Talk:United States/Archive 109

Archive 105

←

Archive 107

Archive 108

Archive 109

Archive 110

Archive 111

→

Archive 114

U.S. vs. US

A Canadian editor just made a blanket style change from the American initialism "U.S." to the Commonwealth "US". In fact, the "default" argument in his edit summary does not apply to American usage, which is standard in WP articles about American people and places. There is no consensus yet to make such a global change. 71.255.77.207 (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not the right location for general issues affecting other articles. I suggest this is raised with the editor in question, and if a dispute persists then raising it at an appropriate noticeboard. CMD (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I refer to this very article, "United States". For the last 15 years, "U.S." (American usage: with periods) has appeared instead of "US" (British-Canadian usage: no periods). A Canadian editor, "Graham", just replaced every mention of "U.S." with "US" in this article. The choice of "U.S." vs. "US" was always debated here on this Talk page in the past. 71.255.77.207 (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure of what relevance my nationality (which you've mentioned twice now) is here, especially given that MOS:US explicitly makes no distinction between American and Canadian English. Graham (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: - no, this is the right article, as the change was unilaterally made here. I've undone it. WP:MOS is clear. Graham11 - please don't make changes like that again without broad consensus. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you IP and Rockstone, reading back I misinterpreted blanket change as width rather than depth. CMD (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Please see my response below. Graham (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The MOS does not mandate the use of "U.S." in articles using American English. It does, however, mandate the use of "US" in articles that also use initialisms to refer to other countries, irrespective of the national variety of English used in the article. Graham (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Graham11

Hi Graham11, I've undone your edit to United States, as it does not follow consensus or the MOS. The MOS is clear: "retain U.S. in American or Canadian English articles in which it is already established, unless there is a good reason to change it". There was no good reason to change it here. There was only a single instance of "UK" being used; I've fixed that by changing it to "United Kingdom". Please don't make changes like that again without getting consensus. Thank you! -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

There was a rather good reason to change it; that is, to bring the article into compliance with the sentence immediately following the one you quoted from the MOS: Because use of periods for abbreviations and acronyms should be consistent within any given article, use US in an article with other country abbreviations. It's self-evident that bringing an article into compliance with another provision of the MOS is a "good reason" within the meaning of that provision.

That this is a "good reason" is reinforced by the fact that the sentence which you quoted in part (For commonality reasons, use US by default when abbreviating, but retain U.S. in American or Canadian English articles in which it is already established, unless there is a good reason to change it) links to MOS:RETAIN. MOS:RETAIN provides:

Sometimes the MoS provides more than one acceptable style or gives no specific guidance. The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that "When either of two styles is acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change."

Where the existing style is not compliant with the MOS, it is not what MOS:RETAIN considers an "acceptable style" and therefore MOS:RETAIN does not apply.

Rockstone35, while you may not like the way in which the article was brought into conformity with MOS:US, preferring instead to change "UK" to "United Kingdom" – and I am happy to discuss the merits of my edit – I must ask that you retract your assertion that my edit "does not follow ... the MOS".

Additionally, I am wondering why you reverted revision 1183909631 (which had the edit summary Fixing typos) and revision 1183909817 (which had the edit summary Fmt citations). And if we are to use "U.S.", one should probably change the existing uses of "US" in the article (in reference to the Census Bureau and the EPA). Graham (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

This article uses American English, and there is no compelling reason to change a huge number of references to "U.S." to "US", which is disruptive. Changing "UK" to "United Kingdom" to satisfy the MOS is significantly less disruptive. The entire spirit of MOS:RETAIN is to avoid disruption. As for why I reverted those other edits, it was the easiest way to return to the last version of the article where U.S. was the norm (I really don't want to go through hundreds of cases of "US" and bring it back to "U.S.". I guess I could have used sed or something). In any case, if you really think that we should use "US" instead of "U.S.", then you could do an RFC. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

This article uses American English, and there is no compelling reason to change a huge number of references to "U.S." to "US", which is disruptive. Changing "UK" to "United Kingdom" to satisfy the MOS is significantly less disruptive. The entire spirit of MOS:RETAIN is to avoid disruption. The MOS only calls for retention of the existing style where that style does not otherwise contravene the MOS. Again, you seem to be making an argument here for bringing the article into conformity into the MOS in a different way than I did, rather than making an argument for why my edit "does not follow ... the MOS". I would ask that you either substantiate your accusation that I am disregarding the MOS or retract it.

As for why I reverted those other edits, it was the easiest way to return to the last version of the article where U.S. was the norm (I really don't want to go through hundreds of cases of "US" and bring it back to "U.S.". ...) Why would you have to "go through hundreds of cases of 'US'"? The edits I was referring to were made in separate revisions, each of which were labelled in the edit summary. Graham (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Graham: "U.S.", like "D.C.", has been the text style in this article since 2005. Periods with those two initialisms are pretty standard in American English, and still predominate. Yes, one exception: for footnotes and source citations where the original article used "US". But no to changing even one "U.S." to "US" in general text, because that introduces inconsistency and is unsightly. 71.255.77.207 (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Whether you view it as "unsightly" in this particular article is irrelevant per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Graham (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

It is actually relevant whether it is unsightly, because that's what the consensus here has been. You are disregarding the spirit, if not the letter, of the MOS, which is designed to reduce disruption, like I said. I find it hard to believe that you thought changing 100+ references of U.S. to US was less disruptive than changing one reference to UK to United Kingdom, but assuming good faith... OK. At least now that you know better, you won't do it again, right? --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Beginnings (before 1630)

I suggest the above subheading be updated to "Indigenous inhabitants". Is this acceptable? The current heading is vague and does not reflect current thinking on American history. Rwood128 (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2023

In foreign relations, it says 30 nato members but recently this year, Finland joined nato turning 30 into 31 nato members.HelpingWorldMobile (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC) HelpingWorldMobile (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@HelpingWorldMobile and HelpingWorld: how does this work:[1] I think it makes more sense to just remove the count from this article; it's already correct and explained in the NATO article linked in the sentence. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it would make more sense to remove the number.HelpingWorldMobile (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Already done M.Bitton (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Cleanup

I am going through the article a section at a time to copyedit, clean up, source content, and spot check existing sources. I've looked through the many FA, GA, and PR archives listed above and noted that size and sourcing were the two main issues.

I'm using a tool that flags sources a potentially problematic. I've listed the flagged sources below:

• https://blog.nyhistory.org/coined-phrase-united-states-america-may-never-guess/
• http://www.history.com/topics/bill-of-rights
• https://www.britannica.com/topic/Playboy
• https://www.peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=2829
• http://www.statista.com/statistics/214833/state-of-the-nation-before-presidential-elections/
• https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/where-g7-headed
• https://www.oecd.org/about/members-and-partners/
• https://www.cfr.org/blog/happy-231st-birthday-united-states-coast-guard
• https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/assets/corporate/docs/about-us/research/publications/global-wealth-databook-2022.pdf
• https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2018/06/contempt-poor-us-drives-cruel-policies-says-un-expert
• https://www.commonwealthfund.org/press-release/2020/new-international-report-health-care-us-suicide-rate-highest-among-wealthy
• https://www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/about-us-policy-and-campaigns/gross-domestic-philanthropy-feb-2016.pdf
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Julia-Child

This doesn't mean that the facts are wrong or that the sources necessarily need to be upgraded. They just need scrutiny, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello Shoreranger, you removed the Norse colonies, which is fine, but the heading still begins at 1000 AD. Do you mind adjusting the heading to give a date that reflects the body text? Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Good point, will do. Shoreranger (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

What about adding: 'Greenland was the first part of North America to be colonized by Europeans. Settlers from Iceland and Norway arrived there in 986. Then, around 1000, a temporary colony was established in Newfoundland at L'Anse aux Meadows'? Rwood128 (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The Norse attempts to colonize North America is significant, but there is no good evidence that they reached anywhere within the current boundaries of the U.S., which is the limiting factor in this context. Shoreranger (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

A further thought. The history of the USA as a British colony didn't begin in 1492. Rwood128 (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

True, but Florida was the first Spanish colonial possession in what would become the U.S., which is what this paragraph should be getting at. Could be worded better. Shoreranger (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, the early Spanish voyages explored to some degree the United States Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Navassa Island which are a part of the United States, and Cuba which once was a protectorate. The Norse explorations did not make lasting settlements beyond Greenland, and there's no evidence that explored the present-day US. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

First paragraph has too many "it" refs.

Recent edits have introduced too many clunky references to "it" at beginning of the lede. One way to fix this is: "The United States (not "It") is the world's third-largest country..." 71.255.77.207 (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistent linking style

I already addressed this issue in some of my edit summaries: There is inconsistency throughout this article regarding the linking of country ranking lists: Sometimes, the attribute to which the linked article refers to is linked along (e.g., "The U.S. is the world's largest importer and second-largest exporter, as well as the largest consumer market"), while in other cases, only the word "largest" is linked (e.g., " […] the U.S. possesses by far the largest amount of wealth of any country." I don't care about which style should be used throughout the article (though I think the first variant looks cleaner), but it would be nice if someone could change the links accordingly so that they are at least consistent. Thanks in advance. Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I now cleaned up the lead section according to the first variant (but without linking "world's" along to be consistent with the lead section's first paragraph's sentence about the population, in which we can't link the word "world" consistently because "Americas" is already linked separately). However, there are still many more cases in this article of said inconsistent linking, just so that you know. I'll change them accordingly if I see them, but you are still welcome to help. Maxeto0910 (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Request for Comment: What should the lead mention regarding the United State's record?

Should the lead mention inequality, incarceration, human rights, low corruption, and the US as a "melting pot"? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a lack of consensus for any of the listed to be included in the lead of the article. Per WP: ONUS, all should not be included in the lead at the present time, although several editors in the RFC believe that some merit inclusion. (Without a clear agreement on what those things are.) Aquillion, KlayCax, and Rockstone all gave good arguments for inclusion/exclusion, although none of their arguments seemed to be particularly more convincing than the others. Editors have widely expressed concern that the lead has grown far too long. However, there was no consensus on how to fix the issue, or essentially any other forms of agreement among editors beyond this. (non-admin closure) StardustToStardust (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

---

}}

Oppose all- Firstly, while the notion of the United States being "melting pot" has some support in the literature, it is not universally agreed upon.

The article itself mentions that concepts such as the country being a "salad bowl" have also found support. One would tend to assume that per capita immigration would be more notable than total net immigration. Countries such as United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, British Virgin Islands, Monaco, Liechenstein, et al. far surpass these totals per capita. The other things also have immense problems and should be similarly removed.

• Using liberal democracy as a metric is heavily problematic and presents many problems

1.) Why are we using liberal democracy here instead of, say, a global comparison? (As is overwhelmingly done.)

2.) What are we classifying as a liberal democracy?

Chile, Israel, Uruguay, and Turkey have all been to varying extents classified as such, and have higher levels of income inequality than the United States — the country is classified as "medium" Gini — but do not have it mentioned in their respective leads. While as a social democrat I personally believe that the United States should take more steps to reduce income inequality. There is overwhelming evidence (scroll down to see image) that it ranks just about average globally in this metric. It would also seem to necessitate other lengthy, verbose statements in this article's (and others) lead. People could argue that: (and I'm not seriously suggesting this)

• The United States is the only Western, liberal democracy to recognize the death penalty in certain states and de jure federally. Because of this, it should be mentioned in the lead.
• Shouldn't countries such as Monaco, Canada, and New Zealand have it mentioned in their leads for having some of the highest housing prices among liberal democracies?
• Chile, Uruguay, and other nations are liberal democracies that have a higher Gini than the United States. This would seem to necessitate mention in their articles. Maintaining the status quo presents many problems.

For others:

• Human rights (and to a lesser extent corruption) are somewhat subjective and hard to define. I'm personally not in favor of these things being listed in many countries article's leads because of this.

The vast majority of this stuff is unneeded for the lead and comes across as editors attempting to make the U.S. look good/bad. Get rid of all of it. KlayCax (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion as outlined at the last 2 RFC about this. Can drop liberal democracy as this tells readers nothing.Moxy- 23:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Include liberal democracy and melting pot these are key topics in any introductory middle school US history and politics textbook. A standard social studies topic area. "Salad bowl" can be contrasted as well with melting pot. Andre🚐 23:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Saying or liking to liberal democracy (or Western democracy for us old timers ) isn't very useful we should be saying what type of democracy it is. But in this case we should be saying developed countries. Moxy- 23:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per last RfC on this and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support everything except inequality. I'm not convinced the US is truly more unequal than the average liberal democracy. The US's incarceration rate is only remarkable when contrasted to other liberal democracies (it is 6th in the world now), which is why the lead currently is comparing against other liberal democracies. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Premature RfC. Maybe, maybe not, it doesn't make sense to group these all together in one RfC, and the discussion has not even reached the point where anyone has brought forward any relevant sources (say a similar tertiary source on the United States) demonstrating due weight or lack of, or even made any decent reference to the body text to argue due weight or lack of. CMD (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose all. The lead should be the absolute broadest summary of American history, geography, and system of government, with maybe a little about American culture. We absolutely should not be sprinkling in details about specific issues. At best, they're undue. At worst, they're active attempts by editors to stick their own pet issues into the lead. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  That's how I feel as well. A lot of this needs cut out. KlayCax (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and the significant emphasis on these things given in the sources, especially for inequality (which should probably have even more focus in the lead than it does now given the massive amount of focus it gets); however, corruption and human rights may require tweaks. All of these broad topics have focus and coverage in sources comparable to most other things already in the lead. Inequality in particular has, at a glance, the most coverage of all these things by a significant margin, so it ought to be included regardless of if people don't personally believe the US is more unequal than other nations. Regardless of how individuals feel about it, it has massive amounts of coverage in sources discussing the US as a whole and therefore deserves coverage here. Arguing about how the US compares to other nations (with the implicit statement that sources shouldn't give it the focus they do) is WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS thinking. And even beyond that, comparisons to other nations aren't even a policy-based criteria - we include stuff in the lead based on weight and focus in sources. If every nation has sources discussing inequality in the lead, then we would have sources discussing inequality in the lead for every nation, just like we do for eg. system of government and economy and other things that get major focus for every nation. The purpose of a lead isn't to be "fair" for an editor's personal notion of fairness but to reflect the balance and focus of the sources. However, academic coverage of corruption and human rights in the US rarely focuses on just "does better than other nations"; these are not untrue statements but they're not the main thrust of coverage, so we might want to tweak how we describe them. We may also want to tweak the melting pot sentence to "often described as..." or the like because while the descriptor is significant and WP:DUE for mention in the lead (and we have enough secondary sources about the term's usage that a general attribution like that wouldn't be WP:WEASEL; it is a frequently-used descriptor and is covered that way), it has a complex history and is not uncontroversial in its meaning. --Aquillion (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  Concur. Shoreranger (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. (Summoned by bot). Considering WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, I can see the following in the body:

• 3 sentences mentioning "inequality".
• 1 paragraph discussing incarceration or prisons.
• No mention of "human rights" outside the current lead, but discussion of various types of rights
• No mention of corruption outside the current lead.
• 1 sentence mentioning "melting pot"

There may be other mentions that have escaped my crude keyword search approach. If the above is an accurate survey of the body (and I'm not definitively saying it is), I'd say there could be a case for including the following in the lead: inequality and incarceration. The others, not so much.

This of course is all on the assumption that everything in the current body is covered with due weight.

More generally, I think we should take great care with any elements that represent current political issues. The United States is a big place with a lot of history, and the bar should be very high for including any aspect in a four-paragraph summary. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support: WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and backed by RS. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment – The lead already contains the text: The U.S. ranks highly in international measures of quality of life, income and wealth, economic competitiveness, human rights, innovation, and education; it has low levels of perceived corruption. It has higher levels of incarceration and inequality than most other liberal democracies and is the only liberal democracy without universal healthcare. As a melting pot of cultures and ethnicities, the U.S. has been drastically shaped by the world's largest immigrant population. With appropriate linking. What is it that needs to be changed? Dhtwiki (talk) 03:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

A lot of editors (including me) have argued that all of these things should be removed from the article. Melting pot, human rights, and corruption mentions come across as pro-American POV pushing. Universal healthcare, incarceration, and inequality come across as the inverse. WP: Leadfollowsbody does not mean that everything in the body has to be included in the lead. (Particularly when it is subjective or controversial... such as human rights.) KlayCax (talk) 06:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose incarceration, low corruption, and "melting pot" because there are competing views on these topics. Support inequality but qualified according to the sources. Senorangel (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support as to match what you would normally learn about the country [2].204.237.50.190 (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Since I mentioned the massive number of sources that focus on these things in my rationale above, here's what I found going over them. This isn't exhaustive because anyone who glances at Google Scholar can find massive numbers of highly-cited papers about each and every one of these things. Note that all the papers below have received hundreds or even thousands of citations:

• Inequality has massive amounts of high-quality academic sources specifically discussing inequality in the United States from numerous angles; it could probably support a sentence in the lead all to itself.
• Incarceration also has a ton of coverage; not quite as much as inequality, but enough to support a mention in the lead.
• There is a lot of coverage of how the United States relates to human rights, but rarely just from the perspective of discussing the country's own human rights record, and more often in the context of discussing how either its limitations or how it affects US foreign policy. See eg.
• Sources on corruption are more sparse (still a lot, just not comparable to eg. inequality) and don't, at a glance, have a single unifying theme; most of them talk about the corruption that does exist rather than focusing on corruption in the US being low in absolute or relative terms. This isn't to say that the statement is untrue; the sources do support and mention it. But it doesn't instantly leap off a source search as a single unifying theme with massive academic coverage the way "the US has heavily-covered problems with inequality" or "the US has a massive amount of mass incarceration" do.
• The concept of the US as a melting pot has massive coverage, often as part of discussing both immigration and assimilation in the US; however, the term is treated as something with a complex and sometimes contested history in terms of its meaning, rather than as a simple statement of fact - we should cover it, but we might want to tweak our wording.

Obviously as mentioned there's a lot more; these are just the first few sources with hundreds of cites to them (and in the case of inequality in particular, most of those are in the thousands, and there were many, many many more.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Generally support those points, but I want to share my concern over the use of the term "melting pot" because it does not have a universally accepted definition, which may itself be argued to be intentional by some factions. On the other hand, if the amorphous nature of the definition is covered well enough in the Wiki article on it, so if it is linked that may allay some concerns, but not all. Shoreranger (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

References
References

For this sort of high-level article, and especially for the lead of this high-level article, sources on a specific topic do not provide a clear picture of due weight. We could probably find thousands of sources for every single item mentioned in the article. A better point of comparison would be similarly high-level coverage. The obvious comparison, Britannica, mentions diversity/immigration and economic inequality, but not the other topics under discussion (incarceration, human rights, corruption). Looking internally, an en.wiki-focused approach would be to consider the article body puts emphasis on, and seeing how best to summarize that in the WP:LEAD. CMD (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

High or low corruption can come and go depending on the government. It is usually not included in the long-term history of a country. Incarceration is discussed in a paragraph in the article body. The complicated context and reasons for it are not discussed. So I am not sure it should be picked out for the lead. Senorangel (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The only problem I have with mentioning incarceration is that the US has made great strides to reduce its incarceration rate. It no longer has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world. Of course, to say that the incarceration rate will continue to decline is a bit WP:CRYSTAL... but I hope so! --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

What source is there for this statement?

• Gramlich, John (August 18, 2021). "America's incarceration rate falls to lowest level since 1995". Pew Research Center. The U.S. incarceration rate fell in 2019 to its lowest level since 1995, according to recently published data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the statistical arm of the Department of Justice. Despite this decline, the United States incarcerates a larger share of its population than any other country for which data is available.
• "United States profile". Prison Policy Initiative. May 19, 2022. With nearly two million people behind bars at any given time, the United States has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world.
• "Incarceration Rates by Country 2023". World Population by Country 2023 (Live). The United States leads the world in total number of people incarcerated, with more than 2 million prisoners nationwide

Moxy- 14:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Moxy: World Prison Brief. See List of countries by incarceration rate for more detail; it is now #6 in the world and has dropped precipitously due to COVID-19. Note that your last citation (World Population By Country) is still accurate: in absolute numbers, the US has the highest total number of people incarcerated. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC needed? Emancipation Proclamation

Should the history section mention the Emancipation Proclamation?

I have restored this to the section on the Civil War. (diff) Comments about whether we need an RfC on this are welcome... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality of lead section

Regarding the most recent edit: In my opinion, it's very undue to not mention the U.S.' scientific and cultural position at all when it's clearly the world's largest hub for scientific research and technological innovation, and arguably the most (but certainly one of the most) culturally influential country, especially considering that featured articles such as Japan and, in case of the scientific role, Germany (because the country is not a cultural superpower), do exactly that. Having just one brief sentence about each aspect seems highly appropriate to me.

Also, mentioning the most meaningful and common criteria for measuring economic, scientific, military and cultural power, such as the size of its consumer market, R&D expenditure, defense budget and cultural popularity around the world in various media, has nothing to do with "Repeating multiple times about how economically/culturally awesome the country is" (regardless of legth; I'm only referring to objectivity here).

I also wouldn't consider the lead section "way too long" after the shortening of the 3rd paragraph, especially the last paragraph. Its length seems more or less proportional to the total size of the article now, and there's just very much to say about the U.S., even if summarized into only the most important key aspects. However, not mentioning said aspects at all is clearly unneutral from my point of view, which is why I think there should be at least one brief sentence about the U.S.' scientific and cultural position. Maxeto0910 (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

It already is mentioned in the lead: It wields considerable global influence as the world's foremost political, cultural, economic, military, and scientific power. KlayCax (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@KlayCax: You may want to fix the error you introduced into the lead after refreshing your memory: Attack on Pearl Harbor -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 12:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the reviews on this article that take issue with the size. At one point, the page clocked in at 35,000 words and required so many citations that the templates broke.[3] The issue with weight is that readers engage with a topic by moving from [first sentence] to [first paragraph] to [lead section] to [other sections] to [other articles],[4] and so those areas should form a spectrum from most notable to least notable. There may be an argument for altering the organization of the lead (to use the first paragraph for emphasis), but expanding it beyond a certain point will promote skimming and reduce the impact of the added information. If you check out the lengthy discussions on Wikipedia talk:Article size, the current lead already exceeds the average words read in a Wikipedia article. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

As I said, there is simply very much to write about the U.S., especially its global perspective, which the last (and, in my opinion, paradoxically shortest) paragraph of the lead section is about, even if summarized into only the most important information, which is why this article is probably inherently longer than many other country articles. Nevertheless, I think what was removed is clearly among the things that are crucial for many lay persons and non-Americans to understand and get an adequate picture of why the U.S. is so powerful and influential in science and culture:

I think it was better when it was explained in 2 short sentences each why the U.S. is a scientifically and culturally leading country, instead of just dropping the areas in which the U.S. is a global leader in a listing-like last sentence. As far as I can remember, this "foremost power in x/y" sentence has also been toned down a few times into "one of" and discussed on the talk page, and I think if the last paragraph contained what was removed, this would be less likely to happen because it reads much more coherently and more like a confirmation when it was already established a few sentences earlier that the U.S. is a scientific and technological leader in many fields, with the highest R&D expenditure, as well as a cultural superpower whose culture is internationally known in numerous areas. I simply do not quite understand why and find it very undue that other, way shorter country articles (and even some featured ones) contain said information in their lead section dealt with in more than just one word in a listing-like last sentence, even if their scientific and technological sector and cultural influence is way smaller than that of the U.S. Maxeto0910 (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@Maxeto0910. I can sense your frustration, but each country article is sui generis. Each will tend to address a different range of topics (or purposely avoid sensitive ones). It really depends on the country and editors from that country. American editors are very aware of their country's status in the world and, I believe, consciously try to tone down any triumphalism and repetition of superlatives. They also address more difficult events in U.S. history. Other countries and their editors can be more sensitive, and that's reflected in their articles. Inconsistency among country articles in WP really can't be resolved, and we must just accept that. 71.255.77.207 (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I know. This article is of course inherently very America-centric in the English-language Wikipedia (even more ethnocentric than the articles of other English-speaking countries), so it should come at no surprise that highlighting the U.S.' leading role in economy, science, technology, research, culture etc. in a proportional manner is unwanted, as this is already an evident and well-known fact for Americans, although it would only be neutral to do so from an unbiased global perspective. Maxeto0910 (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Max: I think the American editors here strive for proportionality, seeking to limit bombast and reduce overkill of national superlatives. The U.S. is a superpower, its short history is far more complicated, and so consensus is often harder to reach. Please realize that, and continue your good work. 71.255.77.207 (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Achievements in science, technology, and research have extensive overlap and should not come across as three separate areas. They are also implied by winning the Space Race, international rankings, and superpower status across many domains, although American cultural exports could be mentioned more. Senorangel (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Human rights is still in the lead. I am not opposed to having it, but at the same time, the struggle for racial equality should not have been omitted. It is as important and defining to the country as immigration and democracy are. Without it, the United States would not have experienced its only civil war, nor one of the largest human rights movements in the 20th century. It would not have become so polarized from having its first Black president and by what he represented.

I supported placing more emphasis on the American landing on the moon and its status as the leading superpower. The unique historical role that race has played in the country also deserves to be mentioned, not just alluded to. No matter your feelings about the subject, there is no denying that it is a part of the nation's identity. Senorangel (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Total area of the United States

The US Article on wikipedia states the US is 3,796,742 square miles. Every website has a different answer on how many sq miles the US is, https://data.census.gov/profile?q=United+States&g=010XX00US says its 3,809,525 square miles while other sources put it as in the range of 3.5 million to 3.9 million and https://www.census.gov/geographies/reference-files/2010/geo/state-area.html states the total us square mile area is 3,805,927 which is mentioned in the geography section of the United States articles, also other wikipedia articles like Geography of the United States puts it as 3,794,100 and List of countries and dependencies by area lists it as 3,796,741. How do we know which ones right? `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 02:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

We probably should list it as a range, i don't know how anyone would know exactly which one is correct. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2023

Change the last sentence of the first paragraph of the cuisine section (New World crops, especially corn and potatoes, and the native turkey as the main course are part of a shared national menu on one of America's most popular holidays, Thanksgiving, when many Americans make or purchase traditional dishes to celebrate the occasion.)

To:

New World crops, especially corn, potatoes, and the main course turkey, are part of a shared national menu on Thanksgiving: when many Americans make or purchase traditional dishes to celebrate the occasion.

This edit conveys the same information, so no new citations are needed. I feel this communicates the facts in a more easy to read and neutral manner. NayR5 (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I have changed the sentence. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of 9/11 in the lead?

September 11 attacks are considered a very important event in the history of the United States, but why is it not mentioned? Parham wiki (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but other significant things also aren't included, such as the events of January 6th 2021, the rise of China as a super power, the very high crime/murder rates, etc. The lede is quite long as it is. Rwood128 (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I feel 9/11 should be mentioned in the lead it is by far one of the most important events in americas modern history. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Fashion

The fashion section is borrowed from the largely uncited lead (which is fine for a lead) of another article. The sources in it do not verify the content. For example, the second paragraph mentions:

• designer labels such as Ralph Lauren Corporation, Calvin Klein, J.Crew, Michael Kors, Alexander Wang, Vera Wang, Marc Jacobs, Oscar de la Renta, Diane von Furstenberg, Donna Karan, and Victoria's Secret but I don't see them mentioned in the article
• Manhattan but the article is mainly about California and I don't see Manhattan.
• Abercrombie & Fitch and Eckō Unltd more specific labels that I can't find in the article.
• niche markets, such as pre teens but there doesn't seem to be any discussions of age-based market in the article
• A new trend in the United States towards sustainable clothing has led to the emergence of organic cotton T-shirts but the article is talking about grapes, not cotton?
• labels such as BeGood Clothing the article describes BeGood primarily as a retailer rather than a fashion label.
• New York Fashion Week is not mentioned, so
• one of the most influential fashion weeks in the world seems to be un-sourced as well

I initially removed the section when I noticed that the sources were all bogus,[5] but Castncoot immediately added it back,[6] so for now I have added failed verification tags. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• • Did you not even notice that I changed the content and found the new CNN source, which is absolutely a reliable and verifiable source? Isn't that irresponsible of you to tag something without even verifying that what you're tagging fails verification? You know this section has a notable subarticle, Fashion in the United States is about what people are wearing in the U.S., which is one of the strongest cultural genres. Have you ever thought about modifying the wording of a sentence to meet your expected threshold of concordance with the source? And how many hundreds or thousands of sources are out there that say that New York Fashion Week sets the global fashion industry tone? Seriously, I'm baffled by your lack of cooperation here to the point where I'm trying to WP:AGF here but you're really making that process alone very challenging. Castncoot (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

    @Castncoot: you to tag something without even verifying that what you're tagging fails verification? [...] your lack of cooperation here feel free to strike to any bad faith accusations towards me. I did check your sources. From both my comment above and my edit summaries, I have made clear that I am checking the sources. It's not my expected threshold of concordance with the source; it's WP:V a core policy. It is 100% not any other editor's to find the sources for what you add to an article. Is the first sentence of the section you added something that you wrote based on the CNN source? Or is it something drawn directly from Fashion in the United States which cannot be verified from the CNN article? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

    • • Respectfully speaking, we both clearly have very different interpretations about the way sources work. Most people including myself attribute sources to the statement that they are intended to source. Your interpretation of sources is that they support all statements posted after the last cited reference. Also, I expect a source to verifiably support a statement. It appears that you practically expect the source to mimic the posted statement. These fundamental differences won't be resolved in one conversation as they've taken years to develop in each of our mindsets. So let's just try to collaborate going further, a little give and take, etc. Best, Castncoot (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

        @Castncoot: Your interpretation of sources is that they support all statements posted after the last cited reference. Almost. My expectation is that any content in a Wikipedia article can be directly supported by an inline reference or, for very short articles, a general reference. I think "last cited" is a best practice (WP:TSI), but would accept them in a weird place so long as a reader could reasonably find them. It appears that you practically expect the source to mimic the posted statement. No, I am expecting the facts/details in the Wikipedia article to be present in the source. For example, you have added this web page: https://goodonyou.eco/most-ethical-and-sustainable-clothing-brands-from-us/ as a source following this content: The headquarters of many leading designer labels such as Ralph Lauren Corporation, Calvin Klein, J.Crew, Michael Kors, Alexander Wang, Vera Wang, Marc Jacobs, Oscar de la Renta, Diane von Furstenberg, Donna Karan, and Victoria's Secret, reside in Manhattan. Labels such as Abercrombie & Fitch and Eckō Unltd. cater to various niche markets, such as pre teens. There has been a trend in the United States fashion towards sustainable clothing.^diff My reading of Wikipedia:Verifiability (All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. [...] A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research.) is that a reader should at the very minimum find all of those mentioned brands in the source, and find some mention of them being located in Manhattan. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

All the links are there to the fashion entities. Why are additional refs required for each one? If one or two appropriate hyperlinks happen to be missing, you might consider helping out to fill in the blanks or just point them out for repair. Do you realize how many thousands of unnecessary additional bytes that would add to the article, when all one needs to do is hit a hyperlink? At some point, one has to know what to prioritize from a practical, common sense standpoint to make readability easier and loading times more reasonable. My immediate impression is that you're not looking at the forest through the trees, the big picture. Our readers are generally not second-graders, you know. Castncoot (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Would be best for our readers if you slow down on the copy pasting all the time.... as it causes redundancy and sourcing problems. Moxy- 01:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Removal of sourced and due content

This November 23 edit hacking out 18K was not an improvement, and no consensus was sought prior to making it. Shall we revert the entry to the state before this edit? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 12:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree with this. I was tempted to revert it myself.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The article disproportionately focused on race. While no one denies that racism is apart of American history... The previous version spent far too much time expounding upon every detail of it. Compare the articles on Japan, Germany, and the like to the United States.

This isn't the place to grievance edit. StardustToStardust (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Both @DecafPotato: and @KlayCax:'s edits are improvements.

It's one thing to include WP: DUE information about the country. Yet the articles for the aforeamentioned (and others) do not spend nearly a third to half of the history section dwelling upon it. Slavery didn't become the focal point of discussion until the 1850s or so.

The U.S. is being treated dramatically different from other counrries that engaged in displacing native peoples. (Australia, for instance.) StardustToStardust (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@DecafPotato: Can you restore the long-standing version, please, and list those things you would like to change so they can be discussed individually? Thank you. Addendum, I've gone ahead and restored up to 1930. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Just commenting here to show that I've seen this; I'm busy right now and will try to respond fully tomorrow. DecafPotato (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe some of the material cut by DecafPotato brings this article more in line with Wikipedia's policies, and makes it easier to parse for a reader. I've restored several changes to the United States#Indigenous peoples and European colonization section.[7] Most of these changes are a matter of notability. "conflicts with Native Americans" doesn't quite reflect Ripper who notes a variety of conflicts. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The consensus a few months ago (which I support) was to establish the article upon works that were published as part of the Oxford History of the United States.

This hasn't happened. Instead, the article's prose has been significantly degraded by both right-wing and left-wing editors, primarily on topics that relate to "current hot button issues". (e.g. Universal healthcare, the history of race in the country, debates on what the country's GDP per capita lead on other developed countries means, et al.) that they want the article to either repeatedly mention or provide a "take" on. ("Obamacare", supposed political correctness, "wokeism", and other current controversies have also faced attempts to be added, far beyond what WP: DUE requires.) The present wording was agreed upon several months ago and is from Daniel Walker Howe's Pulitzer Prize–winning book What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815–1848, Rodriguez's Encyclopedia of Emancipation and Abolition in the Transatlantic World , and Gavin Wright's Slavery and the Rise of the Nineteenth-Century American Economy, which are about as high-quality sources as you can get.

The debate was primarily about what the 1787 Constitution intended for slavery. What is considered indisputable by essentially all academic historians, as well as pro-enslavement figures of the time such as John C. Calhoun and anti-slavery radicals such as William Lloyd Garrison, is that "all men were created equal" was widely interpreted as incompatible with African enslavement by 1850s. (A minority such as Stephen A. Douglas interpreted this to apply only narrowly to white men. But this was widely disputed by the time of the Lincoln-Douglas debates; instead, pro-enslavement political figures, such as Alexander Hamilton, primarily argued that the wording didn't belong or was just an opinion.)

Per Garrison:

As long as there remains among us a single copy of the Declaration of Independence, or of the New Testament, I will not despair of the social and political elevation of my black countrymen.

Alexander Stephens in the Cornerstone Speech:

The old [American] Constitution set out with a wrong idea on this subject; it was based upon an erroneous principle; it was founded upon the idea that African Slavery is wrong, and it looked forward to the ultimate extinction of that institution. But time has proved the error, and we have corrected it in the new Constitution.

Oxford's History of the United States also notes this quote from Calhoun:

The proposition to which I allude, has become an axiom in the minds of a vast majority on both sides of the Atlantic, and is repeated daily from tongue to tongue, as an established and incontrovertible truth; it is, that “all men are born free and equal.” I am not afraid to attack error, however deeply it may be entrenched, or however widely extended, whenever it becomes my duty to do so, as I believe it to be on this subject and occasion... If we trace it back, we shall find the proposition differently expressed in the Declaration of Independence. That asserts that “all men are created equal.” The form of expression, though less dangerous, is not less erroneous... We now begin to experience the danger of admitting so great an error to have a place in the declaration of our independence. For a long time it lay dormant; but in the process of time it began to germinate, and produce its poisonous fruits.

The present wording prevents us from getting to the historiographical weeds of what the wording was originally intended to mean.

Instead, it focuses on how it became interpreted after the Revolution, particularly by the 1850s. Considering the tight constraints on the amount of words we can write, I don't see an issue with it. KlayCax (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Sticking only with the "Indigenous peoples and European colonization" section, KlayCax's recent edit removed the following:

• founding New Orleans in 1718.
• Many English settlers were dissenting Christians who fled England seeking religious freedom.
• Native Americans taught settlers to cultivate local foods.
• By the turn of the 18th century, slavery supplanted indentured servitude as the main source of agricultural labor for the cash crops in the Southern Colonies.[63] Southern tobacco colonies passed laws designed to keep African Americans subservient.

Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

KCx's edit summary accompanying his mass deletion making the false claim that 7 of the 9 images present prior to his cut were related to racial conflict is telling. Looking back at the page he was describing, I see one (1) image related to the KKK. The slaveowner's depiction of a peaceful plantation scene, I suppose, could be seen as referring to racial conflict (so that makes two), but I am at a loss regarding how he gets to 7 of 9... the only other image I see related even remotely to another ethnic group is a drawing of Chinese railroad workers on the Central Pacific Railroad (which is due since they were largely responsible for the work through the Sierra Nevadas: §). I notice that mention of the Emancipation Proclamation and the 200,000 black troops in the Union army and navy was axed in the same 14K removal, which had also mentioned the granting of citizenship to Puerto Ricans just before World War I, expanding the conscription pool for Woodrow Wilson's administration considerably. I see too that KCx has again removed any mention of the mass-production of the banjo in the early twentieth century, or of vaudeville/minstrelsy in the Music and Theater subsections. No idea what the intention is, but the result is that blackface has been whitewashed from the historical record. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 10:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @SashiRolls:. I poorly worded that on the fly. There have been times when 7 out of the 9 pictures that covered American history between 1776-present related to racial/religious/cultural conflict.

• American ethnic cleansing of indigenous people.
• The Old Plantation picture
• Harper's Cartoon of Reconstruction
• Ellis Island
• Chinese Railroad Workers
• Jim Crow sign
• 9/11

The edits weren't made by me. They were done by @DecafPotato:. I just saw his version as the least bad of two poor options. References to institutional (including legal) discrimination against African-Americans are still mentioned in the post-Civil War era section. Although I'd support expanding the wording to something like African Americans endured a period of heightened, overt racism following Reconstruction, a time often called the nadir of American race relations, particularly in the South, where there was formalized legal discrimination in the form of Jim Crow laws. (Wording probably needs tweaked.) What we need to do (as mentioned a few months ago) is make an outline with sources (with named references + numbers) such as The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763–1789, Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789–1815, What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815–1848, The Republic for Which It Stands: The United States during Reconstruction and the Gilded Age, 1865–1896, et al. from the Oxford History of the United States series as citations within the article. I can see why some editors have objected — the series leans towards "moderate" historiography, which a lot of Conservative, Marxist, and revisionist historians object to — but generally reflects what you'd see in a standard, reputed academic environment. As an IP editor pointed out: despite how viewed/visited the U.S. article is, it's difficult to find a consensus summary of the country that would be accepted by even historians. (They famously place widely variant emphasis on different aspects of American history.)

No idea what the intention is, but the result is that blackface has been whitewashed from the historical record. It isn't whether it's whitewashed from the article or Wikipedia. It's whether it's WP: DUE to focus on it. History in the theater, movie, et al. sections should be predominately minimized (we don't have the words for details) and it furthers WP: UNDUE'ly skews the article. I (and I don't think any other editor here) would be against the sentence becoming something like: The rhythmic and lyrical styles of African-American music have also influenced American music at large, including the banjo, [other instances]. I've also removed non-racial stuff from the sections as well... Such as how much money American theater makes.

The citizenship to Puerto Ricans is too niche for the article, imo. We're going to rapidly go over the word count if we don't limit the article to broad, sweeping historical strokes of American history. KlayCax (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I had removed the KKK image in favor of the Harper's cartoon personally. That you consider an image of Chinese railroad workers or Ellis Island to be an image of racial conflict is rather remarkable. The "word count" argument is sometimes reasonable, but here it is a distraction being put forth to treat the subject selectively (eliminating mention of the Emancipation Proclamation, for example). Taylor Swift is a 350K+ FA. Now I know she may contain multitudes and all that, but... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 05:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. As stated in my edit summary, I trimmed the article (a process I began chipping away at a while ago) to bring the article more in line with country FAs, specifically Japan. Judging by the size of the History section back in August, I think this was a fair judgement. I also think that the History section was very large in relation to the rest of the article; for example, the values of the American Revolution could easily be discussed in the Culture and society or Government and politics sections. This article's History section should use summary style: History of the United States exists for a reason. A person reading this article is looking for a brief overview of American history, and the article has many links through {{Main}} headers if they wish to learn more; if Taylor Swift had individual articles for each section in her article, I would also support trimming that article down.

My trimmed version was based entirely on the pre-existing version, just re-wording and removing content that I thought didn't belong in a top-level article, while keeping the same sources and trying to keep the weight of varying topics the same as it was. I do agree with KlayCax's suggestion to make an outline with sources (with named references + numbers) for a more permanent solution to the problem.

I don't know if this response perfectly articulates my rationale, so please ask if you have any more specific questions. DecafPotato (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

From Joel Sweeney in the 1830s, through the Virginia Minstrels in the 1840s, the "minstrel craze" reached its heyday from 1850-1870 and lasted well into the twentieth-century at medicine shows and circuses. So no, we clearly should not be deleting reference to blackface. It is mentioned in a plethora of articles and books related to US theater, culture, and music. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Added Shi (2016) as well. "The 1830s witnessed the emergence of the first uniquely American form of mass entertainment: blackface minstrel shows, featuring white performers made up as blacks. "Minstrelsy" drew upon African American folklore and reinforced prevailing racial stereotypes. It featured banjo and fiddle music, "shuffle" dances, and lowbrow humor." (p. 378) Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Bibliography of US History

Starting:

Give Me Liberty by Eric Foner

• Volume 1, 6th edition: https://archive.org/details/give-me-liberty-an-american-history-eric-foner-z-lib.org_20220819/page/n171/mode/2up
• Volume 2, 6th edition: https://archive.org/details/give-me-liberty-an-american-history-eric-foner-z-lib.org/mode/1up

America: a Narrative History by David Emory Shi

• Volume 1: https://archive.org/details/americanarrative0001shid/mode/2up
• Volume 2: https://archive.org/details/americanarrative0000shid_n7c7/mode/2up

The American Promise : A History of the United States by James L. Roark

• entire book: https://archive.org/details/americanpromiseh0000roar_g6p3/page/n3/mode/2up

U.S. History by OpenStax at Rice University

• online resource: https://openstax.org/books/us-history/pages/preface

Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Oxford History of the United States

Author	Title	Release date	ISBN	URL
Robert Middlekauff	The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763–1789	1982; 2005 (2d ed.)	978-0195162479	https://archive.org/details/gloriouscause0002robe
Gordon S. Wood	Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789–1815	2009	978-0195039146
Daniel Walker Howe	What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815–1848	2007	978-0195078947	https://archive.org/details/whathathgodwroug00howe
James M. McPherson	Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era	1988	978-0195038637	https://archive.org/details/battlecryoffreed0000mcph
Richard White	The Republic for Which It Stands: The United States during Reconstruction and the Gilded Age, 1865–1896	2017	978-0199735815	https://archive.org/details/republicforwhich0000whit
Bruce Schulman	Brand Name America: The Birth of the Modern United States, 1896–1929	due 1 Sept 2024[8]	978-0195156362
David M. Kennedy	Freedom From Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929–1945	1999	978-0195038347	https://archive.org/details/freedomfromfeara0000kenn_f4c7
James T. Patterson	Grand Expectations: The United States, 1945–1974	1996	978-0195076806
James T. Patterson	Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush v. Gore	2005	978-0195122169
George C. Herring	From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1776	2008; 2017 (2d ed.)	978-0195078220

As mentioned by KlayCax above. Several of these are available via archive.org. Others should be widely available via ILL, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The list of sources is inexhaustible. There's Zinn's A People's History of the United States, DuBois's Black Reconstruction in America. Eric Foner's excellent book on the same subject should be added too. A complete bibliography would include Harvest of Empire: A History of Latinos in America, which KlayCax has removed from the entry. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

There's an online mirror of Zinn's book here: https://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html

There is also a huge list at Bibliography of American history Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

See the above for why, @SashiRolls:/@Rjjiii:. (Note that I wouldn't oppose some of Eric Foner's works being added.)

Oxford History of the United States was recommended as a template because it's closest thing you'd get to a consensus version of American history. KlayCax (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Sedentary behavior

I suggest that there be a sentence of two about how sedentary the US population has become over the last 50-100 years as a result of automation. And this sedentary behavior has resulted in a number of problems, including obesity and heart disease. --Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 December 2023

Request that the second paragraph be broken into two paragraphs, with the US Civil War being the dividing line. Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Lewcm Talk to me! 18:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article renomination

It's worth a regular editor renominating this very important article for good article assessment? It looks in reasonable shape, having been trimmed since it's delisting, Tom B (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

A few things still need work:

• History
• Citations
• Article still isn't stable.

After, I agree. KlayCax (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

thank you! you think history needs trimming? Maybe the revolution section. This might be one of the few articles where stability is more of an issue than citations, Tom B (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm hopeful they will go hand in hand. As the article text gets increasingly cited to high-quality, broad-topic, independent, and reliable sources it becomes easier to lean on those sources rather than debate from our personal experiences. Also, CactiStaccingCrane are you still interested in trying to get this article there? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 December 2023

The lead seems overly complicated in attempting to explain the country’s name. I think this should be reverted back to what the long-standing intro was until a better lead can be decided. 2605:B100:10A:447F:119B:566E:29B2:E74D (talk) 08:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• Done. I hope that the editor who made the change will discuss here on talk page. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Someone call? haha. But seriously I understand keeping it how it is. I just thought more information would have been good. Kind of expected it to get reverted at some point.SandRand97 (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Where has the mentions of human rights and income inequality gone?

As per title. The lead section now reads like a boosterism circlejerk written by an ultra-nationalist blog rather than a supposed impartial online encyclopedia. 220.76.93.4 (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The lead mentions that half of the country fought to enslave vast swathes of the population in the 1860s. Where's the nationalism part? Human rights is subjective (and in my opinion shouldn't be in the lead at all) and American income inequality is similar to that of Turkey, China, Peru, and several other countries, all of which don't have it mentioned in their leads. Per Gallup: the United States is broadly "average" in terms of Gini after taxes and transfers. KlayCax (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@KlayCax: Your new edit about "Anglophonic" culture is far more problematic. First, the term "Anglophonic" itself is rather stilted and rarely used. Second, the WP link you added, "Anglosphere," specifically says in its lede that this is not synonymous with the English language. American culture is far more than the English language, and even Belize and India are often listed as "anglophone" countries. You might wish to revisit certain overgeneralized (in this case, very flawed) assertions. 71.255.77.207 (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

While inequality in the U.S. is comparable to the third world, anytime a highly developed country is comparable to third world countries is significant. AFAIK, the U.S, is unique in that aspect. It's human rights record is not as significant, since comparable countries often have poor human rights records as well. TFD (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

This chart definitely needs updating. (From here.)

But you can see that there's several countries in OECD that are classified as developed that have higher levels of income inequality than the United State after taxes and transfers.

My controversial view is that human rights shouldn't be in any country's lead. (Although I realize I'm a distinct minority here.) KlayCax (talk) 05:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it should depend on the country. North Korea's most defining trait is that it has the worst human rights record of any country in existence, for example. That makes it appropriate for the lead. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

If that is appropriate for the lead of the article on North Korea because it apparently has "the worst human rights record of any country in existence", then it is perfectly appropriate to include a mention of income inequality in the lead of the United States article as the United States has unprecedented levels of economic inequality for the rich democracies. The OP is absolutely correct in his colorful assertions, and I propose the sentence "It has higher levels of incarceration and inequality than most other liberal democracies and is the only liberal democracy without universal healthcare" be restored to the lead, especially given earlier RfCs on this.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Additional links in See Also

I think there should be more lists linked in the see also section, such as list of United States presidents, List of sovereign states, and List of United States cities by population.NB1624 (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Sections "See also – Aim to include relevant information within the article and reduce the See also section See WP:See also. ('See also" sections of country articles normally only contain links to "Index of country" and "Outline of country" articles, alongside the main portal(s))." Moxy- 17:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Division of entire countries compared to the United States

Which central government functions are in the respective units? How are the states as a whole divided up?

There are different degrees of sovereignty, see the list below. It is also unclear what exists at each level apart from the units mentioned, e.g. the French territories that never were members of the EU. Wallis and Futuna in Overseas France has, among other things, traditional law and monarchs. What makes comparisons more difficult is that the United Kingdom is not a federal state. Apparently, France is divided into a central state and several, not all, parts of non-European France, given the existence of partially sovereign parts. France is the all-encompassing concentric circle. The United Kingdom possibly is the smallest of the concentric circles, with even the Channel Islands being outside the UK. I have used the model (i.e. incorrect) of concentric circles. If there are 5 concentric ones, we have 8 different interior surfaces.

I have made up the following list of elements of subnational states:

executive

Judiciary

legislative

Schengen

EU

De facto situation

Geography

United States	Kingdom of the Netherlands	France	TBD	Germany
	European Netherlands	European France and Overseas Regions	United Kingdom	Northrhine-Westphalia
		Île de France	Great Britain	North Rhine
	North Holland	Paris	England	Düsseldorf region

Sarcelles (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Mention of AI Spring and space exploration plans in lead of article

Leads of articles should reflect the content of the article themselves. Currently, the section on the AI Spring and planned future space missions would better fit under the science, technology and energy section of the article, as it is not mentioned elsewhere. Also, I am unaware of other country leads talking about what a country plans to do in the future. BootsED (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Update, I didn’t see it was also included in the history section of the article. Still, though, my point stands. It would serve better in the science, technology, and energy section of the article. Also, I don’t believe history sections should be talking about what a country plans to do in the future either. It seems oddly specific. This section gets three (long) sentences, while the Great Recession and War on Terror only gets one. BootsED (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you. The lead is already very long, and although a lot of the commentary about the future makes me proud to be an American, it seems awkward at best to include it there. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I removed the space exploration part from lead. KlayCax (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I would also remove the AI part; not only is there a question of WP:DUE weight, but it also reeks of WP:RECENTISM to include so prominently. DecafPotato (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the U.S. is in the lead now. But the most Googled source for it comes from Michael Frank (CSIS) [9][10] not The Diplomat itself. This seems too recent to include in terms of U.S. history. Just two years ago, it was not so clear [11][12]. Senorangel (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Checking major areas are covered, and others aren't given undue weight

WP:LLM 'Large language models can be used for certain tasks', one can be to help check articles cover major points. "Write a detailed outline for a Wikipedia article on the topic "United States[edit]"." Edited results below. Edited into wiki style, to a very limited extent. I'm not suggesting we use it for structure, it's similar anyway. Rather to check we've covered all the points, which we appear to have done. Or are we missing something or writing too much about something? I notice it majors on history much less than WP country articles, it has history more integrated into other sections.

Outline

Lead A. Definition and overview of the United States B. Brief history of the country's formation and development C. Importance and influence of the United States globally Geography and Environment A. Overview of the country's geographical features 1. Borders and neighboring countries 2. Land area and topography 3. Major rivers, lakes, and mountain ranges B. Climate and weather patterns across different regions C. Discussion on diverse ecosystems and natural resources 1. Forests, wildlife, and protected areas 2. Mineral resources and energy production Government and Politics A. Overview of the federal system and the three branches of government B. Historical development of the United States' political system 1. Founding documents e.g. Constitution, Bill of Rights 2. Evolution of voting rights and suffrage 3. Major political parties and electoral processes C. Current political landscape and key political figures 1. Roles and powers of the President, Congress, and Supreme Court 2. Discussion on federalism and state governments 3. Notable policies and political debates Economy A. Overview of the United States' market-based economy B. Historical development of the economy 1. Agricultural and industrial revolutions 2. Rise of capitalism and free-market principles 3. Economic impact of major events e.g. Great Depression, World Wars C. Key sectors and industries 1. Manufacturing, technology, and services 2. Financial and banking sectors 3. Agriculture and natural resources D. International trade and economic relations 1. Trade agreements and organizations 2. Major trading partners and export/import trends 3. Foreign direct investment and multinational corporations Demographics and Culture A. Overview of the United States' population and ethnic diversity 1. Historical immigration patterns and waves 2. Racial and ethnic composition 3. Regional and urban-rural population distribution B. Languages spoken and religious affiliations 1. English as the primary language 2. Religious diversity and freedom C. Cultural contributions and popular culture 1. Literature, art, and music 2. Film, television, and entertainment industry 3. Sports and recreational activities Education and Science A. Overview of the education system and its structure 1. Primary, secondary, and tertiary education 2. Public and private schools 3. Higher education and research institutions B. Scientific achievements and contributions 1. Major scientific discoveries and breakthroughs 2. Prominent scientists and inventors 3. Research and development investments Infrastructure and Transportation A. Overview of the United States' transportation network 1. Roadways, highways, and bridges 2. Railways and public transit systems 3. Airports and aviation industry B. Energy infrastructure and sources 1. Electricity generation and distribution 2. Renewable and non-renewable energy sources 3. Environmental impact and sustainability initiatives C. Telecommunications and internet connectivity 1. Communication networks and providers 2. Internet usage and broadband access Military and Defense A. Overview of the United States' military forces 1. Branches of the armed forces 2. Defense budget and military capabilities 3. Role of the military in national security and international affairs B. Historical military conflicts and engagements 1. Revolutionary War, Civil War, and World Wars 2. Cold War and post-9/11 conflicts 3. Peacekeeping missions and humanitarian aid efforts Controversies and Challenges A. Discussion on social and political controversies 1. Civil rights movement and racial tensions 2. Gun control and Second Amendment debates 3. Immigration policies and border control B. Economic challenges and inequality 1. Income disparity and poverty rates 2. Access to healthcare and education 3. Economic downturns and recessions C. Environmental concerns and climate change 1. Pollution and environmental regulations 2. Natural disasters and emergency preparedness 3. Efforts to address climate change and sustainability Closing thoughts on the future of the United States

thanks, Tom B (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

In terms of sections, it is looks complete. I plan to add more about the history of semiconductor industries. Senorangel (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

thank you, for looking! that's too detailed for this article. it may even be too detailed for semiconductor but have you checked there? and Semiconductor_device#History_of_semiconductor_device_development please? Tom B (talk) 09:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Cuisine

A recent revert removed significant contribution to the section with the justification of Wikipedia:TOOMUCH, which Wikipedia describes as:

"When seeing a section or subsection within an article, editors often try to expand them, especially if such sections or subsections are short. However, there are times when people add one or more of the following to such articles:

Excessive detail Irrelevant content that is better placed in a different article Trivial content"

The removed content mainly consists of the following:

American chefs have been had significant impact on society both domestically and internationally. Some important 19th-century American chefs include Charles Ranhofer of Delmonico's Restaurant in New York, and Bob Payton, who is credited with bringing American-style pizza to the United Kingdom. Later, chefs Charles Scotto, Louis Pacquet, John Massironi founded the American Culinary Federation in 1930, taking after similar organizations across Europe. In the 1940s, Chef James Beard hosted the first nationally televised cooking show I Love to Eat. His is the namesake for the foundation and it's prestigious cooking award recognizing excellence in the American gastronomy community. Since Beard, other chefs and cooking personalities have taken to television, the most famous being Julia Child, who taught French cuisine in her weekly show, The French Chef. In 1946, the Culinary Institute of America was founded by Katharine Angell and Frances Roth. This would become the United States' most prestigious culinary school, where many of the most talented American chefs would study prior to successful careers. The United States restaurant industry was projected at $899 billion in sales for 2020, and as a whole by February 2020 employed more than 15 million people, representing 10% of the nation's workforce directly. It is the country's second largest private employer and the third largest employer overall. An estimated 99% of companies in the industry are family-owned small businesses with fewer than 50 employees. The United States is home to over 220 Michelin Star rated restaurants, 70 of which are in New York City alone.

This introduces the reader to American cuisine to be more than Thanksgiving, junk food, and comfort food and that American cuisine had made significant contributions to national and international culture, from the popular as evidenced by mention of only 2 celebrity chefs of many, but also to the elite as evidenced by mention of only CIA and Michelin stars - hardly excessive detail.

Including sourced information on the economic impact that the dining culture has in American with much higher dollar amounts at $899 billion (larger than automobile profits) and employment figures at 10% (also more than automotive and almost anything else) compared to other sections where they are mentioned such as sports and music, is clearly not trivial.

Of all the images to represent American cuisine the use of the lowest common denominator hamburger and fries is underwhelming at best, and if not replaced by and image depicting indigenous foods like the Three Sisters than at least highlight a typical Thanksgiving meal.

An entire relevant and properly cited paragraph should not be removed without an attempt to improve first, and if improvement in this case involves trimming then don't remove the entire thing wholesale. Shoreranger (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

References

@Shoreranger There is already a specific article on the topic. Furthermore, the article about the United States is already too long, even including a warning about this for everyone who tries to edit it. There is no need to keep this amount of content in a section like this. And please respect WP:STATUSQUO. Chronus (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

How are you determining due weight (as required by WP:NPOV) for the content cited to primary sources, and narrow/specific news articles? Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Shoreranger I made an alternative version between "mine" and "yours" as a way of reaching consensus and kept the most important data. Chronus (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

A fine bit of editing. Glad this worked out. Shoreranger (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

New 2023 U S. Census population estimate

An editor just added this new figure in infobox. Please also adjust first paragraph in lede: "almost 335 million," as the resident population now exceeds 334.9 million. Thanks. 71.255.77.207 (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

"Preceded by" / "Followed by" info box?

Should this infobox be added? I guess the predecessor would be the Articles of Confederation? --Rpresser 22:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Literature section rewrite

The below section is a rewrite of United States#Literature based on The Norton Anthology of American Literature, shorter 8th edition, a popular undergrad-level English textbook. In addition to the many excerpts and entire works contained within the book, it also has introductory passages between sections. These each include a brief synopsis of American literature during that era. I realize a rewrite of a whole section may be controversial, so I've posted it here first. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest picking up a copy of The Heath Anthology of American Literature for a more inclusive summary. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 09:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: I don't know if you meant that as a genuine suggestion, but it does not seem actionable. I see that you added the paragraph on négritude.[13] Despite having an in-depth section on the Harlem Renaissance, Heath does not appear to ever use the word. If you want expand on that era, Langston Hughes could be added, possibly in a way that links double consciousness. I don't think Heath mentions Nella Larsen but she is very highly regarded among modern literary critics.

The current literature section has problematic sourcing. The reliance on primary and very specific sourcing, makes it impossible to lean on a WP:RS to determine WP:DUE weight to place on topics. Also the first paragraph can't be verified by inline citations. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Hortense Spillers, writing the intro to "The New Negro Renaissance" section of The Heath (vol 2, 2nd ed., 1994), after mentioning the role of Caribbean authors, like Garvey and McKay, in the movement says the following on page 1581:

Johnson's and Countee Cullen's lyrics, and Langston Hughes's maverick experimentation with 12-bar blues modes in verse sustained, in fact, an international dimension that has not been descriptively exhausted. Lilyan Lagneau-Kesteloot taps this source of filiation in her study of Négritude and the Francophone-focused Négritude movement that outlines contact between certain Renaissance dogmatizers -- Alain Locke, among others -- with West African expatriates, including [...] Senghor [...], Césaire [...].

Indeed the article cited goes farther, exploring who specifically was responsible for this contact in Paris during the Jazz age, when many (following Frederick Douglass) found Europe a welcome respite from race barriers in the US. Of course Spillers also mentions Nella Larsen, saying her best work lay ahead of that time period. Not sure what you were reading? Also notice I added one clause of one sentence about "négritude" and two sentences total about "the new negro renaissance" which is covered in 150 pages in the Heath. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: Thanks, the volume, edition, and publication date help. The version on the internet archive [14] has different pagination beginning on 1579. Seeing how it's placed within this section makes it seem not WP:DUE. I'll add a full citation for Heath in the draft below if you want to add another line. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Nah, we can keep the original sourcing, nothing wrong with Johns Hopkins University press, or the African American Review. If you feel the need to add a second corroborating footnote to the existing text, feel free. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: Could you summarize what my issue regarding WP:DUE seems to be from your perspective? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem with the text below is that it contains very little information, e.g. "Postwar literature expanded the themes, subjects, forms, and regions covered." It is also misleading. Modernism was anything but a nationalistic monolith... to take the two most obvious examples: Ezra Pound was into the troubadours and lived in Italy, Eliot renounced his American citizenship. As noted above, the Harlem Renaissance was most certainly not interested only in the US as your topic sentence about modernism's nationalism would suggest (Cf. §). Also, I have demonstrated that the link to Négritude is mentioned in a standard university textbook on American literature. The fact that American literature had influence on Léopold Senghor (first president of Sénégal) and Aimé Césaire (mayor of Fort-de-France), both literary giants, should perhaps suffice to show its WP:DUEiness, no? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUnited_States&diff=1187001949&oldid=1186983450 Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Could you work on the Beat section? I think you may have missed some of its most salient characteristics (e.g. drugs, sex, Buddhism, among many others...) I am also a bit surprised to see Burroughs and Kerouac described as poets? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I reworked the Beat section. Heath doesn't mention Buddhism though. Philipson (2006) is WP:UNDUE; we need sources about the United States. Also, he does not even verify the claim about Pan-Africanism. In the first line, he describes the movement as American and regarding Pan-Africanism: "Pan-Africanism as a living movement, a tangible accomplishment, is a little and negligible thing," Du Bois wrote in his compte rendu published in The New Negro (Locke 411). It wasn't until the British Commonwealth had produced an African middle class elite capable of leading the masses that Pan-Africanism really took off as a potent ideology in the 1940s which is after the Harlem/Negro Renaissance. I changed the citations; your changes broke some links and created incorrect bibliographic information. I changed the short footnote to make it clear that the author was Spillers; I may add a wikilink to her article. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

You should be citing the chapter author and title when you refer to a chapter in a collective work. You should make clear that you are quoting neither Heath nor Philipson (which both verify what is written). Like earlier when you claimed that Heath did not mention "négritude" I'm a bit concerned by your random citations. It is not surprising that Marcus Garvey's opponent Dubois would minimize pan-Africanism. As Philipson says, the third aspect of the Harlem Renaissance was that it provided a model and inspiration for subsequent postcolonial movements, i.e. négritude. There is no reason to remove the reference or the word (cf. MOS:EGG) from the section. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 06:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree entirely. Shoreranger (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The citation formatting was cleaned up before being moved into the live article. Regards, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUnited_States&diff=1187580119&oldid=1187513264 changes Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are trying to help, however, your removal of mention of Thoreau & Emerson, Nobel Prize Winners like Faulkner, Toni Morrison, etc., GAN claims for Moby Dick (among others) are not improvements and there is no consensus above for those removals. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree. These babies have been thrown out with the bathwater. Shoreranger (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Much of the previous sentences were lists in prose format. Perhaps there is someway to place lists in a sidebar, the way we do with navigation and quotes? If so then we could just do a sidebar list of Nobel laureates (a hard criteria that would limit expansion).

If you (or anyone else) does add Morrison or Faulker, consider using high quality sources already in the article. Like: For example, influential Nobel Prize Laureate [[Toni Morrison]] melded African-American folklore, musical traditions, and slave narratives.{{sfn|Lauter|1994b|pp=973-976; 2873}} [[William Faulkner]]—an earlier Nobel prize-winning author—wrote with unusual structures drawn from the Bible, classical mythology, and contemporary American culture.{{sfn|Lauter|1994b|pp=973-976; 1543-1546}} The WP:DUEWEIGHT in our "Neutral point of view" policy is important, but the sourcing is an even more foundational aspect. Regards, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Literature

Main articles: American literature and American philosophy

Mark Twain, who William Faulkner called "the father of American literature"

Colonial American authors were influenced by John Locke and other Enlightenment philosophers. Before and shortly after the Revolutionary War, the newspaper rose to prominence, filling a demand for anti-British national literature. During the American Renaissance of the nineteenth century, writers like Walt Whitman and Harriet Beecher Stowe established a distinctive American literary tradition. As literacy rates rose, periodicals published increasing numbers of stories centered around industrial workers, women, and the rural poor. Naturalism, regionalism, and realism—the latter associated with Mark Twain—were the major literary movements of the period.

While modernism generally took on an international character, modernist authors working within the United States more often rooted their work in specific regions, peoples, and cultures. Following the Great Migration to northern cities, African-American and black West Indian authors of the Harlem Renaissance developed an independent tradition of literature that rebuked a history of inequality and celebrated black culture. In the 1950s, an ideal of homogeneity led many authors to attempt to write the "Great American Novel", while the Beat Generation rejected this conformity, using styles that elevated the impact of the spoken word over mechanics to describe drug use, sexuality, and the failings of society. Contemporary literature is more pluralistic than in previous eras, with the closest thing to a unifying feature being a trend toward self-conscious experiments with language.

References

• Baym, Nina; Levine, Robert S., eds. (2013). The Norton Anthology of American Literature (Shorter eighth. ed.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-91885-4.
• Lauter, Paul, ed. (1994a). The Heath Anthology of American Literature. Vol. 1 (2nd ed.). Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company. ISBN 0-669-32972-X.
• Lauter, Paul, ed. (1994b). The Heath Anthology of American Literature. Vol. 2 (2nd ed.). Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company. ISBN 0-669-32973-8.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It will probably make the most sense to post responses to this in the above section, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 January 2024

Change the stated population from "over 333 million" to "over 334 million" in the lead section of the article to reflect the latest census updates. TensorPointer (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Happy new year! ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Correction was requested 10 days ago (above, "New 2023 US Estimates"), but glad someone has fixed it. 71.255.77.207 (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)