Talk:United States/Archive 129

Archive 125

←

Archive 127

Archive 128

Archive 129

English as official language - yes or no?

This article says that English is now the official language of the United States, but article Languages of the United States says literally the opposite: it calls English official only "de facto", says "the U.S. has no statutory official language,", and goes on: "In 2025, Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14224, declaring English the official language of the United States, and federal agencies recognize English as official under the order. However, the U.S. has never had an official language de jure, as Congress has never passed legislation to designate one at the federal level." (None of the sources given, though, say exactly what the Wiki article says). Since they state the opposite of each other, either this article here or that article there is wrong and needs fixing. Twi inaccr (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I've made the lead in Languages of the United States consistent with this article and its infobox: English is the official language, even though the U.S. Congress has never passed official-language legislation. An RfC on the legal scope of the executive order was held on this Talk page, with final consensus being that most U.S. media outlets interpreted the order as declaring English to be the official language. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

That sounds ridiculous. Executive orders are not laws. I see no link to any RFC here or anywhere else. Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

That other article continues to say English is official “de facto”, which would mean the Executive order is not valid, though no source given says that; and now this article here (United States) has had its infobox changed to mark the official status of English as “disputed” (again, without a source). Countless countries of the world have had their official language determined by an act of the Executive, so if Wikipedia decides to consider the official status of English in the US as “disputed” because of that, not only one or a few sources would be needed, but then, in order to be coherent, a great number of the world’s official languages (all those which were not enacted by a law approved by Parliament) should be reclassified as “disputed”. ~2026-30289-40 (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

False analogy. You can't compare two completely different legal systems and then argue that they should be treated equally. English is not the official language of the US. The idea has only merit within the Trump admin. An executive order does not rise above the rule of law. The legitimacy of US power does not rest with executive orders. It is based on the consent of the governed. State power must be agreed upon by the people and is not based on absolute power by a king or a dictator. Without a law declaring English as the official language, it remains disputed. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Again, regardless of how strongly you feel about the subject, Wikipedia is supposed to be factual. The sources given in this article and in Languages of the United States all say English was made the official language of the US, and not one of them says it is disputed, so, per all of Wikipedia's rules, I believe your edits in this case represent personal POV and, if not, original research. Twi inaccr (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Wrong. Nothing has changed. Trump's executive orders are not laws. Viriditas (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

And I really don't want to frame it as a conservatives x liberals dispute, precisely because that's exactly not how an encyclopedia should work - I understand we should reflect the facts, whether we like them or not -- and believe me, I personally think Trump is antidemocratic and turning the US into an autocracy, but that has absolutely nothing to do with whether, from Wikipedia's POV, his actions are legally valid or not. Again, to the discussion of what the official language of a country is, it is completely irrelevant if the head of state of a country is legitimate or not and if he declared an official language through due legislative process or not. So, again, as not a single source has been given saying it is "disputed" and dozens of impartial, Trump-critical news sources all say English has been made the official language of the US, I can't see how Wikipedia can say anything differently, unless we assume it is taking a political stance. Twi inaccr (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

See link above. English is not the official language of the US and never has been in its entire history. The executive order is not a law. Viriditas (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

You provided one obscure, scoobydoo irrelevant newspaper page saying English is not the official language, whereas, as Mason.Jones has already pointed out, all major international and national newspapers say it is, and the topic has already been discussed on Wikipedia and consensus has been established. I regret to say you seem to be very clearly pushing your person POV over facts, over an infinity of better sources and over the community consensus. Twi inaccr (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

The link I posted is not obscure nor irrelevant, but shows quite unambiguously that no law making English an official language has ever existed in the history of the country, and that multiple languages are spoken in many different states by millions of people. Executive orders cannot create new laws. Viriditas (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

And an official language doesn't need to be established by law or, again, half of the world's languages are not official. You seem to refuse to grasp the fact that if Trump in three years from now proclaims himself dictator and abolishes Congress, and with military support and the support of half of the country manages to consolidate power, and in ten years while still in power he writes an executive order saying the official religion of the US will be Christianity, then the official religion of the US *will* be Christianity, at least for as long as he remains in power. It has nothing to do with legitimacy - again, most of the world's countries are not democracies, and yet they have official languages too. I understand this feeling of not being a democracy anymore may be new to you, but these are the facts, and Wikipedia must reflect things as they currently are, regardless of what we want. But, as you and I have reached a stalemate here, before redirecting this topic for external arbitration, I ask people who according to this page's history participated in the previous discussion - including @Mason.Jones, Executarian, GN22, JasonMacker - to also step in/ Twi inaccr (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I mentioned some of these points on the Talk page at Languages of the United States. Whether one likes it or not, this issue is most certainly an ideological debate between "conservative" and "liberal" Wikipedians. That still makes Wikipedia better than Conservapedia, Grokipedia, and other wiki/AI sources with their 7th-grade vocabulary, 1958 theological absolutism, and cancellation of most post-1965 views. At least there's a debate here. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Here's the RFC: Talk:United States/Archive 118 § RFC: Is English the official language of the United States?. It should have been added to the FAQ. AG202 (talk) 07:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Reading through it right now... Viriditas (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@AG202: My position is the same as User:GN22, who I think has nailed the opposing argument (and I believe they identify as a conservative Republican). That is "state that there is no de jure official language, but mention that an official language has been set by the Executive Branch." I believe this is the best option. Is there anything stopping us from doing this now? Viriditas (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@Viriditas: While I agree with you, I suspect that it'd require another RFC and another survey of what WP:RSs state. AG202 (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

At what point does WP:NOTBURO come into play? Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTBURO says that RfCs can be changed if consensus has "evolved". The previous RfC was a messy affair. Nonetheless, it was a categorical affirmation of official-language policy by the U.S government—with no qualification. When I tried to qualify the wording, I was censured and threatened with a temporary ban. Proceed with caution. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I just read through the entire ANI discussion. You got baited into both an edit war and an exchange of words on ANI and took the bait. Don't fall for that one again. It happens to the best of us. I support your past edits to this article and the language article regarding this discussion. So that's two of us. And it sounds like AG202 supports you as well. So that's three. Let's keep counting and take it slow. Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

You really can't approach it that way. All RfCs attract a wide range of editors from across Wikipedia. They are "democratic" only in a bureaucratic Wikipedia sense, and regular editors of the subject page will be a minority who participate in the RfC. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about another RfC. And the last one did not attract a wide range. Looking at it closely, I see SPA's and sleeper accounts, mostly users who rarely if ever edit and just happened to show up. Most RfCs are not like that at all. This last one was very unusual. And I think insisting we need another RfC is part of the problem. We have three editors here who know what needs to be done, and an unending supply of SPAs who will continue to defend the indefensible. This is just a microcosm of the larger dispute. Allowing whoever shows up to determine consensus doesn't work. I believe in making the changes we support now and arguing for it using the regular BRD processes. The changes you support are inherently democratic as they incorporate the position of each party and do not favor one over the other. The current outcome is simply wrong as is allowing oneself to be thwarted by process. Viriditas (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you view as "democratic". You can't dismiss the findings of a completed RfC with the claim that "sleepers and creepers" commandeered it last time and thus it can be further nuanced—without a new RfC. The tagline you've appended ("disputed") is also confusing: Are the official-language media sources in dispute, or are a couple of editors disputing it? Eventually, longtime WP administrators/arbiters must be involved, not just three editors. The final RfC specifically stated "official language, without qualification". Mason.Jones (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

"Consensus can change, no consensus is permanently binding, including a consensus formed in a discussion advertised via RfC." Viriditas (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't find "disputed" confusing at all. The EO is disputed. I will go ahead and add a ref showing that it is disputed. Viriditas (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Done. See new section at the bottom of the page. Viriditas (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

English is indeed the U.S's De Facto Official Language, although many people speak primarily Spanish, and there are regional languages in Native American Reserves and I think in Hawaii. Asides from a few exceptions, you have to be able to speak English in order to become a U.S. Citizen, but as I said, there are exceptions, and many people here don't speak English, although they're mostly immigrants. English is used for law, business, education, and many other purposes here. ~2026-28539-79 (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2026

I think we should change Flag of the United States (Web Colors).svg to Flag of the United States (Pantone).svg and do the same thing to Flag of the United States. Ryderpedia (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. Danski454 (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok. Ryderpedia (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I change my mind. Ryderpedia (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

USA dealing with AI on employment and society

please research about this and tell me some valid points ~2026-34040-76 (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Three words: it's a scam. There is no "AI" (just LLMs), it's used as an excuse to fire workers and lower wages (even though "AI" is more expensive than human workers), and society doesn't benefit from it, only the 1%. There's also variations of the dead internet theory showing indirectly that these companies have targeted human labor and productivity to sideline workers and enshittify the entire planet, and to create a vast surveillance network that will impose a permanent ruling class that can never be changed or altered—all under the delusional, techno-fascist, new religious philosophy of tescrealism. Add it to the pile of grifts, filed under "the usual suspects". Go human or go home. Viriditas (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 14 June 2026

−

The United States hosted the [[1994 FIFA World Cup]] and will co-host, along with Canada and Mexico, the [[2026 FIFA World Cup]].

+

The United States hosted the [[1994 FIFA World Cup]] and is currently co-hosting, along with Canada and Mexico, the [[2026 FIFA World Cup]].

The 2026 FIFA World Cup is currently ongoing.

~2026-34751-87 (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done, good update, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

"Jewnited Snakes" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Jewnited Snakes 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/2026 July 4 § Jewnited Snakes until a consensus is reached. feedmepaperr (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Lead

Hello!

Just a quick note. I feel that the following sentence should be restructured for clarity:

"Rapid westward territorial expansion followed the purchase, settlement, and conquest of European and Indigenous-controlled territory."

I found it difficult to understand. I think we should mention the "purchase, settlement, and conquest" first using active verbs and make it clear the U.S. is the one doing those things, then mention the westward expansion afterwards.

Please offer your thoughts. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

This discussion page is for content-related issues. Regarding clarity of syntax, active verbs, and basic stylistic changes, etc., be bold. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Will do! OrdinaryOtter (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Change to start of lead

It has a tag on it to not edit the very start of this article's lead without consensus, so I would like to see people's thoughts on this change: Make it say in the 'also known as the United States (U.S.)' part of the lead this: (abbreviated U.S. or US) in the part with the parentheses. US is also very common nowadays as an abbreviation and it should be noted here. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The abbreviation "U.S." (two periods) is standard in American English, which this article uses without exception. "U.S." is also the official form used by the federal government and by most American media (like The New York Times). Adding "US" needlessly clutters the lead sentence and has led some well-meaning editors to re-edit the article with "US", or to add the nonstandard initialism "U.S.A." (three periods) for the sake of balance. The current wording is straightforward and has avoided disruption, even disruption in good faith. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Infobox

Is there any reason why the date of the American Civil War and the date the most recent amendment to the constitution was passed aren't in the history section of the infobox? CY223 (talk) 09:31, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Answer: Space constraints. This article is already too long and getting longer. "United States" is one the most-read articles in English Wikipedia, but it needs to be shorter, not longer. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how just two extra lines in the history section of the infobox would affect the length of the article CY223 (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Other country articles don't have details in that section unless they could be considered the founding date of the current system of governance. I don't think anyone would argue the entity which currently administers the region was founded in 1865 or 1992. It would just lengthen the infobox for no real benefit. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:43, 13 July 2026 (UTC)