Talk:United States/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Needs citation

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)

Europe in the U.S.?

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)

Could you be a little more specific? What are the specific sections and comparisons that you don't think should be included? Kman543210 (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

just search the article (ctrl-f if nothing else) for "european union" and you'll find multiple such comparisons sprinkled throughout the article. I think they are largely included to demonstrate the superiority of the EU to the united states.Zebulin (talk) 09:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

By my count there are 3 mentions of the EU in the article, 1st in an economic comparison (US's economy is slightly smaller than all of EU combined), then there are cars per capita (US "wins") then there is economic growth rate (US "wins" again). I think the EU is the US's closest economic counterpart and 3 comparisons with it in an article is not over the top. And I see no evidence that it is put there to "demonstrate EU superiority". There are a further number of comparisons for "European countries in general" or "West Europe", including a comparison of union memberships, taxes, birth rate, public transit rate, none of which (IMO) makes Europe look superior and all of which are valid comparisons to give the reader a reference point. The health care section is not particularly flattering, but the statistics speak for themselves and a comparison to Europe and Canada seems appropriate. TastyCakes (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to switch a few of these for other valid comparisons, such as Japan and Australia. Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

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:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

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)

• Weak Support I don't see much value with auto-format of dates, but I would take care to replace them with an unambiguous format (i.e. 2 January, 2003 instead of 01/02/03 or 02/01/03). You might consider explicitly retaining "Fourth of July" since it's a proper name as much as a date, but the article doesn't do so now and it doesn't really matter. Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone would propose going to slash form, as that's simply ugly in this context. However, for this article, the unambiguous format would certainly be January 2, 2003, not 2 January. ;) --Golbez (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I'd expected that all dates would be rendered in the standard US format (February 21, 1956). ISO dates are, in fact, not standard according to MoS, and nor are slashed ones, I think. In such an important article as this, anything the script didn't do would be manually audited and corrected. I do think it would improve the appearance and readability of the text. More feedback is welcome. Tony (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

baseball as nationally sport??

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)

how is the united states ninth?

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. Mobstability 19:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at that article, and se that it it currently ranks the U.S. as follows:

Country	Rank	IMF[1]	Rank	WB[2]	Rank	CIA[3]
United States	11	45,845	10	45,790	12	45,959

1. ^ Data refer to the year 2007. World Economic Outlook Database-April 2008, International Monetary Fund.
2. ^ Data refer to the year 2007. Total GDP 2007 & Population 2007, World Development Indicators database, World Bank, July 1 2008. Note: Per capita values were obtained by dividing the Total GDP data by the Population data.
3. ^ Data refer to the year 2007. GDP (official exchange rate), The World Factbook, Central Intelligence Agency. GDP data last updated on June 19 2008; Total Midyear Population-2007, U.S. Census Bureau, International Data Base, accessed on July 12 2008. Note: Per capita values were obtained by dividing the GDP (official exchange rate) data by the Population data.

I haven't bothered to verify the rankings in the cited supporting sources, but feel free to do so. Discussion regarding this is better carried out at Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capitathan here. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Counties

[4]

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)

Note that three of the four sections use different methods - personal per capita, household income, etc. As for how can the largest area have the richest people, keep in mind that they tend to be concentrated. New York County only makes up 10% of the population of the New York Metropolitan Area. --Golbez (talk) 07:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Education

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)

FAQ discussion

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)

You're right - It's not good enough in and of itself. That said, it is hard to quantify what is more commonly used in such documents and presentations. There are numerous other reasons given, however, and those combined with the Constitutional argument still seem compelling enough to warrant not rocking the boat. MrZaius^talk 06:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of date autoformatting

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)

Revolution

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.

Does it? I don't see how. Elaborate. What would you want it changed to? Also, you do not speak for America. --Golbez (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the only real problem here is a lack of knowledge of definitions. I am not pointing fingers but I just think that the common layman does not understand all of the definitions of the word "rebellious", though in common language it does have negative connotations. i did notice a slight chink in the same paragraph. It went straight from the Declaration of Independence right to the Constitution, without mentioning the enactment, while brief, of the Articles of Confederation. Should a small sentence, or even sentence fragment, not be included with these subjects?Prussian725 (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made some alterations to the paragraph, which can be seen here.

The nation was founded by thirteen colonies of Great Britain located along the Atlantic seaboard. Proclaiming themselves "states," they issued the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. The rebellion was organized by the Continental Congress and succeeded in defeating Great Britain in the American Revolutionary War, the first successful colonial war of independence. After briefly being governed by the Articles of Confederation a more powerful central government was formed after a constitutional convention and the current United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787. The Bill of Rights, comprising ten constitutional amendments, was ratified in 1791.

I have here added the articles of confederation, changed the wording to be somewhat more accessable, and removed a half-sentence which was not true. "its ratification the following year made the states part of a single republic." was in the original but is not true. They were a single republic under the articles of confederation. They may not have been an effective republic, but the basic standard was met. Huadpe (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! Thank you very much!Prussian725 (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Gallery

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)

I disagree. It adds to the article and actually allows people to see a diversity of the United States. If you want to reduce the photos, I can see that. But I do think that the gallery adds to the article.

Please learn how to sign your comments, and indent them properly. That said, if people want to see a gallery of images, we have a link to commons there, in addition to all the other more relevant photos already present in the article. --Golbez (talk) 06:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have modified the gallery section so that it should be more clean and consise by moving gallery photos to a separate page.

Staplegunther (talk) 12:11 (MDT, US) 13 August 2008.

And it was rightly deleted. We have a gallery. It's called Commons. --Golbez (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And if I may, your choice of photos for the gallery is severely lacking; it completely ignores the part of the country east of the Mississippi. --Golbez (talk) 07:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

First, please see WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Second, this article is already way too large without adding a bunch of pictures with no corresponding encyclopedic text. The gallery is completely unnecessary. Having the images in commons is sufficiant. --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have given up on this gallery thing. Moving on.--Staplegunther (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Name

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)

The CIA World Factbook gives the following:

conventional long form: United States of America

conventional short form: United States

abbreviation: US or USA

MSN Encarta begins the U.S. article as "United States of America, popularly referred to as the United States or as America..." I'm not sure what sources you are using. Kman543210 (talk) 01:52, 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)

In passing, I will mention the following:

• List of Member States, The United Nations, "United States of America (24 October 1945)"
• Room, Adrian (2003), Placenames of the World, McFarland, p. 371, ISBN 0786418141

The book mentioned above appears to be often cited as, for example, in

• Tze-chung Li (2000), Social Science Reference Sources, Greenwood Publishing Group, p. 290, ISBN 0313304831

-- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

About the "congrefs" spelling, if you look at many documents from the 18th and 19th centuries, you will find that where we now have two "s"s, they often put one or two "f"s. FYI.Prussian725 (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I, the original commenter, have revised my entry. See above. I think I have settled the issue.

Seal

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)

I'm seeing it on Firefox 2.0 on Windows XP too. --Libertyernie2 (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

America

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)

Although in the English language, The U.S. is commonly referred to as America, there are some people who call both the North and South American continents simply America as well. As you can see by the disambiguation page, there are several other things on wikipedia with the name America. Bottom line is that it was probably offensive to certain people that America would direct to the U.S. automatically. Kman543210 (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And another "bottom line" is that it was "probably offensive to certain people" that "America" would NOT direct to the U.S. automatically. But this group who would equate America with the U.S. being in the majority, were ignored.JGC1010 (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Under the assumption that people in the US assume America = US? I don't, and I've lived here pretty much all my life. My first assumption with the name America is that it's the Americas. Unlike, say, IVF, where there is a clear association for a name and the disambiguation page comes second, America means many things to many people, so the first stop is the disambiguation page. SDY (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Intro

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)

International rankings

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 article could use one. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

National Leaders

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)

There's a pithy quote that says it better, but the sentiment is that the Vice President is really only meaningful for who they might become rather than who they currently are. The position has very little influence by design in the constitution, though many of the people who hold the post are influential for other reasons. The VP is not the head of any branch of government and that the tie-breaking vote is obscure shows just how important a power it is. SDY (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Too large

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)

It's been brought up by me before that the size (or rather, I think, the huge number of templates) slows the article down dramatically. It takes 30 seconds to load for me, where other similarly sized articles load in 5. I'm not sure anyone knows where to start. --Golbez (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Where to start? Start deleting the copious volumes of text. Start with the history section. It's intended for people with little (me) or no idea on the topic - it's way too much to take in for a first timer. Look at Indonesia for a clue - its history is longer and just as detailed as the United States, yet it is far more succinct. The rest can go into other articles (ie, History of the United States. I'd do it, but like I said, I'm not overly familiar with the subject matter, thus I'm not sure what's worth removing and what isn't. --Merbabu (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The loading speed has nothing to do with the amount of text. It's the abundance of templates. --Golbez (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct, but my problem is with the length of text from a readibility point of view. --Merbabu (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As I stated I can't really look at the article but it would seem that two possibly routes to split would make sense. One is to chop the article into thirds, or whatever, and have part 1, 2 and 3. I've never seen it done but I'm sure an example of it working must exist. The more common is to spin off the biggest section(s) into their own articles and provide a summary - usually the lede of the spun-off article - with a link to that article. Appropriate templates, unsure where they are, could also be spread to the most appropruate sub articles. Banjeboi 06:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

Too large...a particular case

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)

While I prefer your more concise and neutral version, there is some whitewashing still in there and we could choose some words and information better.LedRush (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

By all means, if you see ways of sharpening it while maintaining something like its current length, I'd certainly support that.DocKino (talk) 04:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

NO discussion of American Firsts

I saw very few references to the large number of notable American Firsts, which are now widely used throughout the civilized world

• Electricity (Franklin 1752)
• Light Bulb (Edison 1879)
• Telephone (Bell 1874)
• Computer (Berry 1937)
• Air Conditioning (Carrier 1902)
• First Freeway (Conn. 1935)
• First skyscraper (Chicago 1884)
• Internet 1980s

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)

Removal of lead section paragraph

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.

• http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html would have been better cited as
• G. William Domhoff (December 2006), Wealth, Income, and Power, Self-published, retrieved 2008-09-03

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.

• http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/eighthsurvey/8sv.pdf would have been better cited as
• Eighth United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 2001 - 2002 (PDF), United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Division for Policy Analysis and Public Affairs, retrieved 2008-09-03

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:

• Table 2.2, Total recorded intentional homicide, completed, rates the U.S. sixth highest in 2002 among the 22 countries listed, with 5.62 per 100,000 inhabitants.
• Table 2.4, Total recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm, rates the U.S. highest in 2002 among the six countries listed, with 3.25 per 100,000 inhabitants.
• Table 2.6, Total recorded major assaults, rates the U.S. second highest in 2002 among the 13 countries listed, with 310.14 per 100,000 inhabitants.
• Table 2.8, Total recorded rapes, rates the U.S. second highest in 2002 among the 23 countries listed, with 32.99 per 100,000 inhabitants.
• Table 2.9, Total recorded robberies, rates the U.S. seventh highest in 2002 among the 20 countries listed, with 145.87 per 100,000 inhabitants.
• Table 2.10, Total recorded major thefts, rates the U.S. highest in 2002 among the 24 countries listed, with 969.14 per 100,000 inhabitants.

I would say that the cited source does support the assertion.

• https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html would have been better cited as
• Rank Order - Oil - consumption, CIA World factbook

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)

Hmm, well, the sources do look ok. I do believe I acted hastily. The user who added it is known for adding un-sourced anti American pov to many articles. --DanteAgusta (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the main point - The sources are mostly adequate, and there are plenty of additional sources to back it up from IGOs with American membership. That said, though, I'm not sure that expanding the already lengthy LEAD was warranted, and that the additions were worded in a way that was far less compact and polished than the rest of the language therein. MrZaius^talk 06:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources are accurate, but all this is mentioned elsewhere in the article, so need to add this. Originally this section has been added by User:Wikipedian06, just have a look at this guys contributions with edit summaries such "rm Amerikkkan-fueled anti-Chinese propaganda", "rm amerikkkan vandalism", " rm reference with lots of unsourced Western anti-Chinese propaganda" and so on. Novidmarana (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Nicely put, Novidmarana. It's an appallingly written section. The grinding of the axe is so loud, ear muffs should have been issued to all readers as safety precaution. Further, the way the sources were interpretted is very suspect. At best, perhaps it could be re-written wihtout interpretation and not so blatantly POV. Try second half of last lead paragraph in Indonesia article as inspiration (a feature article). --Merbabu (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As others have mentioned, my problem is not with the sources but with the POV, repetition, and writing of the passage. It is better left deleted.LedRush (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Economy white-wash

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)

Feel free to expand it slightly to include some cursory mention, but this sort of detail should only be dealt with in any depth at Economy of the United States and topic-specific articles. More than one or two sentences in the Economy section here would seem excessive. MrZaius^talk 04:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, no Freddie and Fannie are part of the gov't. I agree with Mr. Zaius that any additions need to be very brief.LedRush (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You can take that view if you want to continue in denial, but many see it as effective nationalization. That is the opinion of chief economist of Moody's Economy.com[8] My point is that is there should be a balanced presentation in Wikipedia. Deet (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That is nice, but only because something is in the newspapers right now does not mean that is has to be covered in an article as broad as an article about the USA. Rather ridiculous to make accusations of white-wash and denial. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. Just because unemployment rising, housing prices falling, banks are failing, personal bankruptcies on the rise, and the national debt kinda, sorta, not really jumping 50% in a day are in the paper these days, we should not cover it. Too trendy for mention, is it? Deet (talk) 03:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel you are taking this a bit far. As has already be said, feel free to include it in the Economy of the United States article but I see little relevance to the USA article as a whole. Again, as already stated, put in a cursory mention in the economy section but this is not the right article to put in copious amounts of information when there is a perfectly suitable forum for it in the aforementioned article. Taifarious1 04:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Rant that should probably be deleted

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)

Ancestry Map

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)

How about you say what's wrong with it? You mean the one showing the largest ancestries in each county? That simply can't be wrong, as it's based on personal reporting on the US census. If there's an error, take it up with the residents in those counties. --Golbez (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's not so much that its wrong, but that it is very poorly conceived. First of all, it confuses ancestry and race, which are simply not synonymous terms. Secondly, it isolates ancestry by nationality for European countries, but aggregates them for South America into what is strangely titled "Hispanic/Spanish." The map also does not define "American" or any of the methodology used for the categories. Overall it is so poorly put together, I would like to vote to have it removed. --Jleon (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Crime and Punishment bias

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)

[...] Crime may be a reality, but it's a question of whether it's such an important aspect that it should have details in the overall article. Murder statistics should be moved to the dedicated article, which is linked on this page. A brief description of how the legal system works is probably more important to an overview article, and a one sentence summary is probably sufficient, maybe just: "Among developed nations, the United States has above-average levels of violent crime and particularly high levels of gun violence and homicide.[174]" That the death penalty and prison populations are controversial is also well worth mentioning, but detailed statistics are WTMI for the overview article. Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

This could be a brief subsection of a larger "law" section. Arnoutf (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No. The existing "Crime and punishment" section is more relevant than your hypothetical "Law". It is well sourced, well balanced, and very serviceable. DocKino (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"Crime and Punishment" is not more relevant than "Law"; if it was, featured articles such as Canada and Germany would have C+P rather than Law. It is well sourced, but it's not what we need. Wikipedia:WEIGHT states that "an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Currently, the article puts too much weight on murders, prison rates, etc, and not enough (none) on the judicial system. While the current section is factual information, it should, as Arnoutf said, be only a subsection (a paragraph at most) of a broader "Law" section. Re MrZaius: I'd be bold, but I'd have no idea what I'm talking about. M.Nelson (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Canada's and Germany's murder rates and incarceration rates and capital punishment policies are not remarkable among democracies in the developed world; America's are. Those matters are thus currently treated here with a weight appropriate to their significance. On the broader matter, "Law" may be the most appropriate rubric for the Canada and Germany articles--or it may not: just because they are featured does not mean they are perfect. At any rate, just because a certain rubric is employed in certain fine articles does not mean that the same rubric is most appropriate to this one.DocKino (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

GDP RANKING WRONG

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)

EU is not a country. USA is ranked 1 as a country. If you look at the EU listing, you will see a - not a number. You will also notice EU countries like France and the UK on the list. So the rankings are by country. --DanteAgusta (talk) 04:41, 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)

Please learn English if you wish not to be a laughingstock on "Ameripedia." When you learn English, something wonderful will occur! You will discover that no one has claimed that the EU does not exist. It is simply not a country. The United States of America is.DocKino (talk) 06:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, never said the EU did not exist. I said it was not a country. France, Germany, Italy, the UK, these are countries. The EU is not a sovereign state, so on a list of countries, it does not count. Each member state counts individually. --DanteAgusta (talk) 06:17, 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)

Listen, the rankings start at 1 not - so the EU is ranks similar to the world as a whole. The ranking is correct. And you are being well, just weird. --DanteAgusta (talk) 06:25, 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)

Not to be rude, but you don't seem to understand what numbers are and how they work. I suggest getting some education on the matter, then come back and check the charts again. Also, check out the page on what a country is. That would be good. --DanteAgusta (talk) 06:34, 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)

I have just now been checking those out since the conversation came up. --DanteAgusta (talk) 06:49, 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)

I gather, then, that you wish us to erase the articles on Italy, and France, and Spain, and all the other former countries that have now been subsumed by sui generis "nation" EU and summarize what little important information there might be in the EU article. Correctamundo? PS: Did you phone EU and ask if it is nation? Give us the number, please.DocKino (talk) 07:06, 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)

Ah man, this dude is cracking me up. He thinks were "out of reality"?? I am laughing so hard my side is splitting. This has to be a gag. It is a good one. lol --DanteAgusta (talk) 07:19, 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)

Basta cosi, eh? Fools like you are part of the reason we shameful Americans keep electing fools like...DocKino (talk) 07:44, 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)

Assume good faith only goes so far. I think 87.xxx is merely trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point about either alleged bias in Wikipedia, or about the size and strength of the EU. I will warn said user on his talkpage, in hopes of ending this charade. Justice America (talk) 17:59, 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)

Please do not feed the troll.

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)

The troll obviously overstates his case, but the EU could warrant mention and mention has been included in the past (I believe) - I know it's been included in the GDP lists on this site,and it would be perfectly legitimate to add it to the actual list portion of List of countries and outlying territories by total area.Note that it is already included in the header, and in some depth. Pedantic griping about it not being a sovereign state doesn't negate its value as an easy to understand point-of-comparison for these topics, especially when there really isn't another sovereign state in the same ballpark as the US's GDP. MrZaius^talk 04:25, 6 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)

I don't normally accuse anyone of being a sock puppet, but I believe that 151.60.118.196 is most likely the same person as 87.18.185.187, 79.13.186.4, 79.9.189.194, 79.12.191.143, 87.20.186.23, Vindobona . The only articles that these IPs have contributed to is this talk page as well as Talk:European Union with the same arguments and writing style. Kman543210 (talk) 08:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What, you don't believe that 4 IP addresses all share a singular love for the failed argument that the EU is a country while expressing this love in horrible English and refusing to leave spaces after punctuation marks? Really?LedRush (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think they want EU to be a country so badly because they don't want to admit that it is a socialist republic. Wait, I think I've heard that somewhere!Prussian725 (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No EU bashing please. The EU is an interesting development in modern policy in general (in my opinion) bringing a lot of good (stability in most of Europe for one) but is not without its problems. It is just not a country (nor a socialist republic). Arnoutf (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Please, this is not the page to discuss what the EU is. This page is for the discussion the the betterment of the United States page. I patiently ask the user Vindobona who seems to be the same as the about IP addresses to please stop causing a disruption and which is likely to just get him banned again and again. Thank you. --DanteAgusta (talk) 17:15, 7 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))

I agree that the case is overstated, but the fact is that various agencies are now listing EU as if it was a country, for comparative purposes. Because the EU is a unique entity and its economic importance is approaching or in some cases surpassing that of the USA, its not simply an issue of academic interest anymore. We had a long debate about this on the GDP pages, and some who insisted that "national" lists can't, by definition, have the EU there were in my view missing the point. The CIA, even while calling its lists "national" nevertheless has chosen to compile the figures as has the IMF. The World Band doesn't compile the EU, but it does have Euro Zone figures. The CIA in fact puts the European Union on its "country" list of GDP, [9] so this is not as cut-and-dried as some here think. A simple solution would be to make a note that "by nation," the US is #1, but by some rankers of GDP, such as the CIA, America is second to the EU as they have chosen, it would seem, to recognize the unique status of the EU. Canada Jack (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The only reason that EU info would need to make its way into the US article is if it adds to the US article in some way. The information as presented now is clearly correct, so adding EU GDP would only be useful as a comparison...and quite honestly, I don't think that's very useful at all.LedRush (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Reporting those three IPs. CelticMuffin (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Section break

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. --Rodhullandemu 19:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair call, and a potential way out of this mess. Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to comment, the United States is about as much a country as the European Union, in that the United States of America is a union of states that, together, form the United States and the European Union is a union of states that, together, form the EU. The only difference being that the EU Constitution was not ratified and the US one was. As such, the two hold very similar positions as a country. Wikipedia's own entry on "Country" states: "In political geography and international politics, a country is a political division of a geographical entity." The EU is, undeniably, a political division (European Commission, Parliament and Council) of a geographical entity (European Continent) and, thus, qualifies as a country, hence making it the world's leader in terms of GDP. FYI. 62.72.110.11 (talk) 09:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for rearticulating an opinion that remains in the clear minority. Please note, this is the Talk page for the article on the United States, and not the appropriate spot to debate the EU's status. If the prevailing opinion--properly debated and established elsewhere--ever comes to hold that the EU is a country, we'll be happy to reflect that change here.DocKino (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A third opinion was suggested and I provided it. I did not realise a third opinion meant "rearticulation of an opinion that the majority agrees with", nor did I realise that an opinion held by the majority constitutes fact, while an opinion held by the minority constitutes mere opinion. Your clarifications, like your comments, are most appreciated. 62.72.110.11 (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

First I would like to say HAHAHAHAHAHA at all of the above arguments. Love the trolls, nobody else will. And second I would like to say that I am an EU Citizen and a British Citizen. Britain is a country, but the EU definitely isn't. Though I'm sure the French would like it to be :D. 213.121.151.174 (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, laughing aside, I'd like to rebuff the point above about the EU and the US being equal because they're "unions". The author ignores the fact that many states within the EU are themselves "unions", e.g. Britain (a union of 4 countries), France (a union of departments) and Germany (a Federal Republic much like the US, a union of states). However there aren't any US states which could be defined as "unions" in themselves, in the way that many EU members can. Therefore the US is a country in it's own right, and the EU isn't. Also, the EU isn't a federation, with our without ratification of the constitution. 213.121.151.174 (talk) 15:51, 20 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.

Historical errors and gaps in lede

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)

Why did you change "3rd/4th" to 4th? The UK came into existence before Oregon Country was shared; why did you change this to "Britain"? --Golbez (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting these unhelpful changes. It is not an error to say the colonies declared independence--they most certainly did so via the Congress and the Declaration. The argument that this is somehow erroneous is pedantry, plain and simple. The additions of the Continental Congress, France, republicanism, etc. reflect a misunderstanding of the summary role of the lead. This material is not "overlooked"; it is treated properly in the main text of the article. Also, as Golbez has noted, you've introduced errors where there were none before. Reverting now.DocKino (talk) 03:10, 20 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)

Condensing history

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)

there are 51 states

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)

Washington, DC is the capital city/federal district and not considered a state. There are only fifty, counting West Virginia. Kman543210 (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I almost fell out of my chair laughing!!!Prussian725 (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I wasn't the only one. Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I used their Contact us link to send them an email asking them to wake up and fix it. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

They have to include it on the list because omitting it makes it seem like we Washingtonians aren't citizens. Not that they care much whether we are, seeing as we suffer under the yoke of Taxation Without Representation. Nonetheless, we at least theoretically have citizen rights as much as any American. Chicopac (talk) 08:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Including the right to actually talk to policy makers and their cronies, a right only given to the regular population from June to November every other year, and even then almost never to the staff that actually writes legislation. That said, let's keeping the politicking out of here and keep the focus on the article itself. MrZaius^talk 08:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The name AMERICA

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

It's commonly referred to as America; I don't know where we say "correctly named". --Golbez (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Do peoplein Mexico call themselves "Americans" ??? I don't think so--there is a big difference between the name of a continent and the terms people use. Besides, there is no continent named "America". Rjensen (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any explanation is needed. The official name is United States of America, and that is what is indicated in the article. The other names such as the U.S., USA, and America are only alternate names just like the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is also called the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain. Correct or not, it is an alternate name that the English-speaking world calls the U.S. Kman543210 (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This is covered in the FAQ, linked to at the top of this page. MrZaius^talk 08:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Style point

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)

Names and etymology

"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)

Good point. I've restored the cut passage in slightly abbreviated fashion.DocKino (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to change the title

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)

This has been debated endlessly (see Talk:United States/Name). The title need not change and will not change.DocKino (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this section about your attorney friend, as I really needed a laugh today. Just as the above poster has stated, there was a discussion on this already. The articles on countries are usually named from the most common name and not the long-form official names. Kman543210 (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hatnote

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)

Right. Done.DocKino (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. 24.20.131.232 (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

New article for American people

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)

It would probably have to be titled "People of the United States" rather than "American People" because of the ambiguity of "American." I've not seen any prior proposals, though what I'd imagine the page would include is arguably redundant with the demographics/culture/society articles. SDY (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just observing that

• Mexican people redirects to Demographics of Mexico
• Canadian people redirects to Demographics of Canada
• American people is a disambiguation page saying

American people may be:

• any nation or ethnic group of the Americas
  • see Demographics of North America
  • see Demographics of South America
  • see Indigenous peoples of the Americas
• Especially in the United States, "the American people" refers to the population of the U.S., see Demography of the United States

The American people is an existing article with US-specific content. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

One-China Policy

In the article on the One-China policy there is a discussion ( http://en.wiki.x.io/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)

You could just ask State, in a pinch (blah, blah, blah OR - but they might publish their response). In the meantime, does this, this or this help? If not, there's plenty more where that came from. It's pretty clear that the United States government believes that Taiwan is a part of China. It's similarly clear that they feel the need to maintain relations, albeit unofficially, with the government of Taiwan. The terms "PRC" and "China" are not universally interchangeable. Disclaimer: I don't know jack that I didn't pull off State.gov, and don't particularly care. IANAL, and I am not a politician. All that being said, this might be a more appropriate question for the WikiProjects on foreign policy and the United States. MrZaius^talk 15:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the US government says that it believes Taiwan is a part of China. The actions and the words do not line up. SDY (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but they don't say Taiwan is a part of the PRC, which is different. It is also different to say a map from the CIA factbook confirms a US policy. Your thoughts are welcome at the article itself.LedRush (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The term of "China" is ambigious. The US never stated in its policies that it supported either the PRC or ROC (to avoid confrontation from either side), while stating that Taiwan is a part of "China". Technically, Taiwan is de jure part of the ROC. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 00:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The term of "China" is probably intentionally ambiguous, as you seem to imply. Also, while it is arguable that Taiwan is technically de jure part of ROC and that ROC is the sole legitimate government of China, it is also arguable that Taiwan is technically de jure part of the PRC and that PRC is currently the sole legitimate government of China. See the Political status of Taiwan article for info about some relevant arguments. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:33, 5 October 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)

Fairness?

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)

It's semi-protected probably due to a high amount of constant vandalism being a high-profile country. Keep in mind that anyone can still edit the article; you just need to be a registered, established user. That seems fair to me since registering is free and easy. Kman543210 (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a log of protections available if you click on the "View logs for this page" link in the History. Here's where it takes you: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=United_States Given the high profile of the article, as mentioned above, it falls prey to such heavy and repeated vandalism that it required protection again one or two days later after nearly all good-faith attempts to unprotect the article. It's a damned shame, but it's still the best tool available to fix the problem. That said, you can edit the article without an account - Do so by proxy by introducing the text "{{Editprotected}}" and the text of your proposed edit. These are generally acted upon very quickly. MrZaius^talk 02:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Locking has nothing to do with the class of the article, it has everything to do with vandalism. The US is undoubtedly more often the target of vandals than most other countries (regardless of its class level) and hence it is semiprotected. Arnoutf (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Article to Politically Involved

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

Can you be a little more specific as to which section, sentence, or paragraph is not neutral? Kman543210 (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Parties, ideology and politics

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)

How that?

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) 

References?

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)

In my view it is a hardly relevant style issue, and will not matter in a review (and if it does it is changed in 1 minute) Arnoutf (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

True, but there was a debate somewhere about how putting references into three columns makes it super hard to read and it takes forever to load (especially if you're on an older computer and/or slower internet connection). Lady Galaxy 18:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

American - Ambiguous terminology

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)

No, the standard English term is "Americans." You might enjoy exploring the archives of this Talk page to see the extensive discussion that has taken place around this topic. For further insights into why the English-language term is "American" rather than anything like your (perfectly logical) suggestions, the reference cited at the end of the relevant passage in the article's Etymology section--Kenneth G. Wilson's The Columbia Guide to Standard American English--is an excellent resource.DocKino (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Try the American (word) article if you're trying to get more information on the term. If you're just trying to convince people that we should make up another word for U.S. citizens in English, see WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTFORUM. Kman543210 (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have lived outside of the US for over 7 years, and not once was someone confused by the term "Americans".LedRush (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I don't think this term is "very ambiguous" at all, because the United States is a superpower. Yes, it's true that Canada got stuck on top of us and South America happens to share the same name, but generally Canada is referred to as Canada, and South America is rarely ever used... usually, they're real specific and use the country name (for example, they'll say Brazil or Peru instead of saying South America, and the people call themselves Brazilian or Peruvian instead of American). Even if you don't agree with us, there is no way you could just change what the citizens of the United States call themselves... the term has been around for hundreds of years. Really, I don't mean to be annoying or anything, but you do make it sound like you're posting on a forum and not trying to help an encyclopedia. Lady Galaxy 18:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

New map

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)

Good catch. Better version restored.DocKino (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

US not a sole superpower anymore

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

Oh, brilliant. Question: Did you actually read all these articles? If you did, you'd recognize what almost every one has in common: they acknowledge the consensus view that the U.S. is the sole superpower. Some then argue that this will not be true much longer--which is hardly relevant to our efforts here. Others argue that this is not true right now--while almost uniformly acknowledging that theirs is a minority position. Sorry...despite its poor economy, the U.S.--for better or worse--can still project massive (nonnuclear) military power anywhere in the world on short notice if it so desires. No other country can or would make that claim. Enjoy your reading.DocKino (talk) 08:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you read the materials, did you read "From Superpower to Besieged Global Power" by Edward A. Kolodziej and Roger E. Kanet: May 2008 [13]? It is a text book on guides how the US fails & is not a superpower and if you would of read the book, you would not been protecting the US as a sole superpower or maybe you just might refuse to believe the book. The US is in an economic mess, you forget to discuss the issue what is the US without the banks and it's economy[14]. I know you love the good old USA as your name is allover the discussions page but you just don't know how bad the US economy is to say it is the only superpower. I have no problem sending new superpowers articles ready to read as the US government knows it would not be a sole superpower forever but the sole superpower on the article has to be removed. You have not provided any new 2008 facts to this forum and your case is an opinion backed by nothing. Again, I am not saying the US is not a superpower as we can argue many matters or add matters, whether the US is a former superpower or a limited superpower, I don't think you want to go in that direction. We could discuss that but that is not what I want to argue, I want to post the sole superpower aside and state only a superpower. Second military power anywhere on short notice is no different what Britain, Russia & China can do currently as well on short notice, if you want I will even provide those facts on that matter but I am not going to argue something that is not really as important as eliminating sole superpower. So I am suggesting the US as sole superpower to be removed and replaced as just a superpower or regional superpower. I will be happy to forward more articles at the ready. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.53.9 (talk) 06:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Im inclined to agree with anonymous IP address, apart from the fact that he has provided a wealth of information to substantiate this, the change he is suggesting is rather apt in this case, and hardly a major one. I would agree that a removal of the claim that the US is no longer a sole superpower is fitting int his case, or should at least be thoroughly explored, and to User:DocKino, I would advise taking a much more civilised tone about this manner as you previous comment, IMHO, was rather needlessly rude. Taifarious1 06:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue has been very thoroughly explored, as you will find if you care to spend some time with the discussion archives. The consensus view both here and in mainstream political discourse is that the U.S. is currently the sole superpower. Though the anon somehow feels it pertinent, the current "economic mess" (an issue, you will note, that I recently introduced to the article) is an entirely different matter (though, of course, it might possibly, eventually lead to the U.S. losing its superpower capacity). Finally, what you call "rather needlessly rude" and find it pleasant to lecture me about was simply direct.DocKino (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think DocKino was rude-sounding at all. That being said, I live in the U.S., and I might know just a little bit about its economy since I'm out in it every day. Wherever I go I am constantly seeing construction crews out building new buildings and new businesses being opened. Also, our GNP is still positive. Inflation may be eating us alive but that does not mean we are not a superpower. Economy is not the only defining factor for a superpower.Prussian725 (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to suggest that the US is currently not a superpower, nor have I seen anything suggesting that any other country is. It's really quite simple.LedRush (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an amusing argument. I believe it stems from the general opinion across the US that, given our constriction by the poor economy and multiple overseas military engagements, we feel "tied up" and not very free or powerful. Nevertheless, I disagree with the idea that the US is no longer the sole superpower... even in Rome's waning days, it was still a superpower... just one tied down by multiple, weaker foes (the various barbarian tribes).Famartin (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, who are you calling barbarians. My ancestors were quite happy till the so called civilised Romans came and slaughterd many of them, for no other reason than to make Rome rich. Jack forbes (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? TastyCakes (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

That's a reasonable argument, though I disagree that superpower is "borderline peacock terminology"--it's a perfectly common term of description that represents the current consensus view of the geopolitical situation. It conveys a definable meaning beyond simple quantifiable data points. That said, the relevant sentence in the lead does not require it. It currently reads: "In the post–Cold War era, the United States is the only remaining superpower—accounting for approximately 50% of global military spending—and a leading economic, political, and cultural force in the world." It could read: "In the post–Cold War era, the United States accounts for approximately 50% of global military spending and is a leading economic, political, and cultural force in the world." I continue to believe the former is more informative and eminently encyclopedic. The latter, I imagine, comes closer to the phrasing Merbabu would advocate and would presumably provoke less dispute. What say ye?DocKino (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

DocKino - yeah, you seemed to have summarised my point well, even if you don’t agree (lol). For me, the issue for the article is not whether the US is or isn’t a superpower, it’s whether this point is (a) notable, and as you mention (b) better just to remove it to stop the arguments, and in it’s place leave the more measureable aspects in there (on the apparently reasonable assumption they are accurate). --Merbabu (talk) 05:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Your not seeing the point, you disagree that there is no more than one superpower as sources linked above submitted say otherwise, you haven't provided any relative data to build your point to say it is the only superpower as your determined to argue it is the only superpower. If you want to go that route, we can argue that point for sure. You can search Yahoo or MSN or others and title the pages like the last 3 days and see what the world is saying but I have made a simple request to say to add it is not the sole superpower anymore instead of saying it is a former superpower as sources are there to override your point of view. I am making a simple request and suggesting to consider it as one of the superpowers of today, not yesterday but I will throw these sources to your attention and make the issue stick more.

U.S. no longer a superpower,(01:22) Report video, Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=91247

US will lose global financial superpower status: German FM: The Hindu, September 25, 2008: http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200809252054.htm

U.S. 'superpower' status slides in world's eyes, by Eoin Callan, Financial Post,

9/25/2008: http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=838634

TOPWRAP 15-U.S. bailout in chaos, government seizes Washington Mutual, Sept 26, 2008, Guardian News and Media Limited,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7826065

US slipping as financial superpower, Businessweek By PATRICK McGROARTY Sept. 25, 2008, http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D93DP05O0.htm

US ‘will lose financial superpower status’, By Bertrand Benoit in Berlin

Sept. 25 2008, FT.com, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1d6a4f3a-8aee-11dd-b634-0000779fd18c.html

Germany says U.S. to lose superpower status, Xinhuanet, Sept 26, 2008,

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-09/26/content_10112504.htm

U.S. Losing Finance Superpower Status, Germany Says (Update3), Bloomberg,

By Leon Mangasarian, Sept. 25, 2008, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=ahUuZ8Z5rkDA&refer=germany

Financial Crisis: US will lose superpower status, crows Germany; Telegraph.co.uk, by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

Sept 25, 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3081909/Financial-Crisis-US-will-lose-superpower-status-crows-Germany.html

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

Lastly 50% of the US military spending is basically impossible if the US financial system fails. If your saying the US is the economic, political, and cultural force in the world, where's the data? I don't mean data from 2003 or before, what is the current data you have to make that point to us?

Have you ever read everything on China? I would strongly suggest reading more on China; the US is not the country it was several years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.53.9 (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

We've had a similar discussion, as noted, on this very subject not too long ago. I think if we revisit the line in question "In the post–Cold War era, the United States is the only remaining superpower—accounting for approximately 50% of global military spending—and a leading economic, political, and cultural force in the world" it certainly implies that in terms of "superpower" in the military sense this is not seriously debated, but it terms of economy, politics and culture, it is a "leading" force. With that in mind, much of the talk in those articles merely reflect what it already in the lede - that America as a military superpower is not altered, but it is not necessarily a dominant player in the other realms. Some say yes, others question whether it is. I see no need to alter the wording as clearly, even if the giant is stumbling right now, it is a dominant (if not the dominant) player. Canada Jack (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

That's all very nice, my friend, but you clearly do not understand what the word superpower means in the English language—a language I gather you are not a native speaker of. Please read the English-language Wikipedia article on superpower. If you undertake this effort (if you are currently capable of undertaking this effort), I trust you will learn that your entire argument is ill-founded.DocKino (talk) 08:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This all seems like ranting from foreigners trying to nitpick for every fault in the USA. I know that this is POV but it seems like general global feelings toward the U.S. are quite low. That is quite ironic because it is always our job to fix everything bad in the world. When we do, (Iraq, Somalia...etc.,) we are intruding and being imperialistic, but when we don't snap-to and immediately send "aid" (free assistance) then we are evil (the tsunamis). If we are so evil then don't ask us for anything!Prussian725 (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt Prussian725s remark that the USA "fixed" Somalia is very well thought through, as that country is a mess and hosting many pirates; perhaps the reason why many foreigners have problems with US' self-appointed police of the world task is that it is not succesful enough in accomplishing its aims (non of Iraq, Somalia, or Aghanistan are currently close to the enlightened ideals projected when the US first made the plan).

Regardless of that I think DocKino gave the relevant non POV argument by referring to the superpower article. Arnoutf (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey DonKino, get your facts right, China & Russia are superpowers[15][16], when someone does their job providing current sources, provide yours too, so far you have provided nothing but just dumb opinions. Yes the US might be a sole superpower for film & entertainment but on the global front, the US is not the sole superpower any longer; the sources provided from 2 other uses are good evidence to switch the wording. The information is according to the news of today not from one wikipedia user who thinks what it should be.

[17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.14.200 (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If you compare Great power and Superpower, China and the Russian Federation are without doubt Great Powers. Russia is named Energy Superpower (but not generic Superpower) - (The article also mentions the Soviet Union as superpower but that is irrelevant). The China article does not mention superpower at all. Hence the Wikipedia references do not support the claim. (And even if they did Wikipedia is not a reliable source).

As it stands now, neither Russia, nor China make the definition of Superpower at the moment. (Whether the US still does is another issue ;-). Arnoutf (talk) 17:49, 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

I am proud to be an EU citizen... But it is not a superpower (yet), it is to divided for that in political, military and even economic policies. Arnoutf (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There's really no need for me to provide current sources, when, again, most of those provided above in fact recognize that the U.S. is currently the sole superpower. Yes, they suggest it may not be for much longer--and if and when that day comes, the language of this entry will change accordingly. I will provide you one source--not a newspaper opinion column or an article reporting the opinions and predictions of one or a few pundits, but the online student's version of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Here is the Britannica title for the entire contemporary era of U.S. history: "The World's Sole Superpower, 1991 to Present."DocKino (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

Original research is fine but not for Wikipedia. Arnoutf (talk) 21:40, 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)

Ok, I'm not afraid to be honest, I hate the EU. It is basically a voluntarily assembled U.S.S.R. in which you sell your identities and forfeit your patriotism for the sake of being "one" with your neighbors. To be further honest, the very idea of a EU makes me sick. I don't hate to burst your bubble, but it's called SOCIALISM, something all of your and my ancestors fought to keep from taking over and you roll out the red carpet, welcome it with open arms, and embrace it as your friend. Let me give you something you can find in history books: SOCIALISM KILLS. You think I'm going too far but you just wait and watch as you slowly lose your heritage, your rights and your freedom. All of your countries, Germany, France, Italy...all of them will slowly be changed from countries into states. It reminds me of something that a "stupid" American said: "He who trades freedom for security deserves neither."Prussian725 (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As a socialist I shall take your criticism on the chin. I do think you are confusing socialism with communism, and my ancestors fought for socialism ie; universal healthcare, welfare state and although not written anywhere, the right not to tip your cap to any so called upper class. As for the EU turning into a state, it won't happen in a million years, but closer ties with Europe may avoid armed conflict in the future, we have had enough of that already. Jack forbes (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's try to keep on topic. Remember that talk pages are not forums (WP:NOTFORUM). Also remember that this is about the United States and not the European Union. Let's not let users like Vindobona, who has previously been warned of trolling, get us off the topic which should be whether or not the U.S. is the sole superpower. If someone can find reliable sources that the European Union is considered a superpower, then we should discuss that along with Russia and China, but if not, let's stick to the topic. Kman543210 (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This source you provided Dockino by Britannica[18]

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)

I don't "hate the fact that Russia and China are superpowers," because they're not superpowers. Again, you simply don't understand what the word means, apparently because you are not sufficiently fluent in the English language, as the inarticulateness of the above submission evidences.DocKino (talk) 07:09, 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)

I feel like there is a clear consensus from sources that the US was the sole superpower after the fall of the USSR. I realize MrZaius is trying to placate the rabid anti-US elements here, but I think the article is worse now without the language that makes the US position clear.LedRush (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

When even the United States government seems to issue statements describing China (sometimes) as a superpower (emerging, fragile, and without qualifiers) it seems silly to make such a bold assertion in the LEAD as was present previously. The site features multiple pieces asserting that the US is the sole remaining superpower, labeling Russia & China as a superpower, and occasionally misusing the word to include the entire P-5 of the Security Council. If the term is so vague and commonly used in so many apparently contradicting ways it seems apparent that the topic cannot be properly dealt with in this top level article. Regardless, it's two words - Sole Superpower changed to Strongest Superpower. Hardly worth anywhere near this quantity of discussion, when such a simple fix for this distraction is available. To try to attribute this to some sort of "rabid anti-US" politics rather than simply avoiding controversial and excessively lengthy discussion of a small topic adequately dealt with in its own article seems mildly absurd. Let's try to keep a cool head and get the entire piece to FA instead of picking the LEAD to death. Far more serious problems exist in many of still excessively lengthy sections. MrZaius^talk 15:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what instigated your tirade, but you should try and relax. You made a change that I disagree with (though not very strongly) and I stated my opinion succintly. I have not picked the lead to death, nor have I fed the trolls here as much as others. However, there are clearly irrational anti-US posters here who are trolls, regardless of whether or not you believe the language should be changed. At the end of the day, you are right that this is not an important distinction and that it is probably best to keep this language if it'll stop the incessant arguments here. However, I still feel that the article is worse for the change and that your response to me above was uncalled for.LedRush (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There have been a handful of valid points made that seem to warrant either expansion of the statement or removal of it. The former is, by default/due to the article's size and relatively tight focus, difficult to do properly. I disagree that the language was dramatically affected by the watering down, but agree with you that the new language is slightly inferior, as it seems to lack the clarity of the old. All that being said, my primary point stands: Seeing a discussion of these two unsourced and relatively unimportant words swell into well over 5000 is disheartening. Again, it is a distraction from the overall goal of the editing process that should, if possible, be avoided. I'm about 5 minutes away from hitting the hay, but I'd like to make one last quick suggestion: If someone were to pick out two or three outstanding issues to deal with from the last FA review as new discussion points here it might just be enough to end this thread. Happy editing, MrZaius^talk 17:03, 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)

Your removal was inappropriate. Your view on this matter is purely speculative since you have provided no sources to back up your claim that man has entered a new age, which seems like your way of working around the arguement of superpowers to avoid discussing it.Prussian725 (talk) 16:56, 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)

I'm sorry, but I just can't any of these arguments seriously. Lear21 gave an article as proof that the US isn't a superpower, but he actually gave a citation for the US being the world's only superpower. From his article: "The financial crisis is likely to diminish the status of the United States as the world's only superpower." So, the article concludes, as does virtually everyone in the world, that the US is the world's only superpower, but the article says that the situation could change because of economic and military missteps. Can we just close this discussion? I feel the debate has gone on too long and should now be considered disruptive posting.LedRush (talk) 17:24, 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)

A few things: first learn better english if you are going to debate on the English Wikipedia. Second, the EU isn't a country and therefore not a superpower. Thirdly, It's "USA" not "Usa". If you continue, then the EU is now the Eu. Fourthly, just because all you Europeans decided to form a union doesn't mean that the rest of the world is stepping into a "new age". France tried to start a new age in the late 1700s and look what happened there. And fifthly, your gross support of socialism makes me want to vomit.Prussian725 (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Response. @1: Agree, @2: Agree, @3, who cares @4, Following the French Republic, many northern Americans decided to form a Republic of their own and kick out UK monarchy. If you mean that the creation of the USA has no relevance your argument is valid @5 Proud to be socialist; (I value human rights, public welfare, public health over the right to shoot people for entering my frontyard). Arnoutf (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Arnoutf...anything to add about the topic at hand?LedRush (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

He's a troll, I think you should ignore him. TastyCakes (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry there, my responses were off topic; to statements that were in themselves also off topic; but that is no excuse. Re: trolling - I hope you don't refer to me as I was only responding to gross uncivility (Prussian725) with some parts of useful comments (please write at least understandable English..... I try the same (and am not a native speaker)). Arnoutf (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No I was talking about the other guy (vindobono) ;) He's being intentionally obnoxious and is obviously uninformed and highly partisan. I understand entirely how hard it can be to ignore them. TastyCakes (talk) 22:02, 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)

are you kidding? EU is most dangerous enemy? I don't know where are you from, but weak european economy is not working really good, in 50 years US economy is planned to be 2times better then EU economy. Brussels is like Moscow during the cold war, its union full of bureaucracy and nonsenses. --Novis-M (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Summarising.

• Four entities are mentioned as having claim to superpower status. Russian Federation, China, USA, EU.
  • Of these the EU does not qualify as it is not a nation/country (yet)
  • Both China and Russia do project power and influence beyond their country, making them Great Powers. Both do not project political, economical and millitary powers on a global level (yet) hence they do not qualify as Superpower (note that the same goes for the EU which has no such global influence).
  • The USA has had such global influence at least from WWII onwards. Several people argue US power is becoming less, however there is no source as of yet that confirms US power no longer meets superpower level.

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)

Don´t take Arnoutf too serious, he´s joking while stating the EU is not a country. User Arnoutf is not aware of what happened in the EU states after 1992. So again, his statement is rather historic. It´s no secret anymore that the EU member states and their governments act coherently, like a country, even if EU institutions are not articulating a single stance.

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)

Yet global consensus differs with Dr. Lear21's assertion, as proven by all the citations above.LedRush (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

To place this in context, Lear21 and myself have differedin opinion about the country, or non-country status of the EU for the EU article itself in the past. We have indeed opposite opinions on this topic.

With regard to military, it is clear the EU has no single military policy or force at the moment. That alone would disqualify it as superpower in my opinion. Arnoutf (talk) 19:44, 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)

No argument about the economic bit for the EU (although the English with their Pound are not doing that much good). On the other hand with their production capacity China is also an economic superpower, and Russia as one of the most powerful fuel/energy supplier is an economic superpower too. Politically the EU is less of a superpower, and military Canada is probably a more important power compared to the EU.

As far as I understand (from that article) you have to be projecting global power in all relevant dimensions to qualify as a superpower. Arnoutf (talk) 20:16, 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)

I would think that there is little disagreement that the USSR's economic influence was on a global scale and rivaled that of the US (that is not to say the economic power or strength rivaled the US, but it's influence was huge and global). Also, I am worried that we are getting too involved in semantics; the vast majority of commentators (in the real world, not on this page) acknowledge that the US is the sole superpower, even if there is a strong movement to analyse how this position is weakening. This conversation is fun for bar talk, but not really needed here. We should report what virtually everyone agrees to be true and call it a day.LedRush (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

While the Soviet Union was never the healthiests of economies it did project global economic influence (e.g. Iraq, Cuba, etc.).

But I think I am getting carried away in arguing this. Another issue is the reliable source issue; which LedRush implies as well. There are several listing USA and Soviet Union as superpowers. What we need now to change the status quo is a mainstream reliable source naming China, Russia or EU a (full, not only econical) superpower; or alternatively such a source making the case the USA is no longer one. In the end, our discussion can go everywhere but would never amount to more than Original research. Arnoutf (talk) 20:53, 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)

EU? youre funny, EU is sinking in nonsenses and bureaucracy, US economy is planned to be two-times better than EU economy in 40 years...do you think that russia, china and eu have no debts? you're crazy...american economy MAY have a debt, because it is the most powerful economy...I can't wait for the moment, when your RICH eu cities will be as clean and nice as the american cities are...just tell me why lot of people from eu want to go to US? because its poor and dying country? funny...just look around you - you probably eat in american mcdonalds and subway, and drink american coke...this is really sign of dying economy?? --Novis-M (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You must forgive my sounding like a troll; I have a bad tendency to bite at people like "Vindabona", sometimes I get carried away. I agree with what Novis said. Countries all over the world owe the US for the aid we have given them, large portions of it to countries that were our allies in WWII. Our economy is not as god as it could be, but it is still in good shape. I think that a large part of the apparent view that our economy is dying is due in part to the media. Now, I would much rather the media didn't downplay our own country, but I would hate for the government to get involved in it. But our media is largely liberal and has fooled even our own citizens into thinking that our economy is dying. For example, the reason our housing market is in questionable shape is because the government got involved in the first place. For those who don't know, it basically told banks and mortgage companies that they would be fined if they did not extend credit to "poor" people. Well, guess what happened. The "poor" people defaulted on their payments because they couldn't even afford them kin the first place, and when the banks don't have money going into their coffers, the go belly-up. I'm sorry if i sound like I'm ranting, but that is one reason why making sure that everyone is "equal" does not work.Prussian725 (talk) 02:57, 2 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)

That language would imply that the country wasn't a superpower prior to the end of the Cold War and seems to ignore the time of the mention. The current sentence in the LEAD just says that the US emerged as the strongest superpower after the Cold War, backed up to this date by the degree of military spending. I haven't seen anything that suggests otherwise, especially not in the time period in question. I still say we'd be better off just walking away from this massive waste of time altogether to focus on the article proper. MrZaius^talk 06:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we should all have a look at the present section in superpower article; which does provide sources and different points of view. Arnoutf (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That article confirms the "sole superpower" language we used to have.LedRush (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree; altough it also raises the question whether the superpower concept is still relevant. In any case I think sole is a much better qualification than most powerful superpower anyway (what state is the second most powerful superpower??) Arnoutf (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am willing to keep the inferior "strongest" superpower (inferior for exactly what Arnoutf said) if it will end this stupid debate and allow us to tackle more relevant and important issues. This discussion has gone on too long.LedRush (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no way the US is a sole superpower, not possible, not with the money it owns in debt ($11.2 trillion). A country that is in major finacial crisis, there is just no military power for the US to confront any conflicts at this time. I strongly suggest wording to limited superpower. Without the US banks, the US just has no projection to perform it's military operations the way it has been after the cold war. The US is on the verge a depression, it is predicted to happen but when, is the question. I think the US is a superpower in some form but not in every angle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.222.90 (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Are any admins monitoring this? I concur with MrZaius that the consensus view is clear and there is no need to take this further. Furthermore, in retrospect, the anon IP at 66.17.53.9 who started this whole debate was clearly trolling and should be blocked or banned if he/she attempts to pursue this issue further. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:33, 4 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)

Your (or my) opinion do not matter at all; following core WikiPedia policies. We have to avoid original research, not even synthesis and have to support such claims with verifiable and reliable sources (which an editors opinion is not). Arnoutf (talk) 09:13, 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)

Fistly, the sentence talked about the US emerging from 1991 as the sole/strongest superpower, so your demand to find cites from the last year is useless. Secondly, I found more than a hundred sources for the US currently being the sole superpower in the last month. I put the language back using a sourse from today in The Boston Globe. If you don't like this cite, there are many more, so do not remove this cited fact.LedRush (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would be best to just state that the "sole superpower" thing is contested, since it's obvious there are cites for both sides. The "Superpowers" model of international politics was really a cold-war era distinction, where there were two sides with clear leaders (and a bunch of nations choosing not to be involved). It's like calling China a "Great Power" based on an early 20th century model. SDY (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any cite that says the US isn't the sole superpower (almost all the ones above that they say contest this actually concede that the US is regarded as the sole superpower). Also, the sentence in the lead talks about the world as of 1991 and the superpower language later in the article has already been toned down. This discussion has really gone on too long. Please, please, let it die.LedRush (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you haven't seen any source the US isn't a superpower? What are you reading then? Read the facts above, it isn't hard to read the current facts at hand. I suggest you read the current book also called U.S. no longer superpower, now a besieged global power[29]. US is not the sole superpower, not today, maybe in 2006 but China & Russia are the other superpowers. I will provide a horse fed amount of facts on freshly related material to again say it as I have said before. You have provided nothing and there are several others who agreed the US is not the sole superpower any longer. I didn't oppose the US as the strongest superpower when "sole superpower" wording was removed but renaming it again as the sole superpower when you haven't read the materials above or have you provided your facts. I oppose the wording sole superpower, it is not the truth and this has to be removed or we can argue how the US isn't a superpower at all. I will make it easier to word it just as superpower but not sole superpower, that is lying to the public when the media has said otherwise, remove the wording.

Congrats on finding one cite that says what you want. I have read the links above, and the majority of them say that the consensus view is that the US is the sole superpower. And please don't make your tired argument again. We've heard this before. This conversation has been beaten to death. I propose we make a final decision and close this topic. To that end...

If you like America and speak for America then your argument is not about the facts but your choice to protect the lie the US is the sole superpower when it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.53.9 (talk) 04:34, 7 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)

The article can be found at http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/10/04/lessons_for_the_next_war/

I am trying to fix the cite now. Also, the other Boston Globe article you reference quotes one person saying the world is a different place than 15 years ago, but then the article goes on to call the US the only superpower. You will sound more convincing if you:

1) Present what articles say fairly...not just cherry pick what you want.

2) When you look for an article, try the link provided. It seems suspicious that you couldn't find the article I was talking about, but maybe I am reading too much into this.

3) Not rant so much. I must warn you again about disruptive posts.LedRush (talk) 05:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal on "Superpower" Language

I propose we choose one of the three options below and close this topic:

• Keep the article as it is (mention "sole superpower" when talking about the US emerging from the cold war but only "superpower" in other places.

• Never use the phrase "sole superpower", but use the term "superpower" (and possibly use "strongest superpower" to talk about the US after the collapse of the USSR)

• Never use the term "superpower".

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)

I read an article last week that claimed the US was only a regional superpower, I will provide the article but what it did say the US doesn't not have the global power it onced had. If you read the May 2008 book U.S. no longer superpower, now a besieged global power, it says what the US fails to meet as a Superpower, there is a criteria defining the status of a superpower [33] where the US is failing under some according to Edward A. Kolodziej and Roger E. Kanet[34][35]. China & Russia meet the superpower criteria's[36].

I agree just to say superpower just not sole superpower, we can't use that term any longer as the media is saying the world is different now. I watched on 8/08/08 when NBC announced China was an official superpower, I heard it all day long. I will provide the clip as I knew that was a fact that being said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.53.9 (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I find that CBN announcement a little short-sighted as China's military doesn't even compare to those of the U.S. or Russia. The very articles on Wikipedia give testament to that. PLAN doesn't even have aircraft-carriers.Prussian725 (talk) 18:07, 9 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)

The language of a sole superpower sounds like a fairy tail, the US was once something but I throughy disgree on the wording to this. The GI-Joe tactic is gone as the numbers don't add up, without her strength the US can't be a superpower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.18.84 (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this, the United States can't be a sole superpower. I have read articles from the last 5 months how Russia has become a superpower again, so I disagree with calling the US a sole superpower as this is not the truth. Just to make things a little clear on my end, I found these sources on Russia.

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.

For perspective's sake

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)

hence the reason I propose to end the debate, one way or another.LedRush (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

LedRush, your source by the Boston Globe does not say the US is a current superpower. It say’s:President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld drove the world's sole surviving superpower into a diplomatic, strategic, and fiscal ditch.[ http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/10/04/lessons_for_the_next_war/]. Donald Rumsfled has been gone for 2 ½ years now and we are in a recession since then he left office. A lot has changed then and a load of facts are now readable on China & Russia than back in 2006. I have repeated with sources and two other editors provided better sources than I did supporting the US is not the sole superpower. My opinion the US is a great power now[37] and is a former superpower until it can fix it’s financial system & start paying off the deficit as it has never done before (China & Russia have paid off their deficits). The US spending is out of control, 77% of Americans spend more than they make[38] but I am not going to ramble about the US with it’s problems just state the sole superpower is dead in the wind in this century. You cannot call the US a sole superpower[39] when you have a lot of information that supports Russia[40][41][ http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//RTV/2008/10/05/RTV3182008/] & China[42] have made their status as superpower countries and that information has been bought to this discussion. I say remove the sole wording and leave superpower if you want. I won’t argue it is not a superpower as there are sources[43] supporting this currently but to leave the US as just a superpower and eliminate sole superpower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.53.9 (talk) 06:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

1) I don't need to show it is now, as the article doesn't say that.

2) The Boston Globe article is about what the US can do now as the sole superpower now. Please re-read. It mentions things that have hurt its ability to project power (yes, some things in the past happened in the past).

3) Your cite about the US being a former superpower is a book review from a college newspaper. In that book, mentioned above, they concede the view that many believe the US is still the sole superpower.

4) You're next cite (27) says "Our financial superpower status around the world took a huge hit with this bill." And it later alludes to sustainging superpower status in a time of war (and how that will be hard). This confirms the language in the article.

5) One Russia cite does call it a military superpower, and the Moscow Times does report it Olmert calling it a superpower. Of course, that doesn't make it consensus.

6) The youtube video calls China an economic superpower. Please see conversations above.

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)

"The nation exited the Cold War as the world's sole superpower"

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)

I'm so glad that someone finally said that because I have been staying out of this conversation for the most part but was just about to point out the same thing. After the collapse of the USSR, was the U.S. not the sole superpower? Just as LedRush, it does not say that the U.S. is currently the sole superpower. Kman543210 (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The sentence in question refers to an historical fact. It is clearly in the past tense and assert nothing concerning the present state of things. I guess if there is a source that says the U.S. is no longer a superpower, then that fact should be inserted as clarification. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Evb...you're hit a nerve with that clarification...there are many sources that say the US is no longer the sole superpower, and there are some that say it isn't even a superpower...but virtually all of these seem to indicate that the majority view is that the US is the sole superpower. I think the current language of the article presents the majority opinion without angering the minority too much (by not making the claim about the US currently being the sole superpower.)LedRush (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The cold war ended over a decade ago. Maybe the article needs an update, so as not to be out of date. This reliable source suggests the status of the U.S. as a superpower is in jeopardy. Don't look at me; I didn't write it. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)--Evb-wiki (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that "superpower status" is a nebulous and ill-defined classification, I'd rather just leave it out entirely. The US is still the single most powerful single country in world affairs (China is very focused on the domestic, and the EU doesn't act as a single entity for diplomatic purposes), and the article can be clear that the US still wields massive influence on the world stage without throwing around what is for better or worse a peacock term. In the context of the Cold War it has meaning, in the modern era it isn't quite so clear what it means. SDY (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But even in a "globilization" sense, somebody's got to be at the top...so who is it??Prussian725 (talk) 18:00, 10 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)

The first poster needs to take a trip to Europe. The United States is of course the superpower.

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 have always been crises, but that does not mean there are no superpowers. How about the Black Plague, or WWI or WWII, or the Great Depression? These were all crises on an awesomely bigger scale than what we face today. We aren't running out of resources, the climate has always changed but not necessarily by human hands, food and finance are in trouble but not on a scale that will destroy the face of the Earth. Of course no one country can control the world, but solving all the world's problems is not a requirement of a superpower. and failing states?? countries have been rising and falling for thousands of years, but their falling didn't always spark a new age.Prussian725 (talk) 19:27, 12 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)

Well, if there have always been and always will be crises on enormous scales, then what is it about this time around that eliminates the "Superpower"? Why is it that during the specific crises we face today, superpowers have been virtually eliminated but crises before our time did not make such a distinction?Prussian725 (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The citations and sources are very clear on this: The US exited the cold war as the world's sole superpower.

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.

I am not now sure to whom I am directing this comment as the last in the string of many regurgitations of the same arguments has been left unsigned by an IP address. If the question is whether or not there are sufficient citations to warrant the statement that the US exited the Cold War as the world's sole superpower, I am flabbergasted that more proof would be needed, or even that the statement is in controversy. If the citations are not enough, I challenge anyone to provide proof that a majority of sources, or even a plurality of sources, disputes this. Above we see numerous examples of sources saying that the US has acted rashly, that it misjudged the nature of international politics, that it's economic problems has relegated it to perhaps the more dimunitive role as a major player, but one's whose opinions are not dispositive on any issue. However, these articles acknowledge the majority opinion that the US is a superpower, and not one that I've read disputes the position of the US as of the end of the cold war. I would imagine for a change in the article to occur, we should have more than scattered news articles and vitriolic opinions on the subject.

Quite honestly, the oponents of this language seem to feel that they can just filibuster their way to change the article. If they repeat the claims over and over, they hope to just exhaust those who disagree with them...perhaps it has worked. Many other editors have made the arguments I have, they merely have grown tired of this discussion which now envolopes almost the entirity of this talk page. If people feel there really is a bias in the article, it seems that their time would be better spent finding actual problems, and not trying to wear down the editors until they get their way. The superpower language was changed long ago by Mr. Zaius to its current form, and nothing has emerged to make that widely accepted language no longer accurate as to the times and claims they make.LedRush (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

And just in case someone wants more citations for the proposition that the US left the Cold War as the world's sole superpower, here are a couple:

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR18.6/freereign.html This article, written in 1993, talks about how the US should use its power "in a world without a superpower competitor".

http://student.britannica.com/comptons/article-230262/United-States-history This section of the Britannica refers to the time of 1991-Current as the time as America's period as "Sole Superpower". Because this is in an encyclopedia, it demonstrates that the opinion is not shared by a few looking to get stories published, but general acceptance of an idea. While this could also be used as evidence that the US is currently the world's sole superpower, our article makes no such claim. However, this article does support the idea that the US left the end of the Cold War as the world's sole superpower.

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2001/02/iraq-010220b.htm This article was written in 2001 and describes the US airstrikes on Iraq as an attempt by the US to become a more dominant sole superpower than it was when Clinton was president. Nabil Omar, an Ambassador from Egypt, in decrying the attacks says "We may not accept the United States as the global cop...but we might surrender to that role, since it is the sole superpower today.... ". This demonstrates two things: 1. That the US was still considered the sole superpower in 2001, even by critics of the US policies, and 2. That the US was attempting to become a more dominant sole superpower than it was under the Clinton administration, meaning that the US exited the Cold War as the world's sole superpower.

I could find dozens of articles that would support this claim, or even that, despite the missteps of the US that Russia and China still can't be considered superpowers. However, the article, as it stands now, doesn't make a claim about the current geopolitical dynamics other than the US is a superpower. These are not controversial claims and while I believe there is ample evidence to make stronger claims of the US position, the article takes a safer position as to the role of the US right now, and therefore we don't need to discuss current geopolitical trends.LedRush (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

You have ignored the discussion and spent a lot of time on superfluous ideas and a strawman. What leads you to believe that the US wasn't the sole superpower at the time the Cold War ended? No consensus exists to chnange the language, and unless that changes the language will remain, despite your disruptive posts.LedRush (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.Prussian725 (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the United States a superpower? I think not. Consider these facts:

The financial position of the United States has declined dramatically. The United States is heavily indebted, both government and consumers. The U.S. trade deficit both in absolute size and as a percentage of GDP is unprecedented, reaching more than $800 billion in 2005 and accumulating to $4.5 trillion since 1990 as of now the GDP ($13.1 trillion) is near the cost of the deficit which is over $11.3 trillion of borrowed money). With U.S. job growth falling behind population growth (just California alone is as of October 2008 at 7.7% unemployment[56] ) and with no growth in consumer real incomes, the United States economy is driven by expanding consumer debt. Saving rates are low or negative.

The federal budget is deep in the red, adding to America's dependency on debt and forever slaved under the wealth of foreign countries. The United States cannot even go to war unless foreigners are willing to finance it.

Our biggest bankers are China and Japan, both of whom could cause the United States serious financial problems, if they wished. A country whose financial affairs are in the hands of foreigners is not a superpower.

The United States is heavily dependent on imports for manufactured goods, including advanced technology products. In 2005, U.S. dependency (in dollar amounts) on imported manufactured goods was twice as large as U.S. dependency on imported oil.

In the 21st century, the United States has experienced a rapid increase in dependency on imports of advanced technology products. A country dependent on foreigners for manufactures and advanced technology products is not a superpower.

Because of jobs offshoring (jobs going overseas) and illegal immigration, U.S. consumers create jobs for foreigners, not for Americans. Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs reports document the loss of manufacturing jobs and the inability of the U.S. economy to create jobs in categories other than domestic "hands on" services.

According to a March 2006 report from the Center for Immigration Studies, most of these jobs are going to immigrants: "Between March 2000 and March 2005, only 9 percent of the net increase in jobs for adults (18 to 64) went to natives. This is striking because natives accounted for 61 percent of the net increase in the overall size of the 18- to 64-year-old population."

A country that cannot create jobs for its native-born population is not a superpower.

In an interview in the April 17 Manufacturing & Technology News, former TCI and Global Crossing CEO Leo Hindery said that the incentives of globalization have disconnected U.S. corporations from U.S. interests.

"No economy," Hindery said, "can survive the offshoring of both manufacturing and services concurrently. In fact, no society can even take excessive offshoring of manufacturing alone."

According to Hindery, offshoring serves the short-term interests of shareholders and executive pay at the long-term expense of U.S. economic strength.

Hindery notes that in 1981, the Business Roundtable defined its constituency as employees, shareholders, community, customers and the nation." Today, the constituency is quarterly earnings.

A country whose business class has no sense of the nation is not a superpower.

By launching a war of aggression on the basis of lies and fabricated "intelligence," the Bush regime violated the Nuremburg standard established by U.S. and international law.

Extensive civilian casualties and infrastructure destruction in Iraq, along with the torture of detainees in concentration camps and an ever-changing excuse for the war, have destroyed the soft power and moral leadership that provided the diplomatic foundation for America's superpower status.

A country that is no longer respected or trusted and which promises yet more war isolates itself from cooperation from the rest of the world.

An isolated country is not a superpower.

A country that fears small, distant countries to such an extent that it utilizes military in place of diplomatic means is not a superpower.

The entire world knows that the United States is not a superpower when its entire available military force is tied down by a small, lightly armed insurgency drawn from a population of a mere 5 million people.

Neoconservatives think the United States is a superpower because of its military weapons and nuclear missiles. However, as the Iraqi resistance has demonstrated, America's superior military firepower is not enough to prevail in fourth generation warfare. The Bush regime has reached this conclusion itself, which is why it increasingly speaks of attacking Iran with nuclear weapons.

The United States & Russia are the only countries to have used nuclear weapons against an opponent. If six decades after nuking Japan the United States again resorts to the use of nuclear weapons, it will establish itself as a pariah, a war criminal state under the control of insane people. Russia on the other hand stands as another superpower[57][58] putting the odds against the United States from military arsenals to strong holds now in Latin American to everything in the Middle East except for Israel. The US has no welcoming from countries to Iran; Iraq; Israel; Jordan; Kuwait; Lebanon; Oman; Qatar; Saudi Arabia; Syria and calling the US a sole superpower when a superpower requires a foreign policy to promote world wide relations at bay, there is nothing to control the middle east. Sort of like a film set without the real buildings behind the prompts, you have just an empty space that shows absolutely nothing.

Any sympathy that might still exist for the United States would immediately disappear, and the world would unite against America.

A country against which the world is united is not a superpower and the odds very clearly hold Russia holding as united superpower[59][60] at the time being. Sure the US maybe big but that doesn’t president the world holding on one superpower any longer. I challenge the article on the face of public source but in time land of over what is said here, simply is not what the case says on the United States. So here I dis-stand the content as simply ironic but totally absurd, the sole has sunken like the Titanic. [29actionjackson] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.2.49 (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, just because a country has a lot of debt does not mean it isn't a superpower. The US has had debt since its inception but has well-proven itself a superpower at multiple points in history including now. Secondly, The US economy is not in as much trouble as some would have you believe. We can go to war any time we feel like it. Our money comes from our taxpayers and though we rely on foreign money right now, that does not mean we will continue to do so, and furthermore does not take us out of the superpower category. Thirdly, yes China is a large source of common goods in America, but saying we depend on them is just silly. Could you imagine what would happen to their economy if we suddenly decided to stop trading with them? If you take the US out of the economic picture EVERYBODY suffers. Fourthly, manufactured goods??? Do you have any idea how much the US exports in non-commercial goods? And imported oil? We do not need imported oil, we have PLENTY of our own in our own soil, so I reject that point. Fifthly, I agree that illegals crossing the border need to be dealt with. That being said, what part of the US was that survey taken in? If you go to someplace like Texas or California then yes you will probably find that the vast majority of construction workers are from down south; I live in Houston Texas...I know! But I have also been to places like New York and South Dakota, where I was slightly taken aback by the sight of so many white laborers. But that issue is not big enough to effect our status as a superpower. Sixthly, you do not know how every American feels about their nation, so stop speaking for all of them. Seventhly, you do not know half of what goes on in Iraq, so do not pass a final judgement on it until you have seen it for yourself. Iraq is recovering rapidly and its own police and military forces are growing steadily with the help of the US. By the way, what have we to gain by invading a desert??? And about respect, that has absolutely no bearing on a country's status as superpower. I personally would not give a rat's ass for how other countries feel about my country, so that comment is meaningless. Eighthly, whether or not you are "Isolated" has no bearing on superpower status, which by the way we are not. Ninthly, we have a very good reason to fear "small" groups like Al-Qaeda. The reason is called 911! Oh, and just becuse you give someone an ass-whipping does not mean you fear them. Tenthly, Do you also ahonestly believe that the "entire" US military is "tied down" by some ragheads in the middle of the desert? I think not. and that "tiny insurgency" managed to fly jet airliners into the World Trade Center where 2,500 of my countrymen were murdered for Jihad in a single day, so we are going to hit them back whether you like it or not so butt out. Eleventhly, we used nukes on Japan because we would rather do that than sacrifice astronomical numbers of Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, and Sailors to take down the Japanese mainland. That does not mean we are not a superpower. Twelfthly, I revert back to what i said earlier, whether or not countries like you does not have any bearing on your superpower status. And lastly, if the world wants to unite against us then bring it on.Prussian725 (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)