Talk:Potential superpower

Avoiding OR

In order to avoid the type of synthesis and OR that now plagues this article and has resulted in edit wars and near deletion in the past, we need to reconsider how we are going to edit and word this article. We could continue to use OR and say things like "Country A has a high B, 7th in the world", to back up our own ideas about who are "potential superpowers" and who arn't. Supporting facts are all good fun, but this isn't a article for reporting facts and statistics about a certain country, it is an article for reporting on expert opinions on the matter at hand. What we should be doing is wording it something like this:

"Expert A believes Country B will be a superpower because of factors C and D."

Not: "Country A is a potential superpower because of it's high factor B."

What you believe makes a country a potential superpower is irrelevant. It is the beliefs of the experts that matter. If you believe an expert is wrong, that's your opinion, but it's their opinion that matters, not yours. We should use scholorary, academic sources, not blogs, statistics, or new articles to back up our reports. New articles are not normally reliable sources! Reliable sources are scholors, authors, diplomats, etc... People who actually know something about the subject, not a journalist assigned to report on it. Please, consider this before you edit the article. Saru (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So something like this "Fareed Zakaria at Newsweek believes that India has a great potential at being a superpower due to it's high economic growth" or whatever. Deavenger (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, accept academics are preferred over journalists. Saru (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but would Fareed Zakaria count as an academic, because he has written books like The Post-American World and The Future of Freedom Deavenger (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)?

Yes, because books are good sources. The reason we refrain from using mainstream media is the say it exaggerates and sensationalizes things, but if a journalist rights a book, that is because they have learned about the topic through there journalism and should be considered "academics" in that way. Saru (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Languages Remark

The influential languages of Europe were listed in this order: Anglophone, Francophone, Hispanophone, Lusophone.

According to this source ( http://www.krysstal.com/spoken.html ) French is the least spoken of these languages, so it is kind of unfair. I moved Francophone to the back of the list and added Russophone. It is not a language of the European Union, but that is not in question we are talking about the European languages influence on the world and Russian is more spoken than both Portuguese and French. So the new order will be:

Anglophone, Hispanophone, Russophone, Lusophone and Francophone.

Any objections? Usertalk:Jonaspv

Actually this might be a good place to remind people that along with that sentence most of the content re-added below the lead paragraph in the EU section represents original research by synthesis. After all, do we have even one person or group of persons predicting the rise of the EU as a superpower (or naming it a current superpower) who supports their prediction based on the number of people speaking languages originating in Europe? To keep this particular bit of the article without violating policy (and inviting article deletion) we need to at least add a reference showing that someone recognises this as a measure of "cultural influence" while also indicating who (assuming anybody at all) believes "cultural influence" in general or perhaps specifically controlling regions where widespread languages originated facilitates attainment of superpower status (although in the more specific case we might additionally need a source that says that the EU in fact does "control" or exercise sovereignty over those regions rather than possessing only partial and indirect "sovereignty" over them).Zebulin (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We shouldn't have stuff like this in the article. What we should have his something like this: Expert A believes Country B will be a superpower because of factors C and D. That way we are only reporting on expert predictions not what we believe makes a country a superpower. Unless we can find a source saying that the EU will be or is a superpower because of the number of people who speak European languages, we shouldn't have that in the article. If someone wants to learn about China's military or Europe's culture, they have their own articles. This is an article about potential superpowers, os we should only be talking about sources that directly say a country is a potential superpower. Saru (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Facts against Russia subsection

I want to point out that the last part of Russia section (about obstacles to become superpower) isn't quite right and certainly is not properly sourced. 1st, the only given source actually says nothing about what sphere of influence Russia lost to China. In fact, apart from rather unimpotant loss of Mongolia with its 3 mln population Russia hadn't lost anything to China, as far as I know. The roumours of too many Chinese immigrants in Sibirea are an exaggeration, though it is true that Russians themselves are immigrating in large numbers from Siberia to Europe. 2nd, the size of labour force in Russia in recent years was actually growing, not shrinking, due to the birth rates mini-boom in the first half of 1980-ies. The shrinkage of labour force hasn't yet started and it may affect economy only after 2010. 3nd, the scale of current Russian demography crisis is largely exaggerated. True, not so long ago the population shrank by half a million per year, but now the situation is rapidly improving. See Russian_Federation#Demographics and you will find that in 2007 the population shrank only by 237,800 people, that's partly because of significant immigration to Russia (274,000 people in 2007). See now the Russia's population counter [1] and you'll find that the current population size is approximately 141,910,000 as I write this. On 01.01.2008 the number was nearly exactly 142,000,000. So in the first half of this year the population decreased by less than 100,000. That means less than 200,000 in course of the whole year. Then add here the immigrants (they are not counted in the above source) and you'll see that if the immigration level would be at least 66% of the previous year there is a chance that population of Russia in 2008 will not decrease at all, but remain stable. 4th, by GDP(PPP) Russia is not tenth, but seventh economy in the world, and by the end of the year it will almost inevitably become the sixth, surpassing UK. Russia also is very likely to surpass Germany by 2015, thus becoming the fifth economy in the world. Greyhood (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Great! Why don't you back up those statements with adequate sources and add them to the article. The facts against Russia section needs improvement. Be sure to join the Power in International Relations and help out. Best wishes! --Hobie Hunter (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the part oabout Russia losing its sphere of influence also focuses on Russia losing its sphere of influence to Europe, with most of the former Warsaw Pact countries and others joining the EU and NATO. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a good addition to the article. You seem to be using adequete sources, and are not personally attacking anyone like the IPs. Hobie Hunter is right however, Russia is losing political influence, but it is not decreasing in population as much as everyone seems to think and it's economy is rising fast. We should include all of this in the article. The article doesn't have to be "pro-Russian" or "anti-Russian", it can be both. Saruman20 (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Saurman, call me Hobie. Russia has so far been losing population for the last 15 years, this deserves mention. Even a stagnant population is a drawback, especially compared to the likes of India or the US. And once again, I'd like to ask everyone for help developing that section, its probably the weakest part of the article right now. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, to say Russia is not losing population would be stupid. I think the point Greyhood is trying to make is that Russia's population decline has been exaggerated (and pretty much everything is these days), so we should add that to the article aswell. I'll add that now, but I'll have to check the current sentance to see how to word it so it's not confusing. By the way Hobie, call me Saru. Saruman20 (talk) 00:43, 22 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: [2]. 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 [3].

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)

Pakistan:

• 1. Sizeable Population: 160+ million, which is larger than Russia's
• 2. Sizeable land area (around 800,000 sq. km)
• 3. Known nuclear power
• 4. Has the most advanced self developed missiles in South Asia
• 5. One of the largest armed forces in the world (almost the size of India's)
• 6. Lower population below poverty line (in percentage terms) than India
• 7. Higher standard of living compared to India
• 8. Lower illetracy rate (percentage) than India's
• 9. 2nd largest grain producer in the world
• 10. One of Asia's most powerful navy and air force
• 11. One of Asia's most evolved space sector (first asian country to launce a SLV); mans its own sattelites (SUPARCO)
• 12. Strong relations with other powers (e.g. USA, UK, China, Russia)
• 13. One of the largest troop contributor to the UN
• 14. Asia's 2nd largest BPO hub after India
• 15. Large pool of English speakers
• 16. Strong domestic industry (Automobiles, machinery, drugs etc)
• 17. Rising economy (economic growth of around 5% year on year)

What more can we ask for here? Aren't these the characterestics of a potential superpower? Pakistan deserves to be in the list. --60.50.73.138 (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan may be growing economically, but it has a weak military compared to the other countries on the list, and almost no political influence. It may have "strong relations", but that's because the other countries easily influence Pakistan. Also, don't make blanket statements like "one of Asia' most powerful navy and air force". There is no "scale" to determine how powerful a country's military is, so that's orginal research based off what you've read about Pakistan's army. Also, if you can find a single reliable source citing Pakistan as a potential superpower, go ahead an add it. Note the source must say exactly that Pakistan is a potential or emerging superpower. Saruman20 (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Military is nowhere near India. India has an overal force of 3,773,300, Russia has 3,796,100, Pakistan has 1,449,000. Literacy rate, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate. Internet Users, Russia, India, China also beat Pakistan. India also has a higher life expectancy, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2102.html

Quality of life, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index Again, there isn't a single source listing Pakistan as a Potential Superpower. IT MIGHT BE A POTENTIAL SUPERPOWER IN THE FUTURE. But at this time, it isn't. It's the same situation as it was for Brazil. Don't say we should add Pakistan because India is up there. That's like saying we should add Ukraine because Russia's up there, or Japan or Korea because China's up there. Deavenger (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Ukraine isn't in the same league as Russia, same goes for Japan and Korea against China. But India and Pakistan are in the same league. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.208.244.76 (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No, they arn't, India and Pakistan are nowhere near each other. It is commonly accepted among scholors in political science and military sociology that India is rising much faster than Pakistan, and that it was better off than Pakistan in the beginning anyway. If you can find one repubtable source (a scholor, outside of Pakistan) that Pakistan is a potential superpower, than add it the article. By the way, just because India and Pakistan have fought wars, does not mean they are equal, even militarily. Had any of the Indo-Pakistani wars gone, with no peace treaties being reached, India would have crushed Pakistan. Saru (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ad Saru, since I heard you lived in both Ukraine and russia, would you say they were in the same league? Also, to user 218.208.244.76, India and Pakistan aren't in the same league at this time. Military, Economically, and almost any other way. Deavenger (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No, they are no where near each other. Saru (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

We are not talking about articles by some people predicting the rise of a superpower. These are just predictions. In fact today China's the fastest growing large economy. But it can collapse into civil war at anytime, crushing its dream. The same goes with India. So when everybody here is only predicting, why not we predict Pakistan will be a potential superpower? It's not difficult for me to come up with an article saying so. Yes, although not available online, I've got friends working in Worldview and Time (the guy in Time is a senior editor based in Brussels) who at anytime can publish such an article. They have in the ast published such articles supporting pakistan, and can do it again. If in due course I can produce an article, would you really include pakistan?

Yes, if you find such an article it could be the basis of a stub section for pakistan centred on that single source. Some kinds of sources aren't allowed however (blogs, personal pages, etc) and the prediction actually has to be part of the article not just hyperbole in the title designed to attract the readers interest.Zebulin (talk) 08:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Moreover to add on what Saru said that India and Pakistan are of a different league Military and Economically let me have my say: Militarily: Although smaller in size, pakistan army is better equiped than the Indian army, being able to deploy forces more rapidly. Moreover, its airforce is equipped with the latest F16s and JF17s, rather than India's Su30s and Mirages. Their Tejas is yet to see the skies. Pakistan's missile program too is more advanced with its longest range missile having a much further reach than India's. The warheads too are much superior. Fearing that, India developed their BMD shield. Economically: No comparison in GDP and PPP (nominal) as india has almost 9x the population of Pakistan. But GDP (per cap wise), Pakistan is higher than India. So we are of a superior (or atleast similar) league.

Moreover, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, and the 2nd largest after Christianity. There's no muslim superpower to control the islamic world. Pakistan is by far the most powerful muslim country, capable of being a superpower that’s capable of controlling the Islamic world. It’s just western biasness that doesn’t want to acknowledge a single muslim superpower. Pakistan’s homogenous muslim population (over 95%) will tend to be more harmonious than India’s mixed population (83% Hindu, 12% muslim, christians, jews, Sikhs, bahai, parsi... god knows what else) . This makes Pakistan a more suitable candidate over India.218.111.30.218 (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

one, if you can find a realiable article, and we all agree with it, then we will add pakistan. But a couple thing about the facts you posted. One, it doesn't matter if Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. India also has good relations with Iran and Israel, and other middle east country despite being mostly Hindu. In fact, one could argue, that in Pakistani muslims can be divided due to Al-Qaeda coming up through the north and preaching terrorism to some muslims.

GDP per capita wise: pakistan is ranked 128, India is ranked 126. No, Pakistan missiles don't go farther then India's yet. Pakistan missiles that can go the fartest so far is the Shaheen-III at 4000-4500 KM while the Agni III for India can go 3500 to 5000 KM. Airforce, India has a larger airforce then Pakistan. And most of aircraft used by the air force is considered equal to what Pakistan uses because the Russians made those aircraft to rival what the Americans make. Plus, India has U.A.V's, Pakistan doesn't. India has never lost a single war to Pakistan. pakistan has lost atleast 2. Now, if you want us to actually believe that Pakistan is a potential superpower, actually post some realiable sources. Don't just add Pakistan because India is up there. India, we actually have sources and facts for. All you're doing is posting up facts which we all have countered so far. We already had people want to add Ukraine, Mexico, Brazil, and Japan up there because they also believed that they too should be considered Potential Superpowers. So instead of listing some facts, most of which have been proven false, list some REALIABLE SOURCES, and then we'll decide if that country should be up there or now. Deavenger (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources, sources, mister IP you need sources. Your points are not only OR, but most are wrong. Pakistani Air Force is not better than the Indian one. American aircraft are not superior to Russian planes. Russian and American aircraft are designed with different aspects in mind, so you can't say one is better than the other. Your statment regarding missle range is also wrong, as people have already stated, Indian and Pakistani missles are similar in range and power, with a slight advantage to India. Tactically, India has won all the Indo-Pakistani conflicts, with Pakistan suffering larger casualities in all. The only reason they are considered draws is because treaties nullified any military success with political equality. Your idea about one muslim superpower is truly unbelievable. The middle east is a trublent region, with no single leader. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel are all equal or greater than Pakistan. Pakistan is definatly not more stable than India. Benazir Bhutto, one of the most influential and popular political figures was just assassinated. There was a nation wide military lockdown for months. Elections were post-poned and their results ignored. Take your nationalism somewhere else. Saru (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ever since this topic has been posted, I have checked Newsweek, IHT, CNN, MSNBC, Time, BBC, ABC and even did a google search for books or any reliable sources that would even mention Pakistan as a potential superpower. I have wasted about 17+ hours looking for books and websites that would mention pakistan as a potential superpower. I have been thoroughly convinced that Pakistan at this time is not considered a potential superpower. I'm frankly tired of searching, as there is not one single reliable source that mentions Pakistan as a potential superpower. Deavenger (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't waste your time on such claims. It's a genetic problem that is inherent in them. Leave them to that. The claims can be anything from Making the largest condoms that can be as long as a football field to a Pakistani going to Mars to meet his inlaws. No reasoning even when telling lies. Leave it to that.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is funny. I guess it won’t be long until a topic on Bangladesh as a potential superpower appears! Oh, and by the way, some facts by 60.50.68.160 concerning his/her comparison of Pakistan with India/other Asian countries are incorrect:

• 1. Has the most advanced self developed missiles in South Asia: Indian missiles have a further reach and are capable of carrying larger warheads. In fact Pakistan hasn’t successfully tested an IRBM (the Shaheen 3 is still claimed to be in development stage), while India has successfully tested their Agni 3 twice.
• 2. One of the largest armed forces in the world (almost the size of India's): India’s army is more than twice larger than Pakistan’s. India has 1,325,000 active troops and 1,155,000 reserve troops, while Pakistan has 619,000 active troops and 528,000 reserve troops. I don’t know how that can be ‘almost the size of India’s'. See List of countries by size of armed forces
• 3. Lower population below poverty line (in percentage terms) than India: Not too sure on this one but I doubt it’s 100% true. 2002 statistics show India’s PBPL at 25%, while 2007 statictics show Pakistan’s PBPL at 23%. I couldn’t find anything newer.
• 4. Lower illiteracy rate (percentage) than India's: Again incorrect. India’s literacy rate is 61% while Pakistan’s is 50%. SeeList of countries by literacy rate
• 5. 2nd largest grain producer in the world: Not possible. Largest is China followed by India.
• 6. One of Asia's most evolved space sector (first Asian country to launch a SLV); mans its own satellites (SUPARCO): Other Asian countries are far ahead. China has sent a man into space. India and Japan have satellite launch capabilities, while Korea is developing satellite launch capabilities with Russia's coorperation. Recently India launched 10 satellites at once on it’s PSLV rocket. Pakistan launched a Nike-Cajun (if I’m correct), not it’s own SLV.
• 7. One of the largest troop contributor to the UN: Can’t verify this one as there are conflicting reports, some saying India, others saying Pakistan.
• 8. One of Asia's most powerful navy and air force: I find it hardest to digest this one. You really need to do some more research. Before India, look at Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Israel and even Saudi Arabia.
• 9. Asia's 2nd largest BPO hub after India: As far as I know, Japan, Phillipines, and even Malaysia have a more advanced BPO industry than Pakistan.

Since I proved you wrong on most of your arguments concerning the comparison between Pakistan and other Asian countries (primarily India), I hope you’d put this topic to rest until you can come up with some reliable sources supporting your theory on Pakistan being a potential superpower.  S3000  ☎ 11:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And I salute Deavenger for spending a whooping 17+ hours to search up for any mention of this. I wouldn't even bother looking for something I know is rubbish.  S3000  ☎ 11:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I find this discussion hilarious. A country which is listed as a failed state claims to be a potential superpower? I bet the main intention of starting this topic was actually to mock Pakistan. --Emperor Genius (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Kommersant article

Discussion about: http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=768929

Here, we can discuss this entire kommersaint article on whether it should be included into the page or not. There's a lot of people for and against it, so to prevent edit wars and mroe personal attacks, let's end this now, and decide wheter this source should be in the article or not. And please remember, Wikipedia: No personal attacks. Deavenger (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As I've said in Talk:Superpower, the only place the Kommersant authors mention "superpower" in their article (if it can even be said to really be "in" their article) is in the title of the article itself. News media everywhere are notorious for misleading or outright inaccurate article titles due to things like sensationalist motivations and the fact that generally such titles aren't written by the authors of the article but by people working in an editorial capacity. In no way does the article attempt to justify it's sensational title. Nowhere in the article do we find instances where "Washington" in any form acknowledged Russia as a superpower. The title writer is literally putting words into "Washingtons" mouth if that wasn't a gross mistake. Can anyone name one statement from the article other than the title that justifies the idea that "Washington" has been calling Russia a "Superpower" or specifically identifies traits in Russia that only a superpower could have? There is nothing in the article that comes close to supporting the hyperbole in the title. In general news articles can be sources appropriate for wikipedia but their titles certainly cannot.Zebulin (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Added link to article in question and corrected header to kommersant instead of kommersaint.

I challenge there being a lot of people for including it into the page. The only one who continuously puts it into articles is User:24.205.234.250 (and other proxy connections controlled by that user User:69.239.171.174 User:66.17.49.165 User:24.176.166.135 User:64.69.158.252). Further discussion on that specific point can be done at the administrators noticeboard entry. If there are others besides User:24.205.234.250 that want to use the article as source, please do mention it.

My opinion is that it should not be used into this or any other article for having a misleading title. The title "Washington Acknowledges Russia as Superpower" is not supported by the article. It quotes Daniel Fried saying "Russia has restored its position of a large political and economic force recently". Have done Google search on relevant keywords daniel+fried+superpower+russia - and found nothing to back up the articles title. The article also has popups, and that I see as violation of WP:EL. Species8473 (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The Kommersant is frankly 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.

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. Furthermore, 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 is jut plain incorrect --Hobie Hunter (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere in the Kommersant article does it actually say Russia is a potential superpower. I'm sure we could find better sources than this if we tried. I say keep it out. Saruman20 (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the overall consensus is that the Kommersaint link is to be kept out of the article. So to the IPs that were trying to add the article in the first place, we've all agreed not to have the link in the article. Deavenger (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand, this article link Kommersant[4] is an excellent source to the article. In fact my political science teacher used this article in his upcoming University gov't science book coming on in September which will have this article published in university textbooks. So I don't agree downing this article when it is important source. When you look at some of the source articles here in context, some USA articles are so outdated on US as a ptential or superpower from 1990 from in 1998, they don't compute anymore. Why are older articles not removed when this Kommersant article is pretty recent. It is a source with other important sources and it should be used--24.176.166.135 (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

We can either agree on this or we can also strike the article down again as what happened on potential great powers. It's just that simple, the Kommersant article is a reference, it is not a mystery, it is an publication article, we use it.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

We already have already agreed to keep the Kommersaint article out of the article. Deavenger (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the deletion of "potential great powers" was articles like Kommersant. To remain, this article must get rid of bad sources and replace them with useful, scholorary sources that directly and explicitly state a certain country as a potential superpower.Saru (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting we have the Kommersant article debate but the US is already being critized for no longer being a superpower[5] with the latest books on the market? Why aren't you defending the USA but your worried about one source article? Too much nonsense here, Kommersant is one of the newspapers that some find a good source of feedback from the government if they are hinding something where other media's won't publish or may, this is one more good example we need to source the information, as we keep it up there in the article.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say this? The reason we agreed to remove the Kommersant article was because it was frankly a bad source. News articles are rarely reliable sources. The exceptions are respected, prestigious sources such as the BBC, NY Times, Time, Newsweek, etc. The title is misleading. It says, and I quote:

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

The commission did not say that Russia has become a superpower. It said that it is "an influential political and economic power", which could be anything. A middle power, a regional power, a great power, etc. This is why there is a consensus to keep bad and unreliable sources out of the article. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No it says Washington Acknowledges Russia as Superpower, why would Washington say they acknowledge it then? Were you there Hobie Hunter? The title says superpower with Washington's approval, is that something you just refuse to believe here? Why do you go on and on on a daily bases about this article for? What is your point when the article says what it says? Was there any media or confession to say this article is misleading? Really where is it? Are you a professor, do you have a certificate on cross examination to say this is all wrong? What is your statement of proof? It just sounds like you just want to bash this whole thing Russia is not a superpower anything. I can read that allover the place on just about everything you write about here. Let the article be, do you have some other articles you can override the article with this one, that would be easier than arguing your nonsense.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to relax. You might want to finally read and re-read Wikipedia: No personal attacks. The committee itself said nothing of that sort. In addition to the above quote, here's another.

"The chief speaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried, said: “Russia has restored its position of a large political and economic force recently.”

Once again, "a large political and economic force" is not the same as being a superpower. Just because the incorrect, sensationalist title of one article of a non-notable newspaper says something does not make it true. Your unwavering faith in any news article is naive at best. I'd like you to take a look at The Onion. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Excuse me, trolls? Are you exempt from calling people troll?--24.205.234.250 (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hobbie Hunter, we have not reached any consensus on Kommersant article, that is what you want but that is not the end of this consensus, 2nd: You not only deleted the Kommersant but you deleted "Russia in the 21st Century The Prodigal Superpower"[6], so that says your not just about the Kommersant article, you are personally attacking a nation Russia and it's content.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but we have already reached a consensus, just because you are not part of the that consensus does not allow you to claim that there is none. For example,

Okay, the overall consensus is that the Kommersaint(sic) is to be kept out of the article. So to the IPs that were trying to add the article in the first place, we've all agreed not to have the link in the article. Deavenger (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I have have no problem with the adding a sentence stating that "there is a debate as to whether Russia is a superpower", as long as there are multiple, adequate sources. (ie. not the blatantly incorrect Kommersant article or a book that says Russia might become a superpower.) --Hobie Hunter (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is not misleading, it is free to the public to read it. The government opened the discussion and the media posted it. Really if Kommersant recorded the discussion, are they wrong if the US government made these claims?

We can agree on something here, I am not Russian, I was born and live in the United States, so I am not an nationalist on a country I wasn't born in. I have read half of the book "Russia in the 21st Century The Prodigal Superpower" and I can post the comments directly from the book and what it says about Russia in it's current situation but even if this 2010 as Russia as a full fledge superpower. There is full fledged superpower and there is a superpower, the book is quoting Russia to according to it's plans and if the steps are made it is suit to what it does, the book also says on page 83 that Russia can be a superpower by 2008 but not a full fledge superpower. What defines the 2 under full fledged and just a level entry or a superpower or baby boom superpower? Can we agree and leave the issue as Russia as a potential superpower or possible superpower soon or in the making on some consensus?--24.205.234.250 (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Leaving this issue behind us, now that's something I'd like to see. We could just leave Russia as a potential superpower, since there aren't any adequate sources stating Russia as a superpower.(The incorrect Kommersant article doesn't count). The book you cite states that Russia's government intends to become a superpower- not that is one. What do you say, let's just leave Russia as a potential superpower. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This issue can now be left behind, five editors have expressed it being a bad source. The other editor has now been blocked by slakr for a week (diff). If the edit warring continuous during the block with other IP addresses, or after the block. Please don't engage in it but mention it here. Species8473 (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Good, we must stop this issue now. It is wasting valuable time. Saru (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Listen guys, there are little article sources used on the article page and there are big articles used on the article page. I wouldn't leave the Kommersant story out but use it in another location on the article because I have seen some other small articles sourced that are being used to benefit which don't explain enough the same way you feel on the Kommersant article. My feelings are we maybe bullying the Kommersant too much and may not realize the story left behind it's original content as to say other sources that we are not being tough on with little information to read if you compare it to. I will only agree to the article on some what of a 60/40 we use it but I can't agree to butt it out on the curve. Use it in the lower section or maybe we can find a source that is referred to the Kommersant story if there is more content to lead on to it. Think of it this way, ever heard of the Lock Ness Monster? When someone gave the media one hard to see photo, no 8mm film, video or anything than just a photograph, made world wide attention. Why? I am not saying the Kommersant superpower article is a Lock Ness photo but worth something--64.69.158.252 (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have read this Kommersant[7] article over a dozen times sometime ago along with some CNN articles that refer to the same classifications on Russia is a superpower or not[8]. I asked my local newspaper journalist about this wikipedia debate on using a source to classify an article even though it's sources are small, he stated that because of the nature of the titles and Federal government announcement, they can themselves use this as a source because of it's content which in contrast backed by government material as the government keeps media achieves and televised material for the media to use sources. Since this is journalism and journalists have to have backup, this article can be used as a backup for another story or book references and maybe further government announcements. That being said I am seeing this as an interesting debate and not allowing an article for wikipedia when the media can used this same article for their media sources[9]. They also said that Kommersant is a member of the Associated Press[10] and because they are affiliated with a large media organization, they can share their articles on a large data base for US or international media news networks. If you go back in history on crime or government announcements, statements have been used on countless news media stories on content that seemed too broad or just a statement; journalists will use anything in all countries to have a story. A little tape recorder does a journalists the world of good[11] if they have their backup. Since Kommersant news Russia superpower story is a press release it is classified as a media achieve where this is fed into a journalist editor network like the Associative Press which news from TV, magazines and more can access this material for publishing stories. Right now I am reading this story which just came out last week as this is an announcement article [12] by the Washington Times but as small as it is, it is legally official material for the media to daisy chain this material or in fact write on it alone. If the Washington Times wanted to use the May 2007 Kommersant Russia superpower story they can; both are members of the Associative Press. In the nature of the article I have to say it can be used as Superpower topic or an article material, whether people disagree or agree, they can legally use this story.--206.169.14.200 (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)--206.169.14.200 (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Re-adding sections

I am all for re-adding the taken away subsections, but there are two problems I have with what is happening now:

1. Before re-adding the articles, we should skim them for OR and POV.

2. We should add all the sub-sections back at the same time, as it looks disorganized with only the EU section having sub-sections, not to mention if someone without prior knowledge of this page could mistake it for POV.

Other than those small things, I think we should re-add the revised subsections as soon as possible. Saruman20 (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey. I already scanned through the EU section and sourced everything and removed the POV. Adding them together all at once would be a pretty momentuous task. If enough people pitch in, all the sections will be re-added in a day or so. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I checked over the re-added section quickly. There is a way to re-add them all at the same time, but not do the work all at once: simply copy and paste to a word document. Remember when the page was protected and I did a major revamp of the sections? I copy and pasted into word and edited there so I didn't have to do it all at once, then copied and pasted back into the article once it was unprotected.. These are not major critisms, just some advice. Saru (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Though it is a little hard distinguishing between the refernces, and the text that actually shows up in the article, etc. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

re-adding content

OK, from the content being added back to the europe section I'm a little concerned we could be setting ourselves up for a deletion ambush again. I don't think the change required to fix that is necessarily large but I think the changes need to be clarified. Currently the re added subsections include:

Culture, Demographics & Climate, Economics, Military, Politics and "Facts Against". We may be able to pass off each of these entire sections as non original research simply by offering a sentence for each of these sections where at least one authoritative person or group (preferably a source cited in the first paragraph of each potential) states how each of these sorts of "parameters" (if we want to call them that) is something they recognise as supporting their prediction that the candidate will be a "superpower". By doing so and ensuring that each sentence in the section supports the specifically sourced reasoning in a direct and obvious way I suspect we may be able to pass off the entire thing as non original research. The bar to clear would likely be a standard where the support of the sourced reasoning is so direct that we could feel supremely confident that the source who made the prediction would not object to any of the elaboration on their statement. For instance if a source said that the candidates economy would likely surpass that of the US at some point we could probably also get away with adding other sourced information on the size of that countries economy so long as we specifically allude back to that prediction in connection with the section. But we absolutely must make sure everything in these sections can be associated in some clear way to one or more sourced predictions of a specific person or group of persons that the section can be said to be supporting. The idea is that we can't just provide sourced facts with implied support of an "obvious" conclusion (ie: "Candidate X's culture is widely respected and emulated" ) without having someone to draw that conclusion for us from the evidence given (ie: "previously noted scholars X,Y, and Z all cite the cultural influence of Candidate X in support of their predictions that Candidate X will become a superpower. . Candidate X's culture is widely respected and emulated" . This might be good enough to avoid deletion as we could claim the facts are sourced and the reasoning is sourced and we are not independently synthesising new reasoning from sourced facts.Zebulin (talk) 12:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Very true, but unfortunatly there is a technical problem: the majority of academic sources on this subject are in books, not in essays or articles we could find on the internet. I'm sure we could certainly use quotes from books such as "The Dragon and the Tiger", or "The Next Superpower", but the problem is how to source those quotes. The best way I can think of is to source them to the book's Amazon page, or to the book's official website (if there is one). Saru (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, I thought that we were cleaning up the sections for original resource and POV. I hadn't followed the steps that suggested above. That sounds like a very good idea if we can find those sources. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules are more complicated for reporting on future events. Generally articles on future events are prohibited and are deletion fodder but an exception is made for reporting on the predictions of others.

The other (related) problem is that we can't in any context place our own conclusions in articles even when we support our conclusions by sourcing various facts we use to support them. That's original research. Original research of any kind is especially dangerous in this article because it makes it even harder to use to the loophole I mentioned to avoid deletion.Zebulin (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

While I support re-adding the sections, I think this stuff about trying to fit through "loopholes" is kinda silly. Why can't we just report on what the experts say? If someone wants to learn about various facts about the said countries, then they all have there own wikipedia articles. We should just say: "Expert A believes Country A will be a superpower because of Factors A and B, while Expert B argues Countries B and C are superpowers because of their factor C...etc." Source such as this http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27world-t.html?pagewanted=3 are what we should be aiming for. What we should not have are source such as the CIA factbook. While it is an excellant source (one of the best), it nowhere predicts the rise of any country, it simply states facts and statistics. As good as a source it is, for this article it's OR because it simply being used for various facts, not actual predictions directly related to the rise of "potential superpowers". Other acceptable sources would be books such as "The Next Superpower: Why Europe will run the 21st Century" by Mark Leonard or "The Dragon and the Elephant" by David Stone, as they too directly predict the rise of superpowers.

While it may seem wierd, as I was one of the main advocates of organizing this article into said sub-sections, that I am now urging another revamp, I feel somewhat responsible for what happens to this article, not only because the majority of my edits during my time at wikipedia (which is only a couple months) are on this page, but also because some of my intiatives were responsible for bring OR into this article. Thus, this is the course of action that I am prescribing: if there is to be sections like there are now, they should begin with a link to the appropriate article (ex. Military of India) and include only expert predictions from reliable, academic sources. This will prevent OR, as well as hopefully stop many disputes on what countries are added, as strict sources will be required. Wow, that was a whopper of a post, but my rant is done now. Saru (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, since I'm not a big help on editing, because everything I write doesn't look like anything that should be put in an encyclopedia, I got some sources that we might be able to use (if we haven't already). for this one, you have to go down near the bottom. But it might talk more about how Russians believe that Russia will once again become a superpower, or how russia is a superpower. This one mentions some other potential superpowers, but only a little. Would any of these be considered good references? Deavenger (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Jusr wondering. Is anyone else cleaning up the removed sections? Its lonely at that project. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If I have time I will help out, but I think measures must be more drastic in the revision of the other sections, for reasons I stated in my above post. Saru (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Set list of Potential

I think that for a list of Potential Superpowers, that we need to establish a set list of countries that are actually considered Potential Superpowers. I mean, we already have had nationalists who tried to add Brazil, or try to convince us that Ukraine, Japan, Mexico, and Pakistan, and say that they can offer articles that prove that __________ is a superpower/potential superpower. So we need to come up with a set list of Potential superpowers, otherwise, like Zebulin said, even Tuvalu could end up on the list. Deavenger (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone has good, reliable sources for Tuvalu being on the list, there is nothing wrong with them adding it. However, nationalists can go ahead and try to convince ups Ukraine or Pakistan should be on the list, but there supporting facts are nothing more than OR and should not be taken seriously. To create a "list" of countries that can be in the article would be against wikipedia policy aswell. If someone can find a reliable source, than any country can be in the article. For countries like Ukraine, Japan, Mexico, and Pakistan, reliable, up to date sources are going to be hard to find, if any exist, so let's not worry about it. Saru (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, gotcha. Deavenger (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

New Source for Article

I just wanted to get everyone's thought on a source I found, stating that the US will remain the world's sole superpower through 2030:[13] --Hobie Hunter (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is very interesting, though I'm not sure how much of it is true. For example, the authors argument on economy, one of the people who posted a comment countered that.

" "Have an economy that matches the US economy in size. If the US grows by 3% a year for the next 22 years, it will be $30 trillion in 2008 dollars by then...China, with an economy of $3.2 trillion in nominal (not PPP) terms, would have to grow at 11% a year for the next 22 years straight to achieve the same size, which is already faster than its current 9-10% rate, if even that can be sustained for so long (no country, let alone a large one, has grown at more than 8% over such a long period)." This is a very flawed argument. Why? Because the growth rates you used are for PPP GDP growth. According to the IMF, in 2000 China's (nominal) GDP was 1.2bn $ and in 2007 was 3.2bn $. This means China's nominal GDP has been growing at 15%. Now considering that nominal GDP tends to converge to PPP GDP as countries get richer, and that China's potential for this is very big (it's real GDP is more than twice as big as its nominal, at around 7bn $), growth of 11% for the next 22 years (in nominal GDP) is entirely feasible. As for 4) (universities), rankings are all subjective and tend to be weighted towards the Anglo-Saxon and particularly US (e.g. because one of the criterions used is, say, publications in the journal Nature). I've come across a study by one of those ranking organizations which showed that by knowledge and problem solving skills after graduation in scientific areas, the top three universities were Japanese, and the fourth was Moscow State. Fifth was MIT. And so on. In other words the only decisive advantage American universities have is that a) they have more money to spend on attracting "star" researchers / Nobel Prize winners and b) have more chances of being published in US academic journals."

I'm not sure how much of it is true, but I think it's an interesting point. The article itself is very interesting, but I'm not sure if it should be included into our article. But, let's see what everybody else thinks. Deavenger (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think is a very internesting article, as our your comments on it. However, I think this source should be used with caution, as it is a blog. Regardless of that, it would find a better place in the "superpower" article, not here. Saru (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• I read this article already, the US can remain military superpower in the years to come but to say till to 2030, no one can predict that. Superpowers can be enjoined or etc in many ways. Right now the issue is, is the US still a superpower? Many will believe it is for right now but the qoute is also moot in it's economics as it stands. The US economy is really in a bad trail spin right now as some will begin writing on how the US is a falling superpower more than a raising superpower. If the US can pay of it's debts as it hasn't or decrease it's over spending, it will be in debt with other Superpower in the future such as China & Japan. I am posting these sources below in position the US may longer be the superpower everybody thinks and more books will follow if the US continues the way it is.

1. From Superpower to Besieged Global Power (USA): May 2008[14] http://www.ugapress.uga.edu/0820329770.html

2. Kavkaz Center US is no longer a superpower[15] Publication time: 7 April 2008: http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2008/04/07/9470.shtml

3. US a Superpower? Really? June 2007 [16] http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A494048 --75.15.137.201 (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The Bahamas a Superpower of the 21st Century

I'm starting this topic on the Bahamas as a re-ermerging superpower. They have a living standard that exceeds that of most Carribean countries. People from around the world come to the Bahamas for its beautiful beaches and oceans. Billions of Ammericans visit the Bahamas each month. Some of their superpower status has rubbed off on us. They're a sportfishing superpower and a Junkanoo superpower and don't forget about handicraft superpower status. They have a militaruy budget of over 20 million dollars!. The Bahamas were also part of the British Empire, the worlds first superpower. We were also part of the ancient superpower of Atlantis They have a population of a whopping 300,000 people.

Also check out these sources: