Jump to content

Talk:United States/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33→Archive 35

Please revert vandalism of motto

In Liv Brummer... In God...

Vandalism reverted.—DCGeist (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

FA candidate

Can we submit this article for FAC any time soon? The last FAC was about 10 months ago and the article has greatly improved since. Also, even if FAC fails, the reviewers will certainly give insightful comments for future improvements. 218.81.165.106 (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The quality of info is FA in my opinion, but the same big problem still plagues this article - length. It still needs to come down considerably; in fact, sections such as History and Economy can be cut in half. The info is excellent, but needs to be transferred off to more detailed articles. Ultimately, if these two sections in particular are worked on, then we can see the sub-headings removed. Most other excellent quality country articles can manage a better length, so I'm not sure why we can't for the United States. Take a look at Indonesia, India, and Canada. These countries are all large with influence, and thus comparable. Yet, the prose is far more concise.
For me, it is not a question of the technical size (ie, kb count) but the readability. As a non-expert on American history, the history section is excessive and swamps first time readers who just want to know the bare basic facts. It's just too much for a first timer to digest. If they want more, they can go to the listed sub-articles. --Merbabu (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I agree over issues regarding to length per se. The largest article in many encyclopedias is the article on America, including such illustrious academic works as the Encyclopædia Britannica. In other words precedent for great length. Just something to consider, eh? Zidel333 (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
So we should do it because it is done elsewhere? Other country articles on wikipedia don't go to this extreme of detail. --Merbabu (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Serious POV issues need to be fixed first. For instance, the health section says nothing positive about health care in America. Sure, health care in America has lots of weaknesses, but what about strengths like medical research and cancer survival rates? More balance is needed. Cambrasa confab 00:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Incarceration rate: highest in the world and relevancy to the lead

The United States of America has the highest incarceration rate in the world. It is a surprising statistic that every 1 in 100 Americans is incarcerated. I inserted this statement into the lead paragraph with other population information. I feel it is relevant to the lead for the following reasons:

  1. It is an interesting fact
  2. It is a large scale fact, covering the whole of the USA.
  3. The lead seems to lack any justice system facts. WP:LEAD Outlines the desire for balance.
  4. The USA has the highest rate in the world, in an area that affects the population directly.
  5. It helps move the POV balance of the Lead closer to neutral. WP:NPOV

Alan.ca (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the lead had POV issues. This is giving it way too much undue weight, and belongs rightly only in a section more suited for it. Do leads for country articles tend to mention justice issues? I thought they tended to define the country's location, scope, and impact on the world. --Golbez (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with Golbez. I certainly read the inclusion of such a datum as moving the lede sharply away from neutral POV--it's simply not the sort of information that appears in country article leads. You should know that the article has already been accused of an anti-American bias in part because of the degree to which this issue is covered in the main text. More emphasis would simply be overemphasis.—DCGeist (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Of all the featured country articles, only one mentions "justice issues" in the lead: Australia. Australia was settled through penal transportation so it has more to do with history than "justice". MantisEars (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Good work, Ears. Thanks.—DCGeist (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I would like to get an outside perspective, as I see it as quite relevant to the lead for the other points I made above. The fact that the USA has by far the highest rate in the world, even surpassing China which has less people incarcerated with a much larger population suggests to me that it's an important fact. An issue that affects more than 1% of the population seems large to me. Alan.ca (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Third opinion: I'm in agreement with DCGeist, Golbez, etc. It includes far too much WP:WEIGHT. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really sure how this statistic falls under undue weight as it is not an opinion, but a fact. As the USA leads the world in this area, I do think it should be somewhere more prominent than buried deep in the article.Alan.ca (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Do keep one thing in mind, the U.S. leads the world in documented incarceration rate. Per our footnote 182, there are strong suggestions that both China and North Korea in fact have higher rates.
Again, no one is saying it's an unimportant fact. But there are many important facts about the U.S. that don't make it into the lede. And six sentences on the topic in the main text is hardly "burying" the issue--some have argued that we give it undue weight as is. The current consensus does appear to be that the present emphasis is the right emphasis.—DCGeist (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it should go in the lead. Incarceration rate is only a medium-importance statistic. We also don't mention in the lead that Lithuania has the highest suicide rate in the world, South Africa the highest murder rate, etc. Cambrasa confab 23:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
These are excellent points. The statistics are disputed, anyway. CorpITGuy (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct misconception that there are 52 states ?

Firstly, I'm not convinced myself that an encyclopedia should correct common errors - presenting the 'true facts' would seem to be enough of a task - refuting all errors is infinite !

However there seems to be a strange misconception that there are 52 states - I'm sure I was taught that in school (in Scotland ~1970 " ... to match the stars on the flag" - but I never counted them !) - it may have crept into textbooks.

Source of the trouble seems to be the occasional inclusion of DC & Puerto Rico which are only 'Outlying Areas'. Maybe DC isn't that 'outlying' ? (I am vaguely aware that Colombia is different ...)

I would have thought Google would find something on snopes.com but it only finds a passing mention in a forum on another topic.


Ratio of the error to correct number seems to be ~2.3% on Google for global websites.

Even for *.gov domains the misunderstanding seems to be 335 hits using [site:.gov "52 states" -"50 states" -Areas] on Google compared to ~129,000 correct hits! I haven't checked them in detail ...

Just a thought for your consideration - I was surprised and interested. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised too. However, I see no further need to correct it more than simply saying fifty states. (By the way, there are fifty stars.) --Golbez (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Aren't there 46 states and 4 commonwealths? Isn't Puerto Rico also considered a commonwealth? I live here and I don't even know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.6.38 (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Anonymous user with IP address 24.27.6.38, see U.S. States#States called Commonwealths and Commonwealth (United States). Some U.S. Insular areas have a Commonwealth relationship with the U.S. in a different sense of that word. See Puerto Rico and Northern Mariana Islands. Also, the Philippines is a former U.S. Unincorporated organized territory, and between 1935 and 1946 was the Commonwealth of the Philippines (see History of the Philippines (1898-1946)) -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


The final word: 48 contiguous states in North America; two outlying, non-contiguous states (Alaska, Hawaii); one federal district (District of Columbia); and several commonwealths and insular territories, including Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. I suggest anyone not a United States citizen check a map and state listing if they want to be sure. 96.252.128.116 (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

inconsistent linking

"John F. Kennedy's" and "local government's" aren't linked the same way. Other links have a similar problem. 131.111.247.156 (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? What should they be? --Golbez (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
He means [[John F. Kennedy]]'s and [[Local government in the United States|local government's]]. The only way to make them consistent would be to change John F. Kennedy to [[John F. Kennedy|John F. Kennedy's]]. Thrilltalk 19:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I see no harm in keeping it this way, nor any point in changing. --Golbez (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey Mr Golbez, I suggest you read the MOS: "Keeping possessive apostrophes inside the link, where possible, makes for more readable text and source, though either form is acceptable for possessive forms of links such as George Washington's or George Washington's." But I really can't understand why you disagree with consistency. 131.111.247.156 (talk) 09:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Just noting that the quote is from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Form. Either form is acceptable, though the point is made that keeping possessive apostrophes inside the link makes for more readable text and source. Golbez said that he didn't see any point in changing. You have now come up with such a point. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I apparently misunderstood the complaint, and apologize, though not before noting that 131 apparently failed out of charm school. --Golbez (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being a bit harsh... you weren't listening! 131.111.247.156 (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
And you weren't adequately pointing out the issue! :P No problem. --Golbez (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

And the issue still hasn't been fixed... 128.232.240.160 (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Someone please fix this, IPs can't edit this article! Thanks. 131.111.247.148 (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue has been fixed. Coaster1983 (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugly.

The article is horribly ugly right now. The economy and demographics section are way, way too crowded with tables and pictures, so much so that the "largest cities" table is crowded down well into the Linguistics section.

Did I mention I'm at 1920x on a 24" monitor? If I'm having this problem, imagine what people running at 800x are dealing with. --Golbez (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about removing the largest cities table altogether? Given our size issues, this is one of the things that might most readily be cut.—DCGeist (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... What browser are you using? Because that table is exactly where it's supposed to be, just prior to the language header. --erachima talk 21:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It is now, thanks to me adding a forced-break template. Try looking at the versions before I started this cleanup. I use Firefox 2. --Golbez (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

City template

I observe that editor NuclearVacuum desires to include a "largest cities template" he devised that simply gives the base population for the country's 20 largest cities (Template:United States cities). Working from the basic design of NV's template, I devised one that strikes a balance between that and the table we had previously, which was limited to the country's top five cities and gave metro area information as well, relating it to the main article text immediately above. The result gives us a ten-city table, with multiple data points for each. As noted above, I could see scrapping the template altogether, or reducing it back to a five-city size. Any strong feelings on this?—DCGeist (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at the template currently sponsored in the article, and I believe it is not suitable for the article of the "United States" in the case of quick information on it. The template looks better on "Demographics of the United States," witch talks about this specific information, where the template I am sponsoring is more suitable for the main article because it gives quick and ready to read information. I have taken the liberty to move both templates. — NuclearVacuum 19:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. IMHO, the double column format of Template:United States cities makes it awkward to read and it really does not provide enough real information to justify using a template for the info. I think Template:Top_10_U.S._cities_and_metro_areas provides a much better balance of info and format. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I concur with DCGeist and Evb-wiki. While it is nice to give the populations for the 20 biggest cities (just as it would be nice to give them for the top 25, or 30, or 40), 10 does seem to strike the proper focus. The article does discuss both city population and metro area population, and that should be equally reflected in the template. It also brings the cutoff sensibly close to 1,000,000 core city population. I was thinking that it would work conceptually to have a table that gave the top 10 cities and next to it the top 10 metro areas (which are not the same, obviously). But maybe repeating the names of six of the localities would make it seem redundant to people? Just a thought.DocKino (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

These templates are being used for all countries. It is made to show 20 cities, not 10. And to top it off, the template with 10 only talks about metropolis areas, witch is a feature that only the United States has. This is about equality and standardization, not to make this specific article more important than the others. I agreed to keep the 10-city template for the article "Demographics of the United States" because it works better there then in the main article that is titled "United States." This main article is to show the basics of the county, and to go off with sub-articles to explain them further. The 20-city is the basic choice, as it gives more information as well as less information at the same time. While the 10-city template is chalk filled with information, too much info for this immediate article. We don't need to be confusing readers even more then they should be. Since the article doesn't talk about the metropolises of the country makes it work even better for a sub-article and a sub-article template. I believe that we should stick to the road of standards, otherwise, we could get "ugly" results. A lot of things work for this article, but the 10-metropolises do not what so ever. — NuclearVacuum 22:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is about improving this article. I think the 10-city template is simply better. Conformity for conformity sake is not policy. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, I concur. Unfortunately, Mr. Vacuum, no one seems to agree with you. Choosing a template that is more appropriate to the article has nothing to do with trying to making it seem "more important than the others". The issue of "equality" is totally made up. In addition, there is hardly any sort of "standardization" between country articles on this matter at this point. We could seek to actually standardize, and guess what, many people may well believe that templates showing 10 cities/metropolitan areas is the way to go.
The simple fact at hand is that this article discusses both core city population and metropolitan area population, because those are both concepts important to understanding U.S. demographics. The template you favor is not compatible with that approach; the template favored by Mr. Geist, Mr. Wiki, and myself is. The template we favor also offers a range of information much closer to the table that existed stably in the section for many, many months. It does not appear that Mr. Vacuum's opinion is carrying the day.DocKino (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
What is to be done with the other one then? If it has no article, what is it good for. That is what I am also telling. Unless there is a spot for it here on Wikipedia, it is good as deleted. — NuclearVacuum 23:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OECD data

under 'Overviews and Data'

I would put a link to the OECD country statistical profile 2008 http://stats.oecd.org/WBOSdos/viewhtml.aspx?QueryName=485&QueryType=View&Lang=en

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casperdc (talk • contribs) 09:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviations

Is US considered to be an acceptable abbreviation or does it have to be U.S.?71.124.219.82 (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Both are acceptable, though on Wikipedia I think we prefer U.S. --Golbez (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

About Spain in the American Revolutionary War

After the defeat of the British army by American forces who were assisted by the French.. and spanish forces.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpmurcia (talk • contribs) 16:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Un-Super-Size Me!

I'm attempting to trim some of the fat from this article, because, as the header says, it is simply too large. Many of the sections are redundant, and pretty much all of them have their own articles anyway and don't need excessive detail on this page. Feel free to revert if you think I'm being too WP:BOLD.Somedumbyankee (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The general desire to trim is a good one--but we need to take a bit more care. The lead properly summarizes the main text content (please take a look at WP:LEAD); taken in that light, the material you cut from the Geography section was in fact not redundant. In addition, the size of a nation is a fundamental fact--that assessments of the U.S.'s size vary so widely is unfortunate for us (given the overall length of the article); nonetheless, the issue is so basic that it must be addressed and the authoritative data presented here and not just in the topical article.—DCGeist (talk) 05:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Justification for removal of information under Geography:
"The United States is situated almost entirely in the western hemisphere: the contiguous United States stretches from the Pacific on the west to the Atlantic on the east, with the Gulf of Mexico to the southeast, and bordered by Canada on the north and Mexico on the south."
  • Western hemisphere is noted under Etymology. For the borders, compare the intro, which actually has more information than the article.
"...forty-eight contiguous states and Washington, D.C., the capital district, lie between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, bordered by Canada to the north and Mexico to the south. The state of Alaska is in the northwest of the continent, with Canada to its east and Russia to the west across the Bering Strait, and the state of Hawaii is an archipelago in the mid-Pacific. "
  • Next, the size comparison. Note that the disputed size is also noted in the sidebar (point 3). The text cites the dissenting source, but this seems like WTMI for a general article on the country where the discrepancy is covered in detail in the list of countries by size.
  • The last sentence in the deleted portion:
"The United States also possesses several insular territories scattered around the West Indies (e.g., the commonwealth of Puerto Rico) and the Pacific (e.g., Guam)."
compare the intro:
"The United States also possesses several territories, or insular areas, scattered around the Caribbean and Pacific."
In an article begging to be trimmed down, I see no justification for including this text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somedumbyankee (talk • contribs) 06:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Just as a point of clarification, I don't have any problem with the lead (other than the quibble about territories being part of the country), I just don't see any reason to repeat the same information later in the article.Somedumbyankee (talk) 06:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Gun violence part

What would everybody think about sticking one or two lines in the crime section about the gun violence sentence? I am not denying the numbers, but the only thing in there that has to do with the cause is the viewpoint of some scholars against firearms ownership. I am not trying to start a fight here, I am just wondering if it would be appropriate to put in a sentence describing the other point of view. 5-15-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody object to me putting in a sentence stating the other point of view on gun violence? Because if not then I will go ahead and insert it. 5-16-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Specifically....what are you wanting to do? could you give us a mock-up? Skiendog (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious too. There's no debate that the U.S. has exceptionally high levels of gun violence and homicide for a developed nation. Proper scholars are not "against" firearms ownership per se--they simply identify it as a primary contributor to that exceptional homicide rate. What is the other "point of view" supported by scholarly research and analysis? That Americans are scared into violence by the venal mass media (the Michael Moore view)? That we're just lonesome, on'ry, and mean (the Waylon Jennings view)?—DCGeist (talk) 05:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting information and well worth including on wikipedia, but for a general article on the US it's WTMI. Then again, looking at the rest of the section I agree that it currently has an anti-gun bias. The statement "gun ownership is controversial in the US" with a link to either Gun law in the united states or Gun politics in the United States would be a very appropriate addition. Americans take it for granted, but your average 14-year-old in England might not be aware of it. That's the kind of audience that I think this article should be tuned to.Somedumbyankee (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Global Military Presence

I was thinking that a line or two in the Military section about the US bases in conquered and occupied nations would be appropriate. If my thinking and research are correct, this is a currently globally unique situation and deserves some notice. A possible comparison could be French Foreign Legion bases in Algiers etc. As of May 11 2008 the US has fully operational and sovereign military bases in Japan, Germany, South Korea and Cuba. The main point of interest is the Sovereign nature of these bases. The current bases in Iraq are of debatable permanence to be sure, but the Ramstein airbase command in Germany, for instance has been operational and in continuous use since the end of World War II. Please let me know your thoughts. - AC May 11, 2008 MS, USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.2.192 (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This might not be a bad idea, but I wouldn't call this unique to the U.S. I know that the U.S. still has at least one base in England as well. It might be a point of interest to list how many, or at least the most noteable, and maybe a background of why the bases are there. I'm not an expert and don't know much about this, so I wouldn't be able to add anything. Kman543210 (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe something about the ethnic cleansing of Natives would work here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.90.236.141 (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What in Hades is that supposed to mean?

Opening sentence

At present, the opening sentence of the article is:

The United States of America is a constitutional federal republic comprising fifty states and a federal district.

What about the territories, such as Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands? are they not part of the United States as well? Should not therefore this sentence read "comprising fifty states, a federal district, and several external territories"? If there are no objections, I shall amend the initial sentence as such. --SJK (talk) 09:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

They aren't part of the United States; they are possessions of it. The distinction is matched by how the Isle of Man, Gibraltar, and the Channel Islands are possessions of the crown or the UK, rather than part of the UK itself. They are unincorporated territories, which by its very name shows that they are not incorporated into the nation proper. It's the difference between, say, Utah Territory, Hawaii Territory, and Dakota Territory on one side - which were incorporated and considered a part of the country, even though they were not states - and Puerto Rico, the USVI, Guam, American Samoa, and the CNMI, which are unincorporated and are only possessions. --Golbez (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems fine to me. 5-16-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I attempted to change this at one point, did a little further research, and now agree with the current statement. The real difference is that states have inherent autonomy, possessions are subject to the whim of what Congress feels like delegating to them. An executive order tells that branch to handle them like states, but they have no inherent right to be treated that way. See the article on the territories for the details.Somedumbyankee (talk) 07:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Golbez. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Race/Ethnicity Chart

The data in the Race and Ethnicity chart in the Demographics section adds up to 114.7%! Cmstone101 (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If you remove the numbers for Hispanic/Latino, it adds up to 99.9%. The reason for this is that Hispanic/Latino is not a racial classification on the census, but it is an ethnic group. They can be of any race. Kman543210 (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

National anthem

Is the national anthem official or traditional? Jack forbes (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Official. --Golbez (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Superpower claim is outdated

The introduction claims "the United States is the only remaining superpower—accounting for approximately 50% of global military spending—and a dominant economic, political, and cultural force in the world". This view is outdated and simply wrong. The superpower concept has been superseded by several contemporary concepts such as this one: Waving Goodbye to Hegemony Specifically the military spending is no dominant indicator anymore, to proof a significant role in global politics. The introduction should be amended. Lear 21 (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Lear, qualified sources who believe the US is no longer a superpower are unlikely to go publishing articles/papers to the effect of "this just in...the US is still a superpower" because no academic consensus has formed that it isn't. On the other hand anybody who believes that the situation has changed will certainly consider publishing a case for this belief precisely because it would represent a change. Unless you find a source that says "it is now universally accepted that the US is no longer a superpower", simply finding a source that believes it no longer is a superpower won't be good enough. Just do a Google news search of "United States" and "Superpower" like this:

http://news.google.com/news?tab=sn&sa=N&q=superpower+%22United+States%22&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search

and you will see that several commentators continue to accept without elaboration the idea that the US remains a superpower, even the sole superpower. What we can do is add a following sentence that states that some commentators believe the situation has changed or is changing and drop in those sources for it. Probably the best guide for when to simply state definitively that it is no longer the world's sole superpower will be when new articles stop being published which are making the case that it is no longer the sole superpower. So long as sources are publishing such articles it is unlikely the authors believe a consensus is already accepted on that point.Zebulin (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a big debate about the use of "superpower" a few months ago here and what stands now is the consensus, as previously the reference was to America being a superpower in all realms - political, economic and military. It is now qualified to refer to the unquestioned supremacy in terms of military power as there is no serious dispute as to America's status there. But in the political and economic realm, America's omniscience has waned over the past few years and the intro reflects that.

And that is, from what I can gather, the current perspective. The term "superpower" is not yet outmoded, though it is in the case of America far more qualified and limited in scope than it was 10 years ago. Canada Jack (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the term "superpower" can be informally known as being the "big dog". I think that the U.S. qualifies as a superpower still. 5-16-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The term hyperpower could also be applied. This is also not a standard viewpoint, and WP:Undue applies. Unless you can demonstrate that a substantial group of people disagree, it probably doesn't merit inclusion. The definition used on Superpower, "a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time..." seems to fit. The webster definition seems to match as well.Somedumbyankee (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"The end of the United States’ time as superpower will usher in an era where there is no superpower, but rather, multiple strong powers." MIT-academical statement Foreign Policy Principles for the Next Administration Lear 21 (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this is the same article noted above. If you read it, it is quite obvious that it is speculating about the future. However accurate the prediction, WP:CRYSTAL applies. When it becomes true, we can change it.Somedumbyankee (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the most conservative right-wing magazines in the U.S. :Post-American Global Order Emerges. There could´nt be a better reference for the new era of globalised interdependecy creating a multipolar world. The term "superpower" in the introduction has to be removed. The term "dominant" has to be amended. Lear 21 (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Good lord, no. Have you actually read the article you cite? As an expression of a certain strain of evangelical Christian eschatology, it is instructive; as political analysis, it is not unintelligent, but it is entirely useless for our purposes here.—DCGeist (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The references are provided now (Even the funny ones of certain strain). Everybody with a halfblind eye on global developments knows that the claim is outdated. We do it now the other way around: If there is no credible source citing the USA as superpower, I will amend the intro the next days. The source should not be older than one year. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference added. It's current (updated 22Apr2008), foreign, and from a very reliable source. It even explicitly uses the word ("the country continued to re-define its role as the world's only superpower").Somedumbyankee (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the more recent one:[1] The word "only" and "dominant" is not acceptable anymore. The era of a single superpower has ended, the world is multipolar now. This is the most recognized academic view around the world. I can´t change it, that´s how it is. I suggest somebody comes up with a new intro wording. Lear 21 (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a book review, not news. The article even says "In his new book, “The Post-American World,” Mr. Zakaria writes that America remains a politico-military superpower".Somedumbyankee (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed--and thanks for your excellent source addition, SDY. It is likely to be true at some point in the future that the U.S. will no longer qualify as the world's only superpower and a dominant economic, political, and cultural force. When that day comes, we will change the wording of the lead. But not now.—DCGeist (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The US is not recognized as the worlds only superpower anymore. By no means it is dominant. The claim in the introduction is wishful thinking but not reality. This view has been publicized by many media outlets and academic publishers the last years. The intro is propaganda, but don´t worry, the globe has already get used to this American style and moves on. Probably the clearest sign of adjusting to a wanna-be-superpower Lear 21 (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Alas, the US is widely regarded as the world's only superpower. I don't think anyone can make the argument that other countries "project dominating power and influence" like the US does. And this term clearly applies to the US. You will find many sources that, while claiming a demise of the US influence and the rise of [insert country's name here]'s influence, the US is no longer a superpower or the only superpower. While their claims of diminished influence for America or increased for the other country may be true, the definition of superpower still applies only to one country. Additionally, wide academic consensus supports that claim, even if it does so with caveats at times.LedRush (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the superpower record of the last 5 years: Desaster in Iraq - increasing instability in the whole region, Hollywood creating sequels after sequels after sequels, the US with the least political efforts to answer global warming, inspite of US financial crises world economy and eurozone is not affected, U.S with almost no influence on China or Russia, initiative of expanding NATO fails, initiative of securing peace in Israel fails, Guantanamo and Abu Graib violating human rights excessively, the US reputation at a historic low in the eyes of world opinion. Dream on superpower people. Lear 21 (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid He/She is right! Maybe we should just say power, there's nothing super about it. Jack forbes (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There should be no mistake, the US remains an influential national power on a global level. But the so called post-Cold-War era has ended with 9/11 in 2001. The world finds itself in an era of globalisation. This includes complex interdependence among the regions and countries around the world. The age of superpowers is over. Lear 21 (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
"The age of superpowers is over." That's an interesting thesis, which apparently disputes the Superpower article, or parts of it. If you're serious, this should be brought up for discussion on Talk:Superpower—or simply boldly edit that article to reflect that, citing appropriate supporting sources. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
In any case, with no sources to support the change in a well-supported article that has been heavily reviewed, this is just a debate of the topic, not the article. I don't want to wikilawyer and bludgeon with talk page policies, but this argument is pointless without some sort of reasonable source to consider.Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, just because a country isn't a completely perfect society doesn't take it out of the superpower league (i.e. Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Rome...etc.). And secondly, all of the reasons that Lear brought up are completely debateable, and most of them aren't even finished happening yet. On another note, just because the US isn't Santa America and making sure everyone around the world is doing just dandy doesn't make it evil or inefficient. I am not saying that America is the only superpower but it still is one. A lot of you forget the part that military strength plays in making a superpower. Nazi Germany was not a superpower because it provided economic aid to countries around the world, or because it had a flawless and controlled media, or becuase it sought answers for the world's problems.

America is not a synonym for USA

Across the World, America is known as the continent comprising Central America, the Caribean, South America and North America. We must remember that the english language is not only used in the USA, not even the anglosaxons, let alone the Commonwealth + US. It is used all over the World. It is an error to name just this one country as America. The concept although widely used across the USA for that country is a misconception and should point to a disambiguation page. This must I say in behalf of the rest of the Americans.

Quiliro (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

America is a disambiguation page, with the Americas as the first on the list. The US, mostly in the US, is commonly referred to as "America". It's just a name that's used. It may be misleading and be Exhibit A in American ignorance of anything that goes on outside the lower 48, but it's a commonly used term.Somedumbyankee (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I shall agree that "America" is not the official name of the United States, but in the English speaking world, most people when using the term "America" are referring to the U.S. By the way, this is not just a U.S. thing. People from the UK, South Africa, and Australia (I know this from personal experience), use the term "America" instead of "U.S." very often. This is not a U.S. arrogance thing, this term was used by the British for the colonists that lived in North America since before the U.S. was even a country. "American" is the only adjective for someone from the U.S. in the English language. By the way, yes the United States isn't the only English speaking country in the world, but it has about 75% of the native English speakers. When referring to the continents, "The Americas" is mostly what is used because there are 2 separate continents, North and South America, on 2 different tectonic plates. Kman543210 (talk) 05:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I live in Canada and "America" is nearly universally understood to refer to the United States. I do write scripts for television as a matter of style we avoid using "America" in that sense, however. Further, if we are to refer to the land mass, one will virtually never hear it referred to as "America" but as "the Americas."

For those who this grates upon, consider this: The United States is one of the few countries in the world without a "real" name, known instead as a political description, so let them have "America." Canada Jack (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at El Presidente's 2008 State of the Union address, America is used ~36 times (quick and dirty search, may have lost count), United States four, and USA once (quoting "Made in the USA"), and that's pretty typical of what Americans call their country. "United States" is rather formal, "US" and "USA" are generally written forms.Somedumbyankee (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
To add some anecdotal info, I'm a US Citizen who has been living in the Philippines for the past 12 years. Filipinos and visiting foreigners commonly ask obvious non-Filipinos, "Where are you from?" I habitually answer that question "The U.S.", and this always—every time—causes a pause while that answer is evaluated and understood. If I answer "I'm American", that is usually understood immediately. I've noticed similar reactions in countries other than the Philippines. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Quiliro, your claim looks like a possibly erroneous opinion. If you still feel strongly, can you come up with some supporting evidence? I checked several dictionaries in print and online (for example, Merriam-Webster), each of which confirmed that "United States of America" is a definition for "America," and the definition you provided did not appear. As Kman pointed out, your definition is typically given for "the Americas." As for common usage, my opinion is that it would cause a lot of confusion to insist on using the term "Americans" for Mexicans, Brazilians and Canadians. (For example, in the preceding comments most users, even while being wary of possible ambiguity, used the term "Americans" to identify U.S. Citizens.) As with the others who have chimed in, I have never encountered "America" used informally as a reference to the union of North and South American continents, with or without the West Indies. B6miller (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We have no other adjective to describe our nationality other than "American". I have never heard of another and like everyone else..."Amerikanish", "Americano"...etc. (my spelling may be off a little)

United States vs. Russia as Superpower countries

Many people are wondering about the United States and its recession[2] economy as if its still a superpower with the current Iraq war, the falling US dollar[3] [4][5], high US minimum wages being outsourced for Chinese labor, a high unemployment rate, credit crisis[6] through US foreign policy spending, US inflation[7] [8][9] from the Federal Reserve lowing interest rates too low[10], 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:[11][12] [13]

Now there is Russia; a superpower (the United States only real counter partner as a superpower0[14] [15][16] [17] [18][19] [20] because they have the economics[21] [22], the wealth[23] [24], the diplomatic power[25] [26], ideological[27] [28] [29][30][31][32], technological power[33] [34][35][36][37]& advances[38] than any other country besides the United States (look here on why the US is losing its superpower status read here:[39][40][41]) recognizes Russia as a superpower [42], 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 [43]to 2024, also a Moon space station planned for 2015[44] 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[45][46] [47]), 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[48] 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 [49] tube to a great power nation because of Congress, Unions, Corporate greed and oil.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Versace11 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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: [50] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Versace11 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with improving the article. --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. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Except that such a statement was actually added to that article by our new friend here. --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 theSuperpower 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.
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. -- Boracay Bill (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 assume he just doesn't the technicalities of what goes on a talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somedumbyankee (talk • contribs) 05:23, 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[51] 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)

Ugh, I think I fed the troll. Bad SDY.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 [52] 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)[53]. 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.--24.176.166.135 (talk) 09:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Also the article by CNN[54] "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.--24.176.166.135 (talk) 09:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm just curious, what changes are we supposed to make to the article based on all of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.76.228 (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Food and Regional Cuisine

I'm a life-long Louisiana resident, so I appreciate all of the focus on Cajun and Southern cuisine. But I have a few issues with the brief mentioning of regional cuisine in this article:

  • Does "Soul Food", something I only hear about in Lifetime Television movies, really merit a whole sentence? It seems like it could fit into the "syncretic" sentence well.
  • If Tex-Mex gets a mention, shouldn't Italian-American and American Chinese cuisine, as well? The muffuletta and fried ravioli definitely aren't traditional Italian fare, and the fortune cookie was invented in San Fransisco. These two seem at least as influential on American cuisine as Tex-Mex.
  • ...Maybe I don't get out much, but I'd assume that other regions have their own styles of cuisine?

Dukeofwulf (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The question becomes: how much of a list should be included in an overview article? If I had my way I'd axe all mentions of cuisine beyond a link to the American cuisine article, but I'm biased and obsessed with cutting (I also edit a lot of pages about blood, but I swear I'm not a goth). Even France has the discipline to have cuisine explicitly in a separate article and they're much more food-obsessed than Americans are.Somedumbyankee (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirect is backwards!

"United States" should be redirecting to "United States of America" - not the other way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.216.91.137 (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please click the link at the top about frequently asked questions. --Golbez (talk) 10:56, 27 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 ([55]) and mine ([56]). 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 [57]. "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)

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:

  1. If the primary goal of the map is to show where the cities are, it clearly failed at the size it was included at
  2. The base design is identical to our large states map, so it looks redundant in an unprofessional way
  3. 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 ([58], [59]) 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)

OK, so now that it's clear that it would replace, rather than supplement, the existing map, I have these comments:

  1. The selection of cities seems random and haphazard. Fairbanks is the second largest city in Alaska, but no city at all in Alabama is supplied. Santa Fe is the fourth largest city in New Mexico but is the capital, but many other capitals (including Juneau) are omitted.
  2. Since when were Dallas and Fort Worth as far apart as Austin and San Antonio?
  3. The map quality definitely needs work, JPG artifacts abound, but I'm guessing this is purely because it's a first draft.
  4. Billings (not a capital), metro 177,000, but not Boise (capital), metro ~600,000? What list was used to make this?
  5. I would suggest: 1) All capitals. 2) All largest cities in each state if not capitals. 3) The 50 largest cities in the country, if they don't fall into either list above. 4) The cores of the 50 largest metro areas, if they don't fall into the previous three. Another possibility is to use a population limit, instead of the 50 largest, like include all cities of over 200,000 people, neglecting populous suburbs like Mesa and Long Beach. I think that should be sufficient, yes? without overcrowding? A license can be given for the tiny northeastern states, just include the capital, since there's obviously not enough room for both Dover and Wilmington, both Trenton and Newark, both Montpelier and Burlington, both Hartford and Bridgeport, etc etc etc.
  6. Label the three major bodies of water on the map, the oceans and the gulf.
  7. Personally, I still think that, for the state locator map, we don't really need dots, except maybe for the most major of cities (the ten largest areas). It clutters up a clickable imagemap. A map like this is far more useful for a demographics or largest cities article, IMO. --Golbez (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. Dots first, then labels. That is to say, with Iowa, you have "IA" in the middle, so you were forced to shove Des Moines far more west than it really is. Put Des Moines first, then label the state.
Golbez and I disagree on a single point: I think that a version of this map would be much more informative and thus useful to most readers of this overview article. That aside, every single one of his observations about the current conception of the map and suggestions for improving it is well taken. Mindful of common-sense caveats for space--which Golbez points out as well--the map would benefit from all of these points being implemented. If they are (along with two I mentioned above: Wikilinking state-name abbreviations and labeling Mexico), I'd support its substitution for the existing map in the States section.—DCGeist (talk) 22:08, 4 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.[60]. 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)

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)

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)

Why don't you name them, then they might know who you are referring to. Just a suggestion! Joe Deagan (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I am referring to DCGeist, Evb-wiki, and John. Some of their actions were rational and well justified but most of their statements towards and concerning me were not. M5891 (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Its alright, i accept your apology. I am glad we cleared this up. User:notadormattandapig —Preceding comment was added at 09:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Why don't you name them, then they might know who you are referring to. Just a suggestion! Joe Deagan (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I am referring to DCGeist, Evb-wiki, and John. Some of their actions were rational and well justified but most of their statements towards and concerning me were not. M5891 (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Its alright, i accept your apology. I am glad we cleared this up. User:notadormattandapig —Preceding comment was added at 09:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

hmmm...

wangdoodle! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.93.56 (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Offensive ASCII image boldly removed per WP:TALK.Somedumbyankee (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Race and Ethnicity

The 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)

It says 'of any race', how do you propose we cut it to 100%? I don't think it would make sense to have separate entries for 'caucasian', 'caucasian-latino', 'african-american', 'african-american-latino', et.al. --Golbez (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hispanic or Latino is not a race, but an ethnic group. Hispanics are the largest ethnic minority, but they are not the largest racial minority. I'm not sure where the contradictions are. The only way to make the percent not be over 100% would be to report on race only and take out the Hispanic/Latino group, or have a different one for ethnicity and race. Do you think that it should be made more clearer that Hispanic is not a race? Kman543210 (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It's the census bureau's fault. "In the United States, the term is in official use in the ethnonym Hispanic or Latino, defined as "a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race."" Many people, if you removed 'Hispanic' from the table, would come to the article and be confused - where's all the Latinos? They aren't white or black, they're Hispanic! And so on and so forth. It can be explained better, but I don't think it can be separated. --Golbez (talk) 23:20, 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)

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. M5891 (talk) 00:29, 22 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)

Please point out any inaccuracys and I'm sure someone would be willing to change it for you! Joe Deagan (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


The 'Modern Era' in the US can be seen as post-WW II. For WW II, the country underwent an unprecedented militarization. The War was won by the US and Allies but the US never went back to a non-agressive stance and has since :

- 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

Wikipedia:NPOV Kman543210 (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

As a Wikipedia article, yes, United States may be edited by any reasonably established registered user (because of the high profile of the topic and a history of rampant vandalism, the article may not be edited by unregistered users and those who have just registered within the past few days). Please keep the following in mind, however. The article is very long as is. There is a general consensus that it should not get any longer except as necessary to keep pace with the most major developments (such as the results of the forthcoming elections). When you say that there "is much more information that needs to be filled in here," be aware that many will disagree with you; please consider adding the information you're interested in to the relevant topical articles if it does not already appear there. As far as information that needs to be "corrected," it might help if you explained what you had in mind first here on the Talk page. The article is very well cited, and a significant error has not been exposed in it for quite some time. All the best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 20:45, 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)

Amerigo Vespucci?

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.

I'd be interested in seeing a balanced appraisal of each possibility.

References

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:
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. Kman543210 (talk) 20:55, 21 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."—DCGeist (talk) 21:39, 21 June 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)
— 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
— World Total 1,200,000,000,000 2007 (projected est.)[1]
— NATO Total 849,875,309,000
1 United States United States 583,283,000,000 2008[2]
— European Union European Union Total 311,920,000,000 2007[3]
2 France France 74,690,470,000 2008-2009 [4]
3 United Kingdom United Kingdom 68,911,000,000 FY 2008-09[5]
4 China China 59,000,000,000 2008[6]
5 Germany Germany 45,930,000,000 2008[7]
6 Japan Japan 41,750,000,000 2007[8]
7 Russia Russia 40,000,000,000 2008[9]
8 Italy Italy 32,600,000,000 2008 (est.) [citation needed]
9 Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia 31,050,000,000 2008 [10]
10 South Korea South Korea 28,940,000,000 2008 [11]
11 India India 26,500,000,000 2008-2009[61]
12 Brazil Brazil 25,396,731,055 2008[12]
13 Australia Australia 20,727,710,000 2008[13]
14 Canada Canada 17,150,002,540 2008[14]
15 Spain Spain 15,792,207,000 2007
  • Population
Rank Country/territory/entity Population Date % of world population Source
— World 6,671,226,000 July 1, 2007 100% UN estimate
1  People's Republic of China[15] 1,438,015,000 November 1 2024 21.56% Chinese Population clock
2  India 1,386,600,000 November 1 2024 20.78% Indian Population clock
3  United States 338,671,000 November 1 2024 5.08% 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 214,409,000 November 1 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)

Last invasion of Iceland is also more than 1000 yrs ago. It is hardly a superpower though ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 21:35, 5 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?

Please don't make bias statements, if you have a comment, source it please. Your making a racial remark on very strong country on the world scale. Russia is the second military power under the United States[62][63][64][65][66], not 7th and they are the worlds largest military arsenal producer[67].--24.205.234.250 (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that the above comment clashes quite sharply with the previously provided statistics which does in fact state Russia to be 7th in terms of Military spending. It would appear that 24.205.234.250 is being biased by opposing cited facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.97.187 (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


United States vs. Russia as Superpower countries

Many people are wondering about the United States and its recession[68] economy as if its still a superpower with the current Iraq war, the falling US dollar[69] [70][71], high US minimum wages being outsourced for Chinese labor, a high unemployment rate, credit crisis[72] through US foreign policy spending, US inflation[73] [74][75] from the Federal Reserve lowing interest rates too low[76], 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:[77][78] [79]

Now there is Russia; a superpower (the United States only real counter partner as a superpower0[80] [81][82] [83] [84][85] [86] because they have the economics[87] [88], the wealth[89] [90], the diplomatic power[91] [92], ideological[93] [94] [95][96][97][98], technological power[99] [100][101][102][103]& advances[104] than any other country besides the United States (look here on why the US is losing its superpower status read here:[105][106][107]) recognizes Russia as a superpower [108], 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 [109]to 2024, also a Moon space station planned for 2015[110] 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[111][112] [113]), 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[114] 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 [115] tube to a great power nation because of Congress, Unions, Corporate greed and oil.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Versace11 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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: [116] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Versace11 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with improving the article. --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. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Except that such a statement was actually added to that article by our new friend here. --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 theSuperpower 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.
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. -- Boracay Bill (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 assume he just doesn't the technicalities of what goes on a talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somedumbyankee (talk • contribs) 05:23, 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[117] 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)

Ugh, I think I fed the troll. Bad SDY.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 [118] 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)[119]. 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.--24.176.166.135 (talk) 09:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Also the article by CNN[120] "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.--24.176.166.135 (talk) 09:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Is the United States a Superpower? No, this is why:[121] [122]:
A superpower presumably is able either to impose its preferences on other states or to elicit their support
  • The United States does not meet this test, Russia does[123]
  • 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 [:[124]] (Russia has major control in the middle east as I agree from the above comment[125])

All of this crazy Russian nationalistic fanaticism ^^^^ has been made by the same Russian using different IP addresses and claims to be American to justify his remarks, yet if you read what he's written it is not in fluent American English grammar and has a Russian sound to it if you read it like how a Russian might speak English so it doesn't take a genius to figure it out. Pretty much all the comments are written the same with the same grammar and referenced the same and agree with each other.

The very idea that Russia, a country whose GDP and defence budget rankings struggle even to make the top 10, not even in the top 5, is in some way the World's sole Superpower and dominant over the United States, whose GDP makes up more than 25% of the World's GDP and defence budget is as larger as the rest of the World combined is the craziest thing I have EVER heard in 2 years of being on Wikipedia.

When is this Russian editor pretending to be multiple American editors backing this mega insane idea going to be stopped??? 88.109.7.102 (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey just to let you all know, all of the Russian nationalists are one person. I've been very active at Wikipedia: WikiProject Power in international relations, and we've been dealing with this guy for weeks. There's an open case at Wikipedia: Suspected sockpuppets for Versace11. Feel free to give your two cents. If your have questions about this whole mess feel you can ask me. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The truth concerning Hispanic identity

Hispanics cannot form a single ethnicity because the Hispanosphere is composed of various ethnicities and ancestries, thus extending to its descendants in the United States. The only common trait among Hispanics is the Spanish language, be it primary, secondary, or ancestral. The Hispanophone nations, and the Hispanic American communities by extent, are culturally similar but these cultures are individually distinct and unique.

Feel free to comment and criticize. M5891 (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You are inarguably correct that the many millions of Hispanic Americans represent a variety of ancestries. However, in the United States—both as a matter of official Census Bureau designation and in the general view of American culture—Hispanics are categorized and largely discussed as a single ethnicity. That's the fact of the matter, and what we have to represent in the article, whatever our personal views. As a side note, it is incorrect to state that the Spanish language is the "only common trait among Hispanics." There are many cultural characteristics that collectively distinguish Hispanic Americans, even if not every single attribute is possessed by every single person in the group. As a second note, the observation about ancestry is also just as applicable to African Americans; nonetheless, they are treated as members of a single "race." There is another notion whose intellectual validity is highly questionable, but whose status as both a Census Bureau designation and an important cultural marker is incontestable.—DCGeist (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hispanics are categorized as a single ethnicity by the U.S. Census bureau but not a single race (white hispanic, black hispanic, Amerindian hispanic...). In other words, choosing "Hispanic" on the census form does not indicate what race you are. This is in the United States, but a census in a Spanish-speaking country would not have "Hispanic" as an ethnic category. On a personal note, I agree with M5891 to an extent, except that there are other culturally shared traits besides language that were passed down through Spanish colonization. Kman543210 (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Same could be said for every ethnicity. I, for example, have Irish and German roots. Yet, I'm labeled Caucasian. Your logic posits the assumption that I and every other ethnic mutt should be considered in terms of categorization. Aside from medical reasons, I feel that further categorization of our ethnicities only serves to bring about differences. On the Census for 2000 I described myself on the "other" line: HUMAN. -- Edwin Larkin (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Common sense recognizes that Hispanic is not one homogenous ethnicity, much less a "race," but rather the identification of Hispanic-national ancestry. The aggregation of Hispanic Americans into an exclusive ethnic category often results in misrepresentation as a "race" separate from Caucasian, American Indian, or Asian.

The cultures of the Hispano Latin American nations were initially based on or influenced by Spanish culture, but other cultures were variously integrated within each nation. For instance, the culture of Mexico greatly differs from the culture of the Dominican Republic, which greatly differs from that of Argentina. Then there are the Hispanic cultures exclusive to the United States. All of these cultures share a common origin and similar features but each possesses its unique set of characteristics. M5891 (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

?

Am I the only seeing this? It says "A bunch of asswholes who can't read !!!!!!!!!!!" as Contents.It is spell exactly like that.Im guessing this is someone who hate the USA. Can someone take it off. It's very rude.The wierd thing is that once I press article on the top it all of a sudden dissappears??Very weird. Notice how they spelled asshole with a W.RebelSoldier3 (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been reverted, but thanks for pointing that out. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Economy section

A few suggestions:

  • "The national debt is the world's largest; in 2005, it was 23% of the global total.[70] As a percentage of GDP, U.S. debt ranked thirtieth out of 120 countries for which data is available."
    • Without comparison, this is confusing. It's a fairly typical public debt level, a bit on the higher side but about the same as France and Germany (around 60% all), and significantly less than Japan (some 180%). Furthermore, U.S. has less aging and pension problems than European countries generally, and the United States is consistently rated more competitive than any of these countries.
    • Any comments on the following proposal? As of June 2008, the United States public debt is around 61% of GDP, ranking 26th highest debt out of 120 countries, compared to 43% in the United Kingdom and 64% in France.[16]
  • "It is the world's number one producer of electrical and nuclear energy, as well as liquid natural gas, aluminum, sulfur, phosphates, and salt."
    • Hardly anyone can find this information meaningful, and it can be a bit misleading to casual reader. For instance, nuclear power production is low by Western standards. Take any absolute measure and there is a fair chance that China, India or U.S. is the number one (and EU if it's counted), but per capita statistics would give good comparison point. For instance, U.S. LNG market U.S. is very large compared to other countries because of pecularities in the petrochemical market, while some commodity markets might be small compared to other countries because U.S. is a postindustrial high-value economy.
  • "The private sector constitutes the bulk of the economy, with government activity accounting for 12.4% of GDP."
    • How "government activity" is measured here? The number usually used in economic literature is the total public consumption, which is around 36% for the US. Also, private sector constitutes the bulk in about all countries so it would be better give numbers and context by comparing to other similar countries. Japan and Australia have about the same public consumption, and EU countries have some 10 percentage points higher public consumption.
  • The New York Stock Exchange is the world's largest by dollar volume; the exchange's parent company, NYSE Euronext, represents over $29 trillion in total market capitalization of listed securities.[84]
    • New York is far more than just NYSE and Chicago is also big in finance! Wouldn't it be a good idea to mention the rivalry between New York and London for financial dominance, as there is unique dynamics between them?
    • Any comments on following proposal? New York City competes with London and other financial centers for global financial sector jobs, while Chicago and to lesser extend several other U.S. cities also attract financial business.[17]
  • "Americans tend to work considerably more hours annually than workers in other developed nations."
    • This gives a bit false image. Japan and Australia has around the same average annual working hours. Eastern Europeans and South Koreans generally have higher working hours. And they are developed countries.
    • Any comments on the following proposal? Americans, like Japanese and Australians, tend to work considerably more hours annually than workers in the Western Europe.[18]
  • The science and technology section
    • Could we add more present-day information? It's a significant topic after all.
    • Any comments on the following? According to OECD, U.S. is among the top countries in terms of research and development share of GDP and research jobs per capita.[19] Business enterprises do 70% of R&D investments in the economy.[19] Although science and engineering graduates total a relatively low percentage of American graduates, many foreign researchers work in the U.S. and account for 41% of science and engineering PhDs.[19] While publications per capita is about the OECD median, citations imply a relatively high average impact.[19] One of the strongest areas, information and communications technology, has been an enormous productivity driver in the U.S. economy.[19]

What do you think? Turkuun (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

These would be great additions for the Economy of the United States article, but they're far too much detail for the main article, which is already groaning under the weight of a lot of factoids that have their own articles. Somedumbyankee (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
For instance, the article is already stating NYSE capitalization numbers - which means absolutely nothing unless the reader has a pretty good knowledge of stock market statistics - but not a word about Chicago's role? What I'm proposing, is a bit more general presentation instead of ambiguous bits picked up for no obvious reason.Turkuun (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
That's probably a good example of things which should be stripped from the "main" article and left in the dedicated economy article. If they are currently in the article, are not "issues that /must/ be covered", and are misleading as currently stated, my knee-jerk response would be to pull them out and point an interested user towards the dedicated page. This article is morbidly obese as it stands. Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree.Turkuun (talk) 05:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

In the late nineteenth century, U.S. scientific and technological community gained momentum. In 1876, Alexander Graham Bell was awarded the first U.S. patent for the telephone. The laboratory of Thomas Edison developed the phonograph, the first long-lasting light bulb, and the first viable movie camera. In the early twentieth century, the automobile companies of Ransom E. Olds and Henry Ford pioneered assembly line manufacturing. The Wright brothers, in 1903, made what is recognized as the "first sustained and controlled heavier-than-air powered flight.

Are those details, about individual inventions, essential? How about rephasing it to something like: In the late nineteenth century, U.S. scientific and technological community gained momentum by pioneers such as Bell, Edison, Ford... Turkuun (talk) 05:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is simply too much poor writing in the proposed revisions. Taking just the Science and technology section:
  • "In the late nineteenth century, U.S. scientific and technological community gained momentum by pioneers such as Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Ransom E. Olds, Henry Ford, and Wright brothers." This is not close to being either a grammatically correct or a felicitously phrased sentence in English.
  • "Notable research was done in Manhattan project, space race, rocketry, materials science, computers, ARPANET, and later Internet." Again, this is not an English sentence; it also reads like a jumbled laundry list.
  • "Although science and engineering graduates total a relatively low percentage of American graduates, many foreign researchers work in the U.S. and account for 41% of science and engineering PhDs." The "although" is incorrect and the whole notion is of relatively low significance and should be reserved for the topical article.
There are similar issues with some of the proposed changes to the main Economy section. However, Turkuun has indicated some useful updates and, just as significantly, he makes some observations that should inspire us to carefully analyze and further improve the data we are presenting, such as that on relative working hours. While, in this case, the cite he provides is even older than the one we currently use (and, as a book, does not come with the requisite page number), we can certainly work to make this sentence and a couple others more precise.
As SDY suggests, we can and should consider cutting info from this section--I'll pare down the NYSE ref, right now. Adding rivalries with London and contextualizing by comparison on noncontroversial matters is definitely not the way to go.—DCGeist (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, DCGeist!

  • Thanks for noticing my concern about the public debt statement! U.S. public finances are really one of the strongest and the previous statement "the largest debt" was highly misleading.
  • I really think there should a note about how many researchers are attracted to the country. United States is a huge brain magnet according to the OECD study.
  • Also, there are no references for the sentence "It is the world's number one producer of electrical and nuclear energy, as well as liquid natural gas, aluminum, sulfur, phosphates, and salt.". Neither there was anything in the main article, and according to this the statement is incorrect for the aluminum part. And overall commodities play smaller role in the U.S. postindustrial high value-added economy. Maybe you could put something like "United States is a key commodity producer and consumer."?

Turkuun (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

About the working hours, here is a better source. As you can see, French/Swedes/Germans work about 1400-1600 hours, Americans/Italians/Japanese about 1800 hours, Czech/Greek/Poles about 2000 hours, and South Koreans about 2300 hours! So working hours are high, but nowhere near the top of developed countries.Turkuun (talk) 11:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You've almost got me sold on the foreign researchers bit. Thanks for catching the missing ref on the number 1 production sentence (and updating the aluminum info); all of that was definitely sourced--I'm not sure how we lost the cite, but I'll try to track it down. I don't think a vague sentence like "United States is a key commodity producer and consumer" really adds any information that isn't pretty obvious. Listing specific leadership positions does.
Very good sourcing on the working hours. I've cut the sentence belied by the data you've linked to.—DCGeist (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The United States

Why is this called the "United States" and not the "United States of America"? I read the FAQ and saw a section on this, but I do not agree with this as the "United States". The United States of America is the official and correct term. The United States is just a lazy way of refering to the country. I propose that this should be change to the "United States of America". Red4tribe (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Same reason Germany isn't Federal Republic of Germany. WP:NC asks for common name, not official name. Somedumbyankee (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
While socially less common than United States, U.S.A., America, or U.S., it seems more appropriate as a formal article title. M5891 (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Please read the FAQ linked at the top of this page. --Golbez (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Please read my post. Red4tribe (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Crime and Punishment?

How come the 'law' section is entitled "Crime and Punishment"? It is generally named something else in other countries' articles (ie 'Law' in Germany and Canada, both featured articles, and 'Law and Criminal Justice' in UK). In my opinion, this puts a negative spin on the whole thing.

In fact, after thinking about it, the section is accurately named; the article simply does not have a 'law' section. There is way too much focus on policing and criminal justice and none on the overall justice system.

Not only is is this not informative (not describing the whole story), the current section is heavily biased; the second and third sections describe how the US has "above-average levels of violent crime and particularly high levels of gun violence and homicide" and "the highest documented incarceration rate and total prison population in the world and by far the highest figures among democratic, developed nations". In my opinion all this garbage has to go and the section needs to be rewritten. Whether or not these figures are true (they are well sourced so I suppose they are), they have no need to be mentionned.

To sum up: "Crime and Punishment" needs to become "Law", in title and in content. (I'd work on this, except I have no knowledge whatsoever about the US justice system...) M.nelson (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't doubt the veracity of these figures (and you are correct in assuming they are accurate) so why should they be removed? The reality is that the United States has very high rates of violent crime and handgun violence. These realities shape life in the United States and contribute heavily to Americans' perceptions of crime. Furthermore, these unique aspects of American life inform public policy. In sum, these facts are essential to understanding American life and culture, particularly concerning crime and criminal justice. Thus they need to stay. Furthermore, we can't get rid of facts because you don't like them. That is the very definition of the NPOV standard. Velvet Llama (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
We can, however, get rid of facts because the article rambles on too much or if they provide a skewed view of the topic. Crime may be a reality, but it's a question of whether it's such an important aspect that it should have details in the overall article. Murder statistics should be moved to the dedicated article, which is linked on this page. A brief description of how the legal system works is probably more important to an overview article, and a one sentence summary is probably sufficient, maybe just: "Among developed nations, the United States has above-average levels of violent crime and particularly high levels of gun violence and homicide.[174]" That the death penalty and prison populations are controversial is also well worth mentioning, but detailed statistics are WTMI for the overview article. Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

so google sent me here. I imagine there are thousands like me.

you go to google, like every day. when you see a specialized google logo (usu holidays & historical days), you click on it- the list of countries by GDP page says we're 11th. this page says we're ninth. I'll look into it. IKnowAboutKnownUnknowns 13:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

so yeah. our ranks according to these authorities are: 011- IMF 008-world bank 010-cia factbook

is 9 an average? IKnowAboutKnownUnknowns 13:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Updated language

As per the Immigration Act of 2007 (S 1348), specifically S Amendment 1151, the official language of the United States government, and for other purposes, is English. http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=13429

S Amdt 1151 to S Amdt 1150 to S 1348: To amend title 4, United States Code, to declare English as the national language of the Government of the United States, and for other purposes

Supergeo (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The vote was to amend the bill, not to pass the bill. Look at the status of the overall legislation. No action has been taken on the bill since January of 2007 and it has not been passed. It's likely that the sponsors dropped it since a controversial amendment was added to it. Even if the Senate had voted on it, it still has to go through the House and the President. Somedumbyankee (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, even if you had read it accurately, it's irrelevant - there's no presidential signature on it. In this country, the legislature alone cannot create law; it always goes through the President first. --Golbez (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
It's also such a political hot potato that I think we would know by now that it had been changed, since it would probably be met with protests, legal challenges, and would be an element in the ongoing presidential race. Somedumbyankee (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Traditionally, English has been the language of business, the media, government agencies, the education system, and most everyday interactions. While it is likely to become official in the near future, it is currently recognized by most political bodies as de facto.
On a side note, even if a bill reaches the President and he fails to sign it into law, this can be overriden by a two-thirds majority in Congress. M5891 (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that it's likely, and I think the article points it out as de facto. There is no practical difference to having it as an official language, it's just a political football to be kicked around. Do we have a page on the English wikipedia about the "English as national language" debate? It should probably be linked here if it isn't already. SDY (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The article does state the current status as recognized by most political bodies. While English remains unofficial, bilingual education is becoming increasingly compulsory for job application in several communities, even to the point where English is no longer necessary. There would be a practical difference.
English-only movement provides more details concerning this issue. M5891 (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Territories

So what if the laws are different regarding territories and states? The territories are still part of the country. Supreme Court said as much.

"The term 'United States' may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution." [Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) HOOVEN & ALLISON CO. V. EVATT, 324 U. S. 652 (1945) - US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

— Rickyrab | Talk 15:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the territories in the context of "The USA is composed of..." While I don't care about the remote uninhabited islands, out of the five territories with civilian governments, all but one have their population as United States citizens and all five United States nationals. These citizens can vote in any national election if they choose to relocated to the States or DC. (Or vice versa, stateside U.S. citizens can lose their vote if they move to territories.) The land may be a "possession" of the U.S. (though I'm not sure it's that "low class" for the commonwealths of PR and NMI), but they are part of the country. They are represented in Congress (albeit no voting representation) and they live under federal laws (there are federal district courts). HkCaGu (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The territories are not part of the country, only incorporated land is. The United States consists of the fifty states, the federal district, and the incorporated territory of Palmyra Atoll. The other territories are possessions. Now, yes, the overall influence sphere of "The United States" includes them, but this is about the country, not the totality. (it's easier seen when discussing ones with different names - the ABC islands are not part of the Netherlands, but they are part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which is their overall influence sphere. Gibraltar and Jersey are not part of the United Kingdom, but they are possessions of the Crown (though Gibraltar isn't even that). It's just that, with the USA, we have no separate name for our wider possessions.) --Golbez (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Postmodernism is apparently parochial

DCGeist, it's cute that you think postmodernism and American literature are parochial issues, but the fact that the movement, dominated by Americans, is international, makes it quite the opposite of parochial. And makes it necessary to include in the main United States article in the section covering America's impact on Literature, philosophy and the arts. Stick to films, maybe.

p.s. I'm not saying I like postmodernism, and it's often frustrating and hollow to me too, but no matter how much you wish it away by reverting an article, it's still the dominant movement in literature in the last 50 years, and America's giant impact on it belongs in this article. Chicopac (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

For anyone who hasn't seen it, take a look at Andrew Bulkan's Postmodernism Generator (linked from Sokal affair). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that it should definitely go into any discussion on American literature, but I would also argue that a discussion of American literature is WTMI for the overview article. SDY (talk) 04:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Potential GA reassessment

I'm considering nominating the article for reassessment, there are whole sections of the article that are not sourced, something that shouldn't happen on a GA article. Hopefully it will motivate people to find these sources if nothing else. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 19:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The article just (like yesterday) completed a reassessment, and the result was "keep". --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Well in which case no rush, it can be left a few months and see how it goes. It still has some major flaws however, if i nominate it I will make more efforts to note the faults, something that wasn't done effectively in that reassessment. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 19:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Picture

To make this article more neuteral I think a picture of a palestinian standing in front of an Israli tank should be added to the article. There is a pic of a 6/4 dude in front of a tank on the PRC page. If there is no such picture or similar picture on the US page it becomes obvious that Wikipedia has a pro-US POV. Keep in mind that most people that edit wikipedia are westerners and to there should be some kinda of fair representation of minorties in wikipeida that are still majorities in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.224.65 (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Since neither Palestine nor Israel are in the United States, I don't understand what this would add to the article. --Golbez (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the suggestion here is that the United States article is overly U.S.-centric. Go figure. Shouldn't the article be about everything else too? --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(Excessively?) High Patriotism

Why is there no mention of the high-degree of patriotism/nationalism (or perhaps jingoism if you prefer) that exists among the average citizenry, even when compared to other countries? It would be odd to see many people flying the Union Jack in the UK, for example. The world is always attacking us over this anyway. Is anything like this mentioned in one of the "sub-articles"? On this 4th of July I just found it odd that there's no mention of patriotism in the USA. --70.142.50.236 (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because the other editors simply don't accept that it's true? Do you have a source to back up your claim that Americans are more patriotic than other nationals? Personally I might perceive a louder more ostentatious sort of patriotism amongst americans but that doesn't necessarily equate to more patriotism among them.Zebulin (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
When you say "(Excessively?) High Patriotism," do you mean xenophobia specifically or are you referring to the blind loyalty of some people to obey the U.S. government without question? M5891 (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It may well be the common perception, but how does one measure "patriotism"? If it was just simply how many people fly the flag, that'd be something, but patriotism comes in many forms. You could make an analogy with Baptists who may expound their faith more than, say, Anglicans. But does that make them more Christian than Anglicans? Canada Jack (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I think this misconception of being the 'most patriotic' has to do with two things. One is that American patriotism is blatant in America and certain Western destinations around the world, but leaving America's 'sphere of influence' so to speak, you realize that many other countries are similar. Perhaps not Africa, but China (ok, some other reasons too, perhaps), Russia, Germany, all have very proud citizens as well. Also, while the media likes to select patriotic people and patriotic messages to display on TV, think about how many times you've been driving through the city and seen flags or heard the national anthem or had America come up in casual conversation outside of cheap car advertisements? Maybe we have more visible hyper-patriots, but I don't think America is too far 'ahead' of the rest of the world. --Fourth Planet (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the only time when patriotism becomes excessive is when it becomes an excuse for war, supporting unconstitutional laws and senseless bureaucracy for the sake of "security," and attacking "treasonous" critics of such actions. Otherwise, there is no reason not to be enthusiastic about waving the national flag and wearing national colors on a regular basis. M5891 (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Would I be wrong to say that American schools sing their national anthem every day. It's a fine thing to be proud of your country, but also a fine line between being partiotic and being brainwashed into being patriotic. It reminds me of the time the press insisted that Frenchfries were henceforth to be known as freedom fries. As far as I'm aware the majority of the US public were quite happy to go along with that. Withought pressure from right wing media nobody would have contemplated changing names of food products to have a dig at the French. This is, I believe, a form of brainwashing. I don't say US citizens are more prone to it than all other nations, but rather, more prone than most democratic nations. Stan 888 (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this whole subject is inherently too POV, non verifiable and frankly unimportant to include in the article. And the press didn't "insist" that french fries were going to be called freedom fries, they changed them on the menu of the House of Representatives' cafeteria (I believe), gaining widespread news coverage and a place in the zeitgeist of the time. For every "hyper patriotic" American I've met, I've met a "self hating" American as well, but again I see this as entirely a fluff issue completely inappropriate for inclusion in this article. TastyCakes (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, just a newbie taking part in a conversation. If as you say it was only reported by the media rather than started by them, I take that statement back. Just to add, I think a self hating American is no better than a blinkered patriotic American. You can be proud and critical at the same time, dont you think? Stan 888 (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"The true patriot is one who gives his highest loyalty not to his country as it is, regardless of what it does, but rather to what it can and ought to be." --Albert Camus / "The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson Cheers, Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Amen to that!Prussian725 (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

iam an american and i find this offesive24.63.104.114 (talk) 04:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)fucked up

With all respect, that's likely because you are so excessively patriotic.Zebulin (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
There is of course nothing wrong with being patriotic, but I believe every country has to listen to criticism from others, preferebly constructive critisicm. The highest point for me was the protests during the Vietnam war, America became a country who were not afraid of the consequences of protest, no matter the pressure applied to them. What I'm saying is, be proud of you country, but don't be afraid to stand up to your government when they do the wrong thing. I am no left wing nut, just someone who believes that the people decide who is good enough to govern, and can change it whenever they please. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the vast majority of the press are right wing, with the consequence that the majority of Americans will be swayed by the editorials of these newspapers and tv. This may seem a little strong, but it seems to me this is going part way to brainwashing. Perhaps a little more even handedness in reporting would go a long way to solving this. I of course believe we need a strong America, but an America that's more open and honest. Jack forbes (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

PS, so perhaps a small paragraph explaining a high level of patriotism in the US might not be a bad thing, with reasons outside the obvious? Jack forbes (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that many people believe the U.S. media to lean mostly to the left, not right-winged. But on the topic of this thread, I don't know that Americans are any more or less patriotic than other countries. In any instance, a reliable source would be needed to back up that claim. I don't think flying a flag is a direct measurement of patriotism. Kman543210 (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the best way to approach this subject would be cite sociological studies comparing American patriotism to patriotism in other countries. I think that would be the best way to measure and quantify patriotism. Asarelah (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
If I could find any such sociological study I would certainly bring it up. If anyone knows of any such study it would be a great help, It would certainly answer the question one way or the other. Jack forbes (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Spanish?

Idiots, Spanish is not a national language of the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.53.114 (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Be civil or leave. --Golbez (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree, please try to be civil. On another note, their is no real set national language in America, though there ought to be (i.e. English since it is the spoken majority), so, yes Spanish is not the national language of the US.Prussian725 (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it would be accurate to call Spanish a de facto national language of the United States, as significant portions of the south and west were historically Spanish-speaking and retain that nature. And now much more of the United States has significant concentrations of Spanish-speaking people. As opposed to, say, the historically French parts of the United States which are now almost completely assimilated. It's interesting to note that in Canada, French is an official language but concentrated in Quebec and New Brunswick and found in only small pockets elsewhere. So, it's not a "national" language as much as I'd argue Spanish is in the United States. I understand that this reality causes consternation in some quarters in America... Canada Jack (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The question is, who decides what is a de facto language? Can a State decide a de facto language withought asking the federal government, and if so, does it become the de facto language for that state but not of the US as a whole? Jack forbes (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what de facto means. It means, "in fact" or "in practice", i.e., it is what is actually happening. The opposite is de jure, meaning "in law". An example: Let's say Virginia passed a law that made German the official language. That would make German the de jure language of Virginia, but English would still be the de facto language, since I'm assuming 99% of the population would still speak it, instead of switching to German. --Golbez (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I actually do know what it means. In Britain the English language is de facto. There is no de jure language. My question is, when is it decided a language is de facto? A certain proportion of speakers? Who decides on wiki what a de facto language is, concensus? My point being that it is a very grey area. Jack forbes (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Quite honestly, I don't even understand this discussion. Spanish is not a national language of the US, de jure or de facto. The percentage of people who speaks is increasing, but is still in the vast minority. Additionally, you'll almost never find it in government or business dealings. There is no national language, but the de facto one is English.LedRush (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
There are large regions of the country where nearly everything is dual-labeled in Spanish and English. I doubt you could find a region of the country that has German or Chinese dual-labeling to the extent that Spanish dual-labelling exists in, for example, California. I'm not saying that this necessarily establishes Spanish as a de facto national language (mainly because its use is still quite regionalized) but Spanish does have a special status in the United States that no other non-English language can claim, whatever we choose to call that status. -- Tyler (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There are in fact more Spanish-speaking Americans than the entire population of Canada. It's a minority, no one pretends otherwise, but 34 million speakers is a significant number of people. And the percentages of Spanish-speaking people in Texas, California and New Mexico are 28/29 per cent. These are big numbers. I know there is a lot of pressure to push English as the official language, and there are a lot of compelling reasons to do this. But the reality is there are huge numbers of Spanish-speaking people. Canada Jack (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a certain similarity to national anthems. In many countries there is no official anthem, what happens is that the most popular anthem is used and is deemed the anthem of that country. If Spanish is popular enough to be considered a de facto language then surely that is the case? Jack forbes (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that is an argument for English to be the de facto national language. In your argument, it'd be like getting the second most popular song, a song known only by 10% of the population, and naming that the national anthem. Listen, I don't dispute that Spanish is important. I just don't think it is nearly important enough to be considered a defacto national language when only 10% of the population speaks it and almost no business or government functions use it.LedRush (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

edit conflict):::I think that many people would want Spanish to be recognised in one way or another. Perhaps even under the term "recognised language"? Your next question might be recognised by who? Well, its only a suggestion. :) Jack forbes (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your argument here seems to imply that only one language can be a "national" language. That's simply not so. The real question is whether there are significant pockets of Spanish being spoken throughout the country. When almost 30 per cent speak it in two of the largest states - California and Texas - a total of three states close to 30 per cent, then another three around 20 per cent, plus Puerto Rico at 95 per cent, significant pockets across America, then what you have is a language of national scope. In Canada, by contrast, outside of New Brunswick and Quebec, the language is spoken only by tiny percentages in the other provinces. In this sense, despite being an official language, French isn't as "national" in Canada as Spanish is in America. Only about 4 per cent speak it in Ontario, for example. Canada Jack (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"The real question is whether there are significant pockets of Spanish being spoken throughout the country." That is not the question. The question is whether or not Spanish is a defacto national language. Your Canadian references are not illustrative here as it is not the second most spoken language in the country. Additionally, you are ignoring the fact that government and business is conducted virtually entirely in English. English is spoken widely in China, but it isn't a de facto national language. Ditto for Shanghainese and Cantonese. Yet all of these would have better claims than Spanish in the US.
Additionally, regarding the strawman you created regarding one national language, of course there can be more than one. However, the standards for there being multiple legal national languages is clear, one for a "de facto" one wouldn't be. I would imagine that there would need to be some measure of parity and widespread use for there to be two de facto national languages (just in the nature of what "de facto" means). However, Spanish is closer to Swahili than English in terms of usage in the US. Just to reiterate: that doesn't mean it's not important...it clearly is. However, when talking of de facto national languages, unless there are 2 or 3 languages that are on par in usage by the population, government, and the business community, there will more likely just be one. Spanish doesn't come close to this level and is therefor not a de facto national language in the US.LedRush (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm rather surprised after reading your figures of Spanish speaking people in California that the language is not even given a mention in the infobox. I would have thought it was a pretty important fact that should be included. I don't necessarily mean it should be shown as de facto. Jack forbes (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure experts have been written about this. So instead of original research, reliable sources can be used. And at best discussion may be required for accomplishing a neutral point of view. =Species8473= (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I, of course have a neutral point of view on this, what with being Scottish with no Spanish blood and not a word of Spanish. :) Jack forbes (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"The real question is whether there are significant pockets of Spanish being spoken throughout the country." That is not the question. The question is whether or not Spanish is a defacto national language.

Uh, the fact that Spanish is spoken widely through America, as opposed to, say, Welsh being a geographically concentrated language in the UK, makes Spanish a de facto national language by definition. Remember, of course, that "national" language is open to interpretation. Your argument seems to rest on what constitutes an "official" language, or a language of business, of legislation. Those are some definitions. But I never said Spanish was an "official" national language, just that it is a de facto national language. And, given the already noted high concentrations of Spanish-speaking people in geographically diverse regions of the United States, Spanish meets this threshold.

However, Spanish is closer to Swahili than English in terms of usage in the US. Just to reiterate: that doesn't mean it's not important...it clearly is. However, when talking of de facto national languages, unless there are 2 or 3 languages that are on par in usage by the population, government, and the business community, there will more likely just be one. Spanish doesn't come close to this level and is therefor not a de facto national language in the US.

Are you trying to pretend something close to 34 million people in America speak Swahili? Try 34 thousand. Just for the record, in the 2000 census, we had 215 million English speakers, 28 million Spanish speakers, and, in third place, French at 1.6 million. As for your "on par" argument, that simply is not so when we look elsewhere. Swedish is a national language of Finland for example, yet only 6 per cent speak it there. And, I hasten to point out, Spanish in fact is a common language of government and business in many parts of the United States, unlike any other languages outside of English. None of this would be an issue if America had declared an official language, but since it hasn't, we have a different situation.

As for the ultimate point as to whether this should be reflected on the main page, I say NO unless we can have some reliable source say as much, and in the case of the United States, we'd need some declaration from something like a Congressional resolution to say that in a de facto sense. I'd say that that would be unlikely. Canada Jack (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you've missed my points. The "on par argument" is killed by your own stats. Spanish is so far behind English that it is closer to last (Swahili) than it is to first. The point of saying something is a de facto language is that it acts as if it were so even though it's not. How does Spanish even come close to this? If you were to have two de facto languages, there would be some level of parity. Your example of Swedish is about de jure national languages, which I have already addressed above. Certainly if the laws are made that way you can have as many as you want. But to be de facto you have a much higher threshhold.LedRush (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

When the news is delivered in english, you know what your official language is. when was the last time you saw an american tv show in anything but english? english should be our official language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.154.39 (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

But English isn't the "official" language now, is it? It's just de facto. Problem is, there are more and more Spanish-speakers in the United States. If the experience we had in Canada when French became an official federal language some 40 years ago is any indication, America is in for an ugly, divisive fight over this issue. As time goes by, with demographic trends the way they are going, Spanish may indeed reach a threshold of speakers where Spanish language rights will be much harder to ignore. Canada Jack (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
A language has rights? It's that kind of thinking which drains money and energy away from real concerns (and weakens economies).LedRush (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It's the people who speak it who have rights. If a large part of a population speak a language, don't you think it should be recognised? In my own country there are a number of languages that are recognised, many of whom are spoken by a lesser percentage than Spanish in the US. Please tell me, why should the spanish speaking people not be recognised? Jack forbes (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. Recognized? How? Even English is not an official language. Where's the recognition there? However, because government business, as well as most everyday activities, are conducted in English, it is considered the de facto language of the U.S. BTW, there are lots of news, sports, entertainment shows broadcast in Spanish from within the States. --Evb-wiki (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not asking for Spanish to be called a de facto language, just to be recognised as other languages are, for example in Scotland. Jack forbes (talk) 00:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
It is recognized as other languages are: it's not a de facto language. However, it is in the box as being the second most spoken language (which seems unnecessary to me, but, oh well). What's the point of this discussion? What is the proposed change?LedRush (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The claim in the Scotland article that there are "recognized" regional languages is not supported by a reliable source. As in this article, the questions remain: recognized by who? which regions? what languages where? etc. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that Spanish is not recognised as being the second most spoken language in the US? Jack forbes (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
No one disputes that. The question is, is it at the level where it can be mentioned in the infobox? And the answer to that is no. --Golbez (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Spanish is already recognized in the languages section that it's the second most common language spoken in the U.S. Spanish is not the national or de facto language. English is used at practically all government levels. Spanish is given special status in some states for Spanish-language publishing to accommodate the immigrants who don't speak English. Most of the people who grow up in the U.S. speaking Spanish at home still speak English. I'm not sure what further recognition it can be given in the article. Kman543210 (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this wee Scotsman is in a minority of one, or maybe two. I just thought the type in the language section was so small it was hard to read, and that it needed to be more pronounced in the infobox. Maybe I need new glasses. :) Jack forbes (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Global_annual_military_spending_tops_$1.2_trillion
  2. ^ [http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/pdf/budget/defense.pdf Department Of Defense
  3. ^ 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)
  4. ^ 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
  5. ^ Ministry of Defence | About Defence | Organisation | Key Facts about Defence | Defence Spending
  6. ^ China says military spending will go up 17.6 percent in 2008 - International Herald Tribune
  7. ^ Deutsche Welle
  8. ^ Asia Times Online
  9. ^ Defense spending to grow 20% in 2008 - Deputy Defense Minister Lyubov Kudelina [127]
  10. ^ Stockholm International Peace Research Institute: The fifteen major spenders in 2007.
  11. ^ Defense Budget Grows 9 Percent.
  12. ^ National Congress of Brazil. Brazilian Federal Budget (2008) - Ministry of Defense (Ministério da Defesa).
  13. ^ Australian Department of Defence (2006). Portfolio Budget Statements 2006-07. Page 19.
  14. ^ 2007-2008 Part I - The Government Expenditure Plan - Part 24 of 32
  15. ^ Mainland China only
  16. ^ "Rank Order—Public Debt". The World Factbook. CIA. Retrieved 2008-06-29.
  17. ^ Magnets for money, The Economist, September 13th 2007
  18. ^ Ging Wong, W. G. Picot (2001). Working Time in Comparative Perspective: Patterns, Trends, and the Policy.
  19. ^ a b c d e OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2007, OECD.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States/Archive_31&oldid=1144132871"