Talk:United States

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121: 30 days

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q1. How did the article get the way it is?

Archives:

Article Name, Article Introduction, Human Rights, Culture

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

Detailed discussions that led to the current consensus can be found in the archives of Talk:United States. Several topical talk archives are identified in the infobox to the right. A complete list of talk archives can be found at the top of the Talk:United States page.

Q2. Why is the article's name "United States" and not "United States of America"?

Isn't United States of America the official name of the U.S.? I would think that United States should redirect to United States of America, not vice versa as is the current case.

This has been discussed many times. Please review the summary points below and the discussion archived at the Talk:United States/Name page. The most major discussion showed a lack of consensus to either change the name or leave it as the same, so the name was kept as "United States".

If, after reading the following summary points and all the discussion, you wish to ask a question or contribute your opinion to the discussion, then please do so at Talk:United States. The only way that we can be sure of ongoing consensus is if people contribute.

Reasons and counterpoints for the article title of "United States":

"United States" is in compliance with the Wikipedia "common name" portion of the Wikipedia article titles policy. The policy expresses a general preference for the most commonly used name, and "United States" is the most commonly used name for the country in television programs (particularly news), newspapers, magazines, books, and legal documents, including the Constitution of the United States.
- Exceptions are allowed.

If we used "United States of America", then to be consistent we would have to rename all similar articles. For example, by renaming "United Kingdom" to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" or Mexico to "United Mexican States".
- Exceptions to guidelines are allowed. Articles are independent from one another. No rule says articles have to copy each other.
- This argument would be valid only if "United States of America" was a particularly uncommon name for the country.

Well-established encyclopedias in the English language appear to generally use a "common name" policy for article titles. More specifically, the following use "United States" for the title of the corresponding article: MSN Encarta, World Book, Encyclopedia Americana, Columbia, Grolier, and the Micropaedia and online versions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. In our effort to make Wikipedia an "encyclopedia of the highest possible quality," (Jimmy Wales, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", March 8, 2005, <wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org>) we would do well to emulate what these well-established encyclopedias do.
- The Macropaedia version of Britannica uses "United States of America" for its article title.

With the reliability, legitimacy, and reputation of all Wikimedia Foundation projects under constant attack, Wikipedia should not hand a weapon to its critics by deviating from the "common name" policy traditionally used by encyclopedias in the English-speaking world.
- Wikipedia is supposed to be more than just another encyclopedia.

Reasons and counterpoints for the article title of "United States of America":

It is the country's official name.
- The country's name is not explicitly defined as such in the Constitution or in the law. The words "United States of America" only appear three times in the Constitution. "United States" appears 51 times by itself, including in the presidential oath or affirmation. The phrase "of America" is arguably just a prepositional phrase that describes the location of the United States and is not actually part of the country's name.
- The Articles of Confederation explicitly name the country "The United States of America" in article one. While this is no longer binding law, the articles provide clear intent of the founders of the nation to use the name "The United States of America."
The whole purpose of the common naming convention is to ease access to the articles through search engines. For this purpose the article name "United States of America" is advantageous over "United States" because it contains the strings "United States of America" and "United States." In this regard, "The United States of America" would be even better as it contains the strings "United States," "The United States," "United States of America," and "The United States of America."
- The purpose of containing more strings is to increase exposure to Wikipedia articles by increasing search rank for more terms. Although "The United States of America" would give you four times more commonly used terms for the United States, the United States article on Wikipedia is already the first result in queries for United States of America, The United States of America, The United States, and of course United States.

Q3. The United States is the oldest constitutional republic in the world! Why isn't this the case in the article?

Many American students are told the United States was the first constitutional republic in history. This is not true, however. San Marino adopted basic law on October 8, 1600, and Switzerland adopted its constitution through the Federal Charter of 1291.

Within Wikipedia articles it may be appropriate to add a modifier such as "oldest continuous, federal ..."'; however, it is more useful to explain the strength and influence of the U.S. Constitution and political system both domestically and globally. One must also be careful using the word "democratic" due to the limited franchise in early U.S. history and better explain the pioneering expansion of the democratic system and subsequent influence.

The component states of the Swiss confederation were mostly oligarchies during the 18th century, however, being much more oligarchical than most of the United States, with the exceptions of Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Connecticut.

Q4. Why are the Speaker of the House and Chief Justice listed as leaders in the infobox? Shouldn't it just be the President and Vice President?

The President, Vice President, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court are stated within the U.S. Constitution as leaders of their respective branches of government. As the three branches of government are equal, all four leaders get mentioned under the "Government" heading in the infobox.

Q5. What is the motto of the United States?

There was no de jure motto of the United States until 1956, when "In God We Trust" was made such. Various other unofficial mottos existed before that, most notably "E Pluribus Unum". The debate continues on the current status of "E Pluribus Unum" (de facto motto, traditional motto, etc.), but it has been determined that it never was an official motto of the United States.

Q6. Is the U.S. really the world's largest economy?

The United States was the world's largest national economy from about 1880 and largest by nominal GDP from about 2014, when it surpassed the European Union. China has been larger by purchasing power parity, since about 2016.

Q7. Isn't it incorrect to refer to it as "America" or its people as "American"?

In English, America (when not preceded by "North", "Central", or "South") almost always refers to the United States. The large supercontinent is called the Americas.

Q8. Why isn't the treatment of Native Americans given more weight?

The article is written in summary style, and the sections "Indigenous peoples" and "European colonization" summarize the situation.

Q9. Aren't U.S. territories part of the United States?

The territories under U.S. sovereignty are sometimes described by reliable sources^[1] as part of the United States, and territories are treated as domestic for certain purposes like export controls. For other purposes, some territories are considered to be possessions of the United States under U.S. sovereignty, but not part of the country. As Territories of the United States explains, under the Insular Cases, some territories (e.g., Territory of Hawaii, 1900–1959) have been incorporated and made fully part of the United States. All five currently inhabited territories are legally unincorporated, so provisions of the U.S. Constitution like birthright citizenship do not apply there. Unincorporated U.S. territories field their own teams at the Olympics. Puerto Rico is within the main customs territory of the United States, but all other territories are outside of it. Wikipedia remains neutral on whether U.S. territories are part of the United States, as the claim is disputed. Wikipedia generally avoids the issue by stating that the U.S. asserts sovereignty over the unincorporated territories and explaining the details of the relationship where appropriate. (The U.S. territories are also different from the Freely Associated States, which undisputedly retain their own sovereignty and are not part of the United States, even though they make use of U.S. federal services for mail delivery, disaster relief, telecom and aviation regulations, and defense.)

FAQ References:

^ e.g. NBC News: Puerto Rico Is Part Of the U.S.: Here's A Few Things to Know

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a contentious topic.

The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:

This page is protected. You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)

Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

United States was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 15, 2005	Good article nominee	Listed
May 7, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
May 8, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
May 18, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
July 3, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
September 21, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
October 19, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
June 19, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
July 9, 2008	Good article reassessment	Kept
June 27, 2009	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
September 6, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed
January 19, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed
March 18, 2012	Good article reassessment	Delisted
August 10, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed
January 21, 2015	Good article nominee	Listed
February 22, 2020	Good article reassessment	Delisted
December 19, 2020	Peer review	Reviewed
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 3, 2015. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the United States* accounts for 37% of all global military spending?*
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 4, 2008.
Current status: Delisted good article

United States: Government Top‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.
	This article was a past U.S. Collaboration of the Month.

North America Top‑importance

	North America portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry

WikiProject Countries to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy.
Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region.
Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

"The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. August 17, 2009.
"Topics that spark Wikipedia 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. July 18, 2013. Retrieved July 18, 2013.

Other talk page banners

This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 237 million views since December 2007.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 46 times. The weeks in which this happened:

Section sizes

Section size for United States (52 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	22,489	22,489
Etymology	6,182	6,182
History	113	76,976
Indigenous peoples	2,504	2,504
European exploration, colonization and conflict (1513–1765)	9,828	9,828
American Revolution and the early republic (1765–1800)	5,728	5,728
Westward expansion and Civil War (1800–1865)	15,327	15,327
Reconstruction, Gilded Age, and Progressive Era (1863–1917)	13,557	13,557
World War I, Great Depression, and World War II (1917–1945)	5,135	5,135
Cold War and social revolution (1945–1991)	8,336	8,336
Contemporary (1991–present)	16,448	16,448
Geography	7,180	19,685
Climate	5,441	5,441
Biodiversity and conservation	7,064	7,064
Government and politics	7,064	53,741
National government	12,062	12,062
Subdivisions	4,853	4,853
Political parties	2,464	2,464
Foreign relations	12,129	12,129
Military	7,787	7,787
Law enforcement and criminal justice	7,382	7,382
Economy	22,654	46,678
Science and technology	5,861	11,072
Spaceflight	5,211	5,211
Energy	3,243	3,243
Transportation	9,709	9,709
Demographics	63	37,435
Population	6,666	6,666
Language	5,998	5,998
Immigration	3,480	3,480
Religion	6,808	6,808
Urbanization	1,817	1,817
Health	5,493	5,493
Education	7,110	7,110
Culture and society	16,910	80,127
Literature	6,271	6,271
Mass media	6,517	6,517
Theater	2,696	2,696
Visual arts	4,498	4,498
Music	8,842	8,842
Fashion	3,932	3,932
Cinema	8,763	8,763
Cuisine	11,085	11,085
Sports	10,613	10,613
See also	224	224
Notes	472	472
References	30	16,275
Sources	16,245	16,245
External links	504	2,648
Government	496	496
History	322	322
Maps	1,326	1,326
Total	362,932	362,932

No criticisms in lead?

It seems odd that Cuba for example has a laundry list of criticisms in the lead (these seems appropriate; don’t see a need to change them) but this page elides any robust *contemporary* criticism. It seems pretty common for there to be something in the lead of country pages about criticism, human rights violations. I could see something about recent authoritarianism possibly. 2600:100C:B01F:E61A:A45F:2D48:2713:13E0 (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please: "New-Super-Star" Lifferant, right after the Netherlands!

There are other opinions, too.

But they aren't widely represented. Whether Wikipedia online is a dictionary : "US$ 52.1 billion in 2025" ala Budget , plus ".. budget of $14.7 billion"Bohemia de Paris (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not qualified by the rules here to edit the actual page but i concur. I actually just decided to pop over here after seeing how poor the lede on the China page was. Just for balance (not as intense as the requests below) one might want to note that both US scholars have prominently and robustly (through empirical data not only theoretical commentary) shown that the US is functionally not a democracy but an oligarchy. (One could also add the debates about that work if there are neutrality concerns). The lede mostly uses liberal republic which is accurate but the "representative democracy" claim should be modified with the above as well as prominent (and far from anti-American) international observers downgrading the US to a "flawed democracy." (I see there's a separate page which includes that but it seems very peculiar (setting aside more controversial current events) as for many other country pages, such criticisms are cited. Profloab (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw that the oligarchy material is here but relegated to a hover over note with a large amount of citations (and I have to say there are far better, easily accessible sources for that than some of what's there) but I am genuinely confused (like I still don't know all the rule around here) why such important information is basically invisible and not simply in the text (it's not a lot of text). I also don't understand why it's relegated to a subsection when that is not some minor detail or debate. Again, for almost any other country outside Europe, it would be in the lede. Profloab (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 June 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change government from "Federal presidential republic" to "Federal presidential republic under an authoritarian dictatorship" 67.191.144.165 (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:SOAPBOX 2600:100A:B11A:9A19:0:E:A95C:CF01 (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a common consensus among media or other reputable sources. And per WP:FORUM, Wikipedia isn't a place for original thought. Rheild (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Untamed1910 (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should the edit request be a reply to this or a new topic? SydCarlisle (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SydCarlisle If you have a new request, please create a new section with a new template. Lova Falk (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

us in israeli war

us bombs iranian nuclear sites https://apnews.com/article/israel-iran-war-nuclear-talks-geneva-news-06-21-2025-a7b0cdaba28b5817467ccf712d214579 2601:8D:501:C20:860B:EE85:BDAF:B406 (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has indeed done that. However, let us wait and see if it grows into something big before adding this to this article. Lova Falk (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a violation of the NPT and a war of aggression. This would seem noteworthy even if the hot war is over. Profloab (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP search box: United States

For days now, it's become impossible to access this English-language article by typing in the normal characters "US" or even "United" in the search box. Was a decision made to make accessing this article more difficult (perhaps so not to disadvantage "United Kingdom" and other articles titled "United")? Mason.Jones (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

US is a redirect here, not sure why it doesn’t come up re United Kowal2701 (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But it used to come up in every way possible: "United", "US", and even simply "U". Now the country's name isn't called up at all as a search option. This is a significant change, and someone at WP made the decision to exclude "United States" as a search result. Mason.Jones (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably raise it at WP:VPT Kowal2701 (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Mason.Jones (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary (1991 to present)

Today's lesson in contemporary history by the editor Hornets23 totally cherry-picks U.S. history to suit one ideological viewpoint: that of the Democratic Party and its three most recent presidents. I am not a Republican, but this is pure and simple POV, the most egregiously polemical text I've encountered in the article United States. I think it should all be deleted, except perhaps the mention of Hurricane Katrina. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree way too much contemporary information. The man may have dominated politics for a little while.... but this breakdown is overwhelming. Moxy🍁 16:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

im not trying to make the Democratic party as this big beautiful party or promoting on good things by one party, im just saying the January 6, 2021 capital attack should be mentioned just like other events mentioned in the article. Hornets23 (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it was an unfortunate but important day in our country's history that shouldn't be forgotten as many people died that day. Hornets23 (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's fair that the history section probably shouldn't end in 2011, but that was far too long and far too polemical. As for length, I'd note that the article manages to cover 1917 to 1945 in just two paragraphs, and several rather important things happened in those years. As for polemics, aside from the obvious NPOV problem, trying to hide the polemics in citations is a very bad approach indeed and unlikely to win support. It might even cause editors to doubt good faith. As for your aside on January 6, the importance isn't the death toll but the nature of the event. We as a society have chosen to routinely forget mass shootings with far greater body counts. CAVincent (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"chosen to routinely forget mass shootings with far greater body counts". Unsurprising, when noting how frequent mass shootings are in the United States. In Europe, they are rare enough for a single shooting to dominate the news cycle across the continent for a few days. In the States, there are multiple shootings per week. List of mass shootings in the United States in 2025 had covered 205 shootings by the end of June. Americans seem to be rather desenzitized to how horrific the situation is, given their rather blasé attitude about the crimes. Dimadick (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Capitol attack should be mentioned. Maxeto0910 (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be difficult to include present criticisms without making it partisan. Many current issues are longstanding (so are neither Republican or Democratic controversies, simply American ones) and many controversial policies have bipartisan support. Profloab (talk) 10:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding about the description of the US military

Why does the article state that the US has "one of the strongest militaries" when there is a general consensus that the U.S. Armed Forces are *the* world's strongest military? 24.73.39.22 (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. The article states: "The U.S. military is widely regarded as the most powerful and advanced in the world."
Of course, in the lead it says "one of the strongest militaries" since it should be concise. Maxeto0910 (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that English isn't your first language, so I'll do my best to clarify: "One of the strongest" indicates that they are among the strongest but not necessarily at the very top. In this case, the U.S. Armed Forces are at the very top in terms of strength, so it should say "the world's strongest military" instead.

As for being concise, the phrase I'm suggesting is more concise than the current one by definition. 24.73.39.22 (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The status quo on this is totally fine, and far better than putting an unqualified "the world's strongest military" into the lead in wikivoice. That is neither an uncontested nor uncomplicated claim. CAVincent (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) I know that "one of the strongest" isn't synonymous with "the strongest"; my English skills are sufficient for understanding this, even though it's not my native language.
2) The phrase you're suggesting would not be neutral as we can't write "the U.S. has the strongest military"; instead, we'd have to write something like "the U.S. is widely considered to have the strongest military", which would be longer than the current wording. Maxeto0910 (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Audio Version of United States Article

Dear community,

AmielRieger (talk) 05:39, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Amiel. I have a generated Speech version of the United States article back from May. I would be the most happy to contribute it to the page so that users can use it to hear the article.

In fact I hold two versions one Male voice and one Female voice.

How can I get it to be included in the US article?

I believe it is of great value to many listeners out there. AmielRieger (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added it. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow @Tbhotch Thank you so much, you really made my day, what an honour to have been able to contribute this. AmielRieger (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AmielRieger: apparently, they are forbidden as per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spoken_Wikipedia/Archive_12#Articles_being_read_out_by_AI_voices/screen_readers? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And Just like that @Tbhotch my excitement dampened. I read the discussion it is clear that there is no consensus on this. Many saw value in this form of conveyance and others not so. I am a complete amateur at Wikipedia contribution and I humbly say that I am not aware of all the requirement, considerations and intricacies. I am happy to learn and will be happy to give my two cents.

But, I must point out a couple of things. The discussion has validity for the time period it took place. It raised some honest concerns. But many of those concerns are mitigated significantly since then. To mention but a few. In the last 4 months TTS engines have made a huge jump in Voice quality and characteristics, and this improvement is expected to continue. They read with expression, intonation and emphasis and to a large extent have humanistic characteristics unlike their predecessors before 4 months ago.

Moreover, when we created this article we deliberately retained those elements which are conducive to free flow intelligible reading and comprehension and removed elements that detract from it. examples such as tabulated data, extremely short excerpts, references, notes etc... These are purposefully excluded so that the quality and value of the vocalized content be real to the reader.

So to a large degree, in my humble opinion, the premise for this discussion should be reevaluated, updated and policy I believe should be reconsidered.

If you just listen to the particular recording I uploaded, I'm convinced that any innocent and honest listener will get great benefit, value and pleasure from it. Is this to say that it is human? no, its not. But it is vastly improved from what it once was.

Is there any way to get @Opencooper or @Cortador thoughts about this?

Important disclosure: I am part of the TTSReader.com team. In recent months, we envisioned creating a vocal encyclopedia—a concept that, while not entirely new, continues to inspire us. In this process we have gathered many articles and generated vocal recordings (in English and in Spanish, Male voice and female voice) with the intent to integrate this content on our site. We still intend to do so but thought to share our existing materials with the Wikipedia community, leading me to begin this process. AmielRieger (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I listened the whole file, and I didn't find major issues (I'm not saying they exist) so I added it. You'll have to discuss it with the project instead because ttv files were previously deleted as well. The whole idea reads like the general view against AI rather than being in favor of the human touch. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 23:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "project" what do you mean? "Who" is the project? Do you mean to say the Wikipedia project the US article project? Is there a particular person with whom I should raise this subject? 2A01:73C0:95D:2C6:74EB:32FF:FE1B:2A1E (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 July 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I think with the way things are it should be changed into running under a authoritarian government on Wikipedia Jcporter25 (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: An overwhelming consensus from reliable scholarly sources would be required from such a change, not from your personal opinion. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 00:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

isn't there this tho?

https://www.opb.org/article/2025/04/22/u-s-is-sliding-toward-authoritarianism-hundreds-of-scholars-say/ 120.29.90.182 (talk) 02:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done There is a rough consensus not to include "under a authoritarian government" labels (regardless if valid) to countries. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Government form

After all these days of Trumps presidency I think we can agree that America isn't a full democracy anymore (was it ever though?). I would suggest to change its government form from "Federal presidential republic" to "Federal presidential republic under an authoritarian presidency" it seems more appropriate 2A02:1210:7E01:C700:9934:9D94:72D8:2129 (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Requested immediately above. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 06:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 July 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove that English is the official language as there is no law that says its only claimed by the president via a executive order the executive order has no force of law 71.181.116.152 (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. The current consensus is to list English as the official language, per the outcome of a recent request for comment. Day Creature (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] .g. NBC News: Puerto Rico Is Part Of the U.S.: Here's A Few Things to Know

[1]