Talk:Superpower

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.


WikiProject Politics This article is related to the WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of Politics. 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.

Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Superpower article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
For older discussion, see archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Contents

[edit] Great power

This article is too much OR, let's make it more like great power and get it to GA. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 02:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it isn't too bad. The Cold War era section needs attention more than any other section (unfortunately I am not an expert on the cold war weapons build up). Regards, Signaturebrendel 02:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] European Union "Controversy"? What "controversy"?

I edited the title of this section and it was immediately reverted.

Just because we have a genuine controversy here in our talk section for this article and just because there is no obvious consensus in the larger world as to whether the EU qualifies as a "superpower" does *not* mean that there is in fact a recognizable "controversy" of any sort raging about this topic in any general sense suitable for mention in an encyclopedia.

The controversy is all here in our edit wars and it's not appropriate to refer directly to that in our section titles.

From the first time I read this article that section title has seemed out of place and we need to replace it with a matter of fact section title that accurately reflects the ambiguity of the status of the EU as a superpower without invoking a charged word like "controversy". Controversy would require people at least debating the issue and as far as I can tell the only debate is here. Just because some qualified references can be found both stating that the EU cannot be a superpower while other say it already is does not make this lack of consensus a controversy.

Lets see if we can come up with a better section title:

suggestions?

European Union: a new form of superpower?

European Union: a formal association of countries as a superpower?

European Union: A superpower that is not a country

Perhaps there are others? The title should reflect the fact that the EU's status of superpower is unclear not due to issues of scale (as with the emerging superpowers) but due to it not being a country/sovereign state.

I'm sure defenders of the status quo "european union controversy" will be quick to say that this title has been in the article for a long time while all sorts of debate raged but that is not in itself any sort of defense for keeping that title.

If someone can link to any actual "controversy" surrounding the EU's qualifications as a "superpower" rather than just mutually exclusive opinions on the matter that would change my mind on this section title. Zebulin 06:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the EU is more than a just close-nit version of NAFTA- look at the CIA. The CIA also lists the EU as the largest economy in the world by nominal GDP right here- recognizing it as more than a mere association of nations. So it's proven that the EU is more than a "formal association" and like the Soviet Union (which wasn't a country either) can be a superpower. Therefore I have chosen the first of your proposed titles ("European Union: a new form of superpower?"). While I approve of that particular title, I don't think it's really new that a non-nation entity is a superpower as the Soviet Union wasn't a proper nation either- but as I said I'm fine the first of the three titles you proposed. Signaturebrendel 06:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well that was certainly an easy consensus.

I think there is some disagreement remaining about the soviet union however.

The soviet union was a sovereign state. It could belong to to the united nations. it fit every definition of "country" that I am aware of. There is nothing externally preventing the EU from also becoming a sovereign state but the sovereign states that make it up would have to surrender their sovereignty to the EU for it make the transition to full fleged state.

You may well make the case for the notion of superpower being expanded to formally include the EU but you are greatly mistaken if you believe the soviet union was not a country. The EU and the soviet union were not only different they weren't even the same *kind* of political unit. The soviet union was a country a state and the EU is close multilateral association of independant states.

None of the constituents of the EU have given up their status as independant states and you can't have soverign state within states. That is impossible by definition. Zebulin 06:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the USSR included Poland, Hungary, etc... who techincally were independent nations at the time-of course it is debatable whether or not the Soviet Union was more unified as the EU (it was). For now disagreeing over the USSR's status is not really cause for concern as we can both agree that, whether a proper nation or not, it was a superpower. I am glad as well that we have found consensus on the section's title so easily. Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Careful! You are confusing the warsaw pact and USSR. The USSR can be argued to have exercised *de facto* control over various eastern european countries such as Poland but it never claimed *de jure* control of those countries. It dealt with them officially as indenpendant states and they had separate representation in the united nations.

The soviet union *did* however contain as "soviet republics" some former countries (ie the baltics or ukraine) that even managed to regain their independance when the USSR broke up. However these countries lost all of their ability to exercise any sovereignty during the existance of the USSR and the official soviet stance on their status was that they had "voluntarily" surrended all of their sovereignty to the supreme soviet in Moscow.

NONE of this applies to the countries in the EU. They all continue to claim and exercise independant sovereignty. The EU and the soviet union are not at all the same kinds of political units.

Zebulin 06:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying they are the same. They are not. The EU is a unique thing, the only one of its kind. I'm just saying the USSR wasn't a proper nation ("it never claimed *de jure* control of those countries"). Maybe I am confusing the Warsaw pact and the USSR, but I'm tired anyways and am going to get some sleep now. Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Zebulin but not with his titles. European Union: a new form of superpower? just sounds unencyclopaedic. I suggest that we change it to European Union ambiguity or Status of the European Union. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 08:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I like "status of the European union" best of any of the alternatives so far. Hopefully Brendel will agree and we can change it again without losing consensus.

Zebulin 09:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


Per Nobleeagle, I also agree with Zebulin, but not with his titles. However, I remain unconvinced that the EU deserves separate treatment from the other 'emerging superpowers'. After all, that is exactly what the EU section deals with, the EU as an emerging superpower. It might conceivably be further along the road to superpowerdom than India or China, but it is not there yet, at least not in the opinion of the majority of people.
As far as the title goes, I'm uncomfortable with anything that smacks of editorialising. We are, after all, bound by NPOV in the titles in just the same way as in the main text. Words such as controversy, ambiguity, or titles with question marks in them—as if positing a hypothesis, are, in my view, unsuitable in tone. Status of the EU seems to be neutral enough, but I'm not sure that it fits too well with the general style of the page.
Really, I suppose this all boils down to one question: what are the arguments for treating the EU separately? We all know the arguments about GDP, sui generis, etc, but stylistically speaking, given that it is not widely acclaimed as a superpower, why the separation from the others?
Xdamrtalk 15:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Several reasons:
  1. The EU, unlike emerging superpowers, is not a nation
  2. The EU does not lack socio-economic development as do the "emerging superpowers"
  3. Is the title emerging really correct? (If you're a Euro-skeptic then the EU isn't even emerging)
The EU is unquie entity in a unique disposition very much unlike that of China or India. Putting all three in the same section would be misleading. You just can't lump the EU together with China and India-they are too different in terms of development and political structure. Signaturebrendel 02:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
All true enough, but, if you'll forgive me, the 'defining characteristic' of these three entities is not their past or their present, but rather their future; that is to say the realistic possibility of their attaining superpower status.
I think that we'd all agree that neither of the three are superpowers at present, or failing that, we'd at least agree that most people do not consider them as superpowers. By the same token, we, or at least most people, would probably agree that they are the contemporary superpower 'contenders'. No other country can realistically be added to this category. If we agree on that, then I'm not sure what the grounds for differentiation are. The differences between them—ie. how far, relatively, they are along the road to 'superpowerdom'—can, and indeed should, be discussed within this section, but why differentiate them in the article structure?
Xdamrtalk 23:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

How about we get rid of "emerging superpowers" and lump the EU, China, and India together in a "Post Cold War Superpower development" section which at the top would also discuss the changes in super power status of ussr/russia and the US. the EU, China and India would have their claims to superpower status discussed indiviudally.Zebulin 07:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I would agree with such an arrangment in which "the EU, China and India would have their claims to superpower status discussed indiviudally."- this seems to take care of my concerns. Signaturebrendel 07:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my title suggestions. I'm not sure how I got so off track there. My only defense is I had just returned to the page from reading a gazillion editorial style references and I suppose I hadn't gotten back to "encylopedia mode".

I don't think it's wise to treat the issue of the section title change along with the issue of whether in fact the EU should simply be lumped with the other emerging superpowers. I think it was opposition to anything that might lead to a removal of the special treatment of the EU in the article that kept the title "European Union controversy" for as long as it was.

Anyway the article looks good at first blush for the first time now. I still don't think the EU deserves special treatment but that is another (probably unwinnable) debate and I can live with tabling that issue indefinately.

Zebulin 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The EU is too different from the other "emerging superpowers" (Is it even an emerging superpower?)- but see some of my points above. The new title looks good though. Signaturebrendel 02:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


Not sure why the EU is not listed. EU overtrumps USA and Russia in literally all sigificant fields, not only economics and military power. If the article want to list superpowers, no listing of the EU just makes this article a post-cold-war-relic. Delete it or fill it with content. 62.226.61.61 22:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The EU is listed in the article. Help us find some authoritative sources that demonstrate that EU is regarded as a superpower. We had a nice large section making a case for the EU as a superpower but it was removed as in violation of wikipedia original research rules. We can restore an equivalent such section by ensuring that we source not just the data but the conclusions as well. I hope you'll also register if you haven't or log in when posting if you have since it makes it easier discuss these things.Zebulin 22:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The EU is not a single political unit. It does not have a single foreign policy . It does not have an integrated military. It doesn't have a clearly unified political system. At best you could call it an economic superpower, or a potential superpower (pending achievement of political/foreign policy/military unification). The article on Potential Superpowers was deleted because A) it inherently misleads about what constitutes a superpower and B) it's 100% speculative.—Perceval 02:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about that article. I don't believe I ever even read that emerging superpowers article. In any case The anon editor above seems to want more treatment of the EU as a superpower in *this* article. The EU as a superpower isn't speculative if you buy the line of thinking that it wields a new kind of soft power or that it's lack of unified policy constitutes some sort of strength. IIRC that last whacky notion was even properly sourced in the previous version of this article, we just didn't properly present it as being just the whacky idea of that particular source. As to misleading about what constitutes a superpower I'm not sure that is truly possible since the term has been seized and mis-applied by countless people of influence or authority who ought to know better.Zebulin 04:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll agree that the term is misused. The anon seems like a typical nationalist, wanting their particular group mentioned regardless of facts or sources. In any case, if the sources are there discussing it as a superpower (as opposed to a potential superpower, then we've got material than can be added without violating WP:ATT.—Perceval 04:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, you must remember that this is a non-factual issue. A theory you disagree with is not neccesarily "whacky." The EU is more unified than NAFTA or OPEC which is why the CIA factbook lists it in its gloassry of "countries." There are bound to be multiple differing theories on the subject. Perceval is right that we just need to stick to our sources. Reflect authoritative opinions (that's all there is on this subject) and present theories as theories (trying to imply that they're "whacky" would be putting our own opinion into the article-so it is important to reflect the theories of others w/o putting our spin on them). In other words please don't "present it as being just the whacky idea of that particular source" just present it as being a theory from a given source w/o any loaded rhetoric. Signaturebrendel 17:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Perceval, first of all, it is not my job, to enhance your smattering by citing something, which is obviously. There is a simple mathematical method called addition, which you could adopt on the 27 EU member states to enhance your missing knowledge about any subject you want to know more about, and btw a good ressource would be Wikipedia. And of course - if we talk about superpowers - we talk about potential superpowers, because if we wouldn't and just take the plain facts or take the proof in form of won wars (including a final peace treaty and stability), I guess since world war II, the only country who looks "whacky" on that is the USA. The other thing is, that in your words the EU does not have a "clearly unified political system", which of course is nonsense. What you probably mean - since "political system" has several definitions - is the form of government. The EU has a very clear and unified political system in all member states (democracy), probably some definitions such as "Constitutional Monarchy" in particular member states confused you. Apart from that since the Patriotic Act, I am not sure if the USA still has a "clearly unified political system". Finally, I think you are the last one who is qualified (based on your narrow minded view and false comments) to create criteria for countries to achieve superpower status. 62.226.37.103 20:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Shall we also treat NAFTA, ASEAN, Mercosur, and the SCO as potential superpowers? There is a simple mathematical model called addition... While I do not appreciate your condescension, I'll simply point out that the insistence of a random IP address contributor to Wikipedia is not nearly enough to warrant the invention of the EU as a superpower. No reputable published sources that I am aware of treat the EU as a superpower or refer to the EU as a superpower. There are some that speculate or predict that one day it will be a superpower, once certain events come to pass. But speculation remains just that, speculation. The EU will not be discussed as a superpower in this article until there are reputable published sources saying such that we can cite and summarize.—Perceval 20:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

(reinserting indent) Please. Let's just stick to the sources. The NAFTA comparison isn't correct either, as the EU is in the CIA factbook, but NAFTA isn't- so the US government seem to be of the opinion that the EU is more than just a "regular" trans-national alliance. But that's besides the point. This entire article deals with speculation. Power is not something you can count like apples on a tree. There is only opinion to deal with here. It is, however, not our opinion that matters here, but the opinion of reputable sources. So if you have a reputable source, bring it to the table and we'll discuss it-otherwise having a discussion is a mute point. Signaturebrendel 01:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Page design

Due to the recent discussions over titles and page lay-put I have taken a closer look at this article and am now of the opinion that quite a lot of its needs to be re-done in order for this article to follow in the foot-steps of the Great Powers article. I have noticed several things that need improvement; these are my suggestions:

  • Work the US section into a real text section instead of an "evidence list" supporting the assumption that the US is powerful.
  • Surely we could expand the China and India sections a bit. This article is only 33kb long (I have written several articles far longer (in the 70s) and they passed GA w/o any problem.
  • As for the EU section, I still beleive that you can't throw the EU into one big pot w/ China and India, so I support the EU having its own section.
  • Why is the US the only entry in the Superpowers today section? The US should have its own section IMHO. Furthermore is a "Superpowers today" section even needed-shouldn't a discussion of current superpower issues be discussed in the intro.
  • I would suggest adding some text to the "Emerging superpowers" section before we jump into talking about China and India. Or we could lose it altogther and have all current and possible superpowers have their own sections.

Let me know what you think. Once we get all our differences settled and find consensus there shouldn't be a problem promoting this article to GA. Regards, Signaturebrendel 03:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think everything post cold war in this article is not ready for GA status and this may be out of our hands. In the cold war "superpower" acquired a very concrete and relevant meaning which seems to have been lost since the end of the cold war. After the cold war there does not even seem to be a common understanding of what the term means let alone who qualifies. It is very hard to say what relevance the term has in the cold war era. emerging superpowers? wouldn't we really need a crystal ball? EU as superpower? It doesn't even have a seat on the UN and it's two members on the security council have totally separate voting histories. PErhaps the EU is a superpower, pethaps China and India are on their way to superpower status, perhaps the US ceased to really be a superpower when the cold war ended, perhaps superpowerdom was a bipolar world relic. This whole portion of the article almost defies organization because there is so little in the way of concrete standards by which to examine a candidate post cold war superpower.
Of course the article currently discusses all these considerations but it is *very* hard to organize the entries for cold war superpowers without making assumptions about these unsettled concepts. You cannot list the EU separe from India or China without implicitly endorsing the notion that it is already a superpower and likewise you cannot list the EU as an emerging superpower without implicitly suggesting that it cannot currently qualify as a superpower. listing all the superpower candidates together creates the awkward situation that the article appears to be saying that india and China are regarded as possessing the same superpower status as the US.Zebulin 04:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I agree with Brendel that whatever happens, changes are required. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 04:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
That's as far as I can get as well. With respect to converting the current superpowers US entry to paragraph format are we sure that would improve the usefulness of the information? Do we also want to convert the cold war superpowers table to paragraph format? Do we want a paragraph format section on the USSR? It's hard to see any change that won't lead logically to a complete overhaul of the article or which will otherwise do nothing to provide a more uniform style. .Zebulin 05:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
In response to your first post: This article does talk about all theories but does so as though the subject as thought it was stating 100% objective facts. Fact is that this subject is subjective ;-). It is a set of intilectual concepts. You described the diversity in theories well: "emerging superpowers? wouldn't we really need a crystal ball? EU as superpower? It doesn't even have a seat on the UN and it's two members on the security council have totally separate voting histories. PErhaps the EU is a superpower, pethaps China and India are on their way to superpower status, perhaps the US ceased to really be a superpower when the cold war ended, perhaps superpowerdom was a bipolar world relic." It is this uncertainty the article needs to convey to the reader in a more up-fron manner- that includes changing the page lay-out. Also, why do we list India and China in one section? Do we acutally have any sources that they share the same status? Perhaps they should have their own sections. Doing so does not (IMHO) create "the awkward situation that the article appears to be saying that india and China are regarded as possessing the same superpower status as the US" We will mention in the article that the US is the most widely accepted only superpower. Besdies this organization allows for discussing the subject in the most objective and inclusive manner. If we label the EU as an emerging superpower, for example, we will contradict sources that state it to be superpower. Furthermore the article needs a section on the "Multi-polar world" theory in which there are no superpowers. As for "It's hard to see any change that won't lead logically to a complete overhaul of the article"- most likely, yes. Signaturebrendel 06:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
in that case I sincerely hope that when such major overhauls are overtaken restraint will be shown rather than simply reverting everything back. Instead I hope people will attempt to build off of whatever they could accept from those major edits and so at least allow for some incremental progress to me made. I would begin such an overhaul immediately if I felt confident the considerable effort wasn't at a very high risk of simply getting reverted enmasse.Zebulin 06:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Well we all have our opinions, but we need to let the sources guide us. There were many edit wars (or dicussion wars) on the Great Power page until recently when the article was re-written in strict accordance to its sources. The same needs to be done here. I think such an overhaul could be conducted quickly in big bold swoops. Perhaps, we should at least agree on an outline for the article here before putting in changes. Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, I think I can safely say that there is little or no likelihood of any sort of 'revert-war' here—at least not amongst the established editors. Per the Great power rewrite, I'm certain that this will be done in the same friendly and collegial atmosphere.
Xdamrtalk 23:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
first question is, can we convert the entire article to either bullet point form or paragraph form for each of the superpowers. Which form will be more suitable for the kind of information we have?Zebulin 07:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I have a strong preference for paragraph form. It is more formal and appropriate for WP and it is better suited to deal with a subjective topic. Bullet points for a complete objective facts such as "The median personal income in the US for persons age 25+ with earnings was $32,000 in 2005"- that's the kind of info suited for bullet points. Subjective material pertaining to international relations is best covered in paragraphs. Signaturebrendel 07:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the basis for the article structure doesn't already exist at Great power. I can't really see any decent reason for departing from this, can anyone else?
Xdamrtalk 23:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


the problem I see with the great power article (and this article in it's current form) is that it has become largely a listing of particular Great Powers Leading to endless emotionally charged editing by newcomers unhappy with why this or that favorite/disliked country is in/not in the list. I think I would rather see the article focus more on the *concept* of the superpower and how that has evolved rather than on the countries that have laid claim to that title for whatever reason or had it applied to them by outsiders.Zebulin 00:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Reasonable concerns, but I think that we have the balance pretty much ok with Great power at present. There certainly is a danger from excessive 'fact creep', and it may be that Great power could do with a little pruning. Nevertheless, what that article does have is a pretty substantial section on the theory—something which I agree that this article could usefully emulate. I also agree that this article devotes far too much attention to individual countries vs. theory, a thoroughly skewed balance.
Xdamrtalk 01:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
True anytime you create a list there is going to be a debate and there is "endless emotionally charged editing by newcomers"- something I am quite frankly tired of-which is why I propose to re-do this article into a solid GA. I agree that expanding the section that described the theory of a superpower is something that should be expanded. Keep in mind that this article is just 33Kb long-that means it can put on a couple of pounds ;-) As for the bullet vs. Paragraph thing- if we devot more time to theory explanantion paragraphs would be better- especially since they are the best method of conveying a subjective piece of information. Signaturebrendel 02:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Status of italy

People keep removing the mention of Italy as one of the "great powers" in the European union status section. I see that Italy is listed in the great powers article as a recent great power and as a possible current great power. Should we try to make sure any mention of "great powers" in this article agrees with those listed in the great power article? Zebulin 23:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well they should agree with each other. Signaturebrendel 01:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Italy is a great power and so should be mentioned in the EU section along with the UK, France, and Germany. Somethingoranother 02:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Japan

I think that if the EU, China, and India were all considered to definitely be super powers then Japan would also have to be considered one aswell through its sheer economic and technological power. Japan earns massive amounts of money and earns a huge surplus which means it has massive amounts of money stashed away. It's the 2nd largest economy after the US and has the world's 2nd largest market and 2nd largest stock exchange. Tokyo is the world's largest city. Japan has loads of massive companies too making most of the world's electronic goods and cars. Japan is a bit of a silent super power because of the fall out from WW2 and is underestimated because of it. Look around your house and see which company makes your TV, DVD player or video recorder, mobile/cell phone, CD player/radio, games console, even your PC such as monitor, printer, speakers, DVD/CD ROM, hard drive and floppy drive, and next time you're out see how many of the cars you see are made by a Japanese company and you'll see how much of an affect Japan has on our lives. Look at how good their Shinkansen trains are and how futuristic their cities at both day and night look like and robots like ASIMO even their toilets are so futuristic they don't require toilet paper. Japan's military is in the top 4 in the world because it's the 4th largest military spender even though it only spends 1% of its economy on its military. Once Japan gets a UN Security Council seat which should be pretty soon (citation needed) considering it's the strongest contender for one it's likely then that Japan will start to spend more than 1% on its military and may increase it to 3% - 5% what with the threat from North Korea and China, which would mean it would definitely have the 2nd most powerful military because of the sheer amount it would and could be spending on its military (3 - 5 times as much as what it is now) at 5% it would be spending even more than the EU on its military. Also Japan may be considering a nuclear deterrent of its own soon especially after it gets a UN Security Council seat which would get rid of any controversy over it. Japan really does hold a massive amount of influence around the world aswell as through hidden power in the fact it's the world's largest creditor means many countries from rich to poor usually rely on getting loans from Japan, even most G8 countries like America and Germany often loan money from Japan. Japan also in the largest aid relief donor and many third world countries rely on aid from Japan. Many countries labour forces work for Japanese companies which means employment to many people in that country and business tax revenue to that country's government. Think of what would happen if the Japanese companies left a country and left that number people out of work and the loss of the amount of business tax revenue to that government. Or think of what would happen if Japan giving aid or stopped exporting any goods to a country when you can see how many goods we rely on come from Japan. Even the UN may feel compelled to do as Japan says considering that Japan is the largest donor to the UN especially if there was a threat of Japan stopping its funding to the UN. It's not hard to see how other countries both the rich ones and the poor ones really do rely on Japan. Japan is a silent super power and has been ever since the 1980s and recent developments in Japan's politics show Japan is growing confident not to be so silent anymore. Japan also has its own space program formed in 2003 called JAXA and has its own rockets, launch pads, and satillites. It recently built the largest module of the International Space Station. It plans to build a GPS system of its own, send a manned mission to the moon and build a lunar base there. It also plans to build a replacement for Concorde. 88.109.86.234 05:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong, EU, India and China are emerging superpowers or in the EU's case, a new case altogether over which there is some controversy. US is the only fully accepted superpower. — Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 06:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It also doesn't really matter what reasons we find and rationals we can come up with if there are no source. I doubt that there are sources considering Japan a superpower. Signaturebrendel 07:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
it might also be added that apart from the economic size of japan almost everything mentioned was speculative and in divergence from past trends.Zebulin 19:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

how do you know that japan will get the unsc seat? of course it might! but remember the P5 vetos.

[edit] United Kingdom

I think the United Kingdom itself maybe be emerging to be an early 21st century semi super power with the US as the world hyper power. Here's the reasons for me thinking this:

  • Second to the US in world diplomacy
  • Second highest defence budget
  • Second largest navy in terms of tonnage
  • Second most power projection capability
  • Second largest aircraft carrier fleet with second largest aircraft carries being built after the US Nimitz class aircraft carriers
  • MI6 considered most successful secret service
  • British troops considered best and most trained in the world
  • SAS considered best special operatives in the world
  • UN Security Council seat and founding member
  • Head of the Commonwealth of Nations (the largest organisation of states after the UN)
  • The British monarch is also Head of State of 15 other countries such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand
  • Major player in NATO and EU
  • Large North Sea oil and gas production
  • London being one of the greatest cities in the world
  • City of London being the world's main financial centre in terms of having the largest amount of money pass through it each year than anywhere else and largest gathering of financial groups in the world.
  • Pound Sterling one of the world's top currencies alongside US Dollar and Euro
  • Second highest growth for major developed economies after US.
  • Its own nuclear missiles on nuclear submarines which have joint longest range with US nuclear submarines
  • Largest number of over seas territories
  • Carried out major invasions of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
  • Was only the nation to actually invade Afghanistan and Iraq alongside US forces (Other forces came after US & UK forces had secured the countries)
  • Second largest force in Iraq and Afghanistan
  • Leads the fight against Afghan rebels in Helmand province
  • Controls southern Iraq and large areas of Afghanistan
  • Leads NATO force in Kosovo
  • The leading nation in tackling global warming
  • A leading country in the Middle East road map to peace
  • Most involved in Darfur issue
  • Second most involved in Iran nuclear issue
  • Single handedly resolved Sierra Leone issue
  • International renoun, popularity, and success of British popular music industry, film making industry, literary works
  • Modern British scientific discoveries and inventions; DNA, Internet
  • British education such as Eton College, Cambridge University, and Oxford Univeristy
  • Popularity of British sports and famous people like Manchester United and David Beckham

I think since the end of the Cold War to present the United Kingdom has played the second largest role in the world after the United States, and after all the role a country plays in the world is what defines a super power. Also the United Kingdom demonstrated that it can single handedly and quickly defeat a regional power and quickly resolve a conflict when it won the Falklands War. This is more than what can be said for such countries as the United States or Former Soviet Union. After the Second World War and during the 1950s the United Kingdom was considered to be a super power because of the role it played in the world but the after effect of the Suez crisis made this disappear. The Falklands war and Thatcher-Reagen era displayed the UK was preparing to retrieve its status as being on the same level as the USA and USSR. Soon after this the Cold War ended and with no Soviet Union left to counter the United Kingdom in any way (like in the Suez crisis) the Thatcher-Reagen duo had worked and the United Kingdom set in motion activities to reclaim such a postion it had in the world that it had in the world before the Suez crisis in time for the beginning of the 21st century. The 1990s was a bit of a prelude to today and saw the United Kingdom slowly begin to prepare as being a power equal to the US and former USSR by being eager to greatly contribute to the Gulf War and and Yugoslav wars and grew more involed in Western Africa by sending troops there to resolve conflict in Sierra Leone and was testing its place as second most powerful in the world to the US and in being a semi super power again. Soon afterwards September 11th happened and the War on Terror that followed gave the United Kingdom just what it needed to reassert itself on the world stage and came just at the right time to have given the United Kingdom time to perpare and try out its future after the end of the Cold War and for the beginning of the 21st century. Today the United Kingdom is easily seen as being second most powerful on the world stage diplomatically and even militarily and could be called a semi super power. People have started to raise this issue called the British Moment in the 21st century. The United Kingdom also acts very much as a deciding force in NATO and the EU in which policy they take or their futures in whether it decides to side with the US or EU and can have an effect around the world. It also greatly influences the other 52 members of the Commonwealth of Nations which it heads by its monarch and is the largest body other than the UN. Not to mention its influence and veto power of being a permanent member of the UN Security Council. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Somethingoranother (talk • contribs) 23:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

I regard the UK as practically the gold standard of a great power. It seems to be impossible to find any historian or statesman who would claim it is not a great power. Your points may be useful for demonstrating how other supposed superpowers are in fact probably instead great powers. I suspect that rather than new superpowers emerging the US will end up being recategorized as the strongest great power and the rank of superpower will remain for some time unfilled by any state.Zebulin 23:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, whether or not you, Somethingoranother, can make an argument for why the UK should be listed a superpower does not relate to the article. This article is based on academic opinion. Unless you have your argument published in a journal, we can't publish it here either. I personally do not agree that the UK is an emerging superpower (though it is a powerful nation), Most of your points apply to any G4 nation (and to be frank w/ you some are quite speculative- e.g. "leader in fighting global warming"). You could make points for and against all these (G4) nations, but such an argument would be a complete waste of time as our article need to adhere to references. There are many different opinions. Personally, I beleive that the US will be the last superpower there ever was as we are racing towards a multi-polar world where no nation and truly act uni-laterally. But again, we need to follow our references. Are there sufficient references for listing the UK as an emerging superpower. No, so we can't include it. Signaturebrendel 01:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If the UK cannot be claimed to be an emerging semi-super power then such likes as China and especially India cannot be claimed to be an emerging super power because China only holds relatively as much power as the UK and India holds less power than the UK so it doesn't make sense. Considering aswell the huge amount the UK has grown in influence and strength it shows over the past decade it has shown more real growth of actual power than either China or India have. 88.109.86.234 02:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This is all a matter of opinion (it is a non-factual topic!) and unless that opinion has been published in a journal or source that is in compliance w/ WP standards it cannot be incorporated into the article. Signaturebrendel 03:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It would seem quite a large number of Americans actually believe that the United Kingdom is becoming a superpower of sorts, which was revealed in a recent survey in 2005 [1] The United Kingdom itself has been open recently about considering itself as an emerging semi superpower with Tony Blair refering more and more to the United Kingdom as being at such a status in the world now and considers the UK as now being second only to the US. I might write to him and ask him for his opinion as to whether the UK really now is considered to be a partial superpower of sorts.

There are a lot of polls out there and stating the UK to be second to the is quite an ambitious claim that seems to be a reflection of unbridaled nationalism rather than geo-political theory. There are quite a few nation considered more powerful than the UK in most academic discussions on the topic. According to the poll you cited Japan and China are seen as more powerful than the UK-only 18% saw the UK as 2nd on the world stage. But if you find a reliable source stating that the UK alone is an emerging superpower you can include it- thought this is the first time I have ever heard of the UK being considered more of an emerging superpower than China (which is commonly considered far more powerful). Signaturebrendel 00:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EU/India/China -- OR

I have set up a temporary workpage at Talk:Superpower/temp for material on the EU, India, and Russia. Following the AFD decision that the emerging superpowers articles were OR, the similar information found here ought to be reworked in such a way that it does not fall to similar problems with OR.—Perceval 03:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

....The workpage presents an interesting discussion of emerging superpowers, but this belongs in a position paper, not in an encyclopedia. The rejected article topics (EU as an Emerging Superpower, China as an Emerging Supoerpower, Emerging Superpowers, etc...) should NOT find a new home in the wikipidia entry on Superpowers.

The Superpowers section should more or less follow the form it is in, which is to say that it should 1. define what a Superpower is according to several sources, 2. give some insight into the history of the Superpower concept, 3. identify current Superpowers.

ADDITIONALLY, I think it should mention something about emerging or partial Superpowers, but anything along these lines should be minimal and not come to rival the size of the rest of the article on Superpowers. I suggest a small paragraph or so about the EU, China and India under a heading like "Emerging or Partial Superpowers". This should not devolve into arguments among Europeans, Chinese, Indians, versus the Americans over why or why not each country should be a Superpower.Jasoncward 04:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)jasoncward

I essentially agree with your position, but I didn't want to delete the content outright. There may yet be something salvageable that can come from the excised sections, and I think the other editors would probably like a chance to rework the sections.—Perceval 04:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. There are sources, the information is referenced and needs to be mentioned in this article. The mentiones, especially the EU is section is well-referenced and represents in the ongiong discussion on the topic. Removing these sections would make this article less informative! The charge that these sections belong in a position is false. These sections simply represent theories express by our sources. There is no adequate reason for removing well-referenced and wholesome information. These sections are not OR-show me one example of OR! Not mentioning India, China and the EU actually makes this article inaccurate. Signaturebrendel 06:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
It's fine that you disagree. The problem is not whether or not the sections are sourced or informative. The problem is that the sections are essentially the same content that was recently deleted in AFD for being original research. The sections marshall evidence to support a position, rather than presenting the opinions of experts attributed to those experts in the text. The former is OR; the latter would not be. As they stand the section are OR which is why I removed them to a temp page where they can be reworked. WP:OR is a non-negotiable content policy--do not re-add the content without refactoring it.—Perceval 06:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The sections are not the same as the articles. Give me an example of OR in any of the sections and since when are surced and informative sections subject to deletion. I am not negotiating WP policy I am saying that is being mis-used. The sections are not OR! As of now the article is incomplete and misleading. Good Job! Signaturebrendel 07:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
What is AFD? I looked in articles for deletion and I certainly didn't see an emerging superpowers content deletion if that is what you meant. Assuming we are talking about articles for deletion does someone know when the emerging superpowers article was deleted? I want to find the example of an article deleted for having the same OR content as this one so as to help insure the new effort diverges from the one that produced the deleted article. A link would be ideal if it wouldn't be too much trouble. Zebulin 09:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we need at least one prominent citation from a qualified source that regards the EU as a superpower. If we have that then the EU section wouldn't be OR strictly speaking and would at worst require some trimming. What criteria would an "expert" on international relations need to be regarded as such?Zebulin 17:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no way that Russia is an emerging super power when its economy is 14th in the world and its military spending is 9th. Russia's population continues to shrink rather rapidly and its HDI is 65th and isn't even really developing. A part from having a large amount of gas, a large country, and a lot of nukes Russia doesn't score very highly at all in anything else and shows no signs of those scores increasing if anything they're going down. Not really what you would call an emrging super power when their scores keep falling behind. Most of Russia's population now lives in poverty and Russia struggles to find cash to give its people any sort of decent way of life, its infrastructure continues to crumble and fall apart around itself, and its military decays and is now even bypassed in strength by such countries as Saudi Arabia. Russia also has out of hand crime which pretty much controls the country now. Russia seems like it's in a state of decay and on a road to no where and would be crazy to say it was emerging as a super power when it holds no power and actually loses power and strength each year rather than gain any.

in the absence of a recent edit adding Russia as an emerging superpower you seem to be really beating the hell out of a strawman here. In any event as place of the entire set of modern non US superpowers in this article is now being challenged I doubt that you have much reason to fear Russia earning a place in such a section.Zebulin 17:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Zebulin, here is the link to the AFD decision on emerging superpowers Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/China_as_an_emerging_superpower_(fourth_nomination). What needs to happen, to prevent OR is the following. These sections start with statements like "A case can be made for expanding the use the term 'Superpower' to include not only countries but also the European Union" or "The People's Republic of China is often considered an emerging superpower." They then proceed to marshall evidence in support of that proposition. They certainly cite sources, but those sources are synthesized together and not attributed in the text. What the reader sees is not the theory presented by an attributed reputable expert, but a theory assembled by Wikipedians. The former is acceptable, the latter is WP:OR and will be removed. How to fix this? Glad you asked. A short section (one or two paragraphs) on various countries is acceptable, if structured in the following way:

"Popular historian J. Peterman writes in his book, The Rise of XYZ, that ABC-country has the potential to rival the United States. He cites the following four factors: ABC's large population relative to the U.S., ABC's large growth rates relative to the U.S., the rapid growth of ABC's military expenditures, and ABC's better social organization than the U.S. On the other hand, international relations historian Niall Ferguson writes in his book Colossus that ABC-country will not challenge the U.S. for the following three reasons: ABC's rapidly aging population, ABC's highly unequal distribution of income, and ABC's oppressive political/civic culture. A third prominent opinion is advanced by realist IR theorist John Mearsheimer saying that ABC-country will challenge the U.S., but for different reasons, including: blah blah blah etc etc etc."

See the difference between the current text and the above text? The current text marshals cited but unattributed evidence synthesized together to support a position. The above text neatly summarizes the argument of each reputable published author side by side so that the reader knows exactly whose opinion their reading and which author supports which evidence. The current text is OR and will continue to be removed, but text restructured along the lines above is acceptable.—Perceval 18:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear that the US portion of the post cold war half of the article may well be setting the standard that the others followed. The only thing about the US section that complies with the concerns raised in AFD is the fact that it is not speculative. The US section reads like a position paper.Zebulin 00:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Zebulin, I think your concerns about the US section of the article are answerable by the fact that the term 'superpower' is largely defined by what the US is and does, at least in the post cold war world. While many from China, India and the EU may not like it, nevertheless our modern use of the term 'superpower' became defined during the Cold War as either the US or the USSR...and in the absence of the USSR the definition of 'superpower' becomes, to oversimplify, the United States. The detailed definition of 'superpower' has become the detailed descriptions of the US. In a sense, nothing about the US as a superpower can be a position or POV because the US itself is the major definition of superpower.--Jasoncward 01:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the model paragraph suggested by perceval above. If someone wants to write it, we could at least get something in the main article that passifies those who are pushing for their favorite entity to be named a superpower. It adds to the information in the article (especially for uninformed readers) to sligtly mention the potential superpower landscape in the next 50-100 years. --Jasoncward 01:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have retagged the "Potential 21st Century Superpowers" section with the OR tag. I reject the aseertion by some that this is not original research, based on the following argument: As to whether the European Union, China, and India can or will be future superpowers is a matter of ongoing debate. This sentence in particular gives away the agenda of this section, which is clearly original research by synthesis. Wikipedia is not a place for original essays. Take a political science class and write a research paper on this subject if it is that important to you. There is no concept of "partial superpowers", nor is there a concept of "potential superpowers". There ARE superpowers and there ARE great powers but noone can "debate" on Wikipedia what or who they think or even worse "believe" qualifies for this distinction, and then put forth some sort of thinly-veiled validation by providing sources that purport those ideas. The sources themselves are speculation based on fact, stiching them together in some sort of crusade is plainly and simply original research. I would say the entire section needs to be ditched, but it is obviously a touchy subject for all of us and, having participated in the lengthy AfD debate, I have to say the sources should be kept, sans the rampant crystal-balling and editorializing. This section needs to be edited to just MENTION the articles and not couch them in a biased context. Excuse my bluntness. --IRelayer 21:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a minor clarification...the sentence I provided as an example was edited by me, for style, but the previous version shows the same agenda. Just so I am not accused of editing it and then bashing it. I thought taking it out altogether would draw the ire of many but I also thought it needed to be edited for style.--IRelayer 21:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your conclusion that the 21st century superpower section keeps straying over the boundary between reporting sourced information and synthesizing new original research from that information. However I am somewhat amused by the ironic fact that your assertion that "there is no concept of concept of 'potential superpowers'" appears itself to be original research. I have found use of the term "potential superpower" and derived variants like "potential 21st century superpower" in numerous scholarly papers without explanation as if there were already a consensus understanding of this concept in such academic discussions.
The section certainly should not be dumped. It's important to retain some equivalent to it simply because with the exception of strictly historical publications the overwhelming majority of current or recent publications of all sorts relating to the concept of "superpower" tend to relate to this topic.
However, we must work hard to find sources for those conclusions that best represent the broad range of academic and diplomatic consensus that exists on the topic and insure we are merely reporting those sources. The best source would be a sort of meta commentary on the situation that actually describes the state and range of consensus (such as it is) on this topic but until we are able to find this we will have to make due with a representative sample of sources displaying the range of discussion in this area of the general topic of "superpower".Zebulin 22:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK as a former superpower

This article still seems to be largely centred on the US/USSR as superpowers, but fails to mention that the UK was once a superpower (apart from the occasional mention) fair enough the UK is no longer a superpower (weather it is re-emerging is/was another debate) but surely this article is to inform of all super powers, past and present; rather that to offer a definition and then some information on current/cold war superpowers. It should therefore have information on the role of the UK, and othe former superpowers if there exists any, as superpowers. Looking through this article and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_power#United_Kingdom it is meantioned that this status was once held but there appears to be little else on the subject. /Discuss... 82.11.195.211 23:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There quite a few colonial European empires that would fit the description for a superpower. There is the Roman Empire, the Spanish Empire, the Portugese Empire, the Dutch Empire, and in the mid/late 19th and ealy 20th century, the French and English Empires (see the EU section for the current status of these nations). But the term superpower wasn't around back then-it's a cold war term that was coined in the mid 20th century, when none of the empires listed above had superpower status. Signaturebrendel 23:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

- sorry let me get this straight, you're trying to say that because the term was invented after these empires it means that said term cannot be applied to them? That's really quite pathetic.

those earlier powers existed in totally different international environments than was the case when the concept of superpower originated. They can be disqualified since it was simply impossible for any of them to exert the kind of influence that 20th century and later superpowers displayed. However, the british empire *did* exist briefly in such circumstances and certainly would qualify as a superpower when the term originated. I think some mention would be reasonable. Information from references explaining how its superpower recognition was lost could also be quite useful in helping to sharpen the definition of a superpower.Zebulin 02:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes the British and as far as I know also the French empire could be mentioned if a reference calling them "superpowers" is found. Then again, even thought the Spanish Empire exsisted in a different time, whether or not it could be called a historical superpower is subject to debate. One could certainly make a case for Spain or Portugal being historical superpowers. Signaturebrendel 03:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is to find a source that makes the case, rather than arguing back and forth over an (as of yet) unsubstantiated claim to former superpower status.—Perceval 07:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


speaking of sources I found a paper on the web that seems to have multiple citation possibilities for some currently unreferenced information in the article.
http://post.queensu.ca/~nossalk/papers/hyperpower.htm
How do I go about determining if the author is a wiki-credible source?Zebulin 08:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It's a university paper for an academic conference--you can assume it's an acceptable source. Queen's University is respectable. Good work.—Perceval 19:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It has already been stated in this article that "William Thornton Rickert Fox, an American foreign policy professor at Columbia University ... states that were superpowers: the United States, the Soviet Union, and the British Empire." There is another source, and in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_power#United_Kingdom it states "The United Kingdom is often considered to have been the world's first Superpower." but it states no reference to this claim, just as the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#History states:"...Britain became the principal power of the nineteenth century" . I think this, and the article from Queens is enough evidence, but i'm not too well up on how things work around here so i'll not make judgement on that... 82.11.195.211 20:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

One of the best references in this article seemed to be this one

http://www.globalcpr.com/org/super.html "Global CPR"

It's a great article that clearly addresses many of the main points covered in our article. However it does not list any sources and I can't seem to determine who the heck "GlobalCPR.com" is or thinks they are. Does anybody know? Is it even possible that some of their information was lifted directly from earlier versions of this article? Obviously in that case it would be absurd for us to be citing them as a source. How do we evaluate references of this sort?Zebulin 23:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

At first look the site seems trusworthy but look at this page [1]?! There WP mirrors within GlobalCPR that are irrelevant regarding the site's purpose. Signaturebrendel 23:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
hrmm given that find and the apparent total lack of any self identification on the site I wonder if I should remove that reference straight away. I wonder who originally found it and put it in our article? I had already added it again to reference a second point in the article but now I think that change and the orignal reference instance should probably go.Zebulin 00:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


I also find a lot of papers like this:

http://www.ndu.edu/library/n2/n005601b.pdf

Which appear to be reputable but for which it is entirely unclear if they have in fact been peer reviewed or if they have merely been accepted twoards course credit.

Currently our Superpower article has some weasel words that seem nonetheless indisputable. for instance

"Most people consider the United States the only sovereign nation-state, or country, that meets all criteria for being a superpower."

A quick google shows endless pages of publications referring to the US as "sole superpower" but so far I haven't found any that would be likely to remain permanently linkable. I could arbitrarily pick a few of those articles and cite them traditionally with no expectation of maintaining a working link to the source but I think it would be much preferable to find an authoritative semi-permanent linkable source which states unequivocably that most people or most authorities or most policy makers or what have you believe the US to be the world's sole superpower. Does anybody remember reading such a source recently?Zebulin 00:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Europe Population

The article indicates Europe's population size as compared to the U.S. as an attribute that will give it an advantage as an emerging superpower. However, I have read most western european countries are experiencing a very low birth rate that could cause problems for Europe as its population ages (paying for pensions, etc.). I know that this is a major national concern in Italy. Here is a link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/27/world/main546441.shtml

unless we can find authoritative sources that explicitly discuss the impact of this demographic trend on the EU's prospects as a superpower any effort on our part to discuss it in the article would violate the wikipedia no original research rule.Zebulin 05:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/p/Talk%7ESuperpower_492f.html"