Talk:Superpower

US was fourth largest country during the entirety of cold war

US only updated it area size in 1996 after a new geosurvey was conducted to match UNCLOS thereby adding 1. coastal waters and 2. territorial waters. The waters was not added correspondingly for china. Thus US began claiming itself as third largest, which is not recognized in the world. China was the third largest during the entirety of the Cold War. Know your facts before editing please. And no politics here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.92.171 (talk) 06:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

United States superpower source

I like to point out that this statement: "left the United States as the only superpower."

Is replace with: "and the September 11 attacks of the United States left the World with no superpowers."

And per reliable sources, the source states the former while the latter does not and cannot be changed unless another source is found to replace it. SG²⁰⁹⁰ 02:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit war

Here we go again, Antiochus the Great abusing the superpower article deleting 37,169 bytes) (-4,976)‎, [1] and he did so without consensus, deleting more than 49 sources and adding 18 sources instead is wrong. It is a fact that user Antiochus the Great is anti Russia & Brazil and that is not a threat but his history of edits are abusive toward these countries in particular. Notice how Antiochus the Great deletes every Russian source, look at what he does here[[2]], that is abuse and discriminatory of country of origin and this will not be tolerated. Edits will not happen without consense and sources will not be removed without consensus either or the article will be blocked.

Do not abuse the article please! --212.166.90.111 (talk) 10:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This is very childish of you isn't it? I was merely acting within the guidelines of the policy WP:RSUW and thus don't need a consensus. If you have a policy problem with my edits then please ask an administrator to review the situation. Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

No need, I have kindly requested for an administrator to comment here and express his opinion. Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I found there to be problem too and there seems to be a problem an editor which you mentioned. I will suggest we move for a block Antiochus the Great --27.121.111.201 (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I've locked the article in lieu of blocking both parties: neither of you get to edit-war over content disputes. Use this page to cordially discuss proposed changes. If I see personal attacks, I'll act accordingly. Acroterion (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

My only intention is to address some issues of nationalistic pov that has crept into the article, as well as a few other issues. If you take a look at my contributions to this article they have been constructive edits. A simple comparison of the current revision with the former is proof itself. I do not appreciate being branded as anti-Russian and abusing articles. I am also concerned as to why the IP wants to so ardently defend the former revision that contains significant nationalistic pov as well as many other issues? When this is all behind us, I would like nothing more than to work constructively on this article together! Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I disgree when you have done this [3] then here[4] lead to here[5] then another user undid the edits here[6] but then he does this[7] then he removed this without consensus here[8] and this which he says citations were added but weren’t clearly cited[9] and then he removes edits here[10] and does it again here[11] and here[12] and here[13] and here[14] again[15] again[16] and again[17] that pushing and discussing nothing on your push--27.121.111.201 (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

What are you trying to achieve here? I mean you're selecting some of my edits where I have been fixing the structure and layout of sections (e.g such as forming paragraphs, because a single sentence doesn't constitute a paragraph!!!) and yet you trying to present it as me abusing the article!! That doesn't make any sense. As for latter edits of mine you make reference too - I hardly think you are in a position to point fingers as you engaged in the edit-warring too! What I would like an answer too, is why are you so passionately trying to defend the revision which contains nationalist pov? As you obviously have no valid reason to dislike the rest of my edits. Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Antiochus is acting in reasonable conformity with WP:CRYSTAL - we should not guess about these things, but rather wait until mainstream sources agree. Definitely this kind of thing, especially advocating things that are not well agreed, should not be in the article lead. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

27.121.111.201, the 5,000 bytes worth of material you're arguing for is not commonly agreed. Therefore it does not belong in the WP:Lead in its current form. The lead is not there to expound full discussions of subjects, but to lead into a fuller discussion lower down. Recast your argument into a couple of succinct sentences, make sure they're referenced (ALL the references go at the end of the sentence, in ONE footnote), and insert the rest lower down in the article. Antiochus, this is valid discussion - don't delete it out of hand; insert it in its proper place. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I fully disgree, actually Antiochus the Great did so without consensus, he knocked off tons of content and erased a lot of verified sources. That's like charging a car color from red to pink, would you live with it? There was no warning prior to what he did and that I will defend my argument here. The article does not appear to be sourceful now as it is misleading to the public.--27.121.111.201 (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Buckshot06, thank you for kindly expressing your most helpful advice on this matter. I will take on board what you say, and not to delete it out of hand. A re-write of the information in question and then allocated to a more appropriate place sounds reasonable. However like you said to 27.121.111.201, "the 5,000 bytes worth of material" isn't "commonly agreed" upon, therefore any re-write should also mention that the overwhelming consensus among scholars, academics and political scientists is that neither Russia or the European Union are superpowers, and that in the case of Russia is unlikely to ever be a superpower again. What do you think? Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

No. The lead should not debate controversial issues, just signpost the potential new trends. So it would mention with a reference that Europe has been called a potential superpower, and that would be about it. Long discussions over the merits of E & Russia's superpowerdom do not go there - they can be debated with references, but not in the lead. Personally I would not mention Russia in the lead at all; they're more a major power (as in the Congress of Vienna sense) than a superpower these days. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood my most recent post, perhaps I didn't word it properly sorry. As I have said before I think the lead should be kept entirely free from such controversial discussions. But if you look at the very bottom of this article under the heading "Potential Superpowers" there is a brief overview of countries cited as having the potential of achieving superpower status in the 21st century - so any such discussion about the merits of Russia or Europe etc could be done there. And yes agreed, Russia is most certainly more of a Great power as opposed to a superpower these days.Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Russian sources have been clearly represented as a superpower, lets bring them up again to Antiochus the Great, he apparently doesn't want Russia on the playing field. In fact his past reflects of deleting anything related to that argument. There are plenty of other editors that will agree on Russia as reflected as emerging superpower again. Some of the worlds most powerful voices have made statements, PhD foreign relation professors and say Russia's stage on the world stage.--27.121.111.201 (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's see what Antiochus the Great did without consensus to the Superpowers article in one edit, this is the original version here on line 1: Reagan and Gorbachev hold discussions jpg US President Ronald Reagan (left) and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, former leaders of the Cold War's two rival superpowers, meeting in Geneva in 1985. The Suez Crisis, which ended British Empire's status as superpower and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 left the United States as the only superpower. This remains unchanged.]]

Then Antiochus the Great changed the above without consens to this: File:Superpower map 1945 |400 thumb|A world map of 1945. According to William T.R. Fox, the United States (blue), the Soviet Union (red), and the British Empire (teal) were superpowers.]]

Then Antiochus the Great added this without consensus too:' ' A 'superpower' is a state with a dominant position in international relations and is characterised by its unparalleled ability to exert influence or project power on a global scale through the means of both military and economic strength, as well as diplomatic and soft power influence. Traditionally superpowers are preeminent among the great powers (i.e as the USA is today). The term first applied to the British Empire, the United States of America and the Soviet Union. 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. 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.

Then Antiochus the Great removes "Origin"and replaces it with this here without consensus: Alice Lyman Miller (Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School) defines a superpower as "a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time, and so may plausibly attain the status of global hegemony."

Then Antiochus the Great is removes original content again here without consensus: A year later, William T.R. Fox, an American foreign policy professor, elaborated on the concept in the book The Superpowers: The United States, Britain and the Soviet Union — Their Responsibility for Peace (1944), which spoke of the global reach of a super-empowered nation. Fox used the word Superpower to identify a new category of power able to occupy the highest status in a world in which, as the war then raging demonstrated, states could challenge and fight each other on a global scale.

Then Antiochus the Great replaces without consensus here to his version: There have been attempts to apply the term superpower retrospectively, and sometimes very loosely, to a variety of past entities such as Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, China,India, the Persian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Roman Empire, the Mongol Empire, the Portuguese Empire, the Spanish Empire, and France. Recognition by historians of these older states as superpowers may focus on various superlative traits exhibited by them.

Then Antiochus the Great is removes original content again here without consensus: According to him, there were (at that moment) three states that were superpowers: British Empire, the United States, and the Soviet Union. The British Empire was the most extensive empire in world history and considered the foremost great power, holding sway over 25% of the world's population and controlling about 25% of the Earth's total land area, while the United States and the Soviet Union grew in power in World War II.

He then replaces it with this without consensus (no sources either): "Terminology and Background"

Same with "Characteristics", Antiochus the Great adds without consensus here: The term was first used to describe nations with greater than great power status as early as 1944, but only gained its specific meaning with regard to the United States, the British Empire and the Soviet Union after World War II. This was because the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union had proved themselves to be capable of casting great influence in global politics and military dominance. The term in its current political meaning was coined by Dutch-American geostrategist Nicholas Spykman in a series of lectures in 1943 about the potential shape of a new post-war world order. This formed the foundation for the book The Geography of the Peace, which referred primarily to the unmatched maritime global supremacy of the British Empire and United States as essential for peace and prosperity in the world.

Then Antiochus the Great removs this without consensus here (under Characteristics): "The criteria of a superpower are not clearly defined and as a consequence they may differ between sources."

Then Antiochus the Great add this without consensus here: A year later, William T.R. Fox, an American foreign policy professor, elaborated on the concept in the book The Superpowers: The United States, Britain and the Soviet Union — Their Responsibility for Peace (1944), which spoke of the global reach of a super-empowered nation. Fox used the word Superpower to identify a new category of power able to occupy the highest status in a world in which, as the war then raging demonstrated, states could challenge and fight each other on a global scale. According to him, there were (at that moment) three states that were superpowers: British Empire, the United States, and the Soviet Union. The British Empire was the most extensive empire in world history and considered the foremost great power, holding sway over 25% of the world's population and controlling about 25% of the Earth's total land area, while the United States and the Soviet Union grew in power in World War II.

Then Antiochus the Great removes Car War without consensus here: - Original research |section|date November 2009 Remove Image:Cold War Map 1980 from Cold War in 1980. Consult the legend on the map for more details

Then Antiochus the Great removes this to not replace it without consensus: Despite attempts to create multinational coalitions or legislative bodies (such as the United Nations), it became increasingly clear that the superpowers had very different visions about what the post-war world ought to look like, and after the withdrawal of British aid to Greece in 1947 the United States took the lead in containing Soviet expansion in the Cold War.

Then Antiochus the Great removes population source without consensus here: Had a population of 290.9 million in 1989

Antiochus the Great replaces it without source here: Had a population of 286.7 million in 1989, the third largest on Earth behind China and India

Then Antiochus the Great removes this without consensus under Car War: The idea that the Cold War period revolved around only two blocs, or even only two nations, has been challenged by some scholars in the post–Cold War era, who have noted that the bipolar world only exists if one ignores all of the various movements and conflicts that occurred without influence from either of the two superpowers. Additionally, much of the conflict between the superpowers was fought in "proxy wars", which more often than not involved issues more complex than the standard Cold War oppositions.

Then Antiochus the Great removes without consensus: "Post Cold War Era" to "Cold War Era" instead

Then Antiochus the Great removes this without consensus: After the Soviet Union disintegrated in the early 1990s, the term hyperpower began to be applied to the United States, as the sole remaining superpower of the Cold War era. This term, coined by French foreign minister Hubert Védrine in the 1990s, is controversial and the validity of classifying the United States in this way is disputed. One notable opponent to this theory, Samuel P. Huntington, rejects this theory in favor of a multipolar balance of power.

Then Antiochus the Great replaces without consensus here: After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 that ended the Cold War, the post–Cold War world was sometimes considered to be a unipolar world, with the United States as the world's sole remaining superpower. In the opinion of Samuel P. Huntington, "The United States, of course, is the sole state with preeminence in every domain of power – economic, military, diplomatic, ideological, technological, and cultural – with the reach and capabilities to promote its interests in virtually every part of the world."

Then Antiochus the Great changes Hyperpower and adds the following without consensus here: Among those political commentators who felt that the United States had moved beyond superpower status after the fall of the Soviet Union, some felt a new term was needed to describe the United States' position. French Minister Hubert Védrine used the term "hyperpower" in a speech in March 1998, the earliest recorded use. It has also been applied retroactively to dominant empires of the past, including the British, French, Roman, and Chinese Empires. In this use, it is usually understood to mean a power that greatly exceeds any other in its political environment along several axes; Rome did not dominate India or China, but did dominate the entire Mediterranean area militarily, culturally, and economically.

To this without consensus: Among those political commentators who felt that the United States had moved beyond superpower status after the fall of the Soviet Union, some felt a new term was needed to describe the United States' position. French Minister Hubert Védrine used the term "hyperpower" in a speech in March 1998, the earliest recorded use. It has also been applied retroactively to dominant empires of the past, including the Persian Empire, Roman Empire, Arab Caliphate, French Empire, Mongol Empire, Ottoman Empire and the British Empire. In this use, it is usually understood to mean a power that greatly exceeds any other in its political environment along several axes; Rome did not dominate India or China, but did dominate the entire Mediterranean area militarily, culturally, and economically

Then Antiochus the Great removes Main|Potential superpowers

Then Antiochus the Greatreplaces it with this without consensus here: The term "Potential superpowers" has been applied by scholars and other qualified commentators to the possibility of several states achiveing superpower status in the 21st century. Due to their large markets, growing military strength, economic potential and influence in international affairs; China, the European Union, India, Russia and Brazil are among the countries most cited as having the potential of achieving superpower status 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 (e.g., Brazil and India) are presently great powers.

Then Antiochus the Great removes without consensus here: File:Potential Superpowers svg 300px Present day governments that currently are or have the potential to become a superpower within the 21st century.

−

  United States of America

− legend|#75507b|Brazil}} − legend|#cc0000|China}} − legend|#3465a4|European Union}} − legend|#73d216|India}} − legend|#f57900|Russia}}]] − Academics, institutions, politicians and other qualified commentators sometimes identify potential superpowers thought to have a strong likelihood of being recognized as superpowers in the 21st century. The record of such predictions has not been perfect. For example in the 1980s some commentators thought Japan would become a superpower, due to its large GDP and high economic growth at the time. However, Japan's economy crashed in 1991, creating a long period of economic slump in the country known as The Lost Years. As of August 2012, Japan has not fully recovered from the 1991 crash.

Then Antiochus the Great removes this without consensus here too: 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 (e.g., Brazil and India) are presently great powers.

Then Antiochus the Great replaces it with this without consensus: The record of such predictions has not been perfect. For example in the 1980s some commentators thought Japan would become a superpower, due to its large GDP and high economic growth at the time. However, Japan's economy crashed in 1991, creating a long period of economic slump in the country known as The Lost Years. As of August 2012, Japan has not fully recovered from the 1991 crash.

Which this was done with one edit by Antiochus the Great, no discussion whatsoever by him nor did he inform anybody of these changes. He removed loads of sources and replaced them with no so good sources, that is uncalled for and it out of line. The article is now meaningless. Edit is needed to correct these problems Antiochus the Great has created to this article. --27.121.111.201 (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

What are you trying to achieve with this? You went to all that trouble for what exactly? Whats your opinion on what Buckshot and I were discussing about? Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The sources are defining Russia as a emerging superpower, it's just that simple.--27.121.111.201 (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

@27.x: discuss content, not other editors, and be concise. I will not respond to personal attacks or walls of text alleging impropriety by editors with whom you disagree, nor am I here to arbitrate content. If no progress is made here I will extend the protection until a consensus is reached. Acroterion (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

On review, I've extended protection for two weeks, since I don't see any chance that a discussion that started last May will be resolved in the next few hours. Please comment on content, not on other users, avoiding comments like the original title of this section, which I have adjusted. Acroterion (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I was putting the consensus on what the editor did and questioning consensus. I am not getting an agreement on Antiochus the Great, he aparently doesn't want to discuss his edits. I have a problem with that as he has done this before.--27.121.111.201 (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

27.121.111.201, so you want me to consult with you and discuss every edit I make on this article? That doesn't sound reasonable, because thus far you have fallaciously attacked every single edit I have made (including edits where I have fixed simple grammar and structure mistakes like forming paragraphs). I think both Acroterion and Buckshot06 will both agree with me when I say that I don't have to discuss such good faith edits. What is concerning me however, is that you still refuse to discuss why you support Russian/EU pov in the articles leading paragraphs. As the administrator Buckshot06 pointed out to you, such material doesn't belong here!! Also 27.121.111.201, stop harassing me on my talk page, stop harassing my edits on other articles and stop doing what you did here. Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the article there's only one person whe has changed it and only one person who wants no one to change it, that's Antiochus the Great. You took and moved thigns around and now you want no one, not even one person to touch it. You don't believe anything what editors do but yourself. Now we have a page that went from superpowers to one superpower and made a list of potential superpower instead. Pretty messed up.--162.211.179.98 (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

162.211.179.98, the decision to deal with the issue of nationalistic POV within this article is clearly supported by two administrators that have kindly intervened in this recent dispute. The IP editor who accused me of "abusing this article" received a temporary block for harassment, disruptive editing and trying to forcibly push his nationalistic POV. 162.211.179.98, you say that the page "went from superpowers to one superpower" - please tell me what is wrong with this? Only the United States is considered a superpower, so naturally this article should reflect that reality. Remember, Wikipedia is not a place for editors to assert their POV agendas! Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Time to remove this source from 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. This is a 15 year old source that needs to be updated with something else.

Can be replaced with academic sources such as http://www.news.illinois.edu/news/08/0508superpower.html

Defines US as great power http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/us-china-a-new-model-of-great-power-relations

Not an acedemic but a sister chain source http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/100238900/us-government-shutdown-barack-obama-is-presiding-over-the-end-of-americas-superpower-status/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.211.179.98 (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

While this not an acedemic site, USAwatchdog.com their interview Karen Hudes and her creditable position states the U.S. Not a Super Power and Not Credible Anymore.

World Bank lawyer Karen Hudes says the global opinion of America is tarnished. Hudes contends, “Is the United States a credible super power? The answer to that is ‘we are neither.’ We’re not a super power and we are not credible.” http://kahudes.net/

As Youtube is not a creditable source, it's the material I am looking at in the in the interview

http://usawatchdog.com/u-s-not-a-super-power-and-not-credible-anymore-karen-hudas/

.org non profit site

America Was Once a Superpower - Now It's Not - 30 October 2013 By The Daily Take, The Thom Hartmann Program | Op-Ed

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/19713-america-was-once-a-superpower-now-its-not

--162.211.179.98 (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Since there are no new source updates from the 15 year old souce 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; the only acedemic sources that are new are sending the United States as a great power. So with that I move to remove this 15 year old article off and replace with the current sources [18][19][20].

The US has lost its superpower status when there no new acedemic sources to support it anymore, therefore the article needs to be changed.--162.211.179.89 (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

With the current restructuring of the article, the statement and source is actually no longer needed. SG²⁰⁹⁰ 00:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I did some reading over and over on the article and do not quite agree the article is making much sense from original. Noticed some of the edits with material but sources have been tossed out which I quite don't undertsand but I am seeing that from one editor making those changes. I don't see any agreements on that and for that I support older version.--103.1.153.206 (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I want to make conflict of interest on 109.76.220.159 and Antiochus the Great both are the same editor and both are creating edit wars from pushing the same POV. Since this is a talk page it is not being used as a talk page and they are avoiding it. There is POV pushing and no talking on this page. If there is going to be no talking then the article will blocked again.--103.1.153.206 (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

Article revision, no POV

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 [21][22][23] and not talking about it here also[24] 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)

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. Their motives for making 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 reach a clear consensus of which revision to endorse. Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Brief comments here

This version is better[25] 17:25, 28 December 2013. I disgree on this version[26] 23:14, 30 December 2013 --103.1.153.206 (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Discuss here

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[27]. I looked at the history of the Superpowers[28] and Superpowers talk[29] but the result has been under edit war since Dec 28[30] 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[31][32][33][34] 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[35]; sounds racial and out of context. This is the older version of Superpowers[36] and this is Antiochus the Greats version[37]. 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)