Talk:United States#Official language

@Yovt remove "Its three largest metropolitan areas are New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, and its three most populous states are California, Texas, and Florida." It's unnecessary and it makes the first paragraph long and violates WP:OPEN GloryToCalifornia (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:WP:OPEN links to Wikiproject Open. I assume that's not what you meant. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 06:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:1) That sentence is fine. It's short and sufficiently germane to the article's subject to be mentioned in the lead. 2) In the 42 minutes between the time @GloryToCalifornia made the above talk comment, and when they subsequently removed the sentence they objected to, they made nearly 200 edits to their user page / sandbox in an obvious effort to get just over the 500 edits required for Extended Confirmed status. I'd strongly recommend that any admins around revoke that status and/or enact other appropriate sanctions. CAVincent (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::I was playing with my sandbox after i reached 500 edits what are you talking about? GloryToCalifornia (talk) 06:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::OP's extendedconfirmed group membership revoked. Meters (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::check my edit history. After I edited the page about the United States I went back to playing with the sandbox lol. I wasn't gaming anything GloryToCalifornia (talk) 06:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:I support removing this sentence as it's unnecessary, the info rather trivial, and just bloats the first paragraph of the lead. Yes, some good and featured country articles do have similar listings (e.g., Germany's last sentence of the lead's first paragraph), but they mostly include selected states/regions/cities whose mentions make sense regarding context. Meanwhile, this listing's purpose is not apparent and to me feels more like an end in itself. Maxeto0910 (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::I think the info is rather trite for the lead, too. The choice of three populous metro areas and three states definitely makes it look (just as Maxeto says) like an end in itself. The text already shows populations of the 10 most populous states and the 20 most populous metropolitan areas (the largest metros and their populations being basic to all country articles, and many readers look for them). Mason.Jones (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:The sentence in question isn't just longstanding content; it reflects longstanding, prominent understandings of the article topic in reliable sources. I favor retention. Newimpartial (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::Close this conversation. We shouldn't reach consensus on this because if we do, the article might change and it might look good on the page or bad on the page depending on what content gets removed or added, and people can't change it or add it back forever if we reach a permanent consensus. Let the future decide what the page says, not a current consensus GloryToCalifornia (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@GloryToCalifornia, I'm confused on your rationale here. Consensus changes over time, so there is not much to worry about. This discussion is what changes the article's future. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 05:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::For consensus to change future editors will have to start a long future discussion it's not worth it shut it down. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 06:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Also do you know how to delete a Wikipedia account. Now that I'll never have extended confirmed it's best to delete this account and completely start over GloryToCalifornia (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::This sentence is certainly not "longstanding content": It has been added and removed every now and then. I have made more than 1.4K edits to this article, so I think I might have a reasonably good overview of such things. Maxeto0910 (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:The content of this sentence does not seem to be in the body prose, so it is likely undue in the WP:LEAD. CMD (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::It isn't in the body prose, but it is in tables within the body. CAVincent (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Ugh. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Only part is in a table, and that is as noted not body prose. If it's not due for the body prose, it's obviously not due for the lead prose. CMD (talk) 08:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Chipmunkdavis I don't know that there is any site-wide consensus that only body text is to be summarized in the lead section. That seems EXTRAORDINARY to me. Newimpartial (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::It's basic MOS:LEADREL. Something not due enough weight to be in the body text is obviously not due enough weight to be in the lead, the two should be roughly proportional. CMD (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I believe you are misinterpreting MOS:LEADREL, which states "Significant information should not appear in the lead, apart from basic facts, if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text." (Emphasis added.) Also, "This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article." I'd say the current status quo is just fine MOS-wise, but perhaps someone will be inspired to add the largest cities and states to the body text for harmonization. Since I'm commenting on this again, I'll add my reasoning: readers from both the US and, perhaps more importantly, from outside the US, are very likely to have heard of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, California, Texas, and Florida. Putting a short statement in the lead confirming that these well-known locales are the largest cities and states for readers who are just perusing the lead and not going to start digging into the article for this information strikes me as sufficiently valuable to readers to keep the lead as-is on this. For example, it would quickly explain to someone in Sydney why American late night talk show hosts mention NY and LA so much. CAVincent (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::That emphasis misses the text immediately proceeding it. If the goal is to harmonize by demonstrating relevance in the body, there's nothing stopping anyone doing that. Find a source on demographics that supports the weight and add it. CMD (talk) 06:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Despite references that are clearly describing climate change, the reader is left to wonder why extreme weather in the US is changing. "climate change" should be explicitly mentioned, and linked to the Climate change in the United States wikipedia article. This is done in the climate sections of a number of other major country articles that i checked (UK, Canada, Australia, India).

Please can someone with edit permissions implement this. DecFinney (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:Already did by {{u|TatjanaClimate}}: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1294702233] The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 12:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::@The Corvette ZR1 Yep. Thanks @TatjanaClimate - that's exactly what i was thinking. DecFinney (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

It seems odd that Cuba for example has a laundry list of criticisms in the lead (these seems appropriate; don’t see a need to change them) but this page elides any robust *contemporary* criticism. It seems pretty common for there to be something in the lead of country pages about criticism, human rights violations. I could see something about recent authoritarianism possibly. 2600:100C:B01F:E61A:A45F:2D48:2713:13E0 (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, please: "New-Super-Star" Lifferant, right after the Netherlands!

:There are other opinions, too.

: But they aren't widely represented. Whether Wikipedia online is a dictionary : [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency|"US$ 52.1 billion in 2025"] ala Budget , plus [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency|".. budget of $14.7 billion"]Bohemia de Paris (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|United States|answered=yes}}

Change government from "Federal presidential republic" to "Federal presidential republic under an authoritarian dictatorship" 67.191.144.165 (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose per WP:SOAPBOX 2600:100A:B11A:9A19:0:E:A95C:CF01 (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Untamed1910 (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:Should the edit request be a reply to this or a new topic? SydCarlisle (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::SydCarlisle If you have a new request, please create a new section with a new template. Lova Falk (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

{{Close top|result=unrealistic request that will go nowhere Moxy🍁 20:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Under "Government and politics"

Add the following at the end of the first paragraph: While officially recognizing themselves as a Federal Republic, in practice the United States functions as a Plutocratic Federal system with corporations writing bills (https://publicintegrity.org/politics/state-politics/copy-paste-legislate/you-elected-them-to-write-new-laws-theyre-letting-corporations-do-it-instead/), the majority of congressional members being millionaires (could also be phrased as having a specific magnitude more wealth than the average citizen)(https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances, if Opensecrets is not sufficient then, use the sources from 'List of current members of the United States Congress by wealth' wiki), and the economic elite having greater influence over public policy and media (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B).

Below is a response to the suggestion from another user:

UNFORTUNATELY THIS HAS TO BE MADE CAPITALIZED FOR ANYONE TO READ IT. THE FOLLOWING TEXT IS A RESPONSE TO Untamed1910's SUGGESTION, IN PREVIOUS REQUEST FOR INPUT, TO LIST THE GOVERNMENT AS AUTHORITARIAN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SydCarlisle (talk • contribs) 00:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

At this time the country cannot be classified as "under an authoritarian dictatorship" as suggested by Untamed1910, due to the economic elite still exerting more influence over policy and the current administration failing to usurp power in 2021 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack). However, it should be mentioned that in Trump v United States (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf) the Supreme Court enabled the Executive branch full immunity to a broad and undefined category of "official acts". As well as the executive branch using it's civilian policing branch, and recently it's military branch, to forcibly silence opposition (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c86p821p660o) and deprive citizens of civil rights (https://civilrights.org/trump-rollbacks/ , https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-finds-trump-administration-breached-aclu-family-separation-settlement-agreement and https://cbc.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=2774). SydCarlisle (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:This reads more like an opinion piece than text from a formal encyclopedia (WP:NOTOPINION). We would need an overwhelming catalogue of analyses from scholarly sources that conclude the United States has become a dictatorship.

:I myself dispute any labels calling the current administration fascist. We still have elections. Just wait a few years and citizens would have the choice to vote the Republican party out of office. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 20:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::Im not sure how this comment is relevant to the suggested edit. The only mention of dictatorship was how it didn't apply as a response to another user's suggestion. Also, fascism was not mentioned at all.

::It appears as if you hadn't even read the suggestion and instead

::are advocating against something that isn't being requested.

::I can however, offer many more links. However this isn't an essay or SydCarlisle (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Edited to separate suggestion and commentary, this should help avoid confusion or spurious (WP:NOTOPINION), like above. SydCarlisle (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:"to forcibly silence opposition" ..."and deprive citizens of civil rights" There is nothing new under the sun. American presidents have previously enforced political repression with events such as Abraham Lincoln's Habeas Corpus Suspension Act (1863), Grover Cleveland's violent suppression of the Pullman Strike by sending in the United States Army against the strikers "without the permission of local or state authorities", Woodrow Wilson's Palmer Raids, Dwight Eisenhower's Communist Control Act of 1954, and Ronald Reagan's Rex 84 plan of "rounding up to 500,000 undocumented Central American residents and 4,000 American citizens whom the US Attorney General had designated as "national security threats" ". The repression was there long before Donald Trump was born, it will probably still be there long after his death. Dimadick (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed, thank you for this addition.

::This "has historically been a part of the system of governance for the US" can also be added if the article is edited. However, that part of the topic was only added as commentary to refute a suggestion from a previous user.

::Commentary on the topic is appreciated but, let's stay focused on the suggested edit and not the commentary part. Unless you believe, as the previous user suggested, that "Federal presidential republic" should be changed to "Federal presidential republic under an authoritarian dictatorship". SydCarlisle (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd suggest that this thread be closed, if not deleted, and the same for further entries from SydCarlisle that are not WP:ECP edit requests. CAVincent (talk) 06:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:For what purpose? The suggested edit is no different than what is done for countries such as Russia, China, and Pakistan.

:For what reason would the US receive special treatment? SydCarlisle (talk) 07:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:As a resident of US CAVincent's opposition to a factually supported view of his nation is a clear conflict of interest. I suggest their opposition to any critical views of his nation be deleted. Wiki is supposed to be neutral and refusing to view any topic due to bias violates the core principle of it's existence. SydCarlisle (talk) 08:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

{{Close bottom}}

us bombs iranian nuclear sites https://apnews.com/article/israel-iran-war-nuclear-talks-geneva-news-06-21-2025-a7b0cdaba28b5817467ccf712d214579 2601:8D:501:C20:860B:EE85:BDAF:B406 (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:It has indeed done that. However, let us wait and see if it grows into something big before adding this to this article. Lova Falk (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

{{yo|Maxeto0910}} As stated in this edit summary, MOS:LINKCLARITY is contextual. There is no general article for "reservation", instead a disambiguation page; as such, the former is null in this case. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

:The MOS:LINKCLARITY guideline is not "contextual" in a sense that it doesn't always apply. It merely states that the linked article "should correspond as closely as possible to the term showing as the link, given the context", and as such always applies since links should always be as intuitive as possible and adapt to their context. And in this context, it's necessary to link "Native American" along so that readers know that it links to an article specifically about the Native American reservations and not reservations in general.

It doesn't matter if there is a general article or not since the average reader can't know this. Not linking "Native American" along implies that it links to such an article–whether it exists or not–, making the link unintuitive. Maxeto0910 (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

::The {{tq|"[...] given the context"}} portion of the MOS doesn't seem to be in the context that you're implying, although this can be clarified in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. Regardless, whether a general article exists or not is most definitely pertinent, as the MOS goes on to expound. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Again: Whether a general article exists or not is completely irrelevant, as the average reader can't know it and and this guideline specifically concerns the orientation of this group. The average reader will only see that "reservation" is linked and therefore assume that the link leads to an article about reservations in general. It also isn't mentioned in the MOS:LINKCLARITY guideline section that this has any relevance.

Said guideline is unambiguous: "Native American" must be linked along here. This is even more true when "Native American" stands directly before "reservation" and you specifically decide not to link the former along, as this implies that we deliberately try to make it particularly clear that this links to a general article, which is exactly the opposite of what we want.

This is like having "economy of the United States" in a sentence and wanting to link the article about the U.S. economy, but you only link the word "economy": It's so obvious that you could link the whole thing to make clear that you want to link to said article that by only linking "economy", it literally screams that the link should lead to the general article. Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Should be clear that it's not linking to a generic article..... this is a no-brainer. Don't normally get involved in link wars as they generally don't affect our readers. But if it's possible to use the title of the article in the link it should be done. Moxy🍁 18:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::"Should be clear that it's not linking to a generic article..... this is a no-brainer."

Why do you think it is a no-brainer? When it would be possible to link the full topic title but we specifically decide not to, I (and I guess like >99% of readers) would logically assume that this is done to make clear that the link leads to a general article. Because why would you deliberately do that if not for this purpose?

Therefore, the part "Native American" must be linked along. Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm agreeing with your position.... it's a no-brainer that the full title of the article should be linked. It should not look like a link to a generic article. Moxy🍁 19:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::All right, then I misunderstood you. Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Moxy, I would too agree with you, however and as mentioned above, there isn't a said general article; I still don't see the applicability of MOS:LINKCLARITY here, though if other editors see it otherwise I won't be protesting it also. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Always do what's best for our readers to understand..... let's assume they don't know that it's only related to the United States or that a page does not exist or does exist..... let's also not assume that everyone is on a PC with a mouse and we'll see a preview if they hover over the link. Moxy🍁 23:54, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Just think a little bit about why this guideline exists: It exists to give our readers a better user experience. A reader who doesn't even know that one can hover over a link (on PC) or hold the link (on mobile) to see where the link will lead–and the fact that there are many such users is precisely the reason why this guideline exists–will certainly not know whether or not Wikipedia has a general article about reservations off the top of their head either. Maxeto0910 (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

For days now, it's become impossible to access this English-language article by typing in the normal characters "US" or even "United" in the search box. Was a decision made to make accessing this article more difficult (perhaps so not to disadvantage "United Kingdom" and other articles titled "United")? Mason.Jones (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:US is a redirect here, not sure why it doesn’t come up re United Kowal2701 (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

::But it used to come up in every way possible: "United", "US", and even simply "U". Now the country's name isn't called up at all as a search option. This is a significant change, and someone at WP made the decision to exclude "United States" as a search result. Mason.Jones (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Probably raise it at WP:VPT Kowal2701 (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks. Mason.Jones (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)