Talk:United States

Please consider reading the frequently asked questions for this article before asking any questions on this talk page.

Current population (est.): 338,417,000 as of September 15, 2024

Like terms

Why are Caucasians refered to as "Whites" but people of African descent are not refered to as "Blacks"? If you're going to label people, at least use like terms (Blacks, Whites, Browns, Yellows, etc...) or only use the more accurate description of origin of descent (Anglo, Afro, Asian, etc). Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.0.171 (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Crime and Punishment Bias

Go over the crime and punishment section once again, my fellow wikipedians. tell me if you don't believe that to be a little slanted. the article mentions how high the crime rate is, but only compares it to western-europe natons--leaving out the fact that it is drastically lower than countries like russia, mexico, etc. im not asking to fill the article with some hot-air about how peaceful the south-chicago streets are at 2:00am, but i just don't belive it is written very free of opinion. let me know what yall think. Skiendog (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree that it is as biased as you may think, although I do see what you mean. There is a graph that clearly shows that Russia is higher, and I think it's only fair that it is compared to other developed nations (says developed, not western, so we just need to make sure that it is truly comparing to all developed nations). One thing that I remember reading is that violent crime in the last decade decreased, so if that is true, maybe it's worth mentioning? Kman543210 (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The other problem is that data in Zimbabwe for statistics on violence is weak or totally absent (they have some higher priorities). In countries with less open media and government transparency, the rates can't be verified and are of dubious value for comparison. Saying that the US is, in general, more violent than Western Europe is a valid claim, but I'd agree that it could be misleading and requires more discussion and perspective than can be included in a general article. I'm a rampant emo kid when it comes to this article (obsessed with cutting), so I won't bother stating my preference for what to do with the issue.Somedumbyankee (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I just point out...

And I'm not being anti-American here or anything, but:

Has anyone else noticed how the article on the USA is actually larger than the article on the human race? I know the whole arrogant American thing is a stereotype and don't get me wrong,I have nothing against you guys, but how much do you have to say about yourselves? Just seems a bit... over the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.102.89 (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The articles on India and the People's Republic of China are also larger than the article on the human race, and the article on the United Kingdom is even larger than the article on the United States, but I suspect you don't care about THOSE being longer. That wouldn't give you the opportunity to make such an enlightened post. --Golbez (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

haha nah sorry, someone pointed this out to me and I just thought it was a laugh, no offence intended my mistake, not much of a wiki browser :-s. Ah well, no harm done. 81.154.102.89 (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah. --Golbez (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't take your comment as anti-American at all, and it's a legitimate observation; however, I'm pretty sure that it's not related to "arrogant" Americans. Keep in mind that this is an English language article, and about 75% of native English speakers come from the U.S. Also, the U.S. has the 3rd largest population in the world, and it makes sense that Americans would know more about their own country and feel more comfortable adding to the U.S. article than other articles. If there are particular parts that can be reduced, you're more than welcome to make changes or suggestions on the talk page. Any improvements are always welcome. Kman543210 (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This article could use some weight loss (by "recommended size" it has enough for 4-5 articles), but I'm a little leery of trimming things since a lot of them are someone's pet project. Human has the same problem, of course. I mean, everyone (as far as I know...) that edits that article is a human, so how fair can it be?Somedumbyankee (talk) 08:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a valid point, but only if the article in question is over long because of unnecessary info. Skimming through this article though, this appears not to be the case. (Butters x (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC))

There are some redundancies (see my previous comments) and a lot of extremely specific information that could probably be cut from the overview article. For example, including the exact number of people in congress is critical for the House and Senate articles, but proportional vs. fixed representation is really all that matters for an overview. The consensus appears to be that people are happy with the article at the current size so I don't see a burning reason to whack the F/A-18's nest again.Somedumbyankee (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• There's a lot wrong with the article because there are a few who act as self-appointed guardians (owners?) with no proof of expertize. (I removed that offensive template stating their user names as if they are the authorities on the US) Sorry for sounding snarky, but it's really difficult to edit when there are editors over-protecting such articles. One had the nerve to tell me just because something was in the article for a while, that meant I had no business to change it. (Well, not in those words, but similar and in sentiment.) KGBarnett (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"Not in those words," indeed. You're misrepresenting what happened. Here are the relevant edits and edit summaries: yours ([1]) and mine ([2]). Again, if you want to change information that has appeared in the article for a long time and is well cited, then you should be prepared to make a case for your desired change on the article Talk page.—DCGeist (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This was the disputed content: "Certain Native American traditions and many cultural characteristics of enslaved West Africans were absorbed into the American mainstream." With the citation: "Queralt, Magaly (2000). The Social Environment and Human Behavior: A Diversity Perspective. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, pp. 77, 83. ISBN 0023971916."

Just what are those "certain Native American traditions"? And "enslaved Africans" came from different parts of Africa, and "West Africa" was linked to Culture of Africa - a very poor and unreferenced article, that does NOT help the reader understand what was "absorbed into the American mainstream". Though I did change the link to African American culture, which is a better article, and informs the reader (only IF they bother to click on the link) better. AA is a very distinct and diverse culture in itself. Do you know how many ethnic groups and countries there are in West Africa? They may all look alike to most folks, and they may have general similarities - but they have different customs, histories, languages, and dress. Your "well cited" argument is dubious because there is only one citation - 2 pages of a book that many people do not have access to. How is that "well cited"? In Nigeria alone there are 250 ethnic groups with varying languages and customs. A Nigerian or Guinean visiting America today would not relate to African Americans. And where are the Italians? Mamma mia! KGBarnett (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, and there should be good citations for these claims, but I think that African American and Native American are some of the most commonly thought of groups in American history. If you want to list each individual country you would have to make a large list of them. When you get into that, you are opening up the flood gates because everyone that has had the slightest bit of influence will want to insert their five cents' worth. I'm not saying to refrain from that if anyone wants to take it on, but you have a lot of work ahead of you if that is what you want to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.76.228 (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

KGB, do you realize how illogical your argument is? You say there are many cultures in West Africa. Of course there are. Your solution then is to make the language more broad and more imprecise by expanding it to all of Africa?

Perhaps, and yes. The underlying link that is there now is enough. The majority of sources everywhere say African slaves, or slaves taken from Africa, etc. Did you know what underlining article West Africa was linked, that is, until I changed it? If you didn't know, I'll tell you - it was the Culture of Africa! (BTW, just have a look at that atrocious article). Now that is what is called broad and lacking scholarship. Much worse than anyone's inablity to access the book. How was linking to the "Culture of Africa" article supposed to help those learn the unique culture of enslaved African Americans that was absorbed into the mainstream? Nevermind the citation given.—KGBarnett (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As for your individual inability to verify the citation, that's a shame. Try getting the book via interlibrary loan or order it directly from the publisher. As for the dating of the book: (a) Amazon sales page data is hardly a reliable guide; (b) as you learn about research and scholarship, you will discover this remarkable fact: books are sometimes issued in multiple editions years apart. Incredible, I know, but true.—DCGeist (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

DCG, so you realize how pompous you sound? The arrogance you flaunt is shameful. How are the children in undeveloped countries supposed to verify this source, or even Western children wanting to learn more? That's the point. Do you have access to the book in question? Wikipedia is not a source for scholars - it is for the general reader - though scholarship does help in writing articles. So don't lecture me on research and scholarship - projecting that which you do not know upon me. I don't see much in the way of scholarship in the sections I'm questioning - i.e. the demographics and culture sections. I've yet to check the sources for the rest of the article. The burden is on you, or whoever adds to the article, not the reader. And not the editor removing unsourced and/or unverifiable information, nor those questioning the research - scholarly or otherwise. Are you a scholar and/or researcher? If so, in what field? Even so-called scholars and researchers can be wrong - and sometimes even kooks. I do know that.—KGBarnett (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Easy guys, easy... also, If I may point out that it's generally preferred to get web-based sources over paper-based ones; as stated above, readers usually won't have the exact edition of Bob's History of America on their desk beside their computer. If there's an Internet source, then that would make life easier for all of us. :) Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Manhattan Project (nuclear weapons)

This line: "the U.S.-based Manhattan Project developed nuclear weapons" indicates, though not explicitly states, that nuclear weapons were made by Americans. However, the team working on the first nuclear weapon was international (see Nuclear_weapon#History for more details). I suggest a small re-write, which would involve the term "international", just to clear things up.--80.126.160.209 (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The first flight happened in North Carolina, but it was done by Ohioans. But NC still put "First in flight" on its license plate. =p --Golbez (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I still think a re-write would be simple and informative. Is there anyone who is strongly opposed to this change? (also, Golbez, only Orville came from Ohio, Wilburn was born in Indiana.)--80.126.160.209 (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Where's Indiana's "Birthplace of aviation" plates then? ;) (I have no opposition, I just enjoy the comparison) --Golbez (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot of "US" hockey teams are mostly Canadians. It's worth mentioning an international staff of scientists, but the US taxpayers paid for the project, so calling it explicitly an international project may be a little off. U.S.-based with international staff is fine, obviously.Somedumbyankee (talk) 03:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think "U.S.-based" to me indicates just that it was based in the U.S. and doesn't indicate that it was an "American-only" project, but I would not object to some wording indicating multi-national project or international, as long as it doesn't make the sentence awkward just for perceived correctness sake Kman543210 (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I think the very presence of the phrase "U.S.-based" in this context indicates that it was not entirely U.S. constituted.—DCGeist (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DCGeist, US-based doesnt mean exclusively American. Taifarious1 05:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's my point, it doesn't mean exclusively American but it does not say anything else about the project. Some people might perceive the hint towards international cooperation but I think that a small rewrite would be informative and more clear. Basically, what SDY said is what I was planning on doing.--80.126.160.209 (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to clarify my previous point: according to the article it was a joint US-UK-Canada project that was run in the US. Looking at the various sites out on the interwebnet, it seems like most of the work was done by the US, but there was a substantial amount of British funding as well [3]. "U.S.-based with Allied support" might be a better way to mince the words.Somedumbyankee (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is weird. If you look at the Atomic Bomb wikipage (Atomic bomb), the history part of this article clearly states there were Germans involved. Not only Germans, but also: "many displaced scientists from central Europe". I believe the term "international" applies in this case. The "USA+Canada+UK" thing seems a bit rubbish to me, to be honest. The agreement you posted has nothing to do with the actual development of the first Atomic Bombs.--80.126.160.209 (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The US/UK/Canada thing is from the Manhattan Project page. The governing committee for "tube alloys" was 3 americans, 2 brits, and a canadian, so that seems to line up. That the US was able to cut off all foreign access (including to the British, who redeveloped a bomb independently) after the war kind of indicates who was in charge, though, and almost all of the research was done in the US. Calling it a truly "international project" would be misleading.Somedumbyankee (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Now see here, I realize who was in charge, who provided money and who took the loot, BUT, that doesn't mean this was no international project, again, I refer you to this article (Atomic bomb#History), which also speaks of the Manhattan Project. Not calling this an international project is not only misleading, but plain wrong.--80.126.160.209 (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You could actually argue that the United States in general is an international project on similar grounds (only a tiny fraction of us are natives). Even just "U.S.-based" implies that there were others involved, and who they were in the middle of WWII should be kind of obvious. An unqualified label of "international project" would be misleading (Britain was the only major partner, and the only reward they got was being on the winning side of the war). Including a full history of the project here is way more than necessary for an article that's already massively overweight.Somedumbyankee (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Culture

This statement "Certain Native American traditions and many cultural characteristics of enslaved West Africans were absorbed into the American mainstream." is dubious and an embarrassment. The source is unavailable and therefore unverifiable. As for the "scholarly source", the woman who wrote the book does have a PhD, but in Social Work, not anthropology, and all of her papers are about children's health care, education and human services. More importantly - this statement is false no matter what the source says. Native Americans where almost obliterated by Europeans, and their land taken away. Enslaved Africans where stolen and had been stripped of their names, heritage, culture, dignity and much more. African American culture is a distinct one, one the influences the mainstream, not the other way around. The same for Native Americans. Their traditions have not been absorbed, and are too, a distinct culture. If a source is not provided, or that statement not rewritten, then it needs to be removed.KGBarnett (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I may be jumping to conclusions, but you sound very angry. NPOV and fury don't work well together, so let's take a deep breath and figure out how to fix the issue. The source is hard to reject since it's a dead tree edition, but physical books are not prohibited by WP:V (good thing, the AABB tech manual is kind of critical to some of the editing I've been doing). I don't see the statement as patently false, but it may be oversimplified. This is a common problem for a summary article. What language would you propose including instead?Somedumbyankee (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I took that sentence to mean that the cultures and traditions influenced the American mainstream, which I can't see how that could be false. Kman543210 (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Somedumbyankee, (I'll ignore the assumtions, as that only seems to compound problems). The book is a dead tree edition for a reason. The subject was limited, and not apt for a cultural section of this type. I understand that a summary can be problematic, because of the need for brevity, but that doesn't mean one cannot be brief and precise. Especially for a "Good Article." If the main article was any better, I doubt I'd be this insistent. Kman, if that's how you took it, you are smart, and read between the lines. Not everyone does, or can see that. Absorbed into mainstream can be interpreted to mean, swallowed up, or assimilated, blended - as if it no longer exists. Influenced is a better word. But, the source does need to be changed. Social Work is very different than cultural anthropology and even social science. It's like comparing apples to strawberries. How about something like this, "Certain Native American traditions and many cultural characteristics of enslaved West Africans, have greatly influenced American mainstream culture." Or something along those lines. What do you think? I have to go now, and don't know when I'll be able to get back here. It could be as early as tomorrow, but more likely a day or more. I have a busy schedule.-KGBarnett (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) First regarding my edit summary here, apologies to KGB, I hadn't realized you already had brought this to the talk page. However, I fail to see what exactly you're upset about. The fact that the hodge-podge that is American culture has been influenced by American Indians and slaves and their descendants is, I would think, indisputable. Yes, both of these peoples have their own distinct culture - but to suggest that they have not had an impact on American culture on the whole is foolish in the extreme. Also, the fact that you don't happen to own a copy of a work hardly means that it is "unavailable and therefore unverifiable." As Somedumbyankee observed, you seem to feel particularly passionate about this subject; while I wouldn't dream of suggesting that you not edit the article, I will say that many editors, myself included, steer clear of articles where we have strong opinions, lest we become unable to remain neutral on the subject and start POV-pushing (I'm not saying that's what's happening here). faithless (^speak) 07:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think KGBarnett's suggested sentence is exactly how the sentence was intended, so I agree with changing it to "have greatly influenced..." I can see how "absorbed" might be misinterpreted as "disappeared." Kman543210 (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think that the {{dubious}} template was the wrong one to place. That template is intended to tag after a specific statement or alleged fact that is subject to dispute. However, its placement follows the citation of a source which (assuming good faith here), supports an assertion. The cite mentions particular pages in a particular book where support for the assertion is to be found. Presuming that the citation is valid and that the cited source does support the assertion, then the disagreement is with the cited source, not with article. The article makes the claim that the specific cited source does support the assertion and, assuming good faith, we can take that to be true until refuted (and either removed or tagged with a {{failed verification}} tag). If there is serious disagreement with the cite-supported source, one proper way to approach the resolution to the disagreement is to balance the cite-supported point of view of the assertion with a different cite-supported assertion — saying something like, "Magaly Queralt, writing on the effect of social environment on human behavior, asserted that many cultural characteristics of enslaved West Africans were absorbed into the American mainstream.(Queralt book cited here) John Smith, however, asserts that [...] .(Smith book or online article cited here)" In the absence of wikilinked articles giving some background on Queralt and Smith, some descriptive indication of their qualifications, standing, etc.probably ought to be supplied either inline or along with the footnoted supporting citations. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

While the existing language of the article was never false, as KGB has so passionately claimed, it was certainly less precise than it could have been and, in the case of the Native American reference, possibly misleading in terms of emphasis--though any American who's ever had a cigarette has honored the influence of Native American culture. I've adduced an additional source for the African passage and made the language much more precise--naming the major ethnic/language groups that were influential, and distinguishing between those whose traditions were absorbed--hey, how 'bout "adopted"--directly by the mainstream and those that were more central to the development of African American culture.—DCGeist (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for expanding the section, DCG. And to others who attempted dialog. But, may I suggest that people refrain from jumping to conclusions by projecting motives, and emotions onto others whom they know nothing about? It's not constructive, for it can put one on the defensive, thus drive away good people from the project. For those who care, and should, I will state my motives; they are genuine and good willed, I solemnly swear. I am not angry nor passionate about this subject. I stated my concern in a matter-of-fact way - it is not my problem if others interpret that as emotional, angry, and/or tendentious. I almost took the bait, and became those things. I'm sorry for that. Also it is not helpful - for it deflects from the bettering of the articles. Comment on content, not on individuals (unless they do it first, or course. ;p). Also, this article should not be written for Americans, but for those who have never visited the US, or who wants to learn more about it. This adds to the animosity that non-Americans have about America and its people - that Americans are arrogant, revisionists, and hypocritical. Do I have to add smilie faces, and flower my already long posts so as not to be judged unfairly? "First remove the plank from your own eyes, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from another's" I get the impression that most did not read my posts, but barely skimmed them. I wrote longer posts, hoping to be understood, but it has seemed to back-fire. C'est la vie. Perhaps I should be more blunt and less wordy - would I then be judged in more positive way? Thanks again.-KGBarnett (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Blunt" may not be the right word, but long posts tend to sound like ranting and may be taken poorly. If you have a lot to say, try bulleted lists and similar formatting, it makes it a lot easier to read and might avoid confusion.Somedumbyankee (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Gun Violence part Edit

I know that we discussed this before but I am not a registered editor, so I cannot get past the lock on the article. I was going to put in a neutral statement about the amount of guns in the crime and punishment section of the article but...the lock. Does somebody want to insert the statement we discussed before? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.76.228 (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Languages

That English is the only language listed as an official language is sort of misleading. Quite a few of the non-states, such as Puerto Rico and American Samoa, have other official languages. I don't see any way to do this briefly in the infobox, so I've removed the statement about English as an official language. That it is the de facto national language is really the key point anyway.Somedumbyankee (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Superpower

I've seen the new comments being made that Russia is a superpower and United States is no longer a superpower and stating Russia is far more powerful than the USA. ROFL in all the time I've been on Wikpedia I don't think I've ever heard something so crazy which someone seriously believed. This is not just a ridiculous Russian nationalist fantasy, it's sickening. Fanatical Russians clinging to the idea their finished state is actually still something for the world to fear because their country is only held together by the idea that it should wreak war on others, and America hating sympathisers who look for and support any possible states or entities that could rival the United States, no matter how brutal and disgusting they may be, whether it be such likes as China or Al-Quaeda. Russia is an absolutely finished state with a rapidly falling population that is now even smaller than Pakistan's, it's economy sits in a pathetic 11th position in the world which has been claimed many times is too low to be in the G8, its military spending in a poor 7th position with only a tiny number of its roting military still functioning, internal conflicts and borders falling apart with its regions such as Chechnya breaking away and technically became independent states with their own presidents.

How can Russia even for a second be seriously considered a superpower let alone be more powerful than the US when it can only just scrape in to claim to be a great power considering most other great powers such as the UK, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, and China out perform Russia in economic rankings and military spending rankings. Infact all great powers mentioned above have larger economies than Russia and only Italy spends less on its military, and not by very much.

Russia may very well have large reserves of oil and gas and tries to claim these make it oh so powerful of a country because it has reserves in similar size to that of Iran. Thing is reserves of oil and gas in similar size to that of Iran's have not made Iran a superpower, infact Iran isn't even a great power. Russia has a medium economic growth rate traditionally around 5% a year. The United States has an economic growth rate traditionally around 4% a year. When does Russia's economy expect to by pass America's? 2800? 5% economic growth is actually pretty poor for a developing economy, with such likes as China and India growing at around 9% or more, and it's only 1% higher than America's and America is fully developed. In fact how can the Russian economy even try to compare to the US economy when it's not even a developed economy?

It gets even more ridiculous when you try to compare numbers between Russia and the United States. Russia's $1.2 trillion economy versus the United States $13.7 trillion economy. That's around 13 times larger. The US economy equals 25% of the world's GDP. Russia's $40 billion military spending versus the USA's $583 billion military spending. The USA's military spending is 50% of the world's military spending. Russia's rapidly declining population of 142 million people versus the USA's rapidly rising population of 304 million people. When Russia's economy equals 26% of the world's GDP, its military spending equals 51% of world military spending, and a rapidly growing population of 305 million people THEN AND ONLY THEN is it a superpower more powerful than the United States

In case even all this still has't proved how pathetic Russian power is as of 2008 I've laid out Russia's rankings in important areas associated with power

• Economy

2007 List by the International Monetary Fund

Rank Country GDP (millions of USD) — Template:Country data World World 54,311,608 — European Union 16,830,100 1 United States 13,843,825 2 Japan 4,383,762 3 Germany 3,322,147 4 China 3,250,827 5 United Kingdom 2,772,570 6 France 2,560,255 7 Italy 2,104,666 8 Spain 1,438,959 9 Canada 1,432,140 10 Brazil 1,313,590 11 Russia 1,289,582 12 India 1,098,945 13 South Korea 957,053 14 Australia 908,826 15 Mexico 893,365 Military Rank Country Military expenditures (USD) Date of information — Template:Country data World World Total 1,200,000,000,000 2007 (projected est.) — NATO Total 849,875,309,000 1 United States 583,283,000,000 2008 — European Union Total 311,920,000,000 2007 2 France 74,690,470,000 2008-2009 3 United Kingdom 68,911,000,000 FY 2008-09 4 China 59,000,000,000 2008 5 Germany 45,930,000,000 2008 6 Japan 41,750,000,000 2007 7 Russia 40,000,000,000 2008 8 Italy 32,600,000,000 2008 (est.) 9 Saudi Arabia 31,050,000,000 2008 10 South Korea 28,940,000,000 2008 11 India 26,500,000,000 2008-2009[4] 12 Brazil 25,396,731,055 2008 13 Australia 20,727,710,000 2008 14 Canada 17,150,002,540 2008 15 Spain 15,792,207,000 2007 Population Rank Country/territory/entity Population Date % of world population Source — Template:Country data World World 6,671,226,000 July 1, 2007 100% UN estimate 1 People's Republic of China 1,437,138,000 September 15 2024 21.54% Chinese Population clock 2 India 1,384,617,000 September 15 2024 20.76% Indian Population clock 3 United States 338,417,000 September 15 2024 5.07% Official USA Population clock 4 Indonesia 231,627,000 3.47% UN estimate 5 Brazil 186,917,074 May 27, 2008 2.8% Official Brazilian Population clock 6 Pakistan 214,010,000 September 15 2024 3.21% Official Pakistani Population clock 7 Bangladesh 158,665,000 2.38% UN estimate 8 Nigeria 148,093,000 2.22% UN estimate 9 Russia 142,008,800 January 1, 2008 2.13% Federal State Statistics Service 10 Japan 127,720,000 March 1, 2008 1.92% Official Japan Statistics Bureau estimate 11 Mexico 106,535,000 1.6% UN estimate 12 Philippines 88,574,614 August 1, 2007 1.33% 2007 Official NSO Census Results 13 Vietnam 87,375,000 1.31% UN estimate 14 Germany 82,244,000 November 30, 2007 1.23% Federal Statistics Office estimate 15 Ethiopia 77,127,000 July 2007 1.16% Ethiopia Central Statistics Agency Signsolid (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC) I dont think its that much of a stretch to think that Russia can be considered a superpower, referring back to the soviet union, that was one of the only 2 in the world, but today it is hard to find similarities between the two, but Russia still has the same, if not larger stockpiles of nuclear weapons than the US, a good indicator in todays world of power status, economic power is also lacking but its oil and gas reserves are also important in these terms, but most importantly, the fact that russia is by far the largest country by land area in the world. but reflecting on history of Russia, like in world war I and II, the russian military or the "russian steamroller" (despite the fact that they were seriously underequipped and poorly managed) but still the sheer numbers of viable troops in russia also a key characteristic. P.S. Mind the spelling and grammar mistakes ;) Taifarious1 09:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC) "Blunt" may not be the right word, but long posts tend to sound like ranting and may be taken poorly. If you have a lot to say, try bulleted lists and similar formatting, it makes it a lot easier to read and might avoid confusion.Somedumbyankee (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Was that meant for me or 'Signsolid'? Taifarious1 01:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Signsolid. Actually, it's a comment I already made further up the page, but it's just as applicable here.Somedumbyankee (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC) This is just speculation on my part but does anybody else think that the Soviets never went away? I think they are holding to Lenin's advice, "one step backwards, two steps forward"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.76.228 (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC) I could see Russia being a superpower mainly because of its large land size and strong military (even if it's declining), but economically, it doesn't compare to America. America is no doubt a superpower and I don't know where people get the idea America is weak in both military and economy. Russia has had a very rich military history especially in past dumb attempts to invade it during winter (Napoleon and Hitler), and to my knowledge, they have never been fully invaded by another country within the past 1000 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.178.207 (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC) USA map with major cities The goal of creating such a map and including it in the article is an admirable one, but there have been no less than three problems so far: If the primary goal of the map is to show where the cities are, it clearly failed at the size it was included at The base design is identical to our large states map, so it looks redundant in an unprofessional way The choice of cities has remained essentially random--for instance, Seattle (pop. 582,174) and Albuquerque (pop. 534,089) were included; Houston (pop. 2,169,248), San Antonio (pop. 1,296,682), and San Diego (pop. 1,256,951) were not. However, these three problems can all be resolved if the map is improved. With a more rational selection of cities, the map could simply be substituted at large-scale for the existing large-scale map in the States section. I propose that such a map should include the twenty largest cities in the country: New York NY Los Angeles CA Chicago IL Houston TX Phoenix AZ Philadelphia PA San Antonio TX San Diego CA Dallas TX San Jose CA Detroit MI Jacksonville FL Indianapolis IN San Francisco CA Columbus OH Austin TX Memphis TN Fort Worth TX Baltimore MD Charlotte NC Then you could add the core cities of the twenty largest metro areas if they are not already included (adding nine for a total of 29): Miami FL Washington DC Atlanta GA Boston MA Riverside CA Seattle WA Minneapolis MN St. Louis MO Tampa FL There are other possible logical systems for choosing which cities to represent, but some logical system must be used in order to avoid OR and POV.—DCGeist (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC) I don't think the map really adds much, and I'm going to add a voice in opposition to it (in any form) because this article is already well beyond a practical size. If the map is added, at least one of the other maps should be removed.Somedumbyankee (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Well, that's what I was suggesting--after the necessary improvement, a straight switch with the existing map in the States section.—DCGeist (talk) 09:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Hows this File:Us Map with Cities.JPG That looks superb. Well done. One remaining hesitation. Take a look at the existing map in the States section. You'll note that not only does it give the full names of the states, but each name is an active link, allowing the reader to jump directly to the article on the state. Now, I don't think we require both the full state names and the active links, but we definitely should have at least one or the other. With all the city names, it may be advisable to stick with the state abbreviations to avoid visual clutter, but those abbreviations will be completely obscure to many of our readers around the world--linking them to the state articles would take care of much of that issue. Minor point: If you're going to identify Canada, you'll also want to identify Mexico. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC) We really, really don't need yet another map in this article; it (in a much-improved version) might be useful in the 'largest cities' or 'largest metro areas' article, but definitely not in this one. --Golbez (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Once again, as stated twice above, we're not discussing this as an additional map, but as a straight switch for the existing map in the States section.—DCGeist (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Sorry, DCG, polevaulted to conclusions a bit. There are currently six maps of the US on the page. Do we really need all of them in the summary article? The "location in world" map is the only crucial one, all of the others have their own articles.Somedumbyankee (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Your general point is inarguable—the article does greatly exceed our "best practices" for length. While I put a good deal of effort now into restraining further grow and supported Calliopejen1's excellent trims ([5], [6]) a few months ago, I'm not much of a cutter myself. I confess I like each one of those maps in the article.—DCGeist (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Featured Article Why isn't this article featured? Does it not meet all the guidelines for featured articles? Idontknow610TM 12:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC) It has problems with WP:SUMMARY, for one, in that many of the sections have an excessive level of detail for topics with their own article. It's well written and all of the content is good, but it's just too long. WP:SIZE frowns on articles >100k (it's 162k right now), and though that isn't a rigid requirement, my guess is that Featured Articles are probably expected to be compliant with "good practices" as well as rules.Somedumbyankee (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC) ...And the reason it's so long is that people oppose it at FAC if it doesn't have their "pet fact" about the US in it. Wrad (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC) The article should be long because the US has a lot going on for such a young country/nation, so there should be exceptions to the "rules" to account for this. Britannica Online's article on the US is almost 300 pages.[7]. They also have a large collection of media files linked within and, many subjects are branched off into other articles related to it. Even their 2007 paper addition has over 300 pages for US article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.45.80 (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Well, shoot, I guess we're just gonna have to do better than Brittanica did. Seriously, though, the article has a lot of detail that's redundant with issues that are so big that they have sub-sub-articles. Emigrations to Canada in the Revolutionary War? Murder statistics? Citizenship of Samoans? Casualty counts for the Iraq War? The percent of US vehicles that are SUVs? Comparisons of fertility rates for ethnic groups? Statistics of how many white evangelicals there are as compared to all evangelicals? Abortion rates? Causes of personal bankruptcy? A history of motion pictures? Superman? Percent of caloric intake from soft drinks? Tennis is popular? I could go on (and I did!), but I think you get the point. Somedumbyankee (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC) To whom this concerns Several months ago I drew the ire of a few users by repeatedly attempting to insert and remove within one particular article several terms and statements which some identified as "vandalism" (even comparing it to some of the worst defacements committed on this site). I admit that while most of my content was legitimate and well-documented, the practice by which I was inserting it was less than professional. I ultimately issued an apology for this flawed method of editing as well as for several less-than-professional statements directed at a few other users. Still, I was also the target of several unnecessary threats and insults which have been seemingly ignored since then (an administrator at one point even defended the unorthodox statements of one user). Furthermore, the branding of a "troublemaker" resulted in the disregard and deletion of several of my contributions in other articles without any formal or legitimate reasoning for doing so. I agreed to apologize for the mistakes I made, now I am requesting the same from those who did wrong towards me. M5891 (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)