Talk:Superpower

For older discussion, see archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

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

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

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

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

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

So lets take this thing down and move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.158.252 (talk) 03:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. Voting to delete an entire well sourced and long established article that is not in violation of any wikipedia guidelines as a response to "corruption" resulting from the edit warring of a couple editors is beyond absurd.Zebulin (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

When I see what is going on and I just sit here looking at my content getting stolen by user AI009. Ya I think it is corrupted to see I am bringing up facts and this ass^%#@% goes and steals it away. We do have a problem, glad you brought this up because I feel the heat is on by trying to edit something and trying to bring up valid information where we have this AI009 going on some hate spree on people. I never seen such a crybaby, I would kick the f%^$# out of this guy if I met him in person as he just tells on people. Ya the discussion and Superpowers articles are indeed a big bunch of lying facts, really just one big sad story by a hate parade. I suggest the wikipedia people take the whole thing out, write a topic on the Superpowers and Potential superpowers homepages saying the site is down due to wikipedia hate crimes or something to tell people that the information is not useful information by being corrupt for reading. I would like to see that because we have just too much fighting. Saruman20, yes a Superpower is an important view but the internet is not a mandatory subject or place; people shouldn't just rely on Wikipedia to read about a Superpower or Potential Superpowers, there are books and books out there I think many people should read instead of relying on a community of people we have no idea on their qualifications (these could be truck drivers or a janitor or a university professor, a waitress, a banker or whatever, no one knows anybody so that does not make it creditable but a book, says something about the write and their reference information, Wikipedia is like Myspace or homepage blog), even AI009 hasn't even read a single page to say the things that are being said. We have too much people crying the blues editing and some are just using every chain of command to protect themselves by nurking on people for silly stupids things, creating a bunch of crap, which just starts wars on each other. I couldn't say one person accept for AI009 who uses every possibility to burn the fire than putting it out. Rocks and stones are allover the place, so trying to fix the mess is not the right answer, so there should be an elimination, not a meditation or a discussion to fix but to discontinue it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.3.127 (talk) 06:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That above post violated so much wikipedia policy I'm not even could read anything besides the sentance with my username in it. "People shouldn't rely on Wikipedia to read about a Superpower or Potential Superpowers, there are books and books out there I think should read instead of relying on a community of people we have no idea on their qualifications." That was, without a doubt, one of the most terrible sentances I have yet to lay eyes on. Why would someone use wikipedia? 1. Books cost money, wikipedia is free. 2. Maybe they don't where to look for books. Wikipedia gives sources, then they could find books. Then there is the comment about wikipedia community. It doesn't matter. I could be a janitor, but if I add properly sourced material, so what? Even if your an expert on the topic, you still have to have sources. It doesn't matter who the editor is, as long as he/she has properly sourced material. That was an attack on wikipedia and that's unaccebtable. Saruman20 (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources on this superpower topic are from articles, not from books. What book is there published currently to state the US is a superpower? As I far as I have seen there are 3 published books from 2008 that says the US is a great power, not a superpower[1]Superpower to Besieged Global Power. Since the angry dogs keep eliminating the idea that Russia is a superpower again (as it is) more facts come, more guys denounce the material in the trash. Because this is wikipedia and this is free to the public, it also free to hate, free to discriminate and the liberty to say what you please (with come restriction) about sources. If I were a professor and this was a students project or research paper, I would rate this a D- for a lack of sources as the superpower wikipedia article is also unaccebtable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Versace11 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No one will write a book or article about the US as a superpower, because it's common knowledge. Why would you write about something that most of the world's population believe. Books are written for people in the Western world, because that's where most of the literate, rich people are, and since most everyone in the West thinks the US is a superpower, it wouldn't be very successful to write a book about something that every already knows or thinks they know. Also, your opinion on what you would rate this article is irrelevant. Saruman20 (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Usage

Can I point out that being a superpower does not confer any absolute status on a country, please? There are at least five undisputed non-superpowers that the United States could not defeat in warfare; global economic stability is dependent on at least twenty countries; diplomatic influence depends enormously on what exactly is being discussed. "Superpower" has no meaning as a rank beyond that of the other great powers, it's just a term of convenience. Therefore, this whole argument about Russia is STUPID because Russia clearly is referenced as a superpower when appropriate and there are no absolute criteria - unless you want the canonical definition, which is limited to USA, USSR and British Empire. Therefore please, PLEASE do not attempt to assess current superpowers yourself. The whole meaning of the definition is in perceptions of the countries, not the actual status of the countries involved. So if McCain refers to Russia as a superpower in one context, that's relevant; if Bolton insists there are no Great Powers outside the USA, that's also relevant; Russia's GDP, active forces and military budget are not even remotely relevant to OUR assessment of its status. This is the very definition of OR, and while truth is important, remember - Verifiability first! In this situation where the definition has no grounding in concrete facts, truth is irrelevant and verifiability is everything. So keep it to that - usage - and stop quoting GDPs at each other. Leushenko (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Though I agree that me citing GDP figures to support my case was more of original research, my gripe was about the sources. The sources given were either editorials, or stated Russia as an energy superpower or potential superpower. Secondly, your whole argument of "superpower" being a term of convenience is itself original research. I can give you links of several EU, Chinese and Indian leaders stating their respective nations/sub-national entity as superpowers. So that makes them also superpowers? Well, I thought since this is an encyclopedia, only credible, academic work should be cited on such issues. Am I wrong? --AI009 (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

when the source isn't a sort that is expressly excluded by wikipedia guidelines it's probably better to simply leave it in and attribute the source directly in the text if you have doubts as to its credibility.Zebulin (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

So you mean to say, we should include statements made by all those leaders who claim their respective countries to be superpowers? For example, "Mr. XXX says YYY is a superpower but ABC organization also claims that ZZZ is the only superpower in the world. However, CCC claims there are three superpowers, YYY, ZZZ and HHH. And, EEE, UUU and III are also claimed to be superpowers by...." Happy reading! --122.163.118.22 (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what policy indicates we should do. To call anything other than the USA, USSR or British Empire a superpower is OR, that much is clear. Obviously avoiding OR here is going to be hard, since without it the term loses its relevance, but what I'm specifically objecting to is OR based on facts. If you can provide N sources saying Russia is a superpower, yay. For the sake of NPOV, any claims that it is must be met with claims that it's not, because it's not part of the definition of superpower which was built around three specific states. Claims that the USA is not a superpower need to be aired in the context of the USA's status as the last surviving member of the group. Basically, statements that go against the original definition have to be based on proper sources and explicit statements, not OR or synthesis of facts. This is important to maintain encyclopaedic quality. Maybe it's not necessary to be quite as thorough in the inlines as 122.163.118.22's example, but it is important that all claims of superpower status are sourced, not just the bases for them. Leushenko (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou Leushenko for understanding the point on Russia, McCain used the exact context as the world superpowers in his statement referring to Russia and the United States. It is relevant to use McCain[2] defining 2 serious countries and warfare. The position that Russia is in, it is stupid to think Russia is anything less than a superpower when the country has everything going for itself. Clearly there is no stop in sight for Russia and I am not a nationlist if I quote Russia as a superpower, I qoute on the current resources and even the US government current statements, stating what they know and what they say. If AI009 or now Empirical Genus goes on and says more horse shit on that Russia is not a superpower on his nonsense opinions, trying selling that to the media then to John McCain and see if he will change his mind he misquoted the public on his Russia USA speech Mr. AI009 or Imperial Genus, last month. If AI009 or Imperial Genusis so smart, go to the media then, tell them they're wrong and your Mr. Right Imperial Genus? Here is his address: Washington Office John McCain

241 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Main: 202-224-2235

If not, stay the hell out of the topic then, facts are necessary not trash.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Factual error?

The page is currently locked - but one statement in the opening section is incorrect and needs altering.

It states "Following World War II, the British Empire ceased to exist as its territories became independent". This isn't quite true. The Empire has never ceased to exist - inasmuch as the UK still has territories overseas, it still has an empire which includes territories such as the Gibralta and The Falklands. It has shrunk drastically and all remaining colonies are very small on the global scale, Hong Kong probably the last really significant territory to go. But nonetheless an Empire still technically exists to this day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.49.109 (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a source for that assertion. Durova^Charge! 06:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Formatting fix request

{{edit protected}} Please replace the text of the Potential superpowers section with the following text:

Blanked to remove page stretch

The following replacement text removes a stray period and a stray comma. No words have been altered. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done PeterSymonds (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Just one more thing to the same section: could you add a {{-}} or other similar whitespace adding thing so the image isn't shoving the refs over? — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done PeterSymonds (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate reference entries

{{editprotected}} Can these be merged?

• [5][51] - Russia: A superpower rises again - CNN.com
• [6][52] - Russia on the march - again - Telegraph
• [7][53] - Russia in the 21st Century - Cambridge University Press
• [29][33] - Library of Congress Country Studies
• [37][54] - Charles Krauthammer, The Unipolar Moment, Foreign Policy Magazine (1991).

--Species8473 (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done All refs merged as requested using ref names. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference missing needs to be replaced back as source, consensus discussed

{{editprotected}} Can reference source [3] http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=768929 "Washington Acknowledges Russia as Superpower" be placed back to article please after [7] in sample current paragraph below please as source [8]?

Article paragraph reads: "After the Cold War, the most common belief held is that only the United States fulfills the criteria to be considered a superpower,[2] although it is a matter of debate if it currently is a hegemon and if it is losing its superpower status.[3][4] Also, there is a debate regarding Russia's status as either a superpower or as a potential superpower.[5][6][7]"

Source http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=768929 "Washington Acknowledges Russia as Superpower" needs to be source number as [8] to source this content as complete if you can put the source back to the article please. --24.176.166.135 (talk) 08:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

the writers of the kommersant article don't justify their article title. Nowhere in the article do we find instances where "washington" in any form acknowledged Russia as a superpower. I wonder if the article title reflects difficulty in translation rather than acknowledgement of superpower status.Zebulin (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The writers do justify the article, it is a source for the material and it has been used before, there is no reason not to use it. The title of the article makes it quite clear.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you read it? The word superpower doesn't appear anywhere except in the title! The writers are literally putting words into "washingtons" mouth if that wasn't a mistake. Name one statement from the article other than the title that justifys the idea that Washington has been calling Russia a "Superpower" or specifically identifies traits in Russia that only a superpower could have. There is nothing in the article that comes close to supporting the hyperbole in the title.Zebulin (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Zebulin do not use this article as source for "Washington Acknowledges Russia as Superpower". The reasons have been explained to User:24.205.234.250 (who also is User:24.176.166.135) enough times now by a wide range of other editors. In addition, this is misuse of the {{editprotected}} it should be obvious to User:24.205.234.250 by now that there is no consensus. Species8473 (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree, the Kommersant article is one article to add to other articles, your making an oppinion what you think, not what the article says. This article is an important fact for superpower and should be used.--24.176.166.135 (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Zebulin and Species. How many times do I have to say this? The Kommersant article should stay out because it is frankly a terrible source. News articles are rarely reliable sources. The exceptions are respected, prestigious mainstream sources such as the BBC, NY Times, Time, Newsweek, etc. The title is misleading. It says, and I quote:

U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe held special hearings devoted to Russia on Thursday. The Commission came to a conclusion which is flattering to Russia: the latter is returning to the international arena as an influential political and economic power.

The commission did not say that Russia has become a superpower. It said that it is "an influential political and economic power", which could be anything. A middle power, a regional power, a great power, etc. Including sources like this is the reason why otential great powers was deleted. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Kommersant article validated material. Source says, "Washington Acknowledges Russia as Superpower". I can't argue to say this is not the truth but when the government uses words like this, there has to be a reason. This is a reasonable article to use, so I plainly argue that if those who of you who don't favor, then make a case with another recent article to compare or contact Washington yourself. Please remit this source on the main page, Russia should be considered a superpower but not all based on this article but just some evidence it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackjacket (talk • contribs) 05:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Great power article is current the place for debate if the US is a current Superpower

I have been trying to get a debate about the current superpowers to go here for a while now since I believe that the talk:great power article is not the place for such discussions. After a month of futility I am asking for some active editors of this article to please venture to the great power talk page and weigh into this conversation.
Ok if I was a ringside announcer it would go something like this Is the USA a current superpower or is it merely a Great Power? You can decided now let wikipedia dictate our own beliefs to the rest of the world. Let WP:OR WP:Crystal and WP:SYN be damned! I know that someone will take that out of context and say that I was being serious and not silly (like I mean it to be) but the conversation just gets too serious sometimes that I need some levity added to the situation :-) hope no one minds! If you do mind I do apologize, I guess it didn't come off as funny as I thought it would... But I hope that doesn't happen... now I'm rambling... damn. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

United States Superpower

Hello, I'm planning to add to this article that the United States was recently described as no longer a superpower by scholars. Even though not everyone may agree, this is a significant view published by a reliable source. For that it is in line with official policy at WP:NPOV. While excluding it is not - resistance is futile. The sources 12 are based on the work of "leading scholars and policy analysts from nine countries". Including Edward A. Kolodziej (Research Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for Global Studies at the University of Illinois) and Roger E. Kanet (Professor of International Studies at the University of Miami). Both can be considered reputable, because of their position in the academic society. The first article has a number of direct quotes from Edward A. Kolodziej stating: "..the unfounded assumption underlying the Bush Doctrine that the United States is a superpower..", "The book also rejects the counter liberal argument that the United States is, indeed, a superpower.." and "..misguidedly assumed to be the continued superpower status of the United States..". To further establish that this is a significant view, George Soros who was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and is currently the chairman of Soros Fund Management and the Open Society Institute is also stated to recently have said that "the U.S.'s status as the world's economic superpower is no longer guaranteed" 12. And finally there is an article at the Austin Chronicle by Michael Venture that questions: "How can you call America a superpower when we can't meet our expenses without the goodwill of our rivals?" and states "Financially and militarily, we're no superpower anymore". I will now stand by for a few days awaiting any comments. =Species8473= ^(talk) 06:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You can attribute those views to those sources but it won't justify removing other conflicting sourced content from the article.Zebulin (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I won't, the idea is to present all significant views, as we are to do according to official policy at WP:NPOV. =Species8473= ^(talk) 08:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have inserted (diff) the following line at two parts of the article: "And most recently the United States was stated to not be a superpower by scholars and policy analysts from different nations." From this source: "Unger J (2008), U.S. no longer superpower, now a besieged global power, scholars say University of Illinois" =Species8473= ^(talk) 09:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would exclude that bit of text you added. The source will suffice as a source. It accentuates the view that the US is not a superpower; instead of a simple, balanced sentence. Anything other than that would be POV, which we don't need any more of here. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

This article is amateurish and poor.

In the opening section of this article, the author mentions a debate over whether the US is a Superpower. To justify this he cites the Austin Chronicle and Salon.com, not the exactly the most scholarly, expert, or necessarily unbiased sources out there. In fact, one of the articles is based on public opinion polling in Asia while the other is an Op-Ed column.

Can we not do any better? What about citing real experts and respected academics? This article, in my opinion, needs to be entirely rewritten. I mean, the opening paragraph lists the entire name of a new book in text as groundbreaking information! What about the wealth of academic and scholarly writing that has existed for the last 18 years? I did a lot of reading on this topic in college and grad school, but don't have the time, patience, or memory (of the major works and thinkers) to go through and build a decent article.

Also, lets try to remember that the article is about "Superpowers", thus the opening paragraph should NOT be a debate over the US' status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theboondocksaint (talk • contribs) 17:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, there is no single author of a page. You're probably new to Wikipedia and don't understand how it works. Any registered user, such as you, or even anonymous IP users can edit pages. You can change something as blantant as what you cite. I for one, have been against citing such unreliable sources for a while now. But these are controversial pages and tempers flare up quickly. I've decided to focus my energy somewhere, but seeing as there is other support for removing those sources, I'll go ahead and remove them. --Hobie (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I've taken the liberty of removing a Telegraph article as a source. It never states that Russia is a superpower, but rather "Putin wants to restore Russia's superpower status." Note the difference. Some people are going to write "but the Telegraph is a reliable source". It is, just not that particular article. ----Hobie (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Brazil as a potential superpower

Hi Cocoliras, the sources cited do not back up Brazil's claim to be a potential superpower. The first source claims that Brazil is "Keen to transform itself from developing nation to world power". The second source suggests that Brazil has become an "agricultural superpower" (and is an article posted in a forum). Nirvana888 (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if acceptable sources are found I'd want to make sure that they meet acceptance at the Potential superpowers article before adding them here, both to avoid article conflict and also because the editors there are more interested in that topic.Zebulin (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Cocoliras, you are edit warring and not helping to build consensus. If you persist you will be reported for breaking the 3RR rule by reverting more than 3 times in a 24 hr period Nirvana888 (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I left all credible sources on the Potential Superpowers article talk page. I also sourced the additions to the article as well. They are credible sources. It would be a rare change to eliminate the changes despite these being sourced. Since I think that's enought proof for the addition of Brazil to appear in the article. I made the changes here. Sorry if its to early to do them. Cocoliras (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)