Talk:United States

Human rights in lead

Map of V-Dem Electoral Democracy Index for 2023

  0.900–1.000

  0.800–0.899

  0.700–0.799

  0.600–0.699

  0.500–0.599

  0.400–0.499

  0.300–0.399

  0.200–0.299

  0.100–0.199

  0.000–0.099

  No data

Should we include human rights at all in the lead of countries? Since the mid-2010s, when it wasn't present on the vast majority of pages outside of historical context, it has gradually expanded to almost every national page in a present tense, including Iran, China, Russia, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, and many others. V-DEM's electoral index seems to be the most frequently cited.

Is this right? Or is this far too subjective? I've always been a skeptic of this gradual creep. But this is probably the right time to address it.

At least by the book, the United States does rank among the highest among the world in human rights, at least according to the V-DEM Electoral Democracy Index for 2023.

On the other hand, should we be using these indexes at all? KlayCax (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Tagging @Moxy:, @Freoh:, @Mason.Jones:., @Hexifi:, @Alexanderkowal:, @Kalivyah:. KlayCax (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

This particular index is about democratic governance, not human rights, and it is wrong to conflate the two, however putting it in the lede like Hexifi said is fine Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The U.S. ranks similarly on their other indices. But this is the only one with a Wikipedia infograph now that the coding broke for charts on here. KlayCax (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

If those indexes are on human rights and are well respected in academia then having a sentence saying,

in human rights indexes, the US often ranks very high

but more sophisticated Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Can we even rank human rights, though? At least in a way that meets WP: NPOV? There's assumptions and bias that inherently go along with it. KlayCax (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

yeah it's tough, that's why I said only if they are a subject of sustained criticism (or praise lol) Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is a way to numerically rank a concept like human rights that doesn't involve some inherent bias. Like what even goes into it, should it include actions in foreign countries, or only domestic, if so, why? Should you get more points for women's rights or minority right's, or equal, if so, why? These are all questions that get to the heart of a person's worldview, and they're questions that are impossible to answer without being opinionated, I.E. bias. If anyone wants to include an attributed opinion like "According to X index, the United states is Y in Human rights" that would probably be fine, but this does raise some interesting questions. Hexifi (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

"human rights" is a very different thing to "electoral democracy" if you wish to list electoral democracy among the things it is highest in, it would arguably fit, but human rights encompasses so much more than just democracy. While I do think it would still be opinionated if you put "highest in electoral democracy" it could be argued that the opinion in question is from a expert source, though it should still be attributed.

TL;DR "one of the highest in human rights" is too broad and opinionated, but if you wanted to put a sentence like "in the V-DEM electoral index, it is one of the highest" that would arguably be fine. Hexifi (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I have my own criticisms about these type of indexes, but that is a very different discussion, for now, I'll just say that that we shouldn't have "Ranks highest in human rights" Hexifi (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

V-DEM states that the United States meets this. In their liberal democracy index, the nation ranks higher than Canada and many other nations in Western Europe, so I don't think "your own criticisms" is meaningless here.

There should probably be a (Wikipedia-wide) consensus on when "human rights" belongs on pages. Right now, it's heavily inconsistent. @Hexifi:. KlayCax (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hexifi. I agree that human rights goes well beyond democracy ("electoral" or any other). The original claim, one of the highest, does seem too broad and opinionated.

@KlayCax: The indexes are problematical. I'd also prefer to avoid any blanket statement based on several indexes using different criteria and providing disparate numerical rankings. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

We should probably call a RFC on human rights being on pages in general, @Mason.Jones:. Since this is clearly something that goes far beyond the U.S. (On a Wikiproject page. Not this one.)

V-DEM claims that the U.S. is one of the highest. But, as you stated, I don't like these indices in general. KlayCax (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax. Some countries—often small, neutral nations— consistently rank high in all measures of human rights. They even play an activist role, so a global RfC like that wouldn't go far. The U.S., a huge military superpower with many secrets, vast intelligence agencies, and controversies (Guantánamo alone) isn't going to attain a "highest" score across all aspects of human rights. To make a bold claim based on a grab bag of U.S. rankings, none of them really stellar if I read them correctly, seems questionable. This isn't GDP, worker productivity, or soft power, and I think it should be withdrawn. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

This probably needs to be addressed on a Wikiproject page rather than here. You could make the same critiques about France, for instance, but we still list them as ranking highly in human rights. I've been trying to scrap "human rights" from the lead's of articles forever. However, I've been consistently overruled on that, and we can't have a case where we have different standards of the U.S. vs. every other article. KlayCax (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

feel free to start one, and then clarify on the policy article Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm busy with work. (Hence why I've not been active over the past month.) But if someone wants to start one I'll comment on it. Not sure which Wikiproject article it should be on.

However, I oppose an American exceptionalist view that excludes any mention of the U.S. and human rights in the lead while including it in every other present national article. KlayCax (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm too new to do a proper widereaching one Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion, however I think putting the index in the lede is unnecessary, if a government has a poor human rights record and receives criticism for it then I think just state that. To clarify, I don't think the index is useful for the reader when the values are in isolation, they are used comparatively Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Individual statistics should not be in the lead WP: COUNTRYLEAD. That said.... Saying that the country has good humans rights record is easily academically sourced if need be.Moxy🍁 22:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The issue here is that "Good humans rights record" is an inherently subjective statement, to borrow something I've said earlier in the topic, what even goes into it, should it include actions in foreign countries, or only domestic, if so, why? Should you get more points for women's rights or minority right's, or equal, if so, why? These are all questions that get to the heart of a person's worldview, and they're questions that are impossible to answer without the answer being an opinion. Saying that "this country has a good human rights record" should be allowed because you can find an academic source that agrees with it is like saying "this country is great" should be allowed because you can find an academic source that agrees with it, they are opinions. As I've mentioned previously, you can put academic opinions in an article, but they need to be attributed, I.E. "according to X person/index this country is Y on human rights," even then they probably shouldn't be in the lede.

TL;DR "This country has a good human rights record" is an opinion, meaning that it must be attributed, and probably shouldn't be in the lede. Hexifi (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Disagree if we can find academic publications that state this....it is our job to educate our readers. That said the statement shouldn't be based on one index.... but an academic evaluation of assessments. The International Journal of Human Rights is prominently used. But I tell my students to start their research here. Moxy🍁 23:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The issue that I'm getting at is that even if The International Journal of Human Rights describes the country as good on human rights, how they determine that is subjective and opinionated. Human rights are not quantifiable in the same way as something like GDP is, any statement about human rights by any authority necessarily entails the values and beliefs of that authority, meaning that it cannot be a fact, but merely an interpretation of existing facts, and as such cannot be stated as an objective fact within the article, at best it can be stated as an expert opinion, meaning that "According to the The International Journal of Human Rights, the United States has a good track-record on human rights" would be valid, but just "the United States has a good track-record on human rights" wouldn't be. Hexifi (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Every contentious topic is subjective and opinionated..... This is why we lead our readers to academic sources so they can learn more and make informed decisions. Our job is not to omite information because Wikipedia editors don't understand or because it gives a bad taste in someone's mouth...... We are simply here to regurgitate what academic sources say. Not our place to evaluate what academics have to say.... You simply here to State the facts.Moxy🍁 00:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The statement that "The United States has a good record on human rights" is purely ideological, it is not describing any real thing about the history or reality of the united states, it is describing a framework to view those real things through. We can imagine two people who hold completely opposing views on whether that statement is correct, but don't at all disagree about any of the facts about the United States history or present, they just have different frameworks, different ideologies, they view those facts through. Wikipedia can describe the facts in question, it can describe the ideologies in question, and it can say which ideology is favored by academics, but it cannot say that one ideology is correct and another wrong. Hexifi (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

This is strictly your opinion.... From my point of view there's a whole academic discipline devoted to this topic with many publications that have been quantified by many academics. Moxy🍁 00:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe an analogy would help illustrate what I am trying to say. Lets imagine an evolutionary biologist who says "Humans are the most important species to every exist." That statement, could be academic consensus, every scientist in the world could say yeah to that, but that doesn't mean it should be said on a Wikipedia article, because its not a statement about the biological facts of humans, its a statement about how scientists interpret the biological realities of humans, and Wikipedia articles, shouldn't value certain interpretations over others, if it wanted too, a Wikipedia article could say "academic consensus says that humans are the most important species to every exist." That would be presenting one of many world-views, rather than telling the reader which world-view is correct. Hexifi (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Going to have a long way to go to get rid of human Rights everywhere in the encyclopedia. Wondering if all those with an MA in human rights should just give up and wash cars for a living. Moxy🍁 00:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a blatant misinterpretation of what I'm saying. Let's walk through this step by step.

Every country has done good and bad things, this cannot be argued.

Different educated people can value those good and bad things differently, this is an ideology, this also cannot be argued.

Therefore, looking at the entire history of a country and assigning a value of their overall good or badness will depend on the persons ideology.

Therefore, it shouldn't be presented in a Wikipedia article as a fact.

Ok, now go back and replace "good" with "positive human rights" and "Bad" with "Negative human rights." Hexifi (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Imagine a fictional country called ghmeristan, that, in its entire existence has only done two things, it gave women the right to vote, and it did a whole bunch of war crimes in the neighboring country. What is their record on human rights, is it good, medium, bad, that will depend on how you weigh those things, it will depend on your ideology. If a Wikipedia article said "ghmeristan has a good human rights record" it would be treating an ideology as fact, it would be bias, it shouldn't be allowed. Hexifi (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It's significant that the U.S. rates highly in democracy and human rights and is comparable to other liberal democracies, which by definition rank highly in democracy and human rights. Although there is subjectivity in the indices, there is broad agreement on the broad rankings.

Positive might be better than good, because there are some problems with democracy and human rights in democracies, especially with how little they respect them in countries over which they have influence. TFD (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The point that I have reiterated many times now in this topic is that "the United States rates highly in human rights" is an opinion. It is undeniable that the United States has done bad things in the past, and does bad things now, so determining the overall ranking in human rights, depends on how you weigh those things, which is an opinion, and should not be presented as fact.

To say this again, I would be fine with it if it was attributed, saying "according to X the United States rates highly in human rights" because that would present it as the interpretation of X, which it is.

On Wikipedia, we shouldn't be telling the reader how to interpret facts, we should only tell them facts, and let them form their own interpretations of those facts. Hexifi (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Conclusions that have consensus support in reliable sources are usually treated as facts for brevity and to avoid false equivalency. For example, we might report company earnings as facts, but the primary source is the company itself with an auditor's "opinion." TFD (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The thing in question is not a conclusion, it is an interpretation. It is possible to have two people who completely agree on every fact about the United States, but disagree on whether it has a good human rights record or not. The issue with your analogy is that a company earning is a fact, the only thing in question there is whether those facts are accurate. In the case of the United States, the two people completely agree on the facts. A better analogy would be if someone took those company statistics and said "this is a good company" in the Wikipedia article, because that is an interpretation of the facts of the company earnings, two people can agree on the earnings of a company, and completely disagree on if it's good or not, and as such "this is a good company" wouldn't make it into a Wikipedia article, and even then goodness of a company is even less subjective than human rights, because company success only really encompasses a few variables, while we can imagine thousands of variables that determine if a country has good human rights. Hexifi (talk) 03:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

To directly quote Wikipedia policy "For instance, the article on Shakespeare should note that he is widely considered one of the greatest authors in the English language by both scholars and the general public. It should not, however, state that Shakespeare is the greatest author in the English language." An article on the United States could say it is considered to have a good record on human rights, but cannot say that it has a good record on human rights. Hexifi (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not particularly interested in reiterated the same stuff for the hundredth time, so unless someone has a well thought-out argument for how the level of human rights in a country is an objective fact, or how the Wikipedia policy for describing opinions and reputations shouldn't apply to describing this specific opinion, I will be done with this topic. Hexifi (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

This would need to be changed on a Wikiproject level, @Hexifi:. I agree with a lot of your critiques, however.

See Iran's lead:

The government is authoritarian and has attracted widespread criticism for its significant violations of human rights and civil liberties.

or China's

albeit ranking poorly in measures of democracy, human rights and religious freedoms

And so on. We include it for all the world's major countries. What you're asking for is changing the way that Wikipedia does articles on nations.

This would have to be asked on a Wikiproject page. Since there's nothing anyone here can do about current policy on the matter. V-DEM's generally considered the standard on democratic health so that's what the article reflects. (There was a general agreement on another page that The Economist's and Freedom House were significantly inferior.) KlayCax (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Honestly if I can put my opinions aside and look at it on a pure policy level, I'm kind of ok with the lead on Iran, not saying it has a bad human rights record, which is an opinion, but saying it has been criticized for its human rights record, which is a fact.

On a much broader level I would prefer if every mention of things that are semi-ideological, like "democracy" or "religious freedoms" required attribution, but for now my main problem is the use of "human rights" as objective fact, due to the fact that unlike stuff that is semi-ideologically determined, whether a country has a good human rights record is purely-ideologically determined.

I don't disagree with getting a Wikiproject wide policy on stuff like this. Hexifi (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

If you feel you can make a concise and coherent argument it might be best to let someone else 'chair' it Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you clarify exactly what you mean by that? Hexifi (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I only say because I personally would struggle a lot to be neutral whilst also trying to make an argument. I think I've misunderstood, were you not talking about chairing the RfC on the policy level? Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest I can't say I would be willing the participate very much at all in a potential RfC, I think I've stated my opinion quite clearly and quite a few times, to the point where I'm not entirely willing to stick my head back into the rat's nest, so to speak.

In plain English, I'm tired and don't want to participate in this debate anymore. Hexifi (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I see we have an addition of one index.... we should be using a comprehensive study like "Most of the world's countries receive failing grade in global 'human rights report card'". The University of Rhode Island. 2023-12-07. Retrieved 2024-06-05.. Using just one index. is not very good because different indexes will claim different things..... need an academic assessment. Moxy🍁 20:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

from a non local source/publisher? Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what you're saying.....its from "The CIRIGHTS Data Project the largest human rights dataset in the world. Published by academics like David Cingranelli, Mikhail Filippov.and David L. Richards. We are currently using V-Dem... one of many indexes....that is relatively new and used supplementary by the academic community. Also V-Dem measures democratic institution levels with only a bit of human rights on the side. Moxy🍁 20:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Should we not be using one that specialises in human rights? If this is the one used in academia then go with it. My comment was in regard to individual sources assessing a country's human rights, the bias and inconsistency of using one source, differing each time, would be problematic, but I realise that wasn't what you were saying Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

.... They all say pretty close to the same thing.... United States ranks 20th to about 50th..... In the middle of democratic countries countries. Moxy🍁 21:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Is that for democracy? For human rights it's really important we pick one well respected and has many direct factors, rather than indirect indicators like democracy, most people on this planet are apolitical and (unfortunately imo) accept hierarchy, human rights should relate to well being, not just individualism or the individual imo Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes .... Has linked above https://www.uri.edu/news/2023/12/most-of-the-worlds-countries-receive-failing-grade-in-global-human-rights-report-card/ Moxy🍁 21:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Might this be imposing individualism on societies that are collectivist? I think I'd argue for human rights evaluation to sometimes be accompanied by a degree of collectivism, like Burkina Faso and Mossi people#Family. This could be done by the inverse of studies on individualism Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Foreign relations: developing countries

I would like to add these sentences to the end of the section that refer to the US' relations with developing countries.

The U.S. is the biggest donor of development aid worldwide. Unrelatedly it has been argued extensively that US foreign policy is directed by commercial interest, with some stipulating the use of multinational corporations and state capture in developing countries amounts to neocolonialism.

This content is extremely relevant to the section, it outlines the US' relations with approximately 50 countries. One sentence is positive, one is negative. They are both heavily cited and are removed from ideology. The sweeping statement about US foreign policy being directed by commercial interest is well cited, however I can provide more, and gives context to the next clause.

Please let me know what you think, and how this can be improved, although I hope we can agree the premise is appropriate. Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Citations to support the statement about commercial interest

• [1]: Throughout most of American history, commercia interests have played a central role in foreign policy
• [2] a book on Economic interest and United States foreign policy
• [3]: I present evidence that economic interests in their home states were closely related to senators' voting patterns on foreign policy issues. These patterns hold across economic and security issues.
• [4] this book goes into depth about this, chapter 5 is The American Empire and the U.S. economy
• [5] this book also discusses it referring to the guiding hand of economic interest

Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

With obvious manipulation, you juxtapose high amounts of U.S. developmental aid in the global South (source: OECD) with insinuations that such aid has cynically imperialistic and neo-colonialist objectives (your sources: Afrocentric "anti-colonialist" texts). You are inserting sweeping ideological polemics into a very general section of a country article, rather than incorporating it into a sub-article specifically devoted to imperialism, colonialism, or developing nations. The syntax is convoluted; the content is egregiously POV. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

This is really pathetic, either WP:Assume good faith or I won't engage with you. Articles need to have input from multiple POVs in order to reach WP:NPOV and this is one of those. I've worded it to leave room for contest, and it is not ideological at all. Please take a breather and come back to this later with a clearer mind. I'm not fond of the threats on my talk page Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I discerned through your accusations and drivel a valid point, so I've put "unrelatedly" at the start of the sentence Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume good faith after seeing your past edits (and history of warnings), and this contribution is similarly egregious. Others here will decide if it meets WP criteria. For the record, I'm a definite "no ". Mason.Jones (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I haven't had a history of warnings? I think you're being utterly ridiculous, either be constructive or don't engage, otherwise you are WP:Not here Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, Wikivoice statements of human rights shouldn't be in Wikipedia articles at all. KlayCax (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

But isn’t option 7 correct to say some state this, some use this, I’m not sure how I could insert a different voice Alexanderkowal (talk) 06:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm adding the reference list below so that they will not push down to the bottom of the page.Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

References

RfC: foreign relations with developing countries

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This was done very badly and was too combative. Starting a new one in order to be more inducive for discussion

---

On whether to include these two sentences at the end of the Foreign relations section about the US' relations with developing countries:

The U.S. is the biggest total donor of development aid worldwide, with a demonstrable positive impact. It has been argued that US foreign policy is directed by commercial interest, with some stipulating that the use of multinational corporations and state capture in developing countries amounts to neocolonialism.

Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support The proposal is balanced with one positive sentence, one negative, and its inclusion of a non-US POV is vital for this page to adhere to WP:NPOV. The second sentence is extremely well cited, the syntax logical, and the wording leaves it open to challenge from the reader.

Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

this is a very serious issue in contemporary Africa, evidenced by the suspected US backed coup in the DRC a few weeks ago [6] [7] [8] Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. A theoretical word salad tacked onto the end of a general summation of current U.S. foreign policy (not its alleged selfish underpinnings). This belongs in a sub-article, along with pedantic terms like "state capture". The word "unrelatedly" is awkward and disingenuous, as the second sentence is very "related" to the first. The 12 sources arrayed in battle formation look calculated. An ideological diatribe.

Mason.Jones (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Complete and utter nonsense, if you try to bully any more editors I’ll report you. Act constructively or don’t act at all, otherwise you are WP:Not here Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

You have a history of WP:Personal attacks and you clearly haven’t learnt from your warnings Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I will retract one word: "pedantic" should read "esoteric." Otherwise: as it reads.

Mason.Jones (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I genuinely don’t think any of your points are valid, they suffer immensely from a tunnel vision POV which you are locked in. Your defamatory remarks towards are disgraceful. I have always edited in good faith, despite not always being familiar with policy, and this is another example, people can look on my talk page and the above exchange if they want to see more of your aggressive vitriol. Your conduct has no place on Wikipedia. Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

"State capture" is not esoteric, it is pagelinked to and intuitive. Maybe you could suggest a better word than unrelatedly that creates distance between the two sentences? Battle formation, really, this is childish, the sources back up both clauses so obv there are lots. There is no ideology involved in this at all, and if there is I'd be curious to hear it. A completely one sided account with no mention of the actual content. Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Alexanderkowal: The text is polemical deflection, and reads like it. I won't add anything further. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I genuinely don't understand what that means. It has been carefully worded to ensure the reader can challenge it, which I expect most to naturally. It is not polemical, you just receive it that way because you love your country and can't bear to see anything negative about it. Regardless, this is a wikipedia, and sentiment is not involved in any of wikipedia's policies that I know of. Whilst that sentence is negative, it is at the end of the day constructive criticism, not insinuating anything about the US' nature but its actions. You have acted extremely improperly and I'm amazed you haven't apologised yet. Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, very high-level sentences without much direct impact. The USA is the largest economy, ceteris paribus you'd expect it to provide the most aid. All countries include economic motives within their foreign policy. Multinational corporations work both with the US and independently along a spectrum, but they certainly don't exist simply as tools of the US government. I am not sure what it means to "use state capture". All these considerations also apply to the USA's foreign policy interactions with developed countries. Neocolonialism also exists along a spectrum with normal foreign policy. Overall, these isolated sentences don't tell the readers much. CMD (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Don’t tell the readers much?? It details the US’ relations with developing countries and includes a different POV, since this article is not at all neutral at the moment. These sentences are very informative and heavily cited, I really don’t think that’s valid. If you looked at the sources you’d see that MNCs are sometimes used as tools for the government. It is not unique to the US however the US has faced the most criticism for it. Alexanderkowal (talk) 06:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  I’ve edited the proposal to make clear that the aid has a positive impact and then removed unrelatedly, which imo sorts out the issue Alexanderkowal (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how those are related to what I said. The sentences do not detail anything other than that the US gives aid and engages in normal foreign policy, just phrased with a very obvious viewpoint and interpretation. I'm not sure what the issue you mention is with the current text, it seems to be mostly bland statements and disconnected sentences. CMD (talk) 06:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  They are clearly connected, as your previous point made. You’re imposing your POV on this now, the point is that it is contested that this is just normal acceptable foreign policy, regardless norms aren’t relevant or referred to. Please read the provided sources as you don’t seem to understand this issue. Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  When reading, try to discern through the bias the valid points, these are scholarly sources. I appreciate reading things with bias you disagree with is difficult Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  What is my supposed bias here, and what do I disagree with? CMD (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  You said the US is just practicing normal foreign policy which is a clear POV, and you seem to disagree that the practices referred to are detrimental or improper, which leads me to believe you have a slight US bias which would make reading things with a different bias difficult. Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  View some of these sources as the African POV, tbh I haven't even given sources from the Latin American POV which there are plenty of. I have a slight African bias which was why my initial proposal was unsatisfactory Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  I have not commented in any particular way on whether anything in this discussion is detrimental or non-detrimental, proper or improper, nor am I inclined to view any particular source as "the African POV". A reader or reviewer can consider my initial comments to stand as-is. CMD (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  That's ridiculous, everything comes from a POV. You should be inclined to view some of these sources as the African POV because that is the truth, and I can back that up with a lot more. I hope a reader would discern that your comments are biased and carelessly dismissive. Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - (from WP:RFC/A) This looks almost exactly like the textbook example of WP:SYNTH given in said policy link, and saying "unrelatedly" does not counter the action of putting the two sentences next to each other; doing so automatically implies a related statement, just from the paragraph structure! Fieari (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  This isn’t WP:Synth at all, this is clearly stated in the sources provided, I don’t think that’s valid. Unrelatedly is not the right word, however I can’t think of another way to create distance between the two sentences. Alexanderkowal (talk) 06:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  I’ve edited the proposal to make clear the aid has a positive impact and removed unrelatedly, which solves the issue Alexanderkowal (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - I think that the high-level balance of these sentences makes sense. imo extensively should probably be dropped, and the second sentence should have less detail. The key idea being conveyed is that (1) the US is the biggest donor and has contributed substantially to developing countries, while (2) there is notable criticism that its foreign policy is driven by commercial interest, is exploitative and interventionist.spintheer (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed Alexanderkowal (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think the detail is minimal and intuitive for the reader, with page links if it isn’t, however I suppose exploitative could be inserted as a replacement Alexanderkowal (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:USA, WP:Africa, WP:Economics, WP:USGOV, WP:WPID, and WP:LAC have been notified of this discussion Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - B/c 1) it's misleading. It makes the US sound generous, which, in terms of %GDP it is not and 2) the whole "Neocolonialism" thing may be accurate, but its definitely interpretative commentary rather than just dry facts, and Wikipedia is not for commentary. NickCT (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  1) I don’t think it’s misleading, it is biggest by a long way, what changes would you make so it isn’t?

  2) the neocolonialism part is an accusation, plenty of country articles include accusations and controversy and this is a clearly notable one Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  1) It's the biggest nominally. But countries like Sweden or Germany give way more as a % of GDP. Sweden and Germany are effectively more generous donors than the US, and that nuance is lost if you just say the US is the "biggest donor".

  2) Are encyclopedic articles meant to harbor accusations? NickCT (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  1) that's valid, I'll change it to 'total'? I can't think of a better term

  2) Yes, in WP:COUNTRYSECTIONS it says: Avoid sections focusing on criticisms or controversies. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections.

  Accusations are included in the ledes of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Iran; note that I am only talking about the body here Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Please see MOS:ACCUSED Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm adding the reference list below so that they will not push down to the bottom of the page.Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lede history

@Chipmunkdavis how should we summarise the opponents? The status quo implies the land was empty. Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

No it doesn't. If you read "Rome had expanded its rule to most of the Mediterranean and beyond" does that imply the land is empty? CMD (talk) 09:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

It would if it was a common implication or trope Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The article covers the negotiations, purchases, and wars that brought about the border changes, there's no trope there. CMD (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Which is good, and the lede needs to summarise that in a clause, sort of like you’ve done there Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

It does not need to, the article is about the United States and the paragraph is already quite long. I would similarly not expect the Roman Empire page to explain in the lead that it expanded through diplomacy and military action, it can be assumed. CMD (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

If that's the case then I think the sentence on American-Indians needs another clause alluding to their civilisations and societies Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

How about:

... 12,000 years ago, and went on to form many civilisations and societies.

Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Forming "civilisations" is not mentioned on that page, and it is also redundant to mention societies were formed. Regarding the paragraph as a whole, the Paleo-Indians (not, at that point, American-Indians) are the only demographic group mentioned besides perhaps slaves, and slavery is mentioned explicitly to explain a civil war. CMD (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Do I need to get a ref that says American-Indians formed societies and civilisations? It is fine to conflate Paleo-Indians and American-Indians, especially with the wording "and went on to" which implies passed time and an evolution. You can't have a summary of US history without mentioning Native Indians. The status quo does not summarise the body adequately. Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

See Mississipian culture, mentioned in the body, which its lede describes as a Native American civilisation Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

'cultures and societies' may work better than 'civilizations and societies'. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

agreed, I'll change it Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Alexanderkowal. Your eagerness to "right great wrongs" here is duly noted, but Wikipedia reminds editors to avoid a "corrective" agenda to create a certain narrative. Your attempts to edit (in British English), RfC, and verbosely question every point in U.S. history will not win consensus. Your daily number of interventions is excessive, and your queries about minor wording are petty. You will be disciplined if you continue to commandeer the text and this Talk page. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

That is ridiculous, disciplined for what? I haven't edited US history at all, I don't even know what you're talking about. My errors in editing in British english are of course inadvertent, and rfc is the appropriate action. Furthermore you still haven't apologised for the personal attacks you've unilaterally levied. It looks like you're trying to scare off and bully a newcomer who you disagree with, and I hope that is not the case. Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Furthmore I reject your characterisation of me, I study African history because I'm genuinely interested in it and I find African cultures and societies more intuitive than my own. I shouldn't need to say that. Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Instead of trying to silence me, you could WP:Assume good faith and provide constructive input on my edits, whilst nominally opposing the ones you disagree that their content is not relevant or due. Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Does it make sense to summarise the recent addition to the native american history section in the lede? If so, maybe

Paleo-Indians migrated across the Bering land bridge more than 12,000 years ago, and went on to form various civilisations and societies.

Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Sentence on Native American history in lede

@Mason.Jones why have you reverted my edit? The reasons you have given are not at all valid. There is no such thing as unnecessary editing. Your polemical opposition to everything I do and inability to work collaboratively is beginning to make me think you are WP:Not here Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Here, I believe, is the diff:[9] It's a revert to the lead section; removing "verbose and unnecessary" text from an article's lead section would be in line with MOS:LEAD. Alexanderkowal, some subtleties can be lost in text-only conversation like this and I don't know how you intend your posts to sound, but to me, these talk page messages read as hostile and accusatory. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Our first interaction is here User talk:Alexanderkowal#United States, if you look at this and previous discussion on this page, we've been in dispute. I really don't think it's been my conduct that is the problem, however I appreciate this particular comment reads badly. I'm just trying to edit constructively and collaboratively and am frustrated at the personal attacks and agenda driven obstruction. I'm also dismayed at the lack of input from administrators. Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to summarise the body per MOS:LEDE and at the moment the section on Native American history is not summarised, even in a sentence. My edit was just a one clause summarising the whole of native american history, verbose and unnecessary is clearly wrong and invalid. Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

We've also been talking on his talk page, where I've tried to reconcile and understand his point of view, and yet all I get more personal attacks and mischaracterisations. I'm hoping we can patch things up. Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Native American history section

Hi, I think the section on Native American history can be improved by giving a very brief overview of the different regions of the subcontinent and refer to the polities/civilisations that were in each one. My proposal's below, please feel free to give feedback Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Changing this:

Indigenous peoples and cultures such as the Algonquian peoples, Ancestral Puebloans, and the Iroquois developed across the present-day United States.

to this:

In the post-archaic period, the Mississippian cultures were located in the midwestern, eastern, and southern regions, and the Iroquois in the Great Lakes region, while the Hohokam culture and Ancestral Puebloans inhabited the southwest.

Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems good to me. You'd just need a citation for it, @Alexanderkowal:. I however don't think that the California Indian Catastrophe/Genocide & the Trail of Tears is more notable, than, say the Sand Creek massacre.

(Either in long-term destruction or suffering.) They're just the most well-known. KlayCax (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you talking about putting that in the body? I didn't put the trail of tears there, but I agree it is undue, maybe just linking to Native American genocide in the United States in a way that isn't POV pushing? Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

This discussion would be a lot easier if there was a consistent definition of genocide in the literature, @Alexanderkowal:. There's unfortunately not. KlayCax (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't find a sentence like the one above, but [10] discusses all of the ones mentioned, but calls the Ancestral Puebloans Anasazi.

Is it worth now summarising this in the lead by putting "12,000 years ago, and went on to form various civilisations and societies."? Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Please keep discussion of the same topic in the same talkpage section. CMD (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I was premature anyway, ignore my above comment Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The Iroquois did not inhabit "the Northwest" (meaning the Pacific Northwest—see the link) but the area of the Great Lakes, incl. New York State and eastern Canada. "Post-archaic period" is pedantic and jarring for the lede; this entire article is general in nature. "Whilst" is British English. It has to go. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

This proposal is for the body. You're right, I mixed up west and east lol, I'll change it, Great Lakes may be better. I'll change "whilst" to "while", I didn't know that was a thing Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

You need a source for the statement as well. KlayCax (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Which statement? Alexanderkowal (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I can construct another proposal where the first clause of the second sentence comes from [11] and [12]? Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The introduction of [13] discusses US policy towards developing countries and states that "US citizens believe that the United States, as a rich country, bears a responsibility to assist in economic development on humanitarian grounds" but also states aid is given with certain conditions that favour the US economically. Economic imperialism links to American imperialism and neocolonialism links to Neocolonialism#United States:Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Requesting Change

While reading I noticed that in the "history" section under cold war it says 1945-1941... Its supposed to say 1945-1991. I would change it but its protected so somebody else can. 174.240.251.137 (talk) 03:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I have fixed it. Thanks for drawing it to our attention. HiLo48 (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2024

Add 14 territories Depotadore (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Annh07 (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Workshopping a relisting of the rfc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excessive references

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

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

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

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

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

This is a pretty good problem to have. Around 10k words is fairly large for a Wikipedia article, and United States is the most-linked article on the English Wikipedia,[14] so it gets more scrutiny than others. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Culture subsection

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

If you look at the contents of this, it's pretty good: [15]. This one is more problematic and less of what I was thinking: [16] Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 June 2024

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

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

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

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