Talk:Second Superpower
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 21/3/2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Anti-war, a collective approach to organizing and unifying articles related to the anti-war movement. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
|
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
[edit] SS?
Should we use the acronym "SS" to describe this, since it means a death camp for everyone who doesn't have, or can't use, a computer?
How harsh. For the sake of debate, I suppose: Really, what indeed ARE the political opportunities, as it stands even in a democratic society, of one incapable of using a computer? They're quite accessible, these days, far more so than, say, the Senate. (Or if you meant more literally; if "popular opinion" causes that, we're in trouble already). Zake 04:06, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The Wikilink to James Moore is just confusing, as this James Moore is not mentioned on the disambig page. --Oop 14:55, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
Fixed the wikilink so it goes to James F. Moore, but it's not been created yet. -- Randy 20:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The top comment is complete nonsense - how is "world public opinion" related in any way to use of a computer? 10 million people in the streets equals a death camp? Hardly - those 10 million were trying to *stop* the death camp - talk about inversion...
Also, what's with the term "technocratic peace movement"? I think the term Global Justice Movement is much more appropriate. By way of compromise, the James Moore article uses the more neutral phrase "global social movement" which, Orlowski's comments notwithstanding, illustrates the broad intersection between the original NYT story and the Moore piece.
I've changed the lead paragraph to more closely indicate the actual use of the term, in all of the linked articles, as describing a (possible) counterbalance to "war and empire". Also deleted a bunch of unsubstantiated comments about somebody's google search and the "fact" that suddenly everybody decided they liked the war (wtf???)
Removed link to Jonathan Rauch article as this is now behind a subscription-only firewall and cannot be accessed.
Sorry but what is the Second Superpower? A Civil Society (?) - If you follow the link to [Civil society] then that's "the totality of voluntary civic and social organizations..." (catchy). In the next line it's a "world force" (like Team America? :) - the NYT article seems to fave a far better definition than the one in the first line - "World Public Opinion". How about "The second superpower collectively refers to the large number of individuals from different nations who disagree with the actions of the first superpower, the United States Of America". Great article, very interesting. There should definitely be a link to Civil Society - but remember - this might be the first time anyone has ever heard the term --Dilaudid 15:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I agree the current phrasing isn't great, but it's also not right to define it in opposition to the U.S. There's no reason why "world public opinion" or "global civil society" is necessarily composed of people who disagree with the actions of the U.S. Kalkin 17:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
