Talk:United States Semiquincentennial

Requested move 21 August 2019

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. There is no consensus for any move, and therefore it is not necessary to evaluate the specific alternative move targets proposed. Given the length of time that this discussion has already sat in the backlog, relisting does not appear likely to bring about any further resolution. bd2412 T 17:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

United States Semiquincentennial → United States Sestercentennial – This is the term for a 250th anniversary according to the Anniversary article. Georgia guy (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Looks like most sources have already chosen to go along with the term the US government is using with the United States Semiquincentennial Commission Act. All the events being organized are using semiquincentennial. Reywas92^Talk 22:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support Sestercentennial is the Latin term for an anniversary of 250 years. [1] Changing would be consistent with what Wikipedia already uses.Timmy2691 (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Quite the mouthful either way, and the 2008 n-grams aren't much of a help. How about just United States 250th anniversary until things get sorted out. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Both choices are as common as the word sesquicentennial, which can probably be used to knock some students out of the next spelling bee. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is on a specific event which is named "United States Semiquincentennial" [2] [3]. While Sestercentennial may or may not be the correct Latin word for 250th anniversary, it's not the name of the event and would be unlikely to be searched by a person looking for information on the event named "United States Semiquincentennial". For instance, our article on Tumblr is not named "Tumbler" on the basis of the latter being the correct spelling. Chetsford (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Chetsford, can you name a requested move this would be an analogy to per what you're saying?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I think I just did? Chetsford (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
      • The analogy you give would be moving Tumblr to Tumbler, which makes no sense because the latter is a dis-ambiguation page. Georgia guy (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
        • In that hypothetical, the dab page would be moved to Tumbler (disambiguation) because Tumblr is by far the primary topic. Station1 (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
        • "which makes no sense" Correct, that's my point. Chetsford (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The nonprofit group, USA250, in charge of the events is using semiquincentennial. [4] Public Law 114-196 mentioned in the article established the United States Semiquincentennial Commission Act of 2016. It's safe to say this is the common name. – The Grid (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Then why is the group's name USA250 and not USASemiquincentennial? I renew my idea of United States 250th anniversary with what the group named itself in mind and what will undoubtedly be the event's common name. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Because the name of the group is irrelevant? The event is documented as the semiquincentennial. There's verifiable sources provided for the usage. – The Grid (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• This is one of those "official names" and "common name" examples. I don't have current evidence but am willing to bet a bushel and a peck that the common name for this event is now and will forever be United States 250th anniversary. And in this case I'm in favor of moving outside of the official name. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Until there's sources that provide usage of United States 250th anniversary, the common name more aligns to Semiquincentennial. There's still 7 years to see how this plays out. For reference, a Google check is already present for the usage of semiquincentennial. – The Grid (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• The organization USA250 is separate from the United States Semiquincentennial Commission. USA250 is a non-profit organization established to organize observances in the City and County of Philadelphia which is also the designated center of national observances. The United States Semiquincentennial Commission is a statutory body established by Congress to ensure the organization of observances in all states and territories of the United States. As planning advances, there will be many organizations similar to USA250 established in other jurisdictions outside Philadelphia and, presumably, operating under a variety of local names. Chetsford (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support Randys proposal - Both are a mouthful and is the spelling ... whereas "United States 250th anniversary" is simply and I'd say the majority of people can spell it anniversary ..... –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 22:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• Move to United States 250th anniversary per Randy. Clearly more WP:RECOGNIZEable than either of the other two alternatives.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• I think that's too soon to really tell. Per WP:COMMONNAME, Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. I'm looking at United States Bicentennial for a bit of a comparison and noticed the initial committees for the celebration were also named as such. (United States 200th anniversary is also a recently created redirect) You do get results back when searching for United States 250th anniversary" -Wikipedia on Google but <200 results. The other is a bit over 2k results. – The Grid (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose As others have said, the ultimate WP:COMMONNAME is still up in the air, given the relatively meagre RS coverage this has attracted at this early stage. But as a provisional common name, the current title seems like the best choice. Neutral on Randy's suggestion - it's arguably more widely recognizable, but as The Grid points out, it seems to be used in RS significantly less than the current title. Colin M (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comment

BD2412, since the nomination wording of the above RM did not include United States 250th anniversary, and it only came up within the discussion and was not part of the original considerations, could a new RM on that stand-alone topic be made at some point? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, I don't think that would be objectionable, although I would let it rest for a few weeks first. bd2412 T 18:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks. Well, it's rested for 243 years (18 in Wikipedia time), could rest a little longer. In the meantime people will learn how to spell semiquincentennial (or not, according to my spellchecker). Randy Kryn (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Dubious

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.

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)

References

Detail level of lede & background section

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)

Opening gif image

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)

Suitable PD image

@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)

Added image

Randy Kryn and Station1 — I went ahead and added the above image to the info-box. The image has been online at WP for more than 12 days now. Seems if there was a copyright issue it would have been brought to our attention by now. If someone can present a better image, that would be nice, but for now at least we have the one here. Hope this works for all concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)