This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 95 | ← | Archive 97 | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 | Archive 101 | → | Archive 105 |
An editor on the Talk:Russia page seemingly believes that it is WP:Advocacy to elaborate upon human rights in the Russia article but not in the United States article, and invited me to make an edit on this article. So I want to know if there is WP:Consensus that human rights should be further elaborated upon in the United States article, perhaps in the form of a section devoted exclusively to human rights which can also possibly be touched upon in the lead section. DeathTrain ( talk) 01:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Proposed text for lead. Human rights in the United States
However, the United States government has also been denounced by political dissidents and human rights activists for various human rights abuses, including mass incarceration of racial minorities, concentration camps for immigrants and refugees, the support of foreign dictators, persecution of dissidents, increasing poverty and inequality and failure to provide basic needs for millions of its people, such as proper healthcare. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
References
- ^ "World Report 2020". Human Rights Watch.
- ^ "State Department's attack on the BDS movement violates freedom of expression and endangers human rights protection". Amnesty International.
- ^ "Record of human rights violations in US in 2019". China Daily.
- ^ "USA: State Department's flawed 'unalienable rights' report undermines international law". Amnesty International.
- ^ "Japanese Internment Camps". History.
- ^ "The Indonesian Counter-Revolution". Jacobin.
- ^ "What the United States Did in Indonesia". The Atlantic.
-- Moxy 🍁 23:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Despite the relatively good international rankings on human rights, the country receives criticism for inequality in regards to race and income, its capital punishment policy , incarceration rates,...few more links if need be
I've always found it weird how articles such as China, Iran, Russia have leads that mentions issues within the country such as human rights abuses and the like, but on the United States article, it has never been mentioned. I support its inclusion, even as a dual American citizen. The other articles that needs to be fixed next are probably Israel and India, the lead is filled with puffery of the country with almost no "negative" mention of its history of abuses with minorities as well as human rights issues. Indian/Israeli nationalists are probably rampant on there, you would think reading that article these countries are the best in the world. Getting on-topic, the United States may be a developed country, but its issues with human rights both domestically and internationally cannot be understated and should be appropriately mentioned in the lead. 104.244.211.140 ( talk) 22:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't reflect well on the integrity of Wikipedia that the articles on Russia, China, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, and others mention human rights in the introduction. Whereas the article about the glorious American empire where nobody has ever been persecuted for their political beliefs and where black people are definitely not murdered are the streets doesn't mention human rights in the introduction. Its either all country articles mention human rights issues in the introduction or none of them do. User:SpaceSandwich talk 1:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)—
@ Moxy: I like your idea very much. I would be ok with putting the following in there verbatim right now: "Despite the relatively good international rankings on human rights, the country receives criticism for inequality in regards to race and income, its capital punishment policy, and incarceration rates." This wouldn't even need sources in the introduction, because (again) it's a very notable view. Citations can be used later if this is expanded upon in the actual body. But I'll let you make the final call, I don't really think this is worth having a huge fight over (and I know it could easily devolve into that because it's a politically sensitive subject). So I'm bowing out of this debate. Cheers. UBER (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)c
@ DeathTrain: No. This still sounds "rose coloured glasses". The article for China for example essentially says China sucks and everyone there is oppressed and killed. So having the article just say that America has received criticism isn't good enough. America has literally been instrumental in genocides. Also, it shouldn't just be about race it should also include the CIA's well documented use of extrajudicial killings and so-called black sites, as well as war crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as support for Totalitarian regimes. User:SpaceSandwich talk 14:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Neutrality is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, and therefore one of its fundamental principles. Wikipedia is not perfect, but we editors try to make it the best we can. Geopolitics and international relations are very complex, and it is not as simple as "if a powerful country supports despotic regimes, it must be bad", as all powerful countries did that and still do.
I do not know if you have noticed this, but the Russia article currently does not mention human rights or give any form of criticism to the current government in its lead section at all. Although the United States has supported despotic regimes such as Saudi Arabia, the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos, several genocidal military dictatorships in Central and South America, and many others, China and Russia/the Soviet Union also have and still support similar regimes. The Soviet Union was an ally to Cuba, East Germany, Nicolae Ceaușescu's Socialist Republic of Romania, Idi Amin's Uganda and other Soviet satellite states among others. Meanwhile, China supported regimes like Enver Hoxha's People's Socialist Republic of Albania, Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe, or even the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia. China and Russia today still support despotic regimes like Bashar al-Assad's Syria, Iran, Cuba, Belarus, North Korea and most of the authoritarian former Soviet republics in Central Asia like Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan. Neither China nor Russia give any form of elaboration to the many despotic regimes they have supported in the past or present. Why should the United States? Overelaborating on criticism that is not attested in the article itself, by related articles or by reliable sources is undue weight and pushing a POV. DeathTrain ( talk) 22:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@SpaceSandwich, you first admit to being an Uyghur genocide denialist, but within hours you then proceed to accuse Mason.Jones and DeathTrain of being disingenious people. This is a textbook example of the pot calling the kettle black. Why should any of us believe that your contributions in this context, or to the whole of Wikipedia for that matter, are made in good faith? 160.39.55.39 ( talk) 00:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
text added is devious drivel worthy of Radio Moscow, circa 1969", especially considering that they are supported by sources in their own article by Freedom House themselves when they released their financial reports, as well as many other journals. ShelteredCook ( talk) 17:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Should we add mention of social problems like human rights records, civil liberties, social inequality and/or bad foreign policy in the lead to reflect the coverage currently in the article? If yes what to mention and what to add? Suggestions below.--
Moxy 🍁 17:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
B:Despite considerable income and wealth disparities in comparison to other developed countries, it ranks high in measures of economic freedom, quality of life, and quality of higher education, and receives relatively high ratings for human rights, despite issues such as racial division, a large prison population and continued use of capital punishment.
C:However, the United States government has also been denounced by political dissidents and human rights activists for various human rights abuses, including mass incarceration of racial minorities, concentration camps for immigrants and refugees, the support of foreign dictators, persecution of dissidents, increasing poverty and inequality and failure to provide basic needs for millions of its people, such as proper healthcare.
Despite the relatively good international rankings on human rights, the country receives criticism for inequality in regards to race and income, its capital punishment policy and incarceration rates.
measures of economic freedom, quality of life, and quality of higher education, and receives relatively high ratings for human rightsare a direct rebuttal to income inequality in a way that isn't really WP:BLUE (given that these are averages.) The other two, since they lead into attribution, feel like they're more neutrally listing "good thing X, but faced criticism for Y" without leading the reader to a conclusion. Of the other two, B is more specific (especially with regards to attributing who the criticism is coming from), although I can understand the argument that it's on the long side; it could be tweaked in terms of which specific aspects are emphasized. C is brief and acceptable. -- Aquillion ( talk) 18:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
failure to provide basic needs for millions of its people" is going to lead to edit wars almost immediately, so I'd say to leave it out and keep it less terse such as "
...as well as the lack of universal healthcare among developed countries." On the Health care in the United States article, there's a sentence which mentions "
A 2017 survey of the healthcare systems of 11 developed countries found the US healthcare system to be the most expensive and worst-performing in terms of health access, efficiency, and equity." The source from that article could be attributed to support the phase here. ShelteredCook ( talk) 20:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The United States has the world's largest prison population and is also the only Western country to continue the use of capital punishment.
∼∼∼∼
Eric0928
Talk
*No or C - Brevity, and those are fairly nuanced issues compared to the entirety of the United States. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
SlatSkate (
talk •
contribs) Striking sockpuppet comment.
∼∼∼∼
Eric0928
Talk
∼∼∼∼
Eric0928
Talk
Comment: Participation in this discussion seems to have ended quite some time ago. What will happen to it now? DeathTrain ( talk) 00:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
@ ShelteredCook:@ SlatSkate:@ Mason.Jones:@ Moxy:@ Aquillion:@ Dhtwiki:@ Chipmunkdavis:@ Eric0928:@ Adoring nanny:@ C.J. Griffin:@ PraiseVivec:@ Spy-cicle: @ Oliszydlowski: @ Some1: @ Boynamedsue: @ -sche: What I am proposing is the following:
Despite receiving relatively high ratings for human rights, persistent issues include racial and income inequality, the continued use of capital punishment, high incarceration rates and lack of universal health care
. DeathTrain ( talk) 01:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
"country receives criticism for... its capital punishment policy". Could you point me to the specific section in the article that supports that statement? Because I checked United States#Law enforcement and crime (the only place where the words "capital punishment" appears) and don't see any 'criticism' there regarding the US's use of capital punishment. Some1 ( talk) 02:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Capital punishment is sanctioned in the United States for certain federal and military crimes, and at the state level in 28 states, though three states have moratoriums on carrying out the penalty imposed by their governorsand goes on about about legal and social back and forths. That's reasonable to summarize as a "persistent issue" (ie. something that remains a point of conflict in US society.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 03:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@ ShelteredCook:@ SlatSkate:@ Mason.Jones:@ Moxy:@ Aquillion:@ Dhtwiki:@ Chipmunkdavis:@ Eric0928:@ C.J. Griffin:@ PraiseVivec:@ Spy-cicle: @ Oliszydlowski: @ Some1: @ Boynamedsue: @ -sche: There is another RFC on the Russia talk page for human rights. Do you have any comment on it? DeathTrain ( talk) 23:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the infrastructure section in transportation, the article states,
"The United States has the largest rail transport network size of any country in the world with a system length of 125,828 miles, nearly all standard gauge."
Anyone who has ever visited Asia know this statement is laughably false. When i attempted to investigate the reference(444), the link doesn't exist. The get request retrieves no document.
For these reasons, these statements should be deleted. At the very least, this section needs heavy editing. 63.208.139.208 ( talk) 02:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Run n Fly (
talk) 19:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)However, the source doesn't say the Vietnam War started as a "proxy war". It says it started as an anti-colonial war against France. (I'm also not sure what "full American participation" means.) The term "proxy war" seems to be overused here. The introduction says: "During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in various proxy wars but avoided direct military conflict". This could be taken as implying that United States avoided military conflict during the Cold War and used "proxies". Of course, on the contrary, the US fought in Korea, Vietnam, and smaller conflicts like Grenada. By definition, a "proxy war" is a war in which the US is not participating in directly, so why mention "proxy wars" in the lead instead of Korea and Vietnam?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 05:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
References
Noticed the link for the edit this was given GA status is incorrectly a talk page link. Not sure what the procedure is for fixing it, but decision was concluded @ 16:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC). I assume the correct replacement would be the edit to the main page done right after the decision which added the GA icon (16:22, 21 January 2015, by Winner 42). Here is (what I believe to be) the correct link: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=United_States&oldid=643521120 Pernicious.Editor ( talk) 00:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
BORN: MAY 17, 2929 2601:645:401:93B0:A0BB:D065:46C:7509 ( talk) 21:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Specify the Christianity in the infobox 43% Protestant 20% Catholic 2% Mormon WhiteBritsh81.88 ( talk) 16:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. This isn't conventional for country articles. Normally only the main religions are specified not the denominations.
User:GKFX
talk 18:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article should describe the United States' crimes against other peoples and nations throughout its nefarious history... This article is also American/CIA propaganda and needs improvement. This article should also be purged of racist and fascist rhetoric (mainly from the alt right and extremist "libertarian" hate groups that promote GUN VIOLENCE (All OATH KEEPERS unnecessary and hateful comments should be removed from this article - ie. no more "the government can become tyrannical and we must uphold the pledge with firearms, blah blah blah. That extremist content is DISTRESSING AND ILLEGAL!)). Special:Contributions/redacted ( talk) redacted
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Mass Media" section, it's stated that "The four major broadcasters in the U.S. are the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), American Broadcasting Company (ABC), and Fox Broadcasting Company (FOX).". I believe it would be worthwhile to distinguish the fact that ABC, CBS, and NBC were considered as "The Big Three" up until FOX came to be fully established around the 90's. Reasoning for this being that the three networks in question were in the market since television was first evolving in the 30's and 40's until FOX's entrance into the market decades later.
My suggested edit would be to extend the sentence in question to read along the lines of "The four major broadcasters in the U.S. are the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), American Broadcasting Company (ABC), and Fox Broadcasting Company (FOX), the former three being considered the "Big Three" due to their prominance since the begginning of commercial television broadcasting." However, if this edit is felt as unnesseccary or if it can be implemented in a better sense, that's all fine and dandy. Binzy Boi ( talk) 18:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The information cited is two years old and there was just another major official census in 2020; plus, the population demographic info box content is not the same as what the source cited suggests. We read:
76.3% White |
13.4% Black |
5.9% Asian |
2.8% Multiracial |
1.3% Native American |
81.5% Non-Hispanic or Latino |
0.2% Pacific Islander |
18.5% Hispanic or Latino |
As opposed to what the source actually says:
60.1% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino |
The infobox on this Wikipedia site simply makes up the category "Non-Hispanic or Latino" - which does not exist in the U.S. census - and completely skips over the category which the source does list, which is called White alone, not Hispanic or Latino.
What was the rationale here with the false representation of source material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.64.121 ( talk) 17:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
It is strange that this article mentions India first out of countries that the US has "strong ties" with, before Canada, Australia, Japan, and many other countries with significant defense and trade treaties. In my opinion, India does not meet the same level of closeness with the US as these other countries. It is also the only country listed without a citation. I believe it should be taken off this short list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.14.159 ( talk) 20:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The text currently says that the U.S. was not referred to as "America" in 19th century songs, but the Wikipedia article on "America the Beautiful" says the lyrics date to 1895. Kdammers ( talk) 08:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Sir's! Does the attempt qualify as vandalism ? WikiUserNr.2345678998765 ( talk) 12:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
At the beginning of the nation, they had to separate powers, and so gave the President monarchical powers but making the charge elective. I would call this a Republic that originally wanted a term-fixed king-like President. I'll cite only one source but you can search more online about what I said. [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Localhost83 ( talk • contribs) 18:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I think ‘two party' should be typed in the government type section. Michael58137543 ( talk) 15:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
So this page is great. Tells about most of the things one may want to know. But it lacks one topic I noticed, that is "USA Television". Ofcourse there is already many things about "Cinema" but TV is whole different things. Therefore I wanted to know about Top American TV series and more in this page but I found nothing about TV which is an important part of USA because is so successful and people watch everything around the globe. My request is there should be separate detailed topic just for Television and successful television programs. I hope my request would be heard. Thanks. Bittu355 ( talk) 08:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Update the first paragraph under "Government and Politics" in regards to the United States' position in the Democracy Index. It is still 25th worldwide as of 2020, being categorized as a "flawed democracy" for the last 5 years.
Here's the link to the news source Here's the link from which page you can access the official report Here's the link to the respective, updated, Wiki page 2.152.97.67 ( talk) 21:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC) Done.-- Moxy- 19:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure how relevant this sentence, which mostly has to do with other nations, is to the overall summary of US history:
In 1979, President Jimmy Carter brokered a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, marking the first time an Arab nation recognized Israeli existence.
This seems like it would make more sense at Egypt or Israel, but even though President Carter was involved I don't think this is major for the US, especially considering how much consolidation we have to do here in this section. AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 20:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section about the world wars it makes no mention that the US was a vital supplier to the entente powers in WW1, prior to their entrance. but it does make mention of the US's supplies in WW2. It feels like there should be some sentence mentioning the supplies in WW1. Just a suggestion. Tambles ( talk) 20:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
No longer expecting any meaningful discussion, and neither should you. Honestly, this exchange was enlightening. AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 04:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I'm concerned that this sentence in the lead accepts the premise that politically left-wing ideas should be perceived globally as correct. This is especially with regard to universal health care, but some of the other issues apply as well; "income inequality" is bad, but many view income equality as worse. Surely people of varying political stripes have criticized the US on a range of other issues, and would defend the things listed as good, necessary, or better than the alternative (capital punishment over terrorism, incarceration over higher crime, lack of universal healthcare over limits on personal provider). Also, the idea that "criticism" here is widespread as opposed to a majorly debated topic on both sides I don't think presents it in a due light. Regardless of our opinions on the validity of these arguments, they are hotly contested, and not monolithic as this sentence makes it seem. In any case, it presently isn't clear who is doing most of the criticism here – inside/outside the country, academics/average joes, left-wing/right-wing. Would like further input. AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 00:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
|
"Making up more than a third of global military spending, it is the foremost military power in the world and is a leading political, cultural, and scientific force internationally.[23]" Either it should be "Making up more than a third of global military spending, it is the foremost military power in the world, and it is a leading political, cultural, and scientific force internationally.[23]", because the fact that it spends on the military is not connected to the fact that it is a leading cultural and scientific force, or the two fact should be in separate sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.152.85 ( talk) 22:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Still better as a separate sentence altogether. Semicolons should be kept at a bare minimum, especially in the intro. Also, current semi implies a linkage that isn't there. Mason.Jones ( talk) 00:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi y'all,
Should we write in the infobox that Chicago (Great Lakes) is the biggest megalopolis in the United States? New York might be the biggest metropolitan area, but megalopolis is important too.
Best regards, Steve RealIK17 ( talk) 05:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Demographically, is this article really trying to re-classify Latino (including those with Central American and Indigenous North American ancestry) as 'White'? Since when? The new Census (2020) released this month indicates that the country's popluation grew by 50 million in the past 20 years, and of that, African-Americans are still at 13%? Sounds fishy. 72.174.131.123 ( talk) 18:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
With the recent release of the 2020 census redistricting data, the Census Bureau has cautioned against comparing race and ethnicity data to that of the 2010 census. This appears to be due to the fact that a much larger number of respondents identified as multiracial since the previous census. Therefore, I'm not sure that we should immediately add this data anywhere until consensus can be reached. Bneu2013 ( talk) 20:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
TBA 64.83.217.138 ( talk) 19:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned that U.S soldiers left Afghanistan? TTTTRZON ( talk) 16:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
If the soldiers actually leave on 31th/30th August it should be updated in the article too. Regards, WikiSilky ( talk) 15:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Now that almost all soldiers have left Afghanistan, an edit seems appropriate. PtolemyXV 25 October 2021
An editor's recent contributions to the lead have created two problems: (1) the very wordy expansion of the lead, which had once been concise; and (2) the introduction of rather selective moments in U.S. history, omitting other major events while introducing ideological saws regarding imperialism. For ex., the unsourced and perfectly erroneous observation that the U.S. purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867 was part of some imperialistic objective must be removed. Also questionable is the assertion (no source again) that the U.S. created and escalated the Cold War with the Soviet Union. The sudden addition of ahistorical "facts" in what should be a summarized history must be questioned—and removed—without proper consensus from other editors. Mason.Jones ( talk) 18:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC) .
The United States has one commemorated date of national founding/independence: July 4, 1776. The dates of the last state admission and constitutional amendment are irrelevant to independence, and the others are superfluous because they are not widely commemorated. 73.71.251.64 ( talk) 05:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Indian from India 🇮🇳 for reservations be changed to Native American 🇺🇸Reservations since an Indian from India 🇮🇳 could be Indian American. 🇺🇸 🇮🇳 47.6.69.45 ( talk) 20:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Indian reservation is the common term.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 20:18, 15 September 2021 (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.
This page redirects from America, shouldn't it redirect to Americas since it is a continent. -- Bento Emanuel ( talk) 18:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
To Khajidha, The landmass you're talking about, which connects Africa, Asia, and Europe, is called Afro-Eurasia. The Isthmus of Suez connects Africa and Asia. The Caucasus is often referred to as an isthmus which connects Asia with Europe.
No, I, as an Italian, am not an Asian. Nor, am I a Caucasian. (I am not from Caucasia.) We Italians are Europeo/a, Italiano/a, and Latino/a. We use use the alfabeto latino ( Latin alphabet). Our alphabet is derived from the Etruscan alphabet, which is derived from the Greek alphabet, which is derived from the Phoenician alphabet (from Mediterranean countries such as Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon) which, itself, is derived from Egyptian hieroglyphs. Does it mean that you are a Latino/a for using Rome's Latin alphabet?
Now, getting back to America. The earliest known use of America is 1507 when it was applied by German cartographer Martin Waldseemuller to South America. I can't stress enough that America is, indeed, a continent, not a country. The fact that the term originated for what is now known as South America and grew to Central America and North America attests to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R. Martiello ( talk • contribs) 17:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Please, Khajidha. South, Central, and North America are on one continent. The continent is called America. As I'd indicated before, the continent I live on is called Afro-Eurasia. I'm not a Caucasian just because some English dictionaries feel I should be. In German, Spanish, Italian, Latin, or any other language's dictionaries and Wikipedias, America is one continent and Caucasian people are from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia, Iran and Turkey. Don't get preachy with me about what you think I should be...a Caucasian. Simply put, I'm not. As many European countries' dictionaries and Wikipedias will show you, the English language dictionaries and Wikipedia are incorrect about many, many things. And for you and Georgia guy, according to your very own English-language Wikipedia, Supercontinent does not exist today. So, you're the one who doesn't seem to understand English, Khajidha. Not I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R. Martiello ( talk • contribs) 22:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Khajidha, How do they show that English-language encyclopedias and dictionaries are wrong, you ask? That's easy! The English language knows how to protest and garble what is tried, true, and correct. You want silly? The incorrect meanings that English-language speakers give to words that are not their own is silly. Erroneous English definitions of words that aren't from England and the United States does matter to those of us from older civilizations and countries. You don't grasp much. You should try another alphabet. Ciao! — Preceding unsigned comment added by R. Martiello ( talk • contribs) 23:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Leaving aside the discussions about continents (they are arbitrary constructions and there are no worldwide consensus about their number and limits), it is clear that when the founders of the USA called the country "United States of America" (and not "United States of the Americas"), they considered that the country were inside a bigger geographical entity called "America". The identification America = USA seems to be modern, and has been imposed by the usage. However, even in English, America is still used as a synonym of the Americas, according to some references: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/america?q=america — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.62.136.214 ( talk) 19:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Dhtwiki, If you google "Amérique at Wikipedia", it should take you to the link of the French Wikipedia article. The map there shows the entire American continent as being America. As do Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, German and other foreign language Wikipedias. An American (Americano/a in Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Americain/e in French) are people from the entire American continent. Not just people in the USA. Whether one is a Native American, an offspring of European colonist, or African American, it is not just a USA thing. The other American countries (outside the USA) are loaded with Native Americans, offspring of European colonists, and African Americans (think Cuba, Brazil, Martinique, etc).
The same thing happens with the words Latino and Latina. In the Italian Wikipedia, they are all about Ancient Rome and Romans (1200 BC) and, thereafter, Romance-speaking Europe and its people and, by a mid-19th century extension, Romance-speaking America. There is a Romance-speaking Africa, too. Just one "special usage" nod in the Italian Wikipedia's "Latino" article called "Latinos o Ispanico" ("Latins" (USA shorthand for "Latin Americans") and "Hispanics") for Latin Americans who live in the USA. The words Roma ("Rome" in English) and Roman are right there in the word Romance. Roma is the oldest city in the world named in Rome's alfabeto latino ( Latin alphabet). Did you you think Italy was giving up its superpower of cultural influence on the world so Washington, D.C. could corrupt the Italian words "Latino" and "Latina" for its quaint USA census (mis)usage? You're using Rome's alphabet, Rome's year 2021 AD (2021 anno domini) as well as Italy's calendar, and our ancient language Latino ( Latin) in your courts of law.
It's not happening in the Spanish Wikipedia, either, where "Latino" is again all about ancient Rome and Romans, Romance-language speaking Europeans and their cultures (and those later, by extension). There is a "special usage" Spanish Wikipedia article called "Latino (Estados Unidos)" ("Latino (United States")) for Washington D.C.'s 1997 Anglo-Saxon corruption of Rome's remarkable contribution to world culture. You'll find the Portuguese Wikipedia will give the same information as Italian and Spanish Wikipedias. The French Wikipedia defines "Latino" as Italians, Spaniards and Portuguese and others by extension. The French cognates for "Latino" and "Latina" are Latin and Latine which, too, means Ancient Rome and Romance-speaking Europe (including the French), and later extensions. As noted many places elsewhere, the Spanish language is rapidly replacing the English language in the USA. The French Canadians are already Latins (and Americans). Your great grandchildren will be left smelling the flatulence their forebearers left for them when the USA has to adhere to we Latino people's correct usage of America, Latino and Latina. Better (you and) them than us! R. Martiello ( talk) 20:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Tbhotch, I hope your message wasn't meant for me. Golbez was treating this talk page like his/her personal forum when s/he erroneously said that s/he could guarantee that the vast, vast majority of people who are looking up "America" on the English Wikipedia are looking for the USA. Not everyone is from the USA. Nor, for that matter, the American continent. You're from Mexico City. You're an American. You shouldn't be fooled into thinking America is meant totally for the USA. I should know what America is. As said above, America is a continent named after the Italian navigator and explorer Amerigo Vespucci. It got named using Rome's alfabeto latino ( Latin alphabet). We Italians have been Latino/a since 1200 BC. We invented Latino/a. I ought to know when a continent is named after one of my countrymen. I didn't make any "Proposals to make changes" here, so I don't have to go to WP:RFD. (In case your message was meant for me, as you didn't address it to anyone in particular.) I've told the truth on this talk page. Which is something others are certainly intimidated by. R. Martiello ( talk) 17:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Khajidha, No! Absolutely not! You're the one who still fails to understand that disrespect is disrespect. Inflammatory false definitions in the English language are just plain obnoxious and wrong. English-speaking people hording and misusing words such as America, Latino, and Latina solely for the USA is a dreadful Anglo-Saxon form of disrespect to people who live in other countries in America and those of us from Latin Europe, Latin America, and Latin Africa. You may think that English is the international language, but there are now more Spanish speakers than English speakers. Like in the rest of the Romance-speaking world, Spaniards define America as a continent and Latino/a as Latin Europeans, Latin Americans, and Latin Africans. The sociopathic behavior of the Anglo-Saxons regarding the definitions America, Latino, and Latina will succumb when the USA fully transitions into a Latin country, itself. Everyone worldside of stateside is talking about it. R. Martiello ( talk) 18:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Tbhotch, okay, this one's for you, Mexican boy/girl. You're NOT an American and you're not a Latino/a. Spain wouldn't even apologize to Mexico for the Spanish atrocities at Mexico's recent 500th anniversary. You New Worlders are a vapid Eurocentric bunch. And the United Staters give the word vapid a whole new meaning! By the way, when the USA becomes a Latin country (as you Spanish-speaking "other Americans" are so passionate for it to be), you're just going to be called Americans anyway. No more of this Latin American baloney. Americans will mean people from the American continent. Is this message "patronizing" enough for your bendy Anglo-American mentality? I hope it is! R. Martiello ( talk) 19:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 95 | ← | Archive 97 | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 | Archive 101 | → | Archive 105 |
An editor on the Talk:Russia page seemingly believes that it is WP:Advocacy to elaborate upon human rights in the Russia article but not in the United States article, and invited me to make an edit on this article. So I want to know if there is WP:Consensus that human rights should be further elaborated upon in the United States article, perhaps in the form of a section devoted exclusively to human rights which can also possibly be touched upon in the lead section. DeathTrain ( talk) 01:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Proposed text for lead. Human rights in the United States
However, the United States government has also been denounced by political dissidents and human rights activists for various human rights abuses, including mass incarceration of racial minorities, concentration camps for immigrants and refugees, the support of foreign dictators, persecution of dissidents, increasing poverty and inequality and failure to provide basic needs for millions of its people, such as proper healthcare. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
References
- ^ "World Report 2020". Human Rights Watch.
- ^ "State Department's attack on the BDS movement violates freedom of expression and endangers human rights protection". Amnesty International.
- ^ "Record of human rights violations in US in 2019". China Daily.
- ^ "USA: State Department's flawed 'unalienable rights' report undermines international law". Amnesty International.
- ^ "Japanese Internment Camps". History.
- ^ "The Indonesian Counter-Revolution". Jacobin.
- ^ "What the United States Did in Indonesia". The Atlantic.
-- Moxy 🍁 23:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Despite the relatively good international rankings on human rights, the country receives criticism for inequality in regards to race and income, its capital punishment policy , incarceration rates,...few more links if need be
I've always found it weird how articles such as China, Iran, Russia have leads that mentions issues within the country such as human rights abuses and the like, but on the United States article, it has never been mentioned. I support its inclusion, even as a dual American citizen. The other articles that needs to be fixed next are probably Israel and India, the lead is filled with puffery of the country with almost no "negative" mention of its history of abuses with minorities as well as human rights issues. Indian/Israeli nationalists are probably rampant on there, you would think reading that article these countries are the best in the world. Getting on-topic, the United States may be a developed country, but its issues with human rights both domestically and internationally cannot be understated and should be appropriately mentioned in the lead. 104.244.211.140 ( talk) 22:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't reflect well on the integrity of Wikipedia that the articles on Russia, China, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, and others mention human rights in the introduction. Whereas the article about the glorious American empire where nobody has ever been persecuted for their political beliefs and where black people are definitely not murdered are the streets doesn't mention human rights in the introduction. Its either all country articles mention human rights issues in the introduction or none of them do. User:SpaceSandwich talk 1:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)—
@ Moxy: I like your idea very much. I would be ok with putting the following in there verbatim right now: "Despite the relatively good international rankings on human rights, the country receives criticism for inequality in regards to race and income, its capital punishment policy, and incarceration rates." This wouldn't even need sources in the introduction, because (again) it's a very notable view. Citations can be used later if this is expanded upon in the actual body. But I'll let you make the final call, I don't really think this is worth having a huge fight over (and I know it could easily devolve into that because it's a politically sensitive subject). So I'm bowing out of this debate. Cheers. UBER (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)c
@ DeathTrain: No. This still sounds "rose coloured glasses". The article for China for example essentially says China sucks and everyone there is oppressed and killed. So having the article just say that America has received criticism isn't good enough. America has literally been instrumental in genocides. Also, it shouldn't just be about race it should also include the CIA's well documented use of extrajudicial killings and so-called black sites, as well as war crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as support for Totalitarian regimes. User:SpaceSandwich talk 14:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Neutrality is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, and therefore one of its fundamental principles. Wikipedia is not perfect, but we editors try to make it the best we can. Geopolitics and international relations are very complex, and it is not as simple as "if a powerful country supports despotic regimes, it must be bad", as all powerful countries did that and still do.
I do not know if you have noticed this, but the Russia article currently does not mention human rights or give any form of criticism to the current government in its lead section at all. Although the United States has supported despotic regimes such as Saudi Arabia, the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos, several genocidal military dictatorships in Central and South America, and many others, China and Russia/the Soviet Union also have and still support similar regimes. The Soviet Union was an ally to Cuba, East Germany, Nicolae Ceaușescu's Socialist Republic of Romania, Idi Amin's Uganda and other Soviet satellite states among others. Meanwhile, China supported regimes like Enver Hoxha's People's Socialist Republic of Albania, Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe, or even the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia. China and Russia today still support despotic regimes like Bashar al-Assad's Syria, Iran, Cuba, Belarus, North Korea and most of the authoritarian former Soviet republics in Central Asia like Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan. Neither China nor Russia give any form of elaboration to the many despotic regimes they have supported in the past or present. Why should the United States? Overelaborating on criticism that is not attested in the article itself, by related articles or by reliable sources is undue weight and pushing a POV. DeathTrain ( talk) 22:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@SpaceSandwich, you first admit to being an Uyghur genocide denialist, but within hours you then proceed to accuse Mason.Jones and DeathTrain of being disingenious people. This is a textbook example of the pot calling the kettle black. Why should any of us believe that your contributions in this context, or to the whole of Wikipedia for that matter, are made in good faith? 160.39.55.39 ( talk) 00:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
text added is devious drivel worthy of Radio Moscow, circa 1969", especially considering that they are supported by sources in their own article by Freedom House themselves when they released their financial reports, as well as many other journals. ShelteredCook ( talk) 17:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Should we add mention of social problems like human rights records, civil liberties, social inequality and/or bad foreign policy in the lead to reflect the coverage currently in the article? If yes what to mention and what to add? Suggestions below.--
Moxy 🍁 17:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
B:Despite considerable income and wealth disparities in comparison to other developed countries, it ranks high in measures of economic freedom, quality of life, and quality of higher education, and receives relatively high ratings for human rights, despite issues such as racial division, a large prison population and continued use of capital punishment.
C:However, the United States government has also been denounced by political dissidents and human rights activists for various human rights abuses, including mass incarceration of racial minorities, concentration camps for immigrants and refugees, the support of foreign dictators, persecution of dissidents, increasing poverty and inequality and failure to provide basic needs for millions of its people, such as proper healthcare.
Despite the relatively good international rankings on human rights, the country receives criticism for inequality in regards to race and income, its capital punishment policy and incarceration rates.
measures of economic freedom, quality of life, and quality of higher education, and receives relatively high ratings for human rightsare a direct rebuttal to income inequality in a way that isn't really WP:BLUE (given that these are averages.) The other two, since they lead into attribution, feel like they're more neutrally listing "good thing X, but faced criticism for Y" without leading the reader to a conclusion. Of the other two, B is more specific (especially with regards to attributing who the criticism is coming from), although I can understand the argument that it's on the long side; it could be tweaked in terms of which specific aspects are emphasized. C is brief and acceptable. -- Aquillion ( talk) 18:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
failure to provide basic needs for millions of its people" is going to lead to edit wars almost immediately, so I'd say to leave it out and keep it less terse such as "
...as well as the lack of universal healthcare among developed countries." On the Health care in the United States article, there's a sentence which mentions "
A 2017 survey of the healthcare systems of 11 developed countries found the US healthcare system to be the most expensive and worst-performing in terms of health access, efficiency, and equity." The source from that article could be attributed to support the phase here. ShelteredCook ( talk) 20:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The United States has the world's largest prison population and is also the only Western country to continue the use of capital punishment.
∼∼∼∼
Eric0928
Talk
*No or C - Brevity, and those are fairly nuanced issues compared to the entirety of the United States. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
SlatSkate (
talk •
contribs) Striking sockpuppet comment.
∼∼∼∼
Eric0928
Talk
∼∼∼∼
Eric0928
Talk
Comment: Participation in this discussion seems to have ended quite some time ago. What will happen to it now? DeathTrain ( talk) 00:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
@ ShelteredCook:@ SlatSkate:@ Mason.Jones:@ Moxy:@ Aquillion:@ Dhtwiki:@ Chipmunkdavis:@ Eric0928:@ Adoring nanny:@ C.J. Griffin:@ PraiseVivec:@ Spy-cicle: @ Oliszydlowski: @ Some1: @ Boynamedsue: @ -sche: What I am proposing is the following:
Despite receiving relatively high ratings for human rights, persistent issues include racial and income inequality, the continued use of capital punishment, high incarceration rates and lack of universal health care
. DeathTrain ( talk) 01:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
"country receives criticism for... its capital punishment policy". Could you point me to the specific section in the article that supports that statement? Because I checked United States#Law enforcement and crime (the only place where the words "capital punishment" appears) and don't see any 'criticism' there regarding the US's use of capital punishment. Some1 ( talk) 02:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Capital punishment is sanctioned in the United States for certain federal and military crimes, and at the state level in 28 states, though three states have moratoriums on carrying out the penalty imposed by their governorsand goes on about about legal and social back and forths. That's reasonable to summarize as a "persistent issue" (ie. something that remains a point of conflict in US society.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 03:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@ ShelteredCook:@ SlatSkate:@ Mason.Jones:@ Moxy:@ Aquillion:@ Dhtwiki:@ Chipmunkdavis:@ Eric0928:@ C.J. Griffin:@ PraiseVivec:@ Spy-cicle: @ Oliszydlowski: @ Some1: @ Boynamedsue: @ -sche: There is another RFC on the Russia talk page for human rights. Do you have any comment on it? DeathTrain ( talk) 23:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the infrastructure section in transportation, the article states,
"The United States has the largest rail transport network size of any country in the world with a system length of 125,828 miles, nearly all standard gauge."
Anyone who has ever visited Asia know this statement is laughably false. When i attempted to investigate the reference(444), the link doesn't exist. The get request retrieves no document.
For these reasons, these statements should be deleted. At the very least, this section needs heavy editing. 63.208.139.208 ( talk) 02:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Run n Fly (
talk) 19:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)However, the source doesn't say the Vietnam War started as a "proxy war". It says it started as an anti-colonial war against France. (I'm also not sure what "full American participation" means.) The term "proxy war" seems to be overused here. The introduction says: "During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in various proxy wars but avoided direct military conflict". This could be taken as implying that United States avoided military conflict during the Cold War and used "proxies". Of course, on the contrary, the US fought in Korea, Vietnam, and smaller conflicts like Grenada. By definition, a "proxy war" is a war in which the US is not participating in directly, so why mention "proxy wars" in the lead instead of Korea and Vietnam?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 05:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
References
Noticed the link for the edit this was given GA status is incorrectly a talk page link. Not sure what the procedure is for fixing it, but decision was concluded @ 16:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC). I assume the correct replacement would be the edit to the main page done right after the decision which added the GA icon (16:22, 21 January 2015, by Winner 42). Here is (what I believe to be) the correct link: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=United_States&oldid=643521120 Pernicious.Editor ( talk) 00:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
BORN: MAY 17, 2929 2601:645:401:93B0:A0BB:D065:46C:7509 ( talk) 21:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Specify the Christianity in the infobox 43% Protestant 20% Catholic 2% Mormon WhiteBritsh81.88 ( talk) 16:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. This isn't conventional for country articles. Normally only the main religions are specified not the denominations.
User:GKFX
talk 18:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article should describe the United States' crimes against other peoples and nations throughout its nefarious history... This article is also American/CIA propaganda and needs improvement. This article should also be purged of racist and fascist rhetoric (mainly from the alt right and extremist "libertarian" hate groups that promote GUN VIOLENCE (All OATH KEEPERS unnecessary and hateful comments should be removed from this article - ie. no more "the government can become tyrannical and we must uphold the pledge with firearms, blah blah blah. That extremist content is DISTRESSING AND ILLEGAL!)). Special:Contributions/redacted ( talk) redacted
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Mass Media" section, it's stated that "The four major broadcasters in the U.S. are the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), American Broadcasting Company (ABC), and Fox Broadcasting Company (FOX).". I believe it would be worthwhile to distinguish the fact that ABC, CBS, and NBC were considered as "The Big Three" up until FOX came to be fully established around the 90's. Reasoning for this being that the three networks in question were in the market since television was first evolving in the 30's and 40's until FOX's entrance into the market decades later.
My suggested edit would be to extend the sentence in question to read along the lines of "The four major broadcasters in the U.S. are the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), American Broadcasting Company (ABC), and Fox Broadcasting Company (FOX), the former three being considered the "Big Three" due to their prominance since the begginning of commercial television broadcasting." However, if this edit is felt as unnesseccary or if it can be implemented in a better sense, that's all fine and dandy. Binzy Boi ( talk) 18:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The information cited is two years old and there was just another major official census in 2020; plus, the population demographic info box content is not the same as what the source cited suggests. We read:
76.3% White |
13.4% Black |
5.9% Asian |
2.8% Multiracial |
1.3% Native American |
81.5% Non-Hispanic or Latino |
0.2% Pacific Islander |
18.5% Hispanic or Latino |
As opposed to what the source actually says:
60.1% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino |
The infobox on this Wikipedia site simply makes up the category "Non-Hispanic or Latino" - which does not exist in the U.S. census - and completely skips over the category which the source does list, which is called White alone, not Hispanic or Latino.
What was the rationale here with the false representation of source material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.64.121 ( talk) 17:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
It is strange that this article mentions India first out of countries that the US has "strong ties" with, before Canada, Australia, Japan, and many other countries with significant defense and trade treaties. In my opinion, India does not meet the same level of closeness with the US as these other countries. It is also the only country listed without a citation. I believe it should be taken off this short list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.14.159 ( talk) 20:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The text currently says that the U.S. was not referred to as "America" in 19th century songs, but the Wikipedia article on "America the Beautiful" says the lyrics date to 1895. Kdammers ( talk) 08:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Sir's! Does the attempt qualify as vandalism ? WikiUserNr.2345678998765 ( talk) 12:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
At the beginning of the nation, they had to separate powers, and so gave the President monarchical powers but making the charge elective. I would call this a Republic that originally wanted a term-fixed king-like President. I'll cite only one source but you can search more online about what I said. [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Localhost83 ( talk • contribs) 18:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I think ‘two party' should be typed in the government type section. Michael58137543 ( talk) 15:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
So this page is great. Tells about most of the things one may want to know. But it lacks one topic I noticed, that is "USA Television". Ofcourse there is already many things about "Cinema" but TV is whole different things. Therefore I wanted to know about Top American TV series and more in this page but I found nothing about TV which is an important part of USA because is so successful and people watch everything around the globe. My request is there should be separate detailed topic just for Television and successful television programs. I hope my request would be heard. Thanks. Bittu355 ( talk) 08:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Update the first paragraph under "Government and Politics" in regards to the United States' position in the Democracy Index. It is still 25th worldwide as of 2020, being categorized as a "flawed democracy" for the last 5 years.
Here's the link to the news source Here's the link from which page you can access the official report Here's the link to the respective, updated, Wiki page 2.152.97.67 ( talk) 21:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC) Done.-- Moxy- 19:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure how relevant this sentence, which mostly has to do with other nations, is to the overall summary of US history:
In 1979, President Jimmy Carter brokered a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, marking the first time an Arab nation recognized Israeli existence.
This seems like it would make more sense at Egypt or Israel, but even though President Carter was involved I don't think this is major for the US, especially considering how much consolidation we have to do here in this section. AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 20:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section about the world wars it makes no mention that the US was a vital supplier to the entente powers in WW1, prior to their entrance. but it does make mention of the US's supplies in WW2. It feels like there should be some sentence mentioning the supplies in WW1. Just a suggestion. Tambles ( talk) 20:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
No longer expecting any meaningful discussion, and neither should you. Honestly, this exchange was enlightening. AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 04:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I'm concerned that this sentence in the lead accepts the premise that politically left-wing ideas should be perceived globally as correct. This is especially with regard to universal health care, but some of the other issues apply as well; "income inequality" is bad, but many view income equality as worse. Surely people of varying political stripes have criticized the US on a range of other issues, and would defend the things listed as good, necessary, or better than the alternative (capital punishment over terrorism, incarceration over higher crime, lack of universal healthcare over limits on personal provider). Also, the idea that "criticism" here is widespread as opposed to a majorly debated topic on both sides I don't think presents it in a due light. Regardless of our opinions on the validity of these arguments, they are hotly contested, and not monolithic as this sentence makes it seem. In any case, it presently isn't clear who is doing most of the criticism here – inside/outside the country, academics/average joes, left-wing/right-wing. Would like further input. AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 00:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
|
"Making up more than a third of global military spending, it is the foremost military power in the world and is a leading political, cultural, and scientific force internationally.[23]" Either it should be "Making up more than a third of global military spending, it is the foremost military power in the world, and it is a leading political, cultural, and scientific force internationally.[23]", because the fact that it spends on the military is not connected to the fact that it is a leading cultural and scientific force, or the two fact should be in separate sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.152.85 ( talk) 22:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Still better as a separate sentence altogether. Semicolons should be kept at a bare minimum, especially in the intro. Also, current semi implies a linkage that isn't there. Mason.Jones ( talk) 00:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi y'all,
Should we write in the infobox that Chicago (Great Lakes) is the biggest megalopolis in the United States? New York might be the biggest metropolitan area, but megalopolis is important too.
Best regards, Steve RealIK17 ( talk) 05:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Demographically, is this article really trying to re-classify Latino (including those with Central American and Indigenous North American ancestry) as 'White'? Since when? The new Census (2020) released this month indicates that the country's popluation grew by 50 million in the past 20 years, and of that, African-Americans are still at 13%? Sounds fishy. 72.174.131.123 ( talk) 18:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
With the recent release of the 2020 census redistricting data, the Census Bureau has cautioned against comparing race and ethnicity data to that of the 2010 census. This appears to be due to the fact that a much larger number of respondents identified as multiracial since the previous census. Therefore, I'm not sure that we should immediately add this data anywhere until consensus can be reached. Bneu2013 ( talk) 20:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
TBA 64.83.217.138 ( talk) 19:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned that U.S soldiers left Afghanistan? TTTTRZON ( talk) 16:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
If the soldiers actually leave on 31th/30th August it should be updated in the article too. Regards, WikiSilky ( talk) 15:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Now that almost all soldiers have left Afghanistan, an edit seems appropriate. PtolemyXV 25 October 2021
An editor's recent contributions to the lead have created two problems: (1) the very wordy expansion of the lead, which had once been concise; and (2) the introduction of rather selective moments in U.S. history, omitting other major events while introducing ideological saws regarding imperialism. For ex., the unsourced and perfectly erroneous observation that the U.S. purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867 was part of some imperialistic objective must be removed. Also questionable is the assertion (no source again) that the U.S. created and escalated the Cold War with the Soviet Union. The sudden addition of ahistorical "facts" in what should be a summarized history must be questioned—and removed—without proper consensus from other editors. Mason.Jones ( talk) 18:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC) .
The United States has one commemorated date of national founding/independence: July 4, 1776. The dates of the last state admission and constitutional amendment are irrelevant to independence, and the others are superfluous because they are not widely commemorated. 73.71.251.64 ( talk) 05:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Indian from India 🇮🇳 for reservations be changed to Native American 🇺🇸Reservations since an Indian from India 🇮🇳 could be Indian American. 🇺🇸 🇮🇳 47.6.69.45 ( talk) 20:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Indian reservation is the common term.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 20:18, 15 September 2021 (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.
This page redirects from America, shouldn't it redirect to Americas since it is a continent. -- Bento Emanuel ( talk) 18:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
To Khajidha, The landmass you're talking about, which connects Africa, Asia, and Europe, is called Afro-Eurasia. The Isthmus of Suez connects Africa and Asia. The Caucasus is often referred to as an isthmus which connects Asia with Europe.
No, I, as an Italian, am not an Asian. Nor, am I a Caucasian. (I am not from Caucasia.) We Italians are Europeo/a, Italiano/a, and Latino/a. We use use the alfabeto latino ( Latin alphabet). Our alphabet is derived from the Etruscan alphabet, which is derived from the Greek alphabet, which is derived from the Phoenician alphabet (from Mediterranean countries such as Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon) which, itself, is derived from Egyptian hieroglyphs. Does it mean that you are a Latino/a for using Rome's Latin alphabet?
Now, getting back to America. The earliest known use of America is 1507 when it was applied by German cartographer Martin Waldseemuller to South America. I can't stress enough that America is, indeed, a continent, not a country. The fact that the term originated for what is now known as South America and grew to Central America and North America attests to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R. Martiello ( talk • contribs) 17:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Please, Khajidha. South, Central, and North America are on one continent. The continent is called America. As I'd indicated before, the continent I live on is called Afro-Eurasia. I'm not a Caucasian just because some English dictionaries feel I should be. In German, Spanish, Italian, Latin, or any other language's dictionaries and Wikipedias, America is one continent and Caucasian people are from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia, Iran and Turkey. Don't get preachy with me about what you think I should be...a Caucasian. Simply put, I'm not. As many European countries' dictionaries and Wikipedias will show you, the English language dictionaries and Wikipedia are incorrect about many, many things. And for you and Georgia guy, according to your very own English-language Wikipedia, Supercontinent does not exist today. So, you're the one who doesn't seem to understand English, Khajidha. Not I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R. Martiello ( talk • contribs) 22:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Khajidha, How do they show that English-language encyclopedias and dictionaries are wrong, you ask? That's easy! The English language knows how to protest and garble what is tried, true, and correct. You want silly? The incorrect meanings that English-language speakers give to words that are not their own is silly. Erroneous English definitions of words that aren't from England and the United States does matter to those of us from older civilizations and countries. You don't grasp much. You should try another alphabet. Ciao! — Preceding unsigned comment added by R. Martiello ( talk • contribs) 23:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Leaving aside the discussions about continents (they are arbitrary constructions and there are no worldwide consensus about their number and limits), it is clear that when the founders of the USA called the country "United States of America" (and not "United States of the Americas"), they considered that the country were inside a bigger geographical entity called "America". The identification America = USA seems to be modern, and has been imposed by the usage. However, even in English, America is still used as a synonym of the Americas, according to some references: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/america?q=america — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.62.136.214 ( talk) 19:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Dhtwiki, If you google "Amérique at Wikipedia", it should take you to the link of the French Wikipedia article. The map there shows the entire American continent as being America. As do Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, German and other foreign language Wikipedias. An American (Americano/a in Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Americain/e in French) are people from the entire American continent. Not just people in the USA. Whether one is a Native American, an offspring of European colonist, or African American, it is not just a USA thing. The other American countries (outside the USA) are loaded with Native Americans, offspring of European colonists, and African Americans (think Cuba, Brazil, Martinique, etc).
The same thing happens with the words Latino and Latina. In the Italian Wikipedia, they are all about Ancient Rome and Romans (1200 BC) and, thereafter, Romance-speaking Europe and its people and, by a mid-19th century extension, Romance-speaking America. There is a Romance-speaking Africa, too. Just one "special usage" nod in the Italian Wikipedia's "Latino" article called "Latinos o Ispanico" ("Latins" (USA shorthand for "Latin Americans") and "Hispanics") for Latin Americans who live in the USA. The words Roma ("Rome" in English) and Roman are right there in the word Romance. Roma is the oldest city in the world named in Rome's alfabeto latino ( Latin alphabet). Did you you think Italy was giving up its superpower of cultural influence on the world so Washington, D.C. could corrupt the Italian words "Latino" and "Latina" for its quaint USA census (mis)usage? You're using Rome's alphabet, Rome's year 2021 AD (2021 anno domini) as well as Italy's calendar, and our ancient language Latino ( Latin) in your courts of law.
It's not happening in the Spanish Wikipedia, either, where "Latino" is again all about ancient Rome and Romans, Romance-language speaking Europeans and their cultures (and those later, by extension). There is a "special usage" Spanish Wikipedia article called "Latino (Estados Unidos)" ("Latino (United States")) for Washington D.C.'s 1997 Anglo-Saxon corruption of Rome's remarkable contribution to world culture. You'll find the Portuguese Wikipedia will give the same information as Italian and Spanish Wikipedias. The French Wikipedia defines "Latino" as Italians, Spaniards and Portuguese and others by extension. The French cognates for "Latino" and "Latina" are Latin and Latine which, too, means Ancient Rome and Romance-speaking Europe (including the French), and later extensions. As noted many places elsewhere, the Spanish language is rapidly replacing the English language in the USA. The French Canadians are already Latins (and Americans). Your great grandchildren will be left smelling the flatulence their forebearers left for them when the USA has to adhere to we Latino people's correct usage of America, Latino and Latina. Better (you and) them than us! R. Martiello ( talk) 20:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Tbhotch, I hope your message wasn't meant for me. Golbez was treating this talk page like his/her personal forum when s/he erroneously said that s/he could guarantee that the vast, vast majority of people who are looking up "America" on the English Wikipedia are looking for the USA. Not everyone is from the USA. Nor, for that matter, the American continent. You're from Mexico City. You're an American. You shouldn't be fooled into thinking America is meant totally for the USA. I should know what America is. As said above, America is a continent named after the Italian navigator and explorer Amerigo Vespucci. It got named using Rome's alfabeto latino ( Latin alphabet). We Italians have been Latino/a since 1200 BC. We invented Latino/a. I ought to know when a continent is named after one of my countrymen. I didn't make any "Proposals to make changes" here, so I don't have to go to WP:RFD. (In case your message was meant for me, as you didn't address it to anyone in particular.) I've told the truth on this talk page. Which is something others are certainly intimidated by. R. Martiello ( talk) 17:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Khajidha, No! Absolutely not! You're the one who still fails to understand that disrespect is disrespect. Inflammatory false definitions in the English language are just plain obnoxious and wrong. English-speaking people hording and misusing words such as America, Latino, and Latina solely for the USA is a dreadful Anglo-Saxon form of disrespect to people who live in other countries in America and those of us from Latin Europe, Latin America, and Latin Africa. You may think that English is the international language, but there are now more Spanish speakers than English speakers. Like in the rest of the Romance-speaking world, Spaniards define America as a continent and Latino/a as Latin Europeans, Latin Americans, and Latin Africans. The sociopathic behavior of the Anglo-Saxons regarding the definitions America, Latino, and Latina will succumb when the USA fully transitions into a Latin country, itself. Everyone worldside of stateside is talking about it. R. Martiello ( talk) 18:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Tbhotch, okay, this one's for you, Mexican boy/girl. You're NOT an American and you're not a Latino/a. Spain wouldn't even apologize to Mexico for the Spanish atrocities at Mexico's recent 500th anniversary. You New Worlders are a vapid Eurocentric bunch. And the United Staters give the word vapid a whole new meaning! By the way, when the USA becomes a Latin country (as you Spanish-speaking "other Americans" are so passionate for it to be), you're just going to be called Americans anyway. No more of this Latin American baloney. Americans will mean people from the American continent. Is this message "patronizing" enough for your bendy Anglo-American mentality? I hope it is! R. Martiello ( talk) 19:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)