I really like the carrier image that an anon editor has added to the article intro. An aircraft carrier is indeed an excellent symbol of power projection capabilities. Moreso by far than the stealth bomber given their greater useage in so called 'gunboat diplomacy'.Zebulin17:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Military power is one factor among many others to project global power. The world map including the caption is of higher content quality. Lear 2117:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The map gave the impression that the power was a mere reflection of geographic size. Theoretically even tiny island states could be a superpower. A state with no power projection on the other hand could certainly not be a superpower.Zebulin17:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally like the B-2 bomber better because it is a nicer picture, but I guess an aircraft carrier works good too. On a few other language wikipedia articles (Like the French one) they also use the picture of the B-2 bomber and it seems to fit very well at the intro, but whatever makes people happy I guess...
User:Daniel Chiswick 18 May, 2007.
I must agree the Rayla Navy is the 2nd biggest navy in the world.
When's the last time you've heard of any world leader talking about the USA sending B2's to Iraq or the Persian Gulf? None, because the B2 is little more than a novelty aircraft sent on a few missions to try to give legitimacy to an air plane design that cost way too much with little return. A carrier on the other hand is feared worldwide. Whenever a country sends a carrier every country knows that they mean business. Of all the future superpowers mentioned each one has a carrier or is badly trying to get a carrier because they know what they symbolize and what they can do. No one wants to buy a B2 bomber which is more likely to be on display than actual combat. Further WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS(the French encyclopedia having it) is hardly a reason to keep something. After all, we are going for an encyclopedia that can be read 10 years from now and still be informative. 10 years from now, the B2 will still not be in wide use while carriers will probably be owned by every world power. 128.227.43.4220:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. does use B-2 bombers, every major conflict we have been involved in since their development we have used the the B-2 bomber. Many countries have aircraft carriers, but only one has an advanced stealth bomber like the B-2. Second rate powers like Spain and Thailand have aircrat carriers, does that make them superpowers? No, but advanced planes like the B-2 certainly do. User:Daniel Chiswick 18 May, 2007.
Read carefully, I never said they didn't. In fact I said that they do send them on missions just to justify the enormous costs they paid for them. Also, I guess you've never heard of the Dassault nEUROn. 128.227.43.4220:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also I would to add that aircraft carriers are not really "Advanced military technologies" as they are rather common and second rate powers like Spain, Italy, Thailand, and powerful countries that are not superpowers like Russia, France, and the U.K. all operate them. User:Daniel Chiswick 18 May, 2007.
The bottom line is power projection. The B2 is certainly a strategic asset but the aircraft carrier is a much larger power projection asset than a B2.Zebulin20:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but many non-superpowers operate them and they are not really special. How about we put both pictures up? The advanced B-2 bomber and Nimitz class supercarriers are the ultimate hallmark of American power and power projection, I say we use both pictures. Any thoughts?
User:Daniel Chiswick 18 May, 2007.
I'm a bit concerned about picture clutter. I may change the caption as well to reflect that it hardly matters how advanced the means of power projection is with respect to superpower status. Rather what matters is how much power projection is obtained by any means available.Zebulin20:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-powers operate nuclear weapons (Pakistan for one), does that disqualify the USA from being a power? I still see no valid reason for keeping the B-2 pick other than the above mentioned Wiki essays. 128.227.43.4220:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you would log in or create an acount. Do you really want to be attaching your IP to your every edit?Zebulin20:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with it. Anyone who wants to trace it will only know that its a university IP, it will likely be another IP in a few hours anyway. 128.227.43.4220:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We could make the two pictures smaller, that way we can show both air and naval power. User:Daniel Chiswick 18 May, 2007.
That might be worth trying. What will likely happen is editors may take exception to any implication that military power is the sole means of power projection for superpower status or they will simply object to an appearance of too much emphasis on US military assets. If we can think of another image which represents non military power projection to add as well, this might do even more to reduce the chances of that map being restored as the intro image even though technically this would also increase clutter.Zebulin21:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, let's try it for a few days and see what happens. May I suggest B-2 goes above the carrier, for aesthetic reasons. But before we do anything we have to find out how to word the caption for the pictures. User:Daniel Chiswick 18 May, 2007.
the current caption wording:
"Military assets such as this are one means of power projection on a global scale—a hallmark of a superpower" is designed to avoid conflicting with any of the sources currently listed in the article. Some of the sources acknowledge non-military means of projecting power as contributing to a superpower role so it will be important that the caption not sugest that power projection of a superpower is by military means alone.Zebulin21:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The world picture should stay. As Zebulin has pointed out above, it would suggest that only military power counts towards superpower status; thus, any picture depicting only military power would be less fit than a world map. The picture of the globe should stay. A nation specific picture such as a B2 bomber also contradicts the possiblity of a multi-polar world discussed in the intro. Signaturebrendel02:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Multi-polar? Are you trying to make it seem like the U.S. is not the only superpower or something? This article has gotten really mess and is starting to be off topic. Zebulin seem (This is only an observation) seem to want to have a different picture than that sill globe picture which makes it seem like there is more than one superpower or none at all, which is not true. User:Daniel Chiswick 18 May, 2007.
The article does mention the theory whereby there are no longer any superpowers-it's reference and therefore a valid theory that needs to be included in this article. There is no true or false here-this is a non-factual issue. Some in academia (not including myself) beleive that "there is... none [a superpower] at all." That's the first reason to use the globe pic. The second is that there is more to being a superpower than military power. Economic power may be just as important-so are you planning to have picture of a shopping mall next to that of an air-craft carrier? Of course not. The globe picture is the best suited for this article. Signaturebrendel03:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You need military power to back up economic power in order to be a superpower. Japan is a very rich country but it has a weak military, that is why it is not a superpower. Economic power means little if you can back it up with military power, like the way the U.S. protects it's interest with our large military presence around the world. Also economic power is not the only thing that makes a country a superpower, the Soviet Union had horrible financial situation but it still managed (By penny pinching) to be a superpower. Military power is the main factor in a country being called a superpower because you can have economic power yet still be a very weak country. I like the carrier or B-2 picture the best because they show military power projection at it's best, I mean what is better than a Nimitz class superpcarrier or a stealth B-2 bomber? Not much. User:Daniel Chiswick 18 May, 2007.
Being a wealthy country and an economic power can be two different matters. Luxembourg is the world's richest country but has next to no economic power. China is a reltively poor country, yet has a lot of economic power. It is mere size that matters in terms of economic power, that is why Japan would be a superpower if it had more people. I can also simply say that, you need economic power "to back up" military power. Without money, no soldiers, no tanks, no treaties, no anything. Fact of the matter is that the USSR did have money (not a lot of it per citizen, but a substantial amount of pucharsing power overall). Putting up a picture of a military symbol suggests that economic and cultural factors are not as important-though they may very well be. It would be somewhat misleading as there are other components to being a superpower, other than having a large military. Signaturebrendel05:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Luxembourg the richest country in the world? Haha! Luxembourg has the highest GDP per capita, which means how much people make a year. You measure nation wealth by GDP, not GDP per capita. I'm sorry to sound out of place but how on earth do you think a country the size of southern California is the richest country in the world? Well anyway...the U.S. is the richest country in the world with a GDP of $13.049 trillion. But we really should put back a picture of some sort of American military weapon, as we are the only superpower in the world. We really need to fix this problem because many people do not like the picture of the globe and only a few people support keeping it hear, mostly you and User:Lear21. User:Daniel Chiswick 18 May, 2007.
Also most of the other language wikipedias have the picture of the B-2 bomer so I don't really see why we shouldn't have it hear. There was never any problem with the picture until User:Lear21 came along and changed the picture. User:Daniel Chiswick 18 May, 2007.
You measure economic power by total GDP. The prosperity of a country's residents (how rich it is & whether or not it's a developed or 3rd. world country) is not measured by overall GDP. China has a very large overall GDP (larger than that of Japan in PPP), yet is poor in the sense that its residents enjoy a relatively low standard of living. Per capita measures are used to detemine how affluent a country is-its per capita income or GDP per capita are examples. Of course you can define "wealth" and "affluence" however you see fit, so you could, depening on your definition of wealth, argue that India is far richer than Canada. But that is all quite irrelevant. I maintain that having a symbol of military power is misleading as there is more to being a superpower than a strong military. As for other language WPs, that's not of the issue-we are dicussing this article. Lear21 came up with a better picture than the B-2 bomber-a world map, which ought to be kept. BTW: GDP per capita doesn't actually measure how much people make in a year but is used as the main measure of affluence. Signaturebrendel06:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the main objection to the military hardware pictures seems to be a possible perception that such pictures would imply a direct correlation between superpower status and military power. If I correctly understand the consensus definitions established by our sources the only necessary component is power projection. The means of power projection is not the primary consideration. Perhaps two or three smaller images reflecting different means of power projections could indeed be placed near the intro without cluttering the article. Either the carrier or B2 would do justice to the concept of military power. Perhaps a suitable image of other forms of projection could be found? A picture of a shopping mall is clearly looking in the wrong direction as a shopping mall has nothing to do with power projection. A large economy does not in and of itself do anything to project power. Rather economic power projection is represented by global trade networks and any candidate image for that form of power projection would need to relate to such trade in some way.Zebulin06:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about a picture of a B-2 bomber, a Nimitz class supercarrier, and a picture of the New York stock exchange? That would show air, naval, and economic power. Does anybody agree? User:Daniel Chiswick 18 May, 2007.
I think that would be better than than the map (which illustrates nothing). It might not last long however as it will be noticed that all three symbols happen to be US assets and editors will claim the choice is intended to endorse the view that the US is the only superpower. Ideally one of those three items should not necessarily be closely or exclusively identified with the US. Otherwise I predict the images will be reverted to a map more often than is worth your while to fight.Zebulin06:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well we should try it. It doesn't matter if they are American, show me another country that could be called a superpower and we could use a picture about it. I am afraid that anti-americanism seems to be so strong that you cannot even add a picture of something American on a superpower page when we are internationally known as the world's only superpower. I like the idea of a bomber, a carrier, and the New Stock exchange better than just a map or a picture of a mall. User:Daniel Chiswick 18 May, 2007.
If you can make it look uncluttered it may well be accepted. I liked the map as a way to get some sort of image for the introduction when the earlier trend had been to leave it blank altogether by those who could not tolerate the B2 image at the intro. However, I didn't realize such a compromise image would stagnate so long. The map images lack of substance is really starting to bother me. Maybe if you can post a nice uncluttered illustration set involving those three concepts of power projection it will either be accepted or inspire some other proposal more useful than the map to replace it.Zebulin06:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should add those pictures and look at it on the sandbox, it looks rather good. But the pictures need to be the right size so the page doesn't become more cluttered than it already is. User:Daniel Chiswick 18 May, 2007.
The stock exchange image with the huge stars and stripes will be like waving a red flag in front of the other editors. I guarentee it would be quickly reverted. Unjustified perhaps but finding consensus is usually difficult. I'll try to brainstorm for a suitable image but I strongly suspect including at least one image which is not overtly a US asset should improve acceptance and speed consensus.Zebulin06:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, do you know of any pictures of the New York stock exchange that doesn't have the U.S. flag on it? I have been looking but I cannot find one. But I think a stock exchange is a good example of economic power, much better than a mall. User:Daniel Chiswick 19 May, 2007.
How about this picture? It doesn't have a huge flag on it, but it still has small flags but I think that is fine.
I think that image choice would help a lot. There would still be a lot to do. You'll need captioning that doesn't get construed as pushing a POV. For that, you might want to just recycle the entire captioning currently used with the map for the 3 images. And of course avoiding an appearance of clutter may be the hardest part of all. Maybe I'll think of something helpful in the morning or maybe we'll luck out and the images will survive as is. This will replace the map if a consensus of editors finds it aesthetically appealing *and* it doesn't push any of their buttons *and* it doesn't lend itself to any apparent contradiction symbolic or otherwise of sourced material in the article. That's a tall order but I'll be glad for anything that can improve on the current map image. Good luck and good night.Zebulin07:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A superpower relies on various factors: Economy, Policy, Military, Demography and Culture. Visualizing only one (representing a specific country) of these fields is misleading or minimizes all
others. An abstract image with a comprehensive caption like the world map avoids all insufficiencies. Lear 2110:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lear are you saying that any superpower must rely on *all* of those possible levers of power projection in order to qualify as a superpower? Our sources for the USSR as a superpower seem to focus on it's military power and discuss little if any other power projection tools that were exercised in it's superpower role. Indeed, the multiple occasions in which eastern bloc countries were invaded and occupied by the red army seem to starkly illustrate just how marginal or even non existent those other levers were for the soviet union in it's region of presumably strongest influence.Zebulin18:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that we were supposed to be building an encyclopedia that illustrates and illuminates, not 'avoids all insufficiencies'. For me, as discussed earlier, the map is so abstract, shows no national boundaries (it's missing the illustration of nation-states, which is a core point, yes?), and does nothing to illustrate or illuminate the concept of 'power'. I would strongly vote for a return to the Aircraft carrier: it shows the military angle, the financial angle (those suckers are expensive), and the gunboat diplomacy angle. Forgive me for sounding crass, but IMHO a 'superpower' is primarily a military construct, and secondarily a demographic or cultural construct or other 'soft' factors. Davejenk1ns13:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about adding a picture of the Shanghai skyline and an air craft carrier. That way both the military and economic facests of superpower status would be represented and the article wouldn't seem pro-US biased. Signaturebrendel06:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shanghai skyline? China is not a superpower and if there is going to be pictures of anything they need to be American since the U.S. is the only superpower. User:Daniel Chiswick 19 May, 2007.
the article isn't just about the (now minority) view that the US remains the only superpower. It is also about potential superpowers, and previous superpowers. There is no reason for all of the images to be US assets and in fact a good reason avoid selecting exclusively pictures of US assets is that doing so will tend to just invite constant deletion of the pictures by those who see jingoistic US bias everywhere. Something like the shanghai skyline as an illustration of economic power projection (the city is indeed a massive economic power projection asset) would be perfect imho. I hope we can build a consensus around that or something along those lines.Zebulin06:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added the three pictures as a test to see if you guys like the arrangement. I like the arragement but we need to find the proper caption for the pictures, or merge then into one picture. User:Daniel Chiswick 19 May, 2007.
Please use the Shaghai skyline instead. As Zebulin has stated above, the US being the world's sole superpower is only 1 viewpoint, making the use of only US subjects one-sided. Furthermore, this article also touches on the rising economy of China, making a pic of Shanghai's skyline just perfect. BTW: One military pic is enough (go w/ the aircraft carrier). Signaturebrendel06:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is indeed looking a bit cluttered. It might work better to have a single caption encompassing all of the intro pictures more or less exactly like the one that accompanied the map. I also think it might be helpful to try just two pictures one for economic power and one for military with a single caption.Zebulin06:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A picture of the Shanghai skyline would be good under potential superpowers would be good but to have a pciture of something Chinese would give the idea that it is an established and recognized superpower, which it is not. Currently the U.S. is the recognized superpower and if there is going to be any picture at all it needs to be American. Also if you say that if there is an American picture somebody might delete it because they think there is an American biase what makes you think they won't delete something Chinese. People are getting to carried away and think all large countries are superpowers, China and India are not superpowers and nither is the E.U. which isn't even a country and may never be a country. User:Daniel Chiswick 19 May, 2007.
There is a problem with a picture of the Shanghai skyline, China isn't a superpower. How about the New York skyline since it is the economic capital of the world? New York and Tokyo are more important financial centers than Shanghai. User:Daniel Chiswick 19 May, 2007.
Those arn't established facts. The US being the world's sole superpower is just one theory! (Perhaps the most prominent one-but still just one) I'm saying it again, the head pictures should not show "pro-US as the only superpower theory" bias; thus at least one pic should be of a non-US subject. Furthermore, the head pic should reflect the fact that this article touches on the concept of potential superpowers. Signaturebrendel06:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could provide hundred's of scources that say the U.S. is the only superpower, and it is not a theory as no other country has the same military and economic power as the United States. China's military influence doesn't stretch past east Asia and since it's economy is still growing it is very fragile. The U.S. has military presence around the world and we are the richest country in the world and New York is the world capital of business. User:Daniel Chiswick 20 May, 2007.
How about this, we put New York on top and put Shanghai under potential superpowers since that is what China is. User:Daniel Chiswick 20 May, 2007.
Ok the captions I gave seem a bit wordy but I generally like the dual intro picture look. It really does not seem cluttered and seems more useful in an illustrative sense than our map was.Zebulin07:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And don't add a picture until we all agree on something because this is getting out of hand. User:Daniel Chiswick 20 May, 2007.
I temporarily the picture of Shanghai under the potential superpower section so maybe we can add New York at the top, so that we could all possibly be happy. User:Daniel Chiswick 20 May, 2007.
lets put back the shanghai picture at the top. You seem to be forgetting that the whole reason for this discussion was to find a way to improve on our map intro picture without having the constant picture wars or deletions that plagued the article earlier. If you read the caption for the shanghai picture it doesnt state or imply that china is a superpower it just states that assets like the busiest port in the world can serve to project economic power which is one means by which a superpower can demonstrate global influence. I strongly doubt that anybody will delete the new shanghai/aircraft carrier pic so it will give us something to use while we discuss this (a discussion which I expect won't resolve into consensus for a very long time).Zebulin07:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence by which a superpower can demonstrate global influence. implies thay China is a superpower. How about just put Shanghai under emerging superpower or just delete the picture of a skyline. We are equal here and if you do not like the picture I like and I do not like the picture that you like that means there is a problem. I propose adding both New York and Shanghai (In different places) so that way we could both be happy or we can just try to find something else. User:Daniel Chiswick 20 May, 2007.
the caption was still being tweaked. Here's another possiblity. How about a soviet military asset and a US economic asset? that might lead to consensus even more easily.Zebulin07:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, I like it. As long as we all agree on it I am fine, as I hope you are. User:Daniel Chiswick 20 May, 2007.
How about a MiG or a missile for the Soviet military asset? User:Daniel Chiswick 20 May, 2007.
It's too bad the soviet union didn't have any power projection assets as sexy as the B2 or the aircraft carrier but it does seem like the least complicated way to use two images to get around the objections of those who kept either deleting the intro pictures altogether or who kept putting the map in as a compromise. Is there any worthy soviet military power projection asset beyond ICBMS? The mig is just too small fry imho. It doesnt do the concept of power projection by military means justice. I wonder if there might be some soviet era photos of *huge* military parades which could be about as impressive.Zebulin07:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A picture of a military parade could work since it shows huge amounts of manpower the Soviet Union had, what do you think? User:Daniel Chiswick 20 May, 2007.
it could work I think, and we could pair it with the original stock exchange picture with the huge US flag. Some of the parade photos I've googled seem like they would work great but there seems to be copyright issues so far.Zebulin07:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found this picture on wikipedia, but it is in black and white.
I didn't really like the stock echange picture, I just used it as an example. The carrier picture fits pretty well since the U.S. was more powerful than the Soviet Union on the seas and the Soviet Union was more powerful than the U.S. on land. User:Daniel Chiswick 20 May, 2007.
two military assets won't fly. if anything they'll be even more strongly rejected than the single military asset pictures were. There are too many sources in the article that discuss foppish new notions of non military power projection. Whatever picture set gets the consensus should easily be better than the map but don't expect to have anything really cool replacing the map given the objections that shot down the earlier b2 and carrier pictures.Zebulin07:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I understand. I guess the stock exchange picture could work with a picture of a Soviet military parade. Here is a color picture of a Soviet military parade. User:Daniel Chiswick 20 May, 2007.
A picture of an American carrier and a Soviet satellite, the carrier would show military power and projection and the satellites would show economic and scientific power since satellite are expensive and need advanced technology.
Soviet space station Mir was the world's most advanced space station until ISS
we could try to pair the aircraft carrier with the mir pic and take the "soft power" angle with regards to the soviet space program. I personally think "soft power" is a load of hooey but if I used a caption alluding to such soft power in the second picutre maybe that would be enough to molify the critics of the military asset intro picture. I think it's worth a try.Zebulin07:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me, but you should write the caption because I am not really good at that. User:Daniel Chiswick 20 May, 2007.
The MIR pic seems like a good compromise. Anyone mind if I archive this long discussion as well? I will do so tomrrow morining, unless someone beats me to it ;-) Regards, Signaturebrendel05:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the MIR photo is presumably that the caption says it represents Soft power. However if you look at the cited quote on the soft power page it talks about an attraction to values, or ideology. MIR has nothing to do with values,culture, or ideology, so nothing to do with soft power. so im going to remove it. Willy turner01:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The MIR picture repesents technological advancement, which is a form of soft power because it affects people all over the world. Many editors along with myself worked very hard to reach a consensus and you have no right to just come along and delete the MIR picture without talking about it with other users first. User:Daniel Chiswick 29 May, 2007.
It doesn't sound as if you (Willy Turner) are actually reading the soft power article or it sounds as if you are reading it with certain pre-conceptions. It describes soft power as influence by non hard power means. There is no question that perception of soviet leadership in space technology increased the influence of the soviet union and was in fact a major motivation for the development of the space race. It could even be argued that by inducing it's primary foe to divert so much economic resource into a new vast enterprise of doubtful military value (the lunar program) it had a direct influence on the power balance. Your notion of soft power is either too narrow or the soft power article itself is too general and needs to be improved with new sources and wording.Zebulin03:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technological advancement is relevant to economic and military power, not soft power. "a form of soft power because it affects people all over the world"- I dont know what you mean. 3 people agreeing on something is not "a consensus". To say "It doesn't sound as if you are actually reading the soft power article" is absurd when i had just mentioned reading the page. I simply described what the page said, without including any so called pre-conceptions. The soft power page is a lot more specific than simply saying it is influence by non hard power means. You say "There is no question that perception of soviet leadership in space technology increased the influence of the soviet union and was in fact a major motivation for the development of the space race. It could even be argued that by inducing it's primary foe to divert so much economic resource into a new vast enterprise of doubtful military value (the lunar program) it had a direct influence on the power balance." This is all largely correct, however has nothing to do with soft power. Furthermore if you did want a picture that symbolises Soviet space technology the obvious choice would be Sputnik, not MIR. You say my notion of soft power is too narrow. It is not my notion, it is the cited definition from the soft power article. You say the soft power article itself is too general. By the points you made, surely you meen you think it is too specific. It is your definition of soft power which is actualy too general. Once again i say if you look at the cited quote on the soft power page it talks about an attraction to values, or ideology. MIR has nothing to do with values,culture, or ideology, so nothing to do with soft power. Where is the flawed reasoning in this statement? Willy turner07:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, according to Lyman Miller, "The basic components of superpower stature may be measured along four axes of power: military, economic, political, and cultural (or what political scientist Joseph Nye has termed “soft”)." www.stanford.edu So here is yet another academic saying soft power is the same thing as cultural power. MIR may be about technology, but no-one would class it as in any way cultural. So now we have 2 proffesors definitions of soft power, neither of which make any mention of technology. How many experts do you want to ignore? So unless someone shows me an academic saying technological advances are soft power surely the image should be removed. Willy turner08:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about this [1], which makes it clear technological advances have nothing to do with soft power.
If people feel we must have a second non-US photo, (which i dont actually), what about something like these?
The USSR had the largest land area in the worldVictory over Germany in World War 2 confirmed the Soviet Unions rise to superpower status1985 meeting of the two superpower leaders
Personally i think the Nimtz on its own is fine, as the page makes it very clear that military factors are not the only issue. I would also be happy with for example the NYSE or NY skyline to show economic factors. Willy turner10:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We appear to be talking past each other. especially with your assertion that *I* am applying a narrower definition of soft power than you are. I am in fact not asserting that technological gains automatically translate into soft power. The technological gain has to increase influence in some way, perhaps through prestige. What sort of power do you suppose was being pursued through the space race? Do you believe it was pursued because the superpower leaders believed it would deliver hard power economic/military gains? It's hard to understand how that reasoning would hold for lunar and interplanetary missions.
Having said all that I am uninterested in distracting you from your efforts to continue to imrpove the sourcing for the article and in any event soft power is something I regard of little consequence so perhaps I should hesitate to carry it's banner. You will likely find that if the mir picture is removed the article will find itself shortly there after with either no image accompanying the intro at all or it will find some empty compromise excuse for an illustration in it's place. I hope I'm wrong. Perhaps you can identify a better picture to molify the opponents of a military picture at the introduction. Good Luck!Zebulin13:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding to my comments in a civil manner. I feared we were on the verge of getting into a pointless argument, which is not what i want. The picture is not that big a deal after all. Dont you like the photo of the 2 presidents? I think if you say the word superpower a lot of people would immediately think of the cold war confrontation between the US and USSR, and the photo shows the 2 leaders literaly confronting each other. Perhaps we could put it in the cold war section? Of course the space race was to do with prestige, its just prestige isnt really exactly the same thing as soft power. What do you think then- Nimitz on its own?, Nimtz and the presidents? the presidents on their own? Is the reichstag photo relevant? You mention people might want to put in a compromise image, well i kindoff think the MIR photo seems like a compromise at the moment. There is nothing wrong with having Nimitz on its own. So what if military power is not the only superpower characteristic. By that logic we would have to have 5 or 6 photos, one for each characteristic, which would be daft. Willy turner15:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I will accept any picture that doesn't lead to a revert war and has some substance to it. My personal preference for which picture to use would likely owe more to my sense of what looks "cool" while having some relevant substance than any objective appraisal of the merits of concept being illustrated by the picture. Naturally such bias would lead me to endorse the B2 bomber or the nimitz aircraft carrier but I think either would lead to annoying revert wars. The summit picture at least helps ensure we will have a better fall back than the map. Hopefully editors who like to object to intro pictures will chime in and it will be clear what we can gt away with.Zebulin03:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can this page be semi-protected? I have noticed that alot of unregistered tend to vandalize this page and it is getting really annoying, can it please be semi-protected so ungregistered users cannot edit this page? User:Daniel Chiswick 23 May, 2007.
There isn't enough vandalism on the page for semi-protection. Most anon edits come from one IP who seems to be editing on good faith. Regards, Signaturebrendel05:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry i don't know how that guy is.I remind you that you attacked me first.Your attitude will bring you trouble, even if you consider a view rubbish,most of the time the other person has been honest, if you jump in to conclusions like this,you actually just been unilaterally aggressive. Other people really believe in "rubbish",from mother Tereza to Hitler.In the same way that we are different from the outside,we are also different in the inside(the brain-->way we think).--87.65.216.6612:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I mistaked you for someone else that also insulted my age. I did not attack you, all I did was ask for semi-protection which I have been meaning to ask for a couple of days and now got around to it. Also just you know age discriminatiob is not allowed and is considered and is conisdered a perosnal attack. User:Daniel Chiswick 24 May, 2007.
How is that relevant? Are you telling us you remain anonymous to evade being blocked for insulting and personally attacking other editors?Zebulin14:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the 80's it was "fashionable" to say that Japan will become a superpower.You simply can not over look that,this is an wikipedia article, not a news article.I propose to put it in the potential superpower section.Also, do you consider this good enough as source http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967823,00.html?promoid=googlep (1988 article).Other potential sources is kissinger books.If you where old enough at the time i suppose you can source it easily.
True, during the 1980s Americans just about feared Japan for its rising economic strenght (similar as with Germany during the Wirtschaftswunder-Economic miracle). I actually recall a Time Magazine (or at least I think it was Time) cover that featured a US flag with "Made in Japan" written on it. Anyways, I think the 1980s Japan-as-next-superpower mentallity is worth a blurb. Regards, Signaturebrendel13:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Japan status in the 1980s as a "Potential" superpower is a good example that nothing is ever certain and things change. Japan suffered from boom and bust, from over investment, and too fast economic growth, and the same may very well happen to China so people must remember the term "Potential" means just that, potential, nothing is ever certain. The same could go for India, since they too have a rapidly growing economy. User:Daniel Chiswick 24 May, 2007.
True, "nothing is ever certain and things change"-especially in the social science arena. Yet, mentioning that Japan was once thought of as a potential superpower might be worth a one-sentence blurb w/ ref. Regards, Signaturebrendel02:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the potential superpowers section surely not about countries that are potential superpowers today, rather than in the past? Willy turner17:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it true? Is the US still the 'only remaining' superpower? I must disagree with that. The Dutch page on this subject is much more reliable. That page shows that indeed the US WAS and IS a superpower, but NOT the only still remaining. The Dutch page shows how every Superpower of the world (US, EU, Russian Federation, Chinese Federation, etc.) needs another superpower.
A Few Points To Start The Discussion (btw, I'm NOT anti-American, I just want to show that the US can't be called the only superpower, that the US, the EU, RF, CF, etc. all NEED EACHOTHER)
Military force: What would happen if all the EU/ NATO-states would pull back there troops from Afghanistan and Iraq? The US would not be able to handle the chaos that will then emerge. Having the biggest, most advanced military force of the world clearly is not enough, and no matter how much money you invest in it, the US CAN'T live without the troops of especially the EU/ NATO. If the US would/ could win a war on there own, that would change the story. Furthermore: what are the Western (US, EU, NATO, etc.) troops are worth, if they can't win the war on terrorism, deafeted by armed troops in Afghanistan and Irak, who don't even have a 10th of the money, means and knowledge as they have in the Western world? Not that that's a good or a bad thing, it's just to make the point. Furthermore: every superpower on this planet has access to nucleair wapons (clearly not a good thing). So if, for instance, let's hope this dos not become reality, the superpowers would start a war with eachother, they all have a chance to win it (as far as you could call that winning :-s), if they would attack with nucleair wapons.
Economical: The EU is the biggest economical power in the world (according to the World Bank and the IMF, as shown on Wikipedia), the only list that states that the US is economicly a bigger power, is presented by the CIA... I rest my case on this one. Furthermore: China is slowly releasing it's Dollars, replacing it by Euro's. This perhaps doesn't mean a thing, however, it is a fact that the Dollar is losing terrain in favour of the Euro and the British Sterling Pound. In the 80's and 90's the Dollar was by far the most used currency in the world. Today the Euro is winning terrain. Let's continue.
Energy: Both the EU and the US needs the Islamic World and Left Wing South America (perhaps unofficially two other Superpowers in the world), as well as the Russian Federation. Both the US and the EU are relying on the oil from those powers, the EU also need the gas from the RF (Russian Federation). Here in the EU (aswell as Europe) we all experienced what the RF can do with the gas that is bought by the EU. We are depending on the RF in that matter.
Political: the US can't make the world spin around them, as they could have, and did, in the 90's. The US wants to change the world, but in more and more way's, the rest of the world isn't listening anymore. If the same situation would have happend in the 90's, would Wolfowitz still had to lose his job at the World Bank? No, of course not, that would be unimaginable. The Russian Federation don't give a F**k if the US and the EU are warning the RF that, among other things, the pressfreedom in the RF is not going to the right direction. The EU doesn't follow the US anywere, no questions asked. The war in Iraq made that clear to the EU. If the US are (verbaly) attacking the Left Wing South American countries, than that only means that Castro, Chavez, etc., will become more populair, since they are the ones daring to make a stand against the US. The same case for the Islamic World: the more Western people (soldiers) they kill, the more they become local heroes.
Population: The US is the third runner-up; China, India and the EU all have more inhabitants.
Culture: Indeed, the US had (and still has) a highly influential culture worldwide, but throughout the world, that culture is 'replaced' by 'own' culture. Hollywoodfilms are not as populair as, for an example, Bollywoodfilms in India. Besides that, many cultures now dominate the worldimage. EU companies are beginning to start there businesess across the world, and many people can't picture a world without those EU-brands (Ikea, H&M, etc.). And what to think about the tv-formats designed and founded in the EU (Big Brother, Deal Or No deal, many programmes for children, for example Teletubbies)? Furthermore: the most unfluential houte couture designers are from the EU (from the 'old' names as Valentino, Lagerfeld, Versace, Chanel, to the 'new' names like Stella McCartney, Viktor & Rolf). And let's not forget the Asian cultures, which, most of the times, are very inspiring for many designers of whatever in the US and the EU.
These are just a couple of examples. I think that it is not right to call the US the only Superpower. I think that that title was reasonable in the 90's, but in this time and day, the US are ONE of the SEVERAL Superpowers.
Why start this discussion?
I would like to start a discussion about this, because, in my opinion, the chapter about Superpowers today (1991-) is to US-focussed (I won't even start about many other chapters in this article, even a simple picture must be US-oriented :-s), which I think is only partially legit. I also would like to start this discussion, because I want to invite pro-US users (for some users, pro-US is an understatement) to take a look through WORLD-glasses, instead of US-glasses. The idea that there could be more than one Superpower in the world, any power outside the US, is perhaps hard to swallow, but nevertheless a reality, or at least a possible reality. Let me remind you that you are obligated to keep Wikipedia AS OBJECTIVE AS POSSIBLE! At this moment, this article is not as objective is it could be.
What do I propose?
I propose to change the chapter Superpowers today (1991-) into a chapter in which EVERY Superpower is named, with the factors now used for the US.
I would also like to see that NO pictures are included at the top of this article, for the reason that every picture is not correct/ good/ covering the article/ etc. A picture of the US does not cover the part of this article about the EU, the Chinese Federation, the Russian Federation, etc. A picture of the EU (whatever picture that would be) does not serve right to the US, CF, RF, etc. Get the point? And even if there is a solution (both pictures on top of this article), then it is a matter of time before someone doesn't agree with the picture of the RF above the picture of the US picture, and vice versa. Pictures can be included, however, in the chapter inwhere that Superpower is talked about. So in a chapter about the US, show a good picture that could possibly cover the chapter. In a chapter about the EU idem dito, a chapter about China idem dito, etc.
All of this to insure that this article is OBJECTIVE AS POSSIBLE, cause that is what I, you, WE, are obliged to do. --Robster198318:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are interesting arguments. Could you give us a link to your source or sources? I don't think we have sources representing this particular argument in the article yet.Zebulin13:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bad idea as it would violate WP:OR, WP:POV and WP:V. We should stick to the consensus view and the notable (and reliable) deviant views that exist about the concept "superpower". It is not about what we think - even if we think that we have good arguments - but what the accepted views on the subject are. Sijo Ripa19:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon the Russian Federation should be listed as a potential superpower just because 1) They still have the most nukes 2) They might not have a super carrier, but from my understanding the Russians dont beleive a supercarrier to be the best naval unit, in the 80s they described the US Iowa class battleships as the greatest warships, followed and closley rivalled by the Kirov class battlecruiser. 3) IF a war broke out, Russia could become a super power again in war time if need be, because you cant just loose your superpowerness if your that big of a country, britain yes because of its colonys....just wondering if osmething along those lines should be included.
There are many how doubt the existence of superpowers in the post Cold War era altogether, stating that today's complex global marketplace and the rising interdependency between the world's nations has made the concept of a superpower an idea of the past and that the world is now multipolar.[1][2][3][4]In that perspective the belief that a country is or will be,a superpower is seen as merely the result of what is more fashionable at the time,with little or no rational. Examples of that is the long dead theory of the 80's that Japan was a future superpower[citation needed] and the wild overstatement of the real power of the USSR.
I agree . Perhaps my proposal wasn't the best (see the section about US the ONLY superpower, I'd love to see more opinions btw), but I think that something must change on this page. It isn't a fact that the US is the ONLY worldpower these days, just like no other nation/ entity on this world is. What other ideas/ options are there? Could it be an idea to create sections per time-era? Pre-worldwar 2 (Europe), WW2 (Nazi Germany, Italy, Japan, etc.), post-WW2 (USA, USSR), 80's (Japan, USA, USSR), 90's (USA), post-milennium (USA, EU, Russian Federation, Chinese Republic, etc.)? Is this an idea? Well, anyhow, something must be changed on this page. As it is now, it can't be called objective --Robster198316:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically about the USA,i find it too out of balance,in most points you can have a criticism,plus most of the time assumptions are made ,that this or this trait is actually good,when in fact is less simple.Some proposals:
With more than €610 billion in circulation as of December 2006 (equivalent to US$802 billion at the exchange rates at the time), the euro has surpassed the U.S. dollar in terms of combined value of cash in circulation.[5]
In other words,the US economy ,is well in second place
What about the huge external debt?Why is not mentioned
It makes the implicit assumption that the greater the GDP per capita, the better it is.One thing for sure a lot of economist will argue that.
It makes the implicit assumption that the bigger military spending the better.
Ther's an over all bias toward a realist view of the world,and overlooks completely the other schools of Thought.
What about the Iraq(20 million devastated country) and/or Vietnam(50 million) debacle.
According to the article ,the US represents 17% of worlds PPP(adjusted GDP).Isn't this worth further explaining?Do you have a leading position with just 17%?What about the rest 83%?It makes the assumption that the 83% bit is not efficient enough to balance out a maer 17%.
if you'd like to help present this particular line of reasoning in the article please provide a source for this particular argument. As is it looks like original research.Zebulin20:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can play that game too you now.The "Characteristics" has no reputable source,let's delete it it's OR.Since this is gone then "Superpowers today (1991-)" and "The Cold War era (1945-1991)" have no rational for the inclusions of their tables (WP:ORWP:POV), hop delete that too.The "Some analysts think the hegemonic stability theory explains ..." in "Superpowers today (1991-)" has no source either,delete.Are you ok with my proposals for deletion?--87.65.142.1723:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You want to add something that is OR-you can't do that. True, there are parts of this article sorely in need of credible sources, but deleting might be a taking it a bit too far. Signaturebrendel01:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that the criteria do correspond with most social scientist's characteristics. It is not POV, just unreferenced and perhaps not a whole 100% accurate or complete. The additions you want to make, are more controversial (possible POV) and could constitute OR if not referenced. This makes the addition of references very important. Also remember that all used sources should be realiable and should be about superpowers. For instance, an article that only deals with the problem of the US public and trade deficit is not a valid source (because it would be OR), an article that argues that the US is not a superpower because it has a large deficit, is. Sijo Ripa11:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no difference.If it does correspond with "most social scientist's characteristics",then why is not sourced since an eternity.This is not a case of "the sun is rising every morning".--87.65.142.1711:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my years as a student, I did in fact read that these are the traditional characteristics of a superpower. As it was formulated as a consensus opinion, I think that these are not really controversial. It wouldn't object a removal though. In fact, I have put the template on the section because it bothers me. Note however that if you do so, you are violating WP:POINT: It is not because editors oppose the addition of your unsourced opinion about the power of the US to the article, that everything unsourced should be deleted. Sijo Ripa12:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found sources. Unfortunatly I couldn't find anything (yet) that supports the Russion Federation or the Chinese Republic as Superpower, but this at least supports the EU. This link [2] goes a long way I think. Clingendeal is a Dutch thinktank, specialized in the transatlantic relations. And before I hear anything about "They must be a bunch of Pro-EU losers", let me say this first: Clingendael is neither Pro-EU, nor Pro-US, and neither Anti-EU, nor Anti-US. They examen the relations between those two 'superpowers', as they state in several articles. For an example this article [3], about the EU and the US in the Middle-East. This article [4] states that the EU is important in the world, for they are a major economic partner to both the US and China, has military technology that could modernise Chinsese military, and is the most important military ally of the US. Furthermore, for more stable international relations, the EU should be involved in the problems in Eastern Asia. And I also found an article, [5] which states that the US is the only remaining superpower (I at least try to be objective, so I ought to include this also in this list), but it also states that that superpower is getting out of control. Another article [6] (in Dutch) they published, says that the US was the worlds policeman, but nowadays is a pitbull who sometimes storms out of his doghouse, also stating that a pitbull is not only strong and powerfull, but also unreliable. Perhaps these sources aren't the ones that many would love to see/ hear, but if the sources used for this article are accepted, then these should also be accepted. It is stated on this talkpage, that 'most scientist's characteristics' of a Superpower support the idea that the US is the only superpower. Well, these links and sources are from real scientists, who make a living by investigating the world's political context. At least it gives a more multipolaire vision to everything, and, best of all, it is from an institute that is not only objective, but also has close ties with research institutes in both EU/ Europe, aswell in the US. Now, can we please continue with a more multipolar discussion, instead of an Pax-American discussion? --Robster198314:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what exactly the problem is. Is it that you don't like the intro? Is it the "Superpowers today (1991-)" section? By all means start inserting those sources to support the relevant points in the article. I'm a believer in multiple sourcing for points in an article if the article has been attacked as lacking in such sources. It appears however that you want more than this and it would help if we could zero in on exactly what you are proposing to modify in addition to adding your sources and any new ideas they may support.Zebulin19:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've found another source; this time it is an American (!) from the Chicago Tribune (!!), who says that the EU is in position to be the next superpower. The link is: [7]. More links that state that the EU is (partly) (becoming) a superpower: [8] (from the Columbia Daily Tribune, [9], from Roger Cohen, from The New York Times (!), [10] (very pro-US, nevertheless it states that "the US could have a real competitor to deal with.". Other links: [11] (says that the EU will dissolve in 15 years, but at the same time states that 'they' believe the world could easily see a new, powerful dictator come to power, rising, as it were, from the remains of this momentary failure of the EU.), [12] (quite objective, I think, for this link states that the EU, statistical, already is superpower, however, won't stay/ become, if some things in the EU won't change), [13]/ [14] (from Jeremy Rifkin, from The Guardian, and the author of The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream), [15], [16],[17], [18]. --Robster198319:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on, these are wonderful sources for the EU as a potential superpower but are you saying they all establish that the EU is already a superpower? If so, looking through them I have not found that to be the case.Zebulin19:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be honest, those links I found, was to at least show that the US isn't the only superpower today. Many people still call the US a superpower, just because that titel grew upon the US during, and after the Cold War. What I wanted to prove (at this moment), was that the EU is considered an equal with the US, and therefor the US is not intitled to be called 'the only superpower' today. In my opinion the US deserved (the US still does) that title, but in the section about Superpowers today (1991-), I still think that that section should be referring to all the superpowers today, not only the US. And all those links I referred to, many of them are stating that the EU already IS a superpower, most of the times referring to the Economic status of the EU, or the 'soft power' of the EU. --Robster198319:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A link that is calling the EU 'the worlds first metrosexual Superpower' (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/users/login.php?story_id=2583&URL=http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2583&popup_delayed=1]). And here [19] is a link from Newsweek. that states that the EU is 'a quiet superpower', and that 'while American realpolitists like to talk about a "unipolar" world, bestrode by a sole superpower. The success of the European Union proves just the opposite: the world is bipolar, and the other pole is Europe.'. This link states that the EU is at least an economic superpower [20], this link states that the EU is 'A post-modern superpower', referring also to the 'soft power' of the EU [21], and this link is about a 'print-on-demand-book, about the relations between Australia and the 'European superpower' [22]. This link [:::A link that is calling the EU 'the worlds first metrosexual Superpower' (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/users/login.php?story_id=2583&URL=http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2583&popup_delayed=1]). And here [23] is a link from Newsweek. that states that the EU is 'a quiet superpower', and that 'while American realpolitists like to talk about a "unipolar" world, bestrode by a sole superpower. The success of the European Union proves just the opposite: the world is bipolar, and the other pole is Europe.'. This link states that the EU is at least an economic superpower [24], this link states that the EU is 'A post-modern superpower', referring also to the 'soft power' of the EU [25], and this link is about a 'print-on-demand-book, about the relations between Australia and the 'European superpower' [26]. This link perhaps could explain what 'Superpower' realy means, and is also stating that the US grew from 'a superpower during the coldwar, to a "normal" power now. --Robster198320:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is something going to change now in the section of Superpowers today (1991-), or stays it just the way it is? It seems to me that many consider that part not correct. At least the example of the US needs to go away (because it is totally from a US-point-of-view), or other Superpowers this day need to be added (EU, I found proof enough for that, and it musn't be that hard to find some sources that could claim that Russia and China are Superpowers also). --Robster198314:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of your sources actually say explicitly that the EU is a superpower. And there are 4 or 5 academic souces cited saying the US is the worlds only superpower. Why dont you write what you think the article should say here on the talk page, so we can discuss how credible it sounds? Willy turner 15:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC'
Well, personally, I found it rather upsetting that this article said that there is only ONE superpower today; the US. Like I said: 4 out of 5 sources say that the US is a Superpower, because they were, and they still are, it grew upon them, however, in much lesser form than they used to be. Besides: many sources who claim that the US are the only superpower today, are probably from a couple of extreme pro-USA fanatics. They are blind to everything that is going wrong (I, and other perons, have already showed that the US can't be called the 'only superpower today', since the EU is the #1 economy at this moment, the Russian Federation can be called a superpower with all the gas and oil that they have (and I believe someone stated something about nucleair wapons), the population of the EU, India and China is all far bigger than that of the US, so all the statistics of the US in that section was way out of line, and more importantly: weren't showing that the US indeed is a superpower, since all the statistics used (population, ecomic importance, etc.) are all smaller than the statistics from other superpowers), so the points in the earlier section of Superpowers Today (1991-) weren't right anymore. They were a few years ago, but today, they are not. Besides: the US is losing it's touch on every ground; how much Americans do you know, that want, and let alone actually DO, wright about the fact that the US can't be called the only superpower today anymore? Here in Europe we all know the pattriotism of many Americans; they don't even want to see the truth about how the US is doing, and is seen, in the world. And that's why I couldn't live with that particular section. I am pleased with the new section and the changes btw, it is much more accurate than the old section. It shows that the Superpowerworld of today, is not the same Superpowerworld from, let's say, 10 years ago. So big thnx to the person who changed it! --Robster198317:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the superpowers today section, there is a lot of OR (See: WP:OR). Sources that are in fact unrelated to the topic of being a superpower are used to advance the position that the US is a superpower. Only reliable sources that have a content directly related to the concept of superpower should be used. Otherwise, we just form our own idea of what are important markers and pick-and-chose articles that deal with these. Sijo Ripa12:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before deleting those sections lets explicitly tag the unsourced OR statements that those inappropriate sources are intended to support. That may make it easier to track down appropriate source material that makes those arguments directly.Zebulin17:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The facts in the superpowers today section are completely relevant. They demonstrate how the US meets the superpower criteria that are outlined by the 2 academics Willy turner15:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what on earth is wrong with having EU, China, and India subheadings? It makes the section clearer. the fact that seperate articles about these countries being potential superpowers were deleted is so irrelevant. Willy turner17:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
working definition of Superpower found in one of our sources
"While there is no clear and uncontested definition of superpower, generally this term was used to signify a political community that occupied a continental-sized landmass, had a sizable population (relative at least to other major powers); a superordinate economic capacity (again, relative to others), including ample indigenous supplies of food and natural resources; enjoyed a high degree of non-dependence on international intercourse; and, most importantly, had a well-developed nuclear capacity (eventually normally defined as second-strike capability). In short, the term superpower was intimately connected with the rivalry between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War, and was designed to signify the essential "distance" in power capability terms between those two countries on the one hand, and all other major powers on the other."
The above definition is word for word from the queens superpower paper already referenced in the article.[6]
We currently do not source much if any of the characteristics of superpower portion of our article. But so much of this definition seems to ignore the obviously different definitions that other sources are using (but not explicitly defining for their readers) that I wonder how best we might use this to improve the referencing of that section without unilaterally subscribing to a single definition simply because other authorities do not seem to see fit to clearly articulate their definitions for their readers.
I don't want to leave that section unsourced particularly with talk of deleting it out right due to lack of sourcing but I am uncomfortable committing the article entirely to this one working definition particularly when the source providing the definition agrees that no uncontested definition exists. How shall we proceed?Zebulin17:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
dont worry that there are different definitions. we should include the differing definitions instead of arbitralily picking one. with 2 cited definitions the characteristics section is now much better. Willy turner
I apologize for my lack of clarity. I am in fact delighted by the second definition you found. My concern had centered around my frustration with my inability to find additional sources that explicitly defined their usage of the term "superpower". I didn't want any effort to provide a source for that section to result in one source being used to remove other indirectly sourced definitions for sources already present in the article that clearly are using a different definition but also do not explicitly state what that definition is. In any case the more sources for a superpower definition we find the less problematic this will be.Zebulin19:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This section cites GlobalCPR as a source. GlobalCPR is a mirror site of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Ghi. Obviously this means it is not a reliable source.
The section on Russia also links to this page [27]. In that article it first says, "Russia is trying to use its oil wealth to become a superpower again". Trying doesn't count for anything. San Marino might 'try' to become a superpower; doesn't mean it ever will be one. The sentence isn't even a direct quote from Bobby Inman. All Inman does actually say is, "I believe that Mr. Putin has concluded that there is a new path for Russia to again be a superpower". This article doesn't explicitly say that Russia is a potential superpower, just that their president (who might be a bit biased) thinks they could possibly become one. Consequently, due to a complete lack of reliable sources, the Russia section should be deleted. If anyone finds reliable academic sources explicitly saying Russia is a potential superpower, then of course add them. Willy turner07:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Russia should be deleted. Just become a country has the goal of becoming a superpower does not make it a potential superpower, especially Russia which has far too many problems. User:Daniel Chiswick 28 May, 2007.
I think Russia shouldn't be deleted, simply because it is the biggest nuclear power in the world and its intercontinental ballistic missiles can't be beaten by any country defensive systems in this world (see Topol-M). --Eurocopter tigre13:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is all very true but does that make them a potential superpower? I changed my mind, I do not think Russia should be deleted but it's section needs to be expanded and it needs more scources if it is going it stay. User:Daniel Chiswick 28 May, 2007.
Don't listen to "willy" he's just being silly and frankly stupid. How could you NOT have Russia as a superpower?
I agree that the potential superpower section should include more countries. After all, the word "potential" implies any country with even the possibility of becoming a superpower, and a number of countries, like Japan, Russia, the Union of South Africa, and even the African Union (way down the road) have a chance at becoming superpowers. --Chris03:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have sources that describe as potential superpowers those other countries you want to add? Any unsourced addition will be reverted as unnecessary for that section. We have to draw the line somewhere unless we want to list all of the countries in the world and a requirement for sources seems to be a more than fair definition for that line.Zebulin17:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have sources that say that the Union of South Africa has the fifth largest economy and third largest population, and have sources (Goldman Sachs) that say that Brazil, on it's own, is on the way to becoming a great economic power. Here's an article that talks about Brazil alone as an economic superpower: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20060306/ai_n16184859 Here's another about how Brazil might become a superpower; inclusion of Brazil possibly emerging as a superpower on it's own might also be mentioned in this article. http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/power/2006/06.03_Brazil_Superpower.html Tell me what you think. --Chris 09:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, if you look at the South American Union page they mention further integration to the point of a single currency, single passport, and a single nation. --Chris09:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The US has details on the different "criteria",with emphasis only on the positives interpretations.While all the others are just paragraphs.This is a important bias,left over from the deletions of the potential superpower articles.All i ask is that we treat them,in the same way,either the potential superpower stubs are expanded,either the US details are removed.--87.65.163.9614:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should make the post 1991 sections dealing with a particular country or supranational collection of countries all follow the format currently used for each of the potential superpowers. The US probably won't need a larger section as much of the relevant information is already covered by the cold war section. As sijo mentioned earlier it's not really appropriate to have all those sources included that don't mention superpower or even indirectly address the concept.Zebulin19:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear fellow Wikipedians, remember the deletion of all subarticles dealing with emerging superpowers. It was a clear signal that POV and OR are not allowed. Such OR is the use of sources that explain one aspect of power, but do not discuss the concept of superpower directly, or do so but are not reliable. It would constitute a synthesis of information to advance a position. E.g.: Russia is a potential superpower because it has this and this and this forms of power. However, if reliable sources are used that directly discuss the potential superpower status of Russia, the content of these sources can be used. Also, please note that this page is about superpower, not other (lesser) forms of power. Sijo Ripa20:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted according to Wikipedia most important policy pillars (NOR and NPOV) which overrules other concerns (remember Wikipedia is not a democracy - but even then I think a majority was for the deletion). That the deletion was supported by Wikipedians and admins was also proven by the endorsement of the deletion. Sijo Ripa20:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to do a revert war ,so, either both are going out,or both are staying.For the EU it's about the "potential superpower status" that is discussed, the deletions have absolutely nothing to do here.For the russia section, it discuss why it's not considered a potential superpower despite being USSR successor.--87.65.132.11620:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object the inclusion of Russia if reliable sources are used that directly deal with Russia's potential as a superpower. Economy of EU is already mentioned by Leonard, and there is no unified military.Sijo Ripa20:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Russia is considered the successor of the USSR,but due to the severity of the soviet collapse and ongoing difficulties, a reemergence as a superpower is not considered likely. www.fas.org
The loss of the superpower status of the USSR/Russia can be covered in the superpowers today section, but what does it have to do with "past potential superpowers"? FAS discusses the end of Russia's superpower, not its (past) potential. Sijo Ripa20:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That section is for USSR and it's collapse,in 1991, not about Russia of the present,15 years later.What about what people think of Russia today?It warrant a section because it's considered USSR successor state,albeit not considered a potential superpower.--87.65.132.11621:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Russia can be discussed in two ways: (1) the loss of superpower status when the USSR collapsed (Superpowers today section) - but this is in fact about the USSR not Russia, and (2) the potential of Russia as a new superpower - on condition that reliably sources that directly deal with the concept are used (potential superpowers section). Sijo Ripa21:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not discuss ,why it's not considered' a potential superpower?Don't you think that some readers will be interested in , why Russia is considered like dirt?In the same way that the section of japan is useful.--87.65.132.11621:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Russia is not - and will not become again - a superpower. Its inclusion is unnecessary. It is a country with a nominal GNI only a little bigger than a city like London, New York or Paris. It is now a third world country. Nothing more.
I am close to giving up on this page. it attracts annonymous and unregistered users and OR like shit attracts flies. whenever progress is being made on removing OR someone adds more. This page is not here for an irrelevant essay about the status of russia. if russia is mentioned at all it should be with regards to it being a potential superpower. there is now a surge of semi literate Russian boosterism. None of the other power in international relations pages attracts cretins like this one. i fear if it isnt semi protected the page is a lost cause. ive done a search for 'Russia' and 'Superpower'. i checked the first hundred results on both google and google scholar. the only things saying russia may be a potential superpower are these 2 [28][29]. there may have been 1 more that i missed. Now why the fuck couldnt the russian nationalists actually do some work to find sources? If anyone else bothers to look you will see that EVERY other academic source says russia is not, and shows no sign of becoming a superpower. Fuck Putin and his totalitarian regimeWilly turner13:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to remain calm and civil. I'm not a russian nationalist, I'm not even russian, but it's clearly that Russia is a military superpower. You can't say that a country who has the second biggest military power in the world and it is the biggest nuclear power is not a potential superpower. In my opinion, Russia should be listed in the potential superpowers section. However, if you continue to be uncivil and arrogant, I'll have to report you to an admin.--Eurocopter tigre14:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Russia does not have the second largest military in the world, so you are misinformed. Just because a country has a large military does not make it a superpower, take North korea of exaple. Also Russia is a land power and has little influence beyond it's surrounding area. On on last note, calling a person arrogant is not civil. User:Daniel Chiswick 1 June, 2007.
Daniel, I think you are the one misinformed here. I'm quite documented in this case, and believe me that Russia has the second biggest Air Force (see Russian Air Force), the biggest Army (operates more than 22.000 tanks - triple than US) and the second biggest navy in the world (Russian Navy) - also you can have a look at the List of countries by size of armed forces which clearly confirms those said by me. And by the way, words like "shit" and "fuck" are probably more than arrogant and uncivil. Eurocopter tigre14:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
China has the largest military in the world and the US has the second, Russia is third. Russia does not have the world's second largest navy, the UK does. Also I never said calling somebody uncivil is uncivil, I said calling somebody arrogant is uncivil. User:Daniel Chiswick 1 June, 2007.
P.S. A grammar tip since you are not a native speaker of English, the word "Largest" is more proper than "Biggest" User:Daniel Chiswick 1 June, 2007.
I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Thw Russian Navy has 1 aircraft carrier, 5 cruisers, 15 destroyers and 40 nuclear submarines while the Royal Navy has 2 aircraft carriers (which are quite obsolete and will be replaced) 0 cruisers, 8 destroyers and 13 nuclear submarines. By the way, People's Republic of China has the largest military by size of the active troops. Trust me, Russia has the second largest navy and air force in the world and the largest ground forces. Eurocopter tigre14:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"By the way"? You say this like it is a fact I do not know, if you had read my post you would clearly see that I said China has the world's largest military. The US ranked #2 in numeber of active troops, not Russia. The British royal navy has the world's second largest navy in the world and has a much higher budget than the rusting and poorly kept Russian navy. User:Daniel Chiswick 1 June, 2007.
How can the Royal Navy be larger than the Russian Navy, if the russian fleet it's almost triple than the british fleet? Let's be serious. When I said that Russia has the second largest military, I was refering at the overall of the military, not at the number of active troops. Again, the PRC has the largest military by number of active troops. Eurocopter tigre15:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just what everybody to stay focus.The proposed section is about "why it's not considered' a potential superpower".It's an editorial choice,don't you beleave that we should discuss why Russia is considered like dirt,despite the fact being the successor of the USSR, plus some other "details".Don't you beleave that it will interest the readers?Also i'm not saying to discuss all 200 countries of the UN,i just think that Russia is notable enough to be discussed.The article is supposed to educate the reader!--87.64.24.5819:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, you keep saying "The British royal navy has the world's second largest navy" - in what way and where are your sources? The Russian navy has much more vessels, and 142,000 sailors according to the 2006 IISS estimate of strength, while the entire British military has only 190,000 troops (including army, navy, airforce) according to the List of countries by size of armed forces. User:Ilya1166
Have you even tried looking at the royal navy page anyway? The royal navy is the second largest navy after the United States of America. Even a part of a russian submarine crew had to be rescued by a royal navy ship. The Russian navy is still on a steady decline, downsizing their submarine force.
I hope Willy Turner will compare the article as it was before he made any contributions to it's current form before abandoning the effort to improve the article. Much of the the most important progress has not been undone.
I also hope those supporting greater expansion of the potential superpowers section will take note of the fact that the entire US section no longer exists. Does it really make sense to have multi-paragraph individual treatments of Russia and China and India and god only knows what next when the US has no section whatsoever? Why not just dump the entire concept of individual sections on individual countries as a can of worms that can't be opened and contained? Instead lets focus the article on the documentation of the superpower concept and also on it's relevance to the cold war. The entire concept of potential superpower could be boiled down to one paragraph with the best sources that directly and explicitly make a case for the potential superpowers. Readers interested in those cases could check the arguments directly from the sources. So long as the article is structured to go blathering on at length about the current status of individual countries and their prospects for qualifying as a superpower the articles focus will stray further and further from it's titled topic and more and more closely resemble a pissing contest between zealous patriots cheerleading for their favorite power.Zebulin06:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put it in bold because many people seem to overlook it: It's not about our opinion, but about reliable sources, preferably political or academic sources, that directly deal with the concept of superpower. Personally, I think that Russia has many power factors, but my opinion doesn't matter and that does not mean that these factors are related to a superpower status. Only if these factors are considered by reliable authors to be related to the potential of being a superpower, we can use that content, preferably by directly writing in the text who says what - so that we make sure that we avoid OR (it could still consist of synthesis of information to advance a position if we don't). So avoid writing things like: Russia has a large population or a growing economy if you cannot relate it to a source that deals with the concept of superpower. Furthermore, regarding the USA: it had the same problem: people cited sources that the US e.g. has much cultural influence, but these sources didn't deal with the concept of superpower. Sijo Ripa08:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
all true. The obvious solution is to do to the country sub sections what was done to the US country subsection. Remove them. We can pick through the individual sources and retain those which discuss superpower status directly. The other sources will be OR and discarded. I honestly expected that the elimination of the US section would lead to greater restraint on the part of editors expanding the other sections. I am astonished that precisely the reverse reaction seems to be occurring.Zebulin09:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Russia may not be a likely near future superpower, but it will be the LAST superpower. Russia will ALWAYS be a possible superpower. Russia has tangible power. They have be endowed with vast resources. Russia could face ANY calamity and rebound just by selling it’s resources (as evidence in the collapse of the USSR). No other country can boast this. The U.S. may be over taken in producing food stuffs or goods and services and then fall into nothingness. Britain lost her vast lands and has no resources to fall back on and it’s industries were surpassed by the U.S. and then soon U.S by China and so on. But Russia will ALWAYS have its resources to bring it up to a world stage, with a source of income.
The whole article contains lots of redundant information. Beside, the whole article is very biased. For example the part of the European Union: "[...] On the other hand - among others - Laurent Cohen-Tanugi[42] states that the EU as a whole has consistently suffered from a growth deficit vis-a-vis the US, high unemployment, and public deficits. Furthermore, Cohen-Tanugi stresses that most member states of the EU lag substantially behind the US in R&D investment, technological innovation, and, since 1995, productivity gains however it remains the only real rival in economic and in turn technological terms to the US containing highly advanced nations such as Germany,France and the UK."
That is the opinion of a single person ("among others" is not cited). The Users Zebulin, User:Daniel Chiswick and brendel seem to include their own bias by citing their favorite authors. As long as they trying to "improve" the article, the quality is getting lower. 0v3r533r11:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome constructive criticism! As you have seen fit to personally target my editing I think it is not unreasonable that I ask that you elaborate on which of my edits have seemed inappropriate. If you can't find a specific example of such an edit I would at least expect the courtesy of a detailed description of the sort of bad editing you attribute to me.Zebulin19:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse you? I have never cited any authors, so you are mistaken. User:Daniel Chiswick 2 June, 2007
Okay first of all my name is Daniel, Chiswick is my last name. Second of all stop giving people attitude, it's not my fault you thought the Russian navy was larger than the British navy. User:Daniel Chiswick 2 June, 2007
Actually the Russian Navy is larger than the "Royal Navy" (British Navy designation is incorrect). I'm going to make a short summary for you, so the things shall be clear forever:
You forgot to mention the 3 amphibios ships, 16 anti mine ships, 4 extra patrol vessels, and 5 survey vessels please do research more carefully before you miss crucial details.
I have no idea where you got these numbers from, they may be right or they may be wrong, however this is a grossly simplistic analysis. The important question to ask is how many of these Russian ships are operational vs the number of operational Royal Navy vessels? Any comparison other than this is meaningless.
ermm, actually this isn't an important question at all as the answer is useless for improving this article. I don't know why we are taking time to compare the royal navy to the russian navy as it will be impossible to use the comparison to improve the article. We'd need a source that related the comparison of these navies to the superpower concept in some way. Good luck finding that!Zebulin23:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The EU article should be reextended to show why it is a potential superpower. All potential superpowers should have what the US has, a list of each superpower criteria and describing it in that criteria.
two important points you are somehow overlooking. One the US does NOT have a list of each superpower Criteria. In fact it has nothing at all as it's section has been removed pending a re-write which will avoid any original research. That leads to point two. A list of each superpower criteria and describing it in that criteria would be original research by original synthesis. Original research isn't allowed in wikipedia articles.Zebulin01:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, those Russian Navy vessels are ALL operational, if you listed all the NON operational Russian vessels, the Russian fleet would be 10 times larger than the Royal Navy. Just before the fall of the USSR, the Soviet Navy was operating over 170 nuclear subs, all of which went to the Russian Navy, and a lot of which have been decommissioned and are now NOT operational, while now the Russian Navy OPERATES around 40 nuclear subs. Also, the Russian navy is building a fleet of new and state of the art nuclear subs, one of which has already been launched, see Borei class submarine. Do not make assumptions about things you don't know about, you need to learn to accept the UK (you have English ancestry) stopped being a great naval world power after WWII. You keep insisting "Russia does not have the world's second largest navy, the UK does", which is not true in any sense of the word, in either number vessels or number of sailors. Do not embarrass yourself further by insisting that the Royal Navy is larger and more powerful than the Russian Navy. User:Ilya1166 3 June 2007
Ilya1166 you are biased to Russia. You have spread your arguement needlesly to other pages. What is the point of it?
Right, when you can't refute the facts you call me biased. Go back to bed. You've got a big day at school tommorow. User:Ilya1166
Actually summer holidays just started. Oh and no need to be harsh we are talking about superpowers here.
I think this article needs to be semi-protected until all the issues are resolved and this article is re-written and returned to it's former quality. This used to be a good article, it was simple and to the point which is the way it is suposed to be. I am afraid that so many people are only concerned with "Potential superpower" to the point the the article loses quality. The section about the US is completely gone and the article talks more about "Potential superpowers" than the US, Soviet Union, and British Empire which were actually superpowers. This article is a complete mess and looks just plain ugly. "Potential superpowers" needs to be cut in half or reduced because using too much space and taking focus away from actual superpowers. I have noticed that most of the damage to the article is from unregistered users, most notably User:Ilya1166, so I urge that this page be semi-protected until this page is fixed. User:Daniel Chiswick 3 May, 2007.
I agree the article is about the present not a possible future.
Remember that unregistered users will sign their edits with an ip address. He's not unregistered he just doesn't have something to say on his user page.Zebulin07:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's not only him, it is a few others too. User:Daniel Chiswick 3 May, 2007.
I hope the new quality of the article is not temporary and I hope we all try and keep it the way it is right now or make it better. User:Daniel Chiswick 3 May, 2007.
The article would be much better if it was like this, it is more simple and to the point like the article used to be. User:Daniel Chiswick 3 June, 2007.
We can't be duplicating the entire article on the talk page. Perhaps you could link to your prefered version from the history of the article. Like this [30] although personally i think this version is a better guide ;) [31]Zebulin07:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is not in the history because the article was never like this, I just copy and pasted from different versions of how the article used to be. User:Daniel Chiswick 3 June, 2007.
Oh that, yeah that is the same version as on here. I wrote that to give an example but I was not allowed to put it in the article so I put it in the talk page. User:Daniel Chiswick 3 June, 2007.
You can create a special page in your user-space for a proposal - you could put it in User:Daniel Chiswick/Superpower for example. As for the above version it does not represent all the theories in our sources properly so I'll need to disapprove of it. Feel free to draw up another proposal on a special page though. Regards, Signaturebrendel07:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but it is certainly better than that mess that was there before. The other page also did not talk about certain things either and was really messy, I say we keep this version and work to improve it. User:Daniel Chiswick 3 June, 2007.
I'm beginning to think the US doesn't need a special section. We already have multiple sources describing it as the only superpower and at most all we'd need is to quote one source that very clearly makes the case for why the US is still regarded as a superpower. The hard part will be finding such a source but in the meantime the version I liked above seems to be adequate [32]Zebulin 07:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it makes the article too long anyway. I like the fact that in this new version Russia is still mention but not under potential superpowers. I think the reason somebody added Russia to potential superpowers was because the section that mentioned Russia was deleted. We should keep this article as simple as possible, short as possible, and to the point. User:Daniel Chiswick 3 June, 2007.
But I still strongly suggest this page be semi-protected until it is fixed. User:Daniel Chiswick 3 June, 2007.
Wow look at the difference between the current version and the old one, it has a much better layout and is more to the point. User:Daniel Chiswick 3 June, 2007.
An additional benefit may be that by getting the article away from the format of subsections for particular countries perhaps we will no longer need to constantly battle article creep caused by editors wishing their favorite state to get it's own version of the original research bragging rights section the US previously had.Zebulin08:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subsections also get overly long and take focus away from the rest of the article. User:Daniel Chiswick 3 June, 2007.
I'll be going to sleep soon, but I sure hope this article is the same way or better when I return tomorrow. User:Daniel Chiswick 3 June, 2007.
But, plz, this is simply far far too short, at least the subarticles offered informations Im not able to find at all now in wikipedia. Add much more content here! --83.131.131.10313:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even think that I would ever say this, but here it is: I think I even agree with Daniël Chiswick, just that I would agree with many other people on this talkpage. I think the page of Superpower has made a big improvement, compaired to what this page looked like before. It shows exactly what was, is, and could be a Superpower, and why. It is not as biased, in favour of the US, as the old article was. Even the picture used in this article (the presidents of the US and the USSR) is an almost perfect solution! I must hand it to the ones who changed this page: you've done the almost impossible, without bloodshedding! ;-) Instead of reading an article about how great the US was, is, and could be, it now shows every aspect of a superpower, and not in an extreme pro-US way. Again: my compliments! :-) --Robster198315:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! See, I'm not a bad person. I totaly agree, this is a huge improvement and is short and to the point which is the way it should be. User:Daniel Chiswick 3 June, 2007.
Just the proof of my claim: Zebulin, Brendel and Chiswick again trying to improve the article and it is getting worse. 0v3r533r13:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ahem, I welcome constructive criticism! As you have seen fit to personally target my editing I think it is not unreasonable that I ask that you elaborate on which of my edits have seemed inappropriate. If you can't find a specific example of such an edit I would at least expect the courtesy of a detailed description of the sort of bad editing you attribute to me. If this sounds familier it could be because it's the second time I've said it and you still don't respond and still make vague attacks on my edits.Zebulin17:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great, this article is heading down the road of losing it's quality again by adding sperate sections for "potential superpowers" which causes nothing but trouble and will make everything go in a circle because it will get overly long and take the focus away from the rest of the article like it did before. User:Daniel Chiswick 4 May, 2007.
How constructive could it be for me participating on an article knowing three petty and uneducated (names listed above) people will add their own bias, captured in a circle of idiotism. If you are really interested in this article, just stay away and make room for a neutral perspective. 0v3r533r20:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
gee I don't know. Maybe it wouldn't be constructive at all. It's too bad you don't offer any *constructive* criticism instead of vague attacks. I guess you'll just have to give up. I apologize for the hopelessness of your situation. Thank you for all of your insightful critiques of our edits and tireless dedication to improving this article! Farewell friend!Zebulin22:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, this article is not long, so please stop removing the subsections in the Potential Superpowers section. If the article becomes too long in the future, it will be splited, but for the moment it's looking much better with the subsections and flags. Eurocopter tigre22:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It also looked much better with the B2 bomber or aircraft carrier as the intro picture. Perhaps I should consider placing them back into the article in keeping with this new acceptance of article appearance as a primary focus of our efforts. I imagine a US flag next to the Samuel P. Huntington quote and breaking it off to form it's own little US section would do even more to improve the articles appearance.Zebulin22:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a question - why are you trying to make the article shorter if it's not too long? In my opinion, that's really stupid. You and Daniel are reverting constructive edits made by me or Willy, and no offense, I think you two are the ones who "just have to give up". By the way, this article looked much better a month ago, when it was edited by normal users (especially neutral ones, not nationalists). Eurocopter tigre22:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Here's the article 1 month ago [33], here's the article "now" [34]. So what exactly did you want back from then? Apparently it's not the subsections.Zebulin23:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me User:Eurocopter tigre? Myself and other users would like to keep this article simple, informative, but to the point. Adding subsections to potential superpowers has led to problems in the past by straying too far from the main focus of the article. I am not reverting constructive edits, I go by the talk page when I edit this page and when I revert an edit it is because it goes against what is being discussed on here. The article was way too long before and was full of unscourced statements and way too much OR so something needed to be done. This is an encyclopedia and not a book, so I if you wish to read a large body of work that talks about superpowers I suggest you visit your local book store or library. Also may I remind you that telling people they should "just have to give up" and being "nationalists" for having perceived ideas that you disagree with violates WP:CIVIL because it is unwelcoming and not helpful. I would also like to remind you that I do not edit this article with the intent of contributing biased work and I am sure nither do the other users you have accused of doing soUser:Daniel Chiswick 4 June, 2007.
"Just have to give up" - I just cited Zebulin. Daniel, if you make an article simple, it won't be informative - for example: an article needs good graphic and visuals, such as subsections, flags, etc. If you remove the subsections, the hole section (Potential Superpowers sect.) will become boring for the reader, and especially non-informative. Again, why making an article simple? - I would say that if you continue making the article simplier in this manner, it will never become a GA or a FA. Also, if you want to make it simple, a stub should be enough. Nobody says that an encyclopedic article has to be simple. Eurocopter tigre08:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this is totally going the wrong way again. Before I start talking, let me say that I really liked the article after the retouching- and editing, so my compliments stay in place. It was totally not as biased as it was before, and it still managed to say everything there is to say about a Superpower, or at least as much as possible. Further: this is not an attack to any of you, I'm just trying to resolve this, something that I think we all have in common. As I understand, there is disagreement about the section of Potential Superpowers. Daniël Chiswick and Zebulin: what is the exact reason why you don't want to add seperate sections for potential superpowers? Be honest. Is it because this article is getting to long, is it because the US is not given enough space, what are the reasons for that? What are your thoughts? And how far would you go to resolve this; have you got any ideas to resolve this? And Eurocopter Tigre: It's nice to meet another pro-EU citizen, but involving this article, there was a consensus reached. This article became way more neutral, than it was before. Perhaps you feel otherwise, but this talkpage is the place to state your problems, and work to a solution. Just editing around probably doesn't solve anything. Why do you want to see this section being changed? Do you still think it is not neutral? If so, what would make this article more neutral, in your opinion? And how far do you want to go in order to resolve this, and what do you think is a possible solution, a solution that is broadly accepted? And to everyone: nobody 'just have to give up'. If we all would give up, Wikipedia is practically lost. Anyhow, I propose to change this page back to how it was (after the changes, when this article was shorter, when there was a consensus), and first try to find a solution on this talkpage, before retouching and editing. We once reached a solution, that was acceptable for everyone of us, so we must, and can, get there again. We all need to keep our cool, and listen to what we alle have got to say. --Robster198313:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I only restored the subsections and the flags (because it looks much better) and added back some info about Russia and EU, which was removed by nationalists users. Am I mistaken? Eurocopter tigre13:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop calling other users "nationalists", you have no reason to and it is not helpful. We deleted the subsections because they kept growing and growing and were taking the focus away from the rest of the article and that section should not be longer than more important parts of the article. User:Daniel Chiswick 5 June, 2007.
Ok, heres what i think. The page right now is definately better than it has ever been. I think and hope we have come to a kind of consensus on the potential superpowers section. There are academic citations saying each of the 4 (yes including Russia) countries are considered potential superpowers. i understand and agree with those who fear this section becoming too long again. Which is why we will not allow it to become too long again. Its ok for there to be seperate subheadings and flags just for visual clarity. Its ok, we just wont allow any more waffle to be written about each countries military, economy etc. I suggest we now stop talking about the potential superpowers section, and stop focussing our edits on it. ok? Instead we can now turn to the much, much more important sections of the page. ie. the origin of the phrase, the concept of superpower in the cold war, superpower characteristics, and the current superpower situation. The most important of these are the origin (and original intended meaning) of the phrase, and characteristics. I suggest other people join me in searching the web for reliable academic information on this. Try google scholar for starters. Ok? Willy turner11:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I totally agree with you. Finally somebody is interested in the improvement of this article, not in the supporting of nationalistics own views. --Eurocopter tigre11:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, stop reverting usefull edits. As Willy said (and I totally agree with him): The page right now is definately better than it has ever been. I think and hope we have come to a kind of consensus on the potential superpowers section. There are academic citations saying each of the 4 (yes including Russia) countries are considered potential superpowers. - so please stop reverting constructive edits. Eurocopter tigre13:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subsections were deleted because people kept adding things to the potential superpower section until it got overly long and off topic. Also just because a few professors think Russia has the goal of being superpower does not make them a potential superpower. Iran has the goal of being a superpower, does that make them a potential superpower? No, it doesn't There was no "nationalistic" removal of Russia, if anything you have a "nationalistic" bias towards Russia since you are accusing people with no proof of being "nationalistic" for deleting Russia because it was never agreed to include it. I am not reverting any constuctive edits because nobody except the two of you agreed to add Russia. Also if you are going to add Russia there will be no subsections because it was agreed earlier that they mess up the article in the long run User:Daniel Chiswick 5 June, 2007.
I have to say you are one of the most hypocritical users on wikipedia because on List of countries and federations by military expenditures you revert constructive edits all the time and tell people to see the talk page, well the same things works on here because there was a good reason why the subsections were deleted and you need to respect that by leaving it alone or waiting to put it in until it is agreed to add it. User:Daniel Chiswick 5 June, 2007.
Also I actually support adding Russia but I would like for there to be other things explaining why it is a potential superpower. A few professors saying that has the "goal" of being a superpower does not make it a potential superpower, the article should talk about things like economic growth ans increased defence spending and not just what a few professors think. User:Daniel Chiswick 5 June, 2007.
Citing Willy again: Its ok for there to be seperate subheadings and flags just for visual clarity. Daniel, one of those "few professors" is probably more intelligent than me and you together. And, how can an ex-vandal and disruptive editor call me a "one of the most hypocritical users on wikipedia". Just compare my contribs with yours, and you shall see the real difference between us. That's it, I'm not permiting anymore to be judged by you; one more personal attack (cause that was a real personal attack) and you'll be reported to the administrators noticeboard. --Eurocopter tigre13:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't red this before I added some thoughts in the section above this one, but I agree with Willy: I thought I already had an article about that, I just have to find it again, and take a look at what it's worth. And further: I still would propose that nothing is changed again, before talked about on this talkpage. Indeed, it will take longer before something is changed, but it also probably will keep us from getting in een editingclash or something like that. ;-) We once reached a concensus, so I hope, think, and know that is reachable for another time. We all want to improve this article, we just don't seem to agree with eachother about how those improvements should look like. --Robster198313:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay perfect, all I wanted was more users to agree and I would be happy. In the future if another user deletes the subsections will revert their edits unless their is another agreement. I agree, most things should not be changed unless they are discussed first so I doesn't cause trouble. User:Daniel Chiswick 5 June, 2007.
Well I still do not like the subsections because I think they will get overly long and take the focus away from the rest of the article but if there is an agreement I will respect it. I agree the subsections look etter but I really hope the subsections will not cause the problems they did in the past. User:Daniel Chiswick 5 June, 2007.
Well, if there is somewhat of an agreement, than I'm pleased :-). Btw: I am not teaming up with anyone (perhaps only with Willy), and I am not trying to attack anyone. I just would like to find a solution of how to improve this page further. Daniël is 'only' sixteen, an perhaps he is (very) pro-American, but he did changed this article (if I'm correct, and if others changed also: thnx!) into something that was way better than it used to be. This page actually became more and more neutral, and less and less pro-US. Eurocopter tigre: you must admit that, don't you? On the otherhand: you are one of the persons who will keep this article accurate, so it is great that you are willing to get into the discussion of how this page should look like! I'm also very pro-EU, and at some points I totally agree with you, and I am glad that I've got someone who could back me up on certain points, but in order to get something changed, no one should see another as enemy, trying to 'win' something. And if one feels some kind of victory, than it perhaps would be best to keep that inside, at least not rub it in in someones face. We should treat eachother with respect. If one agrees with Willy, than I think that would mean that that person doesn't change a thing in the article, leave it as it is, and tries to find any information about what a superpower actually is. And if that person does want to change something, than that person would talk about it on the talkpage. --Robster198314:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subsections will only prove problematic if those subsections get relentelessly expanded as before. I expect this to occur and want to remove the sub section format to attempt pre-empt this but I'm willing to give more time for me to be proven (hopefully) wrong.Zebulin18:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As i said, circle of idiotism. I again must read the following in the section of European Union: "On the other hand - among others - Laurent Cohen-Tanugi[39] states that the EU as a whole has consistently suffered from a growth deficit vis-a-vis the US, high unemployment, and public deficits. Furthermore, Cohen-Tanugi stresses that most member states of the EU lag substantially behind the US in R&D investment, technological innovation, and, since 1995 productivity gains."
That still is pure bias. There are no others sharing Cohen-Tanugis opinion, and if so it had to be cited before making a generalization. In fact USA is consistently suffering from the globalization. More and more countries abandon the US dollar peg knowing of the decreasing strength of the currency and the possible debasement because of Chinas stockpiling for decades. more info Most experts see the European Union as the region with the most stability and the most economic power. That the economy of the EU is stronger than the of the USA is a simple fact. Get your facts right before citing a minority opinion. 0v3r533r23:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Cohen-Tanugi opinion is referenced and therefore can stay. It is, however, somewhat uber-prominent. Perhaps one sentence more on the EU as a potention superpower will help to more accurately reflect the distribution of opinions in academia. As for sub-sections, I do favor them. Yes, Zebulin definitely has a point fearing an exceesive expansion on the potential superpowers that might lead to OR. If we are careful, however, and remain critical of edits to these sub-sections, we can prevent them from becoming bloated op-ed pieces. Considering that sub-sections make the article easier to read and navigate IMHO, I find myself in support of keeping them. Anyways, just my two cents worth ;-) BTW: "Among others" is a weasel phrase that should be removed. Signaturebrendel23:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody please shorten that section? I read it and it is very good but a little too long, can the person that wrote it just summarize it so that way it still gives the same information without taking so much space? User:Daniel Chiswick 6 June, 2007.
I think it's either the most important or second most important part of the article. It's also an area where we want to take the greatest care to avoid inserting any original research.Zebulin23:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is going to stay like that we better make sure it doesn't get any longer. User:Daniel Chiswick 6 June, 2007.
honestly I was actually looking for sources to make it even longer. Don't you agree that the section should constitute a core section of the article sources permitting?Zebulin03:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Provide a reputable source and add a quick mention-the relationship between a rigid caste system and economic growth is certainly worth a mention. Signaturebrendel23:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why this is a reason for the EU to be a super power, "the unpopularity and perceived failure of US foreign policy in recent years,". I could understand something along the lines of "the EU's strong foreign policy in recent years". Your thoughts? Exsellion8917:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well its saying that it is failing to maintain order so maybe that other countries are leaning to the EU for their policy, and thus have more of a role over other countries. But it isnt a very good example anyway.
I cannot remove the added OR-part again, because it would violate the three-revert-rule. Note however that I explained my removal every time in the edit summary. The particular part is OR, or more specifically a violation of WP:SYNTH. Several power characteristics are combined (A+B) to advance the position (that these characteristics make) Russia (is) a potential superpower (C). Put differently, while the facts cited are most likely correct, the sources do not mention the term "superpower", let alone that these specific characteristics make Russia a potential superpower, and thus this constitutes OR. User: Eurocopter tigre, could you please read WP:SYNTH and undo your reversal? Sijo Ripa18:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the India section of the article it states
"China and India rising to superpower status is not inevitable"
WTF do you mean inevitable? is this peron suggesting that the rising to superpower status should be prevented? this artcile doesn't sounds very 'neutral' to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Platinum inc (talk • contribs) 18:53, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
The article has one/two references on why it cannot be a superpower, but why not eliminate the bias and add an article on why it can become a superpower also? Or the general explanations on why some people see it as a possibility? Let readers decided "...the argument is better for this position than the argument for that position".
By all means try and add a few sources which argue for this position, but such sources must above all be reputable. Basically this means serious academic opinion is preferred over polemical journalism.
Regardless of whether or not Russia is a potential superpower, it should not in the "current" section of superpowers, which, if you look at the summary, seems to suggest Russia as the only superpower today (when it should be the United States). I moved Russia to the potential section, assuming it deserves to be there at all. The current content seems to have no actual value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashmizen (talk • contribs) 21:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Russia is a Superpower; there many articles from the last 2 years stating that Russia regained its Superpower status back again. These articles are from worldwide creditable sources and they have been verified by the news press media and news television media
[35][36][37]-[38][39][40][41][42], the words “Russia is a Superpower” or “Russia the Superpower” is being used more often on television through CNN[43], NBC, Fox News people such as Glen Beck, Lou Dobbs, Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper and etc more often today than ever. I mean really, how can these news agencies be wrong? The fact is, they have the sources of information more than all of us and when Russia is said as a Superpower on CNN, NBC, Fox News, ABC News that is a valid fact it is. [44]--Versace11 (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"How can these news agencies be wrong"? Are you serious? IMHO MainStreamMedia is NOT a reputable source. In addition, media states opinions, not facts, and sensationalistic headlines. I repeat, MSM is not a reputable source. Cite academic articles instead. --Ondra2 (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can whoever continues to add Russia as a potential superpower please cease doing so? Russia is not and will never again become a superpower. It's not even a world power, and is at best perhaps a regional power. Has anyone bothered to actually compare Russia's capabilities to statistics relating to economic output, population and demographic projections, military power projection and government efficiency? Had they done so, they would see that Russia's future is bleak. The country is losing 700,000 people per year,
regardless of how small the russian population will be, even if its one person, the presidnet, he will still have the nuclear launch codes to wipe everyone else out..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.142.146 (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
, Russia is not a dying country as Russia is economically booming and doubling its population their a new birth rate[46]
[47] a process likely to continue well into the 2050s. According to most sources, even an optimistic projection would leave Russia by 2050 with little more than 111 million people.[48] Compare that with the United States potential 450 million, the European Union's 500 million or India and China's 1 billion+. How many superpowers can have drastically falling populations? Let's be serious please. It's not Russia!
What is more, even a cursory glance at any set of economic statistics will show that Russia's economic power is simply not sufficient to project it to superpower status.
Its nominal GDP is about the same size as the combined economic output of Paris and London, or to a country like South Korea or Mexico. Compare this to the European Union's $14 trillion or the United States' $13 trillion. With a falling population, Russia has not a hope in hell of catching up, even if it went through an economic miracle. -- Excuse me, this is hate speech. There is no fact on your sources to discriminate Russia for no reason but hate speech.
Militarily too, Russia's armed forces are no where near sufficient to regain superpower status.
, making all sorts of comments and not a source to back it up. this is pure hate speech on Russia.[56][57][58]
Just look at the statistics! Russia's defence budget is many, many times smaller than the United States or the European Union's. It is less than half the size of the United Kingdom's! Russia lacks power projection forces too: It has not got enough aircraft carriers to sustain a constant capability, and its forces become increasingly outdated as each year passes
SOUNDS LIKE YOUR JUST HATE RUSSIA THAN TELLING THE TRUE, you have no sources
. The US, France and Britain are all building state-of-the-art, ...think againdestroyers and aircraft carriers, Russia simply does not have the technological ability to compete.
So please, can we remove all future references to Russia as a superpower. Russia is not, and will never again be, a superpower. The only true superpower in today's world is the United States.
WP:OR, I'm afraid. Find an authoritative source that explicitly states that Russia cannot be a superpower and you may add this information. I agree that Russia isn't close to being a superpower....
Original research? Are you joking? The research I've pointed to are simple statistics, which have been available for years. What is more, no matter what institution or set of statistics one uses—whether the UN, SIPRI, World Bank, IMF, IISS—the results are always the same. Imperium Europeum00:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. This article was stabilized by a consensus to rely on meticulous sourcing as the bar that all major changes had to pass and by an outright rejection of all possible original research additions. the best you can do to make your points is find an authoritative source for them and possibly find a way to unambiguously demonstrate the inadequacy of the sources which indicate that Russia is a potential superpower. Good luck with that.Zebulin20:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sources used to claim Russia is a superpower are not authoritative. Someone has found a quote from some random academic at some university in the United States to claim that Russia is potentially a superpower, and even then, the quote given could be taken out of context. According to almost every piece of academic research I've read, Russia is never given superpower status
[60][61]
. Most point to it being at best a re-emerging great power (but only when dealing with energy) or a regional power. If you read again the statistics, you will see that there is no way on Earth that Russia can match the Europeans or the Americans, either now or in the future. Imperium Europeum00:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a sometime student of Russian/FSU affairs I consider Imperium Europeum's points to be well made. But, of course, personal opinion is personal opinion. What I find remarkable is that none of the material I read on Russia, whether economic, political, and military analyses; news and opinion; statistics, seem to point me towards the 'Russia as a superpower' thesis. A strong Great power, certainly, but a superpower? This strikes me as a rather fevered or polemical hypothesis rather than one arrived at by objective scholars in the field. Are we sure that the sources we have are reputable and balanced?
I'm afraid I lack the time to do anything about this at present, but this disconnect between the Wikipedia article and the facts (ie life expectancy, infant mortality, corruption, economics, etc, etc) leads me to wonder if our sources are neutral and objective. They may illustrate an extreme POV of Russia's future, but I doubt they represent any sort of academic consensus.
The sources used to 'show' that Russia is an emerging superpower are emphatically not reflective of any sort of academic consensus. I'm an academic at one of Britain's leading universities in the field of international relations, and I do not see much stating that Russia is to become a superpower—what I do see points in quite the opposite direction! Imperium Europeum00:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, from population projections which predict a drop to 100mil by 2050 to Wednesday's Transparency International corruption index, which saw Russia fall from 126th to 143rd - can anyone really disagree that Prof Steven Rosefielde's comment seems, on the face of it, to be a tad blithe? These 'sources' seem to be extremely selective and unbalanced, violating the policy of neutrality.
Just to follow up, not only do the sources seem un-reflective of academic consensus and common-sense, they are in fact utterly valueless. Footnote 60, Professor Rosefielde, seems to be little more than an Amazon puff page - is it certain that Prof Rosefielde actually stated '[c]ontrary to conventional wisdom, this goal would appear to be easily within the Kremlin's grasp', or is this merely a precis from Amazon? Either way there seems to be no attempt to analyse and refer to the arguments presented within that book, whether one agrees with the headline conclusion or not. By all means quote the book (although given that it is described as a 'polemic' I'm not sure that it is of much objective use) but you surely can't cite an Amazon page as authority for anything.
The second source, Footnote 61, quoting one RG Williams 'of the Naval Postgraduate School', is even more astonishing. Once again it is simply a precis page, but has anyone taken the time to look at it? This source (a Masters thesis) dates from 1993. 1993! Does anyone seriously contend that a paper written in 1993 can be authority for any proposition concerning contemporary Russia?
In short I entirely concur with Imperium Europeum. Common-sense leads me to disagree with the 'Russia as a superpower' argument, but I would tolerate a mention of it as part of a wider balanced discussion. However these sources are worthless and as such the section is little more than Original Research.
Absolutely, I strongly concur User:Xdamr. The whole idea is so utterly absurd that anyone arguing it must be a polemicist. To argue that Russia is or might become a superpower is not only false but devalues the concept of 'superpower' itself
I concur Xdamr and Imperium Europeum. It seems to me that the discussion here is between educated people arguing Russia is not a superpower and uneducated/15yo/nationalists who want Ru listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ondra2 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[62][63]
. Moreover, if Russia is included, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Brazil and Mexico should all be included too: All either rank more highly than Russia today or show greater potential in the medium or longer terms. Let is end this 'Russia will be a superpower' nonsense once and for all, please. Imperium Europeum01:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can we end it in such a way that doesn't leave room for editors to remove other sourced material from the article? what sort of objective defined standard can be applied to prevent that? The existing rough consensus was that multiple sourced material is not to be removed from the article as inaccurate without directly invalidating the sources through other sources. Common sense dictates that Russia is such an extreme long shot at superpower status that nothing in it's current situation suggests that it is a potential superpower in any meaningful sense. However common sense will also lead to efforts to remove the china and EU sections for diverse reasons and this will lead to revert wars and article instability. We need a workable standard that will allow for removing the offending Russian section without requiring a double standard to protect other article content.Zebulin08:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No: China and the European Union certainly are candidates for superpower status in the near future. The EU is already the world's number one economy, and has a more than sufficient level of material capabilities (world's leading exporter; world's second largest military power; world's third largest population, and so on) and enough political cohesion (established and stable democratic systems) to project it to comprehensive superpowwer status. What is more, there is a wide academic consensus that Europe will achieve 'great power', 'global power' or 'superpower' status by the middle of the twenty-first century. The CIA suggests this might come as early as 2015! China also has the material potential to become a superpower, as does India. There is also a lot of literature supporting both of these candidates. Imperium Europeum14:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I never looked into the quality of the sources. What I suggest: 3 academics in 3 separate academic articles/books? This would show a certain support in academic circles. Newspaper articles are often more sensational and less argumented/accurate. Sijo Ripa12:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is the point: You won't find any credible academics stating that Russia will ever again become a superpower. You might find a few academics discussing Russia's recent aggressiveness under Putin; you might find a few articles claiming that Russia is regaining 'great power' status again; indeed, you might even find several articles talking about Russia as an 'energy superpower', but none of this adds up to claiming that Russia is or is to become a comprehensive superpower again. Imperium Europeum14:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the changes are sourced and we have at least temporary consensus on this edit page that Russia is no potential superpower. I hope the edits will stay. We might want to keep an eye out for a source that specifically mentions Brazil as well to make that currently unsourced portion less likely to be challenged.Zebulin16:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some remarks: There is a tendency in anglo-saxon ideology to disregard and misjudge the influence of Russia. Because of Cold War historic opposition an almost allergic mismeasurement is still reflected in this discussion and its proposals. I´m not a devils advocate but some facts remain: Russia holds an active seat in UN Security Council, leading to influence Iran and Kosovo politics. Russia is key player in energy politics and future resources because demand is rising. Any demographic projection over 2020 is not more than fantasy speculation. Within the next 20 years India will remain a passive underdeveloped giant without even regional power projection, it belongs in 'Other Candidates'. The concept of superpower is a phenomenon of the 20th century and 'Future superpowers' should be cited in a neutral and very cautious manner. This is not the case now. all the best Lear 2119:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All very well, but a permanent UNSC seat and influence in the Balkans or Iran does not constitute superpower status. Russia may be a great power, or a large regional power, which is reflected in the quotes in the updated section, so the new section is not misjudged or overtly 'anglocentric'. Russia's population projections are accurate, short of some miracle or mass immigration into the country. India may also belong in the 'other candidates' section, but it does now have one of the largest and most powerful navies in the world—equipped with aircraft carriers—and a rapidly growing economy, with over 1 billion people. It should remain with a separate category. Imperium Europeum20:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I´m not advocating to lift Russia in potential Superpower status, but the current citation is not more than a harrassing rant of a ColdWar academic. The role of Russia must be presented in its actual powers. This is not the case, it is rather highly biased. India´s economy doesnt even meet nominal total GDP of Spain, it is a third world country. The growing economic data won´t change any relevant power projection in the near future. The India section includes several overenthusiastic POV statements. India must be integrated in other countries. Lear 2121:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? Barry Buzan, 'a ColdWar academic'? Hardly! He's one of the most renowned scholars in the field of international relations. I could be persuaded on India, however. It certainly has potential, but many impediments also remain. Could someone create a table or template called 'Superpowers: Existing and Potential', listing their GDP (nominal), Defence spending, population, area, percentage of world trade, and so on, for the dates 2000, 2005, 2007, and maybe a projection, say 2020? I don't know how to do it. Imperium Europeum22:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should the projected population of Russia be significant when determining it's international power? It seems contradictory to claim Russia's decline rules out the possibility of it becoming a superpower while still calling the US the sole superpower (It's population is less than a quarter of China's, yet it is widely considered more 'powerful').And why is economics important? Nominal GDP is not budget, and the value of currency is not constant across nations (Eg The average income in Serbia may be much lower than in Australia, but goods would cost significantly less in the former). This is not to say that the figures are useless, but the state of the military is far more important when measuring power, and Russia is rapidly expanding it's army. It may not be a superpower currently, but to claim with certainty that it will never ascend to that status seems incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.43.208 (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under which rule in the Wikipedia guidelines do you, Imperium Europeum, base your conclusions that professor Steven Rosefielde is not a credible scholar? I'm not going to assume bad faith as to how you arrived at that conclusion. Nevertheless, I've reinstated the bit, because for the sake of neutrality we need to mention the fact that there is not a unanimous consensus that Russia has no potential as a superpower. Steven Rosefielde is a real professor at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and he has published several books on Russian studies. If you want to tell him he's a loony because you work at one of "Britain's leading universities" and you said so, feel free to email him. I'm going to insert page numbers from his book so there should be no problems as far as proper citations are concerned. As for your addition on Russia as an energy superpower, I've moved that from this article to the energy superpower article. Superpower and energy superpower are not one and the same, and if we're going to discuss Russia's status as energy superpower we need to do it in the appropriate article.--71.112.159.12201:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We could not judge Russia regarding on its population and we could never under estimate their country... Russia is one of the Sleeping giant when in terms of power and knowledge... They have their high power source and some high technology and some power of mass destruction weaponry like nuclear power. Remember they lunched a spacecraft to the outer space and other satellites except from US. it means that they can have much power than the other huge country. Even they are compared with US but we don't know and we can not say that Russia can not reach the power what have in US.--Marymorefields19:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding interpretation: what's the context of the comment that Russia could become a superpower? Currently the surrounding text in the article says it would come at great cost tothe Russian people or something similar. Without having read any of your sources, I feel it fair to point out that a completely insane Russian leader could still project enough power (either through economic or literal violence) to render Russia the greatest power remaining in a completely shattered global economy, which is what I understood that quotation to be saying. Whether this has anything to do with being a superpower or not is another matter. Leushenko (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be many references linking to Amazon, citing books. Is this really a suitable method of citation? Surely the author, book, date, place of publication, and page numbers should be mentioned instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imperium Europeum (talk • contribs) 20:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wager that we see so many of these simply because they have turned up in google searches. I doubt that editors have taken the time and trouble to read the majority of these texts, to try and understand their arguments, and to summarise them in this article. I would suggest that we remove all 'sources' which consist solely of a reference to an Amazon (or other) precis. This sort of sloppiness would certainly not pass muster in any institute of learning - I see no reason why it should be tolerated here. I fear that this superficial treatment of sources and citations is down to an excess of enthusiasm over actual knowledge and expertise. International relations is one of these areas in which everyone fancies himself an expert, but I think that we ought to start to apply some standards of academic rigour with respect to that which we are, or are not, prepared to accept.
Absolutely. All references to random websites and Amazon listings should be removed, along with any spurious claims they are supposed to support. This article needs to be comprehensively overhauled. Further, we need a table listing each superpower and potential superpower, with lists of capabilities (e.g. economic output (nominal GDP), defence spending, world trade share, population, urbanisation, percentage of top universities, and so on) so that readers can compare the capabilities of the relevant powers. This would represent an excellent supplement to the views of academic sources, which can sometimes themselves be biased to a particular worldview. Imperium Europeum23:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
let's define "random websites" before we start removing references without replacing them with more suitable ones. Surely blogs and personal web pages should qualify as "random websites" but what else are we excluding?Zebulin00:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that is not reputable for information. Thus, Amazon, polemical websites, websites containing conspiracy theories, and so on, do not constitute authoritative knowledge on the issues contained in this article. It might be possible to link to some blogs and personal websites, however, if they are written by authoritative sources such as journalists, politicians or academics. What must be changed is quotes that link to Amazon product listings: If a source cannot be properly verified (e.g. page number) then it is not a credible reference and has no place in Wikipedia. Imperium Europeum05:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
Pursuant with WP:NPOV (which states that significant views published by a reliable source can be included), in this edit I included quotes from the book Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower, which discusses Russia's potential as a superpower. However, in this edit, Xdamr (talk·contribs) selectively removes the quotes and even the book itself from the bibliography. There is an ongoing debate as to the books status as an "authoritative" work above.
The current article also provides a quote arguing that Russia is not an energy superpower. The same quote appears in the energy superpower article, although the users who added it here did not include any of the prevailing views that Russia is an energy superpower, thus failing to write in a balanced tone. I sought to remedy this with my edit provided above, in which I provided sources from CNN[64] and the IHT[65], although again this was selectively removed.
I’m seeking comment from other Wikipedians regarding these matters:
Should Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower be used as a source in the article now that it can be properly cited?
Should Russia’s status as an energy superpower be included in this article, or should that be left in the energy superpower article? If left here, should any of the numerous counter views be provided?
Or it could perhaps be that Xdamr (talk·contribs) mistakenly removed Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower, when re-instating valid observations on the 'energy superpower' issue? (Which was, in fact, the case - don't be so quick to suppose bad faith.) The 'energy superpower' area is Russia's one reasonably compelling claim to anything approaching superpowerness, as such it ought to be addressed here.
Incidentally, this is surely a rather melodramatic step? I don't see what grounds you have for seeing any sort of long-running dispute here, deserving of RfC.
Many of my edits, as well as edits by others users, have been reverted numerous times. I did not want to engage in an edit war. I think this revision is probably the most balanced one, so I wasn't sure of your intent when you reverted the page but did not include what I think are reasonable additions. Even if I reinstate the book, someone else will come along and just revert the page to its old form (see this edit). I still think it would be best if we seek imput from a third party, this way we can arrive at as consensus as to how Russia should be addressed and what sources are appropriate, if it is to be included at all. --71.112.159.12220:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just like what i said above about Russia regarding Russia cannot become superpower.. we could not judge and under estimate them because they are one of the sleeping giant. We cannot predict what kind of power they have and become a superpower when in terms of population and their economy because we could not predict what power source they are hiding.--Marymorefields19:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot become a superpower? Countries that can become superpowers: all - this includes Cote d'Ivore by the way, they have a shot. (could you come up with a source that says that it will?)--Dwarf Kirlston02:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
India is shown as other allies of USSR during coldwar. But it was part of the founder members of
NAM (continues to this day.). So the information in image is inaccurate.
192.18.43.22515:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)blufox[reply]
Currently China is described only in terms of it's economic strength. It's humongous population, it's nuclear capabilities, it's natural resources, it's magnificently high education level, it's obscenely large military, these are missing.
It seems like Superpower is a term from the cold war. As a term of the cold war, perhaps it no longer has any meaning. Perhaps there are no empires anymore... could that be?--Keerllston21:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like us to weed out qualified instances of "superpower" that aren't elaborated on (basically all of them except energy superpower) I think you may have a good point. Those phrases may be construed as OR in the sense of neologisms coined by editors. Naturally you will find ample documentation for the post cold war usage of the unqualified word "superpower" already in the article and some for energy superpower in it's article.Zebulin (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After their Devestating expirience during WWII I doubt that the Japanese people want to become a world power, never mind a super power ever again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.185.82 (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Influential in music, sport, TV, films, art, and fashion. Freedom of speech and other guaranteed rights for residents. Wielded influence by supporting right-wing dictatorships in undeveloped countries but democracy in developed countries. The thing about United States being influentual in sports, is this actually true? I would have thought that Europe and the United Kingdom have been the most influentual in sport for the past few hundred years, with cricket, rugby and football being pretty much the number one world sports. The sports played in America have never really had a global appeal or involvement and in no way was the United States globaly influentual with sports. JayKeaton12:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In no way? They seem to like baseball a whole lot in Asia, especially in Japan. Golf is a very popular sport which the U.S. leads in, and so is Tennis. Not to mention swimming, horse riding, figure skating, and a number of other sports like Basketball which has a growing international following. The scentence says the US is influential, it never said it was the most influential. Please don't start pointless topics, they are a waste of time because the word sports is not going to be removed. All you did was start and argument and everybody is just going to put their two cents in and nothing is going to change. Daniel Chiswick07:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I question a line in an encyclopedia with the intent to improve the articles accuracy and you go all "pointless topics", "waste of time" and "argument"? No need to be a jerk about it. I'm going to put a fact tag on that "scentence" in any case, because I don't really trust a jerks opinion on this at all. JayKeaton09:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To fair I think apart from the possible exception of baseball and basketball the USSR was about as influential in the sports world as the US. If we can't find a source to backup the influence of the US on the sporting world during the cold war perhaps that part really should be removed. Certainly I'm hard pressed to understand how any such influence on sports would contribute to either the USSR's or the USA's superpower status.Zebulin10:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my thinking. I meant no malice with my original post about this and I meant no attack on America either. America has been greatly influential with a lot of things that are listed on the article, like movies and music would not be the same without the United States. But sports is not something that the United States has been influential in. Oh, and I meant football as what is known in America as soccer, America's definition of football is played almost exclusively in the United States and isn't seen or significantly followed anywhere else. I would even go as far as to say that the United States not only is not notable in their influence with sports, but that it's global influence with sports is minimal to nil when compared to it's influence in music, finance and films. JayKeaton11:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some examples of American sports being adopted overseas. [66] - American Football Club in Austraila [67] - American Football Club in Britain [68][69] - American Football in Russia
[70][71][72] - Baseball in Russia [73] - International Baseball [74] - Baseball in Japan
[75] - Basketball in Russia [76] - International Basketball [77][78] - Basketball in Japan
The term use to define, as much as I understand, states-not a union of states-unless they are all under the full mastery of the same central power-this was the case for the former USSR. However, these days super powers are: India (it can be that there is no agreement about it), China, Russia and USA-no less or more. UK and French could be considered, but only by part, as super powers as they both have significant intercontinental military abilities(air craft carriers, huge navy, large bases outside Europe and etc), large stock of nuclear weapons and means to deliver it and to any point on Earth, they are both within the world 10 biggest economies and etc-However, they still missing many characters of super power.
The European Union includes many largely independent states-that's mean-they don't have the same spoken language, they don't have the same civilian rules nor do they have the same international policies many times-they have largely separated economies and etc-so, if one considers the EU as a super power than he/she should consider many other unions -like the Arab league, the forming South American one and etc as super powers as well.--Gilisa (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The strength of wikipedia is also it's weakness. We must bow to sourced material wherever it is provided over unsourced material. So long as cite worthy sources can be found making speculations those speculations can find their way into the article and there is no amount of reasoning or, frankly, original research that can justify removing it by wikipedia guidelines. Your excellent points do not help to remove the european union from the potential superpowers subsection because your points are unsourced (and OR) while the european union case is sourced. Even if you find sources dismissing the possibility of the european union as a superpower it would not preclude the continued presence of of the attributed statements of other sources to the contrary. If we are unfortunate enough to see the day that editors dig up some citable source that backs up superpower claims for the arab league or even the Union of South American Nations then we will indeed be stuck with them in the article as well.Zebulin (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Global Study Ranks World Powers[79]. Click the gallery to find out how the world sees the world powers now and in 2020. Note that this is a global public survey and not an opinion made by experts. Quite interesting ... Lear 21 (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...is, at present, a waste of time. Aside from being the victim of constant change as Russia goes in, goes out, goes in again, which is really not a state any article should have to experience, the level of speculation is far too high. Having articles on specific countries or entities is not a reasonable solution, as any country can become a superpower and, realistically, we are not going to predict it at this time. All of the current suggestions are capable of attaining superpower status. None of them can be verified beyond idle speculation. Example:
1907: The Russian Empire should reasonably be expected to dissolve under outside attack within the next fifty years. Its navy has already been obliterated by the Japanese, it has no significant production capacity, it is agriculturally nonexistent and its cities are not linked by reliable rail or telegraph routes. Were Germany or Japan to invade Russia the result could only be complete annihilation of the largely untrained and under-equipped Russian army. Continued terrorism on the part of Lenin and his associates is likely to require the government's attention which will prevent resources being direted towards vital modernisation policies.
Result: Russian Empire becomes USSR.
1807: Although the British retain control of the shipping routes around Europe, French consolidation and social collapse in Britain make a successful British invasion of Europe a remote possibility at best. The British economy is straining to support vast unemployment while France reaps the benefits of holding the German empires hostage, and has the support of the independent colonies in America. Britain's best hope for survival is to make peace immediately and adopt sweeping reforms based on the French system in order to prevent complete economic breakdown.
Result: France is defeated, Britain becomes global economic powerhouse.
1707: The wealth of raw materials in the New World mean that, with a century of carefully managed construction, the European states will be able to expand slowly and comfortably into new territory as demands of population increase. Since the existing population is small and technologically undeveloped, there is no obvious obstacle preventing a gradual shift of resources and development across the Atlantic. There has been a small increase in the number of voluntary settlements, which can be expected to provide a reliable stream of funding for this project through light taxation.
Result: United States.
My point is that while predictions about Russia, India etc. may be likely, they are not set in stone, as the future is always unpredictable. I could go on at length, as just about every major shift in global power relations was unanticipated, regardless of what 20/20 hindsight tells us.
Therefore, for the Potential Superpowers section, the most important thing to include is a paragraph explaining why none of the predictions are necessarily accurate. With that in mind, it would make sense to remove detailed analyses of how each nation with disgruntled editors plans to make its way to hegemony. Every country has a potential route: some are more likely than others, but there is no point in a section entirely dedicated to speculation. The section would do well to avoid subdivisions, and simply examine the few, general factors that can be assessed such as economic strength, and their impact on a global level, without specific predictions which are at best unverifiable and at worst, propaganda.
I'm 100% with you about this (and about the rant). Let's take the EU, which is the most marketing example to me, it is wrote that all together the EU military power is by far the second in its might-and of course, there are also citations to support this-but let's carefully examine it: 1. when it come to speculations about the future there are always articles and experts to cite about anything-many times only few of them are valid, if at all, when the time is come. 2. in the EU there is the Spanish army, the Italian, the German, the British, the French, Austrian, Polish, Greek and etc-very impressive power in did, but first-these are totally different armies not only by their language, quality and doctrines -but also by their loyalty as well-let's say that tomorrow Russia will attack Hungary, or treat it with its Nuclear arsenal (which is the largest and by far) would the Italians, only for example, put their life's at risk to protect the "EU"-I don't think so, since the all idea behind the EU is to enlarge the world influence of European cultures against USA and others and mainly to elevate the life quality within it. Samuel Huntington would say that the basic conditions for the existence for EU or any other union is them to have a similar common culture, history, languages, racial origins and etc-of course, each of these criterions is differently weighed but the principle is that North Europeans, at least by part of the scholars would not, for example, sacrifice their life's to save East Europeans which are profoundly different from them-culturally mainly, the race is less important and the differences are not big. Not only that, but the size of Europe is significantly smaller than this of Russia, so is the nuclear arsenals and the means to deliver them that the European states possess, the Russian population is equal in its size to those of Germany and UK together, and we yet didn't discussed Putin, the Russian controversial president who now making serious moves to reunite between Russia and Belorussia-this is only the beginning (he also trying to get control on Ukraine as well) and he is very well aware to the heavy dependence of the EU on Russia's oil and gas provisions. The present status is like that: USA have, by far, the strongest military force, specialized with power projection around the world (the largest, and by far, air carriers-not to mention that they have nuclear engines-which means that theoretically their range is unlimited), it also, still, have the largest economy, the second nuclear arsenal size (but it make no difference as both those of Russia and USA can wipe up the entire world population many times) and the most sophisticated delivery means (satellite bombers for example), it's size is almost equal to this of Europe and two fold larger if we consider Canada as their backyard (after all they not only share the same borders and language, but also many other things), and population size which is bigger than these of French, Italy, Germany and UK in sum: so it truly a Super power. Russia, aside for its size, population and what I already mention have about 300 nuclear submarines (however, most are inactive by now) Nuclear air carriers (the only state, as far as I know, that possess such air carriers) -by now only one is active but it carries about 60 air crafts (assault helicopters and jet bombers/fighters) (while those of French and UK can carry only 25 each) the second largest air-force and the second largest , and well experienced, infantry. China posses the third largest air force, huge navy (including self-made advanced nuclear submarines), the biggest infantry and more than 700 nuclear war heads (it is enough to destroy any country or continent) which it can launch to any where it would like to. China size is very similar to this of entire Europe and it's population size exceeding it by far (1.25 billion citizens), not to mention that this is the second largest economy after USA. As for India-which is the 4 or 3 largest economy today and it's population size is second only to China, however -much details about it's military force are unknown to me and any way it dont possess a laerge enouge nuclear arsenal for a super power and its size is about one third, more or less, of China. Regarding the European Union, it is not really a union-people in Germany have a completly different culture, belives, economy, welfare, legal system and ideologies than those of Portugal for example-so, the EU cant be a super power. There are two criterions for a state to be a super power: 1. that no other state can conquer it (all of the nuclear powers practiaclly fulfill this criteria )2. that it can conquer all the other countries aside from those which cant be conquerd--Gilisa (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question whether to treat the EU as one entity that therefore can be accounted as "Super Power" is not about WP:OR but rather a very concrete one: why should the European union would considered as super power while, for instance, NATO is not considered as such even if it clear to all that it have all the capacities to be considered as such but the term should be referred to states, not to alliances-and the EU is an alliance not a real union-that's way a EU citizen can work any country within the alliance he would like to, but he can only vote in the place where he have citizenship. As for sources-I'll do it a.s.a.p.--Gilisa (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have NATO in the article purely because we don't have a source that calls NATO a superpower...yet. Sadly when someone finally finds and adds a source declaring NATO to be a superpower we will be stuck with it.Zebulin (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with Leushenko. However we often hear (generally with regards to China) about "the next superpower" so it's still interesting to cover the potential superpower aspect in this article - perhaps by defining the attributes that make a superpower and then looking at which nations are heading in that direction.
As for the EU being potentially excluded "because it's not a country", neither was Rome. The fact that the EU could potentially become a superpower because it is made up of countries that individually, are not, is what makes it particularly interesting Jarby (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rome was not a country? well, you should rethink about it-there was one Roman senate, one Roman Caesar whose authorities were absolute-who is the Caesar of the EU (Sarkozy? Markel?) not to mention that Rome ruled over many other countries over most of the known world because it was a superpower and not the opposite..More on that, Rome was, along with Cartage, the only regime who had the ability to project substantial powers toward significant distance. To claim that EU is superpower is ridiculous, but if it make people feel good to think so than I can't fight it..--Gilisa (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why hasn't Britain been held in as high regard as to be called a superpower surely no other modern day empire could achieve what the British have and that includes the U.S.
No British forces make has many mistakes as a number of U.S forces have over recent years or have been humbled by a nation as under progressed as Vietnam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benmichaelelwell (talk • contribs) 13:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup but then we should call Rome/Italy a superpower as well. After all the managed to rule most of Europe for several hundreds of years ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) The British Empire is included as being one of the original three superpowers in the article, but had collapsed by the time the Cold War really got going (and was long past the point of recovery even before that). "Superpower" is almost exclusively considered a Cold War term, during which period Britain was not economically or politically independent.
2) Britain did not obtain nuclear weapons until after the dissolution of the Empire. Nuclear weapons appear, by the article's logic, to be a prerequisite for superpower status, which drops the British Empire into the same category as Rome, Persia and all the other pre-Cold War states with some form of hegemony.
So yes, Britain is mentioned, but it certainly doesn't require a section in the table or a detailed analysis because it ceased to operate on equal terms with the United States and Soviet Union very quickly after the war was over. British achievements took place in a different context from those of America and are not really comparable in any way. Leushenko (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reference offered for Brazil as a potential superpower.
After reading the reference it seems clear to me that this is a resolution on the part of Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva for Brazil to join the ranks of the great powers rather than a plan to become a superpower.Zebulin (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
References explicitly supporting the idea of Brazil as a potential superpower:
It looks like edit warring is occuring over the validity of the offered references for Brazil as a superpower. It would probably be a better if these things were hashed out here instead. I even see some edit comments to "see talk" but no evidence anybody is actually doing that.Zebulin (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the fact that Brazil has no nuclear weapon capabilities whatsoever and will unlikely be allowed by current powers to obtain such capabilities invalidates it as a potential candidate for superpower in the foreseeable future. You can't project significant military power around the globe without nuclear weapons, nor does MAD apply, leaving you completely vulnerable and helpless against a possible nuclear attack, thus limiting your potential for global influence and dominance greatly.Krawndawg (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The stories of India and pakistan would seem to demonstrate that preventing large countries from developing nuclear weapons is impossible or nearly so. Nonetheless most of our current sourced definitions of "superpower" do indeed seem to indicate that a deterrent to nuclear attack is one of the requirements.Zebulin (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point about India and Pakistan. However, as it stands right now, there's no reason to believe that Brazil is even interested in obtaining such weapons, so it's all just moot speculation. We can start speculating about their potential as a superpower when/if they do end up with nuclear weapons, but for now it just doesn't seem like a possibility to me. Even in the case of India, Pakistan and China, the fact that their nuclear capabilities are so far behind that of America and Russia leads me to doubt the possibility of them ever actually being able to challenge America as a global superpower, that is, for now. Krawndawg (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can't speculate even when/if Brazil does have nuclear weapons. In that or any other such cases we would need sources to back up the "speculation" by actually spelling out the entire line of reasoning themselves or the speculation is speedily removed as original research, especially in this article.Zebulin (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To add to the discussion: having large amounts of resources is NOT an indication of superpower potentiality, large amounts of resources more often lead to the so-called "resource-curse" and dependability of an economy on exports (for example Congo). Brazil's only potential is as a resource-superpower, not as taking over US or EU economy or becoming a major Nuclear power or having ideological influence etc., it therefore does not qualify as an all-round superpower which is what this article is about. So please stop adding Brazil. Wiki1609 (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you search over the internet you will see that Brazil has full control over the Uranium enrichment cycle and is currently becaming autosuficient as far as nuclear fuel. It's planing in selling nuclear fuel in the international market in the comming years. Also, there is a plan of building a fleet of nuclear submarines since it's considered the most effective and cheapest way of patroling and defending its territorial seas. And now, even more, since there is the very strong possibility of huge oil reserve down there.
But, granted, Brazil don't have nuclear weapons and it would be politically, both externally and internally, very difficult for the Brazilian government to develop one. However, I have to stress that there is no shortage of technical capacity or money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.133.180 (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This section needs to be deleted per WP:FUTURE. Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Ostap22:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not original research if it's sourced. WP:Future says: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced."
Its not encyclopedic. This is not an event, such as an election or a sporting event, this is total speculation. Not encyclopedic at all. Ostap23:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's not encyclopedic? All of the information is based on factual information, and sufficiently sourced. If anything, we should just rename the section to "rising powers" or something. Krawndawg (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing indiscriminate about a widely known subject displayed in an organized manner, nor is this a 'collection' of information. What on Earth does this have to do with WP:IINFO, which refers to long lists, FAQs and overly abundant statistics..?
The 'potential superpower' section is fine, and does not break any wikipolicies. Why, may I ask, are you so suddenly keen on removing a huge chunk of an article that you've never even edited before? See something you don't like? Krawndawg (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The very fact that "potential superpowers" has become "a huge chunk" (literally about half the article) should be a huge red flag that it is a problem. Do we really want a section that is a grab bag for every instance in which some speculative editorial gets published that tries to be the first to recognise the new up and coming future superpower? This section will grow without limit. I have seen publications speculating that Brazil, Indonesia, the African Union, Canada, Russia, the CIS, China, India, the EU, Iran (yes, Iran some writers like to use superpower metaphorically it seems), South Africa, a reinvented UN or other hypothesised reinvented associations like a post peak oil OPEC will all become "superpowers". If a source says it and god forbid some jingoistic fool finds the source it will find it's way into the article however absurd and inappropriate it's inclusion is. What's worse, the more unusual such a prediction is the less likely we will even be able to find a source that refutes it. This will lead to large amounts of criticism for the US, EU and China as superpowers but Brazil, Iran, indonesia and the UN included without comment. It's absurd.Zebulin (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NPA. Comment on the content not the contributor. The entire section is an embarrassment to this so-called encyclopedia. Ostap03:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that it's not a section I would ever expect to see in an encyclopedia. We also have to admit the battle to keep absurdly speculative "superpowers" out of the article is being lost as there are sources that bandy the superlative 'superpower' around for almost any power at all and these are steadily being added to the article. Brazil is a potential superpower? sources say yes. Perhaps we should rename it "current superpowers" and include only those "superpowers" whose sources already describe them as unqualified superpowers and with cited criticisms of that status. That would probably just include the US, and the EU as I seem to remember the other "potential superpowers" sources suggested their superpower status was imminent but not yet attained.Zebulin (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What battle? There's no reliable sources that would allow any other countries to be entered into the section, so it's just a matter of telling people to get a source or get out. No different than any other article. I'm all for renaming the section, but I don't think removing it would be appropriate. It's a legit topic of discussion with lots of sourced material to back everything up. It's not "predicting" anything by saying those countries will become superpowers, it's just analyzing the situation based on current day factual information and expressing what's possible.
But that said, I'd like to hear some other opinions on the matter. I have no interest in fighting against the consensus if that's what everyone wants. Krawndawg (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are reliable sources for all of the countries (and some non state actors) I listed due to careless use of the word "superpower" as a metaphor and due as well to some extreme optimism on the part of some reliable sources. I'm using 'reliable sources' in the wikipedia sense here not in the sense of saying I regard them personally as reliable obviously.Zebulin (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
China is already the largest agricultural producer of the world while the EU rivals the USA in industrial output.
Russia is not the same as USSR. India and Russia do not come anywhere near even Japan in output, investment and trade. So, they should not be included as superpowers. A population of a country is its asset only if they are skilled, fed, housed, clothed, educated, trained and provided with tools, capital and enterprise-level experiences. Otherwise, by default, population is a liability to the nation.
Let India and Russia first scramble and feed all their people and avoid starvation deaths before going on wild goose chases on empire and colonies. Otherwise, we can easily include South Africa as a superpower as its economy is 35% of Africa or Saudi Arabia as a superpower as its oil ministry policy announcements are closely watched by central banks in other countries including the EU and the USA.
Sooner or later, reason must prevail over this article. This is a encyclopaedia not a cuckooland for nurturing fantasies. So please remove the sections and sentences about Russia, Brazil, India and all other poor Third World nations.PlusDrawn (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your POV'd view of the world is extremely ignorant and not based on facts at all. It's not up to your own ignorant opinion to decide who to include and not include, that's why we use reliable sources with every edit we make. And your assertions that Russia is a "third world" country is false. Please see: this article, this one and this one. Further, China IS a third world country. But current status doesn't even matter because we're not talking about the countries being superpowers right now. Krawndawg (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One sentence at the end of the post-1991 section IS ALL THIS TOPIC NEEDS. Please refrain from adding ANY information on why these countries can and cannot become superpowers, and FTLOG don't add any more to the list right now. Leushenko (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried, said: “Russia has restored its position of a large political and economic force recently.”"[80]
adding: "Washington acknowledges the consequences of that process, negative for it: “Russia’s strengthening has been accompanied by a cooldown in its relations with the U.S.”."
Using the word "restored", that can only be referring to pre-1991 influence. Interesting. This might warrant a revamp of Russias section in the potential superpower section, or at the very least, removal of Barry Buzan's opinion, since it seems rather dated and contradictory to todays reality. Krawndawg (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article by Kommersant[81] stating Russia is a superpower, is also backed with a complete source information from U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried on his discussion about why Russia is a superpower, you fail to seek his full discussion on why is made that statement but he has made it clear with the Europe Union that Russia stands as a superpower once again. Read his comments here[82][83]--64.69.158.252 (talk) 05:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
too much interpretation. "restored" admits to degrees. Certainly few, if any, of our definitions of "superpower" set the bar so low as "a large political and economic force".Zebulin (talk) 04:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to say we should write them in as a second superpower, they've still got a long ways to go for that. But when Washington starts saying things like that, on top of already admitting they're the "indisputable" number two military power, that pretty much completely debunks the Barry Buzan paragraph. Krawndawg (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is 21st century. USSR is dead. It means only the USA is the remaining superpower. There are no ifs and buts. Learn to live with it.
Incase you are unaware, the non-oil GDP of Russia in 2007 was smaller than the non-oil GDP of London or even Turkey, which I still regard as the sick man of Europe.
Absolutely. That speculative section on "potential" superpower is not adding any value to the article. Infact it diverts the readers' attention from the gist of the article.Anwar (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope nobody misses the huge potential superpowers section too badly. I have to say the article is looking far more encyclopedic without it.Zebulin (talk) 08:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am cool with it, but I think that we should be more suspicious regarding sources which named EU as super-power. The implications of considering EU as super-power are that many other unions will sooner or later, unjust fly find their way into the article. More, as I am familiar with the military abilities of European countries, My personal (original research, I know) opinion is that even if the EU was one country, it still can't be the second world power-may be the fourth after USA, Russia and China.--Gilisa (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is [[84]] this person any of you? He is vandalizing the article by removing important information and cites this discussion to justify his actions. JTBX (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An admin could easily determine if it's someone with an account but I rather suspect it's another anon editor. In any event could you explain how the information removed was at all important or how the edits listed could be construed as vandalism?Zebulin (talk) 06:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
France was the largest society and economy in Europe in circa 1800. France had the second largest colonial empire in Europe in circa 1900. France threatened to veto several times US/UN resolutions in the 20th century. It was the French Revolution, not the American Revolution, that triggered the rise of nationalism worldwide over the past two centuries.
I bet more people loved to name, talk, eat, drink, dress and dance like French or Arab; than like Russian, Chinese or Japanese in circa 2000. This is extraordinary cultural hegemony without the use of force.
It's a kind of OR as far as wikipedia is concerned. There was a lot of original synthesis in the section. For instance there would be sources introduced calling Russia "a large political and economic force" and someone would want to introduce that to counter a Barry Buzan paragraph that was not even mentioned in the source calling Russia "a large political and economic force". In theory the sources in the potential superpower section were supposed to simply be reporting sourced commentary of others but we had people wanting to directly address details of the commentary by introducing other commentary that otherwise had no place in the article to counter particular points. That is synthesis...original research. Others would continually try to drop sources in for some superlative trait that didn't even mention the word "superpower" and that was synthesis as well. We also had people constantly introducing sources that did not actually make a case for a country as a "potential superpower" but instead either just dropped the term without justification or were talking about some other kind of "superpower". That wasn't original research but it simply wasn't providing sources that could be used to add anything meaningful to a superpower article.Zebulin (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...switching from the defensive to the aggressive. To those who keep adding it - why on Earth does this article need a potential superpowers section? You're breaking standard policies and introducing cruft to an otherwise decent article. Please, justify or desist. And please, under no circumstances use your own country as an example to back up any logic as to why it should be on the list. Leushenko (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your argument. This article describes superpowers that exist or existed in the past. "Potential superpowers" do not yet exist as superpowers. This is only a fantasy, prediction, science fiction, or whatever. On the other hand, this material is sourced. I suggest to create a separate article Potential superpowers, place all material there, and remove them from this article. What do you think?Biophys (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree to a separate article, linked from the relevant part of this one. But just because something is sourced is not a reason to include it. It still has to be notable, and verifiable as fact. I have no dispute with the idea that Russia or China could be a superpower on grounds of notability, but all future predictions are by nature POV, OR or synthesis. This is a problem that requires more than just secondary sources to resolve. Leushenko (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another compromise would be to condense the huge potential superpower section into one sentence per future superpower that simply names and lists the sources involved in the speculation for each case rather the current system of trying to paraphrase several sources speculation for each "potential" superpower. My biggest beef with the section is that it's much too large and grows much too fast for something that's only supposed to report on the published speculation of others.Zebulin (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried doing that (Driftwoods suggestion) when the section was taken out, but it got lost in a series of reverts. I agree that the section is too big in comparison to the rest of the article, but I don't think it should be deleted completely. And whoever keeps adding Brazil needs to stop. Some of those links even refute the idea that Brazil is a potential superpower and the one quote is from a discussion forum. I'm not opposed to either cutting it down to a paragraph or two, or giving it its own article altogether so we can expand on it even further, or both. Krawndawg (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that, it would be best to create a separate article and leave just a summary (one or two most important paragaphs about potential superpowers) here.Biophys (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One thing indeed is that many countries could be added, for example Pakistan, or Indonesia, by just finding one or two journalists who've said so would be enough. - PietervHuis (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A separate article on Potential superpowers was created and deleted for some reason. Meanwhile, the latest IMF growth estimates (April 2008) reveal that the US share of global economic output is likely to fall from 30 per cent in 2005 to 20 per cent in 2050 while Europe is likely to pick up almost all the spoils and see her share of global economic output jump from 30 per cent in 2005 to 40 per cent in 2050. The rest of the world, it means, would continue to remain in squalor and dreams.Anwar (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link to your source? Below are the IMF estimates from 2007 to 2013 (as far into the future as they appear to predict). Note that in each year the share of world GDP represented by the EU, the Euro area or central and eastern europe are predicted by the IMF to be less than the previous year. These estimates date from april of 2008. It is difficult to see why the IMF would believe that by 2050 the trend would have reversed so severely as to have increased the relative share of the EU by 50%.Zebulin (talk) 04:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMF's GDP figures based on current exchange rates follow the 40-per-cent-share-in-annual-growth pattern from 2000-13. (Growth is the arithmetic difference between any two years.) But it is for the whole of Europe including the EU, Russia and everyone between. It also means China's gains would be at the expense of Japan, Korea and other east Asian traders.[86] Extrapolating the annual dollar figures gives similar market shares by 2050.
By 2010, USA' share is estimated to fall to 22 per cent while the share of whole of Europe is estimated to rise to 35 per cent of the world GDP (of $67 trillion).Anwar (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding share of world GDP, Both America and the EU are going to fall sharply, while three of the four BRIC countries make rapid gains.2007 - 2013:
EU: 22.75% - 20.22%
America: 21.36% - 19.22%
China: 10.82% - 14.69%
India: 4.58% - 5.61%
Russia: 3.17% - 3.43%
Brazil: 2.81% - 2.69% (how that makes Brazil the next "economic superpower" is beyond me.)
With these figures we still can't see 50 years into the future, but I think it's a fair assumption that the EU and America's share will continue to fall, (especially considering that these estimates don't seem to take into account the current economic situation in America), while China, India and Russia continue to increase their share faster than any other country.Krawndawg (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PPP is inexact science. Use current market exchange rates as it is verifiable with national and international sources.Anwar (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously complaining about PPP distortions while suggesting using current market exchange rates for projections 40+ years in the future?Zebulin (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would a real encyclopedia include things that are "Potential"? No, of course not. I am sorry, but that potential superpower section really has no place here. I don't care if they have a thousand sources, wikipedia and encyclopedias in general are not crystal balls. Encyclopedias present information about past and present facts, not "Potential" facts. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also did I mention that the "Potential Superpower" section is in complete violation of wikipedia is not a crystal ball? It specifically talks about how articles about "Future History" are inappropriate.
Actually this is exactly what it says word for word....
"Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Weapons of Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not. "Future history" is welcome at Future Wikia, where original research is allowed to some extent and fact-based speculations are welcome." Daniel Chiswick (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly questions the inclusion of the last assertion that the US "will relinquished [its superpower status] if they pull out [of Iraq]." The citation says nothing of the sort and was written in 1991. And the assertion makes little sense in that superpower status is defined by a suite of powers (economic, military, political, etc) very few of which would be affected by an Iraq pull-out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.124.231 (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have some issues with the image displaying the durations of past superpowers. The Soviet Union is fine, and I don't know enough about the Spanish Empire to comment on its duration, although it's not one of the three "canonical" superpowers. More importantly, what is the justification for Britain's superpower status way back in the 17th century, or the USA's superpower status since the early nineteenth century?
1815 or thereabouts is a good time to start thinking of Britain as a superpower, as it had become the dominant power in Europe, which it wasn't previously (which would necessitate the inclusion of France). Similarly it was after this point that Empire-building really took off. Meanhile the United States didn't really make its name as a superpower until after the First World War; what did it do of any note on a global scale before that? If anything the timeline seems to imply rather counterintuitively that being defeated in a minor war is a good time to start being considered a superpower. Leushenko (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need sources for the graph to work, but I think sources for either wwI or the Spanish American war might be found as some sort of start date for a status of superpower for the US. It will likely be a bit more difficult to source the start of that status for the British empire if only because it sees so much less discussion published in connection with the concept of "superpower". In the meantime I think we need to remove the graph until the sources are identified.Zebulin (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's original research and seems very inaccurate to me. Both America and the USSR became superpowers at the same time following WWII for starters, and I don't recall learning in history class about "superpower Spain of the 19th century". Krawndawg (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The european union is a collection of states, no different then NATO. It cannot be considered a single state. considering no one government or man controls it. Infact, for instance, germany itself is an emerging superpower, with the 3rd largest economy and plans to revamp its bundeswehr. or what about france? one of the largest nuclear stockpiles and largest military spending in europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.119.215 (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, after all, NATO has a common currency, a common economy, and a constitution. Sure the EU is not fully a state but it is far from NATO(nothing more than a mutual defense pact) and a better comparison would be a mix of OPEC and the African Union but with a constitution. 128.227.139.150 (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Constitutions are wonderful things domestically but how do they have any bearing whatsoever on the functioning of a political unit in it's role as a "superpower"? The only parts of a constitution that would be relevant would be those that grant power to the supranational institutions that can actually act on behalf of the entire "superpower" marshalling all of it's resources. When people talk about things like common currency, common constitution, common national anthems, etc, it generally has no relevance to the superpower status of anything because it doesn't provide the "superpower" with any additional power or ability to use the power of it's constiuent political units.Zebulin (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The European Union, while not a single country in the traditional sense, does have closer ties including shared laws and a mostly-shared currency, as well as a degree of military homogenization. There isn't really a good past precedent of an entity like it - in my personal opinion it does qualify as a unified economic area and makes sense as a single 'superpower' rather than separately analysing the larger/more powerful members. ~ mazcatalk17:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many people are wondering about the United States and its recession[87] economy as if its still a superpower with the Iraq war, falling US dollar[88][89][90], high US minimum wages being outsourced for Chinese labor, a high unemployment rate, credit crisis[91] through US foreign policy spending, US inflation[92][93][94] from the Federal Reserve lowing interest rates too low[95], a housing crisis, dependence from oil & high gas prices and etc. Where does the United States stand as a superpower versing Russia’s current superpower status? Read at these sources here to see how the United States is losing or is now considered a former superpower:[96][97][98]
Now there is Russia a superpower (the United States only real counter partner as
as a superpower[99][100][101][102][103][104][105] because they have the economics[106][107], the wealth[108][109], the diplomatic power[110][111], ideological[112][113][114][115][116][117], technological power[118][119][120][121][122]& advances[123] than any other country besides the United States (look here on why the US is losing its superpower status read here:[124][125][126]) recognizes Russia as a superpower [127], they have the cultural sector and lets not forget their military forces (supreme). Russia is also the largest military arsenal producer in the world (they hold 73% of the worlds military arsenals market) and they have the worlds largest nuclear weapons arsenal than another other country (newer & older which many are reconditioned as new again) which is 5 times greater than the US has.
So Russia is a Superpower and lets not forget a Space Superpower, remember Russia has a Mar's mission coming up in 2015 [128]to 2024, also a Moon space station planned for 2015[129] without NASA but Russia going by itself; which NASA is out of funding due to a poor current US economy, 2007 & 2008. I do not start this article to brag about how wonderful Russia is, I started it because I am an American and I am seeing how the US is becoming a former superpower; even though I admire Russia as a country, I also admire my own country (USA) too.
Russia is a Superpower, that's plenty of facts in the bag to state they are in that position. The United State's position[130][131][132]), think what they are in for, a lot in the bag on the whole US economy on all sorts of issues, so we need to understand our Congress has put a lot of our problems right in front of us. US Congressman Ron Paul[133] was the only presidential candidate who would have saved the US as a superpower and our country. We cannot regret Russia is a superpower once again, that was always predicted they would achieve that goal and good for them, they stuck to their dreams and they brought it back. The US has done the opposite and we are heading down down the economic depression [134] tube to a great power nation because of Congress, Unions, Corporate greed and oil.
If you want to save the US as a superpower, stop buying from US companies made in China (look for the labels and try to buy made in America only, store like Costco, Walmart, K-Mart, Best Buy, Staples and more are companies that buy made in China goods and we Americans buy these things by the millions each day), second visit Congress personally and request to bring down the US minimum wage and request to cap wages too high to cap them or lower high salaries so greed is enforced to stop US inflation. Read here as if we don’t do something we we’ll really suffer as China’s minimum wage is $.25 cents an hour as China has used its low labor population power to put their country on the Superpower front and we made that happen, please read an listen to this link: [135][136][137][138] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Versace11 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your statements here, I viewed the sources and it is said Russia is a supoerpower with much facts on these articles sounding this debate. I think the interesting article on US considered a former superpower by Austin Chronicle Texas is well defined[139].--64.69.158.252 (talk) 05:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice argument. However, it's not really mainstream enough to appear as fact; maybe as a major alternative opinion...? It doesn't really address the nature of superpower status though: influence. The United States has greater general influence than Russia, even though Russia has always had comparable military strength, massive production capacity and vastly superior space capabilities. The simple fact that other countries are more likely to align with the United States for whatever reason gives it greater influence, and the fact that pretty much everyone hates the Russians is the biggest obstacle to Russia's re-expansion of influence. Ignoring this issue is to ignore the main difference between superpowers and Great Powers. Hope that is coherent... Leushenko (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that there was one an article like this, and this is used quite common on interlingual Wikipedias. I am considering making this an article on the case of being on both sides of this argument. Moving this to its own article will get rid of the "hypothetical" aspect from the article, and will still allow it to be a part of Wikipedia for all to see. We may also have the opportunity to add more information to each potential country and maybe add some pictures. I am also considering this because I am seeing that other countries are also quoted as potential superpowers (Australia and Mexico are the common ones on a Google search). I am going to make the article and link it to this article. This is so you can check it out at first glance and make a decision if it would work out. — NuclearVacuum00:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also did I mention that the "Potential Superpower" section is in complete violation of wikipedia is not a crystal ball? It specifically talks about how articles about "Future History" are inappropriate.
Actually this is exactly what it says word for word....
"Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Weapons of Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not. "Future history" is welcome at Future Wikia, where original research is allowed to some extent and fact-based speculations are welcome." Daniel Chiswick (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, I will wait until I get more feedback about it. Even thought these articles do mention a hypothetical situation, what doesn't on Wikipedia? I agree with this on the case of:
This has been here since the beginning.
Other Wikipedia articles (especially in other cultures and languages) tend to use it.
Some articles here are speculation, that's what makes them fun.
I already created the article and expanded it to some extent. I wish to know what others think, and I hope other users like it. Lets wait and see my friend. — NuclearVacuum01:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather have it there than here. We can have a link to it in this article. There the concept can stand or fall on it's own merits (or lack thereof) as an independent article.Zebulin (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it is fun, has been on here since the beginning, or is on other language versions of Wikipedia. It is against the rules and it should be removed, as should all other speculation in other articles because it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, which after all is what Wikipedia is. I will report this violation of the rules to an admin if this situation is not remedied soon. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may or may not be in violation of the policy you quoted here, however "speculation" in general is clearly not prohibited by that policy. In particular scholarly speculation by informed and credible sources may be reported on. For instance it was appropriate in the titan article prior to huygens to include sourced speculation that Huygens might land in a hydrocarbon sea or sourced speculation that life might be present under the ice of europa. One thing that is unambiguously prohibited however would be "future history". Predictions of the development of superpowers in the future certainly seems to fall into that category.Zebulin (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well since it falls into that category I will remove that section. I also suggest that the article Potential superpowers is nominated for speedy deletion because it is a against the rules to create such articles and that article was deleted in the the past for that very reason. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove this section. Let's keep it as a compromise. A reader will learn about the "potential superpower" article and read it if he wants.Biophys (talk) 03:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fair. There was also a huge number of editors to this article who were mostly interested in the potential superpower edits. It only makes sense to make it obvious where such content is being pursued by means of a wikilink.Zebulin (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Enough is enough. This article has become a hotbed for nationalistic views. Please, this is an encyclopedia. I'm tired of reverting stupid, non-sense edits being made to this article. As a matter of fact, I'm surprised that this article has even survived on Wikipedia. And for those people who live in the imaginary world created by Russia media:
A nation which cannot even claim top 5 ranks in any of these indicators is a superpower? Give me a break. Any person who resumes adding the same bs to this article will be reported and risks getting blocked. --AI009 (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Making this analysis yourself clearly qualifies as original research so it won't matter until you find a qualified source that lays this case out themselves. Although I'm not at all sure you'll find sources that claim low GDP per capita is relevant to superpower credentials, you may well be able to find a source that backs up the rest.Zebulin (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is more to do with common-sense rather than original research. Anyways, it is a combination of various factors including GDP per capita. --AI009 (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am reading more and more comments from user AI009, this guy obivously doesn't like Russia at all and has made a lot of
critism about the country in general, not just false comments about it not being a superpower but quoted all sorts of bias notes and changes he has made on the article as he is determined to hide all the information about Russia is not a superpower and goes on to say nothing but non sense things. I mean how would he like if we down talked his country, India?
Besides, Russia is a superpower, those statements are on the topic and he just throws them out, so people can't read them.
I concur, I noticed the samething on charging words on no information on the source of fact either. I think this is a couple of guys from India making there content their way, doesn't matter what you present, it is their way or take it to the highway. I agree that Russia is a superpower and to hear guys saying it on sources dating back in 1991 when this is 2008, which is right in the superpower topic currently[140]; old resources. We are supposed to believe these guys using old sources that the US is a sole superpower when articles are being published today 2008 that US is no longer a superpower and AI009 is changing the facts by eliminating everything, so is user Saruman20 doing the samething. It is what they want to do, they want to say the US is a superpower, they deny everything. I will take it and send snap shots by sending it to the administers to show what these guys are doing on a daily basis, this article Superpower is a crooked set of facts that making people believe these so so facts are to believe this is the current truth is a hawk of crap. If you hate I say it, Russia is a superpower and I will post it for ya too.
This has nothing to do with what you think Mr. unsigned user. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for people to display personal opinions. Your critism is unwarrented and rude. Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Calling someone a liar because they have a different view on a subject is immature and not only violates wikipedia policy, but courtesy and common sense aswell. You are bound to meet people who don't have the same political views as you, and just because someone has a different belief/view than you, does not make them a liar. The very point of wikipedia: an informitive online encyclopedia that anyone can edit within common sense is that everyone has a voice, and if someone has a different view it doesn't mean there a "liar". You should accept all viewpoints and not insult people over the internet based on political views. This has nothing to do with natinality either, I am Russian, and I have defended Russian inclusion here, but just because I edit because of FACTS not because of NATIONALISM, does not mean I hate Russia. Scroll up and you will see how I have defended Russia before, so don't you dare accuse me of hating Russia, that is a very personal attack to me. If you wish to be immature and continue to promote edit warring and personally attack people, the block function is nice and warm for ya. User: Saruman20 (talk) 24:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is too much one sided campaign here, we have 2 guys fighting to keep Russia off the superpower topic, throwing out content and sources, then you have one who brings up the issue Russia is not a superpower and declines to discuss his statement (AI009) after he makes no sense. Is this India running this site and deciding who is the one source to keep up float? I think this it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.158.252 (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Indian, I'm Russian! Everyone here presents good points, so don't try to put yourself above other people. As I said before, have fun with a block if your going to edit war and personally attack people. User: Saruman20 (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"After the Cold War, the most common belief held is that only the United States and Russia fulfill the criteria's to be considered superpowers,[2] (though it is not considered to be hegemonic) but the question now is, is the United States still a superpower or is it no longer a superpower?[3][4][5] [6][7][8] Also, some alternate theories believe Russia is a superpower [9][10][11][12][13][14][15] because they have the economics [16][17], the wealth[18][19], the diplomatic power [20][21],ideological[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. The China and European Union, are thought to have the potential of achieving superpower status within the 21st century.[34]"
First things first the usa is still a super power, russia may or may not be a super power and if this is the case, the eu is stronger the russia, just someone please fix this terrible edit. Oh and if this paragraph is stating that us is no longer a super power and that russia is than its clearly bias —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.60.57 (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say one thing that does need changing is the references and the grammar. Adding 12 references after ideological is silly when it's not even clear what it's saying. Ideological what? Is it meant to say idealogically instead? If it is, the references don't support it. Adding 12 references that are saying something very vaguely in the same direction as what you want to claim isn't the same as providing references that actually support your claim. I suggest removing any references that don't directly say that Russia is a superpower or that there are theories that it's a supoerpower, i.e. remove all 12 of them, as none of them do. I'm not saying that it is or isn't a super power (I don't get "superpower envy" as I've heard it's what you do with it rather than the size that matters) I'm just saying stop with the silly references that don't say what you claim they're saying. Ha! (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
if you read threw the article it keeps saying that the us is decling and has lost its super power status and russia has taken its place, i think this article should just reflect on the acual facts and not what anti usa and russian nationlist keep putting in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.60.57 (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I happened to listen to John McCaim today on television about his new foreign policy issues[141]. It is interesting to note that a US Senator making statements about the nuclear arms race of today and how he quoted that the 2 superpowers on tv this morning (Russia and the United States) on more disarmament but also military commitments on patrolling the middle east from nuclear conflicts. Claiming that Russia can destroy the world with a quarter of its total nuclear arsenal and that Russia has a lot of power with its international relations & global strategy with countries the US can't meet the eyes with. Russia's allies are the US's enemies or why the US can't control the countries it needs to influence and Russia can. It seems that with all of the US's NATO member countries, not one of them can influence any dangerous country or potential dangerous country than non-NATO Russia.
That right there says what Russia is and their importance on a global scale, which is beyond a world power country can do; which clearing states that Russia is no world power. A superpower has the ability to influence nations and countries together on major conflicts that interact with other nations that cannot. World powers are limited powers and are not global enough to make a stance which can lead to nation threats to war who cannot defend their own sovereignty or countries they bring on to the table. John McCain made these comments and reputably repeated the word Russia over 67 times in a 22 minute speech.
Obviously to the US, Russia has the economic potential plate to build anything they want and influence the world on a global scale. I mean why would he say to the public that Russia is the new influence on foreign policy; and act of will or an act of desperation? It is clear that the US has to look at Russia as its partner to the world on a global front if it needs an act of influence since the US cannot control its global policy. Both countries have the four axes of power on superpower influences than any other country; there is no question that both can destroy the world over and over again but who is not clearly strong enough where another can. I see Russia as either the potential or the second superpower, nothing lower. I’ll post the speech on youtube to prove it[142]. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradmorrisusa (talk • contribs) 21:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You prove the cause here, good points, why isn't Russia on the article as a superpower? Are people still trying to keep the fact Russia is superpower off the main page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.158.252 (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find it very interesting that here we have people who say Russia is a superpower and then we have people people who say it isn't a superpower, especially AI009 but with the right sources when it says it is, AI009 refuses to believe anything. This user is making the rules on here all to himself. We are dealing with a monopoly system here, a 18 year old kid AI009 says the content he wants and then he uses Adminstrators to protect his locked speech from everybody else and nobody gets to say there facts on the article. I think we have a real serious issue with this user AI009. When the facts are up, they may last 10 minutes and user AI009 just goes in and takes all the content out how he likes it. This guy is anti Russian, you can't say anything about Russia or bring any new link source, it is just disapproved asap. No ifs or butts, talk about crooked. --24.180.3.127 (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No ifs or buts? I compromised and agreed on having "there is a debate regarding Russia's status as a superpower.." but you were adamant on removing the word debate too. Listen, I want all sides to be represented equally here since this is an encyclopedia. You can cry, bang your head to the wall, call me a "big fat liar", "Nazi", "crooked" anything.. but unless you fail to provide reliable sources saying Russia is a superpower and not just an energy superpower or potential superpower, I'll keep reverting your edits. If you continue, I'll have to take up this case to Arbitration Committee because not only you are spreading nationalistic statements on Wikipedia, you are also making highly uncivil remarks against me. My case here is for everyone to see. --AI009 (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is easy to answer, the sources are unreliable because you delete them before anybody can read them and you don't even read them yourself. So I think your the problem here, you are the mess this whole thing is, your the issue, you created it. I see people saying things about you as it is, so you have a bad track record.
I am leaning towards the ascertion that Russia is not a superpower. I don't want to make this a long comment, there's already too much text on this page to be coherent. But here are my arguments
I believe even here there is a consensus that before 1989 the USSR was a superpower
After the end of the ColdWar, there was what is referred to in International Relations literature a 'Unipolar Moment'. The main question is, whether we are still living in a Unipolar world (with the US as the 'lonely superpower'), or of there is an emerging Multipolar order.
Even if there is today a Multipolar system, it is dominated by the US. Either you can say that the US is a hyperpower and there are some smaller superpowers, or you can say that the US is a superpower and other states are 'great powers'. As you can see, it's all semantics
The conclusion being, whatever you want to call Russia/China/India etc., they are on a different Level from the US. This I believe, is the main point.
Supporting Ondra2 here. The term superpower arose during the cold war, during which it was clear who were superpowers. After that, most sources agree that Russia lost the USSR's status as superpower, and they don't agree whether Russia has regained it. User:Krator (tc) 11:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was 19 years ago, that isn't now. Russia is back on the superpower status, read the facts[143][144]. Only 2 countries can destroy the world, that is Russia[145] and United States, world powers cannot do that. The question is now, is the US is a superpower still or not[146], I don't support Ondra2, he's way off on the matter.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is all irrelevant, as the current page supports both sides by stating that there is a debate regarding Russia and the United States status as superpowers. This whole argument is strangely pointless. Saruman20 (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute on user AI009 and articles on Potential Superpower & Superpowers
I am starting this topic on user AI009, in the last several weeks I have seen and witnessed a lot of stirred conflicts but also a lot of misleading information by user AI009. User AI009 is making statements after statements (a 18 year old) about how Russia is not this and not that, a lot of hogwash and more trash is being stirred out by this anti Russian baloney. You can't say anything with this user hogging these articles without him, it is a constant cat dog game here. I am reading a lot of discussions and I have Googled "AI009" [147], this guy thinks he is God here. The content is according to him, he is making his statements that I certaintly cannot understand why but I am seeing an anti Russian member here who is taking the positon to use this Superpower articles about who he thinks everything should be. Ok, I don't agree with this person and I think he should be banned where should be in college studying instead of discriminating Russia or whatever message your trying to imput here because this is ridiculious people don't have a right to discuss anything here when user thinks he a cop above the law[148]. I see other users also fustrated with user AI009 and I think this is turning into too much falsehood that no one can trust the content on Wikipedia on these issues. Oh know, whats the point here when we have an 18 year old kid who is making this his website. Get off, do something else, write a book or something if you want to speak or say something anti Russian because you are doing what is not the best interest of anything here, your making this a cartoon not an information source and I don't like it.
He is only states thing that you disagree with, and this is attacking someone, if i recall you arent allowed to do that on wiki so please no attacking. If i had my way there would be no super power section, it bring out national pride which isnt always a good thing and creates biasness over ones country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.60.57 (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In bubble, as along as this AI009 guy continues to stay on, he'll keep undoing the current Russia superpower sources. I think people need to really record this guy and show everyone here. I looked at his talk page and noticed warnings flags on undoing content, so he certaintly knows he's putting people down just he refuses to listen or hear the feedback. Again, this is his war game, he'll play war on here until someone either steals his computer or if finds himself a girlfriend because this guy has a lot of time to fight with people.--75.15.144.72 (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
Russia is considered the successor of the USSR,but due to the severity of the soviet collapse and ongoing difficulties, a reemergence as a superpower is not considered likely. www.fas.org
Fixed RFCxxx template, made section heading and template section param the same. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 04:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC).png){kind=link}