Talk:United States/Archive 107

Archive 100

←

Archive 105

Archive 106

Archive 107

Archive 108

Archive 109

Archive 110

Territorial acquisitions image

E-960 recently added an image that sandwiches another image, and I think that it should be removed. The image presents a Eurocentric point of view, depicting the European powers from which the United States bought the land rather than the Indigenous peoples who occupied and used that land. The map is also incomplete, as it does not include the Philippines. Can I remove it?  — Freoh 14:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a longstanding map and it was reverted back into the section, as it presents very useful information about the growth of the US. --E-960 (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

It is still sandwiched, but I've changed it to a map that avoids the presentism issues with the inclusion of modern US state borders over the territories. There is also appropriate mention of what US expansion meant for Native Americans. إيان (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with that change, though I would not be opposed to removing the image outright or replacing the Declaration of Independence image.  — Freoh 13:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

إيان, this new map is not optimal it's a slow animation instead of an all-in-one overview image, and btw it's already used in the Territorial evolution of the United States article. Also, it appears that this is turning into a POV push, the last comment by user Freoh just sounds revisionist; removing the image of Declaration of Independence? Please note that this is an article about a modern state. --E-960 (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with إيان & Freoh that the more detailed image was a considerable improvement (better use of space). -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Please note that "consensus" is not a tally of a simple vote. Having said that, there are several issues with the new map. On a technical side it's slow as heck and I watched it for like 2 minutes as it gradually goes from one display to another, so it's not better than the original all-in-one map in terms of easy readability. Then on the historical side, this new map creates undue weight, this article covers the history of Native Americans quite comprehensively, we have the "Early history" section and an image of the Cliff Palace, then subsequent text in other sections regarding the American Indian Wars, Indian removal policy, Indian reservations, and California Genocide. So, no one can argue that the topic is being sanitized. However, someone could just as well come in and add a different map and a caption saying that all of Western US was taken from Mexico, so a simple map which shows the territorial expansion of the US is the most neutral in this case. --E-960 (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the slow animation is less than ideal, but I think that your preferred map is misleading, which is more important than the technical inconvenience. If you can find or make an all-in-one overview image that does not have the problems that we have discussed here, then I would be happy to take a look.  — Freoh 01:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Freoh, what problems? You objected to the original longstanding map because "it does not include the Philippines" and that it was "Eurocentric". This new map you and user إيان jammed through also has those exact "problems". You turned consensus into a simple vote count and replaced a longstanding map after a short discussion just because someone wrote "I also agree with Freoh and إيان. That's not consensus and the burden is on you to prove that the new map is better, which btw it is not, for technical reasons, and that it appears to have those exact same "problems" you raised about the original longstanding map. --E-960 (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Let's not get angry. I like the new map, because it shows Panama, the Philippines, the evolution of names and territories (Louisiana, Indiana, Northwest, Oregon, Arizona, Arkansaw, Porto Rico, etc.), and the back and forth and back again of secession. For the same number of characters, it conveys *a lot* more information, including about the civil war (treaties between the CSA and Indian nations...) ... though I grant that it is likely to lead people to view the map full screen. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

SashiRolls, let's not cast aspirations about who is angry or not, what just happened is a battleground tactic of forcing a change and POV pushing when there is no consensus (read the Wikipedia definition of what consensus should be, and the Bold, Revert, Discuss approach). Why in the image caption إيان and Freoh decided to write about the conflict with Native Americans and the loss of territories there, when just a well they could write about the US-Mexico war, or the US-Spain war and highlight territorial losses there? Long story short, not only is the new map of poor technical quality, its POV-ish to just select this one issue when talking about a map showing many territorial changes. --E-960 (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The reference (Princeton University Press) provided in the caption looks like an excellent read. I see that several links to sub-pages were added that were not in the article before. All in all a very good edit, which does indeed, at least for the moment, seem to have consensus. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

What do you think of this, @SashiRolls: @E-960: above? It would simultaneously show the cotton gin, U.S. expansionism and the desire to equally balance free/slave states, the Battle of Gettysburg during the Civil War, and the Nadir of American race relations. (With quote from Birth of a Nation) I haven't been involved in this discussion (I saw I got tagged. Sorry for not responding, I didn't see the ping until now.)

This seems to me a clear instance in which multiple image formatting is necessary. The above four images seem to hit all of the main points. KlayCax (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the easiest option is to add an image related to the Trail of Tears (which was a major event at the time related to the removal of Native Americans from across the South) and restore the original map. --E-960 (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax's proposed image selection would absolutely not be an improvement. Aside from being cluttered, there is no reason to give the Ku Klux Klan propaganda film The Birth of a Nation pride of place on this article, even if it were given significant critical context.

I also oppose E-960's suggestion while appreciating their idea. The current map is not perfect but it is sufficient and better than the alternatives proposed. إيان (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:Due weight—The scholarly estimate is that 12 million Native Americans were killed in the territory that is now the US as a result of colonization and territorial expansion from 1492 to 1900. Meanwhile, deaths of the US-Spain War numbered in hundreds of thousands; of the US-Mexico War tens of thousands. The figures are beyond comparison. Besides, when dealing with a time scale of centuries, we have to focus on trends instead of isolated wars. إيان (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Whatever that estimate suggests and regardless of its accuracy, 1492–1776 simply has nothing to do with the United States. Pizzigs (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Pizzigs, you should read the reliable source cited. It explains the relationship. You can access the source through WP:The Wikipedia Library or the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. إيان (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

So, a book named "Endless Holocausts: Mass Death in the History of the United States Empire" is a reliable source? According to whom? Written by an obscure professor who I couldn't even find on Google. Furthermore, the single page where his works are listed suggests his views might have been heavily biased against the United States. And what's with this Holocaust trivialization? When someone points out the horrors and death toll of Stalinism, Wikipedians accuse them of trivializing the Holocaust, but it's fine when applied to the United States, correct? Pizzigs (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Good to see a real estimate [https://www.se.edu › 2019/09PDF

Counting the Dead: Estimating the Loss of Life in the Indigenous Holocaust, 1492-Present - Oklahoma State University]. But to keep the article as a resource for students and researchers is beyond my time. As has User:Mason.Jones and a few other academic editors... We simply don't have the time to watch over the article anymore. We are at the point again that the article is full of media sources over academic publications to further our reader's knowledge. Moxy- 23:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax is back to edit-warring, claiming there was no preference for the GIF and caption with citations of academic literature. SashiRolls, Freoh, and myself have endorsed the edit here in this discussion, and Moxy has expressed appreciation for the academic source. KlayCax and E-960 have expressed disagreement, but have so far been unsuccessful in convincing other editors of their views. The image text is supported by the academic sources:

• Building an American Empire: The Era of Territorial and Political Expansion (2017) published by the Princeton University Press
• Endless Holocausts Mass Death in the History of the United States Empire (2023) published by New York University Press

إيان (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

In general we need academic contributions. As for the Imaging in question ..... it's not accessible to 30% of our readers..thus in my view an alternative should be found. Overall the article is a time sink and not on a positive path....we have 2 ongoing sock puppet investigations....... that I think is a waste of time we should be focusing our energies on educating editor's not banning them as they would just be back.....best we know who we're dealing with. Moxy- 20:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Please, remove that file until a consensus is reached. Pizzigs (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer replacing the image with File:Cotton gin harpers.jpg.  — Freoh 01:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Opposed to this proposal. Pizzigs (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Puerto* Sheanobeano (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Where’s Pilipinas?! Sheanobeano (talk) 05:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Too many indents to follow on mobile. I see that you deleted this image on 12 April. You are probably unaware (due to the rapid archiving of this page) that consensus was established for its use at the end of March. I'm outdenting and reinstating that part of the talk page so that you can explain why you oppose the consensus.

The cotton gin image, for which consensus was established several weeks ago, was removed on 12 April (diff) with the edit summary "Added periods and other minor improvements." I've pulled the discussion back out from the archives and added it below.

US territorial evolution map (converted to .ogg)

Also, it is possible to convert an animated .gif to an .mp4 / .ogg so that it is possible to move the territorial map forward and backwards. I'll try to do that in the near future. I found a tutorial showing how to do this in ffmpeg, but haven't tried it yet. The only difference (if en.wp is like fr.wp) is that the video does not autoplay... and if you press play the media player pops up to nearly full screen. This may not be better than the current animated .gif. @Moxy:, you say above that 30% of people can't view the gif. Why is that? (It works for me both on mobile and desktop, but I suspect you may be talking about something I haven't thought of.) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 07:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that a video format would be better than a GIF.  — Freoh 15:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reposting it, but I see no consensus. Furthermore, it appears to me as another attempt to push a certain viewpoint that slavery was a uniquely American evil, given that other countries with a history of slavery do not have such images in their articles. I do not agree with using the cotton gin image; given the importance of railroad in America's 19th century economic development and westward expansion, I propose adding this image instead. Pizzigs (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax has removed the file again, with the edit summary Copied more from User:Rockstone35/United States and Missouri Compromise. Citations are about to be added. Don't revert in meantime. Thanks. إيان (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Now KlayCax's partner-in-crime Pizzigs is edit-warring to remove the accurate and comprehensive map video that SashiRolls made after Moxy mentioned that some users would not be able to see the GIF, and its well-cited caption—clearly to push their nationalist apologist POV that they have explicitly made manifest, to the detriment of the article. This time, the rationale given is that the Trail of Tears and the policies of Indian removal are already covered in the section. إيان (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I like the map except that it moves too quickly for me. It is very appropriate as placed because it creates a visual of information rather than just a list of facts. Sectionworker (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: Sheanobeano is correct that the video file omits the 1899 conquest of Puerto Rico. SashiRolls, I think that there may have been some technical issue in your conversion from GIF to Ogg.  — Freoh 17:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment on culture subsection

The below subsection on African American culture has been suggested for inclusion and was removed. A good faith request for mediation did not receive participation from opposing editors and so the edit was restored with the following from the mediator: "At this point, there seems to be a rough consensus for the inclusion of the subsection." After mediation closed additional editors joined the opposition after the fact, removing the below again, participated in edit warring, resulting in this RFC. Shoreranger (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The mediation was closed because no one attended. There was no closing of finding a facts. Moxy- 21:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

False to claim "no one attended". No one *in opposition* attended, despite invitation. The above clearly states "did not receive participation from opposing editors." Shoreranger (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

African-American culture

Main article: African-American culture

See also: Black Codes (United States), Slave codes, Anti-literacy laws in the United States, Education during the slave period in the United States, Treatment of slaves in the United States, and Partus sequitur ventrem

Further information: The Negro Motorist Green Book, Historically black colleges and universities, and Separate but equal

Unique among population groups in the United States due to a history of enslavement and ensuing marginalization including legalized segregation, African-Americans had been likewise prohibited from participating meaningfully in mainstream artistic expressions and so developed their own parallel artforms. Eventually, many African American artistic expressions, forms and styles would become mainstream and be enjoyed and adopted outside the subculture that formed it. African-American music, dance, art, literature, cuisine, and cinema all created significant bodies of work that has a great influence on the culture at large that can stand alone or be considered in conjunction with the broader culture that surrounds it.

References

Shoreranger (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be a preponderance of support for inclusion. How long do we need to let this discussion continue before the content can be restored? Shoreranger (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Poll

• Opposed Slavery was not unique to the United States, and other countries with a history of slavery/racial segregation/systemic racism don't have these sections. Pizzigs (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  The point is not that slavery was unique in the US, that is not claimed.

  The point is that slavery and the legacy of slavery forced the creation of a unique culture/subculture in the US in a way that has not played out in other countries. The fact that Wiki articles for other countries with a history of slavery doesn't have "these sections" is not germaine because: a) This is not a section on slavery, it is a subsection on culture, b) those countries don't have half-dozen or more pages comparable to African-American culture, African-American dance, African-American literature, etc. that clearly indicates something unique and notable is going on, c) sins of omission on other pages is no excuse for omission here. Shoreranger (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  As Shoreranger notes above, Slavery was not unique to the United States is a straw man—it does not bare on the matter at hand and such a claim was not made anyway. Also, because WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, the content of Wikipedia articles about other countries is irrelevant. إيان (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source is an essay not a guideline, as stated in the article itself. However, WP:DUE and WP:PROPORTION give a better understanding of what can be included in a Wikipedia article, especially of such significance as the United States. As of now, there are already two distinct paragraph covering the cultural developments mentioned in the proposed text: "In the 1920s, the New Negro Movement coalesced in Harlem, where many writers had migrated (some coming from the South, others from the West Indies). Its pan-African perspective was a significant cultural export during the Jazz Age in Paris and as such was a key early influence on the négritude philosophy." and "The rhythmic and lyrical styles of African-American music have significantly influenced American music at large, distinguishing it from European and African traditions. Elements from folk idioms such as the blues and what is known as old-time music were adopted and transformed into popular genres with global audiences. Jazz was developed by innovators such as Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington early in the 20th century. Country music developed in the 1920s, and rhythm and blues in the 1940s.". As such, I do not see what new the proposed section brings to the article, aside from putting an additional emphasis on the legacy of slavery. Pizzigs (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  The emphasis is on the unique circumstances and extent of suppression and externally imposed dangers, even death, in order for AA culture/subculture not only to develop but to persist. That is unique in at least the US experience, and deserves attention in and of itself, not just the artforms that are now celebrated and accepted despite such active and coordinated attempts to prevent and destroy them. Shoreranger (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  I do not believe any additional content should be added regarding the unique circumstances beyond what is already described in the history section. The dictionary you're using as a source covers American culture and its history as a whole, therefore you need to provide specific pages that back up your claims, and there also should be concrete evidence to support your suggestion that this topic "deserves attention in and of itself, not just the artforms that are now celebrated and accepted despite such active and coordinated attempts to prevent and destroy them." Pizzigs (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Being unique in the US experience is not sufficient "in and of itself"? Shoreranger (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  However, I do believe that a shorter version of the proposed text can be incorporated into the United States#Culture and society section. "Many African-American artistic expressions, forms and styles, that had existed as parallel artforms, later gained mainstream acceptance and following. African-American music, dance, art, literature, cuisine, and cinema all created significant bodies of work that have had a great influence on the American culture at large. Pizzigs (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Why is it that African American cultural activity existed as parallel artforms? Just so happened? There are reasons and the text that was removed is essential to understanding why:

  Unique among population groups in the United States due to a history of enslavement and ensuing marginalization including legalized segregation, African-Americans had been likewise prohibited from participating meaningfully in mainstream artistic expressions and so developed their own parallel artforms...

  This is not pushing a "US is evil POV." This is simply necessary context as described in the reliable source, and cutting this context out clearly lessens the article's encyclopedic value. إيان (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  Unlike many other countries with issues related to slavery, the US is unique in how its past still affects the future. Considering that the US has the largest prison population, where the percentage of African-Americans arrested relative to their total population in the country is much higher, and the effects on culture that this has resulted in, it definitely needs to be mentioned. RPI2026F1 (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Although I consider the inclusion of information on African American culture in this section to be of essential importance as per cited reliable sources, including its unique historical context in US history as influenced by enslavement, racism, segregation, etc., it’s current formulation has issues with WP:Due weight and needs reworking. However, there has been some flagrant denialism and it’s apparent that some editors commenting on the matter have not examined the reliable sources provided in earlier discussions. Of the comments in opposition, I find only Asqueladd’s to be in any way convincing, and they did not advocate for the complete removal of the material but rather for revisiting its formulation and hierarchy. For me, this is the direction in which we need to go. إيان (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  I heartily endorse a re-working to be in compliance with WP:Due weight. In the meantime, we need something for editors to work from, not wholesale deletion. Shoreranger (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support the inclusion of this section. As an uninvolved editor, I'm not sure how it's supposed to be objectionable. Loki (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• Opposed just a generic statement with link after link after link. Looking for academic contributions. The article has been overwhelmed lately with copy and pasting..... and non-academic additions. sources have gone downhill real quick. Not sure why this ethnic group requires more attention than the 250 other ethnic groups. I understand segregation is a big problem in the United States but it shouldn't be done in our articles.Moxy- 22:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  The crux of your arguement, "Not sure why this ethnic group requires more attention than the 250 other ethnic groups. I understand segregation is a big problem in the United States but it shouldn't be done in our articles."

  • No other "ethnic group" was enslaved for centuries in the US
  • No other "ethnic group" was specifically prohibited by law to learn how to read for centuries in the US, and then denied the opportunity to do so for an additional century, yet created its own unique literary body
  • No other "ethnic group" was specifically prohibited by law to publicly assemble or be out after dark, but still was able to create an oral tradition of poetry, dance and the performing arts of its own despite centuries of being denied audiences for any works
  • Most, if not all, of the "250 other ethnic groups" were actively encouraged to assimilate into American culture, while AAs were actively being excluded by law, tradition, culture and practice from it for hundreds of years.
  • Lynching. For the perceived transgression of any of these. Death at the hands of a vigilante mob was not regularly and widespread against any other "ethnic group"
  • There are plenty of other of social, political and cultural exclusions beyond mere "segregation" that were used to suppress an AA culture that developed nevertheless, but these alone justify inclusion.

  This isn't segregation to include, it is entirely unique among any group in the US and therefore deserves to be specifically addressed. It is a matter of inclusion, not segregation. Shoreranger (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment This article is overflowing with subsections, another single paragraph one seems poor. I haven't read through any high-level sources but it certainly sounds like it could be due. If so, better to integrate it into the existing text. The current section has the sentence "Mainstream American culture is a Western culture largely derived from the traditions of European immigrants with influences from many other sources, such as traditions brought by slaves from Africa", followed by "More recent immigration from Asia and especially Latin America has added to a cultural mix that has been described as a homogenizing melting pot...". My reading of the suggested text seems to suggest it fits in between those sections (possibly modifying the first one): a historical "parallel artform" that "later gained mainstream acceptance" fits between the European immigrants (the culture(s) to which it was presumably broadly parallel) and modern immigration. CMD (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  For centuries, African Americans were denied by law, tradition, and politics from participating in US culture, certainly not encouraged to "assimilate" into it, while "European immigrants" were encouraged to a contribute to the "melting pot", because the powerful did not want any indication that AAs had any culture worth assimilating or adding, promoting and encouraging and legally codifying AAs as more like animal than human.

  It was not until centuries later, despite all attempts to dehumanize and suppress AAs, that the subculture was accepted and eventually prized, even though its roots ironically predated the "European immigrant" contributions by centuries. *That's* what deserves recognition. Shoreranger (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what any of that has to do with my comment, which is not about and does not use the word "assimilate", despite that word being put in quotation marks. CMD (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support Proposed additions seems reasonable, well-written, well referenced, neutrally worded, obeys WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, and passes WP:DUE. Looks solid. --Jayron32 13:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Opposed; no new section, but... A lot of this information could be incorporated into the article. Particularly under the present cultural section of the article. Additionally, a lot of this information is already present in the article (much more naturally). The present one already has problems with length. Repeating the same concepts a multitude of times is the wrong way to go about it. KlayCax (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Just to add, I think this may be a reasonable compromise; the information is fine, but it isn't necessary to give it its own section. Finding ways to incorporate it otherwise into the existing structure of the article, where it would present a better narrative flow, is a good idea. --Jayron32 16:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Not sure if this makes any difference in your thinking, but this is suggested as a subsection of "Culture and Society", *not* its own section. Shoreranger (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  My point is that it doesn't really need a header. A paragraph of text, properly integrated into the wider narrative, is usually better than a small, standalone paragraph with its own header; the header and hatnotes aren't really necessary. --Jayron32 17:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Possibly, but it is my point that integrated into the wider narrative has not suitably conveyed the uniqueness within US culture and is not likely to. The "hatnotes" might benefit from editing, but the topics add context. Shoreranger (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  The contention is precisely that this concept is in fact *not* covered, and that "a lot of this information" as you put it is presented out of context and does not express the unique circumstances from which AA culture arose, nor the unique open and legalized opposition to it. Shoreranger (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  The purpose of headers is not to highlight, but to organize. --Jayron32 18:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Great. Let's organize, and not diffuse and decontextualize. Shoreranger (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Curious to know: what reputable sources (academic literature, textbooks, etc.) about US culture and society have those in opposition read that don’t have dedicated African American chapters/sections? إيان (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

This is not a book about US culture, it is a very much shorter format in which Culture is just one of seven main topics. The entire section would be shorter than the introduction of one of those books. CMD (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Nobody said it was a book, but it has to summarize and represent what is in reliable, reputable sources—books, encyclopedias, textbooks, journals, etc. إيان (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose – To start with, the sectional hatnotes link to articles that have little to do with the influence that African Americans have had on the general culture. Those links should sit with subsidiary articles on A.A. culture, which are already linked from the article. The text itself merely establishes the unusual conditions under which black culture developed but doesn't say how that culture came to resonate with the population at large. Some of that text is contestable, such as "African-Americans had been likewise prohibited from participating meaningfully in mainstream artistic expressions...", as certainly some of that expression was a deliberate, rebellious refusal to assimilate. And the last sentence is quite confusing. What does it really mean? Add to that the fact that the culture section has had no ethnically specific subsections, which don't even exist in Culture of the United States, where you would expect such subsections in greater detail if they are to be here. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  "To start with, the sectional hatnotes link to articles that have little to do with the influence that African Americans have had on the general culture."

  • The hatnotes are there precisely to address your common presumption "Some of that text is contestable, such as "African-Americans had been likewise prohibited from participating meaningfully in mainstream artistic expressions...", as certainly some of that expression was a deliberate, rebellious refusal to assimilate." African Americans were prevented by law, custom, and threat of vigilante lynchings from assimilating. It was deliberately denied to them by the society at large legally, politically, socially, and culturally. All of the things in those hatnotes demonstrate the means and the methods used to prevent AAs from assimilating, they weren't just being - to paraphrase - "deliberately rebelliously refusing to assimilate".

  "Those links should sit with subsidiary articles on A.A. culture, which are already linked from the article."

  • The fact that despite supposedly "already linked from the article" the continued common presumption you espouse that AAs maintained a "deliberate rebellious, refusal to assimilate" en masse on their own accord, rather than being legally and systematically denied by those in power to opportunity or ability to assimilate even unto the threat of violence or death, proves the need to direct the reader to a more accurate depiction of the truth. It almost sounds like you are saying AAs were too "uppity" to be assimilated, so it was their own fault, which I hope is not the case.

  " The text itself merely establishes the unusual conditions under which black culture developed but doesn't say how that culture came to resonate with the population at large."

  • Agreed, it should probably be added, but let's work on getting consensus on the foundational text first.

  "And the last sentence is quite confusing. What does it really mean?"

  • Presumably the sentence you refer to is "African American music, dance, art, literature, cuisine, and cinema all created significant bodies of work that has a great influence on the culture at large that can stand alone or be considered in conjunction with the broader culture that surrounds it." No one else has expressed confusion, but the sentence acknowledges that African American culture as a body is large and influential, even internationally, and can be and in fact *is* considered by some observers as its own entity, but is equally and logically considered a subculture and therefore a part of US culture - both are true.

  "Add to that the fact that the culture section has had no ethnically specific subsections, which don't even exist in Culture of the United States, where you would expect such subsections in greater detail if they are to be here."

  • AA culture, as demonstrated and discussed above, is unique among all other ethnicities in the US because it is the only one that was actively and specifically oppressed and suppressed by law, and regularly and pervasively enforced by vigilantes with impunity. That's the point, and it's also the reason why it deserves its own subsection. Also, the lack of inclusion of anything in another article is not justification to avoid it in this article. If anything, it may indicate a shortcoming in the other article that needs to be addressed, as well.

  Shoreranger (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  • Shoeranger: You are overwhelming the discussion. Your involvement should have ended with your initial proposal and comment, and then allowed other people to weigh in with their feelings. Consensus is not built by one person monopolizing the discussion and sucking all of the oxygen out of the room. We need a variety of different people giving their opinions on the matter, not the same person giving the same opinion over and over again, with increasing vehemence. Please stop. It is becoming disruptive. Stop responding to every single comment, and allow the process the time to work itself out without having to make it all about you. --Jayron32 14:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

    I didn't even know that was a thing on Wikipedia. A little surprising, but I think I get the purpose. A little far to accuse me of 'having to make it all about me', when that is not the idea, but fine. Certainly hope it helps get a variety of different to participate, somehow. I'll step back to conform. Shoreranger (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm reading from The Slave Community in asserting that blacks didn't always want to assimilate. They held to their own cultural forms to signify their ability to assert themselves against their masters, who generally did not care how slaves entertained themselves as long as it didn't interfere with the harvest. The ending sentence I questioned is somewhat redundant, within itself ("a great influence on the culture at large that can stand alone or be considered in conjunction with the broader culture that surrounds it.") as well as with regard to the preceding sentence, and somewhat ungrammatical (e.g. for "bodies of work that has" read "...have"). While African Americans were uniquely subjected to the peculiar institution of chattel slavery, there are other forms of economic subordination and emotional suffering inflicted on other groups, none of which explains how the cultures of marginalized people came to influence the culture at large; and inclusion of the proposed subsection would set a precedence that may lead to the inclusion of other such subsections for other groups, thus possibly greatly lengthening an article that is always too long. And, yes, the detail on this article should be a mere summary of what exists in separate articles devoted to American culture generally or that of constituent groups. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support in principle. I think that we should avoid single-paragraph sections in general, and I would prefer that we organize this material a bit differently, but this content deserves due weight. Until we can come to a different consensus, we should go back to status quo mediation consensus that included this material.  — Freoh 22:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

  I was not know where to find that guidance. Thank you, and agreed. Shoreranger (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  WP:QUO is not having it there ,,it was added and reverted...and there was NO mediation..was closed with no participation. Slavery is mentioned 17 times...what is missing?Moxy- 12:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  It was closed with no participation from you. There was a consensus among those who participated.  — Freoh 00:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• SUPPORT inclusion of AA subsection to the culture section. There are many places in the page as a whole that bits of this information could be incorporated (and let's do that also), like adding African Americans' influence on the Jazz age of the Roaring Twenties in the History section or woven into each subsection of the culture breakouts, but going through that weaving process alone would dilute why African American culture is not only notable (and necessary for inclusion in its own subsection) but distinctly relevant. I agree that the notability of AA culture should be called out as distinctly unique from American culture generally for the reasons listed in the og edit, followed later by the bulleted list above by Shoreranger. Pistongrinder (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, no would've noticed it without all caps. Pizzigs (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• opposed as the African American community isn't a separate part of the United States. Very concerning that white people still think that Africa Americans are a have not of today's society. Should be mentioning the strides they've taken over the centuries. 208.96.81.171 (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
• SUPPORT inclusion of section. I've done quite a bit of reading and I am certain that we need a section on AA influence. Like most Americans, I love my country and I want our article to show not only the history of our savage enslavement and discrimination of people of color, but also the richness of their contributions to the arts which could not be repressed and eventually even came to be appreciated and imitated. In my reading, I was reminded that Jewish people have also faced discrimination and have responded by being some of the leaders of our art/cultural heritage. Perhaps we need a section on their contributions as well. Sectionworker (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I like this quote: "This interest in Black heritage coincided with efforts to define an American culture distinct from that of Europe, one that would be characterized by ethnic pluralism as well as a democratic ethos. The concept of cultural pluralism (a term coined by the philosopher Horace Kallen in 1915) inspired notions of the United States as a new kind of nation in which diverse cultures should develop side by side in harmony rather than be “melted” together or ranked on a scale of evolving “civilization." [1] Sectionworker (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hard to believe, given your propensity for cherry picking and manipulating data to push a certain anti-American agenda to the article. The latest is here. Pizzigs (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Reviewing the article and page size this article already too long which is why there's already an article for Culture of the United States where this information can be included. This article should only summarize what's in Culture of the United States. This request appears to be putting the cart in front of the horse. Nemov (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  Are you saying that African American culture is not notable enough to be worthy of summarizing in this article because it is not discussed at length in the culture of the United States article? Personally, I would support expanding or restructuring that article as well.  — Freoh 21:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

  The culture section in this article should be a very high-level summary of Culture of the United States. That seems an uncontroversial statement, not sure how thoughts on article notability come into that. CMD (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  I don't have a strong opinion about the content other than it's not included in Culture of the United States which this section is supposed to summarize. Nemov (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  The solution to this problem is to add the material to culture of the United States. We should base our arguments on reliable sources, not other content.  — Freoh 02:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support as things stand now. The paragraph is suitably short and summarizes the issue in a way suitable to the context of the larger article—leaving the details and subtleties for the linked article dedicated to the subject. I would also not be opposed to similar and proportionate paragraphs if anyone could write and source them. But there is no denying that African Americans have been a unique group in larger American culture in both the magnitude of their contributions and the response from the majority. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I read some of the other comments here, and I think I should add, why black Americans and not other groups of Americans? 1) Some treatment of other groups of Americans may be appropriate. 2) Because of what's going on in-country. This is exactly the kind of information that is being taken out of American schools in Florida, Oklahoma, and other states. For some readers, Wikipedia might be their only readily available avenue for this kind of information that isn't trying to sell them something and gives a darn about verifiability, and it should be there to find when they look for it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Please, read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Do you understand that your statement contradicts the very purpose of Wikipedia? Pizzigs (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but I think we're in the clear here: "If, however, the wrong that you want to address has already been sorted in the real world, and if you have the reliable sources to support it, then please do." I do not propose that we use Wikipedia to solve the problems described in the passage under discussion. I propose that Wikipedia, by functioning within its preexisting policies, can mitigate a problem that emerged after they were written. If the wrong in question is "there isn't enough free access to verifiable, encyclopedia information presented neutrally, uninfluenced by advertising or censorship laws," then Wikipedia has always been meant to right it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Censorship in public schools of some red states does not amount to a full-blown censorship of media and the Internet, like in many countries where you can get prosecuted for criticizing the government; therefore, "Wikipedia might be their only readily available avenue for this kind of information" does not apply here and "If the wrong in question is "there isn't enough free access to verifiable, encyclopedia information presented neutrally, uninfluenced by advertising or censorship laws," then Wikipedia has always been meant to right it." is simply not the case in the United States. Honestly, the America-centered anti-American bias is so prevalent among some American editors that I'd honestly support a temporary ban on Americans editing this article, because they simply cannot provide a neutral and accurate assessment of their own country from an international perspective. This is not a serious proposal of course, just a feeling I have. Pizzigs (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's principles apply to Americans within the United States just as they apply to countries with what you call full-blown censorship. Making reliable information accessible is not righting great wrongs.  — Freoh 20:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose in current form. Not accurate to claim that African-American and white culture did not influence each other and share common elements during slavery and segregation, and the section is in general badly phrased. The same applies to its claims about the uniqueness of discrimination against African-Americans. Also far too many hatnotes.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  The proposed text does not claim that African-American and white culture did not influence each other and share common elements during slavery and segregation.  — Freoh 10:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  The talk of "parallel cultures" implies it without some fairly strong qualifications.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Shoreranger Before proceeding, you may want to establish from good sources that at the top overview level, African American culture is significant and distinct enough by itself compared to the rest of the United States. From there, we can go into the background and other details. CurryCity (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Deleted image related to this question

The banjo and the electric guitar were first mass-produced in the United States. The Old Plantation, an 18th-century painting attributed to slave-owner John Rose, shows a hand-made precursor to the banjo in use on a plantation.

A few days back this image was deleted in the first of four reverts made by a single user that day. The user in question has so far refused the addition of any image of slavery being included on the page on the mistaken grounds that other country pages do not have images of plantations, slavery or slave revolts (cf. e.g. Jamaica, Haiti, Brazil, etc.). It might be good to establish whether there is consensus to refuse any image of slavery for the en.wp article on the United States and to update the FAQ if there is such a consensus.

I chose this image to illustrate a paragraph talking about African-American contributions to music after reading the discussion here about minstrelsy being a distinctive American form, which according to the source cited led directly to the widening popularity and mass-production of banjos. The source includes the same illustration, which has its own en.wp page and is hanging in a folk-art gallery in Virginia. It is true that The Banjo Lesson is a more famous painting which could also illustrate the Music sectio on the imagen of culture. Thoughts? Thoughts on whether or not we need to update the FAQ to explain why there are no images of slavery on the page? Should we include instruments created/popularized in the US, such as the banjo and the electric guitar, in the section on music?

I have not yet !voted above, because I think it would be great if we could incorporate the cultural contributions of different groups into a single text without excessively compartmentalizing things into air-tight sections. Given the difficulties encountered trying to accurately represent history though, I have to admit not being overly optimistic. I did not think that the existence of plantations in the US prior to the civil war was controversial, yet for some reason efforts to illustrate that aspect of history have been treated as polemical. NB: this image takes no "position" on slavery. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 08:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I can't understand it either. I thought the the Smithsonian Institute would help to settle the matter of African American musical roots and yet the information was ignored One music historian says, "Every genre that is born from America has Black roots associated with it, from rock 'n' roll to blues to disco. The fingerprints of Black creators are all over what makes American music so unique."[2] The photo is great but similar efforts in the past have not been successful. Sectionworker (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Reverts about the possessive use of United States

@Dhtwiki Regarding your revert: the official short name of the country is the "United States", not "America" (which is informal). It is WP policy to use official names for countries, not informal or colloquial ones. In the same way one would write "the Netherlands'" and not "Holland's" for mere euphonic purposes, one would write "the United States'" instead of "America's". Given that "the United States'" is wordy, I abbreviated it to "the U.S.'s", but I was surprised you reverted that as well. I'm open to your suggestions. Getsnoopy (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with "America's". We don't always use formal designations in article text (and are you not looking at a guideline that indicates what title an article takes, rather than one that governs all mentions of the country within the article?), just as we could write "country's" for some of the instances under discussion here. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have examples where formal designations aren't used? I could understand the difference between using the official short name instead of using the full official name, or even abbreviations of the short name, but I've never informal designations being used. Getsnoopy (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Is "America" any less official than "United States" or "U.S.", given that "United States of America" is the full title of the country? You apparently are not objecting, as I thought you might, to the use of "America" to refer to this country, rather than to all countries in the Americas, as others do. Also, you seem to not anymore be quoting the MOS in support of your argument. I doubt that there are guidelines forbidding the use of short, informal forms in the article, which would be like forbidding pronouns and would make for very unwieldy prose. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Using "America" and "American" to refer to the United States should be avoided where it's not necessary. It's ambiguous, informal, and unencyclopedic. More reasons to avoid this usage here. إيان (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Is "America" any less official than "United States" or "U.S.", given that "United States of America" is the full title of the country? Yes, it is completely unofficial. There is no country in the world officially named "America"; the "of America" is used in the prepositional, possessive sense. I would never write "America" when I mean the US, but I was merely acknowledging it insofar as it is commonly used, and the article itself says as much in the lead.

As for MOS, MOS:US talks about using even "U.S." or "US" at first mention as being too informal (as opposed to the full short name, which it goes on to specify as "the United States"), which would go to show that the sense is that using informal names for countries is definitely not condoned. I couldn't find anything explicitly prohibiting informal names, but just as the article about the Netherlands doesn't refer to it as "Holland" in subsequent uses (except in some cases to explain how that's informal/incorrect use), this article shouldn't refer to the country as "America" because, like the other editor said above, it is informal and unencyclopaedic. I didn't think this would be a question on a formal encyclopaedia. This issue is quite different from forbidding pronouns. Getsnoopy (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Even if "America's" is problematic, I don't see "U.S.'s" being used. Other, less clunky constructions:

"In 2021, the U.S.'s total fertility rate..." -> "In 2021, the country's total fertility rate...", or just "In 2021, the total fertility rate...";

"Among the U.S.'s earliest composers was..." -> again, substitute "country's" or just "Among the earliest composers was...";

"[John Philip Sousa]... is regarded as one of the U.S.'s greatest composers." again, "country's", or possibly "one of the greatest composers of the United States." (which would work for others);

"[Bob Dylan]...to become one of the U.S.'s most celebrated songwriters." again, "country's".

Dhtwiki (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC) (edited 13:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC))

preposition + 'the US'—simple and easy. إيان (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Or 'US' as a noun adjunct/apposite noun (e.g. 'the most celebrated US songwriters' or 'one of the greatest US composers') إيان (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Any of those are fine by me. Getsnoopy (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I've made changes to remove instances of "America's" in the article text.

• "In 2021, America's total fertility rate stood..." -> "In 2021, the total fertility rate for the U.S. stood..."
• "Among America's earliest composers was William Billings..." -> "Among the country's earliest composers was William Billings..."
• "...John Philip Sousa...is regarded as one of America's greatest composers." -> "...John Philip Sousa...is regarded as one of the nation's greatest composers."
• "...Bob Dylan...[is] one of America's most celebrated songwriters." -> "...Bob Dylan...[is] one of the country's most celebrated songwriters."

Dhtwiki (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC) (edited 16:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC))

These changes look good. Thanks, Dhtwiki! إيان (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Flag change based on the official ECA specifications

The official specifications for the flag are listed here on the official ECA website. I don't know why this is still up for discussion, but I request that the flag in the infobox is replaced with the correct color version shown in the above document. 2605:59C8:1E0:C510:5C9F:8213:832F:2487 (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I took a look at the current flag image and it seems that this version was created as a result of extensive discussion about how to represent the colors correctly. Please add your thoughts to the relevant talk page discussion. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Human rights

I'm curious why a country that owns a torture camp (Guantanamo Bay detention camp), few healthcare rights, institutional racism, the largest prisoner population on the planet, detention without trial, and mass surveillance, is described as having a positive human rights record in its lead.

What was the decision making process behind that laughable description? The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I read this article quite by chance and could see right away that the lead was far from without bias. For example, it is well known that the US is lagging behind the world in education, not "ranked very high". Same thing for the quality of life, which is not using the appropriate rating system. The more you look at the lead, the more errors you see. You bring up human rights. Once again we see a "very high" rating, and yet when one looks at the Freedom in the World survey we rank quite low, in the 80s, lower than 40 other countries. Sectionworker (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:CHERRY-PICK again. In communist countries, which you defend, speaking out against the government could get one killed or at least sent to a slave labor camp or, since the 1970s, exiled and/or forcibly institutionalized. The United States has a positive human rights records not because of its excesses or past evils, but because it is a free country that is ranked high by international organizations where saying things like I'm curious why a country that owns a torture camp (Guantanamo Bay detention camp), few healthcare rights, institutional racism, the largest prisoner population on the planet, detention without trial, and mass surveillance, is described as having a positive human rights record in its lead. What was the decision making process behind that laughable description? is constitutionally protected free speech, while in many other countries one can get jailed or killed for that. Pizzigs (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @The History Wizard of Cambridge:. I agree with you in principle that Wikipedia not list "human rights" in country's leads. Inevitably, it's going to reveal (or imply) a certain view of the world. (Which I would think would go against WP: NPOV - even with how it is interpreted presently.) But it's been an implicit consensus for awhile now that V-DEM Institute's Regimes of the World data should be the primary way a country's "human rights" record is described - and that should be transcripted into the lead. Presently, the United States is listed as one of the 28 liberal democracies in the world. KlayCax (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

...Can someone explain to me why the US is listed as a liberal democracy on that map, but Canada is just an electoral democracy? That seems strange. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

You can be a democracy and still have all the problems listed above. Sectionworker (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Pizzigs, perhaps you judge freedom only by the freedom of speech, but the world freedom rating uses a much broader definition:

"Human freedom is an inherently valuable social concept that recognizes the dignity of individuals. Human freedom enables and empowers people to do as they please, free from constraints or punishments, so long as it does not impinge upon the freedom of another. Human freedom plays a huge role in human progress.

This is the one our WP article must use. Sectionworker (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and the United States is ranked high by various organizations, which renders THWC's cherry-picked and unsourced argument invalid. Pizzigs (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Please list those various organizations because I could not find any of them. Sectionworker (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Please, see List of freedom indices. Pizzigs (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

V-DEM Institute's Regimes is a democratic index. What your looking for is this. Moxy- 22:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I would like to edit but unfortunately I don't have enough edits! the sources say that if we consider the latins who consider themselves white, the percentage of whites would be 71%, you can add this information for me? Dinosauro47 (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

in fact it has this new research that is more recent, could you please update the information for me

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045222 Dinosauro47 (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

What we are looking for is a just the fact summary approach Wikipedia:Purpose.

• 
  Country ratings from Freedom House's 'Freedom in the World 2021 survey
• 
  2021 Index of Economic Freedom.
  Source: Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal
• 
  Press freedom in 2022 according to Reporters Without Borders
• 
  Democracy Index map in 2020 according to The Economist Intelligence Unit
• 
  2022 World Happiness Report
• 
  2022 Social Progress Index
• 
  Human Development Index 2022
• 
  Better Life Index 2020
• 
  Good Country Index 2020
• 
  Global Peace Index 2022
• 
  2020 Legatum Prosperity Index.
• 
  Global Gender Gap Report 2020
• 
  Environmental Performance Index 2020
• 
  Ease of doing business index 2020
• 
  Income inequality Gini index 2020.
• 
  Infant mortality rates 2019

Moxy- 22:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The United States ranks relatively high in most of those indexes. Pizzigs (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Most? I didn't look at all of them, but the ones that apply to the question that I looked at did not show that at all. Please post the ones that you found to support your claim. Sectionworker (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Most of the above, except for Gini and Global Peace Index, perhaps. Pizzigs (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. The statement that the US ranks high on measures of freedom is a true statement, especially if you compare it to all countries, not just its peer liberal democracies. I think the lead is perfectly fine; especially since we do mention where the US falls behind its peers (inequality, incarceration, lack of universal healthcare). -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not. OK, the first six: 1) Yes, we are a free democracy just like any other developed country in the world, with numerous developing countries, as well. Nothing special to go around bragging about. 2)This comes to us from the Heritage Foundation, which still does not accept the scientific climate change conclusion and supports and even promoted the voter fraud claims. 3) Press freedom--same as #1. 4) Same as #1. 5) ′Neither low nor high, but the poverty in so much of world could hardly be expected to have people report any degree of happiness. Here it is. (I went down to the UK to show we ranked above them). 2 Denmark 3 Iceland 4 Israel 5 Netherlands 6 Sweden 7 Norway 8 Switzerland 9 Luxembourg 10 New Zealand 11 Austria 12 Australia 13 Canada 14 Ireland 15 United States 16 Germany 17 Belgium 18 Czech Republic 19 United Kingdom Number 6, On Social Progress we came in at number 25, quite low. Sectionworker (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC) I didn't look at every one of the following maps. I felt that looking at the maps alone gives a pretty good idea. I did look at the Human Development Index and found that we are behind Japan, South Korea, and the UK...so not so good. Looking at the Better Life Index we ranked 10, so pretty good. Our Environment Index is very concerning--we ranked 24 out of 32. Also concerning, we ranked 129 out of 163 on the Global Peace Index. I knew that our child death index would be high because I often work on women and infant articles. It is 6.3 which puts us 47th in the world, although UNISEF notes that reported figures from some countries may not be accurate. Sectionworker (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Many of your assessments are misleading. For example, On Social Progress we came in at number 25, quite low is strange to say when there were 169 countries ranked...thats better than over 85% of countries, which I'd consider "ranking highly". DecafPotato (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. Pizzigs (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree that we should omit human rights from the lead given that reliable sources challenge this characterization.  — Freoh 17:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• I really wouldn't call Noam Chomsky a reliable source on this issue. Please do not remove mention of US human rights rankings without a new consensus to do so. Also, the lead discusses international measures; even if he were a reliable source, that citation involves his own personal analysis. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 20:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

No one had responded to my survey of the maps so it appeared that the discussion had ended. As for Chomsky, the title makes it clear that it is about US policy. And then you state it is only his opinion. He is a historian, and like all historians he is only offering his opinion. I am still waiting for comments on why I was not correct about the maps...Sectionworker (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sectionworker: Pizzigs and I both responded to your maps and argued that yes, the US compared to most nations ranks high on these indices. The lead says the US ranks high in international human rights comparisons, which the maps definitely back up. Also, the rankings necessarily involve more than just one person's opinion, and unless Chomsky's book ranks every country by its human rights record, it's irrelevant. Also, even if he did, 1999 was 24 years ago. Countries change. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

More recent academic sources have also documented human rights violations within the United States. If reliable sources disagree, then the V-DEM Institute's favorable opinion does not deserve lead prominence.  — Freoh 00:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)  — Freoh 00:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@Freoh: We're saying that the US ranks high in human rights on a global scale, not that the US has an unblemished human rights record; of course it doesn't. The lead is stating that it statistically ranks very high in human rights, which the data bears out. Perhaps we can tweak the lead slightly so it just says the US ranks highly instead of "very highly" though? It is kind of a fluff word. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

In other sources about human rights in the United States, a "relatively low ranking has been consistent across the surveys."  — Freoh 00:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

You have been intentionally ignoring all the arguments made by other editors, including references to international rankings where America ranks high. Pizzigs (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, what you said exactly. The article isn't comparing the human rights rankings of the US compared to other developed democracies (although even by that metric the US isn't ranked poorly). It is comparing all nations in the world. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not ignoring all the arguments made by other editors; please remember to assume good faith. I agree that some sources rank the U.S. highly in human rights. You ignore the sources that rank the U.S. poorly. Given the disagreement in reliable sources, it would be best to omit human rights from the lead entirely.  — Freoh 10:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Freoh: The problem here is that there is not a disagreement in reliable sources regarding US rankings. The sources you are providing are 1) very old, and 2) are not an analysis of rankings. Almost all of the attempts to systemically rank countries by different facets of human rights (User:Moxy kindly provided a summary of these results) show the US as being ranked high; that's why it should stay in the lead. If you can find recent sources that indicate that the US is not ranked high (as in, outside of the top quartile when compared to all of the countries evaluated) for a number of human rights metrics (I don't think you can), then we can reevaluate. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I have provided an analysis of rankings, and there is a disagreement in reliable sources regarding how to characterize human rights in the United States. More recent sources have also characterized the U.S. as "a nation of paradoxes when it comes to human rights" with "structural deficiencies in human rights" that "stands out among Western democracies for its incomplete patchwork of human rights recognition and their legal protection". If you want to argue about Almost all of the attempts to systemically rank countries by different facets of human rights, then please provide a source for such an academic consensus.  — Freoh 16:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

...@Freoh: Once again, what you cited is not an analysis of rankings of the human rights situation in the US; it is an individual analysis not tied to any rankings at all. The source does not say anything about the US's human rights ranking when compared to other countries, which is what the lead is discussing; how the US ranks when compared to the rest of the world. At any rate, the source's complaints are directly addressed in the sentence which follows, which explicitly mentions incarceration rate, inequality, and lack of universal healthcare; if we got rid of a mention of the US's human rights rankings in the lead, we would need to get rid of that following sentence as it no longer serves to put the US's high human rights ranking in context. You need to provide reliable sources that show that the US ranks poorly in human rights metrics. Your source does not say that, and the onus is on you to provide a source that contests the analysis done by Moxy. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: @Freoh: I don't have access to this textbook, sadly, but Google Scholar points me here, which states The rule of law remains strong in the United States, which continues to have a generally good record on internationally recognized civil and political rights --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Where in the book is that? The fifth edition says that the U.S. national legal system is "fundamentally incompatible with international human rights obligations" and that American isolationism is "likely to lead to slower human rights improvements, both absolutely and relatively, in the United States". I think that you are giving undue weight to subjective rankings, and here on Wikipedia, we prioritize facts over opinions. You might also want to read the essay about independent sources; given that the U.S. government funds the V-DEM Institute, I question their reliability. If you want to see a systematic comparison with other countries, you might want to look at the Human Rights Watch, which says that "officials need to take bolder steps to dismantle the systemic racism baked into many US institutions and structures; meet the challenges posed by climate change, threats to democracy domestically and abroad, and health crises like the Covid-19 pandemic; and ensure respect for rights".  — Freoh 16:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Are we citing different books? Because it's right here. I don't even see your statement there, but again, I don't have access to the textbook offhand. And yes, we prioritize facts over opinions, and the fact is that rankings are what the lead discusses, not opinions, so we should indeed continue to mention that the US has a high human rights ranking, ignoring the subjective individual opinions that are irrelevant here. Perhaps those opinions belong in Human rights in the United States, but not in the lead of the article. The rankings are less subject to bias. also, the V-Dem Institute is not funded by the US government, it's an independent organization based in Sweden. Perhaps you're thinking of Freedom in the World, which is based in the US, but as far as I am aware, it also doesn't receive funding from the US Government. And even if it does, it ranks the US lower than many other liberal democracies, so it's hard to argue it is suffering from a pro-US bias. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 18:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The United States government does fund the V-Dem Institute. It is impossible to objectively measure something as broad as human rights; any such ranking is inherently subjective. Also, it is cherrypicking to quote only the part of that sentence that supports your point of view.  — Freoh 21:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, the US's National Science Foundation, an independent agency of the US government is one of many funders, along with other liberal democracies... that's not a reason to dismiss them unless you'd agree to dismiss all rankings funded by any governmental organization, in which case, there's no rankings left to analyze. Anyway, like I've been saying repeatedly, the sentence discusses international rankings of the US, not people's own analysis. If you have a problem with that, I don't know what to tell you, as all of the items discussed are rankings. A person's individual analysis of the US human rights record is not relevant here, which is something I've said repeatedly but like Pizzigs observed, you're not addressing it. Do you think we shouldn't list any rankings of the US in the lead? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I would support removing the other value-laden labels from the lead as well, like quality of life and innovation. These are nebulous terms without any sort of academic consensus about how to measure them or how to characterize the United States. I do not understand the distinction that you draw between international rankings and people's own analysis; your rankings are subjective analyses just as much as mine are. As far as I can tell, the academic community pays little attention to simple rankings of countries. I do not dismiss your sources, and I think that they could be included in the body of the article, but I see no reason for a U.S. government-funded opinion to outrank peer-reviewed scholarship for lead prominence.  — Freoh 13:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Things not looking good compared to many western nations these days....death penalty, no health care, loss of abortion rights, loss of LGBT rights, mass incarceration rates, lack of rights of Non-Citizens...but still better then most of the world by far. However we must also understand that not all coutries see human rights in the same light.

Moxy- 14:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

All the article is doing is sourcing rankings. You can't reject rankings in favor of random academic sources that are less rigorously evaluated; the human rights rankings are the best we can do for evaluating human rights. I still don't see the problem honestly. The following sentence mentions where the US human rights is lacking. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC) Edit: I think it's also important to note that articles also discuss human rights rankings of different nations. The US should as well. Otherwise we would need to remove the second sentence (on healthcare, incarceration, and inequality) entirely. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Freoh: I just thought of something. You want to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia, right? Mentioning the US's human rights record is a way to counter systemic bias, since we are comparing the US against the world. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Something I just thought of. @Moxy: and @Freoh: instead of human rights, would you prefer if we replaced the term "human rights" in the lead with the term "civil liberties" (so that it reads "the US ranks highly in international measures of... civil liberties...")? That's less broad since civil liberties are concerned with negative rights while human rights are concerned with both positive and negative rights, and so it might be a satisfactory compromise for everyone. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I would definitely prefer civil liberties over human rights, but I still think that we are giving undue weight to a single subjective ranking, and I do not understand your comparison between rankings and random academic sources that are less rigorously evaluated. Peer-reviewed academic scholarship is more rigorously evaluated than a single U.S. government-funded non-peer-reviewed favorable ranking. Rockstone35, your suggestion that we would need to remove the second sentence (on healthcare, incarceration, and inequality) entirely sounds like horse trading to me. Moxy, I do not see what in those sources supports your exceptional claim.  — Freoh 13:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:COUNTRYLEAD ..we say "Overly detailed information or infobox data duplication such as listing random examples, numbered statistics or naming individuals should be reserved for the body of the article." What we mean about " random examples and numbered statistic"is that the lead is not the place to say somthing like "ranked 3rd in Quality of life index or ranked 8th on the Human Development Index" that is based on one matrix. it is find to say " highly ranked in international measurements of "quality of life" as this statment is based on multiple factors/indexs etc (that should be covred in the body of the article) like....

• Academic sources as seen here

Or indices that cover "quality of life" ...such as ...

• Best Countries List - U.S. News
• The World’s Best Countries For Quality of Life- CEO World
• Human Development Index - United Nations
• OCED Better Life Index - OCED
• World Happiness Report - United Nations.

Moxy- 14:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Freoh: It's not horse trading. The second sentence only exists because it's providing context to our positive statement about the US's human rights record (which is why I would be OK with swapping the term human rights with civil liberties, since inequality and lack of health care implicate human rights, not civil liberties). Regardless, you're still not addressing my main point: that entire sentence in the lead is discussing rankings, not individual academic observations. And I'm still skeptical about the claim that these academic citations about the US human rights are more rigorously evaluated than the ranking we are discussing (as these rankings are also produced by scholars). It's also not only the V-Dem institution that lists the US as ranking high in human rights, in fact, nearly all human rights indices do. Honestly, at this point, we're just going around in circles. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

You will not end the circles by citing more rankings that are funded by the U.S. government. I disagree with your reasoning about the second sentence; these are notable features on their own.  — Freoh 19:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, not all of the rankings I cited have US government funding, but you can't just dismiss the ones that do because you feel they're not reliable, when they are independently evaluated. You're moving the goalpost by demanding that these sources satisfy some subjective standard (this is just a single subjective ranking) and then moving it to another subjective standard (more than one source, and they cannot have any US government funding). And no, I wouldn't agree with the assertion that the US's inequality, incarceration rate, or lack of universal healthcare are independently notable. The US no longer has the highest incarceration rate in the world, while it has high inequality, this is compared to its peers, it's Gini is "medium", and while it does not have universal healthcare, not all countries do. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Latinos

Latinos at 18%?? I think if we remove subjective identities and political correctness most self identifying Latinos would just fit into White and few mixed would be into Black or Hispanic which originally was mixed from the Spanish and Mestizo or other native populations in the Americas but US wise it's just anyone who speaks Spanish as their first language and who even comes from Latin America Nlivataye (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The source of the data is the US Census Bureau, which uses a classification of race that generates regular confusion and debate (see some previous discussion). The issue is that the Census Bureau is the widely accepted source of this data, so we have to put up with it. Now, there are multiple ways to interpret the census data, and this article gives two different possible interpretations. But one interpretation adds up to 100% and the other adds up to more than 100%, so guess which one makes more people happy. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Race is of course an artificial construct and the article uses the categories the Census does. I think that that people from Spain are also consider Latino, while people from Brazil are considered white. TFD (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Spainish people would be consider under 'Latino' and that Brazillian Whites would be under 'Non-Hispanic White' yes, but the two categories, Hispanic origin and Race, are two different questions and are not the same thing (though this is looking like this will change by the next census). The US Census Bureau has 4 different datasets pertaining to this,

• 1: Race (alone), this just deals with Race and asks which Race category you identify as, this includes; White, Black, Asian, Some other Race, Two or more races, Native American and Pacific Islander. This would include Latino Whites in White if they identified as White (alone) etc.
• 2: Race and Hispanic origin, this cross-tabulates Race and Hispanic origin to get two different sets of data on Non-Hispanic people by Race and then Hispanic people by race
• 3: Race (multiple), this category removes Two or more races and categorises somebody who identfies as X and Y race in both groups (for example, a White and Asian person who ticked 'Two or more races' would come under both White and Asian, normally known as 'White any combination' and 'Asian any combination')
• 4: Race (multiple) and Hispanic origin, see 2 and 3 but with both combined.

The infobox is using the 2nd dataset statistics and while this is generally the more publically utilised data when it comes to race statistics, this will most likely confuse some people as 'Latino' is not a race (though it can be used as the proxy for 'Mestizo' generally speaking, ofcourse this is not particularly a great one). Personally I think this article should use the first, as it was a little while back (not sure when it was changed), as race statistics have gotten better for Race (alone) now that a large amount of Hispanics which are really Mestizo have started to identify as Two or more and Some other race and there probably the least confusing any way. Tweedle (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Country Title

I am wondering something. Shouldn't this article be titled, "The United States of America" rather than the United States? What am I missing here? Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:United States/Name for prior discussion.  — Freoh 22:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so it looks like it was debated before. But the name of the country is 'United States of America'. So what could possibly justify naming the country something other than what it is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Usually WP:COMMONNAME, also why the article for the UK for example is not called 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' Tweedle (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

In English, nearly every country has both a formal ("United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland," "Democratic People's Republic of Korea," "French Republic") and a common ("United Kingdom," "North Korea," "France"). For the US, the common name is "United States" or, especially in adjectival usage, "American." The full name is not required as the article title. --Golbez (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

White Latinos

I would like to edit, but unfortunately I don't have enough edits for it! the sources say that if we consider the latins who consider themselves white, the percentage of whites would be 71%, can someone add this information for me?

actually there is this new research that is more recent, could you update the information for me?

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045222 Dinosauro47 (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

This was recently discussed above; see here. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

so you could include the 71% , because the research itself does that, just put white with latinos and white without latinos Dinosauro47 (talk) 10:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Why is that so important? What if a Latino wanted to simply to identify as Latino and not white? This reeks of white supremacy 2601:8C:981:A3C0:8893:9BBE:F9A1:5AAA (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

It reeks to me of someone foolishly looking for precision in the crazy, all-American world of racial labeling. It simply cannot be done. HiLo48 (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

That is unfortunately not one of the options provided by the census, as it's currently designed. White is a race, Latino is an ethnicity flag. So you can be white +Latino (typically used for Latin Americans), black +Latino (typically used for Caribbean-origin people), or even asian +Latino (Filipinos). Yes, it does reek of white supremacy - welcome to the United States, enjoy your stay. --Golbez (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

See my comment on the above section linked already, The 71% figure is including multi-racial Americans who identify as 'White' to some degree in any combination which vastly understates the degree of multi-racial people in the country if we used that one. It should be changed back to Race (alone) figures it was prior before being changed randomly without any discussion. Tweedle (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

US territorial evolution animation

I have removed it for the time being given that its description largely repeats the content of the section, and the Trail of Tears and policies of Indian removal are already explicitly mentioned in the body. Pizzigs (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

There is already a discussion about this, including your apologist POV-pushing, above. إيان (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@إيان: we can strongly disagree without accusing people of POV-pushing... --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 20:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Pizzigs has candidly and repeatedly declared their motivations to combat what they perceive as portrayals of the US as evil, both in their edit summaries and in a talk page section they used as their personal soapbox. If that can't be called "POV-pushing" (an accusation they themselves have flung at another editor on this page for having committed the grave anti-American sin of editing articles about communism, and at me, for that matter), it can be called something else—perhaps WP:Advocacy—but it's disruptive editing and it needs to be called out and it needs to stop. إيان (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I think we should still assume they're coming in good faith. One thing about this page is that you do see a widely disparate set of views, but through compromise we can create a decent article; at least I hope we can. We did it for the lead: I'm sure that if it were up to Pizzigs, we wouldn't mention inequality, incarceration, or the lack of universal healthcare (actually, if it were up to me, we wouldn't mention the lack of universal healthcare in the lead, but I digress); but through compromise I think we have a good lead section, that adequately describes where the US stands in the rankings while also pointing where it falls short. I wonder if there's a compromise when it comes to the territorial animation? Maybe we can speed the animation up or something? --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

As User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr stated in their edit summary, your animation does not meet MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, as "articles are not media hosts for long animations that are less than half about 'Early national period'." Pizzigs (talk) 01:07q, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

How exactly do you find the MOS link suggests that the map does not meet the suggested WP manner of style? As I stated above, I found it relevant and helpful and fulfilling of the MOS guideline when it states "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding." Sectionworker (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

"Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate" - The image is a single frame from an 11 minute animation and shows nothing of what it caption claims it illustrates re: "As it expanded further into land inhabited by Native Americans, the federal government often applied policies of Indian removal or assimilation". It literally matches the example of the way not to use an image. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Fountains of Bryn Mawr, does the media file not illustrate the federal government's expansion into land inhabited by Native Americans? Does its caption not also establish its relevance to the article and provide context for it per WP:CAPTION? Please explain. إيان (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no apparent issue with it from what I could see aside from the length, perhaps. Numerous contextual material discusses territory, and I do not see what makes this one so much worse that it warrants entire removal. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Per Maxxhiato, the primary problem seems to be with the caption and the placement, perhaps. The animation itself seems like it would be highly relevant to the article, especially the history section. I think returning the animation to the article, with a simplified caption, is best. --Jayron32 13:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

How could the caption be improved? إيان (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The original caption was a bit wordy. If it just said "An animation of US territorial expansion over time." and stopped there, it would be sufficient. --Jayron32 14:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

So it could be improved by cutting out all mention of the populations that were dispossessed, removed, or assimilated in order for that expansion to happen, as if nobody had been there? The westward territorial expansion of the US is concomitant with discussion of its consequences for Native Americans in all current reputable sources that even broach the issue, and to exclude it from the caption conforms with repudiated narratives of denial.

Mention of the consequences of US territorial expansion for the populations inhabiting the territories into which it expanded is WP:Verifiable and WP:Due essential context that should stay in the caption per WP:CAPTION. إيان (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

side discussion moved to user talk page. --Jayron32 16:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article should certainly mention that information. The caption of an image or animation is a tool poorly fit to the purpose. Your personal attacks against me notwithstanding, I never said that the article should not mention those things, it absolutely should. --Jayron32 15:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC) I certainly didn't mean to attack you personally, and though I don't see it myself, I'm sorry I made you feel personally attacked. إيان (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC) You attempted to paint me, because I disagree with the formatting and organization of the article exactly as you want it, as "conforming with repudiated narratives of denial". Please don't poison the well by bringing unrelated matters into a discussion over formatting and organization issues. Trying to decide where in the article to write material is not engaging in "denial", and your attempt to "win" by painting me as such, when I have done nothing of the sort, is a personal attack. This isn't a battle, I'm not your enemy. If you want to include the material being cut out of the caption, propose a way to incorporate it in the article text. As I said, the caption is a tool poorly fit to the purpose to discuss such matters. Instead, it should be properly integrated into the running prose of the article itself. --Jayron32 15:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC) In order to keep this discussion on topic, I've responded to the accusation of personal attacks on Jayron32's talk page. إيان (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The caption length was a bit long. I understand wanting to include things like native displacement and conflict, but the longer caption would have to address it properly. It doesn't seem common in other articles. The British Empire and French Colonial Empire—or even just France and the United Kingdom—articles, for instance, lack the same style of captions on their territorial expansions. The way I see it, Jayron32's suggestion is probably the best fit. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 16:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

 Question: given that all of the proposed images depicting U.S. colonization have some sort of problem, can we add File:William L. Sheppard - First use of the Cotton Gin, Harper's weekly, 18 Dec. 1869, p. 813.png instead?  — Freoh 19:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why this would be an either/or. There was already consensus to add this image (see the top section of the talk page). Pizzigs made this change despite the TP consensus here. Will reinstate. 20:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SashiRolls (talk • contribs)

As the person who made the original animation (not this ogg version but the original pictures and gif), I'm really fine with it not being here. Honestly, I'd rather have not made an animation to begin with, but I had to fight back against the gifs of the older versions of my work that still circulate. The animation necessarily drops tons of information and context. Having a link to the territorial evolution page is more than sufficient, this article has more than enough images. --Golbez (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I've been away from this article for a while and just catching up, so I see that it was replaced with the gif - which is definitely much better than the ogg, as that had some rather blatant and obvious technical failures. As long as y'all aren't fighting over it, I have no complaint with it staying. It has the link right next to it for context. --Golbez (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 June 2023

In the first sentence, changing "commonly known as the US or America" to "commonly known as the US or unaccurately America". "America" is indeed commonly used to speak about the USA but this term is unaccurate (it refers to a geographic, political and cultural space much larger than the USA alone), so precising this may be good. Thank you. Cyygma (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

This is an improper use of the edit request template, as that should only be done when a consensus has already been made to make the change. That does not exist in this case. --Golbez (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Cyygma: this will not happen. In English, America is a common, accurate, and accepted name for the United States. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Grammar in lede

First sentence in last paragraph of the lede: "A developed country, the American economy accounts for..." Sorry, that's a dangling participle, and sixth-grade stuff. "Country" and "economy" are two different things. Best solution: delete first three words (the U.S. doesn't need to be called out as developed). Or if you must: "The U.S. is a highly developed country. Its economy accounts for..." 173.77.71.234 (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done – I've made an edit along the lines you suggested. Thank you. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Material vs. materiel

Under History, "Great Depression, New Deal, World War II," 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: This should read "military materiel" (with 2 e's). Someone recently made a good-faith edit to "material", but the usage in English is different (as all WP mentions and links confirm). Thanks. 173.77.71.234 (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done – I have changed it. Thank you. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The flag in the infobox

why is the flag that is in the infobox the DoS ECA Color Standard version? shouldnt it be File:Flag of the United States.svg? or is it something i missed, if so my bad. HelloImRyder (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Check out the recent discussion above, which was never quite resolved. The last time I looked, the talk pages of the various flag images also seemed to have discussions about correctness, so I'm not sure what's going on. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The decision to place the DoS ECA Standard version into the article was made through this edit request in April. DecafPotato (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)