Jump to content

Talk:Superpower

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 151.40.34.218 (talk) at 17:02, 15 May 2013 (→Update this article to reflect potential superpowers). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Addition of the term Second Superpower in introductory paragraph

I propose the following sentence: "The term 'Second Superpower' has also been applied by scholars to the possibility that China will emerge as second superpower on par with the United States.[1][2][3]" I posted this suggestion up a long time ago, yet no one has responded...

Removed phrase

I removed the phrase "though some scholars feel [the United States] is no longer a super power". This gives undue weight as nearly all scholars regard the United States as a superpower. The citation seemed more like a book plug than anything else.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.236.198 (talk) 06:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though U.S. credibility and influence has been on the decline since 9/11 in terms of soft power, U.S. hard power is stronger than ever with their physical colonies in the plains of Mesopetamia and the mountains of Hindu Kush.108.7.2.108 (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"....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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[4] 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.[5][6][7][8] Additionally, it is widely believed that the European Union, and India may too have the potential of achieving superpower status within the 21st century.[9] A few heads of states,[10][11] politicians[12] and news analysts[13] have even suggested that Russia may have already reclaimed that status.[14][15][16][17] 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.[18] 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,[19][20][21] the People's Republic of China,[22][23][24][25] and the Russian Federation,[26][27][28] 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.[29][30][31][32][33] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
btw - I am not going to bother any more with this troll. David (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


Tell us ...who?You that neither know main real numebers?)))))151.40.34.218 (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://books.google.ca/books?id=g5s_uDDZSjoC&pg=PA155&dq=china+%22Second+Superpower%22&client=firefox-a
  2. ^ http://books.google.ca/books?id=PIRkvshH5NYC&pg=PR9&dq=china+%22Second+Superpower%22&client=firefox-a
  3. ^ http://books.google.ca/books?id=6ubh-K1gBooC&pg=PT563&dq=china+%22Second+Superpower%22&client=firefox-a
  4. ^ Kim Richard Nossal. Lonely Superpower or Unapologetic Hyperpower? Analyzing American Power in the post–Cold War Era. Biennial meeting, South African Political Studies Association, 29 June-2 July 1999. Retrieved 2007-02-28.
  5. ^ http://books.google.ca/books?id=g5s_uDDZSjoC&pg=PA155&dq=china+%22Second+Superpower%22&client=firefox-a
  6. ^ http://books.google.ca/books?id=PIRkvshH5NYC&pg=PR9&dq=china+%22Second+Superpower%22&client=firefox-a
  7. ^ http://books.google.ca/books?id=6ubh-K1gBooC&pg=PT563&dq=china+%22Second+Superpower%22&client=firefox-a
  8. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19995218
  9. ^ Khanna, Parag (2008-01-27). "Waving Goodbye to Hegemony". Qatar;China;Iran;Pakistan;Russia;India;Europe;China;Turkey;Libya;Indonesia;Abu Dhabi;Uzbekistan;Afghanistan;Kyrgyzstan;Kazakhstan: Nytimes.com. Retrieved 2011-06-12.
  10. ^ Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez recognizes independence of breakaway Georgia republics by Megan K. Stack. Sept 9, 2009
  11. ^ Netanyahu declares Russia as superpower Russia Today News 15 Feb 2010
  12. ^ Washington Acknowledges Russia as a Superpower Daniel Fried, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs by Kommersant News May 26, 2007
  13. ^ Russia in the 21st Century The Prodigal Superpower by Steven Rosefielde, Cambridge University Press, 2004
  14. ^ New York Times by Ronald Steel professor of international relations August 24, 2008 (Superpower Reborn)[2]
  15. ^ The Globalist – June 2, 2010 cite: “An Insecure Foothold for the United States; Russia is certainly still a superpower comparable only to the United States”[3]
  16. ^ "Russia the Best of the BRICs" – AG Metal Miner News by Stuart Burns – Sept 19, 2010 [4]
  17. ^ "The Dangers of Nuclear Disarmament" – Project-Syndicate News by Sergei Karaganov – April 29, 2010 [5]
  18. ^ Zielonka, J. (2006), Europe as Empire, Oxford University Press: Oxford.
  19. ^ Martinez, Patricio (2009-11-02). "Alumna Analyzes Brazil's Emergence | The Cornell Daily Sun". Cornellsun.com. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
  20. ^ "While the US Looks Eastward Brazil Is Emerging as a Nuclear Superpower". Brazzil.com. 2008-08-12. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
  21. ^ "Brazil is becoming an economic and political superpower". Transnational.org. 2006-01-27. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
  22. ^ "US-China Institute :: news & features :: china as a global power". China.usc.edu. 2007-11-13. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
  23. ^ Visions of China, CNN Specials. Retrieved March 11, 2007.
  24. ^ John McCormick,(2007). The European Superpower. Palgrave Macmillan.
  25. ^ Europe: the new superpower by Mark Leonard, Irish Times. Retrieved March 11, 2007.
  26. ^ "Russia: A superpower rises again – CNN.com". CNN. Retrieved 24 May 2010.
  27. ^ Coughlin, Con (13 April 2007). "Russia on the march – again". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 24 May 2010.
  28. ^ "Russia in the 21st Century – Cambridge University Press". Cambridge.org. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
  29. ^ Cite error: The named reference Krauthammer1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  30. ^ "China's Not a Superpower". Retrieved 29 April 2012.
  31. ^ MARTINEZ-DIAZ, LEONARDO. "Brazil in the Global Crisis: Still a Rising Economic Superpower?". Brookings Institute. Retrieved 29 April 2012.
  32. ^ Stubb, Alexander. "Will the EU Ever Become a Superpower?". Carnegie Endowment. Retrieved 29 April 2012.
  33. ^ Biswas, Soutik (2012-03-13). "Why India Will Not Become a Superpower". BBC India. Retrieved 29 April 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Superpower&oldid=555238314"