Talk:United States Semiquincentennial

Under American domestic law, the United States of America was de jure established on July 2, 1776, by a resolution of the Second Continental Congress in the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.^[1]

This claim seems unsupported by the source. The source does not state, as a matter of "American domestic law" and certainly not de jure anything, that "the United States of America was de jure established on July 2, 1776". If anything, as a legal matter, the ratification of the Constitution might be closer, but that's neither here nor there. Is there actually a source that says that the July 2 date was legally significant? If not, that claim should be removed. This "Did You Know" page doesn't make for much of a legal source. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

This likely refers to the Lee Resolution, which should be mentioned and linked somewhere in there. And maybe more familiar language than "de jure". Good catch. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably fine to reference if we want to. I'd also say that it's a bit weird to say that the United States was "established" in 1776 – perhaps better to call it the year of "independence". Correct me if I'm contradicted by a reliable source, but it's my understanding that "United States" wasn't a proper noun and no one asserted that the 13 states collectively formed a single political entity/sovereignty in 1776. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe remove the "Under domestic law" descriptor, which I don't understand either. Have added the Lee Resolution and linked de jure which, changing my mind about my comment above and striking it, may be the perfect word for the remainder of that sentence and to lessen your concern. In essence, the Lee Resolution formally put the thing together without naming it. "United Colonies" was the actual name mentioned, which became "states" upon the July 2 passage of the first paragraph of the resolution (the other two paragraphs were approved much later), so "de jure" fits well as a descriptor. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

That whole paragraph was pretty bad. I made corrections per the cited sources and did some copyediting to tighten the whole thing up. Station1 (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

My edit to these sections was quickly reverted by User:Randy Kryn despite providing extensive rational. I felt it was appropriate to WP:BOLDLY make the edits because I had seen no discussion of whether or not the extraneous details should be included and the article had not received any edits for over two months.

This article has unnecessarily detailed information in the lede and background section that variously go a. Per WP:SS, the lede should only contain the most important points, the sections of the article should have a moderate amount of information about the important points, and highly detailed info should be linked to the main article that discusses it. For some reason past editor(s) of this article think it is appropriate to mention the long-form, official name of the Declaration of Independence and to discuss the July 2/July 4 "debate" in the background section. Both of these topics are of unnecessarily detail for an article that is only about the anniversary of said document and event. The official name of the Declaration is rarely if ever used, and the title of its article is the common name. The date issue is trivial information with respect to this article is about the 250th anniversary celebration, which will take place in 2026 regardless of the date in July independence was actually adopted or declared. And, again, the detailed discussion is available at the linked article for independence day. Ha2772a (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The image, up for deletion at the suggestion of Red-tailed hawk, seems the perfect defining image for this page. Let's step back a bit and see if it could be kept as topic page defining, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The original is from America250.org, which calls itself the "Official website of the U.S. Semiquincentennial Commission". If so, wouldn't this be in public domain as being created by a relatively close affiliation to the U.S. government? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Please have another look, Red-tailed hawk, the video portion does seem to be from the official Commission. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn, Red-tailed hawk, and Allreet: — I'm not seeing any request to delete in the image file summary. It says "This file may fail Wikipedia's first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information..." This is not just an image of the Statue of Liberty but and animated gif with other features. Seems to me such an image is unique and won't be found anywhere else, and as such meets fair usage criteria. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

So it doesn't get lost, see my new comment at the bottom. Allreet (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This might a good image for United States Semiquincentennial Commission but it represents only the official government organization, not the anniversary as a whole. The commission will undoubtedly prove at least somewhat controversial, as the bicentennial commission did. We don't want this to appear as a pro-government booster article. Not to mention gifs in general can be distracting. We should probably use a more neutral image, say of Independence Hall or the Declaration itself or the Trumbull painting of the signing. Station1 (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Well it could be argued that using any of the images you mentioned could also be construed, esp among those individuals who are so inclined, as a pro-government effort. In fact, the title of the article could be interpreted by such individuals as such an effort. Having said that, I tend to agree with your estimation of using animated GIFs. The one in question seems a bit much. The Statue of Liberty is nice, but the effects are a little distracting, imo. Yes, perhaps Trumbull's image, or even a simple photo of the Statue of Liberty by itself would be more appropriate.
In any case, wasn't there an issue over deletion of the GIF? I'm not seeing any 'fair use' violations with it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Explicit has deleted the image as being non-free. If it is an official release of the official governmental committee organizing the event then it would be in public domain. The first question to be addressed is it an official production, which, per its link to the Commission page, it may be, and thus free for use on the page. If it is non-free, then the questions becomes "is there an alternative to represent the page topic". Not yet, there is no other image to represent the United States Semiquincentennial itself (i.e. a photo of Constitution Hall, which is very much related to the original event, but is tangential to the topic). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems no such non free image will be coming anytime soon, so at this point we should simply use a PD image that will simply represent the United States. The subject could be any number of things, including the Declaration, Signing of the Constitution, Statue of Liberty, American Flag, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Was saying that the gif may be a free use image and was hoping others would check the website. The images you mention are not about the 250th anniversary. Only other image I can think of that would fit this page topic is the event's logo, at the same website as the gif. Those two images are the extant of pictorial representations of this event, which is why Explicit and Red-tailed hawk may have made a mistake in saying that there are other images to be used (so even if the gif is non-free it had a legitimate free-use statement and should be brought back. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, a subject specific image would be best. Why can't the deleted image be used under a 'fair use' license? Meanwhile, Trumbull's painting of the signing, or perhaps a flag, is better than an info-box with no image. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Those suggestions are not subject specific, which is what the fair use gif is and maybe the event logo. Hopefully Red-tailed hawk and Explicit will follow up om both free use and fair use, and the gif can come back, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is there a reason that the discussion occurred here, rather than at file talk? I now do feel like this sort of thing would be best handled in a MfD given that it is not uncontroversial. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the only page that the gif was used on, so the discussion was opened here as the best place for topic-interested editors. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure? But then the admin reviewing the file deletion tag wouldn't necessarily see it. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

On its home page, America250.org is described as the "Official website of the U.S. Semiquincentennial Commission. And as its Wikipedia article notes, the Commission "is the Congressionally-appointed body in charge of promoting and coordinating the United States Semiquincentennial". So the source of the gif is not just closely affiliated with the U.S. government - it is, like any other government agency, a branch of the government. I don't see any reason, then, why this gif can't be used, other arguments aside. Allreet (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

IOW, the image was wrongfully deleted. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

America250.org, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) organization. Its website clearly says it's copyright 2021-2026, "All Rights Reserved". Station1 (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: After doing a brief search I located a 250th anniversary image at the Library of Congress that seems would be a legitimate image to use. This image also appears at Archive.Org, and seems to be the official image being used. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

That was part of the gif, which seems to be an official production if it was using the logo. Thanks for researching. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Randy Kryn — Maybe because the basic logo was also animated it wasn't PD anymore? In any case, is the logo pictured at the LOC acceptable for purposes of this article? It seems to be the official logo.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn, Allreet, and Station1: — The image at right is taken from the Library of Congress. If there are no objections I'll add this image to the info-box. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for finding it. But it's not 1/10 the quality of the gif, has anybody else searched the website yet to see if the gif came from the Commission? Would rather have it back as hopefully a public domain image. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's just a simple logo for the info box. How much resolution is really needed? In any case, if you can get the other gif back on line that would be nice. Meanwhile, we can add this to the info box (?) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Didn't mean resolution problems, but that the gif is more descriptive. I'm good with adding it, nice find. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I still think we should have something representing the 250th anniversary as a whole and not just the official government celebration of it. Generic images solely for illustration purposes are discouraged by WP:IMGCONTENT and MOS:IMAGES. - Station1 (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

What would represent the 250th as an event? When it occurs there will be images of fireworks, etc., but until the event actually happens in 2026 there is no 'event'. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

That's the point I'm trying to get at: the topic of this article is not one event, the topic is an anniversary year of an event that happened 250 years ago. There will be many modern events associated with the anniversary, including celebrations, commemorations, seminars, books, protests, etc. Many, but certainly not all, of these will be sponsored by the government and/or the non-profit it set up. Others will be sponsored by states, other non-profits, universities, commercial enterprises, political organizations. The logo Gwillickers found is actually pretty nice looking, but it doesn't cover the totality of that topic. There's no reason to have any illustration at all, if it doesn't add any real value to the article, but a depiction of the event being remembered - such as the signing of the Declaration, the document itself or the place it was signed - could add value for some readers. Station1 (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The event is the official celebration of a nation's birthday/anniversary, not the historical places and documents which brought that creation into existence. The event was well-represented by the gif (which, if copyrighted, should be brought back with a fair-use template). In the meantime the logo found by Gwillhickers should do as a poor but accurate substitute. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

That gets to the very heart of the matter. Is this article (as opposed to the United States Semiquincentennial Commission article) about just "the official celebration of a nation's birthday/anniversary" or is it about the broader topic of the nation's birthday/anniversary itself? Station1 (talk) 07:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The issue here seems to be getting unnecessarily complicated. We have a simple and definitive PD logo for now. Until such time when someone can present another that is better, let's use what is available, rather than letting the weeks, perhaps months, roll by with no image to show for in the info box. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable approach. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Every other version of that logo that I've seen, such as at the VA website or IMLS website, has a "TM" at the upper right. The Museum of the American Revolution website says "The AMERICA 250™ trademark and logo is owned and licensed by the United States Semiquincentennial Commission. Unauthorized use of the AMERICA 250™ trademarks is strictly prohibited." - Station1 (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Someone should put a fair use template on it so it can be used here to represent the 250th. The trademark is probably there to keep it from being used on tee-shirts, used car ads, etc. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The image that was downloaded from the Library of Congress and had no TM.-- apologies for not looking further. Is a TM the same as a copyright? I any case, this appears to be an image produced by the US gov, and since the image is used by other orgs, it would seem its usage doesn't pose any copyright issues and is allowed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

A trademark is not the same as a copyright; however, I don't think it's possible to trademark something in the public domain. But I'm far from an expert. Possibly something to ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. - Station1 (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Update: asked the question there and response was it is possible to trademark something in the public domain, so apparently there's no copyright issue because of that. Station1 (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Should we remove the word "expected" from the sidebar right next to Donald Trump's name? His term ends on January 20, 2029, so it's a given that he is expected to be president during the Semiquincentennial. Should J.D. Vance become president for whatever reason (or anyone else, for that matter), the sidebar can be edited to include the name of the new president. All planning going on right now throughout the country considers Trump as president during the celebration. LucasBitencourt (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, a large section of the article is about the politicization of the celebration. A one-sentence mention of this follows MOS:LEAD, which notes that the lead should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". This is a prominent controversy with multiple sources describing it over several paragraphs in the body, and should thus be included in the lead. A one-sentence mention of this controversy follows the guidance that "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic". Any more than one sentence would likely violate WP:WEIGHT. There is no "politicization" of the lead for mentioning this controversy. BootsED (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

You added all of the criticism a few hours ago and then say the lead sentence summarizes a large section. The section you've added seems undue as just another way to "get" Trump on Wikipedia (or Biden before him, and Obama before that, all the way back to 2001). That's fine, but such criticisms have their place. MOS:LEAD contains the advice "As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic". The importance to the topic is minimal, the large criticism section in the body of this article seems overdone as the 250th U.S. anniversary is not about Trump, it's about the celebrations honoring the founding of a nation. Trump is tangential to the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Stumbled onto this after trying to remember the word for semiquincentennial lol, sorry for jumping in like this. But I think the sentence absolutely belongs in the lead; BootsED is not trying to "get" a politician, they are accurately summarizing the content in the article, which was justifiably added. In fact, I'd argue that other analogous articles like the United States Bicentennial should probably be adjusted to include the types of information that BootsED has added here. There were also significant protests and political controversies 50 years ago, but the writing of the Bicentennial article happened so long after the fact that much of the contemporaneous social & political context got lost along the way. BootsED is doing the important work of adding the kind of context that could easily be lost to time but is fundamentally essential for understanding the topic. Could some of it be edited slightly for clarity or tone? Sure. But that doesn't make this information irrelevant, tangential, or "minimally" important to the topic. 19h00s (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks 19h00s. I'll reiterate the point that my intention is not to "get" anyone, but rather fully capture all relevant discussions around the semiquincentennial. Naturally, with July 4 being this weekend, a lot of articles came out to talk about the celebrations and mention the politicization of official events under Trump's tenure. I agree that the lead can be more specific in clarity in tone by making it more explicit about the difference between official and unofficial celebrations, as the current page is somewhat ambiguous on this point and groups both types together. BootsED (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

The lead should reflect the named event, not a criticism or praise of a particular politician. The later section is already overloading with criticism and the year-long celebration is only three days old. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Randy, you recently removed the following sentence from the lead:

Official initiatives were criticized as being politicized by Trump to praise himself and conservative ideology and to mock his political opponents.^[1][2][3][4] The celebrations occurred amidst record-low levels of patriotism among Americans and high levels of political polarization.^[5][6].

You claimed that it was because it was "an unbalanced descriptor, this topic is not about negative information about Donald Trump". These points are extremely well-covered and sourced in the body directly related to the celebrations, with large sections about these concerns. A single sentence in the lead about criticism of the celebrations is extremely WP:DUE and passes WP:BALANCE and MOS:LEAD, and claiming that it should not be mentioned because it's too negative is itself a violation of WP:NPOV for refusing to even mention information because you believe it is negative about Trump. What policy-based reason do you have for removing this information, because claiming its biased against Trump and removing a one-sentence summary about criticism is itself an NPOV violation.

More information Sources ...

Sources

[1] Scherer, Michael (August 6, 2025). "The War Over America's Birthday Party". The Atlantic. Retrieved September 7, 2025. [2] Blackburn, Piper Hudspeth (October 6, 2025). "Will Trump's brand of politics crash America's 250th birthday party?". CNN. Retrieved September 7, 2025. [3] Superville, Darlene; Fingerhut, Hannah (July 3, 2025). "Trump kicks off a yearlong celebration of America's 250th anniversary in Iowa". The Associated Press. Retrieved July 4, 2025. [4] Schuessler, Jennifer (July 4, 2025). "Will Politics Derail America's 250th Birthday Bash?". The New York Times. Retrieved July 4, 2025. [5] Bennet, James (November 10, 2025). "A divided America celebrates its 250th birthday". The Economist. Retrieved January 1, 2026. [6] Lotz, Avery (July 1, 2025). "American pride plummets to new low". Axios. Retrieved July 4, 2025.

Close

BootsED (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @19h00s owing to his prior involvement in this conversation and the several months that have passed. BootsED (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

This was also removed by another editor, or maybe two. I reverted because it was added again. This page is not about Donald Trump, pro or con, just as the Bicentennial (please read its lead paragraph, thanks) was not about Ronald Reagan or the Sesquicentennial Exposition was not about Calvin Coolidge or any other politician. This article is about a national celebration of the nation's 250th anniversary. Several editors have removed the requested language as an WP:UNDUE tangential topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The sources are directly related to the Semiquincentennial. The criticism is directly about how Semiquincentennial celebrations have been politicized. There are multiple paragraphs about this in the body. The sources explicitly say that Semiquincentennial celebrations have received extensive criticism owing to how they have been handled by Trump and his administration. A single sentence mentioning this in the lead is WP:DUE. I have over a half dozen sources explicitly saying this thus establishing and meeting notability requirements. The other removal was by a user with no history on this page other than a partisan comment saying this was all "left wing", despite the extensive sourcing. Again, by what policy are you objecting to this edit by? All sources are directly and explicitly related to the topic at hand. BootsED (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

You really don't see the bias in the language you have added to the lead? "Official initiatives were criticized as being politicized by Trump to praise himself and conservative ideology and to mock his political opponents. The celebrations occurred amidst record-low levels of patriotism among Americans and high levels of political polarization." This is a page about the major overall events which are yet to occur (the "record-low levels..." are from an older survey), yet you want to describe them with language already predetermined to criticize one person who is actually tangential to the topic (See MOS:LEAD, "As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic"). There is already a brief mention of Trump in the lead, too much in fact for an individual, and the lead already includes mention of protests, which seems enough, but maybe add "who has been both praised and criticized for his planning efforts". If you insist on your wording please open an RfC for wider consensus, but the language I've just proposed seems enough and actually too much, for adding a tangential figure into the lead summary of the topic, would that do? If someone should be singled out to be in the lead it should be Thomas Jefferson, not Trump. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The wording is not biased, it's directly attributed to reliable sources. See the essay WP:NEUTRALEDITOR, which better describes this than I can. Roughly speaking, "NPOV" refers to alignment with RS, including their biases. If a majority of reliable sources describe the Sesquicentennial in relation to its politicization, this content should be mentioned per WP:BALANCE. We do not "re-align" content to be "neutral" which would be editorializing, we simply document what RS say. Since a large amount of RS describe official events as politicized, and a large section on this exists in the body, we should mention this in at least one sentence in the lead. This is not "adding bias", this is simply reporting what sources say on the topic. Also note, the specific wording does not explicitly say official events are politicized, we are simply describing what critics say about them. Thus, one sentence mentioning this owing to the abundance of sources about this is due.

In regards to the second sentence, I added this to place the celebrations in wider historical context. I'm not opposed to removing mention of this if you feel its unwarranted. If more polls come out, however, (probably around July 4 2026), I would make the case that mentioning it in the lead would become more due. BootsED (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Randy, you've removed new modified language from the lead again calling it biased. You have not responded here in over a month. I provided 14 high-quality sources about this, and this topic is covered extensively in the body. The content is a single sentence that adequately describes the controversy surrounding the celebrations in a neutral manner. The mere mention of a controversy does not by itself mean content is "biased" because a controversy is mentioned. The content is clearly due. You've not supported your position for removal or bothered responding to me here for over a month. At this point I'm going to escalate this to dispute resolution. BootsED (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing further to add. This is not an article about Donald Trump, no matter how much you want to criticize him in a large lead paragraph, it is an article about the 250th anniversary of the United States. As I mention above, if there is truly a need to further mention Trump in the lead (note that he's already mentioned there, and if any individual is focused on in the lead it should be Thomas Jefferson) it should be a neutral sentence fragment along the lines of "U.S. president Donald Trump has been both praised and criticized for his participation in the national celebration". Randy Kryn (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

As I've stated before, the sources are about the Semiquincentennial, not Donald Trump. The sources are explicitly about the Semiquincentennial celebrations, they explicitly talk about the celebrations and the controversy surrounding them. Just because Donald Trump is mentioned does not mean a source is no longer relevant. Donald Trump is mentioned in the context of his relationship to the Semiquincentennial celebrations and are explicitly about how he has been criticized for politicizing by them and the tone and tenor of the celebrations has changed by him. This is extremely relevant to the page, is mentioned in the body, and deserves a single sentence in the lead. I work for a living so once I have some more time in a day or two, I will write up a summary of this conversation in dispute resolution so we can resolve this as clearly we've hit a brick wall. BootsED (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, I have no idea why Thomas Jefferson should be mentioned here. What does Thomas Jefferson have to do with the 250th anniversary celebrations? You have provided no source that says Thomas Jefferson is somehow related to this or deserving a mention in the lead. BootsED (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

If you must file a dispute resolution that's your choice, but I have no dispute with the page topic and my suggestion of adding to the Trump sentence "...who has been both praised and criticized for his participation in the national celebration," (which I've added to the lead and which should adequately meet your concern). Note that other editors have removed your preferred language from the lead. Also please note in your dispute summary your last reply about Jefferson (and add John Adams to the mix of people who could be mentioned in the lead). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

That sentence absolutely does not satisfy my concerns. Not only is it so vague to the point of uselessness, it violates policy by not stating why something is controversial or who is making that claim. Mentioning a rebuttal is redundant per WP:MANDY.

It also only focuses on Trump when it is not about him. The controversy is about politicization and financial transparency. I'll say it again, the controversy is not about Trump the man, it is about politicization of the celebrations. Part of the criticism is that the celebrations have been criticized for praising Trump. Saying that "Trump's presence has been praised and criticized" is so wishy-washy and a non-statement it shouldn't even be mentioned.

I'm also completely baffled at your request to include mention of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams in the lead. The only mention of Thomas Jefferson is a bit in background about how he signed the Declaration of Independence and that he and John Adam's both died on July 4 1826. Why does this warrant inclusion in the lead and not a single sentence summarizing paragraphs upon paragraphs of over 14 sources describing controversy around the celebrations themselves? You haven't provided any sources about this request. BootsED (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

There is no dispute as not only myself but other editors have reverted your preferred wording, and now you have removed a perfectly good neutral compromise. I did not lobby for Jefferson and Adams in the lead but mentioned that if any individual is mentioned in the lead it should be them and not sentence after sentence about this Trump fellow. A lead summarizes the page, which is what the sentence you removed did. This page is about the anniversary and its national celebration, which is what the lead summarizes. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello editors,

I’d like to raise a concern about the current structure and sourcing of the article on the United States Semiquincentennial. While it’s appropriate to mention controversy surrounding the event, the way it’s currently presented seems imbalanced and potentially politically motivated.

Specifically:

• The section on declining patriotism disproportionately cites Axios, which is not a scholarly or independent source and is often criticized for editorial bias. It’s used to support claims about plummeting patriotism among Democrats and Independents, yet there is no mention of opposing viewpoints or alternative interpretations.
• The amount of space devoted to this controversy seems excessive relative to the rest of the article. It risks overshadowing the broader historical and cultural significance of the Semiquincentennial.
• There is a lack of scholarly citations or references to independent historical or sociological analyses, which would help balance the narrative and provide a more nuanced view.

I recommend:

1. Reducing the length of the controversy section to better reflect its proportionate relevance.
2. Including alternative perspectives and more rigorous sources, such as peer-reviewed studies or statements from nonpartisan institutions.
3. Reassessing the tone and framing to ensure neutrality and alignment with Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability and neutral point of view (NPOV).

Thank you. 8.9.83.24 (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

"often criticized for editorial bias" So what? Wikipedia's sources are not supposed to be either unbiased or neutral. Per policy on Biased sources: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.... Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." Dimadick (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

"risks overshadowing the broader historical and cultural significance of the Semiquincentennial." Other than wasting money on a kitsch fiesta, is there any other significance in this event? Dimadick (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Did you use AI to write this? This reads like an AI-prompt. BootsED (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Bot ~2026-13009-17 (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The U.S. Army 250th Anniversary Parade and the No King's protests happening around the same time have little relevance to the Semiquincentennial article. The reference to the No King's protests in the opening paragraphs only serve to unnecessarily distract from the Semiquincentennial as the protests are associated only by their date to a topic (the U.S. Army Parade) itself already only tangentially related to the Semiquincentennial. The protests were not targeting the U.S. Army, nor were they targeting the Semiquincentennial. If this was an article focused on Donald Trump, I would understand it's inclusion, but it is not focused on Donald Trump and should not be, as much as realistically possible while still considering he is sitting President during the event.

I suggested the reference to it is removed, or relegated to a subsection. ~2026-49212-3 (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Should one sentence summarizing criticisms raised in the body of the page be mentioned in the lead? BootsED (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

The proposed sentence is the following:

Official programming has been criticized by Democratic officials, historians, journalists, and ethics experts for praising Trump and conservative ideology and lacking financial transparency.^[1]

Sources:

BootsED (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support I believe a one-sentence mention of this follows MOS:LEAD, which notes that the lead should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". This is a prominent controversy with multiple sources describing it over several paragraphs in the body, and should thus be included in the lead. A one-sentence mention of this controversy follows the guidance that "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic". Any more than one sentence would likely violate WP:WEIGHT. As such, one sentence mentioning this is due. Furthermore, the proposed sentence clearly satisfies WP:NPOV by labeling who has raised the criticism per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and passes WP:IMPARTIAL by simply describing the dispute and not engaging in it. BootsED (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  Your sentence is both too long and a long way from impartial, and offers no neutrality. We've had a long discussion above, and the compromise offered was to have a simple "U.S. president Donald Trump has been both praised and criticized for his participation", which is not mentioned as an option in this RfC. This page is about the 250th anniversary of a nation. You've added most of the negative section itself, and now ask us to turn the lead into another Wikipedia anti-Trump article...and we have plenty of those. If you don't want neutrality how about creating a forked article. Note that Trump is already mentioned in the lead and my suggestion would just add a few words which would adequately summarize page content. Given the topic of this article, if individuals are to be focused on at-length in the lead their names should end in words like Jefferson and Adams. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  Your proposed sentence violates WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV by not saying who has praised or criticized Trump. It also makes the sentence "all about Trump" when it is about politicization of the celebrations and a lack of financial transparency. Of note, at no point have the sources themselves been questioned, nor have the details they cover been contested within the body. Only a mention of the controversy in the lead has been opposed. A single sentence at the very end of the lead is clearly due. BootsED (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support. WP:DUE is well met here in my opinion. (YapperBot no longer says hi.) guninvalid (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support. Support including a reworded sentence. Okay I clearly wasn't paying enough attention because I only now clocked that it lumps Democratic Party officials together with "ethics experts". Come on now, we might as well be writing "These politicians said their political opponents are bad, and the experts at knowing what is bad are on their side".
  A single sentence in the lead is fair, but don't put the sentence in the first paragraph (MOS:OPEN). ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 02:18, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  The proposed sentence is not in the first paragraph. It is proposed for the very end of the second, which is the last paragraph in the lead. I'm not against removing the "Democratic officials, historians, journalists, and ethics experts" but that has also been opposed by some others and probably would violate WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. If you want we could just remove "Democratic officials", there's enough non-Democratic officials who have raised concerns about this it would still be accurate, I just included it to be through. BootsED (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose and submit the neutral "U.S. president Donald Trump has been both praised and criticized for his participation" per my comment to the nominator above. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  Your proposed sentence does not explain why Trump has been "praised and criticized" and makes it about Trump when it is about politicization and financial transparency which is not clear from your proposed sentence. So a more accurate version would be "U.S. president Donald Trump and been criticized for politicizing the celebrations". I don't think people are "praising" him for that. BootsED (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  Read that sentence you wrote. How is that neutral? Maybe have a good read of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to understand why neutrality is important on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Support. Your sentence is not very readable, however, with two conjunctions and too long a list. I also believe the active voice is more readable.

I propose "Democrats, historians and ethics experts have criticized official programming for alleged partisan bias in favour of Trump, and a lack of financial transparency." Cherrytxrt 📧 21:13, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Good idea on the active voice. I am fine with changing it to be more readable like you have suggested. BootsED (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2026 (UTC).

• Support per nom. There does seem to be undue weight given on Trump, the Republicans, and Christians compared to other groups. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:02, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  No comment on the active voice part. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:04, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• These support arguments seem to contradict their own logic as supporters. Seen from a WP:DUE perspective, Trump and his committees and ideas have also been praised. The lead of this page, which is about the celebration of the nation's 250th anniversary, should not be a place for a controversial one-sided commentary. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  MOS:LEAD states that notable controversies should be mentioned in the lead. Given the amount of news coverage about this controversy, WP:DUE is satisfied. This one sentence adequately describes the controversy, which is directly related to the event. BootsED (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• BootsED, I'm surprised at the small number of editors who have commented here. Where did you distribute the RfC notice to further alert WikiProjects and related pages? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  I put in the notification on the appropriate RfC notice board. I submitted a request to close this as there was no comments for weeks and ironically that seems to have caused a bunch more visibility. BootsED (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  That's not enough. The Wikiprojects and related pages should be notified (have just done some of them). This RfC can't be closed as is except as no consensus, the comments and suggestions are all over the place using different wordings and emphasis. I think mine says it best with the least bias and brevity ("U.S. president Donald Trump has been both praised and criticized for his participation"). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:35, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  What pages and wiki projects have you notified?

  I also disagree that "no consensus" is warranted. So far there are 3 in support (including myself), and 3 in support with minor alterations (mainly making the sentence more brief or having slightly different grammar). There is no disagreement that criticisms regarding politicization to praise Trump or financial transparency should not be mentioned. Only your proposal omits mention of this. BootsED (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  There is no consensus for the wording nominated for inclusion. Neither it, nor any of the suggestions except mine, contains balance and neutrality. These are essential elements of a Wikipedia lead (MOS:LEAD). Repeating the obvious, this is not or should not be another get-Trump article, it is a topic and event which is much larger than any individual person (except maybe Thomas Jefferson or John Adams). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose as written per WP:NPOV but would support "Official programming has been criticized by some observers for praising Trump and lacking financial transparency." Station1 (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Should we put a hatnote explaining that USA 250 redirects here, and is not to be confused with US 250 (the road)? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 00:59, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

No. That redirect averages zero views per day and is unlikely to cause confusion with the road anyway. Station1 (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2026 (UTC)