Talk:United States/Archive 103

Relations are poor, and I left in a shortened version. A source would help, but there's no controversy at all. Mason.Jones (talk)

Yes, that section. What should we condense first, and how? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

"Condensing" doesn't mean tying in unrelated issues and events or, worse, dropping important statistics while preserving the weaker info in same sentence. Everyone here wants a shorter "United States" and fewer repeat images (the multiple photos of NASA or New York, etc.). What is not good is that editors are blanking out or conflating U.S. cultural and historical events just to save space. It's all in good faith, but it's become a problem. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Seconding these concerns. I'm not seeing, as evidenced by edit summaries, that editors are inspecting subsidiary, specialized articles on the United States for the information removed from here being available there. Important information could be lost, otherwise. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

But we need to condensing it somehow. We will lose information, and it is unavoidable. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Any condensing has to be done more judiciously, and with proper English grammar, or it will be reverted. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I should've rewritten these section in my sandbox before posting them to the page. Seems like this is the way to go. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

These are the sources that shouldn't be in the article:

• Encyclopædia Britannica
• Forbes
• The Guardian
• History (American TV network)
• Business Insider
• CliffsNotes
• HuffPost
• Investopedia

. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

The news sources are probably fine for more recent info. The Cato Institute and the Center for Economic and Policy Research are considered marginally reliable per RSP, although both are used for very minor items. CMD (talk) 06:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Why not? At the very least, the Guardian and Forbes are pretty well-regarded publications. --Golbez (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

They are, but are often mixed with unlabeled op-eds. In this case, the source (Allergic reaction to US religious right' fueling decline of religion, experts say and As Stimulus Talks Stalemate, New Report Finds 40 Million Americans Could Be At Risk Of Eviction feels a bit like an op-ed for me, and this Forbes source isn't feeling exactly authoritative about New Hampshire. Surely, we can find better sources at the Further reading section. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:FORBES the NH list entry above is fine, but the contributor piece is not. - Aoidh (talk

) 16:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Fair. --Golbez (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Of the sources listed above, only History (The History Channel) is considered "generally unreliable" at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The others are either reliable or lack consensus on that score. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@

talk

) 04:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't automatically dismiss a Britannica citation, and certainly not when the alternative is to have no source at all. The various editions of that encyclopedia are of various quality, but I can't remember coming across an article that's grossly erroneous. The "secondary" and "tertiary" articles you point to are clear that the divide between the two is unclear. It's even possible that a judiciously written primary source would give better information than sources that are supposed to be more even-handed for being written by disinterested parties. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. A census is a primary source, yet we cite them instead of other secondary sources because it is far more reliable. We also shouldn't cite encyclopedias as the secondary sources are usually more authoritative, and in same case these encyclopedias has taken the facts from our own article. I doubt that we need to use marginally reliable sources for an article this broad – usually they are only being used when the topic just need a little bit more info to be long enough for a GAN. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Have these recent edits given anyone else a sense of deja vu? -- Vaulter 15:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, except the writing skills have declined even more. Will ask for admin intervention if the article deteriorates much further. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone want to file an

WP:SPI? I was thinking exactly the same thing. I can do it too, if you'd like. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!}

22:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I highly doubt that he is a sock. This individual is not bludgeoning the process as severely as the individual you may be thinking about. He also appears to be involved in venues that the other individual appears to not even know. You can still file a SPI, but I think we may be wrong on this one.

talk

) 02:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Right, that's why I don't want to file an SPI request that just serves to pour fire on things. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't sock, canvass, or trying to beat this place up with walls of text, and I can prove that I came here clean. I may have save too frequently or being too aggressive with my edits, but I do respect and value other's contributions. If you guys genuinely don't like me around, I can just fuck off and improve other articles.

Right, @CactiStaccingCrane: I don't want to scare people away. We genuinely appreciate your contributions, just try to be less aggressive with them. That's why we don't want to make an SPI request. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• Vaulter, Mason.Jones, and Rockstone35: I would need to see very strong evidence to be convinced that any account registered earlier than Awolf/MBMAD's CBAN is a sock of that user. Where there's evidence of the supposed sock being on another continent (CSC claims to be in Vietnam, IIRC, with viwiki edits and timecard to support that), that evidence would need to be stronger still. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed}
  ] (she|they|xe) 17:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Most recent administrations in the United States have been viewed by the opposite party as a "political upset," with democrats challenging the election of former President Trump and republicans challenging the election of President Biden. Trump was nowhere near being a well liked candidate on both sides, but calling the entire administration of Trump one of the biggest upsets in US history just overall sounds politically biased, again with a democrat news source as the reference. Johnson524 (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, although not for the reasons you give. Nevertheless, now fixed. Mathglot (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding, and for the quick response! Johnson524 (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Johnson524. I will second Mathglot. The original wording was a blunder and also unencyclopedic. It should have been corrected, and glad you did so. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

....etc...

Now that things are a bit more stable we should review the images and see if we can add back some featured pics that were removed in the edit flurry and see what other featured images we could use. c:Category:Featured pictures of the United States. We should also try and make the articles accessibility comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#ImagesMoxy- 13:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

"The 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia occupy a combined area of 3,119,885 square miles (8,080,470 km2). Of this area, 2,959,064 square miles (7,663,940 km2) is contiguous land, composing 83.65% of total U.S. land area. The rest is occupied by Hawaii, an archipelago in the central Pacific, and the five populated but unincorporated territories of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands."

The 48 contiguous states are mentioned, Hawaii is mentioned. That's 49 states. Alaska is by far the largest state at 571,951 sq mi (1,481,346 km2, but it is not contiguous with any other state. This needs to be untangled.

Untangled. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mason.Jones (talk • contribs) 2:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I find it strange that on the United States article we list a (

I suspect it is because the two-party system that evolved basically by accident has become the most important way of defining contemporary politicians. There Republicans used to say they had "a big tent" that was inclusive of various types of conservatives, but these days they require that all members be in complete lockstep with the party bosses on every single issue, and will actively campaign against anyone who dares to have an independent thought, deriding them as a

talk

) 02:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, they don't really add anything. --Golbez (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone really object to the removal of them? If there is no objection, I would like to make the article just a little more consistent with the other country infoboxes

I don't object. One of the most annoying things about this article is that it's *not* consistent with other countries for some reason. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

No objection. Support the removal. --N8_wilson 🔔 15:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

No objection. "D" and "R" simply reflect great polarization in the U.S. The zeal with which some editors keep appending an "R" after the Supreme Court chief justice—not an elected official—is proof. As the OP says, no other country article gets this POV-partisan, in any language. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Yep.

talk

) 22:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason that the death penalty is mentioned in the lead? The current wording has multiple problematic aspects:

• It deceptively implies that the death penalty is universally applied throughout the country routinely. That's simply not true in the vast majority of instances. In actuality, it is almost always locally applied by the 26 states can de facto apply it. The death penalty is de facto abolished in vast swathes of the country: states that compromise a majority of the American population. This ratio gets even more lopsided when you only consider states that have performed an execution within the past ten years. In significant (both in population and by # of states) parts of the country, it simply isn't retentionist in any sense.

• Draws
  WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT
  and to give the article a sense of "pro" and "con" balance.

• The nation's incarceration rate is exceptional. The fact that several states (and, in exceptional circumstances: the federal government) retain the death penalty isn't.

• There was a
  WP: Undue that simply hasn't been addressed/removed due to editorial fatigue. KlayCax (talk
  ) 23:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

When you removed it, your comment was, "Multiple developed, wealthy nations (Partially in the East, such as Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, along with Israel, retain the death penalty.) I'm failing to see how this merits inclusion: beyond editors personal opinions on its ethics; whatever it is, it's not exceptional, even in the Western-aligned world. Intentionally placed this in a different edit so the uncontroversial aspects of my changes wouldn't be blanketly reverted."

Israel last executed someone in 1961 (Adolf Eichmann); North Korea, in 1997: in practice they don't execute people. Singapore's last execution was yesterday, when a man was hanged for selling cannabis. He was like most executed prisoners a member of the Malay minority.[3] So I wouldn't exactly call it a liberal democracy.

The U.S. insistence on continuing to execute people is exceptional and worth noting. If Americans don't want it mentioned in articles about ehir country, they can stop doing it. TFD (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT doesn't merit inclusion in the lead. A majority of the world's population lives in countries that are retentionist. KlayCax (talk

) 01:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

And sorry for rapid changes. Multiple editors were commenting at the same time and it jumbled up the meanings — the updated version is the intended wording. KlayCax (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It's one of the more obvious ways in which the US is different from other western nations. NOT mentioning it would be odd. HiLo48 (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Why would it be included for the United States but not a nation such as

WP: Notable

in terms of inclusion.

Additionally,

WP: NPOV (It seems to imply that having a death penalty is "wrong" while a stance favoring abolishment is "correct"). If we're going to apply this standard to the United States, we're going to have to imply it to other developed nations such as Japan, Singapore, or Taiwan. This "standard" is utterly inconsistent and contradictory otherwise. KlayCax (talk

) 01:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The USA is the only western nation that kills it's own citizens. In the eyes of the Western World this is a human rights violation beyond measure and is lead worthy without a doubt. This is the main human rights situation in the USA. Crazy they have legal killing in this day and age....view of the world. .... UN request. ....that happens for ever president. Moxy- 01:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

When the United States is compared to foreign countries, it's more likely to be compared with other Western nations such as Europe countries, the UK, Australia, NZ and the Americas. While some U.S. states have no death penalty, there is as you mentioned a federal death penalty and non-death penalty states must return fugitives to states that have the death penalty. The fact that most countries have abolished the death penalty and the UN opposes it. Maybe it's a bigger deal outside the U.S. than within. TFD (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Since a federal moratorium by Attorney General Merrick Garland in July 2021, the United States has been abolitionist-in-practice on a federal level. The last time the military (which obviously only has jurisdiction to those in the military) executed someone was John A. Bennett in 1961. America's federalist system has the practice overwhelmingly limited to the 26 states (compromising a minority of the country's total population) that retain it. Much of the country has been abolitionist or abolitionist-in-practice for years.

A majority of polities have abolished the death penalty. A majority of the world's population lives in a polity that retains it. Even in nations that have abolished the practice (including "liberal" countries) polling shows that majorities/substantive minorities support reinstating the practice. (Which I wrote more about here.) KlayCax (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

And as I responded there, those polls are rubbish. HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Ipsos is a reliable source and high-quality pollster. And it's not just them: but multiple, repeated polls over the series of the past two decades. KlayCax (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree that is a bigger deal outside the USA.....so much so that it's a detriment to the country's image. basic view Moxy- 02:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

A bigger deal to who? What makes the United States retention of capital punishment uniquely (in the context of it in of itself) notable? KlayCax (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

What reliable source lists it as a significant, substantive, and notable detriment to the country's image among the global population? A majority of Canadians and a substantive percentage of Europeans (reaching a majority in several major polities) support reinstating capital punishment. Political science research, including by Kern (2007) at the Spanish think tank Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos, has summarized the policy differences on capital punishment between the United States and most of Europe as being rooted primarily in the support of political elites. Stating: "In fact, poll after poll shows that ordinary European citizens favor the death penalty almost as much as do Americans." and that "elite support" explains the inconsistency between a majority of European states and the United States. (Conversely, political elites in Taiwan and Japan hold far more favorable views.) The lack of the death penalty in Europe has far more to do with their opposition than with widespread revulsion among members of the European general population. KlayCax (talk) 08:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Your Canadian source describes it having been "an online survey". I cannot imagine how an online survey can be a proper sample of the Canadian population. The French source just says "opinion polls" No details at all. That means no credibility. I challenge your claims. HiLo48 (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The French poll was by IPSOS: a high-quality, frequently sourced French pollster. Both Radio France Internationale and French 24 are considered reliable sources. KlayCax (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Online surveys have become increasingly common due to a rapidly declining phone response rate. (Both in the United States and internationally.) Regardless, phone surveys have found similar numbers in Europe.KlayCax (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The fact that most people in Canada and Western Europe support the death penalty and governments don't bring it back shows that it would make them international embarrassments if they did. Anyway, if you support the death penalty, you might want this article to point out U.S. courage in retaining it. TFD (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

"International embarrassments" according to whom? KlayCax (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't support the death penalty. That doesn't make the lead's mention of it proportional or especially notable. KlayCax (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• @
  right great wrongs and it can be properly addressed in the crime and safety section of the article. At any rate, I don't think it should be mentioned in the lead. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!}
  05:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Japan is historically and culturally massively different from the USA. That's why the normal comparison for social matters in the USA is with other western nations, which it could reasonable be expected to be similar too. Japan is close to irrelevant on this matter. HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Then perhaps there needs to be context explaining why it's being mentioned in the lead. The problem with that though is that the lead is already too long. Truly, I fail to see how this can't be explained and given appropriate context and weight in the politics section of the article. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

WHAT'S AT STAKE. Moxy- 20:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@

right great wrongs by highlighting the shame that the US continues to retain the death penalty in the lead. Also, I notice that it appears no other country or U.S. state which retains the death penalty mentions it in its lead; which really does make note of it in the lead undue. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!}

23:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Why is the United States the only country in the world to have it merit a mention? (Beyond weird exceptions such as North Korea which don't specifically focus on the death penalty in of itself: but rather how it's used against X or Y group.) The fact that editors are basing their opposition to keeping it in the lead primarily among ethical or political opposition — rather than Wikipedia policy — is highly problematic and not a justifiable reason for keeping it. This article (or Wikipedia in general)'s purpose isn't being a platform to promote political change. It's an article to chronicle information about the United States. I oppose the death penalty as well. (At least in daily instances.) But it's WP: NPOV and patently ridiculous to have the lead focus on it. Why is the United States the only article to have this standard? Particularly considering that vast portions of the country (compromising a majority of its population) lives in areas that are abolitionist or abolitionist-in-practice. Compare the absolutely glowing Singapore lead vs. the current American one. It's patently ridiculous. How did we get to a consensus in which Singapore's deployment of the death penalty is "not notable and not substantially controversial" in the lead while the United States' having it is somehow magically independently notable? (Or failing to include it in the Japanese or Taiwanese articlse) It's pretty clear this suggested "standard" is horrendously wrong. KlayCax (talk

) 01:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:RFC? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!}

01:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

If there's no consensus that develops within the next day, yes. @Rockstone35: KlayCax (talk) 06:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

You can create a RfC about it, @Rockstone35: KlayCax (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@KlayCax: Let's give it a day or two. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 10:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

A reminder to all involved that "it's [not] in other articles" is

You want

WP:OTHERCONTENT, which actually bolsters the argument that it should not be in the lead: " While comparing with other articles is not, in general, a convincing argument, comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, makes a much more credible case". Japan is a Featured article, this article is not. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!}

21:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

As another editor mentioned, Japan, Taiwan and Singapore have vastly different cultures than the U.S. Comparative studies of the U.S. social, political and economic systems are most frequently made with Canada, the UK and Western Europe and rarely with those other countries. In the health care debate for example, Canada, the UK and Western Europe came up frequently, but not Asian countries. The sentence in question begins, "It lacks universal health care, retains capital punishment...." Well they don't have universal health care in Iraq and Afghanistan, two countries that were administered by the U.S., but they have capital punishment. But no one argues the U.S. is not exceptional in lacking universal health care. TFD (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, then we should probably provide context, right? Maybe something like "the US is the only western democracy to retain the death penalty". But I'm still not convinced that it should be in the lead. Honestly, I'm not convinced that lack of universal healthcare should be mentioned in the lead; as someone above pointed out, the US isn't the only country in the west to not have universal healthcare. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

"Western democracy" sounds fine. The only developed country I know of that lacks universal health care is Bermuda, and they plan to introduce it soon. I think both belong in the lead, because it should explain what distinguishes each country, particularly countries that are otherwise similar. TFD (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, does anyone mind if I edit that sentence to clarify? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

What? The United States remains the only country in the developed world without a system of universal healthcare. Moxy- 00:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy: what is your definition of universal healthcare? Completely anecdotal, but I've had Germans tell me that their healthcare system is not universal. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The same used by other academics. That said even China has coverage for 95 percent of the population. Moxy- 01:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it means that if you live in Niagara Falls, New York, a colonoscopy costs $1,175,[4], while in Niagara Falls, Ontario, it's free. TFD (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Right, but there are other places in the world with better healthcare than the US where it still costs money for a colonoscopy. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Moxy- 06:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This has gone way off-topic, with loyal American editors seemingly trying to defend it against people who THEY think think it's less than perfect. That's not what this discussion needs to be about. The fact that the US stands out among western nations because it still uses the death penalty simply IS significant. It's one of the obvious differences between the US and the countries it's usually compared with. Whether that fact deserves to be in the lead, I'm not sure, but it definitely needs to be mentioned somewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anyone on this talk page is arguing that it shouldn't be mentioned at all. Of course it should be, you're right that the fact that the US retains the death penalty is worth mentioning in the body of the article. @KlayCax: and I are saying that it should be in the body of the article, like it is for Japan and Taiwan rather than in the lead, where it seems undue. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

United States remains the only advanced democracy that fails to recognize capital punishment as a profound human rights violation and as a frightening abuse of government power....things like this are beyond the pale. Moxy- 14:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I think full list should remain, with the yardstick "other wealthy Western democracies." This removes comparison with Mexico and Brazil (highly corrupt developing countries in many measures). The criticism discussed here is typically made by Europeans and our English-speaking "cousins," with some anti-Americanism and resentment about outsize U.S. cultural and economic influence part of it. But they also note that the U.S. holds itself out to the world as a model of liberty and human rights; its government freely criticizes other nations. The current text simply says that the U.S. fails to reach its potential for such a wealthy (and critical) democracy. I agree with those who want it made clear that Japan, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, etc. are excluded from the comparison. There are ways to do that. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Correct ...when talking about any Western Democracy Capital punishment for the USA is a big point for scholars Meares, T.L. (2001). "Crime and Ethnicity (Including Race)". International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier. pp. 2914–2918.

doi:10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/02870-9. 3.1.4 The death penalty ;This issue is of particular concern to scholars in the US, as it is the only Western democracy still imposing this sentence Moxy-

16:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Japan and Taiwan are wealthy democracies that retain the death penalty. Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Mason Jones that "other wealthy Western democracies" should be the yardstick and the US should not be compared to newer democracies like Brazil, Chile and Taiwan that were literal dictatorships just several decades ago. Regarding the current version of the article, which deliberately excludes high levels of inequality in the US as being "unique among Western democracies," sources I have seen state the exact opposite, such as this one which says "Such studies should fully incorporate the fact that the United States, by many of the standard indicators of inequality, is now the most unequal long-standing democracy in a developed country in the world." I think that something similar to "long-standing democracy in a developed country" could also a useful yardstick. Regardless, the current version is POV and possibly violates

WP:OR, unless a reliable source can be found stating that US levels of inequality are not unique among Western democracies. As another example, studies by the OECD have also pointed out that "Income inequality is high in the US, compared to other OECD countries."--C.J. Griffin (talk

) 14:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

"Long-standing democracy in a developed country" is a wordy way of saying "It's not India, folks!" It's awkward and unencyclopedic. Hopefully, there's a better way. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• What about "Unique among wealthy western democracies, it has high levels of incarceration and inequality, retains capital punishment, and lacks universal health care." ? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• Also.. does anyone oppose if I make an RFC? I'm curious what the opinions of others in the community are. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

That version is better.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Let's make a RfC, @Rockstone35:. Even if the wording didn't pay disproportionate amount of attention to the practice, it's still factually incorrect throughout vast portions of the country. (It has been abolitionist-in-practice on a federal level since 2021 and there hasn't been one by the forces since 1961)

Do you want me to make the RFC then? If so, what do we want? To simply ask about whether the death penalty belongs? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Yep. @

WP: Activism. It's a place to showcase information about the country. I have no doubt that the usage of the death penalty within the United States is an issue. But I also don't think it's particularly notable in a global (or even Western-aligned context.) Besides all of this, since July 2021 the current phrasing is outright misleading. Unless this starts affecting global geopolitics in a truly substantive and notable manner, it shouldn't be included. KlayCax (talk

) 07:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The text itself does not provide a value judgment, it just points out how the U.S. differs from the countries most similar to it. Since as you pointed out most people in these other countries want capital punishment reinstated, it shows that the U.S. is more democratic in the sense that legislators are more responsive to voters. The current president, who supports high incarceration rates and the death penalty, while opposing universal health care, the issues discussed in the text, frequently mentions how the U.S., which he calls "this great experiment," is unique. TFD (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

One editor's exposition of U.S. "values" in the lead seems long and, to me, overbaked. I left it but think it's problematic. Also, above I merely said that the social criticism of U.S. inequality, incarceration, etc., comes almost always from its wealthy Western allies: The U.S. recommends its social model to Europe and the English-speaking nations too, yet the U.S. has its own social problems. I think a reference to wealthy Western democracies or closest allies might help clarify the why. Otherwise: no strong feelings about the passage. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Why do you call it criticism? TFD (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I've always read it as a list of negative attributes, but call it whatever you like: an exposition of defects, airing dirty laundry, or encyclopedic frankness. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

They could be if you opposed them. But they are deliberate policies supported by the American public and the leaders of both major political parties. The argument in favor of them is that they reduce crime rates and make individuals take responsibility. TFD (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Obviously, there isn't much of a universal consensus (as shown through history) on what is exactly "moral" and "immoral" behavior. Holding a country to a particularized, narrow conception of morality obviously goes against the notion of

WP: Activism. They're intended to be a summarization of the country in an encyclopedic tone of voice. I oppose the death penalty (at least in the vast majority of cases: e.g. perhaps men like Adolf Eichmann would be excluded from this) as well. However, it's not the place of Wikipedia to call a policy ethically "good" or "bad" or what not. Our job is to chronicle things per Wikipedia:Notability. KlayCax (talk

) 05:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

As for morals..Henry J. Steiner; Philip Alston; Ryan Goodman (2008). Henry J. Steiner (ed.). International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals : Text and Materials. Oxford University Press. pp. 705–.

OCLC 1006260943. The United States stands increasingly isolated,at least among Western nations,in its continued use of the death penalty.. Its long been a problem internationally Mark Warren, Death, Dissent, and Diplomacy: The U.S. Death Penalty as an Obstacle to Foreign Relations, 13 William & Mary Law School. J. 309 (2004), The United States' isolation on a core social policy issue would be little more than a statistical curiosity if the death penalty did not arouse such strong feelings abroad and cast so much discredit on America's human rights leadership and long been a concern of the system itself "United States of America: No Return to Execution, the U.S. Death Penalty as a Barrier to Extradition | Office of Justice Programs". www.ojp.gov. The United States is increasingly isolated in the international community because of its acceptance of the death penalty. The United States' isolation on this fundamental human rights issue has considerable consequences for its foreign relations. Moxy-

07:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy: What is your point here? I (at least) am not arguing that the death penalty is wrong; of course it is, but the United States is not the only liberal democracy to use the death penalty, and in honesty, the death penalty is very rarely exercised here, and most states are abolitionist in practice. I think KlayCax is making the argument that it is undue to mention it in the lead -- and I agree with that wholeheartedly, for the same reason that Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore do not mention it. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 18:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The point is that as sourced above its a big deal to all other western countries in this modern age (not Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore non western countries) and to the Justice department itsself despite the POV that it's not with zero sources for the claim. Quote again The United States’ isolation on this fundamental human rights issue has considerable consequences for its foreign relations Moxy- 19:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

KlayCax, I thought I had explained my position clearly but will try again. You are quite correct that there is disagreement about what is or is not moral and articles should not make moral judgments. There is however nothing in the text that holds the U.S. to any particular view. It merely points out that they have a different view from that of similar countries. Maybe they are right and these other countries are wrong. I suppose what may bother you is that you believe the death penalty is wrong and read a criticism into the text. But when Bill Clinton approved an execution of a man in Arkansas, he did not try to hide it, but flew to the state to be present. Obviously he was proud of his actions, unlike for example in the various affairs he had, which he initially denied. TFD (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree that most Americans support high inequality, or mass incarceration for nonviolent offenses. (They did 30 years ago, but that has changed. The death penalty is authorized in fewer states every decade.) That discussion's off topic anyway. In the lead, a lengthy series of high U.S. rankings is followed by a rather sober, even somber, listing. It's there because the U.S. has received criticism for these things, and many editors see text like this in the lead as negative finger-pointing and a moral judgment. For that reason, it's removed regularly. Q: Should the listing be explained or qualified? What is the context to mention it at all? As one of the more controversial passages in this article for quite a while, might its wording be finalized and ultimately covered in the FAQs at top? Mason.Jones (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we should decide this after we shorten the existing lead. It has massively increased already from 599 words to 755 in just two and a half weeks. We should shrink the lead to be similar to

talk

) 03:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Collective: Start a new topic thread: "Length" (this one is "Death Penalty"). Also come with better arguments. An article lead about a major power of 331 million won't have the word count of a small nation with the population of Tennessee (6.9 million). Mason.Jones (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Golbez: Can you explain to me what you mean by we already have a leader of the senate in the infobox? Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The Vice President. --Golbez (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Isn't the Vice President part of the executive branch? If so, could we swap the Vice President with the Senate Majority Leader? Interstellarity (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The Vice President is also president of the senate. And no, we couldn't. --Golbez (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

So instead of asking me why I reverted your edit (asked and answered), you should be trying to convince us your edit is proper. IMO, we don't need many posts in the infobox; personally I don't even think we should have the Chief Justice there, and I'm not even too keen on the speaker, but at least that is a constitutional position, unlike majority leader and chief justice. If it were just up to me I'd just have President and VP there, but thankfully it's not just up to me. --Golbez (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

nb: I was mistaken that chief justice is not a constitutional position. Apologies. --Golbez (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that we should include the Majority Leader in there because they are the person that holds the real power in the senate. They serve as the spokesperson for the party in control of the senate. You don’t see the Vice President go into the senate chamber and discuss the issues. Interstellarity (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Should removal all but the P and VP as its not a listing of United States presidential line of succession. Moxy- 17:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

You cannot say both that they have hold the real power and they are a spokesman for the party. While some house majority leaders, vice presidents, speakers and chief justices have been powerful, others have not. I agree with removing all but the president and vice-president. TFD (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I also agree with Moxy

talk

) 20:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Under the U.S. Constitution, the vice president is a member of the legislative branch. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

A "chief justice" is referred to in article one, in reference to presidential impeachment. I have assumed that the CJ is thus a constitutional officer, even if not mentioned in article three. I'm not opposed to the speaker and CJ being listed in the infobox. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I support the idea of listing only the president & vice president. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The President, Vice President, Chief Justice, and Speaker of the House should all be listed, as they're all described in the Constitution, and leaders of their respective and coequal branches of government. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Rockstone: list all four—this reflects the importance of the three equal branches of government and the system of checks and balances. The executive has far more power in other countries, and scholars speak of a relatively "weak" U.S. president. (The French, Brazilian, Colombian, and Philippine presidents are all more powerful.) A U.S. exception. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Except only the president can tell other members of his branch of government what to do. TFD (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: but the others are still considered the head of the other branches. The President is the single most powerful member of the government, but Congress is the most powerful branch. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but the president runs the executive branch, while the speaker does not run Congress. In fact, she is speaker of only one house of Congress. TFD (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

To better track this discussion, why don’t we list our arguments in A : It should be changed to just President and Vice President, B : It should remain the same, or C : an alternative proposal.

• A or B - I'm content with either version. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• I strongly prefer B . Other countries with Presidential systems list multiple people in the Government section of the infobox. See, for example: Brazil, Argentina, South Korea, and Mexico. Moving to A would be a break from what other articles do. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Question based on ignorance of who these people are. Do these positions have an impact on daily politics and legislation. It's an old article here and they are not mentioned in any way be it in the present or historically? As a Canadian watching international news these people never come up.....are they in the news in the USA.....are they relevant to society?Moxy- 02:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  No worries! Well, the Speaker's trip to Taiwan has caused a potential crisis within the Taiwan Strait, so from an international perspective, she is right now relevant. Her actions are important as they set priorities within the House, and she has multiple other powers; her name is mentioned fairly often. The speaker is the closest thing we have in the United States to a prime minister. The chief justice provides the namesake of each supreme court "era"; for example, the current court is referred to as the Roberts Court, and while he does not have more voting power than the other justices, his role as chief justice gives him additional powers, such as to set the docket. He comes up fairly often in the news when the court is in session. He's more powerful than the Chief Justice of Canada. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  I am sure that a visit to Taiwan by the Secretary of State would have caused more controversy, so why not mention them too? They are also near the top in the laws of presidential succession. Historically, they are also better remembered.

  The reason that Canada's Supreme Court justices are not considered powerful is that there are no major disputes for them to decide. Bora Laskin (1973-1984), who was in office during the patriation of the constitution and the enactment of the Charter of Rights is however better known to most Canadians than Warren E. Burger (1969-1986) was ever known to Americans. And most Americans could not name a single speaker before Tip O'Neill.

  TFD (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure it would have caused more controversy, but that's irrelevant. I'm confused as to why we want to remove them from the infobox, especially when the other presidential democracies retain them. This just seems like a waste of time. Aside from that, does it matter if the average person would recognize these people? (and yes, the average American would recognize both Nancy Pelosi and John Roberts) The point of this project is to educate, especially on things that people don't already know. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 19:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  It's not irrelevant that a visit by the secretary of state would have caused more controversy because your reason for including the speaker is among other things that her "trip to Taiwan has caused a potential crisis within the Taiwan Strait." Info-boxes are supposed to show key facts at a glance, not be lengthy lists of things editors find important. I agree that both Congress and the Supreme Court are co-equal to the executive, but their leaders have very little power over their own branch of government compared with the President. The speaker cannot tell other members of Congress what to do; the Chief cannot tell associate justices what to do. The U.S. president OTOH can tell everyone in the executive what to do. And unlike the other leaders, he can hire or fire them. TFD (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  But it's ***not*** lengthy. Again, it's exactly how the other presidential democracies do things. Take a gander at Mexico or South Korea. Anyhow, the speaker has the power to remove congresspeople from committees, and the chief justice has the power to set the docket (like I said above). Both of those are powerful. Finally, we don't list these members of government based on whether they are powerful or what they have the power to do, but whether they head a branch of government. Otherwise, in a country like India, with a figurehead Head of State, we'd only list the Prime Minister. (Also, India is a Featured Article with 7 people in its infobox, and 4 within the "government" section. Another reason not to get rid of it here). -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

B @Mox: They most certainly do "come up" in Canadian as well as European media. And as Rockstone says, the Pelosi visit made international headlines for days. She went in spite of the administration's great displeasure. Three separate and coequal branches, which might be called out with names in infobox (C). Mason.Jones (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

B. After reviewing the arguments, I think that we should keep the article the way it is. The infobox isn’t too long, the leaders can fluctuate in overall influence, and they are nominally co-equal in U.S. law. But of a timesink, perhaps the lead should be shortened, not the infobox.

talk

) 03:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say, we've a consensus to exclude the US Senate majority leader. Heck, we also exclude the US Senate president pro tempore. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

That's fair. Exclude all members of the government not explicitly named in the Constitution. So yes President and Vice President, House leader, and Chief Justice. No to all else. Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 19:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I assume you meant "House speaker". GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, the president pro tempore is mentioned in the constitution, but we decided some time ago (also see here) not to list that office in the infobox. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC) (edited 06:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC))

I think manifest destiny should be mentioned, I saw this was removed. It's a relevant fact about US history and territorial expansion. Andre🚐 18:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Removed because (as worded) it inferred that all expansion westward was based on one pernicious ideology, and thus it involved no other social, philosophical, or economic factors whatsoever. Mason.Jones (talk)

Can we discuss an acceptable wording to include it? I'm not picky about the wording. Andre🚐 04:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I also think it should be included. Even if it wasn't the only ideology centered around expansion, it certainly was a major one that influenced later matters such as the debate over slavery. Perhaps we can say "U.S. territorial expansion was partially encouraged by

talk

) 12:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I like it, sounds good to me 🚐 14:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

This is better discussed under "History," not in the lead. Democrats, Whigs, and other 19th-century intrigue are inappropriate minutiae for the lead. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't added to the lead. It was in the "independence and expansion" section[5]Andre🚐 15:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It most certainly was in the lead: removed by KlayCax there on Aug. 25, then added by you under "History: independence and expansion" on Aug. 26. It's too broad a concept for the country lead and shouldn't be restored to "History" without qualifications. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to my edit that you reverted. My mistake if it was in the lead previously. How about the text proposed by CollectiveSolidarity in the History section. Andre🚐 16:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Still too broad and needs qualification—not using it as a sweeping ideological hammer for all westward expansion. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Um, "U.S. territorial expansion was partially encouraged by manifest destiny, even though it was a controversial belief among Democrats and Whigs and never became a national priority.", is the text proposed, it says "partially," so how is that sweeping? Andre🚐 18:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It's oddly phrased, the cause and effect obscured by syntax and Whigs (who were they?). I believe this is supposed to mean: "Although not a significant ideology among 19th-century American politicians (Presidents Lincoln and Grant shunned it), manifest destiny would play a role in U.S. territorial expansion" [then perhaps explain Dems, Whigs, and add source]. Otherwise this isn't clear or useful. Mason.Jones (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

That feels confusing because we're only saying who isn't for manifest destiny and not the people who were in favor of it. It lacks balance because it sounds like we're pretty much only downplaying it, and not casting it in the light that manifest destiny was a controversial, but significant, viewpoint in the early 19th century - and well, into the mid-20th century too I guess.Andre🚐 21:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Still better than dancing around the subject with indirect details that are never clarified, which is not good in an encyclopedia. I prefer more direct language from the WP article manifest destiny. This is a doctrine and shouldn't be a word salad about some Whigs. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

You keep mentioning the Whigs, I don't really care about the Whigs (no offense, guys). Can we start with a general thrust of what should be said? Right now we've completely removed the phrase "manifest destiny" from the article despite the sources using it extensively. I mean this is just in any high school U.S. history textbook. How about this: "U.S. territorial expansion and imperialism was a controversial topic, justified by some such as Jacksonian Democrats, by the concept of manifest destiny. Lincoln Republicans and anti-imperialists did not support manifest destiny." Andre🚐 22:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this take. Just insert a source and that will be fine.

talk

) 22:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mason.Jones your thoughts on this language and approach? Feel free to workshop? Andre🚐 23:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

No sure how I feel about but waiting to see the possible approach.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Editors Andrevan and Collective are hyping a cultural idea. It's the WP article manifest destiny that downplays its role, not I. That article's lead emphasizes that (1) the idea was contested, (2) it was rarely cited other than in war with Mexico and in Oregon land disputes, (3) the idea "always limped along because of its internal limitations", and (4) it was rejected by prominent Americans ("did not support it" is a rewrite). As for imperialism, that comes at the end of the 19th century and the term can't be thrown around twice in a short sentence about pioneers and new territories. And "anti-imperialist"? I don't think so. The two editors are in the Spanish-American War; this is much earlier westward expansion. The sentence has to be as sober as the WP link—no ideological ax to grind. Mason.Jones (talk)

Agree that "manifest destiny" is a term that, in the nineteenth century at least, was peculiar to the (re)annexation of Texas, the attempt to expand slavery, and the Mexican–American War. By slipshod extension perhaps, it came to be a catchword for all white expansionist impulses and achievements. Now that we are apt to be more aware of those who were harmed by that expansion, it is likely to be treated as something dirty, so is conflated with "imperialism" and "colonialism". Since it doesn't really express a coherent set of widely shared ideals, and especially because we barely mention the annexation and the war, "manifest destiny" doesn't belong in the article. It is linked from the annexation article, which is directly linked from this article. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The Manifest destiny#Spanish–American War section clearly connects manifest destiny to the development of imperialism in the Pacific. Andre🚐 21:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

That article shows that people such as Bryan objected to such usage. It was seen to be a questionable extension of the term at the time. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you sign your posts with four tildes, Mason Jones. I'm not sure what you mean by "hyping a cultural idea." Manifest destiny was a topic I learned about in high school U.S. history, and I don't understand how the article on the U.S. can not mention it at all. Forget imperialism for the moment. How about something like this: "U.S. territorial expansion was a controversial topic, justified by some such as Jacksonian Democrats, by the concept of manifest destiny. Others such as Lincoln Republicans did not support it." Andre🚐 21:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe that as long as it is mentioned somewhere and has information that it was a controversial topic with varying levels of support, the appropriate information will have been conveyed. Besides, this is definitely a topic to be included considering it gets over half a million page views a year[

talk

) 23:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Manifest Destiny shows a daily average of 1,260, which isn't terribly high (United States has a daily average of 46,524). There are probably many subsidiary articles on US history that have a high viewership and that don't get linked to from this article. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)