Talk:Superpower

Hyperpower

Cannot find any discussion regarding the proposed merge of Hyperpower into this article, so I will start by expressing my opinion here. Having taken a look at the Hyperpower article, it is clear it does not merit its own article, furthermore the Hyperpower section in this article gives a more comprehensive overview of the term anyway! Therefore I would support the proposal of a merge. Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you decided to change this before you started the discussion here on Hyperpower. You removed superpower across the board and didn't think twice about it.--27.121.111.201 (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't be changed to Hyperpower. OccultZone (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep neutral point of view

Can editors please remember to keep a neutral point of view when editing this article (read WP:NPOV). Reverting the article back to an earlier revision that contains a significant amount of POV material (such as stating Russia or the EU is a superpower) is unacceptable and unhelpful. If you feel changes need to be made to the article then be constructive and adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Alternatively discuss such changes here at the talk-page. Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It's acceptable when there are sources to back the material which there are. Antiochus the Great it appears you don't like them on the history of Superpowers [1][2][3] and not talking about it here also[4] removing doesn't resolve it too. If reverting the article back to an earlier revision that contains a good amount of POV material such as stating Russia or the EU is a superpower is acceptable and helpful, throwing them out is not the answer.--103.1.153.206 (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Its not acceptable to push any form of POV under any circumstance. Your above comment shows an absolute lack of understanding of Wikipedia's policy WP:NPOV. Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I saw no prior talk, I saw a take over on the older version moved to this[5], unacceptable. Now going back to push any form of POV under any circumstance what is there here, who's doing this here[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Looks like a push on Wikipedia's policy WP:NPOV--103.1.153.206 (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Superpower article revision, no POV

I would like to raise concerns over the recent behavior of a number of anonymous IP editors (the latest of which is 103.1.153.206) who are repeatedly making unconstructive edits to this article. The motives behind these unconstructive edits is to restore POV material. Such POV material includes making the assertion that Russia and the EU are superpowers. Furthermore, every time they restore their precious POV revision of the article they also intentionally undo a significant amount of edits made by me and others to improve the quality of this article.

As I write this RfC, this is the current (supported) revision, while the POV pushing IP editors want to restore this revision. I invite everyone to take a brief look at both revisions if you please.

What I would like to get from this RfC is to promote discussion and reach a consensus of some sort. Maybe even a decision of which revision to endorse. Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thread discussion

You can start another dicussion but you appear to be in the mess of the edit war Antiochus the Great. Attention Editors: I sent Antiochus the Great on his talk page to appear of using another ip and engaged in an edit war using the ip 109.76.220.159 and Antiochus the Great of POV pushing but he quickly removes my comments[15]. I looked at the history of the Superpowers[16] and Superpowers talk[17] but the result has been under edit war since Dec 28[18] and the discussion has been minor on there part. If you start with an edit, then talk first but the action of editor Antiochus the Great has taken has been too much and no real discussion for such. There are disagreements but that is not stoping edit push. I think there is no resolution if this continues like what I see here[19][20][21][22] as this matter was never discussed, it just appeared without any talk, this is a problem. Appears that Antiochus the Great is calling ip's Russian nationalist[23]; sounds racial and out of context. This is the older version of Superpowers[24] and this is Antiochus the Greats version[25]. After viewing the history on the article, this is only one editor (not two or three or four, only one editor). You need to construct your behavior to toward others, editors might not be Russian, making insults on national race is not needed here.--103.1.153.206 (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Also I will add, I am not trying to get editors to get them to reply on purpose. If I wanted to contact editors to get them to join discussion if they were a conflict of interests as I have noticed from the editor that started discussion an hour ago is making particular contacts[26](Notice how Russian Nationalist removed here)[27],[28] (Notice how Russian Nationalist was removed here)[[29],[30], [31], [32]. It's good for editors to reply but to contact them directly if they will favor for you is kind of like cheating the discussion. So I will make that point as it matters here this discussion is already turning shady but looking in the history of discussion topic editor. The talk should be on those wish to discuss the matter, not trying to get people to discuss on purpose. That's call campaigning so with that point I am already questioning that.--103.1.153.206 (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Not pointing fingers but it is clearly noticeable to contact people specifically to write on here and then removing Russian Nationalist POV [33][34](Who made that comment Russian Nationalist POV?, What if someone said British Nationalist POV? Take offensive, I'm sure. Is that nice to say to people?) but making these contacts[35][36][37][38][39]. Is that fair?--103.1.153.206 (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@103.1.153.206. All you are doing is aimlessly pointing your finger at me and falsely calming I have done things wrong, like "making insults". More importantly, why do you refuse to acknowledge Wikipedia's policies and accept it is wrong to push a POV agenda as you are clearly doing? Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• I believe that the current version is more compact and balanced than the last one. Their was clout in the previous presentation in terms of potential superpowers being in the lead. They should stay on their article. SG²⁰⁹⁰ 01:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support current ('supported') version (591153177). It is not appropriate, in my view, to have the speculation about the EU and Russia etc in the lead (WP:UNDUE). Might well be added to the emerging superpowers section at the very end. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Don't Support current version. The lead was better in December, EU and Russia should be in the lead, Russia is an emerging superpower as much as the EU is.--198.23.76.141 (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@198.23.76.141. Your argument is nugatory. The lead is no place for speculation (written in a POV manner) about the EU and Russia being superpowers! Such material is not in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. The current revision lists Russia and the EU as potential superpowers in the appropriate section towards the end of the article (re-written in a neutral point of view). Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Please DON"T remove the thread discussion above, it is a discussion and for that purpose. Nothing looks false but talk on editors to discuss what is needed here. --62.73.9.42 (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments

This version is better[40] 17:25, 28 December 2013. I disagree on this version[41] 23:14, 30 December 2013 Why? Because the older version has much more sources, it's better constructed and is more dynamic to the reader on the term Superpower but also lets readers know who's a superpower, the newer one doesn't really . The new version[42] is poorly constructed and it not clearly cited, too many sources were removed from original version. Older version is definitely better and should stay.--103.1.153.206 (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Isn't' this supposed to be on the Potential superpowers article? Swordman97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• SUGGESTION. This article has the potential to be very unstable with every nationalist trying to sneak the name of their country into the lede as an "emerging superpower" -- case in point: "A few heads of states,[8][9] politicians[10] and news analysts[11] have even suggested that Russia may have already reclaimed that status." The sources given do not appear to be reliable.

I propose that the current version be used with the sentence

"After the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, only the United States appears to fulfill the criteria of being considered a world superpower.[1]"

... replaced by a modified version of sentences from the other competing version:

"After the Cold War, only the United States appears to fulfill the criteria of being considered a world superpower.[1] The term "Emerging 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 or at least on par with the USA-USSR phase.[3][4][5][6], and by some to other states, such as European Union, India and Russia."

IOWs, keep the speculation about future superpowers short.

(editor randomly selected to participate in the request for comment) --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose the speculation as it is clearly violative of WP:CRYSTAL, and in some cases even WP:UPANDCOMING. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC) (a historian, and another editor randomly selected to participate in the request for comment)

Surely China ought to be mentioned. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

As others have said above, such material is best left out of the lead paragraphs. Note that China (and other states) are adequately listed with citations in the Potential Superpowers section towards the end of the article. But I understand your motive being that China is a strong candidate and backed by popular academic consensus supporting it being an emerging superpower. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• China and Russia should be on the title for superpowers, both have acedemic sources to support their cause and both should be on as superpowers. Yes China should mentioned agreed and Russia too.--62.73.9.42 (talk) 10:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

There are no academic sources that suggest China and Russia are superpowers. So no, they should not "be on [the article] as superpowers". Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I see two sources on Russia and one source China as university material on prior talk. Can't put that away, the material says two countries are superpowers when there are publish material for reading.--62.73.9.42 (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

List the sources here. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Add protection padlock template

Subject line says it all. If a bot is supposed to do it, it's not working right. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• david, this is disruptive mess clogging up User:AnomieBOT/PERTable and Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests is very inappropriate. I've closed the request and added an appropriate list request on WP:RFPP#Missing protection padlocks. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 February 2014

The page should probably have a few more categories. The ones I'm suggesting should hardly be controversial and have nothing to do with the edit-warring, so I'm hoping an admin can just put them in place. Some of these categories already have Superpowers as a subcategory, but I think the page belongs in the categories themselves, too. Superpowers seems to be more about categorizing historical superpowers, while this is about the concept.

Suggest:

[[Category:International relations]]
[[Category:Hegemony]]
[[Category:International relations theory]]
[[Category:States by power status]]
[[Category:Political science terms]]

Wieno (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

There is only 1 superpower at this moment, so how it would be possible? OccultZone (Talk) 04:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Wieno (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It was easy, you are talking about "superpowers", yet there is only 1 superpower. OccultZone (Talk) 04:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This page is currently part of Category:Superpowers. Are you arguing that it should not be? Are you trying to import the debate about whether Russia and China should be mentioned in the article into this section? I'm really not quite sure what your point is vis-a-vis my edit request. Are you objecting to the article being included in any of the categories I suggested? If not, could you please explain what your point is? (More semantically, whether or not there is only one superpower currently, America is not the only superpower that has ever existed so it's clearly possible to use the term 'superpowers' in the plural when talking over the course of human history) Wieno (talk) 04:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable to add these suggested categories. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the Wieno's idea that he wants of making this article more historical and detailed, he wants to highlight those things that happened before 1991 and 1945. But he will have to edit/add himself. Then only we can reach to some consensus. Go ahead Wieno. OccultZone (Talk) 17:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that you won't accede to the request to add this article to some categories unless I take a position in the primary content dispute in this article? That does not seem like a fair request, and I don't think it's a legitimate reason to try and block consensus. Wieno (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I thought this would be uncontroversial enough for an immediate edit, but I'll try and get consensus. Is there any objection to any/all of these categories? Wieno (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

User:OccultZone There is NOT only 1 superpower at this moment, so how it would be possible as well? You've got China and Russia, can't avoid those countries. I would ask that, the US currently has no superpower source backing it up User:OccultZone , that should be clarified first, second China and Russia are on there paths for superpowes, not potential, one is an emerging superpower and other one is already there. I understand there are some pro USA editors and refuse to listen but defending something that is lacking something, is not good for the article. There are negatives and there are positives but the article has more negatives than positives, so yes there is controversial stuff in the article. So I oppose the current article as it stands that it should be modified more with more material and more sources.--64.129.10.92 (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but all that aside, how do you feel about the addition of the categories I suggested? Do you have a problem with adding any of them? I need consensus to get the edit in, so if you could even mention your position on it in passing, that would be greatly appreciated. Wieno (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

My position is there was a lot of wording and sources taken out December 30 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Superpower&diff=588439869&oldid=588090036

ever since then, there has been nothing but cross fire here. So taken that context out[43] without prior talk was not completely sorted out. I think sources were taken out for bad reasons that had little support. If we're going to work something out, then we should start that date Dec 30, talk things out and get everything fixed--64.129.10.92 (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, trying to make the article a history article when the prior was about the current superpowers. If one editor that wants to make a history lesson, they should build a "superpowers history" article from stratch on their own, not here. Yes some history but the current history lesson here is not working, it lacks too much current information.--64.129.10.92 (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Surely your position can't be that no edits should be allowed (no matter how non-contentious) unless the main editing dispute is worked out. I have no position on what countries should and shouldn't be included in this article. But whatever the final format of the article, whichever countries are included, there categories seem appropriate. Is there any reason these categories would not belong in your preferred version of the article? Because if the categories should be included regardless of what's in the article, then it should be an easy consensus. Wieno (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You mean catagorize each country?--64.129.10.92 (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I mean put the page Superpower into the five categories I listed. This has literally nothing to do with which countries are superpowers, and would have absolutely zero effect on that debate or outcome. Wieno (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@64.129.10.92. China and Russia are not superpowers. Currently only the USA fits the criteria of a Superpower and is backed by reliable sources. All registered editors in the RfC discussion above agree that the current protected revision of the article is the best one to proceed with, that is the current consensus being formed. There are many policy issues with your edits and if you continue to push your nationalistic POV and go against consensus then you may find yourself blocked. Antiochus the Great (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You said Currently only the USA fits the criteria of a Superpower and is backed by reliable sources

If the US is a superpower, what sources please? List them here:

I want to see them.

Second if China and Russia are not superpowers, then what sources are you debunking then?

--64.129.10.92 (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

If I don't get an answer to your statement about USA being a superpower with you stated Antiochus the Great, I am going to question your prior edits. I would like to get your facts please and list the sources that you are stating the US is a superpower. List them here.

If China and Russia are not superpowers, I am going to specifically question your comments, I want to know what you are saying is true or not true.

My acedemic source for Russia as a superpower is this acedemic source: http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam051/2004045110.pdf

You will notice this book is in the library of Congress by the way.

Wieno please take note and witness the crossfire here.

--64.129.10.92 (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, can you guys please take this debate over which countries are superpowers and put it in the appropriate section of the talk page (i.e. the one about which countries are superpowers)? The only comments in this section should be about whether this article should be added to any or all of the five categories I listed. Thanks. Wieno (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

My acedemic source for Russia as a superpower in catagory is using this acedemic source: http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam051/2004045110.pdf

I'll let Antiochus the Great answer my questions above though too, he needs to answer. --64.129.10.92 (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, nobody has raised any substantive objection to the inclusion of these categories. If nobody else has anything to add, I'm going to reactivate the edit request. If you do have an objection to these categories and not to other editing disputes like whether Russia and China are superpowers, please add them below. Wieno (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There are absolutely no valid objections to the inclusion of the proposed categories. Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Since there's already another active edit request to this page and it's clear that OccultZone is just trolling legitimate edit requests for no reason, I'm reactivating this request. Wieno (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. It is clear though, you are wasting people' time. You are going no where with your "multiple superpower concern", unless you come up with your own edition, instead of forcing others to write for you. Seems like you want people to spoon you. It is hard to find, when you have actually discussed about your proposed categories. Read WP:Notaforum, you cannot open your edit request if it has been closed. Unless you have something new, as well as consensus. Otherwise it is just idiotic. And User talk:64.129.10.92, there is no superpower at this moment except USA. I can find 2 sources claiming Australia to be Superpower too, But they should be WP:RS, none of yours are. OccultZone (Talk) 02:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Wieno I don't support the proposed catagories. Unless you catagorize China, USA, Russia, India in the catagories as superpowers.--62.73.7.79 (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Proposed categories would make sense, if there are multiple superpowers. No objection to the category "Superpowers" though, but all of them seems to be former superpower, except USA. OccultZone (Talk) 05:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

OccultZone you can't use Kim Richard Nossal source "Lonely Superpower or Unapologetic Hyperpower 1999[44] anymore which is the only acedemic source on the article using to state the US is a superpower, that's not stating the United States is a superpower for 2014, that source was written 15 years ago.--62.73.7.79 (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Done. I've added the categories. There have been a lot of words in this section, but there haven't been any policy-based arguments made against Wieno's proposed change. The categories in question don't have anything to do with the question of how many superpowers there might be in the world, and which countries they might be. Rather, the categories represent the defining characteristics of the subject of this article (see Wikipedia:Categorization for more on this), and none of the characteristics described by the categories would change depending on the question of "one superpower versus many superpowers". Consensus on Wikipedia is decided through the strength of the arguments rather than the number of commenters, and so I've decided to enact this request based on the lack of any substantial arguments made against it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: I agree if it is about "defining characteristics", I never really objected the categories, but they should be described, on page itself. That how "superpower", is "hegemony", or related to "political science term", "States by power status", etc. Either way it won't be a issue, it can be expanded. Plus there are about 3 dead links, check[45], Can you tag? OccultZone (Talk) 06:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

On lead, "Alice Lyman Miller" should be wikilinked with Alice L. Miller. OccultZone (Talk) 06:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

If you have other edit requests, can you file them in separate sections, using the {{edit protected}} template? Please see Wikipedia:Edit requests for more information about making edit requests. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Russia is not a superpower

@64.129.10.92. Your academic source does not make the assertion that Russia is a superpower. In fact on page 3 of the Introduction it reads: "This book, however, explains why it is more likely that Russia will reemerge as a prodigal superpower". So my question is, did you even read your own source? Clearly not! The Source is essentially claiming Russia is a potential superpower. Your suggestion that this sources claims Russia is a superpower is false and misguided. Funny. Antiochus the Great (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 February 2014

Hi,
I believe that there should be a comma in the sentence " However following World War II and the Suez Crisis in 1956, the British Empire's status as a superpower status was diminished; for the duration of the Cold War the United States and the Soviet Union came to be generally regarded as the two remaining superpowers, dominating world affairs." from the lead following the word however. Thanks! Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Quiet obvious though, how British lost its status. But you can gather some sources, if you can. It will be far more helpful. OccultZone (Talk) 00:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's clear at this point that OccultZone is just trolling perfectly uncontroversial edit requests. I have no objection to this. Wieno (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

When did I rejected? If someone wants changes to the page. They must bring sources as well. If you are incompetent to suggest, why you have to weep around? Just saying. OccultZone (Talk) 02:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The United States is not a superpower

I am asking that this link be removed[46] "Kim Richard Nossal. "Lonely Superpower or Unapologetic Hyperpower? Analyzing American Power in the post–Cold War Era", it is outdated, way outdated. You can not have a 1999 source to say the United States is a superpower. If the US is a superpower than it needs current acedemic sources to state it is a superpower. The url is http://post.queensu.ca/~nossalk/papers/hyperpower.htm

I cannot find new sources stating the US is a superpower if so I would replace this 1999 with something newer.--62.73.7.79 (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

[47] Indirectly, the source said that US is only superpower, and until 2030(prediction) will be the sole superpower. OccultZone (Talk) 07:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not an acedemic source, that's a news article blog. Notice you can comment on the bottom on the source below like a blog. If you read the url it says http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/10/19098 blogs on the url. I am not putting you down on your source, I am just saying it's not an acedemic source.--62.73.7.79 (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 10th February 2014

1. There are about 3 dead links, check[48], They should be tagged.
2. On lead, "Alice Lyman Miller" should be wikilinked with Alice L. Miller. OccultZone (Talk) 07:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)