"The United States is now a competitive authoritarian system"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It's more of an ideal than an exact term. TFD (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Shut up Jersey Jan (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd delete that if I could. Jersey Jan (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@Jersey Jan: No offense taken, Jan. A lot of people like yourself are naturally hostile to any criticism of their country. This is not your fault. You were likely inculcated with an attitude of "America, love it or leave it" at a young age, along with other kinds of programming from your parents, peers, schools, and authority figures. In many ways, your reaction is "normal" for people who are trained from a very early age not to question, criticize, or examine their most closely held beliefs.

Which reminds me, have you ever noticed how many unusual "exceptions" we give the United States when it comes to discussions of democracy in the world? This only occurred to me after reading your pithy reply, so I want to thank you for pointing me in this direction. For example, in 2025, the Pew Research Center analyzed how 107 democracies elect their national legislatures. They discovered that only two, the Federated States of Micronesia and the U.S. draw their single-member districts using primarily state legislatures, which leaves it vulnerable to gerrymandering.

To quote Pew: "The U.S. gives the responsibility to the states...This isn't how it's done in most other places. In more than two-thirds of democracies that heavily rely on single-member districts...special commissions or national election agencies have primary responsibility...Lawmaker's role, if any, is limited." Viriditas (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

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)

See FAQ #10. ~2026-57236-8 (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@~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)

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)

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)

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)

The answer to all of those is no if you live in the real world and not whatever reality sensationalized headlines and social media posts represent. ~2026-13654-66 (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The answer to all of these questions is yes if you read. How you could answer no to the first eight is a remarkable form of self-delusion. Viriditas (talk) 06:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

>Is the legislature captured by a single party?

No, the president's party has a very narrow majority and several members have voted against his agenda.

>Are the courts captured by a single party?

No, there have been more judicial injunctions to Trump's actions than any other president.

>Have checks on executive power been dismantled?

No, see above.

>Have independent positions been filled with loyalists from a single party?

Every president has appointed members of their party to "independent" positions.

>Is the media used as an echo chamber?

No, the majority of media outlets have been largely negative regarding the Trump admin. Even "right-leaning" outlets like Fox News have criticized the admin on a number of issues.

>Has political opposition been defunded by the state and threatened?

Governments have no obligation to fund their opponents. This isn't an issue of authoritarianism.

>Does a single party encourage private violence against its critics?

Yes, but that party is the Democrats.

>Are there attempts to rewrite election laws to favor one party over another?

States controlled by both parties have been trying to boost their own power in the upcoming elections. ~2026-14208-42 (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Not sure what to say to that, except that one of us lives in an alternate reality, and I'm pretty sure it isn't me. Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Alternative reality? That seems like strong language. To be transparent, I am conservative, and I dislike how Trump is handling his term in office. And I was even more displeased with Biden. I think saying that our country has slid into being an electoral autocracy is wrong.

Trump does seem to be letting power go to his head, but so did Biden. In general, I dislike how recent presidents have been behaving on both sides of the political divide.

Do I think either of you are living in an alternative reality? No. But you both seem a little blinded to the problems on your respective sides. ~2026-19793-53 (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Biden literally governed as a moderate Republican. Not seeing how you can claim to be a conservative yet not understand conservatism. As others have already said, we have one party in the U.S. A center right party and a far right party. Viriditas (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Just want to add that Heather Cox Richardson, political American historian, recently described the united states as fully transitioned into a fascist state . While she's certainly an expert, I suspect we'll have to see additional blatantly corrupt "elections" before the page will change.

I'd also like to point out that this page has a ton of subtle propaganda on it -- or at the very least highly deceptive statements. For example, "The Constitution of the United States serves as the country's supreme legal document." Like, sorta technically, but practically the constitution is whatever the supreme court says it is. The second amendment was re-interpreted to be about guns decades ago, so this isn't even really a complaint about modern politics. Also, "The U.S. Constitution establishes a separation of powers intended to provide a system of checks and balances to prevent any of the three branches from becoming supreme" the word intended is doing really heavy lifting there. Like, it seems suspicious there isn't a "however the supreme court granted itself the ability to interpret constitutionality." It's that subtle first among "equals" sorta propaganda. For a modern political propaganda see "Finally, the president has the authority to issue expansive 'executive orders' in a number of policy areas, subject to judicial review." Why is the word expansive in there? At best that's a recently justifiable addition due to a blatantly corrupt supreme court, but given the aforementioned blatant corruption it probably shouldn't be in there at all. Unless we want to include other acts of corruption, in which case someone please link the wikipedia page describing how the law doesn't apply to the president or anyone rich enough to buy a pardon. ~2026-10934-47 (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Even if the federal government is no longer democratic (debated and debatable), the overwhelming majority of state, county, and local governments are democratic. To label the entire country an autocracy would be to ignore that fact. I do agree that the article should mention the erosion of democratic norms, but I think a wholesale change to describing the United States as an authoritarian system is inaccurate and inappropriate. Firefox0807 (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Trump isn't above the Constitution UltraCobson (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

USA is the name of our country! U.S. is the name of the 10 square mile area mentioned in the Constitution as the seat of our federal government! They are not the same! ~2026-19196-83 (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Sir, this is a Wendy's. The Sovereign Citizens' Anonymous meeting is being held next door. Viriditas (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

He legally isn’t above the constitution but he acts like he is. The “government” section should say “Federal presidential republic under an authoritarian dictatorship” and I would edit it to say that if this page wasn’t protected. Coughers (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey do you mind if we can chat better Trish stratus19 (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

You're the same user as before; block incoming... Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

It would actually be worse if technological technocracies were in charge. Dorian88A (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

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. 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)

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)

Here are some I'd say reliable sources on the US changing form a liberal democracy to other less- or un-democratic terms.

• this one.

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"; EXCONST=1 "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).}}

• this one

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

• this one

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.

• this one
• this one archive
• this one

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.

• this one

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".

• This study: Walder, D.; Lust, E. (2018). "Unwelcome Change: Coming to Terms with Democratic Backsliding". Annual Review of Political Science. 21 (1): 93–113. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050517-114628.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"Most scholars describe the United States as a liberal democracy."

I'm not sure if this statement (ref. cited to support it is from 2002) is still valid, especially now regarding the fact that the V-Dem Institute's 2026 democracy report classified the U.S. as an "electoral democracy" for the first time in over 50 years, downgrading its status from "liberal democracy".^[1] Maxeto0910 (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

While their research is respected, you would need to show that mainstream sources pick up on their categorizations. Figure 4 on the report show that under Trump, the U.S. has moved from a liberal democracy to an electoral democracy, joining the UK (under Sunak and Starmer) and Canada (under Trudeau and Carney). I don't think that most sources would accept these. TFD (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

"Mainstream sources" in the US have been captured by the illiberal Trump regime under its auotcratic takeover of the media, so your criteria is no longer relevant or meaningful. In the US, legacy mainstream media is dead, so we default to independent watchdog groups instead. Viriditas (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? Mainstream media criticizes Trump all the time. And besides, just because a source is independent doesn't automatically make them any more truthful than mainstream media. Everybody lies. ~2026-17392-58 (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

The mainstream media sanewashes Trump and is run and operated by Trump supporters. Viriditas (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

In what specific ways is the United States less free? What could you do on January 19, 2025 that you can't do now? ~2026-17651-51 (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Price of a tea in China ...

What can't you do in a flawed democracy like Italy or Poland that you can do in a full democracy like Germany? What can't you do in a hybrid regime like Hungary?

You'd have to go all the way to a competitive authoritarian regime like Turkey to really start noticing a difference in what the average citizen is allowed to do. And even there, the vast majority of people continue to live their day-to-day lives.

Even in a full totalitarian dictatorship like Russia, most people who aren't political activists probably wouldn't even notice a difference in their civil freedom if they were teleported to one of the highest-ranking democracies such as Norway, Denmark or Switzerland. Maxeto0910 (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Maxeto0910. It's more about what you can't do. Russia controls its internet, prohibits political organizations with a feminist or gay agenda, and "average people" texting one other to criticize Putin or the Ukraine War must fear interception and maybe reprisals. My relatives texting vociferous and intemperate comments against Trump and the Iran War face zero risk. When operating within my own country, the FBI doesn't go as far to undermine my civil liberties as the FSB would in Russia. There are many other differences, and they're stark. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

These are exactly the types of restrictions I meant when I wrote "You'd have to go all the way to a competitive authoritarian regime like Turkey to really start noticing a difference in what the average citizen is allowed to do".

Just because a country doesn't control its citizens doesn't mean it's a liberal democracy: Hungary, for example, is still a relatively free country in the grand scheme of things by global standards, yet it's far away from passing as a liberal democracy. Likewise, just because the U.S. is still relatively free doesn't mean it's a liberal democracy. Overall, it seems like most scholars now classify the U.S. as an electoral democracy rather than a liberal one. Maxeto0910 (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

"Most scholars"—and what "most" entails—is a high bar. I don't object to the mention of "democratic backsliding" or important 21st-century events in this article (so long as editors understand Wikipedia's policy against recentism), but the political categorization of countries is a fraught project. Unless there's overwhelming evidence to recategorize the U.S., pursuing it is a waste of time. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that saying that most scholars now classify the U.S. as merely an electoral democracy is a high bar, but so is saying that most scholars still classify it as a liberal democracy. Judging by the most recent democracy indices, it seems like the former statement has more support than the latter by a good margin.

In my opinion, it would be justified to at least add at sentence that the US's status as a liberal democracy has been questioned or rejected by a number of experts since the mid-2020s. Maxeto0910 (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

That already exists, but it has been relegated to a footnote. I think that the footnote can be removed and the text added to the main article. JasonMacker (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Say something like....."A body of political scientists and scholars contend that the U.S. has experienced democratic backsliding in the 21st century."^[2][3]Moxy🍁 18:17, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mox. That already appears under "History: Contemporary (1991–present)". If you mean adding that to the lead, it will be a harder sell (consensus necessary). For this article's lead, I think it's overbaked. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Talking about replacing what seems outdated and media-based in the section about government.... Move it away from history and replace the horribly sourced old sourced government stuff.

Most scholars describe the United States as a liberal democracy^[4], while some scholars have used descriptions such as oligarchy or plutocracy.^[a] Moxy🍁 19:01, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

You cited a source from 24 years ago. That basically fails the currency criterion. Viriditas (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

the sentence above yours is what's already in the article I'm looking to replace the 24 year old source. Moxy🍁 16:55, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Viriditas: While citing sources your way—the country's status during several years in one (Trump) administration—is sheer, unadorned recentism. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Nice straw man. What we are dealing with right now in the US at its heart is postliberalism, which did not come out of nowhere and emerge in just one term as you say. Lot of denial here and elsewhere about what is happening to the US. We saw this same denial emerge during and after Reagan, whose supporters eventually coopted the opposing party and even rewrote the history books to make it seem like he was a hero. Viriditas (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Yours is certainly one opinion out there: Reagan commandeered the press, co-opted then decimated all opposition, brought fascism to America, and Trump is finishing the job. You'll have to obtain overwhelming consensus to incorporate that thesis into this article. I really don't see it. Mason.Jones (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

1. What is currently happening in the United States is occurring all over the world, even in countries where liberal democracy is strong. Your assertion that "the country's status during several years in one (Trump) administration—is sheer, unadorned recentism" is a common objection, but it's also one that misses the larger picture. Democratic backsliding is a global trend impacting the U.S. I suppose if it was, let's say, mid-1934, and Wikipedia existed in Germany, it would be unlikely that there would be an "overwhelming consensus" of local editors partial to the topic of Germany to support the idea that Germany was no longer a democracy. It would require editors from outside Germany to make the necessary and important revisions. This is why I previously called for international sources to supplant mainstream U.S. media ones in this instance, as the U.S. media, like the German media in the 1930s, has been fully and totally captured by pro-Trump forces.
2. In the reality-based community, there is general agreement that the forces at play did not begin with Reagan or end with Trump, but are part of a much broader narrative at work involving different styles of national and global security, formerly referred to as the (classical) liberal international order (LIO), immigration policies, and income inequality since the post-WWII era. Trumpism, and post-1980 conservatism in general, has long been hostile to the LIO, and for many decades has used immigration as a wedge issue for their base, which has deep roots in the older forms of white supremacism that dominated America until the mid to late 1950s. Anticommunism during this time gave fuel to the authoritarian right and produced a fringe group with close ties to the oil industry. It is from this source that the opposition to "overwhelming consensus" derives, and it can easily be traced back to it. Most interestingly, the rise of financialization pushed by neoliberals, Friedman, and the Chicago School, also led to the formation of what became the new antiestablishmentarianism on the right rooted in postliberalism, Christian nationalism, and a resurgence of the previous white supremacism which had been suppressed with civil rights legislation for a brief moment in the 1960s. In other words, all of these different forces and influences contributed to the loss of civil liberities and the erosion of democratic institutions over a period of just under 50 years. This is easy to trace, and many scholars have done so. Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires overwhelming consensus to incorporate your political point of view: white supremacy, media control, anticommunism tied to the U.S. oil industry, likening the 2020s U.S. to 1930s Nazi Germany. Also, comparing today's Wikipedians with Weimar Germans really isn't going to help your cause. Hectoring editors because (in your opinion) they're "missing the larger picture" is scolding, unconstructive discourse, and doomed to failure. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think Viriditas is advocating for including his political views into the article, but is merely trying to explain and justify why the use of refs. from independent, international sources would be preferable to the use of (just) American ones. While many of his arguments may read fringe and far-fetched, his core message does have some merit as the former type of sources almost certainly tends to be less biased than the latter in general. Maxeto0910 (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@Maxeto0910 -- Fine, but "independent", "non-U.S." sources can't serve as a Trojan horse to insert fringe political views in a general country article—and that last post was pure polemics. Such ideological discourse will never gain majority consensus here. As for sources, they should remain on topic. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm curious what part of what I wrote above (any, in fact) is "fringe" or polemics. My core argument was, in part, based on an analysis by Robert Pape. Also, I quite intentionally steered away from ideology, pointing the finger at the social impact of policy instead. If I had to take a wild guess, you apparently take exception at the painting of white supremacy as a dominant influence in American history, but this POV is not fringe, it is a matter of established, mainstream history: "White supremacy has long been a dominant feature in Western culture. Colonization of the United States, Australia, parts of Africa, the Indian Subcontinent, parts of Asia, and other colonial states was based on the domination of Indigenous people by white people, who would come to structure the colonies and their later nation-state in social, political, economic, and cultural infrastructures that disenfranchised minorities. The dominant ideology of white supremacism in the United States has disenfranchised many people who were not of European descent. Practices of segregation were institutionalized as minority people experienced social, political, economic, and cultural exclusion. These practices sparked mid-twentieth-century movements based on attaining civil rights. The goal of the civil rights movements grew from wanting constitutional rights for African Americans to inclusion of all minorities in the United States. Many organizations support the ideas of white supremacy." (From "Domestic Terrorism, White Supremacists", Combating Terrorism in the 21st Century: American Laws, Strategies, and Agencies, ABC-CLIO, 2022). Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@Viriditas -- You've already engaged in exactly what Wikipedia discourages: making this Talk page into a forum (in this case, around politically progressive critiques of U.S. policy and presidents since colonial times). You then become even more verbose with each reply, which is ill advised. Please suggest what specific text (or note) you wish to insert, and where, or where more contemporary, non-U.S. sources might be appended. Long-winded, bulleted treatises like your last posts have little place on a general country article's Talk page. You might instead seek out more targeted, dedicated articles (exs., Reaganism, Civil rights in the United States, or Media in the United States) rather than trying to rewrite the article "United States" according to Chomsky. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

What I wrote is the opinion of mainstream American and international scholars. Nothing I wrote was "fringe" or polemical. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty

The caption under the photo of The Statue of Liberty states that France gifted the statue to the US in 1866. That's incorrect. The correct year is 1886. ~2026-25918-06 (talk) 08:32, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this (change made). The statue was first proposed by France in 1865, but it was completed two decades later and the formal dedication took place in 1886. When editors crop, replace, or otherwise revise photos in this article, they tend to create errors in the captions. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Edit request p

Change “Compact of free association states” to “associated states” in the info box, there’s no need for the ridiculously long official term, also link it to associated state given that’s what they are. Llikesruff (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 May 2026

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please let me write one thing on this PLEASE

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Current area of the U.S.

The U.S. profile in U.S. Census Bureau says total area: 3,809,525 mi² (9,866,624 km²) and land area 3,352,316 mi² (9,148,656 km²). They are the official figures from the 2020 U.S. Census. Lepidux (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

The U.S. Census Bureau's "official" figures, cited in most U.S. reference books and even in British and French encyclopedias, are the Bureau's demographic numbers: total population, state figures, municipalities, language spoken at home, etc. The Bureau's listings of land area, U.S. history, and more minor factoids are strictly FYI and not to be used as a final authority. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2026

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

". In 2010, then-President Obama passed the Patient" please change Obama to Barack Obama so it is clickable ~2026-26890-57 (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 19:29, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Edit request: Adding academic context to the Revolution section

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello,

I am a relatively new editor on the English Wikipedia, though I have been active on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia for some time. I would like to propose the following addition to the "Independence and expansion" section of the United States article.

I believe the current section would benefit from a deeper analysis of the ideological shift that occurred in 1776, moving beyond a simple timeline of events to include the influence of Enlightenment philosophy and the international strategic dimension of the war. I have prepared a draft with citations from high-quality secondary sources (Harvard and Oxford University Presses).

Since I am not yet an "extended confirmed user," I cannot implement this change myself. I would be grateful if an experienced editor could review and, if appropriate, add the following text:

---

The revolutionary sentiment was further solidified by the widespread circulation of Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" (1776), which deconstructed the institutional legitimacy of hereditary monarchy and advocated for a democratic republic.^[1] This transition from a localized protest against fiscal policy to a fundamental ideological rupture was deeply influenced by the Whig tradition of political thought and the Lockean concept of the social contract.^[2] Furthermore, the internationalization of the conflict, particularly the formal entry of France following the 1777 victory at Saratoga, transformed the American insurrection into a global theater of the Anglo-French rivalry, a strategic shift that proved decisive for the eventual British surrender at Yorktown in 1781.^[3]

---

Thank you for your time and for maintaining this high-profile article.

Best regards, Custos Veritatis (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2026 (UTC) Custos Veritatis (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Not done: your request appears to have been generated by a large language model. Day Creature (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@Day Creature I appreciate your vigilance, but I assure you this is not AI-generated. As an Azerbaijani student, I have been dedicated to academic discourse from a young age, and I tend to write formally to maintain precision, especially when contributing to high-profile articles like this one. If my prose felt mechanical, it is likely due to my effort to match Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone. I am a real person, passionate about history, and more than willing to simplify my language or discuss the merits of my proposal here. Custos Veritatis (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@Custos: Agree with DayCreature: The prose looks dense, stiff and overworked, with vague verbs like "solidified" (to what extent?) and buzzwords like "deconstructed." Wikipedia's article on Common Sense describes the pamphlet mostly in terms of public relations. How did ordinary colonists' populist civil revolt "transition" into an ideological cause? What part of Whig political thought, or Locke's (avoid "Lockean") writings, is key here? France's role may have been indispensable, but that last sentence seems pat. The entire paragraph attempts to cover too much territory in short exposé format. Mason.Jones (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@Mason.Jones Thank you, Mason.Jones, for your incisive critique. I appreciate your focus on precision and clarity, which are indeed paramount for an article of this stature.

I acknowledge that my previous phrasing may have been overly dense. My intent in using terms like 'solidified' and 'deconstructed' was to encapsulate the complex ideological transition from colonial grievances to a unified Enlightenment-based cause, but I see how they can appear vague. Regarding Locke, I was specifically referring to his theories on the 'right of revolution' and the social contract, which were pivotal in transforming a populist revolt into a justified pursuit of sovereignty.

I am more than willing to simplify the prose and ensure that the role of France is presented as a strategic catalyst rather than an overshadowing force. I will provide a revised, more transparent draft shortly for your consideration. I value your mentorship in aligning this contribution with Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards. Custos Veritatis (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

One other editor can't be a "mentor"; the passage requires a reading, and input, from several editors. I only wanted to clarify that the passage is academic, not encyclopedic, with an artificial tone (which one might suspect is derived from AI). It also covers too much ground—a sweep of history that is less than clear to the reader. Mason.Jones (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@Mason.Jones To clarify, the formal academic tone of the draft is not something I 'constructed'—it is my natural mode of expression. I favor this analytical style in all my writing, and it reflects my personal voice.

As I have critical university entrance exams (block exams) starting this coming week, I must prioritize my studies and cannot engage in further discussion at this moment. I am happy to leave the draft as a suggestion; please feel free to adapt it or set it aside as you see fit. My intention was simply to offer a well-sourced contribution in good faith.

Thank you for your time. Custos Veritatis (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2026 (UTC)