Talk:United States

0 views
Former good articleUnited States was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 15, 2005Good article nomineeListed
May 7, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 8, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 18, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 3, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 21, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
October 19, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 19, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 9, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
June 27, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 6, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
January 19, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
March 18, 2012Good article reassessmentDelisted
August 10, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
January 21, 2015Good article nomineeListed
February 22, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
December 19, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 3, 2015.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the United States accounts for 37% of all global military spending?
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 4, 2008.
Current status: Delisted good article

Demonym

[edit]

I think we should reconsider having only "American" listed as the Demonym for this entry. As animosity is mounting against this country more accurate names are being used intentionally to differentiate between inhabitants of the Americas (Americans) and citizens of the United States of America (also inaccurately referred to as Americans).

"Citizens of the United States" etc. would be verbose and differ from each usage of the demonym. I've seen "Usanian" used a lot recently and that could perhaps be listed as an alternative to "American". ~2026-37622-9 (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are needed before any change happens. Plus, long-term use of these terms are essential (I've never heard of the demonym "Usanian" in my life). toby (t)(c)(rw) 01:51, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Is there data/a source to back up this being a commonly used demonym? I wouldn't think so based on my own experience but if there is it could be added. I'm not sure if that demonym is more "accurate" but maybe more specific, but I don't know of, for example, any major English-language publications that use it. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] I've never heard nor seen any use of "Usanian" in my entire life, that's a first time. MosquitoDestroyer (talk) | :) 03:03, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Yes, USAnian is a pretty well-established colloquial demonym but it still needs to be sourced without original research from editors. I mean, it's trivially easy to find how common it is in various corpora like COCA (it is not very frequent in that particular corpus, probably because it's colloquial and possibly also less common in AmE), but that is a textbook case of original research. Still, it can't be hard to find attestations. --bonadea contributions talk 09:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] 1) The claim that "USAnian" is well-established is simply not true, at least in English language sources. 2) This question is already addressed in the FAQ at the top of this talk page, and further elucidated in American (word) as well as Demonyms for the United States. There is no widely accepted alternative to American as a demonym for US citizens in the English language. I understand that this usage of the word American annoys some people, but neither actual usage nor this article are going to change any time soon because of their annoyance. This entire conversation is a waste of time. CAVincent (talk) 10:08, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] @bonadea -- You're obviously referring to the term "USonian", which dates back several decades. It never caught on at all. "USAnian" is even more marginal, and calling it "pretty well-established" is hyperbole several times over. "American" is overwhelmingly established usage in all varieties of English (British, Canadian, American, Australian, Irish). All efforts to replace it or qualify its usage in English Wikipedia are premature -- unless perhaps Greenland is invaded and transatlantic relations come to a grinding and permanent halt. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Americans are people in the United States, not people in the continents, most commonly. The correct demonym in American. ~2025-34669-99 (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] "is American" not "in" ~2025-34669-99 (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] "American/America" are very common for use to accurately refer to the people of the USA/the USA itself. Countless examples: Songs "American Pie" and "God Bless America" Other languages "Amerikaan" (a person, Dutch), "Americano(a)" (a person, Italian), "Marekani" (the country, Swahili). Companies "Bank of America" (stylized logo of the American flag, and "Nowhere, though, do our roots run as deep as in the U.S.") and American Textile Company Dictionaries Cambridge (a non-American source: "of or relating to the United States of America") and Merriam-Webster ("a native or inhabitant of the U.S. : a U.S. citizen") Other things: American football, cafe Americano, etc. "Animosity" should never be used as justification to alter things. 2 Salukis (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2026

[edit]

Eldren Bahian Lorca Sr/162 world books of Guinness Records in the Philippines >{F} True/Legal ~2026-48935-8 (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"The United States is now a competitive authoritarian system"

[edit]

Several sources on this, including this one. I'm curious how many sources it's going to take to change this article. Trump's America is a postliberal, electoral autocracy. There's no doubt about it. Viriditas (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It'd take a lot. Certainly not just the single one you've given. toby (t)(c)(rw)(omo) 22:53, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Correct. My question is how many and what kind? Because I think we're already there, but I know resistance to that idea is huge, so I'm curious as to what it's going to take to change this article. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] I personally feel like a mention of democratic backsliding deserves attention in prose, but I know resistance to that idea is huge like you've said. I say we just wait. toby (t)(c)(rw)(omo) 22:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Two other things: this article suggests the US is currently a liberal democracy, which is quite laughable given the electoral college, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and about a dozen other issues. Another POV, one which I'm only starting to come to grips with and understand at a very low level, is that the US was never a liberal democracy, this is just a myth. From this POV, it's been a hybrid regime for a very long time, perhaps from its very beginning. Examples abound, from Native American genocide to slavery, from white terrorism to McCarthyism, to the suppression of leftism, the incarceration of Japanese people, and the war on drugs, as only some examples. Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] I don't see the need for us to start arguing politics or revisionist history. We need sources from those who know what they're talking about. toby (t)(c)(rw)(omo) 23:05, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] That's fine, I'm just acknowledging that there's more than one POV and way to see this. I assumed that we are, like you said, going through a period of democratic backsliding at first. But now I see that we may never have been a liberal democracy to begin with. From this POV, the idea that the US is a democracy is a story we are told as children that is perpetuated through schooling, the media, and the larger culture. But when you look at so-called people's history from the last three centuries, this idea of a democracy vanishes into thin air. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] It's more of an ideal than an exact term. TFD (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] It'd take a lot. Sure; there are several experts and indices no longer considering the U.S. a democracy, see Democratic backsliding in the United States. In fact, it seems like the majority of such indices now classify the U.S. as an illiberal democracy, hybrid regime, electoral autocracy, or similar form of government, except for the indices of Freedom House and The Economist, which were both published before Trump's second term. Maxeto0910 (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] See FAQ #10. ~2026-57236-8 (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] @~2026-57236-8, as the author of FAQ #10, this discussion is valid, as people are discussing what sources are needed to make this change. toby (t)(c)(rw)(omo) 18:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] We are not arguing for describing the U.S. as a fascist dictatorship as it stands in FAQ #10; we are merely arguing for no longer describing it as a liberal democracy and instead as a hybrid regime, illiberal democracy, or similar form of government. Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] You can't say a country is an autocracy when half of its states and most major cities are controlled by the opposition party. ~2026-56479-8 (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Here is a rough guide to recognizing an electoral autocracy, loosely adapted from Kim Lane Scheppele: Is the legislature captured by a single party? Are the courts captured by a single party? Has the civil service been captured by loyalists of a single party? Have checks on executive power been dismantled? Have independent positions been filled with loyalists from a single party? Is the media used as an echo chamber? Has the political opposition been defunded by the state and threatened? Does a single party encourage private violence against its critics? Are there attempts to rewrite the election laws to favor one party over another? Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarlby: I believe this source might meet your criteria. (Oct 2025) It certainly meets my own. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What a load of bullshit you're writing, then you can say it's like the Chinese government!!!--Dorian88A (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You’re so close, almost there, but entirely backwards: American-style postliberalism seeks Chinese style governance. I’m opposed to that. Viriditas (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] It would actually be worse if technological technocracies were in charge. Dorian88A (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] You are referring to some of the ideas in Patrick Deneen's book Why Liberalism Failed (2018). However, I think these arguments don't hold up. For example, DOGE and the promotion of AI under Trump implicitly supports a kind of authoritarian, algorithmic technocracy, where tech bros, the GOP, and a consortium of industry insiders (mostly billionares) are the technocrats. So it's really a game of musical chairs, where you replace one set of technocrats with quite another. I should also note that many of these people support a Chinese-style governance that you say you oppose.[1] So it appears to be a game of saying one thing in public and doing quite another in practice. Viriditas (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] No country has ever lived up to the ideal that we learned about in school. Wealth has always allowed individuals to influence opinion and governments have always ridden over civil rights in order to push through policy. TFD (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Here are some I'd say reliable sources on the US changing form a liberal democracy to other less- or un-democratic terms.

Quote: The USA dropped below the "democracy threshold" (+6) on the POLITY scale in 2020 and was considered an anocracy (+5) at the end of the year 2020; the USA score for 2021 returned to democracy (+8). Beginning on 1 July 2024, due to the US Supreme Court ruling granting the US Presidency broad, legal immunity, the USA is noted by the Polity Project as experiencing a regime transition through, at least, 20 January 2025. As of the latter date, the USA is coded EXREC=8, "Competitive Elections"; EXC1 "Unlimited Executive Authority"; and POLCOMP=6 "Factional/Restricted Competition." Polity scores: DEMOC=4; AUTOC=4; POLITY=0. The USA is no longer considered a democracy and lies at the cusp of autocracy; it has experienced a Presidential Coup and an Adverse Regime Change event (8-point drop in its POLITY score).}}

Quote: Regarding the United States, once a global symbol of democracy, Lindberg said, “The United States, by my analysis, at this point is no longer a democracy.” He went further to claim that the US is an “electoral autocracy.” An electoral autocracy is a country that formally holds elections, but those elections are not fair or just and thereby do not guarantee actual democratic competition. He went on to clarify that it’s possible to defend democracy without the US

Quote: As the graph below indicates, the current U.S. democracy rating of 54 among experts is closest to the 44 rating experts gave to our hypothetical illiberal democracy (“Country B”). Experts put the U.S. at approximately equal distance from the strong democracy (“Country A”), which received an average rating of 92, and the non-democracy (“Country C”), which received an average rating of 18.

Quote: Century’s New Democracy Meter Shows America Took an Authoritarian Turn in 2025. In the first year of Trump 2.0, the United States went from being a passing if imperfect democracy to behaving like an authoritarian state: breaking the law, ignoring court rulings, engaging in grand corruption, targeting critics for persecution, and conducting a campaign against immigrants [...] that flagrantly violates civil rights. Crucially, elections are still free, providing for the time being an avenue to reverse the democratic decline.

Quote: Professor Christina Pagel mapped the first actions of the Trump administration in a Venn diagram that identifies "five broad domains that correspond to features of proto-authoritarian states". These five domains are: undermining democratic institutions and the rule of law, dismantling federal government; dismantling social protections and rights, enrichment and corruption; suppressing dissent and controlling information; attacking science, environment, health, arts and education, particularly universities; aggressive foreign policy and global destabilization.

  • This study: Cassani, Andrea; Tomini, Luca (2019). "What Autocratization Is". Autocratization in post-Cold War Political Regimes. Springer International Publishing. pp. 15–35. ISBN 978-3-030-03125-1.

Quote: "[It is] a process of regime change towards autocracy that makes the exercise of political power more arbitrary and repressive and that restricts the space for public contestation and political participation in the process of government selection".

Quote: Backsliding entails a deterioration of qualities associated with democratic governance, within any regime. In democratic regimes, it is a decline in the quality of democracy; in autocracies, it is a decline in democratic qualities of governance. ETQueEsteveEmVarginha (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether or not the sources are reliable but the degree to which the opinions expressed in them are accepted. In any case, the problem is that democracy is on a scale, countries can be more or less democratic, and therefore subject to disagreement. TFD (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Inded they can. Thus my reason for presenting such sources. Since we work with reliable sources, a majority of up-to-date reliable sources claim the US is no longer a liberal democracy, thus it should not be treated on text as so as the text must reflect the sources as long as it is up to date, reliable and consistent. Such was the case in articles such as Venezuela when sources started to call it a dictatorship, though there is still much controversy about it. Sources in that article point to things similar to what I cited here regarding the United States as an authoritarian executive ignoring other branches of government, interference in the electoral process, abuse of human rights, serious violations of international law, violation of civil rights and constitutional guarantees, politicization of specific armed forces, mass movements for and against the regime, political violence, internal and external coercion, etc. We can have no double standards. ETQueEsteveEmVarginha (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] You cannot determine who widely held an opinion is by experts by preparing a list of experts expressing that opinion. You need a source that says something like, "there is a consensus among experts that the U.S. is a competitive authoritarian system." Finding a number of experts who write, "The United States, by my analysis, at this point is no longer a democracy" is no evidence of how accepted their opinion is. In fact, that they have to quality that they are expressing their opinion means that there is no consensus for it. After all, no one would write, "the capital of the United States is, in my opinion, in Washington, D.C." TFD (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Staffan Lindbergh can go fuck himself. The way V-dem ranks countries based on democracy is just fucking stupid tbh. Sorry for the strong language but to me it just feels like their “findings” is just based on vibes and nothing else. ~2025-39398-35 (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Those vibes sound very much like democratic "norms". Who knew American democracy was based on vibes and not actual laws? I didn't. Viriditas (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, I'm just frustrated by the way V-Dem ranks democracies because of how badly flawed it is. Like, come on. How can it be an electoral autocracy when Democrats have managed to secure big victories in the off-year elections just months ago? In that case, that doesn't sound like "eLeCtOrAl AuToCraCy", to me it sounds more like the US is still a flawed democracy, and that dumbfuck Lindbergh only took into consideration the ICE raids, attacks on the media, and whatnot, all while just blatantly ignoring the massive protests against Trump (especially the No Kings protests, which are likely to continue throughout 2026), and especially the smaller off-year elections. I mean, sure, it might not sound like they ranked the US as an ElEcToRaL aUtOcRaCy based on vibes alone, but even still, V-Dem seriously needs to at least make changes to how it ranks democratic countries, because this is just friggin embarrassing, man. ~2026-82459-6 (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of researchers who believe the US is now a hybrid regime

[edit]

User:ETQueEsteveEmVarginha, could you add to this list please? Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can find experts to say anything. Even top experts can have fringe views on some things. You need to show whether it is a consensus, majority, mainstream minority or fringe view before it is included. TFD (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] This comment reminds me of the two lone survivalists of the New California Republic in Fallout waiting it out getting ready to bring democracy back to the people after it's been gone for 200 years. Viriditas (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Steven Levitsky
  2. Kim Lane Scheppele
  3. Daniel Ziblatt

List of people who aren't sure

[edit]
  1. Timothy Snyder
  2. Jason Stanley

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 January 2026

[edit]

write that the usa will own greenland ~2026-57059-2 (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Wikipedia is not here to say that things that might happen will happen (see WP:CRYSTAL). IndigoManedWolf (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hm, I would say that an edit to the map showing “territorial claims” would be accurate- but that is all as of now. ~2026-59828-7 (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Has China joined the US as a Superpower?

[edit]

I note that there are posts/reverts going on on whether China has joined the US as a superpower. I note the Superpower article seems to now agree yes though still somewhat argued in Talk. At least when the US is stated to be the sole superpower this should be hedged; e.g., In the intro "The Soviet Union's collapse in 1991 ended the Cold War, leaving the U.S. as the world's sole superpower." to perhaps "The Soviet Union's collapse in 1991 ended the Cold War, leaving the U.S. as the world's sole undisputed superpower until the recent rise of China." This also means extending the history section to a bit past 2021 and mentioning China there. Erp (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Superpower is a horribly media sourced article - a great example of Wikipedia:Cherrypicking (that said the one section does try to explain). In the academic community this has been debated for decades... with their being no consensus on the matter [2], [3]...... media junk saying the opposite is easily found Moxy🍁 16:29, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] If no consensus, my suggestion still stands then. The article should hedge on the statement that the US is still the "sole superpower" since it is disputed (even if it wasn't disputed in 1992). Or the word should be dropped entirely. Erp (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] There has been no real change.. just some scholarly debate. Media goes back and forth every year or so on these things[1].... thus should not be utilized for an academic analysis.

References

  1. ^ Herman, Arthur (2026-01-14). "America Is the Sole Superpower Again". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2026-02-07.
The lead should reflect the body, and the current history section pays no attention to the rise of China. Besides, the sentence as it exists is perfectly factual; the U.S. was left as the world's sole superpower after the U.S.S.R.'s collapse, regardless of whether or not it is still the sole superpower. DecafPotato (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy🍁 19:13, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

English official language infobox

[edit]

An executive order can not establish an official language. The wiki page for that executive order even states so. There is no congressional legislation so there is no official language. Same as Gulf of Mexico and Kennedy Center, which there’s already been much discussion about. ~2026-87337-6 (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

American Music and Musical History

[edit]

While I understand the importance and popularity of country/folk music to the American public, as well as the history of the Nashville scene, I don't think a photo of the Country Hall of Fame is the right choice at all for a brief overview of American music. Even ignoring the importance of black art forms in the history of country music, folk styles developed more concretely from European traditions than a significant amount of new American arts (see Blues, Jazz, Rap, Electronic, so on). Blues and Jazz are much more indicative of not just American innovation but also how American and world music would develop (British rock taking the blues, pop music adopting jazz harmonic sensibilities, etc). Even then, to talk more about the modern face of American music through a genre like hip-hop I think would make significantly more sense. An overwhelming amount of American music, past and present, is due to African-American musical tradition and as popular as country is, it feels strange to mitigate that. I'd nominate artists like Miles Davis (decades long career across multiple American genres and forms) or a Tribe Called Quest (first world exporters of hip-hop with feet dipped across the American musical tradition) as much better representatives of American music. ~2026-94665-0 (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, if it's about American music as a cultural export, pop acts that developed from American styles (soul, funk) like Stevie Wonder or Michael Jackson really fit the bill much better. ~2026-94665-0 (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I'm a country music fan who is well aware of its impact on the development of many other genres, and even I feel that that illustration isn't really appropriate here. I would suggest something dealing with the Grammy awards or the Billboard charts. Something relevant to all American music. Save the genre specific stuff for more focused articles. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2026

[edit]

Please change ‘The United States of America (USA), also known as the United States (U.S.) or America’ to ‘The United States of America (USA), also known as the United States (U.S.)’.

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).The term America is misleading in this case because it is a term that refers to the whole continent of the New World since 1507, named by Flemish cartographer Gerardus Mercator. This is only until The second world war, when most American geographers agreed on seperating South- and North-America, now also referred to as ‘the Americas’. The United States of America is not ‘also known as’ America itself, this would be paradoxical.

Sources:

<Lester, Toby. “The Waldseemüller Map: Charting the New World.” Smithsonian Magazine, December 2009. Web. November 5, 2014. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-waldseemuller-map-charting-the-new-world-148815355/>

<Crane, Nicholas. Mercator: The Man Who Mapped the Planet. London: Phoenix, 2003. Print.>

<The Myth of Continents. (z.d.). https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/l/lewis-myth.html> Roosvdm (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See #7 of the QNA and the Etymology section. Whether or not it seems paradoxical, the truth is that most people use "America" to refer to the United States. toby (t)(c)(rw)(omo) 20:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I understand, but it is still misleading. When you search ‘what is America’ on Google, the first thing you see is ‘The United States’, because of this article using the wording ‘also known as America’. Roosvdm (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Americas .....not America ...[4] Moxy🍁 10:13, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] In English there is contineggnyt of America, there are the 2 continents of North America and South America. The simple word America almost exclusively refers to the US. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:12, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is sourced from Wikipedia. Content is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.