Talk:United States/Archive 122

Archive 115

←

Archive 120

Archive 121

Archive 122

Archive 123

Audio Version of United States Article

Dear community,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 July 2025

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

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

Are you kidding me? Official language requires an act of Congress to be passed, not an executive order. When did Wikipedia accept that US is a country ruled by decree? 109.87.36.102 (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Official language of the United States — Keep English, but add "none (de jure)"

While English is obviously de facto the official language, per government usage and Executive Order 14224, we should at least note in the infobox that there is no de jure official language. The article states that the United States has never had legislation passed to designate English as its official language. Thus I propose amending the efn placed next to "Official language: English" to read "Per Executive Order 14224. None de jure." GN22 (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreeing on this. Actually, I'd consider an even better choice would be for the infobox to just state outside of the note "None de jure" rather than "English". The infobox is for quick facts at a glance, and the lack of a de jure official language at the federal level should be presented without readers having to check the note. CAVincent (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Slightly longer, but having the infobox state "English de facto, none de jure" seems like an even better way to sum it up in a few words. CAVincent (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I had forgotten about the RFC which closed in April when I made my above two comments. While the suggestion I made would be my preference, I'll amend to clarify that I don't think that such a robustly discussed RFC should be challenged so soon after closing. Sooo, I'm fine with leaving this bit of the infobox as-is for now. CAVincent (talk) 05:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

While I agree with this phrasing, there was a lengthy RFC that I initiated when the executive order first came out that led to the current wording. As such, I'm not sure if there'd need to be another RFC to "overturn" that one. Has there been any change in how RSs have reported on the EO? That was a major point of contention last time. AG202 (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Good point. It basically says "State English as official, no qualifications." GN22 (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Religion, incorrect name LDS

in the religious selection it says Mormonism has 1% it should be labeled The church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints. Lion77historynerd (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Our article Mormonism says that Mormonism is the theology and religious tradition of the Latter Day Saint movement of Restorationist Christianity, so the name Mormonism is correct. The article also says: "although since 2018 there has been a push from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) to distance itself from this label." So, I would say, only when our article Mormonism changes its name to LDS, the name Mormonism should also be changed in this article. Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Not one U.S. reference book makes such hair-splitting distinctions in its standard demographic lists and tables, nor do international encyclopedias. The term is always "Mormons", and official bodies like LDS are described under "History". English Wikipedia is no different. At most, an editorial footnote might be added to explain such bureaucratic busy-ness. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2025

I was doing some research and I noticed that the “official languages” on this page was update to English. I believe this is misleading because no law has been passed declaring an official language for the US and therefore this should be changed. An executive order declaring an official language does not have the effect of law and leaving it up will mislead people. Until our government passes a law declaring an official language then there is not one and leaving it here because of an executive order is highly political. 2603:900B:200:3DA5:3920:C8B4:5FD4:52F5 (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. The current consensus is to list English as the official language, per the outcome of a recent request for comment. Day Creature (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 August 2025

The form of government reference on this page, fails to make mention that the USA is a formerly democratic country that has moved toward totalitarianism. It makes no mention of ICE as the president's private militia and police force, similar to the SS or Gestapo (not required to adhere to Miranda rights, laws, human rights etc). It does not reference the current corruption between Trump family members investments and the President's policy making (crypto, drones for defense). The page does not reference the variety of totalitarian actions taking place (raiding Bolton's home; launching retaliatory investigationss against any attorneys and prosecutors who led investigations against Trump; firing the Labour Statistics Chief; unlawfully applying tariffs without the consent of Congress etc. Your page cant call it at democratic republic. It has ceased to be one. 174.95.247.91 (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: An overwhelming amount of scholarly sources is necessary for such a change. Most of the claims you've listed (even if you have sources to support them) are too specific and unimportant for an article intended to summarize the most significant factors of the United States as a whole. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 01:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Porque español nombre es EE. UU.?

For some reason, all of my ips are blocked on spanish viquipedia...

Anyway... Why spanish shortcus for USA is EEUU? The word "Estados Unidos" don't have double e nor double u (not to be confused with w, called double u). Not even a second e in "unidos" nor sewcond u in "estados"... 31.182.247.147 (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I googled it for you. "The double letters (EE. UU.) indicate that the word "Estados" and "Unidos" are both plural" says Google AI. But this talk page should actually only be used for discussions of the English article and not the Spanish. Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 12:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Late reply: both words are plural, like the Juegos Olímpicos (JJ. OO.), Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

"These United States of America" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect These United States of America has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 25 § These United States of America until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Government form

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.

---

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

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

The United States- regardless of your opinion of the current president- remains a constitutional republic. Our democratic system of checks and balances remains intact and as far as I am aware- all actions by Donald J Trump remain constitutionally legal and backed up by the Supreme Court, and Donald Trump, as well as his actions, were voted for via both popular vote and electoral college. 72.211.181.161 (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

True. BeProper (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Are you joking? "...remain constitutionally legal...", except when they are not (since literal day 1). There is no more Consitution, no more separation of power, no more laws written for him. He rules by decree and does whatever he wants. 109.87.36.102 (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Most authoritarian dictatorships maintain the trappings of legality and electoral support but that doesn’t make them any less of an authoritarian dictatorship, otherwise at that rate we may as well remove any mention of being ruled by a dictatorship from countries like Russia, North Korea, Belarus, etc. Boothjorden (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Please do not mix political views with fact. That is not how Wikipedia is supposed to be. BeProper (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

People editing this page would sooner eat their own fingers than admit that USA is now a fascist dictatorship. 109.87.36.102 (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

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.

"Usono" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Usono has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 6 § Usono until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 July 2025

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

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

isn't there this tho?

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

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

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/nx-s1-5340753/trump-democracy-authoritarianism-competive-survey-political-scientist

"A survey of more than 500 political scientists finds that the vast majority think the United States is moving swiftly from liberal democracy toward some form of authoritarianism."

"'We've slid into some form of authoritarianism,' says Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard, and co-author of How Democracies Die. 'It is relatively mild compared to some others. It is certainly reversible, but we are no longer living in a liberal democracy.'

https://www.fairobserver.com/politics/america-crosses-into-competitive-authoritarian-rule-under-trump/

"In the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs, political scientists Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way argued that during the early months of President Donald Trump’s new administration, the United States was transitioning from a constitutional democracy to a form of authoritarian rule."

https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/i-am-watching-the-us-enthusiastically-leap-into-an-authoritarian-regime

"For all that, the dread I feel is more about my ever-increasing certainty that I am watching the US enthusiastically leap into an authoritarian regime, the likes of which hasn’t existed on American soil since the Jim Crow era." - Dr. Sarah Walsh, University of Melbourne

https://belonging.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/2024-11/FearGrievanceandtheOther_Nov2024.pdf

https://news.ku.edu/news/article/embrace-of-authoritarianism-in-us-fueled-by-culture-wars-more-than-economy-study-finds

https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/08/democracy-promotion-trump-putin-europe?lang=en

https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/08/us-democratic-backsliding-in-comparative-perspective?lang=en

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/scholars-america-under-trump-authoritarian-153923472.html

"America is well beyond democratic erosion and democratic backsliding and now approaching a form of authoritarianism with elements of fascism, says Brendan Nyhan, a professor of government at Dartmouth University."

Additionally, here are some country pages where Wikipedia explicitly identifies countries as being under authoritarianism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus - "Unitary semi-presidential republic under an authoritarian dictatorship"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia - "Federal semi-presidential republic under an authoritarian dictatorship"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuela - "Federal presidential republic under an authoritarian dictatorship"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua - "Unitary diarchic presidential socialist republic under an authoritarian dictatorship" 208.68.155.145 (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

https://brightlinewatch.org/accelerated-transgressions-in-the-second-trump-presidency/ /* The C0D3R */ (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Whoever has authorisation, time and desire to edit pages related to US must be a republican. They are incapable of aknowledging reality and think that US is both ruled be decree, with executive orders being laws, and that it's still somehow a "republic" even after president seized total control over the government and does whatever the hell he wants. 109.87.36.102 (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The United States- regardless of your opinion of the current president- remains a constitutional republic. Our democratic system of checks and balances remains intact and as far as I am aware- all actions by Donald J Trump remain constitutionally legal and backed up by the Supreme Court, and Donald Trump, as well as his actions, were voted for via both popular vote and electoral college. 72.211.181.161 (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Do constitutional republics build concentration camps, threaten to invade their own cities with the military, or militarize their capital? Josh (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

An overwhelming amount of scholarly analysis is necessary for us to call the US a dictatorship, whether or not you believe it to be. This is not biased. Wikipedia has always worked that way. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 15:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

It is actually likely the opposite. Regardless of their political leanings, they cannot make edits like that without consensus. There is no consensus to add in this liberal ideology, so, as they should, the editors are not adding it in. BeProper (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

If this was the case you wouldn’t be aloud to say this. Also when you compare Trump to authoritarian dictators he simply does not come close.Leaders like Putin, who’s critics suddenly and randomly die. Trump however has several critics and they are not being arrested and thrown into jail. You should probably do some research on what an authoritarian government actually does. Williamtheconqueror1066 (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

So would have to happen to change this? Is ruling by decree not enough? Texas v. Johnson established that the burning the US flag was lawful and was protected first amendment speech, yet we are now see arrests because of an unconstitutional executive order. /* The C0D3R */ (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

If you were to actually read the wording of the EO it states that this happens when you “incite violence.” He is not saying that if I go outside and burn a flag randomly then I will be arrested. “incite imminent lawless action or that is an action amounting to “fighting words.” Please read the whole letter before declaring your position. Also some states have laws on the book for or against burning flags. Williamtheconqueror1066 (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Whether or not your personal opinion is that the United States is a dictatorship, you must leave your political views aside for Wikipedia. Do not mix political views with fact. BeProper (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Major US Cities

The 5 Main cities in the USA are: New York, NY, United States, Los Angeles, CA, United States, Chicago, IL, United states, Houston, TX, United States, & Phoenix, AZ, United States Asadsali (talk) 03:24, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Asadsali This is a simple statement which is ambiguous since the word 'main' can have multiple meanings (largest in population, largest in land area, most important seats of government, biggest economies, most influential, some combo). It is also without context. Is the statement suppose to a question or is it something you want included in the entry? Erp (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

What exactly qualifies Phoenix as 5th-most important US city? From an international viewpoint, Phoenix is running on the same level of importance as Kansas City, Seattle, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Baltimore and a host of others. A league above the previous would be Philly, SanFra, N-Orleans, Miami or Detroit. And Boston and Washington would be on the level of Houston, maybe a bit higher, wouldn't they?

I don't think a list of "5 main" cities can do anything but spark edit wars. LA and NY are the two most important cities, period. The battle for #3 is already a close call, and Erp lists some of the factors that would need to be considered. --Enyavar (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this would lead to edit warring. Just an ex.: I disagree with any editor who places Atlanta with Kansas City, Seattle, and Cincinnati in international importance. That was true 40 years ago but certainly not now. Viewed from home or from abroad, Atlanta belongs with Philadelphia, Miami, and San Francisco. Its 6 million-plus metro area, massive international airport, several world headquarters, and 1996 Olympics put it squarely in the higher league. Mason.Jones (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't Washington, DC, be the most important city in the US? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:38, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

2020s anti-LGBTQ movement in the United States

The removal here is not constructive. We follow WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, and when there are already highly detailed, well-sourced articles on a topic (2020s anti-LGBTQ movement in the United States and Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration, whose title has been settled by consensus), the correct approach is to summarize briefly and link. The claim that this is based on "one PBS/NewsHour feature" is simply false: the links are to two separate articles supported by extensive sourcing, and are worded neutrally.

It is also misleading to rely on years-old sources describing the U.S. as "advanced" on LGBT rights while ignoring the clear, well-documented backlash in the 2020s that we have extensively covered in multiple articles. Present-day reliable sources show that rights are under pressure, and we reflect that reality, not cherry-picked older praise, including sources from 2009(!). It would be like describing Germany as "advanced on Jewish rights" in 1938 based on sources from 1925, while at the same time removing links to articles detailing the escalating removal of Jewish people's rights in the intervening years. That kind of selective sourcing distorts the picture and does not serve neutrality.

Finally, describing transgender people and their basic rights as "transgender activism" is particularly revealing and lays bare the bias underlying these edits and why they cannot be taken seriously. Personal objections to the titles (as decided by consensus) or existence of related articles are not grounds for removing a neutral, well-sourced summary. --Tataral (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

It's fine to attempt to qualify older text about what is "advanced" in a country, and regular editors are constantly revising this article for that. But any dramatic announcement in a country article about a sweeping new backlash, disorder, on scourge taking over, through official or quasi-official means, must meet a more stringent test than one sentence about "persecution" and a one-off feature from PBS. (The very tone of the word "persecution" in the title of your linked WP article is even currently under debate there.) Also, any discussion here about LGBTQ rights in 2020s America and the plight of Jews in Hitler's Germany is totally out of line: The U.S. Congress passed a bill less than a year ago to protect same-sex marriage, and the current conservative U.S. administration has several gay people in high positions (including Scott Bessent, the highest gay U.S. official ever appointed). We're a long way from the repression of Jews in their homes and offices in 1930s Germany—any mention, inference, or comparison of such on this Talk page is absolutely obscene. You are in no way inserting "neutral" material here—it is ideological rhetoric in a general country article. Reminder that this article is "United States", not "LGBTQ+ Timeline in the United States". Mason.Jones (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Edit Request: Inclusion of EEZ in the Geography section

I feel it would be beneficial to include mentions of the United States's Exclusive Economic Zones in the Geography section of the article.

"In addition to its total land area, the United States has one of the world's largest marine exclusive economic zones spanning approximately 11.7 million square kilometres (4.5 million square miles) of ocean."

Sources: https://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/2011/012711_gcil_maritime_eez_map.pdf https://www.marineregions.org/gazetteer.php?p=details&id=8456 Globe.mover (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Bear with us I will talk to you if you other editors I'm not seeing a problem here. Just give us a few days. Moxy🍁 14:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 September 2025

Please change the form of government for the United States of America from Federal Presidential Republic to Federal Constitutional Republic.

It has been so for about 250 years; mere changes of opinions do not change the facts. As evidenced in too many records to share - but here's one: https://ar.usembassy.gov/u-s-government/ MelecRic (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Not done. Please establish broad consensus before requesting this change. "Federal Constitutional Republic" is significantly less descriptive of the political system of the United States compared to "Federal Presidential Republic". For example, Germany is a "Federal Constitutional Republic" but it is a parliamentary system. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:44, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I think you are confused about what presidential means here. The US has been a presidential system since the Constitution came into effect, as the government has been led by a separately elected president and not a member of the legislature as in parliamentary systems. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

FAQ addition

Considering the large amount of queries here requesting this article to label the United States as a dictatorship, I ask for advice on how to improve this little draft of FAQ 10 to address this issue and whether this should or should not be implemented.

Q: The United States has become a dictatorship/fascist state! Why doesn't the article call it so in the infobox or elsewhere?

A: Wikipedia relies on independent, reliable sources and its content must correlate in proportion to those sources with a neutral point of view. Though the US government has been accused of delving into democratic backsliding by some, the article will not label the country as a dictatorship or autocratic state until an overwhelming consensus among the majority of political scholars agree. Otherwise, calling it so would be original research.

Thoughts? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 22:30, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The word "overwhelming" is overdoing it somewhat. There will never be agreement on what it means. HiLo48 (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Just say "until the majority of political scholars agree". -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:09, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I've added this in. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 19:07, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Without any objections or further amending, I plan to add this in sometime tomorrow. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 03:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I've added this in now. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 18:04, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

If it stops people from suggesting America is a dictatorship, do it. BeProper (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Federal presidential republic *under an authoritarian dictatorship*

Similarly to the page for Russia, this page should be corrected to accurately reflect the current state of the USA. It should be listed as a federal presidential republic under an authoritarian dictatorship. 75.164.170.103 (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

#Government form and Talk:United States/FAQ#10. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:18, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Considering Trump acts in an unconstitutional and authoritarian manner, I think this is worth revisiting. In fact, the USA is considered to be under authoritarian rule by Wikipedia's own definition of authoritarianism: "Authoritarianism is characterized by highly concentrated and centralized government power maintained by political repression and the exclusion of potential or supposed challengers..." 75.164.170.103 (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Most recently, we see this happening in real time as the FCC (which is no longer a partisan body, and now acts on behalf of the dictator) is censoring the media, which is political repression in order to concentrate and consolidate power in the executive branch in order to maintain political repression. As much as I understand the sentiment that this is a "political matter," it is indisputably factual at this point that the USA is under an authoritarian dictatorship. The National Guard is now being deployed to cities to intimidate political rivals and maintain political repression. Failing to acknowledge these authoritarian practices is dishonest. 75.164.170.103 (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Oops, should say the FCC is no longer a nonpartisan* body 75.164.170.103 (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Review Talk:United States/FAQ#10 before pursuing further. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 20:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Congress has offered POTUS powers for decades, I would suggest because it's easier to campaign when you can blame the other guy in the room. But Authoritarian? I don't think that fits. Nothing you've provided in any of these comments would prove that to me. The closest you've got to evidence is the FCC. Assuming you're speaking of ABC and Kimmel, the FCC has the job of regulating public airwaves, which includes actively avoiding intents to slander or commit pornographic distribution, etc. Saying it is "undisputed" is called begging the point in any actual argument. So far, literally nothing said here proves your claim. 68.57.254.60 (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Just a side note here, the FCC handles public airwaves. Cable TV is not under that umbrella. The FCC threatened the individual stations that handle rebroadcasting over the air tv.

As for the discussion on whether or not to call it authoritarian, I could see a section being added to the article about the present state of the country that conflicts with the historic status of the country, IF we can find reliable sources that actually say it. If we can’t, then we can’t add it. Wikipedia is all about what reliable sources say, and not original research. CreativeNightPainter (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

This is pure nonsense. BeProper (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 September 2025

188.28.229.250 (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

There are 50 states in the United States.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2025

Hello, I would like to propose a change for the main Wikipedia page about the United States of America. The first few lines give alternate names for the country, namely “United States”, and “America”. I’ve changed the phrasing in the simplified version already from saying “also known … as America”, to “also known … less precisely and colloquially as America”, since it represents the reality of the world much better. There is no official document that calls the U.S.A. “America”, and with the rise of nationalism, I think it’s important to point out that this is an erroneously manner of identifying the country, since it is the name of the whole continent. I took inspiration from the French page that does precise this very important detail. Thank you for your attention. 2A02:1210:549A:9400:952E:CDF7:CCCF:7064 (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

In English there is no such continent as America. There are the 2 continents North America and South America. Your objection is thus invalid as it rests on your own lack of fluency in the English language. Whatever the French Wikipedia does is totally irrelevant here on the English Wikipedia as we are not writing in French, but in English. How is it possible that this rather obvious fact has escaped your notice? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 04:36, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Untamed1910 (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I’m sorry I’m not very savvy in these things, could you explain the steps to reach a consensus? 2A02:1210:549A:9400:952E:CDF7:CCCF:7064 (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Not done for now: Any changes that could possibly be controversial should have consensus among editors before they are implemented. While I think your proposed change would be fine, others may not agree and some may have strong opinions one way or another. Because this is such a viewed article that has been edited and reviewed by numerous editors to get to the current state that it's in now, it's especially important. Have a read through WP:Consensus. Your first step would be to start a talk page discussion here, like you're doing, but without the edit request template. Other editors can comment and provide their own input. If no one is commenting after a few days, you can seek outside input from other places here on Wikipedia. Note specifically Wikipedia:Consensus#Through_discussion section. Nubzor [T][C] 21:40, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Stop trying to add “under an authoritarian dictatorship”

Seriously, just stop it. You people are only asking for it to be put in just because of confirmation bias. Yes, what Trump is doing is authoritarian, but it’s not like this country hasn’t had authoritarian presidents before.

just give it up ffs 148.74.78.185 (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

It's seriously ridiculous. 73.133.27.124 (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

What is the standard for this if there is one? Proxyma (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 September 2025

The United States of America officially became a dictatorship on September 19th, 2025. Trump administration announced that news media was not allowed to present any information to the public that was not pre-approved by the state. This move completed the list of requirements to meet a dictatorship officially thrusting the United States out of democracy and into dictator ruling. 206.45.55.73 (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 00:40, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Review Talk:United States/FAQ#10 before pursuing further. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 02:53, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Seriously, you know what happens in Europe, right? They're 10x worse. Be glad. 73.133.27.124 (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

You do realize that "Europe" isn't a single polity, right? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 October 2025

Add link to "manifest destiny" ideology when talking about westward expansion. 77.3.132.10 (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

That'd be an unnecessary MOS:EGG link. Maxeto0910 (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Untamed1910 (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Just a question

Why does America under the articles of Confederation not have it's own page, like how each of the French Republics or other countries when they change constitutions do? The current American government system only started with the constitution 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:B93C:4BC9:9F2F:F973 (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Confederation period Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 23:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Article lock

Should this article be locked WikiGrower1 (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:34, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Why WikiGrower1 (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

There is a message on top ("Warning: active arbitration remedies") explaining it. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:50, 18 October 2025 (UTC)