Talk:United States

message: change "African Americans constitute the country's third-largest ancestry group" to "African Americans constitute the country's third-largest ancestry group" Doctorgulielmus (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: it's linked now, Rjjiii (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2024 

message: Japan had a larger average nominal GDP than the U.S. between 1990 and 1995 according to the linked article.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this linked article you've recomend to me, it's extremely reliable, that's undeniable, however, it need be updated, because (Obiviously), 1990 has gone long time ago, so the chance of this having changed is quite high, in fact, it doesn't even need to go very far, considering that Japan is going through problems, including the economy. 177.105.90.20 (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[...] the United States has had the largest nominal GDP since about 1890 [...]" 

message: The article incorrectly names the federal government as the national government. As a nation, we have no government in the USA, we are ruled through martial supremacy by the federal government, which only falsely presents itself to the world as the nation's government. The article should clarify that the nation gets no participation or representation in the federal government, and no public acknowledgement by the federal government. The federal government is 100% comprised and representative of the middle class and upper class, with the remaining 85% of the nation (the lower class) excluded from involvement for all but non-decision-related roles.
The article makes no mention of criticism of the federal government's legitimacy, which is a common subject of discussion within the nation, especially among the lower class, as we generally reject this body of rulership as a presence of legitimate government. Related to this issue, the article should elaborate on the federal government's generous use of numerous martial law acts in response to riots in our cities when the people demanded that the federal government resign and withdraw from all governance activity related to those cities- demands which remain entirely unsatisfied, and really should get a mention in the article.
As the article is presently worded, it paints a highly inaccurate image of there being some kind of unity between the nation and the federal government by neglecting to make any mention at all of the tension and even conflict that actually exists in that space, and I suspect that deception was willfully designed into it. As a citizen of the USA, I care that this article is reasonably complete and fair. Editors, please consider these suggestions for revisions. 2601:1C2:C001:4BA0:8917:5F1E:5A56:C5E4 (talk) 05:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree with everything that you say here, but this seems like a good-faith proposal,WP:AGF and Wikipedia behavioral guidelines discourage removing the comments of others,WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS so I am restoring this comment. Regardless of its legitimacy, the U.S. federal government has been influential and notable enough to warrant significant discussion in this article,WP:WEIGHT though its role could perhaps be framed differently. I agree that this article could improve its adherence to the neutral point of view policy,WP:NPOV but others will take you more seriously if you suggest a concrete, specific edit to wording or content,WP:EDITXY especially if you provide sources that back up your proposed change.WP:RS  — Freoh 16:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs correction of 'national government' and elaboration on federal government's legitimacy. 

message: This line was removed from the article because after checking for sources, they appeared to contradict this framing as something "provided" to students. WP:RS instead framed US student loans as a problem, a "crisis", and noted that it disproportionately affected poor and minority students: ""(30 May 2024)
Sources: 
* https://abcnews.go.com/US/attn-abc-news-uss-student-debt-crisis/story?id=55332323
* https://www.npr.org/2023/07/03/1185864097/stirred-a-debate-over-the-government-s-role-in-helping-pay-for-higher-education
* https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/599377-how-student-loan-debt-became-a-crisis/
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/made-by-history/2022/12/29/history-student-loan-debt/
* https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/watch-live-how-student-loan-debt-disproportionately-hurts-black-borrowers
* https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2016/1019/Average-student-loan-debt-increases-again
* https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article286697855.html
* https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/16/economy/student-debt-gallup-poll/index.html
* https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/aug/25/student-loan-crisis-awaits-new-generation-despite-/ (very right-leaning source)
* https://www.al.com/reckon/2023/07/other-countries-arent-drowning-in-student-debt.html
* https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/08/26/your-money/student-loan-forgiveness-debt.html
* https://cbs12.com/news/nation-world/is-student-loan-debt-a-national-crisis-nearly-half-of-borrowers-think-so-college-expenses-university-finances-money-education-earnings-bankrate-survey
* https://www.bbc.com/news/business-67546893
* https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29730227
* https://www.msnbc.com/know-your-value/aauw-s-kim-churches-student-debt-crisis-women-s-issue-n1026131
Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources contradict a removed line 

message: I believe that the starting section as it stands is WP:Biased. As it stands, the article does not touch up on income inequality, accusations of racism, or topics that were covered in previous revisions, meaning the section on America's wealth at the present is entirely focused on "positive" aspects. I believe it is entirely possible to mention wealth disparity and other common criticisms of America while keeping it in summary. At the moment I don't know how to incorporate accusations of racism into the summary, but I believe accusations of wealth inequality absolutely should be mentioned, especially considering how this section deals with information about the wealth of the United States and wealth inequality is a commonly discussed topic when regarding wealth in the United States.
For example:
"One of the world's most developed countries, the United States has had the largest nominal GDP since about 1890 and accounted for 15% of the global economy in 2023. It possesses by far the largest amount of wealth of any country and has the highest disposable household income per capita among OECD countries, but has been criticized for wealth inequality. The U.S. ranks among the world's highest in economic competitiveness, productivity, innovation, human rights, and higher education. Its hard power and cultural influence have a global reach. The U.S. is a founding member of the World Bank, IMF, Organization of American States, NATO, and World Health Organization, as well as a permanent member of the UN Security Council."
Kalivyah (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this. "Ranks among the world's highest in human rights" is the main one that I have a problem with, it is literally just an opinion, you can't quantify or rank "human rights," and I feel like someone, for instance, in Iraq might disagree with that claim. I'll remove that section of the list in the paragraph. I'd be willing to change more stuff in the intro if you can provide alternative wordings for parts you consider biased. Hexifi (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it should be changed, but this is probably a Wikipedia-spanning RFC issue, rather than one exclusive to the U.S. Wrote more on that below, . KlayCax (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

text: I've added a criticism section, feel free to summarise the articles linked to in the body and then summarise that in a sentence in the lede Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

text: In my view, another article needs to be created on the topic of economic imperialism which discusses the use of MNCs and debt trappage Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Economic imperialism is discussed in the articles for Neocolonialism, theories of imperialism, and unequal exchange, but all of those sections only really cover the basics, and don't cover many specific examples, so I think there is room for an article all to itself. This definitely isn't the place to continue this conversation, so I would recommend you create a page in draftspace for economic imperialism. Hexifi (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I’ve got too much on my to do list, I can’t really devote much time to this now. In a couple months maybe Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

text: It would need to be on the practice of economic imperialism, not theory Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

text: Im aware of the trend to avoid a country's previous wrongs in an introduction, which is why I avoided mentioning the past wrongs in the introduction and only changed the opinionated part. I apologize if the language in my previous reply implied I would be willing to "right wrongs" as you put it. What I meant to say was that if there were any parts like the "world leader in human rights" that were purely opinions or biased I would like those to be brought to my attention, or preferably someone else's attention, as I will likely not be editing this article from here on out. Reading the reply now, it appears you may be under the misconception that I was the one who added the sentence about criticism for wealth inequality, this is not true. The only edits I've made relevant to this discussion is removing the part about being a ranked one of the highest in human rights, as it clearly violates policy.  Hexifi (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Hexifi -- I read your words "willing to change more stuff", and some alarm bells went off. Apologies if I've misunderstood. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

text: with . Wikipedia unfortunately tends to have different WP:NPOV standards for U.S. articles, where nationalist editors tend to misrepresent WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in order to justify pro-colonial content. Be careful; administrators sometimes lash out at editors who complain about bias.  — Freoh 11:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not what we are looking for...WP:STRUCTURE "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure..."  WP:CSECTION " Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. " .....See Canada for how this is done..... As in each section highlights something. Moxy🍁 16:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I will once again move this discussion to the end of the Talk page. Talk pages progress in chronological order, and this one is no exception. This newest topic should not precede a chronologically ordered list. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

text: Wrote a summary for our new editors WP:COUNTRYSECTIONS at the project essay. Moxy🍁 16:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete/biased starting section 

message: Add most likely before the exceeding 334 million. Legendarycool (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: no reason given for the proposed change. M.Bitton (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 June 2024