Talk:United States/Archive 3

message: I changed the definition of contiguous US to say w/o Alaska or Hawaii or island territories -- if that stands, it should be similarly changed in the same worded sentence in United States Territory.
:Is this the level we have sunk to? Isn't wiktionary the place where we are supposed to argue about the meanings of individual words? --Cynical 15:20, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of contiguous U.S. 

message: Copied the statement "The first country to recognize the United States after declaring its independence was the city state of Dubrovnik(at that time also called Ragusa). "  to History of US 1776-1861.
Perhaps the statement belongs solely in that History of US article 169.207.89.79 03:20, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubrovnik

message: I've noticed people reverting edits adding links to Template:NATO and Template:OECD. Why? Just curious. Johnleemk 16:55, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: see wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries --Jiang 20:27, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: NATO and OECD?

message: Can we get a citation to back up the recent changes to the census figures? I could not see any 2004 census information on the U.S. census site (aside from the real-time population clock). And at very best, these figures should be marked as estimates, as the bureau only conducts an actual census every ten years. older≠wiser 00:02, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Census figures 

message: I suggest the closing line under the History heading:
: "the United States has become the world's most powerful country."
be changed to reflect the fact that the US is the most powerful only militarily & economically. Although it is a westerncentric tendecy to see power as force or finance, it's not necessarily true. I think changing it to:
: "the United States has become the world's most powerful country economically and militarily."
would suffice. If there is no great disagreement with this, I will change it sometime Friday (late in the day)
--Duemellon 17:21, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to say that it is correct both ways, though the first may be ever so slightly POV.  I don't really care if you change it, but why would you say the United States isn't the most powerful.  Even if you don't like us, that doesn't mean it isn't true (besides, everyone hates the successful guy on the block--*sigh*).--naryathegreat 22:57, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
Depends on what form of power you're considering. Diplomatic power? not us. People-power? definitely not us. Religious power? nope, not us again. Power is just too ambiguous & leads to a POV issue b/c of it's ambiguity.
--Duemellon 11:51, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: and it assumes that 'the U.S.' is a country/nation... which it is NOT.  without bringing that issue up... I prefer :
*"the United States government, has become -- in terms of economic power and military might -- the world's most powerful political entity ."
Pedant 16:27, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)
Some American academics introduced the notions of 'hard' power (economic and military influence ) and 'soft' power (cultural/diplomatic influence) to refine the debate - does this add anything? I think there's no debate that in terms of hard power the US is the foremost world power - in terms of soft power there is more potential disagreement. I think it's possible to advance a case that US soft power has diminished slightly over recent years - scepticism and antipathy to American values and cultural norms is something that is perceived by many US and foreign commentators to have risen across the globe over recent years. Although we're getting into contentious territory here, the question of the US's effect (intended or otherwise) can't be avoided in the Wikipedia. Nick Fraser 13:26, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different forms of Power 

message: At Wikipedia, it keeps being mentioned over and over again that Wikipedia doesn't belong primarily to Americans. Why doesn't the United States get to be the country that the English Wikipedia belongs mostly to?? (What I mean is, why can't we think of Wikipedia as belonging to all regions, but mostly to the United States)?? What's so non-special about the United States?? 66.245.82.212 21:49, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should it "belong primarily" to the Unite States? Because it happens to be the biggest English-speaking country? Would you exclude African Americans, Hispanics and other cultural minorities from this ownership? It's quite possible that more people outside U.S. use English in daily communication than inside U.S. It's special because it's a de facto world language and increasingly belongs to everyone, not just native speakers. And besides, free information and software belongs to everyone equally. If you want proprietary stuff, make your own wiki. This discussion probably belongs to some other page. Please don't misuse the article talk pages. Wipe 01:16, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude the largest English speaking nation is India as in the sub-continent.  Our puny quarter billion got nothing on them.
I regard the Wikipedia as belonging equally to all 6 billion+ people on the Earth. As well as being a nice thing to believe in, accepting this as a fundamental value of the Wikipedia encourages maximum participation and helps maintain NPOV. Nick Fraser 13:33, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please answer this question CAREFULLY