Jump to content

Talk:United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleUnited States was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 15, 2005Good article nomineeListed
May 7, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 8, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 18, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 3, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 21, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
October 19, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 19, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 9, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
June 27, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 6, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
January 19, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
March 18, 2012Good article reassessmentDelisted
August 10, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
January 21, 2015Good article nomineeListed
February 22, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
December 19, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 3, 2015.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the United States accounts for 37% of all global military spending?
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 4, 2008.
Current status: Delisted good article

Excessive references

[edit]

I like this article, but in my opinion the number of references (565; 579 on 26 July 2024) is excessive. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
@Mason.Jones: China and Russia are also very powerful, but this doesn't justify the huge amount of sources in the U.S. and Russia articles. JacktheBrown (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Compiling bibliographies and updating sources is a major activity of historians and scholars here on Wikipedia. Moxy🍁 11:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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,[1] so it gets more scrutiny than others. Rjjiii (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rjjiii: totally agree. JacktheBrown (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@Rjjiii: and it's strange that with so many Americans this page hasn't been condensed. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Should the national anthem in the infobox have vocals?

[edit]

Edit: According to the act of congress which is cited next to the infobox, "the words and music known as The Star-Spangled Banner is designated the national anthem." (see [2]https://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=46&page=1508) This means that the instrumental alone does not count as the anthem. I have added a choral + music version of the song to the infobox for now. Please do not remove it without providing a citation that the instrumental version alone can count as the national anthem. If you wish to change the audio to a different vocal version, please discuss below.

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 c. 1997 instrumental performance by United States Navy Bandⓘ

B: Replace with 1915 performance by Margaret Woodrow Wilsonⓘ

C: Replace with 2021 performance by Lady Gagaⓘ

D: Replace with 2016 choral performance by United States Army Field Bandⓘ

Or if you have a different proposal, feel free to share it. ―Howard • 🌽33 21:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC) ; edited ―Howard • 🌽33 07:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2024

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

WP:WikiProject Oral tradition

[edit]

Would people be interested in joining a wikiproject on improving and creating articles about oral tradition? Wikipedia's coverage on this appears to be very poor Kowal2701 (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National anthem file

[edit]

I proposed the United States Navy Band instrumental recording (File:Star Spangled Banner instrumental.ogg) for the version of "The Star Spangled Banner" to infobox, rather than vocal recording by United States Army Field Band. Because it's more reliable. 49.150.13.247 (talk) 10:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pueblo settlement image

[edit]

Hi there, I want to suggest that we maybe exchange the Cliff Palace image with an image of a still populated Native American settlement, e.g. like the Sky City of Acoma Pueblo. The Cliff Palace image is in principle nice, but I find it more comprehensive to show an image that shows an ancient settlement AND one of contemporary Native Americans at the same time in one image. I now have edited the image caption of the Cliff Palace trying to point towards this. What do you think? Nsae Comp (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2024

[edit]

Please change the second source in reference footnote 18 from

U.S. Insular Areas: application of the U.S. Constitution Archived November 3, 2013, at the Wayback Machine, November 1997, pp. 1, 6, 39n. Both viewed April 6, 2016.

to

U.S. Insular Areas: application of the U.S. Constitution Archived from the original November 3, 2013, November 1997, pp. 1, 6, 39n. Both viewed April 6, 2016.


or similar because the link is dead. McYeee (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done and reference formatted with cite templates. Reconrabbit 20:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2024 (2)

[edit]

Please change [[Policies of states in the United States|is given to states and several territories]] to [[Federalism in the United States|is given to states and several territories]] in the lede. The article currently linked doesn't seem as related and is a stub. McYeee (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Dhtwiki (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2024 (3)

[edit]

Please change cite-note [d] in the infobox to be superscript. McYeee (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – By placing efn on infobox line meant for area footnotes. Didn't see any other way (and efn wasn't displaying properly where it was). Dhtwiki (talk) 07:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgetting about something

[edit]

You forgot to put and U.S.A! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NinjaMiura (talk • contribs) 22:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to what, the initials given in the lead? See MOS:USA, which deprecates the use of periods in that and similar abbreviations. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States&oldid=1240218001"