Talk:Superpower

Cultural Section

I trimmed down the uncited/irrelevant material in the "Cultural" section. Both sides supporting dictatorships but this has absolutely nothing to do with culture. If you want to reinsert your claim that the USSR/ United States had a culture of supporting dictatorships or used dictatorships to influence culture, then find a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.236.198 (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Umm... those were summaries and covered in other sections, also the US has had a history of meddling in the affairs of the world, funding Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the Iran-Iraq conflict (they funded both countries), overthrowing a President of Panama to install a dictator for their own benefit, the list goes on. Read through the whole article or Google it, the proof is in the pudding my friend. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 1:59pm • 03:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No, these summaries are not covered in other sections. Nowhere else in the article does it mention "dictatorships" except in this part. It briefly mentions Cold War proxy-wars, but it has no source and has an "Original Research" tag. I still fail to see how any of this belongs in the "Cultural" part of the article. Please don't re-include it without a source showing that the United states and USSR had a cultural impact by supporting dictatorships. If the proof is in the pudding then it should be easy for you to include...

"...though the ongoing Cold War did lead to a degree of censorship and oppression."

I'm sorry, but I find this statement very offensive. The Red Scare featured the US using the same tactics as the Soviets. The number of citizens that had their lives ruined due to this witch hunt was massive. The rise of Nationalism in the US during the 1950s hit its peak. The United States pledge was altered to include the phrase "under god" in retaliation to the Soviets. To make the level of censorship and oppression in the US during the Cold War a simple skirmish, is a dangerous rewriting of history. I'd change the statement myself, but I don't want an edit war to ensue. Maybe we can come to some sort of agreement in regards to this statement. Partyclams (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, even J. Robert Oppenheimer had his security clearance revoked. Unfortunately for Sakharov, he did not get the same. Разрывные (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"....with the world's largest navy surpassing the next 13 largest navies combined,[38][39]"

Was that really the case during the Cold War? The footnotes just refer to post Cold War times after the Russian Navy was significantly downsized. I have a feeling this is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badassbab (talk • contribs) 17:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

according to the source it varied from larger than the next 17 navies combined at the end of world war 2 to larger than the next 13 at it's minimum. This is of course only considering naval vessels of 1000 tons or greater. Some of the confusion may arise from simple comparisons of numbers of naval vessels of any size whatsoever where the US did not enjoy a large lead in the cold war but which is far less useful as a gauge of naval strength.Zebulin (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Consensus on article needed

If you've not noticed we have an editor who claims there was a consensus on elimating Russia and forcing the EU in the article saying there was a discussion on it, where? User User:Antiochus the Great has made seveal unconstructive edits on the article without a single consensus on this talks page but has made decisions to eliminate key paragraphs & sources on short notice, that's not good for the article especially when there is no consensus on the topic. If you are going to make huge edit changes, you need to discuss them first and that there isn't anywhere User:Antiochus the Great claims. I am hear to defend the article by leaving Russia in as the emerging superpower on the article (this has been discussed time and time again) as there is plenty of data that discribes their front on the world stage but not saying is a superpower but with the verified sources verifying its global dominance claiming by world leaders, world diplomats, foreign relation experts, politicians and news media to claim Russia has superpower status or has re-emerging status; many sources are tuilting that direction. While the US and China are the key players today on this article, Russia cannot be ignored. There have been past discussions on this topic and several of us have agreed to allow Russia to be on the article with agreed verified sources as listed (just like with the US, China, India etc) giving it the stance it has on the world, not the Soviet Union, we all know the Soviet Union was a massive superpower but that Russia still say has a lot to say on the world stage on using hard and soft power. Anyhow to begin consensus, I am basically protecting the original content, sure there can be modification but not elimination. To consensus is to talk about it and make discussions, this prevents abuse to the article, hopefully. (talk)

I am defending the 4th paragraph below and 28th paragraph in the article

After the Cold War, only the United States appeares to fulfill the criteria of being considered a world superpower. The term "second superpower" has been applied by scholars to the possibility that the People's Republic of China could soon emerge as a superpower on par with the United States. Additionally, it is widely believed that the European Union, and India may too have the potential of achieving superpower status within the 21st century. A few heads of states, politicians and news analysts have even suggested that Russia may have already reclaimed that status. According to various academics, the European Union has revived a style of European imperialism, liking the union to an Empire (or superpower) of sorts. The term commonly used is Eurosphere. However, currently the United States is the only nation for which there is a broad consensus of its superpower status.

and this paragraph 28th

Due to their large markets, growing military strength, and economic potential and influence in international affairs the Republic of India,the European Union, the Federative Republic of Brazil, the People's Republic of China, and the Russian Federation, are among the powers which are most often cited as having the ability to influence future world politics and reach the status of superpower in the 21st century. Pertinently, a country would need to achieve great power status first, before they could develop superpower status, and it could be disputed whether some of the countries listed above (eg. Brazil) are presently great powers.

These are the original context, there good update verified sources here and wording that is all up to date. So what I am defending is the sources of data defending there stay in the article with it's original content in the article, so I am consensing this to protect this content as it is now, please reply to discuss(talk)

Consensus is located at the Potential superpowers talk page. The decision was to remove Brazil and Russia due to the lack of broad academic support for those two countries being potential superpower. Most academic citations refer to Brazil and Russia being Emerging powers so one result of the consensus was to place them on that article instead. Additionally, mention of Brazil and Russia had to be removed from this article for consistency. Adhere to the consensus and open up a new discussion to discuss any material you want re-added to the article, but for now (as per Wikipedia policy) the article should remain at the present revision supported by consensus.Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

All I can say to anyone reading this - particularly any administrators - is to read Talk:Potential superpowers in full. A good number of editors have taken part and there is consensus. Opposition, frankly, comes from those who either don't understand the terminology (which is academic) of superpower, great power, et al. or are nationalist POV pushers. David (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The consensus is here User:Antiochus the Great, not over on potential superpowers, it is here. There is no need to go over there and discuss a different issue when the article is here not there. Stick to the rules. Most academic citations???? really so shall I pick at your citations not using acedamic sources? How many sources are on potential superpowers that are academic and not academic, shall I pick at all the non academic articles under that article and throw them out? However, I am not going over to the potential superpowers to discuss an outside issue on that article. If you want to consensus potential superpowers, then consensus over at the potential superpowers article, not over here and making changes here saying but under potential superpowers and so, why have no other editors came over here and consensus? Sounds fishy and inconsiderate. To start, Brazil was not under superpowers, so you are stating a problem with potential superpowers and for Russia, again, you are referring to potential superpowers, not superpowers.

So you are confusing your edits to the audience and referring everything from your discussions under potential superpowers. Potential superpowers and superpowers are two different articles, not one. Lastly to say "but for now (as per Wikipedia policy) the article should remain at the present revision supported by consensus". Excuse me but supported by consensus, you have no consensus, none here and even over there you never provided any copied & paste facts that what you are saying is true. Again, that is a matter of the potential superpowers not superpowers. What your talking about on consenus, does not mean come over and knock someone else's door down on another article. Your comments on "you have consensus" -- again that is under potential superpowers and also, where is your history of that information(?), lead to here under superpowers? That's like joining the Army and but your claiming you can make change to the Marines but your not a Marine? Same government, same commandor in chief but completely differnent arm forces. Where is your logic?

For now, the article will remain in it's original form before your change April 26th, I viewed and read your entire history edits, so I am watching your comments and all your edits. You have proof of acadamic articles that Russia is not a superpower or potential superpower, I want to read them. Now.--103.22.129.134 (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you - an anon. IP editor - cannot dictate what Wikipedia does. And cut out the threats. You really think you're impressing other editors with your childish ways? btw - good luck going through my TEN YEARS WORTH of edits, numbering in their tens of thousands...

And it's not a case of "need to provide sources to show that Russia isn't a superpower/potential superpower" - it's the other way round. Otherwise please show me sources that Sri Lanka isn't a superpower otherwise I will add it to this article. David (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

David again your referring to a different article on the consensus, quite frankly doesn't mention changing the content under superpowers from potential superpowers consensus. I read every edit brought up by Brazil and Russia but really Brazil was never on the superpowers page at all and Russia was used as sources leading to as a re-emerging as a superpower but it did not state Russia was a superpower but only academic sources were listed saying it (such as world leaders, foreign relation PhD experts, dipolmats and etc). People over on the potential superpowers were referring to the potential superpowers only. Nobody came over here and made consensus here about Brazil & Russia but only did user User:Antiochus the Great claiming under a different article. I mean to change 2 articles in less then 5 days, when user User:Antiochus the Great has never been any long discussion this year, last year, the year before than and more. I think this is all new to him and went in there and made a few comments and said no potential superpowers for Brazil or Russia (I read all his statements) but that's one user. I also will mention there was also quite a bit of criticism on the potential superpowers about removing Brazil & Russia but again, that is that article, it just does not interfear with this article. If your going to question an article or change it, doesn't logic tell you, you start with the article original talk's page. I mean really, to go back and forth and say this and that then come over here and change what said over there? That violates the common intend of each article if everybody did that. I could go over "US Marines talks page" for example and had a discussion about the "US Army" and consensus about them under the "Marine's talk's page" then a 4 days later I came over and changed everything on the "US Army article" claiming people were talking about it under the "US Marines talks page". Get my point? You would upset people on both articles. The adminstrators have view this article on it's own merit that's what it says to discuss each topic under each specific article.--103.22.129.134 (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh please stop wasting everyone's time. Indeed I suspect you are User:Hakan Erbaslar who recently challenged changes to another article on a similar stupid line of "you need consensus to prevent my deletion of X Y Z" which was funny... David (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

btw - I am not going to bother any more with this troll. David (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Not understanding you and who's User:Hakan Erbaslar? Never been on any other discussion on this matter except for here. So I will count your intend as a no. Next users for discussion. --103.22.129.170 (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ignore and revert IP until he decides to co-operate and adhere to consensus.Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

See this is vandalism. This is not the potential superpowers talk page. This is the superpowers talk page. So I am not going over to another discussion on another article. I disgree with your edits on the short time period some of the comments you made to be on silly edits on lack of sources on mentioned to other ip users, I have read your edits from Brazil & Russia and find them questionable on deframing nationalities on other ip users. This is not the place to tell Rosa Parks[1] to sit on back of the bus for being black as I inquire some of comments made to others. I may pick and question your sources and bring them for this discussion. You made huge changes to the article not allowing enough people to look and talk. Your semi lock was denied also, so there is a consensus here even if it means reverting back to have a discussion on the superpowers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.22.129.170 (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting you closed the discussion yourself on the other article. Are you running the show here? Looks like North Korea in the making.--103.22.129.170 (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

As an outsider to this discussion, I do find it somewhat odd that the "Potential superpowers" section of this article does not match the Potential superpowers article to which it links.

Update this article to reflect potential superpowers

I move that the section regarding potential superpowers in this article should be updated to reflect the potential superpowers article.

Please write below whether you support or oppose this. David (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Whether this article reflects that one or that one reflects this one, the two pages should most assuredly agree with each other. --Khajidha (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose As discussion is still ongoing over the inclusion of Russia and Brazil into the potential superpowers article. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

How long do you think this discussion should go on for? It's been going on for over a month. And consists of a lot of socks and disruptive IPs. David (talk) 07:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The only socks have been on the side of those wishing to remove Russia and Brazil from the article, the only disruption that I have seen is from the same sockmaster in using IP socks. Policy and common sense tell us that Russia and Brazil need to be included in that article as we have RS to support their inclusion, the discussion will go on until those opposing it agree to abide by policy and reinsert them. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• I Oppose as well, this article has nothing to do with the potential superpowers, different article, different problems. Please discuss your potential superpowers over at the potential superpowers, not here. --103.22.129.203 (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This article already has a section on potential superpowers, as well as mentioning them in the lede! David (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose attempting to make the two articles agree for agreements sake but feel free to raid the other article for sourced content with which to propose making specific improvements to this article.Zebulin (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hang on, you oppose making Wikipedia consistent?! Madness. David (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I Support making the relevant changes. both articles should be consistent with each other. Primarily, it is the last section of this article which needs changing. The paragraph should highlight China, the EU and India and so should the map. Towards the end of the paragraph a sentence on how some academics have also referred to Russia and Brazil as being potential superpowers should be added too. This would be in harmony with the subsection that is going to be created for them at the Potential superpowers article.

In the lead paragraphs this particular sentence, "A few heads of states, politicians and news analysts have even suggested that Russia may have already reclaimed that status." should be deleted. The citations for this sentence are either from the media or statements of politicians, using such bias and agenda motivated sources is wrong and would not be tolerated at the Great power article! The sentence was obviously placed there to satisfy the POV of a Russian anyway.

Overall, the changes needed on this article are so minor it should not be an issue at all.Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

So it doesn't seem odd to you (Zebulin) that the "Potential superpowers" section of this page has a "Main article" link to the Potential superpowers page but presents data that was not covered on said page when this discussion started? --Khajidha (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Reading this article and putting a hand on it that placing great power for superpower sources for Russia is pretty inconsiderate when I see credentials sources that say what they say, it's a superpower and it's all leading toward that one term. You got good educational sources that point it's a superpower and surely it's very creditable if you got professors putting their credentials on it, why delete it when it makes enough sense to the article. Down grade it to a great power, that's nonsense.

I couldn't agree more it would hurt the content which it supplies legitimate primary sources that are good enough for me and looks like some other people too. Second this article refers to superpowers why bring in potential superpowers. Why? That's kinda pushing saparate sources that was never intended for.

The superpower article ALREADY CONTAINS POTENTIAL SUPERPOWERS - why is this so hard to grasp?! Read the article!

The whole point of this discussion is whether to update it to align it with the potential superpowers article and therefore make Wikipedia consistent.

Of course another option is to REMOVE the potential superpowers from this article. Fine go ahead. Makes things simpler. David (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The European Union is not a state or country

The EU is an international organization, as not all of the members use the euro, and each member can operate as a full sovereign state. Therefore, this section must be edited: Potential Superpowers, which contains the phrase "Present day states that currently are or have the potential to become a superpower within the 21st century," linking to article on sovereign state, which the European Union is not. --Nosugarcoating (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• European Union is country or not (supranational entity similar in operation to the country) - it does not matter. In the world is treated as a superpower or potential superpower. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

No. It is not a country in any way, no matter how similar it is, and no one, except a few fanatics, treats it as such. All of the countries in the EU organization have full sovereign powers and can leave the organization anytime. Many Eastern Europeans may wish that this organization is a country, but that will never happen. The United Kingdom has a monarch. A political entity cannot be treated as a country if one or more of its constituent states is a monarchy. The United Kingdom's currency is superior to euro. The UK has opted out of euro. The country will never agree to lose its sovereignty over the EU. Moreover, a superpower has all its member states use the same currency, which a few members of the EU don't. No country recognizes the EU as a sovereign state or country. I will clarify again in the text that EU is not a sovereign state. I've seen your post(s) elsewhere and knew that you're a big fan of nationalizing the EU, which is okay, but Wikipedia is not a place for original research and point of view. Making it look like the organization is a country will not make it be. Again, it will never be a country or sovereign state, no matter how close it seems. I'll wait for your comment within the next 48 hours before I remake the clarification. If you then revert my clarification again, then I'll call in experienced Wikipedia editors to decide on the issue. --Nosugarcoating (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter whether it is a country or something else. Term of "Superpower" is not synonym of country. Besides, there are sources for this. You call in experienced Wikipedia editors? Ok, please, administrators are better :) You push own version without consensus and start new edit-war. Previously, was already discussion about European Union and consensus, your new change must have consensus. Subtropical-man (talk)21:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The section that I edited said "Present day sovereign sovereign states..." And a fan of "let EU be a country" added EU to that list. List a citation that claims EU is a sovereign state. If EU is to be added to that list, then the best way to word the title should be "Potential super powers," not Present day sovereign states since the EU is not one. I'm very serious about this, and acting like a kid by saying "Ok, please, administrators are better" will not change anything, as I'm not here to make childish arguments or play around. --Nosugarcoating (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Again:

First: discussion and consensus, later: changes, if there is consensus.

Second: European Union officially is not country, anyone can check it out by clicking on the link of European Union.

Thirdly: stop writing about other users having a different opinion than you as "a fan of "let EU be a country"". This is personal attack, please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Fourth: your behavior (start new edit-war, pushing own version without consensus), your opinion/soubriquet about the users with a different opinion than yours, lack Wikipedia:Assume good faith and info on your user page only shows your willingness to fight, and that's the problem for Wikipedia, on which other users must respond.

Fifthly: kid? you first wrote "If you then revert my clarification again, then I'll call in experienced Wikipedia editors to decide on the issue". This is funny for me, you have just basic knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia and you want to teach me or scare? But ok, let's stop talking about it. Subtropical-man (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright so I've called admin(s) on you as you requested. They say you have a history of edit-warring. So until you give a citation that supports EU's inclusion as a sovereign state, I'm reverting the article to my edits. Don't get yourself into trouble by being troublesome. --Nosugarcoating (talk) 02:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not revert your changes, I just improved article in compliance with norms of Wikipedia (see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking). Repeat few times the same link in the article is not justified and breaks the norms of Wikipedia, one link is sufficient. After the my new corrections, in the article of Superpower and Potential superpowers, near name of European Union, there are links to supranational entity (one in each article), in accordance with the Wikipedia:Links. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I agree with your edits for superpower, but same rule needs to be applied to potential superpowers as well. This means I'll clarify in that first paragraph for the article potential superpowers the list of the potential superpowers, the EU's status. You know, it makes no sense to say something like: "It is expected that the following pets would be the most loved pets in the world: cats, dogs, hamsters, and elephants." It would make more sense to clarify, for example: "cats, dogs, hamsters, and elephants (if adopted as pets)". I support EU the peace keeping intergovernmental organization, but it must be clearly presented as what it is. Making it look like what you wish it to be won't actually make it be that; it would only misinform readers, which is why WIkipedia opposes original research. --Nosugarcoating (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• You wrote "I agree with your edits for superpower, but same rule needs to be applied to potential superpowers as well" - in both articles (Superpower and Potential superpowers) there is a link to supranational entity. You were wrong.
• You wrote "I support EU the peace keeping intergovernmental organization, but it must be clearly presented as what it is" - must? No! do not must and even do not need. Everyone knows what means European Union, if someone does not know, there is a link to the article of European Union.
• You wrote "Making it look like what you wish it to be won't actually make it be that; it would only misinform readers, which is why WIkipedia opposes original research" - nowhere in the article, there is no original research and article is based on sources.

Please stop trolling and fight with EU, you showed their intentions, quote "I'm a citizen of the United States, a real federation, a real country with all states using the same currency, and a real superpower". Subtropical-man (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I said that to show you an example of a real federation. Wow, you really never learn a lesson. Well, if you keep on vandalizing the articles I will have to call in another experienced editor(s) to settle this. I hope your week has been great. :) --Nosugarcoating (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You accusing me of vandalism and scaring me others users (again). If you do not cease, will inform the administrators. It is a violation of the principles of Wikipedia. This is last warning. Subtropical-man (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Just because I said I would call in experienced Wikipedia editors to settle this matter does not mean I intend to scare you. As you may know, I called in an experienced Wikipedia editor the first time I promised you, and they helped to pause the edit war that you initiated. If that makes you scared then by all means you shouldn't be here, or perhaps you should read the manual before making any edits. Like I said, if you vandalize any articles I'll call in experienced editors like I've done before and they will help resolve this issue at hand. Have a nice day. I do not intend to scare you. I'm here in good faith for the good of Wikipedia and its readers. Experienced Wikipedia editor(s) said that you have shown a lack of common editorial principles of Wikipedia by too much edit warring. You should either change for good or accept whatever consequences for disruption. Thank you. --Nosugarcoating (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

something you made ​​a mistake. By the way, I vandalize articles?!? - please give link to this. If I not vandalize articles, your aforementioned texts violate of the principles of Wikipedia. Subtropical-man (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Misleading information

In the chart in the "Cold War" section, under "Soviet Union" and "Political," the article states, "Permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council plus China as an ally, up to 1960, with permanent seat." While technically true (China was an ally to the USSR up to 1960, and China eventually had a permanent seat), this statement is incredibly misleading. It implies that The Soviet Union had an ally in the Security Council. This is false as the People's Republic of China only received a seat on the security council in 1971 because before that, The Republic of China (AKA the USA's ally AKA Taiwan), held the seat. I'm wondering if we should remove that statement entirely or only the "with permanent seat." --69.126.210.25 (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

True definition of SUPERPOWER

SUPERPOWER is a political being (nation or similar one) with high level of wealth and culture and able to influence all wolrd.SUPERPOWER must have a high level of miltary power able to hit everywhere in the world ,BUT without receiving back a lethal hit.In this sense the last superpowers have been the British Empire and USA from early '40s to 1949 when Soviet Union and later other political beings developed the atomic bomb.Since that moment no more superpowers. All academics that avoid propaganda in history and policy know it.This article is updated.In "Potential superpowers" article i can see Russia ,Brazil and India.Brazil and Russia lack a lot in all (Brazil lacks in economy,demography and military ,Russia lacks a lot in economy and demography).Many doubts about India too.Too forecasters that are far from real data,too citations that many times (the majority) hide false things.The only 3 true ones gretest powers (and not superpowewrs in the 21st century) are USA,EU and may be Popular Republic of China.151.40.7.192 (talk) 08:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)