Talk:Society of the United States/Archive 1

message: Concerning the "other holidays": I don't know any companies that give any off those holidays as days off, except for Columbus Day and Veterans Day.  In addition, can we get the tables to line up? -- Zoe
:I'm open to most any suggestion. As far as the "other holidays", I wasn't sure about bank holidays and the like. We can delete them or change the title to indicate that they are unobserved in the sense of having time off. I had planned on getting to those holidays after completing the earlier parts of the article. Should we make this just one table? Also, I had planned on adding dates to them as well. I can't do any more work tonight, but can take a look at it tomorrow. Cheers, - Sfmontyo
:I think one table would be good, with indications as to whether they're observed or not.  -- Zoe
The Holiday list is way off also.  In the US a Holiday can be declared by the Federal Govt, the State, or the local City. Carnival and Oktoberfest are two examples of locally declared holidays.  On top of that there are also some  cultral-centric Holidays which are observed without being declared by the govt at any level.   The Jewish Holidays you have listed are typically not declared by any State.  The Fed Govt only declares 10 Holidays; Christmas, New Years Day, Presidents Day, Martin Luther King Day, Memorial Day, Independance Day (4'th of July), Labor Day, Columbus day, Thanksgiving, and Vetrans Day.  On the other hand Haloween, St. Patricks Day, Valentines Day, Easter, Good Friday, and April Fools day are celebrated uniformly across  the US without being declared.
::I noticed all these comments on holidays but there is no holiday section in the article itself. It was one of the things I saw that was obviously missing. Any reason that it isn't there anymore, since it appears to have been there at one point? Tygartl1 20:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Holidays

message: Why were my changes of "00:20, 11 Dec 2003" and "00:25, 11 Dec 2003" reverted ? (Not that I'm terribly upset, but I am curious -- I thought one of my changes fixed an apparent misstatement of fact, and one fixed a flaw in grammar.)
:I'm sorry.  I mistook you for another anon that appeared to be Michael.  I'll revert your changes now.  -- Pakaran 00:30, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't really revert this one, since you've edited it since then, sorry.  -- Pakaran 00:31, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: I can't speak to this question, but i question its relevance:  this article is about American culture, and that context suggests construing that sentence as saying that Americans overseas are likely to talk about, for instance, how long it is before they will be "going back to the States". --Jerzy(t) 04:46, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)
It's not just Canada. We use it in the UK as well.
Brentford 16:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curious why my changes were just undone 

message: Simply put, Americans tend to move around in the country at an eye-watering rate compared to the rest of the world. This of course is due in no small part to the fact that we are both large, and contain a large number of urban economic centers. So, understandably, many Americans will make major moves to new cities for reasons of employment, as well as other sundry reasons.
This is very frequently cited as being a distinctive element to life in America that is very much at variance with what is found elsewhere in the world. It's impact is certainly important (and I believe plays into the American attitudes towards family). Definitely worth considering as addition to the article.(anon Oct 2, 2005)
:A work that I can cite at your request (see my talk page) stated that the degree of mobility of Americans in the last 10 years has decline compared with that of the 1980s. --Dpr 06:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mobile Americans

message: Americans love their cars and their comparitively inexpensive gasoline.   Recently federal government statistics found that there were more licensed automobiles than drivers in the US.  The automobile is a symbol of empowerment.  It should be mentioned.  70.106.209.48 06:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Car Culture

message: Hey folks - need your help on the Allen Ginsberg page. I think it needs a section giving an overview of his literary/intellectual credentials. thegirlinwhite 12:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allen Ginsberg 

message: I have removed the inaccurate of these words where possible. Markb 10:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of 'America', 'American' etc. 

message: This implies that Americans invented cars. That should be changed, though I'm not sure what precice wording should replace it
try created/manufactured/imported from
The manufacturing techniques which allowed cars to be plentiful and cheap enough to be sold to the general public were what was invented in America.  I'm just going to take out "automobiles" for now until I or someone else have a reference for that. Mahern 19:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Henry Ford invented the assembly line, not the car. The car was invented in Germany by Carl Benz. Signaturebrendel 19:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That's what I meant by "manufacturing techniques...".  Sorry if that wasn't clear enough.  Mahern 21:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cars invented elsewhere 

message: where are the footnotes?
Are you guys stealing this information or making it up or what?
:Probably making it up.  Most Wikipedians are too lazy or dumb to run an Infotrac search and dig up some articles.  Even fewer have the energy to take notes when they're at the library and they see a book that's relevant to a Wikipedia article.--Coolcaesar 20:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I have small library at home and am now trying to turn this into an at least somewhat decently referenced article. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 23:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  where are the footnotes? 

message: Just to let you guys know, the United States article is on featured article candidates list, so you can cast your vote there- or not.--Ryz05 19:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: US article on featured candidate

message: The bit about Americans being "insular" needs a reference; likewise, the bit about few books being translated. Otherwise, this stuff should be removed. Cultural Freedom talk 12:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should also be noted that not all Americans think of the US as being the entire world. Many Americans have strong relationships to individuals in other countries and 15% of the population are immigrants themselves! Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 23:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship to other countries/cultures 

message: Someone added a parenthetical comment about how Americans (and, it is suggested, not many others) "often believe that their patriotism has nuances that differentiate it from nationalism and nationalism's negative connotations." Patriotism and nationalism are different phenomena. Simple inspection of the words' respective etymologies makes this evident; moreover, think about how absurd the following sounds "Nationalist Americans stormed the Capitol...." A rewording of the claim that highlights how most historians, not just Americans, understand the difference between a country and a nation, and thus the diff. between patriotism and nationalism, might make it acceptable, but I see no reason why such a claim should be in this article at all. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006.06.19 18:29 (UTC)
:I concur.  By confusing patriotism with nationalism, the claim becomes simply ridiculous.  There is nothing wrong with loving one's country.  I have been to many countries and everyone there loves their country and its symbols (the flag, the national anthem, the head of state, etc.).  --Coolcaesar 08:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nationalism usually means being loyal to people of same genetic, linguistic etc backround. Patriotism seems more accurate in the case of the United States because of the mix of backrounds in the country. -Wikipedia-fan
Sorry guys I disagree. While it is true that nationalism is usually used in reference to a loyalty based on common ethnic or linguistic background, the fact that America is ethnically diverse doesn't erase the strong similarities between the American sense of patriotism and true nationalism. Patriotism is love of ones country but Americans who see themselves as patriots tend to view America almost as an culturally homogeneous nation same as with Germany, France, or China. And while it's true that there's nothing wrong with loving ones country that love morphs into nationalism when America's relations with the rest of the world are called into question. With that respect, American patriots typically see things in a "you're either with us or against us" light perfectly exemplified by the whole "Freedom Fries" movement leading up to the Iraq war. Basically the point I'm trying to make is that American patriotism doesn't stop at love for ones country. In order for one to be accepted as a patriot by patriots in America an almost unqualified devotion to the national interests of America is required (no matter how the pursuit of those interests impacts others) and any way you look at it, that's nationalism.--24.90.108.188 08:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationalism vs. Patriotism 

message: Have a look at Nacirema, it is an interesting look at US culture, but isn't even linked in from this page. --Midnighttonight 04:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nacirema]] 

message: I folded the section on tobacco as a subsection of a wider section on all drugs. I tried not to let my opinions bring any POV into the section, but may have failed. If it needs improvement for NPOV, go ahead - but please don't just delete anything! EdC 23:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drugs 

message: The first paragraph under attitudes reeks of being wrong.
It is important to bear in mind that the United States of America is highly diverse, by way of region. The South is entirely different from the Northeast, which is itself in many ways foreign to the Mid-West, which adheres to an entirely different cultural attitude than the West. There really isn't any "American" attitude, or "American" style for the simple reason that the country is so extraordinarily diverse.
The south is not ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from the Northeast. The Northeast is in no way foreign, etc. I think the meaning of this paragraph could be summed up in fewer words and not stress that each reigion is seperate and disimilar entirely, but that every reigion, while being part of a mainstream US culture, differs on several aspects from reigin to regien.
:Why not just remove that entire paragraph entirely?  I suspect that the same thing could be said of any country of reasonable size, yet (for example) Culture of Germany doesn't try to stress the difference between a Brandenburger and a Bavarian... --Bletch 02:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the San Francisco Bay Area is as different as a foreign country ;-) (At least that's what some "Heartland" Americans say after coming here). Every complex society and especially American society which is in itself a compound culture features sginficant cultural fragmentation. In the US the culutral fragmentation is ironically one of American society's most prominent "common" featrues. Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attitudes

message: Nothing about race.Mrdthree 14:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True-there should be. Race does have a significant impact on how individuals perceive their environment as it is still build into the socialization process. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 23:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Race

message: I have removed all the gigantic list of "____ of the United States" becuase this is available in the template at the top of the page. Iolakana|T 16:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal

message: This section reads like orig. research, without citations & seems to summarize and generalize instead of explaing. I'd vote for a rewrite. Desertsky85451 19:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comment below. Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Culture_of_the_United_States#Cultural_values|Cultural values]] 

message: I removed the following section for three reasons:
#It is OR (no sources)
#It is POV (somebody writing of his own experiences)
#It is inappropriately written
This section could do immense damage to this article's reputation and that of WP overall IMHO.
Also, I have noticed that this article provides almost no sources and some of the text, no offense, exclusively featrues gross generalizations of stereotypes. How many American actually retire and leave the work-force once and for-all at the mere age of 65? How many Americans actually only work 40h/week? Such stereotypes should also be present with current statisitcs to give an accurate reflection of American culture today and better illustrate historical trends. Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section temporarely removed 

message: I think American should be changed to "United States" in most places. American is a colloquial term, and United States (or U.S.) the legal one. Also, "Native Americans" should be "Native North-Americans". That's only if its not planned to include Inca references :D
I should add too that the references to "American Literature" and "American Art" speaking only of U.S. artists, is , at the least, insulting for the big legacy of the great painters, novel writers, poets and musicians all over the continent.
:I'd think "Native North-Americans" would be inaccurate.  "Native Americans" is a phrase with its own meaning, but "native North-Americans" would include anyone who is native to North America (i.e. whoever was born there).  I think "indigenous" or "aboriginal" might be more appropriate.  24.72.103.137 10:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the word American 

message: Since when did the HDI change from .944 to .948? 
74.117.72.239 06:17, 1 October 2006
:See List of countries by Human Development Index for references. -- Beland 23:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: HDI

message: I think it's inappropriate to have a section on this topic and not a section on other major events in united states histor (vietnam war, gulf war, war of ___, etc, economic events).
It seems more like a partisan hack.
"The history of the United States: Revolutionary War, Civil War, Great Depression, WW2, Republican George Bush's Screw-Up In The Middle East."
:Yes, even though I agree that Bush screwed things up, the recent War in Iraq should not receive any more attention in this article then say, the Vietnam, 1st Gulf War, etc... This article is to provide an overview of the US, not merely its current issues; thus we must be careful in how much text we devote to current issues. Signaturebrendel 20:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, timelessness is one of the characteristics of an encyclopedia, and giving undue weight to the sensational or current is a violation of WP:NPOV. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 20:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  September 11, 2001 and the War on Terrorism 

message: I just re-read the 9-11/War on Terror section and found something that might be misleading. Throughout the section the word ally is used as though it pertained to the same list of countries. The problem is that the US allies in Afgahnistan are not neccessarily allies in Iraq. For example, Germany send troops to Afgahnistan-which was all in all a classic NATO effort. Iraq is a different stroy, only some of the allies in Afgahnistan are allies in Iraq (mainly the UK). Thus I think we need to tweak the wording a little to reflect that the word ally in Afgahnistan does not include the same list of countries as in Iraq. In the Iraq paragraph we could perhaps replace the phrase: "the United States and its allies" with "the United States and some of its allies" or "the United States and coalition forces." Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 18:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  War on terror allies 

message: 1) native american deaths in the millions
g. fisher | 
Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples | 
UN World Conference Against Racism
*existing sentence: "the present-day continental U.S. was inhabited exclusively by various indigenous tribes, including Alaskan natives, who migrated to the continent over a period that may have begun 35,000 years ago and may have ended as recently as 11,000 years ago."
*suggested re-edit: "the present-day continental U.S. was inhabited exclusively by various indigenous tribes, including Alaskan natives, who migrated to the continent over a period that may have begun 35,000 years ago and may have ended as recently as 11,000 years ago. It is estimated that between 2-10 million native americans died because of colonization." 
2) US as empire
[] | 
fox news | 
 |
*existing sentence: "After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States continued to intervene in overseas military conflicts such as the Gulf War. It remains the world's only superpower."
*suggested re-edit: "After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States continued to intervene in overseas military conflicts such as the Gulf War. It remains the world's only superpower. The global influence of the US has imperial characteristics."
3) US motive for invading iraq was oil 
washington post | 
globalpolicy.org | 
bbc news | 
February 15, 2003 anti-war protest
*existing sentence: "After the invasion, only a limited number of non-nuclear stockpiles were found, and the Bush administration later admitted having acted on flawed intelligence."
*suggested re-edit: "After the invasion, only a limited number of non-nuclear stockpiles were found, and the Bush administration later admitted having acted on flawed intelligence. The motive for the invasion was disputed before it happened however and discussion about US interest in Iraq's oil resources was widespread in the months before the war."
 
4) 'consequence'
*existing sentence: "The United States has vast economic, political, and military influence on a global scale, which makes its foreign policy a subject of great interest and discussion around the world.
*suggested re-edit: "The United States has vast economic, political, and military influence on a global scale, which makes its foreign policy a matter of great consequence around the world."
--8r1ck 13:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: sources and re-edits

message: I tried putting de facto in parantheses, but it was reverted with the reason of "that implies that it's the official language, but de facto." De facto and official are two different things. De facto means "in fact" or "in practice" or "in reality," very different from official. Without the parantheses, it sounds like "English de facto" is the official language (which contradicts the previous statement in the infobox that the US doesn't have an official language) or that the US uses the de facto English, which doesn't exist. What does everyone think? — Jaxad0127 03:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the article de facto, the normal wording would be "de facto English". --tjstrf talk 03:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can tell, "de facto language" is correct, not "de facto English," since there isn't an accepted de facto form of English, which I pointed out earlier. — Jaxad0127 04:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: English de facto

message: Under the Geograpy section is says 
"The United States is the world's second largest country by land area, after Russia."
This untrue The US is the 3rd or 4th largest after Canada and diputedly China.
:LAND area. Canada's land area is actually 4th or 5th in the world; its total area is 2nd because of the many lakes it has. --Golbez 03:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Land area incorrect 

message: "Between 1830-1880 up to 40 million American Buffalo were slaughtered for skins and meat, to aid railway expansion and to help subdue Native Americans by denying them a primary resource."
this sentence about buffalo which i just put in environment has been immediately removed and labelled "POV assertion of motive". this is more miserably biased editing. the 40 million number and the word 'slaughter' were both footnoted with 2 other internal links. which bit is asserted motive? it's all sourced except perhaps for the 'denying primary resource' which was nevertheless in just about all the stuff i read about buffalo slaughter and can easily be footnoted. but who needs 3 footnotes in a sentence?
how about this from the existing edit:
"After many failed U.N. resolutions and Saddam Hussein rejecting demands to surrender, the United States and its allies invaded Iraq in March of 2003."
sounds like POV assertion of motive to me. i should not be surprised that a jingoistic country of 300m produces some jingoistic wiki history writers. it's vandalism, it's denial, it's sustained and it's seemingly consensual. no more contributions from me here you'll be glad to hear. --8r1ck 12:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Buffalo section's issue is with the assignment of the motive as including to help subdue the indians by 'denying primary resource'. The claim that it was for food and meat isn't controversial (therefor no POV issue), to claim it was part of campaign to subdue the Indians is controversial (hence POV issues).  It may be able to be reworded, but as posted, it was advancing a POV, with out citiations. Bo 14:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I put the buffalo mention in up in the westard expansion section.  I mentioned take a look to see if the 'denial of primary resource' is done in a NPOV way.  Thanks.  Bo 15:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Buffalo almost died out because European settlers in addition to Indians killed them for food, clothing and sport. The "dying of the buffalo" was caused by over-hunting. I don't think most White settlers killed the Buffalo w/ the intention to whipe out the Native Americans (some might have though). As mentioned above, the statement certainly carries with it some validity but needs to be presented in an NPOV manner. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 20:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I take it that I was successful in adding the information in a NPOV way.. Thanks!  Bo 15:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  buffalo 

message: I foolishly left my account logged on when I left my computer, and one of my friends vandalised this page. I have tried to revert the edits by that person, but I may have missed some, so I sincerely apologise. Rossenglish 14:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apology for vandalism on my account 

message: I've spend some time considering how to shorten this article, but I really can't see where to begin. Potentially, we could remove some categories that are less importation, and just have the link to the subpage, but I'm not quite sure where to begin on that either. As long as we don't actually add to the main page, aside from current events, we should be okay?71.111.98.144 07:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually do think of this article as being excessively long considering that this article covers the entire United States. The US is one of the most complex countries on earth and even just giving a glimpse of it is going to take a good seized article. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 20:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading through the article, there are many things which are clearly not all that important to a broad overview of the country.  I've added some suggestions to the todo list, which you can see at the top of the talk page here.  Normal article length is around 30K.  You're right that this is a big topic; perhaps something on the order of 40-60K would be appropriate.  But right now it's over 100K, and that's definitely too big.  This needs to be a relatively brief survey, targeted at people who aren't interested in too many details, but just want to get an overall picture.  Quite a bit is left up to subarticles for people who want to take the time to go more in depth, or who are looking for a specific piece of detailed information. -- Beland 23:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Taken a look at some of the suggestions. Everything looks about right - the trick is getting started :). I think current events should be the only one that goes into detail - everything else should just be a brief summary. Also, lots of sub-topics should be just completely removed and placed in the sub-articles, thus cutting down on length/size. 71.111.98.144 03:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length Issues 

message: Post 9/11, suggest changing "Federal Republic" to "Police State". --ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 23:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I got the joke and I agree the executive has gained way too much power- of that's what you're implying. Congress is supposed to make laws (hence, legislative) and not the president (he may merely suggest them and dis/approve of them). SignaturebrendelNow under review! 23:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of Government Section 

message: In the religion section it impies that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Protestant denomination.  This is incorrect.  the LDS Church stands alone, apart from Orthodox churches or the Protestants.  Thanks.
204.113.19.8 17:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested edit for the Religion section

message: This article is featured in two languages... but not in English. I know this is an irrelevant point, but I thought it was kind of interesting, especially since this article appears to be far more detailed than other featured articles in English. Freezing the mainstream
:Well, actually this article is too detailed. The main complaint during its FA canidacy was its length. Best Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 00:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Isn't it interesting?

message: Under the infobox at the top of the page under Largest City (New York City, NY) could someone add the Smallest City, which is Maza, North Dakota, since it is the smallest city in the United States. I cant do it for I have an IP # and IP's are blocked. 68.111.174.76 07:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We only add a country's largest city to the country infobox. People are usually more likely to seek info on a country's largest, not smallest city. As we do need to keep an eye out for infobox length, I am personally undecided whether or not we should mention a nation's smallest city in the infobox. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 09:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I would definitely suggest not adding the smallest city, as that could change tomorrow when someone incorporates a new city with a population of 4 or less, or if Maza grows by even one.  In addition, the amount of effort to definitively find/verify the "smallest" city in a country with a population of 300 million would be huge, and the definitions surely vary as well.  Even mentioning this on the article's page would seem to be speculation. -- Renesis (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: D'accord. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 01:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maza, North Dakota

message: Somebody should add a list for all the states from largest to smallest.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesk111 (talk • contribs) .
:Already done.
:*List of U.S. states by area
:*List of U.S. states by population
:Jecowa 21:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest-Smallest States 

message: Historically speaking, the United States declared Independence on July 2nd, not July 4th. (We celebrate 7/4 only because Congress realized the day before that they forgot to celebrate Independence day). Quoting United States Declaration of Independence:
Independence was declared on July 2, 1776, pursuant to the "Lee Resolution" presented by Richard Henry Lee of Virginia on June 7, 1776, which read (in part):...
I think that the proper date should be listed in the infobox, with some sort of mention about observation on July 4th for historical reasons. IMacWin95 22:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Independence Day (United States), the July 2 declaration was secret and preliminary, and the final draft of the declaration document itself wasn't done until two days later after a flurry of rewriting. It was not announced to the people until July 4. There's a difference in "the day you decide to declare independence" and "the day you actually declare independence." Your assertion of it being July 4 because Congress "forgot" seems incorrect, based on that article. --Golbez 00:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independence not July 4 

message: if theres only one superpower whats the point of naming it hyperpower also? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.134.53.233 (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question, the term isn't really useful IMHO, but does exsist. SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 19:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not the place to debate what American's should or should not do.  The fact is that both terms ("superpower" and "hyperpower") are in common usage with respect to the US (especially "superpower"). Johntex\talk 21:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hyperpower