Talk:American decline

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American decline article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Mid-importance). Politics: American Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Economics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Anthropology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Culture Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Demographics (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Demographics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DemographicsWikipedia:WikiProject DemographicsTemplate:WikiProject DemographicsDemographics Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Futures studies Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Futures studies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Futures studies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Futures studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Futures studiesTemplate:WikiProject Futures studiesfutures studies Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

This article leads by describing Noam Chomsky as a political activist. This is not a neutral description, and I would favor describing him as a historian or cognitive scientist, since both titles are consistent with his professional areas of study while at MIT and The University of Arizona. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.173.36 (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I didn't see this talk post before I put "historian" back [1]. I agree that "historian" is a better description. In this case, he's being cited as an historian. And true, his Wiki page does list "historian" before "political activist". My two cents. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that public intellectual would be the best description, given his prominence and expertise across multiple fields.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with public intellectual. I think it's important to note that Chomsky has academic qualifications, but I recognize that his commentary on this issue is directed towards the general public, rather than fellow subject matter experts. Thanks very much for the reasoned discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.173.36 (talk) 10:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow subject-matter experts? Please read this source for a glimpse into the actual impact Chomsky has on disciplines like political science and academic history.[2]. Scholars in these fields don't even read Chomsky's work -he is essentially ignored.

Chomsky's a linguist with no expertise in any of the subjects he's famous for outside of the Academy. This RS here describes him as "linguist and political activist"[3], and considering there are many other sources using the "political activist" description, the claim of non-neutrality has no merit. Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Identity section was totally removed saying it is "Contentious opinion", "without direct connection", " WP:COATRACK". Are there feedback from other editors? Mhhossein ^talk 09:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat hard, since this topic "American DECLINE" is somewhat vague, but I'd say that (as far as your addition) we should stick to sources that talk about demographic change as a perceived decline, rather than using sources about demographic change for Original Research to say that people might feel this way. (GMF is not a RS, it is a think-tank.) Your addition is likely correct, (I'm sure the WASPs might feel that way) but we need sources that explicitly say that. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

/* Geopolitical Agenda */ Deleted message complaining about black supremacy in South Africa. Out of topic.

The article says "According to American economist Scott Rozelle and researcher Natalie Hell, "China looks a lot more like 1980s Mexico or Turkey than 1980s Taiwan or South Korea. No country has ever made it to high-income status with high school attainment rates below 50 percent. With China's high school attainment rate of 30 percent, the country could be in grave trouble." By comparison, US high school attainment rate is 91.1 percent according to the latest census."

Source for the 30 percent figure? I'm seeing like 80% by a quick Google. GalacticEncyclopedist (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"American decline" means we no longer refer to them as "America".

It's the USA. "America" is a continent of people unrelated to this failed state. ~2026-43449-9 (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article starts like the American decline is some theoretical concept, while we are all experiencing the harsh reality of the USA having ended up in the hands of Russia-controlled, racist, lawless and friend-stabbing felons, which have started the terminal phase of their dismantling of the "US" bit of America, with passive "democrats" and a "congress" watching "the people" doing a whole lot of nothing. ~2026-44631-5 (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"racist, lawless and friend-stabbing felons" Well, the Republican Party has been openly racist since the Southern strategy of the 1960s, and nobody bothered to organize opposition to it. Now it is way too late. "The perception that the Republican Party had served as the "vehicle of white supremacy in the South", particularly during the Goldwater campaign and the presidential elections of 1968 and 1972, made it difficult for the Republican Party to win back the support of black voters in the South in later years." ^[1] Dimadick (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The same democrats who refused to vote for civil rights? Or the ones who started the KKK after the civil war? ~2026-22424-29 (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of Southern strategy don't you get? White supremacist southerners moving from the Democratic to the Republican Party during the 1960s. Dimadick (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some things in edit 890139581 by Mhhossein can't be verified. Specifically, The Rise And Fall of British Naval Mastery makes no mention of Bush, Obama, or bin Laden. Uhoj (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some time paging through The Rise And Fall of British Naval Mastery and found that:

Paul Kennedy posits that continued deficit spending, especially on military build-up, is the single most important reason for decline of any great power.

doesn't jive with either the introduction or conclusion. Uhoj (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your precision @Uhoj. Thanks for your precision. I appreciate you ensuring the article adheres to verifiability. I’ve lost the thread on this topic since it’s been years since I was actively editing it. To fulfill my responsibility as a user, I tried to reshape the text using other reliable sources. We can work together to fix the issues:

The historian Paul Kennedy argues that great powers often decline due to "imperial overstretch," in which military commitments and deficit spending outpace economic capacity.^[1] Writing in 2011, Kennedy applied this framework to the United States after a decade of war, arguing that the focus on military responses to the September 11 attacks distracted the country from addressing unsustainable finances and long-term international engagements.^[2] By 2011, the U.S. military budget was higher in real terms than at any time since World War II and accounted for over 40 percent of global military spending.^[3] A 2017 study estimated the total cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at $4.3 trillion through fiscal year 2017, with total costs projected to reach $5.6 trillion when including future obligations.^[4].

--Mhhossein ^talk 12:56, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Uhoj: You have removed the content from the page without discussing them here, despite the fact that I had invited you to let me know your thoughts. You mentioned WP:SYNTH and it states If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. In what terms does your deletion comply with the quoted sentence? --Mhhossein ^talk 10:24, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mhhossein Four disparate sources were strung together in a way that could be read as saying that Paul Kennedy endorses the notion that military spending is especially high today. In fact, one of the sources cited said that an increase in military spending appeared to be ending. Uhoj (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Uhoj: Thanks for the explanation. I believe the sources are not "disparate". 'The Rise and Fall' source explains Kennedy's thoughts on the decline of powers with a reference to the large military spending. In the 2011 NYT piece, though an Op-ed, Kennedy directly connects the costly wars in Afghanistan and Iraq—launched in the wake of 9/11—to federal deficits, all of which come within his broader assessment of post‑9/11 America. The next two sources, i.e. the US military budget in 2011 and the the 2017 study, are totally relevant without SYNTH in light of these two sources. As you see, 'conclusion C' is explicitly implied by the sources used. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:26, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  "explicitly implied" is an oxymoron. If there's a single source that actually says what these four strung-together sources say, then we should summarize that source.

  We agree that Kennedy 2011 is an opinion. It is not our place to bolster opinions by tacking on statistics in wikivoice.

  No explanation has been given of how any of the sources support "military budget was higher in real terms than at any time since World War II". Likewise for why we should ignore one of the sources saying "The rapid decade-long increase in US military spending appears to be ending." Uhoj (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]