Talk:Antiquities Act

message: When referring to the President of the US, should it not read he/she or (s)he?  I understand that the US has only had males as presidents, but there is nothing that says that the US president has to be male.  --chris 00:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's cross that bridge after a female is sworn in as president.  Also, perhaps I am very "old school" in understanding "he" as the English gender neutral 3rd person singular pronoun (in the same way that "actor" can refer to an actor or an actress).  Perhaps it was all those years learning other languages, where users are comfortable disassociating linguistic gender for physical gender.  In German, for example, a girl is an "it." — Eoghanacht talk 13:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I have not seen 'he' used as a gender-neuter term, but then again, I come from a country where français is taught alongside English, and in French there is no such thing as gender-neutral.  Even chairs have genders.  How about using the singular-form 'they?'  --chris 19:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: gender neutral

message: Does the Act have one? ie how old does something have to be to be covered?  Of interest for antiquities. Johnbod 01:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does, and I used to know. I came here hoping for a reminder. Downstrike (talk) 05:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it doesn't. I have just located the text of the act online at https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/FHPL_AntiAct.pdf and there is no mention of any age requirement, just that it has to be of historic or scientific interest. A look at the list of National Monuments shows at least two established for sites which date from the twentieth century. Wschart (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: cut-off date

message: I believe it would be in good form to change the name of this article to An Act for the Preservation of American Antiquities as this title is the official title of the law, cited in all Federal Regulations and external links.  These sources also cite the short hand version of this law is the Antiquities Act so I see where this title is coming from, but I think it would be in better form to title official page as An Act for the Preservation of American Antiquities and redirect this page (Antiquities Act) to the main page.  I think it would be better form to use the proper title rather then the short-hand version. Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 01:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the name to An Act for the Preservation of American Antiquities because there doesnt need to be a consensus to do this, and i dont see where any debate would rise as Antiquities Act redirects here.  If anyone has any questions or concerns feel free to contact me. Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 02:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Change Name of Article

message: This should be updated to reflect President's Bush declaration of the MTMNM January 6, 2009.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.123.155.134 (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: Is there a reason why this and National Monument (United States) are separate articles?  it seems to me that we can merge this article into that one and have a more complete, more encylopedia-like article.  Most of the history is the same.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the National Monument (United States) page should be merged somewhere, either here or with the List of National Monuments of the United States; This page is about the federal law establishing the authority to make National Monuments, while List page lists what Monuments exist. I'm not sure we need a third page merely defining what National Monuments are. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with National Monument (United States) 

message: There is a substantial debate going on right now about if the President has the power to remove federal lands. We might want to have a section on this. -Obsidi (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Six years later and to me, as an attorney, this is the most important argument: about whether or not the power of the executive branch to set aside federal lands for designation as a national monument under the Antiquities Act is beyond the scope of the intent of Congress in the legislation.  What is the definition of "Antiquity"?  Can it be used simply as an aside to deny public lands for mining or grazing purposes because that benefits the politics of one political point of view?  I am astonished there is not more conversation about this on the Wikipedia talk page nor any mention of it on the Wikipedia page. 2603:8001:BE03:7DD:C132:8364:F2A5:8479 (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presidential Power to Remove 

message: Many countries have an Antiquities Act. If Wikipedia is intended to be an international resource, the title of this article should specify which country this Act refers to, e.g. "American Antiquities Act" or "Antiquities Act (US)". Combirom2 (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of Article is US-centric