Talk:United States#rfc 3A50CE3

An unsourced claim has been restored that it was due to the shock of Lincoln's assassination that the Reconstruction amendments passed both houses of Congress and were ratified. This is interesting given that the 13th amendment had passed both the House and Senate prior to Lincoln's assassination, and the book-length source that was cited by an expert on the subject (Foner) does not accord any specific importance to Lincoln's assassination. (There is no mention of it in the pages cited at all.) Perhaps, {{ping|Shoreranger}} could find a popular history source attributing the amendments to a cult of personality effect, rather than considering them the consequence of the North winning the war after four long years and hundreds of thousands dead following the failed attempt at secession over the issue of slavery? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would also note that two of the three links now cited for the opening lines of this section are broken and that two of them lead to primary sources. (The other archived link leads to a very brief summary of the three amendments.) Unfortunately, the one substantive secondary source that I had added was moved down in such a way that the pagination cited is now incorrect. (the large sections point to the discussion of the individual amendments, it is in the preface that there is mention of African-American participation in post-confederate politics. WEB Dubois' book Black Reconstruction in America would probably be a stronger reference for this) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Never mind, I just followed WP:SOFIXIT. If there are complaints, feel free to list them below. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Ping|Mason.Jones}}, I didn't notice at the time that I thanked you for adding the reference for one part of your addition that at the same time as you removed the CN tag you added a new unsourced bit of wikitext in this edit. Could you find a source for your claim, please? Thank you. Also, I'll mention that while I know that some people are allergic to this "future in the past" use of would, considering it overly florid when a simple past would obviously suffice, it doesn't particularly bother me, as long as the claim is sourced. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Sashi -- I thought I was restoring the established wording I had seen there for ages, but before I understood your posts/edits describing this "military occupation" as pretty limited (and, to younger historians, exaggerated). You removed it, and that's fine with me. Mason.Jones (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the following sentence that appears in the Sports section:

:"However, baseball has been regarded as the U.S. "national sport" since the late 19th century."

This sentence makes it seem like baseball is the sole national sport in the United States. However, American Football is (currently) regarded as the U.S. national sport as much or more so as baseball is. I propose that the wording of the sentence in question be changed to:

:"It, along with baseball, have been regarded as "national sports" in the U.S. since at least the mid-20th century."

Thank you.

AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:There is no officially designated "national sport" in the US. Baseball has the established nickname of "the national pastime". I would say citation needed to your statement that "American Football is (currently) regarded as the U.S. national sport as much or more so as baseball is" as I am unaware of any such statement being applied to football. Admittedly, football is probably the most watched sport in the country. But is that what the term "national sport" means? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:The current wording is fine in context given that the previous sentence explains how football is more popular. If anything I would change the description of baseball from national sport to national pastime. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The United States language is not English it is English (de facto) and needs to be corrected as such. 2600:387:15:2F16:0:0:0:B (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:President Donald Trump has signed an executive order in March declaring that English is the official language. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 14:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::Which means jack shit.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:There was an extensive RFC for this that was ended in a consensus to list it as such. AG202 (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Khajidha: The RfC's consensus was that Trump's executive order was far-reaching—at least while Trump is in office. The RfC prevailed, and the current text was adopted. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

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

>

Remove footnote [b] from the demonym section on the main infobox. Xomegas (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done}}: no reason given for the proposed content removal. M.Bitton (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

{{yo|Mason.Jones}} please stop the ad hominem and address the guideline instead; as per MOS:OPEN, {{tq|"The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific."}}; placing Native American communities and reservations in the article's opening paragraph and having that have the same weight as the country's location, bordering states, etc., is WP:UNDUE. The latter states {{tq|"Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements [...]"}}. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:I agree with you. So much unnecessary details, makes the page look weird and clearly violates guidelines GloryToCalifornia (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::Indian country is there in the lead paragraph with the states and territories because the Indian reservations and Native tribes have a special status—just like the U.S. territories do, but with long-established sovereignty rights. The text has been there for a long time, and you must have good reason to jettison it completely. And yes, Snowstorm, your editing history is about as bad as it gets on Wikipedia.Mason.Jones (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Just because the text has "been there for a long time" doesn't mean it should remain on the page for the end of time. He has a good reason to remove it, he gave examples on how it violates guidelines. Instead of making good arguments like he did, your reasons are "its been there for a long time" as in 2 or 3 months, and ad hominem attacks. Maxeto0910 removed "Indian Country", Snowstorm removed it, and if I had 500 edits I would remove it. You have no consensus, he gave examples on why it should be removed based on guidelines, your only argument is "it's been there for a long time, if you dont stop im going to sanction your account, I dont like any of your edits, your edit history is bad". End of discussion it should be removed immediately GloryToCalifornia (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|And yes, Snowstorm, your editing history is about as bad as it gets on Wikipedia}} This is just an insult. How does this relate to the dispute?{{pb}}You also did not address why Snow's reasoning is wrong. Explain how their argument is not a good reason to remove it. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 21:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The Indian reservations have a special status, right along with the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories. Arguably, the reservations are granted even more sovereignty rights than the territories are. Finally, the reservations are not only a significant part of U.S. history but they pre-date the territories. Their importance passes any country article's "prominence of placement" test. I believe the passage—and it's a very short passage—should remain where it is. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::If it's so significant why was the Indian reservations added to the lede in 2025. I checked the wayback machine. It wasn't there in 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, all the way down to the page first started. It had a brief mention in 2024, but was removed. If it's a "big part of U.S. history", why was it nowhere to be seen since the start of Wikipedia in 2001. Maybe you can make the sentence shorter or put it in a footnote, but it seems everyone agrees it should be gone except you GloryToCalifornia (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::No, "everyone" does not agree "it should be gone". You and Snowstorm are just two editors. Others must weigh in. Yes, I am fine making the passage shorter ({{tq|"Indian country includes 326 reservations with tribal sovereignty rights."}}), but not relegating it to a footnote and certainly not eliminating it outright. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::tarlby called you out and Maxeto0910 removed "Indian Country" as well. four against one. We have consensus to remove your edit. We explained how it clearly violates guidelines. Your only argument is threats, insults, and personal opinions about significance which counts as WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. @Snowstormfigorion this guy clearly won't listen, do what you have to do. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The reservations' special status making them on par with or equal in political or legal standing to states and overseas territories is a false equivalence; the sentence should be removed, as per MOS:OPEN and WP:UNDUE. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::As noted in the structure of {{tl|Political divisions of the United States}}, Indian reservations are also first-level divisions, and I think worth discussing in a top-level overview. They have less sovereignty than states, but more than the US territories (which have virtually none) which are definitely worth mentioning. I'm fine with the shorter wording, and would also be fine with moving this mention to the third paragraph which explains federalism, but these domestic sovereign nations should be mentioned in the intro. This article is only rated B-class, so we should expect there are still items missing or unpolished. -- Beland (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Let's move it to the third paragraph like you said per per MOS:OPEN and WP:UNDUE GloryToCalifornia (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Having it in the third paragraph as a brief mention seems like a reasonable compromise for now. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Done, with tweaked wording for better flow. -- Beland (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Thanks, Beland. This is a good outcome. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I've trimmed the text to be similar length to the states as per WP:UNDUE, as well as joined the wording with the former in the autonomy portion for improved flow. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::@Snowstorm: Your change totally junked the important text about tribal sovereignty rights included in Beland's edit. The Indian tribes have a special status, and that mention is indispensable. Yet you continue the same rude behavior you've been warned about countless times on your Talk page. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::What rude behavior? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 16:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Whatever one calls one Talk page full of notices about edit-warring and extreme disruption. In this article: transposing Beland's wording about Native tribes but deleting the precise language about tribal sovereignty rights. That is pernicious and rude. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I'm asking what bad behavior there is in this talk page thread. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::: Quote: "I've trimmed the text to be of similar length to states...for improved flow," but never mentioning that Beland's key language about sovereignty rights was totally deleted. Mendacious and rude. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::When I moved that sentence, I changed it in a way I thought flowed better without consulting anyone first, but added a note here so that people could review my change. Snowstormfigorion changed the wording in a way they thought flowed better, and added a note here so people could review it. I don't see why they are getting yelled at for being rude and I'm not. Let's focus on the merits of the content and not personalities.

:::::::One sentence out of 27 doesn't seem like undue weight to me; I added a link to Tribal sovereignty in the United States, which seems useful. The trim didn't exactly bring mention of Indian Country down to the same length as the states, because the states are also mentioned in the first paragraph. -- Beland (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

states on the map of the us and its overseas territories that the us owns palau. 91.125.223.60 (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for catching that. I have clarified the captions to indicate the three sovereign countries which are in free association with the United States are different from US territories. -- Beland (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)