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 62.73.7.79 (talk) at 05:18, 10 February 2014 (Undid revision 594781188 by 62.73.7.79 (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.Yay for Antiochus.

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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


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.[1]]]

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.[1]

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."[2]

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.[3] 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,[4]India,[4] the Persian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Roman Empire,[5][6] the Mongol Empire, the Portuguese Empire, the Spanish Empire,[7][8] and France.[9][10] 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[11] and controlling about 25% of the Earth's total land area,[12] 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[1] 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.[13] 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[14] and controlling about 25% of the Earth's total land area,[15] 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.[16]

Then Antiochus the Great removes population source without consensus here: Had a population of 290.9 million in 1989[17]

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.[18] 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.[19]

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.[1] 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,[20][21] with the United States as the world's sole remaining superpower.[22] 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."Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).[23][24][25]

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.[26] French Minister Hubert Védrine used the term "hyperpower" in a speech in March 1998,[27] 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.[28] French Minister Hubert Védrine used the term "hyperpower" in a speech in March 1998,[29] 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.[30] 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,[31][32][33][34][35][36] the European Union,[37][38] India,[39] Russia[40][41][42] and Brazil[43][44][45] are among the countries most cited as having the potential of achieving superpower status in the 21st century.[20][46][47][48][49] 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 [50][51]

− 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.[52] 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.[53]

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,[54][55][56] the People's Republic of China,[57][58][59][60] and the Russian Federation,[40][41][42] 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.[20][61][62][63][64] 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.[65] 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.[66]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I saw no prior talk, I saw a take over on the older version moved to this[25], unacceptable. Now going back to push any form of POV under any circumstance what is there here, who's doing this here[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] Looks like a push on Wikipedia's policy WP:NPOV--103.1.153.206 (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[35]. I looked at the history of the Superpowers[36] and Superpowers talk[37] but the result has been under edit war since Dec 28[38] 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[39][40][41][42] 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[43]; sounds racial and out of context. This is the older version of Superpowers[44] and this is Antiochus the Greats version[45]. 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)[reply]
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[46](Notice how Russian Nationalist removed here)[47],[48] (Notice how Russian Nationalist was removed here)[[49],[50], [51], [52]. 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)[reply]
Not pointing fingers but it is clearly noticeable to contact people specifically to write on here and then removing Russian Nationalist POV [53][54](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[55][56][57][58][59]. Is that fair?--103.1.153.206 (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments

This version is better[60] 17:25, 28 December 2013. I disagree on this version[61] 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[62] 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)[reply]
Isn't' this supposed to be on the Potential superpowers article? Swordman97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Surely China ought to be mentioned. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
List the sources here. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

There is only 1 superpower at this moment, so how it would be possible? OccultZone (Talk) 04:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Wieno (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was easy, you are talking about "superpowers", yet there is only 1 superpower. OccultZone (Talk) 04:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  1. ^ a b c d 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.
  2. ^ Miller, Lyman. "www.stanford.edu". www.stanford.edu. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
  3. ^ "China Superpower" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-08-27.
  4. ^ a b Angus Maddison (2003). The World Economy: Historical Statistics, OECD, Paris.
  5. ^ Schaefer, Brett. "www.heritage.org". www.heritage.org. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
  6. ^ "www.blackwellpublishing.com". www.blackwellpublishing.com. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
  7. ^ KAMEN, H., Spain's Road To Empire: The Making Of A World Power, 1492–1763, 2003, Penguin, 640p.
  8. ^ Edwards, John (2005). Isabella: Catholic Queen and Madam of Spain. Tempus Publishing. ISBN 0-7524-3331-8.
  9. ^ Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, Mark Greengrass, The Ancien Régime 1998 Wiley-Blackwell, page 512
  10. ^ Steven Englund, Napoleon: A Political Life, 2005, Harvard University Press, page 254
  11. ^ Angus Maddison. The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective (p. 98, 242). OECD, Paris, 2001.
  12. ^ To Rule the Earth..., hostkingdom.net, Bibliography. Retrieved March 11, 2007.
  13. ^ "China Superpower" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-08-27.
  14. ^ Angus Maddison. The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective (p. 98, 242). OECD, Paris, 2001.
  15. ^ To Rule the Earth..., hostkingdom.net, Bibliography. Retrieved March 11, 2007.
  16. ^ Robert Frazier, 'Did Britain Start the Cold War? Bevin and the Truman Doctrine', Historical Journal, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Sep., 1984), pp. 715–727.
  17. ^ http://www.theodora.com/wfb1990/soviet_union/soviet_union_people.html
  18. ^ Conflicts of Superpower by Signal Alpha News Achieve Press 2005
  19. ^ Economic Interests, Party, and Ideology in Early Cold War Era U.S. Foreign Policy Benjamin O. Fordham by World Peace Foundation; Massachusetts Institute of Technology April 1998
  20. ^ a b c Charles Krauthammer, The Unipolar Moment, Foreign Policy Magazine (1991).
  21. ^ "www.gaikoforum.com" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-08-27.
  22. ^ Country profile: United States of America, BBC News. Retrieved March 11, 2007.
  23. ^ Von Drehle, David (5 March 2006). "The Multipolar Unilateralist". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2006-06-10.
  24. ^ "No Longer the "Lone" Superpower". Retrieved 2006-06-11.
  25. ^ "The war that may end the age of superpower". Retrieved 2006-06-11.
  26. ^ Kim Richard Nossal (2 July 1999). "Lonely Superpower or Unapologetic Hyperpower?". McMaster University. Retrieved 4 November 2010.
  27. ^ Definition and Use of the Word Hyperpower
  28. ^ Kim Richard Nossal (2 July 1999). "Lonely Superpower or Unapologetic Hyperpower?". McMaster University. Retrieved 4 November 2010.
  29. ^ Definition and Use of the Word Hyperpower
  30. ^ Amy Chua, Days of Empire, http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Day-of-Empire/Amy-Chua/e/9780385512848
  31. ^ http://books.google.ca/books?id=g5s_uDDZSjoC&pg=PA155&dq=china+%22Second+Superpower%22&client=firefox-a
  32. ^ http://books.google.ca/books?id=PIRkvshH5NYC&pg=PR9&dq=china+%22Second+Superpower%22&client=firefox-a
  33. ^ http://books.google.ca/books?id=6ubh-K1gBooC&pg=PT563&dq=china+%22Second+Superpower%22&client=firefox-a
  34. ^ A Point Of View: What kind of superpower could China be?
  35. ^ "US-China Institute :: news & features :: china as a global power". China.usc.edu. 2007-11-13. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
  36. ^ Visions of China, CNN Specials. Retrieved March 11, 2007.
  37. ^ Europe: the new superpower by Mark Leonard, Irish Times. Retrieved March 11, 2007.
  38. ^ John McCormick,(2007). The European Superpower. Palgrave Macmillan.
  39. ^ 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.
  40. ^ a b "Russia: A superpower rises again – CNN.com". CNN. Retrieved 24 May 2010.
  41. ^ a b Coughlin, Con (13 April 2007). "Russia on the march – again". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 24 May 2010.
  42. ^ a b "Russia in the 21st Century – Cambridge University Press". Cambridge.org. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
  43. ^ Martinez, Patricio (2009-11-02). "Alumna Analyzes Brazil's Emergence | The Cornell Daily Sun". Cornellsun.com. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
  44. ^ "While the US Looks Eastward Brazil Is Emerging as a Nuclear Superpower". Brazzil.com. 2008-08-12. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
  45. ^ "Brazil is becoming an economic and political superpower". Transnational.org. 2006-01-27. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
  46. ^ "China's Not a Superpower". Retrieved 29 April 2012.
  47. ^ MARTINEZ-DIAZ, LEONARDO. "Brazil in the Global Crisis: Still a Rising Economic Superpower?". Brookings Institute. Retrieved 29 April 2012.
  48. ^ Stubb, Alexander. "Will the EU Ever Become a Superpower?". Carnegie Endowment. Retrieved 29 April 2012.
  49. ^ Biswas, Soutik (2012-03-13). "Why India Will Not Become a Superpower". BBC India. Retrieved 29 April 2012.
  50. ^ Country profile: United States of America, BBC News, Accessed July 22, 2008
  51. ^ "Analyzing American Power in the Post-Cold War Era". Retrieved 2007-02-28.
  52. ^ time.com 1988 article "Japan From Superrich To Superpower"
  53. ^ Leika Kihara (August 17, 2012). "Japan eyes end to decades long deflation". Reuters. Retrieved September 7, 2012.
  54. ^ Martinez, Patricio (2009-11-02). "Alumna Analyzes Brazil's Emergence | The Cornell Daily Sun". Cornellsun.com. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
  55. ^ "While the US Looks Eastward Brazil Is Emerging as a Nuclear Superpower". Brazzil.com. 2008-08-12. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
  56. ^ "Brazil is becoming an economic and political superpower". Transnational.org. 2006-01-27. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
  57. ^ "US-China Institute :: news & features :: china as a global power". China.usc.edu. 2007-11-13. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
  58. ^ Visions of China, CNN Specials. Retrieved March 11, 2007.
  59. ^ John McCormick,(2007). The European Superpower. Palgrave Macmillan.
  60. ^ Europe: the new superpower by Mark Leonard, Irish Times. Retrieved March 11, 2007.
  61. ^ "China's Not a Superpower". Retrieved 29 April 2012.
  62. ^ MARTINEZ-DIAZ, LEONARDO. "Brazil in the Global Crisis: Still a Rising Economic Superpower?". Brookings Institute. Retrieved 29 April 2012.
  63. ^ Stubb, Alexander. "Will the EU Ever Become a Superpower?". Carnegie Endowment. Retrieved 29 April 2012.
  64. ^ Biswas, Soutik (2012-03-13). "Why India Will Not Become a Superpower". BBC India. Retrieved 29 April 2012.
  65. ^ time.com 1988 article "Japan From Superrich To Superpower"
  66. ^ Leika Kihara (August 17, 2012). "Japan eyes end to decades long deflation". Reuters. Retrieved September 7, 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Superpower&oldid=594781473"