Misplaced Pages

The good article status of this article is being reassessed by an individual editor to determine if the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page, but the decision to list the article as a good article should be left to the editor initiating this reassessment.

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

Rank	Country	GDP (millions of USD)
—	Template:Country data World World	54,311,608
—	European Union	16,830,100
1	United States	13,843,825
2	Japan	4,383,762
3	Germany	3,322,147
4	China	3,250,827
5	United Kingdom	2,772,570
6	France	2,560,255
7	Italy	2,104,666
8	Spain	1,438,959
9	Canada	1,432,140
10	Brazil	1,313,590
11	Russia	1,289,582
12	India	1,098,945
13	South Korea	957,053
14	Australia	908,826
15	Mexico	893,365

• Military

Rank	Country		Military expenditures (USD)	Date of information
—	Template:Country data World	World Total	1,200,000,000,000	2007 (projected est.)
—		NATO Total	849,875,309,000
1		United States	583,283,000,000	2008
—		European Union Total	311,920,000,000	2007
2		France	74,690,470,000	2008-2009
3		United Kingdom	68,911,000,000	FY 2008-09
4		China	59,000,000,000	2008
5		Germany	45,930,000,000	2008
6		Japan	41,750,000,000	2007
7		Russia	40,000,000,000	2008
8		Italy	32,600,000,000	2008 (est.)
9		Saudi Arabia	31,050,000,000	2008
10		South Korea	28,940,000,000	2008
11		India	26,500,000,000	2008-2009
12		Brazil	25,396,731,055	2008
13		Australia	20,727,710,000	2008
14		Canada	17,150,002,540	2008
15		Spain	15,792,207,000	2007

• Population

Rank	Country/territory/entity	Population	Date	% of world population	Source
—	Template:Country data World World	6,671,226,000	July 1, 2007	100%	UN estimate
1	People's Republic of China	1,439,284,000	January 8 2025	21.57%	Chinese Population clock
2	India	1,389,469,000	January 8 2025	20.83%	Indian Population clock
3	United States	339,038,000	January 8 2025	5.08%	Official USA Population clock
4	Indonesia	231,627,000		3.47%	UN estimate
5	Brazil	186,917,074	May 27, 2008	2.8%	Official Brazilian Population clock
6	Pakistan	214,987,000	January 8 2025	3.22%	Official Pakistani Population clock
7	Bangladesh	158,665,000		2.38%	UN estimate
8	Nigeria	148,093,000		2.22%	UN estimate
9	Russia	142,008,800	January 1, 2008	2.13%	Federal State Statistics Service
10	Japan	127,720,000	March 1, 2008	1.92%	Official Japan Statistics Bureau estimate
11	Mexico	106,535,000		1.6%	UN estimate
12	Philippines	88,574,614	August 1, 2007	1.33%	2007 Official NSO Census Results
13	Vietnam	87,375,000		1.31%	UN estimate
14	Germany	82,244,000	November 30, 2007	1.23%	Federal Statistics Office estimate
15	Ethiopia	77,127,000	July 2007	1.16%	Ethiopia Central Statistics Agency

Signsolid (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont think its that much of a stretch to think that Russia can be considered a superpower, referring back to the soviet union, that was one of the only 2 in the world, but today it is hard to find similarities between the two, but Russia still has the same, if not larger stockpiles of nuclear weapons than the US, a good indicator in todays world of power status, economic power is also lacking but its oil and gas reserves are also important in these terms, but most importantly, the fact that russia is by far the largest country by land area in the world. but reflecting on history of Russia, like in world war I and II, the russian military or the "russian steamroller" (despite the fact that they were seriously underequipped and poorly managed) but still the sheer numbers of viable troops in russia also a key characteristic.

P.S. Mind the spelling and grammar mistakes ;) Taifarious1 09:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Blunt" may not be the right word, but long posts tend to sound like ranting and may be taken poorly. If you have a lot to say, try bulleted lists and similar formatting, it makes it a lot easier to read and might avoid confusion.Somedumbyankee (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Was that meant for me or 'Signsolid'? Taifarious1 01:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Signsolid. Actually, it's a comment I already made further up the page, but it's just as applicable here.Somedumbyankee (talk) 04:02, 1 June 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)

Last invasion of Iceland is also more than 1000 yrs ago. It is hardly a superpower though ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 21:35, 5 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?

To whom this concerns

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 don't you name them, then they might know who you are referring to. Just a suggestion! Joe Deagan (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to DCGeist, Evb-wiki, and John. Some of their actions were rational and well justified but most of their statements towards and concerning me were not. M5891 (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Its alright, i accept your apology. I am glad we cleared this up. User:notadormattandapig —Preceding comment was added at 09:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

hmmm...

wangdoodle! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.93.56 (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Offensive ASCII image boldly removed per WP:TALK.Somedumbyankee (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Race and Ethnicity

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)

It says 'of any race', how do you propose we cut it to 100%? I don't think it would make sense to have separate entries for 'caucasian', 'caucasian-latino', 'african-american', 'african-american-latino', et.al. --Golbez (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hispanic or Latino is not a race, but an ethnic group. Hispanics are the largest ethnic minority, but they are not the largest racial minority. I'm not sure where the contradictions are. The only way to make the percent not be over 100% would be to report on race only and take out the Hispanic/Latino group, or have a different one for ethnicity and race. Do you think that it should be made more clearer that Hispanic is not a race? Kman543210 (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's the census bureau's fault. "In the United States, the term is in official use in the ethnonym Hispanic or Latino, defined as "a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race."" Many people, if you removed 'Hispanic' from the table, would come to the article and be confused - where's all the Latinos? They aren't white or black, they're Hispanic! And so on and so forth. It can be explained better, but I don't think it can be separated. --Golbez (talk) 23:20, 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)

"Modern Era"

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)

Please point out any inaccuracys and I'm sure someone would be willing to change it for you! Joe Deagan (talk) 20:12, 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

Misplaced Pages:NPOV Kman543210 (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

As a Misplaced Pages article, yes, United States may be edited by any reasonably established registered user (because of the high profile of the topic and a history of rampant vandalism, the article may not be edited by unregistered users and those who have just registered within the past few days). Please keep the following in mind, however. The article is very long as is. There is a general consensus that it should not get any longer except as necessary to keep pace with the most major developments (such as the results of the forthcoming elections). When you say that there "is much more information that needs to be filled in here," be aware that many will disagree with you; please consider adding the information you're interested in to the relevant topical articles if it does not already appear there. As far as information that needs to be "corrected," it might help if you explained what you had in mind first here on the Talk page. The article is very well cited, and a significant error has not been exposed in it for quite some time. All the best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 20:45, 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)