Talk:United States/Archive 31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 →

Contents

Please revert vandalism of motto

In Liv Brummer... In God...

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

FA candidate

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wasn't aware the lead had POV issues. This is giving it way too much undue weight, and belongs rightly only in a section more suited for it. Do leads for country articles tend to mention justice issues? I thought they tended to define the country's location, scope, and impact on the world. --Golbez (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with Golbez. I certainly read the inclusion of such a datum as moving the lede sharply away from neutral POV--it's simply not the sort of information that appears in country article leads. You should know that the article has already been accused of an anti-American bias in part because of the degree to which this issue is covered in the main text. More emphasis would simply be overemphasis.—DCGeist (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Of all the featured country articles, only one mentions "justice issues" in the lead: Australia. Australia was settled through penal transportation so it has more to do with history than "justice". MantisEars (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Good work, Ears. Thanks.—DCGeist (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I would like to get an outside perspective, as I see it as quite relevant to the lead for the other points I made above. The fact that the USA has by far the highest rate in the world, even surpassing China which has less people incarcerated with a much larger population suggests to me that it's an important fact. An issue that affects more than 1% of the population seems large to me. Alan.ca (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Third opinion: I'm in agreement with DCGeist, Golbez, etc. It includes far too much WP:WEIGHT. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really sure how this statistic falls under undue weight as it is not an opinion, but a fact. As the USA leads the world in this area, I do think it should be somewhere more prominent than buried deep in the article.Alan.ca (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Do keep one thing in mind, the U.S. leads the world in documented incarceration rate. Per our footnote 182, there are strong suggestions that both China and North Korea in fact have higher rates.
Again, no one is saying it's an unimportant fact. But there are many important facts about the U.S. that don't make it into the lede. And six sentences on the topic in the main text is hardly "burying" the issue--some have argued that we give it undue weight as is. The current consensus does appear to be that the present emphasis is the right emphasis.—DCGeist (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree, but I will leave it be for now. Alan.ca (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it should go in the lead. Incarceration rate is only a medium-importance statistic. We also don't mention in the lead that Lithuania has the highest suicide rate in the world, South Africa the highest murder rate, etc. Cambrasa confab 23:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
These are excellent points. The statistics are disputed, anyway. CorpITGuy (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct misconception that there are 52 states ?

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

inconsistent linking

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ugly.

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

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

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

City template

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

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

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

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

OECD data

under 'Overviews and Data'

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

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

Abbreviations

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

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

About Spain in the American Revolutionary War

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


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

Un-Super-Size Me!

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

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

Gun violence part

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

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

Global Military Presence

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

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

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

What in Hades is that supposed to mean?

Opening sentence

At present, the opening sentence of the article is:

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

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

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

Race/Ethnicity Chart

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

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

National anthem

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

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

Superpower claim is outdated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

America is not a synonym for USA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

United States vs. Russia as Superpower countries

Many people are wondering about the United States and its recession[2] economy as if its still a superpower with the current Iraq war, the falling US dollar[3] [4][5], high US minimum wages being outsourced for Chinese labor, a high unemployment rate, credit crisis[6] through US foreign policy spending, US inflation[7] [8][9] from the Federal Reserve lowing interest rates too low[10], a housing crisis, dependence from oil & high gas prices and etc. Where does the United States stand as a superpower versing Russia’s current superpower status? Read at these sources here to see how the United States is losing or is now considered a former superpower:[11][12] [13]

Now there is Russia; a superpower (the United States only real counter partner as a superpower0[14] [15][16] [17] [18][19] [20] because they have the economics[21] [22], the wealth[23] [24], the diplomatic power[25] [26], ideological[27] [28] [29][30][31][32], technological power[33] [34][35][36][37]& advances[38] than any other country besides the United States (look here on why the US is losing its superpower status read here:[39][40][41]) recognizes Russia as a superpower [42], they have the cultural sector and lets not forget their military forces (supreme). Russia is also the largest military arsenal producer in the world (they hold 73% of the worlds military arsenals market) and they have the worlds largest nuclear weapons arsenal than another other country (newer & older which many are reconditioned as new again) which is 5 times greater than the US has.

So Russia is a Superpower and lets not forget a Space Superpower, remember Russia has a Mar's mission coming up in 2015 [43]to 2024, also a Moon space station planned for 2015[44] without NASA but Russia going by itself; which NASA is out of funding due to a poor current US economy, 2007 & 2008. I do not start this article to brag about how wonderful Russia is, I started it because I am an American and I am seeing how the US is becoming a former superpower; even though I admire Russia as a country, I also admire my own country (USA) too.

Russia is a Superpower, that's plenty of facts in the bag to state they are in that position. The United State's position[45][46] [47]), think what they are in for, a lot in the bag on the whole US economy on all sorts of issues, so we need to understand our Congress has put a lot of our problems right in front of us. US Congressman Ron Paul[48] was the only presidential candidate who would have saved the US as a superpower and our country. We cannot regret Russia is a superpower once again, that was always predicted they would achieve that goal and good for them, they stuck to their dreams and they brought it back. The US has done the opposite and we are heading down down the economic depression [49] tube to a great power nation because of Congress, Unions, Corporate greed and oil.{{unsigned

If you want to save the United States, stop buying from US companies made in China (look for the labels and try to buy made in America only, store like Costco, Walmart, K-Mart, Best Buy, Staples and more are companies that buy made in China goods and we Americans buy these things by the millions each day), second visit Congress personally and request to bring down the US minimum wage and request to cap wages too high to cap them or lower high salaries so greed is enforced to stop US inflation. Read here as if we don’t do something we we’ll really suffer as China’s minimum wage is $.25 cents an hour as China has used its low labor population power to put their country on the Superpower front and we made that happen, please read an listen to this link: [50] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Versace11 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with improving the article. --Golbez (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Commenting on the remarks above re Superpower status, preceding the gratuitous POV paragraph, I checked the WP Superpower article, and see that the lede there asserts that the US and Russia both meet Superpower criteria as of 1991+15=2006. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Except that such a statement was actually added to that article by our new friend here. --Golbez (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm.... I hadn't looked at the string of external links seemingly intended to support the assertion in theSuperpower article that Russia "... has regained its role as a superpower once again." I just did that, and the info from those sources don't seem unanimous in supporting that assertion.
Boiling that down, contrary to the assertion they're cited as supporting in the Superpower article lede, those sources don't seem to firmly and unanimously consider Russia to be a superpower. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a comment from an editor who has given up on the Potential superpowers article: "Superpower" on Wikipedia is taken to mean "really cool country that is totally awesome." Expect more challenges. As for the comment, It appears like someone's trying to find a good reason for us to support Ron Paul, but I'll assume he just doesn't the technicalities of what goes on a talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somedumbyankee (talk • contribs) 05:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I viewed these articles too, real interesting point made he about the US as a former superpower by the Austin Chronicle Texas[51] is believing more and more each day how bad the United States is economically. We hit $134 a barrel today with oil prices, $5.00 up just today.

Now Russia as a superpower is believing as well. Russia is certaintly in a good position to place there part as a superpower country. As much as what is said in these articles above, the editor is right on the button with the facts as I read them too, Russia is a superpower.--64.69.158.252 (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, I think I fed the troll. Bad SDY.Somedumbyankee (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Good points, US is losing its superpower and Russia comes right back again. A good book on Russia as a superpower is called Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower by Steven Rosefielde 2004 [52] The book is about Russia intends to reemerge as a full-fledged superpower before 2010, challenging America and China and potentially threatening a new arms race. Yet with the all the stuff on CNN about them saying Russia is a superpower again, I believe they already are the superpower just without the 15 post Soviet countries they once had. Personally I am impressed considering how broke they were and how Russia paid off its entire deficit in 2006 from 15 years of paying off debt and turning all the post soviet military agencies down in 1991, everything has all been funded for and turned on again, all running again as it did. Really I have to give them hands up for that and Putin, his presidency he is favored almost more than 80% (look at George Bush, he is favored lower than 23%, everybody wants him gone). The Russian’s aren’t dumb, that’s for sure but the United States and the heat of water they are in right now, nothing to laugh about now.
Russia isn't playing around; they are playing their cards carefully. Superpower indeed but the US forcing NATO in post soviet countries over the years is a violation against US's promises to Russia back in 1991 by President Ronald Reagan making a promise and look at it today, NATO is in Czech Rep, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania and besides Georgia & Ukraine wanting in (just rejected last April 2008 because Russia is really angry at NATO as Russia is the oil supplier for Western/Eastern Europe)[53]. Who brought this on? The United States pushed it and that is against what Reagan promised Russia but the US has violated its promise.
Russia should defend itself from this bull dog the United States has been dying lying to Russia. These countries above shouldn't be NATO members and the US promised no NATO expansion in post soviet countries and look at the US has done. Created an angry superpower back up again Russia.--24.176.166.135 (talk) 09:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Also the article by CNN[54] "Russia, a Superpower Raises Again" as goes into details about how Russia was always a superpower regardless if it was always an energy superpower but it goes on to say it was a superpower even after 1991.--24.176.166.135 (talk) 09:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm just curious, what changes are we supposed to make to the article based on all of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.76.228 (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Food and Regional Cuisine

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

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

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

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

Redirect is backwards!

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

Please click the link at the top about frequently asked questions. --Golbez (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I just point out...

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

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

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

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

Ah. --Golbez (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't take your comment as anti-American at all, and it's a legitimate observation; however, I'm pretty sure that it's not related to "arrogant" Americans. Keep in mind that this is an English language article, and about 75% of native English speakers come from the U.S. Also, the U.S. has the 3rd largest population in the world, and it makes sense that Americans would know more about their own country and feel more comfortable adding to the U.S. article than other articles. If there are particular parts that can be reduced, you're more than welcome to make changes or suggestions on the talk page. Any improvements are always welcome. Kman543210 (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
This article could use some weight loss (by "recommended size" it has enough for 4-5 articles), but I'm a little leery of trimming things since a lot of them are someone's pet project. Human has the same problem, of course. I mean, everyone (as far as I know...) that edits that article is a human, so how fair can it be?Somedumbyankee (talk) 08:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

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

There are some redundancies (see my previous comments) and a lot of extremely specific information that could probably be cut from the overview article. For example, including the exact number of people in congress is critical for the House and Senate articles, but proportional vs. fixed representation is really all that matters for an overview. The consensus appears to be that people are happy with the article at the current size so I don't see a burning reason to whack the F/A-18's nest again.Somedumbyankee (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There's a lot wrong with the article because there are a few who act as self-appointed guardians (owners?) with no proof of expertize. (I removed that offensive template stating their user names as if they are the authorities on the US) Sorry for sounding snarky, but it's really difficult to edit when there are editors over-protecting such articles. One had the nerve to tell me just because something was in the article for a while, that meant I had no business to change it. (Well, not in those words, but similar and in sentiment.) KGBarnett (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
"Not in those words," indeed. You're misrepresenting what happened. Here are the relevant edits and edit summaries: yours ([55]) and mine ([56]). Again, if you want to change information that has appeared in the article for a long time and is well cited, then you should be prepared to make a case for your desired change on the article Talk page.—DCGeist (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
This was the disputed content: "Certain Native American traditions and many cultural characteristics of enslaved West Africans were absorbed into the American mainstream." With the citation: "Queralt, Magaly (2000). The Social Environment and Human Behavior: A Diversity Perspective. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, pp. 77, 83. ISBN 0023971916."
Just what are those "certain Native American traditions"? And "enslaved Africans" came from different parts of Africa, and "West Africa" was linked to Culture of Africa - a very poor and unreferenced article, that does NOT help the reader understand what was "absorbed into the American mainstream". Though I did change the link to African American culture, which is a better article, and informs the reader (only IF they bother to click on the link) better. AA is a very distinct and diverse culture in itself. Do you know how many ethnic groups and countries there are in West Africa? They may all look alike to most folks, and they may have general similarities - but they have different customs, histories, languages, and dress. Your "well cited" argument is dubious because there is only one citation - 2 pages of a book that many people do not have access to. How is that "well cited"? In Nigeria alone there are 250 ethnic groups with varying languages and customs. A Nigerian or Guinean visiting America today would not relate to African Americans. And where are the Italians? Mamma mia! KGBarnett (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you mean, and there should be good citations for these claims, but I think that African American and Native American are some of the most commonly thought of groups in American history. If you want to list each individual country you would have to make a large list of them. When you get into that, you are opening up the flood gates because everyone that has had the slightest bit of influence will want to insert their five cents' worth. I'm not saying to refrain from that if anyone wants to take it on, but you have a lot of work ahead of you if that is what you want to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.76.228 (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
KGB, do you realize how illogical your argument is? You say there are many cultures in West Africa. Of course there are. Your solution then is to make the language more broad and more imprecise by expanding it to all of Africa?
Perhaps, and yes. The underlying link that is there now is enough. The majority of sources everywhere say African slaves, or slaves taken from Africa, etc. Did you know what underlining article West Africa was linked, that is, until I changed it? If you didn't know, I'll tell you - it was the Culture of Africa! (BTW, just have a look at that atrocious article). Now that is what is called broad and lacking scholarship. Much worse than anyone's inablity to access the book. How was linking to the "Culture of Africa" article supposed to help those learn the unique culture of enslaved African Americans that was absorbed into the mainstream? Nevermind the citation given.—KGBarnett (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
As for your individual inability to verify the citation, that's a shame. Try getting the book via interlibrary loan or order it directly from the publisher. As for the dating of the book: (a) Amazon sales page data is hardly a reliable guide; (b) as you learn about research and scholarship, you will discover this remarkable fact: books are sometimes issued in multiple editions years apart. Incredible, I know, but true.—DCGeist (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
DCG, so you realize how pompous you sound? The arrogance you flaunt is shameful. How are the children in undeveloped countries supposed to verify this source, or even Western children wanting to learn more? That's the point. Do you have access to the book in question? Wikipedia is not a source for scholars - it is for the general reader - though scholarship does help in writing articles. So don't lecture me on research and scholarship - projecting that which you do not know upon me. I don't see much in the way of scholarship in the sections I'm questioning - i.e. the demographics and culture sections. I've yet to check the sources for the rest of the article. The burden is on you, or whoever adds to the article, not the reader. And not the editor removing unsourced and/or unverifiable information, nor those questioning the research - scholarly or otherwise. Are you a scholar and/or researcher? If so, in what field? Even so-called scholars and researchers can be wrong - and sometimes even kooks. I do know that.—KGBarnett (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Manhattan Project (nuclear weapons)

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

The first flight happened in North Carolina, but it was done by Ohioans. But NC still put "First in flight" on its license plate. =p --Golbez (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I still think a re-write would be simple and informative. Is there anyone who is strongly opposed to this change? (also, Golbez, only Orville came from Ohio, Wilburn was born in Indiana.)--80.126.160.209 (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Where's Indiana's "Birthplace of aviation" plates then? ;) (I have no opposition, I just enjoy the comparison) --Golbez (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
A lot of "US" hockey teams are mostly Canadians. It's worth mentioning an international staff of scientists, but the US taxpayers paid for the project, so calling it explicitly an international project may be a little off. U.S.-based with international staff is fine, obviously.Somedumbyankee (talk) 03:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Indeed, I think the very presence of the phrase "U.S.-based" in this context indicates that it was not entirely U.S. constituted.—DCGeist (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with DCGeist, US-based doesnt mean exclusively American. Taifarious1 05:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
That's my point, it doesn't mean exclusively American but it does not say anything else about the project. Some people might perceive the hint towards international cooperation but I think that a small rewrite would be informative and more clear. Basically, what SDY said is what I was planning on doing.--80.126.160.209 (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to clarify my previous point: according to the article it was a joint US-UK-Canada project that was run in the US. Looking at the various sites out on the interwebnet, it seems like most of the work was done by the US, but there was a substantial amount of British funding as well [57]. "U.S.-based with Allied support" might be a better way to mince the words.Somedumbyankee (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, this is weird. If you look at the Atomic Bomb wikipage (Atomic bomb), the history part of this article clearly states there were Germans involved. Not only Germans, but also: "many displaced scientists from central Europe". I believe the term "international" applies in this case. The "USA+Canada+UK" thing seems a bit rubbish to me, to be honest. The agreement you posted has nothing to do with the actual development of the first Atomic Bombs.--80.126.160.209 (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The US/UK/Canada thing is from the Manhattan Project page. The governing committee for "tube alloys" was 3 americans, 2 brits, and a canadian, so that seems to line up. That the US was able to cut off all foreign access (including to the British, who redeveloped a bomb independently) after the war kind of indicates who was in charge, though, and almost all of the research was done in the US. Calling it a truly "international project" would be misleading.Somedumbyankee (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Now see here, I realize who was in charge, who provided money and who took the loot, BUT, that doesn't mean this was no international project, again, I refer you to this article (Atomic bomb#History), which also speaks of the Manhattan Project. Not calling this an international project is not only misleading, but plain wrong.--80.126.160.209 (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You could actually argue that the United States in general is an international project on similar grounds (only a tiny fraction of us are natives). Even just "U.S.-based" implies that there were others involved, and who they were in the middle of WWII should be kind of obvious. An unqualified label of "international project" would be misleading (Britain was the only major partner, and the only reward they got was being on the winning side of the war). Including a full history of the project here is way more than necessary for an article that's already massively overweight.Somedumbyankee (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Culture

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

I may be jumping to conclusions, but you sound very angry. NPOV and fury don't work well together, so let's take a deep breath and figure out how to fix the issue. The source is hard to reject since it's a dead tree edition, but physical books are not prohibited by WP:V (good thing, the AABB tech manual is kind of critical to some of the editing I've been doing). I don't see the statement as patently false, but it may be oversimplified. This is a common problem for a summary article. What language would you propose including instead?Somedumbyankee (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I took that sentence to mean that the cultures and traditions influenced the American mainstream, which I can't see how that could be false. Kman543210 (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Somedumbyankee, (I'll ignore the assumtions, as that only seems to compound problems). The book is a dead tree edition for a reason. The subject was limited, and not apt for a cultural section of this type. I understand that a summary can be problematic, because of the need for brevity, but that doesn't mean one cannot be brief and precise. Especially for a "Good Article." If the main article was any better, I doubt I'd be this insistent. Kman, if that's how you took it, you are smart, and read between the lines. Not everyone does, or can see that. Absorbed into mainstream can be interpreted to mean, swallowed up, or assimilated, blended - as if it no longer exists. Influenced is a better word. But, the source does need to be changed. Social Work is very different than cultural anthropology and even social science. It's like comparing apples to strawberries. How about something like this, "Certain Native American traditions and many cultural characteristics of enslaved West Africans, have greatly influenced American mainstream culture." Or something along those lines. What do you think? I have to go now, and don't know when I'll be able to get back here. It could be as early as tomorrow, but more likely a day or more. I have a busy schedule.-KGBarnett (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

While the existing language of the article was never false, as KGB has so passionately claimed, it was certainly less precise than it could have been and, in the case of the Native American reference, possibly misleading in terms of emphasis--though any American who's ever had a cigarette has honored the influence of Native American culture. I've adduced an additional source for the African passage and made the language much more precise--naming the major ethnic/language groups that were influential, and distinguishing between those whose traditions were absorbed--hey, how 'bout "adopted"--directly by the mainstream and those that were more central to the development of African American culture.—DCGeist (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for expanding the section, DCG. And to others who attempted dialog. But, may I suggest that people refrain from jumping to conclusions by projecting motives, and emotions onto others whom they know nothing about? It's not constructive, for it can put one on the defensive, thus drive away good people from the project. For those who care, and should, I will state my motives; they are genuine and good willed, I solemnly swear. I am not angry nor passionate about this subject. I stated my concern in a matter-of-fact way - it is not my problem if others interpret that as emotional, angry, and/or tendentious. I almost took the bait, and became those things. I'm sorry for that. Also it is not helpful - for it deflects from the bettering of the articles. Comment on content, not on individuals (unless they do it first, or course. ;p). Also, this article should not be written for Americans, but for those who have never visited the US, or who wants to learn more about it. This adds to the animosity that non-Americans have about America and its people - that Americans are arrogant, revisionists, and hypocritical. Do I have to add smilie faces, and flower my already long posts so as not to be judged unfairly? "First remove the plank from your own eyes, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from another's" I get the impression that most did not read my posts, but barely skimmed them. I wrote longer posts, hoping to be understood, but it has seemed to back-fire. C'est la vie. Perhaps I should be more blunt and less wordy - would I then be judged in more positive way? Thanks again.-KGBarnett (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
"Blunt" may not be the right word, but long posts tend to sound like ranting and may be taken poorly. If you have a lot to say, try bulleted lists and similar formatting, it makes it a lot easier to read and might avoid confusion.Somedumbyankee (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


Gun Violence part Edit

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

Languages

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

USA map with major cities

The goal of creating such a map and including it in the article is an admirable one, but there have been no less than three problems so far:

  1. If the primary goal of the map is to show where the cities are, it clearly failed at the size it was included at
  2. The base design is identical to our large states map, so it looks redundant in an unprofessional way
  3. The choice of cities has remained essentially random--for instance, Seattle (pop. 582,174) and Albuquerque (pop. 534,089) were included; Houston (pop. 2,169,248), San Antonio (pop. 1,296,682), and San Diego (pop. 1,256,951) were not.

However, these three problems can all be resolved if the map is improved. With a more rational selection of cities, the map could simply be substituted at large-scale for the existing large-scale map in the States section. I propose that such a map should include the twenty largest cities in the country:
New York NY
Los Angeles CA
Chicago IL
Houston TX
Phoenix AZ
Philadelphia PA
San Antonio TX
San Diego CA
Dallas TX
San Jose CA
Detroit MI
Jacksonville FL
Indianapolis IN
San Francisco CA
Columbus OH
Austin TX
Memphis TN
Fort Worth TX
Baltimore MD
Charlotte NC
Then you could add the core cities of the twenty largest metro areas if they are not already included (adding nine for a total of 29):
Miami FL
Washington DC
Atlanta GA
Boston MA
Riverside CA
Seattle WA
Minneapolis MN
St. Louis MO
Tampa FL
There are other possible logical systems for choosing which cities to represent, but some logical system must be used in order to avoid OR and POV.—DCGeist (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the map really adds much, and I'm going to add a voice in opposition to it (in any form) because this article is already well beyond a practical size. If the map is added, at least one of the other maps should be removed.Somedumbyankee (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's what I was suggesting--after the necessary improvement, a straight switch with the existing map in the States section.—DCGeist (talk) 09:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hows this

That looks superb. Well done. One remaining hesitation. Take a look at the existing map in the States section. You'll note that not only does it give the full names of the states, but each name is an active link, allowing the reader to jump directly to the article on the state. Now, I don't think we require both the full state names and the active links, but we definitely should have at least one or the other. With all the city names, it may be advisable to stick with the state abbreviations to avoid visual clutter, but those abbreviations will be completely obscure to many of our readers around the world--linking them to the state articles would take care of much of that issue. Minor point: If you're going to identify Canada, you'll also want to identify Mexico. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
We really, really don't need yet another map in this article; it (in a much-improved version) might be useful in the 'largest cities' or 'largest metro areas' article, but definitely not in this one. --Golbez (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Once again, as stated twice above, we're not discussing this as an additional map, but as a straight switch for the existing map in the States section.—DCGeist (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, DCG, polevaulted to conclusions a bit. There are currently six maps of the US on the page. Do we really need all of them in the summary article? The "location in world" map is the only crucial one, all of the others have their own articles.Somedumbyankee (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Your general point is inarguable—the article does greatly exceed our "best practices" for length. While I put a good deal of effort now into restraining further grow and supported Calliopejen1's excellent trims ([58], [59]) a few months ago, I'm not much of a cutter myself. I confess I like each one of those maps in the article.—DCGeist (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Featured Article

Why isn't this article featured? Does it not meet all the guidelines for featured articles? Idontknow610TM 12:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It has problems with WP:SUMMARY, for one, in that many of the sections have an excessive level of detail for topics with their own article. It's well written and all of the content is good, but it's just too long. WP:SIZE frowns on articles >100k (it's 162k right now), and though that isn't a rigid requirement, my guess is that Featured Articles are probably expected to be compliant with "good practices" as well as rules.Somedumbyankee (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
...And the reason it's so long is that people oppose it at FAC if it doesn't have their "pet fact" about the US in it. Wrad (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The article should be long because the US has a lot going on for such a young country/nation, so there should be exceptions to the "rules" to account for this. Britannica Online's article on the US is almost 300 pages.[60]. They also have a large collection of media files linked within and, many subjects are branched off into other articles related to it. Even their 2007 paper addition has over 300 pages for US article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.45.80 (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, shoot, I guess we're just gonna have to do better than Brittanica did. Seriously, though, the article has a lot of detail that's redundant with issues that are so big that they have sub-sub-articles. Emigrations to Canada in the Revolutionary War? Murder statistics? Citizenship of Samoans? Casualty counts for the Iraq War? The percent of US vehicles that are SUVs? Comparisons of fertility rates for ethnic groups? Statistics of how many white evangelicals there are as compared to all evangelicals? Abortion rates? Causes of personal bankruptcy? A history of motion pictures? Superman? Percent of caloric intake from soft drinks? Tennis is popular? I could go on (and I did!), but I think you get the point. Somedumbyankee (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)