Talk:United States/Archive 112

Problematic changes made to United States-Indigenous Peoples articles
There's recently been a massive, radical restructuring of articles surrounding relations between the indigenous peoples of the Americas and the United States. Generally in the form of calling events that were previously predominately labeled as "ethnic cleansing", "mass atrocities", and "forced population transfers" and referring to the events as "genocidal" instead. This is despite the fact that this viewpoint is a small minority among historians, political scientists, and anthropologists.

The titles for these articles in of themselves are problematic:


 * Native American genocide in the United States

According to Jeffrey Ostler — who holds perhaps one of the most "negative maximalist" viewpoints of American actions among mainstream scholars — this is a small minority viewpoint among those working in the field:

"This is not because there is a consensus behind the “pro-genocide” position. In fact, although few scholars in the fields of American Indian and western U.S. history have systematically addressed the question of genocide, for many, perhaps most, scholars in these fields, an overarching indictment of genocide seems too extreme. Some might label specific events and cases, such as the Sand Creek massacre of 1864 or widespread settler violence against Indians during the California Gold Rush, as genocidal, but they would not see U.S. policies and settler actions as consistently so. Others would resist arguments for even limited genocide in U.S. history, citing definitions of genocide that would appear to require a federal government policy to physically destroy all (or most) Indians and observing that federal policies were intended to prevent physical disappearance by promoting assimilation. Some scholars would propose ethnic cleansing as an appropriate alternative to genocide. Others might consider assimilation to be a form of cultural genocide but would insist on a strong distinction between this policy and physical elimination."

and:

"Since 1992, the argument for a total, relentless, and pervasive genocide in the Americas has become accepted in some areas of Indigenous studies and genocide studies. For the most part, however, this argument has had little impact on mainstream scholarship in U.S. history or American Indian history. Scholars are more inclined than they once were to gesture to particular actions, events, impulses, and effects as genocidal, but genocide has not become a key concept in scholarship in these fields."

Note that I support keeping the contents for the article but renaming the page.

The California genocide article is also problematic. It has been changed from:


 * California Indian Catastrophe -> California genocide ("California Indian Catastrophe" is used more in WP: RS's; as of 2023, mainstream scholars are divided between ethnic cleansing and genocide.)

Other articles such as:


 * Andrew Jackson
 * Racism in the United States
 * Historical negationism
 * Racism against Native Americans in the United States
 * Indian removal
 * California
 * Trail of Tears
 * Population history of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas
 * Manifest Destiny
 * Etc.

Have similarly been rewritten to imply that this is an overwhelming consensus. Tagging, , , , , and.

Many editors seem to be classifying all ethnic cleansing/population transfers, atrocities, et al. as inherently genocidal, which isn't accepted by a majority of scholars.

This is probably a discussion that needs to be had. Since I can't imagine that any version of these pages aren't going to generate controversy. KlayCax (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


 * My two cents would be any discussion of "genocide" should be kept out of the lead and any discussion in the body of text must be extremely well-sourced given the controversial nature of it. Seems to be too much "I've already decided it was genocide, here's the first result that came up on google as my source". Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Klay -- in this article, it's not "many editors"; it's one editor (who has already been warned about aggressive POV-pushing and edit-warring). I agree with Rambling above: unsuitable for the lede, mentioned in history section with reliable sources (not ideological academic treatises). Mason.Jones (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mason.Jones, on that editor there's an open ANI post about their conduct. If you'd like to contribute to it you can do here. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ShirtNShoesPls is definitely one problematic user. However, many of these changes were made by others.
 * I responded on the ANI, btw. KlayCax (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Genocide is one of the more serious labels, so the sourcing had better be impeccable and unanimous before applying it in wikivoice. It is a powerfully condemnatory word, and thus represents a major prize for anyone who can successfully brand their opponents with it. Unfortunately, the political value of the word creates an incentive to creep the definition wider, to capture more rhetorical ground. This semantic dilution threatens to make word unencyclopedic to use at all. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Came here from the 2024 United States presidential election article. This is exactly what is happening, . There's no consensus that the events were genocide... A fact stated in the California genocide article itself! Could you remove it? I don't usually edit on here and apparently it locks me off from editing. HickTheStick (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @KlayCax Genocide is a word that needs to be used seriously and with strong sourcing. However, the discussion so far mis-states the fields that should be considered in deciding on its use. Fields of national history are one area, but so too are scholarship on the target groups (in this case, Native American Studies) and comparative scholarship on genocide itself (Genocide Studies). Formal official statements of responsibility are relevant as well. The key issue becomes describing and attributing these multiple literatures. Ostler's quote describes one of these fields, not all.
 * To take two examples, the Trail of Tears and the violence preceding it is the central example in a major genocide studies text (Wolfe, "Settler colonialism and the elimination of the Native") while the American history literature on Andrew Jackson is voluminous and skeptical on such a label. Wikipedia should refer to both, whether discussing Cherokee history, the Trail of Tears itself, and Jackson in particular. Separately, the publication of two scholarly monographs (around 10 years ago) on the California genocide by historians, and their reception, should influence our use of the word on that situation.
 * Carwil (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's focus on content:

Indeed it was more than five years ago that an RfC on the California genocide determined language that should be used in that section. Oddly, the words California genocide do not appear in the article despite that consensus, and all the sources have been deleted from the article. Can someone point to a more recent RfC consensus or should we reinstate the language and sources decided upon in September 2018? -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 18:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

As it turns out, it was on 1 October 2023 who removed the reference to the California Genocide which had been in the article since the 2018 RfC with no edit summary. No consensus was sought on the talk page for this change. (Looking back, I see that I started this discussion which did not yield a consensus to overturn the previous RfC.) --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 19:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I've reinstated the content per the 2018 RfC. A new RfC can be started if there is reason to debate this content which was in the article from 2018-2023. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 20:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As states above: . There's no consensus (and it's a minority viewpoint) that the events in California were genocide. (See Ostler, 2015; Magliari, 2023) Thus, Wikipedia shouldn't state so in Wikivoice.  Consensus can also change. I'll start a RFC if necessary, but words such as genocide should be avoided unless there's a historical consensus. Adding it into the article otherwise presents significant WP: NPOV concerns. KlayCax (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , citing an article on scalp bounties while removing a paragraph on genocide isn't really... well it's not OK. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Many historians don't consider the events in California a genocide, instead referring to it as ethnic cleansing, mass murder, atrocity, et al. See what Michael F. Magliari writes about the matter in the article: . That's why it shouldn't be in the article. The WP: ONUS would be on including this.
 * They're both horrendous. However, they're different things. KlayCax (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * KlayCax, wait. I'm telling you that your edit summary makes no sense in relation to the actual edit, and your response is to repeat the same irrelevant citation, this time with a quote which also totally doesn't make your point. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is that implies that there's a consensus the events constitute a genocide. Both sources make it clear that there's no agreement among historians on the matter.
 * It's also odd to focus specifically on the events in California. (And leave out the broader American-Indian wars that occurred after the conclusion of the Civil War.) KlayCax (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Btw I agree that the events in California were likely a genocide. However, there's been a general consensus and precedent on Wikipedia that a country's articles shouldn't include the terms "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide" unless there's an overwhelming academic consensus on the matter. (See above.)
 * * For instance, the USSR's article doesn't refer to the Holodomor as a genocide
 * * Neither does China's refer to the Uyghur genocide
 * * Neither does Japan or the Empire of Japan's pages use the terms "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide" on their articles.
 * And so on and so forth. The reason is simply: there's no consensus on the matter. (And even among historians who affirm it, most would place the blame on settlers or the state government, rather than the national government.)
 * Jeffery Ostler is clear that this is a minority position (at the very least) in the literature. I get the urge to WP: RIGHTGREATWRONGS but we can't state it in Wikivoice. KlayCax (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

You say that consensus can change. However, no consensus has developed for your deletion of this content in the months that you've been deleting it. I noticed in the California genocide article that Magliari's view is not what you would have us believe. These are the final words of his review of the Yale University source you deleted: Madley’s case for genocide is overwhelming and compelling in many specific instances. As his evidence makes plain, deliberately exterminatory campaigns devastated at least eighteen California tribes, including the Achumawi, Karuk, Lassik, Nisenan, Nongatl, Owens Valley Paiute, Pomo, Shasta, Sinkyone, Tolowa, Wailaki, Wappo, Whilkut, Wintu, Wiyot, Yana, Yuki, and Yurok. Beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt (and by the standards of any reasonable definition), genocide did in fact play a significant role in the US conquest and subjugation of Native California. (source accessible here via Wikipedia Library (Duke))

I'm not sure why you're so adamant about overturning this prior consensus when the scholar you are citing quite clearly disagrees with you. -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 00:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * User:SashiRolls it feels like I'm on Facebook. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * And I'm going back to bed. :) -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 01:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of Michael F. Magliari's and Jeffrey Ostler's views. I cited them specifically because of the fact that they hold a "genocidal/maximalist" view on the issue. (Yet also state there's widespread debate within the literature.)
 * The first part of the articles is how he views the current academic consensus within the field. This aspect of the article is the part I'm citing.
 * The conclusion is his view on the matter.
 * There's been a longtime precedent to not use the word "genocide" in articles unless there's a consensus it happened for the reason Barnards.tar.gz mentioned. (Which is why I cite the Japan, Brazil, China, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada pages, none of which mention genocide. Even Belgium's page - which ran the Congo Free State - specifically and intentionally excludes mention of the word.)
 * It would also be weird if we focus specifically on this and not the broader American-Indian Wars that occurred after the Civil War.
 * I'd be okay with "forced population transfer/ethnic cleansing" being used. "Genocide" is far more contentious and not anywhere near close enough to a consensus to include. KlayCax (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * How do you know "genocide" in Belgium is "specifically and intentionally" excluded? There's nothing on the talk page or in the talk page archives. Maybe that article should be updated. And China does mention the Uyghur genocide. Should I look at the others too? Drmies (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The first talk page discussion on the matter can be found here. The Congo Free State genocide question is the article. However, multiple Wikipedia administrators (including Wav) repeatedly removed any mention of "genocide" in Wikivoice from the article, and this has been ongoing over the past twenty years. Belgium's article never brings up genocide once. (Also per talk page discussion.) I agree that it does seem wrong. (Japan's article never uses ethnic cleansing or genocide, either.)
 * The China wording was recently added. However, it keeps getting reverted by multiple editors (both on the Uyghur genocide and China pages), and never uses the term "genocide" to describe it with Wikivoice.
 * Australia's, Canada's, and New Zealand's pages — which are probably the closest analogies to the American treatment of its native populations — also don't mention the word genocide anywhere in their articles: despite many scholars saying so.
 * If it is replaced with "ethnic cleansing" and "forced population transfers" — and further expounding on the genocide debate in the respective articles — then the text would be completely alright with me. There's a clear historical consensus that the events would be classified today as war crimes — whether from "minimalists" who hold a narrow definition of "genocide" like Guenter Lewy to "maximalists" like David Stannard and Jeffrey Ostler who emphasize the utter devastation it caused on native cultures/peoples. Not sure what the right answer to #3 is (and it's a good question. I'll raise the issue on talk within the next week). Does replacing the word with "ethnic cleansing" work?
 * It's a clear historical consensus among essentially every mainstream scholar that ethnic cleansing occurred, which is a war crime, and it avoids the terminology game on what "genocide" means. KlayCax (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's just one deflection after another. You say in Belgium it's explicitly excluded, but there's no proof of it on the talk page of that article. You can't even cite a diff. You said China doesn't mention it--it does. You suggest I should look at other articles because they're more similar--sure. You say "does replacing the word with 'ethnic cleansing' work?" Well, I think you not editing these articles should work much better. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no generalized statement about genocide in the lede of the article "United States". There's one reference under "History" to the California genocide, which has a WP link and sourced article. For you to oppose its mere mention (and linking) is baffling. True, King Leopold's genocidal crimes in Congo should appear in the "Belgium" article, and its editors might have conspired to squelch any mention of it. That's a major flaw of Wikipedia's libertarian "open encyclopedia" model: there's no procedure in place to stop "patriotic editing" of country articles. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong. I don't mean in a WP: OTHERSTUFF sense. Rather, longstanding WP: PRECEDENT. As for the Belgium, China, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the USSR articles, I similarly oppose mentioning genocide on their pages, for the reasons  Barnards.tar.gz expounded upon.  "Ethnic cleansing" is consensus in the literature. So if other editors use it to describe the "American-Indian Wars" I'd wholeheartedly support. KlayCax (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that has removed about 5K of sourced material from another entry based on an alleged consensus that seems rather opposed to what I'm reading above. (diff) -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 15:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There has been a series of changes made by KlayCax, sometimes with inaccurate summaries, pushing for what they believe should be added or removed. Senorangel (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * None of my edit summaries have been "inaccurate". (Such as?) We obviously have our disagreements. But that should be expected on articles surrounding politically contentious topics. KlayCax (talk) 12:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * mentioned the article California. I restored (to the History section) the sole link to California genocide after KlayCax removed not just the section on CA genocide, but all links to that article . If the positions are split 50-50 as claimed, why did their edit retain more on the position against genocide? I did not restore another link in the lead, only for SashiRolls to point out later that there actually was a reason for it to be there, before KlayCax removed it. They also said there was "general agreement" to remove the Trinity atomic bomb/nuclear test picture from this article United States. But the discussion   did not agree on removing it. I think KlayCax wants to push through editorial changes such as these. Senorangel (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Bring it up on ANI for a topic ban, Senorangel. Who wants to deal with this? Drmies (talk) 04:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't say consensus, . I said that other editors believe that it should be removed. You can see this here from UnitedStatesian. Gavin Newsom explicitly labeled it genocide in 2019, and the debate between historians is between ethnic cleansing and genocide (both of which are war crimes), instead of saying that the events didn't occur. The citation used to source the notion is weak. Is there a notable historical denialist movement that denies what happened? KlayCax (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems anti-American editors have an axe that want to grind, . Could you remove it? It's obviously being inserted into the article as a form of propaganda. HickTheStick (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, just because you feel it is "anti-American" doesn't give you the grounds to delete whatever you think is "propaganda." PersusjCP (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * brought up at least nine or ten different articles but didn't tag anyone that was involved in those discussions on the various talk pages. This is not the proper place to discuss issues you may have with other articles, only this article. -- A Rose Wolf  13:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is not an appropriate location to launch a widespread discussion about many different articles. If you want to suggest a change to one article, say California genocide, then take that conversation up on Talk:California genocide. Yuchitown (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown
 * I agree with this too, this is not the place to discuss many other articles. It needs to be discussed before unilaterally removing sourced content willy-nilly. PersusjCP (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we should make a broad, Wikipedia-spanning topic on what events should be classified as genocide in Wikivoice. (See the article on genocide definitions) KlayCax (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * While I don't necessarily disagree I will reiterate that this talk page is about United States and how best to improve this article. -- A Rose Wolf  17:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I know. I was just bringing it up since it's tangent to the conversation. The current article titles are widely inconsistent with one another:
 * For instance:
 * Native American genocide in the United States (implies that it is consensus)
 * Palestinian genocide accusation (implies that it is debated)
 * Persecution of Uyghurs in China (no mention of genocide at all)
 * This is definitely a subject in which a unified consensus and WP: PRECEDENT between articles is needed. I'm under the opinion that anything not covered under Yehuda Bauer's definition of Holocaust shouldn't be referred to in Wikivoice as genocide: Anything else is highly subjective and prone to inconsistency.
 * The Holocaust, Rwandan Genocide, and the like? I think the criteria is indisputably met by any scholar.
 * The Holodomor, European colonization of the Americas, and the Chinese treatment of the Uyghurs? I can see well-intentioned people legitimately disagreeing on that. KlayCax (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You want us to change possibly hundreds of articles on your opinion alone? I'm telling you that isn't going to happen. Start discussions on the respective article talk pages and start RFC's for the community to comment and build consensus or this is a waste of time. Native American genocide in the United States is a title of an article that simply says the subject is notable and then sets out to describe and summarize that based on what is found in reliable sources about the subject. If there is content you disagree with then discuss it there. Same for the other articles. This isn't a hard process to follow. -- A Rose Wolf  18:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing would have to be changed. The RFC would be on what events should be definitely classified as "genocide" in Wikivoice v. "historians X take this view" and "historians Y take this view". KlayCax (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2024
574 Native American tribes are recognized in the United States. Add this information to the demographics section

Source: https://www.usa.gov/indian-tribes-alaska-native 193.187.88.197 (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: where is it supposed to be added and how would you formulate it? M.Bitton (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅  Antrotherkus 18:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2024 (2)
169 Native American languages are spoken in the United States. Add this information to languages section.

Source: https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2011/acs/acsbr10-10.pdf 193.187.88.197 (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅  Antrotherkus 18:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

"EE. UU." listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EE._UU.&redirect=no EE. UU.] 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  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Academic debate on genocide
I'm going to have to get this out of the way, aren't I? The tragic, cruel oppression of the American Indian was truly despicable, and the atrocities committed by European colonizers sicken anyone with a conscience. No sane person does or should deny this.

The article completely ignores the fact that 90% of American Indians were accidentally wiped out by the completely unintentional introduction of Old World diseases. When the European colonizers first landed, they had no way of knowing how diseases spread. They thought it was caused by the "evil eye" or "the Devil." (Epidemiology as a science doesn't come about until the 1830s or 1840s.) Sneezing on somebody or their crops 300+ years before anyone knew that causes bad things does not make someone the equivalent of Hitler. Furthermore, the UN definition of genocide says that there has to be a deliberate policy of extermination (e.g. the Holocaust as perpetrated by Nazi Germany.) '''California was arguably a genocide because there was a deliberate policy of extermination and said policy was enacted with that goal in mind. The rest of the country? Nope. There has never been any federal policy ordering or implying the desirability of the extermination of the Indians. No order from President Grant or General Sherman/General Sheridan, no Act of Congress, nothing. No evidence is offered by this article to the contrary.'''

The recent added sentences on "genocide" needs to be deleted because of this issue. I'd make a footnote called: "Debate over Terminology," something to that effect. I'd also include legitimate sources (NOT Michael Medved or the repulsive Stefan Molyneux) that dispute whether or not the term "genocide" is applicable.

Scholars generally see American actions as failing to meet the criteria for genocide (in the vast majority of circumstances). That's just the case. It's also interesting that the citation used to claim it never uses the word "genocide". InvaderMichael (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I may have missed it so could you point me to where it says encyclopedia content is based upon the UN's definition or directives versus providing reliable sources and gaining consensus through discussion? Thanks. -- A Rose Wolf  11:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "No synthesis" means that you would need a reliable source that makes that argument. The UN definition incidentally does not use the term "deliberate policy of extermination." Instead, it says to destroy in whole or in part. Apparently that can include a policy of assimilation, TFD (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * He's right, . Jeffrey Ostler (who is probably the most prominent historian to argue that several American actions were) states that it's a small minority position within the literature: . The only plausible case of this, as he mentioned above, to me is California. As their first governor Peter Hardeman Burnett's stated:
 * "That a war of extermination will continue to be waged between the two races until the Indian race becomes extinct, must be expected."
 * For the Trail of Tears, Stony Brook University states: . The Pulitzer Prize–winning book What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815–1848 also states that "ethnic cleansing" rather than "genocide" is an accurate description for the California Indian Wars/Genocide and Trial of Tears. We don't (and shouldn't) label the Holodomor and similar events as genocide in Wikivoice for the same reason as  mentioned above.
 * Even many historians who take a far more critical view of American history do not label (at least the vast majority of) American actions as genocidal. They instead describe it as settler colonialist or ethnic cleansing.
 * Today, both would be considered war crimes, but the word genocide generally carries an "internationally exterminationist" connotation that the other two words lack. KlayCax (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * wrote: The Pulitzer Prize–winning book What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815–1848 also states that "ethnic cleansing" rather than "genocide" is an accurate description for the California Indian Wars/Genocide and Trial of Tears. This is false, at least as far as the text of the book goes.  In the book, it is true that one finds the sentence  (source) At no point does the author indicate that the white supremacy he talks about repeatedly never added up to genocide as KlayCax suggests.  He simply doesn't use the term, as he is not talking about deaths, but about displacements and property rights /white speculation on expropriated Indian territory. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 20:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I spoke to him during an undergraduate history course of mine. (Which is why I know about the book in the first place.) He stated the Trial of Tears and California genocide/Indian Wars were best described as ethnic cleansing rather than genocide. While personal correspondence is not a reliable source, it's important to note that he personally describes the events as ethnic cleansing in the book, and never describes it as genocide.
 * A reliable source that does talk about the view of mainstream historians is here; it states that . Ostler comments are brought up below so don't want to fork the conversation. KlayCax (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right: what you claim to have understood in a private conversation is not an RS. That you say the book speaks of the California Indian Wars (when it does not) as not being genocide is telling... given that the book's subject matter ends in 1848 with the following resumé: The most bloody conflicts, however, derived from the domination and exploitation of the North American continent by the white people of the United States and their government. If a primary driving force can be identified in American history for this period, this was it. (source) I will note with some dismay that this is at least the third time that I've read sources you've given that do not say what you say they do (on several different articles).--  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 21:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by it being telling? The most bloody conflicts, however, derived from the domination and exploitation of the North American continent by the white people of the United States and their government. If a primary driving force can be identified in American history for this period, this was it. Even people who characterize the events as ethnic cleansing affirm this. It says exactly what I stated. He characterizes the Trail of Tears and (at least until 1848) American-Indian contact in California as a form of ethnic cleansing. (Never mentioning genocide at all in his book.) I suppose you could argue that he may implicitly see it as both genocide and ethnic cleansing. But it would be remarkably strange (to the point of absurdity) for him to just leave it out of the book entirely if he believed that.
 * Other sources on the Trail of Tears predominantly describe it as "ethnic cleansing" rather than "genocide" as well.
 * Again, no one's denying the "domination and exploitation of the North American continent by the white people of the United States and their government". No one. Ethnic cleansing is categorized today as a crime against humanity. Saying that the United States inflicted policies, including massacres and forced population transfers (including ethnic cleansing), that ultimately had catastrophic effects on native populations is by no means a glowing historiography.
 * Genocide also carries connotations of extermination in the popular imagination. So any reference to it would have be extensively detailed and contained within the article. There's no way to properly summarize it in that time.
 * We'd need overwhelming consensus (see below with what TFD wrote: which I agree with) to include it in the article. KlayCax (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Lest there be any confusion: the book does not "state that "ethnic cleansing" rather than "genocide" is an accurate description for the California Indian Wars/Genocide and Trial of Tears." His book ends prior to the former and he only says with regard to part of the latter issue that it fit what people "now called" expropriation and explusion of racial minorities seventeen years ago. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 08:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, you are making these arguments on the article talk page for United States which is what Wikipedia expressly states should not happen. If you have an issue with Trail of Tears or Holodomor or any of the other articles you listed we should be having those conversations on those respective article talk pages. If there are ten articles we should be having ten individual discussions, period. -- A Rose Wolf  18:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the recent edit by DivineReality, . KlayCax (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think for the most part these issues are being discussed and consensus is being gathered. The issue is when editors choose to ignore consensus because they don't like the conclusion. -- A Rose Wolf  19:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus among historians that the Holodomor, Trial of Tears, Gaza, Xinjiang, or the Russian invasion of Ukraine comprises a genocide.
 * Perhaps one could make the argument that there's a consensus that all of those things are war crimes/grave moral atrocities. But where is the consensus you're referring to? The previous version of the Trail of Tears implied that there was unanimous consensus among historians that the events were genocidal. Yet the PBS citation makes no mention of genocide and among historians it's a small, minority viewpoint that the Trial of Tears was such.
 * "Grave moral wrongs/horrendously evil actions/mass murder" ≠ genocide. It would be wrong for us to state in Wikivoice that any of these things are as such. KlayCax (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You keep quoting a source that says it is a minority viewpoint but offer no specific numbers proving your point. A google scholar search revealed 279,000 instances of genocide related to "Native American" and "genocide". It is not a small viewpoint among historians, scholars, academia and reliable authorship. You may quote the authors you wish and, in their voice, describe them as saying it is a minority view but we shouldn't say it in Wiki-voice without an in-depth analysis. We state in Wikivoice that some historians describe it as genocidal acts. Why are you so dead set on stating it as a minority viewpoint using those terms exactly and quoting one source that states that as the ultimate authority on the matter? We have a good compromise solution already laid out without the need to diminish a significant viewpoint because some historians disagree. -- A Rose Wolf  20:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "specific numbers"? Paul Kelton, Jeffrey Ostler, and many, many, many others clearly state that it is a minority viewpoint. Are you talking like a poll that aggregates the views of historians? Because few polls like that exist at all. We do however have people like Paul Kelton and Jeffrey Ostler who have spoken about the present views of historians. For Ostler, who is definitely isn't a whitewasher of American history, and is an openly revisionist historian who challenges many of the traditional (positive) accounts of it, he states that it is a minority viewpoint. (Outside of California at least.)
 * . Outside of California, it certainly is, and multiple sources state this. No one here is denying the utter destruction that American actions had on native populations. It's just that the vast majority of this is classified as "ethnic cleansing" or "settler colonialism" rather than genocide.
 * Because the previous version of the article implied that it was a consensus viewpoint of historians. I'm okay with ethnic cleansing, settler colonialism, and forced displacement, that's pretty uncontroversial with many mainstream historian, but outside of California "genocide" is a small minority viewpoint in the literature. KlayCax (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Our article on genocide says "Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people[a] in whole or in part." If one settler or a group of settlers worked to eliminate all or most native Americans from the land they were taking, it seems to pretty well fit that definition. It doesn't have to be official government policy. HiLo48 (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's generally classified as ethnic cleansing, not genocide.
 * Both are classified as crimes against humanity. However, they're generally regarded as two different forms of it, even if many scholars view the processes as interconnected in at least some ways.
 * (For instance, Jeffrey Ostler argues that the threat of genocide was used to compel ethnic cleansing, which I think is undeniable if anyone reads the primary sources.) KlayCax (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like you'd better get over and fix our article on Genocide. HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ostler expounds upon this when discussing his book, Surviving Genocide, when he said, “Wherever we live in America, I believe any of us is well served to learn the history of the land’s original inhabitants, and to acknowledge the extremes of violence in our own history by calling it what is was: genocide.” He goes on the state when describing this debate, "Given the history of the American genocide debate, however, it is doubtful that a consensus will emerge. It is safe to say the debate will continue." He tried to avoid the question of genocide altogether but he said he found he couldn't escape the sense that genocide is an integral part of the history he's written about. He resolves that genocide did not exist all the time but very much was a repeatable theme of the whole interaction of Natives with European/American's.
 * Another historian, Bernard Bailyn, who takes the approach that both sides in this debate committed savagery, summed it up like this "Well, the Indians were not genocidal, not on the whole. Their effort was not to wipe Europeans off the face of the map. It was the English who write these letters 'wipe them off the map'." This debate is not small and no consensus exists among scholars or historians. We shouldn't present this position as minority in Wikivoice using that term exactly, any more than I would use such weight laden words as "growing" or "expanding". I think the wording on Trail of Tears aptly defines this debate, presenting ethnic cleansing first and genocide second and both describing the fact that some very respected historians and scholars believe either term or both terms are the best description of what happened but that there is no consensus. By applying "some" to both terms we admit in Wikivoice this is not a settled debate by any stretch. That is the most NPOV approach to this debate because it reflects the sources and leaves it to our readers to decide. -- A Rose Wolf  11:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If then we shouldn't include it in Wikivoice within article. We've already renamed the Uyghur genocide → Persecution of Uyghurs in China.
 * We don't mention it on the Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or Ireland pages, either.
 * And of course I don't oppose mentioning it in the specific articles. KlayCax (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

TFD conversation (forked in order to prevent multiple topics in same conversation)
The term genocide is currently being used a lot for colonial history and even for current events including Xinjiang, Ukraine, and Gaza. There should be a guideline, because there are a lot of issues when using the term. TFD (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * To give a rough sketch of the situation, I definitely agree there should be a consistent guideline between articles on the matter. Having different standards on different articles simply doesn't make sense and the word is clearly being used inconsistently between articles. The most simple solution to me is ignoring the classic debate on what "genocide" actually means and basing it on whether an overwhelming majority of mainstream historians categorize the events as genocide with near-unanimous/or greater support.
 * That would place:
 * Events such as the Holocaust and Rwandan genocide would continue to be categorized as genocide in Wikivoice.
 * Events such as the Holodomor, Uyghur persuections, Trail of Tears, Gaza, California Indian Wars/Genocide, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine would not categorized as genocide in Wikivoice.
 * I think we're going to be spinning around in circles otherwise. Do you think that's a good solution, ? Or do you have a better idea? Some form of standardization between articles is needed. KlayCax (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure where this discussion would fit best but it's definitely needed.
 * The increasing usage of "genocide" in Wikivoice of articles — when scholars are either mixed/generally opposed to the usage — is concerning. KlayCax (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * How about the usage of "genocide" in Genocide? HiLo48 (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Generally agree. Since the concept of genocide was created to describe the Holocaust, the Holocaust falls within all the definitions provided. A number of other incidents meet some definitions but not others.
 * Other than the Holocaust and a few other cases, normally if the term is used I would expect to see who used it and what they meant.
 * There's also the issue of using a term to describe events long before the term was created. Frequently reliable sources will not address the issue. TFD (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * For those interested in origins, those who have studied Lemkin's notes suggest that he found the Holocaust (a term he apparently never used) to be a case of genocide, but certainly did not consider it the first genocide, nor even a prototype (according to the authors). Both the Armenian genocide and the genocides in the Americas predated it.  I would suggest reading "Raphael Lemkin as historian of genocide in the Americas" (2005) (source available via Wikipedia Library).  This allows one to see that Lemkin's research model for genocide studies very definitely included colonialism / imperialism in the Americas (particularly Spanish America).  His notes concerning "16. Genocide against the American Indians" are apparently incompletely preserved. sample citation: "If Lemkin's definition of genocide as colonial has been studiously ignored by the literature, Australian, German, and English scholars interested in imperial history have now begun to implement it in their research on the destructive dimensions of colonialism." --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 20:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The reason Lemkin never used the term Holocaust is that it came into usage after he died. Anyway, while he coined the term genocide, his definition was altered when adopted by the UN and there was no recognition of genocides by Turkey, the United States or the Soviet Union. The only agreement on using the term was for the Holocaust, which is what led to the adoption of the Convention on Genocide.
 * Concepts often come to be used differently from originally meant, such as Adam Smith's "invisible hand." In that case, telling libertarians that is not what Smith actually meant is an etymological fallacy and unlikely to be persuasive. TFD (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Removal on 3 April 2024

 * I'm removing it from the article for the time being, . If there's on how Indian removal policies are classified then we shouldn't say so in Wikivoice. KlayCax (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Given that there has already been an RFC the correct thing to do is leave it in the article and start a new RfC if you think there is a pressing need to remove it. -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 21:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * RFC's are matters of last resort.
 * The RFC in question is half a decade old, malformed, and offered a false dichotomy between a heavily biased and nationalist POV and Neither is great.
 * It also appears to not even be a proper RFC. I can't find a tag for it.
 * The RFC wording is not presently in the article. A different phrasing was created by you a month ago. Several editors, including TFD, InvaderMichael, me, and others all objected to the wording. However, I was alright with it remaining in the article if a source saying that a consensus was established could be found. It hasn't. Regardless, as the wording is not in the RFC, it can not be said to fall under the bounds of what the RFC determined.
 * Is there a consensus that the United States committed genocide, ? An honest observer knows that the matter is significantly contentious. It at least shouldn't be put in Wikivoice. KlayCax (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree that "no consensus" means that you can remove it. No consensus means it should not be touched until we gain consensus. No changes to how Indian removal policies are described should be changed on any article until consensus is gathered either way. This is a highly contentious topic and all these edits to fit your point of view will potentially lead to edit warring and further disruption. It has been explained to you the proper way forward. On articles where there is not a current RFC discussing the matter you should open one. On articles where there is a current RFC you may join the process. There is no rush to form a conclusion on the matter as it is not a BLPVIO issue. I recommend opening discussions on the respective article talk pages or at the appropriate venue to allow the community to comment before arbitrarily making any edits on this specific matter. -- A Rose Wolf  11:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If it is, as you said, a highly contentious topic, then why should the claim remain in Wikivoice? I'll note that the wording was recently readded by SashiRolls around a month ago.
 * I, TFD, and others left it in to try and have editor's establish the claim as having consensus in the historical literature, which, even then, seemed doubtful. The sources provided (including Ostler) only seem to further give credence to the idea that it's a minority view within the literature. Ostler notes that: and that . The problem with citing only one historian is that so much has been written about the history of the United States that you can selectively pick books and quotations from reputable historians to bolster any narrative that you want. (From the "god-like American Founding Fathers" to "the genocidal, settler-colonialist, enslavers on lands now known as the United States".)
 * My opinion is that the majority of the events were predominantly ethnic cleansing and forced population transfers rather than genocide. (With a few possible exceptions.) It's also the widespread opinion of many scholars. I'm failing to see why you think it should cited as such in Wikivoice when you yourself have stated that there's "no consensus" on the matter and that it's a "highly contentious topic" in American history. KlayCax (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The reason it should stay is that discussion is ongoing. To change it in the middle of discussion, whether the discussion has been going for five seconds or two years, is disruptive to the process. I would say that no matter what language was used except in the case of a BLP violation, as I stated. It hurts the collaborative effort for an editor to arbitrarily decide, once the attempt has been made to gather consensus or issues are raised, to then decide they don't like the terminology based on their interpretation of sources to remove it from the article. -- A Rose Wolf  17:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Once discussion is concluded and the community has spoken, you can have at it. But if there is no consensus that genocide belongs there is also no consensus that it should be solely classified as ethnic cleansing. No consensus is no consensus so get consensus. -- A Rose Wolf  17:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And on Ostler, it should be noted that he has on numerous occasions stated that he believes some acts, including the Trail of Tears, was genocidal. He agrees there is no consensus on the terminology among scholars but that goes for other terms as well. -- A Rose Wolf  17:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's exactly why I cited him, . Unlike conservative/traditionalist scholars, who would have the motivation to make the "genocide" position seem more fringe than it is, a revisionist scholar would have the opposite incentive. Ostler directly says that it is a (small?) minority position. If there is no consensus among scholars — which I think is indisputable at the very least — then why should the article make a determination that it is in Wikivoice?
 * I'm fine with ethnic cleansing. But there's at least 4+ editors now who oppose [the] [phrasing] SashiRolls [is supporting] (Note: Later word change for greater clarity per request). KlayCax (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Please redact my username from this statement,. As you are very well aware, the long-standing "phrasing" that you deleted on 1 October 2023 long predates my first contribution to this article on 18 February 2023, at which time the exact phrasing I recently restored had been in the article for four years, when someone slightly modified the original wording from Sept 2018 added after the RfC. Trying to personalize the discussion diverts attention from the fact that it was *you* who deleted long-standing content and supporting references on 1 October 2023. Moreover, the phrasing you deleted on 3 April 2024 is not "my" phrasing either, as the 2019 formulation was modified by somebody else on 25 February 2024, the day after I had restored it. Distorting my role leads me to want to chew on the WP:BAIT 🐟, but upon reflection I think I'll just post the diffs... Also, feel free to ping the four editors you claim oppose the content that was in the article from Sept 2018 – October 2023 and from 24 Feb 2024 – 3 April 2024. Additionally, I'm not sure why you're talking about Indian removal in general and about the Trail of Tears when the content you are allegedly disputing refers to neither. This is becoming, as others have said, a timesink.-- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 00:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We all know you are fine with ethnic cleansing but you have yet to open a RFC on any article to ask for community consensus as has been suggested to you many times. You cherry pick statements just like you accuse others of doing to prove your point. If there is no consensus that these acts were genocidal then there is no consensus that these acts were ethnic cleansing. When there is no consensus among scholarship then there is no consensus among scholarship. But that isn't my issue. My issue is you wanting to change the articles while discussion is ongoing. And my warning is that it may lead to an edit war. No one wins in edit wars. -- A Rose Wolf  18:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * RFC's are matters of last resort.
 * . There's a consensus in the literature that the United States ethnically cleansed Native Americans. There isn't a consensus on the question of genocide. It's very possible for one to be true but not the other.
 * Again, all I'm asking is: if there isn't a consensus that the United States committed genocide. Why should it be referred to in Wikivoice as genocide? ? KlayCax (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what your objection is. If there's no objections to us 4's proposed changes then the discussion can be concluded. KlayCax (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I read TFD's comments and I don't see that they necessarily agree with you. I don't see any proposed wording or changes other than you don't like the word genocide in Wikivoice when it comes to Native American treatment by the US. Your opinion is that because there is no agreement in scholarship to call it genocide we should not state it in Wikivoice and that it should be called ethnic cleansing, also not agreed on by scholarship, or crimes against humanity (patronizing) based solely on your opinion and interpretation. I see that, on one article talk page, you are trying to force some standardization on all articles that discuss genocide when you have been told by several editors that it needs to be separate discussions or if you can find the appropriate community venue to make sure this decision gets the wider community discussion. We shouldn't be trying to form Wikipedia policy on an article talk page. -- A Rose Wolf  18:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I object to having this discussion on this article talk page which is supposed to be only about improvements to this article specifically. I hope that clarifies my objection though I'm not sure why that was so hard to decipher because I said as much in several of my responses. -- A Rose Wolf  18:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The broad genocide discussion would go elsewhere. This conversation is narrowly about this article.
 * I'm asking whether this page should state that the United States committed genocide in Wikivoice? Yes or no? KlayCax (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If there is reason enough to state it as ethnic cleansing so definitively with Wikivoice I think there is cause to state it as genocide, as has been done on other articles about Native American's treatment by the US. -- A Rose Wolf  18:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In regards to United States, I believe the article is very neutrally worded, making mention of genocide once and only as a wikilink to an article with the same title about this subject. It calls the Trail of Tears a forced removal, which I think is very generous. Before that it states in one sentence about the policies of Indian removal and assimilation that many, not most, many being more than one or two, respected scholars, both Native and non-Native, classify as genocidal acts in part or in whole. -- A Rose Wolf  19:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If there's not a consensus than we shouldn't take a position either way. Particularly if it's a minority position within the literature.
 * Trail of Tears isn't even mentioned in the article. The current phrasing in the article is about so-called "Indian Removal" in general. KlayCax (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1.) I already explained the 2018 RFC above. 1.) RFC's are matters of last resort. 2.) The RFC in question is half a decade old, was malformed, and offered a false dichotomy between a heavily biased and nationalist POV and Neither option was great. Heck, the only part of the statement still in the article is "genocide". Therefore, I can't see it as still WP: PRECEDENT.
 * 2.) I've never reported anyone to an administrator on here and my statements weren't WP: BAIT. I was simply responding to the phrasing you reinstated. Editors with the best of intentions can disagree with one another on how articles should be written. That's entirely normal and should be expected. I apologize if something I said was taken the wrong way. It wasn't my intention.
 * 3.) There's a lot more than 4 who have objected., , , , me, etc. have all opposed the wording (at least in Wikivoice) over the past year for the simple reason that there's no current historical consensus on the matter. (And even worse: a lot of this appears to be a minority within the literature.) A note explaining the historiography and leaving it an open question would be far superior. (Or not mentioning it at all.) KlayCax (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 4.) Because there was proposals to also list the Trail of Tears or Indian Removal (in general) as genocidal as well. There were two conversations going on at once.
 * 5.) Without getting more bogged down in the weeds: 1.) There's no consensus in the literature. Additionally, many of these claims are minority positions within it. 2.) Therefore, Wikipedia shouldn't state it in Wikivoice.
 * Is there a consensus on any of this? If not, how can it remain in the article's voice? KlayCax (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you ignored my request to redact the misleading attribution is noted. I look forward to reading the folks you pinged to see if anyone supports your removal. -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 02:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The only thing I said was . (I'll add [preferred]) The context was obviously about how the phrasing that you're in favor of (I didn't say it was yours; I only brought your name up in context due to the fact that ) is different from the RFC version. So citing the (incredible malformed and false dichotomy-induced) RFC that is now half a decade old doesn't have much weight.
 * My question is: if there's no consensus, why promote one view over the other? We've already renamed the Uyghur genocide to Persecution of the Uyghurs in China. KlayCax (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for acknowledging that the wording is not mine. I do indeed prefer some wording to no wording (your preference). I am not opposed to including both the terms ethnic cleansing and genocide, if you prefer.  My thought is that using summary style is to be preferred and linking to the daughter article (California genocide) is simpler than splitting hairs in this article.
 * I haven't supported or opposed any particular wording. I left my view that genocide is a serious label that requires the highest standard of sourcing. I haven't looked into the sourcing of this particular subject in any great detail, but I can make a few generic comments:
 * 1) If there's a problem with the title of the article on California genocide then Talk:California genocide is the place to discuss it.
 * 2) I'm not sure any further site-wide guideline on use of this term is necessary or helpful. It should always come down to what sources say, so it's perfectly possible for articles on, say, China and Ukraine to be inconsistent on their use of the term, as long as they both reflect what their respective sources say.
 * 3) If there is not clear consensus amongst sources, then we cannot pick one POV's preferred label and present it in wikivoice - and the more inflammatory the label, the clearer that consensus needs to be.
 * 4) The United States is a vast subject. Almost everything in this article should be written in summary style. The section titled Revolution and expansion (1776–1861) is headed Further information: History of the United States (1776–1789), History of the United States (1789–1815), and History of the United States (1815–1849), so logically the section should summarise what those articles say, with due weight. None of them use the word genocide as far as I can see. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly, this was not even covered in the 1849-1865 page, but I have fixed that oversight. As you can see, I have no problem with using both the terms ethnic cleansing and genocide, since both are frequently seen in the scholarship, and en.wp represents all major viewpoints.  If it is thought that Yale University press and University of Nebraska press books and the California governor are fringe sources, someone could open a thread at the Fringe theories noticeboard (WP:FTN) to get opinions there... --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 14:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As an addendum, when I noticed KlayCax deleting the California genocide from Historical negationism a couple months ago (due to his post in an earlier section of this page), I learned that textbook editors were unwilling to refer to the events as "genocide" and pressured their authors not to use the term if they wanted to be published: "In spite of a wealth of sources, the California Department of Education denies the genocide of its first people, and publishers and authors of social studies texts almost entirely ignore the killing thousands of Indians and enslavement of thousands of others (California State Board of Education, 2000)." (source available through Wikipedia Library)


 * Times changed in 2019 with the governor's apology. Today, new accounts are being created to help KlayCax remove the longstanding text from that entry. -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 20:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Like SashiRolls, I am not opposed to both, and other, terms being discussed in articles. In fact, on most article discussions I have been involved with I voted against only the inclusion of genocide. I think many terms can and should be applied because there is no consensus among scholarship. They, much like Wikipedia, cannot agree on what even constitutes a genocide. I completely disagree with the notion it cannot apply to these events and I do not see how one it can definitively be called one and not the other when neither has consensus. Our best hope is to define the terms as neutrally as possible with citations and let our readers decide what to believe or not. -- A Rose Wolf  12:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This as a USA topic I generally avoid as I'm simply not that familiar with the academic research. But why aren't we saying something simply like source Moxy 🍁 17:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Star spangled banner source
Currently it links to https://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=46&page=1508 which is something about the Battle of Kings Mountain? I think this maybe an error Idkjustathing (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Look at the short piece of legislation at the top of the page reproduced when you click the link. It is not an error.  General Ization Talk  22:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Federal Presidential republic??
i could have sworn we were a federal CONSTITUTIONAL republic. sounds mighty strange.... 12.166.63.211 (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * See Talk:United States/Archive 94. Essentially, "republic" already implies "constitutional" as all republics are constitutional. While not all republics choose to codify as a single written document is another matter, but not having it as a single written document doesn't mean you aren't running in a constitutional manner (see United Kingdom, which is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy without having a codified single document as its constitution, but rather a body of laws acting as such). See constitution. All republics have to operate on some sort of constitutional based system since they aren't operating on absolutist authority of a single person, like in an absolute monarchy. This is why a monarchical form of government has to establish whether or not it is constitutional or not, since non-constitutional monarchies can exist (i.e. absolute monarchies vs constitutional monarchies). Republics, however, must be constitutional in some form. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect claim “highest median income of a non-microstate”
Factual error. I’d like to adjust it, but the page is protected. Several average sized countries such as Norway, Switzerland and a couple more have higher median income.

Correct: US has a high median income. (Though not the highest.)

Would someone with editing rights please correct. Thanks. 178.238.174.47 (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * According to OECD, the United States has a higher median income than Norway or Switzerland. A few microstates surpass it. However, that's already specified. KlayCax (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It should be made more precise by saying this is disposable income according the OECD. These types of terms and statistics are usually defined in slightly different ways depending on their source. Senorangel (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 April 2024
Page does not link to United Kingdom when first mentioned Crystallyn0 (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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.  (talk | contribs) 12:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅. – Gluonz  talk contribs 04:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

"America" should not redirect to the United States
In the disambiguation page for America, it is specified that "America is a short-form name for the United States of America". However, the United States aren't known officially as the "United States of America", instead they are just the "United States". The name of the article is United States, and not United States of America. The nation is called "United States" and "of America" is only an unofficial addition to distinguish with other nations that go by United States. This is useless nowadays, considering that when "United States" is mentioned it is always referring to the one in America, unless said otherwise. Furthermore, America is a common name for much more than just the US, and nowadays it is much more common to see "America" being used to refer to the continent rather than the nation. 2804:14D:5C50:889E:6913:F93D:EA87:874C (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In the English language, America is usually used to refer to the United States, such that it is the overwhelmingly primary topic for that word. This is not limited to usage within the United States but is the common meaning of the word in reliable sources globally, such as Indian Express, Le Monde, Japan Times, The Guardian, etc. It is true that in many languages America does not necessarily refer to the United States, but the English Wikipedia reflects English-language usage, which does support America redirecting here. - Aoidh (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Aoidh In Le Monde, the International section is divided into Americas and in that section is the United States. Looking up 'America' in Le Monde itself doesn't show any US-related articles using the term to refer to the US.
 * The same goes for The Guardian 2804:14D:5C50:80D8:E97D:ED:8CD6:4B91 (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The examples I gave directly and unambiguously use America to refer specifically and exclusively to the United States. The international section of Le Monde using "Americas" reinforces the idea that in the English language, Americas is used to refer to the landmass called Americas in contrast to America, which is overwhelmingly used to refer to the United States. I'm not sure what you're searching to not find any results, but when searching through Le Monde it is very easy to find English-language articles that use America to describe the United States, this example is from a couple of days ago. The Guardian has an entire section called America's dirty divide that it describes as A series examining the country's vast environmental inequalities and how climate change will make things worse (emphasis added). When English-language reliable sources use America, it almost always is used to refer to the United States. - Aoidh (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The purpose of re-directs is that readers are taken to the article they are searching for. My guess is that over 95% of readers who type in America are looking for this article. If you have evidence that they are looking for another article, please tell me what it is. TFD (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The United States of America is the official name, and is for example used in international relations, as for example titles of ambassadors. For usage in Congress see https://www.congress.gov/search?q=%7B%22congress%22%3A%5B%22118%22%5D%2C%22source%22%3A%22all%22%2C%22search%22%3A%22United%20States%20of%20America%22%7D   Rjensen (talk)
 * That doesn't matter. The official name of Mexico is "The United States of Mexico", but if you look up "United States" it directs to here. This is not a conversation worth entertaining, plenty of RFCs have been conducted and the consensus has been to keep things as they are. You're welcome to try to change consensus, but it will almost certainly fail. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  00:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is true that redirects should take you where you want to land. But i guess most (90% or so) people wo type America search for the continent America not the country USA. At least this was the case when i searched america and was confusied why it redirects me here. America = contient, USA = country in America. You also don't expect a redirect from europe to the article European_Union, despite the EU having the a much larger portion of Europe than the USA has of America, or do you? 185.62.82.91 (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * America is not a continent though. North America is a continent. South America is a continent. 24.34.64.221 (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * For example, I myself came here by typing in America… Coulomb1 (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC) Coulomb1 (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Should the United States be called North Columbia?
Originally, the United States was planned to be called Columbia named after Columbus who landed in North America. And plus, the government officials officially planned to name the United States, Columbia but unfortunately, the South American republic of Columbia already took the name too early so the US had to settle with its current name.

So, should the United States been called Columbia before the South Americans got ahold of the name or no? DarJoOu (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Columbia was a name often used to refer to the United States, see Columbia (personification). This fell out of fashion in the 20th century, although evidence remains in names such as the District of Columbia. Article talk pages are generally used to article development specifically, if you have general questions in the future they may be better addressed at the Reference desk. Best, CMD (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The United States was named before the country of Colombia, and its original name was actually United Colonies. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know Randy, but should the US change it's name from the United States of America onto the United States of Columbia and why you may ask? For Americans ahem I mean North Columbians to be proud of the founding fathers and their history. DarJoOu (talk) 05:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Columbus was hardly a founding father of the USA. He never set foot on the land that is now the USA, and persisted to his death in believing that he had made it to Asia. And he's hardly a fine example of what you want to name your country after. He had two sons, one by his wife and one by his mistress. He called the local people he found Los Indios (Indians), a name that still creates confusion today. Columbus once punished a man found guilty of stealing corn by having his ears and nose cut off and then selling him into slavery. There are strong suggestions he was rather brutal in a lot more of his treatment of the natives. His name in his native Genoese language was Cristoffa Corombo, so maybe the country could be called Corombia. Alternatively, use the Spanish version of his name, Cristóbal Colón, and call it Colonland.  HiLo48 (talk) 06:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't meant Columbus was a founding father, I meant the some founding fathers and many other major individuals involved in the United States' founding wanted to change the name of the United States to Columbia but Colonland probably is a mighty option. I agree I guess DarJoOu (talk) 02:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What the heck this is not a place to discuss the naming of a country this is Wikipedia talk section for talking about changes and fixes to the article, not about those kind of stuff. 24.126.165.174 (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2024
change "African Americans constitute the country's third-largest ancestry group" to "African Americans constitute the country's third-largest ancestry group" Doctorgulielmus (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * it's linked now, Rjjiii  (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

"[...] the United States has had the largest nominal GDP since about 1890 [...]"
Japan had a larger average nominal GDP than the U.S. between 1990 and 1995 according to the linked article.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, this linked article you've recomend to me, it's extremely reliable, that's undeniable, however, it need be updated, because (Obiviously), 1990 has gone long time ago, so the chance of this having changed is quite high, in fact, it doesn't even need to go very far, considering that Japan is going through problems, including the economy. 177.105.90.20 (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Needs correction of 'national government' and elaboration on federal government's legitimacy.
The article incorrectly names the federal government as the national government. As a nation, we have no government in the USA, we are ruled through martial supremacy by the federal government, which only falsely presents itself to the world as the nation's government. The article should clarify that the nation gets no participation or representation in the federal government, and no public acknowledgement by the federal government. The federal government is 100% comprised and representative of the middle class and upper class, with the remaining 85% of the nation (the lower class) excluded from involvement for all but non-decision-related roles.

The article makes no mention of criticism of the federal government's legitimacy, which is a common subject of discussion within the nation, especially among the lower class, as we generally reject this body of rulership as a presence of legitimate government. Related to this issue, the article should elaborate on the federal government's generous use of numerous martial law acts in response to riots in our cities when the people demanded that the federal government resign and withdraw from all governance activity related to those cities- demands which remain entirely unsatisfied, and really should get a mention in the article.

As the article is presently worded, it paints a highly inaccurate image of there being some kind of unity between the nation and the federal government by neglecting to make any mention at all of the tension and even conflict that actually exists in that space, and I suspect that deception was willfully designed into it. As a citizen of the USA, I care that this article is reasonably complete and fair. Editors, please consider these suggestions for revisions. 2601:1C2:C001:4BA0:8917:5F1E:5A56:C5E4 (talk) 05:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with everything that you say here, but this seems like a good-faith proposal, and Wikipedia behavioral guidelines discourage removing the comments of others, so I am restoring this comment. Regardless of its legitimacy, the U.S. federal government has been influential and notable enough to warrant significant discussion in this article, though its role could perhaps be framed differently. I agree that this article could improve its adherence to the neutral point of view policy, but others will take you more seriously if you suggest a concrete, specific edit to wording or content, especially if you provide sources that back up your proposed change. &emsp;&mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 16:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Spanish name in infobox
I am retracting my proposal now. It is clear this is an unproductive discussion over a relatively trivial matter that has blown out of proportion, and that it is not useful for any of us to go forward with it. The infobox should stay as it is, at least for now. Consider all my discussion below this sentence annulled.

Small question: should the Spanish name of the United States of America (Estados Unidos de América) be included in the infobox? I'm not quite sure myself but I thought it might be important because the secondary native languages of other countries also appear in the infobox. I want to hear opinions from other Wikipedians before I make such a change however.

Hypothetical Spanish included infobox:

― Howard • 🌽33 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC) ; edited 16:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Only about 14% of the US population speaks Spanish, so though it is the second largest language in the country it is still in the minority by a huge margin. In my opinion, languages on the infobox should be reserved for constitutionally recognized ones and those that have a significant amount in the country, I would use Belgium as an example here. TheBritinator (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How much is a "significant" amount? Is there a percentage for this kind of thing? ― Howard • 🌽33 14:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I am not sure if there is a strict number, but 14% seems far too low to justify inclusion on the country as a whole. I could see it for a state level where perhaps Spanish is more significant.
 * I would also like to add that historical context is also pretty important, such as with Louisiana, I'd imagine it has French and Spanish due to its shared history with French Louisiana (named after a French king) and New Spain, so it would make sense to include it despite the languages actually being in a small minority. TheBritinator (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course historical context is also a vague concept considering that much of the modern-day United States was historically controlled by the Spanish Empire (see: Spanish America). How much historical context is necessary for inclusion? ― Howard • 🌽33 14:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The United States itself was not formed of Spanish heritage. TheBritinator (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The modern-day United States is certainly formed of Spanish heritage. Several states (California, Nevada, New Mexico, Florida, Arizona) have clear Spanish heritage. ― Howard • 🌽33 15:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I lean towards opposing this, mainly because somewhere we have to draw the line between what we include and don't include, and it will be very hard to come up with an explanation for why we do things one way for Spanish in the US and differently for other places and languages. I realize that slippery-slope arguments aren't great, and Languages of the United States does show that Spanish has a much larger speakership than other US languages, but I think the infobox isn't a place we should include this in a possibly contentious way when the info is already available elsewhere. Toadspike   [Talk]  14:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hm. Perhaps this should be moved to a larger discussion on which languages should be included in a country's infobox, since the Template:Infobox Country merely states that the native_name parameter be filled in with "its official/defacto language(s)". Official languages have a solid definition but "De Facto" doesn't. I think a standard for inclusion should be defined. What do you think? ― Howard • 🌽33 14:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I get your point, but 14% would by no imagination constitute a defacto language. This is what I was talking about when I said significant ones. Sure, a clear parameter could be set for this, but the United States is definitely not it. TheBritinator (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 14% would by my imagination constitute a de facto language, which is why I started this discussion in the first place. Briefly looking up a couple of sources (not in-depth research to be clear), some academic sources have considered, suggested, or outright noted Spanish as the second de-facto language (or de-facto second language) of the United States. I'm not sure if this settles the discussion on whether Spanish is a de facto language of the United States, but it is not out of many people's imagination.
 * ― Howard • 🌽33 16:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose the rise of Spanish speaking people is starting to grow especially after the wave of Mexican immigrants, so IF this is proposed in a couple years, I will probably support it. 48JCL (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Dual-language names are used throughout Wikipedia, but only when both languages have official, or at least coequal, status in the country. They are not used when there is a minority (13.2%, two-thirds of them fluent in English) who speak the second language at home and can access some government services in Spanish, or if Spaniards colonized the territory centuries ago like the French or Dutch. Spanish is not even a required foreign language in U.S. schools&mdash;the hallmark of a bilingual, bicultural nation-state like Canada or Finland. (Spanish is a language option like French.) Wikipedia has no reason to manufacture a bilingual nation-state that simply doesn't exist. Wikipedia reports what is, not what some editors wish it were. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * "Dual-language names are used throughout Wikipedia, but only when both languages have official, or at least coequal, status in the country. "
 * The infobox template does not specify this. It merely states that they have to be "its official/defacto language(s)". Does Wikipedia policy have a specified standard for what counts as "de facto"? Considering the sources I have noted above, it appears there is ambiguity of what languages can be considered "de facto".
 * "Wikipedia has no reason to manufacture a bilingual nation-state that simply doesn't exist. Wikipedia reports what is, not what some editors wish it were."
 * Which editor is wishing for the United States to be a bilingual nation-state? ― Howard • 🌽33 16:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Howard. If you are suggesting that translation for that particular field, you are indeed creating a bilingual, bicultural nation-state. Please look at how the infoboxes of many other country articles are handled&mdash;or not handled. Your above sample is imposing a certain linguistic and cultural point of view, and "POV" in the negative Wikipedia sense. Why you don't realize this is beyond me.  Mason.Jones (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am merely trying to align the information inside the US country infobox with the rules of its template documentation. This is merely a question of what exactly the infobox counts as a "de facto" language, which it does not specify if you read the documentation.
 * As I have noted above, multiple sources state that Spanish is indeed the second de facto language of the United States, which may (or may not) necessitate its inclusion in the infobox. I am only citing what the sources already say.
 * Therefore, I simply wish to know two things:
 * 1. Is there unambiguous Wikipedia consensus that explicitly defines what is meant by "de facto language(s)" in the context of country info-boxes?
 * 2. If there is no policy, do reliable sources consider Spanish to be a "de facto" national language of the United States?
 * If no to the former, then we could move this discussion elsewhere and define it ourselves. However, if we cannot form any consensus, then we have to rely on what reliable sources consider of the status of Spanish in the United States. According to my brief overview of the topic, multiple sources do consider Spanish to be a "de facto" national language of the United States. However, if you have sources which are contrary to this designation, then please share them with me.
 * Suppose we go by your rules and say that an infobox should only contain the translated names of the official languages (excluding vernacular and regionally recognized languages) of that country, as in Sweden and Canada, like you mentioned.
 * These countries' infoboxes would then not fit the bill:
 * Eritrea's infobox only includes Tigrinya as the native name of the country, despite it not being the official language of the country.
 * Algeria's infobox only includes the Arabic name despite Tamazight also being an official language of the country.
 * Jamaica's, Grenada's, Belize's infobox contains the name in their respective creoles despite them not being an official language.
 * Bolivia's infobox doesn't contain all 36 of its official languages.
 * Burkina Faso's infobox doesn't contain its name in Bissa, despite it being an official language.
 * The Danish Realm's infobox contains Faroese and Greenlandic despite the fact they are merely regional languages and Danish is the only official language.
 * Djibouti's infobox contains Somali and Afar, despite those not even being official languages.
 * Guinea's infobox contains Pular and Eastern Maninkakan despite only French being the official language.
 * Guinea-Bissau's infobox contains Fula and Mandinka despite only Portuguese being the official language.
 * Israel's infobox contains Arabic despite only Hebrew being the sole official language.
 * Latvia's infobox contains Latgalian and Livonian, despite Latvian being the sole official language.
 * Luxembourg's infobox contains French and German despite Luxembourgish being the national language.
 * Malawi's infobox contains Chichewa and Chitumbuka despite English being the sole official language.
 * Mali has thirteen official languages but only contains five of them in the infobox.
 * Mexico doesn't have an official language, but its name in Spanish is included in the infobox.
 * Monaco's infobox contains Monagesque, which is not an official language of the country.
 * Namibia's infobox contains eight languages, despite only English being the official language of the country.
 * New Zealand's infobox does not contain a SignWritten name of the country in New Zealand Sign Language.
 * Nigeria's infobox contains three languages, despite English being the sole official language.
 * Norway's infobox contains Kven, not an official language.
 * Papua New Guinea's infobox does not contain a PNG Sign Language translation of the name of the country.
 * Peru's infobox, interestingly enough, contains "co-official" names for the country, in Quechua and Aymara which aren't the official language.
 * Saint Lucia's infobox contains Saint Lucian Creole, which is not an official language.
 * Slovenia's infobox contains Italian and Hungarian, which are not official languages.
 * South Africa's infobox does not contain South African Sign Language.
 * Spain's infobox contains names in 7 other languages which are not Spanish, the country's official language.
 * Switzerland's infobox contains its name in Latin, which is not an official language of Switzerland.
 * Uganda's infobox contains a dropdown with three other non-official languages.
 * Uruguay's infobox does not contain Uruguayan Sign Language, an official language of the country.
 * Yemen's infobox contains an informal Arabic name for the country alongside the official name.
 * Zimbabwe's infobox doesn't contain any translated names despite having 16 official languages.
 * I would like for you to go through each and every infobox for every country and explain to me what is the consensus on which translated names are supposed to appear on the top. I guarantee you, there is an exception with any rule you come up with. ― Howard • 🌽33 20:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Howard &mdash; First of all, academic books declaring Spanish to be "the second de facto language" are as reliable for Wikipedia as academic publications stating that the U.S. is not a democracy or is a historical fraud. Actually, Switzerland's name in Latin is official, as this is its historical name going back to its medieval founding as a confederation. There really is a reason for each and every WP infobox format you list. While I do think there might be room to expand "Languages" in the infobox, I find your sample above quite misguided. You're ready to declare Spanish "de facto" when the 13.2% Spanish figure comes from a survey (not from a census), when these 41 million people are not monolingual Spanish speakers but often speak English fluently and receive their education in English. English is the de facto language of the United States. Your sample infobox also opens a can of worms for every state: Why shouldn't North Carolina also appear as "Carolina del Norte" or, for equal inclusiveness, "Philadelphia" followed by "Filadelfia"? This is how absurd your infobox is as a concept.


 * This space isn't a forum, so I will go no further except to say that I oppose your "project" in most aspects. Other editors can weigh in. Mason.Jones (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * First of all, any contestable claim on Wikipedia requires a reliable source. The ones I have provided are from reliable academic publications. You have so far not provided a single reliable source to back up your position, so you are the one who currently has a burden of proof to back up your claim that Spanish is not a de facto second language of the United States.
 * I'm not the one declaring Spanish a "de facto" based on my own assumptions of what a "de facto" language ought to be, unlike you. I have consulted the relevant sources, and according to WP:V, that is what is necessary. In addition, I don't see why we can't open a proverbial "can of worms" for every state that deserves it. Alaska has six languages in the infobox, what's one more?
 * Again, you still have to yet to provide any kind of clear standard for what should and should not be included in a language section of the infobox that is based on any specified precedent of the template's use. If you actually consulted the country infoboxes of every country, you would see the alarming contradictions in how they are presented. ― Howard • 🌽33 17:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As it appears this discussion has become difficult, I have requested a third opinion at WP:3O. ― Howard • 🌽33 17:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.png 3O Response: Please note that I have declined a request for a third opinion relating to this dispute on the grounds that there are already more than two involved editors. In almost all cases WP:3O is for cases where a literal third opinion is needed. Please consider other forms of dispute resolution if necessary. DonIago (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Struck so a 3O can be offered per below. DonIago (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Howard: Alaska, South Dakota, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico have bilingual/multilingual infobox banners in Wikipedia because their state or territorial legislature voted to declare those languages official languages. That is the "precedent". New Orleans had a French name in the 18th century, and Saint Augustine a Spanish name in the 16th, 17th, and 18th, so both are also treated differently. I can see no justification for your bilingual banner "Estados Unidos de América", and I don't think you have convinced other editors. Finally, I am under no obligation to continue a long-winded debate with you on any Talk page. This is my last comment. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Louisiana creole is by no means an official language of Louisiana, but its still listed. Regardless, I’ll give up this stupid conversation considering that you have consistently made bad and uncited claims.  ― Howard • 🌽33 07:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Third opinion request
A protracted dispute has occurred between me and specifically. I have created this subsection specifically to facilitate a third opinion request. The dispute between me and Mason is (from my perspective) as follows: I initially started this section to ask about the viability of placing the Spanish-language name of the United States in the infobox, in addition I have pointed out that the native_name parameter of the infobox template allows for either "official" or "de facto" languages of the country. After reviewing some sources, I have discovered that Spanish is considered by many to be a de facto language of the United States, which I have cited. Mason has accused me of pushing a particular POV of promoting a "bilingual, bicultural United States" and has denied my sources on his own assumptions of what a de facto language "should" be, without citing any sources, reliable or otherwise. After reviewing the infoboxes of most (if not all) sovereign states, I have discovered that there is inconsistency in which native names are included and which aren't, however Mason has denied any irregularity. Therefore I would ask the provider of the third opinion to address these points of dispute between me and Mason specifically: ― Howard • 🌽33 18:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Are my sources unreliable enough that they do not support my claim that Spanish is a "de facto" second language of the United States?
 * Have I been promoting a particular POV of a "bilingual, bicultural United States"?
 * Is there a specified precedent on Wikipedia for which names of a country are to appear in its infobox?
 * You've already received several opinions and those are more-or-less opposed. I didn't see any supports. I would have opposed earlier, except that a consensus seems to have already been formed, and, each article being its own little fiefdom to a large extent, that is that. It's not necessary to refute the logic of your position, unless you assert that a gross violation of Wikipedia's core policies has taken place. I would add that your proposal misuses the "native-name" infobox field, Spanish never having been that for this country, as well as that misuse giving greatly undue prominence to something that is a regional phenomenon. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * “It’s not necessary to refute the logic of your position.”
 * Wiikipedia is not a democracy, you have to provide an actual refutation of my point even if the majority are against me.
 * “your proposal misuses the "native-name" infobox field, “
 * If you read the template infobox country, you would see that it states that the native_name parameter should contain the name “in its official/defacto language(s)”. Again, I have provided multiple sources that it is a de facto language of the United States, and this must be addressed before I back down from my position. ― Howard • 🌽33 08:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * P.S. There is a formal third opinion venue for dispute resolution, but that is explicitly for resolving "a content or sourcing disagreement between two editors." Dhtwiki (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My dispute with Mason is not merely over the inclusion of Spanish in the infobox, but over his specific claims which are specified in the bullet points. ― Howard • 🌽33 07:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Regardless, however, it appears that there is a pretty clear consensus regarding this. TheBritinator (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Sources contradict a removed line
This line was removed from the article because after checking for sources, they appeared to contradict this framing as something "provided" to students. WP:RS instead framed US student loans as a problem, a "crisis", and noted that it disproportionately affected poor and minority students: "Large amounts of federal financial aid are provided to students in the form of grants and loans."(30 May 2024)

Sources:
 * https://abcnews.go.com/US/attn-abc-news-uss-student-debt-crisis/story?id=55332323
 * https://www.npr.org/2023/07/03/1185864097/stirred-a-debate-over-the-government-s-role-in-helping-pay-for-higher-education
 * https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/599377-how-student-loan-debt-became-a-crisis/
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/made-by-history/2022/12/29/history-student-loan-debt/
 * https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/watch-live-how-student-loan-debt-disproportionately-hurts-black-borrowers
 * https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2016/1019/Average-student-loan-debt-increases-again
 * https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article286697855.html
 * https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/16/economy/student-debt-gallup-poll/index.html
 * https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/aug/25/student-loan-crisis-awaits-new-generation-despite-/ (very right-leaning source)
 * https://www.al.com/reckon/2023/07/other-countries-arent-drowning-in-student-debt.html
 * https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/08/26/your-money/student-loan-forgiveness-debt.html
 * https://cbs12.com/news/nation-world/is-student-loan-debt-a-national-crisis-nearly-half-of-borrowers-think-so-college-expenses-university-finances-money-education-earnings-bankrate-survey
 * https://www.bbc.com/news/business-67546893
 * https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29730227
 * https://www.msnbc.com/know-your-value/aauw-s-kim-churches-student-debt-crisis-women-s-issue-n1026131

Regards, Rjjiii  (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)