Jump to content

Talk:In God We Trust/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Text Removed as "Arbitrary," Reworked, Undone.

The text 

Some secularists object to its use.

was removed by the anonymous editor user:209.237.86.131 with the one-word comment "Arbitrary."

I reinserted it, rephrased slightly, with the comment "Reinsert relevant information (with somewhat different phrasing) removed by an unidentified editor with "arbitrary" as the only explanation. I see no reason to remove this highly relevant information."

I now find my reinsert has been undone, with the comment "You don't read ref?". I don't understand what's going on here, but I won't want to get into an edit war, so I'm asking 209.237.86.131 to come discuss this.

Thanks,

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 14:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It may have been relevant in your eyes, but it doesn't belong in that paragraph. The paragraph in question is almost a copy paste (ref in the page in question) right from Treasury.gov and only contains the history of the "phrase" in refrency to currency. It only contains facts and not objectionable or arbitrary comments in regards to groups of people in which your edit strongly hints at discrediting. Please use or create a new paragraph or section on the page to add your conclusions/thoughts/opinions about Secularist.
Thanks,
Styles
P.S. EX
This user is a recent changes patroller.
.
Styles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.86.131 (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


Not sure what you mean by "in your eyes." Exactly why does a brief statement about the controverial use of the phrase on currency and in government not belong in the lede? Are you asserting that the objections to the use of this phrase are unimportant or irrelevant?
If the rest of the paragraph is a copypaste, then it should certainly be rewritten. However, you merely removed the single sentence "Some secularists object to its use." When I reinserted the information, I rephrased it as "Secularists have expressed objections to its use, and have sought to have the religious reference removed from the currency," which is decidedly not a copypaste from anything. It is a neutral statement of a fact about the controversy. I'm at a loss to see why anyone would find it objectionable.
I'm not sure which "reference" you mean:
I have no idea what you mean by "objectionable or arbitrary comments in regards to groups of people in which your edit strongly hints at discrediting." It is undeniable that secularists have reasonable objections to the use of religious phrases in a government context. I do not think it inappropriate to make a brief reference to that controversy (which is expanded upon elsewhere in the article). My comment is not intended to "discredit" anything; please re-read it. It is simply a statement that certain groups have objected to the use of the phrase in this context and have sought to have it removed. How is this "discrediting" anyone?
Wikipedia's manual of style says "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" (emphasis added). By that standard, the reference to objections is not only appropriate, but essential. The only reason I have not already reinserted it is my desire to follow BRD and to avoid being accused of edit warring. Technically, it's been more than 24 hours, so I could go back and reinsert the text and reference, but I'm trying to stay civil and handle this through good faith discussion.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


By adding your edit you are introducing "opinion" and nothing to the "law" or "history" of the phrase or how it concerns US currency and in my humble opinion you are only inserting your edit to cause unwarranted controversy. Again please feel free to add "your opinion" on the page for peer review, but not in that paragraph as it's factually valid.
Thanks,
Styles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.160.14 (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


Say what?
I'm not introducing opinion: the existence of secularists who object to the use of the phrase is well-referenced. I'm afraid your "humble opinion" is mistaken; my intention is to give full information about the controversy which is, as I mentioned above, discussed more fully elsewhere in the article.
The reference to secular objections to the phrase is absolutely relevant to the history of the use of the phrase. The controversy already exists; I am simply making note of it in the lede per the Manual of Style, as I also mention above.
Obviously, I can't follow your suggestion that I add "my opinion" to the page for review; that's not how Wikipedia works. However, what we're discussing isn't my opinion; it's documented, with a reliable source.
The existence of people who object to the use of the phrase in a government context is not "opinion," it is "factually valid." I believe I substantively addressed each of the objections you raised in my previous post, and I don't see any detailed response. I'm sorry, but if you can't come up with a substantive reason not to, I'm going to reinsert the text. I'd be happy if anyone else watching this page were to chime in: I'd like this to be a larger discussion.
Incidentally, if you have an account on Wikipedia, you can sign your posts with four tildes "~~~~"
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

:: "I'm not introducing opinion: the existence of secularists who object to the use of the phrase is well-referenced. I'm afraid your "humble opinion" is mistaken"

I don't disagree with you there, but it belongs in it's own paragraph or section. See how opinions work?

:: "I can't follow your suggestion that I add "my opinion" to the page for review; that's not how Wikipedia"

That's news to me, when did Wikipedia stop being peer reviewed by the world?

:: "The existence of people who object to the use of the phrase in a government context is not "opinion," it is "factually valid."

Then please give "it" it's own section with your references again it doesn't belong in that paragraph. I will be reverting the change since I'm still in accordance with BRD. The only valid compromise I see is to take my suggestion and add your own section or paragraph.
Yes I know how to sign my posts.
Cheers,
Styles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.210.178 (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


"but it belongs in it's own paragraph or section"
It has its own section, as I mentioned, but a brief reference in the lede is appropriate per my reference to the MoS above; do you assert that the MoS is incorrect or irrelevant?
"when did Wikipedia stop being peer reviewed by the world?"
It didn't, but your suggestion seemed to say that I should put my opinion on the article for review. Wikipedia articles should be referenced from reliable sources (as the comment in question is), not opinions; mine or otherwise. If I'd inserted my opinion, anyone should remove it immediately, but what I wrote was a bare statement of fact, with the appropriate reference.
You'll note that I've refrained from making any assumptions about your intentions; please have the courtesy to do likewise.
Please explain why the information in question "doesn't belong in that paragraph." So far, I've seen nothing. You suggest a "compromise" that I take your suggestion and add my own section or paragraph. First, that's not a "compromise," that's doing it your way. Second, I already pointed out that the subject of the controversy is developed more fully in elsewhere in the article. However, let me re-quote the Manual of Style, in case you missed my earlier mention of it:
"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" (emphasis added).
I just don't see your objection to this information being in the lede. All I see is "it doesn't belong in that paragraph," along with some assumptions about my intentions. Your assertion that "it doesn't belong in the paragraph" is counter to the above-mentioned Manual of Style; what would be your basis for removing the information if I were to re-post it?
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


So let's break down the entire argument "AGAIN."

Let me first start off by asking you a question. Define "arbitrary?" Now while you look that up, ask yourself another question, does your "edit" belong in that "EXACT" paragraph when the entire purposes of this project is an "encyclopedia?"
I will not allow your "edit" under that exact "paragraph" yet you insist in placing your "edit" in that exact "paragraph" and in the same "breath" you demand it be to be so. Furthermore your concern has been addressed in the article. Under "BRD" where is the compromise?

My intention was not to hurt any feelings as you seem to suggest.

Cheers, "This is Wikipedia feelings don't exist only facts." Styles (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you say "So let's break down the entire argument "AGAIN" " since you have done nothing of the sort; you have ignored every point I have made.
I'm also not sure why you're asking for a definition of "arbitrary," but here:
ar·bi·trar·y
ˈärbəˌtrerē/
adjective: arbitrary
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
However, the information about which we are debating was not placed in the lede arbitrarily; it's fully in compliance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style, as I have repeatedly pointed out. You have ignored this point completely.
Yes, that one short, referenced sentence does belong in that paragraph. The entire purpose of this project is indeed an encyclopedia, and that information is entirely appropriate in that location.
Styles, you say "I will not allow your "edit" under that exact "paragraph""
First, I'm not sure why you're putting quotation marks around edit and paragraph.
Second, saying you "will not allow" something sounds perilously close to claiming ownership of the article; no one owns Wikipedia articles.
The debate over the appropriateness of the motto is not "my concern;" it's a subject of substantial debate, particularly among secularists.
Clearly, this conversation is going nowhere. I don't know what's going on, but I think this discussion could benefit from some outside help.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 07:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I agree with Septegram; the article contains a section on secularist objections to the motto, and a one-sentence summary of that section in the lead is entirely appropriate per WP:LEAD. Huon (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I fully concur with Septegram and Huon, for the reasons stated by Huon. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

In pop culture

What does Kris Kringle getting letters addressed to Santa Claus in a movie have to do with the phrase "In God We Trust"? It seems utterly unrelated to me, yet the page claims it references the topic as a central plot theme. Makes no sense. [unsigned 29 Sept 2015] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.222.208.252 (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I removed it littlebum2002 18:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, upon further investigation this phrase did, in fact, have plot significance in the 1994 version of the film, but for some reason the article referenced the older version. I put the reference back in and clarified it. littlebum2002 18:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk

I suspect that my recent modifications may encounter religiously biased opposition; however, I have worked very hard to only present the situation in a more balance light. I have not deleted any of the supportive text, only included crucial content that improves the accuracy of the article. This an important concept, of particular relevance as a Current Event. (metavalent 03:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

I added a "citation needed" here: "Though many believe‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] that the 1956 act disregarded an already existing national motto...." That "Though many believe" sounds like politically-motivated weasel words without a corresponding citation, however much I personally might agree with those politics. Instead, what would be best I think is "Though some critics such as Joe Schmoe[citation] believe that the 1956 act disregarded...."Jusbigboned (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

For Christ sake In God we trust was to let you all know you're in gods hands now the masonic order is now Free. Ask me a question or two and I'll blow your mind Ryanrobison (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

God and Money?

I'm not religious, I'm agnostic.. (I'm not an atheist)... but how can someone put the word God on money? Isn't that like putting the phrase "I love you" on a bullet in a shotgun? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.227.201 (talk • contribs) 03:05, March 15, 2007

Wait, what? TheSittingDuck 23:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Not really. God and money don't contradict each other, they're just 2 parts of life (yes, for some it isn't, I just can't think of a better way to word it.).

Where have you been? Money IS God. Money creates nations and destroys them. It makes the world go round. I think the U.S. is the perfect nation to label money as 'God'.

-G

Courts don't have a problem with it, apparently... Aronow_v._United_States. 67.190.124.18 16:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

hi


Well first off I think a lot people really need to do some research on God, America, the Constitution, all of it. Yes many our for fathers were religious. Many things yes and no were based on religion when America was being born. BUT GOD, MONEY AND AMERICA ARE ALL SEPERATE THINGS. Yes everyone has freedom of religion. But no need to go several years later go and change what have been "TRADITIONS" of the United States for years and years and years. Just another way for power hungry people to go and control the people and take away our freedom. I think America needs to get back to reality. We all have forgotten were our roots came from. Why we came to America. Money and power isn't everything....people just think it is.

It's particularly interesting in light of the point Jesus made about taxation by pointing out that Caesar's face was on the coinage. What point could he have made if it had Caesar's picture but God's name? You can keep some for yourself and give some to the government? Some for everyone, and some for God? ^^' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


Ahem. None of these comments have anything to do with improving the content of the article, which is what this page is for. Please carry on such discussions elsewhere. -- 96.248.253.179 (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't ask a "FREE"Mason they think they've got the same rites. Ask a loon like me bored enough to look at all the poor people's lack of understanding. It's symbolism I suggest you stop using cash and use only plastic to express your agnostic atheist lack of respect for that which has made you. Without "GOD" you wouldn't have the liberty of making an ass out of yourself. Ryanrobison (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 17 May 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. SSTflyer 15:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


In God we trust → In God We Trust – As voted by the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, uses the capitals. See citations in notes 17 and 18. In addition, it has never been printed anywhere, except Wikipedia, without them. deisenbe (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

site:archives.gov "in god we trust"
Seems to support the capitals. deisenbe (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Date of introduction on coinage

The article states "The first United States coin to bear this national motto was the 1864 two-cent piece. It first appeared on U.S. currency on the back of Florida National Bank Notes in 1863. It wasn't until 1957 that the motto was permanently adopted for use on United States currency.". Later, the article states "Since 1938, all coins have borne the motto. " Does that means that all coins bore them from 1938 and that in 1957 this was made"permanent" ir a decision made for future as welas current coinage? Or does it mean that coinage prior to 1957 sometimes had the motto and sometimes did not? The article should be clarified, and it seems that the 1938 date merits adding to the introduction. --Nantonos 09:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

What has you is the differentiation between coinage and currency, where currency is paper money.

OK, so this is only a decade late :-)
Coins started carrying IGWT with the two-cent piece as mentioned. Other denominations added the motto when they were redesigned (so, for example, it didn't appear on the cent until the Lincoln cent was introduced in 1909), though others (like the quarter in circulation at the time) had it added during their run, and the three-cent piece never had it added. Theodore Roosevelt thought the motto blasphemous and ordered it be left off the $10 and $20 gold coins designed by Augustus St. Gaudens-although they got the motto the following year. For some reason (possibly available space), it was never included on the "Buffalo" nickel. The last year the "Buff" was struck was 1938 (both it and the Jefferson nickel were minted that year), so since the Jefferson nickel entered circulation, every US coin has included it.Almostfm (talk) 03:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Removed the reference to the opinion of a single "Hindu scholar"

The reference to the opinion of a single "Hindu scholar" gives the impression that the use of the monotheistic phrase "In God We Trust" is generally approved by Hindus and by the wider set of followers of non-Abrahamic religions, and is therefore misleading. There is a diversity of opinion about the use of this phrase in an official context by the clergy of the Abrahamic religions, and the personal religious interpretation of the phrase by a non-notable "Hindu scholar" (or is it a "scholar of Hinduism"?) does not warrant its inclusion in this article, particularly since a large number of Hindus do not have a monotheistic interpretation of their religion, or view specific named Hindu deities as the "supreme God" or "Goddess" rather than the generic "God".

Millions of people have their own personal opinions as to their own religious interpretations of the phrase and the appropriateness of the use of the phrase on United States currency, and these opinions aren't listed here. Therefore, it's best that this statement be removed.

The Riddle of Epicurus

17:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The opinion of a Hindu scholar certainly warrants inclusion in the article as it shares their religious perspective on the phrase. It is properly attributed to a source and author and can thus remain in the article. Your commentary has nothing to do with the phrase itself. If there is criticism from other Hindu scholars of the phrase, it is certainly welcome in the article. However, you cannot remove one perspective (the Hindu one) in order to over-emphasize the Islamic one. All three sentences about Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism all get their WP:DUE one sentence weight in the article.--Jobas (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on In God We Trust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Star-Spangled Banner Connection; Gigantic chart that tells us about the introduction of 'In God We Trust' on American currency from 1860 to 1960; Thoughts about the article as of February 2018

Greetings from early 2018! I carried out some major editing to this article in February 2018 following news of a bill in the Florida House calling for 'In God We Trust' to be displayed in schools (including creating the Rep. Kimberly Daniels page). I reorganized parts of the article, copy-pasted material about 'In God We Trust' from throughout Wikipedia onto this page, added the article to the Category:Religion in the United States (seemed obvious) and added a gallery of photos of the motto. The major problem I see with the page at this point is the Star-Spangled Banner connection: it seems like there must be a connection, but I didn't happen to run across any evidence that there is a direct connection between Salmon Chase's thought processes in 1863 and the Star Spangled Banner's fourth stanza. Thinking outside the box, was one of the reasons they later decided to choose the Star Spangled Banner because it had that line in the fourth stanza? Regardless, I can imagine that in the 50's, the fourth stanza of the Star Spangled Banner may have played a role in making 'In God We Trust' the official motto. We should get some historical news articles from that period and add them here. Also, I think there should be more discussion of how the legal theory of ceremonial deism plays into In God We Trust. Further, I think it would be good if someone beside myself would go back and proofread/copyedit the page as a whole. Finally, I think that there should be some kind of gigantic chart that tells us about the introduction of 'In God We Trust' on American currency from 1860 to 1960. There's a lot more work that needs to be done to make this a perfect article, and I hope you will add something worthwhile. Thanks for reading. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The Quran as the exact verbatim source of the quote "In God We Trust"

The previous edit of the article says that the phrase "In God We Trust" "resounds" with certain passages of the Bible. "Resounds" is a POV. The sole exact literal quote for "In God We Trust" in any widely known scripture in the United States is from two passages in the Quran. Thomas Jefferson owned a copy of the Quran, and read it, and it informed his Deism[1] As we know, the Ceremonial Deism of the United States has been claimed to be "Judeo-Christian" or specifically "Christian" and that the United States is a "Christian nation". [2] The evidence shows that this is not the case.[3] References to the Quran in the public sphere in the United States have been controversial.[4] Of course, the quote "In God We Trust" on the currency itself has been controversial.

For this article to be completely accurate, and stay away from POV issues that imply that "In God We Trust" should be a quote from the Bible, when it in fact isn't. The statement that this phrase "resounds" with certain passages in the Bible exhibits a POV bias towards the Bible for the above reasons that are not directly stated in the article. United States currency is used all over the world as a medium of exchange, and Muslims who are familiar with the Quran will recognize this as direct quote from these two passages.

In terms of the controversy regarding "In God We Trust" on the currency, the debate has often been between advocates for the Christian Religious Right vs. secularists. The fact that "In God We Trust" is only a literal quote from the Quran, but not the Bible, and that every word of the Quran is regarded by Muslims as the "literal, unalterable Word of God", frames the debate regarding it's official use in another way: Either the Ceremonial Deism of the United States is neutral with respect to monotheistic religions, or it isn't. If the fact that this is literal quote from two passages from the Quran is known to Fundamentalist Christians as it clearly is to Muslims, this might alter the nature of the debate regarding its use.

The article should directly provide this evidence, and not obscure it by a POV bias.

The Riddle of Epicurus

17:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ "The Founding Fathers and Islam". Library of Congress. Library of Congress. Retrieved 10 February 2017.
  2. ^ Barton, David. "Is America a Christian Nation?". WallBuilders. Retrieved 10 February 2017.
  3. ^ Edwards, Mark (July 4, 2015). "Was America founded as a Christian nation?". CNN. Retrieved 10 February 2017.
  4. ^ Klein, Rebecca. "Islam in Schools". Huffington Post. Retrieved 10 February 2017.
Your heading "The Source of the Phrase" is original research and nowhere in any reference does it state that the American motto originates in the Qur'an (or the Bible). The origin of "In God We Trust" comes from "The Star-Spangled Banner", as references in the article contain. Now, similar (or identical) phrases are mentioned in the Qur'an (and the Bible) and the article acknowledges this. However, you can't conclude that "The Star Spangled Banner" was influenced by the Qur'an unless you have a source that specifically states this, in accordance with WP:V. Please don't edit war or restore your contentious headings until you have gained consensus here to do so.--Jobas (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
This section is about the religious references to the phrase "In God We Trust". It is not about direct quotes from the Bible or in fact any other scripture. Certainly, the phrase on the US coinage did not originate with the Quran, or with Hinduism, but it cannot be said that this is a direct quote from the Bible, either. Therefore, the section about references to the concept in world religions is entirely appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Riddle of Epicurus (talk • contribs) 21:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Criticism Section's Missouri Examples

I tried to clean up the references to the two activist here. It appears someone removed the original for using the Ballwin meeting's minutes as a primary source. As these are simply a record of what is being said in a public meeting, I do not think it was appropriate to remove that section. Someone else independently added the section about Sally Hunt after this was removed, which was not quite the same situation. Looking at articles on the subject of both cases, I think they give a good example about cases are being won and lost on this issue even recently. Yet the second case makes it clear that attempts by the government to stop the criticism, even when it is unsuccessful violate the First Ammendment. If someone wants to clean this up forward, that's understandable, but everything here is now using multiple sources. I don't think the section should be removed soley on the idea that the section is not properly sourced. If we want to discuss a different way of expressing how these cases relate to modern criticism, I'm up for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobRook (talk • contribs) 00:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 12 May 2019

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: No consensus to move after over 2 weeks and a relisting. Cúchullain t/c 15:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


In God We Trust → In God we trust – The official national motto of the United States is "In God we trust", according to the cited law. There's no reason to over-capitalize here. Looks like it was right during 2012–2016, but then got flipped in a thinly-attended discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 04:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@The Evil IP address, Jafeluv, Calidum, Kauffner, Baseball Bugs, LtPowers, Andrew Gray, Dr. Eye V. Buy, SmokeyJoe, Andrewa, Deisenbe, Randy Kryn, and Huwmanbeing: since you commented on this question before, it would be good to hear your current position on the question. Dicklyon (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Neutral I moved the page to 'In God we trust' earlier on because I was ignorant of the fact that later legislation had used the 'In God We Trust' form. So now I'm not really sure if it should be moved to 'In God we trust' or not. I added both spellings into the lead. No idea what should happen. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What makes this difficult is that a lot of uses seem to use all caps ("IN GOD WE TRUST") such as on U.S. currency or in the House of Representatives chamber. But the use of all caps implies to me that the first letter of each word should be capitalized when not using all caps. Perhaps that is a tenuous assumption to make, but the 2011 congressional resolution seems to bolster the case for the current title capitalization being the correct one. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
    How does the all-caps usage have any bearing at all on the question at hand? Dicklyon (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Ngram makes clear that "In God We Trust" is the dominant case form as Randy Kryn pointed out above. The proposed move would violate WP:LOWERCASE "Titles are written in sentence case. The initial letter of a title is almost always capitalized by default; otherwise, words are not capitalized unless they would be so in running text." The current title form occurs in running text more often than the lower case form. Mitchumch (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
    What the n-grams show is that "In God we trust" was at 100% for a long time, then dropped and maintains at 20%. This is partly (largely?) due to the large number of adoptions of the phrase for other purposes, such as titles of shows and books, and use in title-case article and book titles about the motto. The motto is a sentence; treat it as a title doesn't make sense in this context. It is also clear that the 1956 act that Randy talks about had no apparent effect. Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Your selected n-grams left out the upper-case version, so here it is. The upper-casing is not because of films or books (many of which came out after n-grams ended in 2008), it is because the upper-cased wording is the motto of the United States. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    Nice that since 1870 the percentages of each add to 100%, which I assume was your point. But how to do you explain the widespread lowercase (like in the law stating that this is the national motto) if as you claim "the upper-cased wording is the motto of the United States"? How does a motto come to have a style of over-capitalization if not by careless use like yours? Dicklyon (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
You make a convincing argument, I would like to see some push back against Dicklyon's arguments Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Requested push back: Per this 2011 New York Times article in 2006 the US Senate reaffirmed "In God We Trust" as the national motto (boldfacing per we seem to be boldfacing in this section), followed in 2011 by the US House of Representatives. The only way to close this RM as moved would be to ignore the n-grams (n-grams before 1956 don't count, the year the national motto was made official), ignore the common name, and go the "Ignore all rules" route. Ignore all rules calls for common sense and for the issue to be an obvious common sense exception to the guidelines when it improves the encyclopedia to do so. The requested move fits none of these criteria. As both the common name and the official name are already used in the upper-casing of the title of the article it should, by all Wikipedia criteria, be kept. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
here's a bit more history, routed from Wikileaks for some reason. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
And here is US President George W. Bush's 2006 reaffirming proclamation on the 50th anniversary of the motto, which uses upper case. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Geographyinitiative, here's more push back and something that myself and most of us discussing this topic here have completely forgotten: the upper-cased version is also the motto of the US state of Florida and of the country of Nicaragua. The lower-case use by the United States is historical, as it was officially changed to upper case, which also makes upper-casing consistent with the mottos of Florida and Nicaragua. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Randy, Nicaragua's motto is not even in English, and Florida's is "In God we trust" according to this site about state mottos. I'm sure opinions vary there, too, and it's all-caps in their seal. I don't see how you've concluded that the decided to cap extra words in their motto sentence. That site you cite seems to have rewritten the 1868 history; look at a source closer to that time; no caps there. More. Dicklyon (talk) 03:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
The site I cited is the Florida Department of State, which cites the year, 2006, in which the motto, in upper-case, was legally affirmed. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
My point is that since they got it wrong in claiming "In God We Trust" was adopted by the Florida legislature as part of the state seal in 1868, why would you assume they got the caps right in In 2006, "In God We Trust" was officially designated in state statute as Florida's motto? Dicklyon (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Randy Kryn. This is the capitalization that is WP:COMMMONNAME, fits WP:CRITERIA. -- Netoholic @ 06:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. The capitalization is just a title case style choice. It is not a composition title. I think the usual style seen is "IN GOD WE TRUST". Wikipedia titles in sentence case. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The motto, capitalized, has become a de facto proper name. There is no reason to under-capitalize it. Jmar67 (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I was pinged as the closer of a previous RM that decapped the title. There was at the time consensus to do this, but consensus can change and hopefully has. I think English usage favours caps here, as it does with God Save the King for example. But it's no big deal as long as we preserve the redirect. Andrewa (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    Wrong. "God Save the King" or "God Save the Queen" is a composition title, capped per MOS:CT. There are works known as "In God We Trust", but those works are not the subject of this article, which is why we ought to fix it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. It seems that official sources use both forms (1, 2), or indeed fully uppercase. I don't think it makes sense to try and set them up against each other, or argue about which one's more important or more relevant - rather, we should acknowledge that these indicate there probably isn't an official capitalisation in the way that you would expect for eg a brand name - if there was one, we could reasonably expect it to be explicitly stated, and more or less consistently adhered to. (The ngrams are probably not very meaningful as they include cases of works using the same title, which would be expected to skew the results substantially.) At that point, it becomes a question of "how do we normally title articles on phrases". And the answer to that seems to be if in doubt, use sentence case. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: This is a motto, not a composition title, and Wikipedia generally avoids unnecessary capitalization. God Save the Queen (the redirect target of God Save the King) is the title of an anthem (i.e., a composition title). That's different. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The common name is upper cased. The official name is upper cased. N-grams vastly favor upper casing. It is the national motto of the United States. So there is literally nothing for Wikipedia to unnecessary avoid in the present capitalization. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Please don't confuse the name with the styling of the name. Changing the case of the first letter of a couple of words does not change the name. That is mere typographical conformity to the local style guide, which can differ from publication to publication. All well-regarded reliable publications have some sort of internal style guidance that is applied to produce a consistent and professional result. Reputable sources such as the New York Times do not choose their capitalization by simply surveying popularity in other publications – they apply their own style guide. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Of course the styling of a name is the name. Changing the case of letters changes the name, in some instances dramatically. The name/styling of a national motto should eventually get the correct casing, which this one did in 2006 and 2011, and which Wikipedia eventually got right. By the way, since you mention the New York Times, it upper cases the motto. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
        • As I said, the New York Times applies its internal style guidance, and we apply ours. There is no need for them to be the same, since reputable sources do not choose their capitalization by simply surveying popularity in other publications. Wikipedia's basic rule about capitalization, expressed in the first sentence of MOS:CAPS, is "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization." —BarrelProof (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
          • The same paragraph goes on to say: "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." The n-grams and the sources and references on the page fit that criteria, so the present name fits MOS:CAPS to a "T". Randy Kryn (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
            • It mostly says to use sources to determine whether something is a proper noun or not. This is a slogan, not a proper noun. It later goes on to say "Use sentence case, not title case, capitalization in all section headings. Capitalize the first letter of the first word, but leave the rest lower case except for proper names and other items that would ordinarily be capitalized in running text. … The same applies to the titles of articles, table headers and captions, …" This is not a proper name. In my view it is also not something that would ordinarily be capitalized in running text. For article titles specifically, WP:NCCAPS starts, in boldface letters, with "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name." This is a slogan, not a proper name. It is simply a sentence, and a sentence should use sentence case on Wikipedia. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
              • The n-grams adequately show that the motto is ordinarily capitalized in running text. And the n-grams end before the 2011 US House of Representatives affirmation of the 2006 US Senate clarification and George W. Bush's 2006 proclamation, which all use the present title of this article. I'll stop replying to you, as the "case" (in both uses of the word) has been made. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
                The n-grams have no way of restricting their counts to running text. You keep ignoring that whenever there's a capitalization discussion. Click through to the books and see tons of uses in titles and heading, capitalized, which are actually much of what's being counted. Usage in running text is not nearly consistent. Dicklyon (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current capitalisation is the one used in a substantial majority of reliable sources, so is the one to stick with. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: It's a phrase. It's the motto of several places. Wikipedia has its own style of how to capitalize sentences and phrases. We follow our style. Lots of people like to capitalize things because they are important to them. That's not our style. If other sources indicated that it was a proper noun and capitalized for that reason, we could listen to them, but there is no indication that it is a proper noun. SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Further information: I have a well-educated American friend, and I thought I would ask him what the correct way to write the US motto was. He is probably so smart that I tipped him off to what I was looking for, but whatever the case, he did write "In God we trust" in cursive- amazing-- someone wrote in cursive without specifically being asked to! Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Cursive? Obviously a witch. Take precautions. The re-education unit is on its way. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, since it's lowercase in the actual law. This is a WP:ABOUTSELF matter; there is no more authoritative source on what the United States motto is than the US law codifying it. Lowercase also per the first rule of MOS:CAPS: if the capitalization is not consistent in sources, use lower case. What's happened here is the usual confusion that special cases of capitalization, as found in signage, headings (as on the US dollar bill, which capitalizes pretty much everything written on it), adverts and other marketing material, and so on, are somehow normative. They are not; they're the exceptions, not the rule. We've been over this about a million times already: WP:COMMONNAME is not, never has been, and never will be a style policy, for obvious reasons (e.g. MoS could never be applied to title questions at all if that were the case, yet we apply it every single day). COMMONNAME has nothing to do with what capitalization to apply.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per SMcCandlish & BarrelProof's convincing arguments. Happy days, LindsayHello 13:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Since the selective arguments are swaying some editors I'll formally ask the closer, if they are inclined to lower-case the title, to apply the common sense exception rule highlighted at the top of each guideline article in the guideline template. "Ignore all rules" really shouldn't have to be applied here, as the n-grams, common name, page sources, page references (please look those over well, thanks), the Florida state motto, and the many upper-case affirmative uses by the United States government regarding the motto of the United States would apply to keeping the present name of the article. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Randy Kryn & Amakuru. Capitalized form does appear to be the most prevalent one in sources. SnowFire (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per COMMONNAME, Amakuru and esp. Randy Kryn's refutation of SmCClandlish's WP:ABOUTSELF argument, supported by actual law usage. --В²C ☎ 18:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. As a native English speaker and American citizen, I believe that changing the title back to 'In God we trust' is not only more correct in terms of what's written in the US Code, it is also more elegant as an English language phrase. The 'In God We Trust' form seems crude by comparison. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:34, 25 May 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lowercase of In God we trust

I made the manifestly appropriate change to the title yesterday, which was reverted, based on reference to a previous RN. Where, if I may ask, can I look at that RN? Thanks. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Above on this page. Please check out the links in the discussion which back-up the close. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I see that. Let me know what you think of my edits now. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
That's OK, but we really ought to move it to fix the over-capitalization that Randy likes so much. Dicklyon (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I came to the request too late, but wanted to add my 2 cents. Concurrent Resolutions are simply measures addressing sentiments of the chambers, are not submitted to the president, and do not have the force of law.[2] The U.S. Code is literally the codification of the laws of the United States and, as such, should be easy to interpret here. 36 U.S. Code § 302 reads: "In God we trust" is the national motto. Capitalizing the entire phrase is done for titles or in ignorance of the law. Earthsound (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
George W. made a proclamation at the same time, so both houses of Congress eventually signed on with the president's concurrence. But the main reason for upper casing comes from n-grams which show the upper case as common name, and the governmental resolutions and proclamations were just further acknowledgement of this fact. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The argument was made numerous times that it was now law due to the proclamations, but it isn't. Proclamations state all sorts of sentiments but never change the law and can be ignored. IMO, overcapitalization of a phrase should be listed as the alternative, whether it comes from a Presidential/Congressional aide or other random writers. Ignorance of what the motto is shouldn't be copied. It isn't a common name or a title and (other than God) doesn't have proper nouns. The ALL CAPS (e.g. on currency) and alternate capitalization in other uses doesn't change the official motto form. I think we should emphasize and follow the official motto's capitalization as it's clearly the main subject of the article (not Florida's or Nicaragua's use). Earthsound (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The n-grams tell the story of sourced upper-cased common name. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Ngrams don't determine the motto - US Code does. The phrase as codified should be the primary. The capitalization changed from all words being capitalized (in the original HR) to just In God being capitalized by the time it made it through both chambers and became law. There may be documentation to determine why, but I didn't find it in my limited search. Earthsound (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The 1814 origin of the phrase

Earlier this year I posted a link to the National Anthem article showing the phrase "In God is our trust" was part of its 4th verse. Recently it was deleted and this warning was posted at the beginning of the history section with code that made it appear only to editors:

DO NOT RESTORE any Star Spangled Banner content without reliable, secondary sources. There's no source yet identified that says the motto came from the anthem.

There is no source saying the motto came from the Canadian mounties, either, yet that heads the "history" section, illustrating the fact that a history of something ought to include all things which logically could have inspired the thing, or provided the germ of its idea, without having to prove that the creators of the thing in its final form verbally acknowledged all its historical predecessors - an obstacle that would erase most of human history. No evidence is cited that "In God we trust" on our 2-cent piece, either, was acknowledged by Congress in 1956 as where its action declaring it our official national motto "came from".

I reposted the information, but more carefully, noting that "in God is our trust" is the same verbiage which the left sidebar says was crossed out by a U.S. Treasury Secretary and changed to "In God We Trust", in his instructions to the U.S. Mint before the latter verbiage was added to our 2-cent piece.

I was tempted to further analyze the 4th verse by observing that the grammar of "and THIS BE our motto" indicates the composer felt it was already America's defacto motto in view of the widespread public acknowledgment of God at the time, or it may mean he was proposing that the phrase officially become our national motto. But I suppose that bit of reasoning would defy Wikipedia guidelines. --DaveLeach (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

more elaborately described: In the supposed cosmogonous bearer of personhood we trust; actually by deifying the concept of personhood itself being personocrats at the cosmological level

The less you elaborate and expand its specifics, the more parentally compatible it gets (most people accept their parental metaphysics). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8266:AA00:1D2F:CD04:7DB:3621 (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Original research is banned in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C87:4F00:7C94:9398:DA81:DD57 (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

Ping me if you decide to start your review. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:In God We Trust/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kavyansh.Singh (talk · contribs) 13:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Nominator: Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) at 09:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Szmenderowiecki – Thank-you for expanding and nominating this article. I would be reviewing it per Good article criteria. From a quick glance, the article seems well researched and well cited. Since this is an important topic, my review would be quite thorough, and sometimes, I may be a bit nitpicky (if you are fine with it). My general comments about the article would be divided by section, and other suggestions would be separated from the review. Feel free to let me know if you have any concerns. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

GA criteria

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Section-wise comments

Overall

  • Overall, I see some missing website/news organization names in the citations. I would also have added Wikipedia links to all the websites, like "United States Government Publishing Office (Govinfo.gov – Ref#1), Legal Information Institute (Ref#3), United States Department of the Treasury (Treasury.gov – Ref#8), etc. A quick check of all the references (and adding/linking whatever required) would probably be sufficient. If you want, I can list almost all the issues with the citations.
    •  Done. Some info to the refs was expanded; others were consolidated or rewritten from the basic form. Names of publishers were linked whenever I found it possible.
  • Also, there is almost 66% similarity from sources! Especially from "As Chase was preparing his recommendation ....... coins as shall admit of such motto" paragraphs (See this). Please re-write those paragraphs and everything else which is directly copied. (Though, "quotations" can be exempted) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
    •  Done. The copied text was rewritten (though it had been there before I ever touched the article). Other sources indicating upwards of 30% of plagiarism probability simply have "In God We Trust" or "the national motto" hits numerous times or quotations, so as far as the text is concerned, there should be no longer any plagiarism issues. Correct me if I'm wrong.
      • I agree that the remaining copyvio (almost 55% in various sites) is just repeated use of "In God We Trust", "National Motto" or direct quotations. I'll pass the copyvio criteria. Thanks – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there any particular reason for sandwiching text between two images? (See MOS:SANDWICH) Although it isn't a major concern (especially for me).
    •  Done. Whether it's major or not is irrelevant - MOS says so and should be fixed (even if personally I'd even prefer the sandwiched version more).
      • The reason why I said it's not something major was because many FA's too have sandwiched images. Thanks for fixing that. I have re-aligned all the images to the right (which is by default alignment), and now it seems fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Please re-write all the citation which are currently in basic ref form. Also, several end footnotes are cited as citations. Identify, and change then to Efn's. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Szmenderowiecki – I have completed my review. Seeing the progress made, I am putting this article On hold for 14 days. Please make the necessary changes, and let me know of any concerns. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Lead

  • The lead is a summary of all the information available in the article. Since it has repeated information, the lead usually doesn't has citations, except for direct quotations. You may remove citations from the lead, except for some which may be required. (Per MOS:LEADCITE)
  • Currently, the lead has five paragraphs (three of which are 1-2 lined) I suggest merging some paragraphs to have a total of three paras (per MOS:LEADLENGTH)
  • Link U.S. Congress
  • ".. is the official motto of the United States[1][2][3] and of the ..." – Missing a comma after United States.
  • ".. on the two-cent piece in 1864[8] and has appeared on paper currency since 1957 and on post stamps since ..." → ".. on the two-cent piece in 1864;[8] and has appeared on paper currency since 1957, and on post stamps since ..."
  • ".. in a Joint Resolution by the 84th Congress ..." – Link Joint resolution, and write it in lowercase.
  • Link American currency
  • Link 84th Congress
  • ".. authorised ..." – authorised or authorized. I would go with "authorized", as it is American English, and article should be in American English. This is something which too needs to be checked throughout the article.
  • ".. Ninth and Tenth Circuits ..." – Missing a comma before "and"
  • Link Supreme Court
  • The source about Nicaragua's coins (Ref#19) has 404 error. Add an archive link.
  • Ping me whenever you've addressed those issues, so that I'll move ahead with the remaining sections. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
    •  Done Wikilinks, Nicaragua's coins archived page, American spelling and some rewriting (MOS:LEADLENGTH and your proposals) implemented. Sentence about banknotes and stamps was split.
    •  Not done Oxford comma is only needed for a series of three or more objects enumerated; United States and Florida is only a two-object list, so it shouldn't be there. On the other hand, a list of appelate courts (six, I think) needs one. One more thing: per MOS:LEADCITE [the] presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. It is simply a question of tastes of whether or not to include citations - I prefer to have them just in case; you might want not to have them, but MOS neither encourages nor discourages citing in the introduction, so I'll just use WP:COMMONSENSE, which I believe is preserved here. True, most of the FA/GAs don't have citations in the lead (or have only a few), but per MOS non-excessive presence of citations does not impact quality.
      • No issues, I just missed the point about that phrase being only a two-object list. As to citing in lead, your justification is completely fine (lead usually doesn't have citations, but it having citations in not an issue) Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Origins

  • "The earliest usage recorded in English ..." → "The earliest recorded usage of the motto in English ..."
  • "According to Thomas S. Kidd .. → "According to American historian Thomas S. Kidd ..."
  • " under the name "The Star-Spangled Banner" and serve as one of the arguments to include ..." → " under the title "The Star-Spangled Banner", and serve as one of the arguments to include ..."
  • Be consistent with "US Congress" and "U.S. Congress" (Per MOS:US)
  • I guess the JSTOR journal (Ref#26) isn't freely accessible. Change the url-access parameter.

Motto on U.S. currency

Initial adoption
  • Link Treasury Department
  • God is linked two times in a same para.
  • Ref#32 "See preamble of CSA Constitution: ...invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God..." should be converted to a footnote using Template:Efn.
  • Mention that Lincoln was the president.
  • "Chase chose his favorite designs and presented a proposal to Congress for the new designs in late 1863, deciding on the new motto, "In God We Trust," in December 1863." – "to Congress" should be "to the Congress"; and the second part of the sentence (dealing with "deciding on the motto ...") is a bit unclear. Maybe re-frame it in two sentences.
  • Ref#40 – "According to the Congressional Record...." should be a footnote, and cite the congressional record.
  • "As Chase was preparing .... could be engraved" – Too long sentence, and probably a bit unclear. Break into two.
  • "According to Lange, the ..." – Who is Lange? He isn't mentioned before in the article, so we don't know is first name (and why is his opinion important?) Specify that he was/is a author/historian/etc.
  • "Banknotes did not ... our Right"." – Requires citation.
    •  Done Changes implemented as proposed; sentence about compound interest/interest-bearing notes linked to Smithsonian, where a detailed description is available.
Reactions
  • Be consistent with date styles. In general, you have used Month DD, YYYY; but a few citations have YYYY-MM-DD (like Ref#48 has "1865-12-18")
  • "The American Journal of Numismatics, for example, has suggested" → "The American Journal of Numismatics had suggested"
  • "In Gold we Trust" – I honestly misread it two times, until I noticed. (maybe because I have been reading the motto several times throughout the day) The Journal was right! (not a point for you to do anything with)
1907 Saint-Gaudens coins controversy
  • Ref#11 doesn't support the first paragraph.
  • Put Roosevelt's quote under quotation marks. Moreover, the source shows limited information, and the quote cannot be verified. I suggest changing the link to this clip from Newspapers.com, which can be freely accessed.
    •  Done Changed ref (I mistook it for something else, evidently). Quotation marks added.
    •  Not done Actually, per WP:CITESTYLE, the preferred (numeric) format for citations is YYYY-MM-DD, which is why almost all of the sources have such notation, and the ones that did not were converted to that format. I think that inside the text, all dates are now in MM-DD-YYYY format, as is used in AmE, but another check wouldn't do any harm.
      • Yes. I requested you to be consistent with date styles (whichever way you feel fine), and the date styles are now consistent (Though I made a few changes) Personally, I write dates like "August 9, 2021", just to avoid confusion as-to which is date and which is month. Since you have changed the style (with consistency), I see no issues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Road to the universal mandate
  • ".. opposition of conservatives against New Deal, ..." – link conservative, and add definite article.
  • Spell "Sen." and "Rep." as Senator and Representative. (and check of same in the entire article)
  • Add Template:Abbr to "H. R. 619". – H. R. 619
  • Ref#70 should be a Footnote
    •  Done as proposed.

Adoption and display by government institutions in USA

  • Heading "Adoption and display by government institutions in USA" – U.S. or USA?
    • Changed to U.S.
Federal government
  • Link House and Senate
  • Fix the disambiguation link to Doubleday in Ref#76.
  • ".. by the House of Representatives by 396 to 9 vote ..." → by the House of Representatives, in a 396 to 9 vote
    •  Done as proposed.
State and local governments
Adoption of the national motto in state symbols
  • ".. adopted In God We Trust as part ..." – put the motto in quotes. Should they be under single or double quotes? Single are used for quote inside quotes. (per MOS:SINGLE). I see some inconsistency here.
  • ".. House Bill no. ..." – Either spell number, or put "no." in abbreviation.
    •  Done House Bill no. 1145 -> HB 1145; converted to double quotes.
Mandating display
  • I don't think the states should be bolded as well as linked. (See MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID)
  • "HB 839" – Whats HB? House Bill? Please specify.
  • In some places, just "national motto" is written. In other places "In God We Trust"/"national motto ("In God We Trust")" is written. Somethings with quote, sometimes without quotes. What can we implement to improve consistency, maintaining the flow?
  •  Done Abbreviation added.
  •  Not done Repetition of the same word/phrase all the time isn't exactly correct from a stylistic point of view, so "In God We Trust" or national motto are used interchageably as synonyms. I have removed the third version, which is admittedly redundant. Also, MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID explicitly states that Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead (emphasis mine). So if I decided to link God (or Trust) in "In God We Trust" in the first sentence, that wouldn't be OK; but here the boldface is to underline the start of the new bullet point, as creating subsections for such short paragraphs would go against even common sense, forget about MOS. Tl;dr - this situation is not covered by the MOS rule you cited.
Allowing display
  • "Gov." → "Governor"
    •  Done as proposed.
Legislation pending
  • Content of this section can be updated as legislation is pending, but that has almost no serious effect on article's "stability". Hence, the stability criteria is passed.

Society and culture

Religion
  • Why is "my God; in him will I trust" and "In God I trust" used in boldface. MOS:NOBOLD quite strongly disagrees to use boldface for "emphasis in article text".
    •  Done Emphasis removed.
In popular culture , License plates, and Opinion polls
  • I see no issues in these sub-sections.

Controversy

Litigation
  • Don't link "'s" in Jefferson's
  • "the US Supreme Court" – Change to U.S. Supreme court,and check for other instances too.
  • The sentence "Congressmen were afraid that ... unconstitutional." needs a bit clarification. Try to re-phrase.
  • "the US District Court for the Western District of Texas" – Perhaps, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
  • Link Certiorari
  • "US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio" – Perhaps, U.S.
    •  Done as proposed.

Usage in other countries

  • No issues

Other suggestions

  • Add ALT text to every image.
    •  Done to most images, where the normal caption does not describe it well enough.
  • Although not necessary, I would have changed the lead image to this image File:Flickr - USCapitol - "In God We Trust" Plaque.jpg, as (a) :In God We Trust" can barely be seen without zooming. (b) we already have various currency images.
    • Personally, I see no reason to do so. There is quite a lot of images right now and AFAIK this is not the instance of usage people would evoke at once. I bet most would say about coins and banknotes, then probably state symbols (because national motto can't be really made into an image).
      • I agree. My only concern was regarding whether the reader could actually even read "In God We Trust" in the banknote or not; but it was merely a suggestion, and it is completely upto you. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The image gallery in the end has a lot of images. WP:GALLERY states that gallery shouldn't be added just for decoration, but only include those images that have (and add) encyclopedia value to the article. "A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images." I see that the gallery here doesn't add any encyclopedia value, and the reader can't even read "In God We Trust" properly without zooming. Although I have reviewed licences for all the images (including those in the gallery) I would suggest removing it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
    •  Done And so I did. I believed that one or two images from the gallery could be OK; I've also changed the House of Representin' image to one with a closer zoom on that.

Image review

  • File:Chase to Pollock 1863-12-09 motto only.png – Requires source link
    •  Not done. Unable to find one. Sorry. On the other hand, neither good article criteria nor featured article criteria requires that the source link be provided; it only requires an acceptable license status, and public domain surely is (there can actually be no doubt about that, as this work is almost 150 y.o. and the author was a federal govt worker).
  • Rest all images seem fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Review of changes

  • Kavyansh.Singh, most of the changes you have proposed have been implemented; some weren't, for which the reasons have been provided above. Should you have any more suggestions or questions, please write me. Thank you for your time spent on the review. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Szmenderowiecki – Thanks for addressing almost everything. I followed your changes, and they have further improved the quality of the article. I feel that the article definitely meets the Good Article criteria, and deserved to be listed. Therefore, I am Passing this article and listing it as a Good Article. I appreciate your work on this article and another articles. It has been a pleasure reviewing and reading the article. Thanks, and congratulations! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:In_God_We_Trust/Archive_2&oldid=1205809619"