Jump to content

Talk:Superpower/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Iraq War

I don't think it's necessary to include things against the United States here. We aren't going to dispute that the United States is a superpower, so what's the point of mentioning that the Iraq War is a sign of its weak military. But I don't know what the person who originally added this bit was trying to imply, so if you could tell me why it needs to be here, then I may agree with you. Nobleeagle (Talk) 03:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I added it. If military prowess is a feature of a superpower, then the US failure to decisively win this war they started is relevant too. Seems obvious to me. If you take out the Iraq difficulty and the national debt, you are only portraying one side of the story and the article becomes disgustingly POV in my opinion. Guinnog 06:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I had a discussion about this with Guinnog on his talk page. I'll just reprise the thoughts I expressed there.
Do you mean this (the inclusion of Iraq) as a criticism of the idea of US military hegemony? The nature of insurgent conflict is such that even the strongest army will have a difficult time (eg Russia in Afghanistan, UK in Malaya, US in Vietnam). However on a global scale US military power is undeniable, the Iraq conflict is relatively localised. I'm not sure that it's a question of balance to mention the insurgency.
Insurgencies are difficult to deal with, just the nature of the beast. All armies, whether good or bad, have difficulties in dealing with such a situation - I don't think that it is necessarily a US specific point. However taken in a wider context - that a technologically advanced military can still be harassed by a few men with rifles, I accept the point has validity (something of a David and Goliath type situation I suppose).
Xdamr 13:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
It seems essential to mention the US difficulty in Iraq in the interests of balance and fairness; not to mention this (and their astronomical debt as well) leaves the article as a very POV celebration of the power and majesty of the US. I have been chipping away almost since this article was created, trying to bring a sense of balance to it; I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.Guinnog 19:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Concerning the debt, many economists present a different view concerning severity or potential damage of debt. In terms of absolute number, debt is a considerable problem. But in terms of relatively number (debt/GNP), more appropriate measure, we have different views. Also, debt could be seen as leverage tool. So, I am against the presence of debt as a negative point in the article, because it is not easy to define this problem, without involving necessary POVs 201.1.157.80 14:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
That's fine with me if you want to believe that owing 9 trillion is a good thing. Me, as an encyclopedist, I make no comment either way, just point out the fact. Guinnog 14:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with Guinnog that a high and increasing debt should be mentioned. The national debt is without any doubt an important characteristic of a state. But we could mention it without colouring its meaning. Perhaps we can just state the ammount in USD and the % of GDP without referring to the current problems in Iraq? (Almost no one agrees on how difficult and important the current problems really are) Sijo Ripa 15:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Mmmm. I think a lot of the problems come from the way the criteria are set up.

If you have (as we do at present): "Economic and financial Superior economic power is characterized by access to raw materials, volume and productivity of the domestic market, a leading position in world trade as well as global financial markets, innovation, and the ability to accumulate capital.", then an entry on any country that mentions only ways in which they conform to that criterion, but not any problems they have, becomes POV.

Similarly, as long as we have: "Military Pre-eminent military ability, characterized by relative invulnerability, ability to deter or cause great damage, and capacity to project unified military might globally, including nuclear weapons.", America's problems winning the war in Iraq seems relevant both to 'relative invulnerability' and to 'project unified military might globally'.

Maybe we can look again at the way the criteria are framed? But I do think this article is coming along. Guinnog 20:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The Iraq War comment sounds as if we are debating on whether America is yet a superpower. It is irrelevant if we find points that contradict America's superpower status. We aren't going to debate about that on this article. 210.11.188.13 01:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to debate whether America is a superpower or not either. But I do want the article to make sense, or at the very least not to contain internal contradictions. As I said, if military power is regarded as one of the criteria of a superpower, and if we are discussing America's military in terms of that criterion, then it seems essential to mention their difficulties as well as their strengths. I had mentioned the US' susceptibility to terrorism and to asymmetric warfare in an earlier edit; I would be happy to bring these references back again if there was a consensus here.
What we cannot have is a one-sided, POV, ennumeration of the power and majesty of the US armed forces, at a time when they are mainly in the news for struggling and taking casualties in Iraq. Guinnog 17:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That may be what's on the news, but the fact remains that, in conventional conflict (ie, that which has traditionaly been the measure of Great Power status) the US military is virtually invincible when countered with any credible opposing coalition (ie, no "whole world vs US" nonsense)

Virtually invincible, eh? Are you trying to introduce yet another criterion, that only 'conventional conflict' counts? I doubt that future historians will take this view! Please sign your edits. Thanks. Guinnog 20:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"although it continues to struggle to subdue irregular insurgents in Iraq three years after invading the country." ... My first reaction when I read this was to remove this line immediately because it struck me as vandalism. I checked the talk page first, though, and found the above discussion. While I have to agree that I am not exactly sure of the overall point of this article, this particular statement seems a bit petty -- like it was written by someone with a strong anti-American point of view in an attempt to take a stab at their 'enemy'. While I have no objections to presenting an alternative to the view presented in the article, I feel it should be done in a vastly different way. Perhaps a section on criticisms of the US's fulfillment of the superpower criteria or some such? This would accomplish two things: 1) allow more space to provide facts in support of an alternate PoV, thereby reducing the biased nature of the article; 2) remove the line quoted above, which does not make sense in the context it is presented, and makes the article sound either schizophrenic or as if it is the victim of a vandal.

Also, that line itself is pretty PoV in that it is a gross oversimplification of a complex topic, crafted to make readers believe a certain way. There are a lot of factors contributing the the drawn out Iraq war, very few of which have anything to do with military strength. (For example, the diplomatic and moral implications of using more and different military tactics to expedite the conflict's resolution...) Skleinjung 18:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Important Note on Vandalism

I want to get this clarified with everyone. I reverted this version of the page as it struck me as incorrect in its factuality. But it would be interesting if there were any clear reason to call the European Union as a superpower and then later call China and India superpowers. Get it through, they're potential and some people wouldn't even call them emerging, the European Union is not yet a superpower because it is not yet considered a nation as a whole by all of the world.

What difference does that make? Guinnog 06:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

They need to officially merge together, so that no other nation apart from the E.U. exists in Europe. Also, you can't say there are 2/4 hyperpowers, that's just ignorance of the fact that hyperpowers exist only in a unipolar world. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Who says? Where is the consensus on that definition? Where are the references? Guinnog 06:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Why are you getting so edgy on it? I'm not going to argue on whether the United States is a superpower, of course it is. Being an Indian, I am not blinded by the rapid growth of my nation's economy and military, I see that it is not ready to be placed with the United States, and neither is China. When the U.S. goes to war, the world shakes, everyone reckons the world is going to change. The E.U., China and India hardly ever go to war, but I know that when Indian troops fight and die in front of Kashmiri Terrorists, they get one eighth of the publicity that the United States soldier would. Same with European and Chinese troops. The criteria and definitions including the origins were picked from a site that I accessed around December. It was not I who added it, but at the time it was pretty plagiarized and needed a bit of rephrasing. I can no longer find the site but it was some sort of Global Society with a .org at the end, so it was a fair source. In reference to your note on my talk page, just because an article is bad doesn't mean you allow it to become worse, like you implied. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


Hello, I hope that someone here can see my addition, I will create an account soon. I'm just adding to this point: If one feels it is absolutely necessary to add the whole issue of the struggling with insurgents in Iraq [U.S.A.], shouldn't we add other details like that (in both the military and other points) to other countries including India (Kashmir), China (Taiwan and Hong Kong), the E.U. (Terrorism and other events) etc.? Or am I wrong, because I simply feel that JUST stating the U.S.'s issue with Iraq is a little bit one-dimensional, perhaps we should add other potential super(hyper)power's struggles too, along with their accomplishments? - Jay Kay

That should be done. In fact before Sep. 11 many would say nations like India were having more trouble with terrorists that the United States. It's a very one-sided perspective that is presented on most terrorism-related articles, on and off Wikipedia. Anyway, signing up should be easy, you don't even need to present any information and you are signed up in a second. Hope you can contribute to these articles further. Nobleeagle (Talk) 09:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, NobleEagle, even after 9/11 the EU and India have had more problems with terrorists domestically than the USA, seeing as that we have not had a real terrorist attack since then. India, England, Spain, and others have all had terrorist incidents since then. - Eldernerd

Edit ideas

As I think this article needs some NPOV editing, I've decided to take a crack at it, but before editing an article which has a good potential of being reverted, I'd like to listen to some of y'all's input on one proposed change; if there is any.

Currently:

Currently there is only one superpower: the United States. It is considered a hyperpower in a unipolar world. There are also three accepted emerging superpowers: the European Union, China, and India. These are currently considered major powers.

My Changes:

Currently, there is believed to exist only one superpower, the United States; which is sometimes considered a hyperpower in a unipolar world. The current accepted major and regional powers; the European Union, China, and India currently appear to have the greatest potential of achieving superpower or near-superpower status within the 21st century.

I feel that the second paragraph in the beginning has too short of sentences and claims the EU, PRC, and India are already major powers and will become superpowers, plus it doesn't explain when. The reason I switched to major and regional powers, is because although India has a large population and a fast growing economy, it's current political and military progress hasn't achieved the status at which it can affect the global community as say the UK. China has a similiar issue with it's military, which was, and/or still is, based on defense and localized warfare, and it doesn't appear to have the ability to wage war around the world as easily as a more established major power.

So what do y'all think eh? - Rudykog 07:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that sort of stuff won't be reverted. Only really POV stuff or unexplained things get reverted. The intro and stuff aren't sources of too much controversy, remember Be Bold. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

European Union

Is European Union a potential superpower? If we consider the members of EU as one entity, then EU is a superpower. Their GDP is extremely close to that of USA and military is big and technologically advanced. But at the same time, the big question is should we consider EU as one entity? UK, France, Germany and Italy have been ancient rivals. Recently some of the EU members (notably France and Netherlands) rejected an amendment to the EU constitution. If we consider EU as an emerging superpower, then we expect the EU members to come more and more closer forming one political entity; highly unlikely scenario. The brighter side is that EU is expanding and is already an economic superpower, hands down. But will it ever be a political and military superpower given the differences and diversity among EU members? UK is much closer to USA than it is to France. It will be more appropriate to consider USA and UK as one entity than to consider EU as one entity. Think about it... --Spartian 20:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

For the reasons you said it can be considered a superpower. But the truth is that the European Union is not yet one entity, the member states still treat themselves like nations, the E.U. can only be a political entity when it unites as one nations. This means that it is not yet a superpower, if you read the articles you would say it repeatedly mentions Military power as a unit and Economic power as a unit, the truth is that it is not a unit. Which means everything in that article is purely dependent on the emergence of a future nation. Which means the European Union is still a potential superpower. Nobleeagle (Talk) 22:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. It is a potential superpower. All it needs is further integration. To say that the European Union will never integrate is just as much crystal-balling as to say it will.

I mean, look at the United States. Who could have said that that continent, ruled partially by France, Britain would integrate and become the superpower we now assume to have been inevitable. If there was a Wikipedia during the birth of the American superpower, we would have had the same debates on integration. Trip: The Light Fantastic 16:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The US didn't integrate. It was one civilization which expanded. It wasn't as if Northern Mexico, French Louisiana, Oregon and the British territory integrated together to form the US; the country started from British territory and acquired more through treaties. It isn't a very good comparison. 68.4.212.158


EU is a de facto political union,they are more coordinated than what it seems on paper.Members states will never fuck each other,it's like having stock of company A and buying the products from B.I don't no if you live is europe but i live in bruxelles,do you no what it means that they have to meat several times a year(do you no many organisations that do that),some ministeres have to meat several times a mounth,i mean they see each other more ofent than i see my parents(at the fewnerall of miteran Kolh was crying).members are to unterdependant to afford not caring for eachother(yes UK too),intraeuropean trade is huge,it's biger than world international trade(if you count intra usa trade you'l find an insane number too),don't forget the €,that's how mache interdependent they are,don't be fould by the fact that we have 25 presidents and you just 1.In fact EU is realy a confederation,and with each reform(that's a perpetual thing over here) it gradualy federalising it's self more and more,some thing like MORE than half of europes legislation comes from bruxelles and not from the states.With the prospect of ferthur expansion to the east (rusia) the future agregate will be insanly big by all means(in 2007 we will be 500 million).I undestand that from an outsider it don't look much but imagine if the usa canada and mexico build a monetary union,the goverments meant several times a year to have a democratic vote upon demografic critiria,have a comon parlement wich makes more than half of legislation ,have a common budget ,subsidise mexico ,having sings popup every were saying that this thing was fininced by EU ,garanteas "democracy,human rights,prosperity,subsideas", all rest of america (and parts of africa)are beging to join and a buch of peopol on tv saying to do a federation out of it.You ll say that's imposible,that's EU. I am sory for my bad english ,feal free to corect the spelling if you wish but i realy needed to say some things,and steel a could wright a lot more but no one would have reed it.--Ruber chiken 00:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Rubber chicken goes straight to the core of the issue at hand. The unity of the EU (and the implied eligibility to be a superpower) is not determined by who is more historically or culturally linked to who. It is determined by the unity of the aspects that make a country what it is. As Rubber chicken says, the economies of each and every country in the union function as one, to the extent that they share the same currency. Let's not forget that the US was recognized as a single nation-state even at a time when every state functioned essentially as independent countries (which is why they were called "states", and why they were collectively termed the United States to being with... hey, come to think of it, the name "United States" should have logically become obsolete by now O.o
but then again there's the US commonwealths of Puerto Rico and Guam who are recognized as sovereign states by the UN (although, setting aside my Puerto Rican pride, they're technically not :'( ), so instead of being called the future 51st state of the United States (which btw , NO), it could correctly be called the second or third state.... whoa, train of thought turned over, many casualties

Just look at the Soviet Union. That qualified as a superpower despite not being one nation. The EU should be considered one also, considering it is more powerful in most ways than the US. MichaelJBuck 16:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Power (international)

Just wanted to notify you guys that I've created a plan of action on the talk page for power (international) which will hopefully stop the contradictions to the pages Major power and Superpower that are listed there. So if you reckon you can help, just a little bit of effort can make that page worthwile in around a week. Thanks. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


largest armed forces

Stop this blatantly India-lover POV. The article you quoted ALREADY made note that:

This list is indicative only, as strict comparisons cannot accurately be made. For example, "troop strength" in some forces might include administative or paramilitary functions that in another country might be civilian roles and therefore excluded from the below figures..

Both the United States and PRC rank unquestionably higher than India no matter paramilitary functions are included(PRC's would exceed 3M, for example) or not! Double standard exists on World Almanac's data while trained civilians are included for India but not US/PRC/JP/RU/others

My edits "one of the Largest" is neutral enough. This is no Indopedia. --219.78.172.189 09:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

And yet you claim that China has the largest armed forces without even sourcing. I think you're the one operating on double standards. Nobleeagle (Talk) 10:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
huh? The long existed PLA link C-L-E-A-R-L-Y show the data of 2.25M (3.25M if trained-civilians incld.) Anyway, one more link was just added upon your request, its a piece of cake.--219.78.172.189 10:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, it depends on how does one define paramilitary force. The fas article gives the total strength of the paramiitary forces in India as 1,089,700 which includes only the Indian Paramilitary Forces (PMF) and Indian Coast Guard. But there is no mention of various other Indian Police Service (IPS) branches which don't come under the PMF for example Delhi Police (which alone has a strength of some 50,000 personnel), Mumbai Police etc. Whereas the FAS includes People's Armed Police (PAP) in China's total paramilitary strength. If one includes all the personnel in the the Indian Police Service, then India's total paramilitary strength exceeds 1.5 million easily. Also, I doubt PAP's wartime combat skills as it is primarily an internal security force. The PMF, on the other hand, has taken part in the Indo-Pakistani Wars and Border Security Force is currently a part of several UN Peacekeeping missions. But if one counts every "armed" person in China as a part of its armed force, then China perhaps has a greater "armed" force than India. --Spartian 18:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for elaborating. But by *what* standard Police forces are included in Paramilitary functions? I visited the Indian Armed Forces official website <www.armedforces.nic.in> and found that neither Paramilitary forces nor Police forces [from Delhi, Mumbai...blarblarblar] are included. So....are people here creating some kind of "India-as-number-one" mirage? For example, I saw there are relevant edits on IAF article, but why use "new" ranking [as #1] while adopting old number [1.08M]? Why double standard? To make those India-lovers feel better? Should we now formally remove paramil forces' data according to official IAF standard?
As I mentioned above, the List_of_countries_by_size_of_armed_forces article has itself noted that "strict comparisons cannot accurately be made", so obviously the List of countries by number of active troops has higher credibility.
No offense, but honestly I do smell Indian-POVs--219.78.172.189 04:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, you're arguments aren't consistent. The list of contries by number of active troops is not more credible for two reasons:
A) It has the following text on its page: In some cases, other forces are also included which in many other countries would be civilian occupations, and therefore not included: for example, the USA includes their coastguard, and France includes her internal security force, the Gendarmerie.
B) It hasn't been updated for a long time as is indicated by the tag.
But to stop this edit war that gets long and annoying for everyone, we need suggestions, we are not going to come to any conclusions like this, if you find a source, I may find a source that proves otherwise. Such is the nature of these articles. So please don't edit the articles or sections until we reach a conclusion, for now, let's just say that they have a military that is over two million strong. Nobleeagle (Talk) 09:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Please clearly read what I have said before you did any meaningless reverting. The Indian Armed Forces official website [1], which is unquestionably much more authoritative than those World Almanac publications, never included paramilitary functions as part of the troops. Even paramilitary functions are, by individual definitions, included (e.g.: PLA+PAP [2] or IAF+Paramil or USAF+USCG), India's rank is still obviously behind US and PRC (maybe even Russia). Furthermore, you claim that the list I referred to was "not updated for LONG TIME" is typically misleading, kindly note than China's data is linked with BBC article published on March 2006. Of course, BBC ranks Communist China's armed forces as the largest.
My point is crystal clear: Even the IAF itself does not consider paramil. function as part of the troops. I think its time to stop this psychic-masturbation! We need a genuine encyclopedia, we dont need Indian progapanda which has been flooding everywhere.
BTW, I'd like to update that PRC officially regards the 1.5m-strong PAP as a component of the Armed Forces. Edits are needed for the two lists mentioned above.--219.78.172.189 13:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I can't be stuffed arguing with you, I've got better things to do, editing articles that are worthwile. Keep your POV, I don't care honestly. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Listen, there are certain strategic reasons for which governments across the world do not give the actual headcount of their country's armed force. Also, it is quite logical that Indian Armed Forces website does not mention Indian Paramilitary Forces because if the PMF was going to be included in the same umbrella of which Military of India is a part of, then what's the difference between a paramilitary and military. It is a complicated setup. The PMF and Military of India are two different organisations. Practically there is no organisation called Indian Armed Forces. Military of India and PMF operate separately. Also, Indian Coast Guard is a paramilitary force, yet it doesn't come under either PMF or Military of India but you will notice ICG mentioned in Indian Armed Forces site. It is a very complicated setup about which little is known. Also, you fail to provide the "official site" of Chinese armed forces which includes PAP as its member. Fact remains that Indian Armed Forces includes all those armed forces which directly come under the Indian Ministry of Defence which includes Military of India (MOI) and PMF. But in terms of organisation, MOI and PMF are different entities and the PMF is a highly classified force about which little is known and hence the armed forces site doesn't say anything about for security/strategic reasons. Also note that military analysts estimate that PMF's strength has increased four times since 1992 and there are no official numbers for the total paramilitary forces in India because of a simple fact, its a very secret force. All we know is the "estimate" of the strength of the PMF which does not even cover all paramilitary forces in India (as evident from the fact that ICG is not under the PMF). God, its soo hard to explain things to people.. --Spartian 16:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for being such "informative", but we are talking about the _ARMED FORCES_ but not how many people are working for your Defense Dept which I dont really care. Without citing sources from official <ARMEDFORCES.NIC.IN> it is only your own (wild) claim by which u can say whatever you want! Regarding PRC's position please kindly revisit the central government site <english.GOV.CN/2005-09/02/content_28491.htm> which, as common sense, shows us the GOVernment's position. See the top header <Chinese Government's Official Web Portal> and the title <The Components of the Armed Forces>?
Wait a minute, are you saying there is difference between the position of the Central Government and that of the Armed Forces (more correctly Central Military Commission) which come directly under? Come on, it is time for you two India-lovers to stop this dog and pony show!--219.78.172.189 17:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Wat tha hell is up with this "India lovers India lovers" thing. So retarded. Anyways, who is talking about the number of officials in Indian Ministry of Defence? My main concern was your this edit where you removed the number of paramilitary forces in the IAF. Just because the armed forces website doesn't mention PMF doesn't mean that PMF is not a part of the armed force. How stupid.. --Spartian 19:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
No, you didn't answer by whose definition PMF is included in the case of India. You didn't even cite any sources from any governmental publication! I notice that the Time.com links you referred to doesn't regard PMF as "troops"(Active plus Reserve)? So is it authoritative or not? In order to reach neutrality I've already done my job providing two official links, one from India and one from the PRC.
Clearly listing the four components: namely Army, Air Forces, Navy and Inter-Service institutions, the IAFs dont list PMF (fifth component?)as part of the troops on their web-publication, so how come you convince other wikipedians, including me, to believe your claim? BTW, I didn't remove anything from that list, I just EDITED and UPDATED infomation according to official websites of the two governments which are much more authoritative than simply a wikipedian's own words. Thats what we called _citing sources_. Anyway, I saw it is you who removed the cited sources, it is indeed disrespectful to any other editor, no matter he/she is an anon or a member. Wikipedia is no kindergarten playground.
Further edits are needed, how about the U.S.? if USCG or National Guards got included, would the ranking be (slightly?) different? Therefore, I suggest to add a <disputed> tag (or something like that) on that list on which I found many loopholes--219.78.172.189 03:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Spartian, this China-lover won't be allowing this discussion to reach any other conclusion than the one he/she proposes. Hope you know that before you continue arguing. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I see this discussion go nowhere. To 219.78.172.189, please go ahead and do whatever you feel like, I've got better things to do --Spartian 07:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


well....3.75M (PRC's def.)is larger than 2.41M (Spartian's def.), 1.5M larger than 1.08M. These're all simple maths ("any other conclusion?"), or maybe something's going wrong with your education system
you two have my sympathy--219.78.172.189 07:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop calling each other names and remember violation of the No personal attacks rule can get both parties blocked. I would like each side to provide "Credible" references to support their arguments. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not use subpages

The long-standing rule here is "do not use subpages". Just because you use a dash instead of a slash does not prevent an article from being a subpage. I propose to move these articles to standalone names according to summary style. e.g. "China's potential as a superpower".--Jiang 12:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the subpage creation was the fact that the article was way too long (70kb or something). Just so you know, I don't see any problem with the article names at the moment but others may not agree with me, I leave it to the discretion of others. Nobleeagle (Talk) 09:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

When articles are too long, we break it down using summary style, not subpages. This has been long standing policy for the past 3.5 years--Jiang 20:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is, creating stand-alone articles on the subject invites even more controversy than usual. It needs to be made expressly clear.
I had already read the "no subpages" article when I was involved in the debate on whether to break down this article, and I stand by that decision.
May I point out what you have said is factually incorrect. You said: "The long-standing rule here is "do not use subpages". This is wrong. The no-subpages is a guideline only. Because it invites controversy, weakening these article's strong ties with the superpower article is wholly inappropriate, so this guideline needs not be followed in this special case.Trip: The Light Fantastic 13:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see sufficient cause the breach the "guideline" here. Are there any other precedents? Just because an article is controversial does not mean we should write about it, or avoid calling it by a controversial name in favor of a cooked up name. A controversial topic only means we should be especially careful about NPOV and citing references. For a similar way of how country-topical articles are handled, see Template:WMD.--Jiang 13:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Struggle with Iraq

Sorry to get involved in such a disputed topic...but here goes. I was reading the article and came to:

"The USA spends more on its military than the next twelve countries combined. It has the second largest nuclear arsenal (after Russia) and combines some of the world's most technologically advanced weapons systems, although it continues to struggle to subdue irregular insurgents in Iraq three years after invading the country."

I edited the section of that statement that implies a bias POV in regards to Iraq. I felt it was relatively clear that the statement really doesn't fit in that subsection nor does it relate the true complexities of the situation in Iraq. This really doesn't have as much to do with shear military might but more to do with complex political issues in dealing with religion and people in the area. The US could crater the entire middle east if it so desired and leave a smoking hole in the gound...there would be no "struggle" if simple weaponized power was the sole mediator. Anyway, my edit was reverted so I just wanted to add my 2 cents. I won't continue to edit this article as clearly it's a tar pit of POV and such already. J Shultz 21:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it. See discussion under 'Iraq War' above. It's a lousy article but it doesn't get any better for portraying the US military in a simplistic way. Guinnog 03:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Table

Like the Soviet/America table. Whoever did that, well done :D Trip: The Light Fantastic 16:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is very good. But it's been there for a while now hasn't it? Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, well, I'm sorry! Trip: The Light Fantastic 02:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Potential/Emerging Superpowers Results

Some of you may have forgotten the vote, seeing as you didn't respond to my comment. The results are 6 in favour of move, 5 against move (inc. 3 anon). I'm not sure whether anon users are allowed to have their votes included, but despite all, we come to the result that the move should be done. Any commments before I carry it out? Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Normally only votes of (well) known contributors or discussors (to the particular page) matter, I thought. Perhaps this is an unwritten rule, or perhaps not even a rule, but a guideline. This means that the votes of anons who contribute or discuss matter. Votes should not be regarded as the best way to settle discussions however, as they tend to favor the majority, and not the quality of an opinion. Doesn't matter much here though (not withstanding I favored potential over emerging). Sijo Ripa 20:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I'm Bold enough to make the move :), there's no point moving it just to have someone move it back. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Can we please just get it done? 88.104.208.206 01:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I did it in the end. It's probably a horrible mess now, but at least it's done ;) Trip: The Light Fantastic 02:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, just in case anyone starts to be clever about the word emerging, it fits prefectly. Definitions of "Emerging" according to Wordnet:

Meaning #1: coming into view 

 Participle of verb: emerge (meaning #1)

Meaning #2: coming into existence 

 Synonyms: emergent, nascent

Meaning #3: coming to maturity 

 Synonym: rising

The synonyms are the most interesting. All three could certainly be described as "rising superpowers".Trip: The Light Fantastic 02:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It's done. Well done for being bold, I'll just tidy up a little on the respective pages, I though it would be better to add this:
For more information on the topic see Emerging Superpowers and Superpower
Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Okey-dokey. No backlash yet, anyways.Trip: The Light Fantastic 14:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Debt

I've just reverted this again. It seems obvious to me we cannot mention the strong US economy without mentioning the debt, any more than you can use military strength without Iraq, or the space program without the STS problems. Guinnog 13:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, you sound like you are implicitly trying to insert negativity that may not be justified in fact for the Iraq issue. Once again I compare the Iraq issue as a function the USA's total millitary power. Insurgent or millitia violence is not really a function of a superpowers ability to craterize the country with precision guided munitions, if that were needed it could be accomplished easily. The millitary can not do that however for obvious social reasons so therefore you will always have simmering violence in a case where a faction does not like the occupying force. It's more politics than millitary firepower. J Shultz 10:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I do appreciate the points you make. As I think I said, a lot of the fault in this article seems to come from the OR way the criteria are set up. As they are, they make no mention of power per capita, either financial or military. If we inserted this, we could maybe have Sweden as a military (certainly an aerospace) superpower, and Monaco or Lichtenstein as a financial one. While this would perhaps be rather fun, I think you'll agree it wouldn't reflect reality. I've reverted for now, until we can come up with a better way to describe the US status in a NPOV way, ie without suppressing uncomfortable facts. Guinnog 12:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
On reflection, this is maybe more flippant than I meant to be. NPOV is difficult, and having these criteria makes this article difficult to keep NPOV. If we mention the US strength in certain areaas, it seems to me we have to mention any weaknesses in those areas too.Guinnog 14:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
debt number on it's whon is apsolutly minigless.internal debt,from the peopol of the contry it's self,is no thret,american's don't have intrest to put ther whon contry into bancrapsy.wat's umportant is external debt,foreners don't care for the contry,they just want the'r many.for example japan belgium italy have huge debts but 90% of it's towards ther whon citizens.on the other hand argentina or some other third world countrys they have huge external debts.think it like that,if all the contries of the world are in debt, how's the creditor then,marsians?--Ruber chiken 22:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Iraq and National Debt - vote for a consensus

I see many attempts of edition concerning both themes above. We need to reach a clear consensus, because many editors are giving different comments about those and , frankly talking, I cannot see any CLEAR consensus above, just few opinions.


Iraq and debt : add (inclusion) or delete?

Please vote:

  • Iraq - exclusion and Debt-exclusionOk reason:

Iraq is a political question to be solved. If US really wanted to use military force, without limits, well..you can imagine the scenario. Second: the size of debt is huge (not doubt about it), but the US economy is huge too...so we need a relative value. Please compare debt/GDP among other major nations - it seems to me that the matter just takes a different meaning. Without parameters, it is not possible to measure how bad is the national debt.Cloretti2 17:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Cloretti2 14:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Iraq - exclusion and Debt-inclusion. I didn't participate for a while, so I don't know whether my vote counts. The reason for my vote is: Iraq is an event since 2003, debt - and than I mean debt evolution, not emphasizing the current debt - seems to be an important characteristic of power. Emphasizing the current debt "because of Iraq" seems to be POV, but mentioning the evolution of the debt since the end of the Cold War seems quite neutral. Hard to negate the impact of debt on power. Sijo Ripa 14:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Also: What I meant to say: the Cold War ended in 1991, Iraq started in 2003. Emphasizing the post-2003 period is POV, the evolution takes the whole period in, so it's NPOV. Sijo Ripa 14:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Iraq - exclusion and Debt-exclusion
I'm not certain about the debt issue, essentially my decision comes down to my view that the US is indisputably the biggest economy in the world and throwing in debt just looks a little bit too much like trying to find negative points where they might not necessarily be appropriate.
As to the military question I have not been too happy with the Iraq inclusion. I don't think that there is any disagreement that the US could vapourise the Middle East, or indeed anywhere else, if it wanted to. The US's military might is a fact. I do feel that insurgency is a particular type of war which by cannot simply be crushed by force. In one-on-one situations (eg. Falujah) the US will win out against these disorganised militias even if it is tricky to deal with road-side bombs etc - it's simply a question of military tactics. But the chief point I think is that this page deals with international power, the differences in power between nation states. The US has military power in excess of any other nation state; that is the point that this article should consider, not necessarily the tactics and strategy of the US army in one particular situation.
Xdamr 14:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

THE SOURCE

I finally found it. It took a while but I found it. This is where the criteria originated, note that the second dot point states both demographics and cultural, hence the split between those two criteria. Georgaphic were definitely original research, but looking into the past at nations like the Roman Empire with the Alps to protect them justifies it's inclusion in my mind.

It also has the entire origins, which was originally plagiarised onto Wikipedia. Anyway, here is the Source of this Article: The Criteria is NOT OR:

Global CPR, an Organization by the looks of it.

I'm adding it into External Links.

Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting site. Whether it justifies having these entire articles built (plagiarised as you say) around a variation on the principles it outlines is another matter though. Guinnog 01:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, have a look at the origins section, it seriously is plagiarism from this site. We should at least attempt to reword it so that it's our own words without being OR. Nobleeagle (Talk) 03:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure that this site has not plaigarised from us, rather than the other way around? Many sites do.
On a sidenote, I'm always impressed by the fact that Wikipedia is so widely referenced to and integrated that what we write could be changing the course of history. For instance, describing the EU as a superpower in the way we have could possibly help turn the EU into superpower through a "snowball effect". Many journalists read Wikipedia for ideas (possibly changing their opinions and therefore changing the opinions of newspapers (and the general public). Now if you hit "EU superpower" into Google, we come up, rather than the bizaare Christian articles that have done before. Also, a scandal came out in Washington where some hawks in the White House were biasing Wikipedia towards them - so obviously some important people may well be reading what we write, and may change their policies.
It might sound a little crazy and off-topic, but if you think about it, with the audience we reach, we could be changing the world forever.. Trip: The Light Fantastic 14:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Nah, they did not plagiarise from us. I saw this website long before we created the Potential Superpowers sections. Also, if they copied from us they would include the criteria in the way we use them, rather than splitting it into 3 or 4 general areas. They would also include the section about possible future criteria. And I have realised your second point, world opinion is beginning to be based so much on Wikipedia, if you search for India Future Superpower or something you'll get a lot of Wikipedia sources saying that yes India is likely to become a future superpower. It changes opinions a lot. This just means we have to be a lot more careful with the article. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
They copied us. If you compare their web page with an old version of this article from around November 2005, you will find that the two are identical (except that our article is full of links while the copied version does not have links). You can tell that our article is the original because it reached that point through 1000s of edits made over several years by dozens of editors. The other articles on that site are also plagiarized from us.--Todd Kloos 02:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Who copied whom here only determines if this very weak article is original research or plagiarism. Guinnog 06:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you please link us to the old November version that you are referring to. I always remember this article as pretty much unsourced collection of facts and the odd opinion. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
If we have an identical copy of the article in this page's history, with other edits predating it, then this article is not plaigarised. Trip: The Light Fantastic 00:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Here is an old version of the article from [November 11].--Todd Kloos 02:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Would you expect an organization to copy Wikipedia's small articles or would you expect some user to save hard work and not bother summarizing a page they found? I've seen plagiarism happen on Wikipedia, it happens through laziness which I suspect we have all been guilty of many times (in the real world). Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Performance in Sports?

We just started a poll on whether Sports Power and performance in sports can be included under all of the nations listed on the pages Major power, Superpower, Potential Superpowers and Regional power. If you're interested in the topic, please come to Talk:Major power#Vote to express your views and cast your vote. : : : MainBody

Tags problem, again

I know that many may agree with the (many) anonymous tags that have been placed on this page, but can someone please tell everyone how to change the article so the tags can be removed?

They're completely pointless and just look messy, otherwise. If you're going to tag the page, post here with the issues you have.Trip: The Light Fantastic 00:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I placed the OR tag, as the article is almost pure OR. "Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."" To make it better, it should cite sources for the structure and especially the criteria. HTH Guinnog 00:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I saw you comment on this criteria issue on the Sports vote. The criteria for superpowerness (excuse the made up word) simply have to be created from looking at the United States and Soviet Union and pulling obvious similiarities from them in comparison to other countries. It's going to be very hard to find any agreed criteria with multiple citations because the nature of what makes superpowerness is so large, ecompassing multi-polar politics and economics at all levels.
We could easily write a fifty-page essay on what qualifies the Soviet Union and United States as superpowers, but we can't, we simply have to sum up all the issues, facts and figures, stockmarket data, population data, achievements of the countries, nature of the Cold War etc; etc; etc; into a simple section. That's what the criteria are all about.
I assume you know this from the fact you've tagged the article and not cited yourself. As for the rest of the article being "purely original research", I have no idea what you refer to. The Soviet Union and United States of America section is simply full of facts, you can't possibly argue that that section. The US sole superpower section is similar. And the emerging superpowers stuff refers to a seperate article. So what original research are you talking about? (PS I wouldn't lean too heavily on the Wikipedia OR policy, it's an utter mess at the moment and might fall over. I think what OR is trying to address is wild theories, but the current policy guideline at Wikipedia:No original research is an utter mess and far more controversial than the editors would like.) Trip: The Light Fantastic 22:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll just repeat what I said on the Major Powers Talk Guinnog. You've been complaining on criteria and OR for a really long time, and I've generally appreciated your constructive criticism. But you haven't been helpful (without meaning any offence) in finding a new criteria or remodelling the criteria. I also see what Trip: The Light Fantastic is trying to say, there have been two Superpowers in history and their strength categorization has fit in nicely with the criteria presented in this article, so there is no problem. I think it would be better if you stated that the article does not cite its sources as opposed to adding OR. Most of the stuff is fact, just unsourced. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd be happy with a much shorter Superpower article with a mention of the Hyperpower concept. Hyperpower would be a redirect and/or a Wiktionary link. To say that the US and the USSR were superpowers, therefore any state like them nowadays is a superpower, then go from there to making up criteria, seems really silly and unencyclopedic, not to mention almost calculated to bring about controversy. I've tried to highlight the problems with the OR criteria the article has at the moment, and especially with the formerly very NPV aspects of the USA entry. The 'vote' above is a good illustration of what is wrong with this article. Could a few people vote to have all critical mention of the US's problems and failings expunged just so the article conforms to these criteria, when the criteria themselves are so ad hoc and unencyclopedic. The Hyperpower one is even worse.
So, I have lots of criticism of the article as it presently stands, but short of chopping out the criteria and starting again (which would make the article very short), I don't, as you say, have much in the way of helpful suggestions. Shall we do a RfC? Guinnog 01:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree: I can't stand the hyperpower article, the India Emerging Superpower article, the Second Superpower article, the Great Powers article and many others (no offence to those involved). National pride prevents people from seeing things with a level head.
However, this particular article really, really has to stay simply because of the Cold War. There's references to superpowers dotted all over the place in the Cold War. However, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and complete rejection of it by it's former peoples, this article is heavily biased towards the United States. I mean, there's a British article in Major Powers and all it hammers on about is the special relationship with the US and British ties with the US economy when quite frankly, that has very little to do with the UK.
But aside from the American bias to all these articles, they are an utter mess, and I don't know how to improve them. They just don't look right, they just looked cobbled together, which is leading people to the idea that there's not much to write about (and therefore the articles shouldn't be here).
And I think a request for comment would be absolutely disastrous for these articles. It'd lead to utter gridlock; the more people that get involved in this article, the messier it's becoming. Wikipedia is becoming increasingly bureaucratic as of late, and all we'd get from an RfC is a bunch of absolute vultures swooping down and quoting protocols at us, and possibly dragging the article through another VfD, when it's clearly necessary.Trip: The Light Fantastic 16:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that these articles are always going to attract biased editing. Given that this is the english language wikipedia it is probably predictable that the bias will tend twards the UK, US etc. But in my view the main problem is that there is no certainty about what these articles are trying to say. We need a plan and we need to stick to it.
What is bias and what is fact? We see the vote above re the Iraq and Debt questions. We must avoid putting in negative facts of questionable relevance just to achieve a notional 'balance'. Simply because there are more plus points than minus does not mean that there is bias, sometimes there just are no minus points.
Little by little, over the past few months, these articles have improved. There are always likely to be problems with affronts to national pride here but can anything be done about it? Should we try and do away with the national sections, thus eliminating most of the controversy?
Xdamr 17:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm less concerned with affronts to national pride than with affronts to reality and to worthwhile Wiki policies on OR and NPOV. This article and its associated ones shouldn't be in the business of predicting the future, or of lauding (for example) U.S. military prowess. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. I'm uneasy about the need to include the U.S. national debt, or the shambles they have made of Iraq, but I would argue that this is a little better than the one-sided view that is there otherwise. What is really needed, I agree with you, is a plan, a structure, and some facts and references to back it up. Guinnog 19:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with references is that when you google this sort of thing guess where you come to: Wikipedia, then about.com and heaps of other sites that just grab the info of us. You see, WE have become the source. Which means that it'll be harder to create a references article now than it was before. National Pride issues will remain, I admit I am proud I am Indian, I try and keep it out of the articles but it is used against me in discussions often enough. I haven't visited the Hyperpower article in ages so I didn't know it's completely unbearable.
What we need is a template, something to style our articles on, the thing is that what we are getting in the articles at the moment is simply:
Lead-in
Concept
Country A
Country B
Country C
Country D
Country E
It's basically just listing the qualities of each of the nations. It's more like a list.
Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Some book references would be good too though. Guinnog 12:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Really not trying to be rude here, Guinnog, but if you feel the need for book references, then go googling and get some. I'm not going to waste my time going and getting references for stuff I know is true - because I've read it in countless textbooks about the Cold War!
As for the structure, hmm, it's a tricky one. I wouldnt' do the Country A B C D thing because that'll just lead to people rambling on for ages about their countries and stupid countries being addded. How about:
Lead-in
Concept
Superpowers in the past
Superpowers now
Superpowers in the future
See Also

Trip: The Light Fantastic 17:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


Here is a proposal I made a while back which I've dug out of the archives, see what you think.

  • The Concept
- What is a Superpower? (Discussion of the various facets: military, diplomatic, soft power etc.
- Position in relation to Major Power, Regional Power etc.
  • History
- Discussion about Cold War and the evolution of the concept of the superpower.
- Describe what made the USSR and US distinct from France, UK etc. (briefly, not in exhaustive detail)
- Present day - US sole superpower
  • The Superpowers today
- US - addressing ouselves to the various facets above, explain shortly and succinctly how the US fulfils them.
  • Tommorrow's Superpowers
- Note the potential of India, China EU etc.

Xdamr 17:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, in a disorganized way we have practically got what both Trip and Xdamr are proposing. Just a bit of editing of the sections in particular would be required. So do we just keep the article structure basically the way it is?? Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. This has been the structure I've been trying to work to and it seemed to receive a positive reaction when I brought it up the first time. If we agree on this, the main thing is to sort out this perception some have of bias, a perception leading to arguments over issues such as debt and Iraq.
Xdamr 09:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the arguments over debt and Iraq should be mentioned in the Tomorrow's Superpowers (possibly titled "Beginnings of a shift in the balance of power?" or something similar to avoid accusations of crystal-balling), where the possible decline (and even the power it may keep) of the United States could be discussed (alongside EU, China, India Emerging articles) and backed up with national debt, changing of reserve currency, military embarrasments etc; - avoids accusations of OR (are you listening, Guinnog? ;) )Trip: The Light Fantastic 18:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm listening. I deliberately hung back from these articles for a while as they were making me too annoyed. I think there should be no articles called Future Superpowers, Tomorrow's Superpowers, A Week on Tuesday's Superpowers, Superpowers of the 23rd Century, or anything else. Isn't there an area of Wiki where you can play at crystal-balling like this? But this is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a prediction service. I think too that this Superpower article should be trimmed back to only that which can be verified using reputable sources, as per Wiki policy. If that leaves a smaller article, so be it. Unfortunately I do not have the resources or inclination to do the research myself, but I'm afraid I will continue to flag up POV and OR where I see it, and I see it here still. Sorry.
Why don't you continue to edit it and try and make it better? But the criteria are OR and it will be hard to do much without taking them out, in my opinion. Guinnog 17:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


The point is that irrespective of Iraq and debt, the US is the top world power. No other country comes close to challenging it. I am strongly against any contrived negative points against the US; like it or not, the situation is pretty rosy for them just now with few negatives. We do the article no service by dragging up relatively tangental matters on the grounds of NPOV.
I am futhermore opposed to any greater discussion of future superpowers than we have at the moment - Gunniog is absolutely correct, this is not a prediction service. On the other hand I do believe we should note that the power of China and India is growing. There is widespread public perception that their power is growing; I think that we should reflect this, it is a view held at the highest levels politically, economically and militarily.
As for the Emerging Superpowers - 'x' articles, I'd be rid of them in a heartbeat. We've got into the wrong position with them, leading to some ridiculous speculation such as the now thankfully deleted Potential Superpowers—Democratic Republic of the Congo. Nevertheless I don't think this negates the value of the small sections on China, India, and the EU in this, the Superpower article.
Xdamr 18:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Found this which sums up nicely what I mean:

"The onus is always on those who wish to continue the retention of the work, from Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is an official wikipedia policy, it states amongst other things:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."

On that basis, we should really chop out about 90% of the article, starting with the OR 'criteria!' Anybody feel like being bold? Guinnog 09:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's take the criteria. What if we were to express this in a less definite way; rather than labeling them as criteria, we could make them less specific and flag them up merely as identifiable common factors between superpowers. Take the following purported 'criterion':
A superpower should have a large and educated populace and should have highly developed infrastructure and pronounced cultural and economic ability to shape the regions around them as well as the ones under direct control.
If we remove the prescriptive element of this (ie. 'A superpower should have...') and generally massage the sentence so that it is less definite would that be better? Citations, OR etc aside, it's an obvious fact that a superpower is a country with preeminent military, economic and political power, so how do we best express it?
Xdamr 15:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps Common Characteristics of a Superpower or Superpower Characteristics. By the way, Guinnog, why did you put an OR tag on Power in international relations]?? Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Oops. Thanks for taking it off for me. Guinnog 18:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Um, sorry for pointing this out, but the criteria can be verified from that website that we found a carbon copy of the criteria on. Shall we just slap a reference from that site onto the criteria and be done with it? Of course not. Because it'd still be a mess. Trip: The Light Fantastic 20:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
"Unfortunately I do not have the resources or inclination to do the research myself, but I'm afraid I will continue to flag up POV and OR where I see it, and I see it here still. Sorry.
Why don't you continue to edit it and try and make it better? But the criteria are OR and it will be hard to do much without taking them out, in my opinion."
I'm sorry to be rude, but why the hell don't you do it? I see you can find the "inclination" to slap tags on and in a woolly, roundabout way tell everyone else what to do.
I think it's ridiculous that basically we've got to slave away on this article and can never have the tags removed until you are personally pleased with the result? Sorry, are you Jimbo Wales or Alan Sugar or something? We don't work for you.
I might have a vote on this if you carry on, actually, the tags are starting to get on my nerves.Trip: The Light Fantastic 20:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to make this anything personal, but I find it a bit off that Guinnog, as the prime objector to the superpower criteria, has nothing to say when suggestions are made for their improvement, even to the extent of saying they are rubbish ideas. Proactive interaction is the only way this article is going to reach a high standard; it's simply not helpful to make complaints from the sidelines without making any effort to help out.
Xdamr 22:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Look, I believe the source above is valid. I think it unlikely that a full fledged organization would copy us when there is the possibility that a random user decided to rip information off them. It's a proper website with a large amount of information, it's an organization, which makes it easily a good source. This website has a similar account of the criteria to us, meaning that these experts or members of an organization or whatever, believe in a similar criteria. So let it be Guinnog and name any other cases of OR (otherwise the tags go off). Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
No objection here; so long as it can be corroborated from an independent source, which I think it has, the question of original research doesn't really arise. However I would reiterate my suggestion above, that we move away from describing these factors as criteria and their application as being prescriptive. International relations are just human relations on the larger scale; I think we can all probably vouch for the fact that in life human relations aren't really governed by hard-and-fast rules!
Xdamr 20:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree too. Will someone link the criteria with the website so it's officially not OR? Then remove the tags. If they reappear without sufficient explanation, then we simply take them back off again. Trip: The Light Fantastic 00:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the tags until proper references are found for these criteria. Sorry if it annoys people, but your annoyance is not sufficient reason to remove the tags. Making the article not OR would be a better justification for taking tthe tags off. See the argument below about Russia for an illustration of how arbitrary this has become. You are deciding by a consensus of what, three, four editors, that Russia isn't an emerging superpower. Don't you see how wrong that is? No offence but you are not qualified to do this. To lose the OR tag, edit it to say something like "According to respected international political science expert, Vladimir Smirnoff [ref], Russia is considered an emerging superpower." Several or many references like that would do it. the current one link to http://www.globalcpr.com/org/super.html does not do it, and I notice does not even use the same criteria. Lose the criteria, gain some references, and the tag can come down. Guinnog 09:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Quote: Sorry if it annoys people, but your annoyance is not sufficient reason to remove the tags

Sorry if it annoys you, but your annoyance is not sufficient reason to keep the tags on. Off they go again. You do know where this is going? Trip: The Light Fantastic 21:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't know where this is going. Would you please answer the points above before you revert the tags? They were placed there with good reason. Guinnog 00:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
What points? You haven't actually made any points. We've sourced enough to make the articles verifiable. The sourcing on the Potential Superpower articles is getting quite silly actually, the list of sources for all three must now run into the hundreds. I'm removing the tag as from what I can see, the majority of editors agree with us and don't want it on.Trip: The Light Fantastic 15:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The very simple point that the entire article is OR as the criteria it is based on are OR. Answer that and you can have the tag down. The single reference is actually to a slightly different set of criteria, which themselves are not referenced. So it looks like a mixture of the CPR site's OR and editors here adding there own OR. Not encyclopedic. HTH Guinnog 15:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Nope, it's not, we've sourced the criteria to a respectable organisation and everything else comes off that. Disprove our sources and you can have all the tags you want. Trip: The Light Fantastic 15:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Could we possible have a vote on whether we should keep the criteria and the OR Tag? Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
What is the point of voting? We know it is OR. --Guinnog 07:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
You mean you claim it is OR... Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I certainly do. And if you claim that it is not, it should be easy enough to find other specific references for these criteria you and your friend are so keen to keep. But note that the criteria are slightly different from the (apparently unsourced) ones on that one external link. I'd say the onus is on you and Trip to prove the article is not OR. --Guinnog 10:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Russia disqualified as Potential Superpower?

Have a look at this, obviously no consensus was ever made on this issue. Right?

Its worth nothing that the reference source from Global CPR, which this Superpower article is based on, does classify RUS as a Potential superpower. (Of course as RUS attempts to regain the Superpower status in the foreseeable future there are still a lot of factors playing a major role in thwarting progress) I believe that on wikipedia a reference source, if exist, has higher authority than simply talk-page discussion/consensus.

Opinions?

mainbody

I think concensus was that it should stay off the Potential Superpowers list. No-one's even noticed since (I certainly didn't), which says alot about Russia's superpower status. I'll take Russia off the list for now, but if you can shift opinion back towards Russia, then by all means it can go on.

Personally I think Russia is a dying nation and will possibly not even survive for much longer, never mind be a superpower. Trip: The Light Fantastic 00:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

That's YOUR OPINION Please, everyone stop trying to force your anti-Russian opinions on Wikipedia, as it is not a propogonda machine. Whether Russia can maintain superpower status is in debate. Wikipedia is Neutral Point of View (That's what NPOV stands for) and we try to represent all points of view. If you can't handle it that some people may have defferent opinions then you, please leave.--68.170.86.111 00:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I know what NPOV stands for, but I also know what OR stands for and we don't want OR on Wikipedia. By the way, does anyone mind if I put the Emerging Superpowers articles for Japan, Russia and Brazil up for deletion as they are practically copies of the sections on Major power. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and see this for consensus. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I do mind. If you don't like Russia, Brazil or whatever, Wikipedia is not the place to say so. There are arguements for and against Russia's (re)rise as a superpower. Why do you want to remove it? Wikipedia is NPOV, like I said, and we should represent all points of view here. Deleting the Russia, or any other potential superpower articles violates NPOV. European Eunion isn't even a country. I think Russia has a better chance of becoming a superpower than the EU just for the fact that the EU could possible dissolve.--68.170.86.111 01:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
How have you drawn to the conclusion that I don't like Russia and Brazil?? Consensus was reached in the past. I think it is you who is trying to enforce his/her own POV. You say that deleting any Potential Superpower article violates NPOV, so if someone got up and created Potential Superpowers - Bermuda would it be a violation of NPOV to delete it? Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so silly. I am not pro-Russian. Russia has a chance to regain superpower status. It probably has a better chance then the EU. Bermuda has no such chance. Russia still retains many atributes of a Super Power. There is no comparison between Russia and Bermuda. I wouldn't mind if you deleted the article on Japan superpower, as militarily they are a protectorate of the US.

As for consensus, on the Russian superpower talk page it says "This article was nominated for deletion on March 8, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus."--68.170.86.111 15:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Please be fully informed before taking things as consensus. Russia was nominated late along with Japan and Brazil while the original nomination was for India, the EU and China. Nobody knew that the Russian one existed and it was therefore nominated late, the results of that AfD do not prove anything. By the way, I see you have ignored the [true consensus. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

To be a potential superpower, the country needs to have at least a significant chance to equal or surpass the US in important superpower criteria. I don't think that's an opinion. I'll just emphasize one thing to point out why Russia is not a potential superpower. Current trends point out that the US will have 450-500 million citizens in 2050 and Russia will have about 100-120 million (due to a rapidly shrinking population). I think it is highly doubtful that Russia will be able to equal the US in economic, military and cultural power. I mean: Russia would have to have a GDP per capita that would be 4-5 times larger than that of the US, which is very unlikely (as it currently has only about 1/4th). And no one doubts the importance of economic power as an important criterion in itself and as a prerequisite for technological progress, cultural power, military power, etc. That's also the reason why Brazil and Japan don't really have a chance to become superpowers. To beat the US which is already ahead on most criteria, you need to have at least an economy or a population number that is similar or higher than that of the US. The EU, India and China do have a chance. Sijo Ripa 22:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The United States Of America should not be the standard another country has to match up to,as soon as another country reaches that level and the USA could go up,so a country would have to keep changing to keep up with the scale that is only adventagous to the USA. The Russian economic policies are not the same,the Ruble can't legally be taken out of The Russian Federation,that is probably a reason why their economy appears to be weak. A population means nothing,you need to have people contributing to your society. The European Union should not be called a super power since it is not a nation. Why is The European Union considered a superpower canidate and the Commonwealth Of Nations and The League of Arab States,and The CIS are not? The "hyperpower" is an absured idea that is only adventageous to The United States. Dudtz 5/31/06 5:24 PM EST

I think the main problem with new superpowers creation it the absence of anternate ideology than liberalism. If a country becomes powerful, it still cannot become superpower unless 1.It developes sufficient universal alternative ideology, suitable to oppose western liberalism, or 2.It becomes the leader of the liberal ideology instad of the USA. So the problem of new superpower formation is not the problem of economic development of some countries, but the problem of absence of alternative ideology. If such ideology apeares, the country, suitable to become superpower under this banner will not be difficult to find. The same problem with Russia: there is no suitable ideology exist.--Nixer 10:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

no superpower/multipolar world

the hole discusion is byzantine.it's like arguing if the center of the univers is on earth or on the sun,they are bothe rubish.the term superpower instictivly and rognfuly means some entity that can do every thing they want.that's never existed,you are still under the influence of cold war propaganda.we live a multipollar world with a good deal of regional powers, some local powers and thats it.after the war usa had 50% of worlds production because every body else was destroide, but from the 70-80 the world rebalance it self.real power of america don't go much further than north american continant,every thing further is overextention,burnout is nececary to do what usa is doing curently.ussr too thaut they cauld do as they wich,but the prouf that they did not is that they collapsed sinse they overstreched and ruind them selvs.did any body (even at 91',even the most optimistic) predicted that end?no.they were all suprised.this article is writen by interested historians(not neutral).objectivly usa have a huge externel debt,wors per gdp points than argentina,so the more logicall outcome is a collapse wors then argentina.so the article should be about superpower myth.it's the flat earth theory of oure time.you don't vote truth. the subgect is not simple ,and a one paragraph is insufitiant but if i write more it will not be readable.--Ruber chiken 23:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

militairy critirion

to simplistic.it don't take in too acount that somebody may have more than what's usfull.acording to the critirion the biger the beter.would the usa be beter of if say 40% of gdp was going in the militairy.if not which one?10%?1%.is the 12 other contryies armies to small OR the usa army to big?the ideal militairy spending is it 5%? less?more?--Ruber chiken 23:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

secondly in a militairy entervention (or any entervention) your primairy goal is that input(the cost) of resources is less then the output so that you can have a profit,if you don't, you had been beter of staying home.if you have 5% gdp militairy spending,and if you don't count whats needed for homeland security(now if you say that's all needed for security then the rest of the world is defenceless,and if you say that's for the world protection your naive) ,say 1% ,you have 4% that have to be consider as anual cost.the big question is ,is the income more than 4%(each year) so that's a profit?or much of that 4% is pure loss.and what about the hiden cost and losses.just a naive question,why american living standards aren't the hiest in the world?--Ruber chiken 23:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Superpower/Archive_4&oldid=1136230521"