Jump to content
Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia

Talk:United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mason.Jones (talk | contribs) at 23:57, 4 March 2025 (→Proposed rewrite of third paragraph ). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision .Revision as of 23:57, 4 March 2025 by Mason.Jones (talk | contribs) (→Proposed rewrite of third paragraph )
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.
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 Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
?  view · edit
Frequently asked questions
Q1. How did the article get the way it is?

Archiving icon

Archives:

Article Name, Article Introduction, Human Rights, Culture

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.
Detailed discussions which 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 "Naming conventions (common names)" guideline portion of the Wikipedia naming conventions policy. The guideline expresses a 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 to guidelines 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.
  • 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. Is the United States really the oldest constitutional republic in the world?
1. Isn't San Marino older?
Yes. San Marino was founded before the United States and did adopt its basic law on 8 October 1600. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sm.html) Full democracy was attained there with various new electoral laws in the 20th century which augmented rather than amended the existing constitution.

2. How about Switzerland?

Yes, but not continuously. The first "constitution" within Switzerland is believed to be the Federal Charter of 1291 and most of modern Switzerland was republican by 1600. After Napoleon and a later civil war, the current constitution was adopted in 1848.

Many people in the United States are told it is the oldest republic and has the oldest constitution, however one must use a narrow definition of constitution. 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 US constitution and political system both domestically and globally. One must also be careful using the word "democratic" due to the limited franchise in early US history and better explain the pioneering expansion of the democratic system and subsequent influence.

The component states of the Swiss confederation were mostly oligarchies in the eighteenth 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 are stated within the United States 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 what "E Pluribus Unum"'s current status is (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 super-continent 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.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

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

This article is written in American English , which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, 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.
Former good article 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.
Did You Know On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
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, 2006Featured 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
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 3, 2015 .
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the United States accounts for 37% of all global military spending?
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 4, 2008.
Current status: Delisted good article
This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject icon United States : Government Top‐importance
WikiProject icon 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. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government .
Note icon
This article was a past U.S. Collaboration of the Month.
WikiProject icon North America Top‐importance
WikiProject icon 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.
WikiProject icon Countries
WikiProject icon 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:
Media mention
          Other talk page banners
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following sources:
  • Surhone, L. M., Timpledon, M. T., & Marseken, S. F. (2010), Orson Scott Card: United States, author, critic, public speaking, activism, genre, Betascript Publishing{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. (2009), Biosphere 2: Biosphere 2, closed ecological system, Oracle, Arizona, Arizona, United States, Biome, space colonization, Biosphere, rainforest, Ed Bass, BIOS-3, Eden project, Alphascript{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. (2010), Military journalism: Combatant commander, psychological warfare, United States, public affairs (military), propaganda, journalist, Civil-military operations, Alphascript Publishing{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Additional comments
OCLC 636651797, ISBN 9786130336431.
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) 22,658 22,658
Etymology 5,963 5,963
History 113 72,301
Indigenous peoples 2,500 2,500
European exploration, colonization and conflict (1513–1765) 9,797 9,797
American Revolution and the early republic (1765–1800) 5,878 5,878
Westward expansion and Civil War (1800–1865) 15,354 15,354
Post–Civil War era (1865–1917) 9,843 9,843
Rise as a superpower (1917–1945) 5,531 5,531
Cold War (1945–1991) 7,446 7,446
Contemporary (1991–present) 15,839 15,839
Geography 6,972 18,318
Climate 4,296 4,296
Biodiversity and conservation 7,050 7,050
Government and politics 6,356 48,247
National government 9,910 9,910
Subdivisions 4,850 4,850
Political parties 2,351 2,351
Foreign relations 10,648 10,648
Military 6,796 6,796
Law enforcement and criminal justice 7,336 7,336
Economy 22,898 47,649
Science and technology 5,606 5,606
Spaceflight 5,071 5,071
Energy 3,220 3,220
Transportation 10,854 10,854
Demographics 63 36,756
Population 6,872 6,872
Language 5,682 5,682
Immigration 3,421 3,421
Religion 6,300 6,300
Urbanization 1,817 1,817
Health 5,499 5,499
Education 7,102 7,102
Culture and society 16,786 74,837
Literature 6,288 6,288
Mass media 5,580 5,580
Theater 2,695 2,695
Visual arts 4,504 4,504
Music 8,839 8,839
Fashion 3,398 3,398
Cinema 6,410 6,410
Cuisine 10,537 10,537
Sports 9,800 9,800
See also 93 93
Notes 459 459
References 30 16,335
Sources 16,305 16,305
External links 504 2,861
Government 496 496
History 556 556
Maps 1,305 1,305
Total 346,477 346,477
Daily pageviews of this article (experimental)
Pageviews summary: size=61, age=183, days=60, min=33051, max=91687, latest=35754.
The pageviews file file is stale; please update it ; see § Instructions.

Add a section for human rights

I understand that Wikipedia editors are mostly Americans, but it seems like many of them are either American nationalists or hired by the American government to write these pages. I was reading the Wikipedia articles about some countries (not Western ones), and most of them had a special section dedicated to that nation's human rights violations. However, I don't see anything like that for the United States. The United States committed more human rights violations in the last two decades than any other nation, and its history and current system is filled with human rights violations against its own citizens, against Black people, or against citizens of other countries. 103.165.29.160 (talk) 08:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

You're 100% right, unfortunately in this case the fact that many users are Americans doesn't help. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Atleast we need to discuss about it. Why this is not included . 103.165.29.209 (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Discussion link? JacktheBrown (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Dont think we should segregate info like this as outlined at WP:COUNTRYSECTIONS...but would easy to do for USA as there is not much.
"Discrimination and violence against LGBTI people, anti-LGBTI legislation, and limitations on abortion access are prevalent. Indigenous women faced gender-based violence disproportionately. Issues surrounding asylum seekers, the death penalty, and arbitrary detention at Guantánamo Bay were ongoing. Gun violence remained a major problem, and there were restrictions on the right to protest in multiple states. Excessive use of force by police disproportionately affected Black individuals".......one of many sources...."Human rights in United States of America". Amnesty International. March 29, 2024. Moxy 🍁 14:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
@JacktheBrown need more link ? 103.165.29.214 (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I agree with the aforementioned. 2601:147:4400:45E0:A529:6FD7:C817:56A3 (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
@103.165.29.160 Category:Human rights abuses in the United States. There are simply too many human rights abuses (100+ pages) committed by the United States to merge it into the article. Though a small section to alert people of the category page would be nice. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Human rights in the United States already exists and is currently about two-thirds the size of United States. A small section with a {{main }} link would be useful (it is linked in the lead, but not mentioned in the body), but the whole thing would be overwhelming for the article. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Oligarchy vs Democracy

In the government section we may want to add that in 2025 the United states became, or moved towards, an Oligarchy governing system and away from Democracy? (See link for a paper talking about definitions.)

https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/publications/oligarchic%20vs%20democratic%20societies.pdf

It does seem like it is now the era of monopolies, and barriers to entering the entrepreneurial landscape are starting to rise, along with wealth being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. (See below links about rising monopolies, as well as the decline in new small businesses.)

https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/republicans/2022/12/entrepreneurship-and-the-decline-of-american-growth https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/08/health/primary-care-doctors-consolidation.html https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2019/04/11/america-has-a-monopoly-problem/

The new USA administration being filled with 13 billionaires, plus many more millionaires, with a drastic increase in the total wealth of the new governing figures overall, seems to be pretty conclusive evidence towards the change in governmental types being valid.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-tapped-unprecedented-13-billionaires-top-administration-roles/story?id=116872968

But I'm not a political historian so I can't be sure this is a valid definitional change. I'm hoping this topic of discussion will attract true experts who can chime in on this edit and either validate it or negate it. So please if you are knowledgeable about this topic, chime in to educate me/us. I just figured this seems like it needed to be updated, and if an uneducated person like me watching the USA political upheaval from afar (Not American! So I promise I don't really care about their weird Blue vs Red stuff!) now has questions about what to categorize the USA government as, then it might be time to change it.

Even if you disagree that it has not fully become one as of January 20th, it does seem to be moving in that direction, and it seems false to not mention it and to pretend that the USA is still a pure Republic Democracy?

So anyways, I figured it was worth discussing. Thanks for your time! 24.79.242.248 (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Not a widely held view Bashir, Omar S. (1 October 2015). "Testing Inferences about American Politics: A Review of the "Oligarchy" Result". Research & Politics. 2 (4): 2053168015608896. doi:10.1177/2053168015608896 . ISSN 2053-1680. Moxy 🍁 16:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
from your source: According to several journalistic accounts but not Gilens and Page themselves, the findings show that the American system of government is best understood as "oligarchy." which means America as an oligarchy was a widely spread view after their study's findings. This study was also pre-2016. Now, in 2025, it is a widely held view that America is at least transitioning into (if not already) an oligarchy and/or has oligarchs.
Stuart, Riley "Inside the rise of US oligarchs and how it opened a dark money 'floodgate'" ABC Australia [1]
Nover, Scott "Oligarchy Comes to America" Slate [2]
Bernie Sanders statement on oligarchy in America [3]
"Oxfam: Musk’s appointment to Trump’s administration signals that "oligarchy is taking hold of American democracy"" [4]
Parton, Hannah Digby "Commentary: Making American oligarchy great again" Salon [5] Appalling (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
You could make an argument that the united states has been an oligarchy for a long time. Zyxrq (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Main problem is media as sources for something that has been covered widely by academic publications for decades. Moxy 🍁 03:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
What is the status on making this change? I would like to change the sentence, "The U.S. national government is a presidential constitutional federal republic and liberal democracy with three separate branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. " to "The U.S. national government is a presidential constitutional federal republic and oligarchy with three separate branches: legislative, executive, and judicial.
citation: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/abs/oligarchy-in-the-united-states/C23926DB2E90E340C4DC2B2BCDEEE27C ClearConcise (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Recently the president of the US has declared himself king and the sole interpreter of the law. Is "constitutional" still an appropriate term? In fact, the term absolute monarchy would probably be more appropriate then "federal republic."
Furthermore, with the power concentrated in the executive, is it fair to say the gov't still has 3 branches, if two have been rendered obsolete?
Damien.Otis.x (talk) 06:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
@Damien.Otis.x: the statement by the current president of the United States is just a provocation, Trump doesn't really think he's the king and sole interpreter of the law. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Project 2025 indicates that the republicans in the USA--who are now have control of all 3 branches of gov't--aim to change the fundamental structure of gov't, viz. investing all power in the executive and eliminating democracy. Donald Trump himself said that if he won, nobody in the USA would ever have to vote ever again. Whether or not the president thinks he is a dictator is irrelevant; not only is the USA president fundamentally untrustworthy, he is acting in accordance with the believe that he is the ultimate authority in the country. I say this as an outsider, a Canadian who does not have a bias towards the USA, and someone who has experience living in the constitutional monarchy that is Canada. It is alarming to see what is happening, and the misinformation pacifying the population. Damien.Otis.x (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
It is still a declaration. Wikipedia has never been about projecting intent or subjectiveness into the facts. The facts are, he declaired himself king. Why he did it or to what extent he believes it is irrelevant. 216.164.58.212 (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
You could say that about all capitalist countries and by extension all democracies. The U.S. founding fathers such as Washington, Jefferson and Franklin were among the wealthiest people in the country but had broad support among the common people. TFD (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Senate leader

The infobox contains a list of leaders, which includes the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. Logically, it would make sense to also include the Senate Majority leader, John Thune. The Senate is the other part of Congress, and is in fact the "upper" chamber. So it doesn't make sense to include the House leader but not the Senate leader. Please add Thune's name to the infobox. 2603:7000:6E3B:BE70:547C:C31E:F30A:28F8 (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The constitutionally enshrined senate leader is the vice-president. The majority leader is of relatively recent vintage (mid twentieth century), and whose power is uncertain. See the archives for previous detailed discussions that established consensus that the leader not be named. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I agree. There is no "Senate leader" position described in the constitution except the President of the Senate, where as the Speaker of the House is explicitly mentioned. ClearConcise (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Extended confirmed protection edit request

This part: "Show territories with their exclusive economic zone". It should say "internationally recognized EEZ" instead. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

 Not done Per MOS:EGG, a reader wouldn't know what an "EEZ" was until they clicked the link which would spend an unnecessary click out of their life. Tarlby (t) (c) 05:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
@Tarlby then say "Internationally recognized Exclusive Economic Zone" SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
What is in need of being clarified here, and does it matter at a 220px scale? CMD (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Musk in infobox?

A question for discussion:

Should Elon Musk be added to the infobox under Government in a position between the President and VP parameters? Our longstanding convention is to list both the titular and effective leaders of nations here, and we have not previously been shy about identifying those with informal but ultimate or penultimate power in the inboxes for other nation articles. As just one of many examples, in pre-2022 Myanmar we listed Aung San Suu Kyi in her invented title of "State Counsellor" [6] below that of "President", as she was exercising significant executive functions on a de facto basis.

Given the unusually expansive role of Musk (today he hosted the President of India in the Dillon Room at Blair House,[7] the head-of-state receiving room of a presidential residence, where they exchanged diplomatic gifts), he's held press conferences in the Oval Office, a recent lawsuit by California alleges he is effectively acting as a principal Officer of the United States,[8] etc., he seems to be acting in a similar role to Aung, in that he may lack formal authority but is able to -- in practice -- discharge such a significant portion of the power of the United States that we may be doing our readers a disservice by not acknowledging his existence.

I understand this may be an unusual suggestion and I present it only as a question for the community's feedback or discussion. Chetsford (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Not mentioned in the article..... Best propose some text for the article then see if it's due weight by anyone. Cart before the horse here.... as the info box regurgitates the most important information from the article.Moxy 🍁 22:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I'm not suggesting we add it to the Lead, which does require the content be duplicated in the body of the article. I'm suggesting we consider this only for the infobox, where the maxim is a lot more loose. In fact, Donald Trump himself is not currently mentioned in the body of the article (nor do we generally mention heads of state/government in nation articles), but we still list him in the infobox. The infobox is intended to contain comparative data points and content may not always be duplicated in the body (unlike MOS:LEAD). Chetsford (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Sorry I should have been more clear..... the position is not mentioned in the article unlike the others. We used to have the people mentioned in brackets but I see that's been removed from the body. As an outsider can you explain why this position warrants inclusion? Moxy 🍁 23:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
"Sorry I should have been more clear..... the position is not mentioned in the article unlike the others. Speaker is not listed in the body of the article either, but it appears in the infobox. There are many infobox parameters we haven't customarily included in the body.
"As an outsider can you explain why this position warrants inclusion?" Our longstanding convention is to list both the titular and effective leaders of nations in the infobox, and we have not previously been shy about identifying those with informal but ultimate or penultimate power in the inboxes for other nation articles. As just one of many examples, in pre-2022 Myanmar we listed Aung San Suu Kyi in her invented title of "State Counsellor" [9] below that of "President", as she was exercising significant executive functions on a de facto basis.

Given the unusually expansive role of Musk (today he hosted the President of India in the Dillon Room at Blair House,[10] the head-of-state receiving room of a presidential residence, where they exchanged diplomatic gifts), he's held press conferences in the Oval Office, a recent lawsuit by California alleges he is effectively acting as a principal Officer of the United States,[11] etc., he seems to be acting in a similar role to Aung, in that he may lack formal authority but is able to -- in practice -- discharge such a significant portion of the power of the United States that we may be doing our readers a disservice by not acknowledging his existence. Chetsford (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Éminence grise? If we move forward with this a problem arises in that -- unlike Aung San Suu Kyi or Egon Krenz -- he does not actually appear to have any formal or even informal title. Would using the generic "Éminence grise" work for the parameter until a clearer term arises? I'd be concerned putting something like "Leader" would imply an official title. Chetsford (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Do we have some sort of source implying this is the fourth most important position in the government or that the United States presidential line of succession has changed? Moxy 🍁 00:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I'm sorry, Moxy, I'm not really following any of your questions. Can you explain to me the relevance of the U.S. presidential line of succession to infobox contents so I can try to respond? Chetsford (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
The infobox regurgitates information from the article itself ...... With the list of names that are normally included usually pertaining to the Order of succession. Most countries list three or perhaps four names..... based on their significance to the countries government as indicated in the article. You seem to be asking to list of random name in the infobox (that is an element of the lead) that we don't talk about in the article so it's hard to establish why it should be there. Is this new position so influential that we should mention it in the article.... and thus add It the lead infobox. Moxy 🍁 01:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
"The infobox regurgitates information from the article itself" Okay, so I've addressed this previously. The infobox does not uniformly regurgitate information from the article itself. You're thinking about MOS:LEAD. In point of fact, as I've noted, the Speaker of the House of Representatives is listed in the infobox, but is not mentioned in the article. Unlike the lead, the infobox exists for inter- versus intra-article comparative points.
"With the list of names that are normally included usually pertaining to the Order of succession." I don't know where you're getting your information from, Moxy, but almost all of it is inaccurate. Chief Justice of the United States is not in the U.S. order of succession but is in the infobox. President Pro Tempore ranks above Speaker but is not listed in the infobox. The President of the Chamber of Deputies of Mexico is not in the Mexican order of succession but is in the infobox. As noted, State Counsellor of Myanmar was not in the order of succession but was in the infobox. Across the entire project there is no correlation between order of succession and appearance of titles in nation infoboxes other than occasional and happenstance overlap. Perhaps if you can share where you're getting these notions from I can better address them? Chetsford (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Pls review MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE.... If the speaker of the house is not mentioned in the article it should be removed. Need some sort of source to explain why this is an important position that merits inclusion in the lead. We don't randomly add things without sources.... this is pretty basic. Moxy 🍁 01:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I think the source of your confusion may be that our guidelines for application of parameters in infoboxes aren't concisely centralized in a single location and are sometimes contradictory which, I admit, can be problematic. As per MOS:IBX "although all information in an infobox ideally should also be found in the main body of an article, there isn't perfect compliance with this guideline". Per WP:ARBINFOBOX determining which parameters to activate within an infobox "is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article"". So, while it may be a valid point to say that Musk should not be included because X, Y, or Z, it may be less valid to say we can't include him due to him not being mentioned in the body of the article on the imagined basis that such a convention exists, when it demonstrably -- as, indeed, I just demonstrated in the examples above -- does not. Chetsford (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Simply not seeing how a link to the bio helps in the understanding of this country. Moxy 🍁 04:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

RfC: Is Elon Musk a principal official for purposes of the infobox?

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should Elon Musk's name and title or non-title be listed in some form (the details of which should be determined through a separate discussion) in the list of principal officials in the Government section of the infobox?

A. Yes
B. Yes, if a descriptive sentence exists in the body of the article
C. No
D. Other

Chetsford (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Survey

  • A, Yes As an encyclopedia, we should depict reality as it exists, not merely repeat official documentation.
    There is no guideline as to what specific officials are included in infoboxes on Nation articles and it is customary across the project to identify both titular and customary/informal state leaders in the rare cases where an informal leader wields "head-of-state analogous" power.
    (For example, we long included[12] Aung San Suu Kyi in her statutory position of State Counsellor of Myanmar, in addition to the President of Myanmar, despite Counsellor having no succession role and virtually no formal authority; it was informally understood to be the penultimate post. Similar use has been done for party leaders in socialist states in situations where the party roles are bifurcated from the state apparatus [e.g. Egon Krenz]).
  • Musk is, formally, a government official [13] so his status on that point is verifiable, the only question remaining is whether his specific status carries with it powers of sufficient primacy to warrant infobox inclusion.
  • His significant executive power has been widely chronicled WP:RS.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
  • It is the official position of 14 of the U.S.' 50 constituent states that Musk enjoys "limitless and unchecked power" and the "full power of the Executive Branch". [14]
  • Moreover, the fact that this is "head-of-state analogous" power (albeit not authority) is evident by RS documenting him singularly receiving foreign heads of state in the Dillon Room (the head-of-state receiving room) at the Blair House presidential residence and even exchanging diplomatic gifts;[15] co-hosting press conferences in the Oval Office;[3] engaging in representational business with foreign ambassadors on behalf of the U.S.;[16] having a government residence [17], etc.
No body content is necessary as government posts are not routinely itemized in Nation articles as a precursor to simple parameter insertion in the infobox. (追記) Notably, Donald Trump, J.D. Vance, Mike Johnson, and John Roberts are all listed in the infobox but not mentioned in the body of the article. Nor is even the title of Speaker mentioned in the article, though it is included in the infobox. (追記ここまで) Chetsford (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC); edited 13:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply ]
- C, No. While the executive branch actions and court cases are very significant, it’s too early to mention musk on this page. Dw31415 (talk) 09:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC); edited 13:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply ]
C No. There isn't any clear consensus in reliable sources as to the level of power or nature of his role, and as such, it would qualify as WP:OR to list him as proposed. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 21:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC) ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 21:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
CMD - just a quick point of clarification for the benefit of the eventual closer ... is your position that Donald Trump should be removed from the infobox (he's also not mentioned in the body of the article, only in the infobox)? Chetsford (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
This is not a gotcha when there is a bullet point the size of two paragraphs about the President. CMD (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Got it - thanks! So is your position B, then? That, if included in the body, then it's appropriate? Chetsford (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Obviously not, a closer can read what I wrote. To answer the question in good faith, there hasn't been a discussion on the body as far as I have seen, and I'm not pre-empting it. CMD (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- C, No..... Simply not seeing how a random link to this gentleman helps anyone in understanding of this country.Moxy 🍁 02:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Discussion

So after a 2 hour talk with one editor a junp to an RFC dispite what is recommended at WP:RFC#BEFORE. I agree that between the 2 of us there is no consensus to add a random name with zero context in the article to the infobox. Your argument is based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and an assertion that this merits an exception to the norm for these types of articles without any sources presented before or others input.Moxy 🍁 04:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

"a random name" I don't think this is a GF description of the question, with all due respect. "zero context" I don't think this is a GF description of my thoroughly explained and sourced position. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do. Chetsford (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Yes as seen above.....good luck. Moxy 🍁 04:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Makes sense - thank you! Chetsford (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Chipmunkdavis - I'm having a little difficulty understanding your line of thought. You said Musk should not be included because it is required one be listed in the body for inclusion in the infobox. But when asked if adding content to the body would ameliorate your concern, you also seemed to indicate it would not. Would it be safe to say there is no situation, short of Musk being elected Vice-President or Speaker (neither of which are mentioned in the body of the article but are not included in the infobox), that you think Musk should be included as a primary government official for infobox purposes? Chetsford (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    Please stop making up positions and attributing them to me. My last message already answered this question. CMD (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I'm sorry if I've upset you, CMD. It was not my intention. Chetsford (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

References

References

  1. ^ "'President Musk' makes his presence felt in Washington". France24 .
  2. ^ "Elon Musk tightens grip on federal government". Associated Press . February 4, 2025. Retrieved February 13, 2025. Elon Musk is rapidly consolidating control over large swaths of the federal government with President Donald Trump 's blessing, sidelining career officials, gaining access to sensitive databases and dismantling a leading source of humanitarian assistance. The speed and scope of his work has been nothing short of stunning. In a little more than two weeks since Trump took office, the world's richest man has created an alternative power structure inside the federal government ...
  3. ^ a b "Musk has been empowered to be 'virtual prime minister'". MSNBC .
  4. ^ "'Co-president' Elon Musk? Trump ally tests influence in spending fight". Washington Post .
  5. ^ "Inside Musk's Aggressive Incursion Into the Federal Government". New York Times . He is shaping not just policy but personnel decisions, including successfully pushing for Mr. Trump to pick Troy Meink as the Air Force secretary, according to three people with direct knowledge of his role.

First paragraph too detailed

The first paragraph of the lead has become too detailed in the last few days, which also makes it too long considering it is supposed to be a brief introduction to the country containing only the most basic information. Thereore, I suggest trimming it down a bit; ideas can be collected and discussed in this thread. A start could be the removal of "[...] the latter legally classified as "domestic dependent nations" with tribal sovereignty rights" as this part doesn't appear to be necessary for a basic understanding of the U.S. and can be explained in detail in the geography section. Maxeto0910 (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Also, the sentence "The U.S. asserts sovereignty over five major island territories and various uninhabited islands." could perhaps be merged with the sentence "It is a federal republic of 50 states and Washington, D.C. as its federal capital district."; i.e., "It is a federal republic of 50 states, its federal capital district of Washington, D.C., five major island territories, and various uninhabited islands." Maxeto0910 (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I just saw that it has been trimmed down a bit now to an extent which is more or less tolerable. Nonetheless, new input for trimming the first paragraph (or the lead in general) down further are still welcome. Maxeto0910 (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
You're doing a great job keep it up. Moxy 🍁 01:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I would suggest trimming down information of the tribal and indian reservation information which reads: Over 574 federally recognized tribal governments and 326 Indian reservations are legally classified as domestic dependent nations with tribal sovereignty rights.; we don't even have the second-largest Exclusive Economic Zone status in there, which should be restored. Yovt (talkvt) 01:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Exclusive Economic Zone is an obscure zoning that isn't talked about very much when it comes to countries overall. Simply not something that's discussed in summary articles beyond a sentence in some odd cases..... Simply not lead worthy. Moxy 🍁 01:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Sorry, I will disagree with any contemplated dumb-downs of the current lead. The first paragraph rightly describes the U.S. as a large union of states with additional territories, plus a full mention about the Native American tribes and their status. A complicated federal republic, and the details should be there. I agree with Moxy that the U.S. "exclusive economic zone" is a minor factoid and doesn't belong anywhere near the lead. The Indian nations, however, definitely do. Mason.Jones (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
The Indian nations have been given as much space in the lead as they have in the body. CMD (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Exactly. Such a deep level of detail is really not necessary or appropriate for a basic introduction to the country. Merely mentioning them is probably fine, but anything more goes beyond the scope, at least in my opinion, and belongs in the body. Maxeto0910 (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I don't have any major objection against including the Indian nations in the lead (though I'd probably prefer to leave them out or have them in an efn); however, I don't think we have to explain their legal status in this detail, as this can be done in the article body without losing any relevant information. This is not a "dumb-down", as there is no oversimplification happening. Just write that they are within the U.S., e.g.:
The United States of America (USA), also known as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a country primarily located in North America. It is a federal republic of 50 states, its federal capital district of Washington, D.C., five major island territories, and various uninhabited islands. The 48 contiguous states border Canada to the north and Mexico to the south, with the semi-exclavic state of Alaska in the northwest and the archipelagic state of Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean. Within the U.S. are 574 federally recognized tribal governments and 326 Indian reservations. It is a megadiverse country, with the world's third-largest land area and third-largest population, exceeding 340 million. Maxeto0910 (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
CMD writes: "Indian nations have been given as much space in the lead as they have in the body." Totally irrelevant as far as I'm concerned, as I think the body text should be expanded. As for the current lede sentence (it's only ONE SENTENCE), readers are often very curious about the Native American tribes and their status. And re an EFN: these should be reserved for expanding details like measurements, legalese, and such, not to hide away primary information about Indian reservations. I really wonder why some here wish to turn an article for adults into a reference work for children. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
If readers are curious about them, we have an entire article dedicated to them which they can read. This article is about the U.S., and its lead should focus only on the most important and basic information necessary for readers to know about the United States; i.e., mentioning other things for context is fine, but explaining them in detail is usually not, at least not in the lead. Removing things that distract from the main topic and instead focusing on the essential information has nothing to do with creating a "reference work for children" but rather keeping the lead concise and focused. It's actually quite the opposite of that, because we assume that our readers know that we have separate articles containing this information which they can read, instead of bloating the already too long lead only for the sake of easier access to this information. Maxeto0910 (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
"Focused and concise" or embarrassingly simplistic? Much of it read like a 7th-grade book report, with passive verbs and a lower vocabulary register: "There are 50 states and a capital. It has 340 million people. There are five territories. The largest city is New York." Much of that info the average U.S. middle schooler already knew. When compared to many other country articles in English Wikipedia, this lead didn't come off well at all. Recent changes are a vast improvement. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I'm not sure what you're referring to; older article versions didn't have a wording like that, perhaps aside from some quickly reverted drive-by edits. Also, I am not opposing a "professional" or "complex" writing style and instead advocating for some kind of "simple English" writing style as you're implying. What I am opposing is an unnecessarily long and overly detailed lead section because that's exactly what a lead is not supposed to be as it should merely summarize the most notable key aspects of the article. And the current one appears to be one that needs trimming, at least from my POV. All featured and good country articles have lead sections which are way more focused and concise, and, as a result, shorter than this one (except possibly India's, but that article has its own history of complains about it). Maxeto0910 (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Also, I am [...] instead advocating for some kind of "simple English" writing style
This is reminiscent of the Simple English Wikipedia article for the United States. The current version is:
The United States of America, commonly known as simply the United States or America, is a sovereign country mostly in North America. It is divided into 50 states. 48 of these states and the District of Columbia border each other between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. They are bordered by Canada to the north and Mexico to the south. The state of Alaska is in the northwestern area of the continent and is separated from the other 48 states by Canada making it an exclave. Alaska is bordered by Canada to its east. The state of Hawaii is a set of islands in the Pacific located within Polynesia and is about 2,200 miles (3,500 kilometers) from the mainland. The country also possesses territories, and insular areas, in the Caribbean and Pacific. The capital city is Washington, D.C and the largest city by population is New York City with a population of 8.8 million people. With a population of 331 million people and an area of 3.79 million square miles (9.83 million km2), the United States is the third most populated country in the world and the fourth-largest country in the world by total area. Yovt (talkvt) 20:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I wrote that I am not advocating a simple English writing style. I'm fine with using a complex writing style as long as it's not unnecessarily long and overly detailed, aspects which primarily concern content instead of language. Maxeto0910 (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Good to hear, but this article has a bad habit of doing just the opposite: devolving into lowest-common-denominator language and information. Readers are carried off to ever more WP links "so they can look things up themselves", making for an even bigger sea of blue. We never come anywhere close to "Good Article" status, and probably can't. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Sure. In country articles, we always have to find a balance between a tolerable article length and detail, and a tolerable amount of links to child articles. Both is extremely hard for the U.S. because a continent-sized superpower with hundreds of millions of inhabitants has both a lot of child articles to link to and a lot to write about. However, looking at some good and featured country articles, many of them actually do have a considerable amount of links as well but are way shorter in comparison, suggesting we should probably focus on trimming this article if we want to come closer to good article status. This article has a high density of sources of mostly acceptable quality, the majority of its information is more or less up to date, and it is not too badly written overall in my opinion. It's just very bloated in its current state, and we should move some of its content to sub-articles. Maxeto0910 (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
@ Maxeto0910: Not long ago, a few editors attempted to "cut some of the bloat" from this article. But rather than judiciously thinking through things, they excised massive text blocks that included some excellent material (while inserting weak verbs, conversational syntax, and lower-register vocabulary right out of the Simple English edition). I hope we can avoid future disasters like that. Yes, some of this article's text is overwritten and could be thoughtfully reviewed. No, the current lead paragraph, with details regarding the U.S. administrative state, is not "bloated". It reflects the complicated U.S. federal republic of states, territories, and Native American nations. The U.S. is not Germany and it's not Switzerland; this info is essential and should not be relegated to "backwater" text and editorial footnoting. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

English the Official language?

President Trump plans to sign an Executive Order to make English the official language of the United States

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/28/trump-english-official-language-order.html Aviationlover1 (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It's a total overreach to specify English as the country's official language based on one U.S. president's executive order. Only the U.S. Congress, with majority votes, can declare English the official language. A bill to accomplish just that has its backers in the House and Senate, but it has never come to a vote because it doesn't yet have a majority to pass. Trump's executive order can be mentioned in an editorial footnote (in infobox or in text under "Language"). An encyclopedia can certainly take note of that, but it shouldn't overstep. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
According to basically all the news reports reporting on this, the U.S. president can designate an official national language with an executive order. GN22 (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
No one has actually discussed the legal implications, unfortunately. We first need to see what the EO says and then assess accordingly. I suspect that a federal law would be required to make it permanent; otherwise, we'll just be going back and forth between administrations revoking and reinstating EOs, which seems against the point of the "official language" designation. A note may be best if the EO does as described. AG202 (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Also, I suspect that the EO would only actually apply to the Executive Branch's functions, which is only a part of the federal government. AG202 (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
This is false. It is absolutely within Trump's executive authority to declare English as the official language of the country. Twinbros04 (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Again EOs are not law. Considering that Congress has made several attempts to designate English as the official language with none passing, that means that they at least have seen it as under their authority. Having the "official language" go back and forth between administrations seems counterintuitive for what it should actually mean. AG202 (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Again, you are wrong. EOs are literally law. If this Executive Order proclaims English to be the nation's official language, then for the next four years, this Wikipedia page must reflect that. Whether or not this would be overturned by a future president is a crystal balling issue. Twinbros04 (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Copy-pasting: No they are not. As stated by the Executive order article: they are "directives", "guiding agencies on how to interpret and implement congressionally-passed laws" (emphasis mine). They do not make law, and are often struck down in accordance with existing law. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer made this exceedingly clear. AG202 (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
They are administrative laws. They have the force of law provided the president has authorization from the Constitution or from Congress, providing it is acting within its constitutional power. A good example is the president's power to set tariffs under certain conditions or declare a state of emergency. People can be prosecuted from disobeying these orders. But there is no evidence the president has the power to determine the country's language. TFD (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
This talk page is for discussions regarding improving the article. As it currently stands, the United States does not have an official language, and the article reflects that. Should that change, the article can be updated accordingly. But, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and so we can't edit the article based on Trump saying that in the future he will sign something. JasonMacker (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
@JasonMacker: True, but good-faith inquiries here (from non-U.S. readers especially) are to be expected. The executive order is sweeping through the global media now, just like "Gulf of America" did last month. We have to be prepared for questions as well as random edits to the page. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Maybe Languages of the United States should be extended-confirmed-protected ahead of time. AG202 (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Just so you know, articles are usually never protected ahead of time before disruption actually happens. Tarlby (t) (c) 04:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

RFC: Is English the official language of the United States?

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

An Executive Order was signed today, March 1, by President Trump titled "Designating English as the Language of the United States". The main portions of note are within Section 3. Designating an Official Language for the United States:

  • "(a) English is the official language of the United States."
  • "(b) Executive Order 13166 of August 11, 2000 (Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency), is hereby revoked; nothing in this order, however, requires or directs any change in the services provided by any agency. Agency heads should make decisions as they deem necessary to fulfill their respective agencies' mission and efficiently provide Government services to the American people. Agency heads are not required to amend, remove, or otherwise stop production of documents, products, or other services prepared or offered in languages other than English."

That being said, Executive Orders are not legislation and are limited to the Executive Branch's interpretation of existing law. They can also be overturned by the next president. This EO also seems to be largely symbolic and does not require any substantial changes to federal programs per the NYT, except that agencies are no longer required to support "programs for people with limited English proficiency" per NPR. Usually, from what I can tell as well, official languages of countries are designated either in a country's constitution or through the legislative process.

There have also been attempts to codify English as the official language through legislative means with more teeth, force of law, and would require official documents, laws, communications, and such, to be in English, as mentioned in the article English Language Unity Act and as seen by H.R. 997 from the 118th Congress, but those efforts have never been signed into law. However, there is an argument that the Executive Branch could set policy in this space, though it is unprecedented. There's also a middle ground, such as including a note stating that "English is the official language of the Executive Branch per EO [number], but is not stated in the constitution or in federal law", similar to the way that we currently do for states. There's also an argument to wait and see how folks react. As such here are the options I envisioned, though I am open to other options.

Should we include "English" as the official language of the United States?

  • A: Yes, with no qualifications.
  • B: No, keep prior status quo.
  • C: Yes, with the qualifier that it is not mentioned in the Constitution or in applicable legislation.
  • D: State that there is no de jure official language, but mention that an official language has been set by the Executive Branch.
  • E: Wait.

Note that there is another RFC taking place at Talk:Languages of the United States § English as official language AG202 (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Re: English as official language...
It could be denoted as a de facto official language federally now because of the EO but any official de jure languages could still say 'none.' Schwebbs84 (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
A. Yes, it is a valid executive order and the article can be changed if it is revisited by future administrations. For the next 4+ years, that executive order will be in effect 24.120.61.89 (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC) — 24.120.61.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply ]
A: This option provides the most clarity for the article and the reader. However, if there is popular demand to change it back we can reopen the discussion. Tigerdude9 (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Does the president have the authority to do that? Javajuicer (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
A: Executive Orders have the full force of Law and are no less legally binding. Laws are overturned as inconstitutional all the time too.
Despite us liking or not, the majority and electoral college Elected president of the united states made it so Josearmado1998 (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
@Josearmado1998 Executive orders aren't laws. Really, they're just statements of the president's opinion. Javajuicer (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
The fact that he is the President is not in question, there should be a policy-based justification as to why it should be listed now. AG202 (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
A since it appears to be the consensus among reliable sources, and generally it is best to avoid footnotes when at all possible, in my opinion. KISS anikom15 (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
C 68.234.248.25 (talk) 04:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
A: The president has officially declared English as the official language. Regardless of people’s opinion it is officially the country’s official language since Saturday, March 1, 2025 Johnny Roswell (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC) — Johnny Roswell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply ]
A because it is in many reliable news sources, it is on USA.gov, and yes, EO's are indeed laws.
Quoting the American Bar Association,
'Both executive orders and proclamations have the force of law, much like regulations issued by federal agencies, so they are codified under Title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which is the formal collection of all of the rules and regulations issued by the executive branch and other federal agencies.' Tableguy28 (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Even if EOs were law, there's still no cause of action in this EO. Again, it does not require anything. AG202 (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Not a vote If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote , but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Discussion

  • A: No evidence the president doesn't have the authority to set a national language. And people on the other discussion bringing up the possibility that a future Democratic president will change it back are textbook WP:CRYSTALBALLing. Qualifiers, especially ones about what the constitution says are red herrings. Derpytoucan (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Also agree here. It is largely uncharted waters here. This is America. Someone will sue. Then the courts will decide. Congress could also pass a law ratifying it into law. Jake01756 (talk) (contribs) 05:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • I assume this is for the infobox. It would be good to see what Reliable sources say (so E tentatively), which would help inform the choice of A or B. However, it should not be C or D. Those rely on OR interpretations of "official". What should be done regarding C or D is inclusion in the body of the executive order underlying the decision (if sources support A), and debate about how to define official should be left to the main languages article. CMD (talk) 04:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • E followed by D, C. (In that order) WP:RECENT: I feel that the breaking news focuses around the EO itself, and we need to see whether or not sources independently (outside of Trump-related coverage) consider English as the official language outside of coverage, after this news dies down. As for D & C: The EO does not require anything to be published in English, even within the Executive Branch, in comparison to efforts in Congress such as the English Language Unity Act. It has no effect on the legislative branch, the judicial branch, states, DC, or territories. The president is the head of state and government, yes, but I'd be hard-pressed to state that the de jure official language is English without no law or constitutional amendment stating that it is. We've had no problem having a note for states, so I'm not sure why we couldn't have a note for the Executive Branch AG202 (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • D. EOs only apply to the executive branch and not the legislative or judicial branches. De jure means "of the law", and EOs are not laws but directives for the executive branch. This particular EO also does not change anything legally except that it rescinded a Clinton-era EO requiring federal agencies to publish documents in languages besides English. GN22 (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • E. I find that Trump now signing an executive order to make English the official language of the US is outrageous. The US has always been known as land of the free, which obviously means free speech, and the various languages that exist, that are commonly spoken across the country. As someone who is of Mexican ancestry, this will be a big problem to several states where a major fraction of its population speaks Spanish, and do not forget the other indigenous languages that exist in Arizona, Hawaii, and Alaska. But until then, keep the "language" segment in the infobox as de jure. ѕιη¢єяєlу ƒяσм, ᗰOᗪ ᑕᖇEᗩTOᖇ 🏡 🗨 📝 04:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
You're free to have such opinions, but RFC outcomes should be based on policy based reasoning rather than politically charged ones or personal perspectives. Wikipedia isn't the place for that. Tarlby (t) (c) 05:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Wow, your'e Mexican?, from what part of Mexico?, Salvador? DeLaMancha Nahual (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Your personal feelings as to whether something is outrageous, or whether it’s a good idea, are irrelevant to how an encyclopaedia should describe the world Mcc84mcc (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Your personal feelings are irrelevant here. We are writing an encyclopedia which reflects the content of reliable sources. Feel free to take to Twitter or Bluesky with this unhelpful opinionation. Barnt Toust 16:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • I would say that we should include English as the official language as EO has the force of law. Therefore it is the law of the land. Congress could pass a law to challenge this EO, but that would be up to the courts to determine it. Jake01756 (talk) (contribs) 05:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
@Jake01756: Please take a look at the text of the EO. It doesn’t require anything to be done, so there’s nothing to sue over. It doesn’t change anything on the ground except for the revocation of the Clinton EO. It doesn’t mandate anything, even for the Executive Branch, which is why sources call it largely symbolic. AG202 (talk) 05:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Many things are symbolic, but that doesn’t stop them being true or worthy of note in an encyclopaedia article. In December 2024 Biden signed an entirely symbolic EO saying that the bald eagle was the official national bird of the United States and the Wikipedia article on the bald eagle bluntly states that the bald eagle is therefore the official national bird of the United States. Should that article prevaricate around whether that EO was valid because nothing on the ground changed? Of course not. Same principle applies here. Mcc84mcc (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
@Mcc84mcc: That’s not what happened. There was a bill passed S. 4610; it was not an EO. A more apt comparison would be when Biden tried to assert that the Equal Rights Amendment had been ratified, but it was entirely symbolic as the Archivist is the one actually in charge of that. AG202 (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • @AG202 E, seeing as it is currently unclear the total ramifications or consequences of the executive order trump signed. Waiting and seeing what will happen will provide a better amount of information and context which will properly inform us to make a better choice. Etsaloto (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • A: Yes, with no qualifications. Due process has been followed by USA's government to establish English as the official language of USA. If in the future the situation changes (e.g., action is taken by USA's judiciary or legislature or future president to nullify or reverse this executive order), then the Wikipedia article will be updated. But as of now, the facts should be stated. Engineering Guy (talk) 12:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • D. Add it, but wait to remove it until a possible SCOTUS ruling overturns it Servite et contribuere (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Don’t forget to comment in the RfC currently taking place at Talk:Languages of the United States § English as official language about whether or not to add English as the official language of the United States. GN22 (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • B No. No evidence has been provided that Trump has the authority to establish an official language. TFD (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • E [WAIT]: Putting English as the official language in the infobox rn would be WP:RECENT. Firstly, Im pretty sure this change needs an act of congress. Trump also supposedly removed birthright citizenship via an EO, yet the law still exists because the EO violates the constitution and the change needed an act of congress. When Biden had the Bald Eagle officially made the national bird, that needed an act of congress too. Secondly, nearly all reliable sources thus far only seem to be talking about the EO itself rather than English as the official language. We need to see how this plays out before we add English as the official language. EarthDude (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • D CartofulMaro (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • E: I believe the same approach should be taken as it was with the Gulf of America order. While it is legally binding law now that English is the official language, it is best to wait a few days to see how (if any) possible implementation will work. However, as long as there is no pushback, it should eventually be changed to make English the official language. It is true that the United States has "free speech" that welcomes other languages, but this is true for other countries (e.g. Italy has free speech and welcomes other languages, but Italian is the official language of the country). Red0ctober22 (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Executive orders are not legally binding and are not laws/legislation. GN22 (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
@Red0ctober22: Note that per Languages of Italy § Legal status of Italian, Italian’s status as the official language of Italy is explicitly stated in legislation and implied by its constitution, so the case is different. AG202 (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Again the executive order does not require anything. There's no force of law because it only rescinds a prior EO. It doesn't even say that all publications in the Executive Branch are required to be in English. It has no teeth, no enforcement mechanism, little meaningful impact. AG202 (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Excellent points made by AG202, I'd suggest to not hesitate with this RFC (E), and then discuss about other possibilities, with the focus on D and perhaps C. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
D is the least objectionable. Perhaps a sentence or short paragraph referencing Trump's EO might appear under "Languages". Although I support making English the official language of the United States, this is achieved through the U.S. Congress and would affect far more than just the U.S. executive branch. Trump's EO is limited to the executive and, no, it doesn't have the teeth of a congressional bill to make English official in the way that Italian is official in Italy. (Italian was made official by the Italian Parliament only a few years back.) Changing the language fields in this article based on Trump's EO is aggressive overreach by a few editors here. Officially, Wikipedia doesn't do aggressive overreach. Mason.Jones (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Option A is the best answer. KennedyBroseguini (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Reliable sources right now, atleast most ive seen so far, seem to primarily be talking about the executive order itself rather than English being the official language EarthDude (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
This is a really good point. It could be like the Gulf of America where they have to redo maps, signs, websites, and literally everywhere it says "Gulf of Mexico". Jake01756 (talk) (contribs) 05:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Suppose Trump issued an executive order that Russian was the official language of the U.S. Would that mean that any laws passed by Congress or judgments made the federal courts would be invalid unless they were in Russian? Because that is what an official language means and courts and legislatures in countries with official languages must use them. TFD (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Yes, the United States currently has no de jure ("by law") official language. An official language has been set for the executive branch but not for the legislative or judicial branches. As AG202 said, "[This] EO does not require anything to be published in English, even within the Executive Branch, in comparison to efforts in Congress...It has no effect on the legislative branch, the judicial branch, states, DC, or territories." GN22 (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Then it does not belong in the info-box. I would just change the sentence in the language section beginning "Although there is no official language at the federal level...." TFD (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
@TFD. Exactly, and that seems like the Wikipedia way. EOs are not official legislation. U.S. senators and representatives (often working with official-English lobbies like U.S. English) have sponsored an official-language bill for years. It hasn't come up for a floor vote once because it couldn't pass. Your suggestion puts Trump's EO in proper perspective, as it has limited authority. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I would encourage you to vote in Talk:Languages of the United States § English as official language. GN22 (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
WP:SPECULATION on the question of whether Russian could or could not become the official language of the United States is irrelevant to the question of whether English is. Jbt89 (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • D: AT LEAST WRITE IT DOWN at the article as a fact or a piece of news, although an Executive Order does not necessarily mean a legislation. ChenSimon (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • D Trump can declare it for the Executive Branch, whatever that means, but he has no ability to declare for Congress or the Judiciary. If Congress passes a law in the future, or the Constitution is amended, then that will be relevant for this article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • A As far as I can tell, news sources covering this EO are saying that English was made into the official language of the United States. Nevertheless, I would be okay with an accompanying footnote explaining that English was made into an official language by executive order on 2 March 2025.--JasonMacker (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I should also add that the footnote could explain that from July 1776 to March 2025, the United States did not have an official language. JasonMacker (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • A per the Executive Order. Whether the final word on this subject lies with the Executive Branch or with the Legislative or Judicial Branches is an interesting question, but at the time of writing neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has attempted to overturn this action by the President. If and when that happens this can be revisited, but as things stand now English is the official language of the USA. Jbt89 (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • A. Like it or not, reliable sources clearly state the executive order made English the official language of the country. I have not found any sources saying Trump did not have the power to do so or otherwise equivocating. See coverage from ABC AP BBC CBS NBC NPR Politico Vanity Fair. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The obvious answer is A

No, really, there is not an obvious answer yet. That is the whole point of the discussion. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 (The Garage) 22:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The following discussion 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.

Whether or not it changes anything meaningful doesnt negate the fact that it is a clear legal designation. 166.181.82.55 (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It seems controversial, whether an Executive Order means a legislation......But at least we could first write it down at the article as a fact or a piece of news, in my opinion. ChenSimon (talk) 09:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Executive Order 13166 is now invalid with the new executive order adding English (de-facto) or English (disputed) is the least we could do and citing the new Executive order in annotations 47.42.83.188 (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
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.

Transportation section too long

The transportation section seems disproportionately long to me, I think it should be trimmed a bit. Any ideas or other opinions? Maxeto0910 (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Should be removed......all developed countries have the same type of Transportation system. Nothing notible here at all and wrong.."U.S. has the highest vehicle ownership per capita in the world" ((fact))Moxy 🍁 16:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The United States is no longer a liberal democracy

I can't suggest a simple edit for this. It will probably require major changes.

The U.S. has moved away from its status as a fully functioning liberal democracy toward a hybrid system incorporating elements of electoral democracy, executive dominance, and selective authoritarianism. While elections still occur, executive overreach, the undermining of judicial independence, suppression of opposition, and politically motivated governance indicate significant democratic backsliding.

If one were to classify the U.S. now, a more accurate description would be an "executive-driven illiberal democracy" or a "competitive authoritarian system". While opposition still exists, state institutions are being reshaped to favor executive control, the rule of law is inconsistently applied, and political opposition is increasingly repressed. David G (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

We would need to evaluate any sources we can gather. That being said it seems farfetched for change. Moxy 🍁 03:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
While this is a major shift, I disagree that it is far-fetched. Here are some sources just to start with. In addition, Wikipedia's own Second presidency of Donald Trump justifies these claims.
Trump’s ‘bald power grab’ could set US on path to dictatorship, critics fear
Trump’s moves test the limits of presidential power and the resilience of US democracy
The New Competitive Authoritarianism
UN human rights chief ‘deeply worried by fundamental shift’ in US David G (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Many/most of the sources on Democratic backsliding in the United States also support this claim. David G (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I share the concerns about Trump, but the funeral for liberal democracy in the US is premature. This strikes me as just unhelpful soapboxing, and doesn't merit any further discussion. CAVincent (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I believe that an encyclopedia should reflect reality, and I've provided primary sources to show that the article needs updating. "I don't want to talk about it" should not be a valid reason to have an out-of-date page. David G (talk) 07:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
At what point would you consider it valid, then? He already publicly claimed, multiple times, that he is above the law. He acts like it every single day, too, and nobody is stopping him. When one man has absolute power in the state, does it sound like democracy to you? 109.87.36.102 (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Your first source says that some critics fear this might happen, not that it already has. How many political prisoners are there, how many opposition leaders have been assassinated, which major news outlets have been expropriated and their editors jailed? Will Wikipedia (which is based in Florida) report you for posting this? TFD (talk) 07:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
If Hungary is a democracy then the US is Pogchampange (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Proposed rewrite of third paragraph

Based on my proposal in the previous discussion section, I've written some draft text to replace the third paragraph of this article:

The United States national government operates under a presidential system with increasingly centralized executive authority. While maintaining the formal structure of a constitutional federal republic, the balance of power among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches has been significantly altered by executive overreach. The national legislature remains bicameral, with the House of Representatives based on population and the Senate granting equal representation to each state, but congressional influence has been weakened by the expansion of unilateral executive actions. Although the Democratic and Republican parties continue to dominate American politics, political opposition faces growing institutional and legal challenges. Federalism persists, but state autonomy is increasingly subject to federal directives, particularly in areas of immigration, civil rights, and governance oversight.

American political traditions, historically rooted in Enlightenment ideals, have undergone a shift toward a more populist and executive-driven governance model, with reduced emphasis on pluralism and institutional independence. The nation remains ethnically and culturally diverse, but political polarization and government policies have intensified divisions over identity, rights, and governance. Immigration, once a defining characteristic of American identity, is now subject to restrictive policies and mass deportation efforts. While U.S. cultural influence continues to extend globally, its role as a leading advocate for liberal democracy has diminished, and its international reputation is increasingly defined by transactional diplomacy, economic nationalism, and unilateral assertions of power.

It's just a draft, and will need linkifying, etc. David G (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Great summary, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Seems to me that there are plenty of American editors that are in complete denial of the reality of the situation. 109.87.36.102 (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
"American editors" aren't the problem. It's the tendency of a few here to "sex up" the lead with long, involved details. The lead aready having reached its limit in length, this text belongs under "Government and politics: national government". With proper sourcing and links, it could reach consensus, I think, but in the lead it looks like grandstanding. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
This smells rotten of WP:POV, WP:SOAP and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 (The Garage) 23:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Parts of the draft are quite polemical. It will take good sources (not just from the academic Left) to support it in "Government and politics". Meanwhile, it has no place in the lead. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2025

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

Change the offical language to english as Donald Trump signed a executive order Making english the official language 73.213.67.10 (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Not done for now: Ongoing RfC above. CMD (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2025 (2)

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

Change Federal Presidential Republic to Federal Presidential Republic (de jure) Oligarchic Triumvirate (de facto) 38.49.80.120 (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Tarlby (t) (c) 22:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /