Talk:United States: Difference between revisions
this achieve has not been settled, don't erase when this is something people are still discussing, see the dates |
|||
Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
|archive = Talk:United States/Archive %(counter)d |
|archive = Talk:United States/Archive %(counter)d |
||
}} |
}} |
||
== 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. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/4.224.0.171|4.224.0.171]] ([[User talk:4.224.0.171|talk]]) 17:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
The entire US census-demographics chart is quite below standards/inept when categorizing with race and ethnicity. |
|||
ie. |
|||
Middle Eastern & Asian ---> geographic designation |
|||
black ---> color |
|||
Caucasian ---> race |
|||
Latino ---> race and/or ethnicity and/or hertiage |
|||
[[User:Intranetusa|Intranetusa]] ([[User talk:Intranetusa|talk]]) 17:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:You appear to be looking at the wrong chart, since the word "Caucasian" does not appear in this article. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 18:03, 9 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. [[User:Skiendog|Skiendog]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Kman543210|Kman543210]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Somedumbyankee|Somedumbyankee]] ([[User talk:Somedumbyankee|talk]]) 00:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Superpower == |
== Superpower == |
||
Line 232: | Line 251: | ||
== 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. [[User:M5891|M5891]] ([[User talk:M5891|talk]]) 14:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Why don't you name them, then they might know who you are referring to. Just a suggestion! [[User:Joe Deagan|Joe Deagan]] ([[User talk:Joe Deagan|talk]]) 01:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I am referring to [[User:DCGeist|DCGeist]], [[User:Evb-wiki|Evb-wiki]], and [[User:John|John]]. Some of their actions were rational and well justified but most of their statements towards and concerning me were not. [[User:M5891|M5891]] ([[User talk:M5891|talk]]) 01:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Its alright, i accept your apology. I am glad we cleared this up. [[User:notadormattandapig]] <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|comment]] was added at 09:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== hmmm... == |
== hmmm... == |
||
Line 253: | Line 284: | ||
You're right that some people when they think of Hispanic are thinking of Mestizo (half white, half Amerindian), which isn't used very often in the U.S. The term was never meant to designate race, but when the news or police make a physical description of someone on television, they say white, African American, or Hispanic as if it were a race (but that doesn't make it correct). The U.S. Census definition of Hispanic is the correct definition. The other option would be to put a box about reported ethnic groups such as Hispanics, German, English, French, etc... to separate race from ethnic categories. I'm not confused by the information because I've always understood the correct definitions, but I can see how it would be confusing to have it add up to over 100%. I do object to separating Hispanics by race though in the info box. [[User:Kman543210|Kman543210]] ([[User talk:Kman543210|talk]]) 23:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC) |
You're right that some people when they think of Hispanic are thinking of Mestizo (half white, half Amerindian), which isn't used very often in the U.S. The term was never meant to designate race, but when the news or police make a physical description of someone on television, they say white, African American, or Hispanic as if it were a race (but that doesn't make it correct). The U.S. Census definition of Hispanic is the correct definition. The other option would be to put a box about reported ethnic groups such as Hispanics, German, English, French, etc... to separate race from ethnic categories. I'm not confused by the information because I've always understood the correct definitions, but I can see how it would be confusing to have it add up to over 100%. I do object to separating Hispanics by race though in the info box. [[User:Kman543210|Kman543210]] ([[User talk:Kman543210|talk]]) 23:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
:The mistake made by the U.S. Census Bureau is the inaccurate representation of Latinos as a special ''ethnic minority'' limited only to Hispanic Latinos. A Latino is someone whose ancestry or national origin is of any of the nations of Latin America. Like the Anglosphere, Latin America has been a destination for immigrants of different ethnicities and nationalities. To label Latinos as a homogenous ethnicity is to completely disregard this truth. [[User:M5891|M5891]] ([[User talk:M5891|talk]]) 00:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== "Modern Era" == |
== "Modern Era" == |
||
Line 282: | Line 312: | ||
Thanks DCGeist. After how many days past registration may a new registered user make changes? -- MarkDalit <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:MarkDalit|MarkDalit]] ([[User talk:MarkDalit|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/MarkDalit|contribs]]) 20:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Thanks DCGeist. After how many days past registration may a new registered user make changes? -- MarkDalit <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:MarkDalit|MarkDalit]] ([[User talk:MarkDalit|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/MarkDalit|contribs]]) 20:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== United States vs. Russia as Superpower countries == |
|||
== Amerigo Vespucci? == |
|||
Many people are wondering about the United States and its recession[http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5572] economy as if its still a superpower with the current Iraq war, the falling US dollar[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RhnHo3RDfg] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1tbbjSJhPE&feature=related][http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaJu_bnZhR8&feature=related], high US minimum wages being outsourced for Chinese labor, a high unemployment rate, credit crisis[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_0pqHzK324&feature=related] through US foreign policy spending, US inflation[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RaIRxBpTt0&feature=related] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_xU9yD6x-0&feature=related][http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed4sv6ND5Qo&feature=related] from the Federal Reserve lowing interest rates too low[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPU8w7Bxc0A&feature=related], a housing crisis, dependence from oil & high gas prices and etc. Where does the United States stand as a superpower versing Russia’s current superpower status? Read at these sources here to see how the United States is losing or is now considered a former superpower:[http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A494048][http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Asian_Poll_Foresees_US_Losing_Superpower_Status_To_China_999.html] [http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/05/12/russian_oil/] |
|||
Now there is [[Russia]]; a [[superpower]] (the United States only real counter partner as |
|||
a superpower0[http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=768929] [http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,426393,00.html][http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/12/12/russia.oil/index.html] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/04/13/do1303.xml] [http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=CDI+Russia+Profile+List&articleid=2015][http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521545297&ss=fro] [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4070/is_2002_Jan/ai_82016524] because they have the economics[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/europe/july-dec06/russiaenergy_12-22.html] [http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/25-07-2007/95229-russia_economic_power-0], the wealth[http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/4883,opinion,beware-russia-energy-superpower] [http://www.rusnet.nl/news/2008/05/19/report01.shtml], the diplomatic power[http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,396756,00.html] [http://www.wtop.com/?nid=116&sid=1354322], ideological[http://www.ccisf.org/latest_news/index.php?itemid=19] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050102899.html] [http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11355554][http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/01/putins-role-mod.html][http://putinwatcher.blogspot.com/2008/01/promoting-putinism-and-new-ideological.html][http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.24606/pub_detail.asp], technological power[http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf45.html] [http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Security/2007/11/23/analysis_china_seeks_new_russian_technology/7924/][http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/23-12-2005/9432-energy-0][http://www.pr-inside.com/us-russia-nuclear-power-deal-faces-congressional-r587134.htm][http://www.sittnet.cn/en/gonggao_view.aspx?code=2006N8]& advances[http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article.php?a_id=125035] than any other country besides the United States (look here on why the US is losing its superpower status read here:[http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A494048][http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Asian_Poll_Foresees_US_Losing_Superpower_Status_To_China_999.html][http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/05/12/russian_oil/]) recognizes Russia as a superpower [http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=768929], they have the cultural sector and lets not forget their military forces (supreme). Russia is also the largest military arsenal producer in the world (they hold 73% of the worlds military arsenals market) and they have the worlds largest nuclear weapons arsenal than another other country (newer & older which many are reconditioned as new again) which is 5 times greater than the US has. |
|||
So [[Russia is a Superpower]] and lets not forget a Space Superpower, remember Russia has a Mar's mission coming up in 2015 [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2511-russia-proposes-manned-mars-mission-by-2015.html]to 2024, also a Moon space station planned for 2015[http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/2006/space-060829-rianovosti02.htm] without NASA but Russia going by itself; which NASA is out of funding due to a poor current US economy, 2007 & 2008. I do not start this article to brag about how wonderful Russia is, I started it because I am an American and I am seeing how the US is becoming a former superpower; even though I admire Russia as a country, I also admire my own country (USA) too. |
|||
Russia is a Superpower, that's plenty of facts in the bag to state they are in that position. The United State's position[http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A494048][http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Asian_Poll_Foresees_US_Losing_Superpower_Status_To_China_999.html] [http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/05/12/russian_oil/]), think what they are in for, a lot in the bag on the whole US economy on all sorts of issues, so we need to understand our Congress has put a lot of our problems right in front of us. US Congressman Ron Paul[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8] was the only presidential candidate who would have saved the US as a superpower and our country. We cannot regret Russia is a superpower once again, that was always predicted they would achieve that goal and good for them, they stuck to their dreams and they brought it back. The US has done the opposite and we are heading down down the economic depression [http://berkeley.edu/news/in_news/archives/20080410.shtml] tube to a great power nation because of Congress, Unions, Corporate greed and oil.{{unsigned |
|||
If you want to save the United States, stop buying from US companies made in China (look for the labels and try to buy made in America only, store like Costco, Walmart, K-Mart, Best Buy, Staples and more are companies that buy made in China goods and we Americans buy these things by the millions each day), second visit Congress personally and request to bring down the US minimum wage and request to cap wages too high to cap them or lower high salaries so greed is enforced to stop US inflation. Read here as if we don’t do something we we’ll really suffer as China’s minimum wage is $.25 cents an hour as China has used its low labor population power to put their country on the Superpower front and we made that happen, please read an listen to this link: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMcA_yHDfb0&feature=related] <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Versace11|Versace11]] ([[User talk:Versace11|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Versace11|contribs]]) 00:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:This has nothing to do with improving the article. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 01:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Commenting on the remarks above re [[Superpower]] status, preceding the gratuitous POV paragraph, I checked the WP ''Superpower'' article, and see that the lede there asserts that the US and Russia both meet Superpower criteria as of 1991+15=2006. -- [[User:Wtmitchell|Boracay Bill]] ([[User talk:Wtmitchell|talk]]) 01:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Except that such a statement was actually added to that article by our new friend here. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 04:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Hmmm.... I hadn't looked at the string of external links seemingly intended to support the assertion in the''Superpower'' article that Russia "... has regained its role as a superpower once again." I just did that, and the info from those sources don't seem unanimous in supporting that assertion. |
|||
::::*[http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=768929 Washington Acknowledges Russia as Superpower] from KOMMERSANT (styling itself as "''Russia's Daily Online''", says yes as of [[May 26]], [[2007]]; [http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/12/12/russia.oil/index.html Russia: A superpower rises again] from CNN, says calls Russia "an energy superpower" as of [[December 13]], [[2006]] |
|||
::::*[http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,426393,00.html A Former Superpower Rises Again] from Speigel online, says "Second fiddle no longer" as of [[July 10]], [[2006]] |
|||
::::*[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/04/13/do1303.xml Russia on the march - again ] from telegraph.co.uk says "Putin wants to restore Russia to the superpower status it enjoyed under the Soviet Union" as of [[April 13]], [[2007]] |
|||
::::*[http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=CDI+Russia+Profile+List&articleid=2015 The re-emerging Russian superpower] from russiaprofile.org says "re-emerging superpower" as of [[January 20]], [[2006]] |
|||
::::* [http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521545297&ss=fro Russia in the 21st Century], a book review by cambridge.org says Russia "... intends to reemerge as a full-fledged superpower before 2010" |
|||
::::* [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4070/is_2002_Jan/ai_82016524 The remaking of a superpower] from BNET says that Putin "... Putin, understands what it will take to make Russia a global economic player [and Russia has] cast its fortunes with the West, militarily and economically." as of January 2002. |
|||
::::Boiling that down, contrary to the assertion they're cited as supporting in the ''Superpower'' article lede, those sources don't seem to firmly and unanimously consider Russia to be a superpower. -- [[User:Wtmitchell|Boracay Bill]] ([[User talk:Wtmitchell|talk]]) 05:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Just a comment from an editor who has given up on the [[Potential superpowers]] article: "Superpower" on Wikipedia is taken to mean "really cool country that is totally awesome." Expect more challenges. As for the comment, It appears like someone's trying to find a good reason for us to support [[Ron Paul]], but I'll [[WP:AGF|assume he just doesn't the technicalities of what goes on a talk page]]. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Somedumbyankee|Somedumbyankee]] ([[User talk:Somedumbyankee|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Somedumbyankee|contribs]]) 05:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
I viewed these articles too, real interesting point made he about the US as a former superpower by the Austin Chronicle Texas[http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A494048] is believing more and more each day how bad the United States is economically. We hit $134 a barrel today with oil prices, $5.00 up just today. |
|||
Now [[Russia]] as a superpower is believing as well. [[Russia]] is certaintly in a good position to place there part as a superpower country. As much as what is said in these articles above, the editor is right on the button with the facts as I read them too, [[Russia]] is a superpower.--[[Special:Contributions/64.69.158.252|64.69.158.252]] ([[User talk:64.69.158.252|talk]]) 05:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Ugh, I think I fed the troll. Bad SDY.[[User:Somedumbyankee|Somedumbyankee]] ([[User talk:Somedumbyankee|talk]]) 06:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: Good points, US is losing its superpower and Russia comes right back again. A good book on Russia as a superpower is called Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower by Steven Rosefielde 2004 [http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521545297&ss=fro] The book is about Russia intends to reemerge as a full-fledged superpower before 2010, challenging America and China and potentially threatening a new arms race. Yet with the all the stuff on CNN about them saying Russia is a superpower again, I believe they already are the superpower just without the 15 post Soviet countries they once had. Personally I am impressed considering how broke they were and how Russia paid off its entire deficit in 2006 from 15 years of paying off debt and turning all the post soviet military agencies down in 1991, everything has all been funded for and turned on again, all running again as it did. Really I have to give them hands up for that and Putin, his presidency he is favored almost more than 80% (look at George Bush, he is favored lower than 23%, everybody wants him gone). The Russian’s aren’t dumb, that’s for sure but the United States and the heat of water they are in right now, nothing to laugh about now. |
|||
::Russia isn't playing around; they are playing their cards carefully. Superpower indeed but the US forcing NATO in post soviet countries over the years is a violation against US's promises to Russia back in 1991 by President Ronald Reagan making a promise and look at it today, NATO is in Czech Rep, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania and besides Georgia & Ukraine wanting in (just rejected last April 2008 because Russia is really angry at NATO as Russia is the oil supplier for Western/Eastern Europe)[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2910112.ece]. Who brought this on? The United States pushed it and that is against what Reagan promised Russia but the US has violated its promise. |
|||
::Russia should defend itself from this bull dog the United States has been dying lying to Russia. These countries above shouldn't be NATO members and the US promised no NATO expansion in post soviet countries and look at the US has done. Created an angry superpower back up again [[Russia]].--[[Special:Contributions/24.176.166.135|24.176.166.135]] ([[User talk:24.176.166.135|talk]]) 09:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
While it's commonly held that America was named for Amerigo Vespucci, what of the competing theory that it was named for [[Richard Amerike]] (pronounced ''America'')? I'm told that ''[[The Book of General Ignorance]]'', albeit not a scholarly source, gives credence to the idea. I don't have a copy of the book to hand, or I'd paste the relevant passage here. |
|||
:::Also the article by CNN[http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/12/12/russia.oil/index.html] "Russia, a Superpower Raises Again" as goes into details about how Russia was always a superpower regardless if it was always an energy superpower but it goes on to say it was a superpower even after 1991.--[[Special:Contributions/24.176.166.135|24.176.166.135]] ([[User talk:24.176.166.135|talk]]) 09:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I'd be interested in seeing a balanced appraisal of each possibility. |
|||
*Is the United States a Superpower? No, this is why:[http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A494048] [http://www.ugapress.uga.edu/0820329770.html]: |
|||
===References=== |
|||
* [[Americas#Naming|Naming of America]] |
|||
* [[Richard Amerike]] |
|||
:A superpower presumably is able either to impose its preferences on other states or to elicit their support |
|||
:That theory is stated in several other ''America'' articles. I actually happen to have a copy of that book, although I'm disappointed in many of the misleading half truthes and technicalities that are presented as facts in the book. Here is that section: |
|||
*The United States does not meet this test, Russia does[http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=768929] |
|||
:''Who is America named after? Not the Italian merchant and cartographer Amerigo Vespucci, but Richard Ameryk, a Welshman and wealthy Bristol merchant. Ameryk was the chief investor in the second translatlantic voyage of John Cabot-the English name of the Italian navigator Giovanni Caboto, whose voyages in 1497 and 1498 laid the groundwork for the later British claim to Canada. He moved to London from Genoa in 1484 and was authorized by King Henry VII to search for unknown lands to the west. On his little ship Matthew, Cabot reached Labrador in May 1497 and became the first recorded European to set foot on American soil, predating Vespucci by two years. Cabot mapped the North American coastline from Nova Scotia to Newfoundland. As the chief patron of the voyage, Richard Ameryk would have expected discoveries to be named after him. There is a record in the Bristol calendar for that year: "...on Saint John the Baptist's day [June 24], the land of America was found by the merchants of Bristowe, in a ship of Bristowe called the Mathew," which clearly suggests this is what happened. Although the original manuscript of this calendar has not survived, there are a number of references to it in other contemporary documents. This is the first use of the term America to refer to the new continent. The earliest surviving map to use the name is Martin Waldseemuller’s great map of the world of 1507, but it only applied to South America. In his notes Waldseemuller makes the assumption that the name is derived from a Latin version of Amerigo Vespucci's first name, because Vespucci had discovered and mapped the South American coast from 1500 to 1502. This suggests he didn't know for sure and was trying to account for a name he had seen on other maps, possibly Cabot's. The only place where the name "America" was known and used was Bristol-not somewhere the France-based Waldseemuller was likely to visit. Significantly, he replaced "America" with "Terra Incognita" in his world map of 1513. Vespucci never reached North America. All the early maps and trade were British. Nor did he ever use the name of America for his discovery. There’s a good reason for this. New countries or continents were never named after a person's first name, but always after the second (as in Tasmania, Van Diemen's Land, or the Cook Islands). America would have become Vespucci Land (or Vecpuccia) if the Italian explorer had consciously given his name to it.'' [[User:Kman543210|Kman543210]] ([[User talk:Kman543210|talk]]) 20:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*Yet the United States remains a formidable global power |
|||
1. Its military is the most powerful relative to the forces of other states |
|||
2. Its economy is still the largest at $13 trillion in GDP |
|||
3. Its population is well educated and creative |
|||
4. It has impressive hard and soft power to negotiate a global environment favorable to its interests, but it cannot command others to do its will absent concessions to their interests and power [:[http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A494048]] (Russia has major control in the middle east as I agree from the above comment[http://www.heritage.org/research/russiaandeurasia/wm1382.cfm]) |
|||
* United States as a formidable global power, but NOT a superpower[:[http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A494048] listen to the news.--[[Special:Contributions/69.239.171.174|69.239.171.174]] ([[User talk:69.239.171.174|talk]]) 04:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:The Vespucci etymology is widely accepted; the Amerike is not. In an overview article on the United States, I'm afraid it's not appropriate to consume valuable space with "a balanced appraisal of each possibility."—[[User:DCGeist|DCGeist]] ([[User talk:DCGeist|talk]]) 21:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:46, 22 June 2008
![]() | The good article status of this article is being reassessed by an individual editor to determine if the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page, but the decision to list the article as a good article should be left to the editor initiating this reassessment. Date: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GAR/link|insert date here|page=1|GARpage=1|status=}} |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114Auto-archiving period: 5 days ![]() |
![]() | United States has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on . |
Template:Maintained Talk:United States/Archive Box
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)
The entire US census-demographics chart is quite below standards/inept when categorizing with race and ethnicity. ie. Middle Eastern & Asian ---> geographic designation black ---> color Caucasian ---> race Latino ---> race and/or ethnicity and/or hertiage Intranetusa (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- You appear to be looking at the wrong chart, since the word "Caucasian" does not appear in this article. --Golbez (talk) 18:03, 9 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)
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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Signsolid (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Mind the spelling and grammar mistakes ;) Taifarious1 09:03, 31 May 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)
How can Russia be a military superpower when its military is only the 7th strongest in the world? Does that mean France, United Kingdom, China, Germany, and Japan are also military superpowers because they all have more powerful militaries because they spend more on their militaries? Military strength is only determined by military spending. Also as for not being successfully invaded for 1000 years the UK hasn't been successfully invaded for 942 years as of 2008. Does that mean the UK can claim to be a superpower considering its not only not been successfully invaded for 1000 years its not even had any part of its territory occupied for 1000 years, unlike Russia which has had numerous countries occupy large amounts of it territory many times over tha past 1000 years, plus the UK spends a lot more on its military giving it arguably a more powerful military. So is the UK more of a military superpower than Russia?
To whom this concernsSeveral 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)
hmmm...wangdoodle! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.93.56 (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Race and EthnicityThe Demographics section regarding race and ethnicity must be fixed. It is quite confusing, referring to black as a race and Latino as an ethnicity, and discounts Latinos when referencing the largest minority group. Even if this is according to the US census definitions on race & ethnicity, it would be better if that issue is resolved so there isn't any contradictions. Furthermore, the chart on the same issue has to be fixed. It needs to distinguish whether it factors Caucasian-Latinos as Caucasian. Currently, the chart doesn't differentiate, and the percentages add up to over 100% Intranetusa (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
You're right that some people when they think of Hispanic are thinking of Mestizo (half white, half Amerindian), which isn't used very often in the U.S. The term was never meant to designate race, but when the news or police make a physical description of someone on television, they say white, African American, or Hispanic as if it were a race (but that doesn't make it correct). The U.S. Census definition of Hispanic is the correct definition. The other option would be to put a box about reported ethnic groups such as Hispanics, German, English, French, etc... to separate race from ethnic categories. I'm not confused by the information because I've always understood the correct definitions, but I can see how it would be confusing to have it add up to over 100%. I do object to separating Hispanics by race though in the info box. Kman543210 (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC) "Modern Era"This section is nothing more than a left-wing Bush-bashing catharsis and not a history of the United States of America during the "Modern Era". Either make this section a proper history of the United States or delete it entirely. --ATS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.45.72.27 (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Renamed the War Department the Department of Defense (although it is forbidden to operate on US soil, resulting in all of its activities being invasions) - Invaded the following coutries: Korea, Viet Nam, Falkland Islands, Afghanistan, Iraq, and it seems that the fecal-brained US president wants to 'pull a Bush' in Iran.... - Remained in a state of readiness for war. This is a complete change in US policy and has caused national leaders, like adolescents who recently discovered masturbation, to revel in what he can do.... = Supported "leaders" of brutal dictatorships for 'advantage' in an imaginary Cld War fueled by Mutual Assured paranoia (See 'Dr. Strangelove') previous unsigned comment was added by Hkerfoot Can registered users add information to this section? There is much more information that needs to be filled in here as well as corrected. If we cannot make changes, then how are updates or improvements made and who makes them? -MarkDalit —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkDalit (talk • contribs) 20:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks DCGeist. After how many days past registration may a new registered user make changes? -- MarkDalit —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkDalit (talk • contribs) 20:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC) United States vs. Russia as Superpower countriesMany people are wondering about the United States and its recession[8] economy as if its still a superpower with the current Iraq war, the falling US dollar[9] [10][11], high US minimum wages being outsourced for Chinese labor, a high unemployment rate, credit crisis[12] through US foreign policy spending, US inflation[13] [14][15] from the Federal Reserve lowing interest rates too low[16], a housing crisis, dependence from oil & high gas prices and etc. Where does the United States stand as a superpower versing Russia’s current superpower status? Read at these sources here to see how the United States is losing or is now considered a former superpower:[17][18] [19] Now there is Russia; a superpower (the United States only real counter partner as a superpower0[20] [21][22] [23] [24][25] [26] because they have the economics[27] [28], the wealth[29] [30], the diplomatic power[31] [32], ideological[33] [34] [35][36][37][38], technological power[39] [40][41][42][43]& advances[44] than any other country besides the United States (look here on why the US is losing its superpower status read here:[45][46][47]) recognizes Russia as a superpower [48], they have the cultural sector and lets not forget their military forces (supreme). Russia is also the largest military arsenal producer in the world (they hold 73% of the worlds military arsenals market) and they have the worlds largest nuclear weapons arsenal than another other country (newer & older which many are reconditioned as new again) which is 5 times greater than the US has. So Russia is a Superpower and lets not forget a Space Superpower, remember Russia has a Mar's mission coming up in 2015 [49]to 2024, also a Moon space station planned for 2015[50] without NASA but Russia going by itself; which NASA is out of funding due to a poor current US economy, 2007 & 2008. I do not start this article to brag about how wonderful Russia is, I started it because I am an American and I am seeing how the US is becoming a former superpower; even though I admire Russia as a country, I also admire my own country (USA) too. Russia is a Superpower, that's plenty of facts in the bag to state they are in that position. The United State's position[51][52] [53]), think what they are in for, a lot in the bag on the whole US economy on all sorts of issues, so we need to understand our Congress has put a lot of our problems right in front of us. US Congressman Ron Paul[54] was the only presidential candidate who would have saved the US as a superpower and our country. We cannot regret Russia is a superpower once again, that was always predicted they would achieve that goal and good for them, they stuck to their dreams and they brought it back. The US has done the opposite and we are heading down down the economic depression [55] tube to a great power nation because of Congress, Unions, Corporate greed and oil.{{unsigned If you want to save the United States, stop buying from US companies made in China (look for the labels and try to buy made in America only, store like Costco, Walmart, K-Mart, Best Buy, Staples and more are companies that buy made in China goods and we Americans buy these things by the millions each day), second visit Congress personally and request to bring down the US minimum wage and request to cap wages too high to cap them or lower high salaries so greed is enforced to stop US inflation. Read here as if we don’t do something we we’ll really suffer as China’s minimum wage is $.25 cents an hour as China has used its low labor population power to put their country on the Superpower front and we made that happen, please read an listen to this link: [56] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Versace11 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I viewed these articles too, real interesting point made he about the US as a former superpower by the Austin Chronicle Texas[57] is believing more and more each day how bad the United States is economically. We hit $134 a barrel today with oil prices, $5.00 up just today. Now Russia as a superpower is believing as well. Russia is certaintly in a good position to place there part as a superpower country. As much as what is said in these articles above, the editor is right on the button with the facts as I read them too, Russia is a superpower.--64.69.158.252 (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
1. Its military is the most powerful relative to the forces of other states 2. Its economy is still the largest at $13 trillion in GDP 3. Its population is well educated and creative 4. It has impressive hard and soft power to negotiate a global environment favorable to its interests, but it cannot command others to do its will absent concessions to their interests and power [:[64]] (Russia has major control in the middle east as I agree from the above comment[65])
|
- ^ http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Global_annual_military_spending_tops_$1.2_trillion
- ^ [http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/pdf/budget/defense.pdf Department Of Defense
- ^ Sven Biscop (2006-09-15). "Ambiguous Ambition. Development of the EU security architecture; Paper presented at the colloquium The EC/EU: A World Security Actor? An Assessment after 50 Years of the External Actions of the EC/EU, Paris, EU Institute for Security Studies, 15 September 2006". The Royal Institute for International Relations - EGMONT. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help) "a defence budget of over 200 billion euro" (converted into USD at the exchange rate current at end of April, 2008) - ^ http://www.defense.gouv.fr/ministre/prises_de_parole/discours/projet_de_budget_2008_m_herve_morin_26_09_07 Conférence de presse de M. Hervé Morin, ministre de la Défense
- ^ Ministry of Defence | About Defence | Organisation | Key Facts about Defence | Defence Spending
- ^ China says military spending will go up 17.6 percent in 2008 - International Herald Tribune
- ^ Deutsche Welle
- ^ Asia Times Online
- ^ Defense spending to grow 20% in 2008 - Deputy Defense Minister Lyubov Kudelina [67]
- ^ Stockholm International Peace Research Institute: The fifteen major spenders in 2007.
- ^ Defense Budget Grows 9 Percent.
- ^ National Congress of Brazil. Brazilian Federal Budget (2008) - Ministry of Defense (Ministério da Defesa).
- ^ Australian Department of Defence (2006). Portfolio Budget Statements 2006-07. Page 19.
- ^ 2007-2008 Part I - The Government Expenditure Plan - Part 24 of 32
- ^ Mainland China only