Wikipedia

Talk:United States/Archive 87

< Talk:United States
Latest comment: 8 years ago by 74.90.110.7 in topic National language
Archive 80←Archive 85Archive 86Archive 87Archive 88Archive 89Archive 90

Language Chart

Latest comment: 8 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion

User:Mark_Miller objects to the below chart being included in the Language subsection (under Demographics) and has removed it twice now:

Languages spoken at home by more than 1,000,000 persons in the U.S.
as of 2010
Language Percent of
population		 Number of
speakers
English (only) 80% 233,780,338
Combined total of all languages
other than English		 20% 57,048,617
Spanish
(excluding Puerto Rico and Spanish Creole)		 12% 35,437,985
Chinese
(including Cantonese and Mandarin)		 0.9% 2,567,779
Tagalog 0.5% 1,542,118
Vietnamese 0.4% 1,292,448
French 0.4% 1,288,833
Korean 0.4% 1,108,408
German 0.4% 1,107,869


His original justification for removing the chart was that it contained "too much tabled content that is already in prose." [1].

I reverted this removal and restored the chart, pointing out that it actually contained information not found in the prose. [2]

Mr. Miller then removed the table again, this time stating: "Not in prose means the image lacks discussion to be relevant and serves a decorative purpose. The listed languages are random." [3]

At the risk of avoiding Wikipedia:Edit_warring, I now bring this topic up for discussion on the talk page to develop Wikipedia:Consensus.

I cannot see how the original justification for removing the chart was that it contained "content that is already in prose" while the second removal is premised upon the chart being irrelevant because its information is not contained in the prose? These seem like contrary positions to me.

For my part, I noticed the table was missing when I came to this article to reference the number of French speakers in the United States. This information was not included in the body of the article and I had to restore the chart (which is based on the 2010 census) to find the answer. The listed languages are not "random" as Mr. Miller asserts in his most recent reversion, it's a list of languages spoken in the United States by over 1 million people in descending order.

I don't see the given reasons as justifying the removal of the chart. It's a useful visual aid in the same way the table for religion below it is useful.TempDog123 (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


I must agree with TempDog123 that the language chart offers useful information regarding a nation of immigrants. Also, this particular chart had been in the "Language" section for years. The main problem I've had with the chart is that there's no explanatory footnote; these are languages spoken at home in raw numbers, and those numbers omit the parallel column from US Census specifying the percentage of French- or Tagalog-speakers, etc., who say they also speak the national language, English, well (albeit not at home). This is not a chart of monolingual native speakers of English, Spanish, French, Chinese, etc., and some readers might think it is. That's a minor beef on my part, and I do think the chart should be retained.Mason.Jones (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

An explanatory footnote would be fantastic and I could well support the inclusion with that addition however, I don't see how the list is not random unless we understand exactly why the languages listed are in such order or even chosen at all over any other language spoken in the US that is discussed in the prose.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not sure exactly what you want to include in this footnote. If the footnote will lead to the chart being included again I'll likely be fine with it, but I'd just like a better idea of what's being proposed. If one of you wants to write up the proposed footnote and post it here that might be better. As for the chart being "random," it states in big bold letters at the top that it's "Languages spoken at home by more than 1,000,000 persons in the U.S." I don't see how that's a random list, it's just the most spoken languages listed in descending order.TempDog123 (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


It's meaningless unless it has an additional column for the percentage who speak English "well" or "very well" (my figures are from same source, US Census, 2011). Otherwise, many people would assume that the 20% of Americans who speak a language other than English are monolinguals with no English-language proficiency. (The article "United States" doesn't state that "English is the national language" for nothing; it really is.) Here's the added column, and I've added a small-type explanatory note for French like the one for Chinese. The US Census definition of "French" includes Cajun French but not Haitian Creole. See below. Mason.Jones (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Languages spoken at home by more than 1,000,000 persons in the U.S.
as of 2010
Language Percent of
population		 Number of
speakers		 Percent
who speak
English
"well" or
"very well"
(2011)
English (only) 80% 233,780,338 100%
Combined total of all languages
other than English		 20% 57,048,617
Spanish
(excluding Puerto Rico and Spanish Creole)		 12% 35,437,985 74.1%
Chinese
(including Cantonese and Mandarin)		 0.9% 2,567,779 70.4%
Tagalog 0.5% 1,542,118 92.8%
Vietnamese 0.4% 1,292,448 66.9%
French
(including Cajun but not Haitian Creole)		 0.4% 1,288,833 93.5%
Korean 0.4% 1,108,408 71.5%
German 0.4% 1,107,869 96%
That's perfectly fine with me. Only issue I would raise is that it will expand the width of the table and may encroach upon the prose, making it less readable. That's a formatting issue that can probably be tweaked though. TempDog123 (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I understand what Mason.Jones is asking for and if it widens the table, it shouldn't be so much that it would obstruct the text so I also support that change, but I also support the suggestion for an explanatory note for clarity.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


Below is the chart with an explanatory note. I went by the original source, which doesn't list percentage of speakers but rather number of speakers of Spanish, Chinese, French, etc., who also speak English well or very well. (I mention the percentages, an extra interpretation, in the note.) This might well make the chart too wide to be used in this article, but it makes it clear to readers that this chart -- used across WP in almost all "United States" articles -- isn't the number of monolingual Spanish and Chinese speakers in the United States. It is anything but that.Mason.Jones (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Languages spoken at home by more than 1 million persons in the U.S. (2010)[1]
Language Percent of
population		 Number of
speakers		 Number who
speak English
well or very well
English (only) 80% 233,780,338 All
Combined total of all languages
other than English		 20% 57,048,617 43,659,301
Spanish
(excluding Puerto Rico and Spanish Creole)		 12% 35,437,985 25,561,139
Chinese
(including Cantonese and Mandarin)		 0.9% 2,567,779 1,836,263
Tagalog 0.5% 1,542,118 1,436,767
Vietnamese 0.4% 1,292,448 879,157
French
(including Cajun but not Haitian Creole)		 0.4% 1,288,833 1,200,497
Korean 0.4% 1,108,408 800,500
German 0.4% 1,107,869 1,057,836

Source: 2010 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau. Most Americans who speak a language other
than English at home also report speaking English "well" or "very well." For the language groups listed above, the
strongest English-language proficiency is among native speakers of German (96% report that they speak English "well"
or "very well"), followed by speakers of French (93.5%), Tagalog (92.8%), Spanish (74.1%), Korean (71.5%),
Chinese (70.4%), and Vietnamese (66.9%).

References

  1. ^ "United States". Modern Language Association. Retrieved September 2, 2013.
Cool. Let's put it in the article and see how it looks. TempDog123 (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

As with every U.S. demographic chart and survey in Wikipedia, illegal immigrants may not be included. This population might number up to 15 million people -- no one knows how many there are. But they would speak many different languages (not just Spanish) and so their numbers would not have a significant effect on this chart (which is also a survey, not a census).Mason.Jones (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

That is true, although it does affect the percentage of people who speak good English of any language the illegal immigrants come from. That being said, should there be a note in the chart that says that the chart does not include illegal immigrants? This would alleviate the problem. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't support a note to that effect, as there are no such notes under other U.S. Census tables mentioning illegal immigrants. There's no way to confirm if (or how much) this population affects the statistics. It's possible, but purely speculative.Mason.Jones (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. For consistency's sake, I guess that makes sense. I guess it being U.S. Census data makes that side note somewhat apparent anyway. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I've added the revised chart under "Language." The last edit summary, "Corrected under C," should read: "Right column corrected under Chinese speakers -- Cantonese and Mandarin are added to total." Mason.Jones (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

America

Latest comment: 8 years ago27 comments18 people in discussion

Why was it decided that America should re-direct here?? Is it likely that someone who wants to search for this article will expect it to be titled America?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Because consensus was reached that the US is the primary topic when somebody is searching for America. See Talk:America (disambiguation)#Requested move 10 July 2015, where the decision was reached to move the disambiguation page from America to America (disambiguation). —C.Fred (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
What an outrageous redirect. Next US editors and readers will be demanding world redirect here. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
LOL. 10/10. Calidum 00:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Considering that the general usage amongst English as a native language populations is that America is the short name for the US, how is this "outrageous"? --Khajidha (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
So because US citizens generally use the name wrong, Wikipedia should encourage ignorance? Ribbet32 (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
You're trying to reduce a legitimate concern about linguistic privilege to a point of grammar-mommy one-upsmanship. Linguistic positivists would support your politics but disagree with your language analysis. 2601:644:400:500:4CA6:7BEA:5A09:CE0 (talk) 10:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
As Calidum said above: LOL. Juan Riley (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
No, US citizens us it correctly, and "America" is primarily used to refer to the United States by most of the world, not just US citizens. It's mostly Spanish speakers who do things differently, and this isn't Spanish Wikipedia. VictorD7 (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
And meanwhile, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view goes completely out the window... Ribbet32 (talk) 05:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ribbet32: What is the basis for your objection? At WP:POVNAMING we have,

In some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased.

At WP:RECOGNIZABLE we have,

Wikipedia ... generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. … When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.

At WP:RNEUTRAL we have,

Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names. Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion.

At [4], the continent “Norteamérica" is translated into English as “America”. While the English “America” redirects to “United States”, it does not follow that the Spanish convention should be used in the English encyclopedia, so "North America” in English should not also redirect to “United States”.

Given the WP policies quoted above, when the term “America” is used in English, a) what country can be meant other than the United States? b) what country is MOST frequently meant using the term “America”? or c) What reliable source claims “America” is non-neutral? This may just be trolling, I'm guessing, but it's fun exploring the basics. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ribbet32:, this is an encyclopedia. It strives to be understandable and uses common names. It's not really that complicated. The other thing you might remember is that we work by consensus and your position has no support.Mattnad (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Madonna is a disambiguation page, Nirvana is about the religious concept, much less known than Nirvana (band), Georgia is a disambiguation page. Why can't America be a disambiguation page? Fridek (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that the religious concept of nirvana is less known among English speakers than the band? After all, there are 125 million English speakers in India, where the religious concept is most definitely more known than the band. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
"America" is a disambiguation page. It's just that, in accordance with Wikipedia practice, since the country is the overwhelmingly primary use, "America" searches are redirected to this article first for convenience. You can click back to the disambiguation page via the link at the top of the article. VictorD7 (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, I learned the religious concept first, probably when I was eight, from an encyclopedia. Bands come and go 2601:644:400:500:4CA6:7BEA:5A09:CE0 (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The name of the nation isn't solely "America" but the "United States of America". It's also redundant to say the country is "America" but the continent it belongs to is North America and in turn the latter belongs to the Americas, thus creating a vocabulary paradox. Just because the country is referred by the third part by the majority of its name it doesn't mean it constitutes a valid reason to redirect an ambiguous name to solely one nation its part of strictly speaking. After all, by all technical standards Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Cuba are all American nations as the USA is, and that's without using prefixes such as "latin-/south-/franco-/native-/meso-/etc".

2607:FB90:1F03:CA45:0:49:802E:2801 (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

"America" doesn't necessarily equal "the Americas". The latter has replaced the historic sense of "America" referring to the entire hemisphere. Of course "America" has more than one meaning which is why a disambiguation page exists. But many words have multiple meanings, and Wikipedia policy is to first redirect to the article representing the overwhelmingly common usage when one exists, as multiple extensive discussions and much scrutinized evidence have established is the case here. "America" in the USA sense is the overwhelming majority usage around the world, much less the English speaking world, which is what matters to this discussion. As for "America" not being the entire name, that's irrelevant as multiple different words can redirect to the same article. In fact this article is titled "United States" anyway rather than the full name that you correctly give, due to Wikipedia common name policy. It would be more legitimate to argue that the article should be retitled "America", as that's another very common name, than argue that "America" searches shouldn't come here first, though that's a different debate (and less popular than the "let's rename the article "United States of America" position). VictorD7 (talk) 05:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

And yet the redirect has caused some internal conflict in Wikipedia.2607:FB90:24C1:7A49:0:49:566D:1901 (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The lack of one caused conflicts on Wikipedia, and lots of people looking for the country having to stop at a disambiguation page first. Makes more sense for the minority who are looking for something other than the USA when they type "America" to be the ones to have to make an extra click to get to the disambiguation page. VictorD7 (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
This seems to be a very US centric viewpoint. Having it go directly to this page does little for a searcher that is trying to find something different, unless they see the text directing them to America (disambiguation). What harm is done by directly sending them to America (disambiguation)? It seems very unlikely that someone looking for this article would not be able to find it from that page. Casprings (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
No, it's based on extensive discussions and analysis of what people around the world primarily mean by "America". What harm is done by having the minority looking for something else click back to the disambiguation page easily accessible on the top of this article page? That's how many Wikipedia topics work. VictorD7 (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
It's an English language centric viewpoint. The overwhelming majority of native English usage of "America" is in the USA sense. --Khajidha (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Hard for that to be a neutral consideration given most native English-speaking users are from the US. Languages evolve, but I think it's not a simple problem to decide when a term becomes popular enough to be considered the academically correct one, or if there's such thing as an "incorrect" term when a majority (biased or not) uses it. However I do believe an encyclopedia should aim for precision when the price is merely making people click a second time to get where they want. 46.126.184.3 (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
This is English Wikipedia, so English usage is the consideration, though even other languages typically refer to the USA with variations of "America". Spanish is the only noteworthy exception. As for the rest, perhaps reading the Wikipedia Common Name policy and primary topic guidelines will clear things up. Given the latter most pertinently, redirecting "America" to the primary topic (the United States) is clearly correct. Many fewer people now have to make that second click you speak of back to the disambiguation page, which still exists with a link conveniently located at the top of this article. VictorD7 (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

When the first map recognizing and naming America appeared in 1507, Waldseemüller map, the New World counted only with Spanish and Portuguese colonies. The name was chosen to honor the Portuguese-sponsored explorer Amerigo Vespucci, using the feminine version of his Latin name Americus. The English settlement in the New World started only 100 years after the name "America" came into existence. That is one of the reasons why the attribution of the name "America" to refer to the United States of America has been considered controversial. Rafaelsousa88 (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC) I think this information should be in the America and America (disambiguation) pages. This could show that Wikipedia is committed with impartial information. Rafaelsousa88 (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaelsousa88 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, "America" is the common name for the United States of America. Per Wikipedia policy, the naming controversy is irrelevant. In the Spanish Wikipedia page, you would be write to make America an disambiguation page. However, in English, "America" almost always refers to the United States of America, with the term "Americas" being applied to NA and SA. As such, I would leave the situation as is. I do get where you are coming from, however. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

It says "Official language: None at federal level" then right below that it says "National language: English" RCrowley49 (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

And? What do you want to change? There is no officially recognized language at the federal level. No de jure language. However the de facto language is English. --Majora (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
"National Language" sounds too much like "official language" and leads the reader to wonder if there is a semi-official character being asserted. It should just say "Language" or "Languages". See the Great Britain article. 67.170.236.50 (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Correct the population total for when you google the United States we have 321million as of the 2013 census and did not lose 1.1million people in 2014 so please fix this. Dathistorybuff (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

  Not done: The population number is based off of The United States Census Bureau numbers. The estimated number as of 2016 is 322 million. It isn't updated every day since that would be a little ridiculous. --Majora (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
On the contrary, the entire spirit of Wikipedia is that by applying many hands, information can be more and more precise and up to the minute. For example, when people die or news comes out, Wikipedia reflects it within hours or minutes. By calling it "ridiculous", you're incorrectly creating an identification between your own limited energy level and the significantly greater energy level of the crowdsource. A more appropriate response would have been to leave the semi-protected edit request simply open until someone fulfilled it, or until another million or two of population was added and rthe pressure became unbearable -- instead of rushing forward to a false sense of closure adorned with a reprimand. Which is in any case not the desired spirit for Wikipedia. 2601:644:400:500:4CA6:7BEA:5A09:CE0 (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Archive parameter changes

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have changed the "maxarchivesize" parameter from the strange 78K to the more standard 75K. I have also reduced the "minthreadsleft" parameter from 12 to 8. MB298 (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Last link still not pulling up. Apriestofgix (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Have set sourcecheck templates to account for the fact that two links work and one doesn't. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 4 March 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago10 comments10 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. This is clearly going to fail. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 03:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


United States → United States of America – We should simply use the full name of the country, since this is what it formally calls itself. "United States" is just a common shortening of it. The "United States" could then redirect to here, and United States (disambiguation) can be left as it is. AYFKM (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you suggest that all countries should use the formal title? If not, why just this one? If so, will you be proposing it on their articles? --Golbez (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

please add some native history and extermination of the so called indians who are the actually American race before this land was stolen from them lol...But seriously we know history was written by the winners but TRUTH CAN NOT BE hidden for ever..

DMDiegom (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

  Not done This article is about the nation that was founded after European colonization, though it already does discuss some of the history beforehand, and links to relevant articles such as Pre-Columbian era, Settlement of the Americas, and Mississippian culture. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Both links seem to work. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

"democracy"

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

should change every mention "democracy" to oligarchy. the government does not represent its people, but instead its businesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.77.167 (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, just in case you are not trolling, the political power in the U.S. is allocated by population every ten years by the census, whether or not the people vote, and regardless of where the big banks and corporations make their headquarters. The government is responsible to those who vote, who are statistically, predominantly and disproportionately literate; one half of the U.S. eligible population do no register to vote at all. Perhaps you could persuade state by state adoption of a fine for not voting as they have in Australia, so the government can more perfectly represent all of the people governed. For businesses to gain an advantage, they must persuade a majority of the voters to vote for representatives who will make favorable legislation. That is democracy. It sounds as though you disagree with the changing consensus of American politics which is now swinging against unregulated banking speculating in an unsecured housing bubble, for instance. You can make further changes to it by being more persuasive among the voters, democratically, as the U.S. is a democracy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Sentence on Bretton Woods and Yalta

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I partially see what this sentence is getting at, Bretton Woods effectively chose the US dollar as the world's reserve currency rather than Keynes' proposal for Bancor, but this sentence is much broader; do historians actually say this? The way it is written, it may be an example of hindsight bias or historian's fallacy.

Current: Allied conferences at Bretton Woods and Yalta outlined a new system of international organizations that placed the United States and Soviet Union at the center of world affairs.
Proposed: The United States played a leading role in the Bretton Woods and Yalta conferences with the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and other Allies which made agreements on new international financial institutions and Europe's post-war re-organization.

If this is agreed, I would suggest the first sentence of the previous paragraph is reworded for readability so both paragraphs do not begin with the same phrase and to clarify 'early stages':

Current: The United States was at first effectively neutral during World War II's early stages but began supplying material to the Allies in March 1941 through the Lend-Lease program.
Proposed: At first effectively neutral during World War II while Germany conquered or controlled much of continental Europe, the United States began supplying material to the Allies in March 1941 through the Lend-Lease program.

(p.s. I raised similar types of questions on other articles such as here on Talk:Constitution of the United Kingdom, a discussion now being facilitated by an uninvolved American editor, not just this article.) Whizz40 (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

National language

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

My suggestion is to add Spanish to "National language" (then National languages) because it is used by more than 13% of the United States' population. It's also asssumed that 25% of the US population will speak Spanish as a first language in 2050. --217.87.170.234 (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


This has garnered little support. First, there have been many different predictions about Hispanic immigration, but we will have to wait till 2050 to see if "25% of the US population will speak Spanish." There's no proof that will happen, especially with recent surges in Asian immigration. As of now, the United States is not Canada or Belgium: the US government functions almost entirely in English (translation available in multiple languages). All 4,300 university campuses in the 50 US states operate entirely in English. All public schools stress the mastery of English, not Spanish, for American students. Some 74% of Spanish-speakers at home also speak good English (often with bilingual skills). Spanish simply doesn't fit the requirements of a "national language" in the United States.Mason.Jones (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


Ok, thanks. Grüße aus Deutschland --79.227.68.21 (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

87% don't speak it as their first language...74.90.110.7 (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)74.90.110.7 (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States/Archive_87&oldid=1075603561"