Talk:United States

Please consider reading the frequently asked questions for this article before asking any questions on this talk page.

Current population (est.): 338,795,000 as of November 24, 2024

Demographics

The map concerning largest ancestry by county in the demographics section has at least one error. Lawrence County Pennsylvania in the Pittsburgh CSA has 27.5% Italian which is the largest ancestry in that county. The map marks German as having the largest, but Germans only make up about 22%.

US not a sole superpower anymore

The United States is not the sole superpower any longer, with its poor economy; times have changed as this cannot be added when new countries have climbed aboard on the global stage. Since I have read a lot of reports on the news, the US just doesn’t hold sole status anymore. I have provided some links to give my information as proven which you can discuss either way. Some reports are saying the US is not a superpower at the current time or on the verge of losing its status. However I am not going to make any claims the US is no longer a superpower, just the US is no longer the sole superpower anymore. World is different as new countries like Russia & China have made their stages to enter the superpower arena. All information you can view to read my data for your information to know what I am bringing to your attention. I am American and live in in America but I am seeing the world changing as the US is really changing too.

The United States of America must now accept its fate as a former Super Power that has fizzled out!: Venezuela News : Pr-inside Sept, 17, 2008: http://www.pr-inside.com/the-united-states-of-america-must-r811903.htm

U.S. No More The Only Super Power: Michael Webster, the Investigative Reporter: American Chronicle, August 17, 2008: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/71513

So much for sole superpower, By John Roughan: August 16, 2008 : New Zealand Herald: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10527278&pnum=2

Hey U.S., welcome to the Third World! LA Times, By Rosa Brooks, September 23, 2008, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brooks18-2008sep18,0,6908905.column http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20080923211926234

The $700 Billion Questions, By David Sirota In These Times http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3932/the_700_billion_questions/

Superpower? Really? Austin Chronicle, BY MICHAEL VENTURA, JUNE 22, 2007, http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A494048 article

At UN, Bush urges global cooperation The Boston Globe, By Farah Stockman, Sept. 24, 2008 http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2008/09/24/at_un_bush_urges_global_cooperation/

The U.S. Is No Superpower By Paul Craig Roberts News Max April 26, 2006 http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/4/26/95748.shtml

From Superpower to Besieged Global Power Restoring World Order after the Failure of the Bush Doctrine Edited by Edward A. Kolodziej and Roger E. Kanet May 2008 http://www.ugapress.org/0820329770.html http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/08/0508superpower.html http://www.acdis.uiuc.edu/Research/Kolodziej_FromSuper_flyer.pdf

THE OUTLOOK ON A TRIPLE-SUPERPOWER WORLD- The Christian Science Monitor- By Helena Cobban : August 22, 2008- http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0822/p09s03-coop.html

So much for sole superpower- By John Roughan- New Zealand Herald- August 16, 2008 : http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10527278&pnum=2

Soros Says Financial Crisis Saps U.S. Strength Against China- By Viola Gienger- April 4, 2008- http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601091&sid=ayFW7vlhFivM&refer=india

A Superpower Is Reborn- The New York Times- By RONALD STEEL- August 24, 2008 , http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/opinion/24steel.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.53.9 (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You are too pessimistic!76.247.183.31 (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)KingYDT

Oh, brilliant. Question: Did you actually read all these articles? If you did, you'd recognize what almost every one has in common: they acknowledge the consensus view that the U.S. is the sole superpower. Some then argue that this will not be true much longer--which is hardly relevant to our efforts here. Others argue that this is not true right now--while almost uniformly acknowledging that theirs is a minority position. Sorry...despite its poor economy, the U.S.--for better or worse--can still project massive (nonnuclear) military power anywhere in the world on short notice if it so desires. No other country can or would make that claim. Enjoy your reading.DocKino (talk) 08:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you read the materials, did you read "From Superpower to Besieged Global Power" by Edward A. Kolodziej and Roger E. Kanet: May 2008 [1]? It is a text book on guides how the US fails & is not a superpower and if you would of read the book, you would not been protecting the US as a sole superpower or maybe you just might refuse to believe the book. The US is in an economic mess, you forget to discuss the issue what is the US without the banks and it's economy[2]. I know you love the good old USA as your name is allover the discussions page but you just don't know how bad the US economy is to say it is the only superpower. I have no problem sending new superpowers articles ready to read as the US government knows it would not be a sole superpower forever but the sole superpower on the article has to be removed. You have not provided any new 2008 facts to this forum and your case is an opinion backed by nothing. Again, I am not saying the US is not a superpower as we can argue many matters or add matters, whether the US is a former superpower or a limited superpower, I don't think you want to go in that direction. We could discuss that but that is not what I want to argue, I want to post the sole superpower aside and state only a superpower. Second military power anywhere on short notice is no different what Britain, Russia & China can do currently as well on short notice, if you want I will even provide those facts on that matter but I am not going to argue something that is not really as important as eliminating sole superpower. So I am suggesting the US as sole superpower to be removed and replaced as just a superpower or regional superpower. I will be happy to forward more articles at the ready. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.53.9 (talk) 06:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Im inclined to agree with anonymous IP address, apart from the fact that he has provided a wealth of information to substantiate this, the change he is suggesting is rather apt in this case, and hardly a major one. I would agree that a removal of the claim that the US is no longer a sole superpower is fitting int his case, or should at least be thoroughly explored, and to User:DocKino, I would advise taking a much more civilised tone about this manner as you previous comment, IMHO, was rather needlessly rude. Taifarious1 06:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue has been very thoroughly explored, as you will find if you care to spend some time with the discussion archives. The consensus view both here and in mainstream political discourse is that the U.S. is currently the sole superpower. Though the anon somehow feels it pertinent, the current "economic mess" (an issue, you will note, that I recently introduced to the article) is an entirely different matter (though, of course, it might possibly, eventually lead to the U.S. losing its superpower capacity). Finally, what you call "rather needlessly rude" and find it pleasant to lecture me about was simply direct.DocKino (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think DocKino was rude-sounding at all. That being said, I live in the U.S., and I might know just a little bit about its economy since I'm out in it every day. Wherever I go I am constantly seeing construction crews out building new buildings and new businesses being opened. Also, our GNP is still positive. Inflation may be eating us alive but that does not mean we are not a superpower. Economy is not the only defining factor for a superpower.Prussian725 (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to suggest that the US is currently not a superpower, nor have I seen anything suggesting that any other country is. It's really quite simple.LedRush (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an amusing argument. I believe it stems from the general opinion across the US that, given our constriction by the poor economy and multiple overseas military engagements, we feel "tied up" and not very free or powerful. Nevertheless, I disagree with the idea that the US is no longer the sole superpower... even in Rome's waning days, it was still a superpower... just one tied down by multiple, weaker foes (the various barbarian tribes).Famartin (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, who are you calling barbarians. My ancestors were quite happy till the so called civilised Romans came and slaughterd many of them, for no other reason than to make Rome rich. Jack forbes (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? TastyCakes (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion misses the point. “Superpower” is such a vague and nebulous term. It’s almost meaningless, certainly useless in this context. Why is it even required? I’m not interested in debating whether the US is or isn’t a superpower. It’s beside the point. The point is why does it need to be put into an encyclopaedia?

If the point is that the US is very powerful (economically, militarily, etc,) then it should be some other way with concrete facts, not vague terms (ie, the US has the world’s biggest XXXXX, or world’s most powerful XXXX). Ie, we need to show, not tell. Superpower is borderline peacock terminology that is just no good for an encyclopaedia.

Arguably there is space in the article to summarise various opinion that recnognises it as a superpower (eg, “X & Y call it the world’s only superpower”), but to say “it is a superpower” is not what an encyclopaedia does. Further, such a discussion, would not be appropriate for the lead - too much detail/trivia. The lead already mentions economic, military, cultural influence and power. That’s fine, and enough. --Merbabu (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a reasonable argument, though I disagree that superpower is "borderline peacock terminology"--it's a perfectly common term of description that represents the current consensus view of the geopolitical situation. It conveys a definable meaning beyond simple quantifiable data points. That said, the relevant sentence in the lead does not require it. It currently reads: "In the post–Cold War era, the United States is the only remaining superpower—accounting for approximately 50% of global military spending—and a leading economic, political, and cultural force in the world." It could read: "In the post–Cold War era, the United States accounts for approximately 50% of global military spending and is a leading economic, political, and cultural force in the world." I continue to believe the former is more informative and eminently encyclopedic. The latter, I imagine, comes closer to the phrasing Merbabu would advocate and would presumably provoke less dispute. What say ye?DocKino (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

DocKino - yeah, you seemed to have summarised my point well, even if you don’t agree (lol). For me, the issue for the article is not whether the US is or isn’t a superpower, it’s whether this point is (a) notable, and as you mention (b) better just to remove it to stop the arguments, and in it’s place leave the more measureable aspects in there (on the apparently reasonable assumption they are accurate). --Merbabu (talk) 05:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Your not seeing the point, you disagree that there is no more than one superpower as sources linked above submitted say otherwise, you haven't provided any relative data to build your point to say it is the only superpower as your determined to argue it is the only superpower. If you want to go that route, we can argue that point for sure. You can search Yahoo or MSN or others and title the pages like the last 3 days and see what the world is saying but I have made a simple request to say to add it is not the sole superpower anymore instead of saying it is a former superpower as sources are there to override your point of view. I am making a simple request and suggesting to consider it as one of the superpowers of today, not yesterday but I will throw these sources to your attention and make the issue stick more.

U.S. no longer a superpower,(01:22) Report video, Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=91247

US will lose global financial superpower status: German FM: The Hindu, September 25, 2008: http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200809252054.htm

U.S. 'superpower' status slides in world's eyes, by Eoin Callan, Financial Post,

9/25/2008: http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=838634

TOPWRAP 15-U.S. bailout in chaos, government seizes Washington Mutual, Sept 26, 2008, Guardian News and Media Limited,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7826065

US slipping as financial superpower, Businessweek By PATRICK McGROARTY Sept. 25, 2008, http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D93DP05O0.htm

US ‘will lose financial superpower status’, By Bertrand Benoit in Berlin

Sept. 25 2008, FT.com, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1d6a4f3a-8aee-11dd-b634-0000779fd18c.html

Germany says U.S. to lose superpower status, Xinhuanet, Sept 26, 2008,

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-09/26/content_10112504.htm

U.S. Losing Finance Superpower Status, Germany Says (Update3), Bloomberg,

By Leon Mangasarian, Sept. 25, 2008, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=ahUuZ8Z5rkDA&refer=germany

Financial Crisis: US will lose superpower status, crows Germany; Telegraph.co.uk, by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

Sept 25, 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3081909/Financial-Crisis-US-will-lose-superpower-status-crows-Germany.html

Bush: ‘Our entire economy is in danger’ MSNBC by Associated Press, Sept 24, 2008, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26871338/?GT1=43001 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26871338/?GT1=43001

Lastly 50% of the US military spending is basically impossible if the US financial system fails. If your saying the US is the economic, political, and cultural force in the world, where's the data? I don't mean data from 2003 or before, what is the current data you have to make that point to us?

Have you ever read everything on China? I would strongly suggest reading more on China; the US is not the country it was several years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.53.9 (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think everything new you've posted links back to what DocKino originally said, your articles are discussing impending doom as substantiated by current problems in the market, but you still have failed to provide a reasonable consensus view that people no longer regard the United States as the sole superpower. At best, you might be able to throw in a line that its role as the sole superpower may be slipping, but as of yet there is no basis for a definite answers. While I'll admit to not fully reading every source you provided, some of them seem rather... sketchy for Encyclopedic sources, such as an article by Rosa Brooks whose articles are generally known for their satiric take. Also, some of your more vehement sources like Michael Ventura rely on numbers that haven't held up with time, such as his claim that the European economy was accelerating in the wake of America's financial crisis, yet the European economy has shrunk in times the American economy did not (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7596208.stm). There's a great deal of uncertainty in terms of the future of American power, but things are far from settled. I think this discussion is well summed up by your statement "Lastly 50% of the US military spending is basically impossible if the US financial system fails" - if the US system does fully collapse like some beleive it will, then yes we will need to change this article but until then we can only wait.--Ben (talk) 02:39, 26 September 2008 (PST)

We've had a similar discussion, as noted, on this very subject not too long ago. I think if we revisit the line in question "In the post–Cold War era, the United States is the only remaining superpower—accounting for approximately 50% of global military spending—and a leading economic, political, and cultural force in the world" it certainly implies that in terms of "superpower" in the military sense this is not seriously debated, but it terms of economy, politics and culture, it is a "leading" force. With that in mind, much of the talk in those articles merely reflect what it already in the lede - that America as a military superpower is not altered, but it is not necessarily a dominant player in the other realms. Some say yes, others question whether it is. I see no need to alter the wording as clearly, even if the giant is stumbling right now, it is a dominant (if not the dominant) player. Canada Jack (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Your missing the point as the US does not hold its sole status anymore, we could argue to remove the entire wording or remove sole superpower. Two new countries are a superpower now but I am not trying to bring these to discuss, just the US is not the sole superpower. Every country has its strong hold but the US's strong hold is its financial system and it is broken which has been for sometime. The US is more than stumbling right now, inflation is an all time high and US military bases have been shutting down, in 2005 35 bases were closed due to lack of money, 2006 12 closed down, 2007 14 were closed down and 2008, no report yet (I would add the reason why the US military budget is so big is the US production cost are so much higher than any other country, it cost us more to produce, run, operate to finance our military system more than any other country, it is not cheap for the US to have a military when you have other countries who can a lot cheaper; if you placed our US military money completely on China as an example, the US could reduce their military budget down to $100 billion not $500 billion it cost us taxpayers). I posted some published video's for you, I would ask you to view them as I am trying to provide my verification that the US is not the sole superpower anymore, it might be number one but not the only one.

China superpower http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMcA_yHDfb0

The Ultimate American Dollar Collapse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RhnHo3RDfg

Soaring U.S. Global Inflation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RaIRxBpTt0

U.S. Economy and Financial System Bankrupt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvTbOnuBHiQ

U.S. Economy and Financial System BankruptPt.2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojdrIC9K94E

The U.S. Economy is Unsustainable http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Q14HOBThM&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.53.9 (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That's all very nice, my friend, but you clearly do not understand what the word superpower means in the English language—a language I gather you are not a native speaker of. Please read the English-language Wikipedia article on superpower. If you undertake this effort (if you are currently capable of undertaking this effort), I trust you will learn that your entire argument is ill-founded.DocKino (talk) 08:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This all seems like ranting from foreigners trying to nitpick for every fault in the USA. I know that this is POV but it seems like general global feelings toward the U.S. are quite low. That is quite ironic because it is always our job to fix everything bad in the world. When we do, (Iraq, Somalia...etc.,) we are intruding and being imperialistic, but when we don't snap-to and immediately send "aid" (free assistance) then we are evil (the tsunamis). If we are so evil then don't ask us for anything!Prussian725 (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt Prussian725s remark that the USA "fixed" Somalia is very well thought through, as that country is a mess and hosting many pirates; perhaps the reason why many foreigners have problems with US' self-appointed police of the world task is that it is not succesful enough in accomplishing its aims (non of Iraq, Somalia, or Aghanistan are currently close to the enlightened ideals projected when the US first made the plan).

Regardless of that I think DocKino gave the relevant non POV argument by referring to the superpower article. Arnoutf (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey DonKino, get your facts right, China & Russia are superpowers[3][4], when someone does their job providing current sources, provide yours too, so far you have provided nothing but just dumb opinions. Yes the US might be a sole superpower for film & entertainment but on the global front, the US is not the sole superpower any longer; the sources provided from 2 other uses are good evidence to switch the wording. The information is according to the news of today not from one wikipedia user who thinks what it should be.

[5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.14.200 (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If you compare Great power and Superpower, China and the Russian Federation are without doubt Great Powers. Russia is named Energy Superpower (but not generic Superpower) - (The article also mentions the Soviet Union as superpower but that is irrelevant). The China article does not mention superpower at all. Hence the Wikipedia references do not support the claim. (And even if they did Wikipedia is not a reliable source).

As it stands now, neither Russia, nor China make the definition of Superpower at the moment. (Whether the US still does is another issue ;-). Arnoutf (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

EU and what about EU?It's the first...the money of EU and the organization in every sector are superior.That's the new true superpower.The old idea of nation of 19th century is dead.Now is winner a new politic form which is flexible but also very strong.The nations have done their time in policy.EU is the newest and strongest power in at the beginning of 21th century.Britannica isn't,like many books the Holy Bible,is a simple book.Other books say other things and are also better.Check EU strongest datas in the world everiwhere. Thanks. Vindobona

I am proud to be an EU citizen... But it is not a superpower (yet), it is to divided for that in political, military and even economic policies. Arnoutf (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There's really no need for me to provide current sources, when, again, most of those provided above in fact recognize that the U.S. is currently the sole superpower. Yes, they suggest it may not be for much longer--and if and when that day comes, the language of this entry will change accordingly. I will provide you one source--not a newspaper opinion column or an article reporting the opinions and predictions of one or a few pundits, but the online student's version of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Here is the Britannica title for the entire contemporary era of U.S. history: "The World's Sole Superpower, 1991 to Present."DocKino (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Arnouft you have to cosider that EU is n't a nation but neither an international organization.It's a new kind of "nation".The old one as you think is dead all over the world.EU now is the first power on the sole.Economically,polititically and also military has everithing to check and control the globe.Differences make it stronger because risks are more distribuited.The true is that many people don't know EU laws and very very strong links.The era of nationalisms is eneded for ever killed by continentalization (and not globalization as many people say wrong)of the areas.EU has been the first to grow as new superpwer.DATAS TALK. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindobona (talk • contribs) 21:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Original research is fine but not for Wikipedia. Arnoutf (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It'll be also original but it's true if you look last times at EU policy and economy.May be there are too old books on the wall studio.I even doubt of your good feith in EU.In fact when you talk about it you show you hate it.It's easy to find it in your talking.Of course you are noticed by EU checks. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindobona (talk • contribs) 07:14, 1 October, 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not afraid to be honest, I hate the EU. It is basically a voluntarily assembled U.S.S.R. in which you sell your identities and forfeit your patriotism for the sake of being "one" with your neighbors. To be further honest, the very idea of a EU makes me sick. I don't hate to burst your bubble, but it's called SOCIALISM, something all of your and my ancestors fought to keep from taking over and you roll out the red carpet, welcome it with open arms, and embrace it as your friend. Let me give you something you can find in history books: SOCIALISM KILLS. You think I'm going too far but you just wait and watch as you slowly lose your heritage, your rights and your freedom. All of your countries, Germany, France, Italy...all of them will slowly be changed from countries into states. It reminds me of something that a "stupid" American said: "He who trades freedom for security deserves neither."Prussian725 (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As a socialist I shall take your criticism on the chin. I do think you are confusing socialism with communism, and my ancestors fought for socialism ie; universal healthcare, welfare state and although not written anywhere, the right not to tip your cap to any so called upper class. As for the EU turning into a state, it won't happen in a million years, but closer ties with Europe may avoid armed conflict in the future, we have had enough of that already. Jack forbes (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's try to keep on topic. Remember that talk pages are not forums (WP:NOTFORUM). Also remember that this is about the United States and not the European Union. Let's not let users like Vindobona, who has previously been warned of trolling, get us off the topic which should be whether or not the U.S. is the sole superpower. If someone can find reliable sources that the European Union is considered a superpower, then we should discuss that along with Russia and China, but if not, let's stick to the topic. Kman543210 (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This source you provided Dockino by Britannica[6]

has been outdated since 1996. Good grief, you make these statements the US is the sole superpower but you fail and fail again to provide current sources. It it is like you hate the fact that there is two other superpowers now, Russia and China. As I said I can throw over 80 current sources on these countries but I have said, remove the US sole superpower and remain it only as a superpower. If you continue, I will argue it is not a superpower with more sources than your outdated Britannica 1996 article. The US is not the sole superpower, not today it is not. Maybe a few years ago, yes but the world is different and powers have changed. Also Dockino, I noticed you have a huge recorded history on the edits on the article page. I can tell you are very pro US but your playing taking too much advantage of the article with your edits, this can not be what you think all the time, there are other members who have sources to post, give the article a break and let people speak with their sources. Thank you Kman543210, lets discuss the issue and see if we can agree on the removal of sole power off the article for safe keeping. I will provide more sources if you want to view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.53.9 (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't "hate the fact that Russia and China are superpowers," because they're not superpowers. Again, you simply don't understand what the word means, apparently because you are not sufficiently fluent in the English language, as the inarticulateness of the above submission evidences.DocKino (talk) 07:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

At the moment honestly the only superpower on the sole is EU.Usa ,Russia and China aren't able to get it.Next sunday in Paris there'll be the meeting with France ,Germany ,Italy and UK for showing EU strength.This 4 countries more the other 24(29 all in Jenuary) are enough to overtake Usa...also too much honestly! Thanks.

That was hard. Is this over yet? Please keep in mind that this is not a forum, but rather a place to discuss the actual article. Much of the incoherent ranting above has little relevance and adds little to our efforts here. MrZaius^talk 13:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel like there is a clear consensus from sources that the US was the sole superpower after the fall of the USSR. I realize MrZaius is trying to placate the rabid anti-US elements here, but I think the article is worse now without the language that makes the US position clear.LedRush (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

When even the United States government seems to issue statements describing China (sometimes) as a superpower (emerging, fragile, and without qualifiers) it seems silly to make such a bold assertion in the LEAD as was present previously. The site features multiple pieces asserting that the US is the sole remaining superpower, labeling Russia & China as a superpower, and occasionally misusing the word to include the entire P-5 of the Security Council. If the term is so vague and commonly used in so many apparently contradicting ways it seems apparent that the topic cannot be properly dealt with in this top level article. Regardless, it's two words - Sole Superpower changed to Strongest Superpower. Hardly worth anywhere near this quantity of discussion, when such a simple fix for this distraction is available. To try to attribute this to some sort of "rabid anti-US" politics rather than simply avoiding controversial and excessively lengthy discussion of a small topic adequately dealt with in its own article seems mildly absurd. Let's try to keep a cool head and get the entire piece to FA instead of picking the LEAD to death. Far more serious problems exist in many of still excessively lengthy sections. MrZaius^talk 15:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what instigated your tirade, but you should try and relax. You made a change that I disagree with (though not very strongly) and I stated my opinion succintly. I have not picked the lead to death, nor have I fed the trolls here as much as others. However, there are clearly irrational anti-US posters here who are trolls, regardless of whether or not you believe the language should be changed. At the end of the day, you are right that this is not an important distinction and that it is probably best to keep this language if it'll stop the incessant arguments here. However, I still feel that the article is worse for the change and that your response to me above was uncalled for.LedRush (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There have been a handful of valid points made that seem to warrant either expansion of the statement or removal of it. The former is, by default/due to the article's size and relatively tight focus, difficult to do properly. I disagree that the language was dramatically affected by the watering down, but agree with you that the new language is slightly inferior, as it seems to lack the clarity of the old. All that being said, my primary point stands: Seeing a discussion of these two unsourced and relatively unimportant words swell into well over 5000 is disheartening. Again, it is a distraction from the overall goal of the editing process that should, if possible, be avoided. I'm about 5 minutes away from hitting the hay, but I'd like to make one last quick suggestion: If someone were to pick out two or three outstanding issues to deal with from the last FA review as new discussion points here it might just be enough to end this thread. Happy editing, MrZaius^talk 17:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The age of 2 superpowers is over since 1990. The Post Cold War Era is over since 9/11 2001. Mankind has entered the age of globalization with multiple, interdependent, influential powers. The term superower is outdated therefore and can be tagged misleading in an intro about the USA. I remove the claim once again. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Your removal was inappropriate. Your view on this matter is purely speculative since you have provided no sources to back up your claim that man has entered a new age, which seems like your way of working around the arguement of superpowers to avoid discussing it.Prussian725 (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Usa global datas now are much lower then EU datas.The same for Russia,India and China.EU is the only superpower on the soil today. DATAS TALK.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindobona (talk • contribs) 17:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

@Prussian725 and to all the other superpower dreamers: That the world has become multipolar and the age of superpowers has ceased should be common knowledge for those who read or watched TV the last 5 years. For those who spent their times on an island and switched off all media, here is a source: US superpower status is shaken- BBC. BTW the source is of course an anglo-saxon media for language reasons. In several other parts of world the end of a US-superpower era is certainly not an issue anymore, it is a fact. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just can't any of these arguments seriously. Lear21 gave an article as proof that the US isn't a superpower, but he actually gave a citation for the US being the world's only superpower. From his article: "The financial crisis is likely to diminish the status of the United States as the world's only superpower." So, the article concludes, as does virtually everyone in the world, that the US is the world's only superpower, but the article says that the situation could change because of economic and military missteps. Can we just close this discussion? I feel the debate has gone on too long and should now be considered disruptive posting.LedRush (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the reference comes from an English source and an English scholar. The UK is the very closest ally to the US economically, politically. If even this background agrees to a new situation one can assume how other regions, less affiliated with the US, estimate the status of the US. I assume editors in this forum would only accept a written text from the American president itself concluding officially: NO, the US is NO superpower, NO the US has NO superpower influence on world affairs anymore. I remove the claim tomorrow again, if there is no serious argumentation to hold the superpower claim and so should everybody who thinks that the term superpower is outdated and incorrect in 21st century. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A true superpower hasn't public and private system of finance out of control.It 's only a continuous great fanfare writing Usa superpower.It's overtaken.In EU most people smile about Usa superpower.EU knows to be superior.It's clever because doesn't use like Usa also now in decadence the great fanfare.It's like a joke.This discussion will be open again next weeks because of new Us crashes in economy and also in other sectors. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindobona (talk • contribs) 17:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A few things: first learn better english if you are going to debate on the English Wikipedia. Second, the EU isn't a country and therefore not a superpower. Thirdly, It's "USA" not "Usa". If you continue, then the EU is now the Eu. Fourthly, just because all you Europeans decided to form a union doesn't mean that the rest of the world is stepping into a "new age". France tried to start a new age in the late 1700s and look what happened there. And fifthly, your gross support of socialism makes me want to vomit.Prussian725 (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Response. @1: Agree, @2: Agree, @3, who cares @4, Following the French Republic, many northern Americans decided to form a Republic of their own and kick out UK monarchy. If you mean that the creation of the USA has no relevance your argument is valid @5 Proud to be socialist; (I value human rights, public welfare, public health over the right to shoot people for entering my frontyard). Arnoutf (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Arnoutf...anything to add about the topic at hand?LedRush (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

He's a troll, I think you should ignore him. TastyCakes (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry there, my responses were off topic; to statements that were in themselves also off topic; but that is no excuse. Re: trolling - I hope you don't refer to me as I was only responding to gross uncivility (Prussian725) with some parts of useful comments (please write at least understandable English..... I try the same (and am not a native speaker)). Arnoutf (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No I was talking about the other guy (vindobono) ;) He's being intentionally obnoxious and is obviously uninformed and highly partisan. I understand entirely how hard it can be to ignore them. TastyCakes (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you guys read the superpower article? In its intro: a superpower is a nation able to "influence events and project power on a worldwide scale". Yes China has economic influence over pretty much the entire world. Yes Russia has economic and military influence over its region. But neither are able to project power anywhere in the world to anything near the degree the US can. Maybe one day; not today. As for the financial crisis, 1) it's too early to reach conclusions like "the US's hegemonic position is over", and 2) The fallout from it all is almost sure to result in serious economic effects in other "would be superpowers". But in my opinion this is not relevent anyway: the USSR was considered a superpower despite decades of its economy falling apart. It's really a description of the military abilities of a nation, and I don't think anyone even vaguely familiar with the state of the world would argue that Russia and China qualify in the same category militarily. TastyCakes (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

USA is still superpower and most powerful nation. What poor economy? USA has best economy in the world - List of countries by GDP (nominal) - leaving china and russia much much below. USA has also absolutely best military force in the world (spending on military is almost same as all countries together) and very large influence. --Novis-M (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I remember you that the 47% of Us public debt is in the hand of other countries investors.It's a joke,your carrier and submarines are owned by other countries(could loose a part during the shipping...).EU isn't in this conditions at all.It's strong in every sector.I think mr Prussian is anry because all his world is ended.Only pride rested..he dislikes EU because he knows it's the most dangerous enemy.Anyway he needs EU that now is helping $ and WS.Of prussian he has nothing.You are afraid of who overtakes you and speak easy of who you can beat.The source on public debt is the Oxford University (Usa).DATAS TALK. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindobona (talk • contribs) 18:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

are you kidding? EU is most dangerous enemy? I don't know where are you from, but weak european economy is not working really good, in 50 years US economy is planned to be 2times better then EU economy. Brussels is like Moscow during the cold war, its union full of bureaucracy and nonsenses. --Novis-M (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Summarising.

• Four entities are mentioned as having claim to superpower status. Russian Federation, China, USA, EU.
  • Of these the EU does not qualify as it is not a nation/country (yet)
  • Both China and Russia do project power and influence beyond their country, making them Great Powers. Both do not project political, economical and millitary powers on a global level (yet) hence they do not qualify as Superpower (note that the same goes for the EU which has no such global influence).
  • The USA has had such global influence at least from WWII onwards. Several people argue US power is becoming less, however there is no source as of yet that confirms US power no longer meets superpower level.

By elimination three of four candidates are eliminated. There is no sufficient evidence to eliminate US, hence the US is the sole superpower. Arnoutf (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

@ Prussian quote: " your gross support of socialism makes me want to vomit." Please, prussian if there is anybody who wants to vomit, than its the Europeans. The US becomes a communists state right in front of your eyes, buddy. The government will spent 700.000.000.000 US$ to intervene in its national private economy. I call THIS socialism ! I wouldn´t mind seeing half the US banks and half the insurances going down the drain because that´s capitalism, isn´t it? HaHa. Lear 21 (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Don´t take Arnoutf too serious, he´s joking while stating the EU is not a country. User Arnoutf is not aware of what happened in the EU states after 1992. So again, his statement is rather historic. It´s no secret anymore that the EU member states and their governments act coherently, like a country, even if EU institutions are not articulating a single stance.

Anyway, the question is not which powers on the global stage are ALSO superpowers. The question is have superpower states/organizations ceased to exist? The answer is, YES! In todays globalized interdependent world the major economic, political forces have become minorities in itself. There is not one single power which is able to project a dominant power. That´s why the inclusion of the term superpower in the intro is outdated. Lear 21 (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet global consensus differs with Dr. Lear21's assertion, as proven by all the citations above.LedRush (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

To place this in context, Lear21 and myself have differedin opinion about the country, or non-country status of the EU for the EU article itself in the past. We have indeed opposite opinions on this topic.

With regard to military, it is clear the EU has no single military policy or force at the moment. That alone would disqualify it as superpower in my opinion. Arnoutf (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As I've said before, America clearly is the world's military superpower. But the EU has to be considered a major economic power as increasingly its economic heft and its regulatory decisions are having major global impact. Just ask Microsoft. Or look at the increased use of the euro as a world's reserve currency. Arnoulf, you err in dismissing the EU largely on the basis it is not a country. This is certainly true, but that attitude is as quaint as the Venetians and the Florentines dismissing the pretensions of the Germans or the French in having cultural and economic heft because they weren't city states but "artificial" agglomerations. You will get no quarrel with me in terms of the EU's military heft or its political influence (though that is starting to change). But the EU is almost at par with the United States in terms of its economy and, more importantly (as this plays to what a "superpower" is) its economic influence. As an economic entity, it most certainly is not "artificial."

In short, I stand by what I said earlier: America as a military superpower is unchallenged. In the other realms (economic, political, cultural) it is a leading, if not the leading entity, but to call it a "superpower" there is questionable. Which is precisely what the sources pretty well all agree upon. Which is what the lede said. Canada Jack (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No argument about the economic bit for the EU (although the English with their Pound are not doing that much good). On the other hand with their production capacity China is also an economic superpower, and Russia as one of the most powerful fuel/energy supplier is an economic superpower too. Politically the EU is less of a superpower, and military Canada is probably a more important power compared to the EU.

As far as I understand (from that article) you have to be projecting global power in all relevant dimensions to qualify as a superpower. Arnoutf (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, on the latter point, can the Soviets truly have been a Superpower then? Was its cultural and economic influence felt on a global scale? I'd say not. So it's a bit dangerous to be too fixated on a particular definition of "superpower" as some here seem to be. The term is nebulous, and open to interpretation, which is why we should parse it somewhat as the lede has, and mention its status for America in terms of its military which I don't there is any serious disagreement. The disagreement extends to the other realms and the lede is worded such that alternate viewpoints are included. Canada Jack (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I would think that there is little disagreement that the USSR's economic influence was on a global scale and rivaled that of the US (that is not to say the economic power or strength rivaled the US, but it's influence was huge and global). Also, I am worried that we are getting too involved in semantics; the vast majority of commentators (in the real world, not on this page) acknowledge that the US is the sole superpower, even if there is a strong movement to analyse how this position is weakening. This conversation is fun for bar talk, but not really needed here. We should report what virtually everyone agrees to be true and call it a day.LedRush (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

While the Soviet Union was never the healthiests of economies it did project global economic influence (e.g. Iraq, Cuba, etc.).

But I think I am getting carried away in arguing this. Another issue is the reliable source issue; which LedRush implies as well. There are several listing USA and Soviet Union as superpowers. What we need now to change the status quo is a mainstream reliable source naming China, Russia or EU a (full, not only econical) superpower; or alternatively such a source making the case the USA is no longer one. In the end, our discussion can go everywhere but would never amount to more than Original research. Arnoutf (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

To mantain public functions steady needs money.Usa have no sufficient money to mantein it and private debts.Read datas also in Wikipedia.The Us debts are out of control.Have you understand that your carriers and submarines are for an half owned by Eu or chinese citizens?Have you understand that EU has weapons on its soil like also Russia and China?Check datas,the rest is the great fanfare of propagand .Eu isn't like Usa that used the great fanfare.EU now (it doesn't matter if it is a new kind of political subject;it's this new kind of being its luck)is the only one able to rule the world.Tahnks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindobona (talk • contribs) 21:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

EU? youre funny, EU is sinking in nonsenses and bureaucracy, US economy is planned to be two-times better than EU economy in 40 years...do you think that russia, china and eu have no debts? you're crazy...american economy MAY have a debt, because it is the most powerful economy...I can't wait for the moment, when your RICH eu cities will be as clean and nice as the american cities are...just tell me why lot of people from eu want to go to US? because its poor and dying country? funny...just look around you - you probably eat in american mcdonalds and subway, and drink american coke...this is really sign of dying economy?? --Novis-M (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You must forgive my sounding like a troll; I have a bad tendency to bite at people like "Vindabona", sometimes I get carried away. I agree with what Novis said. Countries all over the world owe the US for the aid we have given them, large portions of it to countries that were our allies in WWII. Our economy is not as god as it could be, but it is still in good shape. I think that a large part of the apparent view that our economy is dying is due in part to the media. Now, I would much rather the media didn't downplay our own country, but I would hate for the government to get involved in it. But our media is largely liberal and has fooled even our own citizens into thinking that our economy is dying. For example, the reason our housing market is in questionable shape is because the government got involved in the first place. For those who don't know, it basically told banks and mortgage companies that they would be fined if they did not extend credit to "poor" people. Well, guess what happened. The "poor" people defaulted on their payments because they couldn't even afford them kin the first place, and when the banks don't have money going into their coffers, the go belly-up. I'm sorry if i sound like I'm ranting, but that is one reason why making sure that everyone is "equal" does not work.Prussian725 (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This stopped being about the article a while ago. This isn't a forum. Take this discussion somewhere else, or steer it back on track. MrZaius^talk 04:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the wording should just say recognized superpower instead of strongest superpower as the economy change could the US into a great power soon as the US superpower could be lost according the bailout. Russia raises again[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] and I second they have with all the money & military might they have on the world next to the US but there is a lot of issues on the US's superpower quote right now, so the wording could be reworded again. I don't totally oppose the wording now but saying the strongest superpower seems out of context a little bit, what about saying a "recognized superpower" instead of strongest. Can we agree to that wording? --75.6.2.122 (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That language would imply that the country wasn't a superpower prior to the end of the Cold War and seems to ignore the time of the mention. The current sentence in the LEAD just says that the US emerged as the strongest superpower after the Cold War, backed up to this date by the degree of military spending. I haven't seen anything that suggests otherwise, especially not in the time period in question. I still say we'd be better off just walking away from this massive waste of time altogether to focus on the article proper. MrZaius^talk 06:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we should all have a look at the present section in superpower article; which does provide sources and different points of view. Arnoutf (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That article confirms the "sole superpower" language we used to have.LedRush (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree; altough it also raises the question whether the superpower concept is still relevant. In any case I think sole is a much better qualification than most powerful superpower anyway (what state is the second most powerful superpower??) Arnoutf (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am willing to keep the inferior "strongest" superpower (inferior for exactly what Arnoutf said) if it will end this stupid debate and allow us to tackle more relevant and important issues. This discussion has gone on too long.LedRush (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no way the US is a sole superpower, not possible, not with the money it owns in debt ($11.2 trillion). A country that is in major finacial crisis, there is just no military power for the US to confront any conflicts at this time. I strongly suggest wording to limited superpower. Without the US banks, the US just has no projection to perform it's military operations the way it has been after the cold war. The US is on the verge a depression, it is predicted to happen but when, is the question. I think the US is a superpower in some form but not in every angle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.222.90 (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Are any admins monitoring this? I concur with MrZaius that the consensus view is clear and there is no need to take this further. Furthermore, in retrospect, the anon IP at 66.17.53.9 who started this whole debate was clearly trolling and should be blocked or banned if he/she attempts to pursue this issue further. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Usa aren't anymore a superpower in my opinion.All the people feel this thing.The debt is too high and is in the hands of citizens of other countries.I agree with 76.205.222.90 and many other that Usa isn't anymore a superpower.Usa depend too much on otner countries wills.Army is mantened by money and it means that Usa weapons are in other hands.They can't go on in this way all the time and their crisis is just started.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.97.225.77 (talk) 08:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Your (or my) opinion do not matter at all; following core WikiPedia policies. We have to avoid original research, not even synthesis and have to support such claims with verifiable and reliable sources (which an editors opinion is not). Arnoutf (talk) 09:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Usa quality and quantity debts can be checked everiwhere in official sites.They aren't at all a superpower depending financially from other powers in the world.Thanks.

The term "strongest" superpower is almost teenager talk. The whole introduction is a chaotic piece of prose. If there are no reliable sources presented to verify a "sole", "single" or whatsoever superpower status of the U.S in the last year, the term will be deleted from the intro. Until that happens the term is removed. Lear 21 (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Fistly, the sentence talked about the US emerging from 1991 as the sole/strongest superpower, so your demand to find cites from the last year is useless. Secondly, I found more than a hundred sources for the US currently being the sole superpower in the last month. I put the language back using a sourse from today in The Boston Globe. If you don't like this cite, there are many more, so do not remove this cited fact.LedRush (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would be best to just state that the "sole superpower" thing is contested, since it's obvious there are cites for both sides. The "Superpowers" model of international politics was really a cold-war era distinction, where there were two sides with clear leaders (and a bunch of nations choosing not to be involved). It's like calling China a "Great Power" based on an early 20th century model. SDY (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any cite that says the US isn't the sole superpower (almost all the ones above that they say contest this actually concede that the US is regarded as the sole superpower). Also, the sentence in the lead talks about the world as of 1991 and the superpower language later in the article has already been toned down. This discussion has really gone on too long. Please, please, let it die.LedRush (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you haven't seen any source the US isn't a superpower? What are you reading then? Read the facts above, it isn't hard to read the current facts at hand. I suggest you read the current book also called U.S. no longer superpower, now a besieged global power[17]. US is not the sole superpower, not today, maybe in 2006 but China & Russia are the other superpowers. I will provide a horse fed amount of facts on freshly related material to again say it as I have said before. You have provided nothing and there are several others who agreed the US is not the sole superpower any longer. I didn't oppose the US as the strongest superpower when "sole superpower" wording was removed but renaming it again as the sole superpower when you haven't read the materials above or have you provided your facts. I oppose the wording sole superpower, it is not the truth and this has to be removed or we can argue how the US isn't a superpower at all. I will make it easier to word it just as superpower but not sole superpower, that is lying to the public when the media has said otherwise, remove the wording.

Congrats on finding one cite that says what you want. I have read the links above, and the majority of them say that the consensus view is that the US is the sole superpower. And please don't make your tired argument again. We've heard this before. This conversation has been beaten to death. I propose we make a final decision and close this topic. To that end...

If you like America and speak for America then your argument is not about the facts but your choice to protect the lie the US is the sole superpower when it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.53.9 (talk) 04:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wording in error LedRush, your article by the Boston Globe doesn't exist [18], I even Googled the titles Boston Globe US sole superpower and this was the result[19] but what articles it did have from the Boston Globe was it said the US was a sole superpower 10 years ago but not now, here is the article from the Boston Globe Sept 24, 2008[20]. Nothing exist as the sole superpower from the Boston Globe. So your sources are wrong and the article needs to be corrected. I would place the wording as superpower myself or even former but I will just agree first before changing without others agreeing. Don't change the wording LedRush when others have time to respond to this argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.53.9 (talk) 04:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The article can be found at http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/10/04/lessons_for_the_next_war/

I am trying to fix the cite now. Also, the other Boston Globe article you reference quotes one person saying the world is a different place than 15 years ago, but then the article goes on to call the US the only superpower. You will sound more convincing if you:

1) Present what articles say fairly...not just cherry pick what you want.

2) When you look for an article, try the link provided. It seems suspicious that you couldn't find the article I was talking about, but maybe I am reading too much into this.

3) Not rant so much. I must warn you again about disruptive posts.LedRush (talk) 05:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal on "Superpower" Language

I propose we choose one of the three options below and close this topic:

• Keep the article as it is (mention "sole superpower" when talking about the US emerging from the cold war but only "superpower" in other places.

• Never use the phrase "sole superpower", but use the term "superpower" (and possibly use "strongest superpower" to talk about the US after the collapse of the USSR)

• Never use the term "superpower".

agree on closing and think sole superpower is the best language because of the overwhelming consensus among sources that this is true, both at the time of the collapse of the USSR and now.LedRush (talk) 04:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I read an article last week that claimed the US was only a regional superpower, I will provide the article but what it did say the US doesn't not have the global power it onced had. If you read the May 2008 book U.S. no longer superpower, now a besieged global power, it says what the US fails to meet as a Superpower, there is a criteria defining the status of a superpower [21] where the US is failing under some according to Edward A. Kolodziej and Roger E. Kanet[22][23]. China & Russia meet the superpower criteria's[24].

I agree just to say superpower just not sole superpower, we can't use that term any longer as the media is saying the world is different now. I watched on 8/08/08 when NBC announced China was an official superpower, I heard it all day long. I will provide the clip as I knew that was a fact that being said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.53.9 (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I find that CBN announcement a little short-sighted as China's military doesn't even compare to those of the U.S. or Russia. The very articles on Wikipedia give testament to that. PLAN doesn't even have aircraft-carriers.Prussian725 (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Usa aren't anymore a superpower because their public debt (and so also Army level) is controlled by other powers on Earth.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.32.189.80 (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The language of a sole superpower sounds like a fairy tail, the US was once something but I throughy disgree on the wording to this. The GI-Joe tactic is gone as the numbers don't add up, without her strength the US can't be a superpower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.18.84 (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

For perspective's sake

This silly little hyperfocused debate over two words has now eclipsed the United States Constitution in length:

 mrzaius@desktop:~$ wc constitution
 395  7666 45318 constitution
 mrzaius@desktop:~$ wc superpower-section
 821 10163 69363 superpower-section

MrZaius^talk 05:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

hence the reason I propose to end the debate, one way or another.LedRush (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

LedRush, your source by the Boston Globe does not say the US is a current superpower. It say’s:President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld drove the world's sole surviving superpower into a diplomatic, strategic, and fiscal ditch.[ http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/10/04/lessons_for_the_next_war/]. Donald Rumsfled has been gone for 2 ½ years now and we are in a recession since then he left office. A lot has changed then and a load of facts are now readable on China & Russia than back in 2006. I have repeated with sources and two other editors provided better sources than I did supporting the US is not the sole superpower. My opinion the US is a great power now[25] and is a former superpower until it can fix it’s financial system & start paying off the deficit as it has never done before (China & Russia have paid off their deficits). The US spending is out of control, 77% of Americans spend more than they make[26] but I am not going to ramble about the US with it’s problems just state the sole superpower is dead in the wind in this century. You cannot call the US a sole superpower[27] when you have a lot of information that supports Russia[28][29][ http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//RTV/2008/10/05/RTV3182008/] & China[30] have made their status as superpower countries and that information has been bought to this discussion. I say remove the sole wording and leave superpower if you want. I won’t argue it is not a superpower as there are sources[31] supporting this currently but to leave the US as just a superpower and eliminate sole superpower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.53.9 (talk) 06:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

1) I don't need to show it is now, as the article doesn't say that.

2) The Boston Globe article is about what the US can do now as the sole superpower now. Please re-read. It mentions things that have hurt its ability to project power (yes, some things in the past happened in the past).

3) Your cite about the US being a former superpower is a book review from a college newspaper. In that book, mentioned above, they concede the view that many believe the US is still the sole superpower.

4) You're next cite (27) says "Our financial superpower status around the world took a huge hit with this bill." And it later alludes to sustainging superpower status in a time of war (and how that will be hard). This confirms the language in the article.

5) One Russia cite does call it a military superpower, and the Moscow Times does report it Olmert calling it a superpower. Of course, that doesn't make it consensus.

6) The youtube video calls China an economic superpower. Please see conversations above.

That you can't even get cites that don't accidently say the exact opposite of what you want to say demonstrates how tenuous your position is.

But anyway, we've talked about this enough, just write your opinion on the proposal.LedRush (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

-I was reading some of the sources on this topic and have somethings I think need a change but the question on the superpower debate with the USA is really a mute question itself but if there some facts that say the US is a frozen superpower, I would say I would agree there is a limit ability with the United States standing on its toes. If you add the numbers the US has been failing its projections all year long according to the New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor[32]. One cannot on agree we have a forcast of a country failing like never before and certaintly the US is in that direction. With that in mind, superpower really should be erased as this is not a superpower country in the terms to the world right now.--75.128.18.84 (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This discussion appears to be dominated by a 1990ies post Cold War ideology and terminology. It seems like the pro superpower fighters are stuck in a time bubble 10 years ago. The world is globalized, interdependent and lacks any "dominating" single nations. The US, EU (EU countries), China and to some extent Russia remain influential in several spheres. Even a blind high school boy could recognize this view by reading average newspapers without being an academic. Lear 21 (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"The nation exited the Cold War as the world's sole superpower"

This statement makes a claim to what the US was as of 1989-1991, not now. Later in the article, when talking about now, the term sole superpower doesn't exist. Surely we all agree that in 1992 the US was the sole superpower and currently it is a superpower, right? Can we please stop the edit war? Pretty please?LedRush (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm so glad that someone finally said that because I have been staying out of this conversation for the most part but was just about to point out the same thing. After the collapse of the USSR, was the U.S. not the sole superpower? Just as LedRush, it does not say that the U.S. is currently the sole superpower. Kman543210 (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The sentence in question refers to an historical fact. It is clearly in the past tense and assert nothing concerning the present state of things. I guess if there is a source that says the U.S. is no longer a superpower, then that fact should be inserted as clarification. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Evb...you're hit a nerve with that clarification...there are many sources that say the US is no longer the sole superpower, and there are some that say it isn't even a superpower...but virtually all of these seem to indicate that the majority view is that the US is the sole superpower. I think the current language of the article presents the majority opinion without angering the minority too much (by not making the claim about the US currently being the sole superpower.)LedRush (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The cold war ended over a decade ago. Maybe the article needs an update, so as not to be out of date. This reliable source suggests the status of the U.S. as a superpower is in jeopardy. Don't look at me; I didn't write it. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)--Evb-wiki (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that "superpower status" is a nebulous and ill-defined classification, I'd rather just leave it out entirely. The US is still the single most powerful single country in world affairs (China is very focused on the domestic, and the EU doesn't act as a single entity for diplomatic purposes), and the article can be clear that the US still wields massive influence on the world stage without throwing around what is for better or worse a peacock term. In the context of the Cold War it has meaning, in the modern era it isn't quite so clear what it means. SDY (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But even in a "globilization" sense, somebody's got to be at the top...so who is it??Prussian725 (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The current introduction implies that the US finds itself still in post Cold War era while maintaining superpower status. That´s wrong ! The Challenges of the New World Order Quote 1: We are living in an era without a single, dominant world power. The globe is beset by crises -- climate change, resource scarcity, food and financial crises, nuclear proliferation, and failing states. No one country can devise solutions to address these kinds of problems. - Gordon Brown (British MP) Quote 2: "The Post American World" by Fareed Zakaria, "The Second World" by Parag Khanna, "The Great Experiment" by Strobe Talbott, as well as "Rivals" by Bill Emmott and " The War for Wealth" by Gabor Steingart. Each of these authors accepts the premise of a multipolar world. Lear 21 (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The first poster needs to take a trip to Europe. The United States is of course the superpower.

I generally agree with other commenters. I'm too lazy to type out my opinnion. Yes, this post totally contributed to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.72.25.210 (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Fairness?

I've seen a plethora of countries, all featured and unlocked, and with The United States of America, we find the exact opposite. Is there a specific reason for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.192.68 (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's semi-protected probably due to a high amount of constant vandalism being a high-profile country. Keep in mind that anyone can still edit the article; you just need to be a registered, established user. That seems fair to me since registering is free and easy. Kman543210 (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a log of protections available if you click on the "View logs for this page" link in the History. Here's where it takes you: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=United_States Given the high profile of the article, as mentioned above, it falls prey to such heavy and repeated vandalism that it required protection again one or two days later after nearly all good-faith attempts to unprotect the article. It's a damned shame, but it's still the best tool available to fix the problem. That said, you can edit the article without an account - Do so by proxy by introducing the text "{{Editprotected}}" and the text of your proposed edit. These are generally acted upon very quickly. MrZaius^talk 02:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Locking has nothing to do with the class of the article, it has everything to do with vandalism. The US is undoubtedly more often the target of vandals than most other countries (regardless of its class level) and hence it is semiprotected. Arnoutf (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Article to Politically Involved

As this section title supposes, this article is to concerned about the 08 election. Man, what's the big deal? I thought it was supposed to stay neutral! Someone, please fix this article!76.247.183.31 (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)KingYDT

Can you be a little more specific as to which section, sentence, or paragraph is not neutral? Kman543210 (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Parties, ideology and politics

Currently, this is on the page:

"All presidents to date have been white men. If Democrat Barack Obama wins the 2008 election, he will be the first African American president; if Republican John McCain wins, he will be the oldest man to take the office, and his running mate, Sarah Palin, will be the first female vice president."

In no way does this section imply discussion of the upcoming election with the inclusion of the race of previous or upcoming presidents or the historical significance of either candidate being elected. This section is meant for the discussion of current and past political ideologies, parties, and politics. In no way does discussion of ideologies, parties, and politics have to do with the race of previous presidents ("All presidents to date have been white men"). Not only that, but if it is necessary to discuss the historical significance of either Barack Obama or Sarah Palin, the fact that they would be the first of their kind is already stated within the succeeding paragraphs. Furthermore, the discussion of upcoming elections could be revised by simply linking discussion of the upcoming election to the 2008 election page and listing the major candidates and/or their positions. Discussion of the historical significance of either candidate should be left for the election page especially since discussion of their historical significance is not even implied in the subject heading.

The quoted area should be immediately considered for complete revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.253.153.45 (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama is not African American. He was born in Hawaii, never been to Africa and is only 6% African descent. This should be noted.