This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
In Liv Brummer... In God...
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 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:
Alan.ca ( talk) 05:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
[[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]]
.
Thrill
talk 19:15, 25 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)
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 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)
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)
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. — Nuclear Vacuum 22:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
At present, the opening sentence of the article is:
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)
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)
Is the national anthem official or traditional? Jack forbes ( talk) 23:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
http://news.google.com/news?tab=sn&sa=N&q=superpower+%22United+States%22&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Many people are wondering about the United States and its recession [2] economy as if its still a superpower with the current Iraq war, the falling US dollar [3] [4] [5], high US minimum wages being outsourced for Chinese labor, a high unemployment rate, credit crisis [6] through US foreign policy spending, US inflation [7] [8] [9] from the Federal Reserve lowing interest rates too low [10], a housing crisis, dependence from oil & high gas prices and etc. Where does the United States stand as a superpower versing Russia’s current superpower status? Read at these sources here to see how the United States is losing or is now considered a former superpower: [11] [12] [13]
Now there is Russia; a superpower (the United States only real counter partner as a superpower0 [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] because they have the economics [21] [22], the wealth [23] [24], the diplomatic power [25] [26], ideological [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32], technological power [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]& advances [38] than any other country besides the United States (look here on why the US is losing its superpower status read here: [39] [40] [41]) recognizes Russia as a superpower [42], they have the cultural sector and lets not forget their military forces (supreme). Russia is also the largest military arsenal producer in the world (they hold 73% of the worlds military arsenals market) and they have the worlds largest nuclear weapons arsenal than another other country (newer & older which many are reconditioned as new again) which is 5 times greater than the US has.
So Russia is a Superpower and lets not forget a Space Superpower, remember Russia has a Mar's mission coming up in 2015 [43]to 2024, also a Moon space station planned for 2015 [44] without NASA but Russia going by itself; which NASA is out of funding due to a poor current US economy, 2007 & 2008. I do not start this article to brag about how wonderful Russia is, I started it because I am an American and I am seeing how the US is becoming a former superpower; even though I admire Russia as a country, I also admire my own country (USA) too.
Russia is a Superpower, that's plenty of facts in the bag to state they are in that position. The United State's position [45] [46] [47]), think what they are in for, a lot in the bag on the whole US economy on all sorts of issues, so we need to understand our Congress has put a lot of our problems right in front of us. US Congressman Ron Paul [48] was the only presidential candidate who would have saved the US as a superpower and our country. We cannot regret Russia is a superpower once again, that was always predicted they would achieve that goal and good for them, they stuck to their dreams and they brought it back. The US has done the opposite and we are heading down down the economic depression [49] tube to a great power nation because of Congress, Unions, Corporate greed and oil.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Versace11 ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
If you want to save the United States, stop buying from US companies made in China (look for the labels and try to buy made in America only, store like Costco, Walmart, K-Mart, Best Buy, Staples and more are companies that buy made in China goods and we Americans buy these things by the millions each day), second visit Congress personally and request to bring down the US minimum wage and request to cap wages too high to cap them or lower high salaries so greed is enforced to stop US inflation. Read here as if we don’t do something we we’ll really suffer as China’s minimum wage is $.25 cents an hour as China has used its low labor population power to put their country on the Superpower front and we made that happen, please read an listen to this link: [50] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Versace11 ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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:
Dukeofwulf ( talk) 03:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
(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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
OK, so now that it's clear that it would replace, rather than supplement, the existing map, I have these comments:
Why isn't this article featured? Does it not meet all the guidelines for featured articles? Idontknow 610 TM 12:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Why are Caucasians refered to as "Whites" but people of African descent are not refered to as "Blacks"? If you're going to label people, at least use like terms (Blacks, Whites, Browns, Yellows, etc...) or only use the more accurate description of origin of descent (Anglo, Afro, Asian, etc). Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.0.171 ( talk) 17:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The entire US census-demographics chart is quite below standards/inept when categorizing with race and ethnicity. ie. Middle Eastern & Asian ---> geographic designation black ---> color Caucasian ---> race Latino ---> race and/or ethnicity and/or hertiage Intranetusa ( talk) 17:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Go over the crime and punishment section once again, my fellow wikipedians. tell me if you don't believe that to be a little slanted. the article mentions how high the crime rate is, but only compares it to western-europe natons--leaving out the fact that it is drastically lower than countries like russia, mexico, etc. im not asking to fill the article with some hot-air about how peaceful the south-chicago streets are at 2:00am, but i just don't belive it is written very free of opinion. let me know what yall think. Skiendog ( talk) 23:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Several months ago I drew the ire of a few users by repeatedly attempting to insert and remove within one particular article several terms and statements which some identified as "vandalism" (even comparing it to some of the worst defacements committed on this site). I admit that while most of my content was legitimate and well-documented, the practice by which I was inserting it was less than professional. I ultimately issued an apology for this flawed method of editing as well as for several less-than-professional statements directed at a few other users.
Still, I was also the target of several unnecessary threats and insults which have been seemingly ignored since then (an administrator at one point even defended the unorthodox statements of one user). Furthermore, the branding of a "troublemaker" resulted in the disregard and deletion of several of my contributions in other articles without any formal or legitimate reasoning for doing so. I agreed to apologize for the mistakes I made, now I am requesting the same from those who did wrong towards me. M5891 ( talk) 14:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Why are Caucasians refered to as "Whites" but people of African descent are not refered to as "Blacks"? If you're going to label people, at least use like terms (Blacks, Whites, Browns, Yellows, etc...) or only use the more accurate description of origin of descent (Anglo, Afro, Asian, etc). Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.0.171 ( talk) 17:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The entire US census-demographics chart is quite below standards/inept when categorizing with race and ethnicity. ie. Middle Eastern & Asian ---> geographic designation black ---> color Caucasian ---> race Latino ---> race and/or ethnicity and/or hertiage Intranetusa ( talk) 17:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Go over the crime and punishment section once again, my fellow wikipedians. tell me if you don't believe that to be a little slanted. the article mentions how high the crime rate is, but only compares it to western-europe natons--leaving out the fact that it is drastically lower than countries like russia, mexico, etc. im not asking to fill the article with some hot-air about how peaceful the south-chicago streets are at 2:00am, but i just don't belive it is written very free of opinion. let me know what yall think. Skiendog ( talk) 23:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Several months ago I drew the ire of a few users by repeatedly attempting to insert and remove within one particular article several terms and statements which some identified as "vandalism" (even comparing it to some of the worst defacements committed on this site). I admit that while most of my content was legitimate and well-documented, the practice by which I was inserting it was less than professional. I ultimately issued an apology for this flawed method of editing as well as for several less-than-professional statements directed at a few other users.
Still, I was also the target of several unnecessary threats and insults which have been seemingly ignored since then (an administrator at one point even defended the unorthodox statements of one user). Furthermore, the branding of a "troublemaker" resulted in the disregard and deletion of several of my contributions in other articles without any formal or legitimate reasoning for doing so. I agreed to apologize for the mistakes I made, now I am requesting the same from those who did wrong towards me. M5891 ( talk) 14:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
wangdoodle! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.93.56 ( talk) 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The Demographics section regarding race and ethnicity must be fixed. It is quite confusing, referring to black as a race and Latino as an ethnicity, and discounts Latinos when referencing the largest minority group. Even if this is according to the US census definitions on race & ethnicity, it would be better if that issue is resolved so there isn't any contradictions.
Furthermore, the chart on the same issue has to be fixed. It needs to distinguish whether it factors Caucasian-Latinos as Caucasian. Currently, the chart doesn't differentiate, and the percentages add up to over 100% Intranetusa ( talk) 17:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
You're right that some people when they think of Hispanic are thinking of Mestizo (half white, half Amerindian), which isn't used very often in the U.S. The term was never meant to designate race, but when the news or police make a physical description of someone on television, they say white, African American, or Hispanic as if it were a race (but that doesn't make it correct). The U.S. Census definition of Hispanic is the correct definition. The other option would be to put a box about reported ethnic groups such as Hispanics, German, English, French, etc... to separate race from ethnic categories. I'm not confused by the information because I've always understood the correct definitions, but I can see how it would be confusing to have it add up to over 100%. I do object to separating Hispanics by race though in the info box. Kman543210 ( talk) 23:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This section is nothing more than a left-wing Bush-bashing catharsis and not a history of the United States of America during the "Modern Era". Either make this section a proper history of the United States or delete it entirely.
--ATS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.45.72.27 ( talk) 00:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The 'Modern Era' in the US can be seen as post-WW II. For WW II, the country underwent an unprecedented militarization. The War was won by the US and Allies but the US never went back to a non-agressive stance and has since :
- Renamed the War Department the Department of Defense (although it is forbidden to operate on US soil, resulting in all of its activities being invasions) - Invaded the following coutries: Korea, Viet Nam, Falkland Islands, Afghanistan, Iraq, and it seems that the fecal-brained US president wants to 'pull a Bush' in Iran.... - Remained in a state of readiness for war. This is a complete change in US policy and has caused national leaders, like adolescents who recently discovered masturbation, to revel in what he can do.... = Supported "leaders" of brutal dictatorships for 'advantage' in an imaginary Cld War fueled by Mutual Assured paranoia (See 'Dr. Strangelove') previous unsigned comment was added by Hkerfoot
Can registered users add information to this section? There is much more information that needs to be filled in here as well as corrected.
If we cannot make changes, then how are updates or improvements made and who makes them? -MarkDalit —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkDalit ( talk • contribs) 20:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks DCGeist. After how many days past registration may a new registered user make changes? -- MarkDalit —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkDalit ( talk • contribs) 20:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
While it's commonly held that America was named for Amerigo Vespucci, what of the competing theory that it was named for Richard Amerike (pronounced America)? I'm told that The Book of General Ignorance, albeit not a scholarly source, gives credence to the idea. I don't have a copy of the book to hand, or I'd paste the relevant passage here.
I'd be interested in seeing a balanced appraisal of each possibility.
I've seen the new comments being made that Russia is a superpower and United States is no longer a superpower and stating Russia is far more powerful than the USA. ROFL in all the time I've been on Wikpedia I don't think I've ever heard something so crazy which someone seriously believed. This is not just a ridiculous Russian nationalist fantasy, it's sickening. Fanatical Russians clinging to the idea their finished state is actually still something for the world to fear because their country is only held together by the idea that it should wreak war on others, and America hating sympathisers who look for and support any possible states or entities that could rival the United States, no matter how brutal and disgusting they may be, whether it be such likes as China or Al-Quaeda. Russia is an absolutely finished state with a rapidly falling population that is now even smaller than Pakistan's, it's economy sits in a pathetic 11th position in the world which has been claimed many times is too low to be in the G8, its military spending in a poor 7th position with only a tiny number of its roting military still functioning, internal conflicts and borders falling apart with its regions such as Chechnya breaking away and technically became independent states with their own presidents.
How can Russia even for a second be seriously considered a superpower let alone be more powerful than the US when it can only just scrape in to claim to be a great power considering most other great powers such as the UK, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, and China out perform Russia in economic rankings and military spending rankings. Infact all great powers mentioned above have larger economies than Russia and only Italy spends less on its military, and not by very much.
Russia may very well have large reserves of oil and gas and tries to claim these make it oh so powerful of a country because it has reserves in similar size to that of Iran. Thing is reserves of oil and gas in similar size to that of Iran's have not made Iran a superpower, infact Iran isn't even a great power. Russia has a medium economic growth rate traditionally around 5% a year. The United States has an economic growth rate traditionally around 4% a year. When does Russia's economy expect to by pass America's? 2800? 5% economic growth is actually pretty poor for a developing economy, with such likes as China and India growing at around 9% or more, and it's only 1% higher than America's and America is fully developed. In fact how can the Russian economy even try to compare to the US economy when it's not even a developed economy?
It gets even more ridiculous when you try to compare numbers between Russia and the United States. Russia's $1.2 trillion economy versus the United States $13.7 trillion economy. That's around 13 times larger. The US economy equals 25% of the world's GDP. Russia's $40 billion military spending versus the USA's $583 billion military spending. The USA's military spending is 50% of the world's military spending. Russia's rapidly declining population of 142 million people versus the USA's rapidly rising population of 304 million people. When Russia's economy equals 26% of the world's GDP, its military spending equals 51% of world military spending, and a rapidly growing population of 305 million people THEN AND ONLY THEN is it a superpower more powerful than the United States
In case even all this still has't proved how pathetic Russian power is as of 2008 I've laid out Russia's rankings in important areas associated with power
2007 List by the International Monetary Fund | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Signsolid ( talk) 08:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Mind the spelling and grammar mistakes ;) Taifar ious1 09:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This is just speculation on my part but does anybody else think that the Soviets never went away? I think they are holding to Lenin's advice, "one step backwards, two steps forward"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.76.228 ( talk) 16:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC) I could see Russia being a superpower mainly because of its large land size and strong military (even if it's declining), but economically, it doesn't compare to America. America is no doubt a superpower and I don't know where people get the idea America is weak in both military and economy. Russia has had a very rich military history especially in past dumb attempts to invade it during winter (Napoleon and Hitler), and to my knowledge, they have never been fully invaded by another country within the past 1000 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.178.207 ( talk) 20:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
How can Russia be a military superpower when its military is only the 7th strongest in the world? Does that mean France, United Kingdom, China, Germany, and Japan are also military superpowers because they all have more powerful militaries because they spend more on their militaries? Military strength is only determined by military spending. Also as for not being successfully invaded for 1000 years the UK hasn't been successfully invaded for 942 years as of 2008. Does that mean the UK can claim to be a superpower considering its not only not been successfully invaded for 1000 years its not even had any part of its territory occupied for 1000 years, unlike Russia which has had numerous countries occupy large amounts of it territory many times over tha past 1000 years, plus the UK spends a lot more on its military giving it arguably a more powerful military. So is the UK more of a military superpower than Russia?
I'd say that the above comment clashes quite sharply with the previously provided statistics which does in fact state Russia to be 7th in terms of Military spending. It would appear that 24.205.234.250 is being biased by opposing cited facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.97.187 ( talk) 00:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
United States vs. Russia as Superpower countriesMany people are wondering about the United States and its recession [68] economy as if its still a superpower with the current Iraq war, the falling US dollar [69] [70] [71], high US minimum wages being outsourced for Chinese labor, a high unemployment rate, credit crisis [72] through US foreign policy spending, US inflation [73] [74] [75] from the Federal Reserve lowing interest rates too low [76], a housing crisis, dependence from oil & high gas prices and etc. Where does the United States stand as a superpower versing Russia’s current superpower status? Read at these sources here to see how the United States is losing or is now considered a former superpower: [77] [78] [79] Now there is Russia; a superpower (the United States only real counter partner as a superpower0 [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] because they have the economics [87] [88], the wealth [89] [90], the diplomatic power [91] [92], ideological [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98], technological power [99] [100] [101] [102] [103]& advances [104] than any other country besides the United States (look here on why the US is losing its superpower status read here: [105] [106] [107]) recognizes Russia as a superpower [108], they have the cultural sector and lets not forget their military forces (supreme). Russia is also the largest military arsenal producer in the world (they hold 73% of the worlds military arsenals market) and they have the worlds largest nuclear weapons arsenal than another other country (newer & older which many are reconditioned as new again) which is 5 times greater than the US has. So Russia is a Superpower and lets not forget a Space Superpower, remember Russia has a Mar's mission coming up in 2015 [109]to 2024, also a Moon space station planned for 2015 [110] without NASA but Russia going by itself; which NASA is out of funding due to a poor current US economy, 2007 & 2008. I do not start this article to brag about how wonderful Russia is, I started it because I am an American and I am seeing how the US is becoming a former superpower; even though I admire Russia as a country, I also admire my own country (USA) too. Russia is a Superpower, that's plenty of facts in the bag to state they are in that position. The United State's position [111] [112] [113]), think what they are in for, a lot in the bag on the whole US economy on all sorts of issues, so we need to understand our Congress has put a lot of our problems right in front of us. US Congressman Ron Paul [114] was the only presidential candidate who would have saved the US as a superpower and our country. We cannot regret Russia is a superpower once again, that was always predicted they would achieve that goal and good for them, they stuck to their dreams and they brought it back. The US has done the opposite and we are heading down down the economic depression [115] tube to a great power nation because of Congress, Unions, Corporate greed and oil.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Versace11 ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC) If you want to save the United States, stop buying from US companies made in China (look for the labels and try to buy made in America only, store like Costco, Walmart, K-Mart, Best Buy, Staples and more are companies that buy made in China goods and we Americans buy these things by the millions each day), second visit Congress personally and request to bring down the US minimum wage and request to cap wages too high to cap them or lower high salaries so greed is enforced to stop US inflation. Read here as if we don’t do something we we’ll really suffer as China’s minimum wage is $.25 cents an hour as China has used its low labor population power to put their country on the Superpower front and we made that happen, please read an listen to this link: [116] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Versace11 ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I viewed these articles too, real interesting point made he about the US as a former superpower by the Austin Chronicle Texas [117] is believing more and more each day how bad the United States is economically. We hit $134 a barrel today with oil prices, $5.00 up just today. Now Russia as a superpower is believing as well. Russia is certaintly in a good position to place there part as a superpower country. As much as what is said in these articles above, the editor is right on the button with the facts as I read them too, Russia is a superpower.-- 64.69.158.252 ( talk) 05:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
1. Its military is the most powerful relative to the forces of other states 2. Its economy is still the largest at $13 trillion in GDP 3. Its population is well educated and creative 4. It has impressive hard and soft power to negotiate a global environment favorable to its interests, but it cannot command others to do its will absent concessions to their interests and power [: [124]] (Russia has major control in the middle east as I agree from the above comment [125])
All of this crazy Russian nationalistic fanaticism ^^^^ has been made by the same Russian using different IP addresses and claims to be American to justify his remarks, yet if you read what he's written it is not in fluent American English grammar and has a Russian sound to it if you read it like how a Russian might speak English so it doesn't take a genius to figure it out. Pretty much all the comments are written the same with the same grammar and referenced the same and agree with each other. The very idea that Russia, a country whose GDP and defence budget rankings struggle even to make the top 10, not even in the top 5, is in some way the World's sole Superpower and dominant over the United States, whose GDP makes up more than 25% of the World's GDP and defence budget is as larger as the rest of the World combined is the craziest thing I have EVER heard in 2 years of being on Wikipedia. When is this Russian editor pretending to be multiple American editors backing this mega insane idea going to be stopped??? 88.109.7.102 ( talk) 02:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The truth concerning Hispanic identityHispanics cannot form a single ethnicity because the Hispanosphere is composed of various ethnicities and ancestries, thus extending to its descendants in the United States. The only common trait among Hispanics is the Spanish language, be it primary, secondary, or ancestral. The Hispanophone nations, and the Hispanic American communities by extent, are culturally similar but these cultures are individually distinct and unique. Feel free to comment and criticize. M5891 ( talk) 17:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Common sense recognizes that Hispanic is not one homogenous ethnicity, much less a "race," but rather the identification of Hispanic-national ancestry. The aggregation of Hispanic Americans into an exclusive ethnic category often results in misrepresentation as a "race" separate from Caucasian, American Indian, or Asian. The cultures of the Hispano Latin American nations were initially based on or influenced by Spanish culture, but other cultures were variously integrated within each nation. For instance, the culture of Mexico greatly differs from the culture of the Dominican Republic, which greatly differs from that of Argentina. Then there are the Hispanic cultures exclusive to the United States. All of these cultures share a common origin and similar features but each possesses its unique set of characteristics. M5891 ( talk) 18:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC) ?Am I the only seeing this? It says "A bunch of asswholes who can't read !!!!!!!!!!!" as Contents.It is spell exactly like that.Im guessing this is someone who hate the USA. Can someone take it off. It's very rude.The wierd thing is that once I press article on the top it all of a sudden dissappears??Very weird. Notice how they spelled asshole with a W. RebelSoldier3 ( talk) 08:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Economy sectionA few suggestions:
What do you think? Turkuun ( talk) 01:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
In the late nineteenth century, U.S. scientific and technological community gained momentum. In 1876, Alexander Graham Bell was awarded the first U.S. patent for the telephone. The laboratory of Thomas Edison developed the phonograph, the first long-lasting light bulb, and the first viable movie camera. In the early twentieth century, the automobile companies of Ransom E. Olds and Henry Ford pioneered assembly line manufacturing. The Wright brothers, in 1903, made what is recognized as the "first sustained and controlled heavier-than-air powered flight. Are those details, about individual inventions, essential? How about rephasing it to something like: In the late nineteenth century, U.S. scientific and technological community gained momentum by pioneers such as Bell, Edison, Ford... Turkuun ( talk) 05:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, DCGeist!
Turkuun ( talk) 10:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC) About the working hours, here is a better source. As you can see, French/Swedes/Germans work about 1400-1600 hours, Americans/Italians/Japanese about 1800 hours, Czech/Greek/Poles about 2000 hours, and South Koreans about 2300 hours! So working hours are high, but nowhere near the top of developed countries. Turkuun ( talk) 11:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The United StatesWhy is this called the "United States" and not the "United States of America"? I read the FAQ and saw a section on this, but I do not agree with this as the "United States". The United States of America is the official and correct term. The United States is just a lazy way of refering to the country. I propose that this should be change to the "United States of America". Red4tribe ( talk) 23:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Crime and Punishment?How come the 'law' section is entitled "Crime and Punishment"? It is generally named something else in other countries' articles (ie 'Law' in Germany and Canada, both featured articles, and 'Law and Criminal Justice' in UK). In my opinion, this puts a negative spin on the whole thing. In fact, after thinking about it, the section is accurately named; the article simply does not have a 'law' section. There is way too much focus on policing and criminal justice and none on the overall justice system. Not only is is this not informative (not describing the whole story), the current section is heavily biased; the second and third sections describe how the US has "above-average levels of violent crime and particularly high levels of gun violence and homicide" and "the highest documented incarceration rate and total prison population in the world and by far the highest figures among democratic, developed nations". In my opinion all this garbage has to go and the section needs to be rewritten. Whether or not these figures are true (they are well sourced so I suppose they are), they have no need to be mentionned. To sum up: "Crime and Punishment" needs to become "Law", in title and in content. (I'd work on this, except I have no knowledge whatsoever about the US justice system...)
M.nelson (
talk) 00:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
so google sent me here. I imagine there are thousands like me.you go to google, like every day. when you see a specialized google logo (usu holidays & historical days), you click on it- the list of countries by GDP page says we're 11th. this page says we're ninth. I'll look into it. IKnow About KnownUnknowns 13:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC) so yeah. our ranks according to these authorities are: 011- IMF 008-world bank 010-cia factbook is 9 an average? IKnow About KnownUnknowns 13:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Updated languageAs per the Immigration Act of 2007 (S 1348), specifically S Amendment 1151, the official language of the United States government, and for other purposes, is English. http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=13429 S Amdt 1151 to S Amdt 1150 to S 1348: To amend title 4, United States Code, to declare English as the national language of the Government of the United States, and for other purposes Supergeo ( talk) 22:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
TerritoriesSo what if the laws are different regarding territories and states? The territories are still part of the country. Supreme Court said as much.
— Rickyrab | Talk 15:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC) I support the inclusion of the territories in the context of "The USA is composed of..." While I don't care about the remote uninhabited islands, out of the five territories with civilian governments, all but one have their population as United States citizens and all five United States nationals. These citizens can vote in any national election if they choose to relocated to the States or DC. (Or vice versa, stateside U.S. citizens can lose their vote if they move to territories.) The land may be a "possession" of the U.S. (though I'm not sure it's that "low class" for the commonwealths of PR and NMI), but they are part of the country. They are represented in Congress (albeit no voting representation) and they live under federal laws (there are federal district courts). HkCaGu ( talk) 17:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Postmodernism is apparently parochialDCGeist, it's cute that you think postmodernism and American literature are parochial issues, but the fact that the movement, dominated by Americans, is international, makes it quite the opposite of parochial. And makes it necessary to include in the main United States article in the section covering America's impact on Literature, philosophy and the arts. Stick to films, maybe. p.s. I'm not saying I like postmodernism, and it's often frustrating and hollow to me too, but no matter how much you wish it away by reverting an article, it's still the dominant movement in literature in the last 50 years, and America's giant impact on it belongs in this article. Chicopac ( talk) 16:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Potential GA reassessmentI'm considering nominating the article for reassessment, there are whole sections of the article that are not sourced, something that shouldn't happen on a GA article. Hopefully it will motivate people to find these sources if nothing else. — Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 19:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
PictureTo make this article more neuteral I think a picture of a palestinian standing in front of an Israli tank should be added to the article. There is a pic of a 6/4 dude in front of a tank on the PRC page. If there is no such picture or similar picture on the US page it becomes obvious that Wikipedia has a pro-US POV. Keep in mind that most people that edit wikipedia are westerners and to there should be some kinda of fair representation of minorties in wikipeida that are still majorities in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.224.65 ( talk) 19:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
(Excessively?) High PatriotismWhy is there no mention of the high-degree of patriotism/nationalism (or perhaps jingoism if you prefer) that exists among the average citizenry, even when compared to other countries? It would be odd to see many people flying the Union Jack in the UK, for example. The world is always attacking us over this anyway. Is anything like this mentioned in one of the "sub-articles"? On this 4th of July I just found it odd that there's no mention of patriotism in the USA. -- 70.142.50.236 ( talk) 16:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
It may well be the common perception, but how does one measure "patriotism"? If it was just simply how many people fly the flag, that'd be something, but patriotism comes in many forms. You could make an analogy with Baptists who may expound their faith more than, say, Anglicans. But does that make them more Christian than Anglicans?
Canada Jack (
talk) 17:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the only time when patriotism becomes excessive is when it becomes an excuse for war, supporting unconstitutional laws and senseless bureaucracy for the sake of "security," and attacking "treasonous" critics of such actions. Otherwise, there is no reason not to be enthusiastic about waving the national flag and wearing national colors on a regular basis. M5891 ( talk) 17:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Would I be wrong to say that American schools sing their national anthem every day. It's a fine thing to be proud of your country, but also a fine line between being partiotic and being brainwashed into being patriotic. It reminds me of the time the press insisted that Frenchfries were henceforth to be known as freedom fries. As far as I'm aware the majority of the US public were quite happy to go along with that. Withought pressure from right wing media nobody would have contemplated changing names of food products to have a dig at the French. This is, I believe, a form of brainwashing. I don't say US citizens are more prone to it than all other nations, but rather, more prone than most democratic nations. Stan 888 ( talk) 16:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I think this whole subject is inherently too POV, non verifiable and frankly unimportant to include in the article. And the press didn't "insist" that french fries were going to be called freedom fries, they changed them on the menu of the House of Representatives' cafeteria (I believe), gaining widespread news coverage and a place in the zeitgeist of the time. For every "hyper patriotic" American I've met, I've met a "self hating" American as well, but again I see this as entirely a fluff issue completely inappropriate for inclusion in this article. TastyCakes ( talk) 17:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Sorry, just a newbie taking part in a conversation. If as you say it was only reported by the media rather than started by them, I take that statement back. Just to add, I think a self hating American is no better than a blinkered patriotic American. You can be proud and critical at the same time, dont you think? Stan 888 ( talk) 17:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
iam an american and i find this offesive 24.63.104.114 ( talk) 04:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)fucked up
PS, so perhaps a small paragraph explaining a high level of patriotism in the US might not be a bad thing, with reasons outside the obvious? Jack forbes ( talk) 14:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Spanish?Idiots, Spanish is not a national language of the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.53.114 ( talk) 19:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd say it would be accurate to call Spanish a de facto national language of the United States, as significant portions of the south and west were historically Spanish-speaking and retain that nature. And now much more of the United States has significant concentrations of Spanish-speaking people. As opposed to, say, the historically French parts of the United States which are now almost completely assimilated. It's interesting to note that in Canada, French is an official language but concentrated in Quebec and New Brunswick and found in only small pockets elsewhere. So, it's not a "national" language as much as I'd argue Spanish is in the United States. I understand that this reality causes consternation in some quarters in America... Canada Jack ( talk) 19:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
There are in fact more Spanish-speaking Americans than the entire population of Canada. It's a minority, no one pretends otherwise, but 34 million speakers is a significant number of people. And the percentages of Spanish-speaking people in Texas, California and New Mexico are 28/29 per cent. These are big numbers. I know there is a lot of pressure to push English as the official language, and there are a lot of compelling reasons to do this. But the reality is there are huge numbers of Spanish-speaking people. Canada Jack ( talk) 20:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
edit conflict):::I think that many people would want Spanish to be recognised in one way or another. Perhaps even under the term "recognised language"? Your next question might be recognised by who? Well, its only a suggestion. :) Jack forbes ( talk) 21:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Your argument here seems to imply that only one language can be a "national" language. That's simply not so. The real question is whether there are significant pockets of Spanish being spoken throughout the country. When almost 30 per cent speak it in two of the largest states - California and Texas - a total of three states close to 30 per cent, then another three around 20 per cent, plus Puerto Rico at 95 per cent, significant pockets across America, then what you have is a language of national scope. In Canada, by contrast, outside of New Brunswick and Quebec, the language is spoken only by tiny percentages in the other provinces. In this sense, despite being an official language, French isn't as "national" in Canada as Spanish is in America. Only about 4 per cent speak it in Ontario, for example. Canada Jack ( talk) 21:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
"The real question is whether there are significant pockets of Spanish being spoken throughout the country." That is not the question. The question is whether or not Spanish is a defacto national language. Uh, the fact that Spanish is spoken widely through America, as opposed to, say, Welsh being a geographically concentrated language in the UK, makes Spanish a de facto national language by definition. Remember, of course, that "national" language is open to interpretation. Your argument seems to rest on what constitutes an "official" language, or a language of business, of legislation. Those are some definitions. But I never said Spanish was an "official" national language, just that it is a de facto national language. And, given the already noted high concentrations of Spanish-speaking people in geographically diverse regions of the United States, Spanish meets this threshold. However, Spanish is closer to Swahili than English in terms of usage in the US. Just to reiterate: that doesn't mean it's not important...it clearly is. However, when talking of de facto national languages, unless there are 2 or 3 languages that are on par in usage by the population, government, and the business community, there will more likely just be one. Spanish doesn't come close to this level and is therefor not a de facto national language in the US. Are you trying to pretend something close to 34 million people in America speak Swahili? Try 34 thousand. Just for the record, in the 2000 census, we had 215 million English speakers, 28 million Spanish speakers, and, in third place, French at 1.6 million. As for your "on par" argument, that simply is not so when we look elsewhere. Swedish is a national language of Finland for example, yet only 6 per cent speak it there. And, I hasten to point out, Spanish in fact is a common language of government and business in many parts of the United States, unlike any other languages outside of English. None of this would be an issue if America had declared an official language, but since it hasn't, we have a different situation. As for the ultimate point as to whether this should be reflected on the main page, I say NO unless we can have some reliable source say as much, and in the case of the United States, we'd need some declaration from something like a Congressional resolution to say that in a de facto sense. I'd say that that would be unlikely. Canada Jack ( talk) 15:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
When the news is delivered in english, you know what your official language is. when was the last time you saw an american tv show in anything but english? english should be our official language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.154.39 ( talk) 19:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't get it. Recognized? How? Even English is not an official language. Where's the recognition there? However, because government business, as well as most everyday activities, are conducted in English, it is considered the de facto language of the U.S. BTW, there are lots of news, sports, entertainment shows broadcast in Spanish from within the States. -- Evb-wiki ( talk) 23:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Spanish is already recognized in the languages section that it's the second most common language spoken in the U.S. Spanish is not the national or de facto language. English is used at practically all government levels. Spanish is given special status in some states for Spanish-language publishing to accommodate the immigrants who don't speak English. Most of the people who grow up in the U.S. speaking Spanish at home still speak English. I'm not sure what further recognition it can be given in the article. Kman543210 ( talk) 00:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
|
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help) "a defence budget of over 200 billion euro" (converted into USD at the exchange rate current at end of April, 2008)