Talk:Potential superpowers/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Chinese population growth 2 Russian economy 3 What is the point of all the history talk 4 Merge proposal 5 How to not be a crystal ball and avoid Original research by synthesis 6 Brazil and India? 7 Redirect 8 Who chose the list? 9 Brazil 9.1 Separation of powers 10 This article is crap 11 Someone make this article less racist against Asians 12 Irrelevant Information 13 Nuclear superpower 14 Brazil and Mexico 15 Template:Superpower 16 Removing Mexico & Japan 17 Sources for Brazil as a superpower 18 Removal of Brazil 19 Map 20 Brazil as an energy superpower 21 rename? 22 Almost none "power classifications" are cited 23 Ukraine 24 Brazil removed 25 United States vs. Russia as Superpowers 26 Rusian economy defaulted in 1998, the Federal budget depends on oil and corruption is big problem 27 Economic Superpower criteria is narrow minded and childish 28 Regional Power 29 Separation of sections 30 Map fixed again 31 This article is a JOKE. 32 Bar charts 33 Addition of India? 34 Organization 35 India 36 Image copyright problem with Image:Destroy old world.jpg 37 Why Russia is not a superpower 37.1 Keep it topical please 37.2 Why Russia is a Superpower 38 Dispute over Russia's status as a superpower 38.1 Statement by users involved in the dispute 39 Dispute on user AI009 and articles on Potential Superpower & Superpowers 40 Intro section 41 Recommend formal mediation 41.1 Page protection 42 Request to take down Superpower and Potential Superpowers articles, fed with Corruption 43 Potential superpowers map- U.S. 44 Request for Semi-Protection 45 Union of South American Nations 46 WP:V, WP:RS 47 Time to archive?

Chinese population growth

I looked up reference no. 186 that is being used to claim that China has an "uncontrollable" population growth rate, even with the One Child policy. The article claims no such thing, and while I won't bother with scrolling back to see who entered this obviously biased entry, I am planning to edit this passage to more accurately reflect what the article does actually say, whenever this article becomes unlocked again. Most sources I have read cap China's population at 1.5 to 1.6 billion by the 2030's, after which total population will begin to decline. Meatwaggon (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The One Child policy is actually causing China's population to decline already. But, I find it silly to predict population 20-30 years before, as there could be a baby boom, epidemic, etc... You never know. Population is rarely, if ever, a steady factor over and signifigant amoung of time. Saruman20 (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Russian economy

Can we really call Russia an economical superpower? I mean both their GDP and FDI is less than that of Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.73.179 (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If nobody doesn't mind, I'm gonna change this in the article ( IF you however do mind, please tell here and give a reason, for I don't think that a country with a GDP and FDI lower than that of spain is an economical superpower ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.73.179 (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Russia also has a higher nominal GDP than Brazil by at least one ranking party (the CIA Factbook), India, and certainly Mexico. See List of countries by GDP (nominal). The 2008 ranking will most likely bring it up in all ranking parties since Russia's economy is growing so fast. Why do have an issue with Russia but none of these other countries? Look, for consistency, if you're going to change Russia, then you need to change India, Brazil, and Mexico too. --71.112.145.211 (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that I have to change them too, but you see I'm against having them on the page at all. But very well, i'll change all of them.

As soon as you changed the other countries' status, someone else went back and reverted the edits. I am changing Russia's status back to "positive" for economic superpower, and in the meanwhile please do not change it until a consensus is reached here between all the current registered editors to prevent an edit war. --Mad Max (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on IMF estimates, Russia will have the largest economy in Europe within a little over 5 years. Right now it stands at 7th in the world in purchasing power, and along with China and India is one of the fastest growing emerging economies right now. Krawndawg (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the CIA Factbook their FDI is less than that of Spain, at number 12. They also have a ( current ) GDP lower than that of Spain. Where did you find your source that russia would have the largest economy, for according of the IMF reportings on wikipedia ( look at "List of countries by future GDP estimates (nominal)") and you'll see that as of 2013, the largest economies would still be Germany, The United Kingdom and France ( it has however become larger than spain at that time;) ). Their currency, the ruble, also have a quite large inflation rate.

I said in purchasing power. In 2006 Russia was the fifth largest contributer to global economic growth about tied with Japan, and it's gaining its global share at a faster rate than any other country aside from China and India (Brazil on the contrary is losing share). I think that speaks for itself considering it's only the 9th most populated country. Krawndawg (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but that alone doesn't give it enough credit to be called an economical superpower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.73.179 (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Some issues to consider: Russia may overtake Britain this year in purchasing power[1], while by 2020 the country's nominal GDP, at an expected $5 trillion, may be high enough to place it as the fifth-largest economy in the world, second only to Germany in Europe.[2][3].--Mad Max (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That's if nothing, any economic crisis, happens during that time and the economy keeps growing so fast and all the other states keeps growing just as fast as they do now. Write it that day, but for now it's no economical superpower. I guess the template means being an econimic superpower NOW, right?

This is something I have been wondering myself. I'm glad you've brought it up, as we can take the time now to decide what the template really means. If we are ranking the countries by their current world standing, then only Russia should have "energy superpower" checked, and only the EU should have "cultural superpower" and "political superpower" checked. None of these other countries can hold a candle to the United States in terms of economic (other than the EU), military (none, not even close), political (again, other than EU), or cultural superpower. --Mad Max (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think you're wrong about that. Russia, EU ( if you count all memberstates armies ) and China could match the US, seeing as they are having some problems with a minor guerilla war (Don't get into a debate about the war, please). Possibly India, but not Brazil. I'm quite happy of the templates of China, India and Eu of how they are now. But not with Russia or Brazil, none of them having large economies enough to be called Economical Superpowers at the moment.

I think your wrong also. Russia, the EU, and China could easily compete with the US in political influence, economic might, and military power. I think "cultural superpower" should be removed however. Every country has culture, so when does a country become a cultural superpower? Not to mention, that doesn't seem to be related to superpowers at all. Having a great culture is fine and all, but as China has shown, a country can still be great even if culture is repressed. As the above poster stated, none of these nations is having problems with a minor guerilla war. As far as templates go, I'm going to have to say leave them as they are. EU, Russia, and China are all fine as they are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman20 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well one thing that I find strange is that Brazil is checked off for economic superpower while Russia isn't. What's the logic behind that? If Russia isn't an economic superpower, how could Brazil be one with an identical nominal GDP (much smaller in PPP), and a far slower growth rate? Brazils share in the global economy is diminishing while Russia's is growing at the 3rd fastest rate in the world, as I already pointed out. Krawndawg (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to get Brazil off this page, but you're right. If Russia isn't an economic superpower, than Brazil should be off too. Suggesting changing them both to 'Economical Great Powers'.

Somebody changed Russias economical position to regional power ( which it isn't, it's a Great Power ), changing that. If anybody wants to change it back, please tell us here first( and explain why ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swedish pirate (talk • contribs) 18:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed it back to great power. I didn't see this here, so sorry if my post here is a bit belated, but it has the world's 11th highest nominal GDP (almost identical to Brazil) and the 7th largest PPP, much higher than Brazil and many other nations called "economic superpowers" here. It has a faster growing rate, after only India and China. Russia is an economic great power, and a superpower in every other category (just like the EU is a Energy great power and a superpower in every other category). User: Saruman20 (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

OMG!!!This was the discussion?!!

There is absolutely no criteria. You based your decision on GDP alone.

It's GDP per capita that matters. It's crazy to compare the UK ( population 60 million) to Russia (population 142 million). The GDP of Russia should be twice that of the UK, but in fact it's smaller.

Russia ranks 52th on the List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. 52th!!!

Russian economy defaulted on 1998...how could it become a agreat powr in just 10 years?

You have no criteria.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 19:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not the only place. As I stated below, I used shares and other representations aswell as GDP. Population hardly matters really. A country of small population can be just as successful as a country of large population. Just because a nation has a large population does not mean it should automatically be powerful. Complex social, political, historical, and geographical factors can affect any nations development much more than population. So, no, GDP per capita does not matter more. Not in the least. You sir have no criteria. You managed to come up with a whopping three sentances to explain your point, and you say I have no criteria. User: Saruman20 (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no criteria but at least I am honest about it unlike YOU.

You don't know anything about economics, military, or politics but sure pretends to know a lot by giving ratings, pathetic.

This whole article is a joke. Russia is a military superpower?? User: Saruman20 said so, he is a military analist. NOT!!!

Brazil is an economic superpower as well, LOL totally pathetic.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 18:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, someone needs to calm down. And you know so much, right? This is just shows your some kid that thinks he knows a lot so he has the right to act superior because he has "economist" in his name. Keep it up, you only make yourself look more pathetic. By your glorious GDP per capita, Luxemburg is the world's richest country. So I guess Luxemburg is the next superpower, right? Not to mention, if you look at some of the other criterias you mentioned, Russia is very high, higher than it is in GDP. And, look up "honest" in the dictionary. In a matter of opinion like this, no one can be "honest" because there is no definate truth. Once again, you show you have no idea about any of this and are just wandering around in the dark, shouting out things like "defaulted in 1998". So what? As I recall, many countries recovered from the Great Depression in less than 10 years. So yes, a country can become a economic great power 10 years after a default. "Oil dependancy". Yes, this is true, Russia gets a lot of money from oil. But it is working to diversify the economy, and it doesn't matter what it "riding on", because oil will be of great need in the future, so depending on oil is smart and shows economic savvy. Corruption is still an issue, but Russia has moved along way from the corruption of the Gorbachev-Yeltsin era. Corruption is slowly being weeded out and destroyed.User: Saruman20 (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Russia is a Superpower; there many articles from the last 2 years stating that Russia regained its Superpower status back again. These articles are from worldwide creditable sources and they have been verified by the news press media and news television media [4] [5] [6] - [7] [8] [9] [10] [11], the words “Russia is a Superpower” or “Russia the Superpower” is being used more often on television through CNN[12], NBC, Fox News people such as Glen Beck, Lou Dobbs, Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper and etc more often today than ever. I mean really, how can these news agencies be wrong? The fact is, they have the sources of information more than all of us and when Russia is said as a Superpower on CNN, NBC, Fox News, ABC News that is a valid fact it is. [13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Versace11 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of all the history talk

Why are the articles for China and India bloated with talk about their ancient civilizations and past wealth/achievement? What does any of that have to do with their potential as superpowers? Seems more like a biased person was more interested in trying to pump up his country using this article. This article needs a big rewrite. Remove all talk of culture and ancient civilization. The "Factors" section should list what the positive trends in economic/social/political growth are and where they have been presumed to be heading based on stats. The problems should list any critiques that have been presented by sources on what could hinder their growth. Aka Human rights, povery, etc.

So why is this article being considered for deletion?

Merge proposal

Superpowers are not static and time moves on. Discussion of past and future superpowers is best made in the main Superpower article to provide continuity. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Continuity is impossible unless it is the same source. There is an intrinsic disconnect in the kind of sourcing possible for the two articles. This article is reporting on the speculation of others on future Superpower emergences whereas the Superpower article relates past and present concepts and developments. The other problem is that "potential superpowers" becomes a vastly disproportionate share of the superpower article when merged. There is a Photography article and a History of photography article. Why not a Superpower article and a Potential superpowers article?Zebulin (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? This article is a good place for information on which countries might be the next superpower. The superpower article is just fine as it is. This article is on currents events and speculation. The superpower article is on past examples and the actual defination of superpower. Keeping them divided is much more organized and prevents clutter. User:68.89.164.112 12:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.197.36 (talk)

As long as a claim is backed up with resourses and information, I see no problem with having this be its own article. — NuclearVacuum 17:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

How to not be a crystal ball and avoid Original research by synthesis

We need to stick to reporting on the predictions of authoritative sources rather than sourcing various facts that the editors think support a case for a "potential superpower". We have a lot of sourced material that just shows how great and bright and promising the future of various potential superpowers is without being attributed to a particular source that uses that specific information in predicting superpower status for the "potential superpower". Placing a great deal of OR:SYN content after a sourced prediction does not somehow make it not OR.Zebulin (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. Please go on with intensive trimming, if you want to. Personally I see almost no serious indicators to justify a presence of India or Brazil in this article. Lear 21 (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think both the India and China sections should be trimmed by maybe 75%. Most of the information in those sections is not at all directly related to the subject matter. Krawndawg (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that all of the material added to the Brazil section today is a perfect example of this sort of OR by synthesis sourcing. None of the many sources added discuss superpower status.Zebulin (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Brazil and India?

India is the largest developing country in the world. There are not even minor indicators available suggesting that this is changing in the near future. Not to mention great power status or even superpower status. Same goes for Brazil. Seen from a global perspective, both are a regional power. Lear 21 (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Nominal support. India deserves to be mentioned if the top four candidates are being considered, but is a much less serious candidate than the Russian Federation, the People's Republic of China, or the European Union. The Federative Republic of Brazil, on the other hand, is not seen as more than a regional power. Did someone add Brazil as a potential superpower into this page and the Superpower page, perhaps more out of nationalism than academic interest? The edits were a bit clunky; the first paragraph of this article mentions "four possible superpower candidates." Anonymous user 01:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.32.218 (talk)

"Did someone add Brazil as a potential superpower into this page and the Superpower page, perhaps more out of nationalism than academic interest?" - That seems to be the case here. The notion of Brazil becoming a superpower is extremely far fetched, it most definitely falls under the category of WP:FRINGE. I've looked over some of the articles referenced in that section, and some of them actually cast doubt on the notion. Krawndawg (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is a huge nationalistic self-promotion. Also it's fucking long and nobody gives a shit about Brazil. India, remotely possible, but Brazil is just far-fetched. Just saying.. 122.108.29.139 (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting that the article calls Brazil a "military superpower" when not only does it lack nuclear weapons, but it's armed forces are smaller than that of Iran, or Myanmar, or Vietnam, or Egypt, or Turkey, or Ukraine, or Indonesia, or Thailand, or Syria, or even Taiwan (which isn't even recognized as a country). The fact that our article calls Brazil a "military superpower" just goes to show what a sad state this article has sunk to.Zebulin (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The Brazil section is obviously the work of a nationalist. Brazil may be a strong economic power and growing, but it has no political and military clout. India, maybe. Brazil, no. The Brazil secton needs to be cleaned up to add factual information instead of the nationalistic bullshit that is in it now. 11:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

Please read this my fellows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emerging_superpower

Please respect the consensus reached by the admins/editors. - MainBody (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Useless. The consensus has obviously changed for the worst and it's going to take more than nostalgic visits to last years more sensible conclusions to divert this crowd from this misguided effort.Zebulin (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think India should be mentioned as a possibility, even through it isn't as likely as China, EU or Russia. However, Brazil: No. It is growing, yes, but the possibility of becoming a superpower in the next century is thin to none. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.73.179 (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Who chose the list?

Any country that has a reference as an "emerging world power" can be included in the list? I mean then we would be missing Mexico, it is also listed as an emerging world power, with a huge economy and it has way better indicators than Brazil, India and China. Supaman89 (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

supposably the source has to actually predict that the "potential superpower" will or may become an unqualified superpower. This rule is conveniently being ignored by an appalling vast horde of editors, so I suspect that if you chose to ignore the rule by adding mexico nobody would revert it. There is just so much innappropriate sourcing and OR in this article that I don't think anybody wants to open the vast can of worms of trying to set any of it right. It clearly adds new inappropriate bloat from far too many enthusiastic editors far too rapidly for anybody to tackle alone.Zebulin (talk) 06:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not ignoring the rules mate, all those countries in the article have been in fact being named emerging world powers, and so has Mexico but people might've "forgotten" to add it, anyways I'm going to put it and I'm going to put the source too to back it up, I think Mexico was pretty much the only country left, cheers. Supaman89 (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the "Potential World Powers" article. it's the "Potential superpowers" article. Historically the terms "world power" and "superpower" have not been synonymous and I've never seen them equated. "World Power" appears to simply be an equivalent to "Great Power".Zebulin (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

To be fair your addition was just as valid as the vast majority of the sourcing for all of the other potential superpowers. In fact for Brazil it was exactly as valid as there does not appear to be one source that predicts Brazil will be an unqualified superpower. If Brazil will be a superpower why not Mexico? Only the sources could answer and we don't have sources that say Brazil will be an unqualified superpower.Zebulin (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes mate, I actually updated the map yesterday to add Mexico and added some sources as well, but it was reverted, I'm currently talking to the person who made the map so I can just update his map instead of having to upload another one, which would just be unnecesary, I'm still waiting for his answer, cheers. Supaman89 (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Brazil

The Brazil section of this article is obviously motivated by nationalistic rather than academic intentions. The idea of Brazil becoming a superpower is very far-fetched. It may have a strong economy, but it has virtually no military or political clout. The section here uses obviously biased sources and preaches how great Brazil is and how it would make a great superpower. This is an article for intellectual use, not nationalistic preaching. To even put Brazil in the same league as Russia, China, and the EU is amazingly stupid. I think the Brazil section needs a drastic cleanup (and most of the rest of article aswell) or deletion. The edits are strange and irrelevant. I don't see how Brazil hosting the World Cup affects it's status as a superpower or potential superpower.User:68.89.164.112 1:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm up for the article being deleted, however if it stays and Brazil and India are included then we also have to add Mexico, (which as I mentioned before has way better life standarts that all the other countries), I do realize that is absurd to compare those countries with China, Russia and the United States but since I don't see India or Brazil being removed I think that we have to make clear what countries are the real important ones. Supaman89 (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Separation of powers

I don't think the article itself should be deleted. Just such messed up, nationalistic sections. Maybe two categories? Russia, China, and the EU could be in one, with Brazil, India, and Mexico in the other. I don't really have any beef with Brazil and India, but they obviously arn't in the same league as the US, EU, Russia or China. I do like the arrangement of the Brazil section, with areas for Economics, Politics, Military etc...But the fact that Brazil is given such obviously nationalistic representation while being longer than articles for true superpowers like the EU and Russia. Brazil needs to be given the same treatment as the other countries, stating the problems and issues as well as support. User:68.89.164.112 24:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you, there has to be a separation, on the top the really important countries (China, Russia and the USA) and in the bottom the other countries (Mexico, Brazil and India). Supaman89 (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've divided the articles up. China, EU, and Russia are now under "Major Potential Superpowers", while Brazil and India have been placed under "Minor Potential Superpowers". User:68.89.164.112 1:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think that all the potential superpowers listed here should be given similar sections to the Brazil (Economy, Military etc...) That way someone of the large, convulting entries, like China and India, can be given some structure. Unfortunatly I can not do this right now, but if someone else would this article might actually have some kind of organization. User:68.89.164.112 1:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I really like the ides to put specific superpowers into a new section. This can also allow us to possible add other potential superpowers that were or are currently being speculated (like Japan, Australia, and Mexico). I would also like to place on the table to give each section its own article. Like "Russia as a potential superpower" or something like that. I only mention this because this article is getting full of information at a high speed. — NuclearVacuum 01:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I like it, I'm just going to add the missing country (Mexico) that people "forgot" to include. Supaman89 (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. I will possibly add Australia and Japan when I have time and when I am able to back them up with more information and agreement. But if you want to go ahead with these two countries, go for it as well. — NuclearVacuum 01:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Australia? Who mentioned Australia? With all respect to Australia, but its a nation of only up to 20 million inhabitants. Japan however is much more realistic. Their population comes close to that of Russia, they are extremely advanced with technology and have the highest GDP of Asia.

btw NuclearVacuum, you've done an awesome job creating this very informative page so quickly. Keep it up. - PietervHuis (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Australia and Japan are not potential superpowers. Niether is Mexico or Brazil for that matter. The information on this page is very misleading. The above four countires (Mexico, Brazil, Australia, and Japan) may be economically strong. But, a superpower is not a country which is strong. A superpower is a country that leads the world. When thinking about superpowers, think, does this country compare to the United States? Will any of those four countries be able to compare to the US in military power or political influence in the forseeable future? NO! No Australia or Japan, and get rid of Mexico and Brazil. This article needs to be about real emerging superpowers, not emerging world powers. User:68.89.164.112 12:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No Japan? Throughout history Japan has always dominated Asia, it would be weird if China gets listed but not Japan. There's many source that describe their potential. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It would certainly not be "weird", and not unexpectedly I don't know of ANY sources which describe Japan as a potential superpower. I'm not talking about books written in the 80's when Japan's economy was growing like a chia-pet on Red Bull & water. I'm talking about current views. If you have any of your "many sources" that say Japan is a potential superpower, I'd like to see them. And your version of history is somewhat skewed IMO. China is the Asian country that has "always" dominated Asia. Japan didn't rise to prominence until only the last one hundred and fifty or so years. The last few thousand years before that belonged to the Chinese. Meatwaggon (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is crap

This article is pure crap, many some of the countries listed on here (Like Mexico) are not even world powers let alone superpowers. It seems as if every potential world power is being listed as a potential superpower. Seriously, this article needs to go. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with you. In my opinion, the only countries that deserve to be on here are China, Russia, and the EU, maybe India. Some nationalist added Brazil, and then once Brazil is included people wanted to add Mexico aswell. I think we should delete the Brazil and Mexico sections. User:68.89.164.112 12:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Also many of the sources used in this article do not say "emerging superpower", most of them say "emerging power" which is far different from a superpower. In fact those sources could argue those countries not even world powers. The U.S. is a superpower, Britain, France, Russia, China, India, and Japan are world powers. Brazil and Mexico don't really have much influence around the world and they are considered regional powers. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Refrain from using words such as "crap" please, there's a number of policies against that and it's insulting. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all. Besides, if there is not one reference of it being an emerging superpower, that country will not be on here. This article is only fr ones that are well accepted and referenced. — NuclearVacuum 17:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That is simply not true. Last I checked we still didn't have an unqualified superpower source for Brazil or any of the later additions. "energy superpower" and other qualified "Superpowers" are not at all the same concept as "Superpower". Furthermore even when one of them them does have a source predicting it may become an unqualified superpower quite often the information that follows that citation in our article was never even mentioned by that source.Zebulin (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree the article is crap, but for different reasons. There is no definition of the criteria potential superpowers are supposed to meet. Wiki's own superpower article says the criteria are undefined. Brazil was always bandied about as the next superpower several decades ago, when there were commonly thought to be 3: USA, USSR and China. Then Japan excelled economically for a while, so Japan was tacked on. Arab oil affluence made others think the next superpower was a rich Arab state that got the bomb. Then everyone realized the whole proposition was cocky and the USSR stepped down. Then a lot of people realized the Security Council of the UN was crap too, based on who had nuclear bombs. Are the permanent 5 superpowers or great powers? Does it even matter? This article on the surface of it seems to be an extreme example of non-NPOV because the people who claim the US is the last superpower are all Americans. Good luck with that. Hypatea (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone make this article less racist against Asians

Seriously, why is it that the two major Asian nations mentioned in this article are the only ones with "Problems" sections. Both of which are ridiculously long sections at that. Some of these factors are hardly related to being a superpower. If some of you can't accept the possibility of an asian nation becoming a superpower then that is your own problem, but this article should have some organization. Someone should add in a "Problems" section for all of the powerw, none of them are without major flaws. It seems as if someone was purposely trying to point out problems with Indian and China for the sake of it, also this is all coming from a Western viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antdarky (talk • contribs) 12:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That's why we are trying to clean this article up. Some other countries like Brazil were added for nationalistic reasons and thus state no problems. It's not intended to be racist, that's just stupid to say that. Also, problems have been stated in the Russia and EU sections, just without there own subsection. And this is not entirely all from a Western viewpoint. Many people editing the article could be from eastern nations. I myself am Russian. But I try to keep nationalism out of it. I think all the countries should be given fair treatment, but that's not happening now, hence why I've continually tried to get some kind of clean-up. User:68.89.164.112 12:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF, and refrain from personal attacks. Accusing someone of racism is insulting. This article is just new, and another asian nation such as Japan has little information still. It has nothing to do with racism, the other countries still not to be expanded that's what. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant Information

We should remove some of the irrelevant information from the India and China sections. They are outrageously long and contain many useless information which is irrelevant to superpower status. For instance, we do not need a whole paragraph about repression of Christianity in China. The Soviet Union was a superpower and it had human rights issues. A country does not have to be crystal clean to be a superpower. Indian and Chinese human rights are irrelevant to superpower status. While human rights should be mentioned, it does not deserve whole paragraphs, espcially against very small minorities. Also, historical greatness does not contribute to superpower status. This is an article about future superpowers, not if countries were strong in the past.User:68.89.164.112 12:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting to read though. Some could consider it "dangerous" for a country that is still full of human rights abuses to become a superpower. As for information about history, that's always relevant. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Being interesting for you personally to read and being relevant to a discussion of potential superpower status is not even nearly the same thing. Whether some people consider it "dangerous" or not to be a superpower with a poor human rights record, and actually being a superpower, is also not nearly the same thing. As for information about history, that's always relevant, how? I agree with some of the other editors here who correctly point out that the history sections of China and India are unnecessarily voluminous and most of the historical facts brought up do not prognosticate on their chances for achieving superpower status. The same goes for the Russian section. At the same time I also agree with the editors who say that this article is strongly biased against China and India, bringing up ridiculously irrelevant minutia as some kind of ill-reasoned attempt at a smear. This article is a mash-mash of many nationalistic editors' wet dreams and needs some serious NPOV cleanup. Meatwaggon (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So true. The history section in China, India, and Russia are for the most part unnessicary (Peter the Great was a fine guy, but besides founding Petersburg his influence on modern Russian superpower status is limited). There is a lot of Western POV here, mostly directed at China, but to some extent India and Russia aswell. For example, I don't see how whenever or not a country has good human rights records or personal freedom is relevant to superpower status. The Soviet Union was almost as bad as China when it comes to human rights and freedom, but that doesn't prevent it from being considered a superpower. The only non-Western viewpoints in this article are those of nationalists spreading exaggerated claims about how great there country is. Maybe you people should take a look at removing irrelevant information instead of spreading nationalistic crap and taking pot-shots at Maoism. Saruman20 (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that some of the stuff in the India article are irrelevant, I think that we should try to make the other countries more like India. Like, add a section for politics, military, geography, demographics, foreign relations, etc. But not make them overly long. I believe that India, China, and Russia have a great chance at becoming Superpowers, and they are the most likely also. For that, I'm pretty sure that there should be enough sources to have enough information on China and Russia for Military, geography, etc. to make it like the India section.Deavenger (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So true. Unfortunatly, because of a nationalistic edit war, the page is protected for 6 weeks (might be 5 now) so we will have to wait. Saruman20 (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of simplicity and consistency, I think we should follow the formula set down by Lyman Miller in the main Superpower article and divide each country into Economy, Military, Politics, and Culture. The way it's set up now is too chaotic and inconsistent. Meatwaggon (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I wonder if we should include a table of all the powers, like the one including the Soviet Union and United States in the superpower article? Saruman20 (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Really bad idea. Dividing it up like that will only further encourage an original research approach and further distance the article from the premise that we are reporting on the predictions of qualified sources. We need to divide each potential superpower section up into sections that correspond to the sources making the predictions. If those sources in turn break their reasoning down into Economy, Military, Politics, and Culture as Miller does then the section for the prediction by that particular source could in turn be subdivided into these subsections.Zebulin (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear superpower

I added "nuclear superpower" to the list of qualities of a superpower. If find that states that contain nuclear weapons have a better chance of becoming a superpower and should be mentioned if a state is one or not. The European Union is also one, when you put the case of nuclear sharing of British and French nukes with the entire EU and NATO then and now. — NuclearVacuum 16:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but someone took it off. I'll add it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.141.47 (talk) 11:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I may be a minority opinion on this, but I really don't think the EU deserves to be considered as a unitary political/economic entity unless it actually becomes one, and as such it doesn't deserve to be considered among the _nations_ set to possibly achieve superpower status. Though the Euro is an economic glue, the economies of individual countries in the EU are essentially separate. UK doesn't even use the Euro and it's one of the most powerful economic nations in the group. And though the NATO alliance serves as somewhat of a glue for European military forces, each country ultimately controls its own military and exercises complete sovereignty over it. Politically speaking, the EU nations tend to share similar interests historically, but then again no nation within EU is bound to another nation legally or politically. The EU is a 'commonwealth' of independent nations that shares similar politics and similar economies, but every nation in the EU is sovereign and as such the concept of EU emerging as a unitary 'superpower' seems to me to be a rather silly concept. Meatwaggon (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No, no, I agree. The EU is not a unified entity, but it seems to be drifting in that direction. It needs to be made clear in the article, as the EU section is very small, that the EU is not unified. However, the combined power of all the EU's nations is a superpower, the reason it remains a potential superpower is that the power is not yet consolidated. There are lots of sources talking about Europe as the next superpower aswell. Saruman20 (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that if EU is to be kept in as a potential superpower candidate, it needs to be made clear in that section that this entity is (at the moment) neither unified politically, economically, nor militarily, all of which needs to be satisfied for it to be considered as a bonafide superpower. For example, the day when France feels comfortable stowing nukes in Berlin and vice versa, is the day I will be satisfied that the level of political integration is close enough for the EU to be viable as a unitary geopolitical entity. Of course, that'll be the day... Even culturally there are great differences, not the least of which being the Eastern/Western European divide. I think many if not all of the (probably European) authors who see the EU as a potential superpower are currently a bit optimistic about the true level of cohesion amongst the various European countries. Meatwaggon (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, the EU is not yet intergrated enough to even be called a single nation, yet alone a superpower. But, as long as there are sources that state otherwhise, we must include that opinion in the article. Now, I'm a bit more optomistic about the EU than you are, but I agree with you for the most part. For instance, while the EU may not be very intergrated now, they are making steps. Economically, besides Britian, they use one currency, and the CIA world factbook even lists there GDPs together. Politically and militarily however, they have a long way to go. While the EU has developed a sphere of influence and much softpower in Africa and the rest of Europe, they have yet to develope and intergrate sufficient hardpower. Until they do so (which could be soon), they will remain nothing more than a economic alliance. Saruman20 (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Brazil and Mexico

Okay, either the two are included or the two are deleted, you can not leave the one and not the other since they both have being name emerging world powers, you people decide if you want to remove them both that's fine, but don't just do one. Supaman89 (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Um... if you want Mexico on this article so badly, why don't you simply add it on here yourself? It's easy to do, you know. All you need is some good resources and you're ready to go. Otherwise, I will add Mexico myself when I get the time later today. — NuclearVacuum 17:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not wanting it "badly" it's just to be fair, both countries are equally important, if none of them should belong to this article, okay then remove them both, BTW I did add Mexico but it was removed but brazil stayed (funny huh?). Supaman89 (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it was probably the way you stated it. You already added Mexico and it was removed, eh? Well, did you add resources or links to back up you claims? This could be another reason for that. When I do a search engine on "Mexico superpower", I get very little to no reliable links then if I were to search "Brazil superpower." Sorry to say, but this article is for resourced facts, not for total equality. I do agree that Mexico is able to become a superpower, but me saying that doesn't make it true without information to back me up. — NuclearVacuum 17:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I did, but I do realize that obviously they're not at the same level as Russia, China or the USA, again if you want to add them both in a section called "less important superpowers" (or something like that) or just just go ahead and remove them both because they're not realy serious candidates, what do you think?, cheers. Supaman89 (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally like it the way it is. This section is just talking about potential superpowers (not a way to make every country equal). If Mexico is not at a level of being a superpower, then it should not be on here. But if it has back up to it, then I see no trouble with it being mentioned on here. But we are just trying to mention them and there is no specific level of a superpower other then whether it's a nuclear superpower or a cultural power. Do you understand? Now let me go take a look at what you put on here earlier and see if I can fix it or see if anything was wrong or not sourced. Maybe it is something I can fix. — NuclearVacuum 18:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I personaly think that we should leave them both out. The possibility of becoming a superpower in the next century is thin to none for both of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.73.179 (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Neither should be here, and take out Japan with them. Those three countries reaching superpower status is extremely farfetched. Nationalists need to stop adding their own countries. Brazil, Mexico, and Japan are all great countries, but they are not even close to being a superpower. The only countries that have real chances of rivaling the US in the forseeable future are Russia, China, the EU, and possibly India. Thus, those are the only countries that should be on this page. User:68.89.164.112 21:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.197.36 (talk)

As long as they have resources, I see no need to delete or remove any. If anything, add more. This is for potential superpowers (past views and present views). Japan, Mexico, and Brazil have resources that tell its story of this, and it is enough to be here. There is nothing against any government being here. — NuclearVacuum 21:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is for potential superpowers, not every country in the world that has resources. 68.92.197.36 (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Potential superpowers are not even defined. This article talks about what has been documented within history about potential superpowers, not important countries of the 21st century. — NuclearVacuum 21:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is about important countries. The introduction clearly states that the article is about countries that have a chance of becoming superpowers in the near future. The link to this page from the superpower page states the same thing. To act on it in any other way is misleading to anyone reading. 68.92.197.36 (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Superpower

United Arab Republic
{{{economy}}}
{{{politics}}}
Y
N
Y

I made a template for [potential] superpowers for this page. This saves bytes on this page and is very easy to operate. Give it a try and tell me what you think. — NuclearVacuum 17:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, this will help a lot. (But your example is wrong, Brazil isn't an energy superpower). User:68.89.164.112 21:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Brazil is a Energy superpower. See the sources... Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 02:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There are no good sources that indicate Brazil is an energy superpower. The only energy superpowers in the world are Russia and Saudi Arabia. Any source that claims otherwhise is incorrect. User:68.89.164.112 11:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Brazil is an oil superpower, an agricultural superpower, an ethanol superpower, a biofuels superpower and can be a superpower in other sections. Canada is also a superpower, and other countries... Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 15:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You all are missing the point. This is not to discuss how Brazil should or should not be looking like, this is about a box to make all the counties easier to order. Let's start again. I displayed another country (don't worry, the UAR has not been a country since 1961, this is only here for an example of a random [former] country) to show you how it works. Simply add the full [English] name of the country along with a link to its flag and a map. Then for the "powers" section, simply put an "N" witch will make a N, and a "Y" to make a Y. I hope this better explains it. — NuclearVacuum 15:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources for Brazil as a superpower

As sources for The Federative Republic of Brazil has been suggested as a potential candidate for superpower status, We are given:

http://www.fool.com/investing/international/2007/11/23/profit-from-the-next-economic-superpower.aspx

potential "economic superpower". economic superpower is not a "superpower". if ever we find a source that says potential or next "economic superpower" means "potential superpower" then this source will be appropriate for supporting the lead sentence in this article section.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=77040&d=30&m=1&y=2006

This op-ed is titled "Brazil Is the Next Economic (and Political) Superpower but the article does not in any way discuss brazil as a "political superpower".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/10/brazil.oil

The word "superpower" cannot be found in this source at all

http://whitmanpioneer.com/opinion/2007/10/25/the-forgotten-bric-why-brazil-might-be-the-next-world-superpower/

At least this writer predicts brazil will be an unqualified superpower. However, it's a students op-ed on a college newspapers website. blog fodder.

http://english.people.com.cn/200703/15/eng20070315_357821.html

People's daily reporting on Goldmans sachs BRIC idea and only going so far as to call brazil a possible "economic superpower". maybe if that prediction pans out people will start to write articles predicting Brazil could be a superpower after that. maybe.

http://cubantriangle.blogspot.com/2008/01/brazils-superpower-move.html

Calling a visit by Lula to castro "a superpower move" is not the same as predicting a rise to superpower status. In any event it's a blog. (url should be a clue)

http://www.1913intel.com/2008/01/13/brazil-the-super-power/

blog.

We need to be a lot more critical about our sourcing here.

Zebulin (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The economy is one of the pilars of a superpower nation.

The political influence is based in the economic power.

The Guardian report says: "The country of the future finally arrives", "Brazil, the sleeping giant of South America is awakening", "We are the biggest exporters of meat, coffee, sugar, fruit juices and the second biggest of grains", "We will transform this country, definitively, into a great economy and a great nation", "Keen to transform itself from developing nation to world power", "Brazil's international leadership has grown a great deal over the last six or seven years" and much more...

Cuban Triangle report the strong political influence in Latin America.

1913 blog made a research with other references about Brazil's rise. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 03:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There is not one credible source presented, neither academic nor high-profile newspaper or magazine. Lear 21 (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, none of these sources are credible, they are unspecific, not related to the subject matter, and unfit for this article. Brazil should be removed, it is a weak nation with no chance of becoming a superpower or even a world power anytime soon. It has virtually no military or political influence. Having a strong economy is great, but one of the key characteristics of a superpower is the ability to sway other nations with it's influence, something which Brazil can not do. User:68.89.164.112 11:32, 16 May 2008

(UTC)

The Guardian isn't credible? And 68.89.164.112, please stop... Who are you? Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 15:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a fellow user just like you. I may just use my IP, but that doesn't make you at all superior me. Just because I support different things than you, does not mean you are smarter or more important than me. I am trying to make this article more factual, and I don't see how Brazil could be come a superpower anytime in the next century. Just because I am not a nationalistic working to promote my country, doesn't mean you have any right to question "who I am". User:68.89.164.112 21:08, 16 May 2008

(UTC)

Not credible enough, must have at least some sourcing from an academic, politician or author that directly calls it a possible superpower.

I have gone through the sources myself. Many of the sources are blogs, and blogs obviously have no credibility of Wikipedia. I have no idea why they are still included in the article. Their inclusion in the article violates WP:SPS and WP:RS (at the very least), and I am considering immediately removing them myself. Some of them are elaborately-staged blogs. The writer of "1913 Intel" admits his site is as much on the "about" page, and writes "I have a B.S. degree in Chemistry and have worked as an Air Traffic Controller in the past." I still can't figure out how his chemistry education or experience directing plane traffic gives him any credibility when talking about Brazil's economy. In other words, his page is completely irrelevant.

Blogs:[14], [15], [16]
Unacceptable news organization: [17], and [18]. Are these news sources "high-quality end of the market," "such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press," which Wikipedia asks for under WP:V? No, not really. Actually, the People's Daily article reveals nothing that hasn't already been discussed by much more qualified people at Goldman Sachs.

Going further down the list of sources for Brazil, we can see one of the sources actually links to a message board! [19] Granted, the forum is on an official Web site, but for the Republic of Philippines! We have no way to determine whether the author of that post has any credibility. Again, massive violation of Wikipedia policy.

The only credible source is a Guardian article, except that it isn't really a soure at all. There is no mention of "superpower" anywhere in the article, but arbitrary talk of "great economy and a great nation" (actually quoting the country's president). I have voted to remove Brazil. I reserve the right to change my vote, but in its current state I cannot support its inclusion.--Mad Max (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

See: (CNN) (BusinessWeek) (The Economist) (The Associated Press) (The Guardian) (Reuters) Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 21:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Please give me the time to review the sources. Like you, I do have a life outside of Wikipedia, and it just happens to be a sunny Friday afternoon for me. I promise to look over the sources and change my vote if need be within a reasonable time frame. Anyway, I do appreciate the step in the right direction with better sources such as The Economist and AP. Thanks! --Mad Max (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Refrain from Personal Attacks please - PietervHuis (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Map

Why is the US on the map of potential superpowers? Ostap 21:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The map isn't just about potential superpowers it seems - PietervHuis (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The very caption says "The present day governments to be called, or to remain, a potential superpower. ". Ostap 21:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. is a superpower. It cannot be called "a potential superpower," or be said to remain "a potential" if it status is no longer just potential but reality. If the U.S. is to be kept on the map, the wording needs to be changed. --Mad Max (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I hid the map until someone can remove the US. Ostap 01:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the US is a former superpower as the US economy doesn't have the funds to pay for its economics, the US is falling hard to a depression as the US is already in recession period right now. Read the references here, former superpower:[23][24] [25]

I do agree that the United States is still a superpower. But I quickly learned (by other users and research) that the US is beginning to loose its superpower status (little by little). That is why the US is on my map. But because it is still a superpower, I put "or to remain" in the description. Things are there for a reason. — NuclearVacuum 16:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

While the US is generally refered to as a superpower, nothing can be truly unanimous. Many people say that since the end of the cold war there are no more superpowers, as the world is no multi-polar instead of bi-polar. Arguments have been made that in order for a superpower to exist there must be two superpowers, each keeping the other in check while at the same time enhancing it's own development in order to keep up with the other. Once one falls, the other will cease to be a superpower. Now, mind you, that is just what some people say. It's a opinion thing, thus the I think the US should remain there so that all opinions are represented. NuclearVacuum is correct. User:Saruman20 (talk) 21:01 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the US, normally refered to as a superpower in sources, should be removed from the map. Ostap 00:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't, Russia is the superpower now, sure the US has its military but it doesn't have the funds to start another war, it foreign policy is costing too much money and so it the US econony, going bankrupt with it.

Brazil as an energy superpower

Please, stop putting Brazil down as an energy superpower. Use any reliable source, including the "energy superpower" wikipedia article, and it will tell you Russia and Saudi Arabia are the world's only energy superpowers. Brazil has a lot of energy, but it does not have enough to be considered an energy superpower. User:68.89.164.112 21:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Brazil is an oil superpower, an agricultural superpower, an ethanol superpower, a biofuels superpower and can be a superpower in other sections, making it a Energy superpower. Canada is also a energy superpower, and other countries... Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 22:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

rename?

Perhaps the article could be changed to "potential world powers" and the wording used for each "potential" would reflect the language actually used by their sources. "World power" is a much more vague and encompassing term than "superpower" and would better accommodate the wide variety of predictions that are being sourced here. Currently sources predict everything from "economic superpower", to "world power" to, "energy superpower", to "political superpower", to "diplomatic superpower", to "cultural superpower", to "military superpower", to whatever other neologism the sources care to coin and we simply lump all such terms together as meaning "potential superpower" despite the drastically different nature of these predictions. A more vague term than "potential superpower" is required to encompass all of these.Zebulin (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I support in the case of India and Brazil, according with Encarta, are regional giants that have the potential to become great powers in the 21st century. [26] Perhaps could be create an article like "Brazil as a potential world power (or great power)" or "Brazil as an emerging world power (or great power)". Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 03:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

A split perhaps? This article is very long, so it could benefit from a split. World and superpower are very different things. France is a world power. The United States is a superpower. Obviously, there very different in terms of international power. We should create a "potential world power" article. Brazil, India, Mexico, and Japan could all go there. It would resolve a lot of fighting here and I think it would benefit the article for the better. Of course, I think India needs mention in both pages simple because many sources state India as a potential superpower. I don't agree, but the resources are there so India would have to be both "potential superpower" and a "potential world power". User: Saruman20 User_talk: Saruman20 12:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Almost none "power classifications" are cited

Arbitrarily labeling countries as "superpowers" in various categories is original synthesis prohibited by WP:NOR. Even if we set up a classification system, it would be original synthesis. The "infoboxes" are almost universally uncited.

I could challenge almost every classification there. Some of the statements are cited and appropriate, but "regional power" and "great power" appear to be speculation, original ideas, or synthesis. In many cases, articles that read "global power" are taken to mean "superpower." A prima facie case to call them a "great power", certainly, but the line between superpower and great power is very vague and quickly goes into original synthesis.

WP:NOR allows limited, well-sourced speculation, but this article goes well beyond my comfort level. Speculations about 2050 are just too far out for realistic predictions about global politics.

If nothing else, please harmonize the list of "potential super" with "current great". India is listed there as emerging, so please make a strong case to count it as a current great before considering emerging superpower. Brazil isn't even mentioned on that list, though it could easily be at least "emerging" there. It is also strongly cited as a current middle power.Somedumbyankee (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine

Ukraine (Central Europe) has a modern very fast growing economy and many newest technologies.

Ukraine has had Orange Revolution and it is now a modern Western country. It has a Western-style democracy.

It has a small but extremely efficient cossaque army and many heroes.

Ukraine (Central Europe) is a mighty superpower. Yuck fou, katsaps! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.14.5 (talk) 06:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine is the country where I was born, but it defiantly not a potenial superpower. As much as I wish it was, facts>hopes. Ukraine only has growing economy and technology because it's smack dab in the middle between two true potential superpowers, the European Union and the Russian Federation. User: Saruman20 User_talk: Saruman20 12:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine might join the EU, which makes me wonder, do they have a lot of energy? That might just fill up the only thing the EU does not have right now. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine has substantial resources, maybe enought to fill up the EU's difficulty in that area, but probably not enough. Moreover, Russia is holding tight onto the Ukraine, and it would anger Moscow a lot if it joined, something the EU can't afford to do. I suppose we will see. User: Saruman20 User_talk: Saruman20 18:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well Russia is always angry over something. If Norway would be part of the EU it would be an energy superpower for sure by the way. Too bad they are too afraid to join. - PietervHuis (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Brazil removed

Moved to Brazil as a potential great power. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 16:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I support that. It doesn't need its own page and could best fit here. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think this move is a good idea if a Potential great powers article is created. As the list of countries, both regional powers and middle powers, with potential to become great powers is way bigger than those of countries with potential of becoming superpowers, such an article would necessarily have a short description for each country, each linking to a full article with more details. Those could have standardized names such as "Country name as a potential great power", which in turn would be easy to link to from the article on each country. What do you think? -- alexgieg (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I support the move to potential great power. I think it's a great idea and maybe we could fill the page with other countries in time ( mexico and japan? ) Swedish pirate (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The only sourced countries with potential great power status are Brazil and India. Japan is currently considered a great power (See). Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 17:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I applaud this decision. However, instead of having an article specific to Brazil, there should be an article for great powers in general. Mexico, Australia, and any other country suggested to obtain great power (but not superpower) status should be placed there. Japan is already a great power but not a superpower so lets keep it out of all this. Should we remove Brazil from here now that it has it's own article? Seems the most proper way. I'm glad this seems like a kind of resolution to this issue so thank Joao Felipe C.S. User: Saruman20 User_talk: Saruman20 18:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Created Potential great powers only for Brazil and India. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 18:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I support this move as well. Basically a country needs to have nuclear weapons in order to be considered a superpower or a potential one, everybody else has one.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 18:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan and Israel have "the bomb" but neither is even in consideration here, so nuclear weapons are not the key point. That Portugal is switching the way it writes the language based on Brazil's practices is a significant sign, and Brazil certainly has the capability to rise to dominance, but it's a bit too far out at the moment to make solid predictions. It's like the US football team. There's no reason they can't be one of the hardest teams to beat, but they aren't exactly dominating at the moment.Somedumbyankee (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Took away India, since it seems strange/unfair to keep it here while removing Brazil.Swedish pirate (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that India should go, but unfortunatly to many resources suggest it as a potential superpower, even though it is only a potential great power, and resources mean a lot more than fairness on an encyclopedia article. User: Saruman20 User_talk: Saruman20 18:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

How can a state jump from being a middle power to a superpower without being a great power in between? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swedish pirate (talk • contribs) 18:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In my book it can't, but this isn't about personal opinion it's about sources and sources say India is a potential superpower. I don't agree, but resources>personal opinion. User: Saruman20 (talk 18:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Swedish pirate (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, both things aren't mutually contradictory. If some analysts say that a country that currently is a regional power has potential to rise to superpower, this doesn't mean it won't have to first pass through the stage of "mere" world power. It only means those analysts are taking for granted that it'll reach world power status, with an almost nonexistent chance of this not happening, and are thus are already speculating about what will happen afterwards. Thus, it'd happily appear in 3 articles: one listing current regional powers, another listing potential world powers (with a note stating this is almost a certainty), and another listing potential superpowers.

But I'm thinking this might be the wrong approach. Wouldn't it be better to not have articles on future events at all, but instead simple factual articles informing the current level of each country, with subsection for country listed mentioning what analysts believe regarding the possibility of it reaching the next level, or levels? This would provide for a more stable, centralized platform around which to work these international relations articles, with less contradictory information being spread over multiple texts (if not the same information duplicated 'n' times), and would be a way to prevent excessive POV nationalism from infiltrating the listing. Only when a country actually switched levels, and analysts agreed this had happened, would a country entry be moved from one list to the other. -- alexgieg (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we've all reached a constructive resolution to this. If no one has any objections, I would like to close the poll. --Mad Max (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

For India and Brazil to be put into a new category article sounds OK with me. — NuclearVacuum 21:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see India and Brazil moved to their new, rightful category as potential great powers. They didn't belong as potential superpowers. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

United States vs. Russia as Superpowers

Many people are wondering about the United States and its recession[27] economy as if its still a superpower with the Iraq war, falling US dollar[28] [29][30], high US minimum wages being outsourced for Chinese labor, a high unemployment rate, credit crisis[31] through US foreign policy spending, US inflation[32] [33][34] from the Federal Reserve lowing interest rates too low[35], a housing crisis, dependence from oil & high gas prices and etc. Where does the United States stand as a superpower versing Russia’s current superpower status? Read at these sources here to see how the United States is losing or is now considered a former superpower:[36][37] [38]

Now there is [[Russia a superpower (the United States only real counter partner as as a superpower[39] [40][41] [42] [43][44] [45] because they have the economics[46] [47], the wealth[48] [49], the diplomatic power[50] [51], ideological[52] [53] [54][55][56][57], technological power[58] [59][60][61][62]& advances[63] than any other country besides the United States (look here on why the US is losing its superpower status read here:[64][65][66]) recognizes Russia as a superpower [67], they have the cultural sector and lets not forget their military forces (supreme). Russia is also the largest military arsenal producer in the world (they hold 73% of the worlds military arsenals market) and they have the worlds largest nuclear weapons arsenal than another other country (newer & older which many are reconditioned as new again) which is 5 times greater than the US has.

So Russia is a Superpower and lets not forget a Space Superpower, remember Russia has a Mar's mission coming up in 2015 [68]to 2024, also a Moon space station planned for 2015[69] without NASA but Russia going by itself; which NASA is out of funding due to a poor current US economy, 2007 & 2008. I do not start this article to brag about how wonderful Russia is, I started it because I am an American and I am seeing how the US is becoming a former superpower; even though I admire Russia as a country, I also admire my own country (USA) too.

Russia is a Superpower, that's plenty of facts in the bag to state they are in that position. The United State's position[70][71] [72]), think what they are in for, a lot in the bag on the whole US economy on all sorts of issues, so we need to understand our Congress has put a lot of our problems right in front of us. US Congressman Ron Paul[73] was the only presidential candidate who would have saved the US as a superpower and our country. We cannot regret Russia is a superpower once again, that was always predicted they would achieve that goal and good for them, they stuck to their dreams and they brought it back. The US has done the opposite and we are heading down down the economic depression [74] tube to a great power nation because of Congress, Unions, Corporate greed and oil.

If you want to save the US as a superpower, stop buying from US companies made in China (look for the labels and try to buy made in America only, store like Costco, Walmart, K-Mart, Best Buy, Staples and more are companies that buy made in China goods and we Americans buy these things by the millions each day), second visit Congress personally and request to bring down the US minimum wage and request to cap wages too high to cap them or lower high salaries so greed is enforced to stop US inflation. Read here as if we don’t do something we we’ll really suffer as China’s minimum wage is $.25 cents an hour as China has used its low labor population power to put their country on the Superpower front and we made that happen, please read an listen to this link: [75][76] [77][78] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Versace11 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your statements here, I viewed the sources and it is said Russia is a supoerpower with much facts on these articles sounding this debate. I think the interesting article on US considered a former superpower by Austin Chronicle Texas is well defined[79].--64.69.158.252 (talk) 05:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Rusian economy defaulted in 1998, the Federal budget depends on oil and corruption is big problem

User: Saruman20 can I edit this article at all?

I added two little sentences downgraded Russia in Economy and you reverted why?

I supported my change with quote from Energy Information Administration, but you didn't accept it. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 18:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but Russia is a great power in the economic regions. It is only one behind Brazil (which is considered a economic superpower by this article) in nominal GDP, but much higher than Brazil in GDP (PPP), at 7th place, higher than many other countries that have been called economic superpowers. It's economy is growing as fast as China or India. There was a large section at the top of this page on Russian economy and this was the consensus. User: Saruman20 (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Brazil is not an economic superpower...Brazil is very poor.

On what is based the notion that Russia is a Great Economic Power?

Where is the consensus?

I gave you facts that showed that Russia is riding on oil revenues for both growth and federal budget.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 19:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Look up at the top of this very page. "Russian economy" section. Stop changing it until some kind of desicion is reached here. Russia is a economic great power. It has 7th highest purchasing power in the world. It is not an economic superpower. It is an economic great power. Go to Great power for a basic idea on what kind of power in any area being a great power entitles. Russia is expected to have gone up in all economic areas by the 2008 GDP estimates. It has been suggested than in the next 20-30 years Russia will the world's 5th largest economy and the largest in Europe. It could surpass the UK in purchasing power this year. See List of countries by GDP (nominal) and List of countries by GDP (PPP) For 2007 estimates on Russian economic power. Russia is expected to rise in all areas in those charts. The CIA world factbook lists it as having a higher PPP than India now, not to mention with the growth expected when the current estimates are released. It also has large global influence in the economic sector. Russia is in BRIC (a widely regarded essay suggesting the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, and China by 2050). Russian industry is booming. The Russian economy is rapidly growing, it is easy to tell that if you go to Moscow or any other Russian city. Russia has previously been the 2nd largest economy in the world (Soviet Union) and much of that workforce and industry are still there, waiting to be used. It is the 3rd largest growing economy in the world (by share) after China and India. Need I say more? User: Saruman20 (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

EconomistBR, what difference does it make how a country chooses to make its money? There seems to be some sort of stigma against Russia for taking advantage of her ample endowments of natural resources, but no one ever explains why that matters. And since Russia's main advantage over other countries is her resources, naturally, then, you'd expect that to be the largest contributing factor to the economy; especially for a country that as recently as 1998 had defaulted on their currency, and especially for a country which is an energy superpower.

Hong Kong, which is just a couple hundred square miles of rocky hillside, does not have the same advantage, so her people have to base their economy on other capital, like civilian technology. Making money is making money, whichever way you want to do it.

You act like the high price of oil is a temporary phenomenon and that soon, when supposedly oil prices will fall, Russia's economy is going to collapse with it. The problem with that notion, however, is that economists agree that oil prices will not fall significantly in the foreseeable future. Perhaps in a few years prices will settle back at $80 a barrel, but they will not drop more than that. And $80 a barrel is more than enough for Russia's flourishing economy to keep flourishing. Russia is taking steps to diversify the economy anyway, so this is becoming less and less of a "problem" over time.

All this scaremongering, with carefully chosen phrases such as "riding on oil," is not helpful and not accurate. I'll agree with you, however, that corruption remains a big problem. I also don't see a problem with stating that the ruble defaulted in the mid-1990s, as long as it isn't construed in a manner meant to marginalize Russia's unprecedented resurgence or current economic standing. --Mad Max (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Economic Superpower criteria is narrow minded and childish

As User: Saruman20 explained to me the Economic measure is based on only 1 criteria: GDP and its variations: GDP (nominal), GDP(PPP) and GDP growth.

That's extremely silly and narrow minded.

It doesn't take into abount

1. HDI
2. GDP per capita
3. GINI index
4. inflation
5. corruption
6. people living under the poverty line
7. foreign reserves
8. GDP composition (services, industry etc...)
9. Labor force characterists (age, level of education etc...)
10. International trade/GDP

In the case of Russia the historic events of the default of 98 and the oil dependency are ignored

But whatever...User: Saruman20 WINs, I am tired of arguing, I am moving on.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 20:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

A narrow minded and silly definition is preferable for these purposes because it allows direct comparison, is sourceable, and because sources that discuss the economic prerequisites for superpower status seem to pointedly ignore many of the economic parameters you listed. In a realpolitik sense number of people living under the poverty line or HDI, or corruption, or any related quality issues are unlikely to be economic power issues but rather will likely be only soft power or "cultural power" issues if they play any role at all. If you want to add those other parameters you need to find a source that uses them in defining a superpower.Zebulin (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Regional Power

Like the name suggest, a regional power is a nation with very little influence outside it's region. It is not just a weaker great power. For example, while Russia may be at the lower end of great power status on the economic scale, it is not a regional power, as it's economy contributes to rest of the globe, not just Eastern Europe. Likewhise, the European Union has immense energy exports. It may not be a massive great power in terms of energy, it is more than just a regional power on that scale. I feel that some of the edits here are not taking this in mind and are putting nations down as regional powers simply because they are lesser greater powers in certain areas. User: Saruman20 (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Separation of sections

This article is beginning to become overfilled with details and is making for a slow download and upload. This is a few reasons that I am considering the idea of each section having its own article so as not to overfill this article (similar to the once "Brazil as a potential great power"). — NuclearVacuum 21:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the history in the articles is really irrelevant. This can be one page, but it will require some disciplined slash and burn tactics on the cruft that's been gathering. Peter the Great was a great guy, for example, but his picture really doesn't mean much.Somedumbyankee (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Map fixed again

Okay the article is fine now, it includes the only 3 real potential superpowers, someone just need to fix the map, cheers. Supaman89 (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That's good and easy. I fixed my flag to only include four countries. The reason that America is still on there is simply and reasonable. Quoting from "Superpower#Post Cold War (1991-)":

“

Additionally, there has been some recent speculation that the United States is declining in power. Citing economic hardships, Cold War allies becoming less dependent on the United States, a rapidly declining dollar, the rise of other great powers around the world, and decreasing education, some experts have suggested the possibility of America losing its superpower status in the distant future.

”

This should explain why America is on there. Hope you like it and if you need anymore changes to it, just give me a note and I will be happy to check it out. — NuclearVacuum 01:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

NV, I still don't understand why the US is on the map. The map is of potential superpowers, correct? The US is not, even according to the quote given, a potential superpower. The quote actually confirms that the US is a superpower (if it can lose its status in the future, it must have it now). Ostap 04:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've thrown an alternate caption on the map that I think is less confusing.Somedumbyankee (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is a JOKE.

Ok, pardon me for dropping my 2 cents, but here is my take on this article. If someone votes to put this page up to deletion, I'll totally agree and I won't hesitate to put my insight favoring the decision.

This is what I see:

• Regular users taking administrative roles.
• People "voting" rather than "discussing"
• People putting their own perspective and point of view rather than sticking with sources provided by professionals and specialists.
• Users making this a definitive list rather than exposing viewpoints.

Look, we should start first defining the word potential: According to the Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (ISBN 1-888777-48-6 , TridentPress International, 2002, p. 347), potential is an adjective defined as:

PO•TEN•TIAL adj. possible -n. an unrealized capacity or capability

According to that, there are several countries in the world that would be able to fulfill this criteria. Also, there is a lot of debate on whether a country can be considered a superpower or not. Even in the superpower article, is clearly states the criteria on the first line:

The criteria of a superpower is not clearly defined [80] and as a consequence they may differ between sources.

Hence, this shouldn't be a limited and fixed list. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should not be the limiting agent trying to judge, define and characterize countries as "potential superpowers" but rather, should be arguing and sourcing why some people believe such and such countries are considered potential superpowers. According to Wikipedia Guidelines, if several unrelated sources can be mentioned, it is notable and worth it of mentioning.

With that in mind, let me introduce you to some articles/essays/books that would help you improve your understanding on the international power issue.

• Template:International power should be a good start. But also, focus on G8+5 · BRI(M)C · Next Eleven · SCO and I'd also recommend a look on Chindia.
• Robyn Meredith, The Elephant and the Dragon: The Rise of India and China and What It Means for All of Us (ISBN 0393062368 [2007] W W Norton & Co Inc)
• Peter Engardio, Chindia: How China And India Are Revolutionizing Global Business (ISBN 0071476571 [2006] McGraw-Hill)

There is absolutely no question India should be included in the same place China is. Books like "The Elephant and the Dragon", "Chindia" and even "Financing Energy Efficiency" explains several characteristics that make these countries potential superpowers despite their ongoing list of problems. The fact is that here too, most of the views are based on the personal knowledge of the country (which most of the times is limited to "I know where it is located in the map" ) and bias. Mexico and Brazil should definitely be included. As it has been mentioned over and over by scholars as an alternative for China and India and their stability compared to those countries. Also, Russia should not be left behind either.

For starters, this is not a matter of "voting". AFDs are not that way and this topic won't be that way either.

Also, mentioning unrelated links to whether countries like Brazil withstand the possibility of becoming a superpower doesn't help our discussion and it doesn't help us to arrive to a consensus. Every single country in the world could be a potential superpower as every single one of them will be able to show "good economic standing" or things like that. At the same time, every single country in the world has the potential to be removed from that list since we can find sources showing its "poor human treatment", "political instability", "More people die in XXX daily than in Iraq" and things like that. What I'm trying to say is that even China (a country that we all agree should be in the list) has its contrasts, social deficiencies, political instabilities and things like that.

Although not necessarily related, I'd also recommend the following books as further info:

• Robert P. Taylor et al., Financing Energy Efficiency: Lessons from Brazil, China, India, and Beyond (ISBN 0821373048 [2008] World Bank)

I'll stop writing here trusting that you folks broadened your visions of the world. I know I wasn't very clean or clear in my writing but I believe that after reading it, you will have some insight on the topics regarding "Potential Superpowers". Please feel free to discuss my opinion here or throw your anger in my Talk Page. Thank you for your time. -- Loukinho (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm whole-heartedly voting for total deletion based on what I said under "This article is crap," thank you. Hypatea (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The article will definitely benefit by having a sourced discussion of what experts suggest predisposes a country towards becoming a superpower and how countries appear to be able to develop into a superpower. Right now all of this seems to be simply assumed and those unstated assumptions used to support original research cases for each country as a future superpower. If we were to continue to have sections for individual countries they should contain nothing more than quotes of sources explicitly predicting that the country will be a superpower.Zebulin (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A few days ago, I wouldn't have, but after reading over the article it's obvious it sucks. The very principle is messed up. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for discussion on world politics. Now that I realized this, it puts this all in perspective: the article must go. It is long (so much extra, unnessicary info), unorganized (why does each country have different categories?), biased (read some of the sections, many are obviously nationalistic, and some are obviously from a very Western viewpoint), and it has all but broken down into an edit war, with people adding there own opinions and not contributing any resources. I admit, I took part in this in the past, but I realize the error of my ways. The article must be deleted. User: Saruman20 (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is pure bs. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If it stays, it must have India in it. India is supposed to overtake the American economy by 2043 according to Goldman Sachs^[1]. Ofcourse its a potential superpower! Nikkul (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Only 35 years away. In 1973, the end of the cold war was far from predictable. This is a subject for academics and serious research, not speculating with cherry-picked articles to support the greatness of one's own country. WP:SYN and WP:NPOV make this article almost impossible to construct and meet Wikipedia's quality standards. WP:CRYSTAL allows limited, well-sourced predictions to allow for things like articles about the events in the 2008 Olympics. It wouldn't allow for speculation about who would win what medal. This article is about who will win the "superpower" medal. Sure, the Russian team might be dead ringers for the medal, but...

This article might be called hopeless, which is specifically noted in the policy as a bad prima facie reason to delete the article. It's not actively harmful, there aren't any copyright violations, and it doesn't meet any other deletion criteria. The question is, can it be fixed?Somedumbyankee (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Bar charts

The bar charts in every potential superpower infoxbox need to be removed immediately. They are completely arbitrary and all of them are unsourced, not to mention they were never made for this purpose. For exmaple, India is apperantly 85% an economic power, 60% a political power, 80% a military power, 40% an energy power, and 85% a cultural power. Where do these numbers come from? They come from the article's editors' imagination, sometimes based on good guesses, sometimes not. In any case, they are all original research—if "research" is even the appropriate word—and violate some of Wikipedia's most fundamental rules. This is not an issue of voting; we can not vote to overrule policy. Until a source is found that breaks down countries in specifically those numbers, the bars need to go.--71.112.145.211 (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The bar charts are definitely (un)encyclopedic and should be removed. --AI009 (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I floated this to the WP:NOR talk page and received a similar opinion there. I am going to be WP:BOLD and remove them from the article.Somedumbyankee (talk) 06:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. I was looking for the source of them too. Couldnt find any. Someone must have assumed they had the right to designate the percentage. Good they are removed. Nikkul (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Addition of India?

We had a discussion on the talk pageand the result of it was to remove Brazil and India. India has magically reappeared as a potential superpower. It was agreed that India belonged as a potential great power. In additon, there was no discussion to re-add India to the page My question is why was India added to the page again? --Hobie Hunter (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Imagining too much.. huh? Can you please provide a link to that previous discussion? Involving a couple of editors without getting balanced and more knowledgeable view does not help. --AI009 (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

India is the world's fourth largest economy right now and according to Goldman Sachs, India will overtake the US economy by 2050. Ofcourse it is a potential superpower! Who's going to say one country is a potential and another one isnt. Wikipedia is not a forum; inclusion is not based on editors' opinion. Nikkul (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• World's 4th largest economy
• Will overtake US economy before 2050, according to Goldman Sachs
• Second largest army by personnel
• Largest democracy
• 2nd largest economic growth

The funny part Nikkul is that User:Hobie Hunter claims We had a discussion on the talk pageand [sic] the result of it was to remove Brazil and India and while I can see proposals being made of removing Japan, Mexico and Brazil, the issue of India's status wasn't even raised here. The user is nothing but a troll. Please ignore. --AI009 (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Found the discussion. But again, that consensus was reached only by few editors and balanced view was not sought. --AI009 (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A summary of points in favor of India:

• Second most populous country in the world.
• Fourth largest economy; ahead of Russia (see List of countries by GDP (PPP)).
• Second fastest growing large economy; ahead of USA, EU and Russia (see List of countries by GDP (real) growth rate).
• Will be second largest economy in the world by 2050 (see BRIC report).
• Third largest standing army; ahead of Russia (see List of countries by number of active troops).
• Only Asian country which maintains an active aircraft carrier.
• Largest importer of military hardware in Asia.
• A cultural influence rivaled by none in southern Asia and extending far into Southeast Asia, East Asia and Middle East. (if one takes into account the spread of Buddhism and yoga, India is very much a cultural superpower)

And someone put India in the same category as Brazil?! --AI009 (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Bollywood reaches 3 billion people. Hollywood only reaches 1.5 billion people. Nothing else can compete! Thinking about Budhism, yoga, bollywood, and many other factors, India is def a cultural superpower. Nikkul (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a point of context on why India isn't here... I made a comment that the list of "potential superpowers" should be consistent with the list of current "great powers" on the logic that a country generally goes from one "weight class" to another by steps. India is currently listed as a Middle power. It could be a potential superpower and a potential great power, but it seems redundant to show both unless the rise will be extremely rapid. No one particularly objected to this analysis, so I think that's the consensus that was referenced for moving India to potential great powers from this article. The alternative is to establish that India is already a great power and makes more sense here, but expect stiff resistance from the Brazilians.Somedumbyankee (talk) 06:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What baffles me is the fact that the article on potential great powers assumes that only UNSC permanent members are 'great powers'. That is highly inaccurate because - Firstly, being a UNSC member is more of a status rather than real power as UN's power itself is greatly limited in present political scenario. Secondly, UNSC itself represents the political climate of 1945 and not of 2008. That is what the entire UNSC reform debate is all about! Even then, how does being a UNSC member make France a great power and Japan only an economic power? The entire logic is as flawed as UNSC itself. --AI009 (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the Power in international relations article. Power is not stature, it's not accomplishments, it's the ability of the country to meddle with the world. Japan is only an economic power because their pacifist constitution pretty much rules out a lot of hard power, and they're relatively isolationist. France is a Great power because it can, and does, influence global politics. The US is a Superpower because it is pretty much always involved in global politics. This is partially why India is considered a middle power: it's not that it doesn't have the power to be influential, they just don't flex those muscles that much.Somedumbyankee (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

LOTS of original research wind blowing through this discussion. Bottom line...if the sources explicitly state that they are predicting that India will be a superpower then those sources and their predictions can be included. There is no point in our trying to convince each other here one way or another because any "consensus" achieved in that manner will simply be impermissible OR noise. Predictions are not allowed in wikipedia articles but reporting the predictions of qualified sources is.Zebulin (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

EXACTLY! How is Brazil comparable to India. In fact in some previous versions there were some bar charts (e.g. this) showing both Brazil and India as Great powers in military might. How irrelevant! India is an advanced nuclear state with one of the largest defence forces in the world. Just check up Brazilian armed forces and see how inferior it is compared to Indian one. At the most it is a regional power for military. And how come India isn't considered a cultural superpower?

India:

• 2nd largest population
• Second largest army by personnel
• World's largest democracy
• Largest film industry in the world in terms of viewership
• 4th largest economy
• 2nd fastest growing economy
• Largest pool of English understanders / 2nd largest in terms of fluent speakers
• Posseses WMDs (Nuclear weapons)
• 2nd largest troop contributor to UN
• 6 companies in fortune 500 list
• Recognised IT power
• Advanced space program
• Young population (~30 years of age, average)
• 2nd largest agricultural output in the world

Oh ya.. and

• 5x winner in Miss World, 2x in Miss Universe

India as a cultural powerhouse:

• Yoga, Ayurveda, Vaasthu Sastra, Siddha, and yes, Kamasutra
• Birthplace of 4 major religions:
  • Hinduism (3rd largest number of followers, one of the oldest religion)
  • Buddhism (4th largest number of followers, spread far and wide. Most Buddhists are in China and other East Asian countries)
  • Sikhism
  • Jainism
• Formed one of the ancient civilization (Indus) which introduced many things to the modern world such as (amongst some)
  • Chess
  • Zero (0) number
  • Explanation of Gravity
  • Concept of spherical earth
  • Heliocentrism
  • Birthplace of earliest and only known Modern Language
  • Plastic surgery
  • In fact even Shaolin Kung Fu has its roots in India (Bodhidharma)
• Has by far the most number of dance styles (still alive) and musical instruments
• Home to the world's longest epic (Mahābhārata, 90,000 verses)

In fact Indian culture has been absorbed into various other cultures especially in South East Asia. See the Malay language / Cambodian architecture / Indonesian names and currency name / Thailand's airport name! All atributed to Indian culture!

OK lets stop here. This isn't Indian propoganda. Coming to the point, I don't know how Brazil matches up. --60.50.66.194 (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I repeat what Zebulin said earlier;

It's interesting that the article calls Brazil a "military superpower" when not only does it lack nuclear weapons, but it's armed forces are smaller than that of Iran, or Myanmar, or Vietnam, or Egypt, or Turkey, or Ukraine, or Indonesia, or Thailand, or Syria, or even Taiwan (which isn't even recognized as a country). The fact that our article calls Brazil a "military superpower" just goes to show what a sad state this article has sunk to

He went on saying that it could be the work of a nationalist. 100% true. --60.50.66.194 (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Let us stick to talking about the inclusion of India. The inclusion of Brazil can have its own section. This section is about INDIA. Nikkul (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with re-introducing India - The issues above where about removing Mexico and Brazil from the article, not about India, I do think India belongs to this article. Supaman89 (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that India should be here, but this article shouldn't contradict other articles. Going straight from Middle Power to Superpower without being considered a Great Power first isn't impossible, but it doesn't sit well with me. I'm going to un-watchlist this article and leave y'all to it, I don't see it as salvageable but don't see a burning need to delete it or make a fuss.Somedumbyankee (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Organization

This article is extremely unorganized. Each country has different sections, and some, like India and China are long and filled with unnessicary information. The Potential great powers article has a good system of organization. This system should be applied to all the sections in this article, espicially extremely long, unorganized ones like India and China. User:Saruman20 (Usertalk:Saruman20|talk]]) 12:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

India

India is a potential superpower, or a potential great power? Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 04:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A potential superpower, that's why people discussed about adding it back. Supaman89 (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Destroy old world.jpg

The image Image:Destroy old world.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Why Russia is not a superpower

Enough is enough. This article has become a hotbed for nationalistic views. Please, this is an encyclopedia. I'm tired of reverting stupid, non-sense edits being made to this article. As a matter of fact, I'm surprised that this article has even survived on Wikipedia. And for those people who live in the imaginary world created by Russia media:

• Russia has the seventh largest GDP (PPP). See List of countries by GDP (PPP)
• Russia has the eleventh largest GDP (nominal). See List of countries by GDP (nominal). Even Brazil has a larger GDP than Russia's.
• Russia has the 54th highest GDP (nominal) per capita. Behind several European and Asian countries.
• Russia has the fifth largest number of active troops. China, USA, India and N. Korea are ahead.
• Russia has the seventh largest military budget. Even Germany and Japan have a greater military budget than Russia. As a matter of fact, Russia had to ask for funds from India and Brazil to finance its 5th-generation fighter jet program.
• Has the 26th highest economic growth rate. China and India are way ahead. According to BRIC report, by 2050 the three largest economies will be China, India and USA.
• 67th highest Human Development Index.
• Ranks 105th in Quality-of-life index way behind other potential superpowers like China and India and even behind Botswana.
• Ranks 131st in Global Peace Index even behind failed states like Pakistan and Myanmar. It cannot even maintain control over its own territory and some people claim it already is a superpower?

A nation which cannot even claim top 5 ranks in any of these indicators is a superpower? Give me a break. Any person who resumes adding the same bs to this article will be reported and risks getting blocked. --AI009 (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Russia is not a superpower. I live in Russia, it's a potential superpower, not a superpower. However, some of your accustations are flawed. Russian quality of life is way above India or China, don't believe everything on the internet. 5th largest number of troops it pretty good, considering it has the 9th largest population. GDP per capita is flawed, because by that estimate Luxemborg is the world's greatest economy... Brazil does not have larger economy. Russia is 7th in PPP, which is the real world, practical measure of a nation's economy. Also, those are 2006-2007 estimates. When the 2008 list is released, Russia will have gone up at least two ranks and surpassed Brazil and Spain in GDP (nominal), and also will go up in GDP (PPP). By the BRIC report, Russia will be 5th, and since Brazil's growth has slowed, probably 4th now, after China, the US, and India. The Global Peace Index is obviously flawed, because Russia isn't the one invading Middle Eastern countries for oil and causing the deaths of thousands of innocent people (that's the world's sole superpower's job). Quality of life uses crap like number of divorces, climate, and church attendance to get it's rankings, which is all stupid. We can't help that we're cold, and if we have lots of divorces and low church attendence, I don't care. That's obviously biased to countries who uphold to tradtional, religious values (something I'm glad Russia doesn't). But, regardless, Russia is a potential superpower, not a superpower. "Superpower" is being used far too loosly around here. User: Saruman20 (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

GDP per capita is measure of economic prosperity per capita. By that measure, Luxemburg is one of the most economically prosperous countries. PPP and nominal are two different measures of measuring an economy and generally economies which are developing have higher PPP than nominal economy. Since China, India, Russia and Brazil have high difference between nominal and PPP economies, they are still developing. EU and USA are developed economies; that's why there is little difference between PPP and nominal. But PPP and nominal are both equally important measures of a nation's economy. Regarding Global Peace Index, what about lack of rights in Russia, disputes in Chechnya, etc. Superpower does not really mean ability to project power only. It also means one's ability to use power decisively and gather considerable international support. Russia is not a role model unlike the United States. Agreed that countries like Venezuela, Russia, Iran, North Korea and a good part of Middle East don't highly regard United States. But enter countries like China and India where a third of humanity lives and you'll realize the considerable influence America still exerts. According to Fareed Zakaria, America's greatest weapon which will ensure its superpower status is immigration. --AI009 (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Just want to say that Russia has purposefully cut down on the number of troops in its military, and wants to further reduce that number to about 1 million. Most modern armies are moving away from the outdated doctrine of huge troop build up that was witnessed after WWII, and are focusing on smaller, mobile, and highly-trained armies. So, really, number of troops is more like a sign of backwardness than a sign of power, which of course is why no one takes China's 7 million-strong army very seriously. --71.112.145.211 (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that I mentioned active troops. If one takes armed forces into account, Iran has one of the largest armies. Standing army represents one's ability to mobilize troops to different regions and also ability to engage in multiple conflicts. But obviously, there are a lot of other factors like military expenditure, training, technology etc. which needs to be taken into account. --AI009 (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Russia as a developing country...that's funny. I've lived in the US, and it's not more free or prosperous than Russia. I'd have to say, Russia is more of a role model than the US. India may look up to the US, but China hardly does. Nobody likes the US anymore, because of it's imperialistic, nationalistic, war-mongering, and ruthless foreign policy. Russia has better human rights than America, last I checked, America still has the death penalty, Russia has abolished it in practice. While the Russian people are subjected to the daily doses of propaganda we get over here, Americans get it too. The American media and education institutions are all about teaching kids how great America and how evil countries like Russia, China, and Cuba are. They're not. I've been to all three. If that's not propaganda, I don't know what is. Again, Russian propaganda may say it's a superpower, but it's not. Both countries have propaganda and human rights issues, so let's not try to put one over the other, that's just scaremongering and propaganda. User: Saruman20 (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

American education system does not tell which countries are good or not. American media does and that's because they have freedom of speech. Anyways, I never said USA was some sought of a utopia and please, this is an encyclopedia and personal interpretations have no significance here. We need facts and facts say USA is ahead of Russia in many aspects.. and so are Germany, France, UK and China. And don't blame the entire USA for Bush administration's faults. --AI009 (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the American education system does. From the words of my 8th grade Social studies teacher (when my mind was young and impresionable) when I was living in the United States, and going to one of the top schools in the country aswell, "America usually realizes that's it's wrong faster than other countries. Some countries, like Cuba and China, just execute people without a trial. Be glad you live in a better country", not to mention all sorts of other anti-communist, anti-China, and anti-Russia stuff I heard in school, on the news. But, I agree with you, Russia is not a superpower. There arn't many sources to suggest that, but I'm just pointing it out that your posts make Russia out to be worse than it seems. Your general point is correct. These nationalists need to stop making Russia out to be better than it seems, but on the other hand people need to stop putting Russia down aswell. To say Germany, France, and the UK are ahead of Russia is foolishness. Russia is already ahead of France, and is expected to surpass Germany and possible the UK in the near future. China and the US are however ahead of Russia. That's why Russia is a potential superpower, it has a good chance in the future, but not yet. User: Saruman20 (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I am reading more and more comments from user AI009, this guy obivously doesn't like Russia at all and has made a lot of

critism about the country in general, not just false comments about it not being a superpower but quoted all sorts of bias notes and changes he has made on the article as he is determined to hide all the information about Russia is not a superpower and goes on to say nothing but non sense things. I mean how would he like if we down talked his country, India?

Besides, Russia is a superpower; (argue all you want), those statements are on the topic and he just throws them out, so people can't read them.

So this user is really someone who hates the country than his sources as he has no sources, just BS. --Bradmorrisusa (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That's going a little too far isn't it? He may be critizing the country, but to say he hates it is a little extreme. User: Saruman20 (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh? Sources? Dude, I provided links for all those facts I provided. I don't have anything against Russia and why should I? Neither am I American nor European. I am an Indian and last time I checked, India and Russia were allies. All I'm asking for is this article to be factual, logical and encyclopedic. Including statements like "Russia is a superpower" only reduces the credibility of Wikipedia. --AI009 (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, your a big fat liar AI009, I noticed that you guys are changing words faster than a rabbit crosses the finish line on no information on the source of facts. I think you guys are from India making your content your way, doesn't matter what you present, it is your way or take it to the highway. I think Russia is a superpower and to hear you guys saying it on sources dating back in 1991 when this is 2008, which is right in the superpower topic currently[81]; old resources. We are suppose to believe you guys using old sources that the US is a sole superpower when articles are being published about today in 2008 that US is no longer a superpower and you AI009 changing the facts by eliminating everything, so are you Saruman20 doing the samething. It is what you want to do, you want to say the US is a superpower does matter who says it isn't, you deny everything(look at your records, it is a fact you both makea living here changing things back all the time). I will take it and send snap shots by sending it to the administers to show what you guys are doing on a daily basis, this article Superpower is a crooked set of facts that making people believe these so so facts are to believe this is the current truth is a hawk of crap. If you hate I say it, Russia is a superpower and I will post it for ya too.

If someone wanted to use Superpower on a research paper, this is the wrong source of information here, you guys are to blame.

You don't have sources AI009, your just in this to down talk Russia, your record is a pure fact that is what you do on Wikipedia.

This discussion is ridiculous. Enough said. --AI009 (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with what you think Mr. unsigned user. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for people to display personal opinions. Your critism is unwarrented and rude. Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Calling someone a liar because they have a different view on a subject is immature and not only violates wikipedia policy, but courtesy and common sense aswell. You are bound to meet people who don't have the same political views as you, and just because someone has a different belief/view than you, does not make them a liar. The very point of wikipedia: an informitive online encyclopedia that anyone can edit within common sense is that everyone has a voice, and if someone has a different view it doesn't mean there a "liar". You should accept all viewpoints and not insult people over the internet based on political views. This has nothing to do with natinality either, I am Russian, and I have defended Russian inclusion here, but just because I edit because of FACTS not because of NATIONALISM, does not mean I hate Russia. Scroll up and you will see how I have defended Russia before, so don't you dare accuse me of hating Russia, that is a very personal attack to me. If you wish to be immature and continue to promote edit warring and personally attack people, the block function is nice and warm for ya. User: Saruman20 (talk) 24:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep it topical please

Please keep the discussion focused on editorial issues that relate directly to this article. If the editors here have difficulty reaching consensus, suggest dispute resolution. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 16:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think everything is fine here, no need for a WP:DR. What's the issue? User: Saruman20 (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You might want to ask the IP editor who did this, which I reverted. Durova^Charge! 00:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Why Russia is a Superpower

I happened to listen to John McCaim today on television about his new foreign policy issues[82]. It is interesting to note that a US Senator making statements about the nuclear arms race of today and how he quoted that the 2 superpowers on tv this morning (Russia and the United States) on more disarmament but also military commitments on patrolling the middle east from nuclear conflicts. Claiming that Russia can destroy the world with a quarter of its total nuclear arsenal and that Russia has a lot of power with its international relations & global strategy with countries the US can't meet the eyes with. Russia's allies are the US's enemies or why the US can't control the countries it needs to influence and Russia can. It seems that with all of the US's NATO member countries, not one of them can influence any dangerous country or potential dangerous country than non-NATO Russia. That right there says what Russia is and their importance on a global scale, which is beyond a world power country can do; which clearing states that Russia is no world power. A superpower has the ability to influence nations and countries together on major conflicts that interact with other nations that cannot. World powers are limited powers and are not global enough to make a stance which can lead to nation threats to war who cannot defend their own sovereignty or countries they bring on to the table. John McCain made these comments and reputably repeated the word Russia over 67 times in a 22 minute speech.

Obviously to the US, Russia has the economic potential plate to build anything they want and influence the world on a global scale. I mean why would he say to the public that Russia is the new influence on foreign policy; and act of will or an act of desperation? It is clear that the US has to look at Russia as its partner to the world on a global front if it needs an act of influence since the US cannot control its global policy. Both countries have the four axes of power on superpower influences than any other country; there is no question that both can destroy the world over and over again but who is not clearly strong enough where another can. I see Russia as either the potential or the second superpower, nothing lower. I’ll post the speech on youtube to prove it. ""—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradmorrisusa (talk • contribs) 20:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is good information, maybe you should include it in the article and use that youtube video as a source? However, it is my opinion Russia is a potential superpower like China, the EU, and (possibly) India, not a full-blown superpower (at least not yet). But, regardless, personal opinion means nothing, and if you have adequete sources feel free to add something to article as long as it is not biased and/or nationalistic. However, since your edits have only been on this article and it's discussion page, I'm lead to believe that you are a sockpuppet for User: Versace11, who was suspended for a couple days because of edit warring and bad edits, but if your not, feel free to add information that you see as useful and constructive to the article. User: Saruman20 (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say Russia is a potential superpower. Having a tremendous nuclear arsenal, a Cold War relic, doesn't make Russia a superpower (though it sure does help). By definition a great power is globally influential. Russia has friendly relations with rogue nations because they need to cozy up to any great power, and the US, UK, and France won't have warm relations with them, Russia and China are left. Also, Russia has been happy to help with and weapon needs they need be fulfilled. And Saurman, Bradmorrisusa doesn't look like a sockpuppet of Versace11. His arguments seem much more thought-out and coherent. (Though I would be on the lookout for sockpuppets. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if the US government is saying that Russia is a superpower and your disagreeing, who's going to believe you? What key card do you have to access behind the closed doors of the government (US or Russia)? Your making an opinion, the guy above provided the facts, your just making an opinion, your guessing Russia is a world power. If George Bush said Russia was a superpower tomorrow, your opinion would be the same. I don't think it is an opinion Hobie Hunter, I think it is your choice to believe what you like not what others tell you with sources.

Second France, France and Germany have greater relations with Russia than any other country, shall I provide you the reference, I would be happy too. First, Russia is the energy superpower of Europe, Great Britain has admitted this but to make a comment about France & Russia. Who told you this? Where is your facts "Hobie Hunter" about France and Russia?? Who said France is not in going to cozy with Russia? Where did this come from?

Third, a great power cannot destroy the world, only a superpower can, it says it in Russia in the 21st Century[83] by Professor Steven Rosefielde. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.3.127 (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You all make compelling points. Russia does have a lot of power, probably more than any of the other candiates here, but it can't be considered a superpower yet, because while it is America's equal politically (it has close ties to many nations, not just so called "rogue states", including Europe because of energy), militarily (Russia has the largest conventional and nuclear weapons, the world's most advanced ICBM, a massive nuclear stockpile, not to mention top-notch military training and technology, second only to the US), and energy (obviously), but Russia's true weakness appears to be in economics. While Russia is economically strong, it is along way from rivaling the US (though, as we are seeing, the US economy isn't doing so good). That's the only reason China, India, and the EU have an edge on Russia, otherwhise it would be a full-blown superpower. Also, a little off-topic here, Russia doesn't supply weapons to "rogue nations", it is working to help Iran develop nuclear power, not nuclear weapons as the Americans seem to think. User: Saruman20 (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

24.180.3.127, your post just seems unnecessarily aggresive. I couldn't make out or understand about half your post. As to, "If George Bush said Russia was a superpower tomorrow, your opinion would be the same." [sic] you don't know how my opinion would change. In addition, the U.S. government doesn't refer to Russia as a superpower. John McCain acknowledges Russia as a great power, and John McCain is only a senator, not the entire United States government. In addition, I'm not "guessing Russia is a great power. It clearly says so in the great power article. I never said Russia only had close relations with "rogue nations". I was refering to an above comment that stated "It seems that with all of the US's NATO member countries, not one of them can influence any dangerous country or potential dangerous country than non-NATO Russia." Next time, tone down the unjustified agression and make your arguments coherent. And yes, I agree with Saurman that Russia is a potential superpower. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the guy who bought up John McCain and Russia as a superpower, you'll find the speech on CNBC news achieves from Tuesday, it is true John McCain called Russia superpower when he comfirmed the 2 superpowers, so either George Bush had to say it or not, a US Senator makes enough argument to make the country a superpower basis of the US gov't announcing in on a national boardcast as people publish the information. So I think you off Hobie Hunter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.158.252 (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Russia is going to be a future superpower Just look at it. It has so many natural resources which it can sell to other countries (Oil, gas, coal ect) not to mention it is a large country with a large population and is also a permanent member of the UN security council. Russia will be the richest country in the future. Russia also as a huge professional military, land, air, sea, space and nukes. Anyone who knows about economic and politics will tell you that Russia is a future superpower. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But that doesn't mean Russia is a superpower. --AI009 (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not. The Term Superpower is just a "Label". America is only a superpower because it is labeled a superpower. What makes a country a superpower. What Can the US do what China, Russia and Europe can't do? Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The answer is nothing! Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Russia cannot influence global politics, economics and culture the way USA does. It is as simple as that. It is an energy superpower but not a full-fledged superpower. --AI009 (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Russia can not influence Global politics, Economics and Culture the way the USA does." That is a very silly thing to say. The word "cannot" is laughable in the political arena. You are obviously not aware of what is going on in the world. Just last month Putin scared of the whole of NATO for even daring talk about possible future enlargement with the Ukraine and Georgia. Russia's appearance at the summit resulted in NATO not negotiating with the former USSR states. That is one example of Russia influencing in global politics. Just look at Kosovo. Serbia's main supporter is Russia. This is why Kosovo is not doing so well. Look at Russia causing trouble in Georgia over Abkhazia. I don't see America intervening and acting the "hero" here. Why not? Because America does not want to mess with Russia. And according to you Russia does not influence politics the same way as the USA. ;)
• Russia threatens Europe with cutting off energy supplies. Economic? I think so.
• Cultural - Please read Russification. Also Belarus and the Ukraine are called min-Russias for a reason.

I think you don't like Russia been referred to as Superpower because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't blame you. Thats western media for you. Bombarding and influencing how you think. (*cough* CNN *cough* FOX News *cough* propaganda*cough*) They are not going to report about this stuff on Russia as it makes the US look bad  ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Russia? Bad? When did I say that? Why do you guys 1) love to argue? 2) jump to conclusions? Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia are all former USSR countries and Kosovo is in Eastern Europe. Russia's influence is considerable but that is restricted more or less to Eastern Europe. USA is not a hegemon because it cannot influence all major world decisions but that doesn't mean it is not a superpower. Can Russia yield its influence in far-off regions like Middle East, South America and South Asia the way USA does? --AI009 (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I said nothing about you saying Russia was bad. I don't love to argue. Americas influence is also restricted too. Not so much in south America. Brazil - nope. Brazil has the ability to become a superpower itself. America has no influence in China, Iran, Russia, central Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe. Go to some of these places and you will see very little American influence. Different super powers affect areas. However is some of these places you will see Russian influence though, but not American. Yes in "theory" the US is friends with Saudi Arabia. "You scratch my back, I'll scratch your" . But does the US really have influence? Russia just influences different areas to America. The only real influence America has in the Middle East is the puppet governments of Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan. Even they wont do as America wishes. You have a lot to learn friend. Peace. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You contradict yourself. First you say USA has no influence in Iraq and then say it has a puppet government there. And still then, USA has no influence in Africa and central Asia? Wow. I really need to start reading the newspapers you read. I agree USA no longer influences world politics the way it used to do before George W. Bush came to power. But it is hard to see Russia having any influence on politics in regions other than Eastern Europe. Enter South Asia and you'll see the considerable influence India exerts there. After Cyclone Nargis, Myanmar started accepting European and American aid only after Indian government pressurized it to do so. After India tested Agni-III missile, a worried China expedited the construction of its naval base in Pakistan. The Indo-Bangladeshi barrier was a major economic worry for Bangladesh but the latter only managed to make a couple of diplomatic pleas to India to stop its construction. India's pipeline projects with Turkmenistan and Iran and Farkhor Air Base in Tajikistan shows India's influence in Central Asia too. India held an economic summit in New Delhi and that summit drew 14 African head-of-states [84][85] That makes India a regional power and also a great power but not necessarily a superpower. China can influence politics not only in East Asia (N. Korea nuclear talks, Japan war crimes debate, Taiwan dispute), but also South East Asia (ASEAN Summit), South Asia, Africa (China's aid to Sudan especially after Darfur crisis), Central Asia (Shanghai Cooperation Council) shows China's global role. Give me one example of Russia's dramatic influence in Asian and American politics and I'll agree Russia is a superpower. And as of now, China is a bigger power than Russia. And if one says Russia is a superpower, then by logic so is China. And even then, do not forget EU and India. --AI009 (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I corrected myself. I meant to write Iran not Iraq. I do believe that the USA, Russia, EU, China and India are all superpower. Russia, EU, China and India are all growing super powers, whereas the USA is a superpower at its peak or arguably a declining superpower.
What you have to remember is that there is no definitive for the term "Superpower". There is no criteria to become a superpower as you somehow imply. As i said earlier the term Superpower is a label. It is only a super power if it is labeled a superpower. This is becoming increasingly so for Russia. You stated that Russia isn't a superpower because North Korea has a bigger army. poor argument. I already gave an example of how Russia intervened in American politics, when they stopped NATO (Generally run by the US, UK, France and Germany) inviting Ukraine and Georgia from becoming action plan members of NATO at the 2008 Bucharest summit. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Which ever country you call a superpower is WP:POV even the US. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I never said Russia is not a superpower just because it doesn't have a large army. It is a combination of various factors. And read superpower's definition "a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time". Also, the article says "the most common-held belief is that only the United States of America currently fulfills the criteria to be considered a superpower." Russia being a superpower is not a common-held belief. --AI009 (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well done captain dictionary you can read. id rather belive reality than a dictionary. Russia may not be a common-held belief in media brainwashed America. But its fairly common in the UK. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Uers AI009, you say everything anti Russia, this whole discussion is about you because it is you who stirred all this false claims about how bad Russia is and how it is not a superpower. If you hate Russia so much and you consist on arguing and arguing it is not a superpower, write your own novel then. Show the world how bad Russia is then, if that is your point then write about it but this forum is all a personal attack on your conclusions as I think Russia is a superpower when the materials I have read say it i but you don't care, Russia is so bad according to you. You just just say say all this hipe how bad Russia is and it will never be a superpower. There is no other reason than your quest to tell everybody this, it is what you have been doing all along telling the samething all over again. Get a life because this is all a personal attack from you, you void people updating anything and not allowing people to read the current Russia superpower published media materials.

What? Saying Russia is not a superpower implies Russia is 'bad'?! Again, I never said Russia was 'bad'. I'm saying Russia is not a superpower because 1) The sources you provided are either unreliable or state Russia is an energy superpower or potential superpower. 2) Russia being a superpower is not a common-held belief. 3) Russia does not posses the resources to project dominating power in regions apart from Eastern Europe. It is as simple as that. --AI009 (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, your bothing violating the wikipedia policies of WP:No personal attacks and WP: Edit war by editing things the other put in and fighting. I suggest a WP: DR. Not to be some kind of moderator here, but even with wikipedia policy aside, you guys should all try to compromise and work together, despite personal opinion. That's not just policy, it's common sense. I also do not see how this discussion is even nessicary, considering the current sentance regarding the matter, which I edited for the sake of compromise, seems okay: Another debate concerns Russia's status as either as a superpower or as a potential superpower. This implies that there is a debate, but does not show any bias to one side of the debate. Thus, I see no reason why it should change. I am a Russian, and I believe Russia is the indesputable second in the world to the United States, but also that it still remains a potential superpower. My reasoning:

Military: Russian military technology is highly advanced. While not the same as Western military technology, it is wrong to say that NATO tech is better, because both NATO and Russian technology are advanced, but different as they are based on different military strategy. Of course, having way more nuclear weapons than anyone else, not to mention the most advanced ICBMs and bombs make Russia one of the, if not the, most powerful military on the planet.

Energy: Obviously an energy superpower, no dispute here.

Politics: Russia has immense hard power, not to mention considerable soft power in Africa, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia. America's second in political power.

Cultural: "Cultural superpower" is kind of a silly phrase to me. All major powers have fully developed culture, so couldn't we argue that almost all the world's nations are "cultural superpowers". While Russia may not have American cultural influence, it has great cultural power in Asia and Europe.

Economics: Russia's weakest point. While it is very strong in energy, Gorbachev-Yeltsin era corruption and inflation have taken a tole. Of the major powers, Russia is the third fastest rising nation in the world after China and India. It will soon overcome it's weakness in this area, then, and only then, will Russia be a superpower in my eyes.

Those are my views on this issue. I wan't everyone to know that, but regarless, compromise is key in my eyes. Saruman20 (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand what problem people have with the sentence "Another debate concerns Russia's status as either as a superpower or as a potential superpower". As you said, it reflects the debate. Secondly, Russia being a superpower is not a common-held belief. Thirdly, people seem to be ganging-up on me. And calling me all sought of names. If things continue, I might have to take the case to Arbcom. --AI009 (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Hes acting if he is some sort of american spy and has to infiltrate wikipedia and make Russia seem bad. He is quite clear extremely anti Russia and is using his point of view to edit this page, making him in violation of WP:NPOV, not mention WP:IDONTLIKEIT Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks --AI009 (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Very very interesting, you pose yourself in defense and then you attack everyone's post or eliminate post and then you wonder why your not liked here AI009. I am not surprized what you say, I am just surprized that the Wikipedia team hasn't suspended your name yet. There's enough content in here to suspend you for good.--75.15.144.72 (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Suspend? Me? Just because I dared to question the reliability of the sources given? I don't know if I 'surprize' [sic] you are not, you surely amaze me. Continue with your taunts because frankly, I don't care. --AI009 (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over Russia's status as a superpower

A user has requested comment on politics for this section. This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCpol list}}. When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.

Statement by users involved in the dispute

• Most sources that are cited supporting statements that Russia is a superpower are either unreliable, or state Russia is a energy superpower or a potential superpower. Russia is not a superpower and if it is, then so are China, EU and India by logic. --AI009 (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• That is easy to answer, the sources are unreliable because you delete them before anybody can read them and you don't even read them yourself. So I think your the problem here, you are the mess this whole thing is, your the issue, you created it. I see people saying things about you as it is, so you have a bad track record.--24.180.3.127 (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because people keep arguing with me for removing nationalistic statements doesn't mean I have a bad track record. I've read all the sources and they state Russia as an energy superpower or potential superpower and not superpower. It is for everybody to read. Wikipedia is not a blog. It is an online encyclopedia and please be factual and READ THE SOURCES YOU PROVIDED. --AI009 (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Who's the superpower now? As oil prices drain the U.S. of military power and influence, Russia is rising as a world force again. - There's another interesting article about Russia and its rising superpower status (and Americas parallel declining status) that could probably be incorporated into this article somehow. I'm not going to try and edit this mess of an article, I just don't have the time these days, but I thought this article was worth bringing up. My opinion on whether or not Russia is currently a superpower is irrelevant, but I would have to admit that it's definitely not a commonly held belief at the present time. That doesn't mean it's not true, but I think in the west we're still in a stage of fear and confusion regarding our own decline in global dominance. That probably explains why the mainstream media isn't giving much attention to the specific topic of global power and influence, and instead insists on launching hostile propaganda attacks against Russia and China. But anyhow, enough ranting. I would say that for now, we shouldn't be calling Russia a superpower in present tense. There just aren't enough reliable sources to base this belief on. Russia is definitely a "potential" superpower, which is why this article exists. Krawndawg (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so AI009, you don't read facts, you just erase every detail there is, that's all you do here. Your the enemy here. Arguing isn't your term, your record reflects nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.3.127 (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

AI009 its time to face reality. America is going down hill. Its economy is a laugh. Russia will be the richest country on the earth. That combined with its big military including its nukes and its political influence will make i a bigger superpower than america. ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing is guys, you on the "Russian side" are just lowering yourselves to his level. You may not like the guy, but your violating just as much policy as he is, and all of you should react with maturty and civility, not get angry and attack him. Don't you see, your making it look as if your just as bad as him, and I'm sure that's not what you want. The point is, we should respect all view points, and let them be present in the article, just as it is now. He may be wrong, he may be right. You may be wrong, you may be right. It doesn't matter, because both views must be presented in the encyclpedia. Saruman20 (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for reconizing that Ijanderson977, I'll take Saruman off my angry list as he is more understanding now than AI007. AI007, man who does this person think he his? I just read the above comments today and I have to say also, that is what I said last week on this guy AI007 too. You know I would like to read articles if someone is going to post about Russia is a superpower(2008), I don't want to read the same ordeal from AI008 taking that away on reading the same old shameless crap that has been up there for the last couple of years. Russia has been on the media as a Superpoower all this year and I want to write about it, it is my interests but AI007, where does it go, so far you can't see it. The threat is this guy, Russia to the media right now such as Senator John McCain has been discussing superpower words on Russia, why hide that or deny it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.166.135 (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha. What about China and India? The world has been discussing about China's superpower potential for ages. --AI009 (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

AI009 your all about India and putting down Russia, I have back linked your posts and have been reading your topics, comments, criticisms, your massive undo's lists, your links and so much more. The haha about China and India is typical; you’re about benefiting your country only, everybody knows you’re from India and everybody knows your not a favor of Russia as a superpower or even Russia this or Russia that. All you do is piss people off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.144.72 (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh.. note I stressed more on China than on India. I am from India and I don't go around making pro-India nationalistic statements. It is not about me being in favor of Russia or not. It is about keeping Wikipedia encyclopedic. Discussion on future superpowers like EU, Russia, China and India has been going on for a long time. That makes them potential superpowers not superpowers. It is as simple as that. --AI009 (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute on user AI009 and articles on Potential Superpower & Superpowers

I am starting this topic on user AI009, in the last several weeks I have seen and witnessed a lot of stirred conflicts but also a lot of misleading information by user AI009. User AI009 is making statements after statements (a 18 year old) about how Russia is not this and not that, a lot of hogwash and more trash is being stirred out by this anti Russian baloney. You can't say anything with this user hogging these articles without him, it is a constant cat dog game here. I am reading a lot of discussions and I have Googled "AI009" [86], this guy thinks he is God here. The content is according to him, he is making his statements that I certaintly cannot understand why but I am seeing an anti Russian member here who is taking the positon to use this Superpower articles about who he thinks everything should be. Ok, I don't agree with this person and I think he should be banned where should be in college studying instead of discriminating Russia or whatever message your trying to imput here because this is ridiculious people don't have a right to discuss anything here when user thinks he a cop above the law[87]. I see other users also fustrated with user AI009 and I think this is turning into too much falsehood that no one can trust the content on Wikipedia on these issues. Oh know, whats the point here when we have an 18 year old kid who is making this his website. Get off, do something else, write a book or something if you want to speak or say something anti Russian because you are doing what is not the best interest of anything here, you making this a cartoon not an information source and I don't like it.

Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks --AI009 (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Noop, this is a fact not a personal attack, I think your the problem here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.3.127 (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If standing up for facts, un-biased and non-nationalistic material in Wikipedia is creating a problem for you, then you are the one who is creating problems here mate. --AI009 (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not your mate nor do I want to be a friend or discuss something when your are complete problem here, all you do is aruge and argue. I think we need to write a Wordpress blog about you to inform people how this Superpower and Potential Superpower page on Wikipedia. I think people need to be informed that User AI009 has corrupted this Wikipedia site.

Great. Right a Wordpress blog on this so that people can laugh at you. --AI009 (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

See, that is you and we'll show people who the real Nazi is, you AI009

Oh Russia is a Superpower —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.3.127 (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, your bothing violating the wikipedia policies of WP:No personal attacks and WP: Edit war by editing things the other put in and fighting. I suggest a WP: DR. Not to be some kind of moderator here, but even with wikipedia policy aside, you guys should all try to compromise and work together, despite personal opinion. That's not just policy, it's common sense. I also do not see how this discussion is even nessicary, considering the current sentance regarding the matter, which I edited for the sake of compromise, seems okay: Another debate concerns Russia's status as either as a superpower or as a potential superpower. This implies that there is a debate, but does not show any bias to one side of the debate. Thus, I see no reason why it should change. I am a Russian, and I believe Russia is the indesputable second in the world to the United States, but also that it still remains a potential superpower. My reasoning:

Military: Russian military technology is highly advanced. While not the same as Western military technology, it is wrong to say that NATO tech is better, because both NATO and Russian technology are advanced, but different as they are based on different military strategy. Of course, having way more nuclear weapons than anyone else, not to mention the most advanced ICBMs and bombs make Russia one of the, if not the, most powerful military on the planet.

Energy: Obviously an energy superpower, no dispute here.

Politics: Russia has immense hard power, not to mention considerable soft power in Africa, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia. America's second in political power.

Cultural: "Cultural superpower" is kind of a silly phrase to me. All major powers have fully developed culture, so couldn't we argue that almost all the world's nations are "cultural superpowers". While Russia may not have American cultural influence, it has great cultural power in Asia and Europe.

Economics: Russia's weakest point. While it is very strong in energy, Gorbachev-Yeltsin era corruption and inflation have taken a tole. Of the major powers, Russia is the third fastest rising nation in the world after China and India. It will soon overcome it's weakness in this area, then, and only then, will Russia be a superpower in my eyes.

Those are my views on this issue. I wan't everyone to know that, but regarless, compromise is key in my eyes. Saruman20 (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Second only to USA? That won't make the Chinese very happy.

Military: Most of Russian weapons are readily available to other potential superpowers like India and China. For example, Russia's 5th generation fighter jet with India and Brazil. Besides, China has a greater military budget than Russia's. The only difference being, China and India have a highly secretive military program.

Energy: Russia is an energy superpower. No doubt about that.

Politics: China's exerts immense power in East Asia, South East Asia, Central Asia and Africa. India exerts immense influence in South Asia, SE Asia, Middle East and Africa.

Cultural: See Sinosphere and Indosphere.

Economics: China and India are larger than Russia in terms of GDP (PPP) and are the two of the fastest growing large economies.

The problem is American-centrism of this debate. One can easily argue that China exerts a greater global influence than Russia and Russia's dominant role is only restricted to energy politics. If one says Russia is a superpower, then so are China, EU and India. --AI009 (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That is all true. Those where just my views on Russia specifically, not all the potential superpowers. I have nothing against India or China. I have visited China, and met friend there, and I have a Indian friend from university in the Indian Army. I believe Russia is below the US in power, and would probably be below the EU too if it was unified more. I also believe Russia is slightly stronger than China and India, but only slightly. Besides, China, Russia, and India are allies (see Shanghai Cooperation Organization), so I don't understand the issue between citizens of these countries on here. Saruman20 (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

But if you read the statemens by AI009, he even says Russia isn't an energy superpower, to him Russia a superpower nothing. He is making fun of the country and making really ridiculious statements about it. I personnally think this guy is using anti Russian slogans as much as he can but the real issue, he is a hawk when anything is in the Superpower article, the content is gone after something official is posted. No one gets to read anything. I think this is a real entrapment of speech, you can't post the facts at all. I think the Administrators need to put a dog leash on AI009 from attacking people's freedom to speak [88], this is suppose to be a community of current information and I feel I am beatened with this shark erasing the current facts with no control to get him off. A new book just came on the market just last week and I couldn't even post it today, it says the US is not a superpower anymore and gone it went the moment I put it up.[University Georgia Press by Edward A. Kolodziej and Roger E. Kanet">From Superpower to Besieged Global Power. University Georgia Press. Retrieved on May 2008.] Member AI009 didn't even read it, what does that say.

The thing is guys, you on the "Russian side" are just lowering yourselves to his level. You may not like the guy, but your violating just as much policy as he is, and all of you should react with maturty and civility, not get angry and attack him. Don't you see, your making it look as if your just as bad as him, and I'm sure that's not what you want. The point is, we should respect all view points, and let them be present in the article, just as it is now. He may be wrong, he may be right. You may be wrong, you may be right. It doesn't matter, because both views must be presented in the encyclpedia. Saruman20 (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My god, this whole topic is irrelevent and unnecessary. A talk page is a forum for changes to the articles, not attacking other users. This whole section ought needs to be deleted immediately. This violates WP:No personal attacks and WP: Edit war. This needs to stop right now. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. Not only is this unnessicary (because there is already a non-biased sentance in there, as stated below in "Intro section". In my view, you all (AI009,24.180.3.127,Ijanderson977, 64.69.158.252) are guilty, and you guys are all in one pit of filth. Some of you may have been above this, but you've lowered yourselves to each other's level and now you in the same issues. Saruman20 (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL. I don't think I ever resorted to name calling. The only place where I lost my cool was when I expressed my view on Wordpress blog article above. I even think someone claimed above that "I even said Russia was not a energy superpower". Wow. Simply amazing. This is like some planned attack going on me. --AI009 (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, Saruman20 makes me look as the bad guy, despite the fact I haven't made any personal attacks. If removing nationalistic statements from an encyclopedia makes me a "bad guy" then I think the guy who gives other people advise of being mature and civil, needs to first learn a few of them for himself. --AI009 (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you where offended, I wasn't trying to make you look like a "bad guy". I was refering to the fact that none of you are making an attempting to compromise. I don't see what you expect me to do, say "AI009 is more mature however". How would that make the rest feel? I'm trying to stop a edit war here, and I can't pick favorites. If trying to compromise means I "need to learn a few things about maturity and civility" than the guy who says he's not a "bad guy" is making it seem quite to the contrary. Saruman20 (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tried hard to make the concerned ip discuss and when he started discussing, he started calling me all sought of names. How does one expect to have a meaningful discussion, forget reaching compromise, with someone who doesn't even have a pinch of civility? --AI009 (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, what is name calling AI009? I don't see anybody calling anybody names to you but I see your name all over the board or upset people over you completely. You take such serious offenses on the discussion board, you report everybody in for things that don't even match to personal attacks (I suggest you view Youtube to view real personal attacks) then you want people to feel sorry for you? People send you warnings always undoing their edits on superpower and potential superpowers (you erase your warning flags from people, seems common for you), then you tell everybody your right all the time. You can't argue with you because your right all the time and then you cry to Wikipedia managers that your not liked around here. Your business certainly is an offense to others, I read and I see it. It doesn't matter, you’re offended by everything even if your name is never used, you’re offended by a lot of things. Really you've turn the discussion page not about discussing superpowers or potential but about things you have done and somehow you’re still going, going like an energy battery. People come to talk as you tell people to go on the discussions page after you made 100 daily undo's on the superpower and potential superpowers pages then you stay negative, nothing gets resolved. With you there is no end in sight, they is no way to compromise with you (don’t argue this either) but you can’t and will not listen to people. So the way I see it, this entire ordeal on this discussions page is a constant argument and no matter what gets done, your run right back into the managers again, same thing same issue. I take it you’ve never been in bar fight but when you turn the age to drink and you are in the heat of a live argument, you can’t run to a keyboard to write I’ve been attacked, please help me.--75.15.144.72 (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean no offense, but your no better. What has he done that you haven't. It takes two people(or two sides) to have an argument/edit war. To put yourself above him is kind of hypocritical. Your both in the wrong here. You both seem reluctent to attempt any kind of reconiltation or compromise, which is why Duvora has recommended formal mediation. I agree. You are all in the wrong, fighting, edit warring, and getting mad at each other. Not to mention, this is all for nothing! What is wrong with the sentance:

"There is another debate regarding Russia's status as either a superpower <refs supporting Russia as a superpower> or a potential superpower <refs opposing Russia as a superpower>."

That is perfectly non-biased and allows everyone to add referances that support his or her opinion. So why are you guys still fighting! Your all acting like a bunch of little kids, squabbling over something for the sake of fighting, not for any educated reason. I suggest you all improve your maturity and civility before you post something bashing the other for the very same thing you are doing. Saruman20 (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

75.15.144.72, dude I didn't even bother to read whatever you wrote above but I guessed you were singling me out. All I can say is, continue with your childish taunts. --AI009 (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we have to undo all the "AI009" names cross to "Emperor Genius", I mean that's what you've done on content, so lets edit all your AI009 names and keep people informed who you are from your past. We know your hiding as people seem very upset at you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Versace11 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Intro section

While reading the article, I noticed something: the introduction has become a battle ground for edit warring between pro- and anti- Russian people. Now, there is already a better way for doing this to prevent editwarring: "Another topic of debate is regarding the status of the Russian Federation as either a superpower [7][8][9][10][11][12][13] or a potential superpower[14][15][16][17][18]." This sentance discusses the topic in a non-biased way. If you are a "pro-Russian" (you believe Russia is a superpower), add a link/referance here (where it is marked <refhere>) "Another topic of debate is regarding the status of the Russian Federation as either a superpower [7][8][9][10][11][12][13]<refhere> or a potential superpower[14][15][16][17][18]." If you are an "anti-Russian" (you believe Russia is a potential superpower) add a link/referance here. "Another topic of debate is regarding the status of the Russian Federation as either a superpower [7][8][9][10][11][12][13] or a potential superpower[14][15][16][17][18]<refhere>." This is just my non-biased opinion on how to handle things so everyone will be happy and the article will be of a NPOV. Saruman20 (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman20 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Recommend formal mediation

The situation at this talk page has taken a definite downhill slide. Mediation may help. Please refrain from comments about each other's character or politics. What matters here is what recognized experts have to say. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 19:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

So true. Attempts my anyone to compromise this situation have been dashed by continuing personal attacks and edit warring. Hopefully formal mediation will help save this page and article from complete unregulated chaos. I offer my support for requesting formal mediation to this conflict. Saruman20 (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link you may find helpful. Wikipedia:Mediation. Durova^Charge! 19:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted informal mediation along those lines, trying to help them reach an agreement and compromise, but it doesn't seem to be helping. Saruman20 (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. I've requested full page protection. Formal mediation might make a difference; Wikipedia isn't a battleground. Durova^Charge! 21:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, as it was mentioned in the section "This article is a JOKE" on this talk page, it became an article fully biased ignoring experts information and became a battleground in which people try to state about their knowledge of potential growth of a specific country when in fact the most accurate description of their knowledge about a country is not "such and such newspapers say this while such and such reviews ague that" but rahter they can only point the country in the map without fully understanding its potential. There's no specific criteria explaining what makes a country a potential superpower. Also, I'd strongly suggest this page to be deleted because (among many other factors), WP:NOT Wikipedia is NOT A CRISTAL BALL as most of you have noted what this article has became. --Loukinho (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this article can be saved and is worth saving. As stated in WP:NOT wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but, read a bit closer. It is acceptable to have article refering to events in the near future (2010 US sentate elections and 2012 Summer olympics are given as examples) and is this article not refering to something in that time period of the near future? While it may say "in the next century" it is obviously not expected to go all the way. People at the beginning of the 1900s couldn't have possibly suspected the Soviet Union would be a superpower, but they could have suspected the United States could be one considering it was in the near future. Such is the state of this article. However, it is not the article itself that's the problem here. It's the people editing it. While this topic may be kind of attractive to nationalists, it is a useful article. I myself have gone through a political science class, and this might fit the bill for a research paper, as I'm sure any military sociology student would love this article. We must consider the fact that this is an encyclopedia, and should be edited the way we feel is best, not just based on wikipedia policy (see WP:NOT, wikipedia is not a bureacracy). Thus, we must attempt to save the article as we have been, if formal mediation is required, than so be it. Deletion would put a lot of work to waste, and who would it really help? This article is not destructive. It may not be very constructive, but it certainly isn't damaging to wikipedia as a whole. Why not try to save it? Saruman20 (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, strictly on the merits of the WP:NOT issue, the two exceptions to the crystal ball clause you cite are quantitatively different from the issue here: we know that--barring the unlikely destruction of the United States--an election for the United States Senate will take place in 2010; likewise the 2010 Summer Olympics is a scheduled event that has already been in planning for a considerable time. The concept of a potential superpower is much more porous. Durova^Charge! 03:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

While it would be okay to add the 2010 senate elections on a senate-related article and 2008 olympics on an olympic games-related article, those are not substantial proofs but rather claims that it will contribute to this or that nation to become a superpower. But then again, since there is no criteria or characteristics to stablish a superpower, those references are rather superficial and not necessarily notable for this specific article. If there was a consensus, according to several experts or several notable publications that a superpower must have, for example, nuclear power, economic and political stability, equal treatment of its citizens and so forward, then we could start arguing whether this or that country meet those criteria. -- Loukinho (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

But you fail to react to my other argument: wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. While this article may violate some policies, it is overall useful. We must consider from the standpoint of the readers, not the editors. While to us it may look like a giant edit war and violation of policy, a reader could view it as a useful source of information. This is a case where wikipedia policy conflicts with the idea of an encyclpedia (to give information and knowledge to anyone that wishes to learn) and as WP:NOT states, if wikipedia rules prevent the better ment of the encyclpedia you should be able to ignore the rules for the sakes of helping those looking for knowledge. Saruman20 (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As so, we should be including all of the possible superpowers (including even Mexico for example) since there is no particular consensus or, for that matter, no criteria on establishing which country can be considered a possible superpower or not. As for the quest for knowledge, all perspectives and points of view should be properly included, refuted and sourced and thus, all of the countries should be included back again. Otherwise, non-expert information would be the leading basis for the creation of this article and, therefore, should be included the following line: "According to a consensus among wikipedia editors, the following countries are considered potential superpowers:" but then again, that wouldn't agree with what you just mentioned about editors vs readers. -- Loukinho (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If there are adequate sources, then of course include Mexico or any of the others. The issue with there deletion was sourcing, not whenever it was likely or not for them to become superpowers (though some people did react in that way). In my view, this article should remain as it is fundamentaly, besides some reorganization and cleaning up of irrelevant information. I still have yet to see what is truly wrong with this article. Saruman20 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm not aware of any reliable sources citing Mexico as a potential superpower, I saw several reliable sources stating Brazil as a possible superpower, economic power and many others. But then again, since there is no particular criteria (and by that I mean fundamental distinguishable characteristics) to define what it means to be a "potential superpower", there's no point in sourcing things that could lead this or that country to become a superpower. If that was the case, many other countries mentioned in this talk page should be included, because all of them backed those facts with reliable sources. -- Loukinho (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

Seeing the request for page protection, I was considering protecting the page, as there was a lot of edit warring going on. I did, however, see other edits being made as well (unsurprising for such a long article). Another admin beat me to the page protection, but because other editing was going on in the background, I think 6 weeks is excessive. I suggest a reduction in the length, and (as always) lifting the page protection when this is resolved. If this remains unresolved, I suggest letting the page protection expire and that those edit warring are severely warned as to their future conduct after the page protection expires. The other sections of the article shouldn't have to be protected because of a dispute over the bits about Russia (unless there are other disputes as well?). Carcharoth (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Six weeks did seem a bit long when I first saw it, but the situation at this talk page has declined rapidly and steadily. Suggest leaving it in place for now, and urging the editors themselves to reconcile and mediate. It could be a motivating force for them to set things right if the protection itself ends when they reach a reasonable agreement. Durova^Charge! 14:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

For editing disputes, I think six weeks (or indefinite) is best, that way it remains protected until the edit war is over. It can then be listed for unprotection. · AndonicO ^Engage. 15:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Protected until the edit war is over? The protection ends the edit war. What it doesn't do is resolve the disagreement that led to the edit war. It is possible that six weeks will just see the editors go off and do something else, and then come back in six weeks. Meanwhile, other editors are unable to edit the article, though they can watch admins editing it as here, unless that was uncontroversial, or was following an editprotected request or was the admin not realising the page was protected. Also, Durova, you say "It could be a motivating force for them to set things right if the protection itself ends when they reach a reasonable agreement." - as far as I'm aware, protection is always lifted when the disputing parties reach agreement - this is nothing new. Carcharoth (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

So it is, yet if they know it'll end shortly enough whether they work things out or not, that might motivate one or more to simply wait out the duration. If the initial duration had been one month instead of six weeks then I'd be just as content (perhaps a little more so); waffling after the fact sometimes sends the wrong message. As long as the protection lasts as much as it needs to but not longer, the initial duration is academic. Durova^Charge! 00:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as AI009 is running around here narking on people all the time sending blocks and warnings, the article is protected from edit undo dude's. Some people aren't believing the content anymore besides all the arguments on who's a Superpower and who isn't, isn't winning anything. People just want to protect countries like the US from being lowered to another level, like a former superpower. Any new article presented, it gets an undo, really what is the suggestion? Like I said, I don't believe the facts protected or not protected, the facts aren't true. Something’s need to be taken off the map and something’s need to be put on the map. AI009 is one who is taking charge and rejecting everything. So block it, block for a year maybe, so people can leave and find other things to do and in time some new people will come that don't live by there computers 7 days a week 24 hours a days, undoing new content. That's not fair. Skip the mediation, close it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.3.127 (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Request to take down Superpower and Potential Superpowers articles, fed with Corruption

I am making a request that the entire Superpower & Potential Superpowers articles to be removed and take the down by removing the entire content so this issue is gone to request Admin Daniel J. Leivick; remove it for article corruption. We need to eliminate and just kick this whole section out on the curve.

I have just read and read so much corruption on this entire section of Wikipedia which is just all false information on Wikipedia; fed with lies and lack of todays current content by individuals such as AI007 and also some other members feeding corruption into this network that we cannot trust or source or rely on any sort of information to the public's eye on topic's on Superpowers and Potential Superpowers. The sources are horrible but the fact we are getting no where and people should not be using this site for these sources, the information does not add up. The members have ruined this and just have fed false information to anybody with lies and corruption of facts. People have undo'd almost every new source on country's such as Russia the United States and more but the fact it is not true, it is a complete host of lies.

As Admin Daniel J. Leivick has noted, he mentioned we should eliminate this entire section as it stands and their will be no Superpower & Potential Superpowers articles at all. Users just have ruined it for everyone and I can tell you people like AI007 and bla bla bla too, lets close this story and move on.

I favor to eliminate everything out people, there are some good folks here and there are some really bad folks here too but it is a war of false facts and people have made this a video game with content and played with the information as if it is a complete joke because the information is a complete joke, I don't trust any of it.

So lets take this thing down and move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.158.252 (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Although as you say there has been corruption, it has not that bad, and the article has stabilized over the last few days. The edit war has been on the talk page, not the article. These are valuable topics and should not be deleted. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that I did not add any sources to this article. I was the one who was removing references to those newspaper editorials being used as sources in an encyclopedia. Anyways, I have no objections to the current article as it represents both sides of the debate. There is still room for a lot of improvement, but I'm willing to rest my case. --AI009 (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

All this mindless bashing of individuals like AI009. I'm so disgusted that someone would try to "clean up" wikipedia by removing a "corrupt article" while mindlessly attacking another user. AI009 has done nothing that you haven't. You, him, and all the other who are involved in this edit war are the source of the corruption, so why blame the article for your wrongs? The article now is non-biased. It demonstrates both viewpoints. The only problem you have with it is that is actually (*gasp*) states the viewpoint opposite to you, instead of just your view alone. Why would superpower be deleted anyway? That's disgraceful. A superpower is a major point of global politics and has been included in every encyclopedia I've ever read. While I can understand the problem with "potential superpowers", the superpower topic is completely nessicary, stable, and fine. Sure, these article could be improved, but so could many wikipedia articles. I say keep it. Deleted something without even bothing to try to fix it or compromise with another person is downright cowardly and dispicable. Saruman20 (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I favor the postion to delete the whole thing. Really there is no agreement here, everybody is arguing by this is an entire monopoly of people who prove nothing but anti Russia. AI009 tells everybody to talk, talk some more, take more please, then consensus it and the end result is negative undo's. No case, nothing is agreed and personally the references are really outdated and say nothing about Russia as a superpower[89] or the US's current former superpower status[90], facts like these are deleted. Try to make a consensus argument, it is not going to happen. There are people on here that are pro America not matter what the position is, pro America. What I have viewed and see also myself as what 64.69.158.252 said, it is corrupt, he doesn't trust the information, I don't turst the information and many don't ever. You guys are defending it because you are defending the corruption as it lays now. You want it and you want people to read what you believe, not the references, that's why it really is corrupted.--24.176.166.135 (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

AI009 making the comment: "It should be noted that I did not add any sources to this article. I was the one who was removing references to those newspaper editorials being used as sources in an encyclopedia"... Not so, I just looked over the last 3 days what you’ve done, you have removed just about everything on your list, you oppose all content, plan old content, you just don't accept the truth, you disagree with these new edits. Its not that you don’t agree it is you have a big thing about Superpowers, you want a certain Superpower on your mind, I think you want India for some reason or the US to remain a Superpower because you have removed every confrontation article source on the United States. Why are you defending this, is this a job for you, are you getting paid to defend the US to remain as superpower? What is your point? Your not American. Whatever it is, I don’t care, I care about what it says and if it is the truth or not but when I see your name, I know there is a problem not a fix but a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.3.127 (talk) 04:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Alrite, I changed my name. That should make you feel better now. LOL. Your comments make absolutely no sense. When did I say India was a superpower? How did India even enter this debate? And I have repeatedly said I am against nationalistic statements.. be it Russian, American or Indian. Saying "Russia is a superpower and US is not" is a nationalistic statement. Let me put a counter-question to you: Why are you adding nationalistic statements to Wikipedia? Citing newspaper editorials and opinions in an encyclopedia to back your claims is ridiculous. I understand that you want to portray your native country as this superpower but someone would have reverted all that bs anyways. Personal opinions don't matter in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia is all about credible, well-researched academic work. In this case, by citing newspaper editorials you are only decreasing the credibility of Wikipedia. To end, the article in its current shape is un-biased and represents all sides of the debate. So, I don't think any of us should have problems with it. --Emperor Genius (talk) 05:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If the article is corrupt, why not try to fix it? Why just delete it. If your going to live in the big boy world, you need to know how to work out your problems instead of just running to tell on the other person. Both you and AI009 are just as corrupt. Niether of you is better than the other. You are just as bad as AI009, and this makes me think you might even be worse. The corruption is your fault, not the articles. Saruman20 (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I am corrupt for removing nationalistic statements from an encyclopedia read by thousands of people everyday? Thanks for the compliment. --Emperor Genius (talk) 05:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You and AI009 have bothed claimed that you are "removing nationalistic statements". Who are we supposed to believe? This is pure madness. You and AI009 are the same, don't you realize that? YOu say he is corrupt and nationalistic, yet you do THE EXACT SAME THING as him. I'm getting tired of this fight between you guys. I think that it's obvious for anyone who's "neutral" to see that this isn't getting anywhere. Please, just leave it alone. If you really hate AI009 that much, just don't bother posting here. Move on. Go edit other articles please. This article is protected, you can't even edit, so why are you guys even bothing to continue this fight? Saruman20 (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh.. if you didn't realize, I'm AI009. I just changed my username. --Emperor Genius (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

the

Oh, sorry, I thought one of those IPs had finally registered. However, just replace the "AI009"s with one of their names in the above post by me. The point remains: I think all of you are being quite stupid. At first as I sympathised with you AI009/Emperor Genius, then I began to sypmathise with those on the "Russian side", now I don't know who is at fault. You all seem to be doing the same thing: edit warring. I can understand how you view this as removing nationalistic crap (because that is what they are adding to the article), but you have yet to realize that you you can't win. They will just revert you edits, then you will revert theirs. When will it end!?! Compromise is the only way this can be solved, and niether you nor them seem willing to accept it. As far as I'm concerned, you all should grow up and solve problems like civilized human beings (this is a blanket statement, I realize that some of the people involved are more mature than others, but as I've said before, no picking favorites while trying to compromise). Saruman20 (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Potential superpowers map- U.S.

There is no writing on the US been a superpower even though it is included in the map. I suggest a new section to be added to the article on the US or otherwise the US should be removed from the map. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The US should be removed from the map. This article is about potential superpowers. The United States is indisputably an established superpower. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, the US is now positioned as a former superpower, listen to Lou Dobbs & Glenn Beck on CNN, they have even said it on the air this year[91]

[92] [93] but Hobie Hunter, aren't you one of those guys defending the corruption along with AI009 that the US is a superpower everything? I think I heard you said that many times without facts. Ijanderson977 is right, there is no news that the US is still a current superpower but you have stated a lot of anti Russian tactics as Russia is not a superpower (which your wrong on that one[94][95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] ) and you haven't even back that up either. I think the US should be removed off the map as a superpower[101] [102] [103] (oh here's come AI009 to the rescue), there is no information as it is, so it really isn't a superpower because being a superpower also means having an up keep of information on the media's and their is no facts of that either which so far has not been brought up in some of these old 1990 articles you continue to use again and over again. Remove it off the map please, I favor and I vote yes to remove it. Keeping it is part of the corruption we have here and yes we have a lot of phony facts right now.

when spamming tons of links as sources be careful to actually read them. None of these sources simultaneously recognise Russia as a superpower while denying that status to the US. In fact one of the articles [104] even says Russia actually is not a budding superpower ­ it is merely a former superpower re-emerging as a credible, equal partner of the other global powers ­ the US, EU and China., or in other words flatly declares that Russia is not only no longer a superpower but also is not a budding superpower. Later the same article says the picture that emerges is one of a global energy superpower, capable in many ways to counter the might of present-day sole superpower ­ the United States.

So that article at least clearly contends that the US is currently a superpower and russia is a former superpower that is not a budding superpower. Hardly the point you seem to be citing it for. I suspect it was the title of the article The re-emerging Russian superpower that mislead you but after reading the article it is clear that the article is commenting on the notion of Russia as a superpower rather than endorsing that as it's own conclusion.Zebulin (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To say Russia is a superpower while the US is not is pure madness. While I live in Russia, I find it understandable that someone might say they are both superpowers, or that neither are superpowers, but they are at most equal in power. Russia is definatly not stronger than the US at the current time. Either the US is stronger, or they are equal in power. While the US is declining, we are talking CURRENT MOMENT here. Russia has a good chance (a very good chance) to surpass the US IN THE FUTURE, but as of today, no. You can find plenty of articles saying the US is no longer a superpower, but have to ever considered the fact that people wouldn't even be publishing articles saying the US isn't a superpower unless most people thought is was. Mainstream media isn't a reliable source, get some real sources and we can talk. Saruman20 (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To Mr. Unsigned User: First of all, please sign your name by typing with four titles with the rest of us. You have nothing to hide. It isn't "corruption" to state that the U.S. is a superpower. It has the world's largest economy by far, the largest political influence of any single country, and the planet's largest military spending and capabilities of any nation. A superpower by definition is a nation with a leading position in the international system and can project power to any region of the world. Something the US can and Russia can't (at least not now). Furthermore, I have remained objective and neutral in that little edit war the Russian forces and everyone else. Thirdly, news isn't a reliable source its subject to short-sidedness, spin, and nationalistic opinions (such as some of your Russian sources. Fourthly, there is no such thing as a phony facts. Facts by definition can be proved or disproved. Finally, you repeat and stuff your sources several times. Saurman, while I agree that mainstream media isn't a reliable source, he doesn't cite mainstream media. Those are fringe sources. People will publish articles claiming anything, not just the conventional wisdom. That would be BBC, NY Times, Newsweek, Time, the AP, Washington Post, etc. The conventional wisdom is that the US is a superpower. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

So true. I think it is simple for anyone who is "neutral" in this edit war to see how feable and pointless it really is. Not to mention the page is protected, so why the hell are you people still arguing. I'm losing my patience fast. If you guys really cared about the encyclopedia you would drop it and leave it alone. Saruman20 (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well how about we right a draft for the US been a potential super power.
There isn't really a criteria for superpower. So who's to say the USA is a superpower. Yes the USA and USSR were superpowers. But that all ended well over 15 years ago. The worlds a different place. The USA has changed, is it still classed as a superpower. I mean other potential super powers are better than the US is some ways. For Example the EU has a higher GDP than the US. Russia has 3 times more nukes than the US and has more natural resources. Chine has a bigger military and a bigger population. India has a bigger population. I think the USA should have a place on this article. Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Above you accused people of being biased. It didn't surprise me to find out, on your userpage, that you seem to have a lot of hatred towards the United States. Is that why you are trying to challenge its superpower status? - PietervHuis (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Russia already a superpower? What kind of ultranationalistic POV is that? None of the sources presented state that Russia is already a superpower or has been the past few years. If Russia is a superpower right now than many others would be a superpower too, with a similar amount of GDP or more and nuclear weapons. The UK?? The sources presented mention Russia as a POTENTIAL superpower, which means that it's NOT A SUPERPOWER YET. There's a hundred more sources that state this. I can only find a single source presented that describes Russia as being a superpower today, and it happens to be an interpretation from a Russian newspaper. An energy superpower does not mean that it's a superpower in general. Otherwise I can Saudi Arabia too. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummmm its POV to say that any country is a superpower. There is no hate towards America on my user page. I've never said that Russia is a superpower, ive just said arguably a superpower and that it has characteristics of been a superpower. Personally i don't think Russia will be a superpower for at least 20 years. And that is optimistic.

But what makes the US a superpower compared to the other "Potential Superpowers". All i was saying was that shouldnt the US be removed from the map. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the paragraph about Russia wasn't aimed at you. But it's quite absurd to question if the USA is a superpower. You admitted both the US and the Soviet Union as superpowers, and then state that something changed in both these powers. The Soviet Union indeed collapsed, and Russia isn't even half the population of the former Soviet Union. But what changed in the United States? Nothing at all. If people like it or not, the USA is a superpower. If it will remain as such is unknown, but they will certainly have to challenge the emerging superpowers. - PietervHuis (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ijanderson977, you seem to have a lot of anti-American bias on your user page. I hate to break it to, but the US is still a superpower. A superpower is defined as "a state with a leading position in the international system and the ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale". The US indisput ably fulfills both criteria. You mentioned several potential superpowers as being "better" than the US at certain areas. You say that the EU has a (slightly) higher GDP than the US. Not bad for 27 countries combined. However, it has 27 foreign policies and no common military, as well as poor energy resources such as oil and natural gas. You say "Russia has 3 times more nukes than the US". Thats simply untrue. Russia has 6,681 active warheads and the U.S. has 5,735 active warheads. You state that India and China have larger populations than the U.S. A population has to be fed, clothed, housed, educated, transported, and found suitable jobs to be an asset to acountry. Otherwise, its a liability. And in China and India, there are hundreds of millions of perople languishing in povery and ineffective government. Your arguments are flawed. And to thiose whom claim that Russia is a superpower while the US is not, the US has an economy 12 times larger than Russia. You all should think that over --Hobie Hunter (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was not really saying the US was no longer a super power. I was questioning it status as a super power. Just questioning it and is it starting to decline? My main argument originally was that we should remove the US from the map as it is not a Potential Superpower as it is a full-superpower.

By the way the EU also has a single foreign policy as well as for each country. And from 1 January 2009 the EU will be a military defense and will have an elected president too. I can't see anti America bias on my page. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Also how do we tell if one of the "potentials" make it as a superpower? Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's the box on your userpage in which you "support iraqi insurgency" which makes you look anti-american, although I guess you also justify attacks on british troops? But that's a different debate. I too have high hopes for the EU, but there's no guarantee that any of the potential superpowers will make it a superpower, hence the word potential. Generally criteria to be a superpower is measured on how much the power is able to influince politics worldwide. - PietervHuis (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No no i disagree with the British invasion of Iraq too. And that of every NATO country in Iraq. I support the Iraqis because the UK, USA and NATO illegally invaded Iraq for no "real" reason. Lets go back to superpowers. If the US is such as superior superpower, how come it can not control the situation in Iraq with the help of NATO. This is a reason for me questioning the US's status as a superpower. I mean if the US became at war with any of the "potential superpowers" (not so much EU, however when Turkey Joins), what would happen? The US would not win just because it has the "label" of been a superpower. it would be a military stalemate. Thats why im saying, why are these not classed as superpowers.

Russia managed to see off NATO at the last NATO summit in Bucharest in April, when NATO dared talk about the possibility of Ukraine and Georgia becoming members. To me thats a lot of political power Russia has, as it was able to stop NATO from discussing enlargement. There are many parts of the world where the US has no political influence/ power Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

People, people, why are we fighting? Doesn't the article say that "it is a matter of debate whenever or not the US is becoming a former superpower" and "Another debate is Russia's status as either a superpower or a potential superpower", or something along those lines. All viewpoints are represented. Why would the US be added as a potential superpower? Even if it's not a superpower, than it would be going down, not up (potential would mean it's rising and could soon be a superpower, so how could a country that supposedly fell from superpower status be rising back up so soon...). This whole argument doesn't even make sense. Also, I "support iraqi insurgency", as I support the right of any country to resists an invading force, that does not mean I am "anti-American", I simply disagree with certain aspects of American foriegn policy. But, personal opinion on a country SHOULD NOT EFFECT YOUR EDITS! You should edit based on facts and resources, not on personal opinion. Saruman20 (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats what im saying. Its POV to say if i a country is a superpower, a potential superpower or not a superpower. This article can not be NPOV. However i dont want it deleting. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It is POV to say what a country's status is based on personal opinion. But this article can still be NPOV, by represented all opinions that are backed up by sources. Saruman20 (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes but these sources are POV or are interpreted to suit someones POV. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is why you include sources from the opposite POV. :P Saruman20 (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not the case on this article as everyone pounced on me for suggesting that the USA may not be a superpower any more. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't blame people, we've had a lot of vandals and nationalists screwing with the article, everyone is on the lookout for potential harm. Saruman20 (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur with [Ijanderson977], we need to discuss if the US is still a superpower as there are 2008 facts that are positing it as former superpower, so this is an issue but also Russia's stance as a superpower standing now. He is right, to take the US off the superpower map is by several reasons: """[quote] Is the United States a Superpower? A superpower presumably is able either to impose its preferences on other states or to elicit their support The United States does not meet this test:

• A superpower should be able to:

(1) to impose its preferences for global order on adversaries coercively or, (2) to elicit the consent for its preferred vision of global order from allies The Bush Doctrine has failed on both counts

• Is the United States a Superpower?

A superpower presumably is able either to impose its preferences on other states or to elicit their support. The United States does not meet this test:

1. Yet the United remains a formidable global power , 2. Its military is the most powerful (Russia is number 2), 3. Its economy is still the largest at $13 trillion in GDP (but soon to lose against China) 3. Its population is well educated and creative 4. It has impressive hard and soft power to negotiate a global environment favorable to its interests, but it cannot command others to do its will absent concessions to their interests and power"""[105]

I also think it is interesting that the Chinese are calling Russia superpower on television[106]too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Versace11 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

But the Putin Doctrine isn't doing Russia any good either. Russia is no more successful in foreign policy, so they are either both superpowers, or niether. Saruman20 (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for Semi-Protection

The page should be downgraded from protection to semi-protection. Most of those adding nationalist content, faulty sources, and just plain falsehoods have been IPs. Semi-protection would block the troublesome, nationalistic IPs and allow established users to edit the page. Besides, six weeks of protection seems to be overboard. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a good way to solve things. However, I find it likely that some of the IPs will just register, and that the edit war will begin anew between registered editors. But, it seems better than a full protection, as this page could obviously be improved and now we are unable to do that for six weeks. Saruman20 (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

While some IPs may registers, others most likely won't. They wouldn't want to be able to be identified. Are there any admins on here who can change the status? --Hobie Hunter (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I asked for full protection for a reason. We're not just dealing with random IP vandalism here. There's an actual edit war and a dispute including a devoted IP editor. Lack of registration shouldn't be gamed to advantage one side over another. Work it out. Durova^Charge! 00:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• disagree We are in no rush. We still have things to discuss. Such as the USA's position as a superpower. Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur with [Ijanderson977], we need to discuss if the US is still a superpower as there are 2008 facts that are positing it as former superpower, so this is an issue but also Russia's stance as a superpower standing now.--Versace11 (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Union of South American Nations

To some USAN could be classed as a "potential" superpower. It is only new at the moment, however imagine it in 10 or 20 years. It could be a superpower then. I think this could be on the article. Also Brazil did used to be on this page. Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Brazil used to be here, but that was a very generous and nationalistic addition and was removed for a reason. USAN? First I've heard of anything like this. Maybe the African Union is a potential superpower too, eh? They are simply ATTEMPTS to replicate the success of the EU. They do not have true political unity (even less so than the EU). Plus, many of the countries in the AU and USAN are fighting each other. A multi-national, continent wide alliance can't last if half of the member states are enemies. The EU has worked because of existing power amongst member states, aswell as decades of peace and cooperation between nations in that region. AU and USAN simply do not have that. We would all love Africa and South America to be unified, but it's not happening anytime soon. Not to mention, if you can find me a single source suggesting USAN as a potential superpower or superpower, fill me in. Saruman20 (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As i said. USAN isnt even a month old. I said think about it 10-20 years time. Is it a potential superpower. As to the AU, i think we should review its case as a potential superpower in about 100 years time. To be fair, Africa is the richest continent in natural resources. So who knows. I was just raising the point of USAN been a potential superpower. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, your right there, in 10-20 years. But we have to wait 10-20 years to add it here then. When sources begin to suggest it as a potential superpower we will add it here, but for now we have to wait. Saruman20 (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No i mean its a potential superpower now and that in 20 years it could be a superpower. Thats why its potential. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Something that has only been around a month can't be a potential superpower...show me the sources. Saruman20 (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont have any. As i dont expect there do be any and i have not searched. Maybe in a year or so i might. So you are telling me if a North American Union came into existance it would not be a potential superpower as it is only a month old? The thing with USAR is it has combined political, economic and military strength. Therefore arguably a potential superpower. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The North American Union is a completely different case, as one of their members is already a superpower (or a very recently former superpower), something South America doesn't have. It may have economic, political, and military strength, but that strengh is turned against each other. Not to long ago there was a major situation between Columbia and Venezeula that could possibly of led to military confrontation. Not a good start if you ask me. Not to mention the rampant corruption and inflation in half of those countries. Brazil and Venezeula are the only true powers in there. But, once again, we would have to wait a year to put it on here before sources come out suggesting it. Saruman20 (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:V, WP:RS

The discussion at this talk page suggests a collective misunderstanding. What matters is not what some small pool of Wikipedia editors think, but what recognized experts think. Recommend a two step process to get this article back on track.

1. Agree upon objective standards about what sort of sources are relevant here. Recentism is a legitimate concern. How should news reports be balanced against scholarly studies?

2. Wikipedia's function is to represent all notable points of view according to the weight that recognized experts give to the idea. So it is not our function to decide editorially whether the United States (or any other country) is an actual or a potential superpower. The thing to do for each country is to summarize the school of thought that supports each view, along with citations to the reputable sources that advocate it.

3. It's sources that matter. Discussion here should be bringing specific citations to bear.

Regards, Durova^Charge! 22:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly (exept it's a three step process, not two :P). Just above, someone suggesting adding something, and admitted to having no sources. We are all entitled to our opinions, but experts opinions have much more wait. While there is nothing wrong with discussing such things on here, they should not affect your edits. Sources should matter. Just like I've said so many times before. Compromise that represents all views must be done, just like in intro paragraph where it presents both views on the Russia debate. In my view, scholary studies are more important than news reports, as leaders and reporters bluster about, playing things up to be much more serious than they really are. Saruman20 (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit stronger than that, actually: sources do and must matter. This is the core of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. See also Wikipedia:No original research. These are longstanding policies, not polite suggestions. Durova^Charge! 13:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That' what I just said...sources matter. Saruman20 (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Time to archive?

Hey everyone, I'm thinking it's about time we archive this page. It is already 256kb long and there are over 46 topics now. This talk page is growing pretty fast so we're going to have to do it sooner or later. If no one has any reservations I'll go ahead and do it. --Mad Max (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. Saruman20 (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.