Talk:Hyperpower

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 article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Xdamr 2 Bias 3 What this article is about 4 How to expand this article 5 Redundant

[edit] Xdamr

This group doesn't need yet another person in a reverting war. The statement of the British Empire being viewed as Hyperpower "YEARS AGO", does not mean that "It has since been used to describe the British Empire." 100 years ago and now are two completely different things. So that statement and links are outdated and no longer considered correct. A bias for the UK does not mean outdated info should be stated as fact.

70.157.60.141 06:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The quotes that you keep removing are from 2003 and 2005. Removing citations is vandalism. Please stop. --Sean Brunnock 11:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

Brunnock, you can't keep saying "It has since been used to describe the British Empire." and ONLY give 2 references. That is like me changing Microsoft's Wiki to read "Microsoft is a big dumb dumb" and giving 2 articles written by any of the 6,000,000,000 people on earth. You can not place bias in a Wiki article, and reading back through all of your edits, that is what you are doing. Read the rules of Wikipedia. Until then, I am going to delete your unfounded statm--Sean Brunnock 10:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)ent and links.

70.157.60.141 01:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The 2 references that I gave are reliable sources. What bias are you talking about? Are you User:Sprotch? --Sean Brunnock 02:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not Sprotch. Anyone can see that you are bias over the completely unfounded statment. When someone deletes it, you quickly restore it. Why would you defend this statment so much if you didn't place it here? All of this is pointless, read the rules. You can not place a statment in this Wiki UNLESS FULLY SUPPORTED AND BACKED BY THE OTHER USERS. Fully supported would mean by having more then 2 links. You need text-book quotes to back up a claim like this. Not your own bias views. 70.157.60.141 02:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. The rule is to cite verifiable references. There are no "text-books" that I know of that even refer to the US as a hyperpower. As the article says, the term was invented by political commentators and 2 political commentators have used the term to describe the BE. You seem to be a little hysterical regarding the subject. Perhaps you should remove yourself from this discussion and let cooler heads prevail. --Sean Brunnock 10:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Your links have been deleted again. They are Past Tense, and are not vaild today. You seem to have a bias with them and that is not allowed. If you keep restoring unfounded, outdated, bias links, then I will report you to the mods. Look at EVERY Single person in this discussion area, no one wants these links listed. And everyone sees them as your bias. This is not your Wiki, it is for everyone. And Everyone here sees your changes are useless.

70.157.60.141 02:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

They're not links. They're citations that adhere to WP:CITE. Please read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes if you want to pursue the issue. --Sean Brunnock 11:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Brunnock, I not that you have not participated in the discussion on your and my discussion page. The concessus is that your links are not sources and do not adhere to any wikipedia standard. Please delete your statement. Please would you also read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. I hope that we will not need to use dispute resolution. Sprotch 00:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What this article is about

This article is about the term hyperpower as coined by Hubert Védrine. --Sean Brunnock 19:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, I wasn't clear enough. This article is not a political version of fantasy football. Please stop using this article to post your theories as to why America is doomed to fall and which "empires" will take its place. Thank you. --Sean Brunnock 01:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to expand this article

I'm thinking that the best way to expand this article is to add two sections which point out hyperpower aspects of the British Empire and the US such as industry, spread of English language, Hollywood, etc. --Sean Brunnock 15:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The Ferguson article mentioned earlier has been misquoted and erroneously used to mention the British Empire in this article. Please would you read it carefully and note that Ferguson states that it was NOT a hyperpower. That is the whole point of his article. He describes this notion as a myth. Sprotch 19:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. He said it was a hyperpower, but not hegemonic: To be sure, the United Kingdom had a moment of "hyperpower" in the immediate aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, when, as one Prussian general noted, it was "mistress of the sea. ... Neither in this dominion nor in world trade has she now a single rival to fear." Yet the United Kingdom was never truly hegemonic in the century that followed. [1] --Sean Brunnock 20:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and what is a hyperpower if not hegemonic? Keep in mind that a moment OF hyperpower does not mean having been A Hyperpower. Your paragraph above is a misquote, again. It is a quote within a quote that is immediately criticised by Ferguson for several pages. Please would you (or someone else) read the WHOLE article. The whole point of the article is to demonstrate that there was no such thing as a British Hyperpower (although he never uses the term). Sprotch 12:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be better if you could quote something that supports your position. --Sean Brunnock 13:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The section "the British Myth" is too long to be quoted. Please would you read it. Sprotch 13:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article which states that the British Empire was not a hyperpower. The term 'hyperpower' is used twice. Once, to state that the British Empire had a moment of hyperpower and again in relation to America. If you want to prove to everyone that the British Empire was not a hyperpower, then you'll have to quote a verifiable source. --Sean Brunnock 13:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

re. Ferguson. I've put up my own view of the article on User_talk:Sprotch. The problem is that the Ferguson article is more a criticism of the concept of 'hegemony' (as defined in the article) rather than a proper analysis of UK/US power (power, as distinct from 'hegemony'). I'm not sure that it constitutes a useful source.

Xdamr^talk 12:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

So, is there any objection to pointing out hyperpower aspects of the US and the British Empire? I suggest this since a compare/contrast approach will force us to look at the general aspects of hyperpowers rather than write about irrelevant details (such as the number of nuclear warheads that a hyperpower must possess). --Sean Brunnock 13:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The term was never used to describe a nation that wasn't a superpower. It also suggests a hegemony. The British Empire of the 19th century was a hegemony but not a superpower and therefore not a hyperpower. --Awis 17:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was. If you read the archives, there are two references where the authors state the the BE was a hyperpower

Could folks please stop arguing about which hyperpower is or will be the biggest and concentrate on how to expand this article? --Sean Brunnock 20:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Brunnock, everyone but you agrees that there is no reference so far that the BE was a hyperpower. Could you try to find further reference? Sprotch 19:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That's Mr. Brunnock. There are 2 references. I think it would be better to discuss how to expand this article. --Sean Brunnock 20:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Those 2 articles are not references, as everyone but you has agreed. Sprotch 16:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Sean Brunnock 16:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant

Hyperpower is a redundant term. We already have superpower to describe this.

This is not redundant, many superpowers may exist at one time but only under special circumstances can a hyperpower happen. Antarticstargate

Of course it is redundant. Just because some conspirancy driven journalists used this word in a hand full of articles - beyond any relevancy - the yanks create an article about it. Absurd. 62.226.61.61 22:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)