Talk:Potential superpowers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Removing note about consensus[edit]

I would like to propose to remove (or edit) this line from article: "However, popular consensus among political scientists and other commentators is that Russia is simply an emerging power, as opposed to a potential superpower."

I've read the pdf file, it has absolutely no information or implication about political scientists consensus. Please, remove (or edit) the line appropriately, or provide sources which proves the claim.

Yes this is a valid concern. I have edited the sentence and added a better sources to more accurately represent what is being said. Thanks! Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]


for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Potential superpowers/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tezero (talk · contribs) 12:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

While I'm waiting for my own GANs (which are not in the area of politics, FWIW) to get reviewed, I think I can knock out this one.

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose (Symbol comment.png) 1b. MoS (Symbol comment.png) 2a. ref layout (Symbol oppose vote.svg) 2b. cites WP:RS (Symbol support vote.svg) 2c. no WP:OR (Symbol comment.png) 3a. broadness (Symbol oppose vote.svg)
3b. focus (Symbol comment.png) 4. neutral (Symbol comment.png) 5. stable (Symbol question.svg) 6a. free or tagged images (Symbol support vote.svg) 6b. pics relevant (Symbol support vote.svg)
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked Symbol comment.png are unassessed

  • In my fairly recent GA PETA satirical browser games, the Daily Mail was determined to be unreliable even for an opinion. I don't think it's wise to use it for factual information here.
  • A lot of the sources are bare links or formatted incorrectly.
  • I'm not knowledgeable about what constitutes a reliable source for politics articles, and nothing stands out as flagrantly unreliable, so I'll trust you on those. This is not, however, a concession that they would be permissible for an FAC.
  • Looks like there's been a bit of large-scale reverting lately relating to sourcing. Has this been cleared up?
  • Why is Russia covered only in the intro? Intros should be for summarizing what's in the page, not introducing new information. Russia should get its own section in the article.
  • That being said, it's a definite area of speculation that even I've heard discussions of (in fact, probably more of Russia than of India). Surely there's more to say about it than "Some academics agree. Some don't." And if there is, there's no reason not to treat it on the same level as China, India, and the EU, including with a place on the map.

I'll get to the prose and stuff later. Tezero (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero: Thanks for looking up.
  • Dailymail has been replaced with BBC link.
  • Bare links have been formatted well now.
  • While adding sources, it was fundamental duty to verify. There are opposition and support for various nations, but I had closely observed the credibility of information.
  • No, because many of these SPAs promote their favorite country or economic power as "Super power", although one thing is common that they would never discuss any of the changes, page has been protected and since, at least 2 different users have faced block.
  • Russia and Soviet Union have been removed from lead, it wasn't necessary to add either.
  • Same as above point, now that the basic sentence has been commented out. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 14:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Pass for everything else, but I'm really getting opposed to Russia not being covered. I mean, a quick Google search for "russia superpower" pans up numerous articles on whether it will or won't become one from the likes of Forbes, the Boston Globe, the LA Times, US News, the Guardian, etc. And I'm sure if I remembered my university's username and password for JSTOR I'd get a good amount there, too. I don't think it should be too difficult... Tezero (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

There is only 1 academic who had said that Russia can become a superpower and that was few years ago. There is none in recent. It was discussed on talk page, and majority agreed that Russia is not really a potential superpower. Recently, as you know about the whole Crimean issue, may have degraded the image of Russia. Economic growth is minus 2 percent. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 00:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Those people must have a very narrow definition of "academic", then; I'm finding plenty of articles that negatively acknowledge the discussion of Russia being a potential superpower as well as a few that say it likely will. I mean, if there's really that major a consensus then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but... Tezero (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
If you happen to find such sources you can inform here. Thanks OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 10:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually there is one 100% academic source which even was in the initial message (take a look back), I asked the question, based on what grounds or rules this scientific work was outdated, but got no response... I'm actually do interested in this, because if it's common wikipedia rule - I should know about it before doing my own research. Also, politician's speeches also can be viewed as sources, so we have 1 100% academic work + 2 political speeches already without even googling. Last two were ignored based on fact that they "seek favor", I argue with it with claim that it is the reader who have to judge, not we. So, again, I'm with Tezero here - there are plenty of sources, but they are ignored deliberately.
I must add note that my reply to Tezero (where I do agree with him) was removed by OccultZone with rather broad definition. Can you describe a little further why you did so? I was being polite and said that we should deal with sources we have. - it looks very inappropriate action. 10:30, 29 June 2014‎ (UTC)
Consider discussing about it on the talk page of the page. You should try to make conversation interesting and back up your theory with some source, because people usually stop replying if they don't find any rationale. That is what usually happened, not just with Russia, but also Brazil, Japan, and even Turkey. You will find some source that would claim them to be future superpower but there is no reliability. Forum links are not reliable. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 10:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
As I said, I'm doing my own paper now and use wikipedia as ground for my research, so I'm 100% agree with you - links to forums should be eliminated! It even should not be discussed. But if there works which are in Russia's favor, if there are speeches for it - it should be represented. Otherwise wikipedia just hiding the facts. It will hurt my work and also hurt readers, who won't give full info. 10:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This articles subject sits firmly within the boundaries of political science, therefore, relying solely on the opinions of commentators from Forbes or the LA Times would be grossly inappropriate. Instead, this article needs to represent current academic consensus through the use of reliable academic publications. If a well established consensus among political scientists can be found, then additional citations from Forbes or the LA Times are welcome, as they act to reinforce this consensus and can give different perspectives on some of the finer points discussed in the article. Having been involved for some time in the development in this article, I can say with much certainty that this is how the article is presently structured.

The trouble with Russia is there is no broad consensus among political scientists as to its potential of being a superpower, but there is an abundance of sensationalist commentary that claims Russia is or will be a superpower again. Unfortunately, sensationalism doesn't belong here. Furthermore, many academic publications may feature titles including buzzwords such as "Russia... resurgent... superpower", but the author will instead go on to assert that Russia is simply an emerging power or trying to halt its decline since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, not a potential superpower.

Would it be wise then to give Russia its own section in the article? Probably not, as being covered in such a way would improperly imply that Russia is somehow equal to China, the EU and India regarding its potential of being a superpower. By "equal" I refer to the popular opinions of political scientists and the broad consensus that can be found for China, the EU and India - but not Russia. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being repetitive, but I'll ask third time... based on what rules or standards link to 100% pure scientific work about Russian was considered outdated. I asked it three times already, two times I was ignored, and one - deleted. Should wikipedia simply ignore the fact this work exist? I must admit why I'm so persistent - I'm doing my own research and this link helped me a lot. If I would be here for couple weeks later, I would not find it. I'm very angry that info that should be inside article and help people are somewhere on talk page and considered outdated. There is no consensus among political scientists about Russia/EU/China, I see no reason why last two are supposed to be in article and Russia is not. Any speculations, that Russia's economic is dropped 2% and based on that it should not be listed in article - pure WP:OR
@Antiochus the Great: That's actually a good argument. I hadn't thought much about the reputations of individual sources whose opinions we are to weigh for importance. Do you think it'd make sense to include an "Other potential superpowers" or "Less popular choices" section, just to avoid the black-and-white implication that these are the only three anyone talks about? It could also include commentary on... I don't know, Brazil, South Africa, maybe - whatever's been discussed. Tezero (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@Tezero: There is RS which supports Russia, which have equal reputation: It was denied based on fact, it's from 2005 and "outdated". I've asked five times already, to point me to rules, by which you can consider work as outdated - no answer. I consider calling this work as outdated as WP:OR.
We got over it before, right? Just measure the importance and status, what it was in 2005 and what it is now. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 12:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but we didn't - "we" - it was you plus the man who proposed to remove Russia. Importance status of Russia has rised from 2005, in 2005 it could not afford to annex Crimea for example, it would be squashed by USA/Europe simply by threatening. But again - it's pure WP:OR to speculate on GDP, military power, etc - I don't want to go into that. What I want to say - there is a reference to scientific work and wikipedia can't declare it as "outdated" just because some editors want to do so. I repeat again - doing so is WP:OR. As I said, I'm preparing my own report on the topic, and in a few days I'd want to analyze RS for all article participants, because as my experience has shown (please look at previous section) - it's not so clear whether all other RS has equal importance to Russia's one, or whether they even support what is being said in article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

So, have we decided what will become of the countries besides China, India, and the EU? Tezero (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that Brazil and Russia according to main academic sources must stay totally out (they aren't for several economic, dempographic and military aspects). Lost time using nationalism or similar things to change a well written article.I even doubt of India as potential superpower( this is based on several main academic reports). (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Sources and actuality is available but only for these 3 economic powers, not for the rest like you have seen. So hopefully we have established the current situation of potential superpowers in writing. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 13:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Occultzone.No other political beings can be in the article in the foresable future (i doubt even of India,but this is just an opinion based on some academics writings) (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Are we sure that we can't even bring them up as countries that sources have acknowledged there's discussion about being potential superpowers, but dismiss these claims themselves? Tezero (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

About Russia there used to be one from 2005. At that time, Russia's economy was better too. But now or at least since 2011, things have changed. We are sure and it would make sense that this article has been never into real content dispute.(DRN, RfC, or even 3O) OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 16:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
@OccultZone: Aren't your speculation about Russia's economy is an WP:OR? I can't see how such arguments can be used in this particular discussion. There is only one question I rise again and again, I did it six (OMG!) times. By what rules pure scientific work is considered as outdated by editors? Politics, and proposing as superpower is a thing that is predicted for decades, not for a years. And if we start to speculate on topic, I think Russia is moving towards this. Recent political events are the proof. 20:30, 5 July 2014‎ (UTC)
Not really OR, Russia's economy is at -2% decrease now. When we had Russia on the page, there was edit war from the opposing IP who wanted a sentence about Russia's declining population to be removed,[1], sometimes the whole section.[2] So I acknowledged that even if there was the mention of Russia, IP would still raise issue. Later the above IP(95.233) had said that "Russia is lucky enough to be even here", so it was investigated. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 00:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
This is only an ad-hominem attack on the IP, not an argument that Russia should not be included at all - barring, of course, "Russia's economy is at -2% decrease now", which would be flagrantly OR to remove all mentions of Russia on account of. Tezero (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll wait a bit for dissenting analyses of the situation to pop up, and if most people agree with you or say nothing, I'll pass this, despite my own personal objections to the incompleteness. Otherwise, you have to understand, it's a stability issue. Tezero (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
@Tezero: Can you write your opinion about situation that pure academic source is declared as "outdated" by editors and denied to be included in article? Especially in a topic, that can't be predicted for a decade, only for a decades. Also, what analysis you want to see? About economy, politics and power? I suppose it's WP:OR and should no be considered.
All suggestions are welcome, we are always in touch with the WP:RECENTISM too. Certainly some have viewed differently, but that's whole different story. We will probably go deeper and consider adding the various information, records of these potential superpowers(current and former), and the article will become FA. ;-) For GA, it was pretty enough. Sure we can wait. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 16:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC), please sign your posts with four tildes. Anyway, if you want my opinion, I'd say the information should be presented along with the year in which it was published, so readers can decide for themselves if it's still relevant. Of course, if the arguments from 2005 for Russia being or not being a potential superpower rely on statistics and such that are verifiably outdated, perhaps that should be given a mention as well. Tezero (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero. I like the suggestion you made above (on 1 July). I left a message on your talk page (here) a few days ago saying such, but I didn't get a reply so you may not have seen it? But yes, I do like like that rather smart suggestion you made. Until then, what's the status with the GA review? Its hard to make out which comments above belong to who, and I am rather suspicious of that pro-Russian POV pushing IP! With good reason too. Antiochus the Great (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right, Antiochus the Great; I didn't see it. If you agree, you can try creating a section with the available discussion of countries besides the big three. Anyway, the status is that it will remain on hold until this dispute about inclusion is resolved, because, again, that's a stability issue. Tezero (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
@Tezero: This is user previously known as IP, I've registered an account to make it easier. First of all, I have to point out that Antiochus the Great without any public accusation tried to get permission from administrator to remove my comments. I repeat, it has been done silently and w/o any possibility for me to defend myself. But, luckily, I got a chance to respond to his (her?) accusation: here.
Second, and very important part: Antiochus the Great has been caught to create false facts about Russia in this article: here he adds false statement, to create an impression, that there is "consensus" among scientists and here he, being caught by me, reverts this edit). This should give you the picture, who is really trying to improve the article and who is pushing non-NPOV. I hope, you will take this into consideration for decisions about the article and about those who created it.
Third, constructive: I propose to add Russia to the map, I don't object about tag "highly controversial" or smth like this (just look at this talk page - isn't it "higly controversial"?). I propose this based on this
  1. As you've pointed out - there is huge discussion about Russian being superpower (or potential superpower - it doesn't matter right now) in mass media. This means that users will look information about it, and highly possible they will end in this article. I must note specifically that this discussion is much more highly controversial than, about Brazil, or India. Also, I think that creating "Other countries" section will just make the tensions higher, not resolve it.
  2. There is RS for Russia, they are this scientific work, which we discuss for more than a month now, plus, for example quotation of political's speeches, like Venezuela's president saying "Russia is a superpower" and Israeli PM calling Russia "an important superpower", and as I said earlier, only reader has to judge that them. I do completely agree with you that we should just say that this RS was published in 2005, but we can't hide the fact of its existence. Also, I would to point out, that RS for EU, is being from 2002, 2004, 2006 years - and they live happily. Also, interviews and politician's speeches are considered as RS for EU, but denied for Russia.
  3. Russia is being only (except US) country to have Nuclear triad, in my view this fact just on itself says a lot, but it should go only as supportive argument, otherwise it just falls into WP:OR.
  4. Russia is considered as "potential superpower" based on the RS under question by other wikipedias, see here. It's not implying that Wikipedia on itself RS, but just give us an overview of broad and unite consensus among wikipedia users of other languages.
Final point: I am here not to push Russia's POV, I'm here to fight against things, I've colored red above, against people who start to use Wikipedia, one of the greatest inventions people have ever done in the history, to move their political propaganda, creating false facts and shamelessly putting "reliable sources" label on it. This is the thing I'm angry about. I hope, that at least, those people are not being paid for that. Because non-NPOV is usual for human-being, we're live creatures, anyway; but doing bad things for money, really turns people into rats. Effervescency (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Effervescency, Antiochus wasn't adding unsourced information; Wikipedia goes by verifiability, not truth. Regardless of what either of us thinks, the sources he added posit that Russia will not become a superpower, and we should not silence them on that account. On the other hand, we also shouldn't remove sources that say Russia may become one just because we disagree.
  • Also, I don't really care about users' edit histories or how well-esteemed they are. If an individual contribution is valid, I will support it; if not, I won't.
  • I'm not sure what to think of how other Wikipedias interpret the source. I haven't looked at it; if it's in English, I'm not sure we should give their interpretations too much credence, because no Wikipedia speaks English better than English Wikipedia (with the possible exceptions of Simple English and small languages frequently studied by English-speaking linguists, e.g. Old English, Irish, Manx) - not Russian, at any rate. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF could be extended to not following the policies of other Wikipedias just because they exist.
  • Should there even be a map, actually? I don't know of any sources that simply show the big three as being the, and the only, potential superpowers, so it may be OR for us to cobble together a map of the countries that simply have the most attention.

Tezero (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  • @Tezero: By no means I implied (if you thought so - I'm sorry) that we should silence the facts. If there are RS that discuss, that Russia isn't potential superpower - I'm absolutely fine with them, they should be in article! I've absolutely NO objections on them.
  • Antiochus deliberately stated that there is "consensus" about Russian not being potential superpower, and he provided the link which had absolutely no information about "consensus", he created the fact for a readers, who don't check the sources. Such behavior should not be tolerated, we can't simply say "we don't care about those who don't check links" - if a user do such things, it should be pointed out, I feel that it's bad. Also, I feel that this should be taken into account when judging user's actions and arguments.
  • About inter-wiki's - well, English is being one of the most common second languages ;) - I think most wiki editors (on all wikis) know it more or less well. - but again, it's not an argument, just a supportive information.
  • Your point about map is very interesting, I can't decide right now, but I think I'm more in favor of it. Maybe this is the thing that REALLY create the tension. And if we just follow your logic about describing countries with RS - it may work... Actually, I think this is the most valuable contribution on the whole talk page to resolve the conflict, much thanks for an idea! Can this be discussed with our counter-parties, what do they think? Effervescency (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Try with CIS to be luckier....if you won't be luckier with CIS that includes Russia it means that Russia can't be in this article.This insisting about Russia is becoming non sense. (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Update: I have asked WT:POLITICS for input on the inclusion of nations besides the big three. Other users may be coming in. Tezero (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

A separate, but similar issue. Half the lead is spent talking about Japan, something that doesn't even have its own subsection. It really needs to be redone to more accurate summarize what the article covers in the body. (This isn't commentary for or against Japan, but rather, how to properly write the opening of an article to properly summarize the article. Sergecross73 msg me 16:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: Thanks, I have removed it for now. Whenever the article will be nominated for bigger tag I will probably restore it and expand on article. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 17:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Sergecross73, I agree. It was the same way with Russia until it was deleted and then I created a new section for other contenders just now. By the way, you're not normally into these articles, I don't think; did you find out about it by scouring my contributions? Tezero (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Completeness is probably good enough at this point for GA, but as it stands, the ref layout is abysmal. I'll try to fix some of them; I'd appreciate some help. (One of the titles is literally "An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie", and its link is dead.) Tezero (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Also regarding the lead, it ought to briefly summarize the arguments for and against each of the big three. Tezero (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Now Wikipedia has a low level article.Greetings!Somebody here wrote and acted in a too free way wihtout sufficient sources about Russia and Brazil.Are now all happy?Even the crying russians?Why don't we add Madagascar and Nicaragua too? (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Why aren't the sources sufficient? I would be fine with adding Madagascar and Nicaragua if sources were around to back them up as being potential superpowers. Wikipedia goes by verifiability, not truth. Tezero (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Good 1. Depends upon the content, verifiability, then BRD/Consensus, keeps going on. Article is never finished, was just discussing that on DYK's talkpage. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 19:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

In the article Russia can't be defined current superpower because in Wikipedia the sole current superpower are USA.The content of Russia is really low and not sufficient.No sufficient sources by academics.Brazil same.All rubbish to be deleted. (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC), I added "or current" because some of the opinions there posit that Russia already is a superpower. What the lead says is that the U.S. is the only one that fulfills some formal definition (which I haven't investigated). Tezero (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems that after the DISASTER ( so i name this change) all people are disappeared.Russia and Brazil haven' t sufficient sourcies in quality and quantity to stay in the article.I 'm sorry but many people that should check writers have no idea (like some of writers).The rating of "Other contenders" part is 0.I'd delete India too according to main sources.A DISASTER THIS ARTICLE AFTER THE LAST CHANGE.Some historicians of main universities will have time to laugh. (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not delete the sections for any of these countries. The sources are fine for what they say. Sure, there's probably more out there that we could use, but that doesn't mean Brazil, Russia, or India should go. If historians laugh, let them laugh; this article adequately portrays five countries that are discussed as potential superpowers. Wikipedia does not take a position on how likely any of these are; we only summarize others' opinions. Tezero (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems somebody is is insisting with current...Russia can't be defined so because in the article only USA are defined so.Before the pro russians wanted the finger and now the arm.... Russia like brazile shouldn't neither be there.All rubbish.The part od "Other contenders" is based on very particular opinions not supported by very high academic sourcies but only by old sources (some of them were in the article "Superpower" some years ago).The simple fact that many people criticize this (me too like the majority) by high level sources is more than sufficient (See Antiocus the Great that well set the article). (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I've explained above why I feel it's correct to use "or current". Tezero (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

My dear russian,current can be used only for USA.You explained nothing.We could add current to China and EU too for istance."Or current " can't be used otherwise it means that Russia could be even now a superpower.We could use the same for EU and China referring to many sourcies.A lot of rubbish today in this article.Greetings. (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This the example of a bad article in Wikipedia.I SUGGEST TO RESTORE ALL without "Other contenders" FIRST OF ALL and possibly without India. (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I was reviewing the edits on the Potential Superpowers but really the problem lies with Antiochus the Great he started here with this anti Russia campaign[3] and on the Potential Superpowers here[4] and OccultZone is involved but also Antiochus the Great has been known to hide behind multiple ips even though he says he doesn't I have seen the trail which I have I can forward to verify. The problem started with Russia as a superpower to not a superpower anymore on December 30, 2013 with Antiochus the Great and he did it on the potential superpowers May 2014. These two editors are behind this anti Russia campaign, they hate Russia and so they put it's all Russia academic sources and discussions off the map. They are pro USA all the way even though Antiochus the Great is British; I have their history of communication with each since April 2013 so I know their track record to verify their anti Russia on this quest to make sure Russia is not placed on the superpower list.
The fact is Russia is a superpower, period. One verified academic sources is Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower, they continue to denounce it like no tomorrow is:
Steven Rosefielde, International Relations Professor UC University, 2004
That's an academic source period, that is 110% credible as it was written by a foreign relations expert professor, it's a college school book.
but for Antiochus the Great and OccultZone to say its out of date, oh really but that is absurd when it comes to their source on the Superpowers page such as the academic source "Lonely Superpower or Unapologetic Hyperpower? Analyzing American Power in the post–Cold War Era", it is outdated, way outdated. You can not have a 1999 source to say the United States is a superpower, it is not even revised since 1999 either. If the US is a superpower then it needs current academic sources to state it is a superpower. The url is

but for Antiochus the Great and OccultZone they don't want to reply if there is no new update, the only other one is a 2008 source they have, that's it.

I also have over 100 or so Russia superpower articles from 2003 to 2014, so I am not just saying that but I have those sources at hand when I will use them but I have a hard time dealing with the corrupted editors on these pages who are specifically out to denounce Russia each and every time and the problems I have seen December 30, 2014 through now, I have counted 4 editors in particular that are all in this anti Russian campaign together, it is sad and to go to Administrators to say please block the articles, they want that, they want people to argue so the pages will get blocked.
Also, I am not Russian myself. I was born in Maine, I am full American as their is nothing Russian about me, so my tale is I support the facts not the anti countries some editors are using Wikipedia for. There needs to be some editor elimination on these articles to point out that there is discrimination on countries as I have witnessed.
Second why do I not have a registered user name, I feel I had too much drama with the talkpages so I use my home ip instead. I will email the links but don't like to post my oxforduniversity email address online, I have a BA degree from Oxford University, Oxford, England and live in California, so this issue about Russian POV pushing is non-sense, I will say its more USA POV pushing. If you have any ideas, post please post them here please.
Anyway I wanted to forward that info, thanks.-- (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
@ If you have sources at hand - please post them, I'll review and add! (Russia is back to an article) Thanks! Effervescency (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Heh, this discussion's almost as long as the article now. Play nice, you two! Tezero (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's one from just today pointing out Russia is a world superpower again
Russia’s Neighbours: Primary Colours - Financial Times (Britain) By Jack Farchy June 9, 2014 5:33 pm

-- (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

No hard feelings. But I like to keep up with the current events. Just like Tezero had noted that even Nicaragua can be considered as potential superpower once we have a reliable source for it. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 01:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

By russian fingers this article has fallen really low....why don't they find many academic sources of high level supporting CIS as superpower?Russia is in it and CIS should be a potential superpower.82.... is right.They avoid to look for CIS( Russia even lost its influence on Ukraine and Moldova and Georgia -the last one since longe time:Russia lost its influence in mostly all former USSR allies too) because it hasn't sufficient sources and Russia isn't a potential supepower.If Russia were a potential superpower CIS should be with more reason a potential superpower.But they have nothing of high quality about it. I suggest to add aside Russia and Brazil ("Other contenders") also Turkey and South Africa and others that had sources for name them potential superpowers.I repeat,the best thing is TO RESTORE ALL (possibly without India). It seems that russians are helped a lot having in their hands NOTHING .It seems other people opinions based on strong points (sources and other) are neither considered.Russian crying (many other russians could arrive in this page to support their Russia and to forget Wikipedia standards) for long time works better. (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero:, can it be summarized somewhere - what still need to be done to get GA status? I'd like to participate, since I'm already here. Effervescency (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2014‎ (UTC)
Effervescency, the lead needs to be expanded to cover the basic points regarding each of the big three countries, the citations need to be formatted (some of them are just bare links), and the content dispute regarding Russia, Brazil, and India needs to boil over (which will just take time). Tezero (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: I'm on Wikibreak as of today, as I'm long overdue for one. I'll trust you all not to murder one another while I'm gone. Спасибо, и до свидания! Tezero (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

So now we see the true faces of writers.Spashibo, i Do svidania!These people have changed the article that must be restored.They used not sufficient sources.But soon the right will be restored in this rubbish article.How many academic sources against Russia in this article do you need?I already posted 3.Do you need more?I saw also the majority is against Russia and brazil in the article.Here there's something shaganigan. (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Today the anti Russian ip is, yesterday he was blocked and the day before he was blocked. All the same person making anti Russian statements, please stop this nonsense of making arguments on why Russia is not a superpower when it is.
Your not helping the discussion on your arguments, their are editors who have blocked these comments and warned you to stop. Please stick to the subject on Russia as a superpower-- (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Effervescency good point, you made good ideas to the discussion, thanks-- (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems editors are ignoring this and many other thing more important...when we'll wee see Brazil and Russia delete and DONE!!!!a lot of fantasy in the article now! (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Really good thing!) (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Adding Russia back[edit]

Russia is rapidly growing both economicaly,Culturally and Militarily Russian Annexation of Crimea is only the first sign russia is building new tanks,ships,bombers and weapons in large numbers while signing trade agreements with many nations (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC) your right but the problem is one editor is very anti Russian, the facts are there it's the fact when you have one editor who started this mess since late December 2013 and has been on this troll deletion mentioned of anything regarding Russia as a superpower, pulling all valid sources and etc then tells the admin for help each and every time[5]. Personally I don't spend 8 hours a day everyday on Wikipedia editing unemployed but the point is, you can't trust this article like you can't trust Wikipedia because of editor corruption. So with that said because this is a constant problem then start a blog campaign stating how the potential superpowers and superpower articles are false by corruption. If people want the truth, not to come here but to use other sources when it comes to this subject.-- (talk) 07:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out that editors were trying to get permission to delete my comments, I've left a note on User:The_Bushranger talk's page. I see no reasons why editors try to remove Russia and then quickly try to gain GA status, only if they have reasons to push their own POV. At least, I hope, they don't get paid for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I support Russia back in, there's sources that are worth using, even past sources but it was mislead in May 2014 and sources didn't get argued to save Russia in as Russia was deleted on purpose by 3 editors who planned it. Seeing bias editors delete good sources is wrong and to deal with that makes it difficult with one way thinking turning heads on good sources. Need to place Russia back in like before.-- (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It's really difficult to realize your can image your ideas. Later i'll post aside Russia and Brazil Turkey and South Africa that have been mentioned as superpowers in the past times.IN THIS PAGE MORE THAN 50% of WRITERS ARE RUSSIANS.The credibility not only of their sources (that are really insignificant)and of a broad consensus is 0.We cann see a lot of writing by them but not real good sources.Russia just lost Ukraine that was the second state in USSR and that moved to EU with Georgia and Moldova(last words are just my opinion that give anyway an idea of russian situation).If we begin to write about russian lacking in economy (National net wealth,GNI,GDP nominal and PPP,GDP per capita,HDI and so on) ,demography and conventional military we end after tomorrow.Same naturally for Brazil. (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your speculations on Ukraine (lost? Crimea is lost?), Georgia (South Osetia and Abhazia are lost?) it's all WP:OR. If you have nice sources for Turkey and SA - you're welcome. But I highly doubt that you can call any country a potential superpower, if they have no nuclear weapon. Effervescency (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Antiochus the Great,151.... and others to RESTORE ALL and delete Russia and Brazil from article that now has a very low standard to do not say shameful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Turkey has nuclear sharing.This about nukes it's just an opinion of yours. (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Here are some references about Turkey (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Then write a section about it and post it here, on Talk page for review - no one is opposite to it. Why should I care about Turkey, or your opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Effervescency (talkcontribs) 18:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I won't add Turkey because like Russia nd Brazil hasn't sufficient good sources.TIME to delete Brazil and Russia.This shows how easily people add political beings in this article.Brazil and Russia were added in an easy way.A low level article now. (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Then why have you provided bad sources at first place? If you don't want to write about Turkey - then don't write. No one cares about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Effervescency (talkcontribs) 19:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I posted it to see russians reactions.You immediately said "YES" to justify the adding of Brazil and Russia yesterday.This shows that more than something is wrong in this article.sorry but you fell in the trap. (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I said, if you want to write - write, we will review, if you don't want to write - don't write, no one care about it. Wiki is about RS, not about political battle arena, as you try to picture it. More on that, you try to convert wiki to such arena. All your further comments will be ignored. You're a bad person. Effervescency (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

What you wrote shows that you are "easy" in adding political beings.Now you try to JUSTIFY Brazil and Russia in the article. (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Interwiki's about Russia[edit]

As I can see, majority of interwiki's are using this scientific work from 2005 as a proof and include Russia in their maps. Actually only English one and Ukranian don't. I see this as argument, to propose to add Russia again, as this shows that this scientific work considered as reliable source for Russia by Wikipedia community.

Interwiki's which recognize the source under dispute as RS and including Russia: bg es fr id pt ro (very small article) ta vi zh

Interwiki that don't recognize this as RS: en ua (??)

(I ignore russian wiki for obvious reasons)

I'll ask I hope the last time (seventh!!!), and I hope for the answer... By what rules English wikipedia don't recognize RS, which I stated above. All other interwiki's are happy about it. I suppose English wiki should follow the majority consensus and don't try make its own rules. Or (the worst!!!) turn wikipedia into a weapon of political battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is not a reliable source, what other Wikis do is really not very relevant here.
In my opinion the source, published by a high quality academic publisher (CUP) should be considered reliable.
However, I am not sure the book actually claims that Russia IS a potential superpower at this moment, from the shown text it appears it INTENDS to be a superpower by 2010 (it is not one now and it is well past 2010, so that intention failed). So this source is not completely unambiguous.
So while the source indeed argues that Russia is a potential superpower, the view of the book also seems somewhat outdated. I would prefer a newer source.
To be honest I find the whole idea of superpowers a bit tricky as the term is rather ill defined - making it an almost automatic POV fork to decide which country is one. The idea of potential superpowers is, if possible even worse - and tends towards crystal balling. But that would go for all mentioned countries here and not only Russia. Arnoutf (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not the idea of superpowers, it's the fact that editors refuse to listen and are anti Russian, pull any valid source I can guarantee you will get the source thrown out with no consideration. One particular editor will with two others I can mention that follow the same path of anti Russia articles, period. It's like go USA but go way Russia since December 2013.-- (talk) 07:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Try with CIS as potential superpower...may be you'll be luckier...may be... (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

India RSs[edit]

While resting from Russia's discussion, several notes about India's RS:

A US Intelligence report, from 2012, says that India will become a superpower by 2030...

And link to

If you would follow the link, you will see that word superpower is actually used only in title, so it's just journalist's opinion. Actual US intelligence report says:

In 2030 India could be the rising economic powerhouse that China is seen to be today. China's current economic growth rate - 8 to 10 per cent - will probably be a distant memory by 2030

Powerhouse is not a superpower, since later propose more that simple economic power.

Please, remove the paragraph, which I quoted, or provide better sources. Effervescency (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed you are correct. It is surprising that myself and nobody else noticed this before. It is amazing how people will deliberately add misleading material to an article! Good job and many thanks for pointing this out. Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Antiocus the Great. (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Haha, I must note - you agree with him too much :) even when it's not needed Effervescency (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Antiochus the Great: you edit was reverted. OccultZone, why have you restored this material here? Can you provide direct cite where US Intelligence report (2012) says that India will become "superpower"? I can find only "powerhouse". Effervescency (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Effervescency: Yes check.svg Done OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 14:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


I suggest first of all to delete the section "Other contenders" that is really very low.I'd restore all like before but without India( this my opinion based on the academics writings that i read). (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

While I would like to make a comment about India and Russia but I found ip user for disruptive ip hoping on these discussions, speaking against Russia in all ip’s I found below. All the same editor, all ip addresses are from Florence Italy. I would like to discredit this user out of this discussion since it is all the same wording slamming disruptive edits against Russia since 2013 that this is not effective when users like this are disruptive and are doing the opposite. Here is the list with links of the contributes starting July 8, 2014‎ -[6] , July 7, 2014[7], March 17, 2014 -[8], April 2013 - Bocca Trabaria[9], March 2014 -[10], March 2014 -[11], Sept 23, 2013 -[12], Sept 15, 2013 -[13], March 18, 2014 -[14], March 18, 2014 -[15], March 17, 2014 -[16], March 16, 2014 -[17], March 16, 2014 -[18], March 15, 2014 -[19], March 15, 2014 -[20], March 15, 2014 -[21], Feb 4, 2014 -[22], Feb 4, 2014-[23], Dec 28, 2013 -[24], Dec 27, 2013 -[25], Dec 27, 2013 -[26], Dec 25, 2013 -[27], Dec 23, 2013 -[28], Dec 22, 2013 -[29], Sept 8, 2013 -[30], August 14, 2013 -[31], May 10, 2013 – Mediolanum[32], Oct 22, 2013 - Glc72[33], May 21, 2013 -[34], May 14, 2013 -[35], May 14, 2013 -[36], May 11, 2013 - Bocca_Trabaria[37]

Are you sure about it?My web is linked to Infostrada that is owned by Vimpelcom that is russian.I think you are wrong russian Sherlock Holmes.Here you are the play maker that defends the make up of Russia in this section.Naturally propaganda is also in economy,policy and military articles.It seems you had contacts with Tezero (the other russian) and Sergecross73 that appeared and then disappeared making the huge confusion (or DISASTER in my opinion for broad consensus).I know Russia and russian better than you think.I swim in Rosstat pages and in its lies.Developing states have statistic data full of lies.Numbers to play at lottery many times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@ What the hell? What is a terrible WP:OR are you trying to push? I've passed this before already! Wikipedia is to provide sources, and READER is the only one who has to judge. Sources for Russia and Brazil are provided. There is no discussion about South africa being superpower. Current political events (annexation of Crimea for example) involves USA, EU and Russia. If you google for "russia superpower" - you will see that there is discussion about it in mass media, this means that wikipedia should cover it.
@ On top of it - yes, previous editor is correct, your IP is from Italy. He isn't wrong, he is correct. Also those edits shows that you're highly anti-Russian user, adding works like Russia is "unimportant" and etc. I doubt you have good faith. Effervescency (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

RussiA LOST Ukraine in the true sense.Russia is nothing more tha a middle/great power even in a foresablle future.You couldn't find sources about Turkey and South Africa and others.Me yes.I agree to restore like Antiochus the Great. (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

it's WP:OR i'm already tired to express that. I actually don't give a [insert any word you like] about what you think Russia has lost or what you think about Russia. If there RS - give them, I'll think about adding them myself or won't touch them. Otherwise, it's word against word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Effervescency (talkcontribs) 15:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Russian people seem to be nervous because they know russia isn't at the level.It lacks a lot like Brazil under many points of view.The majority of writers and sources are against Brazil and Russia. (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC) (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Just to start finding articles against we want to last? We can bomb Russia position with all times academics sources.TIME TO DELETE Russia and Brazil.173.....deleted himself but left his post.Hehehe151.40.12.61 (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Today the anti Russian ip is, yesterday he was and the day before he was All the same person making anti Russian statements, please stop this nonsense of making arguments on why Russia is not a superpower when it is.-- (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thoroughly agree with Effervescency, ip is disruptive and making anti Russian remarks which seems this user is supporting all of Antiochus the Great's edits which is linked to the same thing, hurting the article of pushing off Russian verified sources for no consideration. I see a tie between IP users and Antiochus the Great upon reviewing their history together. I know now not who to trust on these comments from these editors and it's truly sad.-- (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

American influence in Crimea[edit]

However, Nathan Smith of the National Business Review has argued that despite Russia having potential it did not in the 1980s to win another "Cold War", other factors such as American influence in Crimea make superpower status unlikely

I followed that source briefly and can't understand what this sentence is all about - what influence America has in Crimea? - I can't find this in the source. In my opinion this sentence is total non-sense - remove it?

Unified Korea Superpower?[edit]

I'm just throwing this idea out there but hasn't there been some talk about the possibility of a Unified Korea becoming a superpower? Perhaps it should be listed under other contenders. Ace45954 (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)