Talk:United States#rfc 634A7FF

This redirect is so offensive to all other nations on this continent. English language Wikipedia community is so US-centric and jingoistic that offending other nations passes as no problem and goes entirely uncontested. So disgusting. Peter1c (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:Maybe we could edit and change America to a disambiguation page. ChenSimon (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:It's because the most common usage of the term "America" is to refer to the U.S. People usually call the continents "North America", "South America", or "the Americas" rather than just "America". It's a reflection on how U.S.-centric the world is, not just Wikipedia.

:Other uses of the term are listed at America (disambiguation).

:If you wish to have "America" be a disambiguation page instead, you could start a discussion on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion ApexParagon (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::"Most common usage" by whom? (Personally, I blame the British for the common use of "America" to refer to the United States.) I don't use it. When you want to refer collectively to Canada and the United States, do you seriously say, "Canada and America"? That just sounds ignorant. Considering all that the word "America" encompasses, it's only logical to have a disambiguation page. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::A hear a lot of people say "North America" when they mean the U.S. and Canada, with or without Mexico and the Caribbean. -- Beland (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:For what it's worth, Wikipedia's usage of "America", "American", and related terms to primarily refer to the US, its people, etc., is very far from uncontested. The issue has come up time and again for discussion, and we continue to treat such terms this way for the simple reason that among native English speakers (and not just in the US), these terms primarily refer to the US. The editors who regularly work on these pages, very much including Americans such as myself, are quite aware of the issue and that Wikipedia's conventions on this are not universally approved of. I certainly have no jingoistic desire to offend the people of other nations. I also have no national demonym to refer to myself other than as an American. CAVincent (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:*First, above all, this is already mentioned in the FAQ.

:*This is the latest discussion, for reference.

::*Additionally, to quote the OP: {{TQ|Usage in Spanish &c. should not dictate usage on the English Wikipedia, per WP:USEENGLISH}}

:*This is outlined in American (word)

:*It's worth noting that [https://www.google.com/search?q=america&safe=active&ssui=on Google] and [https://www.bing.com/search?adlt=strict&cvid=4EED8337DDAF4ECFA84A515CF2C45B89&form=QBLH&ghacc=0&ghc=1&ghpl=&ghsh=0&lq=0&pq=america&q=America&qs=n&sc=17-7&sk=&sp=-1 Bing] show the same.

:The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 14:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::@CAVincent: "Very far from uncontested"? Not really. And "it comes up time and again" only among a very small number of politically motivated editors who wish to lecture the class about what is acceptable. Also, America(n) has nothing to do with "U.S.-centric" attitudes (as another editor put it). It's simply standard usage for the last 400 years in English, French, and many other languages. Standard usage either endures or it doesn't. That said, placing the term under simple (not complex and verbose) disambiguation rather than forcing an automatic redirect to "United States" seems fair. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@Mason.Jones, I don't think we are disagreeing, really. By "very far from uncontested", I merely meant that there are perennial complaints (yes, from a small number of editors) and not that these complaints are convincing or are ever likely to get anywhere. CAVincent (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::@CAVincent. Sorry for assuming so much. These lectures calling for a ban on 400 years of English usage are kind of spotty. I agree they're unlikely to get anywhere. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@Mason.Jones Standard usage for the past 400 years?! We're discussing here whether it's appropriate to use "America" and "American" ubiquitously to refer to the United States and things belonging to it. You couldn't be more off base. And it comes up a lot, BTW. Maybe not in your circle, but in the wider world. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I haven't met your "wider world", sorry. If you mean a certain leftist academic milieu, then yes, "American" can get you some trouble; its more stubborn ideologues use everything from "USonian" to "the U.S. people", but most of the English-speaking media don't. I read below that you are trying to rewrite the FAQ on this topic from an "enlightened" point of view. That is not permitted without wider consensus. FAQs were written after long discussion and debate ("American" has been through exactly that in English Wikipedia and French Wikipedia). FAQs can't be "reimagined", out of the blue, by any editor. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Mason.Jones It's unfortunate you're not aware of the wider world—it would behoove you to become acquainted with it so you don't make inappropriate accusations.

::::::You are mistaken. There was no mention of the word "enlightened"—that's your own POV that you've inserted. (It appears you didn't even check my edit before accusing me of wrongdoing.) Furthermore, editing at will, boldly even, is permitted. Encouraged. As to the FAQs, it appears you are confusing them with "facts". Q7 is poorly answered and would never stand if entered into the body of an article. There is no prohibition against editing it, which is why the option is available. If they truly were written after long discussion, please provide a link to the discussions. I did look, but cannot find evidence. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I agree that "America" is a different animal from "American." I think the term "America" could be disambiguated and not automatically sent to "United States". But the latter term (e.g., "an American actor", "American industry", "un philosophe américain") was confirmed as official, default usage on both English and French Wikipedias through RfCs years ago. And unlike "America", "American" requires no disambiguation. Editors are going to have to accept that as common usage in English (as well as in French), irrespective of any "wider worlds". Mason.Jones (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::@The Corvette ZR1: To be fair, the FAQ does not mention why America is redirected to United States. It only refers to the usage of "America" in the English language. Maybe there should be another question like "Why does America redirect to United States?". AG202 (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{reply|The Corvette ZR1}} I'm from Brazil and when I search for America on Google or Bing the first results are the American continent or things about football (like América Futebol Clube, Copa América). The use of America to refer almost exclusively to the United States is not standard in all languages. In many languages (like French, German or Italian), although the term America can be used to refer to the United States, the word is also used to refer to the continent. Also in English the word America can be used to refer to the continent (basically all English texts before the beginning of the 20th century) and in terms such as (Central, North and South America, Latin America, etc.). Even English dictionaries recognize that the term America does not belong exclusively to the United States [https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/America See]. Redirecting America to this article is basically acknowledging that the US has exclusive ownership of that name and that the 7 continents model is a universal truth. Creating a disambiguation for this term would be more appropriate as it would lead readers to learn that this word has another meaning that is extremely important to know. Mawer10 (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Your first argument is irrelevant because of WP:USEENGLISH. Community consensus is that we only consider the English language when discussing article titles. Otherwise everyone could cite to their preferred language's convention and nothing will ever be settled. If you believe that naming convention is wrong, you need to argue that on its talk page and not here.

:::Your other arguments are irrelevant under WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NOT. Specifically, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a textbook. It is not Wikipedia's job to teach people about things they should know. We already exhaustively cover those alternate views elsewhere under the article on American (word), but it is each user's choice to decide whether to actively explore that issue by navigating to and reading that article. It sounds like your underlying frustration is with the fact that the United States has monopolized the word "American" in common use in English for many years. Unfortunately, as Walt Disney famously said to P. L. Travers at the premiere of Mary Poppins, "Pamela, the ship has sailed". --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::@Coolcaesar Your first defense is irrelevant. We're all using English here, obviously: both "the United States" and "America" are English words. Native language isn't in question.

::::Your second defense is irrelevant. Wikipedia doesn't have a "job", but it is a teaching and learning tool. Otherwise, what purpose does it serve? To that end, it strives to be encyclopedic, which means using accurate terminology, not slang and not colloquial speech unless its relevant to the subject. The careless use of "America" among some sectors to refer to the United States might have become commonplace, but that doesn't make it correct. What is your objection to using more accurate terminology? What is your objection to having a disambiguation page to clear up the multiple uses of the term? Ghost writer's cat (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::The first defense was relevant to your original comment, considering half of your original comment was simply talking about how the word was used in other languages. And even in English, it's the most common usage. No, it's not the only usage, but it's the most common, and is what most English speakers are likely to be looking for when they type "America" in the search bar.

:::::For the second part of your comment:

:::::* There already is a disambiguation page to clear up the multiple uses of the term. It is simply called America (disambiguation) instead of America. This argument is simply about whether we should change the title of that disambiguation page to just "America" or not. People have already pointed out the existence of that page multiple times during this discussion, and yet you do not seem to know this.

:::::* We were never arguing that this definition is the "only" use of the word in English, nor was Wikipedia ever trying to imply that, given that this page "United States" has a note at the top linking directly to the disambiguation page!

:::::* It does not matter if you personally feel that the 2 continents are the "correct" or "most accurate" definition of the word America, if that's not how the majority of English-speaking people use the word. Wikipedia is not here to "right great wrongs". If you disagree with this definition becoming commonplace, take it up with the people who made it commonplace in the first place, not Wikipedia for simply reflecting this commonplace usage. ApexParagon (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::*Fully concur with User:ApexParagon's analysis. Also, the flaw in User:Ghost writer cat's position is revealed by the rhetorical question above, "what purpose does it serve"? Well, I already answered that with the citation to WP:NOT. It's just silly to call WP a "teaching and learning tool". Wrong. It's an encyclopedia, as WP:NOT explains at length. If you disagree with WP:NOT's narrow conception of what is an encyclopedia, then take it to that talk page. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::*:@Coolcaesar Just to be clear, you're saying an encyclopedia is not a learning tool? I suggest you skim through Encyclopedia and reconsider your position. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 07:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::You are appealing to the general definition of an encyclopedia, which is irrelevant and unpersuasive. The English Wikipedia has deviated from the general definition of "encyclopedia" towards a much more narrow definition under core policies WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. Please familiarize yourself with those core policies. Unless you can persuade the WP community that the narrow scope of the project was a mistake and that those policies should be revised, you need to think of ways to argue for your position which are either consistent with or are supported by those policies. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::@ApexParagon Your response is hostile. ("... and yet you do not seem to know this." "It does not matter if you personally feel that...") This is supposed to be a civil discussion. I don't even recognize what you're saying as relevant to my comment. I think you've mistaken me for someone else. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Mawer10 It does not matter how the word “America” is used in other languages, because this is the English-language Wikipedia. Here, the way words are used in English takes priority over how they are used in other languages.

:::And we’re not trying to make it seem like the U.S. has “exclusive” ownership of the word America. That’s why America (disambiguation) exists. The reason why it redirects to the U.S. (with a hatnote) is simply because it’s the most common usage of the word in English, and therefore is most likely to be what English-speakers are looking for when they type “America”. See WP:COMMONNAME. ApexParagon (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Any English dictionary will tell you that America has two main meanings: a short name for the United States and the entire landmass of the Western Hemisphere (which can also be considered a continent in other models). Both usages are common in the English language. Before the early 20th century, the usage of the word America was generally exclusive to the continent in the English language. Even today, America in reference to the continent is as widely used in the English language as America in reference to the United States. When an English speaker says "Latin America", "South America", or "Central America", he or she is not referring to the Latin, southern, and central parts of the United States. He or she is referring to the Latin, southern, and central parts of America (or "the Americas" [more common usage in English since the 50s]. Renaming America (disambiguation) to just America or redirecting America to America (disambiguation) won't make life harder for anyone searching the Wikipedia article about the USA. In fact, such a redirect would go a long way toward clearing up the ignorance of many English speakers about the word America. Mawer10 (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::You yourself admit English speakers call the continents “the Americas” more often than just “America”.

:::::And we know that “North America” isn’t typically referring to the northern part of the U.S., because that’s what people call the continent the U.S. is in. But people, particularly English speakers, typically think of North America, Central America, and South America as separate continents, rather than a single one. This is why they use the phrase “the Americas” rather than “America” to refer to all of them.

:::::And this is also why when English speakers say the word “America”, not adding any word or anything else before it, they are most commonly referring to the United States. Because people don’t typically think of the Americas as a unified continent. ApexParagon (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::In English, America with an adjective always refers to a part of the continent(s), while without an adjective it usually refers to the USA. Even so, it is the same word. Unless you consider America without an adjective to be a different word from America with an adjective, the case for not directing this word to the article about the USA is quite reasonable. Mawer10 (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::*Dictionary.com lists [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/america America] as short for the USA first, followed by North and South America, then also saying that the Americas refers to North and South America combined.

:::::::*The Cambridge Dictionary lists [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/america America] as the USA first, followed by North and South America.

:::::::Also, what is {{tq|America with an adjective}}? Are you referring to American? [https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/American Even] [https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/american then], [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/american same] [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/american thing]. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::(Note: most English natives consider Central America to be a part of North America, as our article states) AG202 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@ApexParagon Have you navigated to the disambiguation page? If you have, you'd see there are MANY other uses of the word "America". To say using it for the United States is "the most common usage of the word in English" is completely false. And yes, Wikipedia is English language, but that doesn't mean it ignores how common terms are used in other countries. Just go look at Football. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Just because there are other uses of the word does not disprove that it’s the most common use of the word in English.

:::::Other English-language countries call soccer “football”, such as the U.K. But even those other English-language countries frequently refer to the U.S. as “America”. ApexParagon (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Concur with this point as well. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::@ApexParagon Sorry, but I'm not following your logic. "Just because there are other uses of the word does not disprove that it’s the most common use of the word in English." Nothing you've written proves that it is. Regarding "football", you made my point. If you go to the article, it's not exclusively about the game played in the U.S. because not everyone uses the word that way. "America" should be treated similarly. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 08:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::@The Corvette ZR1 It appears you are confusing FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) with "facts". An editor simply typing a response to that question doesn't make it fact. Also, Google and Bing searches return results on the U.S. when the searcher is located in the U.S. or has a history of interest in the U.S., which is why someone in Brazil gets more global results. Thank you for the link to a previous discussion. It was too long to read through, so I wasn't able to determine that the question had been resolved. The length of the discussion, and the fact that it's been brought up again (and apparently is brought up frequently) tells me there is no consensus. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 07:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::*{{tq|It appears you are confusing FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) with "facts". An editor simply typing a response to that question doesn't make it fact.}} FAQs are meant to be "facts", in FACT, per WP:TALKFAQ. Especially those that have been thoroughly been discussed and accepted by the community. No one editor can make that change. And it's pretty obvious [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States/FAQ&diff=prev&oldid=1284683269 you don't accept that].

:::*{{tq|Also, Google and Bing searches return results on the U.S. when the searcher is located in the U.S. or has a history of interest in the U.S., which is why someone in Brazil gets more global results.}} Truth be told, read WP:ENGLISH and WP:UE. Put simply, we don't care if the search results in Brazil or Spain of Afghanistan or Mongolia tell that America refers to the continent. This is the ENGLISH Wikipedia. That means naming conventions from English, primarily in the USA and UK, are given top priority.

:::*{{tq|The length of the discussion, and the fact that it's been brought up again (and apparently is brought up frequently) tells me there is no consensus.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:America_(disambiguation)/Archive_6#Requested_move_10_July_2015 You] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States/Archive_75#America_is_NOT_U.S. really] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States/Archive_87#America think] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States/Archive_90#United_States_redirected_from_%22America%22 that] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States/Archive_90#%22America%22_redirecting_to_%22United_States%22 way?] (BTW all of them show general consensus to retain America as a redirect to the U.S.A.)

:::The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@The Corvette ZR1

::::* WP:TALKFAQ confirms "FAQ" are Frequently Asked Questions. It does not state that the answers are facts. Facts have to be supported with reliable sources, not opinions. Not even consensus. And yes, editors can change material unless it's been protected beyond their rights.

::::* "English-language" means it's written in English; it does not mean it's U.S.-centric. Wikipedia is accessed globally and as an encyclopedia it must retain a neutral POV. Again, I give you football.

::::* Thanks for the links—I took considerable time going through them and found them enlightening... but not how you had hoped. They only prove how contentious this topic is. Not one of those discussions had a consensus summary. Most simply petered out without obvious consensus. One was closed inappropriately mid discussion. All of the pages had subsequent discussions that were just as divisive, with many commenters giving compelling evidence in opposition to your POV.

::::You can't prove that America "almost always" refers to the United States. Steamrolling the conversation and trying to shut others down by giving your own misinterpretation of policy (e.g. "No one editor can make that change" and "we don't care if the search results in Brazil or Spain of [sic] Afghanistan or Mongolia tell that America refers to the continent") is unproductive. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:The English-language Wikipedia puts more weight on the usage in countries with more English speakers. How horrifying! Feeglgeef (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

There should be a section in the etymology section noting when America became more prominent than the United States in the text. --Plumber (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:What are you trying to assert with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1282208383 this copy and pasting of quotes]? Are you saying that Teddy's the reason for the usage of the term? Moxy🍁 00:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::On a side note pls review WP:OQ.... As we are simply looking for more effort when adding content. Moxy🍁 01:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

• Just a note that Ghost Writer's Cat is attempting to edit the FAQ to reflect his POV without discussing it properly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States/FAQ&diff=prev&oldid=1284683269] ~~ Jessintime (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Duly noted, and the editor has been notified. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Thanks for catching that. It looks like Ghost Writer's Cat's real issue is with the narrow scope of WP as prescribed by core policies like WP:NOT. The place to criticize that is on that talk page, not here. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::@Coolcaesar WP:NOT does not apply. This is the Talk page for the subject. So let's discuss. Where is the documentation for the response for the answer to Q7? Please prove support for the statement that America "almost always" refers to the U.S. Please quantitatively define "almost always". Meanwhile, also note the other comments that do not agree with your POV. There are enough in just this small subset to undermine your POV. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::WP:NOT applies everywhere on this project, as does WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Under those policies, English Wikipedia's purpose has become quite narrow in comparison to the conventional definition of "encyclopedia", so appealing to a broader definition will get you absolutely nowhere. If you don't like those core policies, then you're working on the wrong project. If you don't understand what is a WP policy, I suggest you review Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. You will not succeed in changing anyone's minds unless it is clear that you have taken the time to familiarize yourself with the evidence already discussed at length in the prior discussions in this issue and all WP core policies, and you show that you can either bring new evidence or a new perspective to the table. I have neither the time nor the inclination to research those old discussions when under WP:ONUS, the burden of proof is on the editor who seeks to disrupt the community consensus. It's your burden to skim through those old discussions, and all the evidence that was discussed therein. Then you come back and say, hey, I've thoroughly reviewed so-and-so discussions about this issue (and you should link to all the ones you read) and I understand what was discussed before, but here's something new that was completely missed at the time and which I think changes the analysis. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::@Coolcaesar "WP:NOT does not apply" means "There is nothing within WP:NOT that my edits violate." Who are you to define what Wikipedia's purpose has become? It's evident that you are the one who needs to visit WP:NOT... "An encyclopedia" is not "a broader definition"—it IS the definition, right there in the first sentence, and always has been. Happy to hear you have no more time for this; I don't need any more lectures from you, so I expect that will be the last. Any more reprimands and I will consider it harassment. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Please review Wikipedia:Assume good faith. In case it's not obvious, I'm trying to help you here. I keep pointing you in the direction of what you need to do if you wish to successfully persuade others of the righteousness of your position. You need to properly frame your position in terms of existing WP policies and guidelines, or, in the alternative, if those policies and guidelines are contrary to your position, then you need to confront that and then articulate why those policies and guidelines are wrong to begin with.
• :::::::Instead of taking that advice to heart and stepping back to take a deep breath and adjust your strategy, you made an unwarranted accusation of harassment. Please review Wikipedia:Civility.
• :::::::Getting back to the point. You responded to my citation to WP:USEENGLISH as if you read that naming convention as a directive to use English on the English Wikipedia, but that's not what it says. It starts off with: "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject that is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals, and major news sources)." I should have used the more precise link to WP:ESTABLISHED (a statement in the middle of WP:USEENGLISH), which states that "If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources".
• :::::::Going back to your other argument. You keep asserting that Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia". You correctly pointed out that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not acknowledges that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. But after that first line, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not repeatedly carves away at the general definition of "encyclopedia", one broad exclusion after another. By defining Wikipedia in the negative, in terms of what it is not, what is actually left is very narrow and deviates greatly from the general definition of an encyclopedia.
• :::::::In your posts above, you criticized the "careless use of 'America' among some sectors to refer to the United States" and you claim to be arguing for "accurate terminology".
• :::::::Let's do some close reading and take apart what you mean by that. When you criticize the dominant usage in American English of using "America" to refer to the United States as "careless" and you claim that using "America" in a way that doesn't necessarily mean the United States is more "accurate", you're attempting to justify using Wikipedia as a soapbox to teach speakers of American English to use the word "America" in a way that is less arrogant and less offensive to speakers of other languages. (Keep in mind that most native American English speakers see nothing wrong with the current dominant usage and find it quite accurate, since they learned it as children from patriotic songs like America the Beautiful and God Bless America.)
• :::::::Under WP:NOT, it is entirely inappropriate to use Wikipedia for such purposes. See WP:NOTADVOCACY: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising, and showcasing." WP:NOT also says that Wikipedia is not a textbook. See WP:NOTTEXTBOOK: "the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize accepted knowledge, not to teach subject matter."
• :::::::As WP:NOTLEAD points out, WP always follows, it never leads. Wikipedia merely describes the world as it is and not as we may want it to be.
• :::::::So you're probably right, it's time to end the conversation for now. You have not persuaded anyone. You have not altered the community consensus. You have revealed that you think Wikipedia should be used as something which it is most definitely not. For the time being, the consensus stands. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• :@Jessintime Personal attacks aren't allowed. How is "often" any more or less of a POV than "almost always"? Obviously "almost always" is your POV. Please remove your comment above. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• :@Jessintime BTW, there is no rule that we must discuss before editing. However, there is strong recommendation that you discuss with the editor either before or after reverting. As long as you were naming me, you should have tagged me. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 07:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:Readers who type in America are overwhelmingly looking for the country not the continent. It serves them best to land on this page rather than to land on a disambiguation page. For the few readers looking for the continent, there is a convenient link at the top of the page they can follow. TFD (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::@The Four Deuces Despite the repeated claims about users "almost always" and "overwhelmingly" searching for the United States and not another use of "America", not a single person has been able to substantiate the claim. Considering this, and the repeated statements to the contrary, the dogmatic persist. The statement violates WP:V and WP:NPOV. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I would assume that readers are more or less looking for the meaning of a word in proportion to the usage of that meaning. We can gauge that by looking at a recent corpus and examining how often the various meanings of the word are used. We can also use search engines that adjust their results based on user feedback to see which meaning people are most often searching for. I just did a search on scholar.google.com; the only use of the singular "America" on the first page of results is to refer to the United States. A search on google.com shows an overwhelming use of the singular "America" to refer to the United States, including in a lot of news articles. The first web result is the Wikipedia article United States, the second result is a page about America (band), and the third result is the Wikipedia article Americas. Further down after pages about the US and the band is a page about the Bank of America. So if anything, it seems readers would be looking for the band if they are not looking for the country, not the continent. -- Beland (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The United States is located in North America and Oceania. This is how other transcontinental countries are addressed in their first sentences:

• Russia, or the Russian Federation, is a country spanning Eastern Europe and North Asia.
• Egypt, officially the Arab Republic of Egypt, is a country spanning the northeast corner of Africa and southwest corner of Asia via the Sinai Peninsula.
• Turkey, officially the Republic of Türkiye, is a country mainly located in Anatolia in West Asia, with a relatively small part called East Thrace in Southeast Europe.
• Panama, officially the Republic of Panama, is a country in Latin America at the southern end of Central America, bordering South America.

The United States by contrast, only mentions one continent:

The United States of America (USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a country primarily located in North America.{{clear}}

Unusually, there is no mention of Oceania at all. This is probably because the official legal name ends with America, but ending the first sentence there is inadequate. The first sentence should probably be longer and similar to Turkey's. --Plumber (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:The possessions in the Pacific ocean and the Caribbean Sea that you're omitting..... are all already mentioned in the lead with links to more exhaustive information instead of a random generic link to the oceana's. Moxy🍁 00:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::Oceania not oceana's, but opinion noted. --Plumber (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:Unincorporated territory the country happens to have control of is typically not mentioned in the lead sentence of the country’s article. See United Kingdom ApexParagon (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::Hawaii is a state in Oceania. --Plumber (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Let's see if there is a consensus to use the following first sentence?

• The United States of America (USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a country mainly located in North America, with a relatively small part in Oceania.{{clear}}--Plumber (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:For me it's too vague and is omitting the Caribbean Sea and is more like clutter than information..... that we cover in the second section of the lead with proper links. Moxy🍁 00:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::The term North America includes the Caribbean Sea, while Oceania includes both Micronesia (Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands) and Polynesia (American Samoa and Hawaii). Ending the first sentence primarily located in North America is too vague for an encyclopedia. --Plumber (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose The current lead (as you quoted in above) is good. It's clear, simple, and true, and we get to Hawaii in the next sentence. The examples of Russia, Turkey, Egypt, and Panama aren't particularly apt for various reasons, e.g. Turkey and Egypt are in fact partly notable for being located at transcontinental crossroads. The current lead isn't broke, no need to fix it. CAVincent (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:"Transcontinental" is pure trivia, and that trivia has little relevance to the United States, which does not use it for any sort of administrative or other function. This wording obscures information rather than provides clarity. What is probably the most important consideration for the geography of the United States is not continents, but oceans, in particular the position of the core between two oceans and thus geopolitically extremely secure. CMD (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::To be fair, Canada could probably conquer Michigan without anyone noticing the difference. CAVincent (talk) 08:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:I oppose this change in most forms. "Primarily located" already makes it clear that there are other locations and we discuss overseas areas later in this lead. It aligns with other colonial powers like the United Kingdom, Portugal, and France. U.S. territories are given limited recognition and constitutional protections; they lack federal representation. As in the articles of other colonizers, it makes more sense to introduce the primary location and discuss territories separately. A "relatively small part in Oceania" doesn't accurately describe the setup. I prefer the current version. However, if consensus by others is that we do need to add something, I would propose something more like how we introduce the Netherlands or Spain, e.g. the following: {{blockquote|text=The United States of America (USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a country primarily located in North America with overseas territories in multiple oceans.}} ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 14:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::I agree that the word primarily makes things abundantly clear: that is, the small exceptions (state of Hawaii, territories, multiple oceans) lie outside North America. And since "everything else" is cited immediately in the first paragraph, busy add-ons like "overseas territories in multiple oceans" are just extra verbiage. The current wording seems the best. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::@Malvoliox A note that explained the unique position of Hawaii was recently deleted; Talk discussion is below. However, territories are not part of the U.S. and must not be included in the definition. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I do genuinely prefer just the term "primarily located" without additional detail until later ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 02:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@Malvoliox Where later? I haven't seen anything later that explains the statement. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/United States has had the overlinked template since May 2022 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Editnotices/Page/United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1087710169]. How should we go around removing links? Or should the template be removed. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 16:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:I tried to remove superfluous links but they got reverted. The whole article needs cleanup. It's supposed to be an overview, but when it starts with "12,000 years ago", it's too bloated. The links all go to their topics, but I think there needs to be some relativity considered. Are they enhancing the article? Do we need a link to every listing that the U.S. can be found in? What are the chances someone is going to want to divert right then and there to that page and check out where all the other countries fall? It's something people can easily find on their own later if they want. Seeing the whole list doesn't add clarity to the statement. Do we need links to every term just because one exists? I learned the meaning of "melting pot" in elementary school—I don't think it needs to be linked here. Links should be used to help clarify terms or references that might be confusing or need additional explanation for a full understanding. They shouldn't be used for every item that has an article about it. More discretion is necessary when there are so many opportunities to link. I vote leave it and perhaps one day someone will be allowed to clean the article up. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Should we not match the new version of the Republican party article? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&curid=32070&action=history 50.100.81.128 (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:What do you mean? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 02:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::That the government of the U.S.A is now right-wing populist. 50.100.81.128 (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree. Please feel free to suggests edits and create an edit request! Lova Falk (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|United States|answered=yes}}

I would like to edit the government type from "Federal presidential republic" to "Authoritarian corporate state" on the "United States" wikipedia page at the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States GuardiansOfAI (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

: No. That kind of claim needs a source. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 21:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:Source: https://chatgpt.com/share/67fed55e-8670-8005-a37e-ef8aba3e3001 GuardiansOfAI (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{reply to|Eyer}} https://chatgpt.com/share/67fed55e-8670-8005-a37e-ef8aba3e3001 GuardiansOfAI (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Sorry But No, Chatgpt cannot be used as a source. Untamed1910 (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::{{reply to|Eyer}}, {{reply to|Untamed1910}}

::::I understand the concerns about using ChatGPT as a source. However, the linked ChatGPT output is not a typical AI-generated opinion—it is a verbatim transcript of several political commentaries that reflects publicly expressed views by individuals rightfully criticizing the current administration for its failure to uphold core tenets of the U.S. Constitution, particularly:

::::- Violation of Due Process: The transcript highlights disturbing cases where individuals were reportedly deported or detained without legal justification or a fair judicial hearing—clear violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

::::- Breakdown of Separation of Powers: It refers to instances where executive actions were allegedly carried out in direct defiance of judicial orders, which fundamentally undermines the independence of the judiciary—a hallmark of any constitutional republic.

::::- Emerging Authoritarian Governance: The pattern described—mass surveillance, suppression of dissent, weaponization of tariffs without congressional oversight, and public intimidation of media—mirrors behaviors commonly attributed to authoritarian regimes. These are not vague accusations; they are documented concerns echoed by civil rights organizations, legal scholars, and former government officials.

::::- Corporate Influence Over Government Functions: With private corporations, particularly in the tech sector, wielding extraordinary influence over public discourse, elections, and policy decisions, the argument can be made that the United States is functioning less like a federal republic and more like a corporate oligarchy with centralized executive control—i.e., an authoritarian corporate state.

::::While ChatGPT cannot itself be cited as a reliable source under Wikipedia’s current standards, the transcript it provides serves as a medium to surface widely discussed allegations that are increasingly validated by investigative journalism, such as reporting from The Atlantic, The Washington Post, Reuters, and ProPublica—many of which document constitutional crises and erosion of checks and balances.

::::Therefore, I am not asking to change the government type permanently or without qualification. I propose adding a subsection in the “Criticism” or “Recent Political Developments” sections that notes how certain political analysts and commentators have described the evolving nature of the U.S. government as authoritarian and corporatized, citing reputable sources alongside the transcript for context.

::::This approach would be consistent with Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View policy: acknowledging credible, notable criticisms without asserting them as uncontested fact.

::::Thank you for considering this clarification. GuardiansOfAI (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Then don't give us a link to ChatGPT if ChatGPT isn't the source you're intending to give us. Please give us the sources you gave the GPT if we want to consider this. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 23:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{reply to|Tarlby}}, {{reply to|Eyer}}, {{reply to|Untamed1910}},

::::::See below an organized compilation of sources and summaries supporting the characterization of the United States as an "Authoritarian corporate state":

::::::1. Violation of Due Process and Judicial Defiance

::::::Kilmar Abrego Garcia Case: Despite a Supreme Court order to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador, the Trump administration has resisted compliance. This defiance of judicial authority undermines the rule of law and due process. Source, Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-defies-supreme-court-dangerous-precedent-why-2025-4?utm_source=chatgpt.com

::::::Proposal to Deport U.S. Citizens: President Trump suggested deporting U.S. citizens convicted of violent crimes to El Salvador, a move that legal experts deem unconstitutional and a violation of both domestic and international law. Source: https://apnews.com/article/trump-citizens-prison-el-salvador-illegal-79113d0ccefefd1f7d8e51c3a4c3defd

::::::2. Suppression of Academic Freedom

::::::Federal Funding Cuts to Universities: The administration froze substantial federal funds to institutions like Harvard University after they refused to comply with demands to alter their programs, including shutting down diversity initiatives. This action is viewed as an infringement on academic independence and freedom. Source, The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/14/us/harvard-trump-reject-demands.html

::::::3. Erosion of Civil Liberties

::::::Targeting of Legal Residents and Citizens: Instances have been reported where U.S. citizens and legal residents, such as immigration lawyer Nicole Micheroni, received erroneous deportation notices, reflecting a broader strategy that instills fear among immigrants and potentially their advocates. Source, The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/15/self-deportation-email-citizen-immigration-lawyer

::::::4. Economic Policies Favoring Corporate Interests

::::::Tariffs Impacting the Middle Class: Representative Seth Magaziner criticized the administration's tariffs, labeling them as significant tax increases on the middle class, exacerbating the cost of living and benefiting corporate interests at the expense of ordinary citizens. Source, Seth Magaziner's Official Instagram video speech: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DIPOVEPSMZv

::::::5. Consolidation of Power and Surveillance

::::::Digital Authoritarianism: Investigative journalist Carole Cadwalladr highlighted the rise of a "broligarchy"—a powerful alliance between political leaders and tech executives—that uses digital platforms to amass geopolitical power, dismantle democracy, and enable authoritarian control. Source, Ted Talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/carole_cadwalladr_this_is_what_a_digital_coup_looks_like

::::::6. International Human Rights Concerns

::::::Use of Foreign Prisons for U.S. Citizens: The administration's proposal to send U.S. citizens to foreign prisons, specifically in El Salvador, raises serious human rights concerns, given reports of harsh conditions and abuses in these facilities.

::::::These sources collectively illustrate actions and policies that align with characteristics of an "Authoritarian corporate state," including the undermining of judicial authority, suppression of dissent, erosion of civil liberties, and policies favoring corporate interests over individual rights. GuardiansOfAI (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::If you want something changed, specify exactly what you want changed and provide one or more reliable sources. I'm not going to read and evaluate your ChatGPT nonsense. You're wasting my time by posting generative AI text. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 23:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{reply to|Eyer}}, I understand where you are coming from and I’m not here to waste anyone’s time. What I’m suggesting is a meaningful conversation around facts. Just to clarify, I am specifically proposing we update the classification of the United States government from "Federal presidential republic" to something more reflective of current events, such as "Authoritarian corporate state."

::::::::My primary source to justify the proposed change in the classification of the United States' government is not ChatGPT, but a recent Supreme Court document issued on April 10, 2025, in the case of Noem v. Abrego Garcia. The document clearly outlines that a U.S. resident was unlawfully deported to a foreign prison in El Salvador despite a legal withholding order and the federal government admitted to violating that legal order.

::::::::You can read the official Supreme Court PDF document below:

::::::::https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf

::::::::If you review the document carefully, you will see that the court acknowledged the following:

::::::::- The deportation violated an existing 2019 immigration judge’s order.

::::::::- There was no legal basis for the deportation.

::::::::- The detained individual had no criminal record.

::::::::- The administration’s action demonstrated a dangerous disregard for due process and judicial authority.

::::::::This case, along with several others, underscores a pattern of executive overreach, undermining the separation of powers and constitutional protections such as the right to due process. I believe it raises serious questions about whether the U.S. still functions as a “federal presidential republic” in practice or whether it has shifted toward executive-authoritarianism enabled by corporate and foreign alliances.

::::::::If the court case alone doesn’t illustrate the urgency, I created a short video montage that attempts to communicate this troubling trend through a more artistic lens to reach those who might be numb to legal jargon. You can view the video at the following link, which leverages transcripts from various video sources highlighting the main argumentative points I mentioned earlier. It showcases diverse voices and uses a neutral technology that presents facts supporting the arguments I previously referred to:

::::::::Video montage link: “The Shattered U.S. Republic”

::::::::http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvxV4lHCFWo

::::::::I’m not here to create chaos on Wikipedia. I care deeply about preserving democratic norms and I believe Wikipedia is one of the few global platforms where truth still matters. This is a necessary change for those in our country who may not have the means or access to research to recognize the shift in our government. I hope you’ll consider the Supreme Court document as a legitimate, neutral reference point. Let me know if you need help refining the proposed language on the page and I would be happy to collaborate. GuardiansOfAI (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Wikipedia primarily uses reliable secondary sources. Do you have a reliable secondary source that describes the United States as an "Authoritarian corporate state"? —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 16:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{reply to|Eyer}}, I would like to provide the following secondary sources to support my argument that the United States is currently functioning as an authoritarian corporate state.

::::::::::1. Alex Gibney’s HBO Documentary Series: The Dark Money Game

::::::::::In April 2025, acclaimed filmmaker Alex Gibney released a two-part HBO documentary titled The Dark Money Game. The series investigates the infiltration of untraceable political spending into U.S. democracy and its influence over the Supreme Court.

::::::::::Inspired by Jane Mayer’s book Dark Money, the documentary explores how the 2010 Citizens United ruling enabled unlimited, anonymous corporate political contributions, fostering a dangerous “pay-to-play” system. Gibney highlights the alliance between corporate elites and religious conservatives, describing it as a strategic manipulation of regulation and judicial appointments — culminating in the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022.

::::::::::Gibney directly warns about the U.S. slipping into authoritarianism, stating:

::::::::::“We’re on a knife edge now, teetering toward authoritarian rule. What it really is is crony capitalism, and that’s what unites this administration with [Russia’s Vladimir] Putin, [Hungary’s Viktor]…”

::::::::::This documentary offers a critical analysis of how concentrated corporate power has merged with political authority in the U.S., reinforcing the notion of an “authoritarian corporate state.”

::::::::::The Guardian article summary:

::::::::::https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2025/apr/15/alex-gibney-dark-money-documentaries-hbo

::::::::::Democracy Now coverage and interview:

::::::::::https://www.democracynow.org/2025/4/15/alex_gibney_dark_money_game

::::::::::Watch the full episode (Democracy Now):

::::::::::https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2025/4/15?autostart=true

::::::::::2. Academic Commentary on Corporate Authoritarianism

::::::::::An additional secondary source supporting this framing is a March 2025 article from ProMarket:

::::::::::“Donald Trump’s authoritarian playbook is based not on foreign dictatorships, but on the failures of U.S. corporate democracy itself.”

::::::::::This article outlines how deregulated corporate influence and the weakening of institutional checks have laid the groundwork for authoritarian practices under the guise of democracy.

::::::::::ProMarket article:

::::::::::https://www.promarket.org/2025/03/03/donald-trumps-authoritarian-playbook-is-based-on-failures-of-us-corporate-democracy-not-foreign-dictators/

::::::::::I hope these sources will be sufficient to justify serious consideration of the proposed change. If further clarification is needed, I’d be happy to provide it. GuardiansOfAI (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::You misunderstand. I'm looking for a single reliable [secondary or academic, non-opinion] source that has "Authoritarian corporate state" as directly quotable text—not that we would update the article with just a single source that says that, but that's what would actually start this discussion. You seem unable to supply such a source.

:::::::::::Further, even though I've already told you what kind of reliable sources Wikipedia cites, you keep steering the conversation toward opinion articles and reviews of documentaries. This is not productive, and I question whether you're acting in good faith to improve this article. It seems like you want a discussion for discussion's sake—and you won't get that further from me. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 17:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::For an academic overview of the topic pls see {{cite web | last=Kleiner | first=Kurt | title=Will the U.S. Resist a Slide into Authoritarianism? | website=University of Toronto| date=2024-10-08 | url=https://magazine.utoronto.ca/research-ideas/culture-society/will-us-resist-slide-into-authoritarianism/ }} Moxy🍁 17:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::{{reply to|Eyer}},

::::::::::::Thank you for your continued engagement and clarification. I now better understand that you’re seeking a reliable secondary or academic source that uses the term “Authoritarian corporate state”—or a directly comparable phrase—in reference to the United States, ideally in a scholarly or peer-reviewed context.

::::::::::::You’re absolutely right that many of the sources I previously provided fall more into the realm of investigative journalism or opinion, even if they are well-researched and from reputable outlets. My intent has never been to waste anyone’s time or to push for debate for its own sake. I’m simply trying to bring forward a perspective that many Americans are beginning to articulate—especially in light of recent constitutional, judicial, and economic developments—and to do so in a way that meets Wikipedia’s standards.

::::::::::::In that spirit, I’d like to provide again the identified academic source from Sarah C. Haan, a law professor at Washington and Lee University, who in March 2025 wrote a piece for the University of Chicago’s ProMarket titled “Donald Trump’s Authoritarian Playbook Is Based on Failures of U.S. Corporate Democracy, Not Foreign Dictators.” In the article, Haan describes the current U.S. political system as evolving into “corporate authoritarianism”, a term she defines as follows:

::::::::::::“Instead of “competitive authoritarianism,” we should recognize this as “corporate authoritarianism.” The purpose of corporate authoritarianism is to entrench a small group at the top without practical accountability. To get there, corporate authoritarianism uses real elections that, while not technically rigged, are so skewed as to be virtually opponent-proof.”

::::::::::::Haan further elaborates on how this structure mimics corporate governance, blending private power and public authority in ways that undermine democratic accountability. While she uses the phrase “corporate authoritarianism” rather than “authoritarian corporate state,” the implication and analysis are substantively aligned.

::::::::::::Source:

::::::::::::Sarah C. Haan – ProMarket – University of Chicago (March 3, 2025)

::::::::::::https://www.promarket.org/2025/03/03/donald-trumps-authoritarian-playbook-is-based-on-failures-of-us-corporate-democracy-not-foreign-dictators/

::::::::::::If this source still doesn’t meet the necessary threshold, I completely understand and will continue searching for academic publications or peer-reviewed literature that may provide even stronger footing. If you—or any other editor—have suggestions on where to look, I’d appreciate the direction.

::::::::::::Thanks again for the dialogue and for holding to Wikipedia’s content integrity. GuardiansOfAI (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Your ProMarket source is an opinion piece. It doesn't meet the threshold required for inclusion in Wikipedia. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 18:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::{{reply to|Eyer}}, is the current administration not following the Constitution of the United States an opinion as well? GuardiansOfAI (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Does a reliable source like The New York Times claim that in a non-opinion article? —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 00:16, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::{{reply to|Eyer}}, sure, see below the non-opinion article from The New York Times, dated April 14th 2025, that clearly shows that the United States’ Constitution is not being followed by the current administration. I also provided a summary below to make it clearer and why it matters.

::::::::::::::::Source:

::::::::::::::::The New York Times – April 14, 2025

::::::::::::::::Title: Harvard Law School Challenges Trump Administration’s Cuts as Breach of Constitutional Norms

::::::::::::::::Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/14/us/harvard-trump-reject-demands.html

::::::::::::::::Summary of Constitutional Relevance:

::::::::::::::::This article reports that Harvard Law School and other academic institutions formally challenged the Trump administration’s decision to revoke federal research funding. They argue this move violates Article I of the Constitution, which grants Congress—not the president—the power of the purse. Legal scholars cited in the article also reference the separation of powers doctrine, stating the executive branch’s actions amount to a constitutional breach.

::::::::::::::::Why this matters:

::::::::::::::::This is not an opinion piece. It is a fact-based article reporting on constitutional scholars’ interpretations, legal filings, and direct actions taken by one of the most respected institutions in the U.S. It qualifies as a secondary, reliable, and mainstream source that raises legitimate constitutional concerns—particularly regarding executive overreach and the undermining of checks and balances. GuardiansOfAI (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::That NYT article doesn't say the words "constitution" or "constitutional", except when quoting Gerber. You keep trying to make claims that aren't supported by your sources. That's called original research or synthesis which isn't permitted on Wikipedia. I don't have time to keep responding to you, so I'm going to end the conversation here. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 01:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::{{reply to|Eyer}},

::::::::::::::::::Thank you for your time and your efforts in upholding Wikipedia’s sourcing standards. I respect the importance of verifiability and neutrality, and I want to clarify that I’m not attempting to insert original research or opinion-based arguments.

::::::::::::::::::That said, I’d like to share a few recent, non-editorial sources from reputable institutions and court proceedings that document constitutional concerns raised in response to specific actions by the current administration. These sources do not require interpretation—they explicitly reference constitutional violations as ruled or alleged by federal judges or official entities:

::::::::::::::::::1. Federal Court Holding Administration in Probable Contempt for Ignoring Court Order on Deportations

::::::::::::::::::“Boasberg criticized the administration’s “willful disobedience” and warned that such actions could undermine the Constitution.”

::::::::::::::::::Source: Reuters – April 16, 2025

::::::::::::::::::https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-finds-trump-administration-disregarded-order-venezuelan-deportations-2025-04-16/

::::::::::::::::::2. Federal Judge Blocks Executive Order to End Birthright Citizenship

::::::::::::::::::“Senior Judge John C. Coughenour granted a temporary restraining order… calling it ‘blatantly unconstitutional.’”

::::::::::::::::::Source: State of Washington v. Trump (2025)

::::::::::::::::::https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Washington_v._Trump_(2025)

::::::::::::::::::3. Harvard University Rejects Funding Freeze Over Alleged Constitutional Infringement

::::::::::::::::::“The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.”

::::::::::::::::::Source: Harvard Gazette – April 14, 2025

::::::::::::::::::https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2025/04/harvard-wont-comply-with-demands-from-trump-administration/

::::::::::::::::::These are primary or secondary sources documenting direct claims and rulings around constitutional violations—some by federal judges, others from institutional responses like Harvard University.

::::::::::::::::::I understand if these examples don’t justify a full change in classification of government type on the United States Wikipedia page. But I hope they at least validate the basis for raising the concern in good faith and open the door for potential inclusion in the “Criticism of government” or “Controversies” sections, if not in the infobox.

::::::::::::::::::If you have further advice on how best to approach this under Wikipedia’s framework, I’d be genuinely grateful. I appreciate the dialogue and your dedication to accuracy.

::::::::::::::::::Remaining open to conversation about such a consequential shift is, in itself, the first step toward recognizing when a government may be changing in form or function. GuardiansOfAI (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::{{not done}}. Refer to WP:LLMTALK. Many of the respondes above include evident LLM text. If you'd like any change to be included, then you have to ask them by yourself without AI aid and obtain consensus for such change. The world, not only the US, is going backwards towards authoritarianism. The sources above don't establish facts, just opinions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::{{reply to|Tbhotch}},

::::::::::::::::::::I was leveraging AI to come up with all the various sources I provided to support my argument which I believe are compelling enough. The initial request to update the United States’ government from “Federal presidential republic” to "Authoritarian corporate state” is not an opinion but rather a statement of facts. If we can’t come to an understanding that with recent events and the President of the United States not following due process and infringe on the freedom of speech of Americans by suppressing people, which is part of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, then we should reconsider Wikipedia’s stand on political affiliation and the veracity of facts on the platform.

::::::::::::::::::::You may want to read the AI version below to hopefully make my point across clearer if what I wrote above wasn’t proper English which isn’t my native language. I am a French citizen who has called America his home for the past 15 years:

::::::::::::::::::::I’ve been leveraging AI to help gather a wide range of sources to support my argument—sources that I believe are compelling and relevant. The initial request to update the description of the United States’ government from “Federal presidential republic” to “Authoritarian corporate state” is not based on opinion, but on a series of factual developments.

::::::::::::::::::::If we can’t reach a consensus that recent actions—such as the president circumventing due process and infringing on freedom of speech—warrant at least a discussion, then it raises legitimate concerns about Wikipedia’s position on political neutrality and its commitment to factual integrity. GuardiansOfAI (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::I'm not sure if this comment will go against WP:NOTFORUM, but I consider it important to say.

:::::::::::::::::::::It's been months since Project 2025 was absolutely everywhere on the news, but I still remember how a ridiculous amount of Trump supporters all went to the article's talk page and collectively managed to create an over 200 comments thread claiming how Wikipedia has a progressive bias against Trump and conservatism. Those commenters insulted this platform and the people who edit it, including me. I specifically remember one IP calling one of our Canadian editors a "commie" and a piece of shit. The man himself Elon Musk had only recently gone on whole rants against Wikipedia as I assume you know.

:::::::::::::::::::::The point is that we apparently have a liberal bias regarding politics according to people on the right side of the spectrum, a claim that often frustrates me, yet, something that also frustrates me is comments like this suddenly saying we have a bias for Trump now. Do we really? Whether it be for or against him, claims like these never help improve our articles and will likely never bring change.

:::::::::::::::::::::And just so you know, your English seems perfect. Please type in your own words. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 03:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::{{reply to|Tarlby}}, I appreciate your point of view. The frustration you have is well founded and I understand how these talk pages can sometimes be overwhelmed by strong political opinions from both sides, I've seen it too. But just like those trying to discredit Wikipedia by calling it too “liberal,” there are legitimate concerns being raised from the other direction that I believe deserve the same consideration. My point was not to accuse Wikipedia of favoring Trump but to acknowledge that many Americans are deeply alarmed by the current trajectory of our government. My original request was not made lightly, obviously, it was based on multiple sources and recent events that point to a growing pattern of authoritarianism and the erosion of constitutional norms. I’ve been leveraging AI only to help gather references to strengthen my argument, not to bypass Wikipedia’s standards. I’m not trying to provoke unnecessary discussion, I’m trying to understand where the line is drawn between opinion and reality, especially when the lines in our democracy are starting to blur, which is happening today. And yes, I’ll continue using my own words and appreciate the compliment on my English by the way. It may not be my first language but I hope that doesn’t get in the way of being heard. I still believe that keeping this conversation open is the first step in recognizing when a government is changing, especially when that change is subtle and potentially dangerous. GuardiansOfAI (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

It is a well-known fact that the United States does not have an official language. I always knew that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but I didn’t think they would blatantly share false information. 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:7F (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:President Donald Trump signed an executive order setting the official language to be English a few months ago. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 22:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::But didn't I see in a previous discussion that the EO applied only to the Executive branch? Ghost writer's cat (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:GoToComment/c-Beland-20250410033500-RFC:_Is_English_the_official_language_of_the_United_States%3F] Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 19:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:It's true. English is now the official language. BeProper (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@TzarN64 What in particular should be removed from the article? Leaving a tag and not explaining further is confusing. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 22:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

DecafPotato, you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=1286091677&oldid=1286090850 deleted the note] in the lead that explained the uncertainty of Hawaii’s inclusion as part of the North American continent with the edit summary: "the location of Hawaii is stated ten words later so I doubt it needs a note, especially since 'primarily located' already states very clearly that some parts are outside NA". (It should also be noted that this deletion was marked inappropriately as a minor edit.) The text you refer to states that Hawaii is in the Pacific Ocean—this has no relevance to its association with North America. You also stated, "even if Hawaii is counted as NA it doesn't change Guam/CNMI/AmSamoa being in Oceania, making the statement true no matter what". The countries you identified are U.S. territories. Territories are not part of the U.S. Within certain contexts (as explained by the deleted note, which read, "While the state of Hawaii is not geographically part of North America, it is associated politically with the continent as part of the U.S."), the U.S. could be considered to be contained entirely within North America, which is why the existing text needs explanation. None of this information is discussed elsewhere in the article.

Despite my response, you reverted the information a second time, claiming, “Whether the territories are 'part of' the U.S. is a semantic argument that's both in dispute and irrelevant to Hawaii.” Whether or not U.S. territories are contained within the U.S. is not in dispute and is absolutely not a matter of semantics. The U.S. comprises the 50 states and the federal district, in toto. This is not debatable. This is fact.

Your edits to this article were substantial enough to generate your Talk page notification that this article is a contentious topic where “editors should edit carefully and constructively” and “Editors are advised to err on the side of caution.” You have deleted important information with the explanation that you “doubt it needs a note”. You went on to justify your deletion with erroneous information about the U.S. territories. This could be seen as editing recklessly. In the spirit of good faith editing, you should have at least assumed the information was necessary unless you could prove definitively that it was not. It is my intention to replace the note unless you or someone else can provide a good argument as to why it’s not necessary. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:First of all, it is not my burden to "prove definitively" that the information is unnecessary, because that is impossible. It is the responsibility of the editors adding information to prove that it is necessary by citing it to reliable sources in line with WP:DUE. No source, reliable or otherwise, was provided for the note, either to prove its significance or its factual accuracy.

:You have made the claim that Hawaii is politically considered part of North America; this is not supported by the body of this article nor in the article for Hawaii or for North America. As you noted, this article is a contentious topic, and just because information is in a footnote does not make it exempt from WP:V's requirement that inline sources be used for any information that has been or is likely to be challenged. I'm happy to debate the due weight of such a note. But I'm not inclined to spend my time attempting to prove a negative in order to facilitate that debate.

:(And regarding territories, regardless of if Guam, etc., are "inherently" part of the U.S., the Palmyra Atoll, the only incorporated territory, is.) DecafPotato (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::@DecafPotato It is your burden to defend your edit. First it was because you claimed the information was explained 10 words later; I showed it was not. Then you claimed it was negated by the presence of U.S. territories on other continents; I explained why that's not true. (It's still [https://www.doi.gov/oia/islands/politicatypes not true], not for Palmyra Atoll either. That's not what "incorporated" means. [Noting that Wikipedia isn't a WP:RS, check your own source on this.] Why do you persist in this falsehood?) Now your reason is because it wasn't sourced. If that's actually your concern, the way to improve the article (which is why we're all here, correct?) would have been to look for a source. If you didn't want to do that, you could have applied a template, such as {{citation needed}}. Or you could have posted on my Talk page that the note should be cited. These are examples of cautious editing. Simply deleting material without sufficient cause is not erring on the side of caution.

::Do you agree that Hawaii is associated with North America in some manner, or are you finding fault with even that concept?

::I honestly don't know what your concern is. The note is not a controversial statement. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::First, your source — at no point — says that the territories or possessions are "not part of the United States. It says they are a part of neither the several States nor a Federal district, which is by definition true. A (admittedly unthorough) search found no source unambiguously stating that the territories are or are not part of the U.S. That has been my position all along — that the issue has no clear answer, despite your bold-texted claims of an obvious consensus. So this article should not stake a claim, nor make any statement that necessarily endorses one position or the other, without proper sourcing. Saying "primarily located" does that perfectly, as does the way we introduce the territories in the lead paragraph, which was a carefully-discussed phrasing aiming to avoid this exact dispute.

:::Second, my sufficient cause was that the material was uncited, because a reliable source backing the claim would likely have rectified my concerns of its verifiability and due weight. And I obviously agree that Hawaii is "associated with North America in some manner", just as French Guiana is associated with Europe in some manner. But the idea that Hawaii is considered "a part of" North America is an uncited claim, and it is what I have issue with. Since you are the one who added the information, you are the one who should provide sourcing for it. If you feel that I should've gone about this with a CN tag, I apologize. But WP:BRD has the same result in the end. DecafPotato (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::WP:BURDEN specifically says: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Not having a citation is certainly sufficient cause to remove material making a claim on a controversial topic.

::::The article Hawaii says the state is "physiographically and ethnologically part of the Polynesian subregion of Oceania.{{cite web |title=Is Hawaii a Part of Oceania or North America? |url=https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/is-hawaii-a-part-of-oceania-or-north-america.html |url-status=live |website=WorldAtlas |date=January 12, 2018 |access-date=June 24, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190711143815/https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/is-hawaii-a-part-of-oceania-or-north-america.html |archive-date=July 11, 2019}}", with source. Oceania has lots of sources putting Hawaii in that geographic region.

::::The word "Oceania" is not mentioned in the body of the article nor in Geography of the United States. It is somewhat unusual for the intro to contain details not mentioned in the body or subarticles. I agree it's a bit weird, though, that the intro mentions North America but not any other continent equivalent that the remainder of the country is located in. Since it would be educational for readers, I think it would be good to add mention to the body and subarticle and change "Pacific Ocean" to "Oceania" to avoid making the intro more wordy. -- Beland (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2025

:::::And I've done that. -- Beland (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

{{talkref}}