Talk:European Union as an emerging superpower

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is related to the WikiProject Power in international relations, an effort to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of Power in international relations and Geopolitics. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. You can discuss the project at its talk page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the European Union as an emerging superpower article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (`~~~~`). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

[edit] Misc

Whoever wrote the "purely hypothetical" comment on the Military section is hopelessly wrong. I have included a link to the Wikipedia article on Eufor, the European Union military force.

Also please note the caption to the right of that article describing the European Army.

Please also check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:European_Union_security and browse to your hearts content. ;) Trip: The Light Fantastic 14:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factual Dispute

This article - if it is kept following the debate on deletion - is unbalanced. The title of the article implies that it considers the EU and potential to be a "superpower". The arguments set out, however, are almost entirely in favour of the EU attaining such status. There were more reasoned opinions, but various users continue to delete these in favour of a PoV approach to this article. If the article is kept, then a more balanced approach is needed - or else re-name the article to make it clear that it discusses arguments only in favour of such a status for the EU. See article history for record of various deletions of balancing views. --jrleighton 09:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No more anonymous tags!

Whis is their so many disputes for this article but so little discussion? It looks to me like this is the cause of a minority, or otherwise this discussion page would be full of opinions back and forth.

Too right. People are too quick off the mark to say that this page should be edited, deleted blag blah blah without consulting anyone or discussing it. I'm making it my mission to remove tags unless they're justified HERE. Trip: The Light Fantastic 19:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed Original Research tag unless the person who whacked it on actually bothers to tell someone about it. Trip: The Light Fantastic 20:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No references?

I can't BELIEVE the recent vote that was had on this page to be deleted.

We got lumped with China, India and god knows how many other articles (which is disgusting in itself).

This one, by far, has references and facts and figures. I know, because I have ENSURED that they went in. The Chinese, and particularly the Indian, is all heresey and gossip and economies "blossoming like lotus buds" (seriously, I had to delete that phrase from the India section)

It's lucky I wasn't around for the vote for deletion because I would have absolutely ripped into the people making the debate.

The cheeky gets, I mean, what world are they living in, really? The European Union is a superpower. All it needs to do is get it's collective head together and then we have the world's most powerful country. Barring the military, but they can buy that, if they wanted, just can't be bothered. End of discussion.

The only reason the Internet is not stuffed with articles about European Union Superpower status is that fact that, practically only half the internet can write about it as the Europeans are too modest to write articles proclaiming themselves World Superpowers and they have the most active and free presses. And the Americans are just trying to bury their head in the sand, so they won't write about it.

That leaves very little people to write about Europe, and hey, lo and behold, seach European Superpower, Chinese Superpower and Indian Superpower and the EU still wins!

The Vote for Deletion(s) was absolutely disgusting, and it's a good thing I wasn't there because I would have seriously lowered the tone.Trip: The Light Fantastic 20:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Get over yourself. Kevlar67 23:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've contributed most, by far, to this and the main superpower article (check the editors list, if you don't believe me). I'd like to think my opinion carries some weight in that debate.

Who the hell are you, eh? Some random person come to throw their sad little snidey comments in?

Jog on. Trip: The Light Fantastic 23:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, when you state 'by far' I assume you are talking about this page and this page only. Because it's simply self-centered to forget the contributions of guys like Xdamr, Guinnog and even myself in the Power in international relations articles as a whole group. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The Eu aint a super power -- yet

It is not one country YET It dosent have a strong military, yes it could buy it but it hasent so untill it does actually build a big military it cant be a superpower.

There is still alot of problems that will take many years to solve not to mention ideological problems. For example some countries have free universities and hospitals that get payed via taxes others do not. Untill they all have the same system either free or pay then it cant be counted as a superpower. And therefore it can only be counted as a potential superpower untill that day it meets the criteria for all the points required to be a superpower it cant be called a superpower. (Deng 14:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC))

How did you work that out? The United States is made of 50 states all with varying laws and customs, and yet they're a superpower. Besides, the vary point you're making is the EU's strength - who ever said homogenosity was a prerequsite of superpower status? --JDnCoke 17:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

To compare the EU with USA and say that the 50 states of the US is the same as the countries of the EU is just plain ignorance. Study and learn more. (Deng 11:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

I'd disagree. Saying they are the same is ignorant, but there are points for comparison between the formation of the US and the Union that are very relevant. Comparisons with the formation of the USSR from it's member states are also interesting points to make.Trip: The Light Fantastic 13:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey everyone leave him alone, we all need to vent off our anger now and then. Thats one of the best functions of the talk page. 12.220.94.199 17:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What I'd like to know is this: for all the references, why are there no citations to any of the points made? Someone please work on this?--TrevelyanL85A2 07:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title Change

There has been a proposed Title Change to Emerging Superpowers - European Union, if you have an opinion on this please see the talk page on Superpower. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Natural hazards section

In the section 'Natural Hazards', I am changing the word 'hurricane' to 'tropical cyclone'. I assume that the article is talking about Hurricane Vince (2005) which made landfall in Spain as a tropical depression.

Okay, I just edited that part of the article, and made a few other changes, and I realized that Europe is no less susceptible to natural hazards than the world as a whole. Italy has gotten earthquakes, the UK and the Netherlands have had a major storm surge disaster, Portugal has had a tsunami, etc. In 1999, mainland Europe received widespread wind damage from a series of storms, and in the past decade there has been a major heat wave in the western part of Europe and a major cold snap in the eastern part. And Naples, Italy is sitting in the shadow of a volcano, just begging to be buried in ash. I'm deleting the 'natural hazards' subsection from the article.

[edit] Article was up for deletion

This article was nominated for deletion on March 8, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

- Please bear in mind that this vote was for EVERY article for potential superpowers, with this article and the China article only being included after the vote had begun. The results therefore arguably do NOT apply to this article.

This tag will be kept for a short amount of time, however, for reference. Trip: The Light Fantastic 20:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the delete, but it honestly looks more like an official tag than a talk page comment, it seems to say that the results did not apply to this article. I suggest not making it bold and adding your sig to the end so that we know that you added it. Anyway, to memory the E.U. was added 12 hours after India and the vote went on for over a week. This means that most of the votes were based on the content of this article and the China article. It was only Russia/Japan/Brazil that were added a day or two before the vote was about to end. The vote was for the European Union as well and don't dismiss the advice given by the voters. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, moved it from the top now as there is no point of it being there but keeping it down here as to keep our comments. Trip: The Light Fantastic 17:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Are we allowed to just ignore a deletion discussion?? Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? It just fell flat on it's face, to be quite frank. It was a messy way to do it. there is no discussion, who's discussing deleting the articles, at all? lolTrip: The Light Fantastic 17:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Controversy aside. I checked the people at WP:AFD and according to them we should keep the tag up until it is deemed irrelevant to the future of the article. Considering the vote said the article should change it's form and we have done nothing to make it change it's form. I reckon it is very relevant to any future discussion. For the moment I'm not saying that put it on the top, just that when this page archives, it would we wise not to archive the tag as well. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But I doubt there'll be an archive for this page anyways, not enough debate. Seems everyone *shock horror* agrees with the bulk of the article? Trip: The Light Fantastic 18:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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

[edit] Changes to introduction

"global powers of France, Spain, Germany and the United Kingdom, other former colonial powers such as Portugal and the Netherlands" This was the previous wording, but its inaccurate in that both Portugal(1415-1581) and the Netherlands(1584-1702) were major powers, and they both continued to exert their influence in Asia and Africa well into the 20th century. So I changed the wording to, "The European Union contains the former imperial powers of France, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom.(see bottom of article for full list). I also took out the Russian empire, as Russia is not part of the EU, even if it controlled some territory that is. Other empires, such as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, or the Dutch, and Danish colonial empires, fit better with the article. 12.220.94.199 23:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried to represent various european powers in the article. I included Belgium, while it had world wide influence with its colonies, it didn't have the strength of a major power so it may not merit inclusion. Finally, I wasn't sure whether or not the Grand Duchy of Lithuania should be included since it later became part of the Polish-Lithuania commonwealth. 12.220.94.199 00:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Same is true for the Ventian Empire. 12.220.94.199 00:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Nuhu. Russia can go out, if you feel strongly enough, but the Soviet Union has to stay in. The impact of the SU on former Eastern Bloc countries is important.Trip: The Light Fantastic

[edit] Deletion or merger with EU

The article Major Power is under review, being considered for deletion. Also, this article is mainly Original Research.I would propose same treatment here, including establishment of appropriate tag. Please leave your considerations.201.1.154.57 19:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Guinnog 22:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No. I warned about this. We will have no crusade, there is nothing wrong with the article, no-one complains, talks about it or even edits it that much now it has approached completion. Oh yeah, and with all those sources at the bottom, do you really think you're getting away with deleting this article on grounds of OR? Hahahahahaha... comedy.Trip: The Light Fantastic 21:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, unless you can come up with any specifics, I'm removing all tags on all Superpower pages, as promised. Trip: The Light Fantastic 21:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The OR tags reflect the OR nature of the criteria these articles are based on. Surely that is not so hard to understand? --Guinnog 12:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It is, sorry. I would have agreed with you at one point, but the articles aren't OR because we've now discovered they were lifted from a reputable source. Trip: The Light Fantastic 17:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title question

Why is 'superpowers' capitalised? Skinnyweed 00:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Dunno why that is. Well it's not anyways now someone's changed it again.

[edit] Colonies of the EU members

Should we add colonies of the EU members into the map in some different color?--Nixer 19:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

ther not colonies there considered normal departments.if you want to add old colonies it's the holle planette.--Ruber chiken 20:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I mean for example Greenland, British overseas territories and free association territories.--Nixer 14:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Greenland is autonomous enough to decide EU membership for itself - consequently, it voted to leave the european community once they had the ability to do so. Joffeloff 12:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but still it is a colony of a EU member.--Nixer 18:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The correct term is "associated territory", and yes, you could technically add them, but if you want to be precise, you'll have to put lots of circles representing countries to small to be seen on scale into the Caribbean Sea... ;) —Nightst a llion (?) 12:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

if counted as a unit it is a superpower already it can field a aarmy larger than Us and has a lot of techand has the biggest economy in the weorld

For nixer:Ther no colonyes,they vote too,and are considered eupean.If you consider then as colonies then alaska and hawai are colonies too.No associated teritory,is not a more complicated way to say colony--Ruber chiken 19:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Greenland is not considered European. Only French overseas territories are considered parts of EU because they officially parts of France.--Nixer 20:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elaborations and missing captions

In the UNSC bullet under "Political Power as a Unit", could someone please cite and elaborate on what the reasons are for objecting to a single European seat on the UNSC?

Secondly, could someone please add a photo caption for the euro notes?

Thirdly, out of curiosity, what does "NB" stand for in the Size and Spending bullet in "Military Power as a Unit" ?

Fourthly, in the EU Integration/Unity bullet of "Points against the rise of an EU superpower", what were the comments made by the Austrian President, and can you give a source? It's also not clear if it's the Austrian Chancellor who said it, when Austria got the EU Presidency, or if it was the Austrian President. Please clarify this!

Fifthly, please elaborate, for those who do not know, why in the Euroscepticism bullet, people oppose to Turkey joining the EU?

Sixthly, please elaborate on the other reasons for the No Unified Military bullet!

Please, when editing or writing articles here, please elaboarte and make sure things are clear, and USE PROPER GRAMMAR!--Gov 13:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] broken links,fix them or deleat them

Could the EU become the world's next superpower? - The Washington Times-

the page moved,inside the cite.

Australia and the European Superpower - MUP-

seems coumplitly dead

[edit] Energy Dependence

The section is delirium. The EU is energy-dependent not more than the US. The note about Germany is also absurd.--Nixer 11:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, its an unessecary comment. All superpowers and greatpowers are energy-dependent, whether it be the US, the EU or Japan. Regards, Signature^brendel 15:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Should remove it. A modern economy is energy-driven. As a country modernizes, it has to become more energy-dependent. If a country is not energy-dependent, it means that the country is still backward. It's a little oxymoron. The more important question should be whether there's enough supply and enough diversification into renewable fuels, and most countries including the E.U. are within the description. Heilme 10:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This section is present every wher.Leave it,it's a good,ocasion,to brag about the EU objectives on renewables.chiken

[edit] Former world powers contained within the E.U.

Is this really necessary? So what's up with the former world powers? Some of them no longer exist. Heilme 12:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree why list former power, the EU is home to three great powers, the UK, France and Germany. As this article is about the EU's power only and not power throughout European history I think it makes sense to remove the former powers mentions and only keep the current powers mentioned. Regards, 16:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ithas a lot to do with, how these past nations, have shaped Europe's ability to project itself. I support their inclusion. 74.137.230.39 15:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The culture, political ties and infrastructure created by these nations cannot be underestimated. Also the ex-colonies of these nations etc; etc;

These nations have left a footprint on Europe in many ways. Trip: The Light Fantastic 01:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

This article is suffering. Aside from outright factual flaws (such as suggesting the annual growth rate of 2.4% is somehow "outstripping" the United States), it seems to suggest that any indications that Europe is in reality a declining power (much like the West as a whole) is nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of self defeatist Europeans or European-loathing Americans. The “outpacing” growth of 2.4% still does nothing to stem the rise of China as a power far larger both economically and demographically than the European Union, to say nothing of India or that even the United States (along with Indonesia) will have surpassed the EU in population (and given current trends, economic measurements as well) within fifty some years (http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1923383). How, exactly, does a group of twenty-five disorganized countries propose to topple not only the United States, which will surpass them in due time, but the Chinese and Indians, who are set to replace even the United States as the dominant global powers? Let’s be reasonable here. Europe has nothing in the means of force projection compared to the United States even at the current, nor does it have any plans to acquire it anytime soon (the new French and English carriers, while superior to what the two can currently operate, are nothing compared to a Nimitz). Given an unnatural stroke of good fortune, should the EU develop into some corroboration of multiply states with the soft power to rival the US, how long will it last, exactly? Certainly not more than a few decades before it usurped by China and India, who through a matter of simple demographics will drown the West. Why then is the European Union, which if anything is near its’ peak, on the “emerging” super powers list? Anyone? Comrade438 05:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What's with this "EU wants to topple America" crap. The EU has nothing to do with replacing the US as the world's greatest power-the intent behind the EU is to raise the quality of life for Eruopeans not participate in some bizarre power-competition. Fact is that the EU has the world's largest economy and largest consumer market. To this day Germany still has a larger GDP and uses up more oil than China with a mere 82 million residents. Of course economic growth in the EU isn't as fast as in the US-the US is a growing country. Germany for example has negative population growht rates-that the German economy is still gorwing at all is a miracle. Also, the EU and US are allies-for example the US and the EU feature strong economic interdependencies and trhough organizations such as NATO have guranteed mutual protection to each other. As for much of America's history, Western Europe and the US are in the same boat here. Sure some EU countries disagree with Bush admin but so do many Americans-I live in California-trust me on that one. Let's a keep a perspective on recent EU-US relation troubles-both depend to much on each other and will remain allies for cultural and economic reasons. The EU is on the list as an emerging superpower as it may become politcally more unified which would make it a superpower. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

HAHAHA.It reminds me the scientists of the 19 century,how almost unanumously said,that flying with a maching hevier then air is imposible ....... because steem engines are too havy.--Pixel ;-) 22:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

How? Signature^brendel 00:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It was almost unanimous(i think)(i ment scientists).--Pixel ;-) 22:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Future economic predictions is a ridiculously pathetic area... it's practically impossible to predict it. And yes, the EU's growth in the last quarter did outstrip America and Japan... we're not lying. Go find it out, shouldnt be too hard, I cant be bothered going and finding the source again just to please you. And lets say China does outstrip the EU economy in 2167 or whenever it is... so what? The EU will still be the same as it is now, just it'll have some competition. If China surpasses the worlds biggest economies, they arent just going to fall off the map, or magically turn to desert overnight - you do realise that, don't you? Get real. I've never heard such ridiculous views in my life. 88.104.208.225 20:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] proposal shift from "emerging superpower" to "EU power (or something like that)"

shift the article to EU power,not just as an emergin superpower

I propose to change the perspective of the EU as an emerging superpower tords an article about EU power in general.The motivation is that is under threat to be eventually deleated as OR.So the new article will be about the power of the EU thing,this should have a place in an enciclopedia since the EU concept is not very whell understould,even by europeans themselvs.In that whay it's not like the other emergin superpower articles as this should explane what kind of powers has or will have the EU thing,since is not a contry and undestanding it's powers is not trivial.I beleave that it should easely be done with minor reordering,keaping 99% of whats alredy in and stay in the section of power statuses.--Pixel ;-) 13:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would be hard to find a name. Something like "Power of the European Union", "European Union Power" or "European Union in international relations (power)" just would not be suitable. What name do you propose? Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever in that range you proposed.The exact name it's not the most important part.It wasn't deleated not because,thers a consecus in keeping it,rather thers no consensus in what to do.My proposal is to shift from a superpower controversy to a power controversy,that way it is avoided the OR acusation.The justification for such an article would be that EU is not a typical international organization.How many times was it proposed for deleation alredy?--Pixel ;-) 13:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy of democracy claims

The EU's 25 member states number among the most politically stable and successful in the world. Building on historical traditions of democracy and the rule of law in several of its larger members...

With a modern history containing genocide, Nazis and communism, aren't these claims a little grand?

--217.42.99.225 20:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No. The EU has for the past fifty years been extremely stable. The EU alongside the US are the most stable political unions there are, they are the least likely to succum to anarchism. The US used to have slavery, discrimination against blacks, and other undemocratic institutions. Nonetheless, the practices are in the past now, granted the recent past, but nonetheless the past. Today the EU and the US are the most stable and democraticies on earth. After all what are the chances of modern day Germany or England to succum to anarchism. Zip. Regards, Signature^brendel 01:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. War, coups, political unrest and the like are not even considered in Western European nations now. If there was a war between France and Germany, a revolution in Switzerland or a military coup in Britain, for example, it would stun the world and be headline news for months, most probably. In fact, no-one can even guess what the world's reaction would be because it's such a ridiculous idea. Thats stable democracy for ya. ;) 88.104.209.24 15:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

May be it is not the case for France of Germany, though some probability of political instability still exist in South and Eastern Europe. It would not suprise me if a military coup in Portugal or Spain occured, Greece may enter in war with Turkey, not to mention political instability in former Yugoslavia. Revisions of borders in Europe did not stop and will continue long in the future.--Nixer 15:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No a coup in Spain and Portugal would be suprising. All Yugoslavian states arn't EU yet and that's what this article covers, the EU. Sure, countries like Serbia arn't near as stable as Germany or the US, but they arn't part of the EU. The only really unstable EU member state I can think of is North Ireland, but that's not a state. Instead its part of the UK, which is in turn a very stable constitutional monarchy. Perhaps, once less stable countries join, we need to rephrase the statement to include only the western member states, Germany, France, the UK, Scandinavia, etc... The idea of a coup like what happened in Thailand, is however still pretty much unimaginable in the EU, even in Spain. Regards, Signature^brendel 17:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is the line Building on historical traditions of democracy and the rule of law in several of its larger members.. that causes problems, given that the largest EU country is Germany, which has only existed in its current form for 16 years.--217.42.99.225 20:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What?This is propostrous.west germany(60 million),didn't disapear because it failed,or had a coup or something.Is rather east germany(20 million) how have a coup,and it was no democracy.You should see the reunification as a particular form of EU expantion(in the context of the article).--Pixel ;-) 21:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

West Germany has been a rock solid democracy since 1949. In 1991 West Germany annexed East Germany. This doesn't make Germany politically unstable. A coup or temporary quasi-anarchism in Germany, the world's 3 largest economy is unimaginable. Besdies, the Bundestag, the Verfassung (Constitution) and nearly all government agencies have been solidly in place since after WWII. Thus the CIA factbook (on Germany) goes so far as to only mention West Germany's governmental history in the government section. Regards, Signature^brendel 22:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rename proposal European Union as a normative hegemon OR something else

avoids deletion threats.
Gets more in line with what is been said in the superpower article.
Ther's a need for a more general article on EU power.
--Pixel ;-) 00:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but however conceptually accurate that title might be, it's pretty bloody ugly!

Xdamr^talk 00:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my igorance, but what in god's name is a normative hegemon? Aussie King Pin 06:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

--- At least now i have more atention then the first time.If you don't like it propose something else.I see from the afd's that some kind of change is nasecary.My proposal is esentialy to change a litle bit the scope of the article so that thers no threat of deletion.--Pixel ;-) 17:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, a rename isn't that bad of an idea. Especially since there is consiberable debate over whether or not the EU is already a superpower. The title which includes "emerging" only represents one side of the discussion. I do, however, agree with Xdamr and Aussi King Pin that "European Union as a normative hegemon" isn't a good choice. Who is going to google or search here on WP for "European Union as a normative hegemon." Best Regards, Signature^brendel 21:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In the current deletion debate for China as an emerging superpower suggestions have been made as to the article content and title, although the basic premise for the article seems to be accepted. I think these suggestions are worth taking a look at in terms of this article. Perhaps the time has come to give this page a fundamental revision?

Xdamr^talk 14:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There hasn't been an AfD here for months and months and months; back when the article was just unsubstantiated drivel. It's been untouched for ages, cept a few niggles here and there; its a completed, well rounded article (but not perfect, obviously). I'm not too concerned we'd lose one. No-one in their right mind would delete an article with so many references and cites that has lain untouched for so long. Or would they? Haha. Trip: The Light Fantastic 17:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Whell ,don't forget that the article survived because ther was no concensus,not because it was accepted,souner or later the nomination might succed.Consider a change in scope of the article then.Just recently someone put a OR sign, and the chine article was renominated for deletion.Do you now many other situation in all wikipedia wher a group of articles have a long collection of afd's.--Pixel ;-) 00:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There might not have been an Afd for a while, but what about the other "'X' as an emerging superpower' articles? All three, China, India, and the EU, are similar in approach and content, therefore comments directed towards one are almost certainly applicable to the others.

Xdamr^talk 02:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Because EU is not a contry.My proposal has no meaning transposed to the other two.Everybody nows what a contry is.EU is in it's won category.--Pixel ;-) 12:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the point I made about taking on board the points made during the recent (unsucessful) China Afd. Name change was part of the suggestions, but there were also some queries over the nature of the content; that it should reflect more what scholars in the field think of India/China/the EU as potential superpowers rather than being collections of facts which the editors think (reasonably enough) have a bearing on the issue.

Xdamr^talk 16:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

There seems to be a lot of this in this in this article - so it warrants this label. There are some references, but on the whole the article seems littered with opinions (on either side of the debate) unsupported (in the main) by verifiable quality citations. See Wikipedia policy on original research. Discuss. :)--jrleighton 15:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, no, I propose we discuss the original research before we put the tag on. Because I don't agree with you; neither do many others. Think you see any OR? Point it out here and we can sort it. I'm taking the tag off until you cite some things. Trip: The Light Fantastic 17:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/u/r/Talk%7EEuropean_Union_as_an_emerging_superpower_8a8e.html"