resigned."
• Note "the secretary of defense" is uncapitalized because "secretary of defense" is preceded by modifier "the", per MOS:JOBTITLES bullet 3 and table column 2, example 1: "Richard Nixon was the president of the United States."

Any proposal for modification to the guideline should be posted at its talk page, WT:MOSBIO. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 23:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Large article

This is a very highly read article with major size issues, like the Donald Trump article and others. The main concerns seem to be the inclusion of trivia and recent events, but it's likely that there is excessive information here that would be much better suited in sub-articles which have the benefit of being able to go further into detail. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The Mexican Repatiatrion

Hi there! Basically a new account here, but I was thinking maybe the Great Depression period could have a line added about the Mexican Repatriation? It's a fairly significant event in US history that doesn't get a lot of attention, in which somewhere between 400,000 and 2 million United States citizens were deported from the US because of rising anti-immigrant sentiment by most major political factions in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imaginestigers (talk • contribs) 21:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Bias in Civil War and Reconstruction paragraphs

Two sentences struck me as odd. "The South fought for the freedom to own slaves, while the Union at first simply fought to maintain the country as one united whole. Nevertheless, as casualties mounted after 1863 and Lincoln delivered his Emancipation Proclamation, the main purpose of the war from the Union's viewpoint became the abolition of slavery." This is misleading at the very least, and a flat-out falsehood at worst. It would be more accurate to say that "The South seceded primarily in order to protect the institution of slavery," but this sentence confuses with the reasons for seceding and the reasons for fighting the war. The South's reason for "fighting" was for independence. Also, at no point was the Union's primary goal the abolition of slavery over the preservation of the Union. These two sentences are not cited, and it shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.252.234 (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you supply sources that give the rationales for the war as you see them? Dhtwiki (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure. For one, look to one of Abraham Lincoln's most famous quotes on the issue:

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.[43]

On the other side of the conflict was this quote by the governor of Virginia at the time to Lincoln in response to his request for volunteers to restore Union control to the seceded states, he declared that since the president had "chosen to inaugurate civil war, he would be sent no troops from the Old Dominion."[5]

By the way, I apologize for the choppy and my poor attempt at using citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:e9e0:2450:f949:687e:ac3b:53a9 (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no conflict here --It's important to look at dates. the Lincoln quote = Letter to Horace Greeley (August 22, 1862)--at a time slavery INSIDE the USA was still at issue for border states. By early 1863 it was no longer at issue. By 1863 destruction of slavery = destroy CSA will and ability to exist, so Lincoln expanded his message and the the text correctly says that "after 1863 and Lincoln delivered his Emancipation Proclamation, the main purpose of the war from the Union's viewpoint became the abolition of slavery." Rjensen (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, when I talked of sources, I was looking for something recent, by a historian. Our interpretation of Lincoln's words aren't something we can base this article on. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Rjensen (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Map of Spanish claims

I deleted the map of Spanish-held regions of the current United States. This article is already too long (with a WP alert to this effect), and it's unhelpful to add a map of such busy detail in Spanish (the language of this article is English). The hyped labels "Alta Luisiana" and "Baja Luisiana" denote territories that were ceded to Spain for just 38 years and had no Spanish settlements. Even New Orleans, Biloxi, and Mobile remained French-speaking throughout this time. This is problematic at so many levels and is better replaced by a map of true Spanish settlements/missions. The map should also be in English. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Total Land Area

The United States is 3rd in total land area behind Russia and Canada with 9,826,675 square miles. China is slightly smaller at 9,596,960 square miles. The article flips this with China being slightly larger which is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.117.242 (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Land-wise, the U.S. is 2nd, ahead of Canada. Total area, including lakes, Canada comes out at 2nd. As for China vs US, there's disputes as to what the area is, because of including (or not including) coastal waters, Taiwan, etc. The footnote goes a little towards explaining this; List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area#cite_note-3rd-largest-14 has more detail. --Golbez (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

CSA vs MSA

I have changed the page to feature CSA instead of MSA in the population table of regions. CSA is much more comprehensive in its scope at covering true population regions of the United States. For example, MSA splits up San Jose metro from San Francisco/Oakland (both are known together as the "Bay Area"; not separated, therefore MSA creates an artificial distinction that makes no sense). Same with Baltimore-Washington, San Bernardino/Riverside and LA. CSA does not make artificial distinctions between areas that are part of one bigger metro region.

If we are going to make a table of cities by metropolitan areas instead of top 10 cities, it has to be accurate and fully represent what a U.S. region actually is. This is why listing CSAs instead of MSAs is much better. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

CSA stats are a major change to standard urban definitions here, as all other encyclopedias list one urban population (often called "metropolitan area") that cites the Census Bureau's MSA. Most WP city articles list the MSA as "metropolitan area." Combined statistical areas like New York's go very far afield to take in small cities in Pennsylvania. I believe that CSAs constitute inflated boosterism for many cities. You are making a sweeping decision — using a definition of "population center" that is anomalous elsewhere, and this includes WP city articles. This has to meet a consensus of editors, as it is a major change. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

So far the consensus against or for such a change is only one editor, so you cannot claim to make a sweeping generalization that other editors are against this. Most other city articles do list cities as "metropolitan areas", but that is not what the new infobox is attempting to prove or disprove. Metropolitan areas ARE MSAs. No one is trying to dispute that or redefine that. The new infobox simply lists CSAs because they cover a much more comprehensive array of regions of population (not "inflated boosterism", which is a personal opinion by Mason). Let's list some instances:

• MSA definition would split San Francisco/Oakland and San Jose into two separate regions. This is a slightly misleading separation: I am a local resident so I am well aware of this. San Jose, SF, and Oakland are one region. They have the same media market, the same transit systems, and are all considered the "San Francisco Bay Area" and its environs. San Jose is just as much Bay Area as San Francisco is. So here, CSA is much more accurate in terms of conveying a sense of the entire population of a region. On a page for a country, we should use a population measuring metric that is fully representative for all areas, not just some.
• Baltimore-Washington is considered one region. Would be two if we listed MSAs. Same reasoning as above.
• Miami under MSA would not include Port St. Lucie, which is a clear part of the Greater Miami region.
• And many, many more examples that I could list...

Our job on the article for the United States is to do the best job we can in the "population" section of summarizing who and how many live where. This requires the most comprehensive and representative definition possible, that includes all residents of a region. If the point of switching from listing top 10 cities to MSAs was to more accurately represent where the US population lives, then we should CSAs, not MSAs. MSAs's lines for what a metro is are just as arbitrary as giving a list of the top 10 cities, which would obviously give the false impression that Atlanta and Boston areas are somehow smaller than the San Diego area. Same with MSAs, which give the false impression that somehow that the Dallas area is larger than Washington DC area, or that gives a false sense that San Francisco's regional population is just 5 million, when it is actually closer to 9.5 million. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, Mason argues that the article is "anomalous" with a CSA table. This is simply false. On city pages, both MSAs and CSAs are listed, and many articles, including Baltimore's, mentions the greater CSA population in the introduction. A key example of why we ought to go with the broad, comprehensive definition of a region that is a CSA when making an infobox listing population centers of the entire United States. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The CSA definition gives inflated numbers for U.S. "population centers" — it goes way beyond that city's urban area to encompass what is, in fact, a marketing region. While CSAs are listed in WP city article leads, that doesn't mean they are the "population center." Also, please don't lecture me about what "our job" is. Your tone is patronizing and, again, "a more comprehensive definition" is your opinion. Finally, your blanket replacement of a longtime standard chart with a different definition is something I would never do without a Talk page discussion. This is not good faith. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The "marketing region" comment is a personal opinion. I'll agree with you that some CSAs do indeed go to far outside of an urban core, but I'll add that many more MSAs are also far too restrictive. You can't possibly count San Francisco's region without counting San Jose as well, or Washington's without counting Baltimore. And it's not a patronizing tone to say that our job is to be accurate. I'd rather err on the side of including too much, not including too little, when describing the full population of a region. This is why I'd go with a CSA. Also, the MSA table is not longstanding. Someone made a terrific change when they switched from listing top 10 cities (as many other countries' pages still do) to metro areas, because they understood very insightfully that the much of the US is suburban and decentralized from a major city. I made this change to CSAs in this same spirit, so that we don't unintentionally obfuscate the true populations of areas like DC/Baltimore and the Bay Area (important because they are the 4th and 5th largest CSAs in the entire country). EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• To respond to some other claims: it is not a sweeping change, it keeps the same table structure, design, and feel.
• A "population center" is not an MSA. A metro area is an MSA. A population center can be a CSA or an MSA or just a loosely defined historical region.EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Keeping "the same table structure, design, and feel" is not the point; your total redefinition of the chart's content is the point. I disagree with an urban definition that is inflated, looser, and more inaccurate than the MSA. I also object to the cavalier way you've gone about it — without consensus. I don't operate that way. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It is cavalier to go about reverting an edit on the basis of a personal opinion. Users do not need to ask for a personal opinion of a single editor before making a change he/she does not like, per WP:OWN. I will be requesting a third opinion and an official dispute resolution. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Once reverted, you need to start a discussion, per WP:BRD, especially on a page as frequently read as this one is, where you can think of it as not one editor reverting, but the thousands who read it daily and have found the current arrangement satisfactory. Also, if you're adding 7k bytes to a page that is already too long, that is a concern, as well. I don't have a strong opinion on using MSA over CSA (San Jose has always been considered a part of the SF "metropolitan area" in my experience), but I don't think we need this table here at all. There's a good summary of population distribution and growth in the preceding paragraph. Anyone who really wants to study urban areas should want a more specialized article anyway. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with the removal of the table because listing MSAs if this is the compromise because listing MSAs only is misleading. I agree with a lot of what you have said above. It's also my bad for not posting a discussion here first. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

We would need to change the template's all over....thus an RfC would be best. Can't change format in one article and not all the others this is why its in transcluding template.--Moxy 🍁 20:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

This is what I would propose changing the current template to. But I also like Dhtwiki's solution of just removing the table as a whole because there are too many conflicts surrounding it. I'm checking the talk page for the template and it seems that many of the editors have debated this for years without successful resolution. MSAs only is misleading (esp with regards to several key metro areas), and I really believe if it's misleading and we can't come to consensus for a better idea it should just be removed from the article. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I would support removal.--Moxy 🍁 21:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

So that's 3 in favor of deletion. I want to propose the following resolution. We delete the table, and we add a three-bullet list so people can access the articles on MSAs, CSAs, and the cities of the United States by pop. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The decision seems fine -- Dtwiki explained all the objections I had. I never asserted that consensus on WP was static, either. I do think there's a better way to go about a significant revision to demographical statistics (which CSAs are). Mason.Jones (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Glad we can come to a consensus. I really don't think Dtwiki and your objections are at all the same, but we'll leave it there since this is resolved. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

While MSA sometimes doesn't adequately cover entire metropolitan areas as EndlessCoffee54 describes, CSA often combines more than one distinct metropolitan area. I would support a reduction in the size of the information displayed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

That reduction should wait until others have agreed. I just reverted your change to the template. Let's see what others there have to say, as listing 20, not 10, areas may be expected by others and somehow be useful, as well as even with only three images, the reduction in text leaves an inordinate amount of blank space. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Resolution

Based on what appears to be consensus, the infobox will be removed and replaced with the three-bullet list mentioned above. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Strange

I can see that this page is extended protected. Can you tell me what's going on?!. I'm just looking for valid and solid evidence to edit the correct information in this article.. Thank you. Alif Fizol (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

A number of edits have been reverted recently, but what must have caused the protection to be applied was the two blankings of the page by someone who evidently thinks this is their personal advertising space. If you have something you think needs changing, you can mention it on this page. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Constant talk of obesity

This page, in the culture, seems to look for ways to slander America, and makes somewhat skewed claims to do so.

The melodrama in the “culture” section is particularly egregious; you claim America has a “massively higher population of overweight and obese” to any country, to paraphrase, but that isn’t true. Mexico has a greater total obesity rate, and countries like Mexico, Canada, Germany, the UK, Ireland, and Australia all have incidence of per capita obesity, childhood obesity rates, and/or total obesity that surpass the US’s rate of overweight/obese. Even considering that, the “overweight” calculation based on the BMI is a notoriously disingenuous measurements of health, and a Los Angeles Times article recently revealed that 54 million Americans were mislabeled overweight/“unhealthy” when they in fact did not have excess fat.

Either way, I would cut back on the insulting, stereotypical, and inaccurate hyperbole, as, for all intents and purposes, America’s obesity rate is *not* particularly far ahead of many countries, again, namely countries like Germany, Mexico, Canada, or the U.K., which have comparable or greater rates of obesity. Can we please delete most of that? Or re-word it? Cryalot93 (talk) 03:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Please excuse the typos Cryalot93 (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the melodrama. I'm not seeing any phrasing that could be paraphrased as "massively higher population of overweight and obese", as you've evidently done. Would you be more specific as to what wording you're objecting to? Dhtwiki (talk) 04:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Dhtwiki, not seeing any problem here. There's literally one paragraph dedicated to it in the health section, with appropriate links to other articles and sources. In fact, you've written more in your criticism of it than what we have in the article. --Golbez (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

First, I would point to this:

“ Fast food consumption has sparked health concerns. During the 1980s and 1990s, Americans' caloric intake rose 24%;[664] frequent dining at fast food outlets is associated with what public health officials call the American "obesity epidemic".[672] Highly sweetened soft drinks are widely popular, and sugared beverages account for nine percent of American caloric intake.[673]”

This is redundant when you devote a section to discussing health in a section further down in the article, therefore it strikes me as excessive and out of place on the cuisine section. Keep the indictment of health to the one section. Cryalot93 (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The information here:

“ Obesity rates have more than doubled in the last 30 years, are the highest in the industrialized world, and are among the highest anywhere.[342][343] Approximately one-third of the adult population is obese and an additional third is overweight.[344] Obesity-related type 2 diabetes is considered epidemic by health care professionals.[345]”

Is therefore redundant. It’s also misleading and not correct. First of all, BMI isn’t an accurate indicator of excess fat or lack of health. Second, a number of industrialized countries, and a vast number of countries overall, have either comparable or higher rates of obesity to the US, namely: Mexico, the United Kingom, Canada, Germany, Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand. And these are only the most significant ones. The U.K. and Australia have higher rates of childhood obesity than the US. Mexico has a higher rate of obesity overall. Canada, Australia, and Germany almost identical. All of these countries have a greater prevalence of overweight and obese people per capita. And honest real-life application of this warped knowledge is totally absent, as the percentage (under BMI) of those labeled overweight/obese isn’t significantly different between the US and any of these countries, and in some respects, America comes out healthier. It’s not like there’s a noticeable difference between the amount of overweight people between the US and Canada. The information, and the data, is misleading, and it’s sort of out of place here.

On top of this, there is no other page for equivalent information on any of these other country’s Wikipedia pages; it’s just for the US that it is mentioned. That seems to me like we’re over-scrutinizing, stereotyping, and slandering the US a bit here.

I’d like to see this content paired down/combined/written in a more democratic way. Cryalot93 (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• pared down. I would suggest simply giving data for the topic (obesity), whole removing the dubious/inaccurate/misleading indictments of obesity in America being “the highest in the industrialized world/the highest anywhere”, because that largely isn’t true, and is redundant to the information given in the cuisine section. If you had an equivalent section for countries with comparable obesity rates and made similar claims, that’s fine, but considering you haven’t, I don’t see why these claims need to be made solely about the US on the US page. Cryalot93 (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I've given this only a cursory glance, but I think there may be too much in the culture section on obesity, where we probably don't discuss health risks of other cultural activities. A possibility is to move non-redundant material to the health section. At List of countries by body mass index, as of 2015 the US is ahead of all but some Middle East and Pacific Ocean countries. I saw a Huffington Post reference where Mexico has moved ahead but didn't examine it closely, and I'm not sure HP is the most reliable source. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

While I agree that the US seems to have a higher mean BMI (per that list), I think that the objection is about characterizing the distribution of BMIs. If the US has a bimodal BMI distribution where 70% of the population have BMI 22 and 30% of the population with BMI 44.7 it has the same average BMI as if it had 60% at 22 and 40% at 39. The Obesity in the United States article says that the US has the highest rate of obesity at more than a third while the Obesity in Mexico article says that that country has the highest rate of at least overweight population. I think putting the two at issue paragraphs in precise terminology would help. We should say what years the obesity rate doubled between (rather than just saying "the last 30" which implies that the obesity rate has been growing by 2.3% every year and will exceed 100% in 45 years), should remove the "highest in the industrialized world" bit (unless we want to take space to define "industrialized world", and possibly link to Obesity in the United States. Idea for the paragraph in health (numbers made up):

"Obesity rates more than doubled between 1985 and 2015.[342][343] In 2017 36.5% of the population was obese with another 32% overweight, compared to a world average of 10% obese and 12% overweight.[344] Obesity-related type 2 diabetes is considered epidemic by health care professionals.[345]"

This firstly gives specific dates for the change in obesity rates, makes it clear when the statistics are from, and puts the numbers in context. If the US has 33% obesity and the world average was 31%, then being among the highest is not as notable as if there is significant space between the two. Finally, maybe we should move some information about increasing caloric intakes into the health section. Rockphed (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Law Enforcement and Crime

Why is there a single line at the end of this section identifying the number of "sanctuary cities" in the USA? I did not erase it, as the datum is potentially interesting, but it seems like it should either be part of a section on migration (which I did not see among the section headings), or requires clarification as to what this has to do with law enforcement and crime. Is the point to draw attention to the fact that the question of whether immigration constitutes a law-enforcement issue is still unsettled in the USA? BMN (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I removed it as it was a recent addition and had nothing to do with the section it was placed in. Furthermore, given the estimations are provided by an organization pushing an anti-immigration agenda, I don't think it is very reliable. It might be interesting, but I fail to see how such a source is notable for this particular article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe in "politics" or some such? It represents a disagreement between various levels of government about how to enforce law, which is a political thing. However, I don't see a good place to hang information about "sanctuary cities" in the politics section. Rockphed (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

"America"

"America" is a continent extending from the North Pole to the South Pole, not a country.

The country misnamed as such is the "United States of America".

--2A01:CB00:885:F600:3516:36:B6AD:4EAD (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONAME, America is one of the acceptable short names for the USA. North America and South America are the names of the two continents. The "Americas" is sometimes used to refer to the whole western land mass. "American", in the English language, is (again per WP:COMMONAME), the standard demonym for the people of the USA. As a Canadian, I can assure you we like to be called Canadians, not Americans -- North Americans, occasionally in certain contexts, but American refers to US residents, America, the USA. freshacconci (✉) 12:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Like the North Pole and the South Pole, I understand that there are North America and South America; however, there used to be something called the Isthmus of Panama, something you could walk across, that linked the two, making the huge piece of land a single continent named America after discovery by Europeans. --2A01:CB00:885:F600:9438:6FA1:3C05:D85C (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

So, does that mean that the other major continent of the world is Eurafrasia? If "America" is one continent, why are "Europe", "Asia", and "Africa" considered three? Sinai and Panama are fairly similar in width while the Urals simply dwarf those mere strips of land. --Khajidha (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your correction; we will forward your request for a change of name to the government post haste. --Golbez (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

That is so sweet of you, and much appreciated! :) --2A01:CB00:885:F600:9438:6FA1:3C05:D85C (talk) 09:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

In most of the world, America does refer to a continent, as shown for example by five Olympic rings. However since the United States of America is recognized by that name, the article uses it. I would point out too that an apple is a type of fruit, not a computer or record, but they are allowed to use that name. TFD (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Your explanation makes sense and I shall settle for *computer*... when I eat an apple. --2A01:CB00:885:F600:9438:6FA1:3C05:D85C (talk) 09:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

PS - Thank you all three above, you have given me material for discussing USA vs America with European friends because I/we adore the United States of America... also Canada, Mexico, all the way down to Tierra del Fuego - un continent magnifique! --2A01:CB00:885:F600:9438:6FA1:3C05:D85C (talk) 09:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You might also approach the U.S. Congress—the one U.S. institution that can change the official name of the country from "United States of America" to "United States." A century afterward, Londoners might stop calling the country "America," and 100% of Parisians would replace "Américain(e)" with "États-Unien(ne)." We'd definitely revise the Wikipedia article then. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

When I mail a letter from Europe to a city in the USA that has a Spanish name, if I put *America* the letter would never be delivered in the US, would end up in a Hispanic country in the American continent - then would come back to me. On the other hand, when I write *USA* the letter arrives to destination. The only case the letter would be delivered in the US would be if the word "street" was within the address, which is not always the case with addresses in the Western US that have words as *camino* replacing *street*.

However, I thank you & will call U.S. Congress first thing in the morning or after they are back from summer break :)

Best regards, or as the French say: *Cordialement!*

--2A01:CB00:885:F600:9438:6FA1:3C05:D85C (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The U.S. Post office has always preferred "USA" as the short (and practical) abbreviation for envelopes -- far easier for postal workers to sort. Same for official postal codes like "IL" for Illinois. You're welcome to petition the U.S. Congress to change the name, although that will probably happen the day Louisiana returns to French control. Mason.Jones (talk)

"When I mail a letter from Europe to a city in the USA that has a Spanish name, if I put *America* the letter would never be delivered in the US, would end up in a Hispanic country in the American continent - then would come back to me."

Gonna have to say citation needed on that one, friend. I think most postal authorities know what "America" on its own means. Why would they send it to a random country? Do they just throw a dart at a map and say, ehhh send it to Antigua? No. They know that "America", especially in addresses, is an understood shorthand for the US. --Golbez (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The only citation I can give you is personal experience. Not good for Wikipedia, but a lesson well learned. So, I'll always stick to *USA*. --2A01:CB00:885:F600:B44B:1EB9:F1DD:C3DD (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like your own fault for leaving out the state. You don't send mail to "San Diego, America" or even "San Diego, USA", but to "San Diego, California". --Khajidha (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

(also, need to work on your blanket thoughts of what America is - there's a lot more here than Hispanic countries. Brazil, Suriname, Guyana, Belize, France, a bunch of islands, and oh yeah everything north of Mexico, so actually, if we're going pure population-wise, the Americas are minority Hispanic.) --Golbez (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

My "blanket thoughts of what America is" could be the result of present politics RE the southern US border where, according to current Administration, the US is being - whatever is happening there... by *Hispanics*, never mentioning Brits, French, Portuguese or Dutch who could be coming from the places you mentioned. It's always about Hispanics. Viewed from Europe, this kind of talk does give the impression that, aside from the Canadians and the Yanks, the rest of *America* is peopled by only Hispanics. Amicalement, --2A01:CB00:885:F600:B44B:1EB9:F1DD:C3DD (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Mason.Jones, I for one am looking forward to that day. Might as well include the whole northwest territory while your at it ~mitch~ (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Mitch, don't hold your breath even for New Mexico, much less for the Louisiana Purchase or the NW territories. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

"American" is sometimes used informally in Latin America to refer to people and subjects pertaining to the USA, but this is also widely frowned upon, see, e.g.: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/what-does-american-actually-mean/276999/, especially when people from the USA do it. "North American" is also commonly used informally. The formal term, both in the media (e.g., https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-america-latina-48998509) and most government offices, seems to be the unwieldy "estadounidense," which would translate to "unitedstatesian." As the length of the discussion here suggests, it seems like it is at least worth mentioning in the article, in the paragraph on the use of "American," that use of the term to indicate the USA is somewhat frowned upon, at least outside the country. BMN (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 September 2019

Denonym: Please include United-Statesian, as "American", although popular in the USA, causes confusion and indignation to people living in the whole American continent. References: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/United-Statesian https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/American Mario A. Castro-Rojas (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Not done. A search of Google Books indicates that this extremely rare term is more often used to indicate that it is "not accepted" or the like than otherwise. EllenCT (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 September 2019

The United States is not a Democracy. If it was the majority would rule. The Untied States Inc. is a Democracy, not the United States Republic. A US Citizen lives in the Corporate United States Inc. Please clarify has this is grave misrepresentation of the Constitutional Republic United States. There is a big difference and the public must be correctly educated about the difference. 2603:301C:DDF:0:D00C:F7E3:1126:E524 (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Not done. Neither liberal nor representative democracy is incompatible with a Federal republic, and the article describes the nation as all three. For more information please see [1]. EllenCT (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 August 2019

The only thing that has to be changed is that when you search for the term "america" the information that you should be getting is regarding the american continent not just a country in it, in every other wikipedia site that is not in english there is the correct information on the term 169.198.254.64 (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Not done. This is the English Wikipedia and we follow standard English usage in which for centuries "America" is the short form of "United States of America." Rjensen (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

"Every other" Weird, when I put アメリカ into jawiki, it redirects to the article on the U.S. Pretty sure Japanese isn't a marginal language. --Golbez (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

negroes reshipping to Africa

It's noteworthy mentioning that Abraham Lincoln had a plan to reship negroes back to Africa and was negotiating this with several countries, however was assasinated before any plans could be finalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.179.225.181 (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

And that's probably handled in other articles but it seems vastly overdetailed for this article. --Golbez (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Reconstruction_era#Colonization, linked to from article's "Civil War and Reconstruction era" section, tells of Lincoln's urging reluctant African-American leaders... to colonize some place in Central America. That article goes on to say, By April 1863 Lincoln was successful in sending black colonists to Haiti as well as 453 to Chiriqui in Central America; however, none of the colonies were able to remain self-sufficient. So, there was both a failed plan and some failed action taken. No explicit mention of negotiations with other countries, although that could easily be implied. It's noteworthy, but I agree that it's too much detail for this article. We don't mention Liberia here with respect to its establishment as a result of similar, but more noteworthy, colonization efforts. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Note that Africa isn't mentioned, but places for colonization in the Americas. If there was a plan that involved Africa, that might be worth mentioning at the linked article. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Fixed redirect

America is two continents, and redirecting the entire name to one nation when there are countless others within the domain is a devaluing insult to every one of said nations. This is coming from a proud U.S. citizen making this correction. Googinber1234 (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Reverted. As it clearly says, "DO NOT change redirect without discussion". In common parlance, America refers to the United States worldwide. The landmass is commonly referred to as the Americas, not America. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Googinber1234: there was a requested move at Talk:America (disambiguation)#Requested move 10 July 2015 if you think the DAB should be moved back to America (meaning there's no primary topic) you should file a new RM. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

template question

does anyone mind if I add template {{Skip to top and bottom}} to this entry? --Sm8900 (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Why do you want to do that? Template:Skip to top and bottom says "Can be placed on administration pages (not-articles) when appropriate." Why does it belong here and where would it be placed? Dhtwiki (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, it blocks part of the content on mobile. /Julle (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2019

The United States is the Republic or Government of the Union of this Country America. The United States of America. America is a 50 state Country the U.S. is the Union. CarlCaliroots89 (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

That's nice, but it's not a request. --Golbez (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 September 2019

The Wikipedia page claims that "the United States is the world's third or fourth largest country by total area" because, as listed under the notes, "The Encyclopædia Britannica lists China as the world's third-largest country (after Russia and Canada) with a total area of 9,572,900 sq km, and the United States as fourth-largest at 9,526,468 sq km...[while] [t]he CIA World Factbook lists the United States as the third-largest country (after Russia and Canada) with total area of 9,833,517 sq km, and China as fourth-largest at 9,596,960 sq km." This is no longer accurate as the CIA World Factbook lists the United States as the 4th largest country in the world. Could someone fix this? It's listed in the first paragraph, the second paragraph of the Geography, climate, and environment section, and on note D. Thanks

untitled

16:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source or a link to the relevant section of the CIA factbook. This page on the CIA factbook says that the US is "slightly bigger" than China. --regentspark (comment) 00:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Largest cities

I noticed that there was a "Leading population centers" list that was removed from this article, and it used metropolitan "statistical" areas, not city populations. Can somebody please add a "Largest cities" template that uses city populations, which are well-defined, and not metropolitan areas, which are subjective? The template should list America's 20 largest cities: New York, LA, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose, Austin, Jacksonville, Fort Worth, Columbus, San Francisco, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Seattle, Denver, and Washington, DC. Sanjay7373 (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd say it makes more sense to have the metro area list, especially for people outside the country who are less familiar with it. A list of largest cities that omits places like Atlanta, Miami, and Boston (each of which is a top-10 metro area) because of the smaller central city, is not a great list. Yes, mentioning the largest cities is useful (because otherwise Charlotte and San Antonio wouldn't get listed), but not at the expense of largest metro areas. Both? Maybe, fine, but with adequate prose explaining why. But if we have only one, then it should be metro areas. A note that this article is a summary article and we have many, many subarticles where this info is better handled, so also consider that aspect.

I also look at it as politics vs people - only caring about municipal borders, instead of patterns of human development and residence, means we're placing more emphasis on the annexation and incorporation process of various cities, instead of where people actually live. 5 million people live within a few miles of downtown Atlanta, but Atlanta itself is constrained by specific borders. Does that mean it should be given less prominence than San Antonio, where a million people live within its borders, but no one else lives nearby? --Golbez (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, see Talk:United_States/Archive_95#CSA_vs_MSA, which is when it was decided that the template listing the largest cities was unnecessary here, especially when the ranking was controversial. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

These "controversies" in the city rankings could be avoided by using city populations instead of varying definitions of metropolitan areas. Most countries throughout the world, such as Afghanistan, Belgium, India, Japan, and Russia, as well as pretty much every U.S. state article, use a Largest cities template with city populations. If you enter the City of Los Angeles, the population sign will read around 4 million, not 13.1 million (metropolitan) or 18.7 million (CSA). Sanjay7373 (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

You: "We should do this." Us: "Here are concerns." You: "Those concerns are fixed by following my plan!" You didn't address these ""controversies"" at all. --Golbez (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I am a new user. If you are unwilling to do anything, I give up. Sanjay7373 (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to see you're discouraged, but you should probably get used to the level of contentiousness you're apt to encounter on Wikipedia, especially on the more frequently read pages, such as this one is. On a more substantive note, other countries don't escape contentiousness on this matter. See the recent edit history of Kerala state in India, where how to rank Thiruvananthapuram (state capital and largest city) and Kochi (most populous metropolitan area) has been in dispute. Some countries (e.g. China, IIRC) manage to avoid such disputes by making city boundaries generally coterminous with metropolitan areas. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused. "If you are unwilling to do anything, I give up." We are of course willing to do things. However, multiple issues were brought up, and your only response was to ignore them. Which one of us is "unwilling" to do anything? And dthwiki, I don't think this was contentious at all. No one's been rude. --Golbez (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Remember, pretty much every single state in America has a "Largest cities" template with city populations. This is an inconsistency even within the same country. Sanjay7373 (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, how about a compromise? We make a table of the largest cities with both city populations and metropolitan populations. Sanjay7373 (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Another issue relevant to this is the large size of this article. So, we tend to want to leave off or trim, if at all possible. The tables don't need to be on this page. There is at least one article that deals with US demographics, which has a more complete set of tables and is linked to from here. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I got it. This article is already 420,000 bytes and we do not need one more. Maybe we should add a city population table to the Demography of the United States article.Sanjay7373 (talk) 05:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 September 2019

Please change the definition of the united states government from "a federal republic, and representative democracy" to "a constitutional republic" Invictus1171 (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The current statement is sourced. The proposed change is not. Provide a source and get consensus here before using the edit request template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Further reading section

The deletion of the further reading section removes sources from the article, sources which citations in the body linked to. Now we have a plethora of citations in the article with no actual sources, just last names, dates and page numbers. The onus is on those who want to remove the further reading list to go through it and remove those sources which are not used as citations, then rename it "Bibliography" and restore it, OR go through the article and modify the citations and add the sources directly into the citation instead of in a further reading/biblography section.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted as per lost sources...Compiling bibliographies is a major activity of historians and scholars here....at worst it should have been moved after the used sources were pulled out. Having this type of section is something we go out of our way to have in FA articles for research purposes Canada#Further reading that leads to Bibliography of Canada.....that seen a trim with a proper bib article could be the way to go.--Moxy 🍁 14:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Which ones are used to cite anything in the article? This article already has over 700 actual sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 Octobver 2019

 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. Melmann 22:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Change requested

I refer to the section entitled Civil War and Reconstruction era.

I take some issue with the bold part of this sentence: While President Lincoln attempted to foster friendship and forgiveness between the Union and the former Confederacy, an assassin's bullet on April 14, 1865, drove a wedge between North and South again.

I suggest it should instead be written as:

While President Lincoln attempted to foster friendship and forgiveness between the Union and the former Confederacy, the assassination of Lincoln on April 14, 1865, drove a wedge between North and South again.

At present it is unduly rhetorical and not written in encyclopedic tone. It's also, frankly, confusing: see WP:LEAST. An bullet can not drive a wedge between the North and South, although the implication - ie the assassination, obviously can and did. If this seems obvious, I refer to WP:OBVIOUS. 130.95.175.240 (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I've changed it to "his assassination". Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 13:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Redirection bias

"'America', 'US', and 'USA' redirect here."

That's US-centric bias. To most in the rest of the world America includes both north, south and central america and doesn't refer to the United States of America. This is the English wikipedia, not US wikipedia. 217.210.93.240 (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you're thinking of Americas. We are obliged to go with the WP:COMMONNAME. If you can establish that America isn't the common name for the US, then there's room for debate. But anecdotal arguments are unlikely to make much of a difference. El_C 17:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Area rank

I heard that some sources are biased toward the U.S. and include a certain area of water (not sure how much) for the U.S., but not other countries. So, I was wondering if I could change the part where it says “third or fourth largest country by total area”, since including those waters for all countries, the U.S. is the 4th biggest. APersonThatDoesStuff (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

"I heard that some sources are biased toward the U.S....". What sources? Bias asserted by whom? "...wondering if I could change the part..." Exactly how and on what basis? This is a much-contested bit of information, and you'll need to bring more specificity to this discussion. You might want to consult the archived discussions here, as well, so as to be cognizant of the issues involved, as others see them. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

European settlements

The last two paragraphs under the section "European settlements" should be removed because they have no relation to the US. Other editors have said that it gives background on Alaska and Hawaii, which would later be states, but this was long before the US or the thirteen colonies ever had any relationship with them. We don't need this background on this article; this should only be on their specific articles or on general colonization and exploration; this article is specifically about the US, which was founded on the east coast of North America, far away from those places.--Roastedturkey (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Please identify yourself on the Talk page. Your appearance as "Anonymous" is not appropriate. While I agree that the passage in question is too wordy (and includes details more suitable for the article "Canada"), it references the two last states of the Union, Hawaii and Alaska. Florida also became a state rather late, remaining Spanish territory until the 19th century. The editor RT could have chosen to pare the passage down rather than dump it. I think this section must mention (however briefly) that Hawaii and Alaska, vast territories, long had specific European cultural, trade, settlement links, and some overseas administration. The U.S. government would later deal with those governments—at times less than fairly, it can be argued—to secure both. The territories simply became states much later than most. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Should the article also mention how the first Spanish settlers arrived in Puerto Rico? Or how about the Philippines? The article should only discuss those territories when and after the United States had any relation with them.--Roastedturkey (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

"Should only discuss" -- says who? The same history section references Spanish Florida (and, naturally, St. Augustine). This article is about the 50 states (population, history, and virtually all statistics refer to the 50 states only). Puerto Rico is a territory. The Philippines was a territory more than 70 years ago. Deleting all historical background for the last two states to enter the Union is quite a different matter, I'm afraid. You could have chosen to reduce/edit the section but, as usual, your edits tend to jettison first and ask questions later. Mason.Jones (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC

Why should states and territories be treated differently? The United States refers to the country, not the states themselves. We only need historical background on the country and how it formed; thus, the only territories that need to be discussed prior to becoming states are the 13 colonies. The states' articles have their own history sections for anyone curious. --Roastedturkey (talk) 11:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The section, like the entire article, reflects the 50 states. Alaska and Hawaii have a European history that is directly related to their purchase or annexation by the United States. Territories have a different status, just as the UN and WHO report separate statistics for Puerto Rico (including life expectancy). If you wish to change this article's basic structure and function, which are long-standing, you must lobby for that first. Mason.Jones (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Directly related? How so? --Roastedturkey (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

As it's basic U.S. history: The Spanish and Russians traded with native Alaskans. Russia colonized Alaska; the czarist government sold it to the U.S. 162 years ago. The British had first European contact with the Hawaiian Islands, then English-speaking U.S. missionaries settled there in the 19th century. The latter deposed Queen Liliuokalani and set up a government. The islands were annexed by the United States 121 years ago. The two were the last two states to enter the Union. This article reflects clearly their special status. As you continue to go in circles, I'll let others debate this. Till then, RoastTurkey, kindly refrain from wholesale deletions of 650-character well-sourced information. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Spanish and Russians trading with native Alaskans isn't basic US history. Early British contact with Hawaii isn't basic US history. We don't need all this useless background. These places were thousands of miles away from the 13 colonies and you claim direct relation? --Roastedturkey (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The subsection is titled "European settlements," not "The 13 Colonies, Per RoastedTurkey." The bulk of the info deals with the 13 English colonies but also Spanish ones like Florida. My problem with your edits isn't reducing content. It's (1) stacks of edits deleting all content (WHAM-O!) and (2) sometimes replacing acceptable English style/usage with poor usage. Over and out. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It is implied to mean the European settlements of the 13 colonies. --Roastedturkey (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

There's no "implied" involved—the subhead is clear and Florida and New Mexico are specifically discussed there. In general, please try to avoid blanket deletions without discussion. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Miles vs Kilometres again

Why is the area in the infobox listed in miles first and then kilometres second?

I realise that miles are the most commonly used measurement in the USA, but it's inconsistent with the infobox for every other country's page. It makes comparing the areas of multiple countries needlessly confusing, both for people used to kilometres (who expect to look at the first value) and those used to miles (who expect to look at the second value.)

There was a discussion in the past debating whether to show miles vs kilometres (as the articles had only listed kilometres at that time), before settling on showing both. That part makes sense, but having them in a different order for different countries seems odd. Nameless Voice (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you proposing that we change all of the other countries to miles first, since the majority of English-as-a-first-language speakers are from the United States? :) --Golbez (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

This is covered in the manual of style under Units of measurement: ":n non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States, the primary units are US customary." We have to follow guidelines and if you disagree, then you should take the discussion to the village pump. TFD (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

"those used to miles (who expect to look at the second value.)". Citation needed on this. For those of us who are used to miles, we mostly encounter materials that give miles first and kilometers second. The format of the infoboxes in all those other countries is likely to confuse most American users. --Khajidha (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

420K bytes and counting?

Is no one else concerned by the sheer length of this thing? Over 420 kilobytes. No other article on a country even comes close to that, and that's including articles in some other languages. As a matter of fact, it is literally the longest article on Wikipedia, excluding timelines and lists. I can also recall two templates condemning its length that have been added in the past month. Does no one else feel we should dumb it down? At least a little? jackchango talk 03:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

think it's really 35 or so short articles assembled together. Few people will want to read the whole thing from start to finish--but if they do they can take the time they need all-at-once or in segments. Breaking it up makes it much harder to use for no gain to anyone. Rjensen (talk) 04:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

First of all we can move the further reading section off, and move parts back in if people feel there are links necessary for referencing. We can also summarise content, and split sections away into other articles or new articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

According to xtools the "Prose" size is 111,917 characters, or 17,463 words; and WP:SIZERULE refers to the "Readable prose size" when talking about necessarily splitting articles above 100k. This article is just over that limit. The problem with reducing is that people are quick to tag the article as too long or come here with complaints. Not so many are willing to undertake the hard slog of paring down in ways that don't provoke protest. It would help for those who do try to make sure that the information being taken down here is available in subordinate articles. I don't think that is done enough. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

At ‎ ‎[417,479 bytes] this is the 19th largest article here on Wikipedia and does not even come close to accessibility limits for old mobile phones and dial-up readers......sorry to say now 18th largest since I wrote this as other articles get fixed.--Moxy 🍁 23:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The info box is also very unwieldy. There has been one improvement in that it used to contain a ridiculous number of non-official mottos which have now been hidden so that they must be collapsed in order to view them. This is a good solution. I would suggest removing or at least collapsing the 'official march' - does not appear in equivalent country articles. The US also has an official flower, gemstone and water bird no doubt but like 'official march' they probably do not warrant taking up space in the infobox. The same can be said for the great seal. There is already a coat of arms which is standard practice for a wiki infobox and is the obverse side of the great seal in any event. I would suggest removing or at least collapsing. Finally I would cut the map of the United States including its territories which looks like it was created in Microsoft Paint, makes the info box unwieldy and appears so small in any case that it is of no use to someone browsing the infobox as to where such territories are. Look at the United Kingdom article for guidance. They have many more overseas territories than the United States but they (and most other country articles) do not include a separate map with overseas territories in the info box. A map and overview of territories can and should instead be included in the politics (subdivisions and territories) section. There are also several sections which are unduly long and detailed and far longer than the equivalents for other country articles (if even existing at all on equivalent articles). . Crime and Law enforcement is ridiculously long and I have not even seen an equivalent section on any other country article. I would suggest simply removing it as it is not a topic even considered significant enough to be on the main article for a country on Wikipedia. The Government Finance subsection is also ridiculously long and probably does not need its own subsection (this is another one which is not found on equivalent country articles). It is also full of a whole mess of charts. Income, Poverty and Wealth also seems ridiculously long.StormcrowMithrandir 02:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The article is no doubt too long. The problem is that it's … "United States." Many people from outside the U.S. consult the article and add to it. The number of foreign editors who simply wish to insert factoids related to their countries can be staggering enough. Then there are the American editors, firmly in POV mode, who add statistics about their U.S. region, religion, ethnic history, or politics, etc. It all adds up. I disagree that U.S. overseas territories (pop. 3.8 million) are somehow comparable to the UK's sparsely settled territories (275,000—the population of Madison, Wisconsin or Lubbock, Texas). It's a different metric, and the current map seems valid. That said, all sections definitely could be whittled down. I don't know how on earth that will be achieved, though, because every editor and his Uncle Bob wish to add their two cents' worth in every section. It will be quite an effort to rein them in. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The infobox, as well as the lead, is the product of more discussion and resulting consensus than the rest of the article. I would tread carefully before editing there. I reverted an attempt to remove the mottoes and the march because, especially the mottoes, are important trivia, their placement arrived at with some discussion.

The rest of the article's text suffers from "tacking-on" syndrome. Wealth, and its inequality of distribution, suffers from that, but it is a much-discussed topic these days. The recent, unexplained, un-clamored-for placement of a new chart summarizing per-capita wealth seemed possibly excessive, but it was well done and relevant to the subject.

In the days of multi-megabyte OS patches, the download of 400k shouldn't be too much of a burden. Our real problem lies with the 700+ references and their attendant javascript. That, in my experience, is the problem. Turn off javascript and see how much faster your rendering is. I'm not enough of an expert to say that I know exactly why that's a problem. However, when I've suggested that it is, I haven't been refuted by those with greater technical expertise. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: Please see this discussion for the opposition to the excessive infobox content. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see much rationale given for any removal. "...ridiculous number of non-official mottos..." doesn't say much except "I don't like it". Nor does calling them "cruft", as you did in an edit summary. The fact that other countries don't have an official march in the infobox shouldn't hold too much weight, as this country might be putting more store in martial music than others. I would like to see more reasons that speak to why this information is no longer useful to the general readership. If they are to be removed, I would like the information shifted rather than deleted from this article completely. That is, there should be links that lead to the substantial articles on the mottoes, or phrases, and the march. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

It's just too much for any reasonable infobox, it's pretty simple. We already have content throughout articles about everything that is contained within the infobox. It's pretty clear that there is no desire for so much content in the infobox, and simply liking the content is not a good enough reason to have it there. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there content on the march and the mottoes in the article? I didn't see it. I would be more willing to take it out of the infobox if that were the case, although I think the present 2-1 consensus is insufficient to remove at this point, given that others inserted that material and it is longstanding. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Even more than that, there are Wikipedia articles on those subjects. If they aren't in the rest of the article, then that is more reason not to be in the infobox, as the infobox is a summary of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Having the lead be a summary of the article is stated policy (or a "guideline"), and the infobox is considered part of the lead. Nevertheless, there are often items in infoboxes that are not established in the article. The mottoes and the march were thought to be important by others, I didn't want to see them just vanish, and your removing them seemed precipitate and unnecessary. They are sourced, don't take up much space, and are relevant to the article. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mason.Jones: Can you explain your opposition to the trimming measures I implemented? All I removed were unnecessary or irrelevant. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

No one opposes "trimming," which is not what you did. The babies you decided to throw out with the bathwater are not "irrelevant" either: major recent history (nuclear weapons, Hiroshima, Moon landing) and the premier military, scientific, and cultural status of the country. In the info box, you jettisoned a default line in all country boxes: "Official languages" (with its footnote about the states, so now there's only a footnote about the territories). The info box is long, but it's "United States." There's a lot editors could do to "trim" this article in the body text, but there's no reason to make the US into Ireland or Luxembourg in the lead or infobox. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we should worry about dumbing anything down. If you want to read the whole article, great. If you don't, figure out what category you want to narrow your search with and start from there. Ctrl + F is also a thing. If the other country articles aren't as long, maybe they could benefit from being longer. Wikipedia should strive to be history's both most accessible AND most detailed encyclopedia. Just my 2 cents. Myagooshki66615:42, 23 November 2019 (EST)

Appropriateness of article 'the'

Dear Sir, I appreciate your efforts in this article. My only confusion here is why the article 'the' should be applied before 'United States of America'. USA is particular country.Why shouldn't it be written without 'the'? Why don't we try to amend this traditional error? Isn't it our duty to rectify the errors of past and give only purified knowledge to the coming generation? I wait for a quick answer. Thanks. Birbal Kumawat (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Because that's how we do it in English. All countries that don't begin with a proper noun - the United Kingdom, the United States, the United Arab Emirates, and long forms like the French Republic, the Republic of Cuba, the People's Republic of China, etc., have "the" in front.

It would be a little weird to say "I went to French Republic" just as weird as it would be to say "I went to United States". It only works when we're dealing with a proper noun, "I went to France" "I went to Texas". --[User:Golbez|Golbez]] (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2019

Vardab8888 (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    it says the usa is the worlds third or fourth largest country when its actually only the fourthhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUnited_States&preload=Template%3ASubmit+an+edit+request%2Fpreload&action=edit&section=new&editintro=Template%3AEdit+semi-protected%2Feditintro&preloadtitle=Semi-protected+edit+request+on+27+November+2019&preloadparams%5B%5D=edit+semi-protected&preloadparams%5B%5D=United+States

 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. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

etymology

This refers to a reliable source that we could and should quote, a linguist that questions the traditional etymology and presents the derivation from Markland. --Espoo (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The cite is letters to the editor--not a reliable source. the author Colin Moffat is a sports journalist not a historian. Most experts on Columbus reject the idea that he sailed to Iceland in 1477. Even the writers who think he did so have zero info on what he learned about what the Icelanders called "Markland." According to the book Columbus, America, and the world (1992 p 140) by Anne and Henry Paolucci, " Many Columbists, dismissing both these claims as absurd, have doubted that Columbus could ever have gone to Iceland," Rjensen (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

You didn't read what i said or what the linked page said or didn't understand them, both. As i said, that page refers to a reliable source. And the reliable source is clearly cited ("See Graeme Davis, Vikings in America (Birlinn, 2009)"), and its relevant info is clearly summarized on that page. Since there is no reason to assume that a person writing a letter to the editor is less honest or less good at summarizing a source than an editor of Wikipedia, we could in fact use that summary and the cited printed source directly in this article. Since the info contradicts the traditional etymology, i thought it would however be a good idea to check whether someone has that book or wants to get it. If I'd known that the letter was written by a journalist, I'd have first trusted its summary of the reliable source and then checked it. In fact, that's what i'll do as soon as i have time.

And whether or not Columbus visited Iceland is completely irrelevant since he can have heard about the Icelanders' discovery of Markland without himself going to Iceland, which is much, much more likely anyhow. And as well explained in the summary of the original by the sports journalist, having a name for a place that your sponsor so far didn't even believe existed is not zero info; on the contrary, it's almost proof the place exists and its exploration is worth investing huge sums in. --Espoo (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Sports journalists are not historians. Their historical commentary is punditry. And the assertion that letters to the editor can be (quote) "no less honest or less good at summarizing a source" than Wikipedia editors is a stretch. Encyclopedias deal in facts, not fancy. The reliance on fanciful reference works by sportswriters about European discoveries (bolstered by one stray letter to the editor) is questionable. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense, the reliable source is Graeme Davis, Vikings in America (Birlinn, 2009), not the opinion of someone who makes the Guardian and us aware of this. --Espoo (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Until you can find more support (linguists, historians) for a Markland-adapted-to-Romance-languages-as-America etymology, it remains an eccentric theory that has no place in an encyclopedia. It's from a Guardian featurette, a "one-hit wonder" that was not a major article in that paper. The Guardian does a lot of those. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Just so Mason Jones doesn't think he's alone here, I am 100% with them on this. A single source does not warrant adding something so counter to what we have. --Golbez (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree; it's a fringe theory that cannot be included per WP:UNDUE. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Article Size

I noticed that there's a warning that this page might be too long, and that it may contain too many citations. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure what should be done - should the article be split into a main article with subpages, or should the article just be shortened?

Thanks,

Cake (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Look up. Like, immediately the previous section. --Golbez (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Why Motlomelo (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

If this isn't just sarcasm, the "previous section", which dealt with the very issue of size and was present when the original post was made, would now be in the archives. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Recognized languages

Two editors (here, most recently) added Spanish and French as recognized languages and added Spanish and French versions of the country's name to the infobox.

Now, an argument can be made for Spanish, because it is officially recognized by Puerto Rico. However, I see nothing in the article that supports French as having any recognition. So, here are a number of concerns that I have.

1. Can we list Spanish as recognized because it is an official language of Puerto Rico?
2. If we do, do we also list Samoan, Chamorro, and Carolinian because of their official status in other territories?
3. Do we also list Hawaiian, which is an official language of Hawai'i, and do we mention the 20 native languages of Alaska that have standing?
4. Is the infobox such a mess at this point that it's best just to leave English, the de facto language, standing alone in the infobox?

I welcome input from editors here about how to present this in the infobox. —C.Fred (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

the states are sovereign re language and what they choose to do does NOT affect the rest of the nation. So move the languages to states and not this article. Rjensen (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

While the states are sovereign on issues like this (so that applies to Hawaii), how does that apply to territories that are not states, like Puerto Rico and American Samoa? Note I'm really asking here, I don't know how that is handled regarding federal rule vs devolved powers. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The positions of territories on this issue are even less relevant to the federal government than those of the states. Golbez is right, the footnote that already exists is sufficient. --Khajidha (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely at most it should be relegated to a footnote. Which is exactly how it's handled. No changes needed. --Golbez (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2019

I need edit access 104.190.164.167 (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2019 (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. General Ization ^Talk 17:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Good article but it has problems?

I don't get it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

What don't you get? Dhtwiki (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

If it's still labelled as a good article, shouldn't it not have problems?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment is dead.....we have many many GA's that don't stack up.--Moxy 🍁 21:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

We also can have drive-by taggers who don't explain their tagging, start discussions, and do the work of removing excess while making sure we're not losing information (i.e. make sure good information is definitely shifted onto other pages if not already there, with links placed here, rather than just deleting it here). The maintenance tags currently at the top of the article, from November, aren't well explained in the edit history; and we shouldn't just assume they are justifiable. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)