Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Power in international relations

Okey Dokey

Right. Where do we start? Trip: The Light Fantastic 17:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm..good question. If nobody has anything better, how about a collaboration? -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}18:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, sometime next weekend I'm going to go through the articles and get a list of consensuses and a basic article structure guideline. I'll then put them up here for you guys to debate on whether the consensuses still stand. A collaboration will be pointless as most of the users involved work on all of the articles involved all the time, there are also very few articles that can actually be improved. I'll think about some ongoing process which may help the project. Meanwhile you guys can think of something and put it on. You've all worked with other Projects so you can incorporate some of their stuff into this project. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Noble. Trip: The Light Fantastic 22:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The hyperpower article is in need of attention. --Woogums 23:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I hadn't noticed. It's practically a stub! Trip: The Light Fantastic 00:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well it's had a vast amount of unsourced/extreneous/collateral content pruned from it over the past few days. It's now a verified, properly sourced article (albeit small!) - lets all make sure that it stays that way as content is added.

Xdamr^talk 00:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Great changes on Great power

Please see Talk:Great power and comment on the proposed improvement of the article (which will make it better but smaller, like the Hyperpower article). Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Name / scope change

There doesn't seem to be a project for international relations and this seems to be too specific to get much interest. Any chance that we could change this to Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations and hopefully get a broader base of support? gren グレン 17:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed how new this project is... so, my point still stands about a more general wikiproject... but it stands to reason that being about a month old this wouldn't be too well established. gren グレン 17:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There are enough people here (considering, like you said, it's new) to deal with the Power articles in question (of which there are about 12) and standardise them all... that's what it was created for. Trip: The Light Fantastic 13:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A project for International Relations would have to deal with all Foreign relations articles as well. The scope change would be a bit of a big step at the moment and I, for one, cannot spend the time to maintain a project of such a massive scope. No...I think the power is fine for the moment. If we are overflowing with members requesting an enlargement of scope then we may expand. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this Power in IR is a good idea to start. It is narrow enough to be manageable but wide enough to take some time to complete. This should be a good test run for a possible IR Wikiproject though. Just looking at Category:International relations, that project would be mammoth in scope. Joshdboz 01:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Great power article - be on guard against poor sources

The Great power article is in the middle of drastic editing. OR is going, proper sourcing is finally being added. What we need to do, though, is keep a vigilant eye on things to make sure that the page stays properly sourced. This means clamping down on unsourced statements, but it also means rigorous examination of all sources which editors introduce into the article. Ensuring reputability of sourcing (as per WP:V) should be our key objective.

Xdamr^talk 02:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Debate

Brazil as an emerging superpower is up for deletion. give your views. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 08:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

India + EU relations

I found this article which has some information which may be able to be squeezed into the European Union as an emerging superpower and India as an emerging superpower articles. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 07:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

China as an emerging superpower

Is up for deletion, see here and express your views. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 08:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 23:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Expansion

Does anyone believe it's worth expanding this into an International relations theory WikiProject, there's so much more we can do now that I think about it, if we encompass more articles and have more users. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 22:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Why qualify it with "theory"? Why not just make it an Project on "International Relations" (including Diplomacy and Geopolitics)? Kevlar67 04:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"International relations" can include just about anything. Geopolitics and diplomacy certainly have their place within theory (although, diplomacy less so). I'm afraid that if the scope is expanded too far, the project will be swamped with people clamoring about how Bush=Hitler and Kerry will turn the U.S. over to the UN and how oil explains everything in international relations history. If kept to theory, there is a discrete set of academic sources and books that we can identify and use, keeping the scope focused, and keeping OR at bay.—Perceval 06:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Any expansion would have to stay to IR Theory, otherwise Internaitional relations encompasses everything from Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China to the Iraq War. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 07:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that trying to limit the scope of the project will have that much impact in limiting the types of yahoos we have to worry about. WP is full of them anyway. Anyways, as to the Iraq War, there certainly is a place for IR theory in regards to things like the Bush Doctrine, or preemptive war, and we can leave the details to the military buffs. As for Foreign relations of XXX, I think we really should try to offer some guidelines to those type of articles. The content will necessarily be up to experts in that area, but the format could be helped along. For example, I'm a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries. They don't try to get their hands into writing about every extinct state, just offer suggestions to those who do, and maintain the inboxes, categories, and other tools that will help them. We could do the same thing. We certainly need more consistency between Middle Power, Hyperpower, and Superpower. After that's straightened out there's lots of work to be done writing and fixing articles on the foreign relations of individual sates, we needn't all be unloved in all of them, we can pick and choose. The purpose of the Project will just be a clearinghouse for ideas, and an organizer. Don't you think? Kevlar67 20:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It may be fine, but it may be going too far as well and almost every country has a foreign relations article. I'll wait for more views. On another note, should this project become a sub-project of the new one or by moved to actually become the new one. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 22:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles listed at Articles for deletion

• China as an emerging superpower (AfD discussion)

Uncle G 20:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

New, very dangerous, article

Curently only has one source. Huge potential for controversy here. Might be OR. See List of countries ordered by its military power. Kevlar67 22:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We already have lists for: List of countries by military expenditures, List of countries by number of active troops, List of countries by size of armed forces. This new article seems to be a copy-paste job of one website's (of questionable notability) ranking, based on their own unique formula. The user who created is new and only edited this article. "Military power" is a holistic and subjective term--inappropriate for Wikipedia (FYI: we currently redirect military power to armed forces). I'm not sure how to approach this. Let's not bite the newcomers, but unless they can be persuaded that this article is a bad idea, then this looks like AFD material.—Perceval 02:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, unless of course we have many reliable markers of power... which we don't. It doesn't even provide a working definition of power... gren グレン 04:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree that AFD is the way to go in this case, very POV article that's destined for controversy. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. This article is "asking for trouble." ;-) Besides it is covering a completely subjective topics and will never be free of OR and POV. Signature^brendel 06:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

So y'all know, I placed a prod tag for the page, and had link to here so that anyone interested can see the reasons that the article is not acceptable. The Behnam 08:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Now what?

Now that the emerging superpower articles have been deleted, we have a chance to start again in a more organized way, to deal with recent geopolitics. This is a vital topic, but one that is especially prone to OR, so as much as possible should be cleared here first before added to articles. Any suggestions? Kevlar67 20:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Rewriting the section on specific great powers to avoid the same type of OR challenge would be a good first step. Second would be to do the same for superpower. Third for "potential" energy superpowers. Fourth for Regional power.—Perceval 22:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Since no one else took initiative, I went ahead and did it myself. I tagged the great powers section with OR, and moved the potential problem sections of superpower, energy superpower, and regional power to subpages on their respective talkpages.—Perceval 04:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Regional power

Whereas editors on articles like Great Power, Energy Superpower, and Superpower seem relatively responsive to the need to have actual sources instead of original research, editors on regional power seem to be completely impervious to the idea that they might actually need sources for their article, rather than just completely making things up. Can I get some help over there?—Perceval 00:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That article is in really quite bad shape. It doesn't cite enough references and the Western Europe section seems to be complete OR and it reads like an essay. I added some template to at least warn users. Signature^brendel 06:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The article has since been started again from scratch. OR material has been removed, and loads of references added. Willy turner 04:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Relations over time?

This is a very interesting idea for a WikiProject and, even though you've made it clear that it is still in its early stages, I've got a question: are you planning to extend your scope beyond the modern state of play to international relations between states in the past? Geopolitics has always fascinated me, but particularly how it changes over time. This was one of my motivations for getting WP Former Countries back up and running. A lot work has already been done on this, but it is pretty scattered. - 52 Pickup 17:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Foreign relations WikiProject

Hi! I really can't tell whether this project's scope overlaps with WP:WPFR, but I think it would be great if we can pool our resources together. (see thread). Any ideas?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine that it would. Power in international relations would overlap with foreign relations. If it helps, the potential superpowers article could use some help. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Rising Powers

Hey, I think we should change potential superpowers to the name rising powers. One, the countries of Russia, Brazil, India, China, Turkey, and South Africa and organizations like the EU have been described as rising powers. Plus, the term rising powers have been used much more then potential/emerging great/superpower. Plus, there's been a wide history of powers rising, and how other countries acted towards them, whether it was working with or against them. Not too mention, there have been lots of academics who try to term the rising powers as BRIC, G8+5, etc. Like I said, we should change it to rising powers, give a history of rising powers (like Japan, or pre-WWII Germany), and add countries such as Brazil to the list, what do you guys think?. Deavenger (talk) 05:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

My only concern is that rising powers can be a vague and too broad of a term. Is there any concrete evidence that the term rising powers is more commonly used and more widely accepted than say emerging power? As it stand, I think more work needs to be done on the current article. Nirvana888 (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have several sources that refer to countries such as India and China as rising powers more then the sources that call them superpowers. Plus, books offer more history on rising powers now and in the past and methods used. Good examples of this includes Fareed Zakaria's The Post American World, Parag Khanna The Second World, George Friedman THe Next 100 years, Nina Hachigian and Mona Sutphens The Next American century and refer to the countries of Russia, Brazil, India, China, EU as rising powers usually instead of superpowers/potential superpowers. Plus, most academics when they talk about rising powers always talk about those 5 countries/organizations.

LIke you, I also think lots of work needs to be done on the article. However, I think it will be easier to expand the article and talk about the history of a rising power (like the great power and superpower articles), as the formal usage of the term superpower did not really come until the cold war to describe US and USSR. I also think that if we decide to change to rising powers, we can just add a paragraph on why those countries are considered rising powers, and why some academics believe or do not believe that they will be going to their true potential (great power or superpower), instead of having the entire page be about why the countries will or will not be a superpower.Deavenger (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I too have a concern in that "rising powers" is a rather broad term and one that would lead to endless edit conflict and debate, as people try to add "their" country to the list (either historical or present). It's very easy, with the internet and its search engines, to find a news article or website somewhere out there to back up a claim that "X is a rising power" etc. Further, much of the history of international power and rising/falling nations is already covered in the historical powers and great power articles. I also have a fear that there could end up being (generally, not just in this article, but across the "power articles") too much "naval gazing" into the future, with too much written (and speculated) on what may be, rather than what has been and what is happening. This is an encyclopaedia after all, not a crystal ball. Therefore, the article must try to be as specific as possible, with the "aim" made clear in the opening paragraph. David (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The Only real problem I have with the potential superpower article that despite the fact that we have lots of nationalistic pov pushing, some sources I do not regard as valit as it either makes the statement OR or is entirely SYN by the user very easily. LIke for example, Brazil is right now a potential superpower that is not as discussed as much as the four we have now. However, the source itself never calls Brazil a potential superpower except in the title. Throughout the article, it refers to Brazil as a growing regional power or just a rising power. Also, there is little talk about how people predict potential superpowers. We have a sentence in the opening paragraph saying how people thought Japan would be the next superpower, but the article itself talks nothing about that. Before we add subsections for the current countries, I think we have to expand on the entire predicting and stuff. As the current superpower article talks about superpowers in general, I think the potential superpowers needs to talk about the predictions and etc. Deavenger (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Some background info is needed on what makes a country a possible superpower. If we have time, I would suggest that a few of us go line by line and vet each source or country. Some copyediting also needs to be done to make it more neutral and coherent. Nirvana888 (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys, I've been away for a three-weeks journey to England, but I'm back now. First I'd like to say that I don't like the recent edits that has been made about Brazil and Japan. We've been over Brazil for like half a dozen times, and my thoughts are still the same, and Japan hasn't had any real attenton as a potential superpower since the late 80s. Second, I'm open to the suggestion of changing the article to 'rising power' or 'emerging power' as I can see both many advantages and disadvantages with it. If we are to change the article, however, we should make it clear as to what status the country/union is rising towards, whether it's emerging as a superpower, a great power or whatever. Swedish pirate (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Swedish. Hope you enjoyed your trips. I also didn't like the edits made about Japan and Brazil, mostly because they were done before there was any discussion, and both of the sources said something else. I won't be able to edit regularly until August 5th, so I won't be adding any more suggestions or anything like that until then. However, I hope you all will help with the Great Power page, as it's GA review ends Aug 15th. Deavenger (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)