Talk:World domination (disambiguation)

Proposal: Delete Future Speculation Altogether

So, call me crazy, but reading the possible future world dominators drives me nuts. I've got major issues with the credibility of the sections, and it really does read, at least to me, like a laundry list of various people's pet "theories." So, rather than try to find a way to make nanobots serving their supercomputer overlord sound encyclopedia-credible, I say we just ditch the whole section. If some parts seem like they fit into the way-the-hell-too-long In Pop Culture section, fine, but if I had it my way I'd strike the whole section and all of its content.

I think this is a very defensible course of action. New York Times Best Seller List doesn't have a "possible future best sellers" section," and History of Europe doesn't list any future speculation with the exception of a few very short horizon points about who plans to join the EU. This sort of future speculation is entirely inappropriate to an encyclopedia; we should not be filling the role of public bulletin board for every fringe prediction about the future. Since it's hard to draw the line between crackpot and otherwise, let's skirt the issue by cutting the whole section. Jordanp (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I originally wrote 96% of the main body of both the past and future sections of this article in early 2007. I bifurcated the article in two articles by moving the future section to a separate article called World domination in the future and I restored the popular culture section (the vast majority of which was not written by me) of to this article. Keraunos (talk) 06:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see your note here. I still think that the popular culture section is still, basically, a list of trivia. Unfortunately, since there are so many things that reference world domination in pop culture, this list could potentially be infinite--which would be bad. A brief section treating pop culture and gaming treatment of world domination would be much, much better. As for the future material, I couldn't find the page you said you created. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Westernization?/Americanization?

What about this, isn't IT a way of "taking over the world", and the United States is quite an arrogant country, and they are very powerful, soon enough, if they tried, couldn't they take over the world as well...It also seems that some people are picking on China by saying that, as if it's a negative thing, but China's a good country, the United States however has a lot of negative things in it...And look at China, even though it's powerful, at least the thought of invading other smaller countries hasn't crossed its mind...to invade Iraq and Iran like that, the thought should be invalid enough.

I would like to point out the fact that China has invaded Tibet.--theKeeper (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

And whoever wrote that about China is seemingly giving biased information, I am deeply appalled, because the person or people who wrote it, seemed to be trying to make China sound like a barbarian country, trying to do "bad" things...this is not true, and again I say: USA is more likely to "dominate the world" and in a "bad" sense.

There is also have incontrovertible proof that gross human rights and civil liberties abuses are perpetrated by the Chinese government. While I personally do not like the United States, at least they don't suppress their people. China is most definitely NOT a nice country.--theKeeper (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the article covers both China and the USA fairly as potential world dominators. If you would like to add some facts or (notable) opinions to spin the China coverage more positively, as the US part has been done, please do so. Peace on Earth and goodwill to all humans. Steve Dufour 18:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, some people need some medication O_O 69.245.80.218 (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Judaism

Judaism was previously listed as a proselytising, universalist religion in this article. I have removed that reference, as in the Judaism article it says they are merely open to sincere converts, thus they do not proselytise. --Haridan 07:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The last major forced conversion to Judaism was before the common era, and didn't turn out to well- Herod was one of these converets. (I forget who it was exactly, possibly the moabites.)--Lophoole 21:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Global domination → World domination Using Google today, September 29, 2006, I have found the following:

• "Global domination" = 856,000 hits.
• "World domination" = 5,400,000 hits.

I am therefore moving this page to the later.

Ludvikus 10:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

---

I've just "Googled" World Domination Recordings, and here's the result:

Results 1 - 10 of about 3,050 for "World Domination Records". (0.29 seconds)

Check for yourself: [1]

Yours truly, Ludvikus 08:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

---

• PLEASE NOTE THAT I HAVE MADE MY RECOMMENDATION ABOVE, ON THIS DISCUSSION, ON SEPTEMBER 29, 2006. No one responded! Didn't the time expire already? Do we really have to wait(e) any longer? Isn't it obvious that the correct usage is World domination? And by the way, I've also noted that the article has NO REFERENCES!!! Yours truly, Ludvikus 08:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Support - I'll believe google. Beardo 23:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• Please note: World domination links here, but World Domination used to link to World Domination Recordings, until I changed it a few minutes ago. I think this is important, if we're worried about a disambig page. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • TIME (since 9/29/6) EXPIRED, I BELIEVE. Accordingly please MOVE page NOW! Ludvikus 08:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • But it wasn't posted at WP:RM, so there's no way people would know that you placed a request on the talk page. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

ONE MONTH WAITING FOR THE PAGE TO BE MOVED

• Please note that it has been ONE MONTH since my initial survey and recommendation that the page be moved! Accordingly, please move page forthwith. Ludvikus 08:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Was the request placed on Wikipedia:Requested moves ? -- Beardo 23:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

where should it have been moved to/from? --Lophoole 21:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ideologies?

"Many proselytising religions such as Christianity and Islam" - what other ones are there? Aside from the fact that there are very few such religions apart from those two (making "such as" inappropriate), one cannot say "many" if there are only so few. elvenscout742 13:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the authors wanted to avoid listing all religions that actively recruit converts and also to avoid internal disputes among religions as to whether or not it is legitimate to recruit converts (as such debates are ongoing in some religions) (RookZERO 02:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC))

I took out the "many", otherwise I think it is fine. Quite a few newer religions are also aiming for worldwide spiritual/ideological domination. And why shouldn't they if they think they have the right answers? The same with any idea. You might as well say that feminism and environmentalism are trying to dominate the world. Steve Dufour 04:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Section to be deleted

"Future world domination" seems to speculative to be accurate, and the suggestion that some states/nations may want to take over the world seems POV. Also, many of those "threats" do not seem credible. --Lophoole 21:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think people are mature enough to understand those things. I think it's fine to have a prediction section if it is clear that some published sources have made the predictions, not that WP itself is. (p.s. I don't think the anarchists have much chance. :-)) Steve Dufour 02:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That's the key. The prediction need to be verifiable in reliable sources. Put a fact tag on anything that's not well referenced, and if no refs are added soon, then delete it. Dicklyon 02:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The United States of America should be removed as it doesnt or never has had any world dommination in any sense of the world Alexsau1991 (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Why were the flags removed

Was there a problem with them? Not that they added much to the article, but I don't see why they shouldn't be there. Steve Dufour 15:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Cultural world domination

Unifying the world via media (TV, film, etc). American film and TV already have a profound effect on the world - see: Powaqqatsi. JAF1970 23:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead a write a section. Be sure to include WP. :-) Steve Dufour 18:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The article made Wikicomics!

Check it out: [2] Steve Dufour 18:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Definition of "American Empire" is POV

This is from the article:

"When The American Empire is spoken of, it is meant in a metaphorical, not a literal sense."

with a reference to what appears to be a scholarly article. This is a problematic sentence and I'm deleting it.

Rationale. First, it is flat out wrong in some cases. When Chalmers Johnson talks about an American Empire he really means military hegemony. I don't necessarily agree with him, but he should be able to use the term literally if he wants to. Secondly, why does speaker meaning matter at all? Alluding to the semantic concept of speaker meaning strikes me as confusing and unnecessary. Third, "America is not an empire" is POV. It rings of the No True Scotsman fallacy:

A: "America is not an empire"

B: "But it has a bunch of military bases and spends more on its military than the next dozen or so countries combined"

A: "America is not a true empire"

Mistercupcake 05:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

@Mistercupcake,

Fair point, but "America IS NOT an empire" is just as much POV. It's a definition-of-terms issue. I think it's best to acknowledge that the position is controversial, and strong arguments are made both ways.

Jordanp (talk) 05:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

AMERICA IS NOT AN EMPIRE! If it is then all other WESTERN COUNTRIES ARE. even in a METAPHORICAL SENSE its isn't an empire. I would say it has Influences around the world BUT IS NOT and SHOULD'NT BE DESERVED TO BE CALLED AN EMPIRE! it is pretty INSULTING since it makes AMERICANS EVEN MORE ARROGANT AND COCKY

Alexsau1991 (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Yeah i agree, america isnt an empire even in a metaphoricalsense, it doesnt rule anywhere but its self, and as this site is full of americans i know it wont get changed, it cant in any sense be called an empire, it thinks it can do all these things will the world, a country which fails in every war it has fought on its own and giving freedem to countrys does not make it an empire. If Amercia can be seen as an empire on here, i think that all westen countrys should be added. if the USA is counted because of its coporation world domination, Japan should deffently be added as most electrical item is made in jappan, and China should be because China sells suff all over the world. Countrys with over sea territory should also be added, if not Amercica should be removed.

It depends on how you define "empire". If you're interested in a scholarly treatment of the issue, I suggest you read Niall Ferguson's Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire and Andrew Bacevich's The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War. Ferguson argues that America is by any sane definition an empire but that this is not necessarily a bad thing, whereas Bacevich (a retired colonel) argues that America is becoming an empire, and that this puts our liberty at risk. I'm not saying I agree with everything either writes, but they make strong arguments that America is in fact an empire. Anyway, the talk page is not really the place to debate whether America is an empire (it's for improving the article, not debating the content) so I'll stop there, but do give those authors a look. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire

Did u forget or you just dont know the biggest and long-lived Empire.. 1299-1922. Could you explain why dont you write even one word about Ottoman Empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman

If it is not an empire then what about this page '''http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman '''

• By one almanac's count, there have been no fewer than seventy empires in the history of the world. Are we going to list all of them? Granted, the Ottomans should probably be mentioned because of how close they came to achieving their goal of domination over Europe. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek

... there are single individuals in both history (for example, Alexander the Great) and fiction (for example, Khan Noonien Singh, a villain from Star Trek), who have attempted to take over the world.

I don't think Star Trek is so important that one of its villains has to be mentioned in the first sentences of an encyclopedic article about a political effect of historical significance so I reworked that line. wr 87.139.81.19 11:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

....

This article is awful, personally I think it should be deleted, I would try to improve it myself, removing some of the POV and spelling errors (although spelling is my personal WORST issue), however as this article is so poorly sourced I think it would be like patching up holes in a sunken ship.Anti-BS Squad (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is an abomination. It refers to a transhumanist talking about nanobots. Seriously. Huge sections of this need to go away, and it needs to be locked. This article is begging for a Wikipedia-hater to find it and link to it for all the world to see just bad things can get. Jordanp (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

esta es la traduccion de el texto world domination.

El dominio del mundo 

De Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre Saltar a navegación, búsqueda "Mundo conquista" redirige aquí. Para otros usos, véase el Mundial de la dominación (desambiguación).

Alejandro Magno Felipe II de España Napoleón Bonaparte El concepto de la dominación del mundo (a veces conquista mundo), con una sola autoridad política que tiene un poder sobre todos los ciudadanos del planeta Tierra, siempre ha sido un tema popular en la historia y la ficción. La búsqueda de la dominación mundial es a que se refiere coloquialmente como teniendo el mundo, y se ha intentado por varias personas y los sistemas políticos a través de la historia.

Contenido [ocultar] 1 Ideologías propugnan el dominio del mundo 1,1 ideologías religiosas propugnan el dominio del mundo 1,2 Políticos ideologías propugnan el dominio del mundo 2 Arnold Toynbee del concepto de un estado universal 3 Ejemplos de Estados Universal 3,1 Imperio Persa 3,2 macedonio Imperio 3,3 Imperio Mauryan 3,4 Imperio Romano 3,5 Califato árabe 3,6 Imperio Mongol 3,7 Imperio Ming 4 Ejemplos de imperios mundiales 4,1 imperio portugués 4,2 Imperio Habsburgo 4,3 Imperio español 4,4 Imperio francés 4,5 Imperio Británico 4,6 Unión Soviética 4,7 imperio japonés 4,8 Alemania nazi 4,9 imperio americano 5 Posibles futuros medios de la dominación del mundo 5,1 Imperio Occidental 5,2 mundo Confederación Anarquista 5,3 Federación Mundial 6 Mundial de la dominación en la cultura popular 6,1 Alien Invasion 6,2 Otros Casos 7 Véase también 8 Referencias

[Editar] Ideologías propugnan el dominio del mundo

[Editar] ideologías religiosas propugnan el dominio del mundo Proselitismo religiones como el cristianismo y el islam son universalistas, viendo como su tarea de convertir la mayor cantidad de personas posible de su religión, sin restricciones de origen nacional o étnico. Esta dominación espiritual (véase, por ejemplo, el Reino de los Cielos) es por lo general por la mayoría de la gente vea que se distinga de un dominio temporal, pero algunos grupos marginales dentro de estas religiones tienen un objetivo global de la teocracia.

[Editar] Políticos ideologías defendiendo el dominio del mundo Del mismo modo, dedicó algunos adeptos de diferentes ideologías, como el anarquismo, la democracia, el comunismo (especialmente trotskismo), el nazismo, el neoconservadurismo, social democracia, el liberalismo o liberalidad que ver su credo como la forma ideal de organización social, y alentar activamente a su aplicación en todo el Mundo. El período de la Guerra Fría, en particular, se considera como un período de intensa polarización ideológica en todo el mundo, con seguidores de los dos campos rivales expresando su esperanza de que la ideología que emerge triunfante sobre la otra y se convierten en la principal forma de gobierno en todo el mundo. Elementos dentro de los bloques aliados dirigidos por la Unión Soviética y los Estados Unidos se acusaron mutuamente de contar con objetivos de dominación mundial.

Después de la final de la Guerra Fría, la Unión Soviética y del derrumbe, Francis Fukuyama en El fin de la historia predijo que se convertiría en la democracia liberal a favor de la forma de gobierno en toda la tierra. Este período fue llamado por algunos el nuevo orden mundial.

[Editar] Arnold Toynbee del concepto de un estado universal Antes de la época moderna, al alcance de control político y la fuerza militar se vio limitada por rudimentarias tecnologías de transporte y el conocimiento de la geografía. El Imperio Romano había objetivos de dominación mundial y, de hecho, el imperio fue capaz de conquistar la mayor parte del "mundo conocido" (es decir, en el Mediterráneo) en toda su larga historia. Las dinastías Qin y Han, así como el Tang de China también fueron éxito en la conquista del mundo conocido de la civilización china. El historiador Arnold Toynbee utilizó el término Universal Estado para referirse a un imperio como el Imperio Romano o el Imperio chino que conquistó todo el mundo conocido a una determinada civilización [1]. [1] [2]

[Editar] Ejemplos de estados universal Como se señaló anteriormente, un estado universal es un imperio que ha conquistado toda la zona sabe que una civilización.

[Editar] Imperio Persa El Imperio Persa fue el primer gran imperio. En su apogeo en el 525 aC en virtud de Ciro II el Grande, es la Tierra la primera única superpotencia.

[Editar] macedonio Imperio El Imperio macedonio se formó como resultado de Alejandro el Grande conquista del Imperio Persa. En su muerte en el año 323 AC que abarca la mayor parte del mundo que se sabe que los antiguos griegos.

[Editar] Imperio Mauryan Ashoka el Grande de la India, después de derrotar al Reino de Kalinga en el Kalinga testigos de la guerra y el derramamiento de sangre que el resultado de la guerra, renunció a la violencia, y en el apogeo de su imperio en 250 aC adoptó el budismo. Se convirtió en una persona que es a veces considerado como el gobernante más iluminada a través de la historia y plantearon la perspectiva de un mundo regido por el camino de la compasión por ocho el budismo, el envío de misioneros de la India a la antigua en la medida de lo antigua Roma y Egipto.

[Editar] Imperio Romano Como se señaló anteriormente, el Imperio Romano en su apogeo bajo el emperador Trajano en el 117 dC había conquistado toda la zona de la civilización greco-romana, vigente por un tiempo como posiblemente el mayor ejemplo de dominio absoluto del mundo conocido.

[Editar] Califato árabe El Califato árabe, que alcanzó su máximo grado en el siglo 8.

[Editar] Imperio Mongol El Imperio Mongol (Mongolia: Их Монгол Улс, en el sentido de la "Gran Mongol Nación", 1206-1405) fue el más grande de la tierra contigua imperio en la historia, que abarca más de 33 millones de km ² [3] (12 millones de millas cuadradas) en su pico, con una Población estimada de más de 100 millones de personas. Esto fue un tercio de la población de la Tierra, con lo que el Imperio Mongol la única superpotencia de su día. El Imperio Mongol fue fundada por Genghis Khan en 1206, y en su altura en 1294 bajo Kublai Khan, que abarca la mayoría de los territorios del Este de Asia Central a Europa. El Imperio Mongol fue el primer imperio de utilizar papel moneda a gran escala (que se había publicado en menor escala en China ya en el siglo 6 dC).

[Editar] Imperio Ming En el siglo 15, el Imperio Ming de China fue una potencia dominante en Asia y el emperador Yongle enviada a cabo a partir de 1405 bajo el mando del almirante y explorador Zheng Él inmensa flota de barcos para explorar y el comercio con el Sudeste de Asia, la India, Arabia , Y África. Las expediciones continuaron hasta 1433. China no ha abandonado su enorme naval y marítima en el programa de mediados siglo 15, es posible China en lugar de las potencias europeas que han dominado el mundo en el siglo 16.

[Editar] Ejemplos de imperios mundiales Desde la Edad del descubrimiento el mundo entero se ha dado a conocer. Ha habido muchos imperios mundiales desde entonces, pero ningún imperio aún no ha sido formado, que ha abrazado a todo el mundo en un estado universal.

[Editar] Imperio portugués Después de la expedición de la Vasco da Gama, descubridor de la forma de África a la India, los portugueses construyeron un gran imperio desde Portugal a China, la construcción de fábricas en las costas de todos los continentes y, básicamente, el control de la economía mundial.

[Editar] Imperio Habsburgo El Santo Emperador Romano Carlos V tenía el control de Austria, España, el sur de Italia, algunas partes de Alemania, las recientes conquistas en América del Sur. Menos de todos fue el de jure de control de Alemania como Santo Emperador Romano.

[Editar] Imperio español Las naciones más cercano a la dominación del mundo en el punto de vista territorial son a la vez los Reinos de España y de Portugal, cuando se fusionaron en 1580 (hasta 1640) durante el reinado de Felipe II. El imperio español que abarca casi todos los del Sur y América Central, así como una amplia zona del sur y el oeste de América del Norte, casi todos los de África y la India zonas marítimas y otras importantes regiones, como la de Filipinas, Guam, las Marianas y las Islas Carolinas en Asia Pacífico, y los Países Bajos (Holanda conocida como español), partes de Francia y una parte importante de la península italiana, en Europa. Otros territorios que forman parte las islas mediterráneas de Sicilia, Cerdeña y Malta, y el norte de África las ciudades de Orán, Mers-el-Kébir, así como Ceuta y Melilla que siguen siendo español hasta el día de hoy. El imperio español también es considerado el primer imperio global de la historia.

[Editar] Imperio francés El Inglés-plomo coalición de opositores emperador francés Napoleón Bonaparte a menudo alegó que había lugares en la dominación mundial, y le retrata como la quintaesencia del conquistador mundial. Napoleón vio su tarea como la de la defensa de los ideales de la revolución francesa y de la Ilustración. [Editar]

[Editar] Imperio Británico El imperio británico era la más cercana a lograr la dominación mundial, por lo menos en términos geográficos y demográficos. En el reinado de la Reina Victoria el imperio británico había ganado el control político directo de cerca de dos quintos de la población mundial y alrededor de una cuarta parte de su superficie terrestre, y la hegemonía sobre nominalmente independientes áreas tales como partes de China y América del Sur. Abogado británico imperialista Cecil Rhodes propuso que los Estados Unidos y el Imperio Británico conjuntamente establecer un gobierno mundial y hacer Inglés el idioma oficial mundo. El Imperio Británico se suele considerar que han surgido como resultado de Bretaña comercial de los objetivos más que un intento de establecer el dominio militar, no obstante, y se desmanteló después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, sin derramamiento de sangre sustancial hacia el final del reinado del rey Jorge VI. El Imperio Británico se transformó en la Comunidad de Naciones.

[Editar] Unión Soviética

Una de las primeras Soviética cartel: "Long Live Mundial de octubre [de la revolución]! Los trabajadores conquistaron el poder en Rusia y conquistar el mundo entero" Desde la Revolución de Octubre, los bolcheviques se prevé su régimen como el primer paso hacia el comunismo domina el mundo. La Comintern fue establecido en 1919 con el fin de alentar a los partidos comunistas de todo el mundo y promover la revolución proletaria, aunque Stalin parece más interesado en consolidar el control comunista en la Unión Soviética en vez de promover la revolución en todo el mundo (el socialismo en un país).

[Editar] imperio japonés A partir de 1931 con la invasión de Manchuria, el imperio japonés luego lanzó una agresiva guerra de conquista contra China y el Sudeste de Asia que culmina, bajo la dirección de Hideki Tojo, en el ataque a los Estados Unidos en Pearl Harbor y la creación de la Gran Oriental Asia Co-Prosperidad Esfera antes de la derrota final del Imperio por los Aliados en la Segunda Guerra Mundial en 1945.

[Editar] Alemania nazi En la Segunda Guerra Mundial, el régimen nazi de Adolf Hitler, el Tercer Reich, establecido lo que ellos llaman el Nuevo Orden y tenía ambiciosos planes para controlar directamente todos los de Europa, y luego la obtención de una posición de poder que les haría un formidable superpotencia mundial La política. En Hitler Libro Segundo: El Sequel inédito a Mein Kampf, escrito en 1928, Hitler se prevé un aire apocalíptico guerra de conquista contra los Estados Unidos por su sucesor en 1980, llevada a cabo por una gran flota de bombarderos de largo alcance alemán. En el momento inicial de la invasión de Rusia (Operación Barbarroja), en junio de 1941, Hitler había esperado para ganar la victoria en la Segunda Guerra Mundial de 1945, y que entonces estaba previsto, después de completar la construcción de la Welthauptstadt Germania plan de Albert Speer para Berlín, Para celebrar una gran la Feria Mundial en Berlín en 1950 y luego retirarse a su ciudad natal de Linz [4]. Hitler ha tomado la decisión de declarar la guerra a principios de los Estados Unidos en diciembre de 1941 y su derrota en Rusia a partir de Stalingrado en enero de 1943 selló su perdición.

[Editar] imperio americano Aunque los Estados Unidos de América es una república, es considerada por algunos críticos como un imperio económico y algunas personas se refieren a ella figurado [5] El imperio americano como hacer hincapié en el gran poder y la influencia de los Estados Unidos en el mundo a nivel económico Con sus amplias inversiones de las empresas en todo el mundo y militarmente con su amplio sistema de alianzas, aparentemente para defender el comercio mundial, la libertad [6], y de la democracia.

Algunos consideran el establecimiento inicial del imperio americano que se han producido en 1898 en las secuelas de la Guerra Española Americana, [7], pero otros la fecha de su constitución el 12 de julio de 1947 con la firma de la Ley de Seguridad Nacional de 1947 por el Presidente Harry S Truman. [8] [9] Truman luego organizó la primera Pacto de Río el 2 de septiembre de 1947, entonces la OTAN, el 4 de abril de 1949, y, por último, ANZUS, el 1 de septiembre de 1951, por lo tanto, unir a muchas naciones no comunista en un único occidental para aplicar la Alianza Política de contención a fin de evitar la posibilidad de que la dominación soviética mundo. [10] Una de las metas principales del Presidente Dwight D. Eisenhower y su Secretario de Estado, John Foster Dulles, era la creación de una Pax Americana en la esfera de influencia americana. En su discurso final, en 1960 antes de abandonar el cargo, Eisenhower advirtió en contra de permitir que el complejo militar-industrial que ganar demasiado poder.

En el período posterior a la Guerra Fría, los críticos de la política exterior estadounidense han afirmado que los Estados Unidos piden o, de hecho, tiene en realidad, la hegemonía global. El 11 de septiembre de 1990, el Presidente de los Estados Unidos, George HW Bush dio su famoso discurso, Hacia un Nuevo Orden Mundial [2] a una sesión conjunta del Congreso de los Estados Unidos. El 20 de septiembre de 2002, George W. Bush, la Casa Blanca publicó en su sitio web el texto completo de la (en ese momento) más nueva Estrategia de Seguridad Nacional de los Estados Unidos, compuesta principalmente por destacadas neo-conservadores Paul Wolfowitz. En este documento, la Doctrina Bush de guerra preventiva se expone: Para prefacio introductorio, de fecha 17 de septiembre de 2002, véase [3]; reales para completar el documento, la Estrategia de Seguridad Nacional de 2002 de los Estados Unidos de América de fecha 20 de septiembre, 2002, ver [4]. La Doctrina Bush de guerra preventiva se llevó a cabo el 20 de marzo de 2003 con la puesta en marcha por los Estados Unidos de la guerra de Irak.

El sistema económico del "imperio americano" es generalmente llamado neoliberalismo, que algunos críticos dicen, es la dominación de la economía por parte de empresas multinacionales, pero con la libre competencia entre ellos, para que las nuevas empresas con nuevos inventos y la tecnología que son más eficientes pueden sustituir a mayor edad menos Eficiente de las empresas.

[Editar] Posibles futuros medios de la dominación del mundo

[Editar] Imperio Occidental Algunos neo-nazis defienden la creación de un estado autocrático, que se denominará el Imperio Occidental después de lo que llaman la ocupación sionista Gobierno de los neoconservadores es derrocado. Esta propuesta de estado autocrático sería dirigido por un dictador-como cifra e incluyen todas las áreas habitadas por la raza aria (que se define como no-Judios y no eslavos de ascendencia europea), es decir, Europa, Rusia, Inglaterra y América, Australia y Nueva Zelandia, Y el sur de América del Sur. Este concepto se basa en un libro de 1947 llamado Imperio: La Filosofía de la Historia y la Política de Francis Parker Yockey. [11] Se prevé que la combinación de las armas nucleares de los Estados Unidos, Rusia, el Reino Unido, Francia y en una sola fuerza Daría al Imperio Occidental una abrumadora ventaja militar, de manera que tiene el dominio del mundo.

[Editar] Anarquista mundo confederación

 Este artículo necesidades adicionales de citas para la verificación. 

Por favor, ayuden a mejorar este artículo añadiendo referencias fiables. Unsourced material puede ser impugnada y eliminado. (Febrero de 2008)

Algunas llamadas para unir a los movimientos anti-globalización de todo el mundo también puede ser visto como una utopía por los intentos anarquistas de tomar el mundo de las empresas multinacionales. Algunos [atribución necesaria] anarquistas, anarquistas verdes, Verdes, y Libertarians vislumbrar un anarquista mundo confederación, es decir, la abolición de todas las naciones actualmente existentes y la institución de un sistema mundial de locales de las regiones autónomas a nivel local o biorregiones que son, en gran medida autosuficiente Y participar en el libre comercio de mutuo beneficio para los productos básicos necesarios no producidos localmente, sin embargo, ninguna región dominaría cualquier otra región, y ninguna autoridad central. Algunos creen que puede ser necesario tener una cooperativa gestionada mundo la fuerza de policía como las fuerzas de mantenimiento de la paz de las Naciones Unidas con el fin de prevenir la posibilidad de un señor de la guerra se plantean en una de las regiones y tratar de dominar otras regiones.

Algunos anarquistas, Verde y Libertario teóricos políticos (como el verde anarquista John Zerzan [5]) sostienen que un anarquista mundo confederación es inevitable porque después de Peak Oil, no habrá suficientes recursos naturales para cualquier grupo para lograr el dominio del mundo [6] . Suplente teorías, como el "imperio hidráulico" teoría, sostienen que es cuando los recursos son escasos que dominan las autoridades centrales es probable que surjan.

El sistema económico de un anarquista mundo confederación (criticado por algunos [atribución necesaria] como un libro de historietas vista de la materia) [12] se prevé por los anarquistas y verde anarquistas como anarco-sindicalismo, es decir, un sistema en el que todas las empresas son Propiedad de los trabajadores, y de mutuo administrado por los propios trabajadores, por lo que en virtud de este sistema, no hay jefes. [13] Libertarians defienden un sistema económico de capitalismo de laissez-faire para la confederación. Verdes abogan por una "economía mixta" con ambos sistemas coexistentes. [7]

[Editar] Federación Mundial El Movimiento Federalista Mundial aboga por el establecimiento de un Estado democrático Federación Mundial de mutuo acuerdo las naciones de las Naciones Unidas. Esta Federación Mundial suele ser entonces la forma de ser gobernados por un Parlamento Mundial que se reunirá en el Palacio de las Naciones en Ginebra, Suiza, que constaría de unos 1000 miembros elegidos por distrito, y un Tribunal Supremo Mundial que se reunirá en la Corte Internacional de Justicia En La Haya, Países Bajos. Se supone federalistas mundo por que el mundo del gobierno federal se basa en una constitución liberal como la Constitución de Sudáfrica que garantice los derechos económicos, así como los derechos humanos. [14] El poder ejecutivo del gobierno Federalista Mundial será administrado por el jefe de gobierno, el Primer Ministro del Parlamento Mundial, sin grandes Federalista Mundial grupo ha propuesto todavía que se eligió también un Presidente de la Tierra a ser el jefe De un estado de la Tierra Unida.

[Editar] Global de la dominación en la cultura popular

[Editar] Alien Invasion Artículo principal: Alien invasión La invasión extraterrestre es un tema común en las historias de ciencia ficción y el cine, en el que una tecnología superior extraterrestre sociedad invade la Tierra con la intención de sustituir la vida humana, o para esclavizar a los que en virtud de un sistema colonial, o, en algunos casos, para usar seres humanos como Alimentos.

[Editar] Otros casos Juegos de Mesa

El popular juego de mesa Risk es a menudo etiquetado como el "juego de la dominación del mundo" o el "juego de la conquista mundial", aunque la versión en alemán fue prohibido en ese país hasta que la meta del juego fue cambiado a "liberar el mundo", en lugar de 'Conquista'. El juego de tablero Cumbre fue un popular juego de tablero de juego entre los jugadores de los años 1960 y 1970 que permitió una a luchar por el dominio del mundo. El juego de mesa Diplomacia es también un popular juego de la dominación del mundo. Computadoras

Linus Torvalds, creador de Linux, también se ha descrito sus objetivos como "la dominación del mundo, rápido". Debido a la ubicuidad de los productos de Microsoft en el mundo de la computación, Bill Gates, fundador de la empresa ha sido a menudo parodied como la búsqueda de la dominación del mundo. Cine

El dominio del mundo es a menudo percibido como el más común de parcela en la línea de películas de James Bond serie. Sin embargo, en la realidad, el villano es mucho más probable que la demanda de dinero de rescate que buscan la hegemonía mundial, algo que sólo ha ocurrido tres veces. * En Dr No, el famoso espía ya está cansado de enemigos que tratan de dominar el mundo y lo llama "el mismo viejo sueño". En la serie de películas de Austin Potencias, archi-villano Dr Evil intentos de chantajear al mundo para pedir rescate, pero los planes para destruir y / o dominar todos modos. 1970 La película de ciencia ficción La Forbin Project describe un escenario en el que un superordenador trata de tomar el mundo. Cutler Beckett, director de la East India Trading Company y arco-antagonista de los Piratas del Caribe películas tiene planes para liberar la Tierra de Piratas en todo el mundo y hacerse con el control de los mares de la Sociedad y por el propio efecto. En la trilogía The Matrix, que se inició en 1999, muestra un mundo dominado por las máquinas inteligentes alrededor del año 2199. En esta distopía, la humanidad se utiliza como fuente de energía para las máquinas, que se reproducen sistemáticamente los seres humanos y su cosecha bioquímicos poder. El archi-villano de la trilogía, Agente Smith, desarrolla las ambiciones de dominación mundial en la última película de la serie. Literatura

La Bruja Blanca en Las Crónicas de Narnia en realidad sucede en la adopción de más de Narnia, el mundo en el que la mayoría de las historias tienen lugar. En la obra de JRR Tolkien el Señor Oscuro Sauron trata de la regla la Tierra Media. Su antiguo maestro, Morgoth logrado en la adopción de más de la mayoría de Arda. La mayoría de Dystopian novelas como 1984 de George Orwell y Sombra la Infancia por Garth Nix contener villanos que ya gobernar el mundo y la historia de la preocupación de la protagonista en la búsqueda de derrocar. Lord Voldemort de la serie Harry Potter de JK Rowling quiere gobernar el mundo y en el último libro de la serie logra la dominación de la mayoría del Reino Unido. El Mulgarath de Spiderwick Chronicles está obsesionado con la dominación del mundo. Fu Manchu de las obras de Sax Rohmer aspira a dominar el mundo. Briar Cudgeon, Opal Koboi y más villanos de la serie de Artemis Fowl Eoin Colfer buscan el dominio del mundo, aunque él mismo no Artemis. Música

Dominación Mundial fue el nombre de una sola 1986 por el grupo de la música de baile que llegó Belle Estrellas # 5 en los EE.UU. hit-parade. La dominación del mundo es un término de argot utilizado en la industria de la música. Si un grupo de rock, artista solista, o DJ ha logrado una exitosa carrera que incluye hit singles, de oro o de platino nivel récord de ventas de CD, y hace giras mundiales, se les conoce como haber logrado "el dominio del mundo". Ejemplos musicales de los artistas que han logrado el dominio del mundo figuran Elvis Presley, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, David Bowie, Madonna, Prince, Michael Jackson (en el decenio de 1980), Oasis (en la mitad-90's), Queen y U2. Hay una banda alemana llamada La Dominación Mundial o TWD. "Dominación Mundial" Toys es la empresa que actualmente actúa como vendedor para la ejecución de obras de la artista y músico Dr Acero Ciencia ficción

La dominación mundial se utiliza con frecuencia en algunos relatos de ciencia ficción (por ejemplo, Star Trek) como deseable, digna de elogio, y el inevitable paso en el progreso de la civilización humana (aunque, en este caso, se logra mediante la cooperación, no la conquista). Otros lo tratan como la siniestra ambición de la historia del villano. Esto, a su vez, es a menudo una fuente de parodia, con frecuencia en caricaturas, como Pinky y Cerebro, en la que una super-inteligente ratón de laboratorio y su ingenioso dim-cohorte elaboración de los planes de perseguir a tomar el mundo que inevitablemente terminan en el fracaso. La mayoría de villano caracteres en el programa de televisión Xiaolin Showdown quieren conquistar el mundo, y Jack Spicer, Chase Wuya y jóvenes han tenido éxito en hacerlo. Televisión

Futurama representa a la bandera de la Tierra como bandera de los Estados Unidos con el planeta Tierra en el cantón. Esta es una indicando, junto con el hecho de que todos, independientemente de la raza, que se denomina Earthicans en lugar de los estadounidenses, que los EE.UU. se hizo cargo de la Tierra y en la actualidad controla todo, de ahí el nombre de Estados Unidos de la Tierra dirigido por el Presidente de la Tierra. Pinky y Cerebro las caricaturas típicamente característica Cerebro tratando de tomar el mundo. En la serie de televisión Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, el personaje de Rita Repulsa repetidamente trata de la conquista de la Tierra, utilizando una gran variedad de monstruos al igual que los villanos en la posterior serie Power Rangers. Stewie Griffin de los dibujos animados Family Guy tiene sueños de fantasía de tomar el mundo. Zim a partir de la serie de televisión Invader Zim quiere conquistar el mundo por sus dirigentes, a pesar de que no tienen interés en ella. Mojo Jojo y más villanos de Las Chicas buscan imperio de la Tierra. Anime La serie Gundam Wing características de la Tierra Esfera Alianza Unidos, que controla la Tierra y está a su vez gobernado por la Fundación Romefeller. En el Doctor Who episodio de la Última Hora de los Lores, El Master tiene éxito sobre el planeta Tierra. Xana de la caricatura Código Lyoko está obsesionado con la dominación del mundo. Juegos de vídeo y juegos de ordenador

Una gran cantidad de juegos de vídeo, a menudo en la estrategia de género, con un objetivo de la dominación mundial - por ejemplo, la dominación mundial, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, la serie Civilization, Rise of Nations, el SuperPower serie de juegos y, en menor medida, La serie Command & Conquer. Además, juegos como Day of the Tentacle y Zak McKracken y el Alien Mindbenders característica foiling parcelas de los intentos de dominación global. Evil Genius, un juego desarrollado por Sierra Entertainment en el que el jugador debe comprar una isla y desempeñar el papel de un mal genio, que tiene planes (a través de la delincuencia), teniendo en el mundo. Muchos juegos, como los juegos de Pokémon, la serie Sonic el Hedgehog, y algunos juegos en la serie Final Fantasy, han antagonistas con el objetivo de tomar el mundo. Por lo general, una parte o la totalidad de la trama de estos juegos consiste en detener a estas personas y organizaciones. Por ejemplo, el jugador debe derrotar a menudo en el Team Rocket juegos Pokémon, y en Final Fantasy II, el villano es un emperador con el objetivo de tomar el mundo.

[Editar] Véase también Este artículo ha sido ilustrado como parte de WikiProject WikiWorld. Brave New World Teoría de la conspiración Illuminati Sociedad de las Naciones Megalómano Nuevo Orden Mundial - la teoría de la conspiración Nuevo Orden Mundial - Teoría política Los Protocolos de los Sabios de Sión La red social Supervillain Simbólica serpiente Sistemas de la teoría De las Naciones Unidas Guerra sin restricciones Mil novecientos ochenta y cuatro Gobierno Mundial El Gran tablero de ajedrez

[Editar] ^ Toynbee, Arnold Un estudio de la Historia - Tomo XII: Reconsiderations Londres :1961 - Oxford University Press Páginas 308-313 universal "de los Estados". ^ Toynbee, Arnold Estudio de la Historia: Una Abridged Tomo Illustrated Edition (versión abreviada y revisada por el autor y Jane Caplan) :1972-Nueva York Portland House Capítulo VI Estados Universal Páginas 255-318 ^ Http://www.hostkingdom.net/earthrul.html ^ Speer, Albert Dentro del Tercer Reich Nueva York :1970 - Macmillan P.139 ^ Bacevich, Andrew J. (Profesor de Relaciones Internacionales de la Universidad de Boston) imperio americano: El Realidades y consecuencias de la Diplomacia EE.UU. Cambridge, Massachusetts :2002 - Harvard University Press ^ Zakaria, Fareed El Futuro de la Libertad: Illiberal Democracy at Home y el Extranjero de Nueva York :2003 - WW Norton ^ Zinn, Howard Una Historia del Pueblo de los Estados Unidos de Nueva York, Harper Perennial :1980-Page 295 ^ Vidal, Gore El declive y caída del imperio americano Berkeley, California: 1993-Odonian Press Page 28 ^ Http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/cwr/17603.htm ^ Acheson, Dean presentes en la Creación: Mis años en el Departamento de Estado de Nueva York :1987 - WW Norton ^ Ver Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas Sol Negro: aria Cults, esotéricas nazismo, y la Política de la identidad de Nueva York: 2002 - NY Prensa de la Universidad de - los capítulos 4 y 11 para obtener información sobre el proyecto de Imperio Occidental ^ En el metro de historietas anarquía Comics # 3 (julio de 1981), hay una historia de ciencia-ficción de Laura Kinney en la que un punk rocker fines del decenio de 1970 viaja a tiempo para el año 5000, momento en el que la Tierra está organizado como una confederación anarquista mundial. ^ Albert, Michael Moving Forward: Programa para una Economía Participativa San Francisco :2000 - AK Press ^ Tetalman, Jerry y Belitsos, Byron Una democracia mundial: Una visión para el Progreso de Enforceable Global Law San Rafael, California :2005 - Origen de Prensa Obtenido de "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_domination" alemán a francésalemán a inglésárabe a ingléschino a ingléschino (simplificado a tradicional)chino (tradicional a simplificado)coreano a inglésespañol a inglésfrancés a alemánfrancés a inglésgriego a inglésholandés a inglésinglés a alemáninglés a árabeinglés a chino (simplificado)inglés a chino (tradicional)inglés a coreanoinglés a españolinglés a francésinglés a griegoinglés a holandésinglés a italianoinglés a japonésinglés a portuguésinglés a rusoitaliano a inglésjaponés a inglésportugués a inglésruso a inglés —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.244.102.210 (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

China NPOV

The PRC section of this article is very colloquial, unsourced, biased, and consists of personal research. It appears that this section is not very coherent, and this will cause problems for readers who are not as fluent in english.75.156.66.224 (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be removed. Even if sourced, it just states that China is growing economically. --AndreFillipe (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is no special reason to think the China has plans to take over the world. We should avoid creating bad feelings by saying that they do. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Steel?

Can someone please do something about the section where it describes the American Empire? The last sentence says something about 'Dr. Steel' and I have no idea what it is on about.

This is an important article on Wikipedia and ought to be maintained. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.13.200 (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Europian Union

Alexsau1991 (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC) The EU should be added as it has high infullanse in europe has the highest economy in the world and govens many Europian States as well as sharing the Same currancy (Euro)

Supercomputer world domination

Without splitting off into a discussion of the Turing test and what exactly constitutes a person, I would like to point out that while World domination could technically be anything dominating the World, this article describes the concept of World domination as a situation where

"a single political authority rules over all the inhabitants of planet Earth."

And political authority can be conventionally described as:

"a type of power held by a person or group in a society....to influence the behaviour of others"

In essence, Supercomputer world domination relates to World domination because it is a hypothetical scenario in which computers and computer/human hybrids would replace humans as the dominant species, and thus make World domination (in the conventional sense defined above) impossible. I think this secion should either be removed, or liked to the Technological singularity. If neither of these can be done, can it be toned down a bit? It really is hilarious and kind of out of place. Aksuman (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Religious World Domination

There are a few issues I see here. First, in Islam it is far less fringe to advocate a global theocracy than in Christianity. Second, sources aren't really cited here, and there are also the red links. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of popular culture section, future section

So unfortunately "world domination" is a very, very broad term. That means that this article could literally be endless--and that's not good. It needs to be focused, and in my opinion that means it should be focused on what is meant by world domination and the history behind both the term and past attempts. The relevance of "world domination" in popular culture is important. The way to deal with this, however, is NOT to have the standard, crufty list of every possible thing in media that might possibly reference world domination, because the list would be endless. Rather, if there is going to be a popular culture section about it, it needs to describe the impact that the idea of world domination has had on the wider culture, and to avoid simply listing instances of the term being used in culture. In terms of the "future" section, this fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:UNDUE fairly blatantly, in my opinion. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Would the popular culture section be better served if it had its own article? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps--it seems like something that is significant enough for its own article. But not if it's just going to be another trivia list. It needs to actually discuss the portrayal of world domination in games, cinema, books, etc.--not just be a list. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a new article on pop culture aspects should be created, if good sources can be found. This is an imporant aspect of the concept. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it this might be the more important aspect. World domination in real life is much less common. Really it's mainly mentally unstable persons like Alexander, Napoleon, and Hitler who went in for it. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There are no sources for the pop culture material so it wouldn't fly on its own. Really the article was much better when it had a lighter touch before people got so serious about the topic. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Roman Empire

Where is the evidence that the Roman Empire wanted to conquer the whole world? Didn't they build Hadrian's Wall to mark the end of the area they wanted in conquer in Britain? Steve Dufour (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Napoleon

Napoleon Bonaparte !! --在紅龍 (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

British empire

Deleted a load of discussion on the page itself over whether the British or Mongol empire was biggest. Regardless of fact, don't discuss on the page itself, especially if your only comment is to point out that the previous author wasn't British - as if they'd agree that the British empire was larger than the Mongol one if only they were from Britain. Keep discussion here. --Cellscape (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

opening paragraph

"The most probable way for world domination today, would be a United States, and Russia alliance." unsourced and kind of weird. should be deleted? would do this but i am not at all confident about editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.212.100 (talk) 06:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should be deleted. It is "unsourced" as you say, or in wikispeak no wp:rs. And it's kind of weird, in wikispeak wp:pov. I just deleted it. Thanks for the posting. You should get a login id. You'd make a good editor--Work permit (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete?

I have been a contributor to this article and was thinking about it the other day. Really no one is trying to dominate the world (except perhaps Alexander the Great.) The whole thing is original research. The "World domination in pop culture" section is actually more substantial than the evidence for real world domination and that is also unsourced original research. Until someone writes an article on the topic of world domination in pop culture WP shouldn't have its own article on the topic. People looking for serious information should try Imperialism and World government. Please let me know what you think about deleting this article. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You read my mind. I just recently came to this article and was wondering the same thing. Is this article about Tonybees concept of Universal State? If so, its far off the mark, IIRC his thesis was that as separate civilizations collapsed, they would merge into a single unit. It was a statement about the union of weaker states. I don't remember the thesis as one of "World Domination". Perhaps this article is just about Great powers? Superpowers? Imperialism? I haven't seen or read of a "theory of world domination" that lumped Assyria, Persia, Britain, the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany under one banner. If you are so inclined, I suggest you wait a day for additional comments. If no one disagrees, put this article up for WP:prod (NOT wp:AFD). Lets first discuss on the talk page before going through AFD--Work permit (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will follow your suggestions. You know there is a problem when the Wiki-cartoon (see top of this page) is better than the article. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Prod has been deleted. With no discussion on the talk page. I will start deleting uncited, unreferenced statements. We can also put the whole article up for wp:AFD, since its core premise is uncited wp:POV wp:OR.

As it stands, I also think the article should be deleted. But there is an alternative. The expression, "world domination" is known to be used in disreputable conspiracy theories. For example, it is at the core of the notorious anti-Semitic text, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The expression also appears related to imperialism, but that explanation requires more than original research. Reading the article, it appears to be doing just that, discussing "imperials" under this un-scholarly locution. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The expression is used (and linked) in the WP Protocols of Zion article. So it's also possible to re-direct the expression to this article. I also checked the conspiracy theories article - and I was surprised to find that the expression is not mentioned there - as it should be. In the case of the "Protocols of Zion," it is there anti-Semitically alleged that Jews (through a secret organization) are plotting to "take over the world," which is just a synonym for this same usage. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Still another point - the WP article dubbed Empire is the place to discuss most of this stuff. Most of the legitimate instances of so-called "world domination" discussed in this article in fact are discuss (or ought to be discussed) in that article. Consider this expression: "the world never sets on the British Empire." Is that an aspect of "world domination"? Putting all these (even cited) facts about different empires in world history in this titled article - is just WP:original research. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

how about a redirect to New World Order (conspiracy theory)?--Work permit (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Citations and references

I've deleted sections with no citations and references. We need references to these sections as they relate to the overall topic of "World domination". The article needs an overhaul. As it stood, it's wp:or at its best--Work permit (talk) 06:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Intro lead

Please provide a wp:rs reliable source for an intro lead to the article. "World Domination" as a framework for studies of the topics discussed seems wp:or.--Work permit (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Farsical article

The authors list various empires as 'World Dominators' yet excluded the only true global dominator [Britain] to date yet include the 'American Empire', what is an 'American Empire'? There is no such thing. I have edited the article to reflect that. To be honest I don't know why Nazi Germany has an entry, it may have WANTED world domination but it never achieved such, I think only the two Empires so far to actually HAVE been global dominator's deserve entries [Roman & British]82.8.176.38 (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

American Empire article has its own problems. But the question you raise I think is covered under the title imperialism. But though the aim may be related to the expression world domination, I do not believe any recognized scholar uses this expression. It's primarily used in relation to those who believe that the Protocols of Zion is a legitimate work. Also, WP has an article on empire. What the aims of empires are, in relation to the world, are discussed there (or should be). --Ludvikus (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Incas

The section on Incas really isn't sourced. The footnote gives us an explanation without any sources to back it up. Can anyone confirm what is said in the section? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The question should be: "Was there an Inca Empire"? And if there was - so what? It does not justify the current article. Calling something an empire is sufficient. And the fact that "empires" are not alleged to seek "world domination" shows the latter to be an inappropriate expression in scholarly writings. And what made the Incas into an empire is covered in the article on "empires" (and if it isn't, it should be). --Ludvikus (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

British Empire

Shouldent the british Empire be added to this article? Afterall they Did conquer a Very large portion of the planet. 77.100.181.80 (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

But that's what empires do. Do we need an article like this one? If you want to know what empires do - read the article, empire. Why do we need this (world domination) article? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

pejorative

I think that this is substantially a pejorative usage aimed specifically at Jews; it's origin is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But no one has altered the disambiguation page for that - so I'll do that now. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

universal state

That's interesting. But it seems undeveloped. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Universal state (disambiguation)

We clearly need this DAB page to distinguish Toynbee's alleged usage - as cited in this article --Ludvikus (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Arnold Toynbee on Civilizations and Religions

This stuff is interesting - but it's not clear that world domination is related to Toynbee's concept of a universal state. It's really an instance of original research at WP. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. The two concepts are quite distinct. See A_Study_of_History#Universal_State for a very short summary of Tonybees thesis--Work permit (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

So let's delete this section. --Ludvikus (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.--Work permit (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Empires and Imperialism

The section giving examples of empires makes no sense. There is an article on "empires." Also, the implication is that there's a connection between "empires" and "world domination." But no scholarly work makes such a connection. It's just more "original research" trying to link the two. There's also lots of stuff on imperialism, but again, I know no usage other than the conspiracy theory and pejorative on for the term "world domination." --Ludvikus (talk) 08:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless I hear objections, I'll edit out this section. There's no one yet shown a scholarly reference - even if "world domination" appear to imply "empires" and "imperialism." --Ludvikus (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Protocols of Zion & World domination (or aiming to "take over the world")

These are often linked in usage. Any expert on the former knows this - just do a Google search: [3].

This article is also about the aim to "take over the world." I did not create this link - or if I did, I don't remember it. Nevertheless, there's this equivalence alleged by the article. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for not reading and understanding properly -- without being familiar with that book the connection just looked like some sort of blatant attack on Jews, hence why I removed it. I don't agree at all it should be called the "origin" of world domination, but since it looks like this article is going to be destroyed, let's not argue. I'm sure we both have better things to do. I'll let it alone. • Anakin ^(talk) 18:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for being so "nice" - and about something which isn't. I maintain that the pejorative use of "world domination" is essentially just that - an attack on Jews. Unfortunately, this article attempts to find a legitimate usage for the expression (by "original research"). So I think you probably have useful contributions to make. Like I said (above?) this usage is just a two-word expression for four-word expression, take over the world. And it's only documented usage is in the attack on Jews embodied in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. So this exspression does not deserve a distinct WP article. Please help WP by making an appropriate contribution to the issues raised here. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Examples of global empires

It seems clear and obvious to me that the presentation of three alleged "global empires" in this article, as "examples," is purely "original research." I now of no scholarly study which discusses "global empires" in relation to "world domination." And there's the trivial fact that "empires" - almost by definition - seek to "dominate," if you will, the "world." All these "examples" need to be deleted, pronto. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

take over the world

I think an editor is un-aware of the REDIRECT to this article. Essentially, World domination = take over the world. I think that's essentially true of this pejorative. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean me? I simply removed the link to the redirect that redirect's to this article. Such redirects are useless in the article it redirects too. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what you did. But now your asking that the "article" be improved. This is about a pejorative. But because of that it has a tendency to invite conspiracy theory advocates. I've spent some time cleaning it up. I would therefore ask your assistance here. Can you please be more constructive? Do a google search on the web and you'll see what I mean. Right now I think your Tag may invite, among others, those who love to create WP:Neologisms and also do WP:Original research. So can you please use a more specific Tag - like WP:Wiki? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you remember?

Wikipedia used to have an article on this subject? Oh those were the days. • Anakin ^(talk) 21:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That was an awesomely better article than the sad one we have now. We should not let perfect be the enemy of good, which is what we seem to have done here, resulting in a much poorer article. Ray^Talk 23:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

That article was horrible. For example, the horrible confusion of universal states with world domination. Have you read Toneybee and academic literature on his thesis? These edits are not a question of "the perfect being the enemy of the good", it's that "blinding ignorance does mislead". Do you have wp:rs that lumps Assyria, Persia, Britain, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and the United States under one banner of "world domination"? If so, please share it.--Work permit (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

New direction?

The article will need a new direction. Perhaps we can take a clue from Stewie? A pop culture approach to the term?--Work permit (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I liked the pop culture segment too. However it had no secondary sources that discussed the topic "World domination in pop culture." Just examples of instances. It seems like someone must have written something on this sometime, a magazine article maybe? Steve Dufour (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be overlooking the existence of DAB pages. Isn't the pop-culture usage appropriate for: World domination (pop culture)? Look here: World domination (disambiguation)! --Ludvikus (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Why was this reverted

This was a really good article. Why was this reverted to a much smaller format, lets keep the old format or I will just revert the article to the old format myself. 98.227.104.65 19:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Who wants to know? (The above query is unsigned). --Ludvikus (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The article was only once reverted by me. I obey the 1R rule. If it's reverted again, I will not Revert. However, I have just Reverted the article, because it had evolved by consensus slowly, and the previous Reverting editor restored it, unilaterally, to its earlier state without any discussion here. --Ludvikus (talk) 05:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:Edit war

I'm not going to participate in an edit war. There have been two (2) reversions against the consensus. I have decided to follow the 1R rule. If no one wishes to put their input and support the consensus reached - I'm not going to continue. This article now is just WP:Original research. And a WP:Neologism. That's unfortunate. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• See here: World domination (disambiguation) for the other uses. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Neologism

According to Neologism, a neologism "is a newly coined word that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language." Please could editors who have found neologisms in the article list them below.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• OK.

1. The current version is essentially a list of empires. They are called "global empires" as if this is some special usage connected with "world domination." If one wants to know about empires - go there. Or go to list of largest empires, or even list of major empires. Somehow this justifies the article - but it doesn't.
2. As the current article now suggests, the listed empires somehow exemplify "world domination." But though each example has a footnote, there no showing that the footnote justifies the expression "world domination."
3. It's hard to show an example of neologism because it requires showing that something does not exist.
4. But here the article doesn't quote any scholarly usage in connection with the content of this article. Therefore, the presumption is that it's a neologism of the author of this article - namely, you.
5. It's now your burden to demonstrate that "world domination" is not a neologism by showing this usage in an appropriate source other than your own.

--Ludvikus (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"World domination" is two words. Neither is newly coined.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. But they are used here as a special unique expression justifying this article. If you do not have a special meaning for the two words together - you have no basis for the article. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If you believe this to be the case, you should also add {{neologism}} to the World domination (disambiguation) page. Perhaps you should also recommend both articles for deletion.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Not so. The list on the DAB pages go to articles with documented meanings. I agree with the DAB page - I even added to it myself. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

But you are correct, the first set should be deleted. But I'll wait. Thanks for telling me about it. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: I just flagged the DAB page. Thanks for pointing that out to me. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• And the first footnote refers to A Study of History. What does that have to do with WD? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

World Domination is not a neologism because it has entered mainstream society. It is the central aspect of several hundred, if not several thousand works of literary, audio and/or visual artworks. The burden is for both of you to find a source that is reliable and defines the term and its inherent notability based on those usages, as well as the application of the term to our history. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

True. That's why we have all these articles: World domination (disambiguation)!!! --Ludvikus (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the term needs something slightly more descriptive, but still serving the purpose of, a disambiguation page. For example, in popular culture, may refer to: Pinky and the Brain, the cartoon series

The central concept of Pinky and the Brain is world domination, but the term World Domination does not inherently refer to Pinky and The Brain. These, as well as the concept of world domination should be explained, but overall the article should serve as a disambiguation page linking to works that use the concept, usages in pop culture, and empires that, in commonplace or controversial observations of our current and past history, have strived towards world domination as we consider it (Romans, Napolean, Germans in the World Wars/Hitler, USSR/The spread of communism, the British empire, Islam etc.). I'm sure there are plenty of books on each of those empires/regimes/ideologies that use the term world domination to describe the intent of them. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I remember your reference previously to Pinky and The Brain. So I've made an entry at World domination (disambiguation). Please check it out! It addresses your concern. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Outcomes

I would be happy with any of the following outcomes, which I have listed in order or preference:

• People be allowed to gradually build this to become a good article. Put tags on all uncited or dubious information. But allow people some leeway in building the article.
• Change article to redirect to World domination (disambiguation).
• Delete article.

I would be unhappy with any of the following outcomes:

• Article on a different subject, e.g. some book someone wrote.
• Redirect to an article on a different subject, e.g. some book someone wrote.

--Toddy1 (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Me too - except for your first proposal. This "garbage" article has been around since 2004. So five years to get a good article is enough, don't you agree? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Correction: It's been around since 2003 (six years). --Ludvikus (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If you change the article to a redirect to World domination (disambiguation), I will not revert it.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

But how can I do it when it now has that list of empires? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It is your choice. If you think it should be a redirect, edit the article, delete all contents and substitute #REDIRECT [[World domination (disambiguation)]] --Toddy1 (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(1) OK. I first deleted the list of empires. But now I want to see if we have anything left. I'm just going slowly. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(2) #REDIRECT accomplished. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

*Support DAB page needs to move here. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Save the Talk page. --!!!!

• Against Deletion - if you delete this page you lose the edit history of an article that was started on 10 July 2003. I think this edit history should be preserved.
  • I think a redirect is a good solution.
  • If you don't want a redirect, then simply copy the contents of the disambiguation page as the next edit to World domination, and turn the disambiguation page into a redirect to World domination.

--Toddy1 (talk) 07:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• I thought the Delete was temporary. I think you know what you're doing. Do the right thing. --Ludvikus (talk) 08:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Didn't think of it that way. My bad, but yeah, copy and paste the disambig page to this one and then csd G6 the other page - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 12:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Great. So we all agree. Isn't life wonderful sometime? --Ludvikus (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There - I've moved the contents of the Disambig page over to the World domination page, and turned the original Disambig page into a redirect - I think it causes no harm to leave it as one. Ray^Talk 13:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You have not moved, you have copied the content. The history of the other article should be preserved for the same reason as the history of this article, and as a redirect does the job, there is no need to delete the content (there is justification for keeping it in Terms of Use, which appears on every Wikipedia page. See the sentence "Where such credit is commonly given through page histories (such as Wikimedia-internal copying), it is sufficient to give attribution in the edit summary, which is recorded in the page history, when importing the text." It is also mentioned in WP:Plagiarism#Copying within Wikipedia) . -- PBS (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

World domination, in politics - no such thing

I propose we delete this WP:Neologism, or WP:Original research. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• This should go to the trash can:

World domination, in politics, may refer to:

• Hegemony, predominant influence exercised by one nation over others.
• Hyperpower, a state that is militarily, economically and technologically dominant on the world stage.
• Superpower, a state with a leading position in the international system and the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests.

• Send the above to the trash can, where it belongs. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. These are articles on synonyms and associated concepts, and clearly belong on a disambiguation page. Ray^Talk 14:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ray on this one. The two are similar concepts. Since this is now a disambiguation page, it should be designed with the purpose of the user in mind. If somebody searches up World Domination, we want them to find an article that tells them what they are looking to know. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

However, I've looked in Merriam-Websters online and there's no entry for "world domination." I didn'y (yet) look up the three (3) words to see if "world domination" is list. If it ain't, then it's not only original research, but a neologism also:

.

• I can see a relation. But it's not enough to permit us to list these three there. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• You two above, make a majority. So I have no choice but to acknowledge the consensus. I can only ask you guys to think very carefully about the fact that no dictionary of the English language is of any use to you to deny my point that (1) it's a Neologism, and (2) Original research. Nice analysis - but Wikipedia policy does not allow you to do that. Every other usage has a source or reference. But this is based merely on what? Your intuition? What reference work can you find for your position? And now we have four (4) "political" terms. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

World Domination is not in the dictionary because it is a phrase, made of two words which you will easily locate in any dictionary. This phrase is used by a remarkable number of publications[4], and is a theme in stories. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand. But "phrases" are also include in dictionaries when they have special meanings. Otherwise we would need an article for every two-word phrases. Now we have articles for each "phrase" that has a special meaning. But you cannot list this phrase's special meaning as equivalent to any of the four (4) "political" meanings because you cannot prove it. It's also a "neologism." It seems to have recently entered our popular culture and it does have several new documented meanings for which we have articles. But all that just suggests that this "political" meaning you're trying to list is in fact a neologism, because (1) it's not in the dictionary for any of the four words, and (2) you cannot give and source or reference to support the listing. So you must not listed these four (4) words here. You may believe that there is a "political" meaning - but you cannot prove that your belief is due to your own creation: look up WP:Neologism, if you haven't already. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly a neologism. Take for example this google news search from the 1940's that shows it as a term of common usage. The fact that "world domination" as a phrase is not in a dictionary is simply irrelevant. Especially if one considers the following from dictionary.com

Hegemony ... 3. (esp. among smaller nations) aggression or expansionism by large nations in an effort to achieve world domination.

The whole point of a DAB is to be helpful. To state that we shouldn't link out to hegemony/others because "world domination" doesn't have its own entry in a dictionary is a pretty weak argument considering that the terms we'd be linking to are strongly related to world domination (as shown by the above quotation). --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Please examine WP:Neologism. If the usage is not yet in a dictionary, we should not create the usage by posting it here. It's easy to imagine everything possibly implied by the two-word expression. But if it's in fact a neologism it does not belong here. If we accept your "helpful" argument, the we should Redirect every possible mis-spelling of a word - to the appropriate article. Instead of educating the world, we would merely be compensating for mistakes. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

List of conspiracy theories

I'm deleting the reference to list of conspiracy theories, not appropriate for a dag--Work permit (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• But both expressions are listed there. Isn't that appropriate for a DAB? Find what you want at WP? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• PS: Why not have: "See also List of conspiracy theories"?

Because New World Order (conspiracy theory) is a list of all consipracy theories having to do with world domination. List of conspiracy theories is a superset of that list, it includes thinkgs having nothing to do with world domination--Work permit (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. Both both articles (& expressions) are listed in the List of conspiracy theories. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, List of conspiracy theories is a superset. New World Order (conspiracy theory) is the article you want to go to if you're looking for world domination.--Work permit (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Would we violate a WP rule by including the "superset" in the DAB? If not, why not include it? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason to include the parent article since it does not deal with world domination, it deals with conspiracy theories. However, if you wished to pull out the conspiracy theories not involving the new world order, and place them in the politics section, that would work. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not on the second option you're giving me. It's wrong to dignify a pejorative (conspiracy theory by treating it as a politics. By that standard, why not include racism as politics? Every single conspiracy is a pejorative - is it not? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there any conspiracy theories on world domination that are not in the new world order article?--Work permit (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"World domination is a term that refers to the intent of a group or individual to control or regulate the entire world. It is a theme in several literary and media works, though the term is also"

Why do we need this piece of "original research"? Or "neologism"? And at the very top? Each listed item is sufficient. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems you are trying to challenge any and all items on this article. You should read the first paragraph, if not the entire article at WP:OR.

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.

The text you have picked above is not an opinion, an experience, nor an argument. It is not a conclusion, and it does not advance a position. The term is not a neologism, as it is well documented in secondary sources, including the book that you are so very eager to keep on this list. Moreover, there is nothing in that statement that you have picked that anyone would contest to. "This is what is means" (do you contest what the term "World domination" means?). The second could easily be backed up by an extensive list, such as this one. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a disambig page. The purpose is to direct people to the right article, so I'd say the less said the better--Work permit (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Certainly true, but disambiguation pages should have a short and concise definition. Most that are not related solely to artworks that share a name do have such a definition. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Here is the style guide, which reads "A disambiguation page is not a list of dictionary definitions. A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context. Otherwise, there are templates for linking the reader to Wiktionary" (Emphasis added). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. But that's precisely what's done next to each item in the list. The verbose line seems like a summary. We don't need that. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Those would be the uncommon meanings that are unique to those terms, not the common meaning behind the term "World domination". Can all involved editors please carefully read MOS:DAB (paying particular attention to the fact that this is a long disambiguation page), WP:DAB, and Wikipedia:Disambiguation_dos_and_don'ts. This may serve in stalling this edit warring. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not that long, but if you prefer section headings rather then simple bullets that's ok with me. If the short description you want to add requires a reference to back it up, and if another editor has issues with it, I'd say leave it out.--Work permit (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

How about "World domination refers to the purported intent of a group or individual to control or regulate the entire world." (leaving off the second sentence from the initial entry). Is that uncontroversial?--Work permit (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any "edit waring." I thought we were working together rather nicely. At the moment I agree with the trimmed version which of work permit. So what's the consensus? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Empire

By deleting "or other powerful sovereign or government.", you are consciously removing the concepts of a soviet empire or american empire. Is that your intent?--Work permit (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)