Revision 475926738 of "Talk:United States" on enwiki

{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{VA|topic=Geography|level=3|class=GA}}
{{Outline of knowledge coverage|United States}}
{{FAQ}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN
|action1date=02:27, 15 December 2005
|action1result=listed
|action1oldid=31414825

|action2=FAC
|action2date=00:10, 7 May 2006
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States/archive1
|action2result=not promoted
|action2oldid=51892109

|action3=FAC
|action3date=21:56, 8 May 2006
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States/archive2
|action3result=not promoted
|action3oldid=52202348

|action4=PR
|action4date=19:59, 18 May 2006
|action4link=Wikipedia:Peer review/United States/archive1
|action4oldid=53888193

|action5=FAC
|action5date=22:20, 3 July 2006
|action5link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States/archive3
|action5result=not promoted
|action5oldid=61900268

|action6=PR
|action6date=16:03, 21 September 2006
|action6link=Wikipedia:Peer review/United States/archive2
|action6oldid=76974796

|action7=FAC
|action7date=18:01, 19 June 2007
|action7link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States/archive4
|action7result=not promoted
|action7oldid=139239542

|action8=GAR
|action8date=09:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
|action8link=Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/United States/1
|action8result=kept
|action8oldid=224506293

|action9=FAC
|action9date=16:56, 27 June 2009
|action9link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States/archive5
|action9result=not promoted
|action9oldid=298963267

|action10=PR
|action10date=03:25, 6 September 2009
|action10link=Wikipedia:Peer review/United States/archive3
|action10result=reviewed
|action10oldid=311950730

|action11=PR
|action11date=20:57, 19 January 2011
|action11link=Wikipedia:Peer review/United States/archive4
|action11result=reviewed
|action11oldid=408843044

|topic=geography
|currentstatus=GA
}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject United States|class=GA|importance=Top|listas=United States}}
{{WikiProject Countries|class=GA}}
{{WikiProject North America|class=GA|importance=top}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=GA|category=Geography|VA=yes|coresup=yes|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject United States Public Policy|class=GA|importance=Top<!-- this works just like the usual WikiProject importance ratings -->
 |comprehensiveness = 8 <!-- 1-10 -->
 |sourcing = 5 <!-- 0-6 -->
 |neutrality = 3 <!-- 0-3 -->
 |readability = 3 <!-- 0-3 -->
 |formatting = 2 <!-- 0-2 -->
 |illustrations = 2 <!-- 0-2 -->}}
}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2008-07-04|oldid1=223439064}}
{{Spoken Wikipedia request|[[User:tpbradbury|Tom B]]|Very important topic, one of the most visited articles on the encylopedia}}
{{maintained| [[User talk:DCGeist|DCGeist]], [[User talk:Golbez|Golbez]], [[User talk:Mrzaius|Mrzaius]], [[User talk:BrendelSignature|BrendelSignature]], [[User talk:JimWae|JimWae]]}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:United States/Archive index|mask=Talk:United States/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}}
{{press|date=August 17, 2009|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Wikipedia-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html|title=The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008|org=[[The Daily Telegraph]]}}
{{auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot|age=7|dounreplied=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{atnhead}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 40
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Talk:United States/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Backwardscopy
|author = Surhone, L. M., Timpledon, M. T., & Marseken, S. F.
|year = 2010
|title = Orson Scott Card: United States, author, critic, public speaking, activism, genre
|org = Betascript Publishing
|comments = {{OCLC|636651797}}, ISBN 9786130336431.
|author2 = Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J.
|year2 = 2009
|title2 = Biosphere 2: Biosphere 2, closed ecological system, Oracle, Arizona, Arizona, United States, Biome, space colonization, Biosphere, rainforest, Ed Bass, BIOS-3, Eden project
|org2 = Alphascript
|comments2 = {{OCLC|699544461}}, ISBN 9786130219581.
|author3 = Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J.
|year3 = 2010
|title3 = Military journalism: Combatant commander, psychological warfare, United States, public affairs (military), propaganda, journalist, Civil-military operations
|org3 = Alphascript Publishing
|comments3 = {{OCLC|671248488}}, ISBN 9786130072650.
|bot=LivingBot
}}
{{American English|date=September 2011}}
<!-- Talk page begins here -->

== [[Human rights]] ==

[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States/Archive_40]]
{{Quotation|

== Lead section ==

[[User:Cloudblazer]] wishes to add the following to the lead section:

<blockquote>However, the recent financial crisis of 2008-09 has, as a Pew Research article put it, "...has turned the spotlight to America’s declining economic prowess. Once the fearsome colossus, many now see the financially-strapped U.S. as a great power in decline."<ref>{{cite web|author=Richard Wike|url=http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/09/07/from-hyperpower-to-declining-power/|title=From Hyperpower to Declining Power|work=Pew Research Center|date=September 2011|accessdate=2012-01-23}}</ref> A recent [[CIA]] report <ref>{{cite web|author=National Intelligence Council|url=http://www.foia.cia.gov/2020/2020.pdf|title=Mapping the Global Future|work=NIC Global Briefing|date=December 2004|accessdate=2012-01-23}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web|author=National Intelligence Council|url=http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Global_Trends_Final_Report.pdf|title=Global Trends Final Report|work=NIC Global Briefing|date=November 2008|accessdate=2012-01-23}}</ref> that was published before the financial crisis suggested that [[United States]] dominance on the world stage could come to a close as soon as 2020; indicative that [[United States]] power is in a steep decline.<ref>{{cite web|author=Fred Kaplan|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2005/01/2020_vision.html|title=2020 Vision A CIA report predicts that American global dominance could end in 15 years.|work=Slate|date=January 2005|accessdate=2012-01-23}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Alan Silverleib|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2008-11-20/politics/global.trends.report_1_china-power-report-projects?_s=PM:POLITICS|title=U.S. power, influence will decline in future, report says|work=CNN|date=November 2008|accessdate=2012-01-23}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Fareed Zakaria|url=http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63394/fareed-zakaria/the-future-of-american-power|title=The Future of American Power|work=Foreign Affairs|date=June 2008|accessdate=2012-01-23}}</ref></blockquote>

I reverted the addition. The lead section is meant to "summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight" ([[WP:LEAD]]); the addition of this material in this case clearly undermines that aim, rather than enhances it. The addition was also made in evident ignorance of the frequently voiced concerns about the article's length. As a more general point, this is a Good Article, and any sort of major addition to or alteration of the lead should only take place after clear discussion and achievement of consensus. [[User:DocKino|DocKino]] ([[User talk:DocKino|talk]]) 05:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
:Fonduelazone's jingoistic edit summary notwithstanding, yes, that is way too much for the lead, and is frankly a bit of crystal ball gazing. If it belongs anywhere, it's in the article on the economy, definitely not this summary article. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 05:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me quote something to you. "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." From the what should be in a lead section. I do believe the Financial crisis is somewhat covered in another part of the article, so it follows the guidelines. The statements are well sourced and documented; I fail to understand your problem with it.  I don't consider it "crystal ball gazing" either. I mean the United States is heading the way of the British empire albeit much quicker then the former did. many military conflicts The US has made can uncannily be compared to similar actions the British empire took in the waning years of its supremacy. I believe the US will remain a dominant player on the world stage for the foreseeable future, but this notion/fantasy that we are still a superpower is unsettling. The power that has for a long time centered in the west is moving to other countries, China, India, Brazil. These are the superpowers of the future. I have not met anyone else in my field who would deny that power shift. Who are the largest creditor nations in the world? Japan, China, Asian Countries. The largest(massive) debtor nation? United States at a whopping 15+trillion. Study some history lads, what empire in history do you know has maintained the height of its power after its economy collapsed and its main body of government entered huge debts? That's why the Roman Empire collapsed. It could no longer afford to maintain its massive empire so its tax revenue fell crushing the economy of mainland Rome which for over a thousand years had relied on that income and large cheap imports from its colonies. I don't think the US is going to collapse, but it should be included that its massive power is fading. It is no longer the "leading culture, economic, political force" in the world. Its government is in the process of coming to terms with this reality. Give me your facts boys(or girls) that its not true the US super/hyper power is not fading. FACTS. or if your predictable argument is going to be it doesn't belong in the lead section(refer to my first statements) please tell me where it should go.  [[User:Cloudblazer|Cloudblazer]] ([[User talk:Cloudblazer|talk]]) 15:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

:The argument is not over whether or not the U.S. "super/hyper power is fading." The argument is over whether that prognostication belongs in this article, let alone in its lead section. Per [[WP:DUE]], [[WP:LENGTH]], [[WP:LEAD]], and [[WP:CRYSTALBALL]], it does not. [[User:DocKino|DocKino]] ([[User talk:DocKino|talk]]) 15:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The USA is still the worlds sole superpower. The most powerful nation on earth by by far. There are several ways to show this.

- The US economy is by far the largest in the world. It is 3 times larger than China.
- The USA still has the worlds largest manufacturing idustry. 20% of the world’s manufacturing output is from the USA.
- The USA spends more on the military than the next 17 nations COMBINED.
- The US Navy is larger than the next 13 navies COMBINED.
- The US Navy has 11 supercarriers.
- The US military has by far the best technollogy in the world.
- The USA has 8,500 nuclear weapons.
- There are 828 cars per 1,000 people. The highest in the world(Monaco isn't a country).

Who knows how long US supremacy will last. The USA and China will be the two superpowers in the 20th century. [[User:Moonshot926|Moonshot926]] ([[User talk:Moonshot926|talk]]) 17:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
:Er, Monaco would like a word with you, as they are very much a country. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 17:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

:And which century? But agree with DocKino, the prognostication does not belong in the Lead. [[User:Boneyard90|Boneyard90]] ([[User talk:Boneyard90|talk]]) 17:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

it has no need to be the single superpower.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2.99.108.54|2.99.108.54]] ([[User talk:2.99.108.54|talk]]) 23:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:That "need" is irrelevant. What "should be", "might be", or even what "will be" are all irrelevant. This is not an editorial, it's an encyclopedia article. It describes what ''is''. When some aspect of the country's status changes, then this article should be changed accordingly. [[User:Boneyard90|Boneyard90]] ([[User talk:Boneyard90|talk]]) 03:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

== link missing ==

There is no link to [[Politics of the United States]] at the beginning of the section "Government, elections, and politics" --[[Special:Contributions/194.100.207.130|194.100.207.130]] ([[User talk:194.100.207.130|talk]]) 16:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

:It's right there at the beginning of the subsection "Parties and ideology". [[User:DocKino|DocKino]] ([[User talk:DocKino|talk]]) 16:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

== Basketball as 'American' ==

It should be noted that basketball while invented in the states was done so by a Canadian and the completely, America born label, as suggested in this article, is misleading.

Taken from the NBA's website:

The roots of basketball are firmly embedded in Canada. In 1891 the game was invented by Dr. James Naismith, a Canadian who hailed from Almonte, Ontario.
Having been given the task of creating a new indoor sports activity while conducting a physical education class at the international YMCA training school in Springfield, Massachusetts, Naismith designed what we now call basketball. The original game involved 13 rules and a peach basket hung ten feet above the floor. Even though it took place in the United States, at least ten of the players who participated in the first-ever game were university students from Quebec.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/142.90.93.106|142.90.93.106]] ([[User talk:142.90.93.106|talk]]) 23:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Edit request on 1 February 2012 ==

{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->

Under the sports section Basketball is labeled as an American invention. However, it should be noted that basketball while invented in the states was done so by a Canadian and the completely, America born label, as suggested in this article, is misleading.

Taken from the NBA's website:

The roots of basketball are firmly embedded in Canada. In 1891 the game was invented by Dr. James Naismith, a Canadian who hailed from Almonte, Ontario. Having been given the task of creating a new indoor sports activity while conducting a physical education class at the international YMCA training school in Springfield, Massachusetts, Naismith designed what we now call basketball. The original game involved 13 rules and a peach basket hung ten feet above the floor. Even though it took place in the United States, at least ten of the players who participated in the first-ever game were university students from Quebec. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.90.93.106 (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
<!-- End request -->
[[Special:Contributions/142.90.93.106|142.90.93.106]] ([[User talk:142.90.93.106|talk]]) 23:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

:This has been raised before, and I've come to believe this is a worthy point. While we don't have the room to go into all the details, I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&action=historysubmit&diff=474487894&oldid=474331845 edited] to address the basic issue. It's good to have Naismith's name in our article: he is surely the most historically significant Canadian American, just surpassing [[Neil Young|Young Neil]] and [[Peter Jennings|P.J.]]—[[User:DCGeist|DCGeist]] ([[User talk:DCGeist|talk]]) 23:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

{{ESp|a}} [[User:Celestra|Celestra]] ([[User talk:Celestra|talk]]) 06:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

== Edit request on 9 February 2012 ==

{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
The United States is a Representative Democratic Republic. The United States is not a Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic. To be a Constitutional Republic, the people would derive their rights from the Constitution. We do not. The Constitution of the United States was created to protect and codify the unalienable rights of the people. To be a Presidential republic, the power would be required to be mainly in the Executive branch when, in fact, in the U.S. the Legislative branch is the most powerful. To be a Federal Republic, the power would rest solely in a Federal government, while in the U.S. the Federal Government is co-equal to that of the States, some of which are already independent republics. This is poli-sci 101. I would be happy to provide cites for this, but any first year poli-sci text book will bear me out.

Thank you for all that you do and for your great work here on Wikipedia!!! Regards.

<!-- End request -->
[[User:Rdmaclean|Rdmaclean]] ([[User talk:Rdmaclean|talk]]) 08:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
:{{ESp|rs}}--[[User:Ankit Maity|<font color="blue">Ankit Maity</font>]]  <sup>[[User talk:Ankit Maity|<font color="magenta">Talk</font>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ankit  Maity|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]]</sup> 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)