This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Under the History section, regarding the economy, there is an uncited claim that WWII ended the economic depression begun in 1929:
"The nation would not fully recover from the economic depression until the industrial mobilization spurred by its entrance into World War II."
It is then repeated soon after:
"On December 7, 1941, the United States joined the Allies against the Axis powers after a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan. World War II cost far more money than any other war in American history,[39] but it boosted the economy by providing capital investment and jobs, while bringing many women into the labor market." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scassarino ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Why are are there all these comparisons of the United States in an article that is supposed to be about the United States, not how it compares to Europe? If that is going to be allowed to be in the documentation then it needs to be in a different section, and it needs to include more countries than just those in the E.U. Having those comparisons is not only bad documentation but a failure to completely research the topic. 71.76.31.58 ( talk) 05:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC) 71.76.31.58 ( talk) 04:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. It seems particularly appropriate to have everyone view US formatted dates here—no one minds them, I can assure you. Tony (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
in sports section, it says baseball is considered the national sport (without a citation)... it certainly isnt the most played or viewed sport, and an incredible number of baseball players arent even american born. certainly i have heard baseball called 'americas pasttime' but have heard football called 'americas this and that' as well. i think this hsould be changed or a citation provided... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.54.191.28 ( talk) 15:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
look at List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita. it shows the folowing ranks:
imf-11th
45,845
wb-10th
45,790
cia-12th
45,959
for 2007. someone help me if I'm missing something. I got reverted on my last attempt to at least draw attention to this matter, tho I may not have handled it correctly. thanks. Mob stability 19:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Country | Rank | IMF [1] | Rank | WB [2] | Rank | CIA [3] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
United States | 11 | 45,845 | 10 | 45,790 | 12 | 45,959 |
OK, first post on wikipedia, so bear with the formatting. The easy answer to this question is that this statistic is on a PER CAPITA basis, which means they take out economic figures and divide them by the population. The population of the United States is 3x the combined total of the nations listed in front of us on this list. Therefore, the US per capita GDP is naturally lower, as it is divided by a larger number of people. To achieve a higher per capita GDP than Luxembourg (105,000 per capita), one would have to eliminate nearly two thirds of the population, or generate economic gains in excess of 2200x what the current economy is capable. 71.88.207.220 ( talk) 01:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)StatisticsCanProveAnything
It really seems like the 2000 graph is more accurate....with no otherwise economic significance, how can the largest metropolitan area have a per capita income double the national gdp per capita, shouldn't it be more representative?, its just where majority of average population resides, most would consider such income on the high level. 99.242.25.121 ( talk) 06:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This sentence is obsolete. "Of Americans twenty-five and older, 84.6% graduated from high school, 52.6% attended some college, 27.2% earned a bachelor's degree, and 9.6% earned graduate degrees."
It needs to be updated for the 2007 Census. The new numbers should be, 85.7%, 54.1%, 28.7%, and 9.9% respectively. http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/education/cps2007.html Rasmasyean ( talk) 13:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The FAQ said do not discuss on the FAQ page, rather here instead, so here it is. The FAQ says in discussion of why the page is United States and not United States of America "The guideline expresses a preference for the most commonly used name, and "United States" is the most commonly used name for the country in television programs (particularly news), newspapers, magazines, books, and legal documents, including the Constitution of the United States." This is not true for TV programs, newspapers, magazines, or books. The most common name in these media is America, not United States. I'm not saying to move the page, I just want to say this was not a good reason to give for not moving the page. 76.226.116.94 ( talk) 05:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear colleagues,
My original proposal has been archived here; it received two mild approvals and no other comment. On that basis, I'll be bold and do it on the basis that (1) the many high-value links in the article will stand out better without the dates, and (2) no one, repeat no one, minds US date formatting, especially in this very article.
See how you like it. Please give me feedback if you don't. DA is entirely optional now. Tony (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Wording in the third paragraph makes America seem like the bad guy during the revolutionary war. If somebody would change that, America would be very grateful.
Do we need to fill up multiple pages (even on my huge monitor) of an already-huge article with dozens of images that are so tiny as to add nothing, when we have a helpful commons link right there? I can see it adding nothing to the article, and just strains people trying to read it further. -- Golbez ( talk) 05:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Staplegunther ( talk) 12:11 (MDT, US) 13 August 2008.
The author begins with the ridiculous comment, "The United States of America, usually referred to as the United States . . . " The name of the country is not The United States of America. The name is United States. Furthermore, the article should spefically point out that it is incorrect to call the country The United States of America, United States of America, or The United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.7.158 ( talk) 01:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Well said Kman. Prussian725 ( talk) 03:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Original commenter says, although I was mostly wrong, the Wiki article needs at least two changes. The title needs to be "The United States of America" and the first word of the text needs to be bolded. I have determined this, with the help of an attorney, who says that "The Articles of Confederation" are what made the nation a nation. "The Articles of Confederation" say the name is "The United States of America". These also say "Agreed to by Congress November 15, 1777. In force after ratification by Maryland, March 1, 1781". See http://www.constitution.org/cons/usa-conf.htm
The Wiki article should also show the incorrect forms of the name.
For what it's worth:
Bill of Rights says: Title "CONGREFS OF THE UNITED STATES" but some text says the "United States" and "the United States of America". That's "the", not "The".
Constitution says: "Constitution of the United States" but there may be 25 "the United States", and there are three "the United States of America". That's always "the", not "The".
Office of the Law Revision Counsel says, "The Office of the Law Revision Counsel prepares and publishes the United States Code, which is a consolidation and codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States. That's "the", not "The".
The Declaration of Independence says, ". . .the thirteen united [not capitalized] States of America"
It may be that more in the Wiki article needs to be changed than I have said. I decline to examine it, but comment that "The Articles of Confederation" say that two of the states were (are?) Massachusetts-bay and Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. The Wiki article MAY mention such as United States Air Force and similar. If so, is that really the name, or would it be The United States of America Air Force ?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.7.158 ( talk) 13:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I, the original commenter, have revised my entry. See above. I think I have settled the issue.
I just logged onto this page from my Mac at work, and half of the article is the giant seal from the infobox. I think it has something to do with the fact that the monitor is wide format and tuned to a pretty high resolution, but there has to be a way to assign a max size value to the image in the infobox, right? I'm sure it's also possible that Macs are just stupid, but surely I'm not the only one having this problem. -- Grant . Alpaugh 20:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Why doesn't searching for america lead to this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.7.52.18 ( talk) 17:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody else think that the intro to this article is rather bulky? Can not a lot of the info presented there be moved into subheadings? An intro, in my opinion, should be a brief summary acknowledging what the article is about and giving some very simple facts surrounding the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.95.127 ( talk) 01:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Should the US page have a International rankings section? I noticed some other country articles do like
Czech Republic and
Canada.
-
Chase I (
talk) 23:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The intro mentions the heads of the Executive Branch (President and Vice-President) the Judiciary (Chief-Justice), but only one of the heads of the Legislative Branch (Speaker of the House). I attempted to note that the Vice President of the United States also carries the title of President of the Senate, only to be told that this "Crowds the box and adds nothing". I disagree. This is a key element in how our country is governed as the President of the Senate holds a tie-breaking vote in that body and may not be known to many people. FSF-Rapier ( talk) 19:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is currently clocking in at 166 kilobytes long, much of that may be images and footnotes but the issue remains that many readers with less efficient systems will find it hard to access this article let alone contribute to it. I let it to those more familiar with the content to suss out if a spin-off is appropriate as I'm one of those who cannot easily access the article so will have to abstain from accessing it. Banjeboi 22:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Dalit has reverted a particular section of this article ("Contemporary era") to an old version he largely wrote and obviously prefers three times in under three hours.
There are several issues here. I can see from the history of the section in question that it existed in a reasonably concise, well-written, balanced, and stable form for many months before Mr. Dalit intervened in mid-July to expand it all out of proportion and slant it in particular ways. There are a range of problems: Mr. Dalit not seem to know what the word "encompass" means; he does not appear to understand the importance of focusing on the history of the United States (rather than, say, the history of the Hussein regime in Iraq); he does not appear to understand that in an overlong general article on the U.S., that we can not indulge in expansive detailing of "context"; he does not appear to recognize that certain of the balancing language he prefers has now been included. He mentions that I have made many edits in recent days. This is true. My edits have been largely focused on copyediting, proper style of citations, updating data, and so forth. The fact that Mr. Dalit has not made any edits in months and has reappeared for the sole purpose of repeatedly restoring his personally preferred version underscores how tendentious his position is. DocKino ( talk) 00:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I saw very few references to the large number of notable American Firsts, which are now widely used throughout the civilized world
That would be like an article about Ancient Rome with no meantion of their stadiums, roads, or armies Censusdata ( talk) 01:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Telephone as also american Congress recognized was invented by italian Meucci.And what should be written about all inventions or discoveries in EU states?
More attention ,please! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
87.18.185.187 (
talk) 05:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
DanteAgusta removed the final paragraph of the lead section with an edit summary saying, "(reverted, sources are not NPOV". The removed paragraph, edited just to render the supporting refs as inline external links, read:
The United States suffers from problems such as extreme income inequality [5], above-average levels of homicide and violent crime [6], as well as environmental pollution in urban areas. The U.S. also uses more petroleum and other natural resources than any other country [7], and its foreign policies have also been subject to much controversy around the world.
Choosing supporting sources is more about reliability than about NPOVness. I am aware of no WP policy or guideline which requires cited supporting sources to be NPOV, though blatantly POV sources need to be presented differently from NPOV sources, and need to be balanced by presentation of other significant POVs.
There are three bare-URL sources there. Let's take a look at them.
This does appear to be a POV source. The WP article on the author describes him as a Research Professor in psychology and sociology at the University of California, Santa Cruz whose first book, Who Rules America?, was a controversial 1960s bestseller which argued that the United States is dominated by an elite ownership class both politically and economically. I don't think this source should be used to support a lead-section point. If used later in the article, the POV character of the source should be pointed out, and balancing information from sources with other POVs should probably be included as well.
This is also a self-published source. WP:V places limits and cautions on the use of self-published sources. These are described here. This source appears to be inside of the limits, but the cautions do apply. It might be better to use an alternative supporting source.
I wouldn't describe this as a POV source. The source is being cited in support of an assertion that the U.S. has above-average levels of homicide and violent crime. The sfollowing bits of specific information are contained in the source:
I would say that the cited source does support the assertion.
I wouldn't describe this as a POV source. The source is being cited in support of an assertion that the U.S. uses more petroleum and other natural resources than any other country. The source says that the U.S. estimated oil consumption in 2005 was 20,800,000 bbl/day, out of a total world consumption of 80,290,000 bbl/day. On the same site, this page ranks the U.S. as the top consumer of electricity, and this page ranks the U.S. as second in the world in natural gas consumption, behind Russia and ahead of aggregate European Union consumption. I would say that the site does support the assertion, but I would have cited all three of those pages.
In sum, the sources look OK to me, with some reservations about the first one. I don't think that the information in that paragraph belongs in the lead section, though. -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 05:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you'd never know the economy is cratering at the moment by reading that section. It's all strength and stability, is it? Not one mention of any bump in the road (housing, banks, personal debt levels, etc). So much for Wikipedia having any up to date information.
And on the amount of public debt -- $9.5 trillion -- how should we handle the growingly explicit support for Freddie and Fannie ($5 trillion in obligations)? The U.S. can't have it both ways -- either they are going to back that debt or not. If are telling global investors they are, then Wikipedia should acknowledge that in some fashion as we are talking about highly material amounts. Deet ( talk) 13:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Send to a friend
Declare War before Waging War, Part 1 by Doug Bandow, January 2002
LIKE MOST CRISES, the shocking attack on the World Trade Center caused a rush to government for protection. People seemed willing to accept almost any new restriction on liberty or new spending program in the name of fighting terrorism. Few seem willing to criticize the president should he decide to expand the war to Indonesia, Iraq, the Philippines, Syria, or Somalia — in the name of forestalling new terrorist attacks, of course.
Congress formally authorized the president to retaliate against any “nations, organization, or persons” he determined to be involved in the September 11 atrocity. But what about a nation, organization, or person that wasn’t?
This is, of course, the problem for hawks who want to wage war widely: there apparently is no evidence linking even the ugliest of regimes, such as Iraq, to the September attacks. If there were, the president would probably already have struck.
Now the administration seems to be developing a new justification for attacking Iraq: its refusal to accept United Nations inspections to ensure that it does not develop weapons of mass destruction. Nonproliferation is a worthy concern, though not necessarily one warranting war. After all, Baghdad has been out of compliance with the UN’s inspection regimen since 1998.
The U.S. Constitution is clear. Article 1, Section 8, states that “Congress shall have the power ... to declare War.” The president is commander in chief, but he must fulfill his responsibilities within the framework established by the Constitution and subject to the control of Congress.
Today, of course, presidents prefer to make the decision for war themselves. President Bill Clinton took or considered military action in Bosnia, Haiti, Korea, Kosovo, and Somalia — with nary a nod to Congress. This former state attorney general and constitutional law professor announced in 1993, “I would strenuously oppose attempts to encroach on the president’s foreign-policy powers.” Adopting a novel form of constitutional interpretation, he opined, “The Constitution leaves the president, for good and sufficient reasons, the ultimate decision-making authority.”
No different was the first President George Bush. He was happy to have Congress vote on war with Iraq but only to support his decision to go in. Lawyers had advised him that he had the authority to act alone, he explained.
President Ronald Reagan invaded Grenada on his own authority. President Richard Nixon prosecuted and expanded the Vietnam War with the thinnest of legal authority, the fraudulently obtained Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
One has to go back to President Dwight Eisenhower, a former general, to find a chief executive who acknowledged Congress’s decisive role in deciding on war.
He was right. Today the American president claims possession of power comparable to, if not greater than, that of the head of the Soviet Communist Party. As Caspar Weinberger, secretary of defense at the time, so rightly criticized the Evil Empire,
Now who among the Soviets voted that they should invade Afghanistan? Maybe one, maybe five men in the Kremlin. Who has the ability to change that and bring them home? Maybe one, maybe five men in the Kremlin. Nobody else. And that is, I think, the height of immorality. What U.S. congressman has voted to attack, say, Iraq? Should one man in the White House make that decision, it would also be the height of immorality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.141.160.176 ( talk) 02:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Just had to say (again) that the ancestry map is simply wrong. Apparently no one wants to correct it and the article is locked from editing so....anyway, so very wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.179.50 ( talk) 02:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
There have been many comments previously regarding the bias of the Crime and Punishment section. Basically, this article, unlike featured articles such as Canada and Germany, does not have a "Law" section. This section should deal with all aspects of the legal and judicial system, whereas America's section only discusses "Crime and Punishment", giving a skewed view of the topic. Rather than inform, this section only tells how violent the United States is/are (is it plural or singular?). I'd love to redo it myself, but I have no knowledge whatsoever about law. Someone should look at the Law sections of Canada and Germany, and use those as a template to totally rewrite America's section.
Additionally, it is of my opinion that this section has a negative bias in the first place; it only mentions the most negative aspects of the United States' Crime and Punishment. There must be SOME good aspects, right? (maybe there's less shoplifting, who knows)
User Somedumbyankee made a post a while back that was on the right track, I pasted it below: M.Nelson ( talk) 04:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Knock yourself out - That said, though, this is a country-level article, so only a minimal level of depth is needed. The rationalle for covering the chart topping incarceration rates, increasingly-rare capital punishment, and high-for-the-west murder rates is that they are so radically different from other Western nations - They continue to warrant coverage. MrZaius talk 05:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Usa in the GDP lists of Wikipedia are second after EU.It'd be better to change the position 1 about GDP with 2 to have not a ridicolous contraddiction.Is it wikipedia or Ameripedia?Not propagand,objectivity! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.185.187 ( talk) 04:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm a EU citizen!So it doesn't exist!Come to EU and try to pass by check in and look at passports or at EU instituions.They exist and they're strong.This is ameripedia.It'd be better to change the numbers to be credibleand not uncredible!In the GDP there 's also Cia coastline which isn't all a international agency. Many people in EU are beginning to feel Wikipedia like superficial and ameripedia. Please change this laughing situation. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.185.187 ( talk) 06:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This is Ameripedia,an encyclopedia only for Usa glasses that make smiles.Usa are 2nd in the mail list,open the eyes! Please change the WRONG numbers. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.185.187 ( talk) 06:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks ,so it's time to change Usa ranking number 1 with 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.185.187 ( talk) 06:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) The rankings in the infobox for this article and similar articles for other countries are manually imported from the relevant List of ... by country articles. This discussion, if it belongs anywhere, belongs either on the talk pages of the individual List of ... articles or in some centralized forum set up for that discussion. Actually, I believe that the discussion has been held several times on the talk pages of those articles and has been held at least once in some centralized forum. Hmmm.... Yes. See Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries. -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 06:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
EU is a new kind of nation that you like or not.It's called in the latin form sui generis.I' m a EU citizen and i know my country like you i think Usa.We've all institutions:President,Parliament,Commission,Justice and Army.Our capital is Brussels.So phone EU and tell it that doesn't exist.Ameripedia ,that's the new name of this site with these numbers.It's out of reality and ojectivity.I'm sorry.Please it's time to change datas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.185.187 ( talk) 06:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
You can erase everithing you want from Ameripedia but the truth and the shame rest.You can find EU President email in EU web site.It's very esy,write him,possiblement en français! You are not realistic and objective.Change wrong datas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.185.187 ( talk) 07:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
At EU citizens eyes NOW you are second as also coastlines say.Cia coastline should be erased because it'isnt an international and mondial agency.Usa are second now at all world eyes.Please change WRONG datas on Usa presentation. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
87.18.185.187 (
talk) 07:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you want to offend me? I don't allow this.Be quiet!I talk about WRONG datas about Usa with right and objective positions.Look at the GDP list!EU is first.That's the truth.If you don't like it ,ask for to be certain at EU web site.It's simple. Please change WRONG datas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.185.187 ( talk) 08:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, time to stop. Please refrain from asking to change the GDP. It is not going to change cause the rank is correct. What you are doing now is spamming this page with nonsense. Please stop now. Thank you. -- DanteAgusta ( talk) 08:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I began first to write for a right thing.The rank is WRONG because EU is a political being.We have its passport and all institutions.The old manner of intending countries in EU is ended in 1992 with Maastricht Treaty.EU is first if you study all new economical book.So change wrong datas.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.185.187 ( talk) 08:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I noted a right thing in my edit.If you don't like it don't offend.YWho like an encyclopedya like TRUTH and HONESTY.Please change the rank of Usa GDP.Thanks. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.12.199.223 (
talk) 19:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This guy seems like a troll to me. I suggest everyone just stop paying attention to him. TastyCakes ( talk) 20:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
DR CAMPI.The usa page has to be improved in the ranking of gdp.Please set number 2 for usa. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.186.4 ( talk) 15:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
List of countries and outlying territories by total area. Where's the EU? LedRush ( talk) 15:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand that you want to have right always by the last answer. EU is a political being and not an association like Nato or Nafta.It has all institutions, also army.So its gdp is 1st in the world and Usa gdp is 2nd,please change wrong ranking of Usa.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.186.4 ( talk) 18:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The same anon IP has been stirring up some mess on the EU talk page as well. At least it is nice to discover that us European editors agree with you guy Ameripedia editors for once. The EU is not a country ;-) Arnoutf ( talk) 19:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that EU is 1st in the ranking.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.60.118.196 ( talk) 08:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
If anyone can be asked (Well not me, i wouldn’t know how!) you might want to consider reporting those three IPs. It is most likely there socket puppets, along with them being no good filthy greedy trolls! (And you guys fed up real nice you know!) ( 79.71.178.238 ( talk) 19:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC))
Reporting those three IPs. CelticMuffin ( talk) 18:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
This debate seems to be producing more heat than light. Final warnings have been issued for disruption and I suggest that any editor disagreeing with the apparent consensus that the EU is not a nation gets a third opinion or starts a Request for Comment. -- Rodhull andemu 19:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you level-headed British guy :) Just a little bit of further clarification, the U.S. is a union of states that form a country and the EU is a union of countries that form a big union or commune or whatever, are we on the same page? Prussian725 ( talk) 21:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC) P.S. Is Great Britain in the EU? I thought it wasn't.
I fixed some errors in the lede (the 13 colonies did not declare independence, Congress did and it set up the United States of America in 1776. Gaps filled = roles of France in Revolution, Washington as first president, political parties, Jefferson in 1800. All stanadard textbook material but too important to overlook. Rjensen ( talk) 23:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
It is not true, however, that all 13 colonies "declared" on 1776-July-04. -- JimWae ( talk) 05:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The recent good-faith addition of material on the effects of the Spanish flu to the History section of the article prompted me to revisit the most recent thread addressing the ongoing issue of the article's length: Talk:United_States/Archive_32#Too_large. To facilitate participation in the revival of this discussion, I'll reproduce the thoughts of MrZaius, whom long-time contributors here respect for the extensive work he put in raising the overall quality of the article:
Might as well drudge up an old proposal at this point. Never got much feedback one way or the other, really. History of the United States was, when last I looked (5-6 months ago, admittedly) poorly written, poorly cited, and just generally poor, despite being almost as lengthy as this article. We should take the history section of this article and condense it into three-four paragraphs with no sub-sections and split the current well-polished and aggressively edited and condensed section into a new "History of the United States" - There is some information that would be lost in the process, but that can be handled by merging the few notes in the History article that are inappropriately missing from its daughter articles into its daughter articles. Some areas of the new article would warrant expansion, but it should be the basis for expansion/rewrite rather than a merge into the current mess. This would also take care of nearly all of the todo items on the History article's talk page. The same could be done for the Culture section & Culture of the United States. This would obviously be a very, very involved and time-consuming project, but I believe it may result in multiple FA articles where one GA and two Bs currently exist. MrZaius talk 08:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
While I believe the notion of reducing the entire history section here to "three-four paragraphs" may be overambitious, the opportunity to condense and focus it is certainly present. I've taken one small step in that direction: I've eliminated the Spanish flu addition (treating a subject that affected almost every country in the world, is addressed in the overview articles of almost none, and whose cultural effects are uncertain and relatively obscure) and cut a couple of other sentences in the relevant subsection that concerned relatively minor issues or were largely redundant in basic informational value. The total reduction in size is by no means major, but its not quite insignificant either: from 167.46 KB before the flu, to 167.69 KB with it, to 166.92 KB after my edit. Further steps in this direction might begin to make a real difference. I'll also make sure that all the information that's been cut here is properly represented in the History of the United States article, which--as MrZaius observes--is very weak: neither the Spanish flu, nor Native American citizenship (now cut here), nor women's suffrage (retained here) have been mentioned there. DocKino ( talk) 18:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
There are fifry-one states and not fifty. your "50" states listing ignores WEST-VIRGINIA, wherea West-Virginia and Virginia are 2 different states. although in the value "US State" u show the exact 51.
Please correct it.
here are official 51 states from the US GOV Web-Site [10]
Best, Jon Dital —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.40.93 ( talk) 20:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I bother someone with my point of view, but shouldn't you correct saying that The United States is also correctly named America? Because America is the entire continent, so, generally speaking Mexico is America too, so as Peru is America or Canada.
This term should be considered to be a non official, is more a way to say USA, but it’s incorrect, please explain this in the article.
Thanks
Not just in the english speaking world is the short term "America" being used but in japan,afghanistan,iraq & even dare i say mexico *Americano* So i dont believe this to be an issue at all since its been discussed before and has since been settled ChesterTheWorm ( talk) 10:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC) ChesterTheWorm
TimVickers recognized that many occurrences of "the United States" could be readily condensed to "the U.S." I've built on his work and attempted to apply a consistent style throughout the article (except for the lead, where sticking with the more formal construction is most appropriate): Spelling out "the United States" the first time it appears under any header (whether section or subsection), then uniformly using "the U.S." for subsequent appearances in the section/subsection. DocKino ( talk) 18:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
"Common short forms and abbreviations of the United States of America include the United States, the U.S., the USA, and America. Colloquial names for the country include the U.S. of A. and the States. Columbia, a once popular name for the Americas and the United States, was derived from Christopher Columbus. It appears in the name " District of Columbia". A female personification of Columbia appears on some official documents, including certain prints of U.S. currency."
I'm all about the vast majority of the cuts that have happened over the last day - Good job, folks. That said, the etymology section neither has been nor is long enough to be forked out into a separate article. It is wholly appropriate to deal with this topic (albeit with greater brevity than above) rather than to cut it entirely. Please review the edit that struck it and, if it is truly felt to be detrimental to reinsert it, please explain as much here. You might be able to move similar language out of the rather lengthy LEAD and into the Etymology section. MrZaius talk 17:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The title needs to be "The United States of America" and the first word of the text needs to be bolded. I have determined this, with the help of an attorney who passed the bar exam the first time without studying, who says that "The Articles of Confederation" are what made the nation a nation. "The Articles of Confederation" say the name is "The United States of America". These also say "Agreed to by Congress November 15, 1777. In force after ratification by Maryland, March 1, 1781". See http://www.constitution.org/cons/usa-conf.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.7.158 ( talk) 21:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The statement, "For a topic outline on this subject, see List of basic United States topics" shoud be removed per Wikipedia:Hatnotes#Linking_to_articles_that_are_highly_related_to_the_topic. 24.20.131.232 ( talk) 22:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. 24.20.131.232 ( talk) 00:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
It appears that other articles which refer to Americans or American people link to this article. Has there been any consideration for a separate article about American people specifically? M5891 ( talk) 23:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
In the article on the One-China policy there is a discussion ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:One-China_policy#Map_of_RoC.2FTaiwan_on_CIA_World_Factbook )about the US' position on this. Some have argued that the inclusion of Taiwan as a part of China on a map proves that the US believes that Taiwan is a part of the PRC, which others claim the policy is more ambiguous. Since people here should be experts on US policy, could you help us break out of our edit warring?
While I know this isn't the best place to ask this, a resolution there could help with some language here as well. LedRush ( talk) 13:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that the primary discussion of this point is to take place at Talk:One-China policy. Also, while sourced arguments to replace this nonsense would be welcome, keep in mind that the core of the argument boils down to "is in depth analysis of an unexplained map acceptable?" "No, it's original research." MrZaius talk 02:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I've seen a plethora of countries, all featured and unlocked, and with The United States of America, we find the exact opposite. Is there a specific reason for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.192.68 ( talk) 23:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
As this section title supposes, this article is to concerned about the 08 election. Man, what's the big deal? I thought it was supposed to stay neutral! Someone, please fix this article! 76.247.183.31 ( talk) 04:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)KingYDT
Currently, this is on the page:
"All presidents to date have been white men. If Democrat Barack Obama wins the 2008 election, he will be the first African American president; if Republican John McCain wins, he will be the oldest man to take the office, and his running mate, Sarah Palin, will be the first female vice president."
In no way does this section imply discussion of the upcoming election with the inclusion of the race of previous or upcoming presidents or the historical significance of either candidate being elected. This section is meant for the discussion of current and past political ideologies, parties, and politics. In no way does discussion of ideologies, parties, and politics have to do with the race of previous presidents ("All presidents to date have been white men"). Not only that, but if it is necessary to discuss the historical significance of either Barack Obama or Sarah Palin, the fact that they would be the first of their kind is already stated within the succeeding paragraphs. Furthermore, the discussion of upcoming elections could be revised by simply linking discussion of the upcoming election to the 2008 election page and listing the major candidates and/or their positions. Discussion of the historical significance of either candidate should be left for the election page especially since discussion of their historical significance is not even implied in the subject heading.
The quoted area should be immediately considered for complete revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.253.153.45 ( talk) 19:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
with a total debt of 65.5 percent of GDP. The CIA ranked the total percentage as 26th in the world.[7]
How that????
On 30 September 2008, the total U.S. federal debt passed the $10 trillion <<<<< mark, for the first time[2], with about $32,895 per capita (that is, per U.S. resident).
USA
GDP (PPP) 2007 estimate
- Total $13.543 trillion[4] (1st) <<<<<<<
- Per capita $43,444 (4th) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mosn1 (
talk •
contribs) 14:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be that the references are separated into two columns instead of three? I noticed that almost every good or featured article (even if they have as close to or as many references as this one) uses just two columns for the references. I was about to make the change, however I found it a very funny thing and didn't want to be wrong so I decided to post on the talk page just to make sure. Lady Galaxy 22:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey folks!
I just want to point out that the english speaking community seems all 'ok' with thinking that 'American' means 'a person from the United-States of America'. The fact is that this term is very ambiguous ( [11]), and it needs some clarification all the time when outside of the United-States of America.
For those who speak french, this topic is fully discussed at the following article of the french version of Wikipedia: [12].
So, as I do not know of any naming convention for 'the people of one country', I would propose that in english, the people of the United-States would be called either of the following terms:
- United-Staters; or - United-Statians.
What do you people think? Is there an alternative name in english for 'the people of the United-States of America' ?
JellyThing ( talk) 19:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I see a recent unexplained substitution of a fairly readable map to an almost unreadable version Image:U.S. Territorial Acquisitions.png to Image:Aquired Lands of the US.svg. That was revision as of 09:54, October 18, 2008 by RaviC. Other than the switch to svg, there's no apparent reason. Tedickey ( talk) 12:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The United States is not the sole superpower any longer, with its poor economy; times have changed as this cannot be added when new countries have climbed aboard on the global stage. Since I have read a lot of reports on the news, the US just doesn’t hold sole status anymore. I have provided some links to give my information as proven which you can discuss either way. Some reports are saying the US is not a superpower at the current time or on the verge of losing its status. However I am not going to make any claims the US is no longer a superpower, just the US is no longer the sole superpower anymore. World is different as new countries like Russia & China have made their stages to enter the superpower arena. All information you can view to read my data for your information to know what I am bringing to your attention. I am American and live in in America but I am seeing the world changing as the US is really changing too.
The United States of America must now accept its fate as a former Super Power that has fizzled out!: Venezuela News : Pr-inside Sept, 17, 2008: http://www.pr-inside.com/the-united-states-of-america-must-r811903.htm
U.S. No More The Only Super Power: Michael Webster, the Investigative Reporter: American Chronicle, August 17, 2008: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/71513
So much for sole superpower, By John Roughan: August 16, 2008 : New Zealand Herald: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10527278&pnum=2
Hey U.S., welcome to the Third World!
LA Times,
By Rosa Brooks,
September 23, 2008,
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brooks18-2008sep18,0,6908905.column
http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20080923211926234
The $700 Billion Questions,
By David Sirota
In These Times
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3932/the_700_billion_questions/
Superpower? Really?
Austin Chronicle,
BY MICHAEL VENTURA,
JUNE 22, 2007,
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A494048 article
At UN, Bush urges global cooperation
The Boston Globe,
By Farah Stockman,
Sept. 24, 2008
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2008/09/24/at_un_bush_urges_global_cooperation/
The U.S. Is No Superpower
By Paul Craig Roberts
News Max
April 26, 2006
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/4/26/95748.shtml
From Superpower to Besieged Global Power
Restoring World Order after the Failure of the Bush Doctrine
Edited by Edward A. Kolodziej and Roger E. Kanet
May 2008
http://www.ugapress.org/0820329770.html
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/08/0508superpower.html
http://www.acdis.uiuc.edu/Research/Kolodziej_FromSuper_flyer.pdf
THE OUTLOOK ON A TRIPLE-SUPERPOWER WORLD-
The Christian Science Monitor-
By Helena Cobban : August 22, 2008-
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0822/p09s03-coop.html
So much for sole superpower-
By John Roughan-
New Zealand Herald-
August 16, 2008 :
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10527278&pnum=2
Soros Says Financial Crisis Saps U.S. Strength Against China-
By Viola Gienger-
April 4, 2008-
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601091&sid=ayFW7vlhFivM&refer=india
A Superpower Is Reborn- The New York Times- By RONALD STEEL- August 24, 2008 , http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/opinion/24steel.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.53.9 ( talk) 07:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
You are too pessimistic! 76.247.183.31 ( talk) 04:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)KingYDT
The discussion misses the point. “Superpower” is such a vague and nebulous term. It’s almost meaningless, certainly useless in this context. Why is it even required? I’m not interested in debating whether the US is or isn’t a superpower. It’s beside the point. The point is why does it need to be put into an encyclopaedia?
If the point is that the US is very powerful (economically, militarily, etc,) then it should be some other way with concrete facts, not vague terms (ie, the US has the world’s biggest XXXXX, or world’s most powerful XXXX). Ie, we need to show, not tell. Superpower is borderline peacock terminology that is just no good for an encyclopaedia.
Arguably there is space in the article to summarise various opinion that recnognises it as a superpower (eg, “X & Y call it the world’s only superpower”), but to say “it is a superpower” is not what an encyclopaedia does. Further, such a discussion, would not be appropriate for the lead - too much detail/trivia. The lead already mentions economic, military, cultural influence and power. That’s fine, and enough. -- Merbabu ( talk) 01:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
9/25/2008: http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=838634
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7826065
Sept. 25 2008, FT.com, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1d6a4f3a-8aee-11dd-b634-0000779fd18c.html
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-09/26/content_10112504.htm
By Leon Mangasarian, Sept. 25, 2008, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=ahUuZ8Z5rkDA&refer=germany
Bush: ‘Our entire economy is in danger’ MSNBC by Associated Press, Sept 24, 2008, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26871338/?GT1=43001 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26871338/?GT1=43001
I think everything new you've posted links back to what DocKino originally said, your articles are discussing impending doom as substantiated by current problems in the market, but you still have failed to provide a reasonable consensus view that people no longer regard the United States as the sole superpower. At best, you might be able to throw in a line that its role as the sole superpower may be slipping, but as of yet there is no basis for a definite answers. While I'll admit to not fully reading every source you provided, some of them seem rather... sketchy for Encyclopedic sources, such as an article by Rosa Brooks whose articles are generally known for their satiric take. Also, some of your more vehement sources like Michael Ventura rely on numbers that haven't held up with time, such as his claim that the European economy was accelerating in the wake of America's financial crisis, yet the European economy has shrunk in times the American economy did not ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7596208.stm). There's a great deal of uncertainty in terms of the future of American power, but things are far from settled. I think this discussion is well summed up by your statement "Lastly 50% of the US military spending is basically impossible if the US financial system fails" - if the US system does fully collapse like some beleive it will, then yes we will need to change this article but until then we can only wait.-- Ben ( talk) 02:39, 26 September 2008 (PST)
Your missing the point as the US does not hold its sole status anymore, we could argue to remove the entire wording or remove sole superpower. Two new countries are a superpower now but I am not trying to bring these to discuss, just the US is not the sole superpower. Every country has its strong hold but the US's strong hold is its financial system and it is broken which has been for sometime. The US is more than stumbling right now, inflation is an all time high and US military bases have been shutting down, in 2005 35 bases were closed due to lack of money, 2006 12 closed down, 2007 14 were closed down and 2008, no report yet (I would add the reason why the US military budget is so big is the US production cost are so much higher than any other country, it cost us more to produce, run, operate to finance our military system more than any other country, it is not cheap for the US to have a military when you have other countries who can a lot cheaper; if you placed our US military money completely on China as an example, the US could reduce their military budget down to $100 billion not $500 billion it cost us taxpayers). I posted some published video's for you, I would ask you to view them as I am trying to provide my verification that the US is not the sole superpower anymore, it might be number one but not the only one.
China superpower http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMcA_yHDfb0
The Ultimate American Dollar Collapse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RhnHo3RDfg
Soaring U.S. Global Inflation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RaIRxBpTt0
U.S. Economy and Financial System Bankrupt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvTbOnuBHiQ
U.S. Economy and Financial System BankruptPt.2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojdrIC9K94E
The U.S. Economy is Unsustainable http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Q14HOBThM&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.53.9 ( talk) 19:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
[17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.14.200 ( talk) 01:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
EU and what about EU?It's the first...the money of EU and the organization in every sector are superior.That's the new true superpower.The old idea of nation of 19th century is dead.Now is winner a new politic form which is flexible but also very strong.The nations have done their time in policy.EU is the newest and strongest power in at the beginning of 21th century.Britannica isn't,like many books the Holy Bible,is a simple book.Other books say other things and are also better.Check EU strongest datas in the world everiwhere. Thanks. Vindobona
Arnouft you have to cosider that EU is n't a nation but neither an international organization.It's a new kind of "nation".The old one as you think is dead all over the world.EU now is the first power on the sole.Economically,polititically and also military has everithing to check and control the globe.Differences make it stronger because risks are more distribuited.The true is that many people don't know EU laws and very very strong links.The era of nationalisms is eneded for ever killed by continentalization (and not globalization as many people say wrong)of the areas.EU has been the first to grow as new superpwer.DATAS TALK. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindobona ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It'll be also original but it's true if you look last times at EU policy and economy.May be there are too old books on the wall studio.I even doubt of your good feith in EU.In fact when you talk about it you show you hate it.It's easy to find it in your talking.Of course you are noticed by EU checks. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindobona ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 1 October, 2008 (UTC)
has been outdated since 1996. Good grief, you make these statements the US is the sole superpower but you fail and fail again to provide current sources. It it is like you hate the fact that there is two other superpowers now, Russia and China. As I said I can throw over 80 current sources on these countries but I have said, remove the US sole superpower and remain it only as a superpower. If you continue, I will argue it is not a superpower with more sources than your outdated Britannica 1996 article. The US is not the sole superpower, not today it is not. Maybe a few years ago, yes but the world is different and powers have changed. Also Dockino, I noticed you have a huge recorded history on the edits on the article page. I can tell you are very pro US but your playing taking too much advantage of the article with your edits, this can not be what you think all the time, there are other members who have sources to post, give the article a break and let people speak with their sources. Thank you Kman543210, lets discuss the issue and see if we can agree on the removal of sole power off the article for safe keeping. I will provide more sources if you want to view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.53.9 ( talk) 06:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
At the moment honestly the only superpower on the sole is EU.Usa ,Russia and China aren't able to get it.Next sunday in Paris there'll be the meeting with France ,Germany ,Italy and UK for showing EU strength.This 4 countries more the other 24(29 all in Jenuary) are enough to overtake Usa...also too much honestly!
Thanks.
That was hard. Is this over yet? Please keep in mind that this is not a forum, but rather a place to discuss the actual article. Much of the incoherent ranting above has little relevance and adds little to our efforts here. MrZaius talk 13:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The age of 2 superpowers is over since 1990. The Post Cold War Era is over since 9/11 2001. Mankind has entered the age of globalization with multiple, interdependent, influential powers. The term superower is outdated therefore and can be tagged misleading in an intro about the USA. I remove the claim once again. all the best Lear 21 ( talk) 16:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Usa global datas now are much lower then EU datas.The same for Russia,India and China.EU is the only superpower on the soil today. DATAS TALK.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindobona ( talk • contribs) 17:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
@Prussian725 and to all the other superpower dreamers: That the world has become multipolar and the age of superpowers has ceased should be common knowledge for those who read or watched TV the last 5 years. For those who spent their times on an island and switched off all media, here is a source: US superpower status is shaken- BBC. BTW the source is of course an anglo-saxon media for language reasons. In several other parts of world the end of a US-superpower era is certainly not an issue anymore, it is a fact. all the best Lear 21 ( talk) 17:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
As I said, the reference comes from an English source and an English scholar. The UK is the very closest ally to the US economically, politically. If even this background agrees to a new situation one can assume how other regions, less affiliated with the US, estimate the status of the US. I assume editors in this forum would only accept a written text from the American president itself concluding officially: NO, the US is NO superpower, NO the US has NO superpower influence on world affairs anymore. I remove the claim tomorrow again, if there is no serious argumentation to hold the superpower claim and so should everybody who thinks that the term superpower is outdated and incorrect in 21st century. all the best Lear 21 ( talk) 17:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
A true superpower hasn't public and private system of finance out of control.It 's only a continuous great fanfare writing Usa superpower.It's overtaken.In EU most people smile about Usa superpower.EU knows to be superior.It's clever because doesn't use like Usa also now in decadence the great fanfare.It's like a joke.This discussion will be open again next weeks because of new Us crashes in economy and also in other sectors.
Thanks. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Vindobona (
talk •
contribs) 17:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Have you guys read the superpower article? In its intro: a superpower is a nation able to "influence events and project power on a worldwide scale". Yes China has economic influence over pretty much the entire world. Yes Russia has economic and military influence over its region. But neither are able to project power anywhere in the world to anything near the degree the US can. Maybe one day; not today. As for the financial crisis, 1) it's too early to reach conclusions like "the US's hegemonic position is over", and 2) The fallout from it all is almost sure to result in serious economic effects in other "would be superpowers". But in my opinion this is not relevent anyway: the USSR was considered a superpower despite decades of its economy falling apart. It's really a description of the military abilities of a nation, and I don't think anyone even vaguely familiar with the state of the world would argue that Russia and China qualify in the same category militarily. TastyCakes ( talk) 18:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
USA is still superpower and most powerful nation. What poor economy? USA has best economy in the world - List of countries by GDP (nominal) - leaving china and russia much much below. USA has also absolutely best military force in the world (spending on military is almost same as all countries together) and very large influence. -- Novis-M ( talk) 18:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I remember you that the 47% of Us public debt is in the hand of other countries investors.It's a joke,your carrier and submarines are owned by other countries(could loose a part during the shipping...).EU isn't in this conditions at all.It's strong in every sector.I think mr Prussian is anry because all his world is ended.Only pride rested..he dislikes EU because he knows it's the most dangerous enemy.Anyway he needs EU that now is helping $ and WS.Of prussian he has nothing.You are afraid of who overtakes you and speak easy of who you can beat.The source on public debt is the Oxford University (Usa).DATAS TALK.
Thanks. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Vindobona (
talk •
contribs) 18:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Summarising.
By elimination three of four candidates are eliminated. There is no sufficient evidence to eliminate US, hence the US is the sole superpower. Arnoutf ( talk) 19:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
@ Prussian quote: " your gross support of socialism makes me want to vomit." Please, prussian if there is anybody who wants to vomit, than its the Europeans. The US becomes a communists state right in front of your eyes, buddy. The government will spent 700.000.000.000 US$ to intervene in its national private economy. I call THIS socialism ! I wouldn´t mind seeing half the US banks and half the insurances going down the drain because that´s capitalism, isn´t it? HaHa. Lear 21 ( talk) 19:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, the question is not which powers on the global stage are ALSO superpowers. The question is have superpower states/organizations ceased to exist? The answer is, YES! In todays globalized interdependent world the major economic, political forces have become minorities in itself. There is not one single power which is able to project a dominant power. That´s why the inclusion of the term superpower in the intro is outdated. Lear 21 ( talk) 19:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
As I've said before, America clearly is the world's military superpower. But the EU has to be considered a major economic power as increasingly its economic heft and its regulatory decisions are having major global impact. Just ask Microsoft. Or look at the increased use of the euro as a world's reserve currency. Arnoulf, you err in dismissing the EU largely on the basis it is not a country. This is certainly true, but that attitude is as quaint as the Venetians and the Florentines dismissing the pretensions of the Germans or the French in having cultural and economic heft because they weren't city states but "artificial" agglomerations. You will get no quarrel with me in terms of the EU's military heft or its political influence (though that is starting to change). But the EU is almost at par with the United States in terms of its economy and, more importantly (as this plays to what a "superpower" is) its economic influence. As an economic entity, it most certainly is not "artificial."
In short, I stand by what I said earlier: America as a military superpower is unchallenged. In the other realms (economic, political, cultural) it is a leading, if not the leading entity, but to call it a "superpower" there is questionable. Which is precisely what the sources pretty well all agree upon. Which is what the lede said. Canada Jack ( talk) 20:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, on the latter point, can the Soviets truly have been a Superpower then? Was its cultural and economic influence felt on a global scale? I'd say not. So it's a bit dangerous to be too fixated on a particular definition of "superpower" as some here seem to be. The term is nebulous, and open to interpretation, which is why we should parse it somewhat as the lede has, and mention its status for America in terms of its military which I don't there is any serious disagreement. The disagreement extends to the other realms and the lede is worded such that alternate viewpoints are included. Canada Jack ( talk) 20:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
To mantain public functions steady needs money.Usa have no sufficient money to mantein it and private debts.Read datas also in Wikipedia.The Us debts are out of control.Have you understand that your carriers and submarines are for an half owned by Eu or chinese citizens?Have you understand that EU has weapons on its soil like also Russia and China?Check datas,the rest is the great fanfare of propagand .Eu isn't like Usa that used the great fanfare.EU now (it doesn't matter if it is a new kind of political subject;it's this new kind of being its luck)is the only one able to rule the world.Tahnks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindobona ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
This stopped being about the article a while ago. This isn't a forum. Take this discussion somewhere else, or steer it back on track. MrZaius talk 04:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the wording should just say recognized superpower instead of strongest superpower as the economy change could the US into a great power soon as the US superpower could be lost according the bailout. Russia raises again [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] and I second they have with all the money & military might they have on the world next to the US but there is a lot of issues on the US's superpower quote right now, so the wording could be reworded again. I don't totally oppose the wording now but saying the strongest superpower seems out of context a little bit, what about saying a "recognized superpower" instead of strongest. Can we agree to that wording? -- 75.6.2.122 ( talk) 05:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Usa aren't anymore a superpower in my opinion.All the people feel this thing.The debt is too high and is in the hands of citizens of other countries.I agree with 76.205.222.90 and many other that Usa isn't anymore a superpower.Usa depend too much on otner countries wills.Army is mantened by money and it means that Usa weapons are in other hands.They can't go on in this way all the time and their crisis is just started.Thanks. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
89.97.225.77 (
talk) 08:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Usa quality and quantity debts can be checked everiwhere in official sites.They aren't at all a superpower depending financially from other powers in the world.Thanks.
The term "strongest" superpower is almost teenager talk. The whole introduction is a chaotic piece of prose. If there are no reliable sources presented to verify a "sole", "single" or whatsoever superpower status of the U.S in the last year, the term will be deleted from the intro. Until that happens the term is removed. Lear 21 ( talk) 15:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Wording in error LedRush, your article by the Boston Globe doesn't exist
[30], I even Googled the titles Boston Globe US sole superpower and this was the result
[31] but what articles it did have from the Boston Globe was it said the US was a sole superpower 10 years ago but not now, here is the article from the Boston Globe Sept 24, 2008
[32]. Nothing exist as the sole superpower from the Boston Globe. So your sources are wrong and the article needs to be corrected. I would place the wording as superpower myself or even former but I will just agree first before changing without others agreeing. Don't change the wording LedRush when others have time to respond to this argument. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
66.17.53.9 (
talk) 04:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I propose we choose one of the three options below and close this topic:
agree on closing and think sole superpower is the best language because of the overwhelming consensus among sources that this is true, both at the time of the collapse of the USSR and now. LedRush ( talk) 04:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Usa aren't anymore a superpower because their public debt (and so also Army level) is controlled by other powers on Earth.Thanks. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.32.189.80 (
talk) 18:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
A Superpower Is Reborn : The New York Times : By RONALD STEEL : August 24, 2008 : http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/opinion/24steel.html
Superpower swoop : By Misha Glenny : New Statesman : August 14 2008 : http://www.newstatesman.com/europe/2008/08/georgia-russia-ukraine-cheney
US worries Russia returning to authoritarian past : By the Associated Press : August 15, 2008 : http://wokv.com/common/ap/2008/08/17/D92K3M7O0.html
Russians are confident their nation is back as a Superpower New York Times : By Anne Barnard : August 15, 2008 : http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2008/08/15/russians_are_confident_their_nation_is_back/
Put my vote to erase superpower off the subject. -- Benhound ( talk) 06:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
In CNN vote the 55% of voters decided to set Usa out of superpowers list.
This silly little hyperfocused debate over two words has now eclipsed the United States Constitution in length:
mrzaius@desktop:~$ [[wc (Unix)|wc]] constitution 395 7666 45318 constitution mrzaius@desktop:~$ wc superpower-section 821 10163 69363 superpower-section
MrZaius talk 05:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
That you can't even get cites that don't accidently say the exact opposite of what you want to say demonstrates how tenuous your position is.
But anyway, we've talked about this enough, just write your opinion on the proposal. LedRush ( talk) 14:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
-I was reading some of the sources on this topic and have somethings I think need a change but the question on the superpower debate with the USA is really a mute question itself but if there some facts that say the US is a frozen superpower, I would say I would agree there is a limit ability with the United States standing on its toes. If you add the numbers the US has been failing its projections all year long according to the New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor [44]. One cannot on agree we have a forcast of a country failing like never before and certaintly the US is in that direction. With that in mind, superpower really should be erased as this is not a superpower country in the terms to the world right now.-- 75.128.18.84 ( talk) 04:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This discussion appears to be dominated by a 1990ies post Cold War ideology and terminology. It seems like the pro superpower fighters are stuck in a time bubble 10 years ago. The world is globalized, interdependent and lacks any "dominating" single nations. The US, EU (EU countries), China and to some extent Russia remain influential in several spheres. Even a blind high school boy could recognize this view by reading average newspapers without being an academic. Lear 21 ( talk) 17:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The word superpower if tou check all world datas is overtaken for Usa. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.12.191.172 (
talk) 08:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
This statement makes a claim to what the US was as of 1989-1991, not now. Later in the article, when talking about now, the term sole superpower doesn't exist. Surely we all agree that in 1992 the US was the sole superpower and currently it is a superpower, right? Can we please stop the edit war? Pretty please? LedRush ( talk) 18:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The current introduction implies that the US finds itself still in post Cold War era while maintaining superpower status. That´s wrong ! The Challenges of the New World Order Quote 1: We are living in an era without a single, dominant world power. The globe is beset by crises -- climate change, resource scarcity, food and financial crises, nuclear proliferation, and failing states. No one country can devise solutions to address these kinds of problems. - Gordon Brown (British MP) Quote 2: "The Post American World" by Fareed Zakaria, "The Second World" by Parag Khanna, "The Great Experiment" by Strobe Talbott, as well as "Rivals" by Bill Emmott and " The War for Wealth" by Gabor Steingart. Each of these authors accepts the premise of a multipolar world. Lear 21 ( talk) 12:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I generally agree with other commenters. I'm too lazy to type out my opinnion. Yes, this post totally contributed to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.72.25.210 ( talk) 20:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
There always have been crises in world history and there will be always powerful nations, unions, empires on a global stage, thats correct. But the impact and ability of a single superpower has ceased. The financial crises of today is only the last stone of a decade long development in which the US declined and even more significantly other powers have risen. The US still remains a highly influential factor on a global stage, but not as a superpower. Instead, it will be one of the most powerful minorities among the several important players. Lear 21 ( talk) 12:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
LedRush, I noticed that you have again and again undid editors fixes on the article page refusing to let editors change the sole superpower to superpower or even remove superpower. I have made a snap shot
[45] to show your history of undoing Lear 21’s fixes. I have not touched the article; I only provided the foundation of facts to the table to prove a point. You provided one source which is not a great source at all where I provided a list of articles demonstrating the facts how they stand and somehow you get to say your right and right all the time.
http://img116.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ussuperpowereditorproblki5.jpg
Somehow your one article is supposed to be the final say but so, you got to put your source on the article (the Boston Globe) and leave it there and Lear 21 has no right to put his source or edit fix? Is that fair? I mean are you the only one allowed to edit the discussion on the US is the superpower only? What gives you the right to make this determination? How would you feel if I or Lear21 or anyone removed your Boston Globe article? Would you be upset or discuss or different?
You have undid the fixes then you tell people or Lear 21 to discuss it, then you say above The citations and sources are very clear on this: The US exited the cold war as the world's sole superpower. Is this because of your Boston Globe article [46]
I think you are really just trying to protect the US as a sole superpower, regardless if the sources say the opposite. Then you go on to say above several times if the discussion would end but you tell Lear 21 to discuss the matter as a ongoing discuss? What is that?
Really, there are editors above who have said the US is not the sole superpower and some who have said it is not a superpower either by providing the sources but you are the one who is supposed to be right on this issue? Is anybody to have a say on this and you just reject the content? That is not professional nor is it fair to everybody in this discussion.
Editors, please view LedRush’s editing history on the article page [47] to understand there is a problem and it isn’t a lack of sources but a question who is playing above the law and the foundation of the article as it stands?
Personally I should argue as I have provided the facts that I have provided the US is no longer a superpower but I haven’t. I could have modified the article myself but I didn’t yet I have watched LedRush’s actions and I have to question it now. There is a problem here people, please respond to LedRush’s abuse on the article and reply to resolve the issue.
LedRush, you aren’t being realistic here, last week you said you could find 100 articles the US is the sole superpower, you haven’t provide them and so, what are the dates of those articles? 1990’s? Let’s a take a look at your sources you’re provided just yesterday:
Published 1993-1994 and revised in 1999. http://www.bostonreview.net/BR18.6/freereign.html
Britannica 1991 – 1996 (talks about the Gulf war in 1991): http://student.britannica.com/comptons/article-230262/United-States-history
February 2001, not current. http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2001/02/iraq-010220b.htm
Second, you said trying to find articles or sources that the US is the sole superpower? What is your position, to benefit the US as the sole superpower to locate sources or what the sources say now? I mean you aren’t reading current media sources on Russia [48] [49] or China? Is that an insult that 2 other countries are a superpower? Is it offensive that the US can’t be one superpower of the world? Have you have been to China or Russia before to determine the US is the superpower of the world or not?
The way I see this is you’re playing like a juror on jury duty when the judge says not to discuss the case with anybody. If the defense and prosecutor says not to listen to anything accept what’s in the courtroom what is it if you want research more than what a juror cannot do, to purposely find law or case law to support the prosecution or the defense attorney. I mean what I see is your trying to protect the US as the sole superpower by locating articles to say this is what it is and not listening to the sources that say Russia & China are the superpowers of today. Did you know that the US has $11.2 trillion deficit now, which was from last week’s bailout of $700 billion plus $320 billion from bailing out 3 weeks ago on AIG. The US has a GDP of $13 trillion; the US owns almost 80% of its GDP now. Half the deficit is Chinese loaned money to the United States and the Europe Union has made statements last week the US is in white wash of losing its superpower status [50][ http://in.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idINIndia-35999120081016]. How much do you think the US is worth since it owns so much money?
I think you’re just doing what you want the article to say; the sole superpower is the biggest lie on the article. I didn’t change the article, you did and funny thing is, [[you erased Lear21 comments and then you let DocKino say what he wants. Noticed what DocKino did yesterday, he changed the article to his suggestion and he didn’t even reply or did he notify anyone on the discussions page. I don’t see you undoing his change to the article, so is Dockino exempt or is he allowed to make decisions without sources to make the US a sole superpower regardless what the sources say to discussion it on the discussions page? He hasn’t provided any source material either nor does he reply either]].
The United States is losing its superpower status [51] [52] period and the Europeans know this. You forget to talk about America’s strength; it is its financial system. Without the US’s financial power, it is no superpower and America needs money as it can’t produce enough. Printing money is not real money, it is made money from the US government, it is free money which the US is currently printing more money then it makes [53]. I suggestion you take a trip to American financial power and see why the US is not a superpower on Wall Street [54].
Is the United States a Superpower at all? [55][ http://blog.sipec-square.net/godoken/Class%207%20US%20Superpower.ppt#262,7,The Moral Right and Obligation to Use American Power to Reform Global Order] A superpower means it has presumably is able either to impose its preferences on other states or to elicit their support, the United States does not meet this criteria. China & Russia meet these goals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.53.9 ( talk) 04:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Under the History section, regarding the economy, there is an uncited claim that WWII ended the economic depression begun in 1929:
"The nation would not fully recover from the economic depression until the industrial mobilization spurred by its entrance into World War II."
It is then repeated soon after:
"On December 7, 1941, the United States joined the Allies against the Axis powers after a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan. World War II cost far more money than any other war in American history,[39] but it boosted the economy by providing capital investment and jobs, while bringing many women into the labor market." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scassarino ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Why are are there all these comparisons of the United States in an article that is supposed to be about the United States, not how it compares to Europe? If that is going to be allowed to be in the documentation then it needs to be in a different section, and it needs to include more countries than just those in the E.U. Having those comparisons is not only bad documentation but a failure to completely research the topic. 71.76.31.58 ( talk) 05:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC) 71.76.31.58 ( talk) 04:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. It seems particularly appropriate to have everyone view US formatted dates here—no one minds them, I can assure you. Tony (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
in sports section, it says baseball is considered the national sport (without a citation)... it certainly isnt the most played or viewed sport, and an incredible number of baseball players arent even american born. certainly i have heard baseball called 'americas pasttime' but have heard football called 'americas this and that' as well. i think this hsould be changed or a citation provided... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.54.191.28 ( talk) 15:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
look at List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita. it shows the folowing ranks:
imf-11th
45,845
wb-10th
45,790
cia-12th
45,959
for 2007. someone help me if I'm missing something. I got reverted on my last attempt to at least draw attention to this matter, tho I may not have handled it correctly. thanks. Mob stability 19:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Country | Rank | IMF [1] | Rank | WB [2] | Rank | CIA [3] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
United States | 11 | 45,845 | 10 | 45,790 | 12 | 45,959 |
OK, first post on wikipedia, so bear with the formatting. The easy answer to this question is that this statistic is on a PER CAPITA basis, which means they take out economic figures and divide them by the population. The population of the United States is 3x the combined total of the nations listed in front of us on this list. Therefore, the US per capita GDP is naturally lower, as it is divided by a larger number of people. To achieve a higher per capita GDP than Luxembourg (105,000 per capita), one would have to eliminate nearly two thirds of the population, or generate economic gains in excess of 2200x what the current economy is capable. 71.88.207.220 ( talk) 01:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)StatisticsCanProveAnything
It really seems like the 2000 graph is more accurate....with no otherwise economic significance, how can the largest metropolitan area have a per capita income double the national gdp per capita, shouldn't it be more representative?, its just where majority of average population resides, most would consider such income on the high level. 99.242.25.121 ( talk) 06:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This sentence is obsolete. "Of Americans twenty-five and older, 84.6% graduated from high school, 52.6% attended some college, 27.2% earned a bachelor's degree, and 9.6% earned graduate degrees."
It needs to be updated for the 2007 Census. The new numbers should be, 85.7%, 54.1%, 28.7%, and 9.9% respectively. http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/education/cps2007.html Rasmasyean ( talk) 13:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The FAQ said do not discuss on the FAQ page, rather here instead, so here it is. The FAQ says in discussion of why the page is United States and not United States of America "The guideline expresses a preference for the most commonly used name, and "United States" is the most commonly used name for the country in television programs (particularly news), newspapers, magazines, books, and legal documents, including the Constitution of the United States." This is not true for TV programs, newspapers, magazines, or books. The most common name in these media is America, not United States. I'm not saying to move the page, I just want to say this was not a good reason to give for not moving the page. 76.226.116.94 ( talk) 05:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear colleagues,
My original proposal has been archived here; it received two mild approvals and no other comment. On that basis, I'll be bold and do it on the basis that (1) the many high-value links in the article will stand out better without the dates, and (2) no one, repeat no one, minds US date formatting, especially in this very article.
See how you like it. Please give me feedback if you don't. DA is entirely optional now. Tony (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Wording in the third paragraph makes America seem like the bad guy during the revolutionary war. If somebody would change that, America would be very grateful.
Do we need to fill up multiple pages (even on my huge monitor) of an already-huge article with dozens of images that are so tiny as to add nothing, when we have a helpful commons link right there? I can see it adding nothing to the article, and just strains people trying to read it further. -- Golbez ( talk) 05:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Staplegunther ( talk) 12:11 (MDT, US) 13 August 2008.
The author begins with the ridiculous comment, "The United States of America, usually referred to as the United States . . . " The name of the country is not The United States of America. The name is United States. Furthermore, the article should spefically point out that it is incorrect to call the country The United States of America, United States of America, or The United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.7.158 ( talk) 01:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Well said Kman. Prussian725 ( talk) 03:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Original commenter says, although I was mostly wrong, the Wiki article needs at least two changes. The title needs to be "The United States of America" and the first word of the text needs to be bolded. I have determined this, with the help of an attorney, who says that "The Articles of Confederation" are what made the nation a nation. "The Articles of Confederation" say the name is "The United States of America". These also say "Agreed to by Congress November 15, 1777. In force after ratification by Maryland, March 1, 1781". See http://www.constitution.org/cons/usa-conf.htm
The Wiki article should also show the incorrect forms of the name.
For what it's worth:
Bill of Rights says: Title "CONGREFS OF THE UNITED STATES" but some text says the "United States" and "the United States of America". That's "the", not "The".
Constitution says: "Constitution of the United States" but there may be 25 "the United States", and there are three "the United States of America". That's always "the", not "The".
Office of the Law Revision Counsel says, "The Office of the Law Revision Counsel prepares and publishes the United States Code, which is a consolidation and codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States. That's "the", not "The".
The Declaration of Independence says, ". . .the thirteen united [not capitalized] States of America"
It may be that more in the Wiki article needs to be changed than I have said. I decline to examine it, but comment that "The Articles of Confederation" say that two of the states were (are?) Massachusetts-bay and Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. The Wiki article MAY mention such as United States Air Force and similar. If so, is that really the name, or would it be The United States of America Air Force ?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.7.158 ( talk) 13:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I, the original commenter, have revised my entry. See above. I think I have settled the issue.
I just logged onto this page from my Mac at work, and half of the article is the giant seal from the infobox. I think it has something to do with the fact that the monitor is wide format and tuned to a pretty high resolution, but there has to be a way to assign a max size value to the image in the infobox, right? I'm sure it's also possible that Macs are just stupid, but surely I'm not the only one having this problem. -- Grant . Alpaugh 20:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Why doesn't searching for america lead to this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.7.52.18 ( talk) 17:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody else think that the intro to this article is rather bulky? Can not a lot of the info presented there be moved into subheadings? An intro, in my opinion, should be a brief summary acknowledging what the article is about and giving some very simple facts surrounding the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.95.127 ( talk) 01:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Should the US page have a International rankings section? I noticed some other country articles do like
Czech Republic and
Canada.
-
Chase I (
talk) 23:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The intro mentions the heads of the Executive Branch (President and Vice-President) the Judiciary (Chief-Justice), but only one of the heads of the Legislative Branch (Speaker of the House). I attempted to note that the Vice President of the United States also carries the title of President of the Senate, only to be told that this "Crowds the box and adds nothing". I disagree. This is a key element in how our country is governed as the President of the Senate holds a tie-breaking vote in that body and may not be known to many people. FSF-Rapier ( talk) 19:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is currently clocking in at 166 kilobytes long, much of that may be images and footnotes but the issue remains that many readers with less efficient systems will find it hard to access this article let alone contribute to it. I let it to those more familiar with the content to suss out if a spin-off is appropriate as I'm one of those who cannot easily access the article so will have to abstain from accessing it. Banjeboi 22:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Dalit has reverted a particular section of this article ("Contemporary era") to an old version he largely wrote and obviously prefers three times in under three hours.
There are several issues here. I can see from the history of the section in question that it existed in a reasonably concise, well-written, balanced, and stable form for many months before Mr. Dalit intervened in mid-July to expand it all out of proportion and slant it in particular ways. There are a range of problems: Mr. Dalit not seem to know what the word "encompass" means; he does not appear to understand the importance of focusing on the history of the United States (rather than, say, the history of the Hussein regime in Iraq); he does not appear to understand that in an overlong general article on the U.S., that we can not indulge in expansive detailing of "context"; he does not appear to recognize that certain of the balancing language he prefers has now been included. He mentions that I have made many edits in recent days. This is true. My edits have been largely focused on copyediting, proper style of citations, updating data, and so forth. The fact that Mr. Dalit has not made any edits in months and has reappeared for the sole purpose of repeatedly restoring his personally preferred version underscores how tendentious his position is. DocKino ( talk) 00:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I saw very few references to the large number of notable American Firsts, which are now widely used throughout the civilized world
That would be like an article about Ancient Rome with no meantion of their stadiums, roads, or armies Censusdata ( talk) 01:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Telephone as also american Congress recognized was invented by italian Meucci.And what should be written about all inventions or discoveries in EU states?
More attention ,please! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
87.18.185.187 (
talk) 05:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
DanteAgusta removed the final paragraph of the lead section with an edit summary saying, "(reverted, sources are not NPOV". The removed paragraph, edited just to render the supporting refs as inline external links, read:
The United States suffers from problems such as extreme income inequality [5], above-average levels of homicide and violent crime [6], as well as environmental pollution in urban areas. The U.S. also uses more petroleum and other natural resources than any other country [7], and its foreign policies have also been subject to much controversy around the world.
Choosing supporting sources is more about reliability than about NPOVness. I am aware of no WP policy or guideline which requires cited supporting sources to be NPOV, though blatantly POV sources need to be presented differently from NPOV sources, and need to be balanced by presentation of other significant POVs.
There are three bare-URL sources there. Let's take a look at them.
This does appear to be a POV source. The WP article on the author describes him as a Research Professor in psychology and sociology at the University of California, Santa Cruz whose first book, Who Rules America?, was a controversial 1960s bestseller which argued that the United States is dominated by an elite ownership class both politically and economically. I don't think this source should be used to support a lead-section point. If used later in the article, the POV character of the source should be pointed out, and balancing information from sources with other POVs should probably be included as well.
This is also a self-published source. WP:V places limits and cautions on the use of self-published sources. These are described here. This source appears to be inside of the limits, but the cautions do apply. It might be better to use an alternative supporting source.
I wouldn't describe this as a POV source. The source is being cited in support of an assertion that the U.S. has above-average levels of homicide and violent crime. The sfollowing bits of specific information are contained in the source:
I would say that the cited source does support the assertion.
I wouldn't describe this as a POV source. The source is being cited in support of an assertion that the U.S. uses more petroleum and other natural resources than any other country. The source says that the U.S. estimated oil consumption in 2005 was 20,800,000 bbl/day, out of a total world consumption of 80,290,000 bbl/day. On the same site, this page ranks the U.S. as the top consumer of electricity, and this page ranks the U.S. as second in the world in natural gas consumption, behind Russia and ahead of aggregate European Union consumption. I would say that the site does support the assertion, but I would have cited all three of those pages.
In sum, the sources look OK to me, with some reservations about the first one. I don't think that the information in that paragraph belongs in the lead section, though. -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 05:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you'd never know the economy is cratering at the moment by reading that section. It's all strength and stability, is it? Not one mention of any bump in the road (housing, banks, personal debt levels, etc). So much for Wikipedia having any up to date information.
And on the amount of public debt -- $9.5 trillion -- how should we handle the growingly explicit support for Freddie and Fannie ($5 trillion in obligations)? The U.S. can't have it both ways -- either they are going to back that debt or not. If are telling global investors they are, then Wikipedia should acknowledge that in some fashion as we are talking about highly material amounts. Deet ( talk) 13:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Send to a friend
Declare War before Waging War, Part 1 by Doug Bandow, January 2002
LIKE MOST CRISES, the shocking attack on the World Trade Center caused a rush to government for protection. People seemed willing to accept almost any new restriction on liberty or new spending program in the name of fighting terrorism. Few seem willing to criticize the president should he decide to expand the war to Indonesia, Iraq, the Philippines, Syria, or Somalia — in the name of forestalling new terrorist attacks, of course.
Congress formally authorized the president to retaliate against any “nations, organization, or persons” he determined to be involved in the September 11 atrocity. But what about a nation, organization, or person that wasn’t?
This is, of course, the problem for hawks who want to wage war widely: there apparently is no evidence linking even the ugliest of regimes, such as Iraq, to the September attacks. If there were, the president would probably already have struck.
Now the administration seems to be developing a new justification for attacking Iraq: its refusal to accept United Nations inspections to ensure that it does not develop weapons of mass destruction. Nonproliferation is a worthy concern, though not necessarily one warranting war. After all, Baghdad has been out of compliance with the UN’s inspection regimen since 1998.
The U.S. Constitution is clear. Article 1, Section 8, states that “Congress shall have the power ... to declare War.” The president is commander in chief, but he must fulfill his responsibilities within the framework established by the Constitution and subject to the control of Congress.
Today, of course, presidents prefer to make the decision for war themselves. President Bill Clinton took or considered military action in Bosnia, Haiti, Korea, Kosovo, and Somalia — with nary a nod to Congress. This former state attorney general and constitutional law professor announced in 1993, “I would strenuously oppose attempts to encroach on the president’s foreign-policy powers.” Adopting a novel form of constitutional interpretation, he opined, “The Constitution leaves the president, for good and sufficient reasons, the ultimate decision-making authority.”
No different was the first President George Bush. He was happy to have Congress vote on war with Iraq but only to support his decision to go in. Lawyers had advised him that he had the authority to act alone, he explained.
President Ronald Reagan invaded Grenada on his own authority. President Richard Nixon prosecuted and expanded the Vietnam War with the thinnest of legal authority, the fraudulently obtained Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
One has to go back to President Dwight Eisenhower, a former general, to find a chief executive who acknowledged Congress’s decisive role in deciding on war.
He was right. Today the American president claims possession of power comparable to, if not greater than, that of the head of the Soviet Communist Party. As Caspar Weinberger, secretary of defense at the time, so rightly criticized the Evil Empire,
Now who among the Soviets voted that they should invade Afghanistan? Maybe one, maybe five men in the Kremlin. Who has the ability to change that and bring them home? Maybe one, maybe five men in the Kremlin. Nobody else. And that is, I think, the height of immorality. What U.S. congressman has voted to attack, say, Iraq? Should one man in the White House make that decision, it would also be the height of immorality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.141.160.176 ( talk) 02:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Just had to say (again) that the ancestry map is simply wrong. Apparently no one wants to correct it and the article is locked from editing so....anyway, so very wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.179.50 ( talk) 02:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
There have been many comments previously regarding the bias of the Crime and Punishment section. Basically, this article, unlike featured articles such as Canada and Germany, does not have a "Law" section. This section should deal with all aspects of the legal and judicial system, whereas America's section only discusses "Crime and Punishment", giving a skewed view of the topic. Rather than inform, this section only tells how violent the United States is/are (is it plural or singular?). I'd love to redo it myself, but I have no knowledge whatsoever about law. Someone should look at the Law sections of Canada and Germany, and use those as a template to totally rewrite America's section.
Additionally, it is of my opinion that this section has a negative bias in the first place; it only mentions the most negative aspects of the United States' Crime and Punishment. There must be SOME good aspects, right? (maybe there's less shoplifting, who knows)
User Somedumbyankee made a post a while back that was on the right track, I pasted it below: M.Nelson ( talk) 04:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Knock yourself out - That said, though, this is a country-level article, so only a minimal level of depth is needed. The rationalle for covering the chart topping incarceration rates, increasingly-rare capital punishment, and high-for-the-west murder rates is that they are so radically different from other Western nations - They continue to warrant coverage. MrZaius talk 05:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Usa in the GDP lists of Wikipedia are second after EU.It'd be better to change the position 1 about GDP with 2 to have not a ridicolous contraddiction.Is it wikipedia or Ameripedia?Not propagand,objectivity! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.185.187 ( talk) 04:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm a EU citizen!So it doesn't exist!Come to EU and try to pass by check in and look at passports or at EU instituions.They exist and they're strong.This is ameripedia.It'd be better to change the numbers to be credibleand not uncredible!In the GDP there 's also Cia coastline which isn't all a international agency. Many people in EU are beginning to feel Wikipedia like superficial and ameripedia. Please change this laughing situation. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.185.187 ( talk) 06:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This is Ameripedia,an encyclopedia only for Usa glasses that make smiles.Usa are 2nd in the mail list,open the eyes! Please change the WRONG numbers. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.185.187 ( talk) 06:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks ,so it's time to change Usa ranking number 1 with 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.185.187 ( talk) 06:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) The rankings in the infobox for this article and similar articles for other countries are manually imported from the relevant List of ... by country articles. This discussion, if it belongs anywhere, belongs either on the talk pages of the individual List of ... articles or in some centralized forum set up for that discussion. Actually, I believe that the discussion has been held several times on the talk pages of those articles and has been held at least once in some centralized forum. Hmmm.... Yes. See Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries. -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 06:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
EU is a new kind of nation that you like or not.It's called in the latin form sui generis.I' m a EU citizen and i know my country like you i think Usa.We've all institutions:President,Parliament,Commission,Justice and Army.Our capital is Brussels.So phone EU and tell it that doesn't exist.Ameripedia ,that's the new name of this site with these numbers.It's out of reality and ojectivity.I'm sorry.Please it's time to change datas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.185.187 ( talk) 06:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
You can erase everithing you want from Ameripedia but the truth and the shame rest.You can find EU President email in EU web site.It's very esy,write him,possiblement en français! You are not realistic and objective.Change wrong datas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.185.187 ( talk) 07:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
At EU citizens eyes NOW you are second as also coastlines say.Cia coastline should be erased because it'isnt an international and mondial agency.Usa are second now at all world eyes.Please change WRONG datas on Usa presentation. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
87.18.185.187 (
talk) 07:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you want to offend me? I don't allow this.Be quiet!I talk about WRONG datas about Usa with right and objective positions.Look at the GDP list!EU is first.That's the truth.If you don't like it ,ask for to be certain at EU web site.It's simple. Please change WRONG datas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.185.187 ( talk) 08:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, time to stop. Please refrain from asking to change the GDP. It is not going to change cause the rank is correct. What you are doing now is spamming this page with nonsense. Please stop now. Thank you. -- DanteAgusta ( talk) 08:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I began first to write for a right thing.The rank is WRONG because EU is a political being.We have its passport and all institutions.The old manner of intending countries in EU is ended in 1992 with Maastricht Treaty.EU is first if you study all new economical book.So change wrong datas.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.185.187 ( talk) 08:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I noted a right thing in my edit.If you don't like it don't offend.YWho like an encyclopedya like TRUTH and HONESTY.Please change the rank of Usa GDP.Thanks. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.12.199.223 (
talk) 19:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This guy seems like a troll to me. I suggest everyone just stop paying attention to him. TastyCakes ( talk) 20:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
DR CAMPI.The usa page has to be improved in the ranking of gdp.Please set number 2 for usa. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.186.4 ( talk) 15:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
List of countries and outlying territories by total area. Where's the EU? LedRush ( talk) 15:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand that you want to have right always by the last answer. EU is a political being and not an association like Nato or Nafta.It has all institutions, also army.So its gdp is 1st in the world and Usa gdp is 2nd,please change wrong ranking of Usa.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.186.4 ( talk) 18:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The same anon IP has been stirring up some mess on the EU talk page as well. At least it is nice to discover that us European editors agree with you guy Ameripedia editors for once. The EU is not a country ;-) Arnoutf ( talk) 19:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that EU is 1st in the ranking.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.60.118.196 ( talk) 08:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
If anyone can be asked (Well not me, i wouldn’t know how!) you might want to consider reporting those three IPs. It is most likely there socket puppets, along with them being no good filthy greedy trolls! (And you guys fed up real nice you know!) ( 79.71.178.238 ( talk) 19:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC))
Reporting those three IPs. CelticMuffin ( talk) 18:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
This debate seems to be producing more heat than light. Final warnings have been issued for disruption and I suggest that any editor disagreeing with the apparent consensus that the EU is not a nation gets a third opinion or starts a Request for Comment. -- Rodhull andemu 19:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you level-headed British guy :) Just a little bit of further clarification, the U.S. is a union of states that form a country and the EU is a union of countries that form a big union or commune or whatever, are we on the same page? Prussian725 ( talk) 21:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC) P.S. Is Great Britain in the EU? I thought it wasn't.
I fixed some errors in the lede (the 13 colonies did not declare independence, Congress did and it set up the United States of America in 1776. Gaps filled = roles of France in Revolution, Washington as first president, political parties, Jefferson in 1800. All stanadard textbook material but too important to overlook. Rjensen ( talk) 23:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
It is not true, however, that all 13 colonies "declared" on 1776-July-04. -- JimWae ( talk) 05:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The recent good-faith addition of material on the effects of the Spanish flu to the History section of the article prompted me to revisit the most recent thread addressing the ongoing issue of the article's length: Talk:United_States/Archive_32#Too_large. To facilitate participation in the revival of this discussion, I'll reproduce the thoughts of MrZaius, whom long-time contributors here respect for the extensive work he put in raising the overall quality of the article:
Might as well drudge up an old proposal at this point. Never got much feedback one way or the other, really. History of the United States was, when last I looked (5-6 months ago, admittedly) poorly written, poorly cited, and just generally poor, despite being almost as lengthy as this article. We should take the history section of this article and condense it into three-four paragraphs with no sub-sections and split the current well-polished and aggressively edited and condensed section into a new "History of the United States" - There is some information that would be lost in the process, but that can be handled by merging the few notes in the History article that are inappropriately missing from its daughter articles into its daughter articles. Some areas of the new article would warrant expansion, but it should be the basis for expansion/rewrite rather than a merge into the current mess. This would also take care of nearly all of the todo items on the History article's talk page. The same could be done for the Culture section & Culture of the United States. This would obviously be a very, very involved and time-consuming project, but I believe it may result in multiple FA articles where one GA and two Bs currently exist. MrZaius talk 08:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
While I believe the notion of reducing the entire history section here to "three-four paragraphs" may be overambitious, the opportunity to condense and focus it is certainly present. I've taken one small step in that direction: I've eliminated the Spanish flu addition (treating a subject that affected almost every country in the world, is addressed in the overview articles of almost none, and whose cultural effects are uncertain and relatively obscure) and cut a couple of other sentences in the relevant subsection that concerned relatively minor issues or were largely redundant in basic informational value. The total reduction in size is by no means major, but its not quite insignificant either: from 167.46 KB before the flu, to 167.69 KB with it, to 166.92 KB after my edit. Further steps in this direction might begin to make a real difference. I'll also make sure that all the information that's been cut here is properly represented in the History of the United States article, which--as MrZaius observes--is very weak: neither the Spanish flu, nor Native American citizenship (now cut here), nor women's suffrage (retained here) have been mentioned there. DocKino ( talk) 18:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
There are fifry-one states and not fifty. your "50" states listing ignores WEST-VIRGINIA, wherea West-Virginia and Virginia are 2 different states. although in the value "US State" u show the exact 51.
Please correct it.
here are official 51 states from the US GOV Web-Site [10]
Best, Jon Dital —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.40.93 ( talk) 20:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I bother someone with my point of view, but shouldn't you correct saying that The United States is also correctly named America? Because America is the entire continent, so, generally speaking Mexico is America too, so as Peru is America or Canada.
This term should be considered to be a non official, is more a way to say USA, but it’s incorrect, please explain this in the article.
Thanks
Not just in the english speaking world is the short term "America" being used but in japan,afghanistan,iraq & even dare i say mexico *Americano* So i dont believe this to be an issue at all since its been discussed before and has since been settled ChesterTheWorm ( talk) 10:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC) ChesterTheWorm
TimVickers recognized that many occurrences of "the United States" could be readily condensed to "the U.S." I've built on his work and attempted to apply a consistent style throughout the article (except for the lead, where sticking with the more formal construction is most appropriate): Spelling out "the United States" the first time it appears under any header (whether section or subsection), then uniformly using "the U.S." for subsequent appearances in the section/subsection. DocKino ( talk) 18:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
"Common short forms and abbreviations of the United States of America include the United States, the U.S., the USA, and America. Colloquial names for the country include the U.S. of A. and the States. Columbia, a once popular name for the Americas and the United States, was derived from Christopher Columbus. It appears in the name " District of Columbia". A female personification of Columbia appears on some official documents, including certain prints of U.S. currency."
I'm all about the vast majority of the cuts that have happened over the last day - Good job, folks. That said, the etymology section neither has been nor is long enough to be forked out into a separate article. It is wholly appropriate to deal with this topic (albeit with greater brevity than above) rather than to cut it entirely. Please review the edit that struck it and, if it is truly felt to be detrimental to reinsert it, please explain as much here. You might be able to move similar language out of the rather lengthy LEAD and into the Etymology section. MrZaius talk 17:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The title needs to be "The United States of America" and the first word of the text needs to be bolded. I have determined this, with the help of an attorney who passed the bar exam the first time without studying, who says that "The Articles of Confederation" are what made the nation a nation. "The Articles of Confederation" say the name is "The United States of America". These also say "Agreed to by Congress November 15, 1777. In force after ratification by Maryland, March 1, 1781". See http://www.constitution.org/cons/usa-conf.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.7.158 ( talk) 21:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The statement, "For a topic outline on this subject, see List of basic United States topics" shoud be removed per Wikipedia:Hatnotes#Linking_to_articles_that_are_highly_related_to_the_topic. 24.20.131.232 ( talk) 22:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. 24.20.131.232 ( talk) 00:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
It appears that other articles which refer to Americans or American people link to this article. Has there been any consideration for a separate article about American people specifically? M5891 ( talk) 23:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
In the article on the One-China policy there is a discussion ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:One-China_policy#Map_of_RoC.2FTaiwan_on_CIA_World_Factbook )about the US' position on this. Some have argued that the inclusion of Taiwan as a part of China on a map proves that the US believes that Taiwan is a part of the PRC, which others claim the policy is more ambiguous. Since people here should be experts on US policy, could you help us break out of our edit warring?
While I know this isn't the best place to ask this, a resolution there could help with some language here as well. LedRush ( talk) 13:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that the primary discussion of this point is to take place at Talk:One-China policy. Also, while sourced arguments to replace this nonsense would be welcome, keep in mind that the core of the argument boils down to "is in depth analysis of an unexplained map acceptable?" "No, it's original research." MrZaius talk 02:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I've seen a plethora of countries, all featured and unlocked, and with The United States of America, we find the exact opposite. Is there a specific reason for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.192.68 ( talk) 23:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
As this section title supposes, this article is to concerned about the 08 election. Man, what's the big deal? I thought it was supposed to stay neutral! Someone, please fix this article! 76.247.183.31 ( talk) 04:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)KingYDT
Currently, this is on the page:
"All presidents to date have been white men. If Democrat Barack Obama wins the 2008 election, he will be the first African American president; if Republican John McCain wins, he will be the oldest man to take the office, and his running mate, Sarah Palin, will be the first female vice president."
In no way does this section imply discussion of the upcoming election with the inclusion of the race of previous or upcoming presidents or the historical significance of either candidate being elected. This section is meant for the discussion of current and past political ideologies, parties, and politics. In no way does discussion of ideologies, parties, and politics have to do with the race of previous presidents ("All presidents to date have been white men"). Not only that, but if it is necessary to discuss the historical significance of either Barack Obama or Sarah Palin, the fact that they would be the first of their kind is already stated within the succeeding paragraphs. Furthermore, the discussion of upcoming elections could be revised by simply linking discussion of the upcoming election to the 2008 election page and listing the major candidates and/or their positions. Discussion of the historical significance of either candidate should be left for the election page especially since discussion of their historical significance is not even implied in the subject heading.
The quoted area should be immediately considered for complete revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.253.153.45 ( talk) 19:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
with a total debt of 65.5 percent of GDP. The CIA ranked the total percentage as 26th in the world.[7]
How that????
On 30 September 2008, the total U.S. federal debt passed the $10 trillion <<<<< mark, for the first time[2], with about $32,895 per capita (that is, per U.S. resident).
USA
GDP (PPP) 2007 estimate
- Total $13.543 trillion[4] (1st) <<<<<<<
- Per capita $43,444 (4th) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mosn1 (
talk •
contribs) 14:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be that the references are separated into two columns instead of three? I noticed that almost every good or featured article (even if they have as close to or as many references as this one) uses just two columns for the references. I was about to make the change, however I found it a very funny thing and didn't want to be wrong so I decided to post on the talk page just to make sure. Lady Galaxy 22:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey folks!
I just want to point out that the english speaking community seems all 'ok' with thinking that 'American' means 'a person from the United-States of America'. The fact is that this term is very ambiguous ( [11]), and it needs some clarification all the time when outside of the United-States of America.
For those who speak french, this topic is fully discussed at the following article of the french version of Wikipedia: [12].
So, as I do not know of any naming convention for 'the people of one country', I would propose that in english, the people of the United-States would be called either of the following terms:
- United-Staters; or - United-Statians.
What do you people think? Is there an alternative name in english for 'the people of the United-States of America' ?
JellyThing ( talk) 19:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I see a recent unexplained substitution of a fairly readable map to an almost unreadable version Image:U.S. Territorial Acquisitions.png to Image:Aquired Lands of the US.svg. That was revision as of 09:54, October 18, 2008 by RaviC. Other than the switch to svg, there's no apparent reason. Tedickey ( talk) 12:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The United States is not the sole superpower any longer, with its poor economy; times have changed as this cannot be added when new countries have climbed aboard on the global stage. Since I have read a lot of reports on the news, the US just doesn’t hold sole status anymore. I have provided some links to give my information as proven which you can discuss either way. Some reports are saying the US is not a superpower at the current time or on the verge of losing its status. However I am not going to make any claims the US is no longer a superpower, just the US is no longer the sole superpower anymore. World is different as new countries like Russia & China have made their stages to enter the superpower arena. All information you can view to read my data for your information to know what I am bringing to your attention. I am American and live in in America but I am seeing the world changing as the US is really changing too.
The United States of America must now accept its fate as a former Super Power that has fizzled out!: Venezuela News : Pr-inside Sept, 17, 2008: http://www.pr-inside.com/the-united-states-of-america-must-r811903.htm
U.S. No More The Only Super Power: Michael Webster, the Investigative Reporter: American Chronicle, August 17, 2008: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/71513
So much for sole superpower, By John Roughan: August 16, 2008 : New Zealand Herald: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10527278&pnum=2
Hey U.S., welcome to the Third World!
LA Times,
By Rosa Brooks,
September 23, 2008,
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brooks18-2008sep18,0,6908905.column
http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20080923211926234
The $700 Billion Questions,
By David Sirota
In These Times
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3932/the_700_billion_questions/
Superpower? Really?
Austin Chronicle,
BY MICHAEL VENTURA,
JUNE 22, 2007,
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A494048 article
At UN, Bush urges global cooperation
The Boston Globe,
By Farah Stockman,
Sept. 24, 2008
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2008/09/24/at_un_bush_urges_global_cooperation/
The U.S. Is No Superpower
By Paul Craig Roberts
News Max
April 26, 2006
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/4/26/95748.shtml
From Superpower to Besieged Global Power
Restoring World Order after the Failure of the Bush Doctrine
Edited by Edward A. Kolodziej and Roger E. Kanet
May 2008
http://www.ugapress.org/0820329770.html
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/08/0508superpower.html
http://www.acdis.uiuc.edu/Research/Kolodziej_FromSuper_flyer.pdf
THE OUTLOOK ON A TRIPLE-SUPERPOWER WORLD-
The Christian Science Monitor-
By Helena Cobban : August 22, 2008-
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0822/p09s03-coop.html
So much for sole superpower-
By John Roughan-
New Zealand Herald-
August 16, 2008 :
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10527278&pnum=2
Soros Says Financial Crisis Saps U.S. Strength Against China-
By Viola Gienger-
April 4, 2008-
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601091&sid=ayFW7vlhFivM&refer=india
A Superpower Is Reborn- The New York Times- By RONALD STEEL- August 24, 2008 , http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/opinion/24steel.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.53.9 ( talk) 07:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
You are too pessimistic! 76.247.183.31 ( talk) 04:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)KingYDT
The discussion misses the point. “Superpower” is such a vague and nebulous term. It’s almost meaningless, certainly useless in this context. Why is it even required? I’m not interested in debating whether the US is or isn’t a superpower. It’s beside the point. The point is why does it need to be put into an encyclopaedia?
If the point is that the US is very powerful (economically, militarily, etc,) then it should be some other way with concrete facts, not vague terms (ie, the US has the world’s biggest XXXXX, or world’s most powerful XXXX). Ie, we need to show, not tell. Superpower is borderline peacock terminology that is just no good for an encyclopaedia.
Arguably there is space in the article to summarise various opinion that recnognises it as a superpower (eg, “X & Y call it the world’s only superpower”), but to say “it is a superpower” is not what an encyclopaedia does. Further, such a discussion, would not be appropriate for the lead - too much detail/trivia. The lead already mentions economic, military, cultural influence and power. That’s fine, and enough. -- Merbabu ( talk) 01:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
9/25/2008: http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=838634
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7826065
Sept. 25 2008, FT.com, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1d6a4f3a-8aee-11dd-b634-0000779fd18c.html
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-09/26/content_10112504.htm
By Leon Mangasarian, Sept. 25, 2008, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=ahUuZ8Z5rkDA&refer=germany
Bush: ‘Our entire economy is in danger’ MSNBC by Associated Press, Sept 24, 2008, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26871338/?GT1=43001 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26871338/?GT1=43001
I think everything new you've posted links back to what DocKino originally said, your articles are discussing impending doom as substantiated by current problems in the market, but you still have failed to provide a reasonable consensus view that people no longer regard the United States as the sole superpower. At best, you might be able to throw in a line that its role as the sole superpower may be slipping, but as of yet there is no basis for a definite answers. While I'll admit to not fully reading every source you provided, some of them seem rather... sketchy for Encyclopedic sources, such as an article by Rosa Brooks whose articles are generally known for their satiric take. Also, some of your more vehement sources like Michael Ventura rely on numbers that haven't held up with time, such as his claim that the European economy was accelerating in the wake of America's financial crisis, yet the European economy has shrunk in times the American economy did not ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7596208.stm). There's a great deal of uncertainty in terms of the future of American power, but things are far from settled. I think this discussion is well summed up by your statement "Lastly 50% of the US military spending is basically impossible if the US financial system fails" - if the US system does fully collapse like some beleive it will, then yes we will need to change this article but until then we can only wait.-- Ben ( talk) 02:39, 26 September 2008 (PST)
Your missing the point as the US does not hold its sole status anymore, we could argue to remove the entire wording or remove sole superpower. Two new countries are a superpower now but I am not trying to bring these to discuss, just the US is not the sole superpower. Every country has its strong hold but the US's strong hold is its financial system and it is broken which has been for sometime. The US is more than stumbling right now, inflation is an all time high and US military bases have been shutting down, in 2005 35 bases were closed due to lack of money, 2006 12 closed down, 2007 14 were closed down and 2008, no report yet (I would add the reason why the US military budget is so big is the US production cost are so much higher than any other country, it cost us more to produce, run, operate to finance our military system more than any other country, it is not cheap for the US to have a military when you have other countries who can a lot cheaper; if you placed our US military money completely on China as an example, the US could reduce their military budget down to $100 billion not $500 billion it cost us taxpayers). I posted some published video's for you, I would ask you to view them as I am trying to provide my verification that the US is not the sole superpower anymore, it might be number one but not the only one.
China superpower http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMcA_yHDfb0
The Ultimate American Dollar Collapse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RhnHo3RDfg
Soaring U.S. Global Inflation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RaIRxBpTt0
U.S. Economy and Financial System Bankrupt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvTbOnuBHiQ
U.S. Economy and Financial System BankruptPt.2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojdrIC9K94E
The U.S. Economy is Unsustainable http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Q14HOBThM&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.53.9 ( talk) 19:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
[17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.14.200 ( talk) 01:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
EU and what about EU?It's the first...the money of EU and the organization in every sector are superior.That's the new true superpower.The old idea of nation of 19th century is dead.Now is winner a new politic form which is flexible but also very strong.The nations have done their time in policy.EU is the newest and strongest power in at the beginning of 21th century.Britannica isn't,like many books the Holy Bible,is a simple book.Other books say other things and are also better.Check EU strongest datas in the world everiwhere. Thanks. Vindobona
Arnouft you have to cosider that EU is n't a nation but neither an international organization.It's a new kind of "nation".The old one as you think is dead all over the world.EU now is the first power on the sole.Economically,polititically and also military has everithing to check and control the globe.Differences make it stronger because risks are more distribuited.The true is that many people don't know EU laws and very very strong links.The era of nationalisms is eneded for ever killed by continentalization (and not globalization as many people say wrong)of the areas.EU has been the first to grow as new superpwer.DATAS TALK. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindobona ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It'll be also original but it's true if you look last times at EU policy and economy.May be there are too old books on the wall studio.I even doubt of your good feith in EU.In fact when you talk about it you show you hate it.It's easy to find it in your talking.Of course you are noticed by EU checks. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindobona ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 1 October, 2008 (UTC)
has been outdated since 1996. Good grief, you make these statements the US is the sole superpower but you fail and fail again to provide current sources. It it is like you hate the fact that there is two other superpowers now, Russia and China. As I said I can throw over 80 current sources on these countries but I have said, remove the US sole superpower and remain it only as a superpower. If you continue, I will argue it is not a superpower with more sources than your outdated Britannica 1996 article. The US is not the sole superpower, not today it is not. Maybe a few years ago, yes but the world is different and powers have changed. Also Dockino, I noticed you have a huge recorded history on the edits on the article page. I can tell you are very pro US but your playing taking too much advantage of the article with your edits, this can not be what you think all the time, there are other members who have sources to post, give the article a break and let people speak with their sources. Thank you Kman543210, lets discuss the issue and see if we can agree on the removal of sole power off the article for safe keeping. I will provide more sources if you want to view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.53.9 ( talk) 06:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
At the moment honestly the only superpower on the sole is EU.Usa ,Russia and China aren't able to get it.Next sunday in Paris there'll be the meeting with France ,Germany ,Italy and UK for showing EU strength.This 4 countries more the other 24(29 all in Jenuary) are enough to overtake Usa...also too much honestly!
Thanks.
That was hard. Is this over yet? Please keep in mind that this is not a forum, but rather a place to discuss the actual article. Much of the incoherent ranting above has little relevance and adds little to our efforts here. MrZaius talk 13:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The age of 2 superpowers is over since 1990. The Post Cold War Era is over since 9/11 2001. Mankind has entered the age of globalization with multiple, interdependent, influential powers. The term superower is outdated therefore and can be tagged misleading in an intro about the USA. I remove the claim once again. all the best Lear 21 ( talk) 16:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Usa global datas now are much lower then EU datas.The same for Russia,India and China.EU is the only superpower on the soil today. DATAS TALK.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindobona ( talk • contribs) 17:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
@Prussian725 and to all the other superpower dreamers: That the world has become multipolar and the age of superpowers has ceased should be common knowledge for those who read or watched TV the last 5 years. For those who spent their times on an island and switched off all media, here is a source: US superpower status is shaken- BBC. BTW the source is of course an anglo-saxon media for language reasons. In several other parts of world the end of a US-superpower era is certainly not an issue anymore, it is a fact. all the best Lear 21 ( talk) 17:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
As I said, the reference comes from an English source and an English scholar. The UK is the very closest ally to the US economically, politically. If even this background agrees to a new situation one can assume how other regions, less affiliated with the US, estimate the status of the US. I assume editors in this forum would only accept a written text from the American president itself concluding officially: NO, the US is NO superpower, NO the US has NO superpower influence on world affairs anymore. I remove the claim tomorrow again, if there is no serious argumentation to hold the superpower claim and so should everybody who thinks that the term superpower is outdated and incorrect in 21st century. all the best Lear 21 ( talk) 17:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
A true superpower hasn't public and private system of finance out of control.It 's only a continuous great fanfare writing Usa superpower.It's overtaken.In EU most people smile about Usa superpower.EU knows to be superior.It's clever because doesn't use like Usa also now in decadence the great fanfare.It's like a joke.This discussion will be open again next weeks because of new Us crashes in economy and also in other sectors.
Thanks. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Vindobona (
talk •
contribs) 17:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Have you guys read the superpower article? In its intro: a superpower is a nation able to "influence events and project power on a worldwide scale". Yes China has economic influence over pretty much the entire world. Yes Russia has economic and military influence over its region. But neither are able to project power anywhere in the world to anything near the degree the US can. Maybe one day; not today. As for the financial crisis, 1) it's too early to reach conclusions like "the US's hegemonic position is over", and 2) The fallout from it all is almost sure to result in serious economic effects in other "would be superpowers". But in my opinion this is not relevent anyway: the USSR was considered a superpower despite decades of its economy falling apart. It's really a description of the military abilities of a nation, and I don't think anyone even vaguely familiar with the state of the world would argue that Russia and China qualify in the same category militarily. TastyCakes ( talk) 18:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
USA is still superpower and most powerful nation. What poor economy? USA has best economy in the world - List of countries by GDP (nominal) - leaving china and russia much much below. USA has also absolutely best military force in the world (spending on military is almost same as all countries together) and very large influence. -- Novis-M ( talk) 18:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I remember you that the 47% of Us public debt is in the hand of other countries investors.It's a joke,your carrier and submarines are owned by other countries(could loose a part during the shipping...).EU isn't in this conditions at all.It's strong in every sector.I think mr Prussian is anry because all his world is ended.Only pride rested..he dislikes EU because he knows it's the most dangerous enemy.Anyway he needs EU that now is helping $ and WS.Of prussian he has nothing.You are afraid of who overtakes you and speak easy of who you can beat.The source on public debt is the Oxford University (Usa).DATAS TALK.
Thanks. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Vindobona (
talk •
contribs) 18:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Summarising.
By elimination three of four candidates are eliminated. There is no sufficient evidence to eliminate US, hence the US is the sole superpower. Arnoutf ( talk) 19:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
@ Prussian quote: " your gross support of socialism makes me want to vomit." Please, prussian if there is anybody who wants to vomit, than its the Europeans. The US becomes a communists state right in front of your eyes, buddy. The government will spent 700.000.000.000 US$ to intervene in its national private economy. I call THIS socialism ! I wouldn´t mind seeing half the US banks and half the insurances going down the drain because that´s capitalism, isn´t it? HaHa. Lear 21 ( talk) 19:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, the question is not which powers on the global stage are ALSO superpowers. The question is have superpower states/organizations ceased to exist? The answer is, YES! In todays globalized interdependent world the major economic, political forces have become minorities in itself. There is not one single power which is able to project a dominant power. That´s why the inclusion of the term superpower in the intro is outdated. Lear 21 ( talk) 19:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
As I've said before, America clearly is the world's military superpower. But the EU has to be considered a major economic power as increasingly its economic heft and its regulatory decisions are having major global impact. Just ask Microsoft. Or look at the increased use of the euro as a world's reserve currency. Arnoulf, you err in dismissing the EU largely on the basis it is not a country. This is certainly true, but that attitude is as quaint as the Venetians and the Florentines dismissing the pretensions of the Germans or the French in having cultural and economic heft because they weren't city states but "artificial" agglomerations. You will get no quarrel with me in terms of the EU's military heft or its political influence (though that is starting to change). But the EU is almost at par with the United States in terms of its economy and, more importantly (as this plays to what a "superpower" is) its economic influence. As an economic entity, it most certainly is not "artificial."
In short, I stand by what I said earlier: America as a military superpower is unchallenged. In the other realms (economic, political, cultural) it is a leading, if not the leading entity, but to call it a "superpower" there is questionable. Which is precisely what the sources pretty well all agree upon. Which is what the lede said. Canada Jack ( talk) 20:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, on the latter point, can the Soviets truly have been a Superpower then? Was its cultural and economic influence felt on a global scale? I'd say not. So it's a bit dangerous to be too fixated on a particular definition of "superpower" as some here seem to be. The term is nebulous, and open to interpretation, which is why we should parse it somewhat as the lede has, and mention its status for America in terms of its military which I don't there is any serious disagreement. The disagreement extends to the other realms and the lede is worded such that alternate viewpoints are included. Canada Jack ( talk) 20:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
To mantain public functions steady needs money.Usa have no sufficient money to mantein it and private debts.Read datas also in Wikipedia.The Us debts are out of control.Have you understand that your carriers and submarines are for an half owned by Eu or chinese citizens?Have you understand that EU has weapons on its soil like also Russia and China?Check datas,the rest is the great fanfare of propagand .Eu isn't like Usa that used the great fanfare.EU now (it doesn't matter if it is a new kind of political subject;it's this new kind of being its luck)is the only one able to rule the world.Tahnks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindobona ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
This stopped being about the article a while ago. This isn't a forum. Take this discussion somewhere else, or steer it back on track. MrZaius talk 04:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the wording should just say recognized superpower instead of strongest superpower as the economy change could the US into a great power soon as the US superpower could be lost according the bailout. Russia raises again [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] and I second they have with all the money & military might they have on the world next to the US but there is a lot of issues on the US's superpower quote right now, so the wording could be reworded again. I don't totally oppose the wording now but saying the strongest superpower seems out of context a little bit, what about saying a "recognized superpower" instead of strongest. Can we agree to that wording? -- 75.6.2.122 ( talk) 05:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Usa aren't anymore a superpower in my opinion.All the people feel this thing.The debt is too high and is in the hands of citizens of other countries.I agree with 76.205.222.90 and many other that Usa isn't anymore a superpower.Usa depend too much on otner countries wills.Army is mantened by money and it means that Usa weapons are in other hands.They can't go on in this way all the time and their crisis is just started.Thanks. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
89.97.225.77 (
talk) 08:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Usa quality and quantity debts can be checked everiwhere in official sites.They aren't at all a superpower depending financially from other powers in the world.Thanks.
The term "strongest" superpower is almost teenager talk. The whole introduction is a chaotic piece of prose. If there are no reliable sources presented to verify a "sole", "single" or whatsoever superpower status of the U.S in the last year, the term will be deleted from the intro. Until that happens the term is removed. Lear 21 ( talk) 15:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Wording in error LedRush, your article by the Boston Globe doesn't exist
[30], I even Googled the titles Boston Globe US sole superpower and this was the result
[31] but what articles it did have from the Boston Globe was it said the US was a sole superpower 10 years ago but not now, here is the article from the Boston Globe Sept 24, 2008
[32]. Nothing exist as the sole superpower from the Boston Globe. So your sources are wrong and the article needs to be corrected. I would place the wording as superpower myself or even former but I will just agree first before changing without others agreeing. Don't change the wording LedRush when others have time to respond to this argument. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
66.17.53.9 (
talk) 04:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I propose we choose one of the three options below and close this topic:
agree on closing and think sole superpower is the best language because of the overwhelming consensus among sources that this is true, both at the time of the collapse of the USSR and now. LedRush ( talk) 04:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Usa aren't anymore a superpower because their public debt (and so also Army level) is controlled by other powers on Earth.Thanks. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.32.189.80 (
talk) 18:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
A Superpower Is Reborn : The New York Times : By RONALD STEEL : August 24, 2008 : http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/opinion/24steel.html
Superpower swoop : By Misha Glenny : New Statesman : August 14 2008 : http://www.newstatesman.com/europe/2008/08/georgia-russia-ukraine-cheney
US worries Russia returning to authoritarian past : By the Associated Press : August 15, 2008 : http://wokv.com/common/ap/2008/08/17/D92K3M7O0.html
Russians are confident their nation is back as a Superpower New York Times : By Anne Barnard : August 15, 2008 : http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2008/08/15/russians_are_confident_their_nation_is_back/
Put my vote to erase superpower off the subject. -- Benhound ( talk) 06:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
In CNN vote the 55% of voters decided to set Usa out of superpowers list.
This silly little hyperfocused debate over two words has now eclipsed the United States Constitution in length:
mrzaius@desktop:~$ [[wc (Unix)|wc]] constitution 395 7666 45318 constitution mrzaius@desktop:~$ wc superpower-section 821 10163 69363 superpower-section
MrZaius talk 05:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
That you can't even get cites that don't accidently say the exact opposite of what you want to say demonstrates how tenuous your position is.
But anyway, we've talked about this enough, just write your opinion on the proposal. LedRush ( talk) 14:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
-I was reading some of the sources on this topic and have somethings I think need a change but the question on the superpower debate with the USA is really a mute question itself but if there some facts that say the US is a frozen superpower, I would say I would agree there is a limit ability with the United States standing on its toes. If you add the numbers the US has been failing its projections all year long according to the New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor [44]. One cannot on agree we have a forcast of a country failing like never before and certaintly the US is in that direction. With that in mind, superpower really should be erased as this is not a superpower country in the terms to the world right now.-- 75.128.18.84 ( talk) 04:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This discussion appears to be dominated by a 1990ies post Cold War ideology and terminology. It seems like the pro superpower fighters are stuck in a time bubble 10 years ago. The world is globalized, interdependent and lacks any "dominating" single nations. The US, EU (EU countries), China and to some extent Russia remain influential in several spheres. Even a blind high school boy could recognize this view by reading average newspapers without being an academic. Lear 21 ( talk) 17:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The word superpower if tou check all world datas is overtaken for Usa. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.12.191.172 (
talk) 08:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
This statement makes a claim to what the US was as of 1989-1991, not now. Later in the article, when talking about now, the term sole superpower doesn't exist. Surely we all agree that in 1992 the US was the sole superpower and currently it is a superpower, right? Can we please stop the edit war? Pretty please? LedRush ( talk) 18:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The current introduction implies that the US finds itself still in post Cold War era while maintaining superpower status. That´s wrong ! The Challenges of the New World Order Quote 1: We are living in an era without a single, dominant world power. The globe is beset by crises -- climate change, resource scarcity, food and financial crises, nuclear proliferation, and failing states. No one country can devise solutions to address these kinds of problems. - Gordon Brown (British MP) Quote 2: "The Post American World" by Fareed Zakaria, "The Second World" by Parag Khanna, "The Great Experiment" by Strobe Talbott, as well as "Rivals" by Bill Emmott and " The War for Wealth" by Gabor Steingart. Each of these authors accepts the premise of a multipolar world. Lear 21 ( talk) 12:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I generally agree with other commenters. I'm too lazy to type out my opinnion. Yes, this post totally contributed to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.72.25.210 ( talk) 20:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
There always have been crises in world history and there will be always powerful nations, unions, empires on a global stage, thats correct. But the impact and ability of a single superpower has ceased. The financial crises of today is only the last stone of a decade long development in which the US declined and even more significantly other powers have risen. The US still remains a highly influential factor on a global stage, but not as a superpower. Instead, it will be one of the most powerful minorities among the several important players. Lear 21 ( talk) 12:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
LedRush, I noticed that you have again and again undid editors fixes on the article page refusing to let editors change the sole superpower to superpower or even remove superpower. I have made a snap shot
[45] to show your history of undoing Lear 21’s fixes. I have not touched the article; I only provided the foundation of facts to the table to prove a point. You provided one source which is not a great source at all where I provided a list of articles demonstrating the facts how they stand and somehow you get to say your right and right all the time.
http://img116.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ussuperpowereditorproblki5.jpg
Somehow your one article is supposed to be the final say but so, you got to put your source on the article (the Boston Globe) and leave it there and Lear 21 has no right to put his source or edit fix? Is that fair? I mean are you the only one allowed to edit the discussion on the US is the superpower only? What gives you the right to make this determination? How would you feel if I or Lear21 or anyone removed your Boston Globe article? Would you be upset or discuss or different?
You have undid the fixes then you tell people or Lear 21 to discuss it, then you say above The citations and sources are very clear on this: The US exited the cold war as the world's sole superpower. Is this because of your Boston Globe article [46]
I think you are really just trying to protect the US as a sole superpower, regardless if the sources say the opposite. Then you go on to say above several times if the discussion would end but you tell Lear 21 to discuss the matter as a ongoing discuss? What is that?
Really, there are editors above who have said the US is not the sole superpower and some who have said it is not a superpower either by providing the sources but you are the one who is supposed to be right on this issue? Is anybody to have a say on this and you just reject the content? That is not professional nor is it fair to everybody in this discussion.
Editors, please view LedRush’s editing history on the article page [47] to understand there is a problem and it isn’t a lack of sources but a question who is playing above the law and the foundation of the article as it stands?
Personally I should argue as I have provided the facts that I have provided the US is no longer a superpower but I haven’t. I could have modified the article myself but I didn’t yet I have watched LedRush’s actions and I have to question it now. There is a problem here people, please respond to LedRush’s abuse on the article and reply to resolve the issue.
LedRush, you aren’t being realistic here, last week you said you could find 100 articles the US is the sole superpower, you haven’t provide them and so, what are the dates of those articles? 1990’s? Let’s a take a look at your sources you’re provided just yesterday:
Published 1993-1994 and revised in 1999. http://www.bostonreview.net/BR18.6/freereign.html
Britannica 1991 – 1996 (talks about the Gulf war in 1991): http://student.britannica.com/comptons/article-230262/United-States-history
February 2001, not current. http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2001/02/iraq-010220b.htm
Second, you said trying to find articles or sources that the US is the sole superpower? What is your position, to benefit the US as the sole superpower to locate sources or what the sources say now? I mean you aren’t reading current media sources on Russia [48] [49] or China? Is that an insult that 2 other countries are a superpower? Is it offensive that the US can’t be one superpower of the world? Have you have been to China or Russia before to determine the US is the superpower of the world or not?
The way I see this is you’re playing like a juror on jury duty when the judge says not to discuss the case with anybody. If the defense and prosecutor says not to listen to anything accept what’s in the courtroom what is it if you want research more than what a juror cannot do, to purposely find law or case law to support the prosecution or the defense attorney. I mean what I see is your trying to protect the US as the sole superpower by locating articles to say this is what it is and not listening to the sources that say Russia & China are the superpowers of today. Did you know that the US has $11.2 trillion deficit now, which was from last week’s bailout of $700 billion plus $320 billion from bailing out 3 weeks ago on AIG. The US has a GDP of $13 trillion; the US owns almost 80% of its GDP now. Half the deficit is Chinese loaned money to the United States and the Europe Union has made statements last week the US is in white wash of losing its superpower status [50][ http://in.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idINIndia-35999120081016]. How much do you think the US is worth since it owns so much money?
I think you’re just doing what you want the article to say; the sole superpower is the biggest lie on the article. I didn’t change the article, you did and funny thing is, [[you erased Lear21 comments and then you let DocKino say what he wants. Noticed what DocKino did yesterday, he changed the article to his suggestion and he didn’t even reply or did he notify anyone on the discussions page. I don’t see you undoing his change to the article, so is Dockino exempt or is he allowed to make decisions without sources to make the US a sole superpower regardless what the sources say to discussion it on the discussions page? He hasn’t provided any source material either nor does he reply either]].
The United States is losing its superpower status [51] [52] period and the Europeans know this. You forget to talk about America’s strength; it is its financial system. Without the US’s financial power, it is no superpower and America needs money as it can’t produce enough. Printing money is not real money, it is made money from the US government, it is free money which the US is currently printing more money then it makes [53]. I suggestion you take a trip to American financial power and see why the US is not a superpower on Wall Street [54].
Is the United States a Superpower at all? [55][ http://blog.sipec-square.net/godoken/Class%207%20US%20Superpower.ppt#262,7,The Moral Right and Obligation to Use American Power to Reform Global Order] A superpower means it has presumably is able either to impose its preferences on other states or to elicit their support, the United States does not meet this criteria. China & Russia meet these goals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.53.9 ( talk) 04:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)