Talk:United States

RfC: How should the US' relations with developing countries be summarised in the body?

On what to add at the end of the Foreign relations section to summarise the US' relations with developing countries.

• Option 1: The U.S. is the biggest total donor of development aid worldwide, with a demonstrable positive impact. It has been argued that US foreign policy is directed by commercial interest, with some stipulating that the use of multinational corporations and state capture in developing countries amounts to neocolonialism.
• Option 2: The U.S. is the biggest total donor of development aid worldwide, with a demonstrable positive impact. It has been argued that US foreign policy is directed by commercial interest, with some stipulating that the US' exploitation of and intervention in developing countries amounts to imperialism.
• Option 3: Other (general)
• Option 4: This should not be mentioned in the body.
• Option 5: Other, with one sentence on aid, one on alleged exploitation
• Option 6: Just the first sentence of option 1
• Option 7: The U.S. is the biggest total donor of development aid worldwide, with USAID having missions in over 100 countries. Some academics contest that the US' policy towards developing countries amounts to economic imperialism, and some African academics use the term neocolonialism.

Refs: Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:PLT, WP:USA, WP:USGOV, WP:ECON, WP:AFRICA, WP:WPID and WP:LAC have been notified. @Mason.Jones, Fieari, Spintheer, and NickCT: Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 The proposal is balanced with one positive sentence, one negative, and its inclusion of a non-US POV is vital for this page to adhere to WP:NPOV. The final clause is also left open to challenge from the reader. Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  It does not seem appropriate to rerun an RfC on exactly the same topic as the RfC you just ran. CMD (talk) 09:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Why not? It was in infancy and was very poorly done. This one is much more conducive to discussion and less polemical, I'm not trying to game anything. I'll link the previous participants, I should've done that Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Opt. 3: something like option 1, but with clearer wording. First off, the above (in both written-out options) is misusing the word stipulate (which means 'to impose or demand as a requirement or precondition'). I think the writer of that material thinks it means 'to specify, to enumerate, to be specific about', but it does not. In either case, we need reliable sources for the gist of the claims being made, but none are presented here, so we can't presently use either version or any variation on them. And we should link to American imperialism since we have an article specifically about that, instead of linking to broad general topics like imperialism or the rather loosely defined and controverial neo-colonialism. Option 2 is out of the question, because WP cannot in its own voice claim that the US's foreign development aid constitutes "exploitation" (and to even repeat this attributed to someone[s] else would be subject to WP:DUE, and probably not pass that test.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Please see the citations from the above closed RfC, American imperialism is already linked to Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  2 uses the same problematic wording as 1 and says that some people 'state' that... Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Do you have an idea for another proposal? (sorry for spam) Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Is option 7 okay? Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 (Summoned by bot) The first sentence is good although I'm not sure why we are stating "with a demonstrable positive impact." The second sentence is not neutral. It's unclear who is arguing US foreign policy is directed by commercial interest and even less clear who "some" are. If inclusion is not undue then they should be attributed. In my view, only the foreign aid figure should be included without a WP:COATRACK of odd commentary. Avgeekamfot (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  The second clause of the first sentence was inserted to create distance between the two sentences, as otherwise they appear linked. A wide range of people argue US foreign policy is directed by financial interests, such that it would be infeasible to refer to a single group, please see the references from the above closed rfc.

  Only including the foreign aid figure would be biased and against WP:NPOV. There needs to be a sentence summarising the alleged exploitation of developing countries. Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree, the foreign aid figure is an objective fact. We don't need to provide commentary about it on one side or the other.

  Given the edit to the question since my answer, I support just the first sentence without the "with a demonstrable positive impact" phrase being added. Avgeekamfot (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  ^ Option 6 (just making sure I don't miss your vote) Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  No, I mean just the first part of the sentence. Option 6 is the whole sentence. Anyway, you are clearly involved so shouldn't be closing this anyway and it's not a vote anyway. Agree with @CoffeeCrumbs that you appear to be bludgeoning this, and seem to be aiming to include criticism that isn't due weight or NPOV. Avgeekamfot (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, I’ll step back Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4, per immediately previous RfC that is being rerun. The reader gains little from this. The US is the largest economy, there is nothing unusual about it being the largest absolute aid donor. US foreign policy is in part influenced by commercial influence, like all foreign policy. The obvious attempt at juxtaposition does not come off as encyclopaedic. Could be convinced of 3 if there was some overarching source that demonstrated due framing, but at the moment this feels an action in search of a problem. CMD (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree, the section is on foreign relations and this summarises the US' relations with lots of developing countries.

  I can construct another proposal where the first clause of the second sentence comes from [1] and [2]? Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  The proposal doesn't summarise relations, it presents two apparently disconnected statements, that the US gives some aid and does a bit of economic imperialism. CMD (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Connecting the two implies that the aid is used as a tool for personal gain (which is half true as the above link goes into, but there is some genuine substance to the US giving aid) Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 (Summoned by bot) Option 1 and 2 are both not neutral. "With a demonstrable positive impact" should be removed or reworded. The second sentences are unclear and appear to use weasel words. Who has argued this? Who is "some"? In my opinion only the first clause, "the U.S. is the biggest total donor of development aid worldwide," should be kept. C F A 💬 14:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  As stated that would violate WP:NPOV, there needs to be a sentence on the alleged exploitation of developing countries. I can construct another proposal that is worded better with less detail. Please be wary of your personal bias, we all have some. Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Not including the second sentence would not violate WP:NPOV because the US is still the biggest development aid donor regardless of potential exploitation. It was stated as a neutral fact. Keeping "with a demonstrable positive impact" is where opinion is introduced. The second sentence can be readded, and possibly even go into greater detail, but the WP:WEASELing needs to be removed. C F A 💬 15:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Just having the first sentence alone would be creating a false narrative and presenting a single POV, whilst the second presents the POV of some (not anywhere near all) developing countries. Tbh I'm just very interested in the content of the second sentence, I can try and reword it to be more appropriate and less loaded. Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Reword it sort of like option 2? Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment how about: The U.S. is the biggest total donor of development aid worldwide, with USAID having missions in over 100 countries. Some academics contest that the US' policy towards developing countries amounts to economic imperialism, and some African academics use the term neocolonialism.

The introduction of [3] discusses US policy towards developing countries and states that "US citizens believe that the United States, as a rich country, bears a responsibility to assist in economic development on humanitarian grounds" but also states aid is given with certain conditions that favour the US economically. Economic imperialism links to American imperialism and neocolonialism links to Neocolonialism#United States:Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll have to look at this more carefully before casting a "vote", but @Alexanderkowal's suggestion here in this comment is my favorite so far. Pecopteris (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Other Since the U.S. has by far the highest population of any developed country, saying it is the largest donor doesn't give the full picture. As a percentage of GNI, it ranks fairly low. Furthermore, 20% of the total goes to Ukraine and Israel, which are engaged in wars financed by the U.S. Most of the rest appears to be designed to buy military cooperation. Also, the source is unacceptable. It should be a secondary source that explains the numbers such as "Countries That Receive the Most Foreign Aid From the U.S." (U.S. News & World Report Jan. 18, 2024). TFD (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  You're right because it would be WP:OR with only a primary source, thanks.

  The word 'total' is meant to imply that it is only biggest, and not per capita, can't think of better wording. This is specifically development aid, the military aid to Ukraine and Israel isn't counted. Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  That's why it is best to summarize secondary sources. They tell us what information to emphasize. The current phrasing implies that the U.S. is more generous than other countries while it is extremely less so. The article I linked to is interesting. Americans think that a quarter of the federal budget is spent on foreign aid, when it's less than 1%, of which third is military. TFD (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 1: It appears to be the more concise, and yet encompassing explanation of the role the U.S. plays. Both the negative and positive sides of this role are mentioned. Afferand (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• None of the Above This is a confusing mishmash of options in a RFC quickly thrown together with almost no discussion in which the proposer appears to be determined to play "grand interrogator" of every comment made. A malformed RFC under these conditions can't possibly represent any kind of organically reached consensus, so the best solution is not to play. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  I respect those that disagree with me and listen to their concerns, adapting the rfc accordingly. If you don't want to engage then don't. I'm aware I did bludgeon conversation in the previous rfc, I don't think I've done that here. Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  You're basically responding to every comment. It's not *your* personal discussion.

  And for the record, I do not approve any suggestion you make reformulating my comment into one of your chosen options. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  ? I haven’t made your comment into one of the options? From now on I’ll only reply to clarify certain things or ask someone to elaborate on a certain point. Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  What can I do to improve? Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think you're fine, @Alexanderkowal. There's nothing wrong with being passionately engaged. However, when you start an RFC, editors around here usually consider it bad form if you respond to all/most of the comments. Just keep that in mind. Maybe let the next few comments stand on their own, without answering them, unless the commenter pings you. Just a suggestion. Cheers. Pecopteris (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, I’ll step back, have a good day Alexanderkowal (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Oppose all options. This is a "leading" RfC determined to bring readers to one ethical conclusion: U.S. foreign aid is 100% self-interest, with the ultimate goal extending America's imperialistic reach into developing nations receiving the aid. Failure to mention that U.S. aid is rather modest in terms of U.S. GNI is the least of its problems. Such a blanket condemnation, with its anti-colonialist sources, is given undue political and ideological weight in a short section within a generalist article. Mason.Jones (talk) 02:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• None of the Above - Per User:CoffeeCrumbs & User:Mason.Jones; this is a malformed and leading RfC. Nom seems eager to add some kind of narrative about US foreign aid. The narrative itself is questionable, and even if it weren't, its appearing in this article would be innappropriate. NickCT (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I am not eager to add a narrative about foreign aid, I’ve tried very hard to creat distance between the two sentences and make clear that the first one is positive, arguably going too far. Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry but I still need to defend questions of bad faith, I won’t talk on this anymore Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  For the record, it's easy to unintentionally ask a leading question. Saying you're asking leading questions is not the same as saying your acting in bad faith. NickCT (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Okay thank you, I know I have my bias Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• None of the Above as above; the options are all question begging. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment There's a topic on redesigning the rfc so as to address the concerns raised, please can people provide input, what is already there is what I was just initially thinking and is very open to change.

Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 6 I think that the fact is all that's needed. We don't really need the commentary about alleged "Imperialism" unless it adds to something that's discussed later on which I'm not too sure it does. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

This is discussed at American imperialism and Neocolonialism#United States but yeah it’d only be referred to here rather than discussed Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 7 but this is not a good topic for an RfC imho and there are too many options for uninvolved editors like myself to easily make sense of them. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah agreed, at Talk:United States#Workshopping a relisting of the rfc there's a discussion about rewriting the rfc lead Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

we should've had more discussion before, it's just that it was very polemical Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

None of the Above Such relations might be mentioned in a single phrase, but not in any of the ways suggested. My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2024

Add 14 territories Depotadore (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2024 (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. Annh07 (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Workshopping a relisting of the rfc

Hi, I just want to first apologise for how I designed the rfc on relations with developing countries, and I was wondering whether people could help to redesign the lead and the premise so as not to be malformed. The input from editors in the rfc so far will be carried over as there were lots of valid points made. I was initially thinking:

How should the US' relations with developing countries be summarised in the body?

• Option 1: The U.S. is the biggest total donor of development aid worldwide.
• Option 2: The U.S. is the biggest total donor of development aid worldwide, with USAID having missions in over 100 countries. Some academics contest that the US' policy towards developing countries amounts to economic imperialism, and some African academics use the term neocolonialism.
• Option 3: The U.S. is the biggest total donor of development aid worldwide, with USAID having missions in over 100 countries. It has been argued that US foreign policy is directed by commercial interest, with some stating that the US' policies and practices in developing countries amount to imperialism.
• Option 4: Other
• Option 5: The premise of this should not be included in the body.

Previous RfC was malformed by @Alexanderkowal however the input from editors is being carried over.

Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I desperately need someone to take over tbh Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you should close the running RFC first? Assuming you agree with several comments that would be appropriate. Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes okay Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Taking just a brief glance at this, RfCs tend to become messier when there are many options involved. That many participants above are !voting "none of the above" is a further issue, in that it indicates that even the expansive set of options is not capturing the spectrum of views Wikipedians hold. Some further discussion prior to launching the RfC might have helped identify areas of agreement vs. contention and focused the RfC around a simpler set of options. A relaunched RfC would ideally be distilled further. Closing an RfC one started (or participated in) is generally discouraged, although editors might be more accepting if the close is just to focus discussion on the relaunch. Sdkb ^talk 15:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I closed it already, prior to this I had already closed and redone the RfC so I fear I might be toeing the line a bit Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Tbh I fear that comments trying to derail and end the RfC were purely strong semantic aversion to a couple of the proposals rather than genuine concerns but I’m assuming good faith and want to collaborate Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It comes to a point that editors feel you're wasting their time. RFC don't get reopened or redone just cuz you don't like the outcome of the previous RFC that is ongoing or just concluded.....pls review Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass that is related to WP:DISRUPTSIGNS Moxy🍁 21:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not redoing it, I'm more than happy to accept the outcome, I just wanted to redesign the lead for further input. The input already given is of course valued. Most of the comments were "other" so I thought we could workshop a bit. People are free to ignore, but it's ridiculous to stamp on discussion and then not work constructively claiming I'm wasting their time. Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Part of the reason the rfc was malformed was of course my fault, but I also just responded naturally to getting successive personal attacks which raises polemical conflict. It's not only my responsibility to address and solve the dysfunction caused, and the context necessitates input from the other editors imo. Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't plan on participating in a relisting Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not the first thing that comes to mind about the United States. Maybe this does not need to be in the lead. It also has some complicated history. Senorangel (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn’t clear, this is about the body, I was talking about the RfC lead that Legobot puts at RfC pol and econ Alexanderkowal (talk) 04:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree it would be undue for the lead Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Excessive references

I like this article, but in my opinion the number of references (565) is excessive. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The large number of references is unavoidable, even inevitable. The article "United States" is the most-read country article in English Wikipedia. In other Wikipedia languages, it often ranks second (after the main country that speaks that language). The U.S. is very powerful and has many detractors, so all statements and assertions—especially the positive ones—must be supported. They are otherwise challenged and can become full-blown disputes. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mason.Jones: the Italy article last year had 151 more references. It seems strange to me that the number of references here has increased compared to last year. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Not surprising, as "United States" has become far more prone to disputes, reverts, and disruption than other country articles. Editors have learned to back up even general statements with a firm source, including thorough documentation. Mason.Jones (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Our purpose.....Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, provides overviews of a topic and indicates sources of more extensive information. Moxy🍁 18:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a pretty good problem to have. Around 10k words is fairly large for a Wikipedia article, and United States is the most-linked article on the English Wikipedia,[4] so it gets more scrutiny than others. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: totally agree. JacktheBrown (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: the United States page is important and it's a pity that it isn't handled as such with regard to references. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: and it's strange that with so many Americans this page hasn't been condensed. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be condensed, it is far below the limit of 15,000 words. What is the issue with having lots of references? Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Culture subsection

Might it be worth including some sentences or a sub-section that discusses different perspectives of American culture, such as what is valued differently, where weight is given. This would discuss cultural values relative to other societies, with the focus on American society and culture. Obviously without conflating government with people (at most maybe a sentence "there is lots of negative sentiment towards the US government and by extension American people around the world, however this varies greatly by country). I only say this because most of our readers are American and it might be quite relevant and interesting. Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

If you look at the contents of this, it's pretty good: [5]. This one is more problematic and less of what I was thinking: [6] Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 June 2024

Change "America, is a country primarily located in North America. It is a federation of 50 states" to "America, is a settler state country primarily located in North America. It is a federation of 50 states" Source https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/the-united-states-is-not-a-nation-of-immigrants/ 103.165.29.114 (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. PianoDan (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: for the opening paragraph - the U.S is also knows as "the states".

for the opening paragraph - the U.S is also knows as "the states". CRplayz7 (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

"The States" is slang usage and not at all on the same level as "U.S." or "America". ("America" is even the default term used in publications like The Economist.) "The States" is too informal to appear in the lede of this article. In other articles, perhaps. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mason.Jones aight thx (I'm just kidding 😂) CRplayz7 (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Lead is shockingly biased

"Yeah, we had some slavery a century and a half ago, but we fought a war and ended that and now we're a perfect beacon of freedom and democracy. We also saved the world from the bad guys like the Nazis" I mean I wouldn't expect such a glowy description of the American state from Dick Cheney. This is a shockingly propagandistic lead.

The American regime has supported multiple genocides, blatant wars of aggression, destabilizing espionage as in Cambodia, East Timor, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Chile, Hiroshima, Nicaragua, Iran, Korea, Cuba. There is widespread acknowledgement of systemic racism against minority populations which persists to this day, often manifesting itself in the extrajudicial murders of innocent black men by employees of the US government. While the US is undoubtedly a first-world country, it ranks low among OECD countries in various metrics such as health outcomes and education. Extreme homelessness is pervasive in many major American metropolises (San Francisco). Every year or two you literally have an insane person shoot up an elementary school (not normal).

Some criticism of the state should be discussed in the lead. JDiala (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see it as a glowy description. TFD (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see it as an accurate description of what the article says at all. I anyone has issues with the text of the article, at least quote it accurately. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Not....."a perfect beacon of freedom and democracy". January 6, 2021 contradicted that in so many ways. HiLo48 (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

If January 6 is your barometer then it's not just the lead that is biased. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@JDiala: More an emotional rant than constructive criticism of this article. Your current formal ban with regard to editing an entire topic (Israel and Palestine) on English Wikipedia is interesting. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The constructive criticism is quite simple: the lead whitewashes American atrocities, and should include further criticism. This is done for other countries like Russia and China. I've enumerated a number of American human rights violations. As for my ban, this is not relevant as I'm fully permitted to edit pages outside the topic. You can't bully me or lessen my worth as an editor because of it. I've had issues with another editor who also made the same ad hom and he was reprimanded by an admin. I'd refer you to WP:GF, you should be familiar with this now since you've been editing since '05. JDiala (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Being banned after a short time on Wikipedia—for any reason—is not easy to accomplish. It means a serious breach of personal behavior on an editor's part. This is in addition to warnings and blocks you have received. Yet you persist even beyond the ban, launching into a seething diatribe on this Talk page. You have issues, serious ones, and should be similarly banned from all U.S-related articles. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not a "diatribe". It's an enumeration of various crimes the American state has committed over the past century, and other systemic problems, which I believe warrants inclusion in the lead. This is a content suggestion, and one which multiple others have actually made in the not-too-distant past. I'm going to refer you to WP:PA. JDiala (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You should probably calm down and take your own advice. Mason wasn't bullying you or trying to "lessen your worth" as an editor, it was literally just a simple notice to be careful about contentious topics like these, considering that you have been previously banned on another contentious topic. It's especially concerning that you even threatened administrator attention over what's basically nothing. TheWikiToby (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I never threatened administrator attention. I only stated that another user who similarly brought up the TBAN for no reason was reprimanded by an administrator (the link contains the context). I also do think that Mason.Jones is engaging in bullying conduct. It was debatable at first, but then just straight up saying that I "have issues" is clearcut bullying, sorry. This is literally verbatim what e.g., high school bullies say to the so-called weird kids ("you have issues man..."). I feel attacked, sorry.

Anyways, I am uninterested in pursuing this particular discussion further. People might not like that I can edit here, but I can. This is the reality. I welcome any debate on the content of my proposal. I am excited to talk about content which is what talk pages are for. JDiala (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The lede summarises the body, so to put criticisms in the lede it would have to be discussed in the body Kowal2701 (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally I think the history part reads neutrally Kowal2701 (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The leads for Portugal, Spain, France, the UK and the Netherlands don't have rap sheets either, despite these countries' history of colonialism, slavery and exploitation of former colonies. While China and Russia have negative information, it's mostly about communism and current events. There's no mention that imperial China and Russia might have been exploitative. TFD (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Right, and that's because Russia and China TODAY are places hostile to human rights. The US gets a lot of criticism because of its position as the world's superpower that other countries don't. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem many see is that the United States ranks horribly compared to every other of the 40 developed countries on human rights by various organizations.... even lower than some undeveloped countries. For example, the Freedom in the World index lists the United States 53rd in the world for civil and political rights, the Press Freedom Index, published by Reporters Without Borders, put the U.S. 55th out of 180 countries in 2024, the Democracy Index, published by the Economist Intelligence Unit, classifies the United States as a "flawed democracy".Moxy🍁 20:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

With NPOV in mind, the lead should not include outright criticism of the U.S., but I can envision better emphasis on a couple of areas in which the current lead is lacking, namely:

• Economic inequality – There is an entire paragraph dedicated to this topic in the Economy section, so perhaps a clause about the U.S. being the most unequal economy in the OECD or similar could be included.
• Role in global capitalism – The lead is missing info on the rise of the U.S. to the world's leading industrial and banking power in the late 19th/early 20th century, as well as perhaps on the Great Depression and New Deal. Its post-war role as the center and bulwark of global capitalism is hinted at by identifying it as the superpower opposing the Soviet Union; at most, I think the word "capitalism" could be used explicitly somewhere.
• Military interventions/presence – This is again implied by identifying the U.S. as the world's sole superpower, but it could perhaps be more explicitly stated (not sure exactly how, maybe by mentioning it as the country with the most military bases, or by naming it as the leading power in NATO).

— Goszei (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding economic inequality, this is tricky to write from a global perspective as discussion of such inequality takes place almost fully within the domestic context. The OECD is a small club, and outside of that economic wealth and living standard in the US (as all OECD states) are high. Leading in NATO is similar, however in this instance the fact is true globally. Not sure it is needed given "superpower" though, superpower (without qualification) feels tightly linked to military terms. CMD (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

You also get into technical issues like pre-tax/transfer inequality vs post-tax/transfer inequality, income vs wealth vs consumption inequality, income mobility (which is related but different) and the proper way to measure inequality. A high level general article like this is not the place to hash all that out. Especially in the lede. Volunteer Marek 07:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Military intervention and foreign policy would be the most appropriate, but it isn’t discussed in the body Kowal2701 (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I should've been more specific, I'd say criticism of interventionist foreign policy for the lede, with the body discussing Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya where the long term effects are still being felt Kowal2701 (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

What countries does the U.S. border?

It’s hard to tell with the lead not including that information, of which is present in just about every other Wikipedia article about countries. People need to know which countries the U.S. borders, as it is informative and definitely necessary. MOS:LEAD states to add the key information at the beginning, and this is it. People who are not knowledgeable about the U.S. geography will not know “which county is on top of USA” and “which country is under USA”. Someone please add this information, thank you very much. 189.133.124.30 (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done, and introduced a link to Contiguous United States. — Goszei (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

(Same IP user) Thank you so much for this change, it greatly benefits readers who are looking for information on country borders. 166.205.209.20 (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I would have thought that the US border with Russia is a pretty significant one, and it gets no mention.HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The U.S.-Russia border is a vast maritime zone full of scattered frozen islands, sunning walruses, and very few people. It's considered far less significant than U.S. maritime borders with the Bahamas and, of course, Cuba. For that reason, it gets little or no mention in reference works. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2024

Under History at the very end somebody should mention the attempted assassination of former President Trump on July 13th 2024 Marksaeed2024 (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Not done. There are assassination attempts of sitting presidents (Reagan and Bush, for example) that are not mentioned here. This obviously could be added in the future, but it's too early now. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Should the national anthem in the infobox have vocals?

I've noticed the audio of the national anthem in the infobox is merely an instrumental with no vocals (however it does feature the lyrics in subtitles). This strikes me as a bit odd considering that there are plenty of Free Content recordings available on Commons which have people singing the anthem with music, and that the lyrics in English are clearly a core part of the song. Is there a policy or guideline which prohibits inserting anthems with vocals in the infoboxes of countries?

Supposing there is not an outright prohibition on vocals, I am proposing a list of potential options for the national anthem in the infobox:

A: Keep

B: Replace with

C: Replace with

D: Replace with

Or if you have a different proposal, feel free to share it. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep A. B is too operatic; C too idiosyncratic; D too indistinct. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by each of those adjectives and how they apply to each recording? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 09:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

B: over-dramatized (with change in tempo) in parts (and by a weak singer using old-fashioned enunciation), plus there are the noisy, ancient recording, unnecessary orchestral intros, multiple verses, and unclear choral accompaniment.

C: Lady Gaga is certainly a well known singer, and her rendition is well voiced, but it's her version, with irregular changes in tempo and orchestral noodling.

D: This choral version is probably the best alternative, in terms of a regular tempo and lack of unnecessary ornamentation, if you want a choral version, but the words are often indistinct. It's not a superior recording. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The both of us can agree on B, the recording is definitely archaic and shouldn't be used. C is a good pick, she is a good singer and her performance can be clearly heard, but it is an irregular version and perhaps shouldn't be presented as the definitive anthem of the US. D has the best recording quality and lacks ornamentation, so I prefer it if we end up choosing audio. In a choral version, some words are obviously going to sound indistinct, but we can add lyrics which can aid the viewer in understand the words being said. However, if the choral performance is too much of a problem, then we have alternatives featuring solo vocalists accompanied by instruments which can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.

E: 2020 brass quintet and solo vocalist performance by US army

F: 2018 orchestral and solo vocalist performance by West Point Band

―Howard • 🌽³³ 12:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

As far as I see it, having any vocals (even if some parts are indistinct) would be better than having no vocals as it would demonstrate to the listener how the song is meant to be sung. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 12:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The national anthem is pitchy and hard to sing, and standard media versions have been all-instrumental or mixed-choral (conventional arrangements). In the days when U.S. TV stations all signed off at midnight, an orchestral anthem was played. Individual vocals are highly subjective—or annoying, like this dated 1915 soprano. To be avoided. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

There is another choral which is in the public domain, courtesy of the US army, it's much more solemn:

G: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIODUFpatkQ

A Jazz arrangement also exists, but it's an irregular rendition, so I don't expect it to be of educational use to the listener and I discourage its placement.

H: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI8mNRso-20

Could you give us your opinion on which specific rendition of the anthem should be used? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 15:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Both of these are odd (dirge-like vocals from singers dispersed across the dunes and that tinny jazz version). Readers will expect a more "standard" version, i.e., an uptempo instrumental or a dynamic mixed chorus. Till then: none of the above. Mason.Jones (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it better to have no vocals at all (which is option A), than to replace it with any of the suggested alternatives? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm OK with instrumental or vocal, but any version that gets away from this anthem's traditional approach, which is simple and uptempo, won't last long on WP. I think Dhtwiki was succinct: the choices are very dated, eccentric, or vocally muddled. Mason.Jones (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Assuming your criteria, option F appears to be the most suitable as it is simple and uptempo with a single singer whose voice can be heard clearly (we can crop out the audience reaction at the end). ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Ideally, any presentation of the national anthem should give listeners (especially non-Americans) a general idea of what the anthem sounds like, so that they are able to recognize it later on in other contexts. They should be able to understand:

1. What the lyrics of the song are
2. What the music of the song sounds like
3. How the lyrics are traditionally sung in the native language

―Howard • 🌽³³ 22:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2024

Change "Following its victory in the 1775–1783 Revolutionary War, the country continued to expand across North America." to "Following its victory in the 1775–1783 Revolutionary War, the country continued to expand across North America, causing considerable death, destruction, and displacement of indigenous peoples." 69.207.25.228 (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Controversial edit and a little Undue Weight. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 15:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)