Talk:United States

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2022

The United States is the most populous country in North America (for obvious reasons). 70.71.87.75 (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

US flag

"Flag of the United States.svg"

"Flag of the United States (Pantone).svg"

The US flag uses the pantone colors now, instead of the Standard Color Reference ones used previously, why has this change happened? Was this a mistake? WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@WikiMakersOfOurTime: Is this related to content in this article that you want to change? (Or perhaps in Flag of the United States?)

Or are you just asking a general question? If you're just asking a question, it should be done at Reference desk/Humanities. This talk page is only for specific suggestions for improving the article United States. ––FormalDude talk 03:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah maybe this would work better in US flag. WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the original file "file:flag of the United States.svg" is using the wrong color for blue. This appears to have been corrected with "file:flag of the United States (Pantone).svg". Nicole Sharp (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It has now been changed back but its not really wrong, it’s just two different ways for the color of the flag. One uses Standard Color Reference, the other uses Pantone. WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Superpower in Lede

The inclusion of the word "superpower"in the lede is up to debate considering the enormous variety of political opinions surrounding the topic/lack of consensus on classification of "superpower". Couldn't this article take a more neutral stance and replace the term superpower with the term "dominant power"? CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Is there sources for this term? In many countries it has a very different meaning then what is proposed here. What is a dominant power?. Moxy- 22:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it can be worded something like this?

"The Spanish–American War and World War I established the U.S. as a world power, and the aftermath of World War II left the United States and the Soviet Union as the world's dominant nations. During the Cold War, both sides fought in the Korean and Vietnam Wars but avoided direct military conflict. They competed in the Space Race, culminating in the 1969 American spaceflight that first landed humans on the Moon. The Soviet Union's dissolution in 1991 ended the Cold War, leaving the United States as the world's preeminent power."

I chose the the term "preeminent" because this article uses the term as synonymous with "superpower". If sources are still needed, I will begin looking for some. Comments anyone? CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The United States is well regarded as the world's sole superpower -- see more at superpower. I wouldn't change it to "dominate nation", nor would I support that. If you plan to do so though, you should start an RFC beforehand. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

33 000 000 000 usd for Voiaki of the Ukraina;

«Rien ne va plus» ?Löwa Zadow (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Removing some of the criticism in lead?

It seems to me that most other first-world countries do not include criticism in their leads. For example, Japan and Singapore both retain the death penalty (and Singapore uses it for crimes not resulting in death); neither mention that in their lead. While WP:other stuff exists is not a good reason to change things, Japan's article is rated as a Featured Article, while Singapore's is rated as a Good Article. This was brought to my attention after I tried to change the lead of Singapore to mention its use of capital punishment and poor human rights record, and the editor who reverted me pointed out that it was undue.

If we would like to see this article become a good article (and I would), it may be worth considering following their pattern more closely.

I suggest removing mention of capital punishment in the lead (as Japan and Singapore does); and reducing discussion of inequality in the lead to simply link to Inequality in the United States. Lack of universal healthcare and mass incarceration should remain, so I suggest that the lead reads as:

The United States ranks high in international measures of economic freedom, quality of life, education, and human rights; it also has low levels of perceived corruption. However, scholars have criticized the country for inequality, mass incarceration, and lack of universal health care.

If it were up to me, I'd probably simply remove all mention of criticism, as again the Japan and Singapore articles do. Instead I'd say:

The United States ranks high in international measures of economic freedom, quality of life, education, and human rights; it also has low levels of perceived corruption.

What are your thoughts? Obviously I will not make any changes in the absence of clear consensus.

-- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Killing your own citizens is crazy....the United States is the only Western nation that applies the death penalty. Its a major factor in their human right score.Moxy- 00:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I don't disagree. I oppose capital punishment and hate the fact that I live in a state (Florida) that retains it. That being said, Japan and Singapore both retain it and it is not in their lead, despite being featured articles. (though they are not western democracies) -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"Killing your own citizens is crazy" Not really. Americans simply do not place any value on human life and dignity. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is more evidence that Americans consider it their right to kill people. Dimadick (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like you have your own biases here... -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Partially Support - I'd keep the mention of capital punishment but reword it to state that the U.S. uses capital punishment more often compared to other democracies that still have it. I think there are some sources here that might be useful. Still, reducing the inequality description is helpful. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

That could work. Japan rarely uses capital punishment, and Singapore is not really a democracy (or at least, not a liberal democracy. Maybe something like:

The United States ranks high in international measures of economic freedom, quality of life, education, and human rights; it also has low levels of perceived corruption. However, scholars have criticized the country for inequality, mass incarceration, excessive use of capital punishment compared to other liberal democracies, and lack of universal health care.

How does that sound? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Alternatively, it could say: "being the only western democracy to retain the death penalty" instead? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

In that case, Support excessive compared to other liberal democracies. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"the U.S. uses capital punishment more often compared to other democracies that still have it." Not entirely true. They simply execute more people, as executions in other countries are not infrequent. The article on capital punishment includes worldwide data on executions for 2021. The United States executed 11 people, China 6 (though the number is an estimate), and Japan 3. Their numbers are insignificant compared to Iran, which executed 353 people in a single year. (Both Vietnam and North Korea apparently failed to report how many they executed). Dimadick (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are trying to say. Sure, Iran and other countries have executed more people, but the U.S. is the global leader among liberal democracies with the number of people it executes. Thus, my point stands. If you are suggesting that this statistic is insignificant because many other countries use capital punishment more than the US, most of those nations are still developing and a significant portion of them are not considered liberal democracies. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it is significant, but it would make more sense if we just said "retains the death penalty, unlike other western democracies" (or something close to that), rather than say that it uses the death penalty more than other liberal democracies. Japan is a liberal democracy, it is not a western democracy. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"However, scholars have criticized the country for" is weasel wording. Who are these scholars? And why can't we say that the U.S. is an outlier among developed nations in things such as inequality, capital punishment, mass incarceration, and lack of universal health care? While inequality is seen as a necessary evil at best, the others are seen as positives by leaders of both major parties. America is tough on crime. America has the best health care system in the world because it is privately run. America has inequality because it doesn't pay people not to work but it allows them to keep the money they earn.

Also, as another editor said, Japan and Singapore execute far fewer people. The U.S. is sixth in the world, behind China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt and ahead of Pakistan and Somalia.[1] It consistently votes with these countries in the UN against a moratorium on the death penalty.

Also note that capital punishment and universal health care are settled issues among the public in most developed countries. That makes the U.S. position, which has popular support, more exceptional.

TFD (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Singapore executes more people than the US does per capita (for what its worth). But you're right, "scholars have criticized" is a weasel word. That's why I don't think any of this is appropriate for the lead. We certainly can say that America is an outlier among developed nations for these things, but if we do, they arguably shouldn't be in the lead or presented as a negative (even though I think I'm comfortable saying they are). One possible phrasing, if we adopted your idea (excluding mention of inequality, which I'm not sure if it is that notable compared to other liberal democracies), could be:

The United States ranks high in international measures of economic freedom, quality of life, education, and human rights; it has low levels of perceived corruption. Unique among other western democracies, the country has no universal health care, retains capital punishment and has high incarceration rates.

-- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I think your phrasing is good. We should explain how the U.S. differs from other Western democracies and other countries without being judgmental. I would mention too that there are high levels of inequality. While no one argues that is a good thing, people do argue that attempts to reduce it would be counterproductive or that its causes are American history rather than a deliberate policy. In Canada for example, descendants of former slaves also face inequality (see Africville,) but they are a tiny minority compared with the U.S. TFD (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

But are the high levels of inequality unique to the United States as a western democracy? If the US's degree of inequality is significantly higher than other western democracies, then it warrants a mention; but if it's a difference of degrees rather than kind, probably not. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I would say so, yes. Cited sources such as the OHCHR report highlight this: "The United States now has the highest income inequality in the Western world, the highest incarceration rate in the entire world, and one of the lowest turnout rates in elections among developed countries" (empahsis mine). So I would support your rewrite above if it included inequality: "The United States ranks high in international measures of economic freedom, quality of life, education, and human rights; it has low levels of perceived corruption. Unique among other western democracies, the country has no universal health care, retains capital punishment, has high incarceration rates and high levels of inequality."--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, I support that. I'll try boldly changing the lead, if it gets reverted, I'll do an RFC. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 19:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"that its causes are American history rather than a deliberate policy." But this is a relatively recent development. Per the article on income inequality in the United States, the Gini coefficient was below 40% until 1983.: "The return to high inequality began in the 1980s. The Gini first rose above 40 in 1983. Inequality rose almost continuously, with inconsequential dips during the economic recessions in 1990–91 (Gini 42.0), 2001 (Gini 44.6) and 2007." Basically the U.S. has high inequality for the last 39 years, while it maintained low levels of inequality for most of the post-World War II period. Dimadick (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The Gini coefficient in Canada and the UK after 40 years of neoliberalism is 32, and other Western democracies are lower. So even at the height of the Just Society, the U.S. was far more unequal than other developed nations are now. TFD (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose per the last RfC on this. The issues raised are largely unique to the United States and make the country an outlier in the developed world as one of vast inequality when it comes to class and race. The US is also the only Western country to still use the death penalty and have no system of universal healthcare, and has levels of incarceration unparalleled in the entire world. These are worth mentioning, and are well sourced in the lead.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The text never mentions any yardstick like "outlier among rich, Western democracies etc.," or why "criticized by scholars" makes the criticisms valid or indispensable. The viewpoint is that of the social democratic left, so it is POV and not neutral. The RFC and its wording were introduced by a perennially inactive editor who claimed he was adding critical appraisals to other WP country articles, including Russia and China. These were all shorter and, later, watered down or removed. The passage for United States remains—a strikingly long, critical, and strident passage for the lead of any country article. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

You're right, the text does not include that yardstick, that is basically my argument against removal. Nevertheless, what is stated in that passage is also the viewpoint of the UN's OHCHR per the source included in the citation bundle, so I don't think this viewpoint can be simply attributed to the "social democratic left", which seems like OR to me (not sure about the political positions of the other sources in that bundle). While I would agree the attribution to scholars should be removed given that the UN report is part of that criticism, I don't see how that relatively small passage of criticism is much different than similar passages in the very articles you mention above, China and Russia. Let's compare them: United States: "However, scholars have criticized the country for racial, wealth, and income inequality, alongside capital punishment, mass incarceration, and lack of universal health care." China: "Chinese authorities have been criticized by political dissidents and human rights activists for widespread human rights abuses, including political repression, mass censorship, mass surveillance of their citizens and violent suppression of protests." Russia: "Since his election in 2000, Vladimir Putin has dominated Russia's political system and Russia has experienced democratic backsliding, shifting into an authoritarian state." All of these seem like valid criticisms based on what reliable sources say. And the idea that the one for the US is "strikingly long" by comparison is not evidenced by what is presently in those articles. Looking at word count, the passages from both the US and Russia articles consist of 23 words, whereas the one for China has 32.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, I do feel like it is a little undue to compare the situation in the US to Russia or China, though. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 19:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

No one is comparing the situation in the US to Russia or China. The criticisms are starkly different for these countries. The point I was making is that the size of the passages of criticism for the two other countries in question are similar to the one for the US. Although looking over the China article I omitted the preceding sentence, which would make China's even larger. The relatively small passage is WP:DUE IMO as such criticisms are discussed at length in the body of the article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"capital punishment and universal health care are settled issues among the public in most developed countries." Capital punishment is not on the table as a topic for most European countries, because Protocol 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights demands complete abolition of death penalty for all signatories. The only countries which never signed it are Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Russia. Armenia independently abolished the death penalty in 2003, Azerbaijan abolished the death penalty in 1998, and Russia has an ongoing moratorium over the death penalty since 1996. Dimadick (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"If it were up to me, I'd probably simply remove all mention of criticism" Basically, your proposal amounts to whitewashing, covering up the country's "vices, crimes or scandals". It would make the article far more biased, and basically unreliable. Dimadick (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not whitewashing at all to exclude criticisms from the lead, unless you think criticism of America in its lead is relevant while excluded from Singapore? Again, not trying to argue from WP:Other stuff, but Singapore is a Good Article, and this article is not. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Note -- I have WP:Boldly changed the lead so it now reads: The United States ranks high in international measures of economic freedom, quality of life, education, and human rights; it has low levels of perceived corruption. Unique among other western democracies, the country has no universal health care, retains capital punishment, has high incarceration rates and high levels of inequality.

Does that read better? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment - I changed it to "Unlike most other liberal democracies, the country lacks universal health care, retains capital punishment, and has high levels of incarceration and inequality.". I think that's better. I still think it should be reduced, but I don't think I'll get consensus to prune it further. With this sentence, it's clear that we are comparing the United States to other countries that are liberal democracies, not all countries. I do wonder if it'd be better to say "unlike many other liberal democracies" instead of "most others" though. India is considered a liberal democracy, but it also suffers from great inequality. I appreciate anyone's comments. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

An improvement, as it adds context to an unqualified laundry list of sociopolitical grievances in United States. Some editors wish to positively assess this against one throwaway sentence in Russia ("backsliding democracy...slipping into authoritarianism"—i.e., it's had some minor problems lately) or the statement in China, which actually mentioned a yardstick ("dissidents and human rights activists"—thus: only dissidents and activists care about state violence and the suppression of opinion). Word-count comparison is a weak argument: Russia's statement is longer because it mentions who the current president is; China's is longer because it spells out a yardstick. All to be conflated with capital punishment (in half the U.S. states), lower life expectancy in the U.S. (compared to Luxembourg), and "lack of universal health care." Mason.Jones (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mason.Jones: For what it's worth, I 100% agree with you and think that none of it (other than, perhaps, a mention of high incarceration rates, which, looking objectively, has no parallel in other western democracies) should be in the lead. I just don't think we'll get consensus for removing it. At least now it's not using weasel words or presenting the faults of the US as an absolute negative. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 20:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I think including the country's high incarceration rates and inequality is needed. But the death penalty shouldn't be in the lead; Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, et al. are all liberal democracies that remain the death penalty, and the practice has been historically practiced (until recently) in vastly more. KlayCax (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

U.S. death penalty system flagrantly violates human rights law (universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948) Moxy- 16:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The expression was western, not liberal, democracies. TFD (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: We could change it back to Western democracies, but the problem is that it redirects to Liberal democracies, because they are nearly the same thing. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no need for the link. Links are there for readers who want more information about specific aspects of the United States, not so that they can look up what a word means. If we think that the term "western democracy" needs to be defined for readers, we should define it in this article. But I don't think it needs definition. The non-Western liberal democracies tend to be different. I notice India was left out which also executes people. TFD (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it is highly important to include criticism of the United States. In every other country from the Soviet Union to China, there is criticism whether it be the human rights abuses or the authoritarian nature. By criticizing the United States we point out its flaws and combat this belief in American exceptionalism which excuses the problems that exist domestically and abroad. Sure the US has undertaken many advancements some of which I would personally consider to be a net positive for humanity (such as the Internet and computer science) however it has many, many flaws and blemishes on its history. By ignoring this we feed misinformation and sweep issues under the rug. And for these reasons I support keeping criticisms in the lead section. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 22:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, most regular editors (including me) supported adding the critical RFC last year, but it had become an expanding laundry list. Today, for example, the editor FictiousLibrarian added "mass surveillance" to the list of "flaws," and from a less than neutral source. (It cannot stand without broad consensus.) Finally, Russia and China, both effectively dictatorships, include very short criticisms, so the "misinformation" charge in United States is specious. Mason.Jones (talk)

Mason.Jones While I agree with you on the inclusion of criticism, I must stress the importance. Many Americans like myself who grew up in the public education system were taught to view the United States as this holier than tho nation, one without problems and issues and if so those issues are negligible. My fear is having the lead of the United States reinforce those views. The dictatorship lines in China and Russia are real just like the fact that many Americans die or live in finical ruin from medical expenses. I agree with you that the criticism page should remain and should contain the most pressing issues, however flowery language isn't necessary. What I mean by that is "unlike other liberal democracies" should be replaced with something like "The United States is criticized for..."

FictiousLibrarian (talk). 03:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@FictiousLibrarian. Definitely not "is criticized for...," followed by a sociopolitical shopping list. There should be a reference for any such listing: "Western democracies," "liberal democracies," etc. I see no flowery language or exceptionalism in the lead. All WP articles about large, powerful countries mention superlatives and key accomplishments. You have repeatedly shown a desire to impart an ideological point of view in the lead (only in the lead). You've appended virtual paragraphs of oddball history and pseudofacts (such as yesterday's "mass surveillance" pearl). Mason.Jones (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@FictiousLibrarian: Wikipedia is not here to Right Great Wrongs. We are here to provide unbiased facts, not try to convince readers that American exceptionalism isn't (or is) a thing... especially since that's entirely subjective. Also, it's not true that all other countries have criticisms in their lead. See Singapore and Japan -- neither have any mention of (for example) their use of the death penalty; both are also Good or Featured Articles -- which this article is not. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Have you read the rest of this section? The saying that “The United States is criticized for…” is weasel wording and also is a product of opinion. By comparison, the China article includes the term “criticized for…” because it has been criticized by an overwhelming amount of human rights activists for human rights abuses, which are backed up by lots of reliable sources. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

see me Moxy- 14:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy Good point. Yes, there is some legitimate criticism towards the United States by international organizations, especially regarding its mistreatment of minorities. However, removing the term “criticism” is good from a NPOV standpoint because it stops editors from squabbling over who is making the criticism in the first place, or whether the criticism is even warranted. Just presenting the facts and not the viewpoint is good enough.

Now that I think about it, perhaps China’s lead should also remove criticism and instead simply state the sourced facts. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

"Amerikai Egyesült Államok" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Amerikai Egyesült Államok and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 11#Amerikai Egyesült Államok until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

United States Commission on International Religious Freedom

Please monitor United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. No content is present about it's reports but its totally filled with criticism about the reports. Content additions are largely political propaganda from the reported countries. Obey levy (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Reverted unsourced, un-encyclopedic description added to lede sentence

I have reverted an edit to the lede sentence by @Alexbarbershop earlier today. I ask that he discuss the edit/revert here before restoring it or adding any similar material. Here is the text I replaced (italics used to highlight the text in question):

"The United States of America (U.S.A. or USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S. or US) or the less-accurate and increasingly controversial colloquialism ‘America’, due to its being a country only partly located in, nor one inclusive of the whole of North America, and having only a clandestine, amorphous, secretive, often unwanted and thusly undefinable territory of influence in the landmass’s southern half consisting of 50 states, the remaining half of its federal district, over five major unincorporated territories awaiting admission to the union for over a century in some cases and thereby unable to participate in the country’s governance, 326 Indian reservations, and nine minor outlying islands."

While a discussion of the use the colloquial "America" is notable, it is decidedly not of the highest order in terms of understanding the topic and therefore, only worthy of passing mention in the lede. Based on this and other edits - I'm only beginning to assess them - the editor apparently has a jaundiced of the United States that, again, is not of the utmost importance regarding the subject and may be motivated politically. As I review these additional edits, I will discuss them here, including any necessary reverts. Allreet (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

You don't need to discuss those edits on the talk page unless someone objects to your revert. I for one do not object to it. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I concur. There is no way that text would ever last in a key article. freshacconci (✉) 15:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The original editor's text is not "a jaundiced view" but simply vandalism. It also includes inaccuracies: For ex., there's no majority in any of the five major unincorporated territories who "awaits admission to the union for over a century in some cases and thereby unable to participate in the country’s governance." Support for that level of integration (i.e., statehood) is weak. Mason.Jones (talk)

Active vandalism in lead

Need extended protection

PurpleDeskChair (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I just applied dispute and citation needed templates on some minor points in the second paragraph. I'm going to remove these and revisit the issues later. Thanks for asking for protection. Allreet (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Is the US really still the world’s “sole superpower”?

We need to take a hard look at the end of the second paragraph. It works if it was still the 1990s right now, but I’m not sure it’s the most encyclopedic way to end the paragraph in today’s world. China and Russia could reasonably be considered superpowers also.

I think it would be best to extend the sentence by replacing the period with a comma, and an additional phrase that states the US superpower status in the current context.

I added an inline notice to flag it and draw attention to it. Please discuss how to improve or make sense of it. I hope this can be resolved peacefully. Thanks Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 05:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Consider this: The United States spends more on defense than the next 11 countries combined. Cullen328 (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but defense spending is just one piece of the pie. If you consider global trade and economy, through recent decades China has caught up and/or surpassed the US in most meaningful measures. There are factors such as political power, and many others as well.

I’m more trying to point towards the full big-picture perspective, since that’s the aim of the lead paragraphs of an article as broad as “United States” Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources which state that the United States is not the world's sole superpower, then I'd like to see it, and we could refactor that sentence. But I think that the vast majority of sources are going to concur that the United States retains that position. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I would point towards the lead sections of the WP articles titled “hyperpower”, “foremost power” and “potential superpower”. There are very well-sourced statements (with some having as many as 5-7 inline citations at the end of the sentence) in very prominent spots of the lead paragraphs indicating that the US ceased being a clear sole superpower about 10-15 years ago. To be completely fair, I haven’t made any edits on those pages before. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I have looked over that entire article, and I can comfortably say that most of the citations are opinion sources. Sure, they are reliable enough due to their publishing institutions to not be considered WP:SOAPBOX, but after reflecting upon it, we can just go with the historical consensus until there is overwhelming evidence suggesting that China, Russia, (perhaps even India) are superpowers. You can see my unnecessarily rough page comments here, but this is a subject of controversy and we must go with the most recent period of general consensus : The US is a superpower. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not disputing the notion that the US is currently a superpower. I apologize if my idea was accidentally inferred by anyone that way.

I just think that the original ending of the paragraph wasn’t the best full reflection of the US current status in the global community, because it was based on the immediate post-Cold War, and doesn’t account for what has happened since then. As I said previously, it’s perfect for the 90s, and maybe even early 2000s, but the US doesn’t dominate in everything nowadays as much as it used to.

I would say they still are the most powerful nation, but to put it in sports terms, the score has caught up and their lead on other countries is not as big. And I think the ending of that paragraph should reflect that, because the 2022 global geopolitical landscape is far different than 1992 and even 2002. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

That makes more sense now seeing your inclusion that way. Go ahead and be bold with it. Just make sure there are some citations/resources in the 21st century sections detailing this so that a citation doesn't have to be included in the lead. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Michael Phelps

We already have a name spam problem in the music section that gives zero info on the era of music. Lets try not to do the same in other sections. Simply no need to list name of sport figures ....we have tried hard no to do this in this section.....many names have been added and removed like Jackie Robinson , Tiger woods etc....all lead to no info on the country as a whole. Can we get you to slow down on the edit wars plsMoxy- 11:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Michael Phelps represented the US and dominated sports on a prominent global sports stage while representing the US (Olympics). Tiger Woods, Jackie Robinson, Babe Ruth, and others didn’t. The only other comparison in terms of sports competitions would be the World Cup. That’s the key point here. Phelps has a unique legacy that isn’t matched by all those other athletes Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Sports section of “Russia” shows Maria Sharapova, because she dominated tennis on the global stage. Same thing here Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Sports section of Argentina mentions many names, and also features photos of Maradona and Messi. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Sports section of China mentions Yao Ming Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Germany sports section names two racecar drivers who have broken records in their sport Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

You have to understand it from a sports perspective to make sense of it. I don’t think that any other American athlete names deserve to be in the section, not even Michael Jordan, because his significance is only meaningful within the US, his six NBA Finals championships are from a domestic league entirely within the US. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

What we are looknig for is national infomation and sentances that link info on the country itsself. No need to list people at all as it leads to zero info on the country. FA exmaples to follow are Canada#Sports (of for music Canada#Music) Japan#Sports. How does listing Michael Phelps help in the understading of the country?Moxy- 11:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

This is not a name spam issue for sports. I have no intention to name spam. This is about how dominant Michael Phelps is against competitors from all around the world in his sport.

Your title is misleading. I will change the title of this discussion to “Michael Phelps” and start another one called “Music names” that you can comment those ideas on. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The addition of one name will lead to many more added...we have gone thru this many times before. Moxy- 11:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

To answer your question, it’s because of the achievement and accomplishment he did on the global stage while representing the United States. He was representing the United States in the Olympics. So it’s totally relevant. If that doesn’t make sense to you, then I don’t know how to make it make sense to you. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

So to be clear you belive Michael Phelps is the greatest American athlete ever and is the only person that we should name? Moxy- 11:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m aware that you’re a heavy editor of the Canada pages, I saw it on your talk page, so let’s not go there, that’s a very biased example. I mentioned pages I’ve never touched. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

No, because the level and scope of Phelps’ accomplishment is unique in the sports world. I don’t want the floodgates to open either, I have the same exact sentiment. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, precisely. The reason why I put Phelps in the first place is a reason unique to him that is invalid for any other American athletes as far as I’m aware. Even other greats. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

He does make the top ten on most list....but we are not going to list all thoses before him are we. Simply does not help readers understand the country as a whole. Moxy- 12:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The top ten of what? If you’re comparing him to Michael Jordan and Babe Ruth and other athletes who’s most notable success was in domestic sports leagues, you’re completely missing the point. Jordan and Ruth and Jackie Robinson didn’t dominate on the global stage. (And they actually weren’t as dominant as Phelps from a competition standpoint but that’s a secondary concern). It’s a different context.

When we talk about Phelps, we have to look at him the way we see Federer, Usain Bolt, Sharapova, Maradona, Pele, Messi, etc. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Non of these names help in understading a country Moxy- 12:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

If you are only able to gather all of this in comparison and perspective with other American athletes, then this discussion is completely useless. Because the nature of Phelps’ success and accomplishments is in a completely different category from what all the other names are in. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Article is about a country not a person We need input from others at this point...do others think Phelps should be the one and only person mentioned in the section...or do we add others or have none. Looking for historical significance with an educational link like Baseball color line...I would say Jackie Robinson for the change it made in society VS a swimmer with lots of medals linking swimming (sport).Moxy- 12:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but Phelps dominated and broke records while representing said country in a prominent global sports competition against other major countries.

To say it’s about a country not a person as a new reason to not name Phelps, means by that standard we’d have to remove all other cultural references to people.

It really seems like you’re grasping at straws and creating random new arguments with each reply to try to shoot down the idea of putting Phelps, and these arguments lack cohesion and they’re not linear or connected. I’ve been putting forth the same main argument, and explaining it in different ways as necessary to clarify it to you in response to each of your replies. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

We should only name the most Influential people in American History. Moxy- 13:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson’s significance and notability is not really sports-related. His notability is more along the lines of race.

Again, you’re going at it the wrong way. Please compare to other athletes who have had similar levels of international success in prominent international competitions such as Federer, Usain Bolt, Messi, Maradona, Pele, Sharapova, and the like. For the purpose of this discussion, those athletes are way more similar to Phelps than Jackie Robinson. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I think if we receive input from others, my ideas will be more clearly understood. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

This might explain the Jackie Robinson thing better, if Jackie Robinson was white, his name wouldn’t be in this conversation.

Jackie Robinson’s notability isn’t specialized in sports. Sports was just his platform. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

It’s just like Colin Kaepernick nowadays. He’s become far more famous and notable because of what he did beyond strictly sports, and from the athletic standpoint he’s not considered the all-time greatest. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Ping main editors for input ...@Golbez: @Mason.Jones: @C.J. Griffin: @E-960: @Chipmunkdavis:...Moxy- 13:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I do have to take it with a grain of salt how you’re tagging specific editors, and potential biases that may come into play assuming you’ve had previous contact with them. But if it is neutral and legitimate, thank you for helping the cause. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Just main editors of the page.....not a click or anything of that nature in fact we all dont agree on many things Moxy- 13:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Do we have a high-level overview source for Sports in the United States that we can use to gauge dueness? CMD (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Adding Michael Phelps to the sports section... he's big, but looking at the entire picture of sports in the US, he's not that big to include in the article. In the end, it will always be a judgment call with stuff like that. --E-960 (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Either the page names sports names or it doesn't. It doesn't. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I have an idea that may be compromise-able, what about not mentioning Phelps at all in the text, but having a photo of him holding/wearing an Olympic gold medal near the bottom of the sports section with the accomplishment as the caption? I think Maria Sharapova’s photo in the Russia sports section is a perfect parallel. There are zero names in the body text (not even Sharapova’s). Please take a look at that, and see if that type of thing is doable. It wouldn’t open up any floodgates for further names, because let’s face it, you can easily fit 3-5 names in one paragraph sentence, but any reasonable editor would know it’s impractical and unencyclopedic to have 3-5 photos of different athletes in the section.

Thoughts? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

As a new editor there is a big learning curve...pls see MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE Moxy- 19:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I would appreciate if we can discuss the points based entirely on their merits instead of trying to make assumptions based on longevity and labeling me as a “new editor”. Also it’s best to not prematurely assign other value-laden labels such as “spam”, it’s not helpful for the encyclopedia. Our labels should be in neutral terms. Spam gives off the vibe that something is destructive, irrelevant, and commercial in nature. If edits are well-intentioned and relevant, and non-commercial, then they’re not inherently spam. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Thank you for requesting a third opinion. I will address each perspective and give my final thoughts by the end. As I understand it, User:Mrbeastmodeallday desires to implement the athlete Michael Phelps as a separate example while there is currently none specifically named. His reasoning includes but may not be limited to other articles listing individual athletes, relevance of this particular athlete, and relevance of this athlete coming close to or being equal to relevance of other individual athletes noted on other articles. User:Moxy is of the opinion that Michael Phelps should not be included. His reasoning for this includes but may not be limited to prior additions being removed too, concerns over one addition leading to others following, individual athletes not necessarily representing countries and thus not being relevant (enough) to warrant inclusion here. My opinion will rely exclusively on the arguments I've outlined here. I agree in principal with User:Moxy in this case for the following reasons: Individual athletes being listed on other articles does not guarantee or signal desire for inclusion here per WP:MOS. All articles are separate and the 'goal' and means may be different from topic to topic. In terms of relevance I do not observe that it has been conclusively established that Michael Phelps is truly a 'one of a kind', this, to me, seems like use of subjective buzzwords that carry no objective relevance in deciding what should be on Wikipedia and what shouldn't. It also seems to me that this is (nigh) impossible to establish with consensus which indicates it has no place on Wikipedia. Furthermore, I also do not observe sufficient objective evidence or grounds that Michael Phelps represents American culture or sports performance better or more than other athletes (whether looking at national or international). This concludes my reasoning as to why I believe Michael Phelps should not be added to this article. I apologize for the lack of proper formatting used, this is primarily due to poor formatting and tabbing prior to my arrival, and limitations on the substituted 3OR template. If any have further questions or such, feel free to ping me or post on my Talk page. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 21:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

For the record, before the third opinion reply which Ama kindly offered, I had already addressed and/or found areas of common agreement with Moxy regarding these two reasons that Ama states:

• “concerns over one addition leading to others following”

• “individual athletes not necessarily representing countries and thus not being relevant (enough) to warrant inclusion here” Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mrbeastmodeallday and Moxy: I will respond with my addendum here per your request on my talk page.

• Nearly all other great American athletes that have been the subject of this type of debate had their sports notability resting primarily based on their performance in domestic leagues (Michael Jordan won 6x NBA championships in a US domestic league, Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in a US domestic league, etc etc). The one partial exception would be Tiger Woods, however, the highest-level golf tournaments don’t exactly have a total global reach the way the Olympics and World Cup do; also three of the four major golf tournaments are held in the US.

My response: Being an athlete that had great success outside of your country does not make one representative of said country, which is kind of what the article is all about.

• However, Phelps’ success comes in the context of a massive global high-stakes contest (the Olympics) where countries from all around the world are competing for those same medals, and not all countries and athletes can get medals every time, it is very very competitive. The Olympics (primarily the Summer Olympics) and the men’s FIFA World Cup are by far the top two sports events in this regard of having countries from all around the world, (every major continent, religion, race, etc) competing with their top-level athletes and not holding anything back. So Michael Jordan, Babe Ruth, Jackie Robinson, and Tiger Woods were great in sports where maybe only 300-500 million people in the world were in a community that produced those types of athletes. Michael Phelps was great in a sport and event where 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 billion people in the world are in a community that produces athletes who are vying to be the best swimmer.

My response: First off, I never contended that Michael Phelps is/was not an amazing swimmer, he absolutely is. Secondly, you make a good argument for including him on the articles for the Olympics and sport events/accomplishments, that still doesn't mean he's representative of the United States or that he should be on her page.

• On top of that, the massive lead he has in gold medals. Understand this, the #1 absolute greatest Olympic athletes of all-time not named Michael Phelps have struggled to get 7, 8, 9 Olympic golds. It’s very crowded at that amount on the list. And then Phelps has 23 golds.

My response: Again, amazing argument to put him on the article for the Olympics.

• Comparing Phelps to the greatest athletes on global international platforms: i.e. Federer, Usain Bolt, Maradona, Pele, Messi, Sharapova is how this discussion should be framed. NOT his fellow greatest American athletes, because none of them have really represented the US, but more importantly haven’t dominated on a prominent global competition as the sole reason for their notability and success. Again, Tiger Woods is more of a hybrid in terms of domestic and international, but all the others that I’m aware who could realistically be in this conversation only have significant sports-related notability for dominance in sports played in domestic platforms.

My response: I disagree with the notion that how you put it is how the discussion should be framed from the get-go. The relevance comes from representation of America(n culture, society, and such) which this doesn't make a case for still.

(As a side note, if Jackie Robinson is brought up in this conversation, it has to be with complete disregard for his racial accomplishments and notability, they are applaudable certainly but his frame of reference becomes completely murky unless we completely disregard the racial accomplishments as if they didn’t exist, this is just about sports accomplishments)

My response: My opinion about including Jackie Robinson would be exactly the same, neither more positive nor more negative considering I'm not a racist. You're the one involving race here.

I didn't add this last time but I'd like to add that I have no connections or affiliations with either side of the discussion/argument, nor have I spoken with either of you before. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 00:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

If "Sports" section mentions the Olympics Games—especially the historical achievement of the U.S. and medal hauls—then Michael Phelps must be called out. His achievement is extraordinary on its own, and Phelps' domination of his sport over two Summer Games is important enough. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Music names

To address name spam concern related to music names Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Listing the names does not help in understanding the country....need real info like "music infrastructure", "placement in world sales", "governing body", "lifetime achievement awards", "hall of fame (to link all thoses names)", "patriotic music like Anthem".....not sure how a bunch of names tells us anything.--Moxy- 12:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be too many recent names (undue). Is there any criteria for names being included in the Music section? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Our best FA level articles dont have name spam of this nature Canada#Music, Japan#Performing arts, India#Performing arts and media That seen ..a very bad eg for an FA article is Germany#Music (just name spaming with zero info except for "As of 2013, Germany was the second-largest music market in Europe, and fourth-largest in the world") Moxy- 19:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realize that there were music markets larger than Germany. Anyway, why would awards mean anything for American music history? Dimadick (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

To add onto this, I realize that in the big picture, over the past 20ish years due to new modern ways in which music is shared and listened to, music in the United States is far too fragmented and diverse to be able to encyclopedically and neutrally whittle it down to a few specific names. The selection of names seems rather arbitrary. With so many genres and platforms out there since the Internet began, no one person or artist is really “dominating” the entire US music scene in a significant way. The way that music is shared and listened to is far too democratized. I’ll try to rewrite the last section, and focus on key genres and general trends instead of specific names. Further input would be welcomed. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 09:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• The names of 21st century artists should be reinserted. The real spam was unnecessary information on particular streaming services, which I've just removed. The rise streaming platforms is not unique to the US and thus not appropriate in this article. -- Vaulter 18:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

See also spam

Can we slow down on the see also section links. These are all linked from the main article or linked in the article already.Moxy- 19:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Many of them aren’t already linked. But I’ll check and remove the ones that are Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

A lot of it is also restructuring and recategorizing hatnote links that were already there to better match the different relevance levels among them. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

We now have four sections in this talk page related to your edits. It's very hard to follow all your edits with no summaries. Can we pay more attention to what is needed over editing as fast as you can. Lots to review...... during the last GA review we removed exactly what is being added. Moxy- 19:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

So anyone have User:Evad37/duplinks-alt inslated?...use that for all the duplinks then go over all the sub articles of sub articles that are linked and unlink things like FM /AM ect.. ? Moxy- 21:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Superpower status

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

Consensus was reached to not include the sentence. Despite the small time-frame of respondents, I consider it highly unlikely that a big shift in consensus would ensue given the vast majority and the fact nobody has responded in favor of 'Yes'. If the requester is of the opinion that the RfC has not yet run its course, you can always re-open it of course. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 13:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Should the article contain the sentence "In the 21st century, the U.S. is still a superpower, but American influence has diminished with increasing globalization."? This sentence does not currently have a source in the article, so if the answer is yes, a source should be included. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why there's an rfc for a source request. Was there an effort involved in finding sources? Is this point contested in any way ? Moxy- 22:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I saw my disputed tag removed several times, so I though there was some pushback against my dispute of the United States' declining global status. I also asked (and looked) for sources, but I could not find much outside of mainstream media suggesting this. Such a complex topic should also tread lightly around that area. But if this RfC was opened inappropriately, I will close it. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

We could link American decline and use sources from there.....or is the super power the problem? Moxy- 22:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I suppose this makes a valid viewpoint. I'd personally remove this sentence altogether, but I think getting consensus that a decline is happening should be foremost. If there is consensus, then yes, American decline should be linked. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• Unreferenced information may always be challenged and removed, and the burden of finding suitable reference material then falls upon any editor who may wish to include it. That doesn't really require an RfC. Unrelatedly, I think that type of assertion is too complex a subject to try to distill into a single sentence, even if references can be found. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  The article discusses military declined with numbers and sources.... but I think the point of globalization also covers the cultural influence that many say has diminished.... that isn't sourced or mentioned in the article. Moxy- 23:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  • I'd toss the comment since there's no possible source that could adequately address the claim. American influence in what? Still a superpower by what authority or measurement? The claim is too vague as is to be included, just my two cents. Of course it's totally possible to be reframed and rephrased in a way that makes it easier to back up with sources, someone could do that and it'd be fine. As it stands I'd say it doesn't belong in the article. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 00:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

    On topic: Yes this does not need an RfC strictly speaking. Be bold and go for it. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 00:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I think if we do go the way of removing the sentence, then the end of the Soviet Union dissolution sentence (which was previously the last sentence of the paragraph) should acknowledge that this “sole superpower” status is reflective of the immediate post-Cold War geopolitical landscape, perhaps ending the sentence with “for the time being” or “at the time”. Because as it was originally constructed, readers would default into thinking that US global power/influence compared to the world is the same now as it was in the early 1990s. If we go back to having the Soviet dissolution sentence as the final sentence, ending it with “for the time being” or “at the time” or something of similar effect puts a neutral closure to it, and allows the reader to research and decide for themselves, instead of reasonably presuming based on the wording that the US is still as dominant now as they were 30 years ago. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

That may be unnecessary, because it is accurate that the US still is the sole superpower. The question of decline, in whatever sense, if any, cannot really be answered until historians look back on it decades later. Senorangel (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

This is what I mean by it being completely impossible to quantify, hence the comment should be deleted entirely. You could look to escape this into the future but even in the future it's just going to be a subjective viewpoint based on their own sense of time and location. Similarly, it's impossible to assess Mrbeastmodeallday's matter of the USA being as dominant as she was 30 years ago by any satisfying metrics (to gain a majority consensus on it anyway) ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 02:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Alternatively we could write another paragraph succeeding the sentence delineating why some (sources from American decline) would say that the US is no longer the sole superpower, or something along these lines. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 02:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I would rather not do that, honestly. This article is already too long, and the lead probably shouldn't dive into this any more than it has already. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Well then what is something that is “concensusable” regarding the current status of the United States? Because the history paragraph definitely needs some type of appropriate closure, and the previous last sentence (now the second-to-last sentence) about the USSR dissolution is outdated as a closure.

And it doesn’t necessarily have to be along the linear spectrum regarding US geopolitical global dominance and superpower status.

It can be about something more prominent and/or relevant to the 21st century United States.

Does anyone have ideas? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Please also consider the Wikipedia article titled “American decline” (which I have not edited before), and its theses. How objectively neutral is that article? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 08:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

While the United States has enormous soft power, I typically view its claim to superpower status as doubtful at best. Henry Kissinger has claimed that American influence has steadily declined since the demise of the Soviet Union. Per the main article:

• "Other international relations theorists such as Henry Kissinger theorize that because the threat of the Soviet Union no longer exists to formerly American-dominated regions such as Western Europe and Japan, American influence is only declining since the end of the Cold War because such regions no longer need protection or have necessarily similar foreign policies as the United States." Dimadick (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I have kept this RfC open for a little while longer just to judge the general consensus. Perhaps we could decide on the following :

1. Yes The sentence should be included and given a source or link to American decline.
2. No The sentence should not be included.

CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• No per my above explanation that the term is impossible to adequately define with broad consensus. I back this claim up by the fact that consensus has not been clearly established here despite our best efforts. I personally take this as an indication that the sentence doesn't belong on an encyclopedic entry. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 15:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
• No I essentially agree with the above comment. The sentence is uncited and in Wikipedia's voice. Yet it's clearly a debatable and potentially contentious opinion, as well as ambiguous as to its context. Levelledout (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• No -- I had rephrased the sentence slightly from the original, but I still think the sentence does not belong at all, because there is no consensus for it, and it's a subjective measurement. The goal of the lead should be to include only statements that are objective, which is why we state that the United States ranks high in different international measurements (since the fact that the US ranks high in these different measurements are objective), and why we state that the US has a high incarceration rate (because that's objectively true, based on the reported incarceration rate). In the lack of any consensus by historians, whether the United States continues to be the world's sole superpower is subjective. One option could be to instead include objective measurements indicating the United State's influence is declining, if there are such measurements available (perhaps we can observe that China's GDP is near the US'). -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t necessarily say the sentence needs to say the words “American decline” or similar, since that is a bit sharp if a claim and likely contentious. However, I think that that Wikipedia page is a good resource in which to inform this conversation in terms of both general ideas and reference sources. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Statement is easily sourceable. Can't believe no one even tried.....that said best to remove as its clear the average person does not understand the meaning. Moxy- 02:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• No The United States has not been a superpower since the Gulf War. Dimadick (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• No I don't get how an unsourced statement of this magnitude could even be in dispute. It's not a given and it's an extraordinary claim that would require multiple sources. Re-wording doesn't help either because you'd still need sources. I wasn't pleased with the "sole superpower" assertion either. Of course it is a superpower, but any such statement requires sources. Another issue for another day. Allreet (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Photo montage for religion suggestion

If there’s any one section of this article that should have an image but doesn’t, it’s probably the religion section.

Not surprisingly, there’s a tagline note saying something to the effect of “no religion image because it’s too contentious and implies favoritism”.

But what if we have a montage highlighting the main religions just like the image of the big four US sports at the top of the sports section?

Catholic and Protestant would both certainly need to be represented. Any suggestions for a good “signature” image to include from each of those religions for a montage?

Should we include any other religions in said montage? And if so, which? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I still agree with “no religion image because it’s too contentious and implies favoritism”. HiLo48 (talk) 06:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is way too long as it is. We shouldn't make it any longer. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest using the image of a mosque or a Hindu temple to point to religious pluralism. Dimadick (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe this would fall under WP:NOTADVOCACY, Wikipedia isn't meant to push particular religions or viewpoints over another, especially not in such a minority case. Including the minority case only on the basis of promoting religious pluralism seems highly indicative of political/religious motivations which we should avoid here. Not trying to assume bad faith from you or anything, just explaining my train of thought. As for the initial request, I agree with Rockstone35 that the article is already long enough as is and including the image would not significantly contribute to the article in my opinion. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 12:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

A nightmare to maintain. The data, if I'm reading this correctly, is now eight years old. Of course it should cover all major religions. Not essential to the main article. If it is considered pertinent, text could do the job as well and would be easier to source and update. Allreet (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention there's Religion in the United States which has more up-to-date information and is separately maintained there. We could link it in this article if it's not already linked. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 13:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

“Religion in the US” article is linked as a “main article” hatnote atop the religion section Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know who put this image at the top of my initial query. If you did, please replace my signature at the bottom with yours (just type four horizontal squiggly lines to do it automatically), and then delete this notice.

PICK ME - I AM IMFORMATIVE....
Church, synagogue, or mosque attendance by state (2014)

  ≥50% attending weekly

  45-49% attending weekly

  40-44% attending weekly

  35-39% attending weekly

  30-34% attending weekly

  25-29% attending weekly

  20-24% attending weekly

  15-19% attending weekly

Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy: This one's for you. Also, please be so kind to add an edit summary when you add pictures and such please. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 21:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

LOL ... Moxy- 00:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

off my watchkist...to many marionettes. Moxy- 00:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy: I just helped the guy find who put the picture up..? ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 01:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how images help the reader to understand the section in a way the text doesn't. Images aren't supposed to be decorative, they're they to convey additional information that the text is unable to do, and I can't see how images for religion can do that in this context. We're not explaining what a mosque is, or a church etc, there are other articles for that. I could be mistaken but how does an image montage add encyclopaedic info to this top level article that can't easily be conveyed by the text? Canterbury Tail talk 21:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC regarding disambiguation hatnote for “USAA”

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

Unilateral consensus was reached not to include a hatnote for USAA on USA, as it was considered unlikely for readers and editors to confuse the two, especially seeing as typing just the 'U' already makes USA pop up. The user requesting the RfC agreed to close it, as the discussion has run its course and there's no longer disagreement or dispute. If anyone feels this is pre-emptive or hasty, feel free to open it back up and let me know. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 22:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Both me and one other editor have been in favor of this being hatnoted at the top “not to be confused with USAA” as a potential mistargeted search where “USA” is typed.

One other editor has been opposed.

I would like to hear the perspective of other uninvolved editors + the greater outside WP community with regard to this.

See Wikipedia:Hatnote and Wikipedia:Hatnotes are cheap to assess it from the Wikipedia policy side and judge for yourself, and offer an informed statement based on that information.

Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

United Services Automobile Association may be confused for United States? Not likely. We need to de-clutter the lead not add more meaningless or unassociated links. Lets not make articles hard to access by making people scroll and scroll before they actual reach tangible information on the topic. In fact the article needs lots of duplicate and random words ulinked ...sea of blue all over.Moxy- 04:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

It’s not about the topics per se, but about how similar the search terms are. The search terms USA and USAA can easily be confused. Especially in spoken form they sound very similar and can be difficult to distinguish at normal spoken speed. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a spoken/written search term disambiguation issue, not a topical disambiguation issue. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, I don't think there's more people than I can count on my two hands who ended up on USA when they wanted USAA. Conversely, I also don't think a lot of people end up on USAA when they wanted USA, save for typos, in which case they don't need a distinguishing hatnote either. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 01:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  I wanted to further add to this that anyone looking for USAA would, pretty much by design, be aware of the US and as such any chance for confusion would objectively speaking be nil. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 02:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Amadeus1999. Given the context, it's exceedingly unlikely that such a note will clear up any confusion. Also I don't think hatnotes need to by symmetrical. So it's perfectly valid to have one pointing from USAA -> USA but not vice versa. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I’ve also found the original user who added it. I’m tagging the user to possibly hear their perspective: @Mod creator:

Pinging other regular editors of this page for input, including the entire group you chose for the Michael Phelps discussion, plus possibly a few others. @Golbez: @Mason.Jones: @C.J. Griffin: @E-960: @Chipmunkdavis: @CollectiveSolidarity: Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC) @Randy Kryn:@Amadeus1999: Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, for the record the USAA page has also had the USA distinguish hatnote at the top since April 3 by the same editor who put the opposite corresponding hatnote on this page. The USAA page has not been edited since then and it’s been over a month. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the hatnote should not be included. This article is very difficult to transverse on mobile, and I doubt that people will get USA confused for USAA. They can just type in the letter "U" and the article immediately shows up. On a slightly off-topic note, @Moxy I see your concerns, and I will begin un-linking unnecessary terms and removing duplicate links. That might help the page, if only a small bit. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

After reading and considering the replies, I’ve added the distinguish hatnote to the top of the “USA (disambiguation)” page, which is obviously less crowded than this page. As far as WP policy goes, it wouldn’t be right for someone to make a plausible misspelling or mishearing and not have access to the target article. In this case, they would just click the “USA (disambiguation)” link and then find USAA hatnoted, which is better than 3-4 navigations or running around in circles or dead ends. Plus the disambiguation is literally made for this type of thing, so I don’t see any reason not to. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this is an acceptable alternative. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 02:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@CollectiveSolidarity: what version of Wikipedia are you using that has “USAA” shown in the suggested list from just typing “U”? I’m on mobile web English version, “U” and “US” don’t get it to appear, when I type “USA”, “USAA” finally appears as the very bottom suggestion visible (my browser shows 12 suggestions). I know this is semantics at this point, but I’m just curious and I’d like to clear the air so we’re on the same page. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

What I meant by that was that including the "not to be confused with USA" on USAA would be unnecessary, since United States immediately shows up after typing "U" on my search tab. I also did not want to include the hatnote on this page because it would clutter the lead. Does this make sense now? I hope so because I'm beginning to confuse myself now. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it makes perfect sense, don't confuse yourself hah. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 02:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

It makes total sense now. I was a bit surprised initially to think that USAA was a top 12 search suggestion for just the letter U. But yeah, United States is definitely one of the top suggestions for the letter U. So I guess that makes sense that someone searching for USAA would that pop up in the suggestions and think “that’s not it” Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mrbeastmodeallday: As far as I can see this resolves the RfC and further commenting would not be necessary, and in fact would probably be counterproductive. If you (and others agree with it) we/I can close the RfC so it doesn't draw unnecessary attention. Feel free to let me know, that goes for anyone. Thanks. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 21:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, feel free to close it, everything is good. The “United States” showing up near the top when searching “U” adds a good perspective I hadn’t thought of before Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Potential removal of “Paleo-Indians” from the lead

What is the rationale behind removing Paleo-Indians and replacing it with “humans”? Please explain and discuss. Tagging the involved editor @Moxy: but we should also look for group concensus

Paleo-Indians (i wrote) is coverd at Settlement of the Americas...pls review WP:SEAOFBLUE. Just link it in the main sectrion about this time.Moxy- 11:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Can we get you slow down ...have multiple editors trying to keepup with you and fix things...best not revert many editors over and over....we have 5 reverts to talk about.Moxy- 11

29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

How long ago did you make the initial switch to “Paleo-Indians”? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The speed of my edits shouldn’t be of concern. I am genuinely trying to improve the article. I have seen the recent notices about blue links and clean-up, and I’ve recently devoted several edits to helping tackle those issues. I feel that I have a unique “big picture” perspective about the United States and many specific topics within and pertaining to the US (history, religion, sports, government, etc).

If you have concerns about specific edits, please leave a note on my talk page to point them out, you are more than welcome to, and I will see if I can help resolve them. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mrbeastmodeallday -- While you may feel that you "have a unique “big picture” perspective about the United States and many specific topics within and pertaining to the US (history, religion, sports, government, etc)", we must all avoid edits that feature POV judgment calls and overlinks ("sea of blue"). And we should follow basic WP style protocols (e.g., vertical quotation marks). Thanks. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mason.Jones:Totally agree with you, thank you for the reminder. The quotes is an issue with my keyboard defaulting to that shape, but it’s easy for me to swipe to other variants including the WP straight version, so that won’t be an issue anymore.

I am of the opinion that generally, articles titled “…of the United States” or “…in the United States” (and to a lesser extent “American…”) are very useful for readers when there is relevant text in the article to pipe said links into. If you disagree or have a different opinion, please indicate and we can discuss. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

When one is making many edits at the same article, at high speed. It will create tension among other editors. Ease off the gas pedal, a bit. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Racism

This article does not inform about past racism and the recent one includes into 'inequality'. The USA created Black Lives Matter, so the movement shuld be probably mentioned here.Xx236 (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

What does "the USA created Black Lives Matter" mean, exactly? The movement may have started in the United States, but to say it was created by the United States implies something different. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

As for the merits of mentioning Black Lives Matter in this article, one potential issue is recentism. A key factor in whether or not it’s worth mentioning is how “big” or “significant” it is within the perspective of the entire 250-300+ year history detailed in the article. Trump is a very big deal, but even he only gets 1-2 sentences. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Although something similar to what this editor is suggesting has been included in South Africa, racism and apartheid had an outstanding impact upon that country in these last few decades, and it is too soon to include Black Lives Matter as a major part of the article. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

white american ancestry

Demographers regard the reported number of English Americans as a serious undercount, as the index of inconsistency is high and many if not most Americans from English stock have a tendency to identify simply as "Americans" 2601:204:8600:36A0:803A:DB91:A9D0:CC3A (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay. So what change are you proposing, and with what sourcing? --Golbez (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Wrote American ancestry that covers this response. Moxy- 00:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Military alliances in lead section

@Snowie81: @CollectiveSolidarity: This thread is for a discussion to take place regarding the merits of putting military alliance information in the lead section. I have tagged the two editors, but others are free to contribute to the conversation as well. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello there @Mrbeastmodeallday. I am taking an abrupt WikiBreak, so I cannot discuss this topic at the moment. However, I am gladly open to discussing this in a few weeks. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

There are presently 30 members of NATO. The Wikipedia articles for the 29 other nations all mention NATO membership in the lead. Why shouldn't we do the same here? (I don't have particularly strong feelings about the other alliances in question, but NATO at least should be included.) -- Vaulter 13:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

This is primarily in reference to mentions of other specific countries with which the US allied, and not NATO. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I have deleted mention of U.S. military bases abroad in the lead. Total military spending is the sufficient criterion, and U.S. military bases in Germany, the Philippines, South Korea, Spain, etc., were invited by the governments in every case. Selective inferences about U.S. forces abroad are polemical and have no place in the lead. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Mass media section tagged for cleanup + improvement

Particularly the statistics and data pertaining to radio. Is there anyone who can find good updated sources to provide up-to-date data? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Photos of federal government leaders

The way that the current photo setup is with only Biden and Harris appears to be giving unbalanced and undue weight for the executive branch.

In the United States, all three branches work alongside each other and also “check and balance” each other so none become too powerful.

In general, the media heavily biases in favor of the executive branch because of the way that popular elections work. However, Wikipedia is supposed to represent neutrality and balance based on how the government actually is, not based on how much the average person knows about the government.

As such, I propose that the leader of each branch be displayed with equal prominence in a combined row/column (just like the Capitol/White House/Supreme Court Building photo row) or as a montage.

At an absolute minimum, it would show Biden and Roberts as the leader of the executive and judicial branches respectively. For the legislative branch, technically Harris is the highest-ranking leader but the only real/actual power the Vice President has comes from breaking ties in the Senate, which rarely occurs and even if it does the VP may be busy with other things. In the general day-to-day functions, Pelosi is generally considered the leader of the legislative branch.

For what it’s worth, those are the four government leaders implicated in the infobox.

I’m fully supportive of a Biden/Harris/Pelosi/Roberts combination, or Biden/Pelosi/Roberts.

If it’s Biden/Harris/Roberts, I wouldn’t be in full agreement, because again that still appears to give too much weight to the executive branch and not enough to the legislative branch. From the understanding of the average American or non-American person, it’s likely that Harris (and the VP position in general) is much more strongly associated with Biden and the executive branch than the legislative branch.

As a side note, I realize that Biden and Harris are in the “parties and elections” section, which obviously wouldn’t be an appropriate location for John Roberts to appear because he’s not elected. I’m open to the idea of adding an individual portrait of Roberts to the section that discusses the judicial branch. However, there is also a potential concern that there would be too many images cluttering the government section if there are multiple leaders’ photos split up individually. If that’s a legitimate issue, then doing the combined photo row/montage and placing it in a section that overviews or details all branches of government may be best. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Per neutrality, if "the media heavily biases in favor of the executive branch," that's what this article should do. TFD (talk) 20:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

President Joe Biden

Vice President Kamala Harris

Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Chief Justice John Roberts

@The Four Deuces: I’m not completely sold on that idea. The way I’ve understood the topic of neutrality in Wikipedia is that the article should present subjects based on what and how they are, and not necessarily based on how others (including media) are presenting those subjects.

The infobox of this page does a very very good job of adhering to that principle, with all four names in roughly equal prominence/significance, particularly when you compare Biden and Roberts.

Biden and Roberts is the best example because they’re both indisputably the sole highest leader of their respective government branch, but Biden obviously has much more popularity and media attention.

If there’s a clear paradigm where the executive branch has some type of unchecked power over the judicial branch (which is common in less stable republics/democracies around the world) then the current format makes sense. Like if Biden can fire any or all Supreme Court justices at will, for example.

Furthermore, just showing Biden and Harris indirectly implicates that they lead the whole government, and that they are the most powerful figures. The first statement is not true because they only lead the executive branch, and to some lesser arguable extent the legislative branch. And the second statement is also a matter of subjectivity, we’ve seen presidents be very limited when one or both houses of Congress are controlled by the opposing party. The Supreme Court decided the 2000 election, and the SC Chief Justice administers the Presidential oath of office at inauguration, so there’s definitely not a unilateral power that the president has over the other branches that goes unchecked. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm okay with adding Pelosi and Roberts. However, there isn't a lot of room in that section. I've made a collage that might be suitable, facilitated by reducing image sizes somewhat and simplifying captions. I'll place the template above your recent post. It just fits that section on my wide screen. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: Oh wow that montage looks amazing! Thank you for setting it up! That looks like a great fit for the article!

One minor question/request: is it possible to crop Roberts’ image so all four headshots are roughly similar proportions? He’s way zoomed out compared to the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbeastmodeallday (talk • contribs) 09:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a way to obtain a cropped photo, somehow. There aren't many closeups at commons, other than caricatures or of him on the DC federal appellate court. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

FYI, I was able to find the cropped version, which had been already produced, on the same page as the previous portrait, under "other versions". It did not show when I searched on Roberts's name. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Mrbeastmodeallday, when you say the way you have understood neutrality in Wikipedia obviously isdifferent, you should provide a quote. The policy says, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." (My emphasis.) If reliable sources, in this case the media, "heavily biases in favor of the executive branch," then so should the article. Another editor may believe that the media does not give enough attention to the executive. The assumption is that experts are better able to determine what weight should be given than Wikipedia editors are. Therefore, Wikipedia editors should assign weight according to the emphasis given in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 01:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I’m not sure honestly. When it comes to WP, I’m much more of a “spirit of the law” type of person than “letter of the law”. I’m not well-versed in the rulebook, but I tend to have a solid big-picture understanding of the processes and what the rules and policies are there for, and not necessarily what they say.

However, on the contrary, I must add this devil’s advocate question, on what grounds or reasoning does Biden and especially Harris get to have their image represented, and Pelosi and Roberts don’t?

Is it only because of their popular “celebrity” status among politicians whereas Roberts is more under-the-radar because of his position?

You see, if this article was about something like “media coverage of US government” or “death threats against US government leaders” then I’m all on board for featuring Biden and mentioning little to nothing about Roberts, because for those contexts there’s clearly much more action and significance pertaining to the Biden and the exec branch than to Roberts and the Court.

But the topic of this article is the United States, and in particular the section in question is about “US government”, on a functional day-to-day level, who has what powers, who’s calling the shots.

Not who has name/face recognition or who’s on TV the most or who has the biggest social media page. Just because there are more people who know that Biden leads the executive branch than there are people who know that Roberts leads the judicial branch, that doesn’t matter, because the topic of US government in this context isn’t about popularity or cultural impact or media attention. It’s about government structure, government processes, etc. Again, who’s leading, who’s making decisions, and constitutionally none of the three individual branches have unilateral unlimited power over any of the others. Biden is the clear leader of a branch that more or less represents 1/3 of the government. Roberts is also the clear leader of a branch that more or less represents 1/3 of the government. Harris is the assistant to one of those leaders, and doesn’t really have much official actual inherent power unless Biden delegates it, or if there’s a tie in the Senate (which is very rare, it’s just there as a tiebreaker, like “hey we gotta have some uninvolved government official responsible for casting a tie-breaking vote, the VP is a convenient choice”, so quite frankly it’s incidental).

To put Harris’ image and not Roberts is unencyclopedic because the weight of their significance in US government is unbalance and out of proportion. Also, mind you Harris is most likely the assistant of the executive branch for 4 or 8 years. Roberts was the #1 top leader of the judicial branch for 15 years before Harris’ image on this page was even thinkable, and he will continue to lead his branch until he either retires or dies. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

If I must cite WP policy, here: Wikipedia:Common sense Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

In Wikipedia discussions, editors may refer to essays, provided that they do not hold them out as consensus or policy. Moxy- 21:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Part of the issue may be that there’s not a good subsection to show Roberts. There’s the “parties and elections” section, which is easy to feature Biden and Harris, and to a lesser extent Pelosi. But Roberts is obviously not involved with parties and elections. I will look into possibly reformatting the gov section if possible, I’m surprised there’s not a “courts” section. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Please read Help:Talk_pages#Indentation on how to thread posts, to make it clear who you're replying to. Alternatively, there's the {{outdent}} template for when indenting would cause unsightly scrunching when you add a lot of text.

I now wouldn't include Roberts's photo. As you say, it's out of place in that section. Nor would I know whom to add as a fourth photo. One candidate would be Schumer, but while he's the majority leader, he's that just barely, and the actual majority party in the senate is the Republicans, Sanders and King being Independents. In any case, there doesn't seem to be much consensus for adding photos, at this point. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Theater section image

Obviously there are people here who seem to have something against theater. Why else would anyone insist that this be the only major subsection not to be represented by an image? It’s really this simple—either keep the current constructive placeholder—or find a better picture to insert to represent this very important section. Castncoot (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Castncoot:

To be clear:

1) Firstly, there are several other “imageless” subsections in this article. (Energy, environment, language, race and ethnicity)

2) Secondly, you are NOT the first person in recent history to attempt to add a theater image only to have it reverted. You just happen to be the most persistent about “un-reverting” it. Most people take it to talk page after the first reversion, or just leave it be, because there’s usually a legitimate overarching reason rooted in WP policy and procedure; where there's smoke there's fire. Nobody out here has a personal vendetta against you or against theater.

(Mind you, I say all of this from the perspective of being one of those people who previously attempted to add a theater image and was reverted – this was about a month ago)

Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 09:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Please insert your perspective/reason @E-960:.

I’m attempting to tag any and all other editors involved in this theater image fiasco, to help out OP.

Looking at edit history, @Moxy: was also involved in reverting a theater image attempt.

And @E-960: was the one who also reverted mine back on March 17.

So that’s two for E-960 and one for Moxy. For the two of you editors, please explain as best you can the situation and reason.

Why did this section lacking sources even get added ? Really need experienced editors monitoring the article. WP:DUE = do we really need a 5th picture of New York ?Moxy- 20:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Although earlier styles of theater such as minstrel shows and vaudeville acts have disappeared from the landscape, theater still remains a popular contemporary American art form. Broadway productions still entertain millions of theatergoers even as productions have become more elaborate and expensive. At the same time, theater has also served as a platform for expression and as a venue for identity exploration for underrepresented, minority communities. These communities have formed their own companies and created their own genres of works. (East West Players, founded in 1965, was the first Asian American theater group.) Notable contemporary American playwrights include Edward Albee, August Wilson, Tony Kushner, David Henry Hwang, John Guare, and Wendy Wasserstein. Smaller urban theaters have remained a major source of innovation, while U.S. regional theaters retain an important place in theater life. In the 21st century, drama classes are widely available in American high schools and colleges; they were rarely offered in previous eras, and today many Americans first become interested in theater by enrolling in a drama course. The Faster Times, an online newspaper that ran from 2009 to 2013, featured a weekly column that discussed issues and trends in American theater. HowlRound, an online forum, features opinions and essays by artists and academics in American theater today.

References

@Moxy:: Umm, if you want only experienced editors to edit this article…then why are you even here? Your only experience seems to be in picture layouts rather than contributing any significant substance to the page. Furthermore, your United States topic expertise appears to be notably poor, and your grammar sometimes leaves much to be desired. Sometimes I’m mystified why you even bother coming to this page. Nobody has challenged the references on the subtopic’s own source page itself – only you and only here—not a valid reason reason to misrepresent constructive and relevant content as being somehow illegitimate. And who cares what city is used to portray theater in America? What a nonsensical and irrational reason! Most logically that would be New York, obviously. And if a Broadway picture isn’t preferred, then why not just use the lead image for the Theater in the United States’’ article? There’s also been no response so far from editor E-960. There is no valid reason for the Theater subsection not to have a constructive image.

@Mrbeastmodeallday:: This is the lead picture for the American Theater project, and it’s a classic, very notable, and representative picture. Why not use this?

Castncoot (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Castncoot:, if you’re talking about this image, then no, because it is not relevant and pertinent enough to the overarching topic of United States for readers, to where average readers can make an easy mental connection to where “United States” pops up in their mind. It requires explicit explanation, or further context. The image is supposed to stand as the explanation and context in its own right. I am strongly opposed for its usage in this article. Feel free to solicit other editors’ opinions on this photo if you wish, but the blunt truth is that most would also be opposed, so it may not be worth the effort of trying to ask. You can propose multiple images and the community can discuss if there are any that meet the relevant standards and guidelines. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. Fell free to add back the copy pasted paragraph with sources. Can we get you to follow basics like Wp:BRD and WP:Burden? Your back and forth edits have been contested by multiple editors. Can you provide any sources....pls try. Moxy- 00:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The allegedly unsourced paragraph seems to be an issue with just one editor, Moxy.

However, the addition of an image requires a greater discussion because that involves at least 3-4 unique editors who have reverted theater images instead of just one.

The image is certainly igniting greater controversy. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong or bad, that just means it requires further explanation from all parties involved to work towards a concensus on the issue. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

As per pervious talks on the matter....... section was to small for an image til the unsourced content was add to make room. As for my point of view on the image....need something that displays what theatres look like inside.... having another architectural image and of NY again in the article isn't very educational. Moxy- 01:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Moxy, are you stonewalling here and unilaterally going to stall and hold up moving this section and article forward for as long as you can? It seems like you have concerns that are truly unique. First of all, the Theater section is not premised upon primarily describing what a theater looks like physically on the inside, any more than you would expect the Cinema section to display an image of a movie screen! Theaters and cinema screens are found all over the world, not just in the United States. Sometimes even concert halls can double as theaters depending upon the need, the context, and the economics. No, this subsection is about the CONCEPT of stage theatre in the US, and summarizing its multifaceted aspects in two paragraphs. What is wrong with the above image in this Talk page section? That is THE lead picture for the Theater in the United States page, for goodness sakes. Castncoot (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Yup " truly unique" to ask for sources. Took the time to find real sources over a Google search for words. Thank you again for the positive talk always a good time...love working for you...will let others talk about images and your editing habits.Moxy- 04:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I will try my best to explain issues with attempted theater images that other editors may struggle to explain clearly: the main thing is that images in an article need to contextually illustrate the main topic of the entire article in a pertinent and relevant way. This means the image must illustrate the United States through the lens of theater, not the other way around. At an absolute minimum, it needs to tie back to the main “mother” subject, in this case “United States”. For the “Theater in the United States” article, images should ultimately tie back to US theater or American theater. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Before responding, please allow me to present some other images from the “United States” article as an example to show you what I mean:

Does this image make the average reader think “United States”?

How about this image?

Or this image?

Or this one?

I think you can see what I mean

And we can also dig into the various subsections of “culture” from the United States article and see the same thing here

And here

And even here in montage form

And not just in photographic image form, but also infographic image form like here, when readers are curious about religion

or transportation

or topography

or the weather

Which is precisely why an image of Broadway should be utilized. Broadway, just like Hollywood (Cinema section), is a decidedly American institution. And that’s what should be educated encyclopedically. Don’t you want readers globally to be educated about this fact? Why don’t you propose a couple of theater images here that you like, so I can see what images you would consider to be more pertinent to this article? Castncoot (talk) 06:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Well then we need to reach concensus on one big overarching question: does said image make the average reader with only basic general prior knowledge of theater immediately think “United States!” or “America!” when they see the image? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

For some of these previously attempted and proposed theater images, what stops the average English-reading Wikipedia reader from thinking, “oh that’s a city street with lights on buildings” before thinking “oh that’s the United States”?

To the average reader, “United States” is the main theme or at least a very obvious and prominent theme of all the long-standing images in this article. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

And even if the average reader thinks “oh that’s New York City” or “Oh that’s Broadway” when seeing an image long before having thoughts about the United States, (if they have US thoughts at all), then said image is not relevant and pertinent enough for this article from an encyclopedic standpoint.

It needs to be “Oh that’s America/United States” either before or in conjunction with “Oh that’s New York City” and “Oh that’s Broadway”. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to run any theater images against that standard, and if it qualifies then that’s when being bold is incredibly productive and helpful for Wikipedia. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it’s safe to say that everyone on Earth who engages robustly with the Internet knows instinctively and immediately that an image of Times Square represents the United States, the American New Year’s Eve ball drop and American theater, and not just Midtown Manhattan- just like the Hollywood sign represents the American motion picture industry as much as it represents a district in Los Angeles. Which is why I had chosen the image that I had initially. Castncoot (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

For the record, that’s not a standard I created or invented.

I’m simply translating and interpreting the underlying language of the encyclopedia editors within the context of this page. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

But are there any images related to theater or Broadway that have that same level of instant “American” recognition? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Does LeBron James going for a lay-up on the montage in front of a sign written in Chinese scream America? That’s debatable. But I have no problem with that picture. Why does a picture have to “scream” America as much as it needs to be a legitimate representation of the American experience? I have a problem with that kind of a standard as screaming “contrived” and “artificial.” Castncoot (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It’s the montage combination of the four sports: basketball, American football, baseball, and hockey. Those are prominently the top four sports in the US, it’s a unique combination that plausibly makes the average reader think “those are the sports in America!”

If you have grievances against other specific images, you should bring them up as separate talk page discussions because going into that becomes a different topic that interferes with this topic at hand. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I’ve actually been wanting to change the basketball image within the montage because it’s not really the best representation of basketball. It looks like it was added by a LeBron fan, since it represents LeBron more than it really represents the sport of basketball. The hoop isn’t even really visible and nobody is actively defending. It just looks like the “LeBron James show” and other players are spectators, instead of showing basketball for what it is, two teams of players going against each other trying to put the ball in the hoop and stop the other team from putting the ball in the hoop. I’ve just been too lazy to get around to it. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Well honestly, the photos ideally should be both if possible, screaming American and being a genuine representation of the American experience. The roasted Thanksgiving Turkey photo strikes that balance perfectly. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The sports photo is a good representation of the American experience, if you look at the mass numbers of people who attend games in person, and watch on television. Particular football and baseball. That’s why the section does a good job of featuring those as “top two” sports, and then basketball and hockey. And the other sports are sort of beneath that because they’re more niche in the US. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

And likewise, millions from within and beyond American borders attend Broadway plays annually, as the text alludes to. Just for argument’s sake- how does a picture of the Hollywood sign scream America to someone living in Nebraska any more than an image of the Great White Way? But not including a Hollywood image would be remiss. Times Square is the same way. Castncoot (talk) 07:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Times Square doesn’t exactly fit neatly into any specific section in the page. So yes, it does need to tie back to the main article topic (United States), but it also has to be relevant to something that’s actually being discussed in the text. You’ll notice that among the longstanding universally-agreed images, there’s a combination of both topical relevance and US overarching relevance. Since this page is heavily-trafficked and reviewed. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Or..why not just trust that the editors of Theater in the United States knew what they were doing in choosing a picture of West Side Story to be the lead representative image? Castncoot (talk) 07:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

that page is that page and this page is this page. Generally speaking, in Wikipedia, things are assessed on their own merits.

Well it’s normal to see the photo and think “Hollywood, that’s in America” and maybe in between (“that’s in Los Angeles and/or California”). The process of most readers associating the photo with the United States is pretty natural and intuitive, it doesn’t really require any explanation or research for that connection to be made.

By the way, I don’t have all the answers and I don’t speak on behalf of Wikipedia, I’m just one editor. Some of these questions and issues are best discussed in a separate thread and/or with the broader talk page community. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, it’s just you and me on this forum now. Do you have an objection to keeping the lead picture of the Theater in the United States picture as a placeholder for now for the Theater section of this United States page? Whether it’s ideal is debatable, but it’s certainly acceptable and non-controversial, as evidenced by its acceptance as the flagship image of that topic page. Castncoot (talk) 07:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see an obvious lead image on that page. The first image I see is a man in the “early history” section and that doesn’t appear to be a true lead image for that article, and it almost certainly would get no support for this article. Please clarify if you can. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know what browser you’re using, but this is the sidebar lead image that I see using my browser. Obviously I’m just talking about using the actual image and caption, and not the other supporting features. Castncoot (talk) 07:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I found the image higher in the thread while you were pulling it up, and posted a reply there, I’ll copy/paste that reply here: Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC) @Castncoot:: “if you’re talking about this image, then no, because it is not relevant and pertinent enough to the overarching topic of United States for readers, to where average readers can make an easy mental connection to where “United States” pops up in their mind. It requires explicit explanation, or further context. The image is supposed to stand as the explanation and context in its own right. I am strongly opposed for its usage in this article. Feel free to solicit other editors’ opinions on this photo if you wish, but the blunt truth is that most would also be opposed, so it may not be worth the effort of trying to ask. You can propose multiple images and the community can discuss if there are any that meet the relevant standards and guidelines”.

Lin-Manuel Miranda as American Founding Father Hamilton on Broadway

How about this ? Castncoot (talk) 08:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the subject of the image, so I can’t really say either way. You may want to solicit the perspective of other editors. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Re: Reverted edits on energy policy and strategic petroleum reserves

Hi Mrbeastmodeallday, I wanted to follow up on my 19 May edit I made that you reverted for conflict of interest, since I am affiliated with the International Energy Agency which was mentioned in the edit. The IEA is an autonomous intergovernmental organization and our mission includes making clear, authoritative information available about energy security, the clean energy transition, and the energy policies of member states.

I understand the concerns about an appearance of conflict of interest, but the edit I suggested (pasted below) is purely factual and doesn't include any editorializing or self-promotion. I also believe it provides important context given current oil market instability and the two recent collective draw-downs from global strategic petroleum reserves in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. This information feels significant and noteworthy to include in the "Energy" section of this article.

For reference, my original edit read:

"The United States is a founding member of the International Energy Agency, which requires all member countries to maintain a strategic oil reserve of at least 90 days' worth of net oil imports in order to protect against unexpected supply shocks. As of February 2022, the United States' oil reserves totalled 580.87 million barrels of oil."

The United States' relationship with the IEA as a founding member is also stated on the website of the U.S. Department of Energy. It reads:

"What is the relationship between the United States and the International Energy Agency (IEA)? The United States is a founding member of the IEA. The organization was created in 1974 following the Arab oil embargo. Enactment of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (Pub.L. 94-163) authorized U.S. participation in the International Energy Program. United States representatives to the IEA are provided by DOE and the State Department. Today the IEA has 29 member countries that are committed to (1) take common effective measures to meet oil supply emergencies, and (2) reduce dependence on oil in the long-term. Members are required to hold strategic stocks equal to no less than 90 days of petroleum imports based on the previous year's net imports. IEA member countries coordinate their energy policies, share energy information, and cooperate in the development of national energy programs. A formal process for coordinated emergency response measures is used to assess and determine whether and in what way IEA members will respond to petroleum supply issues."

Given this context, how do you feel about my original edit? I would be happy to include a reference to the DOE site as well.

EnergyAnalyst1 (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:COI. From now on, I'd suggest having your edits peer-reviewed on talk pages or the COI Noticeboard per WP:COIEDIT. Conflict of interest is a touchy subject, so I'd be especially careful when editing items centered around the IEA. Your edit appears factual, so I see no problem with this addition and would suggest another editor to add it. If you ever want to add anything else about the IEA, I would add the request at an article's talk page or use an edit request. Cheers! CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

A couple of other Wikipedia-related concerns spring to mind completely independent of any conflict-of-interest issues: namely how much weight the addition carries and how technical the addition is. This is a community-based discussion, I don’t get to make unilateral judgements on how things go from here by simple virtue of being the “reverter”; I’m sure there will be other editors contributing additional ideas to this discussion. The conflict of interest, weight, and technical level are three factors that would all need to be hashed out in a concensus manner here with the greater community of editors. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 10:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Proposed Theater section images

People’s thoughts? Castncoot (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
1) File:The Lion King Musical.svg|thumb|The Lion King, the highest-grossing American musical play in history (Non-free images not allowed on Talk pages) Castncoot (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

2)

Lin-Manuel Miranda as American Founding Father Hamilton on Broadway

• Apparently indifferent/non-sequiturial response. I’m going to add the Hamilton image because it is an outstanding and quintessentially American representation on several levels. Castncoot (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there should be any images in the Theater section. In the article, we highlight through images only the most impactful items. in the case of the US, movies and music have a profound impact on the American society as well as the world culture... theater not so much. --E-960 (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Where were you in response to this discussion both in this section and the one shortly above until now when you don’t seem to be getting your way? Does one individual get to nix edits that others are OK with to claim lack of consensus by permanently banning a picture in a section? I wasn’t aware that Wikipedia sanctioned dictatorial power. Theater impacts tens of millions of people from Broadway down to the local high school level in the US. Both User:Mason.Jones and I have thoughtfully and carefully curated the caption. User:Mrbeastmodeallday has also been on board on my Talk page to putting up the right picture. So who’s the obstructionist here? Castncoot (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

"dictatorial power?" really now. --Golbez (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I have adjusted the caption to better improve its scope, weight, and relevance as it pertains to the topic of the article (United States) Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Castncoot, sorry, simply because you agree with another editor that does not equal consensus. Btw, on a side note please see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Finally, when you say "Theater impacts tens of millions of people from Broadway down to the local high school level in the US" you probably are talking about Manhattan folks, like impacting people from Broadway to the Upper West Side and Greenwich, Connecticut. Broadway only impacts NY and maybe London (and when a show premieres there they call it the "European premiere"). So again, I don't think the section should have an image, having a whole section on theater is a stretch already. --E-960 (talk) 07:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

OP may be using the term Broadway as a metonym for American theater on the whole, particularly professional theater. I don’t think the usage of that word in this context is geographically limited to Manhattan. Much like how Hollywood is a metonym for American cinema, and Washington DC is a metonym for American government. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I know... theater in the US is just not that much of an influene. --E-960 (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I think I see where you’re going with this. It’s not an issue with the image alone per se. But more about if American theater is as influential as the other cultural fields like American music, American sports, American food, American movies, etc. In the absence of some type of contextual statistics in the text detailing the scope, the different categories are implicitly and naturally on “equal footing” which may give undue weight to less popular topics. With that said, one way to improve the neutrality and balance of the various cultural topics among one another is to include meaningful sourced statistics on how many people are partaking in each cultural niche:

• In the sports section: “X amount of people attended a US professional sporting event in 2017, and Y amount of people watched on television in 2017”

• In the cinema section: “X amount of people watched a movie at a theater in 2017”

• In the theater section: “X amount of people attended a Broadway performance in 2017”

Something along those lines. Just by the alleged virtue of theater being “smaller” than other cultural niches, doesn’t make it inherently unworthy of inclusion. But it might be lending excessive undue weight, which can be neutralized by providing explicit figures and statistics regarding its overall size and scope in the big picture perspective of the US. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 10:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I have added a sourced statistic about Broadway show attendance in the 2018-19 season, to offer neutral perspective to readers insight about the true size and scope of the theater realm in the US Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Mrbeastmodeallday, at lest put an image of the West Side Story, at least people recognize that musicle, not Lin-Manuel Miranda, who most never heard of and neither did I. --E-960 (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Lin-Manuel Miranda is not a musical, he is the actor who portrays the main character.

I think what you are intending to compare is A) Hamilton and B) West Side Story. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

ht the template for north american countries is not here?

Who removed the tmp {{North America topic}}? --87.6.27.159 (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Maps, charts and tables

With the recent series of edits this article is turning into most tedious and dry country article on Wikipedia, with images being replaced with maps, charts and tables. I note that Mrbeastmodeallday has been quite active in the recent weeks initiating a lot of the changes. The only other article that was devoid (until recently) of any meaningful images was the Holy Roman Empire article, which only contained an endless assortment of maps (I guess some folks interested in that topic were obsessed with territorial changes or something). Here the article is starting to look like a data report, and the most obvious and well known things about the US are omitted, and replaced with trivia or someone's pet topic. --E-960 (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

If this is an issue, please copy/paste specific images you’d like to remove along with reasoning.

I’ve only really made significant changes to about 3-5 images out of the 30-50 total, so please be mindful of the proportionality.Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Be mindful that the US is very very diverse compared to most countries in many respects. Demographics, weather, food, culture, and other stuff, so it’s often difficult to capture the national perspective with an image of one example, whereas national infographic maps and graphs often portray the grand scheme much more clearly and efficiently.

Some photographic images only really represent the perspective of one region of the United States, and not the whole country.

So that is a unique challenge for this page that for most other countries is either a small issue or not an issue at all. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

So it’s not an easy apples-to-apples comparison with other countries in that regard. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

There are things that are the timeless hallmarks of America, which cut across everything: Grand Canyon, Harvard, Hollywood, George Washington, Martin Luther King Jr. Mark Twain, and so on, for music you could add a well thought image about Jazz, which kicked off the whole popular culture movement which evolved over the decades, instead of some boring Grammy museum image. Same for performing arts, sorry but Lin-Manuel Miranda is not it, however West Side Story is an iconic example of an American musical, which captures the diversity of America experience. It just takes some though, instead of converting the entire article into charts, maps and tables, and adding random pictures which represent someone's pet topic rather than what's really noteworthy about the US. --E-960 (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• These mass changes, implemented over series of edits, are impossible to keep up with. Such dramatic changes on an article like this should be discussed first. I'm tempted to find some version of the article from two months ago or whatever and just revert back to it. -- Vaulter 16:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I re-added a couple of the old images that were removed, so it's not all charts and maps. --E-960 (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Mrbeastmodeallday perhaps it might be a good option if you take a step back, within the last month or so you went all in on this article changing everything according to your preferences, I'm not sure the outcome was optimal. --E-960 (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t change anything based on personal preference, the changes I’ve made are rooted in wp/encyclopedic concerns and improvements. Please cite specific changes that you feel are the product of personal preference over encyclopedic improvement and I’d be happy to discuss/explain Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Article quality has declined greatly recently. 204.237.89.38 (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Restore article

Think it best to restore the article to before the pass 1000 edits....that have lead to 10 ongoing talks above....mass over linking .....seas of blue....image changes etc. Impossible to keep track of the mass changes that have caused multiple disputes with talks being bulldozed and reverts simply being re-implemented. As noted above by multiple editors, the article has seen a mass change not for the better. What do others think?Moxy- 01:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Support as the current version is not an improvement. ––FormalDude talk 03:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Sports montage vote!

At the request of user @E-960:, I hereby nominate the existing “Montage A” to be replaced by “Montage B” on the grounds of image relevance; in particular, improved “action shots” with better focus on the interactive gameplay between players and teams that ultimately characterizes what the professional sports are. The current collection of images appears to show an excessive and undue focus on individual star athletes such as LeBron James and Mike Trout at the detriment of focusing on the true nature of how the professional sport is played.

Some examples include:

• Pau Gasol defending the layup whereas the existing basketball image shows no defense.

• The baseball catcher ready to catch the ball if Mookie Betts swings and misses, whereas the previous image only shows the hitter. Anyone who has even casually watched a baseball game knows that an obvious majority of the pitches in a game end up in the catcher’s mitt, and a minority are touched by the hitter’s bat. The Trout image only illustrates the possibility of the minority result of the pitch (ball being hit), the proposed image illustrates the possibility of both the minority and majority results (ball being hit and ball being caught).

(As a courtesy, and also in the spirit of avoiding any possible perceptions or allegations of bias against LeBron or Trout, I started my search on Wikimedia Commons for images of LeBron and Trout that may show similarly interactive gameplay experiences, but unfortunately came up empty).

Additional image relevance factors aside from the people in the photos, are:

• Clearer presence and discernment of the basket/hoop/rim in the proposed basketball image which is somewhat obscured in the LeBron image because of stickers, lines, and pads on the backboard that interrupt a view of the hoop when viewed from the back side (the hoop is attached to the front side of the backboard).

• Clear view of the puck being shot towards the goal in the hockey image compared to the previous image where the puck is not shown.

• Clearer view of the general size, shape, and proportions of the hockey net in relation to the players. The existing image shows only the rightmost 1/3 of the goal.

(Lastly, I am gladly willing to further crop the proposed basketball image for better clarity/focus prior to implementation, if that is a contentious factor among potential opposition votes. I am fully aware that in the proposed image, there are players running around near the edges of the photo who aren’t directly relevant to the game action in that moment, and that the image appears to be from a farther vantage point that lends to the rim being smaller in proportion to the whole image)

Montage A (existing)

The "Big Four" among popular sports in the U.S. are American football, baseball, basketball and ice hockey.

Montage B (proposed)

The "Big Four" among popular sports in the U.S. are American football, baseball, basketball and ice hockey.

Happy voting and discussing! Cheers! Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)