Requested move 6 February 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. – robertsky (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greater United States → American expansionism under Donald Trump – I think this article should have a more precise title than currently. I think my proposed title is an improvement, but someone could probably come up with something better. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per DecafPotato. HappyWith (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Due to the fact that no media outlets or any sources for that matter have referred to Trump's comments about expansionism as "Greater United States". Lazarbeem (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is the proposed title accurate if the United States has not yet expanded in terms of territory? So far, we only have rhetoric/plans. But it is probably an improvement over the current title which is more of an WP:OR term. Mellk (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be opposed to a change making it less ambiguous if that's an issue, but the way I see it, "expansion" means to actually expand while "expansionism" is just to want to expand. DecafPotato (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this dictionary definition for example refers to a policy, but I have some seen definitions that refer to acts of territorial expansion. Some of the examples given there also refer to Trump, e.g. this article says: "Trump laid out his vision for the next four years in an inauguration speech that called for a return to American expansionism and exploration" (emphasis mine). This article says: "The Overton window on U.S. expansionism quickly shifted as Trump mused about taking back the Panama Canal, claiming Greenland and invading Mexico...". This article says: "...but it was in keeping with his new administration’s expansionist ambitions" (emphasis mine). Mellk (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support a move maybe to United States imperialism under Donald Trump per DecafPotato and WP:OR. “Greater United States” may also possibly be a made up name. I am wondering if Imperialism is a better word than Expansionism. We would also need to use sources that call it imperialism or criticizing his ideas as imperialism/expansionism. Wafflefrites (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also this article was created from a redirect to American imperialism, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_United_States&diff=1270826823&oldid=507642081 Wafflefrites (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The term 'imperialism' has been used to describe the foreign policy of previous administrations, but the difference with Trump is his stated goal of territorial expansion. Mellk (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with Expansionism if indeed sources are calling it that, however that is not the case with the sources in this Wikipedia article. The Gaza takeover idea, for example, is not being called “expansionism” rather it is being called “the most imperialist reflex yet” by CNN. Therefore, out of caution of original research, we must accurately determine the scope of the Wikipedia article and make sure everything is in-line verifiable. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In cases like those, it makes more sense to include it under American imperialism unless there is also a source referring to it as expansionism (generally speaking we are currently at "expansionist ambitions" etc). Mellk (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alternative: American irredentism under Donald Trump Humanity was a mistake (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to point out that we must be careful of WP:OR. We need to follow the sources, and what the sources say. Do any sources call Trump’s actions irredentism? Wafflefrites (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven’t heard the term irredentism before, but by its Definition on Wiktionary it would imply “historic or ethnic links” with the land, which is not the case for Greenland or the Gaza strip, and only somewhat the case for the Panama canal. Anselm Schüler (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per @DecafPotato CR (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Greater United States is a simple term that doesn't properly describe the matter. PlatypusAreDucks (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support
This article’s topic is specific to Trump’s plans and is distinct from older ideas about American expansion (some successful). The current title does not reflect this.
This article’s current title could be misinterpreted to refer to a real, extant geopolitical entity, with this name as a common or official name.
As far as I know, the name “Greater United States” is not used by Donald Trump to refer to his plans, and is not commonly used to refer to them. It is unclear where this name comes from.
It is possible a reader might interpret the new title to mean that expansion has already taken place, but I’m not sure how to phrase it better, or how common that would be. Anselm Schüler (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although this seems more of a WikiNews/current topic, not necessarily an encyclopedic/historical one. I tend to agree with the points made by User:Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything. On a side note, if it references a President, on an Encyclopedic note, it probably should use the honorific of President no matter one's feelings about the idea of the actions at hand. Herb Riede (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Map

I don't think the map at the top of the article is helping. It makes Trumps ideas ("ideas") seem a little more concrete than they are in reality. It also doesn't include Gaza, and there will probably be something new next week. Prezbo (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big, beautiful Map

Can we get a big, beautiful map showing all the territories Trump proposes annexing? Canada, Mexico, Greenland, Venezeula, Gaza, Israel, Panama for starters? Be sure to include our current territoties and Hawaii too. The current article is a sad failure as it lacks a compact visual representation of that which it depicts. 2600:4041:5CE9:B300:E170:F9AC:AC9F:40E9 (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 18 March 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American expansionism under Donald Trump → American threats of expansion under Donald Trump – The current title makes it seem like Donald Trump has expanded the United States when this is untrue. He is threatening to expand, not has expanded the borders of America. DotesConks (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: The suffix "-ism" refers to having a desire or general philosophy in favor of expansion, not necessarily accomplishing it. The suggested title seems a bit POV, since "threat" is a non-neutral characterization. I'm sure he and his allies would not characterize these desires as "threats", but rather as invitations, ambitions, necessities or inevitabilities. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I had the same thought as BarrelProof about the meaning of the "-ism". I poked around the web and definitions are not entirely consistent. The main article Expansionism defines it as states obtaining greater territory through military empire-building or colonialism but then in an explanatory note states An alternative definition sees "expansionism" as "a desire to annex additional territory…. Several dictionaries refer to a "policy" of expanding territory[1][2] or "policy or practice".[3]; others more clearly require actual territorial expansion[4]; Britannica counts a mere "belief that a country should grow larger" as expansionism. [5] Thus saber rattling expansionist rhetoric seems to satisfy several definitions. There may be other, better titles for this article but the current title appears to align with at least some acceptable usage and I agree that "threats" may not be the best word.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Agreed with the original proposal; "threats of expansion" or "proposed expansion of the United States" (if trying to use objective language) makes it clear that so far this has all been talk. It could always be re-renamed back to "American expansionism under Donald Trump" if and when the United States actually tries something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 21stCenturyCynic (talk • contribs) 16:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: "Expansionism" can refer to a desire or belief that a country should expand its territory.[6] Skitash (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: per others—blindlynx 00:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE: Expansionism is the term for the ideology and rhetoric Trump is using. It is proper. --Volvlogia (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: as what constitutes a threat is disputable and not concise. cookie monster 755 10:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: per BarrelProof EricXXue (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 29 March 2025

American expansionism under Donald Trump → American irredentism under Donald Trump – Opening sentence of Expansionism: "Expansionism refers to states obtaining greater territory through military empire-building or colonialism." Opening sentence of Irredentism: "Irredentism is one state's desire to annex the territory of another state."

As some users correctly pointed out, the current title makes it seem as if some expansion had already taken place. Comparatively the individual articles for American threats to invade Canada, Greenland or Gaza use titles with "movements for annexation", "proposed" and "potential" respectively. We have two other articles using "expansionism" in Wikipedia: Chilean expansionism and Chinese expansionism, both of which are dedicated to the actual enlargements of territory that both states undertook, rather than proposals. But we have many articles for such proposals: examples Russian irredentism, Polish irredentism, Chinese irredentism, if you check the articles you can see they're dedicated to territories that are or were not located in the countries in question.

Do sources even use "expansionism" to directly describe the threats themselves, which is what the article is about, rather than the hypothethical annexations? Le Monde: "The expansionism envisioned by Donald Trump", "he seems to believe that the time has come to complement this posturing with an expansionist policy"; The Washington Post: "What's up with Trump's talk of expanding the U.S.?". "Irredentism" might be more unfamiliar but describes best and concisely this article's topic and would be most consistent with other Wikipedia articles. Super Ψ Dro 09:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, we could also use Proposed American expansionism under Donald Trump to solve the effect of the current title that several users now have complained about. Super Ψ Dro 09:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wiktionary [8]: A nationalistic doctrine advocating the annexation of foreign lands with historic or ethnic links. Italian irredentism deals with areas that Italy has never controlled (Dalmatia, Corsica, Malta), the same with Yugoslav irredentism, and Chinese irredentism deals with some small border areas from the modern POV, rather than history. Looking at academia [9], [10] (p. 8), [11] (p. "IX"), I cannot find sources strictly limiting irredentism to formerly held territories, such a limit would appear to me that it would be counterproductive to its promoters; the latter source talks about an origin of irredentism from ethnic Italian nationalism, and I could even find sources talking about "Kurdish-style" irredentism [12] (the Kurds have never had a nation state). So I would like to ask for some stronger evidence of this definition of the term if possible. Super Ψ Dro 02:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any RS that describe Trump's actions as irredentism? Mellk (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot of empty policy citing. The word "irredentism" surely meets Wikipedia policies if it is employed in the title of multiple articles [13], and "proposal" is surely a plausible title choice given the title of related articles "Proposed United States acquisition of Greenland" and "Donald Trump's Gaza Strip proposal". Super Ψ Dro 02:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the previous comments carefully – Applying "irredentism" on Canada and Greenland is another pure fallacy of Ignoratio elenchi hence against the Wikipedian policy of Irrelevant information and would be subject to the content removal measure. The totally mis-fit examples with the claiming targets of Italy, Yugoslavia and China irredentism referred to the "historically or ethnically related to the "fatherlands", however Canada and Greenland had never been a part of the United States!
Please respect that, the failed history of American invasion to Canada does not render the U.S. government any right to dishonour the peace treaties over the last 110 years, to ignore the Canadian sovereignty, and to ignore the self-determination right well protected by the Constitution laws to bully over and over again for the annexation with a trade war. On the other hand, the alliance agreement to establish the military base between the U.S and Denmark government during the Cold War does not render any legitimate excuse to annex the entire territory with uninvited free access at any time against the local people's will.
Please note that, as indicated earlier, the phrasing pattern "Proposed..." does not fit in the context and the grammatical structure in the front of the philosofical term of the "-ism" suffix for an ideology by nature as "Proposed American expansionism..." at all, which is not the same case of the examples of "Proposed... acquisition of..." and "(somebody)'s (location) proposal..." – whereas the term "acquisition" is applied as a concrete action here to acquire all, hence implicating the qualification capable to be proposed properly (regardless whether it is true in the article content), not an abstract philosophical term as an ideology vaguely defined; the other phrasing pattern "(somebody)'s... proposal" is only a combined noun in position right behind the subjective as an empty title, without any direct accusative to relate to, hence causes no issue. – Mickie-Mickie (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rafts of Calm (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because User Rafts of Calm makes a good point — "any movement or aspiration to recover territory claimed back for ethnic or linguistic reasons" doesn't apply to the Panama Canal or Greenland because they're not ethnically or linguistically related to the United States. Canada is a mainly English-speaking former British colony, and like the US, a majority of the population is of European descent, identifying as White, but it never belonged to the US at any point in history, so it's not recovering, it's taking. Threatening to take Panama Canal is threatening recovering it, in the sense it used to belong to the U.S., but that idea isn't motivated by irredentism. As for your other proposal, "Proposed American expansionism under Donald Trump", I don't like it because it's so long and also not a commonly used phrase; searching Google for that phrase in quotes doesn't yield any exact matches. Now, expansionism is an ideology, not expansion. American expansionism and expansion aren't the same thing. 1101 (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't find any reliable sources that refer to the phrase "American irredentism" (Google). Of searches referring to Trump and "irredentism" (Google), most are references to Russian irredentism. The term just isn't used widely in an American context. -happy5214 06:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something along the lines of "Proposed American Expansionism...". Irredentism goes moreso for former territories afaik. user:alexeyperlov 11:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_expansionism_under_Donald_Trump
No tags for this post.