Revision as of 13:42, 3 August 2009 edit71.102.3.86 (talk) →Usa superpower anymore.← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:18, 5 August 2009 edit undoTyciol (talk | contribs)15,625 edits some replies (added a few paragraph breaks)Next edit → | ||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:United States/Archive index|mask=Talk:United States/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}} | {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:United States/Archive index|mask=Talk:United States/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}} | ||
== |
==The USA no longer a "superpower"== | ||
Today the first power is EU(not a superpower). | Today the first power is EU(not a superpower). | ||
Superpower (in latin means above) as written in the article is a political being able to do everithing without receiving lethal hits.Usa can't do it first of all and has't ever been able to do it also in the period of Soviet Union.The only EU states have nukes (non Nato shared) to cancel Earth several times (so the other weapons are tins).Russia has about the double of nukes of Usa and so on... | Superpower (in latin means above) as written in the article is a political being able to do everithing without receiving lethal hits.Usa can't do it first of all and has't ever been able to do it also in the period of Soviet Union.The only EU states have nukes (non Nato shared) to cancel Earth several times (so the other weapons are tins).Russia has about the double of nukes of Usa and so on... | ||
Line 105: | Line 104: | ||
Datas are very clear and you can check them in Misplaced Pages and in a lot of official websites.Somebody (as somebody that dislike today datas )can cancel as a stupid vandal this words,but US debts are always there.VERBA VOLANT SCRIPTA MANENT (only a latin people that studied latin can understand the real meaning and mood of these words).May be just now french submarines with M45 rockets or other EU nuclear weapons have ready nukes to cancel Usa or Earth.Not only Usa have military secrets.Now vandals or US propaganda men or US nationalists or also polite men can start with different answers.It rests the shame of who cancelled this article some minutes ago.This act doesn't change reality.I'm invalid in some acting but more intelligent than a lot of people.] (]) 01:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | Datas are very clear and you can check them in Misplaced Pages and in a lot of official websites.Somebody (as somebody that dislike today datas )can cancel as a stupid vandal this words,but US debts are always there.VERBA VOLANT SCRIPTA MANENT (only a latin people that studied latin can understand the real meaning and mood of these words).May be just now french submarines with M45 rockets or other EU nuclear weapons have ready nukes to cancel Usa or Earth.Not only Usa have military secrets.Now vandals or US propaganda men or US nationalists or also polite men can start with different answers.It rests the shame of who cancelled this article some minutes ago.This act doesn't change reality.I'm invalid in some acting but more intelligent than a lot of people.] (]) 01:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
:From the '''Superpower''' article - "A superpower is a state with a leading position in the international system and the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests; it is traditionally considered to be one step higher than a great power." The US, and while it existed the USSR, is clearly a superpower. The EU could be considered one if it was, in fact, a state in it's own right but it isn't. Also it was never about nukes or the ability "to do everithing without receiving lethal hits," only the ability to influence world events to it's own benefit. ] (]) 16:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | :From the '''Superpower''' article - "A superpower is a state with a leading position in the international system and the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests; it is traditionally considered to be one step higher than a great power." The US, and while it existed the USSR, is clearly a superpower. The EU could be considered one if it was, in fact, a state in it's own right but it isn't. Also it was never about nukes or the ability "to do everithing without receiving lethal hits," only the ability to influence world events to it's own benefit. ] (]) 16:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
::Your clarity and intelligence are appreciated Optimum, but more productively focused elsewhere. Please don't feed the troll. —] (]) 17:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
⚫ | :::You offended me. Be careful. (19:08) How can you accuse me of feeding the troll? I wrote just an edit. Who are you to offend me? Be careful. ] (]) 23:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
The "Superpower" article is considered updated by the same Misplaced Pages. It needs cleanup. ] (]) 23:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
⚫ | :], Please discuss this issue on ] first. After that, Please return to this page. Thank you in advance for your consideration. ― ] (]) 00:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC) ― ] (]) | ||
⚫ | I thank you, but in the article it's impossible to understand if it's possible to consider the USA a superpower today. In this article, the term superpower is written as as something "SURE and TRUE" accepted today by ALL the world's academics, but isn't. If there's no agreement on the ] article, then this article CAN'T (TO BE RIGHT) report as "SURE and TRUE" the concept that the USA is a superpower (or a new one). There's an impossible contradiction betweeen the source (] article) and this article which use that term "superpower" for the USA as something "sure and true for everybody (majority) in political sciences". Looking for reality & science is one thing, but if we talk for hipocracy then it's not an encyclopedic matter to me. ] (]) 05:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
⚫ | You offended me.Be careful.] (]) |
||
⚫ | :]. ] (]) 15:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
I prefer to talk about the article "USA" instead of losing time in answering you. You talk me about things that I don't know. I think you're offensive and very strange. I'm happy that you're always right like mads. That's all!] (]) 13:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
⚫ | :Easily solved - respect your ] and stop editing. What you prefer is irrelevant; a ] is a block and ] to avoid it will likely result in your block becoming a ban - at which point all your edits can and will be reverted. Cheers, ]<sup>]</sup> 13:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
⚫ | ==Demonym / gentilic (United States is of America, not America)== | ||
The "Superpower" article is considered updated by the same Misplaced Pages .It needs cleanup.] (]) 23:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
⚫ | I personally believe that the actual Demonym or gentilic for a United States person should be unitedstatean or something similar, due to the fact that people in other american countries are also american, as for europeans are europens despite of being from France, Italy, Spain, GB and so on. So for instance a venezuelan, cuban, argentinian, mexican, canadian, aruban, brazilean, jamaican, etc. etc., are also american citizens. | ||
⚫ | If you should go and check the gentilic in other languages it actually is unitedstatean (check Wikipwdia in other languages). Why in english and french (I don't know other languages) should be any different? | ||
], Please discuss this issue on ] first. | |||
⚫ | After that, Please return to this page. Thank you in advance for your consideration. ― ] (]) 00:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC) ― ] (]) | ||
⚫ | I know this sounds more of a personal thought or personal believe, but in fact being an american person, I feel pretty much obliged to ask for this change. I don't deny that the United States people are in fact american citizens, but they are primarily from the United States that is IN(of) America, not America (as a whole). | ||
⚫ | I thank |
||
⚫ | :]. |
||
I prefere to talk about the article "Usa" instead of losing time in answering you.You talk me about things that i don't know.I think you're offensive and very strange.Im happy that you're always right like mads.That's all!] (]) 13:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
⚫ | :Easily solved - respect your ] and stop editing. What you |
||
⚫ | == |
||
⚫ | I personally believe that the actual Demonym or gentilic for a United States person should be unitedstatean or something similar, due to the fact that people in other american countries are also american, as for europeans are europens despite of being from France, Italy, Spain, GB and so on. So for instance a venezuelan, cuban, argentinian, mexican, canadian, aruban, brazilean, jamaican, etc. etc., are also american citizens. | ||
⚫ | If you should go and check the gentilic in other languages it actually is unitedstatean (check Wikipwdia in other languages). Why in english and french (I don't know other languages) should be any different? | ||
⚫ | I know this sounds more of a personal thought or personal believe, but in fact being an american person, I feel pretty much obliged to ask for this change. I don't deny that the United States people are in fact american citizens, but they are primarily from the United States that is IN(of) America, not America (as a whole). | ||
It actually represents some form of abuse and discrimination (in the generalized way that is spoken of america, refering to the United States as a whole), being the fact that I, as an american citizen, don't live in the United States and wasn't born in there and haven't experienced the United States way of life. Just for an example, the generalization of american dream, and native american is completely narrowed, as it does not represent, for the case of the latter mentioned, the incan and mayan comunities (just to name another mayor native american comunities). | It actually represents some form of abuse and discrimination (in the generalized way that is spoken of america, refering to the United States as a whole), being the fact that I, as an american citizen, don't live in the United States and wasn't born in there and haven't experienced the United States way of life. Just for an example, the generalization of american dream, and native american is completely narrowed, as it does not represent, for the case of the latter mentioned, the incan and mayan comunities (just to name another mayor native american comunities). | ||
If you want to use any distinction there is Anglo-Saxon America and Latin America, to use Language distinction (there are others languages, and other distinctions) | |||
Most of all being in a politically correct world, this should be changed. | |||
Thank you | |||
] (]) 18:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | If you want to use any distinction there is Anglo-Saxon America and Latin America, to use Language distinction (there are others languages, and other distinctions). Most of all being in a politically correct world, this should be changed. Thank you ] (]) 18:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
:What you personally think doesn't matter, is highly flawed (there is no continent called just "America"), and flies flat in the face of reality (Brazilians want to be called Brazilian, not American). --] (]) 19:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | :What you personally think doesn't matter, is highly flawed (there is no continent called just "America"), and flies flat in the face of reality (Brazilians want to be called Brazilian, not American). --] (]) 19:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
::OuroborosCobra, I am afraid you are misinformed: I am Brazilian, and I am also an American as I was born in the Americas (''América'' in Portuguese). And BTW, I want to be called an American, and I am, when speaking Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French, German and Dutch. It's only in English that this meaning has, over the years, become less and less common. That said, I don't agree with Javaplana in asking for the English speakers to change the most current meaning of the words ''America'' and ''American'', it doesn't make sense (see my other comments below). ] (]) 00:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | ::OuroborosCobra, I am afraid you are misinformed: I am Brazilian, and I am also an American as I was born in the Americas (''América'' in Portuguese). And BTW, I want to be called an American, and I am, when speaking Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French, German and Dutch. It's only in English that this meaning has, over the years, become less and less common. That said, I don't agree with Javaplana in asking for the English speakers to change the most current meaning of the words ''America'' and ''American'', it doesn't make sense (see my other comments below). ] (]) 00:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
Ok lets just follow your line of thought, because what you think also doesn't matter and yours is highly flawed as well (because of your generalizing). I am venezuelan and want to be called venezuelan, but that does not affect the fact that I don't what the american name(demonym) to be generalized by the things that the United States do (and this is a concern among a lot of latin and non latin american, but still american, countries). Let me put it this way, a cat and a tiger are felines, so they share common things but at the end they have their differences, so it would be a mistake to say that all felines can be domesticated and are small because you are a cat and export your main features as the characteristics of the feline family. (it can be explained with pine and cedars, just to put another example). That takes us to the division of America in two (by the way America is still one continent, and that is how is taught in a lot of countries, so you cannot argue that as a reason, but that is not the discussion here). If you divide it then there is no chance that you'd be called THE americans, you will then be called north americans, but that will also be generalizing the things for mexicans, canadians, belizeans, salvadoreans, cubans, etc., don't you? | Ok lets just follow your line of thought, because what you think also doesn't matter and yours is highly flawed as well (because of your generalizing). I am venezuelan and want to be called venezuelan, but that does not affect the fact that I don't what the american name(demonym) to be generalized by the things that the United States do (and this is a concern among a lot of latin and non latin american, but still american, countries). Let me put it this way, a cat and a tiger are felines, so they share common things but at the end they have their differences, so it would be a mistake to say that all felines can be domesticated and are small because you are a cat and export your main features as the characteristics of the feline family. (it can be explained with pine and cedars, just to put another example). That takes us to the division of America in two (by the way America is still one continent, and that is how is taught in a lot of countries, so you cannot argue that as a reason, but that is not the discussion here). If you divide it then there is no chance that you'd be called THE americans, you will then be called north americans, but that will also be generalizing the things for mexicans, canadians, belizeans, salvadoreans, cubans, etc., don't you? ] (]) 13:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
] (]) 13:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:The simple fact of the matter is, in English, the demonym is "American". We don't really care how it's done in other languages. --] (]) 13:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC) | :The simple fact of the matter is, in English, the demonym is "American". We don't really care how it's done in other languages. --] (]) 13:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
::Agreed, even if "American" also means in a less common sense anyone born in the Americas.] (]) 00:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | ::Agreed, even if "American" also means in a less common sense anyone born in the Americas.] (]) 00:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
Why is it "American" and not another more accurate(in the sense of proper and politically correct) |
Why is it "American" and not another which is more accurate (in the sense of proper and politically correct)? Like, for example: ]? ] (]) 15:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
] (]) 15:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:A Venezuelan would be South American, not American, because there is no continent of "America." There are two continents where that is part of the name. As national denonyms go, the Venezuelan would not want to be called that, because it is not a national identity for them. It does not separate them from Columbians (who they don't get along with), Brazilians, etc. What I think is based on the reality of usage in the world, meaning it is based on the '''facts'''. It is the job of Misplaced Pages to report the facts, not to make up new ones, not to try and change them. There is no common use of "unitedstatean," period. That is the end of the story, right there, because to use it would be Misplaced Pages trying to change the facts of the world, which is not its job. The English language denonym is American, flat out. If in Spanish they say something different, they are free to report it on their language edition of Wikiepdia. We say "Russian" on this version of Misplaced Pages, it is most definitely spelled and pronounced differently by native Russian speakers. It does not change what is written here. All of this has been rehashed many times on this talk page, all with the same result. --] (]) 15:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC) | :A Venezuelan would be South American, not American, because there is no continent of "America." There are two continents where that is part of the name. As national denonyms go, the Venezuelan would not want to be called that, because it is not a national identity for them. It does not separate them from Columbians (who they don't get along with), Brazilians, etc. What I think is based on the reality of usage in the world, meaning it is based on the '''facts'''. It is the job of Misplaced Pages to report the facts, not to make up new ones, not to try and change them. There is no common use of "unitedstatean," period. That is the end of the story, right there, because to use it would be Misplaced Pages trying to change the facts of the world, which is not its job. The English language denonym is American, flat out. If in Spanish they say something different, they are free to report it on their language edition of Wikiepdia. We say "Russian" on this version of Misplaced Pages, it is most definitely spelled and pronounced differently by native Russian speakers. It does not change what is written here. All of this has been rehashed many times on this talk page, all with the same result. --] (]) 15:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::As a reminder, this discussion does not make sense as both are mixing concepts in English with other languages such as Spanish and Portuguese. ''America'' also means ''The Americas'' in English. For instance, see Daniel Defoe's books, written before the USA was created: the coast of Brazil is described as "America", and more recently, the English disambiguation page for ''America'' in Misplaced Pages - it clearly states that ''America'' means ''The Americas'' as well. What matters here is that ''The Americas'' form is the common one in English today, but the same concept still is "América" in Spanish and Portuguese (and for that matter, in Italian as well, French has ''Amérique'', German and Dutch have ''Amerika''), and in those languages other than English, ''americano'' or its corresponding form means ''born in America, the continent'' (see my next comment below). ] (]) 00:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | :::As a reminder, this discussion does not make sense as both are mixing concepts in English with other languages such as Spanish and Portuguese. ''America'' also means ''The Americas'' in English. For instance, see Daniel Defoe's books, written before the USA was created: the coast of Brazil is described as "America", and more recently, the English disambiguation page for ''America'' in Misplaced Pages - it clearly states that ''America'' means ''The Americas'' as well. What matters here is that ''The Americas'' form is the common one in English today, but the same concept still is "América" in Spanish and Portuguese (and for that matter, in Italian as well, French has ''Amérique'', German and Dutch have ''Amerika''), and in those languages other than English, ''americano'' or its corresponding form means ''born in America, the continent'' (see my next comment below). ] (]) 00:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
Line 154: | Line 139: | ||
:::Totally agree. However you just put the finger on the issue at hand, as most Americans (United State citizens, to be clear) do not accept that the term also applies to others in the American continent. Ask Norwegians 200 years from now (in case they are still not part of the EU) if they like the fact that those born in the EU argue that only them can be called "European". That is exactly what has happened in the English language. In Spanish (and most other languages except English, as mentioned above), their equivalents of the work "American" keep the original meaning as primary, and citizen of the United States as the second one. But I am not going to argue that the English primary meanings should be changed because someone in another language is upset, that doesn't make sense as languages are organic, they change on their own. I would however expect that educated English speakers would at least acknowledge the original meanings of ''America'' and ''American'' as valid but less common use of the terms. ] (]) 00:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | :::Totally agree. However you just put the finger on the issue at hand, as most Americans (United State citizens, to be clear) do not accept that the term also applies to others in the American continent. Ask Norwegians 200 years from now (in case they are still not part of the EU) if they like the fact that those born in the EU argue that only them can be called "European". That is exactly what has happened in the English language. In Spanish (and most other languages except English, as mentioned above), their equivalents of the work "American" keep the original meaning as primary, and citizen of the United States as the second one. But I am not going to argue that the English primary meanings should be changed because someone in another language is upset, that doesn't make sense as languages are organic, they change on their own. I would however expect that educated English speakers would at least acknowledge the original meanings of ''America'' and ''American'' as valid but less common use of the terms. ] (]) 00:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
dude or chic . . . Ex. Germany is in Europe, you can still refer to a German as a "European." Or some guy's from South Africa, you wouldn't be wrong calling him an "African." It doesn't have to be that complicated. It's a "term used" . . . "to coin a . . ?!" . . ."thats hot." etc. `0_o <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | dude or chic . . . Ex. Germany is in Europe, you can still refer to a German as a "European." Or some guy's from South Africa, you wouldn't be wrong calling him an "African." It doesn't have to be that complicated. It's a "term used" . . . "to coin a . . ?!" . . ."thats hot." etc. `0_o <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
:I think your suggestions are wonderful Java! The only thing is just merging Unitedstates and deriving a name from that is sort of boring, and if we were to write it out I'd expect 'United Statean' so it would still be separate words. Ideally the country could change it's name into something derived from the original, but that is unique and does not infringe on the other countries in the Americas or whom are created of united states. I do think the 'America' is important so it would be good to make it out of more than just the United States though. In either case, the ] verbal tool may be used. You would merge shared letters in that case and blend: ]. Or, adding America: ]. As for the people, besides the derived ]s, you could always shorten further (from 'United Americans') to ]s but that wouldn't catch on because it take the 'state' out sometimes it is just called 'The States', clearly that word is as important as America and United. Plus Unican is some kind of shredded paper and peoople would not appreciate that analogy. ] (]) 10:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== |
==Why is this 'United States' article talking about the USA?== | ||
As everyone with half a brain knows, this article should NOT be about the USA. 'United States' is a title used in front of many countries. This article should be listing all 'United States', which should then split off to ']' and such. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | As everyone with half a brain knows, this article should NOT be about the USA. 'United States' is a title used in front of many countries. This article should be listing all 'United States', which should then split off to ']' and such. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
:It is standard for Misplaced Pages to use the most notable common name of something as a title (this is why ] goes to London, England and not ]). ] there is only one country in the world other than the US that currently has "United States" in its name, and that is Mexico. It is seldom referred to as this and so I think it is absolutely valid that the USA is the default United States. Please also see the ] for this article, it talks some more about the naming. ] (]) 14:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC) | :It is standard for Misplaced Pages to use the most notable common name of something as a title (this is why ] goes to London, England and not ]). ] there is only one country in the world other than the US that currently has "United States" in its name, and that is Mexico. It is seldom referred to as this and so I think it is absolutely valid that the USA is the default United States. Please also see the ] for this article, it talks some more about the naming. ] (]) 14:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
Line 166: | Line 151: | ||
:::Rereading it, your right it does look like I said that.....oops. Ya, Mexico didn't choose that name until the 1820s. ] (]) 17:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | :::Rereading it, your right it does look like I said that.....oops. Ya, Mexico didn't choose that name until the 1820s. ] (]) 17:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
== |
==Flag== | ||
The ] Was first adopted in 1777 and has endured many revision including the 1959 revision of ] and ].The flag of the '''United States of America''' (more commonly known simply as the American Flag) consists of thirteen equal horizontal stripes of ] (top and bottom) alternating with ], with a ] rectangle in the ] bearing fifty small, white, ] arranged in nine offset horizontal rows of six stars (top and bottom) alternating with rows of five stars. The thirteen stripes signifying the thirteen original colonies, and the fifty stars representing the fifty states (originally thirteen as well). The flag requires specific dimensions, as well as special care; including display, position, and disposal. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | The ] Was first adopted in 1777 and has endured many revision including the 1959 revision of ] and ].The flag of the '''United States of America''' (more commonly known simply as the American Flag) consists of thirteen equal horizontal stripes of ] (top and bottom) alternating with ], with a ] rectangle in the ] bearing fifty small, white, ] arranged in nine offset horizontal rows of six stars (top and bottom) alternating with rows of five stars. The thirteen stripes signifying the thirteen original colonies, and the fifty stars representing the fifty states (originally thirteen as well). The flag requires specific dimensions, as well as special care; including display, position, and disposal. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
:What is there to add? All needed information is on the article on the flag. No other country article, that I'm aware of, goes into any detail about the country's flag. yes there is. the usa does it ]. | :What is there to add? All needed information is on the article on the flag. No other country article, that I'm aware of, goes into any detail about the country's flag. yes there is. the usa does it ]. | ||
::... right, every country's flag has its own article. They don't talk about it in the country article. --] (]) 04:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC) | ::... right, every country's flag has its own article. They don't talk about it in the country article. --] (]) 04:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
== |
==MMA in USA== | ||
⚫ | Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) is very popular in the USA with big promotions such as Ultimate Fighting Championships (UFC) and Strikeforce. It has actually become more popular in pay-per-view sales than Boxing and Wrestling and should be included in USA sports section. ] (]) 04:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
⚫ | :Wrestling isn't mentioned in the article, and boxing is only mentioned because it was once one of the most popular individual sports. I'm not sure I see how being more popular than those two sports warrants inclusion in the article. ] (]) 05:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
⚫ | Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) is very popular in the USA with big promotions such as Ultimate Fighting Championships (UFC) and Strikeforce. It has actually become more popular in pay-per-view sales than Boxing and Wrestling and should be included in USA sports section. | ||
::One thing that comes to mind: while MMA in theory incorporates any martial art, wrestling and boxing have both heavily influenced it. Considering that the US is where this sport is gaining huge popularity, it could be seen as a link to the past and these 2 sports. While it is true that more fancy incarnations (BJJ is based from Jiu Jitsu, Japanese wrestling; there's kick-boxing from Thailand) there are still boxers and wrestlers. In fact, the heavyweight champion ] was a college wrestler (and a ], also a popular and US-dominated physical pasttime). ] (]) 10:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 04:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
⚫ | :Wrestling isn't mentioned in the article, and boxing is only mentioned because it was once one of the most popular individual sports. |
||
==People of the United States of America== | ==People of the United States of America== |
Revision as of 10:18, 5 August 2009
Skip to table of contents |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116Auto-archiving period: 5 days |
Template:VA Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on July 4, 2008. |
Please consider reading the frequently asked questions for this article before asking any questions on this talk page. |
Current population (est.): 339,038,000 as of January 8, 2025. The USCB projects 439 million by 2050 |
There is a request, submitted by Tom B, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages. The rationale behind the request is: "Very important topic, one of the most visited article on the encylopedia". |
Template:Spoken Misplaced Pages In Progress
United States has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Template:Maintained Talk:United States/Archive Box
The USA no longer a "superpower"
Today the first power is EU(not a superpower). Superpower (in latin means above) as written in the article is a political being able to do everithing without receiving lethal hits.Usa can't do it first of all and has't ever been able to do it also in the period of Soviet Union.The only EU states have nukes (non Nato shared) to cancel Earth several times (so the other weapons are tins).Russia has about the double of nukes of Usa and so on... Usa publicdebt/ gdp (considering as well FNM and FRE bonds guaranteed by US government,otherwise whose debts are these ones?)is TODAY about 120%.US gouvernment today is only moving private debts to public debt but the whole debt is growing all the same. US global debt (private+public) 212000 trillions $ US citizen global debt 712000 $ US citizen global debt taxpayer 1087000 $ US global debt/gdp 1550%!!!!!
Datas are very clear and you can check them in Misplaced Pages and in a lot of official websites.Somebody (as somebody that dislike today datas )can cancel as a stupid vandal this words,but US debts are always there.VERBA VOLANT SCRIPTA MANENT (only a latin people that studied latin can understand the real meaning and mood of these words).May be just now french submarines with M45 rockets or other EU nuclear weapons have ready nukes to cancel Usa or Earth.Not only Usa have military secrets.Now vandals or US propaganda men or US nationalists or also polite men can start with different answers.It rests the shame of who cancelled this article some minutes ago.This act doesn't change reality.I'm invalid in some acting but more intelligent than a lot of people.151.60.117.153 (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- From the Superpower article - "A superpower is a state with a leading position in the international system and the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests; it is traditionally considered to be one step higher than a great power." The US, and while it existed the USSR, is clearly a superpower. The EU could be considered one if it was, in fact, a state in it's own right but it isn't. Also it was never about nukes or the ability "to do everithing without receiving lethal hits," only the ability to influence world events to it's own benefit. OptimumPx (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Your clarity and intelligence are appreciated Optimum, but more productively focused elsewhere. Please don't feed the troll. —DCGeist (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- You offended me. Be careful. (19:08) How can you accuse me of feeding the troll? I wrote just an edit. Who are you to offend me? Be careful. 151.60.118.161 (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Your clarity and intelligence are appreciated Optimum, but more productively focused elsewhere. Please don't feed the troll. —DCGeist (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The "Superpower" article is considered updated by the same Misplaced Pages. It needs cleanup. 151.60.118.161 (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- 151.60.118.161, Please discuss this issue on Talk:Superpower first. After that, Please return to this page. Thank you in advance for your consideration. ― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC) ― Phoenix7777 (talk)
I thank you, but in the article it's impossible to understand if it's possible to consider the USA a superpower today. In this article, the term superpower is written as as something "SURE and TRUE" accepted today by ALL the world's academics, but isn't. If there's no agreement on the Superpower article, then this article CAN'T (TO BE RIGHT) report as "SURE and TRUE" the concept that the USA is a superpower (or a new one). There's an impossible contradiction betweeen the source (Superpower article) and this article which use that term "superpower" for the USA as something "sure and true for everybody (majority) in political sciences". Looking for reality & science is one thing, but if we talk for hipocracy then it's not an encyclopedic matter to me. 151.60.117.148 (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I prefer to talk about the article "USA" instead of losing time in answering you. You talk me about things that I don't know. I think you're offensive and very strange. I'm happy that you're always right like mads. That's all!151.60.117.41 (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Easily solved - respect your indefinite block and stop editing. What you prefer is irrelevant; a block is a block and socking to avoid it will likely result in your block becoming a ban - at which point all your edits can and will be reverted. Cheers, TFOWR 13:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Demonym / gentilic (United States is of America, not America)
I personally believe that the actual Demonym or gentilic for a United States person should be unitedstatean or something similar, due to the fact that people in other american countries are also american, as for europeans are europens despite of being from France, Italy, Spain, GB and so on. So for instance a venezuelan, cuban, argentinian, mexican, canadian, aruban, brazilean, jamaican, etc. etc., are also american citizens.
If you should go and check the gentilic in other languages it actually is unitedstatean (check Wikipwdia in other languages). Why in english and french (I don't know other languages) should be any different?
I know this sounds more of a personal thought or personal believe, but in fact being an american person, I feel pretty much obliged to ask for this change. I don't deny that the United States people are in fact american citizens, but they are primarily from the United States that is IN(of) America, not America (as a whole).
It actually represents some form of abuse and discrimination (in the generalized way that is spoken of america, refering to the United States as a whole), being the fact that I, as an american citizen, don't live in the United States and wasn't born in there and haven't experienced the United States way of life. Just for an example, the generalization of american dream, and native american is completely narrowed, as it does not represent, for the case of the latter mentioned, the incan and mayan comunities (just to name another mayor native american comunities).
If you want to use any distinction there is Anglo-Saxon America and Latin America, to use Language distinction (there are others languages, and other distinctions). Most of all being in a politically correct world, this should be changed. Thank you Javaplana (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- What you personally think doesn't matter, is highly flawed (there is no continent called just "America"), and flies flat in the face of reality (Brazilians want to be called Brazilian, not American). --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- OuroborosCobra, I am afraid you are misinformed: I am Brazilian, and I am also an American as I was born in the Americas (América in Portuguese). And BTW, I want to be called an American, and I am, when speaking Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French, German and Dutch. It's only in English that this meaning has, over the years, become less and less common. That said, I don't agree with Javaplana in asking for the English speakers to change the most current meaning of the words America and American, it doesn't make sense (see my other comments below). 75.34.100.20 (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok lets just follow your line of thought, because what you think also doesn't matter and yours is highly flawed as well (because of your generalizing). I am venezuelan and want to be called venezuelan, but that does not affect the fact that I don't what the american name(demonym) to be generalized by the things that the United States do (and this is a concern among a lot of latin and non latin american, but still american, countries). Let me put it this way, a cat and a tiger are felines, so they share common things but at the end they have their differences, so it would be a mistake to say that all felines can be domesticated and are small because you are a cat and export your main features as the characteristics of the feline family. (it can be explained with pine and cedars, just to put another example). That takes us to the division of America in two (by the way America is still one continent, and that is how is taught in a lot of countries, so you cannot argue that as a reason, but that is not the discussion here). If you divide it then there is no chance that you'd be called THE americans, you will then be called north americans, but that will also be generalizing the things for mexicans, canadians, belizeans, salvadoreans, cubans, etc., don't you? Javaplana (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- The simple fact of the matter is, in English, the demonym is "American". We don't really care how it's done in other languages. --Golbez (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, even if "American" also means in a less common sense anyone born in the Americas.75.34.100.20 (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Why is it "American" and not another which is more accurate (in the sense of proper and politically correct)? Like, for example: unitedstatean? Javaplana (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- A Venezuelan would be South American, not American, because there is no continent of "America." There are two continents where that is part of the name. As national denonyms go, the Venezuelan would not want to be called that, because it is not a national identity for them. It does not separate them from Columbians (who they don't get along with), Brazilians, etc. What I think is based on the reality of usage in the world, meaning it is based on the facts. It is the job of Misplaced Pages to report the facts, not to make up new ones, not to try and change them. There is no common use of "unitedstatean," period. That is the end of the story, right there, because to use it would be Misplaced Pages trying to change the facts of the world, which is not its job. The English language denonym is American, flat out. If in Spanish they say something different, they are free to report it on their language edition of Wikiepdia. We say "Russian" on this version of Misplaced Pages, it is most definitely spelled and pronounced differently by native Russian speakers. It does not change what is written here. All of this has been rehashed many times on this talk page, all with the same result. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- As a reminder, this discussion does not make sense as both are mixing concepts in English with other languages such as Spanish and Portuguese. America also means The Americas in English. For instance, see Daniel Defoe's books, written before the USA was created: the coast of Brazil is described as "America", and more recently, the English disambiguation page for America in Misplaced Pages - it clearly states that America means The Americas as well. What matters here is that The Americas form is the common one in English today, but the same concept still is "América" in Spanish and Portuguese (and for that matter, in Italian as well, French has Amérique, German and Dutch have Amerika), and in those languages other than English, americano or its corresponding form means born in America, the continent (see my next comment below). 75.34.100.20 (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Besides the (in my opinion definitive) "common use" argument against using "united statean" or something similarly made up, and the fact that "America" refers to the US in all English speaking countries (and so should, in my view, be so on English Misplaced Pages) I do not believe the demonym has to be mutually exclusive to a country. For example, you will see on the European Union article that its demonym is given as "European", despite the fact that there are Europeans (like Norwegians and Swiss) that are not EU citizens. TastyCakes (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Totally agree. However you just put the finger on the issue at hand, as most Americans (United State citizens, to be clear) do not accept that the term also applies to others in the American continent. Ask Norwegians 200 years from now (in case they are still not part of the EU) if they like the fact that those born in the EU argue that only them can be called "European". That is exactly what has happened in the English language. In Spanish (and most other languages except English, as mentioned above), their equivalents of the work "American" keep the original meaning as primary, and citizen of the United States as the second one. But I am not going to argue that the English primary meanings should be changed because someone in another language is upset, that doesn't make sense as languages are organic, they change on their own. I would however expect that educated English speakers would at least acknowledge the original meanings of America and American as valid but less common use of the terms. 75.34.100.20 (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
dude or chic . . . Ex. Germany is in Europe, you can still refer to a German as a "European." Or some guy's from South Africa, you wouldn't be wrong calling him an "African." It doesn't have to be that complicated. It's a "term used" . . . "to coin a . . ?!" . . ."thats hot." etc. `0_o —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.248.163 (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think your suggestions are wonderful Java! The only thing is just merging Unitedstates and deriving a name from that is sort of boring, and if we were to write it out I'd expect 'United Statean' so it would still be separate words. Ideally the country could change it's name into something derived from the original, but that is unique and does not infringe on the other countries in the Americas or whom are created of united states. I do think the 'America' is important so it would be good to make it out of more than just the United States though. In either case, the portmanteau verbal tool may be used. You would merge shared letters in that case and blend: Unitates. Or, adding America: Unitaterica. As for the people, besides the derived Unitatericans, you could always shorten further (from 'United Americans') to Unicans but that wouldn't catch on because it take the 'state' out sometimes it is just called 'The States', clearly that word is as important as America and United. Plus Unican is some kind of shredded paper and peoople would not appreciate that analogy. Tyciol (talk) 10:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Why is this 'United States' article talking about the USA?
As everyone with half a brain knows, this article should NOT be about the USA. 'United States' is a title used in front of many countries. This article should be listing all 'United States', which should then split off to 'United States of America' and such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.94.33 (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is standard for Misplaced Pages to use the most notable common name of something as a title (this is why London goes to London, England and not London, Ontario). As you can see there is only one country in the world other than the US that currently has "United States" in its name, and that is Mexico. It is seldom referred to as this and so I think it is absolutely valid that the USA is the default United States. Please also see the FAQ for this article, it talks some more about the naming. TastyCakes (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- And to clarify, that is the "United Mexican States". Only one country uses "United States" in a row, and that's this one. --Golbez (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, there used to be the United States of Brazil, so for a spell, there were TWO "United States" of "America".... Guess that's why they changed it in the 60s.... lotsa letters going to the wrong place... Canada Jack (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Outside of the United Mexican States all other countries that used the term 'United States' in their name started using after the USA was formed and have changed their name to something else before today. 69.132.221.35 (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- It sounds like you're saying Mexico did it first, which it couldn't have. :) --Golbez (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Rereading it, your right it does look like I said that.....oops. Ya, Mexico didn't choose that name until the 1820s. 69.132.221.35 (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- It sounds like you're saying Mexico did it first, which it couldn't have. :) --Golbez (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Flag
The Flag of the United States Was first adopted in 1777 and has endured many revision including the 1959 revision of Hawaii and Alaska.The flag of the United States of America (more commonly known simply as the American Flag) consists of thirteen equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white, with a blue rectangle in the canton bearing fifty small, white, five-pointed stars arranged in nine offset horizontal rows of six stars (top and bottom) alternating with rows of five stars. The thirteen stripes signifying the thirteen original colonies, and the fifty stars representing the fifty states (originally thirteen as well). The flag requires specific dimensions, as well as special care; including display, position, and disposal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkeyllama (talk • contribs) 19:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- What is there to add? All needed information is on the article on the flag. No other country article, that I'm aware of, goes into any detail about the country's flag. yes there is. the usa does it Flag of the United States.
- ... right, every country's flag has its own article. They don't talk about it in the country article. --Golbez (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
MMA in USA
Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) is very popular in the USA with big promotions such as Ultimate Fighting Championships (UFC) and Strikeforce. It has actually become more popular in pay-per-view sales than Boxing and Wrestling and should be included in USA sports section. Hendo92 (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wrestling isn't mentioned in the article, and boxing is only mentioned because it was once one of the most popular individual sports. I'm not sure I see how being more popular than those two sports warrants inclusion in the article. TastyCakes (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- One thing that comes to mind: while MMA in theory incorporates any martial art, wrestling and boxing have both heavily influenced it. Considering that the US is where this sport is gaining huge popularity, it could be seen as a link to the past and these 2 sports. While it is true that more fancy incarnations (BJJ is based from Jiu Jitsu, Japanese wrestling; there's kick-boxing from Thailand) there are still boxers and wrestlers. In fact, the heavyweight champion Brock Lesnar was a college wrestler (and a pro wrestler, also a popular and US-dominated physical pasttime). Tyciol (talk) 10:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
People of the United States of America
There is no article about the (current) people of the United States of America, please make one and include to article. This as amlost every other country has such an article. refer to the people as US Americans (see the naming of US people article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.13.181 (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Do you mean an article like this one? TastyCakes (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Selected anniversaries (July 2008)
- Spoken Misplaced Pages requests
- Misplaced Pages good articles
- Geography and places good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- GA-Class United States articles
- Top-importance United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of Top-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- GA-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles