Talk:Potential superpower

Russia a Superpower of the 21st century

Many people are wondering about the United States and its down fall economic recession[1] economy as if its still a superpower with the Iraq war, falling US dollar[2] [3][4], high US minimum wages being outsourced for Chinese labor, a high unemployment rate, credit crisis[5] through US foreign policy spending, US inflation[6] [7][8] from the Federal Reserve lowing interest rates too low[9], a housing crisis, dependence from oil & high gas prices and etc. Where does the United States stand as a superpower versing Russia’s current superpower status? Read at these sources here to see how the United States is losing or is now considered a former superpower:[10][11][12] [13]

Now there is Russia a superpower (the United States only real counter partner as as a superpower[14] [15][16] [17] [18][19] [20] because they have the economics[21] [22], the wealth[23] [24], the diplomatic power[25] [26], ideological[27] [28] [29][30][31][32], technological power[33] [34][35][36][37]& advances[38] than any other country besides the United States (look here on why the US is losing its superpower status read here:[39][40][41]) recognizes Russia as a superpower [42], they have the cultural sector and lets not forget their military forces (supreme). Russia is also the largest military arsenal producer in the world (they hold 73% of the worlds military arsenals market) and they have the worlds largest nuclear weapons arsenal than another other country (newer & older which many are reconditioned as new again) which is 5 times greater than the US has.

So Russia is a Superpower and lets not forget a Space Superpower, remember Russia has a Mar's mission coming up in 2015 [43]to 2024, also a Moon space station planned for 2015[44] without NASA but Russia going by itself; which NASA is out of funding due to a poor current US economy, 2007 & 2008. I do not start this article to brag about how wonderful Russia is, I started it because I am an American and I am seeing how the US is becoming a former superpower[45]; even though I admire Russia as a country, I also admire my own country (USA) too.

Russia is a Superpower, that's plenty of facts in the bag to state they are in that position. The United State's position[46][47] [48]), think what they are in for, a lot in the bag on the whole US economy on all sorts of issues, so we need to understand our Congress has put a lot of our problems right in front of us. US Congressman Ron Paul[49] was the only presidential candidate who would have saved the US as a superpower and our country. We cannot regret Russia is a superpower once again, that was always predicted they would achieve that goal and good for them, they stuck to their dreams and they brought it back. The US has done the opposite and we are heading down down the economic depression [50] tube to a great power nation because of Congress, Unions, Corporate greed and oil.

If you want to save the US as a superpower, stop buying from US companies made in China (look for the labels and try to buy made in America only, store like Costco, Walmart, K-Mart, Best Buy, Staples and more are companies that buy made in China goods and we Americans buy these things by the millions each day), second visit Congress personally and request to bring down the US minimum wage and request to cap wages too high to cap them or lower high salaries so greed is enforced to stop US inflation. Read here as if we don’t do something we we’ll really suffer as China’s minimum wage is $.25 cents an hour as China has used its low labor population power to put their country on the Superpower front and we made that happen, please read an listen to this link: [51][52] [53][54]--Versace11 (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering, when did youtube videos become a reputable source? This displays obvious POV. We must state both opinions in the article and move on from this childish argument, instead working on other, more important things like organization and the clear violations of wikipedia policy. I stoped reading this after awhile. Once you started referencing Youtube and saying things like "Ron Paul is the only one that would have saved the US as a superpower", I decided that this was way POV and biased. Try to keep your political views out of this please. Also, I can't believe you are arguing for lowering the minimium wage in a time of economic stife. This shows true ignorance to me, but, regardless, your views are important and are already represented in the article, so what's the problem? Saruman20 (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this paragraph is about as full of errors as a monkey typing Shakespeare, about as biased as Shawn Hannity on the war in Iraq, and as well-sourced as quoting Youtube can be. Russia has 5 times as many nukes as the US? LOL. Take your bias somewhere else, Wikipedia is not a forum for random politico-wannabees to express their every fantasy. It's a place for facts, not your personal opinion, and certainly not for POV semi-editorials. Meatwaggon (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Meatwaggon your comments is nothing better to say than the guy who started the comment above about Russia as superpower. Especially when you don't supply people the facts, it is your opinion not a fact; most of your comments are anti something. Give the guy credit, youtube is much of a daily resource under Google than Wikipedia and 2, their are tons of media statements and government related materials that refer just what Versace11 said. He is right on the decline on the American economy going into a depression, the unemployment rate is 5.8% right now, that is extremely bad. The oil is putting US in a tailspin which it isn't going to be much longer the US isn't going to be a superpower anymore. Third the US military budget may decrease by $250 billion next year[55], not $510 billion what it is now, that's says a lot the US does not paying off its debts but Russia doesn't have deficit at all which their military budget and their have the foreign policy has it has been increasing like Saudi Arabia's Dubai as the US sinking badly. If the US has to spend less than $250 billion next year instead of over $500 billion this year, Russia will have the largest military budget under Nato. I have heard Congress complaining that the money is not there next year as it is now, it is all barrowed money from China. Fourth Ron Paul was the only candidate that was inviewed but the Russian media, no other candidate was considered a friend of Russia than Ron Paul[56][57]so I see Versace11's point on that one. Yahoo or Google Bilderberg as this is probably the biggest issue why the US is in sinking against the European Union, a another discussion but relates to the issue on the US debt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.166.135 (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Your opinions on Ron Paul, Youtube, and the US as a former superpower are irrelevant. Youtube is not a reliable source, espicially considering the amount of support Ron Paul was getting on Youtube, some Youtube video that preachs about his greatness is obviously biased. I don't care if you see his points, the question is, what does it have to do with the article? We all know the US is in a recession, it's plastered all over the media. But the media likes to blow things out of proportion. If you want real news, don't listen to the Mainstream media or youtube, go read a academic study or a magazine that uses an academic base for it's facts. Then, your sources and ideas will be acceptable for wikipedia and we can talk. This pointless debate is stopping real progress from beginning on this article. There are more important things to do, like reorganize and check this article for all the wikipedia policies it violates. Please, stop this pointless argument and move on!Saruman20 (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My god, this pointless argument has wasted so much time, energy, and the ability to edit this article. A compromise has already been reached and the page is protected, this is meaningless. The article states that in addition to the US being a superpower, there is a debate as to whether Russia is a superpower. Just please stop. IP 24.176.166.135, your argument is full of faults and contradictions. The article you cite as stating that the military budget is to be slashed states that it will be increased. An unemployment rate of 5.8%. isn't "extremely bad" By the way the official rate is 4.9%. YouTube is not a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable source examples. Something akin to the Great Depression simply won't occur. We are not even officially in a recession. Wikipedia is not the place for your support of no chance Ron Paul. It isn't the place for your conspiracy theories. All this Russia bull needs to stop. Let's actually try to improve the article instead of wasting time and energy. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The comments on Russia here as a superpower is a discussion, personally Russia should not even be an argument. I watch world news daily and Russia has been said all year, a superpower on the news. The United States government CIA has always known that Russia would come back as a superpower, there is no question about it. The time was when, which I certaintly agree it is now or soon. Borderline superpower in my opinion says they hold that certificate garranteed, nothing lower. If you watch foreign CNN tv in China, China calls Russia a superpower all the time. They post Russia military news 24 hours a day on the Chinese military channel, I see the missile programs, rocket launches, fifth generation tanks, Russian fifth generation jets, secrets of scalar weapons, the whole nine yards. I am not a dumb shit but I think I am reading material here that is no credit to Russia at all. I think you guys need to take another look into former soviet country, it is no joke.--64.69.158.252 (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hobie Hunter; lets look at what you said """My god, this pointless argument has wasted so much time, energy, and the ability to edit this article. A compromise has already been reached and the page is protected, this is meaningless. The article states that in addition to the US being a superpower, there is a debate as to whether Russia is a superpower. Just please stop. ---your argument is full of faults and contradictions. The article you cite as stating that the military budget is to be slashed states that it will be increased. An unemployment rate of 5.8%. isn't "extremely bad" By the way the official rate is 4.9%.""""" I think your just full of crap, your hogwash comments have no foundation of facts. Give me a break, 4.9%, try 5.8% from last week. No recession? Where are you from Saudi Arabia? What a dumb ass, the US is in a serious recession and you want to say everything is wonderful in the good old USA? Wow! That is some comment there Hobie Hunter. I think I will call Kermit the Frog tell him we have some kind of expert on Wikipedia so we can teach 3 to 6 yr olds about a former superpower since your so good at telling the facts right out there, your out there, way out there guy.--75.15.133.176 (talk) 09:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please Read Wikipedia: No personal attacks. You cannot continue like this or else you will be blocked. You CANNOT make unfounded slander, or you will be blocked I provided sources for the 4.9% emplyment rate. You didn't. I googled "unemployment rate 5.8% us" and got no results for 2008. None. By the way, a recession is defined as " a shrinkage in the growth of GDP. America's GDP is still growing, albeit at a slower rate. Hence, we are not officially in arecession, until GDP shrinks, which it hasn't. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

First thing the article opens and so does the anti superpower monsters feeding it with unknown resources. I think they should block it some more, keep the balance on the discussion, not the article. I see no consensus, just edits after edits; like going into a candy store and stealing all the candy. The article is off on a lot of issues, it is saying what some guys want it to say, not what the sources say. I will forward this to the Admin, I just don’t agree with the content on the potential superpower article. A lot of things are misleading on Russia alone even the US; some guys are making it that way, totally unfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.234.250 (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There should be some agreement for Russia as the coming superpower or entry level superpower if I can add my 2 cents. There are too many arguments on each side and I can also put what I think from what I hear for people higher than all of us. I travel to Russia often which I have bought many properties there because I do a lot business in Russia. I am extremely impressed by the Russian space programs & military bases, Russian 21st military technology (scalar weapons), their universities and medical technologies; I can list more but these areas are very impressive. I know for sure that the French and the Germans were worried for a little while that Russia is on the verge of becoming an entery level superpower but that is no longer an issue as Russia has continued to make great relations with both countries. I do fly a lot and I have in recent months have met with US military officials while flying to Russia. ‘’’Many discussions have been secretly hidden from the media on Russia's superpower level move because it has been completely classified. The CIA, the Bush administration and the British government have tried to keep the media out of the Russian advances in the last 4 years for several reasons; their military, government relations, Russian foreign policy and their technologies’’’. ‘’’The media is not getting all the information’’’ and if so, the media is focused on the economy problems and politics but in the next few years, Russia will be making a lot of headlines that may just stock the world which is too much to explain. Many of you simply will not agree or won't or just may think a little of some possibilities on Russia could do in the next 3 to 5 years. I will tell you the media is not discussing anything on Russian secrecy, simply because the media can be bought out as this is business, you can simply shut the media up if you have the money or authority. Alarming the public could create panic or a shift on foreign relations as certainty the United States is not discussing everything to the public nor will we know in the next few years. I am not here to make a defense but I think you should put ‘’’Russia a notch higher on a potential superpower’’’. What you read is not all the media is telling you and ‘’’US military officials are under strict classifications to say nothing’’’, same with the Russian government and British government. The British have been keeping things very calm as they are doing a good job by keeping relations steady in Western and Eastern Europe away from the media. Sure things can be published but not everything and there are people who will write about something and the media a lot of times won’t based on government secrecy. A good book that says a lot about the US government not telling the public what it knows is here: [58]. I know what I have heard and I know people in the US government will not say what they know because some of the things in Russia are not fed always fed to the media; you should try your best here to post what you can to update the article. It isn’t bad to say Russia is in the mist of a superpower but to say something’s not so quite true, doesn’t help anyone who may want to know these things. I really suggest some books that have been published this year will say more than media articles will write about and government announcements take are not really all you want to hear [59].--66.17.49.165 (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of your points, as I live in Russia myself. But this would violate WP:NPOV. Many people here think Russia has a very small chance of becoming a superpower, others think it is already a superpower. The way it is now is just fine. All opinions must be represented equally, so to put Russia above the other powers just because some people think it should be is POV. Better leave it like it is, with all opinions being represented. It already kinda shows this in a subtle way. It says "there is a debate regarding Russia's status as a superpower or as a potential superpower" or something along those lines. That shows both sides in the "already a superpower vs. not yet a superpower" debate. Russia is the only country mentioned like that, so it is subtly put above the others. That seems to represent your viewpoint aswell. But to clearly say "Russia is better than the others" would be obviously POV and unacceptable. Saruman20 (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree on both thoughts but really an entry level superpower sounds better then potential superpower, after all the Soviets had everything but with 19 years of rebuilding everything back Russia should earn credit. Many people are really discussing if the US is still a superpower and I believe there is a 49/51 chance that could be true or not true or bearly hanging on[60][61]. Some things could be reworded better but I do support some Russian superpower content, I do believe they have something to prove to the world now.--75.15.139.193 (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV, WP:SYN, and WP:RS. What you believe or what you think "sounds better" is irrelevant. If you think Belize is a superpower, then you can add it as long as you have reliable sources to back it up. It's not what the editor's think, it's what the sources show. Since there are just as many sources saying Russia isn't a superpower as there are saying it is, both viewpoints must be represented equally. Your views on the subject mean nothing! What matters is sources!. That whole chunk of text written by IP. 66.17.49.15 is orginal research a and unacceptable for wikipedia. Your views mean nothing, neither do mine or any one else's. If you want to argue about politics here, then fine, have fun, but you can't edit the article based on anything that you believe, you have to edit on reliable sources (not youtube) that clearly state Russia is a superpower. Then, you may add those sources to the article but you can't make statements like "Russia is a notch above the other powers because those other powers have just as many sources. Saruman20 (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[62]

What I find to be rather disingenuous about this link: http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=768929 is that while Kommersant _claims_ that the US "acknowledges" Russia to be a superpower, in actuality this is totally unsupported by the actual text and by the actual comments of the US officials, who only state that Russia is "returning to the international arena as an influential political and economic power" and "Russia has restored its position of a large political and economic force recently", hardly a ringing endorsement of Russia as a bona fide Superpower as Kommersant claims. If this is the only article that supports the thesis that Russia is again a superpower in the same sense that US is (which it really doesn't), then this line should certainly be stricken from the article. Meatwaggon (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. The article was completely biased, nationalistic, and just plain incorrect. I'll remove the line immediately. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Organization

This article is obviously rather unorganized. All the countries should be presented in the same format. The information should be ordered in a way similar to this:

Name of country

Facts in favor

Culture

Military

Etc...

Facts Against

Next Country

Etc...

As for the "facts in favor" subcategories, in order to keep everything relevant and organized, they should be military(obvious), politics(obvious), economics(energy included), demographics(population, geography), and possibly culture. Culture should, however, be an overview of the countries cultural influence not everything about the culture, as that is irrelevant to superpower status. Ideological statements should be left out, as a country's chosen ideology has nothing to do with status as a superpower and is just asking for people to but in POV statements about the government of a certain country. Also, all sources must be vertifiable, academic sources. Main stream media should be refrained from, as the media likes to blow things way out of proportion and report on few, extrodinary incidents, not average behaviour. I believe this is the only way to save this article from it's obvious and dispicable violation of wikipedia policy. However, I do not think this article should be deleted, because, simply, what good would that accomplish? This article is at least partially informative, so instead of deleting it, try to fix it. Saruman20 (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I could not agree more. I recommend that you recategorize all the info in the sections and revamp the article, and have it ready for when the article is unprotected. I t has a lot of potential, but is held down by POV. For instance, this quote from the article.

"India, with its diverse and fascinating history, arts, music, culture, spiritual & social models has witnessed the growth of a booming tourism industry.[298] India is a historic place with a diverse history of over five millennia."

This is a Wikipedia article, not a travel brochure. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have begun to do so. The article will be ready by the time the page is unprotected. I have reorganized the India and Russia sections, aswell as adding many new links and information to the rather short European Union section. Now all I have left to tackle is reorganizing the massive China section and reading through the entire article to look for anything that violates any major wikipedia policies. Saruman20 (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Good summary of the changes needed. Meatwaggon (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A progress report:

I've completed the changes I ment to do the article, now all we have to do is wait for the protection to lift so I can start adding the revamped article to the page. However, this is not perfect. I only have so much time in my life to do this, so I could have missed something. However, the article is mostly organized now, and I added a whole bunch of new stuff into the EU sections, aswell as any other areas that needed additions. However, I hit a road block: currently, the article has no facts against Russia. This is obviously due to the determined people we see in the above section of this talk page. I will search the web for any good sources, but that could take time. Saruman20 (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently EU has no Facts Against and is destined to become a superpower, since that section is written to make its weaknesses look like strengths. That will need some more NPOV fixing... Meatwaggon (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Some of that "be better than a traditional entity" or whatever it said should be removed, and it should definatly mention something about energy. Saruman20 (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the most daunting and difficult to reverse problems facing the EU is the demographic problem, which has totally been ignored. The EU's birth rate is almost as low as Russia's, and its policy of importing workers from Islamic countries (who have a much higher birth rate) will pose significant cultural, demographic, political and economic stresses on the EU in the years ahead. IMO this is a much bigger problem than political cohesion among individual EU countries (and will probably worsen it, actually). Meatwaggon (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I recommend you include that Russian oil production has peaked and that the population is falling fast- about 750,000 a year if I remember correctly. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Saruman20 (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

We should not be organising by country at all. We should organise by source as the articles existence is ostensibly justified as reporting on the predictions made by specific qualified sources. The current organisation is the chief reason that original research dominates the edits to the article as I explained in my topic that got archived the day after I posted it (isn't archiving supposed to be reserved for the oldest discussion?)Zebulin (talk) 05:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

By source? There are so many sources, and some only provide little information. That would be chaotic and unorganized. It would be very hard to read, and the information would be kinda jubbled. Now, I see your point with trying to stop orginal research, but there are much better ways. Saruman20 (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Here you go again Hobie Hunter "Russian oil production has peaked and that the population is falling fast- about 750,000 a year". What Hog wash! Talk about a host of lies right out of a horses mouth, before you keep talking crap, start posting facts idiot, you have a record of slashing Russian bias attacks, really you attack Russia, Russian's, Soviet's, how much you hate Putin, the whole Russian government, the culture and more we go. I think you have an obivous track record on crap right out of your month on anything bashing the whole Russian world. The problem with the discussion article is you have brought on the lies over lies and attacked anything directing Russia. Consenus the discussion, not just add more hog wash lies to tell everyone what you think; you just slash the problem right back again from elimination on the discussion page from negative feedbacks. --75.15.133.176 (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. You risk yourself getting blocked if continue with your abusive language.--Emperor Genius (talk) 10:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Emperor Genius. Yes please read WP: No personal attacks. 75.15.133.176, you state that this is a lot of "hogwash" (whatever that means). I thought Russia's demographic crisis was conventional wisdom that everyone knew. However, here are just some of the sources (including BBC and Russian websites): . An economy can't grow with a birthrate of 1.3 and a steadily ageing and shrinking population. (Please don't dispute that, its in the sources.) In addition, for the first time since the Soviet years, oil production, the backbone of Russia's economy has peaked I'm just working to make this article more balanced. There are currently no drawbacks in the the Russian section. You can't call people an "idiot" and make unfounded slander. On arelated topic, where do I go to have this IP blocked. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Jesus christ, this is a section about organization! Is no topic safe from this worthless Russia argument. I'm Russian, and I can say that Russia's population is declining, but the economy is increasing. Don't ask me how it go this way, but it is true. Hobie Hunter is right, all sections need some from of drawbacks, and Russia certainly has them. It should be noted however, that like the US's apparent "recession", Russia's demographic crisis has been largly exaggerated by the media. It is happening, but it has been exaggerated. I, however, don't see the big issue. All nations populations peak and fall. Epidemics, wars, baby booms, etc...can all change the pattern of a country's population. Population is a very fickle thing. There is evidence that Russia beginning to expierence a baby boom. While the population crisis diserves mention, lets not exaggerate here. Something should be included about the default of 1998 however, as those where hard times when Russia's GDP was falling fast. Russia is still recovering. Saruman20 (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There should be some agreement for Russia as the coming superpower or entry level superpower if I can add my 2 cents. There are too many arguments on each side and I can also put what I think from what I hear for people higher than all of us. I travel to Russia often which I have bought many properties there because I do a lot business in Russia. I am extremely impressed by the Russian space programs & military bases, Russian 21st military technology (scalar weapons), their universities and medical technologies; I can list more but these areas are very impressive. I know for sure that the French and the Germans were worried for a little while that Russia is on the verge of becoming an enter level superpower but that is no longer an issue as Russia has continued to make great relations with both countries. I do fly a lot and I have in recent months have met with US military officials while flying to Russia. ‘’’Many discussions have been secretly hidden from the media on Russia's superpower level move because it has been completely classified. The CIA, the Bush administration and the British government have tried to keep the media out of the Russian advances in the last 4 years for several reasons; their military, government relations, Russian foreign policy and their technologies’’’. ‘’’The media is not getting all the information’’’ and if so, the media is focused on the economy problems and politics but in the next few years, Russia will be making a lot of headlines that may just stock the world which is too much to explain. Many of you simply will not agree or won't or just may think a little of some possibilities on Russia could do in the next 3 to 5 years. I will tell you the media is not discussing anything on Russian secrecy, simply because the media can be bought out as this is business, you can simply shut the media up if you have the money or authority. Alarming the public could create panic or a shift on foreign relations as certainty the United States is not discussing everything to the public nor will we know in the next few years. I am not here to make a defense but I think you should put ‘’’Russia a notch higher on a potential superpower’’’. What you read is not all the media is telling you and ‘’’US military officials are under strict classifications to say nothing’’’, same with the Russian government and British government. The British have been keeping things very calm as they are doing a good job by keeping relations steady in Western and Eastern Europe away from the media. Sure things can be published but not everything and there are people who will write about something and the media a lot of times won’t based on government secrecy. A good book that says a lot about the US government not telling the public what it knows is here: [63]. I know what I have heard and I know people in the US government will not say what they know because some of the things in Russia are not fed always fed to the media; you should try your best here to post what you can to update the article. It isn’t bad to say Russia is in the mist of a superpower but to say something’s not so quite true, doesn’t help anyone who may want to know these things. I really suggest some books that have been published this year will say more than media articles will write about and government announcements take are not really all you want to hear [64].

Organization Part 2

Saruman20 said "Jesus christ, this is a section about organization!" Right. Let's get back to organization. The article is looking way better now. But I noticed for India, that there was a foreign relations thing. While this is important, I think that there should be a foreign relation thing for facts in favor also. Plus, I think we should add foreign relations to the other articles of Russia and China, and the EU if there is any articles on that. Deavenger (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's a very good idea. I only created a foreign relations section because I was categorizing the facts against India, and some info wouldn't fit anywhere elese. Its best to be concise. Five sections is enough. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. The section is gone now. Technically speaking, if we're talking about foreign relations of the countries, wouldn't that fall under politics? Deavenger (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It does. Thats why I merged the sections. Now its better organized. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, foreign relations falls under politics. However, one misc problem, why is referance 435 (the last one), talking about declining US power, but the ref is used for declining Russian sphere of influence. Suggest someone check this out and add an appropriate source. Saruman20 (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was just a stopgate source until I found a better one. There is a good part of the article that discusses Russia's decline and shrinking sphere of influence. I'll be sure to get to that. In the mean time, could some help expand the section? --Hobie Hunter (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't read the whole article, I only glanced over the first page. Now that I've read I can see your point. However, wouldn't be better to link that page in the article perhaps. Also, shouldn't we be working on expanding other areas of the article aswell. It seems unfair to only expand one section, when the entire EU section could use a lot more. Saruman20 (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I never suggested that we shouldn't be working on other areas aswell, its just that section is underdeveloped. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Got ya. Saruman20 (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the basics.

According to wikipedia guidelines, the only way this article can exist in spite of the prohibition on articles making predictions is by taking the approach of reporting qualified predictions of qualified sources. I think the best way to ensure we stop departing from this would be to totally reorganise the article. Instead of dividing the article up by "potential superpower" each section should correspond to a sourced prediction. Each section will start by introducing the source and it's qualifications and the rest will include quotes from and restatements of the actual prediction the source is offering. This way original research has almost no way to sneak into the article as can so easily happen now. The longer we kep the existing organisation the higher the chance the entire article will be successfully deleted later for policy violations.Zebulin (talk) 04:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

By source? There are so many sources, and some only provide little information. That would be chaotic and unorganized. It would be very hard to read, and the information would be kinda jubbled. Now, I see your point with trying to stop orginal research, but there are much better ways. If you want to have an article with a million subsections, each with a little over a paragraph (at most), then go ahead, but I doubt it'll work. While orginal research must be stopped, this has more cons than pros.Saruman20 (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There are actually very few sources that clearly predict the emergence of a superpower. A huge part of the problem now is we have an enormous number of sources cited which do not in fact make any prediction of the emergence of any superpower at all. We have sources about all sorts of superlative traits of various countries but these in fact do not belong in the article.Zebulin (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected.

I've unprotected the page per a request on my talkpage. I hope that's alright with everyone. · AndonicO ^Engage. 21:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I've proceeded to make the changes I talked about in the organization section. Saruman20 (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Potential great powers deleted as OR with little warning. Is this next?

Potential great powers was deleted as original research despite citing it's sources almost exactly as this article does. The problem seems to be that even though *many* individual facts were sourced, the article was nonetheless using arguments not explicitly attributed to a particular source to support a point (entity x will be a greatpower) not explicitly attributed to a source. There is nothing to prevent this article from suffering the same fate. We have got to start connecting all lines of reasoning to a given source rather than simply listing a few sources that refer to a country or organisation as a potential superpower while then going on to restate our own unattributed line of reasoning for the country being a superpower in which only the facts are sourced. Otherwise there's no meaningful difference between our article and the Potential great powers article from the point of view of the heavy-handed article deleters.Zebulin (talk) 06:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The deletion of potential great powers was wrong. It was well sourced and there was no deletion log. I recommend that we keep copies of the article just in case someone unilaterally tries to delete this article. There sources suggesting each of the entries as potential superpowers and they are backed up with sources. Zebulin, the format you suggest, while it would reduce edit warring and OR, would be too complex, of a lower quality, and hard to navigate. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll give you five days to get this article up to speed, explicitly attributing each point (entity X will be a superpower) to a source. Oh, and there is a deletion log - but that's because you're misusing the term "deletion log". There was no AfD. As for whether I'm heavy-handed... I've sometimes been told that I'm too generous, too much of an inclusionist. But that article was just too speculative and based on original thought and synthesis. DS (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think either article should be deleted. Both were well sourced. What is wikipedia if informative, useful articles are deleted? As I have said before in the numerous discussions about whenever or not this article should be deleted (all resulted in keep), this article is not "harming" wikipedia. It may not be the best article, and it is in desperate need of improvement, but it sure isn't hopeless. I mean no offense, but it seems lazy to me if you just delete an article instead of trying to improve it. It doesn't take much time out of your day to make a few edits to a page. This article has moved along a lot. We've removed badly sourced matertial, resolved disputes, and promoted NPOV. This article could easily move along even more if we are given the time. It seems like an awful waste of time and hard work to delete an article, however bad it is. This article is informative, and I like to think I've learned a thing or two from it. And isn't that the point of wikipedia? Saruman20 (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is a horrific mess. It's certainly an interesting collection of speculation and research, but Wikipedia is not the place for original research. The no original research policy makes the point very clearly: "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." [link and first emphasis in original] This article has deep problems in that regard and needs a drastic slash and rebuild to correct them, if not a blank slate. Vassyana (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that merely having sources is not sufficient. Unless your conclusions flow from the facts in an exceptionally obvious manner the conclusions themselves must be references to a reliable secondary source, and not merely the facts used to build the argument. --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

According to policy, can/should articles be unilaterally deleted without consensus? --Hobie Hunter (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Depends upon how you interpret the various conflicting policies.Zebulin (talk) 04:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

We should move all but the first paragraphs of each section to a project page for now. The first paragraphs are all either ok or readily fixable in that they all report on the predictions made by credible sources. The other paragraphs all consist of pure original research by synthesis in that even though they are packed with sources, those sources are not themselves supporting the premise of the section (they generally support individual facts with no stated conclusion). If we move those paragraphs out of the article for now, there will be little basis for deletion and they can be fixed on the project page and brought back to the article when improved.Zebulin (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

While I think the page is fine the way it is, Zebulin's proposal sounds reasonable I think that is a very good idea. OR does sneak into the supporting pages. The article needs to more concise and easier to read. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hobie Hunter. The page seems fine the way it is now, but if this is what it takes, so be it. Saruman20 (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If it does happen, I recommend anyone who has worked on this page a lot (like me) sign on to the project. We need more people. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I just moved the supporting sections to the project page, but it got reverted. I guess I forgot to provide an edit summary. I'll try again later. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The page looks fine as it is now, until we can work out the many kinks in the other sections it seems fine. Saruman20 (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Has anybody already set up a project page for moving some of the other content back into the article? Some of it could be moved back with just a little source work.Zebulin (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't we just copy and paste from the pre-existing project page. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone appears to have added other sections back. I don't know if this is what you were getting at, so I'll wait to move them back. However, I support what Zebulin is saying. We should read through the subsections and pick out the sources and text that isn't orginal research. I think we should definatly add back in some of the information in the "facts against" sections, as the page as it is without the subsections make the transition to superpower seem kind of inevitable. Saruman20 (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan superpower

Pakistan is also considered by many as a potential superpower. It has nuclear weapons, high tech missiles, and even an indigenous automobile industry. Population = 160 million people. Moreover, it’s population is highly skilled and educated in various fields. Can somebody please include this glorious country? It’s for sure a potential superpower. Why not Pakistan is India can be there? --60.50.68.160 (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Who is "many"? Many within Pakistan? If you want to include Pakistan as a potential superpower, you'd have to find some reasonably rigorous sources to support Pakistan's inclusion in this article. I have never read that anyone considers Pakistan to be a potential superpower. Even Japan, which has a much greater chance to become a superpower than Pakistan, was left out because of a dearth of scholarly evidence supporting such a claim. Don't try to include Pakistan just because India is included. Though they may be military and political rivals, India and Pakistan are not in the same league. Meatwaggon (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have checked IHT, CNN, and Newsweek and I have found no instnaces of where Pakistan is mentioned as a potential superpower. I will keep looking, but I think, that at this time, Pakistan is not considered a potential Superpower. Deavenger (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I checked (by which I mean Googled) there aren't any. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh good, I can stop searching. Deavenger (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, no reliable sources. Yet another nationalist trying to add his own country. Saruman20 (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about Hobbie Hunter and deleting factual content

I am starting this discussion on Hobie Hunter, no matter what is brought up on Russia this guy is bashing all the content. Again & again, no superpower this or anything said on Russia as a superpower or anything, he bashes it. He makes claims that sources are not good enough, no matter what article, book, media clip or even small or large said comment, he is just bashing down Russia, Soviet, CCCP, Russian Federation. Everybody or almost everybody has a source they want to add to the article, if people reject, then we go and discuss it to see if we can agree on some end to weight in the content to the article, not deleting the entire source when sources are published facts. Hobbie Hunter is making decisions even when discussions have been discussed, he pretends their was no discussion at all which is not fair to anybody. Read the discussions before going to the article first, he just goes to the article and throws the content away by avoiding the discussion to consenus an agreement. Hobbie Hunter if you hate the idea Russia is a superpower, possible possible, a border line superpower, a becoming superpower or whatever superpower status Russia is in, stop creating these nonsense edit wars. I know several people who can make recommendations to close or delete the article if you want to create these problems and that is certaintly possible. If you want to continue these wars, this article can get blocked again or maybe even completely deleted.

Enough of your bashing comments on articles [[65]] and also some other articles I can mention that you have deleted without consensus like when US Senator John McCain claimed Russia & the United States as superpowers on his superpowers speech[66] May 28th, 2008. Ok, enough of your hate here and stop your edit wars. This is not the world according to you and all you, ok! I share my views with also other members too who also who have said somethings you have done doing the samething on the same nation. Enough!--24.205.234.250 (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I really don't know what to say. Please, please, please read Wikipedia: No personal attacks You all need to relax. This is not the place to have a discussion about me personally. This is a place to discuss the article. The reason I deleted the source because, frankly, its a bad source. If you actually read the article you would realize it. It says, and I quote:

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

First, the commission did not say that Russia has become a superpower. It said that it is "an influential political and economic power", which could be anything. A middle power, a regional power, a great power, etc. Second, news articles are under nearly all circumstances not reliable sources. The exceptions are prestigious reliable sources such as the Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, NY Times, BBC, etc. The source cited appears to biased and nationalistic. At the top of the page it says: "Russia's daily online". Its Wikipedia article states:

In August 2006, Patarkatsishvili sold his 100% stake in the Kommersant publishing house to Alisher Usmanov[5], head of Gazprom's Gazprominvestholding subsidiary.

This just confirms it. Its fully owned by a head in Gazprom with close ties to the Russian government. Of the government would argue Russia is a superpower. Threatening to have the article deleted isn't a constructive way to improve the article. The article you cite on John McCain's speech never mentions any superpowers. I'd like to see where this was agreed upon as an adaquate source, because I didn't find anything. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Claiming that "US Senator John McCain claimed Russia & the United States as superpowers on his superpowers speech[66] May 28th, 2008" based on your quoted source is at the very least the result of a gross inability to read correctly, or at the worst, an unadulterated lie. McCain categorically does NOT state that Russia is a superpower in this article (he doesn't actually even mention the US as a superpower), so I have no idea where in the hell you think you can pull "Russia is a superpower" from your source. And do I have to repeat again that the Kommersant article is just as ludicrously interpreted as the US claiming Russia as a superpower as the Boston.com article. NEITHER OF THESE ARTICLES SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT RUSSIA IS A SUPERPOWER. Whoever is trying to claim these articles as support has been completely blinded by their own Russian nationalism to the point of becoming totally ridiculous. Meatwaggon (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have checked Hobie Hunter's edits within the last couple of days, and I have found nothing of him deleting factual content. The source you tried to add I have found no reference of being agreed under discussion. And I have found nothing wrong with what Hobie Hunter has been doing. Deavenger (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I haven't made any edits to the Russia section. And I wasn't addressing Hobie Hunter; I was talking to the Russian nationalist. Meatwaggon (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, not you. I was refering to 24.205.234.250. Sorry for the misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deavenger (talk • contribs) 23:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Meatwaggon, McCain used superpowers on CNN television, I remember listening to it myself, so I can't agree with you. Second the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State is also a separate agency tied with the CIA gov't under the US gov't that connects heavily under US foreign policy rules. Since Daniel Fred is the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, he has made it clear that Russia is a superpower, his information is also backed from the US Secret Service which is also tied to the White House. I also viewed the article on kommersant.com but there is also other links to his address on foreign policy relations with Russia, that is all docummented from official documents coming from the Bush adminstration which also ties to the G8 meetings, stating those sources again. Kommersant.com is only source which leads to other sources but the US is bound to what the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State says bottom line, that is a powerful role under the US government as he has sworn under the US constitution under oath to make these statements to the public, the US government is the authority of the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State. If the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State was wrong the US government could be seriously liable if he were misleading the public, that is why we have the US attorney general in these cases. You don't see media agencies like the Washington Post, US Today, New Times or whatever saying liar liar, there is no lies here nor have there been any sources conflicting to his statements, that was a year ago. So I agree that this source with Daniel Fred is correct.--64.69.158.252 (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but no free lunch for you. I didn't hear McCain say Russia is a superpower, so as far as I'm concerned he didn't say it until you can prove to me he did. And the only way for you to do that is to link to an article which puts quotes around McCain's words like so: "Russia is a superpower", or something like that. And trying to make the Assistant Secretary of the State's words "the bottom line" in US foreign policy statements is pretty ridiculous, and pretty _obviously_ ridiculous and IMO betrays biased motivation. Incidentally, I would like for you to link to an article where he says Russia is a superpower. "Russia is getting strong", "Russia has emerged", "Russia is more influential" and similar comments are a truly PATHETIC means of trying to claim that US officials said Russia is a _superpower_ like the USSR was a superpower. It's just not the same claim and you know it. So don't assume the rest of us are stupid and unable to tell the difference between "Russia is becoming more influential again" and "Russia is a superpower", because we can, and as long as you try to use these kinds of sources to claim that Russia is a superpower, they will rightly be deleted eventually. Now go find some actually legitimate sources for a change. Meatwaggon (talk) 11:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

God, you people can't just drop this worthless argument can you! The article here already clearly states both sides of the debate, so to add a bunch of sources would be POV. I think you need to read over wikipedia policy again, as you are clearly ignoring WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:No personal attacks. Hobie Hunter has done nothing wrong! By bringing this pointless argument up again, you are the one in the wrong! Your sources have been refuted again and again, so just stop and let this pointless argument die! Saruman20 (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I would just thank all of you, Saurman, Meatwaggon, Deavanger, and anybody else in acknowledging that I have done nothing wrong and trying to end this pointless argument. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is pointless, I think you have undone too much valid edits to create conflicts on peoples sources to build this potential superpower article. Some of your sources have not been valid enough, so some people are going to take offense if you undo their sources. You have not given any thought of the content as par so let others speak and say there views sometimes, not just yours all the time Hobbie Hunter--24.176.166.135 (talk) 07:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC).

I kinda agree with what the IP is saying here (kinda). All views should be represented. It seems everyone is trying to just get their own views in article, while there is nothing stopping us from keeping all the views represented, not just one side. However, to put the blame all on Hobie Hunter is foolish. It takes two to argue or edit war, so both sides are at fault. But, I feel that I am leaning towards Hobie Hunter's side on this one, as you IPs keep bringing this up again, even when I thought it was over. Compromise is key here, so don't try to put all the blame on one person. Saruman20 (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Anonymous IP, could you give examples to what you believe I'm doing (besides the worthless Kommersant article). So far you haven't. I'm curious. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• You've heard me say this before but Hobbie Hunter stop this anti Russian bash comments please! You bash this Kommersant article as of no tommorrow when you have no foundation of the article. It was published 14 months ago and this was a media conference which Kommersant was there, they are just a newspaper writing a story as they were allowed to write about on the first amendment of the US Constitution which is the freedom of the press, so they can publish it. Don't bad talk a story down when you really don't know the true foundation of the story. If Kommersant was wrong as you claim, US Secretary Daniel Fred would have came forward and said something but he didn't and if he was wrong, the US government would of said something as well, they didn't. Daniel Fred[67] has to speak in front of US Senator's for the president about these issues at hand. Kommersant was there, you weren't. Don't talk about something when you were present and if you were, tell us then but if you weren't, don't bash the source. Your real good about putting flags & warnings on people talk pages how you don't like edits and making blocks on the Kommersant article, I think everyone has heard that from you. Give the guy a break and let people use a source or sources to consensus their point of view, it is not about you all the time.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "anti-Russian". I simply have stated that the particular Kommersant article you cited, is not a reliable source for the reasons I have stated above. I'm sorry if your feelings have been hurt, however you have not been able to provide one example of what you accuse me of doing. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe your hurting the article and people trying to make the article, I can read the sources and you refuse to agree what these articles say, your creating an edit war. I see the above statement overrides your conclusions here but here you go on arguing again and again. I support these articles and there is nothing wrong with using them unless you hate Russia.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Right now, IP 24.205.250, you look like the one being hateful and starting an edit war...Saruman20 (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Again Hobbie Hunter is bashing these articles, you can't discuss these article simply because he will not agree. Sounds like a monopoly to convince Bill Gates to switch or believe something when he's not but this a public forum to publish sources to make an article and right now that article does no shine or sparkle it bleeds with misleading facts.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

O.K.............. Once again the IP has provided no evidence as to my alleged misdeeds. Why don't we just end this pointless argument right now. Do not feed the trolls! --Hobie Hunter (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not feed the trolls.

And that is how you make the story Hobbie Hunter, I am glad Tim Russett

wasn't here to see the mess this discussion is, an embarrassment.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)