This is an archive of past discussions about United States. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
"Slavery" vs "the enslavement of African Americans"
@Dhtwiki: You twicereverted my edits to a sentence in the lead section, which currently reads "Slavery was legal in the southern United States until 1865, when the American Civil War led to its abolition." I would prefer it to be changed to "The enslavement of African Americans was legal in the southern United States until 1865, when the American Civil War led to its abolition." for a few reasons:
A person unfamiliar with the United States and its history would not understand the crucial detail that American slavery was based on race.
It is frankly a little embarrassing that the sentence as it's currently written pretends that slavery was race-neutral or unrelated to race. That is simply not true, and the fact that some documents about slavery don't mention race doesn't change that.
Many notable documents that mention slavery do mention race, including the Confederate Constitution, several Confederate secession declarations, and the U.S. Constitution's euphemisms. Slavery and the Civil War were about white supremacy and the enslavement of Black people, and it does no good to hide that.
The statement that you suggests has several problems of definition. If "enslavement" denotes reducing someone from the status of being a free citizen to that of being un-free, then enslavement approximately equals importation, which was banned by the US in 1808, as well as being forbidden by the Confederate constitution. "African American" is a modern term, and not all who identify as such are descendants of slaves. Talking about what is "legal" without sticking to legal language is problematic: that the 13th amendment has to explicitly exclude convicted criminals from the ban on "involuntary servitude" is an example of how difficult it can be to define slavery itself.
American slavery was based on more than just race, although race was often used to justify the institution. Pure Africans varied racially among themselves, as well as there being innumerable levels of admixture with whites. So, leave discussions of the racial qualities of slaves to articles that can treat it more fully.
Your various imputations of "not understand[ing]", embarrassment, "euphemisms", etc., indicate a somewhat non-neutral point of view. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
While I appreciate your semantic distinctions, I think it is important to note early on that slaves were entirely constituted from the descendants of Africans, however you wish to phrase it. Slavery was an hereditary status that only applied to the descendants of Africans brought to America as slaves or enslaved after importation. TFD (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
If that's the case, then "Slavery, primarily of Africans, was legal..." ("primarily" being the term at Slavery in the United States) might be a more suitable substitute for the lead, remembering that the article itself doesn't go into much detail. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I have to very strongly disagree with your argument, especially the "enslavement approximately equals importation." Where did that leap in logic even come from? Enslavement means to be made a slave. Even someone born into slavery was still made into a slave. "X means Y therefore X cannot be true because Y is not true" is only accurate if you can actually show that X does mean Y. Can you provide sources that show that the concept of enslavement only applies to the importation of slaves? If not, that entire argument can and should be discounted entirely. If the issue is with the wording of "African American" that's fine, it can be reworded, problem solved. As for the comments about the racial makeup of Africans, so what? What does that have to do with the proposed wording? The comments about the 13th Amendment are equally irrelevant; that amendment was passed after the period being described, and does not preclude the legality of slavery prior to its passage in any way. If anything, it reinforces the wording that PBZE is suggesting. I support PBZE's proposed changes. - Aoidh (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
What's important is not what words could or should mean, but how readers understand them. Enslavement for most people means to take a free person and make them a slave. TFD (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
That is one definition, but in general English usage there are two definitions commonly used. The other is "the state of being a slave." When sources like this use the word enslavement, they're not talking about taking otherwise free people and making them into slaves, they're talking about the overall concept of being a slave. There's also sources like the SPLC and Centre for the Study of the Legacy of British Slavery (both groups that should know better than most what the word enslavement means) that specifically use the term "born in enslavement" which, if we only go by the "taking a free person and enslaving them" definition, makes no sense. There are two definitions, both of which are used in English and are understood by readers. - Aoidh (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Why insist on the wordier alternative, though? If enslavement = slavery, why not stick with the latter? Why not "negro slavery", as it has often been termed, "African slavery", etc., if you need to introduce the racial component in the lead, rather than "enslavement of African Americans"? Dhtwiki (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
"African slavery" is ambiguous. It could mean the enslavement of African Americans, or it could mean slavery in Africa. "Enslavement of African Americans" is unambiguous. PBZE (talk) 05:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
It's not unambiguous. It sounds as if African Americans were free Americans of African descent who became slaves. Compare the wording with the description of Indian Slavery in Colonial America: "European enslavement of American Indians began with Christopher Columbus’s arrival in the New World."[1]TFD (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Considering they weren't considered legal Americans until after the Civil War, and the term "African American" is a much more recent construct, I would argue against using the term on those grounds. It's unambiguous, but I think it's incorrect. --Golbez (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
When words can have more than one meaning, it should be clear to the reader which one we mean. The two sources you provide are written for people who are aware of historic slavery and therefore know which definition is meant. Furthermore, they are advocacy groups, which are likely to chose language differently from impartial writers. They say that Madison "enslaved" rather than that he owned slaves in order to make a moral accusation against him. To enslave someone implies intention, while someone could come to own slaves without intention, e.g., by inheriting them. Anyway, we cannot expect all readers to be aware of U.S. slavery laws, specifically that the importation of slaves had been banned. TFD (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Last sentence of third paragraph
My changes to this sentence were reverted because "this paragraph was crafted after long discussion." However, I could neither find a discussion on the talk page, nor a comment in the article for editors. If there's really already a consensus, it would be nice if someone could link it and write an in-article comment for editors, because this sentence is one of the most frequently changed ones, as far as I perceive.
I clearly prefer the reverted phrasing over the current one, because it reads bulky and strange when, after an enumeration of objectively positive characteristics of the country, rather negative or at least controversial aspects suddenly follow more or less without context. So writing something like "However", "Nevertheless", "Unlike many other Western countries", etc. improves the reading flow and makes the sentence read and feel more natural and less "forced".
Mentioning gun violence in the sentence may be a more controversial change, but I think it's justified, since the US has not only one of the highest levels among Western countries, but in the world, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries annually; and it was the leading cause of death for children 19 and younger in 2020. So, it's definitely an important and notable issue of the country.
Gun violence should not be addressed in the lead; it can be addressed in the relevant section on crime, which I'm sure it already is. Also, although the US suffers from high rates of gun violence compared to other countries, its homicide rate is well below the global average, at 5 per 100,000. -- RockstoneSend me a message!04:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
transcontinental
Is this really lede worthy? No strong feelings but seems odd to be one of the first things a reader learns about the United States. Slywriter (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I do appreciate consistency between articles but seems to be a trivial factoid in this case as 99.5% of the population and area of the United States is located in North America. Slywriter (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
For those wondering: Egypt, France, Russia, and Turkey mention it in the first sentence; Chile and Spain do not; Indonesia does but without using the term "transcontinental". Danish Realm and Kingdom of the Netherlands note the continents. My take on this is, the US is at least as transcontinental as Egypt and France, in fact several times more Americans live outside of North America than French live outside Europe, proportionally, and is on par with Egypt. --Golbez (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Not convinced it matters for those countries either. If the factoid is due because of Hawaii, better instead to directly mention whatever is important about Hawaii. CMD (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
(ec)Not sure that last stat is accurate concerning France vs US, Hawaii- ~1.45 million, US Pacific territories- ~250k, Aleutian islands - ~8k. France overseas departments - ~2.8 million. So equivalent, not several times larger and French are notable for spanning several continents.
great googly moogly i used the area column instead of population column. Apologies, yes, French has more proportionally outside Europe than the US does outside North America. Thanks for pointing it out. Comment struck. --Golbez (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I know this sound crazy: how could an article that is this controversial, broad, and has been nominated for GA unsuccessfully be a, well, GA? I think that setting our sight to GA would highlight visible improvements that we can made. Skimming through the article, I found 3 key things that we can improve the most on:
Length – it's really long. Think of a normal person reading this article, could they reasonably read through it in one go? Probably not. Many people insisted that an article this broad must be long, but this couldn't be further than the truth with articles like Earth, sea, human, etc.
Citations – lots of them are really good and authoritative, but there are also those that are not-so-good. Replacing these not-so good citations with better ones are an easy way to upgrade the article. Also, check whether the text actually said things that are mentioned in the source is also a good idea for improvement.
Prose – is the prose here understandable to a twelth grader? If not, we have failed. Remember, this article is probably being used a lot in classrooms, and making sure our text is understandable to those in school is absolutely vital. Should we make shorter paragraphs? Should we use shorter sentences? Should we use simpler words?
I think this article can achieve GA, if we can solve these three issues. Pushing towards GA would also solve the quality stalemate that is happening right now. Cheers, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
GA status is wishful thinking. This article gets far too many edits, which include intrusive digressions and grammatical "fixes" from readers who seem barely acquainted with the English language. Other editors insert weak factoids that supposedly demonstrate how their hometown, university, or country of origin contributed to U.S. history. The most-read country article in WP-EN probably can't be among the GAs, so we can only strive for accuracy. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
@Mason.Jones. Nothing is impossible in regards to article quality. Take a look at J.K. Rowling, an absolute mess during its WP:FAR. However, I will admit the U.S. is a daunting task. @CactiStaccingCrane, if you want to make a Good article out of this, I suggest recruiting a small army of editors to help with that. Some helpful details of the WP:GAR can also be found above. But does assessing the really problem help that much? If you’re not willing to spend months on this article, I suggest forget about the possibility of GA. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that recruiting is necessary: if they see activity, they will come. I will try to propose new versions of sections and made small incremental improvements. Mason is right about achieving GA, it is difficult, daunting, and even impossible in some aspects – we shouldn't delude to think that it is easy with the magic of collaborating. CollectiveSolidarity is right about the possibility of achieving GA (heck, even QAnon is a GA), but I disagree that you have to achieve GA to get a good result. Aiming towards GA, even if we've failed, would improve the article substantially than it would have otherwise. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Persistence is everything. How many people who took on the last attempt to bring this article to GA status are still actively editing here? Another thing is that, if you remove text, reassure the rest of us that we're not losing information that can't be found on other pages, after making sure of that fact. It's one thing to pare this article, but make sure that whatever is encyclopedic can be found elsewhere. Also, see the India article for an example of a country article—about another large, populous nation with an exuberant editing community—that has maintained featured article status throughout the years. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
India bad example ... with mass size..text sandwiching..odd sized images all over with undue weight in some sections ..lead jamed with sources ...etc. That said GA here is possible .....stability after is the problem. Moxy-13:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Good luck. It's good of you to try. Even if enhanced status doesn't come to pass, the attention of committed editors is encouraging. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
I had a quick look at the article with some trepidation and was pleasantly surprised that it was in a much better state than it was at last GAR. I was pessimistic like Mason.Jones above until I saw that. Regarding Mason.Jones' specific note of the issue of "factoids that supposedly demonstrate how their hometown, university, or country of origin contributed to U.S. history", I would suggest one of the best ways to limit such additions is to trim the overall history section (the India example mentioned above has kept its status in part due to rigorous curtailing of such additions). Length begets length, details beget details, and the section currently makes up over a quarter(!) of this page so could use more summary style per CactiStaccingCrane's point #1. CMD (talk) 07:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
I think a serious discussion should be taken place to trim the history section further. I'm starting out with low-hanging fruits first (Military, Law enforcement and crime, Science and technology) to kick things into gear again. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Also, I'm aware of the sock rampage by User:Mrbeastmodeallday that has happened recently. This LTA must not stop us from improving the article; lest them be tired leave, just like all the prior trolls that has attempted to destroy us. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
People have strong opinions about the United States—unlike Canada, a benign country that attracts much less attention to its WP article. This one is a lightning rod for POV, Righting All Wrongs, ideological disputes over terms like "American Indian" and "foreign languages", etc. The occasional obsessive sockpuppet is far more likely to land here than at "Norway." GA status for this article is quite a stretch without a dedicated editorial board for content and regular deputized "police officers." Mason.Jones (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
@Mason.Jones. We already have a group of editors on the talk page willing to discuss recent changes to the article, (You, Moxy, CMD, Dhtwiki, and the other regulars) but I understand the biggest problem will be the potential RfCs that some of the sections will need for GA. That FAQ at the top of the page is only going to get longer if people actually take this seriously. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
So let's do it then. I think we should start with the "Cold War and late 20th century" section, as it is the longest and most undue of all history sections. And yes, the lead section's history is ridiculously long, but it's unproductive to tackle that section for now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
A gargantuan task regarding a vast, complicated, and controversial country. Sorry, but "J.K. Rowling" simply can't be compared to the article "United States". Not all of this page's regulars will have the time or patience to join such a project. Best wishes, as it's certainly a good cause. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think so. It illustrates a lot of things that are not apparent when looking at maps, such as how cloudy it is in northern states, or the deserts in the mid-west. I think that these pictures do provide an unique perspective to the United States geography, much better in value than other maps and such. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Can barely tell this is North America....got to be better ones. I personally find topographical maps educational. Moxy-02:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
No huge reason beyond the editors chose to back in the day, since the local usage is definitely miles over kilometers. Maybe the other two countries should switch, but I don't know their local usage. --Golbez (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
It certainly seems appropriate to report in miles first since this article is an American one (...that's an understatement). One reason the other countries that use the imperial system report in kilometers first might be because they're not English speaking? -- RockstoneSend me a message!21:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
There seems to be individual editors changing the area rankings in the lead due to discrepancies, leading to an ambiguity in the sentence and an inconsistency with the sourced footnotes.
I restored the sentence to the original sourced consensus.
If there are sources presented in this thread that match the discrepant/conflicting claim of 3rd in land area, they can be discussed here Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
User Roahgo does not have a “user page” to ping here, so in lieu of that, a message has been left on the user’s “user talk page”, which includes a direct link to this thread. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Hey, can you guys stop editing this page to say that America is the fourth largest country by land. Even the linked page ON Wikipedia says that the US has more land than Canada. America is the the third largest by land and by total area. It is the third by land after Russia and China, and the third by total area after Russia and Canada. Canada has a lot of lakes, but, unless I’m wrong, water is not land. Guys, it takes one second to click the link and see that you are wrong, please stop. Roahgo (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
here, these two links have land area rankings, please look at them. Also, you can just look at the Wikipedia page. Or are you implying that the land rankings on Wikipedia are wrong too? Please, before you undo that edit again show me a single source that says that Canada has more LAND than America. You won’t and you can’t, cause it’s not true. Canada has a lot of large lakes, but that’s not land, that’s area. That sentence specifically says land, and the US has more land than Canada. Roahgo (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion does help explain the discrepancies on the page. However, if "It is the third by land after Russia and China, and the third by total area after Russia and Canada" is consensus, the footnote must be updated, as this contradicts the footnote. Pinging @Roahgo, Mrbeastmodeallday, and Maxeto0910:Toadspike (talk) 05:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Yikes, turns out there's an ANI thread holding things up. This still needs to be resolved, though. We can't have an obvious contradiction in the second sentence of one of the most-viewed Wikipedia pages of all time. Toadspike (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, it may seem a bit confusing at first, but it's not really a contradiction:
It's the third-largest country by only land area, that's a plain fact and also unmistakable stands in the article.
And it's the third- or fourth-largest by total area (land and water area). The coastal and territorial waters make the difference. Consensus on Wikipedia is to include these waters, which makes it the third-largest country by total area.
I think it's already quite clear.
However, we could make more clear in the footnote that the second figure still includes inland and Great Lakes water area.
Or we could write something like:
"It is the world's third-largest country by land area and third- or fourth-largest by total area."-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
I have now made the footnote a bit clearer, should be easier to understand now.
The United States is ranked 27th. Corruption is not high, but it ain't low either. As it is a developed country, it should be held to a higher standard. I don't think it's accurate to state that it has low levels of corruption. It doesn't seem entirely fair to the 26 other countries that are ranked higher and are often not lauded for their anti-corruption efforts. 42.112.52.197 (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
It's absolutely accurate to say that it has low levels of corruption. Those other countries should also mention their low levels of corruption in their leads, if they don't already. -- RockstoneSend me a message!00:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
The rating has dropped since we last discussed this. While it may be high for a developed country it is still relatively low overall. Compare the U.S. rating of 67 with neighboring Mexico's 31 (which ranks 124 out of 180.) TFD (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I think it's best to state the nuance (The U.S. has a low level of corruption compared to all other countries, but high compared to developed ones.) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't like that idea at all. This article is way too long as it is. Also several highly developed countries rank worse than the US when it comes to corruption perceptions, among them are Greece, Taiwan, South Korea, Portugal, Spain, Poland, Italy, Turkey, and Israel. That wouldn't really make the rank "high" in corruption perceptions compared to other developed countries, in my opinion. It might make it higher (although given the provided scale, not significantly so) than the average developed country, but that type of nuance doesn't belong in the lead section. -- RockstoneSend me a message!06:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I support Rockstone’s comment. The nuance in the lead will just make the article longer, which is probably the greatest concern for getting a GA out of this. In the body of the article, I also support Rockstone’s inclusion of nuance, given that at least two systems of ranking are cited (I.e. Corruption Perceptions Index). CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Do we have any secondary (or even tertiary) sources that mention corruption in a similarly high-level overview of the United States? If not, no need to shoehorn it into the lead because some other country article mentions corruption. CMD (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
FYI, I moved the corruption stuff to "Parties and elections" as these indexes are mainly talking about the transparency in, well, elections and political parties. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
@CactiStaccingCrane: Could you please stop rewording text to make it more awkward than before (exs., "the 13 Colonies at the East Coast", "1969's landing", etc.)? I would bring this up at your talk page, but you regularly blank/archive comments, so I must leave it here. Please refrain from reinventing the wheel—especially when the "wheel" was a far more literate version. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Agreed – I've been way too liberal with my condensing. I think I'll leave out the History section for now and gather consensus for it instead. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Foreign relations
Should there be a mention of the US' increasingly souring relations with Russia and China, two of its major global rivals? Stuntneare (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
well there's two pertinent questions: can you find a proper source saying things have soured in a notable way, and is that notable enough to mention in this overview article that isn't about the last 18 months? --Golbez (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
@Golbez: Two reliable sources could be used to give a broad overview of the US' deteriorating relations with Russia and China during the last decade.
"Condensing" doesn't mean tying in unrelated issues and events or, worse, dropping important statistics while preserving the weaker info in same sentence. Everyone here wants a shorter "United States" and fewer repeat images (the multiple photos of NASA or New York, etc.). What is not good is that editors are blanking out or conflating U.S. cultural and historical events just to save space. It's all in good faith, but it's become a problem. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Seconding these concerns. I'm not seeing, as evidenced by edit summaries, that editors are inspecting subsidiary, specialized articles on the United States for the information removed from here being available there. Important information could be lost, otherwise. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
The news sources are probably fine for more recent info. The Cato Institute and the Center for Economic and Policy Research are considered marginally reliable per RSP, although both are used for very minor items. CMD (talk) 06:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
@Golbez: Consensus on WP:RSN is that when written by a "Forbes contributor" a piece from Forbes is considered very unreliable, per WP:FORBESCON. According to WP:FORBES the NH list entry above is fine, but the contributor piece is not. - Aoidh (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
@Dhtwiki. Sure, but on the subject of Britannica, I’d prefer to have a secondary source rather than a tertiary source. This is because secondaries are more direct to where they got the information than tertiaries, who may accidentally have used unreliable sources for their information. In short, I’d try avoiding Britannica because of the off chance they may have gotten the information from a secondary/primary source that is unreliable. Just a precaution from me. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 04:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't automatically dismiss a Britannica citation, and certainly not when the alternative is to have no source at all. The various editions of that encyclopedia are of various quality, but I can't remember coming across an article that's grossly erroneous. The "secondary" and "tertiary" articles you point to are clear that the divide between the two is unclear. It's even possible that a judiciously written primary source would give better information than sources that are supposed to be more even-handed for being written by disinterested parties. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. A census is a primary source, yet we cite them instead of other secondary sources because it is far more reliable. We also shouldn't cite encyclopedias as the secondary sources are usually more authoritative, and in same case these encyclopedias has taken the facts from our own article. I doubt that we need to use marginally reliable sources for an article this broad – usually they are only being used when the topic just need a little bit more info to be long enough for a GAN. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, except the writing skills have declined even more. Will ask for admin intervention if the article deteriorates much further. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I highly doubt that he is a sock. This individual is not bludgeoning the process as severely as the individual you may be thinking about. He also appears to be involved in venues that the other individual appears to not even know. You can still file a SPI, but I think we may be wrong on this one. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I don't sock, canvass, or trying to beat this place up with walls of text, and I can prove that I came here clean. I may have save too frequently or being too aggressive with my edits, but I do respect and value other's contributions. If you guys genuinely don't like me around, I can just fuck off and improve other articles. User:Vaulter, feel free to make an SPI case if you feel that proving me isn't Mrbeastmodeallday is that necessary. FYI, a few days ago they have targeted me with a bunch of socks, making frivolous reports and such. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
SPI clerk comment:@Vaulter, Mason.Jones, and Rockstone35: I would need to see very strong evidence to be convinced that any account registered earlier than Awolf/MBMAD's CBAN is a sock of that user. Where there's evidence of the supposed sock being on another continent (CSC claims to be in Vietnam, IIRC, with viwiki edits and timecard to support that), that evidence would need to be stronger still. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)17:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
"His administration is viewed as one of the biggest political upsets in American history"
I'm sorry if this has already been discussed on this talk page, but wouldn't this line of text at the end of the 21st century section constitute as biased towards a political party? Especially with the following citation for this line coming from a democrat leaning news source, I feel the sentence could at least be rephrased and at most removed.
Most recent administrations in the United States have been viewed by the opposite party as a "political upset," with democrats challenging the election of former President Trump and republicans challenging the election of President Biden. Trump was nowhere near being a well liked candidate on both sides, but calling the entire administration of Trump one of the biggest upsets in US history just overall sounds politically biased, again with a democrat news source as the reference. Johnson524 (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
@Johnson524. I will second Mathglot. The original wording was a blunder and also unencyclopedic. It should have been corrected, and glad you did so. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
"The 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia occupy a combined area of 3,119,885 square miles (8,080,470 km2). Of this area, 2,959,064 square miles (7,663,940 km2) is contiguous land, composing 83.65% of total U.S. land area. The rest is occupied by Hawaii, an archipelago in the central Pacific, and the five populated but unincorporated territories of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands."
The 48 contiguous states are mentioned, Hawaii is mentioned. That's 49 states. Alaska is by far the largest state at 571,951 sq mi (1,481,346 km2, but it is not contiguous with any other state. This needs to be untangled. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I find it strange that on the United States article we list a (D) or (R) right next to the Leaders section in the infobox, yet in literally every other country, political parties are not listed next to the name of individual. Is there a reason for this? I am not sure why this article is the only one to have monikers next to their leaders. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I suspect it is because the two-party system that evolved basically by accident has become the most important way of defining contemporary politicians. There Republicans used to say they had "a big tent" that was inclusive of various types of conservatives, but these days they require that all members be in complete lockstep with the party bosses on every single issue, and will actively campaign against anyone who dares to have an independent thought, deriding them as a RINO. Since it is basically impossible for third party candidates to win elections to national offices, everyone else is a Democrat. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone really object to the removal of them? If there is no objection, I would like to make the article just a little more consistent with the other country infoboxes CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
No objection. "D" and "R" simply reflect great polarization in the U.S. The zeal with which some editors keep appending an "R" after the Supreme Court chief justice—not an elected official—is proof. As the OP says, no other country article gets this POV-partisan, in any language. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Draws WP: Undue attention to the issue. Even within the developed world: Israel, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, amid others, routinely (frequently greater than the current per capita incidence in the United States) apply the death penalty for various routine crimes; additionally, Peru, Brazil, Chile, and a few other developed countries at least partially retain it in exceptional circumstances. (Albeit far less frequently) Taking an even broader perspective, 60% of the global population lives in a country in which the death penalty is applied. I'm failing to see (even within the Western-aligned world) how this is nothing more than WP: Undue. The only reason it seems to be mentioned in the lead is because of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and to give the article a sense of "pro" and "con" balance.
The nation's incarceration rate is exceptional. The fact that several states (and, in exceptional circumstances: the federal government) retain the death penalty isn't.
When you removed it, your comment was, "Multiple developed, wealthy nations (Partially in the East, such as Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, along with Israel, retain the death penalty.) I'm failing to see how this merits inclusion: beyond editors personal opinions on its ethics; whatever it is, it's not exceptional, even in the Western-aligned world. Intentionally placed this in a different edit so the uncontroversial aspects of my changes wouldn't be blanketly reverted."
Israel last executed someone in 1961 (Adolf Eichmann); North Korea, in 1997: in practice they don't execute people. Singapore's last execution was yesterday, when a man was hanged for selling cannabis. He was like most executed prisoners a member of the Malay minority.[3] So I wouldn't exactly call it a liberal democracy.
The U.S. insistence on continuing to execute people is exceptional and worth noting. If Americans don't want it mentioned in articles about ehir country, they can stop doing it. TFD (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
And sorry for rapid changes. Multiple editors were commenting at the same time and it jumbled up the meanings — the updated version is the intended wording. KlayCax (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree. It's one of the more obvious ways in which the US is different from other western nations. NOT mentioning it would be odd. HiLo48 (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Why would it be included for the United States but not a nation such as Japan or Taiwan? Both are instances of liberal democracies that retain the death penalty and actively employ it. Why does the U.S. being a "Western" nation somehow make it magically merit inclusion in the lead? Besides this, as forementioned, significant portions of the United States are abolitionist or abolitionist-in-practice, so the sentence is misleading at the very best. It's nowhere near the standards of WP: Notable in terms of inclusion.
Additionally, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Editors are fine to hold personal opinions about it. But it's not the point of this encyclopedia — and the implication utterly goes against WP: NPOV (It seems to imply that having a death penalty is "wrong" while a stance favoring abolishment is "correct"). If we're going to apply this standard to the United States, we're going to have to imply it to other developed nations such as Japan, Singapore, or Taiwan. This "standard" is utterly inconsistent and contradictory otherwise. KlayCax (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
The USA is the only western nation that kills it's own citizens. In the eyes of the Western World this is a human rights violation beyond measure and is lead worthy without a doubt. This is the main human rights situation in the USA. Crazy they have legal killing in this day and age....view of the world. .... UN request. ....that happens for ever president. Moxy-01:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
When the United States is compared to foreign countries, it's more likely to be compared with other Western nations such as Europe countries, the UK, Australia, NZ and the Americas. While some U.S. states have no death penalty, there is as you mentioned a federal death penalty and non-death penalty states must return fugitives to states that have the death penalty. The fact that most countries have abolished the death penalty and the UN opposes it. Maybe it's a bigger deal outside the U.S. than within. TFD (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Since a federal moratorium by Attorney General Merrick Garland in July 2021, the United States has been abolitionist-in-practice on a federal level. The last time the military (which obviously only has jurisdiction to those in the military) executed someone was John A. Bennett in 1961. America's federalist system has the practice overwhelmingly limited to the 26 states (compromising a minority of the country's total population) that retain it. Much of the country has been abolitionist or abolitionist-in-practice for years.
A majority of polities have abolished the death penalty. A majority of the world's population lives in a polity that retains it. Even in nations that have abolished the practice (including "liberal" countries) polling shows that majorities/substantive minorities support reinstating the practice. (Which I wrote more about here.) KlayCax (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Ipsos is a reliable source and high-quality pollster. And it's not just them: but multiple, repeated polls over the series of the past two decades. KlayCax (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
A bigger deal to who? What makes the United States retention of capital punishment uniquely (in the context of it in of itself) notable? KlayCax (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
What reliable source lists it as a significant, substantive, and notable detriment to the country's image among the global population? A majority of Canadians and a substantive percentage of Europeans (reaching a majority in several major polities) support reinstating capital punishment. Political science research, including by Kern (2007) at the Spanish think tank Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos, has summarized the policy differences on capital punishment between the United States and most of Europe as being rooted primarily in the support of political elites. Stating: "In fact, poll after poll shows that ordinary European citizens favor the death penalty almost as much as do Americans." and that "elite support" explains the inconsistency between a majority of European states and the United States. (Conversely, political elites in Taiwan and Japan hold far more favorable views.) The lack of the death penalty in Europe has far more to do with their opposition than with widespread revulsion among members of the European general population. KlayCax (talk) 08:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Your Canadian source describes it having been "an online survey". I cannot imagine how an online survey can be a proper sample of the Canadian population. The French source just says "opinion polls" No details at all. That means no credibility. I challenge your claims. HiLo48 (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
The fact that most people in Canada and Western Europe support the death penalty and governments don't bring it back shows that it would make them international embarrassments if they did. Anyway, if you support the death penalty, you might want this article to point out U.S. courage in retaining it. TFD (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't support the death penalty. That doesn't make the lead's mention of it proportional or especially notable. KlayCax (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
@KlayCax: I agree, it absolutely shouldn't be mentioned in the lead when it isn't mentioned in Japan's lead, at least. I'm still scratching my head as to why it's in the lead here and not in Japan or Taiwan's lead, just like you are, and I was thinking about this earlier today. @Moxy: I agree with you wholeheartedly that the fact that the US retains the death penalty is one of the greatest blights against our human rights record, but Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs and it can be properly addressed in the crime and safety section of the article. At any rate, I don't think it should be mentioned in the lead. --RockstoneSend me a message!05:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Japan is historically and culturally massively different from the USA. That's why the normal comparison for social matters in the USA is with other western nations, which it could reasonable be expected to be similar too. Japan is close to irrelevant on this matter. HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Then perhaps there needs to be context explaining why it's being mentioned in the lead. The problem with that though is that the lead is already too long. Truly, I fail to see how this can't be explained and given appropriate context and weight in the politics section of the article. -- RockstoneSend me a message!23:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
@Moxy: I don't understand your point. It is certainly true that the death penalty is a grievously grave violation of human rights; and I continue to be ashamed that my country (and especially the state I live in) still practices it. But that's not an argument to include it in the lead; we're not here to right great wrongs by highlighting the shame that the US continues to retain the death penalty in the lead. Also, I notice that it appears no other country or U.S. state which retains the death penalty mentions it in its lead; which really does make note of it in the lead undue. -- RockstoneSend me a message!23:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
@Rockstone35: It shouldn't be mentioned at all. No one has mentioned any convincing argument so far to include it that doesn't rest upon right great wrongs or WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Why is the United States the only country in the world to have it merit a mention? (Beyond weird exceptions such as North Korea which don't specifically focus on the death penalty in of itself: but rather how it's used against X or Y group.) The fact that editors are basing their opposition to keeping it in the lead primarily among ethical or political opposition — rather than Wikipedia policy — is highly problematic and not a justifiable reason for keeping it. This article (or Wikipedia in general)'s purpose isn't being a platform to promote political change. It's an article to chronicle information about the United States. I oppose the death penalty as well. (At least in daily instances.) But it's WP: NPOV and patently ridiculous to have the lead focus on it. Why is the United States the only article to have this standard? Particularly considering that vast portions of the country (compromising a majority of its population) lives in areas that are abolitionist or abolitionist-in-practice. Compare the absolutely glowing Singapore lead vs. the current American one. It's patently ridiculous. How did we get to a consensus in which Singapore's deployment of the death penalty is "not notable and not substantially controversial" in the lead while the United States' having it is somehow magically independently notable? (Or failing to include it in the Japanese or Taiwanese articlse) It's pretty clear this suggested "standard" is horrendously wrong. KlayCax (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
You want WP:OTHERCONTENT, which actually bolsters the argument that it should not be in the lead: " While comparing with other articles is not, in general, a convincing argument, comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, makes a much more credible case". Japan is a Featured article, this article is not. -- RockstoneSend me a message!21:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
As another editor mentioned, Japan, Taiwan and Singapore have vastly different cultures than the U.S. Comparative studies of the U.S. social, political and economic systems are most frequently made with Canada, the UK and Western Europe and rarely with those other countries. In the health care debate for example, Canada, the UK and Western Europe came up frequently, but not Asian countries. The sentence in question begins, "It lacks universal health care, retains capital punishment...." Well they don't have universal health care in Iraq and Afghanistan, two countries that were administered by the U.S., but they have capital punishment. But no one argues the U.S. is not exceptional in lacking universal health care. TFD (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Okay, then we should probably provide context, right? Maybe something like "the US is the only western democracy to retain the death penalty". But I'm still not convinced that it should be in the lead. Honestly, I'm not convinced that lack of universal healthcare should be mentioned in the lead; as someone above pointed out, the US isn't the only country in the west to not have universal healthcare. -- RockstoneSend me a message!23:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
"Western democracy" sounds fine. The only developed country I know of that lacks universal health care is Bermuda, and they plan to introduce it soon. I think both belong in the lead, because it should explain what distinguishes each country, particularly countries that are otherwise similar. TFD (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
The same used by other academics. That said even China has coverage for 95 percent of the population. Moxy-01:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I think it means that if you live in Niagara Falls, New York, a colonoscopy costs $1,175,[4], while in Niagara Falls, Ontario, it's free. TFD (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
This has gone way off-topic, with loyal American editors seemingly trying to defend it against people who THEY think think it's less than perfect. That's not what this discussion needs to be about. The fact that the US stands out among western nations because it still uses the death penalty simply IS significant. It's one of the obvious differences between the US and the countries it's usually compared with. Whether that fact deserves to be in the lead, I'm not sure, but it definitely needs to be mentioned somewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think anyone on this talk page is arguing that it shouldn't be mentioned at all. Of course it should be, you're right that the fact that the US retains the death penalty is worth mentioning in the body of the article. @KlayCax: and I are saying that it should be in the body of the article, like it is for Japan and Taiwan rather than in the lead, where it seems undue. -- RockstoneSend me a message!07:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I think full list should remain, with the yardstick "other wealthy Western democracies." This removes comparison with Mexico and Brazil (highly corrupt developing countries in many measures). The criticism discussed here is typically made by Europeans and our English-speaking "cousins," with some anti-Americanism and resentment about outsize U.S. cultural and economic influence part of it. But they also note that the U.S. holds itself out to the world as a model of liberty and human rights; its government freely criticizes other nations. The current text simply says that the U.S. fails to reach its potential for such a wealthy (and critical) democracy. I agree with those who want it made clear that Japan, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, etc. are excluded from the comparison. There are ways to do that. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Correct ...when talking about any Western Democracy Capital punishment for the USA is a big point for scholars Meares, T.L. (2001). "Crime and Ethnicity (Including Race)". International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier. pp. 2914–2918. doi:10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/02870-9. 3.1.4 The death penalty ;This issue is of particular concern to scholars in the US, as it is the only Western democracy still imposing this sentenceMoxy-16:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Mason Jones that "other wealthy Western democracies" should be the yardstick and the US should not be compared to newer democracies like Brazil, Chile and Taiwan that were literal dictatorships just several decades ago. Regarding the current version of the article, which deliberately excludes high levels of inequality in the US as being "unique among Western democracies," sources I have seen state the exact opposite, such as this one which says "Such studies should fully incorporate the fact that the United States, by many of the standard indicators of inequality, is now the most unequal long-standing democracy in a developed country in the world." I think that something similar to "long-standing democracy in a developed country" could also a useful yardstick. Regardless, the current version is POV and possibly violates WP:OR, unless a reliable source can be found stating that US levels of inequality are not unique among Western democracies. As another example, studies by the OECD have also pointed out that "Income inequality is high in the US, compared to other OECD countries."--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
"Long-standing democracy in a developed country" is a wordy way of saying "It's not India, folks!" It's awkward and unencyclopedic. Hopefully, there's a better way. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Let's make a RfC, @Rockstone35:. Even if the wording didn't pay disproportionate amount of attention to the practice, it's still factually incorrect throughout vast portions of the country. (It has been abolitionist-in-practice on a federal level since 2021 and there hasn't been one by the forces since 1961)
Yep. @Rockstone35:. It shouldn't be in the lead at all. The fact that editors — who I have no doubt have the best of intentions — are primarily suggesting that we need to include it to show that the United States "isn't living up to its full potential" (is any country truly doing this?) and then giving value-judgement laden means for subsequently mentioning it in the lead is extensively problematic. Wikipedia isn't a place for WP: Activism. It's a place to showcase information about the country. I have no doubt that the usage of the death penalty within the United States is an issue. But I also don't think it's particularly notable in a global (or even Western-aligned context.) Besides all of this, since July 2021 the current phrasing is outright misleading. Unless this starts affecting global geopolitics in a truly substantive and notable manner, it shouldn't be included. KlayCax (talk) 07:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The text itself does not provide a value judgment, it just points out how the U.S. differs from the countries most similar to it. Since as you pointed out most people in these other countries want capital punishment reinstated, it shows that the U.S. is more democratic in the sense that legislators are more responsive to voters. The current president, who supports high incarceration rates and the death penalty, while opposing universal health care, the issues discussed in the text, frequently mentions how the U.S., which he calls "this great experiment," is unique. TFD (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
One editor's exposition of U.S. "values" in the lead seems long and, to me, overbaked. I left it but think it's problematic. Also, above I merely said that the social criticism of U.S. inequality, incarceration, etc., comes almost always from its wealthy Western allies: The U.S. recommends its social model to Europe and the English-speaking nations too, yet the U.S. has its own social problems. I think a reference to wealthy Western democracies or closest allies might help clarify the why. Otherwise: no strong feelings about the passage. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I've always read it as a list of negative attributes, but call it whatever you like: an exposition of defects, airing dirty laundry, or encyclopedic frankness. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
They could be if you opposed them. But they are deliberate policies supported by the American public and the leaders of both major political parties. The argument in favor of them is that they reduce crime rates and make individuals take responsibility. TFD (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Obviously, there isn't much of a universal consensus (as shown through history) on what is exactly "moral" and "immoral" behavior. Holding a country to a particularized, narrow conception of morality obviously goes against the notion of WP: NPOV. Wikipedia articles aren't intended to be WP: Activism. They're intended to be a summarization of the country in an encyclopedic tone of voice. I oppose the death penalty (at least in the vast majority of cases: e.g. perhaps men like Adolf Eichmann would be excluded from this) as well. However, it's not the place of Wikipedia to call a policy ethically "good" or "bad" or what not. Our job is to chronicle things per Wikipedia:Notability. KlayCax (talk) 05:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
@Moxy: What is your point here? I (at least) am not arguing that the death penalty is wrong; of course it is, but the United States is not the only liberal democracy to use the death penalty, and in honesty, the death penalty is very rarely exercised here, and most states are abolitionist in practice. I think KlayCax is making the argument that it is undue to mention it in the lead -- and I agree with that wholeheartedly, for the same reason that Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore do not mention it. -- RockstoneSend me a message!18:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The point is that as sourced above its a big deal to all other western countries in this modern age (not Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore non western countries) and to the Justice department itsself despite the POV that it's not with zero sources for the claim. Quote again The United States’ isolation on this fundamental human rights issue has considerable consequences for its foreign relationsMoxy-19:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
KlayCax, I thought I had explained my position clearly but will try again. You are quite correct that there is disagreement about what is or is not moral and articles should not make moral judgments. There is however nothing in the text that holds the U.S. to any particular view. It merely points out that they have a different view from that of similar countries. Maybe they are right and these other countries are wrong. I suppose what may bother you is that you believe the death penalty is wrong and read a criticism into the text. But when Bill Clinton approved an execution of a man in Arkansas, he did not try to hide it, but flew to the state to be present. Obviously he was proud of his actions, unlike for example in the various affairs he had, which he initially denied. TFD (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't agree that most Americans support high inequality, or mass incarceration for nonviolent offenses. (They did 30 years ago, but that has changed. The death penalty is authorized in fewer states every decade.) That discussion's off topic anyway. In the lead, a lengthy series of high U.S. rankings is followed by a rather sober, even somber, listing. It's there because the U.S. has received criticism for these things, and many editors see text like this in the lead as negative finger-pointing and a moral judgment. For that reason, it's removed regularly. Q: Should the listing be explained or qualified? What is the context to mention it at all? As one of the more controversial passages in this article for quite a while, might its wording be finalized and ultimately covered in the FAQs at top? Mason.Jones (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Maybe we should decide this after we shorten the existing lead. It has massively increased already from 599 words to 755 in just two and a half weeks. We should shrink the lead to be similar to Bulgaria’s, which has ~530 words. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
@Collective: Start a new topic thread: "Length" (this one is "Death Penalty"). Also come with better arguments. An article lead about a major power of 331 million won't have the word count of a small nation with the population of Tennessee (6.9 million). Mason.Jones (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
So instead of asking me why I reverted your edit (asked and answered), you should be trying to convince us your edit is proper. IMO, we don't need many posts in the infobox; personally I don't even think we should have the Chief Justice there, and I'm not even too keen on the speaker, but at least that is a constitutional position, unlike majority leader and chief justice. If it were just up to me I'd just have President and VP there, but thankfully it's not just up to me. --Golbez (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I think that we should include the Majority Leader in there because they are the person that holds the real power in the senate. They serve as the spokesperson for the party in control of the senate. You don’t see the Vice President go into the senate chamber and discuss the issues. Interstellarity (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
You cannot say both that they have hold the real power and they are a spokesman for the party. While some house majority leaders, vice presidents, speakers and chief justices have been powerful, others have not. I agree with removing all but the president and vice-president. TFD (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
A "chief justice" is referred to in article one, in reference to presidential impeachment. I have assumed that the CJ is thus a constitutional officer, even if not mentioned in article three. I'm not opposed to the speaker and CJ being listed in the infobox. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
The President, Vice President, Chief Justice, and Speaker of the House should all be listed, as they're all described in the Constitution, and leaders of their respective and coequal branches of government. -- RockstoneSend me a message!03:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Rockstone: list all four—this reflects the importance of the three equal branches of government and the system of checks and balances. The executive has far more power in other countries, and scholars speak of a relatively "weak" U.S. president. (The French, Brazilian, Colombian, and Philippine presidents are all more powerful.) A U.S. exception. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but the president runs the executive branch, while the speaker does not run Congress. In fact, she is speaker of only one house of Congress. TFD (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
To better track this discussion, why don’t we list our arguments in A : It should be changed to just President and Vice President, B : It should remain the same, or C : an alternative proposal. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Question based on ignorance of who these people are. Do these positions have an impact on daily politics and legislation. It's an old article here and they are not mentioned in any way be it in the present or historically? As a Canadian watching international news these people never come up.....are they in the news in the USA.....are they relevant to society?Moxy-02:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
No worries! Well, the Speaker's trip to Taiwan has caused a potential crisis within the Taiwan Strait, so from an international perspective, she is right now relevant. Her actions are important as they set priorities within the House, and she has multiple other powers; her name is mentioned fairly often. The speaker is the closest thing we have in the United States to a prime minister. The chief justice provides the namesake of each supreme court "era"; for example, the current court is referred to as the Roberts Court, and while he does not have more voting power than the other justices, his role as chief justice gives him additional powers, such as to set the docket. He comes up fairly often in the news when the court is in session. He's more powerful than the Chief Justice of Canada. -- RockstoneSend me a message!03:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I am sure that a visit to Taiwan by the Secretary of State would have caused more controversy, so why not mention them too? They are also near the top in the laws of presidential succession. Historically, they are also better remembered.
The reason that Canada's Supreme Court justices are not considered powerful is that there are no major disputes for them to decide. Bora Laskin (1973-1984), who was in office during the patriation of the constitution and the enactment of the Charter of Rights is however better known to most Canadians than Warren E. Burger (1969-1986) was ever known to Americans. And most Americans could not name a single speaker before Tip O'Neill.
I'm not sure it would have caused more controversy, but that's irrelevant. I'm confused as to why we want to remove them from the infobox, especially when the other presidential democracies retain them. This just seems like a waste of time. Aside from that, does it matter if the average person would recognize these people? (and yes, the average American would recognize both Nancy Pelosi and John Roberts) The point of this project is to educate, especially on things that people don't already know. --RockstoneSend me a message!19:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
It's not irrelevant that a visit by the secretary of state would have caused more controversy because your reason for including the speaker is among other things that her "trip to Taiwan has caused a potential crisis within the Taiwan Strait." Info-boxes are supposed to show key facts at a glance, not be lengthy lists of things editors find important. I agree that both Congress and the Supreme Court are co-equal to the executive, but their leaders have very little power over their own branch of government compared with the President. The speaker cannot tell other members of Congress what to do; the Chief cannot tell associate justices what to do. The U.S. president OTOH can tell everyone in the executive what to do. And unlike the other leaders, he can hire or fire them. TFD (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
But it's ***not*** lengthy. Again, it's exactly how the other presidential democracies do things. Take a gander at Mexico or South Korea. Anyhow, the speaker has the power to remove congresspeople from committees, and the chief justice has the power to set the docket (like I said above). Both of those are powerful. Finally, we don't list these members of government based on whether they are powerful or what they have the power to do, but whether they head a branch of government. Otherwise, in a country like India, with a figurehead Head of State, we'd only list the Prime Minister. (Also, India is a Featured Article with 7 people in its infobox, and 4 within the "government" section. Another reason not to get rid of it here). -- RockstoneSend me a message!00:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
B @Mox: They most certainly do "come up" in Canadian as well as European media. And as Rockstone says, the Pelosi visit made international headlines for days. She went in spite of the administration's great displeasure. Three separate and coequal branches, which might be called out with names in infobox (C). Mason.Jones (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
B. After reviewing the arguments, I think that we should keep the article the way it is. The infobox isn’t too long, the leaders can fluctuate in overall influence, and they are nominally co-equal in U.S. law. But of a timesink, perhaps the lead should be shortened, not the infobox. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I think it's safe to say, we've a consensus to exclude the US Senate majority leader. Heck, we also exclude the US Senate president pro tempore. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
That's fair. Exclude all members of the government not explicitly named in the Constitution. So yes President and Vice President, House leader, and Chief Justice. No to all else. RockstoneSend me a message!19:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Removed because (as worded) it inferred that all expansion westward was based on one pernicious ideology, and thus it involved no other social, philosophical, or economic factors whatsoever. Mason.Jones (talk)
I also think it should be included. Even if it wasn't the only ideology centered around expansion, it certainly was a major one that influenced later matters such as the debate over slavery. Perhaps we can say "U.S. territorial expansion was partially encouraged by manifest destiny, even though it was a controversial belief among Democrats and Whigs and never became a national priority." CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
This is better discussed under "History," not in the lead. Democrats, Whigs, and other 19th-century intrigue are inappropriate minutiae for the lead. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
It most certainly was in the lead: removed by KlayCax there on Aug. 25, then added by you under "History: independence and expansion" on Aug. 26. It's too broad a concept for the country lead and shouldn't be restored to "History" without qualifications. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I was referring to my edit that you reverted. My mistake if it was in the lead previously. How about the text proposed by CollectiveSolidarity in the History section. Andre🚐16:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Um, "U.S. territorial expansion was partially encouraged by manifest destiny, even though it was a controversial belief among Democrats and Whigs and never became a national priority.", is the text proposed, it says "partially," so how is that sweeping? Andre🚐18:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
It's oddly phrased, the cause and effect obscured by syntax and Whigs (who were they?). I believe this is supposed to mean: "Although not a significant ideology among 19th-century American politicians (Presidents Lincoln and Grant shunned it), manifest destiny would play a role in U.S. territorial expansion" [then perhaps explain Dems, Whigs, and add source]. Otherwise this isn't clear or useful. Mason.Jones (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
That feels confusing because we're only saying who isn't for manifest destiny and not the people who were in favor of it. It lacks balance because it sounds like we're pretty much only downplaying it, and not casting it in the light that manifest destiny was a controversial, but significant, viewpoint in the early 19th century - and well, into the mid-20th century too I guess.Andre🚐21:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Still better than dancing around the subject with indirect details that are never clarified, which is not good in an encyclopedia. I prefer more direct language from the WP article manifest destiny. This is a doctrine and shouldn't be a word salad about some Whigs. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
You keep mentioning the Whigs, I don't really care about the Whigs (no offense, guys). Can we start with a general thrust of what should be said? Right now we've completely removed the phrase "manifest destiny" from the article despite the sources using it extensively. I mean this is just in any high school U.S. history textbook. How about this: "U.S. territorial expansion and imperialism was a controversial topic, justified by some such as Jacksonian Democrats, by the concept of manifest destiny. Lincoln Republicans and anti-imperialists did not support manifest destiny." Andre🚐22:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Editors Andrevan and Collective are hyping a cultural idea. It's the WP article manifest destiny that downplays its role, not I. That article's lead emphasizes that (1) the idea was contested, (2) it was rarely cited other than in war with Mexico and in Oregon land disputes, (3) the idea "always limped along because of its internal limitations", and (4) it was rejected by prominent Americans ("did not support it" is a rewrite). As for imperialism, that comes at the end of the 19th century and the term can't be thrown around twice in a short sentence about pioneers and new territories. And "anti-imperialist"? I don't think so. The two editors are in the Spanish-American War; this is much earlier westward expansion. The sentence has to be as sober as the WP link—no ideological ax to grind. Mason.Jones (talk)
Agree that "manifest destiny" is a term that, in the nineteenth century at least, was peculiar to the (re)annexation of Texas, the attempt to expand slavery, and the Mexican–American War. By slipshod extension perhaps, it came to be a catchword for all white expansionist impulses and achievements. Now that we are apt to be more aware of those who were harmed by that expansion, it is likely to be treated as something dirty, so is conflated with "imperialism" and "colonialism". Since it doesn't really express a coherent set of widely shared ideals, and especially because we barely mention the annexation and the war, "manifest destiny" doesn't belong in the article. It is linked from the annexation article, which is directly linked from this article. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
That article shows that people such as Bryan objected to such usage. It was seen to be a questionable extension of the term at the time. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I suggest you sign your posts with four tildes, Mason Jones. I'm not sure what you mean by "hyping a cultural idea." Manifest destiny was a topic I learned about in high school U.S. history, and I don't understand how the article on the U.S. can not mention it at all. Forget imperialism for the moment. How about something like this: "U.S. territorial expansion was a controversial topic, justified by some such as Jacksonian Democrats, by the concept of manifest destiny. Others such as Lincoln Republicans did not support it." Andre🚐21:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I believe that as long as it is mentioned somewhere and has information that it was a controversial topic with varying levels of support, the appropriate information will have been conveyed. Besides, this is definitely a topic to be included considering it gets over half a million page views a year[citation needed] and is rated High-Importance at Wikiproject U.S. history. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Manifest Destiny shows a daily average of 1,260, which isn't terribly high (United States has a daily average of 46,524). There are probably many subsidiary articles on US history that have a high viewership and that don't get linked to from this article. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
@Andrevan. Oddly and weakly worded ("justified by some such as") and—a reminder again—you've trashed the direct language of the WP link manifest destiny ("prominent Americans rejected" becomes "did not support"). MF was a cultural idea, and you seem determined to transform it into a 19th-century governmental blueprint for westward expansion. With your last post, I sense a moral crusade that relies on sowing doubt and innuendo. Please stick to the WP article. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I think you're lacking in assuming good faith, as I am not on a moral crusade or sowing doubt whatsoever. We aren't looking to summarize or cite the WP article but the source material. I'm going to start an RFC since we seem to be at an impasse with your latest comment. Manifest destiny is US history 101. Andre🚐15:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
You've apparently equated not mentioning Manifest Destiny in this article with whitewashing American history. What books treat M.D. as "US history 101"? Are they high school and college general survey textbooks, or specialist books? I have found a surprising lack of discussion of it in textbooks that I have (I'm, however, quite aware of the phrase). Dhtwiki (talk) 05:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
This is an embarassingly standard topic in the majority of middle school social studies curricula. For example "McGraw Hill US History Chapter 13" Just on the first page of Google results for "social studies textbook "manifest destiny"" [6][7][8][9][10][11]Andre🚐19:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
01:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Image 1, cropped from image 2
Image 2, full-disk view of Earth
Image 3, excluding Alaska
SPI clerk comment: @Vaulter, Mason.Jones, and Rockstone35: I would need to see very strong evidence to be convinced that any account registered earlier than Awolf/MBMAD's CBAN is a sock of that user. Where there's evidence of the supposed sock being on another continent (CSC claims to be in Vietnam, IIRC, with viwiki edits and timecard to support that), that evidence would need to be stronger still. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
13:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
