Talk:Superpower/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Re: "Superpowers in History"

From my understanding, most people in a position of authority on the matter do not retroactively apply the term 'superpower' to any of the states listed, or indeed any country before the 20th century. A superpower is supposed to be able to exercise power on a global scale, which is what makes them different from normal world powers. Before a suitable level of technology was obtained, this was simply not possible for any of histories previous powers, which would seem to delegate them to mere world power status. As an example, both Rome and China were expansive powers at the same time, but there was no significant interaction between the two because neither was able to project power to the others part of the world. It seems unfair and inaccurate to label either a superpower using the common definition (stated at the beginning of the article). Of all those listed, only Britain might be able to justify a claim on being retroactively granted the title of 'superpower,' but even their power-projection capabilities were severely limited in many parts of the world.

[edit: I just recently spoke to a couple Political Scientists, and they both agreed that the term Superpower can not be applied to any country prior to WWII, that those countries were only 'Great Powers']

While what you're saying is completely true, the term superpower can be applied to Rome, Ancient China et al because they had power similar to that of say the US and the USSR in terms of their region. For example Rome could never project their power globally because they believed the area after Gibraltar was the end of the world! You get that point that it's a relative wording. --JDnCoke 15:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the potential superpowers in the world including the PRC, India, Brazil and the EU only. Russia should also be considered as one of them due to its large area and population. Its economy is growing fast too. Besides, it is one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Concil which marks its notable political influence in the world.

I just wanna say this is extremely American. Meaning, get your head out of your ass and realize the superpowers before America. Mike Sarfati

Extremely stupid. The title of the article is "Superpower", not "Post USSR collapse American foreign politics". Someone please rewrite this! -217.215.132.201

Anthere, do you really think we need those two links here? They are both included in the Second Superpower article. -º¡º

yes I think so. Hum...let's wait to see what happens with that meme before any further move. ant
However, many observers of the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq would conclude that the US military has proven its ability to resoundingly defeat enemies who are using asymmetric tactics. Likewise, the large number of Al-Qaeda arrested and the fact that their have been no major terrorist attacks on US soil since the War on Terror began demonstrate that conducting global terrorism is very difficult and subject to substantial disruption by an enemy with superpower resources.

See comments above - this article should be about superpowers in general, over all history - not about a couple of US wars in the last couple of years. Further these "counterpoints" are at best peripheral - they do not rebut the preceding paragraphs... Martin 13:35 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

China does not have a "small nuclear deterrance". It's the world's third nuclear power. Isn't it? - Yves Marques Teixeira

I think that France is the world's third nuclear power, and China is fourth.--Todd Kloos 04:48, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I reverted the following version by Finlander, with a critique of it on their talk. My critique's shortcomings reflect mostly my carelessly tripping over their pose of (two versions of) it being primarily abt the desirability of substituting "United States of America" for "America". (Absurd, pointless here, and POV, IMO, but also in any case a red herring here.)

United States of America was allegedly attacked by the Islamist terrorist network Al-Qaida in 2001. The event resulted in a new policy of fighting a perpetual "War on Terrorism" world-wide. First the Taliban government in Afghanistan was brought down, and in the early 2003 Iraq was invaded and the regime of Saddam Hussein dismantled.

My attention is going elsewhere; perhaps someone who follows this article can edit-for-the-enemy with Finlander. --Jerzy 09:49, 2004 Jan 4 (UTC)

Contents

Material Moved from the Article

The following text is the result of two edits on Superpower summarized as "removed editorializations" and "toned down anti-US editorialising". Whether or not those are accurate descriptions, they left the article less encyclopedic and considerably more muddled: a worse article. I am inclined to think there are PoV problems in the text i am reverting back into Superpower, but these 4 'graphs are not (in their present form) nothing like a solution. Someone may want to work on them here on Talk:Superpower, toward clear versions that could replace, or be grafted in with, the reverted text and any incremental improvements on the reverted text that may be made in the meantime. --Jerzy 06:39, 2004 Jan 12 (UTC)

America's position as the sole superpower

reflexive historical analysis of the United States position describes the current state of affairs as the Pax Americana, with the United States as self-claimed guarantor of world peace (paralell to the Pax Roma when Rome ruled the known world). Harsher critics say that America is acting as an imperialist nation, though this all hinges on the definition of what constitutes imperialism in the 21st century.

The United States global power is in contrast to its flirtations of isolationism with respect to global affairs outside the Western Hemisphere at various times in the first half of the 20th century, particularly between the World Wars.

American power abroad

America's position as a superpower has involved it in almost every major conflict world-wide since 1917, including Europe, Asia, South-East Asia, and the Middle East. Some would call these "engagements", others "entanglements".

Defenders of American foreign policy regard their interventions as forced on them by moral necessity or lately as self-defence. One simplistic analysis paints world affairs in moral terms, with "good guys" and "bad guys", which then becomes fuel for propoganda to the American public. Another analysis puts world affairs in straight power-politics, where action is determined by realpolitik and moral equivalence. US foreign policy has always been a mix of these analyses, depending on Presidential style, relative regional power structures, and stated goals (or lack thereof).

(The two preceding subsections moved from article by Jerzy 06:39, 2004 Jan 12 (UTC); see #Material Moved from from the Article.)

My User:Davejenk1ns only attempt with the edits was to remove some glaring sarcasm and a tone of cyncism toward US power abroad. Nevermind personal political positions-- the term "entanglement" is loaded. Also, how can an author here accurately sum up US foreign policy into a simplistic goodguy/badguy paradigm so easily? Again-- sarcasm and cynicism.

I must agree with the comments above that this article must be reworked toward the concept of "superpower", and not cheap diatribes for/against US foreign policy post 1991.

The more I read the article, the stronger it gets if we simply remove the stuff from the table of contents on down:

  • 1. Yes, US is the sole superpower, but any ramifications/reasons/evil/good that comes from that doesn't belong here.
  • 2. American Power Abroad should be a clinical listing of bases and/or manpower, not editorialising on why or the thinking of how (unless someone can raise John Foster Dulles from the grave and convince him to write the paragraph)
  • 3. The asymetric war stuff may be alright, but only as a link to another article
  • 4. Potential Superpowers? no. First of all, the term may not apply anymore, and if there are that many, then they are no longer "super".

Move here, since most of this seems to be incorrect. First of all there is the problem that asymmetric warfare is being used as a synonym for terrorism. Second, effective measures against terrorism (and for that matter guerrilla warfare) are not particularly hard to construct. They generally require the cooperation of the host population, but this is often readily available (especially when you are dealing with the homeland).

Superpowers and asymmetric warfare

Whilst a superpower is in a position to win any all-out war against a lesser power, it is less able to fight an asymmetric war against a weaker opponent that is willing to use terrorist tactics. In this case, the extensive civilian, industrial and military assets of the superpower provide a wide range of targets to an enemy which is willing to attack from hiding without notice.

Military strategists have anticipated this situation for many years, but effective measures against asymmetric warfare have been hard to construct.

  • Traditional military methods have little effect, as terrorists can hide among the civilian population.
  • Democratic powers may exhibit reluctance to use weapons of mass destruction.
  • Police tactics are only likely to succeed with the co-operation of the community from which the terrorists come - and heavy-handed police or military behavior will tend to radicalize host communities, increasing support for terrorists.

EU bigger economy?

The recent change has the EU as the largest economy-- from what I understand, the US is around $11 Trillion, whilst the EU was around $8.5T... did I miss something?Davejenk1ns 11:50, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Euro has gained in value relative to the dollar by about 60% over the last 4 years, and several new countries have been incorporated into the EU. At the current exchange rate, the EU economy would be about $12.5-13 trillion.--Todd Kloos 19:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia's list of GDP (PPP) by Country ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29 ) The EU has the second largest economy when measured in International Dollars. .--Fred_Fury
It depends on the measure you use. Wikipedia uses the International Monetary Fund for its GDP values. For example, using Gross Domestic Product Nominal the EU has the largest economy of in the world at 12,865,602 millions of $USD, while the US is at 11,734,300 millions of $USD. Using Gross Domestic Product PPP the EU is still ahead, though by much less of a margin: EU, 11,723,816 millions of International Dollars (ID), the US 11,605,185 millions of ID. Other economics indicators such as trade put the EU ahead with a total of 20% of world trade (as opposed to 18% for the US), the US also has a large trade deficit, the EU has a surplus. However US growth is higher. I'd say both blocs are equivilents on an economic scale, though the US is by far and away the world's largest economy for any one country. --JDnCoke 16:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

EU - A Super Power-NOT

I say not hardly. The EU is a Confederation or an alliance. Run by the Germans and the French (same difference, the French are Germans who speak a corrupt form of Latin). They can not decide on a common currency. Many of the member countries are almost third world if not so. The French and Germans are amongst the biggest debtor nations in the world. What about the former east bloc countries? Many of whom are disgusted with socialism in all its forms and are tacit alolies of the US. What about the smaller Western European countries who remember French and German Imperialism and want the US to stay involved in Europe? What about the Europhiles in US politics who would like to see the US involved in the EU in one way or another. What about the French attempt to revive the defunct Western European Union to replace NATO as the perceived Military arm of the EU. Which it is not. The EU got away from the Franco-German control and is now in the hands of the more US friendly countries, which include most of the newer members. The EU is just that, a Union, it is not the United States of Europe and it will not become so in our lifetimes as the rest of Europe remembers life before.--Tomtom 17:50, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hey, shitface, I, as part German, take serious offense to being lumped with the French! 66.205.108.8 05:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If you take anything you wrote seriously then you are a very naive and bigoted person TomTom - Aneditortypeguy

A rather unnecessary diatribe TomTom, most political analysts would agree that the EU has some superpower potential, probably second only to China if you listed potential qualitively. For example, Niall Ferguson, in his Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire dedicated an entire chapter to the possibility of the EU attaining superpower status, however I personally do not believe the EU would become one in the sense of the word we know now, it would be more of an Impire than Empire. --JDnCoke 16:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Aneditortypeguy

Initial posting by User:Aneditortypeguy moved from User talk:Lowellian to here. --Lowellian 16:31, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC):

Why do you see it fit to dedicate the page superpower to American foreign policy? Yes, the United States maybe the only military superpower currently in the World but that does not mean that wherever superpower is mentioned so too must American foreign policy.
Please leave the page superpower as it is, I have edited to better describe the term. --User:Aneditortypeguy

User:Aneditortypeguy, please sign your comments. You can do so by typing "~~~~". I have done so for the comment you posted on my page (and BTW, I almost missed your comment since you added it to the middle of the page rather than the new comments section; please read the notice on my user page about how to get my attention) which I have moved here, since your post is about this article. I reverted your edits for a number of reasons:

  1. Spelling errors ("concludsion", "lable", "millenium", etc.)
  2. Stylistic errors (capitalizing "World", "Medieval European Empires")
  3. POV statements (the EU "possesses the World's largest and strongest economy")
  4. The dewikification of much of the article.
  5. The movement of InterWiki links from the bottom to the top of the article. See Wikipedia:Interlanguage links.
  6. Most importantly, you completely rewrote an article which had been arrived at over time by many users without posting any justification for your edits. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Please read and check out the links on Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers, and while it is true that you should be bold in updating pages, as that page also recommends, do not be reckless in doing so.

Also, please do not make personal attacks on users. Calling User:Tomtom a "very naive and bigoted person" does not help anyone. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Try reading the article again. The page is not dedicated to "American foreign policy." It is about what a "superpower" is. Wikipedia will welcome your contributions, but please try to work with what has already been written, especially on a page that has already been worked on by many experienced users, rather than just rewriting it completely.

--Lowellian 16:31, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

How did this come back in?

I`m sorry, but did I miss a meeting or something? I thought we had all come to a a tacit agreement to leave the Pax Americana stuff off this page until a) a reasonable structure could be worked out, b) some workable text could be written. All I see here is a re-insertion of the old text, which is flame-baiting, slanted (both ways), and rife with non-sequitors and assumptions. Moreover, the grammar is piss-poor. For example, nations cannot declare themselves superpowers-- only media, commentators, and political essayists can do so, which views then become generally accepted. Just as the Iron Curtain did not declare itself, but was rather a metaphor used by Churchill (in a citable speech) and then taken up by everyone else, the term Superpower is a perception, not a hard-fast rule or self-declaration. I do not want to start another edit war, but I think we had better remove these recent paragraphs back into the discussion page. - User:Davejenk1ns

removed text re: American foriegn policy

This text was on the page a while ago, but removed after a fair amount of discussion. It is slanted, assumptive, and off-topic. Self-claimed garantor? "It has been argued"? passive voice as well as uncited argument? Why refrence to all the wars? How does that aid the definition of Superpower? How does the moral arguments around US foreign policy aid this definition? (yes, I contributed to that text...) What does 9/11 have to do with being a superpower?Davejenk1ns 00:20, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

America's position as the sole superpower

Both critics and some supporters of the United States describe the current state of affairs as the Pax Americana, with the United States as self-claimed guarantor of world peace. It has been argued that America is acting as an imperialist nation.

This is in contrast to its position of isolationism with respect to global affairs outside the Western Hemisphere at various times in the first half of the 20th century, particularly between the World Wars.

American power abroad

America's position as a superpower has involved it in almost every major conflict world-wide since 1917, including WWI, WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam War, sporadic violence in the Middle East in regards to Israel, and most recently the Gulf War and Iraqi War.

Defenders of American foreign policy regard their interventions as forced on them by moral necessity or lately as self-defence. These actions are generally portrayed in moral terms, with "good guys" and "bad guys", but the actual policy motivators may be realpolitik and moral equivalence.

America was attacked by the Islamist terrorist network Al-Qaida in 2001, and is now fighting a "War on Terrorism" world-wide. In early 2003, America invaded Iraq and dismantled the regime of Saddam Hussein, though critics charge that the invasion of Saddam Hussein was not related to the "War on Terrorism".

Trade blockade text

Its relative wealth and dominance on the global market are important reasons why the United States is considered a superpower. Ending up on the opposite side of the United States in a conflict can lead to trade blockades, and is avoided because of this dominance.

I would rather not see this paragraph in there: The first sentence is a repeat of a statement made earlier, and the sencond sentence is pretty far-fetched, as if trade blockades happen at the drop of a hat (they don't). I agree it is better than that food-dominance goofiness listed previously, but the salient question remains: does the text help someone understand what the word Superpower means, or is it a cheap shot at the US?Davejenk1ns 23:32, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Actually, I didn't mean for it to sound like a cheap shot at the U.S. And the anonymous user who wrote the old paragraph _certainly_ didn't mean for it to sound like that. He probably considers himself a great american "patriot". Anyway, I'm quite content with the paragraph being left out of the article. — David Remahl 23:39, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No, I didn't think your text was a cheap shot. I use that phrase as the acid test for NPOV or biased stuff. If I read a sentence and it doesn't seem to fit, I ask myself that basic question (replacing US with Japan, Kennedy, insert noun here). America as Superpower is such a minefield to start with-- any overt power vein associated with the US becomes an instant lightning rod for blind support or marxist critique (IMHO). We just need to state facts, here. Certainly we can state common wisdom or current theories about power, but those should be states as such: theories or interpretations. Davejenk1ns 01:04, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Creeping bias

There seems to be some sort of creeping bias here over the Potential Superpowers section. Eg.

"China, which has limited nuclear capabilities, a large but obsolete military, the world's largest population, and a large and growing economy (2nd largest in PPP)."

"India, which has a population of over a billion, a powerful nuclear and conventional arsenal, as well as a thriving economy (4th largest in PPP)."

From the basis of this, the reader may get the impression that India has a more powerful military than China, which is simply incorrect. India's nuclear capability is very new, and compared to the massive Chinese deployment, very weak and short ranged.--Fangz 01:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

China's military has also been modernized a lot over the last few years. I am not sure if it is fair to say that it is obsolete since it seems to have about the same level of technology as India does.
We also need to think about these potential superpowers some more. Several of them have been steadily growing in power. How do we decide when one of the potential superpowers becomes an actual superpower?--Todd Kloos 04:38, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
China's military has not modernized that much. If it's to be described in terms of a superpower, then it must be compared to the military capability of the United States, in which case it is even still generations (technologically) and decades behind. The same can be said of most European nations, and even of the most advanced in particular areas; it's not a slight, it's simply a matter of fact. Frankly, I have seen no real discussion of many of these nations becoming full-spectrum superpowers (the sort of power that leads to sometimes descriptions of a 'hyperpower'), and certainly not peer superpowers even economically save for a few. India becoming an economic superpower, China becoming an economic and political superpower but not a full-spectrum military superpower as the U.S. (which would require money it does not and will not have to create the sort of hard-power assets necessary, as well as a critical factor - a vast array of bases, large and small, around the world, something China will never have in remotely the same numbers as the United States), Japan as an economic superpower (as it already is; its GDP is three times that of China's, which will have to expend its period of extremely high growth and then some over the next 15 to 20 years just to catch it; Japan is already far and away the second-largest single economic power on the planet), the EU as a political and economic superpower -- yes on these points. Brazil could become a great power, and should Russia regain stable economic health it could consolidate and reconstitute its extremely rotted military power well enough to be considered a second-tier military superpower (though even at its height it did not possess the ability to project and support power that the United States now wields; the USSR did not even have true aircraft carriers).
The US is much more powerful than any other country in terms of military strength, but that strength has always come from the superior power of the US economy. If any other country surpasses the US in economic strength, then it will likely match the US in military strength 10-20 years later. Saying that no other country will ever be as powerful as the US seems rather short sighted, comparable to someone 100 years ago saying that no one would ever match the power of the British empire.
If the EU coalesces into a single power and decides to have an active foreign policy, it could easily afford to build a military that would rival the US. Likewise China, and later India, will probably eventually have sufficiently large economies to build militaries capable of challenging the US.
When you compare the sizes of different economies, I think that PPP is a better measurement than exchange rate, especially considering the degree to which exchange rates are manipulated by many governments. The exchange rates also are subject to sudden changes that significantly change the relative sizes of countries from year to year. For a good measure of economic power and influence, it might be best not to use GDP at all. If you instead measure the total volume of trade that a country has, that should give a better idea of the ability of that country to influence the economies of other countries.--Todd Kloos 08:35, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In June 2005, The Scotsman reported that, in a mock confrontation with two American F-15C Eagle fighter aircraft, a Eurofighter pilot was able to avoid his pursuers and outmaneuver them to get into shooting position. Unattributed statements indicate that the success of the craft came as a surprise to both the Americans and the RAF. (European technology ain't so bad !) Robert 22-12-2005

Superpowers in History

The best way to balance out the American bias is to add perspective. This planet has seen many empires rise and fall. In history great empires were built on charasmatic leaders. These countries soon fell apart, or were reconquered within a century of the leader's demise. Normally it wouldn't take long for the conquerers to get soft. Soon after that, the oppressed and the foreign came rushing in. --Benk625 18:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I changed the wording from "could be seen" to "is" in terms of the United States and superpower status. If you want to debate the moral aspects, historical relevance, or anything like that, that's great, but let's not skirt the issue or the reality.

Cheers

Fictional Superpowers

I removed the following:

Superpowers are also the fictional superhuman abilities that distinguish most superheroes such as Superman and supervillains such as Magneto from ordinary people. Typical superpowers include superhuman strength, speed, or stamina; the ability to fly; or abilities such as X-ray vision.

Perhaps it belongs in a different article... srs 19:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm returning the paragraph to the article. It is separated by a horizontal rule from the rest of the article and is a legitimate definition of superpower. —Lowellian (talk) 03:26, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
If you want to move the paragraph to another article, go ahead and create that other article and link to it from this article. However, you should not just remove information. —Lowellian (talk) 03:27, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Putting the superhero powers blurb in this article or under this name is just silly. Nobody searching for information about superhero powers is going to look here. Superhero powers also go by other names: abilities, special powers, superhero powers. If you check the dictionary, the other "superpower" definition is this one. Yes, the fictional one is used sometimes, but other less ambigious names exist. Daniel Quinlan 04:07, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
If you look at "what links here", either through the article in chief, or the redirect superpowers, you come across such things as Batfink, Spider-Man, and City of Heroes. This strongly suggests to me that the definition of fictional superpowers as the powers possessed by superheroes belongs in this article. At minimum, there should be a disambiguation statement at the head of the article pointing people to the superhero article. -- Smerdis of Tlön 00:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A disambiguation link at the beginning would be fine with me. Daniel Quinlan 00:54, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the correct disambiguation message which mentions superheroes works well. —Lowellian (talk) 10:27, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Removed Paragraph

If understood properly the term "Superpower" signifies only a bipolar situation. Therefore the existence of three, four or more "Superpowers" is not possible; in such a context the proper term to use would be "Great Power". Journalists and the media often do not respect such a distinction and therefore imagine situations where the USA, the EU, China and India all at the same time yield "Superpower status".

Not sure what this paragraph was intended to explain. I certainly don't believe that the word superpower refers to a bipolar situation. Why? Countries can yield power in different ways - even if we accept that there can only be one superpower within a given domain, there might be many relevant domains in reality - military, economic, cultural, sporting etc Rob cowie

Basho

As much as I appreciate it, I do not believe Wikipedia is in the business of ironic literary epigraphs before articles. I can't bring myself to remove it, however. --B. Phillips 19:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me what does this have to with this particular article?

Brazil is back on

I see no reason why Brazil should be taken off the list, since it forms, along China, India and Russia, the group of nations more likely to become world powers in 50 years(They call the group, B.R.I.C.).

If you're from Argentina and didn't like seeing Brazil there, I'm sorry, it's not my fault, get used to it.

--Luguiacastro 03:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Why was Japan removed?

Japan has a huge economic influence on the world, doesn't that mean something? 66.205.108.8 05:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Undoutedly true, but Japan doesn't have a 'notable' foreign policy, I just don't think Japan wants to be a superpower in any sense of the word. --JDnCoke 16:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Section about the UK Way too long

The section about the UK as a power is in my opinion is too long, Can somebody scale it down? We really don't need to go in depth about British history in the 20th century; parts of that article are already covered by other articles, such as War on Terror and World War II. I think the only thing that needs to be covered in that section is a brief current status of that nation and what makes it a power today.

I added the Chola Empire

During the 11th Century, the Chola Empire of southern India controlled not only most of India, but also modern day Sri Lanka, Maldives, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Cambodia, coastal Burma, and even raided southern China by land and sea. It had an army of 800,000 and immense national wealth (not only in terms of dance/literature, etc., its Bharadiswara temple [a UNESCO world heritage site] was the tallest manmade building in the world after the Pyramids, larger even than the contemporary Notre Dame cathedral, and had many great scientific feats to its credit). I would consider it a medieval/ancient Superpower.

"transitionally industrial countries"

Croatia seems to me an odd example to use; it was formerly more industrialized than such EU members as Portugal; if it is less so right now, that is a consequence of recent war, and probably a short-term matter, since there is no lack of trained and educated people. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Why doesnt the UK have its own Separate Entry?

The UK has a fairly large military,nuclear weapons,and the support of Commonwealth nations. -- anon.

Eh? Jooler 01:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
it also has the 2nd best power projection capabilities in the world, one of he largest irforces and the 2nd biggest navy in the world, why not indeed
That still doesn't make it a superpower. 81.153.15.178 23:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

South America: a potential superpower? (Uh?)

I don't understand what South America is doing in that list. Reasons:

  • There is not even a real (i.e. a deep and wide) South-American integration process started, like there is in Europe (with the European Union), let alone an unification process. The chances that the EU will become a superpower are already slim (saying as an European).
  • It's too hypothetical that South America will unite. Furthermore it's way too hypothetical to assume that a hypothetical country could become a superpower. You could also suggest that an united Arab world, or an united South East Asia would become a super power. Or an united Africa.
  • There aren't any signs that even an united South America has the potential to become a superpower. While the U.S. (and increasingly China) has (have) these signs; i.e. a strong economy with continued strong economic growth, combined with a strong military and technological dominance.
  • I don't deny that some countries like Brazil are becoming economically stronger, and they can become a worldpower in a few decades (at least), but a superpower?

With all due respect to the writer, I don't think that an "united South America as potential superpower" deserves a place in this list. I will remove it, if others agree.Mjolnir1984 18:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it should be removed. -- another anon.

Well, USA is trying very hard to PREVENT an united south america, see ALCA and learn about the real deal. Do not dismiss south american countries as under-developed nations without any interntional impact, this is clear NPOV. Brazil alone has a huge population, and if you don´t know yet please keep in mind that Amazonia is the biggest resource of biodiversity in the world and the biggest hidrographic bay around. I know USA are trying to convince the world tha Amazon is not brazillian property. Why is that a superpower needs to try to fake something like that? Isn´t it afraid of it´s potential? Everyone knows that the real power of the future lies in biodiversity and hidrographic resources. But as the article stands, I would not list Brazil (yet). I think there should be a a section for past superpowers (goind back to Roma or even earlier) and then a section for potential superpowers (in which Brazil could be listed). Regards. Loudenvier 12:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


Retrospective use of the word Superpower

To the anon user who posted on my talk page and keeps adding the anchronistic nonsense. Please stop it. Retrospective use of the word superpower does not make any sense. Jooler 13:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The "Next Caliphate"

I have removed the sub-section entitled "The Next Caliphate" from the grouping of potential future Superpowers. This subsection was highly speculative and POV, and entirely inappropriate for this type of article. --The Thieving Gypsy 12:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree, well done. Mjolnir1984 18:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Praised Allah, but the section is no more speculative that the other (India and Russia in particular). SallamdinHusn 12:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Though India and Russia are indeed more speculative than China and the European Union, there are nevertheless some objective facts, like economic growth and military assets. On the other hand, there isn't any substantial integration or unification process going on throughout the Arab world. For the same reason, and "united South America" was removed.Even more, there isn't even much trade between Muslim countries. Furthermore the Arab World is extremely divided. See for example the Syria-Lebanon tensions, the Iraqi terrorism that mostly targets other Iraqis, the Morocco-Algeria tensions, the Morocco-Mauritania tensions, the Algerian civil war, the former tensions between Iraq and Kouwait, the former tensions between Syria and Iraq, etc. The efforts to try to form an Arab unity all failed completely and quickly in the past.Added, non-Arab Muslim countries are mostly anti-Arab. See the Iraq-Iran War, the pro-West anti-Arab Turkey, etc. While India and Russia have significant military capabilities, a prerequisite of being a superpower, the Muslim world fails to show this (let alone, an attempt to unify these military capabilities). See for instance, the quick Arab military defeats in the Israeli-Arab wars, the two USA-Iraq wars, Afghanistan, etc. Mjolnir1984 13:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Praised Allah, but the united Arab league had defeted the Israel in 1973 and are bound to do it again. Israel will not be able to hold the US people hostage and is necesserily going to decline in its power. The most it can hope for is the status of a vasal state within the Caliphate. The Muslim league of nations exists today, but it will be through revolution that the Next Caliphate will come into being. The US are scared to bones even from the divided and weak Muslim world, but the unification of the Muslim world is going to happen weather US likes it or not - divide and conquer tacticts cannot work forever in the face of a birth rates ranging from 2% to 10%. China might have economic rate of 10%, but a Caliphate with its birth rate of 10% is going to overshadow China - once you have people there is going to be people power. Allahu akbar! SaladimHusein 00:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

In the last 100 years, high birth rates never made an empire strong, on the contrary, it tends to create larger poverty. Development tends to bring reproductive control not expansion. Rauh 15:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
There are two big problems with the idea of a muslim superpower: there is no clear trend of integration between muslim countries, and even if they were integrated the muslim countries would not match the US or EU in terms of economic or military strength. Most muslm countries are among the poorest in the world. In addition, the "New Caliphate" section has a lots of POV and wild speculation that are portrayed as facts. A lot of things that might happen(but are considered unlikely by many) are "bound to" happen in the article.--Todd Kloos 03:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm an admin...I'm going to ban Saladim*** and all of his friends. They are just here to be disruptive. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
If he comes back, please add it to the list I started on the Vandalism in Progress page. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

According to wikipedia policy, if an issue is big enough to make news, it deserves to be mentioned in wikipedia. Therefore, it is hardly a vandalisam to present a legitimate POV. It should be attributed and restated, but not deleted - it is deleting and omitting deserving material that constitutes vandalism, especially since it is being adressed on talkpage. Put muslim superstate or unated south america into google, you will get loads of hits [1] or [2]. Is president of Brazil, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva also a vandal??Usammey 00:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand your concern; Usammey, but there is no integration process going on in either the Muslim world or South America. On the contrary, many states (especially in the Arab world) are quite opposed to eachother. Furthermore both regions are weak in almost every aspect (economy, military, technology, etc.). Nobody denies that these regions will possibly once unite, but the prospect is non-existant in the near future. Even more, even if these countries would unite, they would not become superpowers, but only major powers. When there's a page about superpowers that mentions "potential" superpowers there has to be at least a strong possibility. A page that deals about an united South America or about the Next Caliphate can be legitimate on Wikipedia (if it meets the requirements of Wikipedia), but not on this page. I will rename "potential superpowers" into "current major powers". This would be less POV and settle the problem, without changing the content. Mjolnir1984 00:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

India has weaker economy than Brazil alone, and has a lower development index than most South american states. Therefore, One cannot justify removing South America and keeping India. This is a highly biased article Pherrrro 02:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

No, there is no bias. Removing "South America" is correct as South America is not "one" power. Adding Brazil however is correct. Japan should be added also. Mjolnir1984 15:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Section-Stubs

I think it is legitimate and NPOV to add Brazil and Japan as "major powers". I Removed the "potential superpowers" title, as it prevents POV discussions and is not hypothetical anymore (this page is not about hypotheses). As a consequence the "several major powers" are taking most of the place of this article. I think that the sections about the Soviet Union and the UNited States need to be expanded, as they are/were the "superpowers". Mjolnir1984 15:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Mjolnir1984

Mjolnir, over the past few weeks you've made alot of edits to this article, I have nothing against you contributing to the article, but what I do have arguments about is how US-centrist you are making this article. I will be trying to counterbalance this article in the next few days, please reply. 81.153.11.46 02:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm an European though. Looks quite logical to me when it's about superpowers that much space is reserved for the two superpowers that ever existed: the Soviet Union and the USA. I think that the sections of these two countries should be expanded, but as the USA is also the current superpower (often called a hyperpower, as the term superpower is according to many no longer appropriate) I think it's logical that the USA gets more space (Cold War, and post Cold War) than the Soviet Union. Furthermore, I think it's not logical that the superpowers themselves get less attention than the "potential superpowers/several major powers". Feel free to contribute however. The better the quality of information, the more satisfied readers will be. Mjolnir1984 13:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
it is best to give a just a list of potential superpowers, as each country has its own entry. also, accent should not be on would be superpowers, but on superpowers in the past (roman empire, spain etc) since that is not speculative.Perrrout 06:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Brazil and India

There is no basis to include India and exclude Brazil or South America. South America is as much of an entity as EU (and EU is far from a state), and is in fact more homogenous. The region has higher human development index than that of China and especially India. Brazil alone matches India in economy. So, I conclude that exclusion of Brazil and South america is unfounded, if it isnt based on malicious racism here. Perroot 21:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention that Russia has smaller economy even in PPP (as opposed to GDP) - check the data yourself. Perroot 21:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I do agree with Perroot in including Brazil in the major powers list, but I must digress on adding South America as a strong entity. The only unification process going on around here is the Mercosur, and even though it looks pretty in theory, it's far from being ideal and 'unificating', mainly because of the tax war and import restrictions that are practiced between most countries in it. feliperijo 23:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree about Brazil, but disagree about South America. Homogenity has nothing to do with an unification process. Section is about "current" major powers. Mjolnir1984 23:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

As long as either Brazil, or some South American entity are present, it is OK with me. Someone has been trying to eliminate Brazil from all the pages where it was (Brazil was present for months, if not years) - one should be alert of such POV attempts. I suspect the person is from Mexico, and some kind of jelousy motivates him. I myself have no preference, but think that some South American entity should be present, as the region is going to play an important role in the future (as much as India or Russia - there are natural resources there too) Perroot 01:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

What's the problem with Brazil?

Condelezza Rice and George W. Bush had come 2005 in Brazil and they had spoken the same thing: Brazil is a greater International leader and the major representant in South America. Also endowed with one of the biggest markets in the world. People who disconsider Brazil must be outdated with the head in the Cold War. We are living Global integrated market, the largenesses of Brazil, territorial, economic and continental evidences are conquered in last years. Brazil is showing and giving example of a leader in Democracy with a great influence in the global market. I ask for people that trying to exclude Brazil forget for a moment preconceptions - We aren't monkeys living in the Amazonia, we are leaderglobal exporters in many products - as Oil, Minerals, Meat, Coffee, the biggest market of services in Latin America and the constant interest of the United States to make ALCA. --Brazil4Linux 02:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Brazil is certainly not a superpower, it does not have a fraction of the influence required for the label. It barely has a military, its economy is sluggish and minimal, specially compared to its size. It might be a *potential* superpower along with other countries but it is not right now. The inclusion of Brazil is certainly biased. Arguments about the Mercosul do not stand since it is not moving forward and the members are fighting each other for political power with Venezuela trying to topple Brazil with an alliance with Argentina.
I agree on the other hand that if India is included then Brazil should be as well. I would vote for excluding both. I think that this page should be historical as the term superpower was a cold war term and is not applied today as it was in the past. Rauh 03:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
As the article stands I think Brazil should be left out, along with India. I don´t think Brazil as a superpower yet. But I think the article should be redesigned to be more historical in nature, and also more informative. I think that it should have a section listing superpowers from the past (The Britsh empire in it´s peak, Spain, Portugal) along with precise contexts. And I also think that a section with current potential superpowers should also be included, and in this list Brazil and India could be listed, along with some others. Doesn´t it sounds as a better solution and actually a lot less NPOV inclined :-) Regards Loudenvier 12:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I am a Brazilian, and a proud one at that. But certainly Brazil is not a superpower. It lacks the essential items for this classification: 1) Imposing and decisive presence and influence at many international forums, at the level of other superpowers; 2) strong military resources and willing to use it outside its frontiers, on a regional and international level when called to do so; 3) Atomic weapons and means to deliver them, so it has deterrence power; 4) Strong economy, so strong that it would be able to influence global economy when it changes significantly; 5) National leaders who are consulted and are influential in major decisions by the USA. So, Brazil is surely a major regional power, more by its sheer size than anything else. But is far far far away of being a superpower. --R.Sabbatini 13:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
BTW, India is not a global superpower, either. But it does have atomic weapons and strong military. China is already a superpower, in my opinion.
Ok, I agree: exclude both. But Russia's economy and population is a lot smaller than that of the EU, China, India and even Brazil (in both the GDP list of the World Bank and IMF). Its military is in terrible state, and its political stability (eg. many corrupt, Chechen separatism, huge crime problem, lack of control in South East Russia, etc.) The only reason to call Russia a superpower would be because of its degrading nuclear arsenal and its huge territorium. Therefore, I don't think that Russia should be included if India and Brazil aren't. Mjolnir1984 14:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
That's why I would call for this page to be more historical of the cold war era when superpower had an exact and specific historical meaning. This meaning does not hold today. Maybe the page can have 3 sections, one historical with the cold war superpowers, then a current superpowers (EUA, UE, China,...) and potential superpowers (India, Brasil,...). This way the page is more accurate and everyone would be satisfied. This page would have to be updated from time to time as historical developments happen. Rauh 15:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
You don't seem to be focusing the real discussion here. Brazil and India aren't superpowers, but are major powers. And they are listed as major powers. Major powers are a real phenomenon, but not so important that would make they deserve an article of their own. So I think that all these countries should be kept there as long as it's clear they are major powers, not superpowers. --Ekevu (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I get your point! I didn´t notice that before. I was so focused in the discussion of Brazil being a superpower or not that I didn´t notice the fact that it wasn´t listed as a superpower (but as a major power instead). So this discussion is rather pointless. But I think the redesign of this article to be a good idea, because it could be a little less misleading. Loudenvier 20:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that Brazil should be included as a current major power. Germany, UK, France, and Italy each have larger economies and stronger militaries than Brazil. A strong case could also be made for South Korea of Canada being more influential than Brazil. If we include Brazil than we would have to include those countries as well. Brazil definately should not have the largest section.--Todd Kloos 02:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Disregarding Brazil as a major world power is blatantly NPOV in my humble opinion Loudenvier 02:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Why is that? Economically, Brazil has the 9th largest GDP in PPP, and the 14th or 15th largest in nominal terms. It is the 26th largest exporter and the 31st largest importer(acording to CIA factbook). Militarally, Brazil is the 13th largest spender in PPP terms, but it not one of the top 15 at market exchange rates(according to SIPRI). It is not a major arms producer and lacks nuclear weapons. None of that sugests that Brazil is powerful enough to be included on this page.--Todd Kloos 02:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
European union is included, and so to include particular european countries would be redundant. They are already there Perroot 07:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
There are more reasons for India than there are for Brazil, this is a simple fact that must be accepted for encyclopedic use. Also, any points made about Brazil's power within South America should be removed as that is only proof of it being a Regional Power. As opposed to a World Superpower.

France

Having a blank France area was dumb, so I added a chunk. 66.205.108.8 05:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


Removing or shortening "major powers"

This page is about "superpower(s)", not about "major powers", and so most of the space should be spend on superpower(s). A reference to the current major powers can be relevant, but this is exaggerated. I suggest to just mention the current major powers in one paragraph of about 5-10 lines. Mjolnir1984 23:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree in some extent with the above argument. The India and UK subarticles, for example, are far more extensive than the USA's. 14:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


Made some changes and what needs doing

  • Expanded the European Union article
  • Moved EU away from "Major Powers". (why it was sandwiched between the United Kingdom and Japan escapes me. I gave it it's own little section because it is a fully-fledged superpower, just in pieces. This differentiates it from Brazil and China etc; so I gave it it's own little section.)
  • I also added little flags by all the countries for easy reference.
  • Changed the China article and added the bad points I promised a while back.
  • Added a map of the world showing the US and all potential superpowers for easy reference at the top.
  • Shifted photo of US aircraft carriers down into US Superpower section.
  • Removed cleanup tag. Article still needs to be cleaned up slightly, but no need for it to be tagged.

What needs doing:

  • USA article needs expanding, desperately.
  • Page needs restructuring
  • Stubbed articles need fleshing out.
  • Someone needs to proofread the article, there are lots of mistakes
  • UK article needs cutting down ALOT. In fact, should UK, France and Germany even be mentioned without the EU? They're not superpowers at all. (I am British, by the way.)
  • More images need to be added to illustrate points.

Trip: The Light Fantastic 20:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

--Added some things, needs elaborating however--203.214.81.83 04:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Added? It looks like you removed quite a lot. Jombo 05:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Added to American Article 203.214.81.83 05:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Germany and France

The German and France articles had no points relating to why they were Major Powers in the contemporary era. The only points were their role in the EU which translates to the European Union Article. It is agreed by most that they were powers during and before the World Wars. It is therefore necessary that they are placed in a seperate time period.203.214.81.83 05:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You are sayng that France, Germany and UK are not current major powers ?

Or just Germany or France ? They are all for me major powers, but not superpowers (the US is really the only recognizable superpower). 200.171.167.124 22:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Considered Long Yet Filled with Stubs

How can the entire article be considered long although there are many stubs in it. There are many wikipedia articles that can get longer than this.

When you edit the article the follwoing sentence appears above:

"This page is 47 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size."

Please just check that. The article is really long and the existence of stub configurates that the article is not well structured. Why UK and India take so much space??? 201.1.159.18 15:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Edits by 203.214.81.83

The edits by 203.214.81.83 are removing a large chunk of the article, and has attempted to remove the entire section about France and Germany as modern major powers. I am disputing the changes 203.214.81.83 as POV. Jombo 05:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see the issue, but my reasons are stated above203.214.81.83 05:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

UK Military Information Way Too Detailed

The Chinese, American, Indian and Russian Military are all strong and yet do not have huge points based on how good the airforce, navy, intelligence agency etc. are. The American Military is being overshadowed by UK in this article.203.214.81.83 05:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

We do need to reduce Uk description. It is just ridiculous to have a so long descriptive article about UK military, whereas the American is pretty short. Or somebody is bold enought to ascertain than UK military is stronger the American one ? I will reduce that part of the article.200.171.167.124 22:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

European Union Article Is Missing the Point

The European Union Article is placed in the Great Powers section, a section for contemporary powers. However, the article is based on the idea that the European Union becomes one nation with equal foreign relations, equal economy etc. An example of this is that the UK have gone to war in Iraq while France have not. It is therefore either POV or should be moved to the Emerging Powers Section.203.214.81.83 05:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The European Union article should not go in Major Powers, as it is not a major power. It is a superpower, simply too fragmented to count. It should stand alone; it is a special case.

Also, I am removing the POV tag from EU culture as whoever put it on did not bother explaining their issues, therefore rendering it useless. Also, it is a tiny section, whoever added the POV tag may as well have just changed it. I'm also re-adding the "as a unit" suffix to all the EU article headings, it is required as not to confuse the reader.

I would say that describe EU as a potential superpower is as wrong as describe as a major power. However, I would rather have EU as a major power, because for sure EU is NOT a superpower. It is easier to many today to see China (a centralized government) as a superpower than Europe.That is the common knowledge in the media. When you say " It is a superpower, simply too fragmented to count", this argument easily eliminates the existence of EU as a superpower. Also, recent and important events (such as the French and Dutch referendunms) weaken very much the position of EU as a "unified nation". Besides, Europe lacks the necessary military strength to caracterize itself as a superpower. Although China still has old weapons, the coountry spends more money than either UK, France or Germany. Finally, with the constant and rapid economic growth, the trend is an accelerated military spending of China.


Concerning the argument about section of culture, nobody can deny the importance of Europe. But the last century was called the American one, besides all the media (new and old) to be essencially American oriented, beginning with internet (Wikipedia is an American creation!!)

I am not American (from Brazil), but easy to see that in the last 50 years the contribution of America to the world culture is more extensive than that from Europe. Thus, I certainly to do not agree with your position about the culture stub. We DO need more opinions about that... Anybody could help ?^200.171.167.124 22:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


Trip: The Light Fantastic 17:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but you see, I can provide evidence to back up my claims that Europe's culture beats America's (the tourism figures, a good indicator of culture pulling power). You find some evidence for America then we can debate which one's better. Trip: The Light Fantastic 17:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think tourism figures tell us anything about culture ? Rio de Janeiro is an important tourism center...what does it tell me about culture ? Same happens with Acapulco or Hawaii.. Another thing...Europe DOES have an enourmous cultural and historic INVENTORY...but most of that before the 20th century or, worse, the last decades... Coke, Nike, NBA, Hollywood, Michael Jackson, McDonalds, Starbucks, ESPN, CNN, television, internet, Google Earth, Ipod, .....tell you something ? The language that you write is French ?(and dont tell me that English is an European language, because even the British complain that their children write English in an American way becuase of internet... ? Why Japanese have to learn English..?

Shopping malls, credit cards....here we go...shape your life. Go to Asia or Latin America and try to figure out which part of the world has more influence ? USA for sure

I am Brazilian and when we talk about Europe, we surely talk about some companies....or venerable churchs and museums,,,but our lifestyle is influenced by the Americans...Same happens with Mexico, korea, japan, ...and can go on... And please dont be snobish to tell that pop culture is not culture...please do not do that..

The 20th Century, you like or not, was American...And the way things go, in perhaps 2 centuries, Europe will a cultural role like Egypt or Greece has today...because the new axis (the Pacific one ) is emerging and Asia and America take part of those, but not Europe. Cloretti 18:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

POV in China section

Two sentences strike me as having a quite Reaganite POV:

"The iron grip of Chinese totalitarian state control is beginning to loosen due to, a move away from communist ideals and a move towards a more capitalist way of life"

And

"This had lead to China threatening to use nuclear weaponry against the United States, which would, of course, lead to the total annhilation of China should they follow this course of action"

Could we change this please, to something with a little more basis in fact and not propaganda?

Damburger 07:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Change the wording if you want, of course. However, the two sentences are valid points against China and need to stay. Trip: The Light Fantastic 17:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The idea that China is becoming more free as a result of capitalism is highly POV. The last statement is nothing more than American jingoism and serves no purpose in an encyclopedia article. I will be changing both of these sentences.

And I'll be changing them back.
Read this, this and this.
Go and argue the point on the China article discussion page, have them change the article, then come back here and I'll find you some more evidence. Trip: The Light Fantastic 17:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Fossil fuel superpowers

Ok...oil is an important resource...what about the other commodities (in the last two years, we saw a surge in the price of commodities - in general). Shoud oil be more important than iron ore, nickel, cooper or wheat ? Remember than alternative energy sources are coming up. Also if commodities are important - and you do have a point here - the position of Brazil should be reviewed as potential commodity and agricultural powerhouse. Brazil has far more resources and conditions to become the largest producer of food in the world, being already an important commodity producer. Whereas manufacturing products have their prices in constant decline, one of main reasons that US do not give emphasys to the manufacuring sector, commodities in general have their price at the heights in this new recent and eventual economy growth oriented world (China and India for example). 200.171.167.124 22:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Tagging

Stop tagging this article. It looks pathetic. I am going to remove all tags except the "very long" tag, because it does exceed Wikipedia guidelines and will continue to do so.

If you want to add a tag, don't just whack it on because you feel like it and don't tell anyone why. Come here, add a section and tell us why you think the article should be tagged. Then we can all decide if the article should be tagged for whatever reason you propose. Kapeesh? Trip: The Light Fantastic 17:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Cultural Power of the EU

In the past, India has been likened to the EU in that it consists of many differing states which each have their own language/culture etc. It is for this reason that EU culture can't easily 'dwarf' that of India's (historical culture anyway). This comment sounds like it has a tiny hint of exaggeration.

Bias against China

I found that the China section is extremely bias. Whoever did the China section is clearly trying picture a negative view of China. In contrast, the India section is very favorable toward India. I thought this website supposed to objective. I edited the China part and will watch further changes in this section. This is the same thing I observe on the Sino-Indian war page, many people trying to potray a positive side of India and a negative side of China.

And this person said nothing about China's cultural power. Maybe you are just ignorant about it? If you don't know something, then don't write about it.

                                                                                John

":All your 'changes' to the China and India sections were POV and required reverting. Many of your comments would be rather insulting to Indian users and most of your changes included comparisons that were to prove that China was better than India in every aspect. You went as far as to deny India's position as an IT Superpower."


"All I did is to write a balance and objective article for China as a super power. Stop accusing me things I never did. You use and abuse the rights given to you from wikpedia by demeaning Chinese people. What you wrote made it sounds like everyone in the world hates chinese which is purely racism and insulting. You have no rights to accuse others insulting indians. John."
I did not write the entirety of the Chinese article, I just wish you to stop deleting the work of other wikipedia users. I had, in fact, in the past, added some things to prove that China was indeed a superpower. I will read each and every point against the rise of a Chinese Superpower and may revert some. Please discuss any issues you have...203.214.108.194 05:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Changes in China and India section

I changed the China and India section, so it will be more balanced and objective. Junlee

That comment is laughable, the changes were extremely POV, if you wish to make changes please make additions, rather than removing all the work of other wikipedia editors. All the points in both the China and India section are true, have been there for a long time and have not been disputed strongly, I am reverting your POV changes.203.214.108.194 00:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


oh please, just stop your anti-China biotry. Just because your view has stayed here for a long time, doesnt mean it is all true. Just look at what you change. You give like 12 points against the rise of China as a super power, but only two for india. Moreoever, you grossly demean China's economic accomplishment and make lies about US-China relationship.

"China's relations with the United States are incredible weak, as the Communist Regime is seen as the next major enemy of the United States after the fall of the Soviet Union. The United States is likely to use its influence to hamper Chinese growth in the future."

I cant describe how childish this statement above it.

I will not edit the India section anymore, but I will continue edit the China section. It is just unfair for people to take advantage this place to push for their own agenda.

One points to that must be understood, it was not I that created ALL the points against the rise of a Chinese superpower, it was another wikipedia user, I have added I believe only 2 points in my editing of this article that are against China. Secondly, I ask you to simple A) Not delete entire points out of the India section, B)Not delete entire points out of the points against the rise of the Chinese Superpower and C) Do not say things that are comparitive (such as, India's economy is tiny compared to China). Apart from the points about the relations with the United States, they are improved through exports, but it was Former Advisor to Bill Clinton, Dick Morris, who claimed the above point.203.214.108.194 05:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

POV Changes to China and India Sections

It is not fair on other wikipedia editors to simply remove their additions. There are many people who have in fact worked quite hard on researching their informations. Junlee has taken out facts and inserted their own informations which are strongly in favour of China and against India. Moreover, these changes include comparitive statements which are somehow meant to prove that India is better than China and Russia203.214.108.194 05:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If me or someone wrote something wrong, then you need to point out and discuss it. Before you accuse me writing things in favor of China, why don't you look at your own editing. You wrote things that are grossly unfair to Russia and China, and then made a rosy picture of India. Junlee

I will continue to come here to watch the changes of this topic.


It is you that made this comment about India and Russia in the China section.

"Compare to India and Russia, China clearly has better economic strength to support a large and modernized armed force."

Why compare to India and Russia? Why not say what they are ranked in PPP or something. It is clear that you have a bias against India and Russia.203.214.108.194 05:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Is China A Utopian Society?

That's what it sounds like through Junlee's deleting of ALL but 3 points Against the Rise of a Chinese Superpower. Even those three points managed to include comments that degraded India and Russia's stand on the world stage. I have kept most points for China, but have reverting the Points Against the Rise of a Chinese Superpower. Some points are not backed up by solid proof/other wikipedia articles. Please prove some points such as:

"China's English Speaking Populations becoming larger than that of the USA's by 2010."


the way you edit the points against the rise of China contains a lot of misconception and biotry. For example, saying the Chinese military is "no use" is intentionally insulting the Chinese. And saying China has bad relationship with most of the countries in the world is also untrue. I delete the most bias points under that section and will come back to edit it.

PS: This does not mean I think China only has a few obsacles against them. It just mean I think this section should be more objective.


Revising Points against China as a super power

I revise the point that talk about China's relationship with US, so it will be more ojective. To say China will go nuclear war with US is very childish, even Soviet Union didnt go to war with the United Sates.


Speeding deletion from Jumbo

At least dozens of readers edit this page, but you delete them add your own stuff without any explanation.

Contents Are Ineffective

For example, links to the UK may lead to the US and links to China may lead to Japan.