Talk:United States/Archive 98

"Federated States of America" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Federated States of America. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 16 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 17:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

"Draft:Yhdysvallat" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Draft:Yhdysvallat. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 28 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 02:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

"Secession crisis of 1860-61" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Secession crisis of 1860-61. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 28 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Crazy Boy  826  22:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2021
Hi there, please, protect the Wikipedia site of Uzbekistan(no not Afghanistan and not Pakistan), like you did with yours, thank you, cos Im serious any man can just enter some false data about our country, appreciate it) 82.215.102.131 (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Full-protection-shackle-no-text.svg Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Requests for page protection. —  TG HL ↗  (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Mentioning "climate change"?
I have recently been working on the article on climate change in the United States and thought I would check today how climate change is mentioned in this country article. Result: climate change was not mentioned at all. I then found one mention of "global warming" in the section on "wildlife and conservation". Last year, the Wikipedia article called "global warming" has been changed to "climate change" so I changed that and added a wikilink to climate change in the United States. I hope you find that acceptable. Then I also found a sentence on the Paris Agreement but without mentioning climate change. Not everyone will know what the Paris Agreement is. Yes, they can click through but we might as well give them a hint so I changed it to "Paris agreement on climate change" and wikilinked that to climate change. I know there is always debate when it comes to mentioning "climate change" in country articles. Some articles have it mentioned and some don't. I have had long debates about this for example on the talk pages of India, Bangladesh and Australia. If there is one country where the words "climate change" deserve to be mentioned in the country article, I think it's the U.S.! Given how much they are contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and to the international debate etc. I hope you would agree with me that it deserves to be mentioned. The question is then is the section on "Geography" the right place where it should be mentioned? Some country articles have a sub-heading called "Climate" under "Geography". By the way, we have also discussed this more broadly in the WikiProjects Countries, please see here. EMsmile (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A sentence or 2 could be added to this giant oversized article....but let's steer clear of any wish lists....just a few facts. Not seeing this as more important then other environmental issues such as nuclear energy, water pollution, wildlife loss, deforestation etc...that are also just briefly mentioned. Let's see a proposal.....keeping in mind the territories covered by the article. Climate section has generally been omitted because the article covers more than the contentious United States.-- Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 01:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Moxy, what do you mean by "keeping in mind the territories covered by the article. Climate section has generally been omitted because the article covers more than the contentious United States"? I didn't understand that part. Also, in which section could these 1-2 sentences fit best? Is "geography" the most suitable place? I am not sure. EMsmile (talk) 07:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Request permission to add a paragraph
The short paragraph below at the end of this entry, which was placed in the section United_States, between paragraphs covering the history of the name of the United States of America between 1776 and 1890, has been twice deleted by user Dhtwiki, for the following given reasons:

1. it seems misplaced in section on derivation of current name and it's somewhat confusingly worded (e.g. "after the American Revolution and the then pejorative demonym American", "metropolitan English" ("metropolitan France" is a term I know, but I'm not aware of a similar English one))

2. it's not our job to accept whatever you decide to place here; discuss on talk page if you want to build a consensus for its inclusion or find another way yourself

Answer to objection 1: The text is practically an abbreviated copy of what is presently in Freedonia. Metropolitan English may indeed not be a common term nowadays, but it seems to have been quite fashionable in the early 1800s in the USA among the intelectuals, one just needs to Google Ralph Waldo Emerson and I like to be beholden to get an example, or follow this link https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=I+like+to+be+beholden

Answer to objection 2: This Talk section.

I have been editing Wikipedia for 13 years now, and this is the first time that a user tells me that I have to go and open a discussion thread in order for him to give me his permission to have my improvements made, or find another way.

So, here I am (concerning the other way, I have £7, if anyone is interested...) Sophos II (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Litigated paragraph:

In 1803, H.R. Rep. Samuel Mitchill suggested that Fredon (or later, Freedonia) should be used to designate the United States, after the American Revolution and the then pejorative demonym American, which was used as a pejorative term by the metropolitan English to refer to their inferior and far-removed colonists.


 * My directing you here was not to seek my permission but to give you a chance to proceed without it. However, give those who have edited this article for awhile credit for understanding what is wanted and what doesn't belong. In your case, I suggest making sure there is a linkage path to the Freedonia section, not necessarily directly linked from here (as part of the sectional hatnote for "Etymology") but linked from an article that is (is there an "Other names for the United States" article?). Dhtwiki (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC) (edited 02:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC))


 * I've just added Names of the United States to the sectional hatnote under the "Etymology" section (I don't see it linked otherwise and it seems non-redundant to other entries in that hatnote). It is a fairly short article (but none of them is very long). It purports to document names currently in use. However, it is the sort of article that might be appropriate to link from, perhaps in the "See also" section, rather than from this article, making sure that people who would be interested can easily find their way to such information as you want to present, but which may be too much detail to include here. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This factoid is better suited for a WP article like "Wacky U.S. Facts" or a temporary "Did You Know?" feature on the English WP main page. But as a historical event, it's completely uneventful. At the very most, it might be placed as Dhtwiki says: as a "See also". It certainly should not be mentioned in the text proper of the article "United States." This is unencyclopedic (and then some). Mason.Jones (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Mason.Jones: before evoking encyclopedic values (or lack thereof), you should better adhere to WP:NPOV: what objective algorithm do you use to discriminate facts from "factoids" as you judge them, or is your desire to have the entire world and Wikipedia be subject to your opinions?


 * There was a genuine interest in the 19th century to give the United States of America a unique identity: the national anthem was for example created then, the bald eagle was also adopted as a symbol of the country then as well, as was a desire to invent a unique name for the nation other than that of a simple union of states (as at the same time the 'United Mexican States', the 'United States of Colombia', etc. were sprouting everywhere else in the world).


 * However, I totally understand that the above may be a too intellectually challenging concept for some to see that this has a place in the Etymology section of the United States article. Sophos II (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a factoid in every way: the level of importance is historically trivial, its cultural value is slight, the chances of the name's adoption by the Republic (unlike bald eagles) were quite remote, and its utility for WP readers 200 years later is zero. It's unencyclopedic junk—"intellectually challenging" is bestowing an honor it doesn't deserve. It has no place in a succinct U.S. "Etymology" section. I remain opposed. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Gosh, your answer is totally PERFECT to prove my point!!! Thank you! Sophos II (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It wasn't totally perfect, because I failed to include "giving undue weight to a trivial event in American history." Now it's completed. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * That is brilliant, thank you very much Mason.Jones for your effort!


 * It is perfectly clear and totally unarguable that "Americans drink three times as much coffee as tea" and "Americans listen to radio programming on average just over two-and-a-half hours a day" are waaaaay much less trivial facts than the quest for a national identity as it happened during the 19th century, as people like James Monroe, Samuel Mitchill and other intellectuals sought then (and no, these are not influencers, sorry).
 * Anyway, I give up, as there is just absolutely no possibility to discuss in the slightest way with the intellectually-challenged, the psychorigid, the gifted, or as Gary Larson so nicely pictured it: https://i2.wp.com/boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/midvale-school.png?w=456&ssl=1/
 * See you on another thread, just don't forget to drink three times more coffee than tea, listen to radio two-and-a-half hours a day, and cancel any sort of alternative facts that you may not like, as pride is really something beautiful. Sophos II (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I simply don't understand why an editor would wish to hype such a minor footnote in American history, and to showboat it under succinct "Etymology" or "History" sections. If consensus is to include it, OK, but I think it's truly unjustified. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough. As I previously stated, I give up. There is visibly no need at all for anyone to ever know that there were failed attempts to give the United States of America a proper name, who attempted that, why did they do it, and when did it happen. I am perfectly happy with ignorants never getting out of their ignorance bubble.  Thanks to this attitude towards "improving" Wikipedia, at least they will know that drinking three times as much coffee as tea makes them American, although they will most probably never know that their country was once considered to be called Freedonia, which is, by the way, a very intelligent and beautiful name. They will learn that by consulting true and proper encyclopedias though, not muppet ones. Sophos II (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course they're not going to find it if you're going to give up. We've given you a way of better placing it so that people can find it. Have you done that? Your reference is a good one and can be found online. Freedonia is a thing, especially with towns named similarly and how it makes its appearance in a Marx brothers movie and an episode of The West Wing. Now, if this article had detail on how the US almost became Columbia, you might have a point about inclusion; but you aren't making that case. Giving so much attitude so early makes it hard as well. It makes it hard to agree with someone who shows so much contempt for the documented process (in 13 years you must have heard of WP:BRD) and for other editors. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

"C. States" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect C. States. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 9 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 06:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

compentatory edit request
can you please change when Iraq attempted to invaded and attempted to annex Kuwait to When Iraq successfully invaded and annexed Kuwait please? TTTTRZON (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, making the edit. --Golbez (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you TTTTRZON (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Senate
I agree that the Speaker of the House should be listed in the Infobox. But why is there no mention of Senate leadership? I’m not suggesting a policy change or anything, but this always struck me as odd. Juneau Mike (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The info-box is for key information, so there has to be a cut-off. The speaker is not included for most other countries, let alone lower ranking parliamentary officials. TFD (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They are equal branches, which is why I was puzzled. I’m fine with the article, although why the United States is relevant at all is beyond me (that last part was meant to add levity, and Wiki rules don’t forbid that) Thanks for your response. Juneau Mike (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In al seriousness, though, the Senate is the upper chamber. Juneau Mike (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the reason why the President, Vice President (President of the Senate), House Speaker, and Chief Justice were chosen for the infobox is that these are offices that were explicitly mentioned (and, therefore, established) by the original text of the American Constitution. The Senate Majority Leader, who is typically seen as of similar importance to the House Speaker (even if their duties are not the same), is not a Constitutional office. The only officer of the Senate, except for the President of the Senate, explicitly mentioned in the Constitution is the President pro tempore, which is a position that carries with it few powers and is traditionally given to the oldest serving senator in the majority. Its lack of importance is why it is probably not included.
 * Not saying that I necessarily agree with this reasoning. I am partial to putting the Senate majority leader in the infobox to have a more complete list of the most important offices in the federal government.  Mysterymanblue  04:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We list the highest ranking official of each of the three branches of government. Bear in mind this is the info-box for the United States of which government is just one part. Why not list the entire cabinet, governors of major states and majors of major cities, wealthiest billionaires, top actors, best and worst neighborhoods? Because it goes beyond a brief summary of key information. TFD (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * TFD, I believe your reply borders on hyperbole. Listing the Senate Majority Leader and/or President or President Pro-tem is the same as listing celebrities and neighborhoods? Thank you to the fine folks who gave me valid and relevant answers. Juneau Mike (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This talk article is probably when we decided not to include the senate majority leader in the infobox. Rereading it, I think people were fairly evenly divided, although the decision was to leave the majority leader off, more on the basis of lack of constitutional standing than lack of importance. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

"Population density = population / land+water area"
Why? Every single source defines population density as population / land area. LordParsifal (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

National anthem without written lyrics
The article's version of The Star Spangled Banner has lost its lyrics as timed text. Can that be restored? Dhtwiki (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies, it seems that the TimedText was not moved when the file was renamed. The issue should be fixed now. Thanks for pointing this out!  Mysterymanblue  12:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Still does not open on my browser (Firefox), while the text for "The Stars and Stripes Forever" does. But thank you for taking a look so quickly. Dhtwiki (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's very strange. It isn't working for me either (Chrome), but it is at the Star-Spangled Banner article. I have the "New video player" beta feature enabled, but when I log out, the default audio player doesn't give TimedText at all. However, on Wikimedia Commons the TimedText works fine. I would guess something needs to update on the server side; maybe we can wait a little bit and then reassess.  Mysterymanblue  15:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Text now displays. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Typo
In the WW1 and WW2 history section, the word "material" is misspelled. The article instead has the error "materiel". I can't fix this, as the page has too much protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.68.160 (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not a typo. See this dictionary link. --Sarrotrkux (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Scientifically wrong statement in introduction being upheld because "academic papers are not used as sources on Wikipedia"?
In the introduction of this article, it says the following: "It is one of the most racially and ethnically diverse nations in the world. Considered a melting pot of cultures and ethnicities, its population has been profoundly shaped by centuries of immigration."

I made the following edit, since it is an unsourced claim and more of a national myth that has been disproven by scientific studies: "Popular national myths claim that the U.S. is an exceptional melting pot of cultures and ethnicities, though scientific studies have shown that the U.S. ranks averagely in a global comparison of ethnic and cultural diversity. "

My edit was reverted by Mason.Jones for the following reason: "Academic papers (there are thousands) are not used as sources for WP. Please review protocols (primary, secondary, tertiary, academic) before contributing to Wikipedia. Thanks"

That leads me to two questions that I would like to see discussed:

--Sarrotrkux (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Since when are highly-cited scholarly papers published in peer-reviewed journals not used as sources on Wikipedia? Wikipedia specifically names scholarly papers in its guide on how to find sources. Wikipedia has tools built specifically for easily including scholarly papers via DOI and other identifiers. Wikipedia also has a page dedicated to finding scholarly sources.  Both Fearon's and Alesina's et al. studies are peer-reviewed and highly cited studies about ethnic and cultural diversity.
 * 2) If scholarly papers are not used as sources for Wikipedia, what justification is there for making the claim that the U.S. is one of the most ethnically/culturally diverse countries in the world? If scientific research is simply discarded, then this is a clearly subjective statement posing as fact. As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia does not consider national myths to have a higher credibility than peer-reviewed research.
 * Long ongoing issue here ...frist brought up in 2013 with this article.-- Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 15:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * While peer reviewed papers are reliable sources, reporting their conclusions is a matter of WP:WEIGHT. Since different experts may examine the same facts and come to different conclusions, you need to show the relative acceptance of any opinions before including them. Does having large groups of immigrants from every country in the world make a country diverse? Or is having more than one major culture, such as Afghanistan or India? TFD (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree.... really based on ethnic diversity if they consider tribes to be different ethnicities. For example Native Americans are considered one group statistically, however are made up of a multitude of different tribes..... that in Afghanistan would all be calculated as ethnically unique.-- Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 16:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is this standard not applied to the claim that "the U.S. is one of the most diverse nations on Earth"? The Wikipedia page, without any source being named, makes this very claim. There is a burden of proof for such an extraordinary claim, in which one country is compared to every other country on Earth. Yet so far, nobody arguing for the inclusion of this claim has provided any empirical, peer-reviewed evidence for it. Rather than providing evidence for this claim, there are currently only attempts being made towards discrediting such studies, apparently because they came to the "wrong" conclusion.
 * --Sarrotrkux (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with the OP that "academic papers are not used as sources on Wikipedia" is not really true, and not a good reason for removal on its own. I do agree with the removal.  One paper doesn't establish sufficient weight for that point of view, and that paper is more about linguistic diversity than ethnic diversity anyhow.  If I read the table right, Switzerland (having Frenchmen and Germans and Italians) is considered more diverse than America, which just has "whites" instead of all three of those plus many other races. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 16:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Editor Sarrotrkux has cherry-picked one academic paper from 2003, inserted it in the interest of "science," and prefaced it with the very unencyclopedic "Popular national myths claim that..." I sense an ideological agenda here rather than the pursuit of scientific truth, but at the very least, Sarrotrkux must also face "peer review" before making such a change to longtime consensus. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * First off, please refrain from WP:PA. It seems to me that deleting empirical studies and falsely claiming that "academic papers are not used for Wikipedia" is a bit more quaint than trying to improve articles by adding such highly impactful studies. Your accusation seems ironic at best.
 * Second off, when you say my two studies are cherry-picked, can you provide me with peer-reviewed, empirical studies that conduct a global comparison and do establish the United States as being "one of the most diverse nations in the world"?
 * Such an extraordinary claim, in which a factual statement that compares one country to literally every other country on Earth is made, certainly requires proper evidence to back it up. As of right now, the article cites no empirical evidence for this claim.
 * --Sarrotrkux (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Then "peer review" will remove the sentence. However, two academic studies plucked from the cherry orchard 18 years ago are not "scientific" evidence enough to make your sweeping edit—nor is an unencyclopedic cherry bomb like "Popular national myths claim..." appropriate in the lead of a country article. Let consensus take its course, but you haven't earned that yet. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Consensus is exactly why I am asking you if you know of comparable studies in scope and credibility that come to the conclusion purported in the introduction. It will be much easier to reach a consensus if WP:V is respected and other Wikipedians can verify our suggestions. As a side note, according to Google Scholar, the two studies I quoted have been cited over 8,000 times in other academic publications. They are not some unknown "cherry-picked" studies but have rather been highly impactful.
 * If you have a suggestion on how to improve my wording of the edit, you are also more than free to add it to the discussion. It was indeed quite difficult for me to try and juxtapose popular rhetoric with empirical evidence.
 * --Sarrotrkux (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I was in the process of reverting you as well, with the statement: "rv for a few reasons, none of them prejudicial, i just think this needs some talk page discussion. but among other things, we don't usually have sources or 'corrections' like that in the intro, and you removed a statement about how it's been shaped by immigration - it absolutely has" As for your statement that these papers have been influential - we can't take your's, or even google's, name for it. We need reputable third-party reporting saying, "hey actually the US isn't a melting pot, this paper says way". You haven't supplied that.
 * Also, you say above, "The Wikipedia page, without any source being named, makes this very claim.". No, the header makes a statement backed up in the article, it doesn't need a source. The article itself contains multiple sourced statements about the country's diversity. --Golbez (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Sure! I'm fine with reverting an edit if one thinks discussion is needed, that's perfectly reasonable. It's just that "academic papers are not used for Wikipedia" was a highly dishonest revert. I generally refrain from looking at the contribution history of other editors and I will avoid it in this case as well, but I would be surprised if Mason.Jones has never made contributions using scholarly papers themselves or has never even seen them be used on Wikipedia before. Scholarly papers are being used on basically any page of at least moderate length and Wikipedia actively advocates for using high-quality, peer-reviewed research.


 * To the content: I looked at the sources cited in the section about demographics before making the edit, but none of them support the statement that the US is "one of the most ethnically/culturally diverse countries in the world". The section only compares the US to other countries when backed up by empirical evidence and the claim of "one of the most diverse" is not included in that section; so there are no problems there as far as I can see. That claim is only made in the introduction.


 * The "shaped by immigration" sentence seemed to piggyback on the previous sentence to me. Many countries have been shaped by immigration, yet I could not find any where that is specifically mentioned in the introduction. If the significance of that notion specifically for the United States comes from its usage in popular public and political discourse in the US, then I think that should be pointed out; otherwise it may falsely imply to readers that countries being shaped by immigration is something extraordinary or unique. National myths don't necessarily have to be false; the term simply describes narratives about a country's past that are considered important in that country's society. I'm well aware that narratives about diversity etc. are very much present in American discourse, even if the US does not necessarily rank near the top in those metrics.


 * As for the last part: Fearon's and/or Alesina's et al. studies were for example used in: Jonathan Wilkenfeld (2016), Myth and reality in international politics: Meeting global challenges through collective action, ISBN 978-1-317-37789-4


 * Fearon's and/or Alesina's et al. studies are also often praised for the role which they played in providing comprehensive measurements of diversity. See for example


 * Schneider, Gerald; Wiesehomeier, Nina (2010-08-31). "Diversity, Conflict and Growth: Theory and Evidence". Diversity. 2 (9): 1097–1117. doi:10.3390/d2091097. ISSN 1424-2818. Page 1099.
 * Beugelsdijk, Sjoerd; Slangen, Arjen; Maseland, Robbert; Onrust, Marjolijn (2014-08-01). "The impact of home–host cultural distance on foreign affiliate sales: The moderating role of cultural variation within host countries". Journal of Business Research. 67 (8): 1638–1646. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.09.004. ISSN 0148-2963. Page 1641.


 * To give you an exemplary excerpt: "We obtained the data on host countries' ethnic and linguistic diversity levels from Alesina et al. (2003), who calculated these levels using the hitherto most comprehensive data on the sizes of ethnic and linguistic segments in countries." (Beugelsdijk et al., 2014, p. 1641)


 * They are also used in some news media (even though I think that is a rather useless metric, as a ton of scientific studies never make the news even if they are highly important in their field), see e.g. the Washington Post article linked by Moxy above.


 * These studies have also been used on other relevant Wikipedia pages, see e.g. Papua New Guinea, Italians or Multiculturalism.


 * All in all, I see no reason as to why these studies should not be used on the page about the United States, especially since the claim that attempted to factually establish the US as "one of the most diverse countries" completely lacks a citation of empirical evidence in the first place.
 * Sarrotrkux (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Sarrotrkux No, I don't use sociocultural academic studies from university sources—from the early 2000s—to make sweeping ideological statements about countries in a WP article's lead. I sense from your prose that you are editing from Europe, so that could be a factor as well. That said, I thought your edit relied on cherry-picked sourcing and that it employed tendentious rhetoric better suited for a blog post, so I reverted it. Other editors will decide if that was appropriate. Mason.Jones (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand why you reverted my edit even if I don't agree with the reasoning, but what exactly are you arguing for? I understand that you have been arguing against using highly cited and peer-reviewed empirical studies to support the argument that according to empirical studies, the U.S. ranks averagely in a global comparison of cultural and ethnic diversity.
 * But based on the revert, you seem to be arguing for having the introduction say the U.S. is one of the most diverse nations on Earth with no empirical data to back it up. Is that indeed what you are arguing for or am I misunderstanding you and you are for a complete removal of this claim in its entirety?
 * You also critique my edit based on its wording but have not yet provided how you would like to see it improved. So far I've only seen criticism about everything without providing anything that you would see as an improvement. That is not very conductive to reaching a consensus.
 * --Sarrotrkux (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The burden is on you, Sarrotrkux, to compose an edit that will pass muster here. Wikipedia hasn't appointed me as a text facilitator. I'm just one editor who reverted a poorly worded, (IMO) weakly referenced passage. Finally, though my French skills are very good, I'd never take my familiarity with France over to French Wikipedia in an effort to correct their "national myths." You have every right to do that, but you must expect a little effort and some discussion about it. Mason.Jones (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well the burden is on everyone to try and improve Wikipedia, including things that have been written by others. I did try to find empirical studies supporting the claim that the US is one of the most diverse nations on the planet -- even though that claim was not originally put forth by me. As I could only find studies opposing this claim, I made my edit as per WP:V. I provided empirical studies as well as information about their credibility to support this edit.
 * As soon as on any country page it says that "country X is one of the most Y on the planet", it should clearly be backed up by empirical data IMO. And you are probably more than welcome to edit the pages of other countries -- even on other Wikipedias -- should you find that WP:V is not fulfilled and that the empirical data you found actually opposes this claim.
 * --Sarrotrkux (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The sourced content in the article is "The United States has a very diverse population; 37 ancestry groups have more than one million members.[221]" That supports "very diverse" but doesn't support "most diverse" on its own; India and Brazil are two countries that might have as many if not more ancestry groups. The concept of melting pot relating to the US is extremely well-sourced; I assume you are not disputing that. 力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 18:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Is "very diverse" even supported by that source? I looked through the first few pages and found support for the claim about 37 ancestry groups, but not for the "very diverse" claim. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think "common sense" applies here (in other words, "37" = "very"); how many countries do you suppose that applies to? It's certainly "very diverse" compared to South Korea. 力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 20:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Does "common sense" apply in cases in which it goes against empirical studies? That may be one of the main points of disagreement in this discussion. If the US ranks about 60th to 70th place in terms of ethnic/cultural diversity in empirical studies, does that qualify as "very diverse" and can that phrase in good conscience be included on every page of countries that rank 70th and upwards in terms of diversity?
 * --Sarrotrkux (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * One million is only 0.3% of the U.S. population. I don't know, but I suspect there may be many countries, especially in the Americas and Africa, in which 37 or more ancestry groups represent at least 0.3% of the population. (Probably not South Korea though, which is "one of the most ethnically homogeneous countries in the world" according to Demographics of South Korea.) I think "diverse" is fine, but I'd like to see a citation for "very diverse". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm ... it's easy to find sources that say parts of the US are very diverse (just look at Demographics of New York City), but it's harder to find anything at all comparing diversity at the country level. Certainly North Dakota is not as diverse.  I do note one "issue" here: in 1900 when there were substantial German and Norwegian-speaking communities North Dakota would have been considered significantly more diverse by certain methodologies. 力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 16:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Since no one has found a citation, I've changed it to just "diverse", which is probably better writing anyway. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How are they measuring diversity? What groups count? European ancestry groups may be known to the level of regions within a sovereign state ("Bavarian" vs just "German"), but Asian ancestry may be much less well known ("well, I know my grandparents were from China"). And those of African ancestry are often (for obvious reasons) unable to give anything more than the continent. --Khajidha (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It was removed March 17th and subsequent discussion moved to the section below. North8000 (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2021
The last edit vandalized this redirect to forward to the United States of America.

This should forward to Americas as per the definition of Merriam-Webster, Oxford and other dictionaries and most other Wikipedia page:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/America

Definition of America 1 either continent (North America or South America) of the western hemisphere 2 or the Americas \ ə-​ˈmer-​ə-​kəz, -​ˈme-​rə-​ \ the lands of the western hemisphere including North, Central, and South America and the West Indies

Alternatively this can become a disambiguation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:a62:1518:e901:f999:ed77:ce99:1ad2 (talk) 08:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is an existing consensus for the redirect to the United States. DO NOT change redirect target without discussion. See consensus at Talk:America (disambiguation). Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Unequely or even notably diverse
Is it, in fact, true (we need RS saying it) that the US is so "racially and ethnically diverse" that it needs mentioning in the lede? Surely this is an opinion (and is unsourced anyway) and really what is it being compared to?Slatersteven (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * If it is to be included, it certainly needs a citation. See also Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, where User:Sarrotrkux says that, according to high-quality reliable sources, the U.S. "ranks averagely in a global comparison of ethnic and cultural diversity". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

That is a vague statement; the arbitrary / subjective / POV choice of criteria can "determine" that it is true or can "determine" that it is false. Also wording sounds more like puffery than informative. Suggest leaving it out. And certainly leave out calling it a "myth". North8000 (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree leaving it out might be the best way to avoid this controversy altogether, but it's worth pointing out that narratives about immigration and diversity are in fact frequently considered part of the US' national myths in sociological literature and American studies. See for example


 * --Sarrotrkux (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence; there's no citation and certainly no consensus it's appropriate in the lede. 力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 20:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@North8000: There's really little question that the "myth" part was anything other than patently ludicrous. Retention or removal is the issue. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * My own opinion is that being a country of immigrants, a relatively "new" country, being the country that everyone wants to move to, and being the country with the largest amount of immigration of any in the world, that by about 3/4 of the definitions that the US is one of the most diverse in the world. And regarding the article, there is much material in the body of the article that would support a statement that the US is very diverse.  And the lead should be a summary of the body and so the something regarding that would be appropriate in the lead.  I just think that the vague comparative and somewhat puffery-sounding "most diverse" is not the best way to do it and be informative. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * As a settler nation, most of the citizens of the U.S. are descended from immigrants. In addition to an aboriginal population, large numbers were transported from Africa or immigrated from Mexico. Catholics from Ireland, Germany, Eastern and Southern Europe and Quebec also formed a large part of immigration. There has also been substantial Jewish immigration and from Asia and Africa. The only comparable countries are Canada and Australia. This cultural diversity has led to a vibrant ethnic press but has also contained challenges. It is crucial for an understanding of the country. Look at the government's leadership: Biden (English, Irish and French Huguenot), Harris (Jamaican and Indian), Pelosi (Italian), Schumer (Jewish), Trump (Bavarian Protestant and Scottish), AOC (Hispanic), Sanders (Polish Jewish), Mitch McConnell (Irish). You don't get the same variety of ancestry in the Russian Duma. TFD (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And in the UK, Sajid Javid (Pakistani Mulism), Priti Patel (indian), Alok Sharma (hindoo), James Cleverly (mixed race), Kwasi Kwarteng (African). Sorry but this is not that special about the USA now. INfact apart from native peoples I doubt there is a single ethnicity in the US that does not have a similar community in the UK.Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The UK is unusual in Europe in that it attracted a lot of immigration first from Europe and later from its far flung empire. But while London became a majority minority city in 2012, 12 out of the 15 largest U.S. cities were majority minority by 2010, six states are currently majority minority and the entire country is expected to be the first post-industrial country to be majority minority by the middle of the century. Furthermore the majority in the UK is overwhelmingly English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh, while the U.S. majority also includes large numbers of people of other ethnic origins. Incidentally, the archaic spelling of Hindu is considered a slur today. TFD (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Is it not a national myth in the US that the US is extraordinarily diverse/a country of immigrants? Quote: "A national myth is an inspiring narrative or anecdote about a nation's past. Such myths often serve as an important national symbol and affirm a set of national values. [...] It might simply over-dramatise true incidents, omit important historical details, or add details for which there is no evidence; or it might simply be a fictional story that no one takes to be true literally, but contains a symbolic meaning for the nation."
 * The notion that immigration/diversity is part of the US' repertoire of national myths seems supported by relevant literature. For example:


 * I see no reason why that should not be included in the article if the topic of immigration is touched upon. Could you elaborate as to why exactly you think that narratives about immigration are not part of the US' national myths?
 * --Sarrotrkux (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Sarrotrkux. You're engaging in pure ideological posturing now, and the dense, Teutonic prose is torture to read. The passage was removed, and it won't be reinstated without qualification (plus a good source). Mason.Jones (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Mason.Jones, again, please refrain from WP:PA. Contribute to the content rather than writing personal attacks about other Wikipedians.
 * --Sarrotrkux (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Likewise, stop characterizing any criticism of your edits and writing as a personal attack. You need to WP:AGF. --Golbez (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please explain where I characterised "any criticism of my edits" as WP:PA. I have pointed out WP:PA exactly two times, namely when they started rambling about "ideological posturing" of other Wikipedians rather than contributing anything of value to the content of the article.
 * There is no problem with criticism or counter-arguments if it they are about the content of a page. Look at the rest of the discussion here, in which I specifically asked for constructive criticsm. But discarding the work of other Wikipedians and claiming they only do them for "ideological posturing" is clearly a WP:PA, and when I see such remarks I will continue to call them out. --Sarrotrkux (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comments like "pure ideological posturing" are not helpful, especially when high-quality sources have been provided. Certainly the "melting pot"/"nation of immigrants" concept is an important part of U.S. national identity. The only question is how it should be covered in the article. Currently it seems to be touched upon in the lead and discussed in more detail in the "Culture" section. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

That the US is very diverse is true by most measures bordering on sky-is-blue. To say the opposite (that such is a myth) is a far bigger stretch bordering on fringe. BTW a quick look at the references indicates that they are saying that "melting pot" is a myth. This not only does not say that "diverse" is a myth, since "diverse" is the opposite of "melting pot" such would support saying that the US is diverse. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think "fringe" describes the OP's entire thesis: s/he is interpreting one academic paper ("the relevant literature" it certainly isn't) to make a broader political point. The "most diverse in the world" chestnut was already deleted in its entirety, and yet the OP still insists on enlightening WP's readers about "national myths" in the lead of a country article. This is indulging in theory and rhetoric—not information—and is beneath the basic standards of any encyclopedia. Or rather, that's not what a general encyclopedia is. Mason.Jones (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * At some point you have to realise that I am perfectly fine with the deletion. I offered an alternative to it, namely leaving it in and pointing out that its importance does not stem from empirical data but from its role as a national myth. I provided proper sources for both of these options. Consensus was to delete it entirely, and that's absolutely fine by me.
 * You keep saying it isn't relevant literature, which is a rather bizarre claim to make in the first place, but you have not even provided a single example of what you consider relevant literature. As such it should not be surprising that consensus was reached to delete it.
 * --Sarrotrkux (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The phrase "national myth" or "national mythos" is confusing to readers. You'll have to re-write your proposal without that phrase. 力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 01:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree it would probably be confusing to some, but there is no real synonym to it since it is a defined concept in cultural studies. From my point of view there's no issue with the consensus of leaving out the sentence about diversity entirely, the mention of diversity's role as a national myth was just something that I thought was worth pointing out as an alternative.
 * --Sarrotrkux (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it was never "worth pointing out as an alternative." And no, such generous cultural commentary was in no way "confusing to some." I wasn't "confused." I simply saw the issue as removing an unsourced superlative, while not replacing it with anthropological punditry. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course it's worth pointing out as an alternative, that's what talk pages are for. And yes it is absolutely confusing to some. If you read North8000's comments for example, it's quite clear that they confused the concept of "national myth" with the colloquial usage of the word "myth". This is the same mistake that probably a lot of other readers would do. I don't know why you seem to assume that this discussion is about you. Neither 力 nor myself mentioned you specifically.
 * Secondly, the page features a ton of "cultural commentary". "National myths" are an established cultural concept just like "American dream", "melting pot" or "American creed" are. The page also features plenty of statements like the one saying that "being ordinary or average is also generally seen as a positive attribute" even though the source -- as far as I can see -- has no empirical data to back that up. What are such statements if not sociocultural commentary?
 * From my point of view, the discussion has reached its conclusion for now. You can keep commenting about whether you personally believe my proposal of putting the statement in its cultural context is "worth pointing out as an alternative", but honestly I don't think its of particular interest to anyone at this point considering the false claim has been removed in its entirety already.
 * --Sarrotrkux (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't "confuse" anything and no it wasn't a "mistake" . When we use words to communicate, we must write knowing they will be read based on common meanings.  And a common meaning, (and most would say the most common meaning) of "myth" is (copying from the dictionary) "a widely held but false belief or idea." <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sarrotrkux, no one—but no one—could be "confused" by that edit. It's a Wikipedian impossibility. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This very discussion has proven that it is a possibility, Mason.Jones. --Sarrotrkux (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * North8000, so would you say that the cultural concept of a national myth and the colloquial word myth are the same? That would be like saying the concept of American salad bowl literally means large bowl of salad because that's what the dictionary entry of salad bowl says, and that therefore the phrase American salad bowl should never be used on Wikipedia. I don't know why you seem to be trying to argue now that words only have one meaning or that cultural concepts don't exist and are never used on Wikipedia.
 * If you read the term "national myth" and think of the dictionary "myth", then you are confusing the two meanings just like a reader thinking of a bowl of salad when reading "American salad bowl" would be.
 * --Sarrotrkux (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * IMO I see 5-6 things wrong with your last post including several incorrect assertions presented as facts via implied premises. Unpacking all of that would be a lengthy post that would be a off on a tangent. But briefly, when we use words to communicate, we must write knowing they will be read based on common meanings. The widespread meaning of "myth" is clearly "a widely held but false belief or idea"     and it is not merely colloquial, and putting "national" before it would widely be read as merely adding an adjective to that meaning rather than converting it to the other meaning that you are describing. That's my opinion, you can consider it to be merely that <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I agreed it might be better to completely delete the sentence about diversity, which is what was done in the end. The reason being that readers might confuse the concept of national myths with the dictionary meaning of the word myth. We both agree on that.
 * --Sarrotrkux (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sarrotrkux, you took the "myth" meme in one academic paper and wished to impose it as a national trait—in the lead of a country article. You were engaged in opinion-writing. If your lecturing isn't bad enough, the thick Germanic syntax doesn't help to make your case. You might seek a different ideological cause. Mason.Jones (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Mason.Jones, I cited 3 peer-reviewed publications for you and you can easily find more if you so wish. It's not a big secret that cultures exhibit what are frequently called national myths and that in the US' case, they partly revolve around ideas of immigration.
 * But again, I'm perfectly fine with the complete deletion of the false statement about diversity, so I'm not even sure why you keep trying to misconstrue the alternative I offered. The original statement has been deleted – which both me and you seem to agree with – and if you have trouble reading Germanic syntax then I'm not sure anyone here can help you. Everyone else seems to get the point just fine.
 * --Sarrotrkux (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * One last item: You really shouldn't tell one editor (me) that another editor is, or ever was, "confused." That's a bad look. While it seems to be more common over on German Wikipedia (more opinionated articles seem to abound there as well), English Wikipedia is different. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion page. If an editor confuses a cultural concept with the dictionary definition of the concerned word, then I'll point out that we are talking about two different things. Otherwise we would just talk past one another. I don't know why you would consider that an insult when it's meant to be a completely harmless heads-up to ensure we have the same understanding of what is being discussed.
 * I would be fine with opening a case at WP:ANI so a third party can look through the two discussions and judge if there was any misdemeanor.
 * --Sarrotrkux (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Mason Jones was pointing out rude insulting behavior that is not the norm here. And I might add arrogant wording that someone that doesn't align with your view is "confused" and "mistaken", and you just repeated that again. It does not rise to a wp:ani issue, but you should stop repeating the "confused" insult.  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So help me, how should I have phrased it? I was talking about potentially including the concept of national myths in the article and you seemed to think I am talking about the dictionary definition of the word "myth" and implied that a myth has to be untrue. I merely pointed out to you that this is not the case when talking about the concept of national myths.
 * Sorry if you felt insulted but I did not call you as a person confused, I said you confused (as in "mixed up") what I was proposing.
 * --Sarrotrkux (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Probably a second example of dealing with how some English is commonly read by a typical reader. :-) <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem mate, I'm happy we could clear it up. Perhaps I should have written "mix up" in the first place to make it more clear what I was talking about, but it didn't occur to me that my comment could be viewed to be about you as a person rather than just the interpretation of my proposal differing from what I actually meant.
 * --Sarrotrkux (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

National anthem recording
I have reverted your edit that replaced the sung, Army Field Band national anthem with an instrumental, Navy Band one. I believe that the most representative audio samples are: Admittedly, this is not a guideline or policy; it is just my opinion. However, I feel like these are pretty reasonable standards that should not be particularly objectionable. Both the Navy Band instrumental and the Army Field Band choral recordings are faithful to the composition, unabridged, and high in performance and audio quality. This leaves one final consideration: the manner and style of performance. "The Star-Spangled Banner" is a song; it is sung. It is most commonly heard sung by a vocalist or choir, and as a national anthem its words carry its most significant patriotic meaning. Therefore, to use an instrumental recording when an otherwise equally good recording with lyrics exists would be a disservice to readers of this article. (Please note: this reasoning has largely been copied from Talk:The Star-Spangled Banner.) <b style="line-height:1.1;display:inline-block;transform:skew(-14deg);border-radius:2em;border:solid#34c 1px;overflow:hidden"><b style="color:#fff;background:#34c"> Mysteryman</b>blue </b> 21:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Faithful to the composition (A performance without errors is better than a performance with errors.)
 * Unabridged (The full piece as it is commonly heard is better than a 30 second sample.)
 * Performed in the most original/common manner and style (A classical arrangement of a classical piece is better than a jazz arrangement of that classical piece.)
 * High in audio quality (A 2020 320 kb/s recording on modern digital equipment is better than a 1890 phonograph recording.)
 * High in performance quality (A recording by a professional orchestra is better than a recording by an elementary school band.)

Why do the lyrics for the anthem include a question mark at the end? "And the home of the brave?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManixT (talk • contribs) 00:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Because the first verse, only, asks a question—does the flag still wave?—while subsequent verses make the statement—yes, it does—several times, using almost the same wording. See The_Star-Spangled_Banner. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

First Woman Vice President
Hello, can you add and mention that Kamala Harris was elected as the first woman vice president please? TTTTRZON (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * We don't give much room to naming the current political leadership, and including such firsts could lead to considerable expansion (Joe Biden (possibly) being the first vice president elected president after a hiatus?, etc.), even though it's given much coverage in the press and is mentioned prominently (along with other firsts) at Harris's bio and at Vice President of the United States. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

First Europeans to arrive
The article states that "The first Europeans to arrive in the continental United States were Spanish conquistadors" quite definitively. When content from Norse colonization of North America and Vinland seem to state the Norse colonists may well have actually been there 500 years earlier. Norse artifacts have supposedly been found (veracity unknown) in the continental US, and the unknown location of Vinland (or other settlements) may well have included US soil. The 'European Settlements' section should be edited to reflect this uncertainty, rather than boldly stating what is clearly not a known fact. --SgtLion (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm tweaking it. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We can't source such highly disputed history with a WP link (Norse colonization of North America) that specifically discusses it as pseudoscience—and under a subsection called "Pseudoscience"! That's exactly what this is to most historians. "May well have been there" and "supposedly have found" don't cut it, and neither does "evidence of probable..." I reworded the passage for what it mostly is: a pseudo-factoid. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice work. I think that the state of such is lot stronger than pseudo-science, but I think that your edit handled it well.  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be mentioned there. There've been many features about it in mainstream media, albeit with a strong disclaimer every time. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2021
106.66.43.225 (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pupsterlove02  talk • contribs 19:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Reverted for "overqualified"/"overlinked"
How do you propose improving the change, since you reverted it? Getsnoopy (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that using America to refer to the United States of America is indeed a perfect synecdoche and there shouldn't be anything wrong in pointing out that, on the contrary, in an encyclopedic article. Sophos II (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The change made was to add the word "informally" and link it to abstruse rhetorical terminology. I'm not sure "America", for "United States of..." is the best example of synecdoche (even though it's given as an example of such at the linked article). Most examples I've seen are more allusory (e.g. "boots" for "soldiers") rather than results of eliding part of a name. I also don't see that "America" is more informal than "United States". Dhtwiki (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @GetSnoopy, (1) This has come up before, and in addition to Dhtwiki's comment, consensus was that the phrase is busy and intrusive for the lead, and (2) it's hardly the role of the lead—in this case, the very first paragraph—to become a "teachable moment." ("Synecdoche" is a figure of grammatical rhetoric.) Blueline WP links should be limited, and the link here is overkill. If others disagree, fine. Mason.Jones (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * America is as informal as United States to designate the United States of America, both should therefore be qualified as vernacular expressions. Getsnoopy could have indeed done better there...
 * (1) "consensus was that the addition is busy and intrusive for the lead": can we please know how this consensus was established, when and by whom?
 * (2) There is nothing abstruse or rhetorical about linking informally to synecdoche. On the contrary, this is perfectly encyclopedic!
 * (3) "Blueline WP links should be limited": can we please have a reference for this Wikipedia rule?
 * (4) "and the link here is overkill": Nowhere in the article there is mention that America or United States is informally used to designate the country to consider this one single added word and link to be an overkill. Getsnoopy added one word to a 14,000+ word article, 541 of which form the lead, of which 149 (27.5%) are blueline. That one single word represents an increment of 0.2% of bluelines for the lead, or 0.007% for the whole article.    Hardly an overkill!
 * It looks like you don't want this improvement made just because you personally don't like it...
 * Sophos II (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "America" in the United States of America refers to the continent, so it is indeed synecdoche. "The United States" isn't a figure of speech and is a phrase that is used/accepted even at international levels such as the UN, which is why I only labelled "America" as informal. If the word in question is the problem, I'm fine with rewording it. But like @Sophos II commented, I'm curious how linking to a grammatical concept is too much for the lead, especially considering it's merely one word and actually explains the phenomenon at hand. As for it being a "teachable moment", I'm not sure that's a strong argument given the point of an encyclopedia is to teach people and that the same argument can be made about the words "primarily located" linking to the article on the contiguous United States being in the lead sentence as well. Getsnoopy (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If we're going to characterize "America" as synecdoche, we should have a reliable source that labels it as such. The lead of the Wikipedia article on the concept does label it as such in the lead (and "America" (for "the United States of America", totum pro parte)), but the citation for that sentence, which gives many examples, doesn't include "America" as one of them. To nitpick further: "America" doesn't strictly refer to either the continent of North America or the western hemisphere ("Americas"), so it can be said to not qualify as substituting "the whole for a part". Dhtwiki (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @SophosII, Getsnoopy. The additions are needless clutter and overexplication, with a didactic, "corrective" interpretation for common usage in the English-speaking world ("America"). Encyclopedias are information, yes, but they're also concise. The edits, I think, are extraneous minutiae, and mostly intrusive. I'll let others decide. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If we really wanted Wikipedia to be concise and precise, the Merriam-Webster dictionary could give us some clues on how to successfully achieve this. These guidances would lead us to relegate the vernacular designations in question (and perhaps some others as well, still totally ignored in this article!) to a dedicated section of its own and out of the lead of the article:
 * UNITED STATES
 * https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/United%20States
 * – federation of states especially when forming a nation in a usually specified territory
 * AMERICA
 * https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/America
 * 1– either continent (North America or South America) of the western hemisphere
 * 2– or the Americas, the lands of the western hemisphere including North, Central, and South America and the West Indies
 * 3– United States Of America
 * UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 * https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/United%20States%20of%20America
 * – country (a federal republic) in North America bordering on the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic oceans; capital Washington area 3,796,742 square miles (9,833,517 square kilometers), population 329,256,000
 * I think this could be very constructive, as long as there is some good will to be so. Sophos II (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Merriam-Wester's is a dictionary; dictionaries don't "provide useful clues" about how to display info in encyclopedias. The issue is whether the term "America" is a legitimate usage, and if so, how to include it concisely in the lead. It's a minor issue that doesn't require a four-step tutorial. Mason.Jones (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You still don't get it: the issue is not about America being in the lead (that is not a problem) but about America, United States and other contentious denominations (not yet mentioned anywhere else in the article) being there. Where should these arguments go? I say, and I am certainly not the only one, that these shouldn't be in the lead but in a dedicated section, and you are practically saying that this information should be totally ignored, that it should just not appear anywhere... It doesn't require a four-step tutorial to see that, indeed! Sophos II (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh I get it all right. However, your claim that these terms are so contentious that they require a Manual of Understanding will require broad consensus. The existing Etymology section (it follows right after the lead) seems more than "dedicated" enough for that purpose should we "successfully achieve this". Mason.Jones (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd ask for you to suggest a better place to link to the article/topic if a one-word link in the lead is not an appropriate place. Getsnoopy (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Editors have long tried to rein in intrusive subtopics (and sub-subtopics) in the lead of "United States." Such topics are often footnoted as a solution, with the WP link(s) given in the footnote. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems acceptable to me. I'll do that. Thanks. Getsnoopy (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this could be very constructive, as long as there is some good will to be so. Sophos II (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Merriam-Wester's is a dictionary; dictionaries don't "provide useful clues" about how to display info in encyclopedias. The issue is whether the term "America" is a legitimate usage, and if so, how to include it concisely in the lead. It's a minor issue that doesn't require a four-step tutorial. Mason.Jones (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You still don't get it: the issue is not about America being in the lead (that is not a problem) but about America, United States and other contentious denominations (not yet mentioned anywhere else in the article) being there. Where should these arguments go? I say, and I am certainly not the only one, that these shouldn't be in the lead but in a dedicated section, and you are practically saying that this information should be totally ignored, that it should just not appear anywhere... It doesn't require a four-step tutorial to see that, indeed! Sophos II (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh I get it all right. However, your claim that these terms are so contentious that they require a Manual of Understanding will require broad consensus. The existing Etymology section (it follows right after the lead) seems more than "dedicated" enough for that purpose should we "successfully achieve this". Mason.Jones (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd ask for you to suggest a better place to link to the article/topic if a one-word link in the lead is not an appropriate place. Getsnoopy (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Editors have long tried to rein in intrusive subtopics (and sub-subtopics) in the lead of "United States." Such topics are often footnoted as a solution, with the WP link(s) given in the footnote. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems acceptable to me. I'll do that. Thanks. Getsnoopy (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems acceptable to me. I'll do that. Thanks. Getsnoopy (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

"America is never mentioned in patriotic songs composed during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries"
This is a very strange claim to be making, and I object to its inclusion without context. In the first place, it is true that 'America' is not mentioned in the songs specified by the source (The Star-Spangled Banner, Battle Hymn of the Republic, My Country, 'Tis of Thee), but neither is any other name for the country, including the 'United States', rendering the sentence non-neutral (i.e. the mere fact that America is not mentioned does not imply anything about 'America' as name for the country, given no name of any kind appears in the relevant songs). Furthermore, America the Beautiful may well not have been put together as a song until 1910, but its lyrics were written 1893, and proudly proclaim 'America'. If we want to enter the realm of the more obscure, we can look at The Liberty Song (dating to 1768), which also is quite proud in its use of the names 'Americans' and 'America'. So, we can say that the claim being made is not truly supported in fact, and I would argue that WP:REDFLAG applies...for an exceptional claim of this sort, we really need a better source than an academic speaking on a radio programme. In any case, is this really the sort of stuff we should be discussing in this article? One wonders. I expect the only reason people are inserting these sorts of claims is because they, for whatever reason, believe the use of 'America' to refer to the country is incorrect, and seek to right great wrongs. Wikipedia is not a place for such endeavours, and I would argue, this behaviour is nothing more than disruption. RGloucester — ☎ 22:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gloucester -- I don't disagree with you, and recall that the original sentence was added by editors who were troubled that the term "America" isn't rejected in English-speaking countries the way it is in the Spanish-speaking world. (On the contrary; it remains very common usage.) To me, the sentence is a subtle suggestion to readers that "America" has more recent jingoistic origins and must be shunned. Mason.Jones (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, I will take the liberty of removing the sentence, given that this seems to be 1) a case of WP:UNDUE weight, and 2) an unsupported WP:REDFLAG claim. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)