Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States

Welcome to the discussion page of WikiProject United States

Archives: Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Old U.S. notice board archives: National, Southern, Northern

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Looking for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States in the Spanish Wikipedia? See es:Wikiproyecto discusión:Estados Unidos.
¿Buscando la discusión del Wikiproyecto Estados Unidos en la Wikipedia en español? Véase es:Wikiproyecto discusión:Estados Unidos.

WikiProject United States was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 4 July 2011.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/US related unreferenced BLPs was nominated for deletion on 19 July 2022. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Data about Native American tribes in each state

I want to add the data about the most numerous Native American tribes in each U.S. state to articles about each state. What do you guys think about it? Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way you added it at Washington (state) was not an improvement, which is why three editors reverted you. Relevant discussions are at User talk:Domen von Wielkopolska. --Magnolia677 (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion should probably be here, at a community level, as it's more about the shaping and placement of RS-based, related content in state articles (and/or their subarticles). Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 22:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of their edits use blogspot, which is not RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove blogspot from my edits. But it was the same map which is also used by Wikipedia here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indigenous_American_Nations,_16th_century_-_2022_edition.jpg Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not the two states I reverted back, and the editor has committed to using RS. WP:AGF. Also, it stands to reason there would be RS for this kind of data somewhere. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 22:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used this in a couple of states - https://indigamerica.blogspot.com/ - as you can see this is the same map which is already utilized by Wikipedia, which is why I thought that it was OK to use it. But I can find RS for this data elsewhere. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your commitment to finding RS. Re: Blogspot, they may be using others' intellectual property for their map, but in general, with perhaps some exceptions of highly regarded industry/government blogs, we avoid using blogs for citations. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 23:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This website has basically the same data - https://www.native-languages.org/states.htm - I used it as my primary source when describing which tribes historically lived in which state. Blogspot map was only used as a secondary source. I also used few other sources such as this site for Carolina's tribes - https://www.carolana.com/Carolina/Native_Americans/home.html or this article for Ohio - https://www.rrcs.org/Downloads/Ohios%20historic%20Indians%2038%20pages.pdf . Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also book "The Indian Tribes of North America" by John R. Swanton which has a list of tribes for each state. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that book was published in 1952, so I'm not sure that its the best option for describing the situation in 2024. But sure, that would be something. When I described these tables as being copy/pasted, I was referring to them being copy/pasted from census.gov. What would be better, and what we are typically going for on these sort of summary articles, would be to read that book, and perhaps other relevant articles, and present a summary of the situation in a concise paragraph. I don't doubt the accuracy of the numbers, I do take issue with their presentation. Better might be a series of sentences like this: "The major tribes in Utah are the Navajo, with 17,703 members, the Ute with 3,206, and the Cherokee with 3,351, as of 2010. Many Navajo live near Bears Ears, a national monument and sacred site for tribal traditions." Does that make sense? -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 23:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current situation is described based on https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/cph-series/cph-t/cph-t-6.html - the book by Swanton can be used to describe historical situation. You didn't notice that my entries were divided into section about original tribes living in the area and tribes living there in the 21st century. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to present the information in the form of tables instead of prose. Stefen 𝕋ower said that he has no issue with that. My entries had information about historical tribes in the form of prose, and 21st century tribes in the form of tables. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 10:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I decided to ditch the tables and follow Patrick Neil's advice (to add a series of sentences instead of tables). Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that these additions are not up to the standards needed for high-traffic entries like U.S. state articles. The state articles absolutely should list out the recognized and unrecognized tribes that live there, but should not necessarily try and list out the affiliations of individuals. The demographics sections in these articles do not list out the individual ethnic groups beyond the nation of origin (if that); for the sake of neutrality and balance, the lists have to be trimmed and retooled. The sources used are generally not acceptable for making these kinds of claims and should be tailored to each state (which generally does have a government website or interest group publication that will have far more accurate surveys of which tribes live where). There has also been far too much WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that absolutely meets the definition of edit warring, regardless of the claims of good faith. Sounder Bruce 02:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't the state articles mention the affiliations of individuals? All other types of ancestries are listed based on the affiliations of individuals. For example how many German-Americans live in each state, how many Irish-Americans, etc. Look up the article on Illinois, it has very expanded sections about ethnicity and ancestry - Illinois#Demographics Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check my last versions of articles Oregon and Washington, I highlighted all tribes local to the West Coast with bold font:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Washington_(state)&oldid=1243690535#Native_American_tribes

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oregon&oldid=1243691239#Native_American_tribes

Isn't this a good way of presenting such data? What do you suggest to change and why? Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 11:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss those two state articles then, because I see several obvious issues. First with the technical implementation, then with the sources being used, and then, yes, with the content itself. Highlighting "local" tribes with bold text is not something that follows the use cases described at MOS:BOLD, and collapsible tables are never supposed to be used within the article per MOS:COLLAPSE. Indeed it has long been suggested that if content is hidden in a collapsed state, then it likely does not belong on that article. Blogspot is a red-status website at WP:RSPSOURCES, which means any page on it has been deemed "Generally unreliable" by the Wikipedia community. On top of that, the sentences listing tribes on both Oregon and Washington is copy/pasted from the website www.native-languages.org, making it a likely WP:COPYVIO, which is a big no-no. It doesn't matter that the page is then cited as the source.

Technical implementation and sources could be improved, but the content is still an issue. On your talk page yesterday, I called out the listing of the Sioux in Rhode Island and Blackfeet in Maine not just because they were, yes, small, but because they were not tribes with a traditional territory that extended into those states. The main Blackfeet reservation is in Montana, while the Sioux covered Minnesota and into the Dakotas. I saw you describe these individuals as "immigrant tribes", which is a term I'll kindly label WP:OR. Back to the states you asked us to look at, I see a row for the 20,257 Cherokee in Washington state, which, out of a total 2010 population of 6,724,540, is just 0.3 percent. I still don't think that's a statistically significant number and I don't think it says anything informative about Washington state. You justify this by using WP:WHATABOUT and pointing to the Illinois article's itemizing of ancestries. I've said that data should clearly be split off into a Demographics of Illinois subarticle, but you're still arguing for including numbers smaller than the smallest number on that table.

If those Cherokee in Washington state in 2010 are important though, then we need to be told why. Did the U.S. government move them there? Do they have a community center built? Or elected politicians? I personally don't think those 20,257 are a "tribe" who collectively "immigrated" to Washington, I think they're probably just individuals living around Seatac and other metro areas, which brings me to my next issue. I worry there is an fundamental misunderstanding of the U.S. Census data going on here. The numbers on the U.S. Census are self-reported, it says that right at the top of the Excel sheets. Many tribes rigorously police membership/citizenship, but you're not using those numbers. Typically on the U.S. state articles we're using census data for percents to describe large overall situations, but when we're dealing with very small numbers the self-reported nature becomes an issue for accuracy. Here is an article from the Washington Post about the issue with AIAN data in the 2020 Census, which includes this line: data about Native Americans is unusually hard to parse... [relying] on each person's own assessment of tribal affiliation, rather than tribal enrollment, and counts many more tribes than have official federal recognition, resulting in a sometimes haphazard system that, as Maxim says, "leads to all sorts of wacky results."

The reason this data is available in 2010 but not 2020 is because in 2020, the Census Bureau described this level of detail as statistical noise. Here I simply have to concur with SounderBruce above when they say these additions are not up to the standards needed for high-traffic entries like U.S. state articles. I've suggested focusing on the Demographics subarticles, and Magnolia677 mentioned including this data in one single article. I'll note we do have the article List of federally recognized tribes by state, which could be a starting point to look at. Thanks -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 14:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good lord, this is cited to self-reported census data, not tribal registration? For Cherokee, 90% of cases that is going to boil down to "My grandma said that I have a Cherokee princess on her grandma's side, so I'll write that down on the census!" C'mon, federal registration is limited and there's lots of tribes that should be federally recognized that aren't, but those numbers are going to have no bearing on demographic reality. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that 90% of people who self-report Cherokee ancestry do not have such ancestry is a gross exaggeration. The Cherokee Nation has over 450,000 enrolled members and the number of people who self-reported Cherokee ancestry in 2010 census was 819,000 so at the very least 55% of all Cherokees are "real" (if we assume that everyone who is not enrolled really doesn't have any Cherokee ancestry). But apart from the Cherokee Nation there are also two other federally recognized Cherokee tribes (the Eastern Band with over 15,000 members and the United Keetoowah Band with over 14,000 members) as well as several state-recognized Cherokee tribes. So in fact the number of enrolled members of various Cherokee bands and tribes is well over 500,000. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Domen von Wielkopolska, I would strongly advise that you stop adding this information to state articles until a consensus is reached regarding the content and style. I don't see anything even approaching a consensus here yet. Aoi (青い) (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoi Patrick Neil has suggested that this information should be added in the form of prose instead of tables, and that's what I'm doing now. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet @Patrickneil also stated in the reply directly above mine: these additions are not up to the standards needed for high-traffic entries like U.S. state articles. I've suggested focusing on the Demographics subarticles, and Magnolia677 mentioned including this data in one single article. While I definitely see value in the content you are adding, I generally agree with Patrickneil and SounderBruce that this content is probably not up-to-snuff for state-level articles. Aoi (青い) (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Native Americans are the First Peoples in America which is why I think they deserve a short entry in every state article, especially considering that other ethnic data (about ethnicities and ancestries of Non-Native inhabitants) is also given. My additions are not long entries, I literally just add less than 10 lines of text to every article. So far I have done these, so you can judge:

Arkansas#Native American tribes - 4 sentences, 7 lines of text

New Hampshire#Native American tribes - 3 sentences, 7 lines of text

Tennessee#Native American tribes - 4 sentences, 7 lines of text

Illinois#Native American tribes - 5 sentences, 7 lines of text

Pennsylvania#Native American tribes - 4 sentences, 9 lines of text

West Virginia#Native American tribes - 4 sentences, 6 lines of text

Ohio#Native American tribes - 5 sentences, 7 lines of text

Missouri#Native American tribes - 4 sentences, 7 lines of text

As you can see these are very short entries in which the information is condensed as much as possible.

They shouldn't bother anyone. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'd suggest integrating text into existing sections wherever possible, rather than creating yourself your own subsection. And I see you are still citing self-published websites, a 74-year-old book, and including the 2010 data in your paragraphs. As I explained at length above, the 2010 Census data is problematic and I don't think its very small numbers merit inclusion on these summary level articles. If you noticed a pattern on each of those articles when you wrote "the largest was Cherokee...", there is a reason for that. The Washington Post article I linked to earlier goes into the messy reasons why Americans seem to like to claim Cherokee heritage on forms.-- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 23:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no data from 2020 census about the size of tribes, that's why I'm using the 2010 census for this. I don't think that it is problematic because it gives a rough idea on which tribes are the largest in each state, even if 2020 figures would be slightly different (if they were actually published - because as far as I know, they haven't been published yet). There is no better book in existence which lists the tribes living in each state. The website I'm using was published by a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving and promoting the indigenous languages of the Western Hemisphere, so I think it is RS. The pattern with the Cherokee is only present in some states, not in all of them (usually not in states in which federally recognized tribes exist).

Here are three more additions:

Maryland#Native American tribes

Alabama#Native American tribes

Maine#Native American tribes - as you can see in Maine the Cherokee are not the largest tribe

Vermont#Native American tribes - here the Abenaki are the most numerous tribe, not the Cherokee

Integrating text into existing sections is not possible because there are no appropriate sections for this kind of data. It is better to create a new small subsection. Later other users can edit this subsection if, for example, 2020 data on tribes becomes available.

Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But you're not using it to provide the reader a "rough idea." You're stating the exact numbers. Saying there were 109 Wampanoag in New Hampshire in 2010. I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot here, but as I mentioned above, the reason the U.S. Census Bureau isn't releasing broken down 2020 data for smaller tribes is because their small size means any accurate released data is prone to cause privacy violations, and the intentional noise added to reduce that problem then makes the data meaningless. And I really cannot believe no other book, article, research paper in the last 74 year has covered Native American tribes. Start with the references that exist on Native American topics now, especially FA and GA class articles. Ask for help at the WikiProject. I know doing research is more "laborious than simply looking at a map" or clicking paste, but that's what's this Wikipedia project is about.-- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 00:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but John Reed Swanton's book is a classic and it is still regarded as highly reliable. It is RS. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A book being a classic doesn't mean its the most reliable source on a topic; I'd definitely raise eyebrows at someone citing The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire for instance. I am an enthusiastic about including indigenous history topics as anyone in these articles, but a bunch of tables will not inform readers, they will just leave them confused.

Cite modern, peer-reviewed academic sources about indigenous history and demography in each state, not random websites or antique books. These exist on this topic, and will give people a lot more info than dated estimates on how many members of (X) tribe lived in (Y) state! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The book you mentioned is from 1776, that's a big difference compared to a book from the 2nd half of the 20th century. As for tables - haven't you noticed that I have already given up on tables and instead I'm adding prose? Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look - when I provide exact numbers from 2010, I'm providing a rough idea on what the situation is currently. Because 2010 was not so long ago and things could not change that much (not drastically) since then. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also when I include all of the relevant information condensed into one subsection then people have much easier access to this information than in the event if the same information was dispersed across various sections of the article. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So on Wikipedia we try to practice a collaboration first mentality. Saying things like my edits "deserve" their own section, or that "no better" sources exist anywhere, or that "they shouldn't bother anyone" feels like we're getting back to this WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that SounderBruce warned about. We have History sections where the historic information is appropriate to place and we have Ethnicity sections where the ethnic information is appropriate to place. And I will repeat that I don't think there is an appropriate place for the old 2010 data. One takeaway you may get from the article about 2020 data is that the Census adds intentional noise to data, and very small numbers, i.e. numbers in the hundreds, tend to become meaningless. Thanks-- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 14:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already said that when there is a separate subsection people have much easier access to this information than in the event if the same information was very dispersed across various sections. And you haven't addressed this point at all. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But that's asinine, you could make the same point and say that readers who want historic information want to access it in History sections.-- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 22:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These additions are clearly undue..... whole section on just one ethnicity.... and one that sometimes constitute only 4%. ...a sentence or two might be acceptable.... that most articles already have. My recommendation would be to remove. I see a source that's over 50 years old still being used. Moxy🍁 00:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not one ethnicity but one race, consisting of numerous ethnicities. They are also the original race, the First Peoples who lived in each state before anyone else, that's why they deserve to have their own subsection. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 07:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point thinking a short block is in order..... edit warning over multiple articles. Moxy🍁 11:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You just seem to be hell-bent on erasure of Native Americans from Wikipedia. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've just passed WP:3RR on both South Dakota and Virginia. I really think you should take a break from this project until there's clear consensus here or on specific article talk pages to include your edits, as Aoi suggested two days ago. I don't think anyone here is trying to erase Native Americans from Wikipedia, that sort of stance is called a straw man argument, and it's against Wikipedia's policy on civility. Thanks-- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 14:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote, Montana already had a "Native Americans" section before I launched my project. So based on this case we should assume that every U.S. state article deserves a Native Americans subsection. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Montana has a section on Native Americans, so I don't see a reason why other state articles shouldn't have a similar section (Montana is not even the state with the highest % of Natives among pop.):

Montana#Native Americans Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just reply here to both comments, but in short, other stuff exists. Not every article has to match like that. Oklahoma and Texas have "Energy" subsections under Economy, while Virginia has "Government agencies". Maine has a Shipbuilding section. Alaska has a Snow transportation section. States, like other Geography articles, start with the general layout guidelines at WP:Settlement, but as it says there, editors should come to local consensuses as to what is appropriate on a given article.-- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 16:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Patrickneil regarding relevance and WP:OTHERCONTENT. More generally, I tried to AGF when I saw the edit warring about this subject pass through my watchlist. Domen von Wielkopolska's proposed edits definitely have value, but they seem to be intent on implementing their idea on all fifty state articles despite the issues and objections that have been raised here, as well as the clear lack of consensus. (If there was consensus for inclusion, this discussion wouldn't be 3,500+ words long.)

In fact, reading through this discussion, all I really see is a whole lot of WP:IDHT and aspersion-casting by Domen von Wielkopolska, along with more edit warring passing through articles on my watchlist. This behavior is definitely disruptive and, as Moxy noted above, if it continues, some kind of sanction would not be unexpected. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is logical that coastal states like Maine have a Shipbuilding section while landlocked states do not have such a section. Or that cold climate states like Alaska have a Snow transportation section while Florida does not have such a section. However, in case of Native Americans all states have them in common, because all states prior to 1492 were inhabited exclusively by Native Americans and also today all states have some Native Americans, even if in a particular state they are a small percentage of the population (but as original inhabitants they still deserve a subsection). Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody is replying I take it that you agree with my argument and I can proceed with my edits. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having the last comment on a Wikipedia discussion doesn't mean you "win" the discussion, I think it more has to do with there being nothing more to add after a certain point. Silence doesn't always equal consensus. There's still a host of issues that got mentioned above regarding the edits you were making, and as Aoi suggested, it really does seem like there's an issue here with hearing that message when it comes to them.-- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 15:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me cite one of your posts above, you wrote: "Better might be a series of sentences like this: 'The major tribes in Utah are the Navajo, with 17,703 members, the Ute with 3,206, and the Cherokee with 3,351, as of 2010. Many Navajo live near Bears Ears, a national monument and sacred site for tribal traditions.' Does that make sense?" - I agree with you that this is how "Native American tribes" subsections should look like. As you probably noticed I have already added such series of sentences to over a dozen of state articles. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already addressed most of your (and others') points and you didn't address my last points from the message posted at 21:10, 5 September 2024. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you didn't notice but I already added "Native American tribes" subsections to over a dozen of state articles and it seems that nobody has issues with these subsections because my edits have not been reverted. The only exception in which case my edits have been reverted is the Virginia article where you reverted my edits because you said that similar information was already included in existing sections. In case of South Dakota article Muboshgu reverted some of my edits but actually he left some of my edits untouched and the "Native American tribes" subsection (added by me) is still there.

In general I take it that I can proceed with my edits also in case of other state articles. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There does not seem to be consensus above that these edits should proceed. CMD (talk) 07:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally editors should refrain from both adding or removing disputed content while it is under active discussion. As you note, this discussion has now become less active, and I do agree with CMD that the consensus here is generally against including this subsection. As such, I have gone through "over a dozen state articles" and integrated the sentences and pieces that had landing spots within the various articles, while removing those that don't. Thanks-- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 14:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why do you remove my subsections considering that you yourself was in favour of adding subsections in the form of a series of sentences (instead of tables). You wrote: "Better might be a series of sentences like this: 'The major tribes in Utah are the Navajo, with 17,703 members, the Ute with 3,206, and the Cherokee with 3,351, as of 2010. Many Navajo live near Bears Ears, a national monument and sacred site for tribal traditions.' Does that make sense?" Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And SounderBruce wrote: "The state articles absolutely should list out the recognized and unrecognized tribes that live there" Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You also wrote: "I've suggested focusing on the Demographics subarticles" - does it mean that I can add "Native American" subsections to Demographics subarticles for each state? Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've finally managed to find the 2020 census data about tribes, I will add it to Wikipedia articles. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can Wikipedia stop using the term "Asian and Pacific Islander" for the demographics sections of places in the U.S.?

Most pages about cities, counties, and other communities in the U.S. has a table showing the demographics of the city, listing the percentage of people that identify as "Non-Hispanic White", "Black", "Hispanic or Latino", etc. Most tables use the term "Asian", while the tables on some pages like Cleveland or Hollywood, Florida say "Asian and Pacific Islander". The census hasn't used the term "Asian and Pacific Islander" in over two decades. As a person of Vietnamese descent I feel uncomfortable with the term because it groups together many different people that are culturally and phenotypically distinct. I don't feel any connection to Pacific Islanders.When I edit the term to just say Asian my edits get reverted back.

Can the term "Asian" or "Asian American" be used in the demographics section for all pages about places in the U.S instead of "Asian and Pacific Islander"? This is all I want to change. JohnIllinois1827 (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Walt Disney Animation Studios

Walt Disney Animation Studios has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Aerosmith

Aerosmith has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shoshone National Forest under Featured Article Review

I have nominated Shoshone National Forest for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. George Ho (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ranked-choice voting in the United States has an RfC

Talk:Ranked-choice voting in the United States has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:List of governors of Ohio#Requested move 12 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of governors of Ohio#Requested move 12 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 13:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Big Four Bridge

Big Four Bridge has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FAC for American Writers

American Writers is the first history of US literature and I have nominated the article for FAC. The nomination has been up about a month and has thus far passed an image review and received support from two reviewers. Activity on the nomination has died down, putting it in danger of getting archived, though all reviewers so far consider the article fit for featured status. Anybody interested in reviewing the nomination can find it here. Thank you in advance to anybody willing to take a look! Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Reel Affirmations

Reel Affirmations has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Trump rally at Madison Square Garden

Would be helpful to get more eyes at this new article:

2024 Trump rally at Madison Square Garden

---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+ a link to another new article about a rally: Donald Trump town hall in Oaks, Pennsylvania ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for John D. Rockefeller

John D. Rockefeller has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for J. D. B. v. North Carolina

J. D. B. v. North Carolina has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Political positions of Jeb Bush#Article size, structure, and focus

Would appreciate some eyes on this. Pasting what I wrote there for context:

This article needs pruning, but I am unsure of where to begin, or what the end result should ultimately look like. If there is a policy for what "Political positions of ______" pages should look like, I am unaware of it (and would appreciate a link to). However, I think we can all agree that there is no reason why the article on Jeb Bush's political positions should be 605.99% larger than his brother's.
Jeb Bush hasn't been in a position to directly influence American policy since leaving gubernatorial office in 2007. Since then, he had an infamously unsuccessful presidential campaign in 2016, has been involved with a number of lobbyist groups (e.g. Foundation for Excellence in Education, United Against Nuclear Iran, the James Madison Institute), and occasionally contributes to media outlets as an op-ed columnist. This article gives WP:UNDUE weight to his stated positions on the 2016 campaign trail; eight years down the line and three presidential elections later, it is safe to say that they ultimately fail the WP:10YEARTEST.
By the end of this discussion, I'd like to set up an outline for how the article should be restructured and discuss what should or should not remain. My immediate thoughts:

I'd like to avoid splitting the article into sub-subsections unless absolutely necessary to avoid MOS:OVERSECTION.

I believe the most weight should be given to his political positions during his tenure as governor, followed by his post-gubernatorial career as a lobbyist and op-ed columnist, followed by comments made on the 2016 campaign trail.

Anything that did not influence public policy probably does not deserve a section unto itself. For example, his opinion on the Confederate flag, the name of the Washington Commanders (né Redskins), or his comments about the "French workweek" seem particularly superfluous.
Discuss.
— User:Kodiak Blackjack 20:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

— Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 00:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These seem like sound principles, although I don't think the size vis a vis his brother is that important. I found the International relations section the most unneeded, it seems mostly news-style reporting of specific statements. For what it's worth there is one relevant GA, Political positions of Paul Ryan. CMD (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]