Talk:Superpower/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Aircraft carrier as intro pic 2 Semi-protection 3 Japan As (emerging) Superpower 4 Separate Criticism Section 5 OR 6 Subheadings for each potential superpower 7 working definition of Superpower found in one of our sources 8 Russia as a potential supepower 9 POV issue 10 Don't let this article lose its quality again 11 Russia 11.1 Status of some other Countries 12 Article - redundant and biased 13 Temporary semi-protection 14 How the article should look 15 Progress report 16 Shorten Characteristics 17 India 18 Reasons for EU's Possible Superpower Status 19 Russia & OR 20 'inevitable'

[edit] Aircraft carrier as intro pic

I really like the carrier image that an anon editor has added to the article intro. An aircraft carrier is indeed an excellent symbol of power projection capabilities. Moreso by far than the stealth bomber given their greater useage in so called 'gunboat diplomacy'.Zebulin 17:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Military power is one factor among many others to project global power. The world map including the caption is of higher content quality. Lear 21 17:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. The map gave the impression that the power was a mere reflection of geographic size. Theoretically even tiny island states could be a superpower. A state with no power projection on the other hand could certainly not be a superpower.Zebulin 17:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally like the B-2 bomber better because it is a nicer picture, but I guess an aircraft carrier works good too. On a few other language wikipedia articles (Like the French one) they also use the picture of the B-2 bomber and it seems to fit very well at the intro, but whatever makes people happy I guess... User:Daniel Chiswick 18 May, 2007.

I must agree the Rayla Navy is the 2nd biggest navy in the world.

When's the last time you've heard of any world leader talking about the USA sending B2's to Iraq or the Persian Gulf? None, because the B2 is little more than a novelty aircraft sent on a few missions to try to give legitimacy to an air plane design that cost way too much with little return. A carrier on the other hand is feared worldwide. Whenever a country sends a carrier every country knows that they mean business. Of all the future superpowers mentioned each one has a carrier or is badly trying to get a carrier because they know what they symbolize and what they can do. No one wants to buy a B2 bomber which is more likely to be on display than actual combat. Further WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS(the French encyclopedia having it) is hardly a reason to keep something. After all, we are going for an encyclopedia that can be read 10 years from now and still be informative. 10 years from now, the B2 will still not be in wide use while carriers will probably be owned by every world power. 128.227.43.42 20:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. does use B-2 bombers, every major conflict we have been involved in since their development we have used the the B-2 bomber. Many countries have aircraft carriers, but only one has an advanced stealth bomber like the B-2. Second rate powers like Spain and Thailand have aircrat carriers, does that make them superpowers? No, but advanced planes like the B-2 certainly do. User:Daniel Chiswick 18 May, 2007.

Read carefully, I never said they didn't. In fact I said that they do send them on missions just to justify the enormous costs they paid for them. Also, I guess you've never heard of the Dassault nEUROn. 128.227.43.42 20:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Also I would to add that aircraft carriers are not really "Advanced military technologies" as they are rather common and second rate powers like Spain, Italy, Thailand, and powerful countries that are not superpowers like Russia, France, and the U.K. all operate them. User:Daniel Chiswick 18 May, 2007.

The bottom line is power projection. The B2 is certainly a strategic asset but the aircraft carrier is a much larger power projection asset than a B2.Zebulin 20:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

True, but many non-superpowers operate them and they are not really special. How about we put both pictures up? The advanced B-2 bomber and Nimitz class supercarriers are the ultimate hallmark of American power and power projection, I say we use both pictures. Any thoughts? User:Daniel Chiswick 18 May, 2007.

I'm a bit concerned about picture clutter. I may change the caption as well to reflect that it hardly matters how advanced the means of power projection is with respect to superpower status. Rather what matters is how much power projection is obtained by any means available.Zebulin 20:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-powers operate nuclear weapons (Pakistan for one), does that disqualify the USA from being a power? I still see no valid reason for keeping the B-2 pick other than the above mentioned Wiki essays. 128.227.43.42 20:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish you would log in or create an acount. Do you really want to be attaching your IP to your every edit?Zebulin 20:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it. Anyone who wants to trace it will only know that its a university IP, it will likely be another IP in a few hours anyway. 128.227.43.42 20:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

We could make the two pictures smaller, that way we can show both air and naval power. User:Daniel Chiswick 18 May, 2007.

That might be worth trying. What will likely happen is editors may take exception to any implication that military power is the sole means of power projection for superpower status or they will simply object to an appearance of too much emphasis on US military assets. If we can think of another image which represents non military power projection to add as well, this might do even more to reduce the chances of that map being restored as the intro image even though technically this would also increase clutter.Zebulin 21:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well then, let's try it for a few days and see what happens. May I suggest B-2 goes above the carrier, for aesthetic reasons. But before we do anything we have to find out how to word the caption for the pictures. User:Daniel Chiswick 18 May, 2007.

the current caption wording:

"Military assets such as this are one means of power projection on a global scale—a hallmark of a superpower" is designed to avoid conflicting with any of the sources currently listed in the article. Some of the sources acknowledge non-military means of projecting power as contributing to a superpower role so it will be important that the caption not sugest that power projection of a superpower is by military means alone.Zebulin 21:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The world picture should stay. As Zebulin has pointed out above, it would suggest that only military power counts towards superpower status; thus, any picture depicting only military power would be less fit than a world map. The picture of the globe should stay. A nation specific picture such as a B2 bomber also contradicts the possiblity of a multi-polar world discussed in the intro. Signature^brendel 02:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Multi-polar? Are you trying to make it seem like the U.S. is not the only superpower or something? This article has gotten really mess and is starting to be off topic. Zebulin seem (This is only an observation) seem to want to have a different picture than that sill globe picture which makes it seem like there is more than one superpower or none at all, which is not true. User:Daniel Chiswick 18 May, 2007.

The article does mention the theory whereby there are no longer any superpowers-it's reference and therefore a valid theory that needs to be included in this article. There is no true or false here-this is a non-factual issue. Some in academia (not including myself) beleive that "there is... none [a superpower] at all." That's the first reason to use the globe pic. The second is that there is more to being a superpower than military power. Economic power may be just as important-so are you planning to have picture of a shopping mall next to that of an air-craft carrier? Of course not. The globe picture is the best suited for this article. Signature^brendel 03:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You need military power to back up economic power in order to be a superpower. Japan is a very rich country but it has a weak military, that is why it is not a superpower. Economic power means little if you can back it up with military power, like the way the U.S. protects it's interest with our large military presence around the world. Also economic power is not the only thing that makes a country a superpower, the Soviet Union had horrible financial situation but it still managed (By penny pinching) to be a superpower. Military power is the main factor in a country being called a superpower because you can have economic power yet still be a very weak country. I like the carrier or B-2 picture the best because they show military power projection at it's best, I mean what is better than a Nimitz class superpcarrier or a stealth B-2 bomber? Not much. User:Daniel Chiswick 18 May, 2007.

Being a wealthy country and an economic power can be two different matters. Luxembourg is the world's richest country but has next to no economic power. China is a reltively poor country, yet has a lot of economic power. It is mere size that matters in terms of economic power, that is why Japan would be a superpower if it had more people. I can also simply say that, you need economic power "to back up" military power. Without money, no soldiers, no tanks, no treaties, no anything. Fact of the matter is that the USSR did have money (not a lot of it per citizen, but a substantial amount of pucharsing power overall). Putting up a picture of a military symbol suggests that economic and cultural factors are not as important-though they may very well be. It would be somewhat misleading as there are other components to being a superpower, other than having a large military. Signature^brendel 05:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Luxembourg the richest country in the world? Haha! Luxembourg has the highest GDP per capita, which means how much people make a year. You measure nation wealth by GDP, not GDP per capita. I'm sorry to sound out of place but how on earth do you think a country the size of southern California is the richest country in the world? Well anyway...the U.S. is the richest country in the world with a GDP of $13.049 trillion. But we really should put back a picture of some sort of American military weapon, as we are the only superpower in the world. We really need to fix this problem because many people do not like the picture of the globe and only a few people support keeping it hear, mostly you and User:Lear21. User:Daniel Chiswick 18 May, 2007.

Also most of the other language wikipedias have the picture of the B-2 bomer so I don't really see why we shouldn't have it hear. There was never any problem with the picture until User:Lear21 came along and changed the picture. User:Daniel Chiswick 18 May, 2007.

You measure economic power by total GDP. The prosperity of a country's residents (how rich it is & whether or not it's a developed or 3^rd. world country) is not measured by overall GDP. China has a very large overall GDP (larger than that of Japan in PPP), yet is poor in the sense that its residents enjoy a relatively low standard of living. Per capita measures are used to detemine how affluent a country is-its per capita income or GDP per capita are examples. Of course you can define "wealth" and "affluence" however you see fit, so you could, depening on your definition of wealth, argue that India is far richer than Canada. But that is all quite irrelevant. I maintain that having a symbol of military power is misleading as there is more to being a superpower than a strong military. As for other language WPs, that's not of the issue-we are dicussing this article. Lear21 came up with a better picture than the B-2 bomber-a world map, which ought to be kept. BTW: GDP per capita doesn't actually measure how much people make in a year but is used as the main measure of affluence. Signature^brendel 06:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

the main objection to the military hardware pictures seems to be a possible perception that such pictures would imply a direct correlation between superpower status and military power. If I correctly understand the consensus definitions established by our sources the only necessary component is power projection. The means of power projection is not the primary consideration. Perhaps two or three smaller images reflecting different means of power projections could indeed be placed near the intro without cluttering the article. Either the carrier or B2 would do justice to the concept of military power. Perhaps a suitable image of other forms of projection could be found? A picture of a shopping mall is clearly looking in the wrong direction as a shopping mall has nothing to do with power projection. A large economy does not in and of itself do anything to project power. Rather economic power projection is represented by global trade networks and any candidate image for that form of power projection would need to relate to such trade in some way.Zebulin 06:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

How about a picture of a B-2 bomber, a Nimitz class supercarrier, and a picture of the New York stock exchange? That would show air, naval, and economic power. Does anybody agree? User:Daniel Chiswick 18 May, 2007.

I think that would be better than than the map (which illustrates nothing). It might not last long however as it will be noticed that all three symbols happen to be US assets and editors will claim the choice is intended to endorse the view that the US is the only superpower. Ideally one of those three items should not necessarily be closely or exclusively identified with the US. Otherwise I predict the images will be reverted to a map more often than is worth your while to fight.Zebulin 06:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well we should try it. It doesn't matter if they are American, show me another country that could be called a superpower and we could use a picture about it. I am afraid that anti-americanism seems to be so strong that you cannot even add a picture of something American on a superpower page when we are internationally known as the world's only superpower. I like the idea of a bomber, a carrier, and the New Stock exchange better than just a map or a picture of a mall. User:Daniel Chiswick 18 May, 2007.

If you can make it look uncluttered it may well be accepted. I liked the map as a way to get some sort of image for the introduction when the earlier trend had been to leave it blank altogether by those who could not tolerate the B2 image at the intro. However, I didn't realize such a compromise image would stagnate so long. The map images lack of substance is really starting to bother me. Maybe if you can post a nice uncluttered illustration set involving those three concepts of power projection it will either be accepted or inspire some other proposal more useful than the map to replace it.Zebulin 06:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

How about this?

User:Daniel Chiswick 18 May, 2007.

You should add those pictures and look at it on the sandbox, it looks rather good. But the pictures need to be the right size so the page doesn't become more cluttered than it already is. User:Daniel Chiswick 18 May, 2007.

The stock exchange image with the huge stars and stripes will be like waving a red flag in front of the other editors. I guarentee it would be quickly reverted. Unjustified perhaps but finding consensus is usually difficult. I'll try to brainstorm for a suitable image but I strongly suspect including at least one image which is not overtly a US asset should improve acceptance and speed consensus.Zebulin 06:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point, do you know of any pictures of the New York stock exchange that doesn't have the U.S. flag on it? I have been looking but I cannot find one. But I think a stock exchange is a good example of economic power, much better than a mall. User:Daniel Chiswick 19 May, 2007.

How about this picture? It doesn't have a huge flag on it, but it still has small flags but I think that is fine.

User:Daniel Chiswick 19 May, 2007.

I think that image choice would help a lot. There would still be a lot to do. You'll need captioning that doesn't get construed as pushing a POV. For that, you might want to just recycle the entire captioning currently used with the map for the 3 images. And of course avoiding an appearance of clutter may be the hardest part of all. Maybe I'll think of something helpful in the morning or maybe we'll luck out and the images will survive as is. This will replace the map if a consensus of editors finds it aesthetically appealing *and* it doesn't push any of their buttons *and* it doesn't lend itself to any apparent contradiction symbolic or otherwise of sourced material in the article. That's a tall order but I'll be glad for anything that can improve on the current map image. Good luck and good night.Zebulin 07:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

A superpower relies on various factors: Economy, Policy, Military, Demography and Culture. Visualizing only one (representing a specific country) of these fields is misleading or minimizes all others. An abstract image with a comprehensive caption like the world map avoids all insufficiencies. Lear 21 10:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Lear are you saying that any superpower must rely on *all* of those possible levers of power projection in order to qualify as a superpower? Our sources for the USSR as a superpower seem to focus on it's military power and discuss little if any other power projection tools that were exercised in it's superpower role. Indeed, the multiple occasions in which eastern bloc countries were invaded and occupied by the red army seem to starkly illustrate just how marginal or even non existent those other levers were for the soviet union in it's region of presumably strongest influence.Zebulin 18:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that we were supposed to be building an encyclopedia that illustrates and illuminates, not 'avoids all insufficiencies'. For me, as discussed earlier, the map is so abstract, shows no national boundaries (it's missing the illustration of nation-states, which is a core point, yes?), and does nothing to illustrate or illuminate the concept of 'power'. I would strongly vote for a return to the Aircraft carrier: it shows the military angle, the financial angle (those suckers are expensive), and the gunboat diplomacy angle. Forgive me for sounding crass, but IMHO a 'superpower' is primarily a military construct, and secondarily a demographic or cultural construct or other 'soft' factors. Davejenk1ns 13:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

How about adding a picture of the Shanghai skyline and an air craft carrier. That way both the military and economic facests of superpower status would be represented and the article wouldn't seem pro-US biased. Signature^brendel 06:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Shanghai skyline? China is not a superpower and if there is going to be pictures of anything they need to be American since the U.S. is the only superpower. User:Daniel Chiswick 19 May, 2007.

the article isn't just about the (now minority) view that the US remains the only superpower. It is also about potential superpowers, and previous superpowers. There is no reason for all of the images to be US assets and in fact a good reason avoid selecting exclusively pictures of US assets is that doing so will tend to just invite constant deletion of the pictures by those who see jingoistic US bias everywhere. Something like the shanghai skyline as an illustration of economic power projection (the city is indeed a massive economic power projection asset) would be perfect imho. I hope we can build a consensus around that or something along those lines.Zebulin 06:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the three pictures as a test to see if you guys like the arrangement. I like the arragement but we need to find the proper caption for the pictures, or merge then into one picture. User:Daniel Chiswick 19 May, 2007.

Please use the Shaghai skyline instead. As Zebulin has stated above, the US being the world's sole superpower is only 1 viewpoint, making the use of only US subjects one-sided. Furthermore, this article also touches on the rising economy of China, making a pic of Shanghai's skyline just perfect. BTW: One military pic is enough (go w/ the aircraft carrier). Signature^brendel 06:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is indeed looking a bit cluttered. It might work better to have a single caption encompassing all of the intro pictures more or less exactly like the one that accompanied the map. I also think it might be helpful to try just two pictures one for economic power and one for military with a single caption.Zebulin 06:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A picture of the Shanghai skyline would be good under potential superpowers would be good but to have a pciture of something Chinese would give the idea that it is an established and recognized superpower, which it is not. Currently the U.S. is the recognized superpower and if there is going to be any picture at all it needs to be American. Also if you say that if there is an American picture somebody might delete it because they think there is an American biase what makes you think they won't delete something Chinese. People are getting to carried away and think all large countries are superpowers, China and India are not superpowers and nither is the E.U. which isn't even a country and may never be a country. User:Daniel Chiswick 19 May, 2007.

There is a problem with a picture of the Shanghai skyline, China isn't a superpower. How about the New York skyline since it is the economic capital of the world? New York and Tokyo are more important financial centers than Shanghai. User:Daniel Chiswick 19 May, 2007.

Those arn't established facts. The US being the world's sole superpower is just one theory! (Perhaps the most prominent one-but still just one) I'm saying it again, the head pictures should not show "pro-US as the only superpower theory" bias; thus at least one pic should be of a non-US subject. Furthermore, the head pic should reflect the fact that this article touches on the concept of potential superpowers. Signature^brendel 06:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I could provide hundred's of scources that say the U.S. is the only superpower, and it is not a theory as no other country has the same military and economic power as the United States. China's military influence doesn't stretch past east Asia and since it's economy is still growing it is very fragile. The U.S. has military presence around the world and we are the richest country in the world and New York is the world capital of business. User:Daniel Chiswick 20 May, 2007.

How about this, we put New York on top and put Shanghai under potential superpowers since that is what China is. User:Daniel Chiswick 20 May, 2007.

Ok the captions I gave seem a bit wordy but I generally like the dual intro picture look. It really does not seem cluttered and seems more useful in an illustrative sense than our map was.Zebulin 07:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And don't add a picture until we all agree on something because this is getting out of hand. User:Daniel Chiswick 20 May, 2007.

I temporarily the picture of Shanghai under the potential superpower section so maybe we can add New York at the top, so that we could all possibly be happy. User:Daniel Chiswick 20 May, 2007.

lets put back the shanghai picture at the top. You seem to be forgetting that the whole reason for this discussion was to find a way to improve on our map intro picture without having the constant picture wars or deletions that plagued the article earlier. If you read the caption for the shanghai picture it doesnt state or imply that china is a superpower it just states that assets like the busiest port in the world can serve to project economic power which is one means by which a superpower can demonstrate global influence. I strongly doubt that anybody will delete the new shanghai/aircraft carrier pic so it will give us something to use while we discuss this (a discussion which I expect won't resolve into consensus for a very long time).Zebulin 07:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence by which a superpower can demonstrate global influence. implies thay China is a superpower. How about just put Shanghai under emerging superpower or just delete the picture of a skyline. We are equal here and if you do not like the picture I like and I do not like the picture that you like that means there is a problem. I propose adding both New York and Shanghai (In different places) so that way we could both be happy or we can just try to find something else. User:Daniel Chiswick 20 May, 2007.

the caption was still being tweaked. Here's another possiblity. How about a soviet military asset and a US economic asset? that might lead to consensus even more easily.Zebulin 07:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, I like it. As long as we all agree on it I am fine, as I hope you are. User:Daniel Chiswick 20 May, 2007.

How about a MiG or a missile for the Soviet military asset? User:Daniel Chiswick 20 May, 2007.

It's too bad the soviet union didn't have any power projection assets as sexy as the B2 or the aircraft carrier but it does seem like the least complicated way to use two images to get around the objections of those who kept either deleting the intro pictures altogether or who kept putting the map in as a compromise. Is there any worthy soviet military power projection asset beyond ICBMS? The mig is just too small fry imho. It doesnt do the concept of power projection by military means justice. I wonder if there might be some soviet era photos of *huge* military parades which could be about as impressive.Zebulin 07:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A picture of a military parade could work since it shows huge amounts of manpower the Soviet Union had, what do you think? User:Daniel Chiswick 20 May, 2007.

it could work I think, and we could pair it with the original stock exchange picture with the huge US flag. Some of the parade photos I've googled seem like they would work great but there seems to be copyright issues so far.Zebulin 07:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I found this picture on wikipedia, but it is in black and white.

User:Daniel Chiswick 20 May, 2007.

I didn't really like the stock echange picture, I just used it as an example. The carrier picture fits pretty well since the U.S. was more powerful than the Soviet Union on the seas and the Soviet Union was more powerful than the U.S. on land. User:Daniel Chiswick 20 May, 2007.

two military assets won't fly. if anything they'll be even more strongly rejected than the single military asset pictures were. There are too many sources in the article that discuss foppish new notions of non military power projection. Whatever picture set gets the consensus should easily be better than the map but don't expect to have anything really cool replacing the map given the objections that shot down the earlier b2 and carrier pictures.Zebulin 07:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, I understand. I guess the stock exchange picture could work with a picture of a Soviet military parade. Here is a color picture of a Soviet military parade. User:Daniel Chiswick 20 May, 2007.

A picture of an American carrier and a Soviet satellite, the carrier would show military power and projection and the satellites would show economic and scientific power since satellite are expensive and need advanced technology.

User:Daniel Chiswick 20 May, 2007.

we could try to pair the aircraft carrier with the mir pic and take the "soft power" angle with regards to the soviet space program. I personally think "soft power" is a load of hooey but if I used a caption alluding to such soft power in the second picutre maybe that would be enough to molify the critics of the military asset intro picture. I think it's worth a try.Zebulin 07:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, but you should write the caption because I am not really good at that. User:Daniel Chiswick 20 May, 2007.

The MIR pic seems like a good compromise. Anyone mind if I archive this long discussion as well? I will do so tomrrow morining, unless someone beats me to it ;-) Regards, Signature^brendel 05:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the MIR photo is presumably that the caption says it represents Soft power. However if you look at the cited quote on the soft power page it talks about an attraction to values, or ideology. MIR has nothing to do with values,culture, or ideology, so nothing to do with soft power. so im going to remove it. Willy turner 01:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The MIR picture repesents technological advancement, which is a form of soft power because it affects people all over the world. Many editors along with myself worked very hard to reach a consensus and you have no right to just come along and delete the MIR picture without talking about it with other users first. User:Daniel Chiswick 29 May, 2007.

It doesn't sound as if you (Willy Turner) are actually reading the soft power article or it sounds as if you are reading it with certain pre-conceptions. It describes soft power as influence by non hard power means. There is no question that perception of soviet leadership in space technology increased the influence of the soviet union and was in fact a major motivation for the development of the space race. It could even be argued that by inducing it's primary foe to divert so much economic resource into a new vast enterprise of doubtful military value (the lunar program) it had a direct influence on the power balance. Your notion of soft power is either too narrow or the soft power article itself is too general and needs to be improved with new sources and wording.Zebulin 03:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Technological advancement is relevant to economic and military power, not soft power. "a form of soft power because it affects people all over the world"- I dont know what you mean. 3 people agreeing on something is not "a consensus". To say "It doesn't sound as if you are actually reading the soft power article" is absurd when i had just mentioned reading the page. I simply described what the page said, without including any so called pre-conceptions. The soft power page is a lot more specific than simply saying it is influence by non hard power means. You say "There is no question that perception of soviet leadership in space technology increased the influence of the soviet union and was in fact a major motivation for the development of the space race. It could even be argued that by inducing it's primary foe to divert so much economic resource into a new vast enterprise of doubtful military value (the lunar program) it had a direct influence on the power balance." This is all largely correct, however has nothing to do with soft power. Furthermore if you did want a picture that symbolises Soviet space technology the obvious choice would be Sputnik, not MIR. You say my notion of soft power is too narrow. It is not my notion, it is the cited definition from the soft power article. You say the soft power article itself is too general. By the points you made, surely you meen you think it is too specific. It is your definition of soft power which is actualy too general. Once again i say if you look at the cited quote on the soft power page it talks about an attraction to values, or ideology. MIR has nothing to do with values,culture, or ideology, so nothing to do with soft power. Where is the flawed reasoning in this statement? Willy turner 07:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, according to Lyman Miller, "The basic components of superpower stature may be measured along four axes of power: military, economic, political, and cultural (or what political scientist Joseph Nye has termed “soft”)." www.stanford.edu So here is yet another academic saying soft power is the same thing as cultural power. MIR may be about technology, but no-one would class it as in any way cultural. So now we have 2 proffesors definitions of soft power, neither of which make any mention of technology. How many experts do you want to ignore? So unless someone shows me an academic saying technological advances are soft power surely the image should be removed. Willy turner 08:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

How about this [1], which makes it clear technological advances have nothing to do with soft power.

If people feel we must have a second non-US photo, (which i dont actually), what about something like these?

Personally i think the Nimtz on its own is fine, as the page makes it very clear that military factors are not the only issue. I would also be happy with for example the NYSE or NY skyline to show economic factors. Willy turner 10:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

We appear to be talking past each other. especially with your assertion that *I* am applying a narrower definition of soft power than you are. I am in fact not asserting that technological gains automatically translate into soft power. The technological gain has to increase influence in some way, perhaps through prestige. What sort of power do you suppose was being pursued through the space race? Do you believe it was pursued because the superpower leaders believed it would deliver hard power economic/military gains? It's hard to understand how that reasoning would hold for lunar and interplanetary missions.

Having said all that I am uninterested in distracting you from your efforts to continue to imrpove the sourcing for the article and in any event soft power is something I regard of little consequence so perhaps I should hesitate to carry it's banner. You will likely find that if the mir picture is removed the article will find itself shortly there after with either no image accompanying the intro at all or it will find some empty compromise excuse for an illustration in it's place. I hope I'm wrong. Perhaps you can identify a better picture to molify the opponents of a military picture at the introduction. Good Luck!Zebulin 13:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my comments in a civil manner. I feared we were on the verge of getting into a pointless argument, which is not what i want. The picture is not that big a deal after all. Dont you like the photo of the 2 presidents? I think if you say the word superpower a lot of people would immediately think of the cold war confrontation between the US and USSR, and the photo shows the 2 leaders literaly confronting each other. Perhaps we could put it in the cold war section? Of course the space race was to do with prestige, its just prestige isnt really exactly the same thing as soft power. What do you think then- Nimitz on its own?, Nimtz and the presidents? the presidents on their own? Is the reichstag photo relevant? You mention people might want to put in a compromise image, well i kindoff think the MIR photo seems like a compromise at the moment. There is nothing wrong with having Nimitz on its own. So what if military power is not the only superpower characteristic. By that logic we would have to have 5 or 6 photos, one for each characteristic, which would be daft. Willy turner 15:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I will accept any picture that doesn't lead to a revert war and has some substance to it. My personal preference for which picture to use would likely owe more to my sense of what looks "cool" while having some relevant substance than any objective appraisal of the merits of concept being illustrated by the picture. Naturally such bias would lead me to endorse the B2 bomber or the nimitz aircraft carrier but I think either would lead to annoying revert wars. The summit picture at least helps ensure we will have a better fall back than the map. Hopefully editors who like to object to intro pictures will chime in and it will be clear what we can gt away with.Zebulin 03:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

Can this page be semi-protected? I have noticed that alot of unregistered tend to vandalize this page and it is getting really annoying, can it please be semi-protected so ungregistered users cannot edit this page? User:Daniel Chiswick 23 May, 2007.

There isn't enough vandalism on the page for semi-protection. Most anon edits come from one IP who seems to be editing on good faith. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Chiswick,you are just 16,i recommend to comedown your hormones.--87.65.216.66 12:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice try User:Eurocopter tigre, how about you log in and insult me. User:Daniel Chiswick 24 May, 2007.

Sorry i don't know how that guy is.I remind you that you attacked me first.Your attitude will bring you trouble, even if you consider a view rubbish,most of the time the other person has been honest, if you jump in to conclusions like this,you actually just been unilaterally aggressive. Other people really believe in "rubbish",from mother Tereza to Hitler.In the same way that we are different from the outside,we are also different in the inside(the brain-->way we think).--87.65.216.66 12:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I mistaked you for someone else that also insulted my age. I did not attack you, all I did was ask for semi-protection which I have been meaning to ask for a couple of days and now got around to it. Also just you know age discriminatiob is not allowed and is considered and is conisdered a perosnal attack. User:Daniel Chiswick 24 May, 2007.

May be you should reconsider ,why you have been blocked so many times.--87.65.216.66 13:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

How is that relevant? Are you telling us you remain anonymous to evade being blocked for insulting and personally attacking other editors?Zebulin 14:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL please. Let's just drop this issue and focus on the content of the article. Thank you, Signature^brendel 14:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japan As (emerging) Superpower

I don't know about you guys,but for me the past idea about japan as a emerging superpower ,waters down the concept.--87.65.216.66 19:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In the 80's it was "fashionable" to say that Japan will become a superpower.You simply can not over look that,this is an wikipedia article, not a news article.I propose to put it in the potential superpower section.Also, do you consider this good enough as source http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967823,00.html?promoid=googlep (1988 article).Other potential sources is kissinger books.If you where old enough at the time i suppose you can source it easily.

True, during the 1980s Americans just about feared Japan for its rising economic strenght (similar as with Germany during the Wirtschaftswunder-Economic miracle). I actually recall a Time Magazine (or at least I think it was Time) cover that featured a US flag with "Made in Japan" written on it. Anyways, I think the 1980s Japan-as-next-superpower mentallity is worth a blurb. Regards, Signature^brendel 13:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Japan status in the 1980s as a "Potential" superpower is a good example that nothing is ever certain and things change. Japan suffered from boom and bust, from over investment, and too fast economic growth, and the same may very well happen to China so people must remember the term "Potential" means just that, potential, nothing is ever certain. The same could go for India, since they too have a rapidly growing economy. User:Daniel Chiswick 24 May, 2007.

True, "nothing is ever certain and things change"-especially in the social science arena. Yet, mentioning that Japan was once thought of as a potential superpower might be worth a one-sentence blurb w/ ref. Regards, Signature^brendel 02:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What about the Times article?isn't good enough?--87.65.142.17 12:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it actually is, so go ahead and add the blurb. Signature^brendel 01:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the potential superpowers section surely not about countries that are potential superpowers today, rather than in the past? Willy turner 17:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Separate Criticism Section

Is it true? Is the US still the 'only remaining' superpower? I must disagree with that. The Dutch page on this subject is much more reliable. That page shows that indeed the US WAS and IS a superpower, but NOT the only still remaining. The Dutch page shows how every Superpower of the world (US, EU, Russian Federation, Chinese Federation, etc.) needs another superpower.

A Few Points To Start The Discussion (btw, I'm NOT anti-American, I just want to show that the US can't be called the only superpower, that the US, the EU, RF, CF, etc. all NEED EACHOTHER)

• Military force: What would happen if all the EU/ NATO-states would pull back there troops from Afghanistan and Iraq? The US would not be able to handle the chaos that will then emerge. Having the biggest, most advanced military force of the world clearly is not enough, and no matter how much money you invest in it, the US CAN'T live without the troops of especially the EU/ NATO. If the US would/ could win a war on there own, that would change the story. Furthermore: what are the Western (US, EU, NATO, etc.) troops are worth, if they can't win the war on terrorism, deafeted by armed troops in Afghanistan and Irak, who don't even have a 10th of the money, means and knowledge as they have in the Western world? Not that that's a good or a bad thing, it's just to make the point. Furthermore: every superpower on this planet has access to nucleair wapons (clearly not a good thing). So if, for instance, let's hope this dos not become reality, the superpowers would start a war with eachother, they all have a chance to win it (as far as you could call that winning :-s), if they would attack with nucleair wapons.
• Economical: The EU is the biggest economical power in the world (according to the World Bank and the IMF, as shown on Wikipedia), the only list that states that the US is economicly a bigger power, is presented by the CIA... I rest my case on this one. Furthermore: China is slowly releasing it's Dollars, replacing it by Euro's. This perhaps doesn't mean a thing, however, it is a fact that the Dollar is losing terrain in favour of the Euro and the British Sterling Pound. In the 80's and 90's the Dollar was by far the most used currency in the world. Today the Euro is winning terrain. Let's continue.
• Energy: Both the EU and the US needs the Islamic World and Left Wing South America (perhaps unofficially two other Superpowers in the world), as well as the Russian Federation. Both the US and the EU are relying on the oil from those powers, the EU also need the gas from the RF (Russian Federation). Here in the EU (aswell as Europe) we all experienced what the RF can do with the gas that is bought by the EU. We are depending on the RF in that matter.
• Political: the US can't make the world spin around them, as they could have, and did, in the 90's. The US wants to change the world, but in more and more way's, the rest of the world isn't listening anymore. If the same situation would have happend in the 90's, would Wolfowitz still had to lose his job at the World Bank? No, of course not, that would be unimaginable. The Russian Federation don't give a F**k if the US and the EU are warning the RF that, among other things, the pressfreedom in the RF is not going to the right direction. The EU doesn't follow the US anywere, no questions asked. The war in Iraq made that clear to the EU. If the US are (verbaly) attacking the Left Wing South American countries, than that only means that Castro, Chavez, etc., will become more populair, since they are the ones daring to make a stand against the US. The same case for the Islamic World: the more Western people (soldiers) they kill, the more they become local heroes.
• Population: The US is the third runner-up; China, India and the EU all have more inhabitants.
• Culture: Indeed, the US had (and still has) a highly influential culture worldwide, but throughout the world, that culture is 'replaced' by 'own' culture. Hollywoodfilms are not as populair as, for an example, Bollywoodfilms in India. Besides that, many cultures now dominate the worldimage. EU companies are beginning to start there businesess across the world, and many people can't picture a world without those EU-brands (Ikea, H&M, etc.). And what to think about the tv-formats designed and founded in the EU (Big Brother, Deal Or No deal, many programmes for children, for example Teletubbies)? Furthermore: the most unfluential houte couture designers are from the EU (from the 'old' names as Valentino, Lagerfeld, Versace, Chanel, to the 'new' names like Stella McCartney, Viktor & Rolf). And let's not forget the Asian cultures, which, most of the times, are very inspiring for many designers of whatever in the US and the EU.

These are just a couple of examples. I think that it is not right to call the US the only Superpower. I think that that title was reasonable in the 90's, but in this time and day, the US are ONE of the SEVERAL Superpowers.

Why start this discussion?

I would like to start a discussion about this, because, in my opinion, the chapter about Superpowers today (1991-) is to US-focussed (I won't even start about many other chapters in this article, even a simple picture must be US-oriented :-s), which I think is only partially legit. I also would like to start this discussion, because I want to invite pro-US users (for some users, pro-US is an understatement) to take a look through WORLD-glasses, instead of US-glasses. The idea that there could be more than one Superpower in the world, any power outside the US, is perhaps hard to swallow, but nevertheless a reality, or at least a possible reality. Let me remind you that you are obligated to keep Wikipedia AS OBJECTIVE AS POSSIBLE! At this moment, this article is not as objective is it could be.

What do I propose?

I propose to change the chapter Superpowers today (1991-) into a chapter in which EVERY Superpower is named, with the factors now used for the US. I would also like to see that NO pictures are included at the top of this article, for the reason that every picture is not correct/ good/ covering the article/ etc. A picture of the US does not cover the part of this article about the EU, the Chinese Federation, the Russian Federation, etc. A picture of the EU (whatever picture that would be) does not serve right to the US, CF, RF, etc. Get the point? And even if there is a solution (both pictures on top of this article), then it is a matter of time before someone doesn't agree with the picture of the RF above the picture of the US picture, and vice versa. Pictures can be included, however, in the chapter inwhere that Superpower is talked about. So in a chapter about the US, show a good picture that could possibly cover the chapter. In a chapter about the EU idem dito, a chapter about China idem dito, etc.

All of this to insure that this article is OBJECTIVE AS POSSIBLE, cause that is what I, you, WE, are obliged to do. --Robster1983 18:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

These are interesting arguments. Could you give us a link to your source or sources? I don't think we have sources representing this particular argument in the article yet.Zebulin 13:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad idea as it would violate WP:OR, WP:POV and WP:V. We should stick to the consensus view and the notable (and reliable) deviant views that exist about the concept "superpower". It is not about what we think - even if we think that we have good arguments - but what the accepted views on the subject are. Sijo Ripa 19:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I reckon the Russian Federation should be listed as a potential superpower just because 1) They still have the most nukes 2) They might not have a super carrier, but from my understanding the Russians dont beleive a supercarrier to be the best naval unit, in the 80s they described the US Iowa class battleships as the greatest warships, followed and closley rivalled by the Kirov class battlecruiser. 3) IF a war broke out, Russia could become a super power again in war time if need be, because you cant just loose your superpowerness if your that big of a country, britain yes because of its colonys....just wondering if osmething along those lines should be included.

There are many how doubt the existence of superpowers in the post Cold War era altogether, stating that today's complex global marketplace and the rising interdependency between the world's nations has made the concept of a superpower an idea of the past and that the world is now multipolar.^[1][2][3][4]In that perspective the belief that a country is or will be,a superpower is seen as merely the result of what is more fashionable at the time,with little or no rational. Examples of that is the long dead theory of the 80's that Japan was a future superpower^{[citation needed]} and the wild overstatement of the real power of the USSR.

I'm proposing to concentrate all the criticism material in one section(multipolar world,social construct e.c.t.).--87.65.216.66 14:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting proposal! But do we have enough sourced info on these criticism to build an entire section? Signature^brendel 14:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree . Perhaps my proposal wasn't the best (see the section about US the ONLY superpower, I'd love to see more opinions btw), but I think that something must change on this page. It isn't a fact that the US is the ONLY worldpower these days, just like no other nation/ entity on this world is. What other ideas/ options are there? Could it be an idea to create sections per time-era? Pre-worldwar 2 (Europe), WW2 (Nazi Germany, Italy, Japan, etc.), post-WW2 (USA, USSR), 80's (Japan, USA, USSR), 90's (USA), post-milennium (USA, EU, Russian Federation, Chinese Republic, etc.)? Is this an idea? Well, anyhow, something must be changed on this page. As it is now, it can't be called objective --Robster1983 16:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

More specifically about the USA,i find it too out of balance,in most points you can have a criticism,plus most of the time assumptions are made ,that this or this trait is actually good,when in fact is less simple.Some proposals:

• With more than €610 billion in circulation as of December 2006 (equivalent to US$802 billion at the exchange rates at the time), the euro has surpassed the U.S. dollar in terms of combined value of cash in circulation.^[5]

In other words,the US economy ,is well in second place

• What about the huge external debt?Why is not mentioned
• It makes the implicit assumption that the greater the GDP per capita, the better it is.One thing for sure a lot of economist will argue that.
• It makes the implicit assumption that the bigger military spending the better.
• Ther's an over all bias toward a realist view of the world,and overlooks completely the other schools of Thought.
• What about the Iraq(20 million devastated country) and/or Vietnam(50 million) debacle.
• According to the article ,the US represents 17% of worlds PPP(adjusted GDP).Isn't this worth further explaining?Do you have a leading position with just 17%?What about the rest 83%?It makes the assumption that the 83% bit is not efficient enough to balance out a maer 17%.
• --87.65.142.17 20:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

if you'd like to help present this particular line of reasoning in the article please provide a source for this particular argument. As is it looks like original research.Zebulin 20:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I can play that game too you now.The "Characteristics" has no reputable source,let's delete it it's OR.Since this is gone then "Superpowers today (1991-)" and "The Cold War era (1945-1991)" have no rational for the inclusions of their tables (WP:OR WP:POV), hop delete that too.The "Some analysts think the hegemonic stability theory explains ..." in "Superpowers today (1991-)" has no source either,delete.Are you ok with my proposals for deletion?--87.65.142.17 23:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You want to add something that is OR-you can't do that. True, there are parts of this article sorely in need of credible sources, but deleting might be a taking it a bit too far. Signature^brendel 01:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that the criteria do correspond with most social scientist's characteristics. It is not POV, just unreferenced and perhaps not a whole 100% accurate or complete. The additions you want to make, are more controversial (possible POV) and could constitute OR if not referenced. This makes the addition of references very important. Also remember that all used sources should be realiable and should be about superpowers. For instance, an article that only deals with the problem of the US public and trade deficit is not a valid source (because it would be OR), an article that argues that the US is not a superpower because it has a large deficit, is. Sijo Ripa 11:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no difference.If it does correspond with "most social scientist's characteristics",then why is not sourced since an eternity.This is not a case of "the sun is rising every morning".--87.65.142.17 11:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have souces,put them in,or out they go.--87.65.142.17 11:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In my years as a student, I did in fact read that these are the traditional characteristics of a superpower. As it was formulated as a consensus opinion, I think that these are not really controversial. It wouldn't object a removal though. In fact, I have put the template on the section because it bothers me. Note however that if you do so, you are violating WP:POINT: It is not because editors oppose the addition of your unsourced opinion about the power of the US to the article, that everything unsourced should be deleted. Sijo Ripa 12:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I found sources. Unfortunatly I couldn't find anything (yet) that supports the Russion Federation or the Chinese Republic as Superpower, but this at least supports the EU. This link [2] goes a long way I think. Clingendeal is a Dutch thinktank, specialized in the transatlantic relations. And before I hear anything about "They must be a bunch of Pro-EU losers", let me say this first: Clingendael is neither Pro-EU, nor Pro-US, and neither Anti-EU, nor Anti-US. They examen the relations between those two 'superpowers', as they state in several articles. For an example this article [3], about the EU and the US in the Middle-East. This article [4] states that the EU is important in the world, for they are a major economic partner to both the US and China, has military technology that could modernise Chinsese military, and is the most important military ally of the US. Furthermore, for more stable international relations, the EU should be involved in the problems in Eastern Asia. And I also found an article, [5] which states that the US is the only remaining superpower (I at least try to be objective, so I ought to include this also in this list), but it also states that that superpower is getting out of control. Another article [6] (in Dutch) they published, says that the US was the worlds policeman, but nowadays is a pitbull who sometimes storms out of his doghouse, also stating that a pitbull is not only strong and powerfull, but also unreliable. Perhaps these sources aren't the ones that many would love to see/ hear, but if the sources used for this article are accepted, then these should also be accepted. It is stated on this talkpage, that 'most scientist's characteristics' of a Superpower support the idea that the US is the only superpower. Well, these links and sources are from real scientists, who make a living by investigating the world's political context. At least it gives a more multipolaire vision to everything, and, best of all, it is from an institute that is not only objective, but also has close ties with research institutes in both EU/ Europe, aswell in the US. Now, can we please continue with a more multipolar discussion, instead of an Pax-American discussion? --Robster1983 14:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly the problem is. Is it that you don't like the intro? Is it the "Superpowers today (1991-)" section? By all means start inserting those sources to support the relevant points in the article. I'm a believer in multiple sourcing for points in an article if the article has been attacked as lacking in such sources. It appears however that you want more than this and it would help if we could zero in on exactly what you are proposing to modify in addition to adding your sources and any new ideas they may support.Zebulin 19:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've found another source; this time it is an American (!) from the Chicago Tribune (!!), who says that the EU is in position to be the next superpower. The link is: [7]. More links that state that the EU is (partly) (becoming) a superpower: [8] (from the Columbia Daily Tribune, [9], from Roger Cohen, from The New York Times (!), [10] (very pro-US, nevertheless it states that "the US could have a real competitor to deal with.". Other links: [11] (says that the EU will dissolve in 15 years, but at the same time states that 'they' believe the world could easily see a new, powerful dictator come to power, rising, as it were, from the remains of this momentary failure of the EU.), [12] (quite objective, I think, for this link states that the EU, statistical, already is superpower, however, won't stay/ become, if some things in the EU won't change), [13]/ [14] (from Jeremy Rifkin, from The Guardian, and the author of The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream), [15], [16],[17], [18]. --Robster1983 19:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, these are wonderful sources for the EU as a potential superpower but are you saying they all establish that the EU is already a superpower? If so, looking through them I have not found that to be the case.Zebulin 19:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, those links I found, was to at least show that the US isn't the only superpower today. Many people still call the US a superpower, just because that titel grew upon the US during, and after the Cold War. What I wanted to prove (at this moment), was that the EU is considered an equal with the US, and therefor the US is not intitled to be called 'the only superpower' today. In my opinion the US deserved (the US still does) that title, but in the section about Superpowers today (1991-), I still think that that section should be referring to all the superpowers today, not only the US. And all those links I referred to, many of them are stating that the EU already IS a superpower, most of the times referring to the Economic status of the EU, or the 'soft power' of the EU. --Robster1983 19:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

A link that is calling the EU 'the worlds first metrosexual Superpower' (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/users/login.php?story_id=2583&URL=http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2583&popup_delayed=1]). And here [19] is a link from Newsweek. that states that the EU is 'a quiet superpower', and that 'while American realpolitists like to talk about a "unipolar" world, bestrode by a sole superpower. The success of the European Union proves just the opposite: the world is bipolar, and the other pole is Europe.'. This link states that the EU is at least an economic superpower [20], this link states that the EU is 'A post-modern superpower', referring also to the 'soft power' of the EU [21], and this link is about a 'print-on-demand-book, about the relations between Australia and the 'European superpower' [22]. This link [:::A link that is calling the EU 'the worlds first metrosexual Superpower' (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/users/login.php?story_id=2583&URL=http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2583&popup_delayed=1]). And here [23] is a link from Newsweek. that states that the EU is 'a quiet superpower', and that 'while American realpolitists like to talk about a "unipolar" world, bestrode by a sole superpower. The success of the European Union proves just the opposite: the world is bipolar, and the other pole is Europe.'. This link states that the EU is at least an economic superpower [24], this link states that the EU is 'A post-modern superpower', referring also to the 'soft power' of the EU [25], and this link is about a 'print-on-demand-book, about the relations between Australia and the 'European superpower' [26]. This link perhaps could explain what 'Superpower' realy means, and is also stating that the US grew from 'a superpower during the coldwar, to a "normal" power now. --Robster1983 20:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Is something going to change now in the section of Superpowers today (1991-), or stays it just the way it is? It seems to me that many consider that part not correct. At least the example of the US needs to go away (because it is totally from a US-point-of-view), or other Superpowers this day need to be added (EU, I found proof enough for that, and it musn't be that hard to find some sources that could claim that Russia and China are Superpowers also). --Robster1983 14:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

None of your sources actually say explicitly that the EU is a superpower. And there are 4 or 5 academic souces cited saying the US is the worlds only superpower. Why dont you write what you think the article should say here on the talk page, so we can discuss how credible it sounds? Willy turner 15:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC'

Well, personally, I found it rather upsetting that this article said that there is only ONE superpower today; the US. Like I said: 4 out of 5 sources say that the US is a Superpower, because they were, and they still are, it grew upon them, however, in much lesser form than they used to be. Besides: many sources who claim that the US are the only superpower today, are probably from a couple of extreme pro-USA fanatics. They are blind to everything that is going wrong (I, and other perons, have already showed that the US can't be called the 'only superpower today', since the EU is the #1 economy at this moment, the Russian Federation can be called a superpower with all the gas and oil that they have (and I believe someone stated something about nucleair wapons), the population of the EU, India and China is all far bigger than that of the US, so all the statistics of the US in that section was way out of line, and more importantly: weren't showing that the US indeed is a superpower, since all the statistics used (population, ecomic importance, etc.) are all smaller than the statistics from other superpowers), so the points in the earlier section of Superpowers Today (1991-) weren't right anymore. They were a few years ago, but today, they are not. Besides: the US is losing it's touch on every ground; how much Americans do you know, that want, and let alone actually DO, wright about the fact that the US can't be called the only superpower today anymore? Here in Europe we all know the pattriotism of many Americans; they don't even want to see the truth about how the US is doing, and is seen, in the world. And that's why I couldn't live with that particular section. I am pleased with the new section and the changes btw, it is much more accurate than the old section. It shows that the Superpowerworld of today, is not the same Superpowerworld from, let's say, 10 years ago. So big thnx to the person who changed it! --Robster1983 17:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OR

In the superpowers today section, there is a lot of OR (See: WP:OR). Sources that are in fact unrelated to the topic of being a superpower are used to advance the position that the US is a superpower. Only reliable sources that have a content directly related to the concept of superpower should be used. Otherwise, we just form our own idea of what are important markers and pick-and-chose articles that deal with these. Sijo Ripa 12:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Before deleting those sections lets explicitly tag the unsourced OR statements that those inappropriate sources are intended to support. That may make it easier to track down appropriate source material that makes those arguments directly.Zebulin 17:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The facts in the superpowers today section are completely relevant. They demonstrate how the US meets the superpower criteria that are outlined by the 2 academics Willy turner 15:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subheadings for each potential superpower

what on earth is wrong with having EU, China, and India subheadings? It makes the section clearer. the fact that seperate articles about these countries being potential superpowers were deleted is so irrelevant. Willy turner 17:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] working definition of Superpower found in one of our sources

"While there is no clear and uncontested definition of superpower, generally this term was used to signify a political community that occupied a continental-sized landmass, had a sizable population (relative at least to other major powers); a superordinate economic capacity (again, relative to others), including ample indigenous supplies of food and natural resources; enjoyed a high degree of non-dependence on international intercourse; and, most importantly, had a well-developed nuclear capacity (eventually normally defined as second-strike capability). In short, the term superpower was intimately connected with the rivalry between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War, and was designed to signify the essential "distance" in power capability terms between those two countries on the one hand, and all other major powers on the other."

The above definition is word for word from the queens superpower paper already referenced in the article.^[6]

We currently do not source much if any of the characteristics of superpower portion of our article. But so much of this definition seems to ignore the obviously different definitions that other sources are using (but not explicitly defining for their readers) that I wonder how best we might use this to improve the referencing of that section without unilaterally subscribing to a single definition simply because other authorities do not seem to see fit to clearly articulate their definitions for their readers.

I don't want to leave that section unsourced particularly with talk of deleting it out right due to lack of sourcing but I am uncomfortable committing the article entirely to this one working definition particularly when the source providing the definition agrees that no uncontested definition exists. How shall we proceed?Zebulin 17:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

dont worry that there are different definitions. we should include the differing definitions instead of arbitralily picking one. with 2 cited definitions the characteristics section is now much better. Willy turner

I apologize for my lack of clarity. I am in fact delighted by the second definition you found. My concern had centered around my frustration with my inability to find additional sources that explicitly defined their usage of the term "superpower". I didn't want any effort to provide a source for that section to result in one source being used to remove other indirectly sourced definitions for sources already present in the article that clearly are using a different definition but also do not explicitly state what that definition is. In any case the more sources for a superpower definition we find the less problematic this will be.Zebulin 19:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russia as a potential supepower

This section cites GlobalCPR as a source. GlobalCPR is a mirror site of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Ghi. Obviously this means it is not a reliable source. The section on Russia also links to this page [27]. In that article it first says, "Russia is trying to use its oil wealth to become a superpower again". Trying doesn't count for anything. San Marino might 'try' to become a superpower; doesn't mean it ever will be one. The sentence isn't even a direct quote from Bobby Inman. All Inman does actually say is, "I believe that Mr. Putin has concluded that there is a new path for Russia to again be a superpower". This article doesn't explicitly say that Russia is a potential superpower, just that their president (who might be a bit biased) thinks they could possibly become one. Consequently, due to a complete lack of reliable sources, the Russia section should be deleted. If anyone finds reliable academic sources explicitly saying Russia is a potential superpower, then of course add them. Willy turner 07:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree Russia should be deleted. Just become a country has the goal of becoming a superpower does not make it a potential superpower, especially Russia which has far too many problems. User:Daniel Chiswick 28 May, 2007.

I think Russia shouldn't be deleted, simply because it is the biggest nuclear power in the world and its intercontinental ballistic missiles can't be beaten by any country defensive systems in this world (see Topol-M). --Eurocopter tigre 13:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That is all very true but does that make them a potential superpower? I changed my mind, I do not think Russia should be deleted but it's section needs to be expanded and it needs more scources if it is going it stay. User:Daniel Chiswick 28 May, 2007.

Don't listen to "willy" he's just being silly and frankly stupid. How could you NOT have Russia as a superpower?

-G

Thanks for your intelligent contribution to the discussion. Willy turner 07:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the potential superpower section should include more countries. After all, the word "potential" implies any country with even the possibility of becoming a superpower, and a number of countries, like Japan, Russia, the Union of South Africa, and even the African Union (way down the road) have a chance at becoming superpowers. --Chris 03:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You have sources that describe as potential superpowers those other countries you want to add? Any unsourced addition will be reverted as unnecessary for that section. We have to draw the line somewhere unless we want to list all of the countries in the world and a requirement for sources seems to be a more than fair definition for that line.Zebulin 17:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have sources that say that the Union of South Africa has the fifth largest economy and third largest population, and have sources (Goldman Sachs) that say that Brazil, on it's own, is on the way to becoming a great economic power. Here's an article that talks about Brazil alone as an economic superpower: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20060306/ai_n16184859 Here's another about how Brazil might become a superpower; inclusion of Brazil possibly emerging as a superpower on it's own might also be mentioned in this article. http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/power/2006/06.03_Brazil_Superpower.html Tell me what you think. --Chris 09:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Also, if you look at the South American Union page they mention further integration to the point of a single currency, single passport, and a single nation. --Chris 09:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV issue

The US has details on the different "criteria",with emphasis only on the positives interpretations.While all the others are just paragraphs.This is a important bias,left over from the deletions of the potential superpower articles.All i ask is that we treat them,in the same way,either the potential superpower stubs are expanded,either the US details are removed.--87.65.163.96 14:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should make the post 1991 sections dealing with a particular country or supranational collection of countries all follow the format currently used for each of the potential superpowers. The US probably won't need a larger section as much of the relevant information is already covered by the cold war section. As sijo mentioned earlier it's not really appropriate to have all those sources included that don't mention superpower or even indirectly address the concept.Zebulin 19:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't let this article lose its quality again

Dear fellow Wikipedians, remember the deletion of all subarticles dealing with emerging superpowers. It was a clear signal that POV and OR are not allowed. Such OR is the use of sources that explain one aspect of power, but do not discuss the concept of superpower directly, or do so but are not reliable. It would constitute a synthesis of information to advance a position. E.g.: Russia is a potential superpower because it has this and this and this forms of power. However, if reliable sources are used that directly discuss the potential superpower status of Russia, the content of these sources can be used. Also, please note that this page is about superpower, not other (lesser) forms of power. Sijo Ripa 20:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I surely remember that it was out of proses and against consensus.--87.65.132.116 20:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted according to Wikipedia most important policy pillars (NOR and NPOV) which overrules other concerns (remember Wikipedia is not a democracy - but even then I think a majority was for the deletion). That the deletion was supported by Wikipedians and admins was also proven by the endorsement of the deletion. Sijo Ripa 20:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to do a revert war ,so, either both are going out,or both are staying.For the EU it's about the "potential superpower status" that is discussed, the deletions have absolutely nothing to do here.For the russia section, it discuss why it's not considered a potential superpower despite being USSR successor.--87.65.132.116 20:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't object the inclusion of Russia if reliable sources are used that directly deal with Russia's potential as a superpower. Economy of EU is already mentioned by Leonard, and there is no unified military.Sijo Ripa 20:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russia

[edit] Status of some other Countries

Russia is considered the successor of the USSR,but due to the severity of the soviet collapse and ongoing difficulties, a reemergence as a superpower is not considered likely. www.fas.org

What exactly is the problem with this section put together with japan?Have you even read it?--87.65.132.116 20:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The loss of the superpower status of the USSR/Russia can be covered in the superpowers today section, but what does it have to do with "past potential superpowers"? FAS discusses the end of Russia's superpower, not its (past) potential. Sijo Ripa 20:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That section is for USSR and it's collapse,in 1991, not about Russia of the present,15 years later.What about what people think of Russia today?It warrant a section because it's considered USSR successor state,albeit not considered a potential superpower.--87.65.132.116 21:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that Russia can be discussed in two ways: (1) the loss of superpower status when the USSR collapsed (Superpowers today section) - but this is in fact about the USSR not Russia, and (2) the potential of Russia as a new superpower - on condition that reliably sources that directly deal with the concept are used (potential superpowers section). Sijo Ripa 21:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not discuss ,why it's not considered' a potential superpower?Don't you think that some readers will be interested in , why Russia is considered like dirt?In the same way that the section of japan is useful.--87.65.132.116 21:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Russia is not - and will not become again - a superpower. Its inclusion is unnecessary. It is a country with a nominal GNI only a little bigger than a city like London, New York or Paris. It is now a third world country. Nothing more.

I am close to giving up on this page. it attracts annonymous and unregistered users and OR like shit attracts flies. whenever progress is being made on removing OR someone adds more. This page is not here for an irrelevant essay about the status of russia. if russia is mentioned at all it should be with regards to it being a potential superpower. there is now a surge of semi literate Russian boosterism. None of the other power in international relations pages attracts cretins like this one. i fear if it isnt semi protected the page is a lost cause. ive done a search for 'Russia' and 'Superpower'. i checked the first hundred results on both google and google scholar. the only things saying russia may be a potential superpower are these 2 [28] [29]. there may have been 1 more that i missed. Now why the fuck couldnt the russian nationalists actually do some work to find sources? If anyone else bothers to look you will see that EVERY other academic source says russia is not, and shows no sign of becoming a superpower. Fuck Putin and his totalitarian regimeWilly turner 13:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please try to remain calm and civil. I'm not a russian nationalist, I'm not even russian, but it's clearly that Russia is a military superpower. You can't say that a country who has the second biggest military power in the world and it is the biggest nuclear power is not a potential superpower. In my opinion, Russia should be listed in the potential superpowers section. However, if you continue to be uncivil and arrogant, I'll have to report you to an admin.--Eurocopter tigre 14:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Russia does not have the second largest military in the world, so you are misinformed. Just because a country has a large military does not make it a superpower, take North korea of exaple. Also Russia is a land power and has little influence beyond it's surrounding area. On on last note, calling a person arrogant is not civil. User:Daniel Chiswick 1 June, 2007.

Daniel, I think you are the one misinformed here. I'm quite documented in this case, and believe me that Russia has the second biggest Air Force (see Russian Air Force), the biggest Army (operates more than 22.000 tanks - triple than US) and the second biggest navy in the world (Russian Navy) - also you can have a look at the List of countries by size of armed forces which clearly confirms those said by me. And by the way, words like "shit" and "fuck" are probably more than arrogant and uncivil. Eurocopter tigre 14:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

China has the largest military in the world and the US has the second, Russia is third. Russia does not have the world's second largest navy, the UK does. Also I never said calling somebody uncivil is uncivil, I said calling somebody arrogant is uncivil. User:Daniel Chiswick 1 June, 2007.

P.S. A grammar tip since you are not a native speaker of English, the word "Largest" is more proper than "Biggest" User:Daniel Chiswick 1 June, 2007.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Thw Russian Navy has 1 aircraft carrier, 5 cruisers, 15 destroyers and 40 nuclear submarines while the Royal Navy has 2 aircraft carriers (which are quite obsolete and will be replaced) 0 cruisers, 8 destroyers and 13 nuclear submarines. By the way, People's Republic of China has the largest military by size of the active troops. Trust me, Russia has the second largest navy and air force in the world and the largest ground forces. Eurocopter tigre 14:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"By the way"? You say this like it is a fact I do not know, if you had read my post you would clearly see that I said China has the world's largest military. The US ranked #2 in numeber of active troops, not Russia. The British royal navy has the world's second largest navy in the world and has a much higher budget than the rusting and poorly kept Russian navy. User:Daniel Chiswick 1 June, 2007.

How can the Royal Navy be larger than the Russian Navy, if the russian fleet it's almost triple than the british fleet? Let's be serious. When I said that Russia has the second largest military, I was refering at the overall of the military, not at the number of active troops. Again, the PRC has the largest military by number of active troops. Eurocopter tigre 15:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I just what everybody to stay focus.The proposed section is about "why it's not considered' a potential superpower".It's an editorial choice,don't you beleave that we should discuss why Russia is considered like dirt,despite the fact being the successor of the USSR, plus some other "details".Don't you beleave that it will interest the readers?Also i'm not saying to discuss all 200 countries of the UN,i just think that Russia is notable enough to be discussed.The article is supposed to educate the reader!--87.64.24.58 19:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, you keep saying "The British royal navy has the world's second largest navy" - in what way and where are your sources? The Russian navy has much more vessels, and 142,000 sailors according to the 2006 IISS estimate of strength, while the entire British military has only 190,000 troops (including army, navy, airforce) according to the List of countries by size of armed forces. User:Ilya1166

Have you even tried looking at the royal navy page anyway? The royal navy is the second largest navy after the United States of America. Even a part of a russian submarine crew had to be rescued by a royal navy ship. The Russian navy is still on a steady decline, downsizing their submarine force.

I hope Willy Turner will compare the article as it was before he made any contributions to it's current form before abandoning the effort to improve the article. Much of the the most important progress has not been undone.

I also hope those supporting greater expansion of the potential superpowers section will take note of the fact that the entire US section no longer exists. Does it really make sense to have multi-paragraph individual treatments of Russia and China and India and god only knows what next when the US has no section whatsoever? Why not just dump the entire concept of individual sections on individual countries as a can of worms that can't be opened and contained? Instead lets focus the article on the documentation of the superpower concept and also on it's relevance to the cold war. The entire concept of potential superpower could be boiled down to one paragraph with the best sources that directly and explicitly make a case for the potential superpowers. Readers interested in those cases could check the arguments directly from the sources. So long as the article is structured to go blathering on at length about the current status of individual countries and their prospects for qualifying as a superpower the articles focus will stray further and further from it's titled topic and more and more closely resemble a pissing contest between zealous patriots cheerleading for their favorite power.Zebulin 06:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll put it in bold because many people seem to overlook it: It's not about our opinion, but about reliable sources, preferably political or academic sources, that directly deal with the concept of superpower. Personally, I think that Russia has many power factors, but my opinion doesn't matter and that does not mean that these factors are related to a superpower status. Only if these factors are considered by reliable authors to be related to the potential of being a superpower, we can use that content, preferably by directly writing in the text who says what - so that we make sure that we avoid OR (it could still consist of synthesis of information to advance a position if we don't). So avoid writing things like: Russia has a large population or a growing economy if you cannot relate it to a source that deals with the concept of superpower. Furthermore, regarding the USA: it had the same problem: people cited sources that the US e.g. has much cultural influence, but these sources didn't deal with the concept of superpower. Sijo Ripa 08:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

all true. The obvious solution is to do to the country sub sections what was done to the US country subsection. Remove them. We can pick through the individual sources and retain those which discuss superpower status directly. The other sources will be OR and discarded. I honestly expected that the elimination of the US section would lead to greater restraint on the part of editors expanding the other sections. I am astonished that precisely the reverse reaction seems to be occurring.Zebulin 09:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Russia may not be a likely near future superpower, but it will be the LAST superpower. Russia will ALWAYS be a possible superpower. Russia has tangible power. They have be endowed with vast resources. Russia could face ANY calamity and rebound just by selling it’s resources (as evidence in the collapse of the USSR). No other country can boast this. The U.S. may be over taken in producing food stuffs or goods and services and then fall into nothingness. Britain lost her vast lands and has no resources to fall back on and it’s industries were surpassed by the U.S. and then soon U.S by China and so on. But Russia will ALWAYS have its resources to bring it up to a world stage, with a source of income.

-G

[edit] Article - redundant and biased

The whole article contains lots of redundant information. Beside, the whole article is very biased. For example the part of the European Union: "[...] On the other hand - among others - Laurent Cohen-Tanugi[42] states that the EU as a whole has consistently suffered from a growth deficit vis-a-vis the US, high unemployment, and public deficits. Furthermore, Cohen-Tanugi stresses that most member states of the EU lag substantially behind the US in R&D investment, technological innovation, and, since 1995, productivity gains however it remains the only real rival in economic and in turn technological terms to the US containing highly advanced nations such as Germany,France and the UK." That is the opinion of a single person ("among others" is not cited). The Users Zebulin, User:Daniel Chiswick and brendel seem to include their own bias by citing their favorite authors. As long as they trying to "improve" the article, the quality is getting lower. 0v3r533r 11:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I welcome constructive criticism! As you have seen fit to personally target my editing I think it is not unreasonable that I ask that you elaborate on which of my edits have seemed inappropriate. If you can't find a specific example of such an edit I would at least expect the courtesy of a detailed description of the sort of bad editing you attribute to me.Zebulin 19:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse you? I have never cited any authors, so you are mistaken. User:Daniel Chiswick 2 June, 2007

Everybody is mistaken, only chiswick is correct :)). Eurocopter tigre 11:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay first of all my name is Daniel, Chiswick is my last name. Second of all stop giving people attitude, it's not my fault you thought the Russian navy was larger than the British navy. User:Daniel Chiswick 2 June, 2007

Actually the Russian Navy is larger than the "Royal Navy" (British Navy designation is incorrect). I'm going to make a short summary for you, so the things shall be clear forever:

• Russian Navy - 142.000 personnel, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 2 Battle Cruisers, 5 Cruisers, 15 Destroyers, 11 Frigates, 45 Light Frigates, 41 Corvettes, 40 Nuclear Submarines, 20 Conventional Submarines and 21 Patrol Boats;
• Royal Navy - 38.700 personnel, 2 Aircraft Carriers, 0 Battle Cruisers, 0 Cruisers, 8 Destroyers, 17 Frigates, 0 Light Frigates, 0 Corvettes, 13 Nuclear Submarines, 0 Conventional Submarines and 19 Patrol Boats;

So, which one is larger? --Eurocopter tigre 13:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to mention the 3 amphibios ships, 16 anti mine ships, 4 extra patrol vessels, and 5 survey vessels please do research more carefully before you miss crucial details.

where? Rus Navy or Royal Navy?? I note only the major vessels.Eurocopter tigre 22:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea where you got these numbers from, they may be right or they may be wrong, however this is a grossly simplistic analysis. The important question to ask is how many of these Russian ships are operational vs the number of operational Royal Navy vessels? Any comparison other than this is meaningless.

Xdamr^talk 23:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

ermm, actually this isn't an important question at all as the answer is useless for improving this article. I don't know why we are taking time to compare the royal navy to the russian navy as it will be impossible to use the comparison to improve the article. We'd need a source that related the comparison of these navies to the superpower concept in some way. Good luck finding that!Zebulin 23:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The EU article should be reextended to show why it is a potential superpower. All potential superpowers should have what the US has, a list of each superpower criteria and describing it in that criteria.

two important points you are somehow overlooking. One the US does NOT have a list of each superpower Criteria. In fact it has nothing at all as it's section has been removed pending a re-write which will avoid any original research. That leads to point two. A list of each superpower criteria and describing it in that criteria would be original research by original synthesis. Original research isn't allowed in wikipedia articles.Zebulin 01:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, those Russian Navy vessels are ALL operational, if you listed all the NON operational Russian vessels, the Russian fleet would be 10 times larger than the Royal Navy. Just before the fall of the USSR, the Soviet Navy was operating over 170 nuclear subs, all of which went to the Russian Navy, and a lot of which have been decommissioned and are now NOT operational, while now the Russian Navy OPERATES around 40 nuclear subs. Also, the Russian navy is building a fleet of new and state of the art nuclear subs, one of which has already been launched, see Borei class submarine. Do not make assumptions about things you don't know about, you need to learn to accept the UK (you have English ancestry) stopped being a great naval world power after WWII. You keep insisting "Russia does not have the world's second largest navy, the UK does", which is not true in any sense of the word, in either number vessels or number of sailors. Do not embarrass yourself further by insisting that the Royal Navy is larger and more powerful than the Russian Navy. User:Ilya1166 3 June 2007

Ilya1166 you are biased to Russia. You have spread your arguement needlesly to other pages. What is the point of it?

Right, when you can't refute the facts you call me biased. Go back to bed. You've got a big day at school tommorow. User:Ilya1166

Actually summer holidays just started. Oh and no need to be harsh we are talking about superpowers here.

[edit] Temporary semi-protection

I think this article needs to be semi-protected until all the issues are resolved and this article is re-written and returned to it's former quality. This used to be a good article, it was simple and to the point which is the way it is suposed to be. I am afraid that so many people are only concerned with "Potential superpower" to the point the the article loses quality. The section about the US is completely gone and the article talks more about "Potential superpowers" than the US, Soviet Union, and British Empire which were actually superpowers. This article is a complete mess and looks just plain ugly. "Potential superpowers" needs to be cut in half or reduced because using too much space and taking focus away from actual superpowers. I have noticed that most of the damage to the article is from unregistered users, most notably User:Ilya1166, so I urge that this page be semi-protected until this page is fixed. User:Daniel Chiswick 3 May, 2007.

I agree the article is about the present not a possible future.

Remember that unregistered users will sign their edits with an ip address. He's not unregistered he just doesn't have something to say on his user page.Zebulin 07:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it's not only him, it is a few others too. User:Daniel Chiswick 3 May, 2007.

I hope the new quality of the article is not temporary and I hope we all try and keep it the way it is right now or make it better. User:Daniel Chiswick 3 May, 2007.

[edit] How the article should look

The article would be much better if it was like this, it is more simple and to the point like the article used to be. User:Daniel Chiswick 3 June, 2007.

We can't be duplicating the entire article on the talk page. Perhaps you could link to your prefered version from the history of the article. Like this [30] although personally i think this version is a better guide ;) [31]Zebulin 07:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it is not in the history because the article was never like this, I just copy and pasted from different versions of how the article used to be. User:Daniel Chiswick 3 June, 2007.

Oh that, yeah that is the same version as on here. I wrote that to give an example but I was not allowed to put it in the article so I put it in the talk page. User:Daniel Chiswick 3 June, 2007.

You can create a special page in your user-space for a proposal - you could put it in User:Daniel Chiswick/Superpower for example. As for the above version it does not represent all the theories in our sources properly so I'll need to disapprove of it. Feel free to draw up another proposal on a special page though. Regards, Signature^brendel 07:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but it is certainly better than that mess that was there before. The other page also did not talk about certain things either and was really messy, I say we keep this version and work to improve it. User:Daniel Chiswick 3 June, 2007.

I'm beginning to think the US doesn't need a special section. We already have multiple sources describing it as the only superpower and at most all we'd need is to quote one source that very clearly makes the case for why the US is still regarded as a superpower. The hard part will be finding such a source but in the meantime the version I liked above seems to be adequate [32] Zebulin 07:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it makes the article too long anyway. I like the fact that in this new version Russia is still mention but not under potential superpowers. I think the reason somebody added Russia to potential superpowers was because the section that mentioned Russia was deleted. We should keep this article as simple as possible, short as possible, and to the point. User:Daniel Chiswick 3 June, 2007.

But I still strongly suggest this page be semi-protected until it is fixed. User:Daniel Chiswick 3 June, 2007.

Wow look at the difference between the current version and the old one, it has a much better layout and is more to the point. User:Daniel Chiswick 3 June, 2007.

An additional benefit may be that by getting the article away from the format of subsections for particular countries perhaps we will no longer need to constantly battle article creep caused by editors wishing their favorite state to get it's own version of the original research bragging rights section the US previously had.Zebulin 08:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Subsections also get overly long and take focus away from the rest of the article. User:Daniel Chiswick 3 June, 2007.

I'll be going to sleep soon, but I sure hope this article is the same way or better when I return tomorrow. User:Daniel Chiswick 3 June, 2007.

But, plz, this is simply far far too short, at least the subarticles offered informations Im not able to find at all now in wikipedia. Add much more content here! --83.131.131.103 13:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even think that I would ever say this, but here it is: I think I even agree with Daniël Chiswick, just that I would agree with many other people on this talkpage. I think the page of Superpower has made a big improvement, compaired to what this page looked like before. It shows exactly what was, is, and could be a Superpower, and why. It is not as biased, in favour of the US, as the old article was. Even the picture used in this article (the presidents of the US and the USSR) is an almost perfect solution! I must hand it to the ones who changed this page: you've done the almost impossible, without bloodshedding! ;-) Instead of reading an article about how great the US was, is, and could be, it now shows every aspect of a superpower, and not in an extreme pro-US way. Again: my compliments! :-) --Robster1983 15:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! See, I'm not a bad person. I totaly agree, this is a huge improvement and is short and to the point which is the way it should be. User:Daniel Chiswick 3 June, 2007.

Just the proof of my claim: Zebulin, Brendel and Chiswick again trying to improve the article and it is getting worse. 0v3r533r 13:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

ahem, I welcome constructive criticism! As you have seen fit to personally target my editing I think it is not unreasonable that I ask that you elaborate on which of my edits have seemed inappropriate. If you can't find a specific example of such an edit I would at least expect the courtesy of a detailed description of the sort of bad editing you attribute to me. If this sounds familier it could be because it's the second time I've said it and you still don't respond and still make vague attacks on my edits.Zebulin 17:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Great, this article is heading down the road of losing it's quality again by adding sperate sections for "potential superpowers" which causes nothing but trouble and will make everything go in a circle because it will get overly long and take the focus away from the rest of the article like it did before. User:Daniel Chiswick 4 May, 2007.

How constructive could it be for me participating on an article knowing three petty and uneducated (names listed above) people will add their own bias, captured in a circle of idiotism. If you are really interested in this article, just stay away and make room for a neutral perspective. 0v3r533r 20:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

gee I don't know. Maybe it wouldn't be constructive at all. It's too bad you don't offer any *constructive* criticism instead of vague attacks. I guess you'll just have to give up. I apologize for the hopelessness of your situation. Thank you for all of your insightful critiques of our edits and tireless dedication to improving this article! Farewell friend!Zebulin 22:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, this article is not long, so please stop removing the subsections in the Potential Superpowers section. If the article becomes too long in the future, it will be splited, but for the moment it's looking much better with the subsections and flags. Eurocopter tigre 22:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It also looked much better with the B2 bomber or aircraft carrier as the intro picture. Perhaps I should consider placing them back into the article in keeping with this new acceptance of article appearance as a primary focus of our efforts. I imagine a US flag next to the Samuel P. Huntington quote and breaking it off to form it's own little US section would do even more to improve the articles appearance.Zebulin 22:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a question - why are you trying to make the article shorter if it's not too long? In my opinion, that's really stupid. You and Daniel are reverting constructive edits made by me or Willy, and no offense, I think you two are the ones who "just have to give up". By the way, this article looked much better a month ago, when it was edited by normal users (especially neutral ones, not nationalists). Eurocopter tigre 22:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Here's the article 1 month ago [33], here's the article "now" [34]. So what exactly did you want back from then? Apparently it's not the subsections.Zebulin 23:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me User:Eurocopter tigre? Myself and other users would like to keep this article simple, informative, but to the point. Adding subsections to potential superpowers has led to problems in the past by straying too far from the main focus of the article. I am not reverting constructive edits, I go by the talk page when I edit this page and when I revert an edit it is because it goes against what is being discussed on here. The article was way too long before and was full of unscourced statements and way too much OR so something needed to be done. This is an encyclopedia and not a book, so I if you wish to read a large body of work that talks about superpowers I suggest you visit your local book store or library. Also may I remind you that telling people they should "just have to give up" and being "nationalists" for having perceived ideas that you disagree with violates WP:CIVIL because it is unwelcoming and not helpful. I would also like to remind you that I do not edit this article with the intent of contributing biased work and I am sure nither do the other users you have accused of doing soUser:Daniel Chiswick 4 June, 2007.

"Just have to give up" - I just cited Zebulin. Daniel, if you make an article simple, it won't be informative - for example: an article needs good graphic and visuals, such as subsections, flags, etc. If you remove the subsections, the hole section (Potential Superpowers sect.) will become boring for the reader, and especially non-informative. Again, why making an article simple? - I would say that if you continue making the article simplier in this manner, it will never become a GA or a FA. Also, if you want to make it simple, a stub should be enough. Nobody says that an encyclopedic article has to be simple. Eurocopter tigre 08:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, this is totally going the wrong way again. Before I start talking, let me say that I really liked the article after the retouching- and editing, so my compliments stay in place. It was totally not as biased as it was before, and it still managed to say everything there is to say about a Superpower, or at least as much as possible. Further: this is not an attack to any of you, I'm just trying to resolve this, something that I think we all have in common. As I understand, there is disagreement about the section of Potential Superpowers. Daniël Chiswick and Zebulin: what is the exact reason why you don't want to add seperate sections for potential superpowers? Be honest. Is it because this article is getting to long, is it because the US is not given enough space, what are the reasons for that? What are your thoughts? And how far would you go to resolve this; have you got any ideas to resolve this? And Eurocopter Tigre: It's nice to meet another pro-EU citizen, but involving this article, there was a consensus reached. This article became way more neutral, than it was before. Perhaps you feel otherwise, but this talkpage is the place to state your problems, and work to a solution. Just editing around probably doesn't solve anything. Why do you want to see this section being changed? Do you still think it is not neutral? If so, what would make this article more neutral, in your opinion? And how far do you want to go in order to resolve this, and what do you think is a possible solution, a solution that is broadly accepted? And to everyone: nobody 'just have to give up'. If we all would give up, Wikipedia is practically lost. Anyhow, I propose to change this page back to how it was (after the changes, when this article was shorter, when there was a consensus), and first try to find a solution on this talkpage, before retouching and editing. We once reached a solution, that was acceptable for everyone of us, so we must, and can, get there again. We all need to keep our cool, and listen to what we alle have got to say. --Robster1983 13:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I only restored the subsections and the flags (because it looks much better) and added back some info about Russia and EU, which was removed by nationalists users. Am I mistaken? Eurocopter tigre 13:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop calling other users "nationalists", you have no reason to and it is not helpful. We deleted the subsections because they kept growing and growing and were taking the focus away from the rest of the article and that section should not be longer than more important parts of the article. User:Daniel Chiswick 5 June, 2007.

Yes, that's why you did a mistake, you could better remove boring info or waffle, rather than deleting subsections. Eurocopter tigre 14:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Progress report

Ok, heres what i think. The page right now is definately better than it has ever been. I think and hope we have come to a kind of consensus on the potential superpowers section. There are academic citations saying each of the 4 (yes including Russia) countries are considered potential superpowers. i understand and agree with those who fear this section becoming too long again. Which is why we will not allow it to become too long again. Its ok for there to be seperate subheadings and flags just for visual clarity. Its ok, we just wont allow any more waffle to be written about each countries military, economy etc. I suggest we now stop talking about the potential superpowers section, and stop focussing our edits on it. ok? Instead we can now turn to the much, much more important sections of the page. ie. the origin of the phrase, the concept of superpower in the cold war, superpower characteristics, and the current superpower situation. The most important of these are the origin (and original intended meaning) of the phrase, and characteristics. I suggest other people join me in searching the web for reliable academic information on this. Try google scholar for starters. Ok? Willy turner 11:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I totally agree with you. Finally somebody is interested in the improvement of this article, not in the supporting of nationalistics own views. --Eurocopter tigre 11:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, stop reverting usefull edits. As Willy said (and I totally agree with him): The page right now is definately better than it has ever been. I think and hope we have come to a kind of consensus on the potential superpowers section. There are academic citations saying each of the 4 (yes including Russia) countries are considered potential superpowers. - so please stop reverting constructive edits. Eurocopter tigre 13:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The subsections were deleted because people kept adding things to the potential superpower section until it got overly long and off topic. Also just because a few professors think Russia has the goal of being superpower does not make them a potential superpower. Iran has the goal of being a superpower, does that make them a potential superpower? No, it doesn't There was no "nationalistic" removal of Russia, if anything you have a "nationalistic" bias towards Russia since you are accusing people with no proof of being "nationalistic" for deleting Russia because it was never agreed to include it. I am not reverting any constuctive edits because nobody except the two of you agreed to add Russia. Also if you are going to add Russia there will be no subsections because it was agreed earlier that they mess up the article in the long run User:Daniel Chiswick 5 June, 2007.

I have to say you are one of the most hypocritical users on wikipedia because on List of countries and federations by military expenditures you revert constructive edits all the time and tell people to see the talk page, well the same things works on here because there was a good reason why the subsections were deleted and you need to respect that by leaving it alone or waiting to put it in until it is agreed to add it. User:Daniel Chiswick 5 June, 2007.

Also I actually support adding Russia but I would like for there to be other things explaining why it is a potential superpower. A few professors saying that has the "goal" of being a superpower does not make it a potential superpower, the article should talk about things like economic growth ans increased defence spending and not just what a few professors think. User:Daniel Chiswick 5 June, 2007.

Citing Willy again: Its ok for there to be seperate subheadings and flags just for visual clarity. Daniel, one of those "few professors" is probably more intelligent than me and you together. And, how can an ex-vandal and disruptive editor call me a "one of the most hypocritical users on wikipedia". Just compare my contribs with yours, and you shall see the real difference between us. That's it, I'm not permiting anymore to be judged by you; one more personal attack (cause that was a real personal attack) and you'll be reported to the administrators noticeboard. --Eurocopter tigre 13:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

PS: mine and Giandreas edits on the List of countries and federations by military expenditures were very constructive and useful, and the article is finally stable. Eurocopter tigre 13:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't red this before I added some thoughts in the section above this one, but I agree with Willy: I thought I already had an article about that, I just have to find it again, and take a look at what it's worth. And further: I still would propose that nothing is changed again, before talked about on this talkpage. Indeed, it will take longer before something is changed, but it also probably will keep us from getting in een editingclash or something like that. ;-) We once reached a concensus, so I hope, think, and know that is reachable for another time. We all want to improve this article, we just don't seem to agree with eachother about how those improvements should look like. --Robster1983 13:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Daniel, another person who agrees with me and Willy. If you continue to remove text, it could be considered vandalism. Eurocopter tigre 13:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay perfect, all I wanted was more users to agree and I would be happy. In the future if another user deletes the subsections will revert their edits unless their is another agreement. I agree, most things should not be changed unless they are discussed first so I doesn't cause trouble. User:Daniel Chiswick 5 June, 2007.

See, your reverts and that scandal were useless! You finally woke up, and you have my respects for this. --Eurocopter tigre 13:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I still do not like the subsections because I think they will get overly long and take the focus away from the rest of the article but if there is an agreement I will respect it. I agree the subsections look etter but I really hope the subsections will not cause the problems they did in the past. User:Daniel Chiswick 5 June, 2007.

Well, if there is somewhat of an agreement, than I'm pleased :-). Btw: I am not teaming up with anyone (perhaps only with Willy), and I am not trying to attack anyone. I just would like to find a solution of how to improve this page further. Daniël is 'only' sixteen, an perhaps he is (very) pro-American, but he did changed this article (if I'm correct, and if others changed also: thnx!) into something that was way better than it used to be. This page actually became more and more neutral, and less and less pro-US. Eurocopter tigre: you must admit that, don't you? On the otherhand: you are one of the persons who will keep this article accurate, so it is great that you are willing to get into the discussion of how this page should look like! I'm also very pro-EU, and at some points I totally agree with you, and I am glad that I've got someone who could back me up on certain points, but in order to get something changed, no one should see another as enemy, trying to 'win' something. And if one feels some kind of victory, than it perhaps would be best to keep that inside, at least not rub it in in someones face. We should treat eachother with respect. If one agrees with Willy, than I think that would mean that that person doesn't change a thing in the article, leave it as it is, and tries to find any information about what a superpower actually is. And if that person does want to change something, than that person would talk about it on the talkpage. --Robster1983 14:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Willy, it is hard to find material about the definition of a superpower. Well, it is not hard to find that kind of information, it is hard to find information that can be called reliable. I searched on google with the term: Superpower definition, but all it came up with, was webpages similar to Wikipedia. For an example these pages: superpower according to answers.com, superpower according to Yale, superpower according to thefreedictionary.com, superpower according to wordnet-online.com, superpower according to yourdictionary.com, and superpower according to allwords.com. Do you have any suggestions? --Robster1983 15:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The subsections will only prove problematic if those subsections get relentelessly expanded as before. I expect this to occur and want to remove the sub section format to attempt pre-empt this but I'm willing to give more time for me to be proven (hopefully) wrong.Zebulin 18:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think so long as we scrutinize the edits to those sections, your "fears" won't materialize ;-) Signature^brendel 23:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As i said, circle of idiotism. I again must read the following in the section of European Union: "On the other hand - among others - Laurent Cohen-Tanugi[39] states that the EU as a whole has consistently suffered from a growth deficit vis-a-vis the US, high unemployment, and public deficits. Furthermore, Cohen-Tanugi stresses that most member states of the EU lag substantially behind the US in R&D investment, technological innovation, and, since 1995 productivity gains." That still is pure bias. There are no others sharing Cohen-Tanugis opinion, and if so it had to be cited before making a generalization. In fact USA is consistently suffering from the globalization. More and more countries abandon the US dollar peg knowing of the decreasing strength of the currency and the possible debasement because of Chinas stockpiling for decades. more info Most experts see the European Union as the region with the most stability and the most economic power. That the economy of the EU is stronger than the of the USA is a simple fact. Get your facts right before citing a minority opinion. 0v3r533r 23:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Cohen-Tanugi opinion is referenced and therefore can stay. It is, however, somewhat uber-prominent. Perhaps one sentence more on the EU as a potention superpower will help to more accurately reflect the distribution of opinions in academia. As for sub-sections, I do favor them. Yes, Zebulin definitely has a point fearing an exceesive expansion on the potential superpowers that might lead to OR. If we are careful, however, and remain critical of edits to these sub-sections, we can prevent them from becoming bloated op-ed pieces. Considering that sub-sections make the article easier to read and navigate IMHO, I find myself in support of keeping them. Anyways, just my two cents worth ;-) BTW: "Among others" is a weasel phrase that should be removed. Signature^brendel 23:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I second that! That's all I can say. --Robster1983 14:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shorten Characteristics

Can somebody please shorten that section? I read it and it is very good but a little too long, can the person that wrote it just summarize it so that way it still gives the same information without taking so much space? User:Daniel Chiswick 6 June, 2007.

I think it's either the most important or second most important part of the article. It's also an area where we want to take the greatest care to avoid inserting any original research.Zebulin 23:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with - besides it isn't even that long... but then again "long" is a subjective term ;-) Regards, Signature^brendel 00:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it is going to stay like that we better make sure it doesn't get any longer. User:Daniel Chiswick 6 June, 2007.

honestly I was actually looking for sources to make it even longer. Don't you agree that the section should constitute a core section of the article sources permitting?Zebulin 03:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] India

I miss the mentioning of the discriminating Indian Caste System as one of the problems India will have to face in the future. 0v3r533r 23:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Provide a reputable source and add a quick mention-the relationship between a rigid caste system and economic growth is certainly worth a mention. Signature^brendel 23:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There are 2 BBC articles discussing the story, which i find informative Can India become a global superpower? and Is caste discrimination a matter of international concern? 0v3r533r 00:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for EU's Possible Superpower Status

I fail to see why this is a reason for the EU to be a super power, "the unpopularity and perceived failure of US foreign policy in recent years,". I could understand something along the lines of "the EU's strong foreign policy in recent years". Your thoughts? Exsellion89 17:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well its saying that it is failing to maintain order so maybe that other countries are leaning to the EU for their policy, and thus have more of a role over other countries. But it isnt a very good example anyway.

[edit] Russia & OR

I cannot remove the added OR-part again, because it would violate the three-revert-rule. Note however that I explained my removal every time in the edit summary. The particular part is OR, or more specifically a violation of WP:SYNTH. Several power characteristics are combined (A+B) to advance the position (that these characteristics make) Russia (is) a potential superpower (C). Put differently, while the facts cited are most likely correct, the sources do not mention the term "superpower", let alone that these specific characteristics make Russia a potential superpower, and thus this constitutes OR. User: Eurocopter tigre, could you please read WP:SYNTH and undo your reversal? Sijo Ripa 18:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'inevitable'

In the India section of the article it states "China and India rising to superpower status is not inevitable" WTF do you mean inevitable? is this peron suggesting that the rising to superpower status should be prevented? this artcile doesn't sounds very 'neutral' to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Platinum inc (talk • contribs) 18:53, August 23, 2007 (UTC).