This is an archive of past discussions about Superpower. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Request to take down Superpower and Potential Superpowers articles, fed with Corruption
I am making a request that the entire Superpower & Potential Superpowers articles to be removed and take the down by removing the entire content so this issue is gone to request Admin Daniel J. Leivick; remove it for article corruption. We need to eliminate and just kick this whole section out on the curve.
I have just read and read so much corruption on this entire section of Wikipedia which is just all false information on Wikipedia; fed with lies and lack of todays current content by individuals such as AI007 and also some other members feeding corruption into this network that we cannot trust or source or rely on any sort of information to the public's eye on topic's on Superpowers and Potential Superpowers. The sources are horrible but the fact we are getting no where and people should not be using this site for these sources, the information does not add up. The members have ruined this and just have fed false information to anybody with lies and corruption of facts. People have undo'd almost every new source on country's such as Russia the United States and more but the fact it is not true, it is a complete host of lies.
As Admin Daniel J. Leivick has noted, he mentioned we should eliminate this entire section as it stands and their will be no Superpower & Potential Superpowers articles at all. Users just have ruined it for everyone and I can tell you people like AI007 and bla bla bla too, lets close this story and move on.
I favor to eliminate everything out people, there are some good folks here and there are some really bad folks here too but it is a war of false facts and people have made this a video game with content and played with the information as if it is a complete joke because the information is a complete joke, I don't trust any of it.
Good grief. Voting to delete an entire well sourced and long established article that is not in violation of any wikipedia guidelines as a response to "corruption" resulting from the edit warring of a couple editors is beyond absurd.Zebulin (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
When I see what is going on and I just sit here looking at my content getting stolen by user AI009. Ya I think it is corrupted to see I am bringing up facts and this ass^%#@% goes and steals it away. We do have a problem, glad you brought this up because I feel the heat is on by trying to edit something and trying to bring up valid information where we have this AI009 going on some hate spree on people. I never seen such a crybaby, I would kick the f%^$# out of this guy if I met him in person as he just tells on people. Ya the discussion and Superpowers articles are indeed a big bunch of lying facts, really just one big sad story by a hate parade. I suggest the wikipedia people take the whole thing out, write a topic on the Superpowers and Potential superpowers homepages saying the site is down due to wikipedia hate crimes or something to tell people that the information is not useful information by being corrupt for reading. I would like to see that because we have just too much fighting. Saruman20, yes a Superpower is an important view but the internet is not a mandatory subject or place; people shouldn't just rely on Wikipedia to read about a Superpower or Potential Superpowers, there are books and books out there I think many people should read instead of relying on a community of people we have no idea on their qualifications (these could be truck drivers or a janitor or a university professor, a waitress, a banker or whatever, no one knows anybody so that does not make it creditable but a book, says something about the write and their reference information, Wikipedia is like Myspace or homepage blog), even AI009 hasn't even read a single page to say the things that are being said. We have too much people crying the blues editing and some are just using every chain of command to protect themselves by nurking on people for silly stupids things, creating a bunch of crap, which just starts wars on each other. I couldn't say one person accept for AI009 who uses every possibility to burn the fire than putting it out. Rocks and stones are allover the place, so trying to fix the mess is not the right answer, so there should be an elimination, not a meditation or a discussion to fix but to discontinue it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.3.127 (talk) 06:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
That above post violated so much wikipedia policy I'm not even could read anything besides the sentance with my username in it. "People shouldn't rely on Wikipedia to read about a Superpower or Potential Superpowers, there are books and books out there I think should read instead of relying on a community of people we have no idea on their qualifications." That was, without a doubt, one of the most terrible sentances I have yet to lay eyes on. Why would someone use wikipedia? 1. Books cost money, wikipedia is free. 2. Maybe they don't where to look for books. Wikipedia gives sources, then they could find books. Then there is the comment about wikipedia community. It doesn't matter. I could be a janitor, but if I add properly sourced material, so what? Even if your an expert on the topic, you still have to have sources. It doesn't matter who the editor is, as long as he/she has properly sourced material. That was an attack on wikipedia and that's unaccebtable. Saruman20 (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Sources on this superpower topic are from articles, not from books. What book is there published currently to state the US is a superpower? As I far as I have seen there are 3 published books from 2008 that says the US is a great power, not a superpower[1]Superpower to Besieged Global Power. Since the angry dogs keep eliminating the idea that Russia is a superpower again (as it is) more facts come, more guys denounce the material in the trash. Because this is wikipedia and this is free to the public, it also free to hate, free to discriminate and the liberty to say what you please (with come restriction) about sources. If I were a professor and this was a students project or research paper, I would rate this a D- for a lack of sources as the superpower wikipedia article is also unaccebtable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Versace11 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
No one will write a book or article about the US as a superpower, because it's common knowledge. Why would you write about something that most of the world's population believe. Books are written for people in the Western world, because that's where most of the literate, rich people are, and since most everyone in the West thinks the US is a superpower, it wouldn't be very successful to write a book about something that every already knows or thinks they know. Also, your opinion on what you would rate this article is irrelevant. Saruman20 (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Usage
Can I point out that being a superpower does not confer any absolute status on a country, please? There are at least five undisputed non-superpowers that the United States could not defeat in warfare; global economic stability is dependent on at least twenty countries; diplomatic influence depends enormously on what exactly is being discussed. "Superpower" has no meaning as a rank beyond that of the other great powers, it's just a term of convenience. Therefore, this whole argument about Russia is STUPID because Russia clearly is referenced as a superpower when appropriate and there are no absolute criteria - unless you want the canonical definition, which is limited to USA, USSR and British Empire. Therefore please, PLEASE do not attempt to assess current superpowers yourself. The whole meaning of the definition is in perceptions of the countries, not the actual status of the countries involved. So if McCain refers to Russia as a superpower in one context, that's relevant; if Bolton insists there are no Great Powers outside the USA, that's also relevant; Russia's GDP, active forces and military budget are not even remotely relevant to OUR assessment of its status. This is the very definition of OR, and while truth is important, remember - Verifiability first! In this situation where the definition has no grounding in concrete facts, truth is irrelevant and verifiability is everything. So keep it to that - usage - and stop quoting GDPs at each other. Leushenko (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Though I agree that me citing GDP figures to support my case was more of original research, my gripe was about the sources. The sources given were either editorials, or stated Russia as an energy superpower or potential superpower. Secondly, your whole argument of "superpower" being a term of convenience is itself original research. I can give you links of several EU, Chinese and Indian leaders stating their respective nations/sub-national entity as superpowers. So that makes them also superpowers? Well, I thought since this is an encyclopedia, only credible, academic work should be cited on such issues. Am I wrong? --AI009 (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
when the source isn't a sort that is expressly excluded by wikipedia guidelines it's probably better to simply leave it in and attribute the source directly in the text if you have doubts as to its credibility.Zebulin (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
So you mean to say, we should include statements made by all those leaders who claim their respective countries to be superpowers? For example, "Mr. XXX says YYY is a superpower but ABC organization also claims that ZZZ is the only superpower in the world. However, CCC claims there are three superpowers, YYY, ZZZ and HHH. And, EEE, UUU and III are also claimed to be superpowers by...." Happy reading! --122.163.118.22 (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
That's what policy indicates we should do. To call anything other than the USA, USSR or British Empire a superpower is OR, that much is clear. Obviously avoiding OR here is going to be hard, since without it the term loses its relevance, but what I'm specifically objecting to is OR based on facts. If you can provide N sources saying Russia is a superpower, yay. For the sake of NPOV, any claims that it is must be met with claims that it's not, because it's not part of the definition of superpower which was built around three specific states. Claims that the USA is not a superpower need to be aired in the context of the USA's status as the last surviving member of the group. Basically, statements that go against the original definition have to be based on proper sources and explicit statements, not OR or synthesis of facts. This is important to maintain encyclopaedic quality. Maybe it's not necessary to be quite as thorough in the inlines as 122.163.118.22's example, but it is important that all claims of superpower status are sourced, not just the bases for them. Leushenko (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou Leushenko for understanding the point on Russia, McCain used the exact context as the world superpowers in his statement referring to Russia and the United States. It is relevant to use McCain[2] defining 2 serious countries and warfare. The position that Russia is in, it is stupid to think Russia is anything less than a superpower when the country has everything going for itself. Clearly there is no stop in sight for Russia and I am not a nationlist if I quote Russia as a superpower, I qoute on the current resources and even the US government current statements, stating what they know and what they say. If AI009 or now Empirical Genus goes on and says more horse shit on that Russia is not a superpower on his nonsense opinions, trying selling that to the media then to John McCain and see if he will change his mind he misquoted the public on his Russia USA speech Mr. AI009 or Imperial Genus, last month. If AI009 or Imperial Genusis so smart, go to the media then, tell them they're wrong and your Mr. Right Imperial Genus? Here is his address: Washington Office John McCain
The page is currently locked - but one statement in the opening section is incorrect and needs altering.
It states "Following World War II, the British Empire ceased to exist as its territories became independent". This isn't quite true. The Empire has never ceased to exist - inasmuch as the UK still has territories overseas, it still has an empire which includes territories such as the Gibralta and The Falklands. It has shrunk drastically and all remaining colonies are very small on the global scale, Hong Kong probably the last really significant territory to go. But nonetheless an Empire still technically exists to this day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.49.109 (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Just one more thing to the same section: could you add a {{-}} or other similar whitespace adding thing so the image isn't shoving the refs over? — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Article paragraph reads:
"After the Cold War, the most common belief held is that only the United States fulfills the criteria to be considered a superpower,[2] although it is a matter of debate if it currently is a hegemon and if it is losing its superpower status.[3][4] Also, there is a debate regarding Russia's status as either a superpower or as a potential superpower.[5][6][7]"
the writers of the kommersant article don't justify their article title. Nowhere in the article do we find instances where "washington" in any form acknowledged Russia as a superpower. I wonder if the article title reflects difficulty in translation rather than acknowledgement of superpower status.Zebulin (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The writers do justify the article, it is a source for the material and it has been used before, there is no reason not to use it. The title of the article makes it quite clear.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Did you read it? The word superpower doesn't appear anywhere except in the title! The writers are literally putting words into "washingtons" mouth if that wasn't a mistake. Name one statement from the article other than the title that justifys the idea that Washington has been calling Russia a "Superpower" or specifically identifies traits in Russia that only a superpower could have. There is nothing in the article that comes close to supporting the hyperbole in the title.Zebulin (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Zebulin do not use this article as source for "Washington Acknowledges Russia as Superpower". The reasons have been explained to User:24.205.234.250 (who also is User:24.176.166.135) enough times now by a wide range of other editors. In addition, this is misuse of the {{editprotected}} it should be obvious to User:24.205.234.250 by now that there is no consensus. Species8473 (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree, the Kommersant article is one article to add to other articles, your making an oppinion what you think, not what the article says. This article is an important fact for superpower and should be used.--24.176.166.135 (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Zebulin and Species. How many times do I have to say this? The Kommersant article should stay out because it is frankly a terrible source. News articles are rarely reliable sources. The exceptions are respected, prestigious mainstream sources such as the BBC, NY Times, Time, Newsweek, etc. The title is misleading. It says, and I quote:
U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe held special hearings devoted to Russia on Thursday. The Commission came to a conclusion which is flattering to Russia: the latter is returning to the international arena as an influential political and economic power.
The commission did not say that Russia has become a superpower. It said that it is "an influential political and economic power", which could be anything. A middle power, a regional power, a great power, etc. Including sources like this is the reason why otential great powers was deleted. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Kommersant article validated material. Source says, "Washington Acknowledges Russia as Superpower". I can't argue to say this is not the truth but when the government uses words like this, there has to be a reason. This is a reasonable article to use, so I plainly argue that if those who of you who don't favor, then make a case with another recent article to compare or contact Washington yourself. Please remit this source on the main page, Russia should be considered a superpower but not all based on this article but just some evidence it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackjacket (talk • contribs) 05:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Great power article is current the place for debate if the US is a current Superpower
I have been trying to get a debate about the current superpowers to go here for a while now since I believe that the talk:great power article is not the place for such discussions. After a month of futility I am asking for some active editors of this article to please venture to the great power talk page and weigh into this conversation.
Ok if I was a ringside announcer it would go something like this Is the USA a current superpower or is it merely a Great Power? You can decided now let wikipedia dictate our own beliefs to the rest of the world. Let WP:ORWP:Crystal and WP:SYN be damned! I know that someone will take that out of context and say that I was being serious and not silly (like I mean it to be) but the conversation just gets too serious sometimes that I need some levity added to the situation :-) hope no one minds! If you do mind I do apologize, I guess it didn't come off as funny as I thought it would... But I hope that doesn't happen... now I'm rambling... damn. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
United States Superpower
Hello, I'm planning to add to this article that the United States was recently described as no longer a superpower by scholars. Even though not everyone may agree, this is a significant view published by a reliable source. For that it is in line with official policy at WP:NPOV. While excluding it is not - resistance is futile. The sources 12 are based on the work of "leading scholars and policy analysts from nine countries". Including Edward A. Kolodziej (Research Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for Global Studies at the University of Illinois) and Roger E. Kanet (Professor of International Studies at the University of Miami). Both can be considered reputable, because of their position in the academic society. The first article has a number of direct quotes from Edward A. Kolodziej stating: "..the unfounded assumption underlying the Bush Doctrine that the United States is a superpower..", "The book also rejects the counter liberal argument that the United States is, indeed, a superpower.." and "..misguidedly assumed to be the continued superpower status of the United States..". To further establish that this is a significant view, George Soros who was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and is currently the chairman of Soros Fund Management and the Open Society Institute is also stated to recently have said that "the U.S.'s status as the world's economic superpower is no longer guaranteed" 12. And finally there is an article at the Austin Chronicle by Michael Venture that questions: "How can you call America a superpower when we can't meet our expenses without the goodwill of our rivals?" and states "Financially and militarily, we're no superpower anymore". I will now stand by for a few days awaiting any comments. =Species8473=(talk)06:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
You can attribute those views to those sources but it won't justify removing other conflicting sourced content from the article.Zebulin (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I would exclude that bit of text you added. The source will suffice as a source. It accentuates the view that the US is not a superpower; instead of a simple, balanced sentence. Anything other than that would be POV, which we don't need any more of here. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to put these stories here for you guys, take a look on issues with the United States.
The United States of America must now accept its fate as a former Super Power that has fizzled out!:
In the opening section of this article, the author mentions a debate over whether the US is a Superpower. To justify this he cites the Austin Chronicle and Salon.com, not the exactly the most scholarly, expert, or necessarily unbiased sources out there. In fact, one of the articles is based on public opinion polling in Asia while the other is an Op-Ed column.
Can we not do any better? What about citing real experts and respected academics? This article, in my opinion, needs to be entirely rewritten. I mean, the opening paragraph lists the entire name of a new book in text as groundbreaking information! What about the wealth of academic and scholarly writing that has existed for the last 18 years? I did a lot of reading on this topic in college and grad school, but don't have the time, patience, or memory (of the major works and thinkers) to go through and build a decent article.
First of all, there is no single author of a page. You're probably new to Wikipedia and don't understand how it works. Any registered user, such as you, or even anonymous IP users can edit pages. You can change something as blantant as what you cite. I for one, have been against citing such unreliable sources for a while now. But these are controversial pages and tempers flare up quickly. I've decided to focus my energy somewhere, but seeing as there is other support for removing those sources, I'll go ahead and remove them. --Hobie (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
In addition, I've taken the liberty of removing a Telegraph article as a source. It never states that Russia is a superpower, but rather "Putin wants to restore Russia's superpower status." Note the difference. Some people are going to write "but the Telegraph is a reliable source". It is, just not that particular article. ----Hobie (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Brazil as a potential superpower
Hi Cocoliras, the sources cited do not back up Brazil's claim to be a potential superpower. The first source claims that Brazil is "Keen to transform itself from developing nation to world power". The second source suggests that Brazil has become an "agricultural superpower" (and is an article posted in a forum). Nirvana888 (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Even if acceptable sources are found I'd want to make sure that they meet acceptance at the Potential superpowers article before adding them here, both to avoid article conflict and also because the editors there are more interested in that topic.Zebulin (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Cocoliras, you are edit warring and not helping to build consensus. If you persist you will be reported for breaking the 3RR rule by reverting more than 3 times in a 24 hr period Nirvana888 (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I left all credible sources on the Potential Superpowers article talk page. I also sourced the additions to the article as well. They are credible sources. It would be a rare change to eliminate the changes despite these being sourced. Since I think that's enought proof for the addition of Brazil to appear in the article. I made the changes here. Sorry if its to early to do them. Cocoliras (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you please stop edit warring? You've broken the 3RR and can/should be blocked yet again (last time was 1 week. wonder what this time will be?). If you're gonna make edits at least make sure you do a good job. You're replacing the current map with an incorrect map that also lists Japan. You have not obtained consensus and continue to cite wholly inadequate sources. Nirvana888 (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/03/AR2006030302055.html|title=Washington Post (No superpower)|accessdate=2006-06-10}}
"uiuc-superpower" :
Unger J (2008), [http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/08/0508superpower.html U.S. ] ''University of Illinois''
Unger J (2008), [http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/08/0508superpower.html U.S. no longer superpower, now a besieged global power, scholars say] ''University of Illinois''
"The Global list (No superpower)" :
{{cite web|url=http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/printStoryId.aspx?StoryId=3553|title=The Multipolar World Vs. The Superpower|accessdate=2006-06-10}}
{{cite web|url=http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/printStoryId.aspx?StoryId=3553|title=The Global list (No superpower)|accessdate=2006-06-10}}
"Paper for presentation at the biennial meetings of the South African Political Studies Association Saldanha, Western Cape 29 June-2 July 1999" :
{{cite web|url=http://post.queensu.ca/~nossalk/papers/hyperpower.htm|title=Analyzing American Power in the Post-Cold War Era|accessdate=2007-02-28}}
{{cite web|url=http://post.queensu.ca/~nossalk/papers/hyperpower.htm|title=Lonely Superpower or Unapologetic Hyperpower? Analyzing American Power in the Post-Cold War Era|accessdate=2007-02-28}}
"A Times (No superpower)" :
{{cite web|url=http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ED05Ak01.html|title=The war that may end the age of superpower|accessdate=2006-06-11}}
{{cite web|url=http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ED05Ak01.html|title=A Times (No superpower)|accessdate=2006-06-11}}
"Globalpolicy%org (No superpower)" :
{{cite web|url=http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/challenges/competitors/2005/0315chinapower.htm|title=No Longer the "Lone" Superpower|accessdate=2006-06-11}}
{{cite web|url=http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/challenges/competitors/2005/0315chinapower.htm|title=Globalpolicy.org (No superpower)|accessdate=2006-06-11}}
The map is obviously misleading because the Dominions were understood in contemporary usage to be partners within the British Empire and were never excluded from its bounds. The colonies were only a subset of the British nations and territories. Australian schoolchildren in the 1950s used to pledge allegiance to the British Empire as their country. No published map ever looked like the one created for this article, for that reason. 129.67.174.46 (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I might be able to address your concern. The map applies to the U.K. and its de juredirectly ruled colonies, not those states de facto associated with it, You sede the difference. But yes, no doubt Australia and Canada were partners. --Hobie (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Maps of the British Empire always included the British Dominions, so just showing the subsets ruled directly from London - the Indian empire and the Crown Colonies - confuses what the Empire in 1945 popular usage was (a shorthand term for "British Commonwealth and Empire"). This was a reasonable shorthand term in 1945 because the British Dominions or Old Commonwealth nations of Canada, NZ, Australia and SA were very much closer to the UK politically than the New Commonwealth nations in Asia and Africa today. So the map should be replaced with one displaying the British Empire as a whole, including the Dominions, and if necessary for greater clarity labelled "British Commonwealth and Empire", though "British Empire" might actually be better because the meaning of Commonwealth has changed since 1945, and today conveys a sense of a much looser association of states than it did back then. 78.146.61.64 (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Info on Russia's status
I have been reading reviews here from China to Russia on their stance as superpowers but I have collected a lot of sources on specifically Russia as a new superpower which we should change the content as written on the article page. I have more than 70 articles from transcipts, interviews, media clips and more to bring Russia up to the table as a superpower country. Here is a few for starters but I will be posting the others tomorrow for you guys to review, I have plenty more coming:
>I added some more information facts today, just to let you guys see some of these sources. Have a look, I have more sources so this is just a tie on track what is on with Russia right now. World is watching but it seems very clear Russia is a global fore front on the world stage now. Please read, see what you think, thanks
-I have read Ronald Steels books, I am quite impressed with his research. He says in his UCS blog on Russia
becoming a superpower and announced a book on Russia will be published by July 2009. He has his email address
where he will respond concerning his research and any concern you may have. Personally I feel Dr. Steel knows this subject more than anybody regarding superpower countries, even on here. If Dr. Steel says Russia is a superpower or on the verge one, I have to agree with him as discribes all the details on his research stating what countries stand as a superpower.--Packit (talk) 04:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I heard 60 minutes was going to interview this writer about world stage countries, I don't know if the US
will be in the heat of discussion as Germany, France and Russia's governments have been interviewed about the US
not holding sole status any longer after the Bush Adminstration. I read on 60 Minutes forum site, they are still
developing the story. Alex Joes is said to have been interviewed by 60 Minutes, that will be interesting.--Packit (talk) 04:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Czech press survey :
Czech Happenings, Czech Republic :
Sept 1, 2008 :
http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/index_view.php?id=331160
Czech Happenings, Czech Republic - Sep 1, 2008
“Russia showed by the Georgian war that it can be a superpower, while the European Union showed during the war that it is not able to be a superpower”
U.S. worries Russia returning to its past ;
Bush administration struggles for right response to Russia's aggression :
Associative Press/ MSNBC :
Aug. 17, 2008 :
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26253358
The new Cold War and the Kossovo “sui generis” precedent :
The European Weekly, the New Europe :
September 8, 2008 - Issue 798 :
http://www.neurope.eu/articles/89612.php
Hi,
Most of the sources you've posted only infer that Russia wants to be seen as a superpower especially in light of its military aggression in Georgia. This clearly does not equate to it being one. In fact, there is no reputable scholar who would suggest that Russia is a superpower and certainly not in the sense that the U.S. is a superpower. Nirvana888 (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Well you have to read them one by one, there is superpower said facts and there is achieving superpower status facts. I think that what they are doing what influences htem they have over what the US can't control clearly says something. There is a domination and I am reading it. They can enter Ukraine anytime, they have formed their own clone NATO alliance that isn't NATO but called Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO)[4] which is China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan India, Iran, Mongolia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Russia is the chair holder. Please read the articles and see the facts in the bag as there is a lot of material here. Lots of facts lots of statements by the media, governments, news media and more. I haven't read very much on the United States or found anything that the US holds its superpower but 8/08/08 games came out China also was said as superpower new as I heard it on the news but more has been said on Russia. If I could find things on the US but not much evidence supports the US at this time. I did though send 3 facts above on the US superpower questionable source is listed above, you can read those but I am not making a case just providing the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.119.22 (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
so, under what grounds is russia NOT a superpower? Nirvana has given his opinion, not valid sourced claims. Dismissing the claims of scholars as unreputable is a fallacy that deal with the issue at hand (im doing the LSAT now, i should know this)
I noticed that whoever posted the "sources" also edited the intro paragraph to include a clause that Russia was a superpower. Please do not add content like that until there is a consensus. At the time you edited the page, nobody had supported your proposal, let alone supported it. Right now, you're opening a fresh wound on this project. A couple of months ago, established editors such as me had to deal for weeks with trolls who fervently supported the view that Russia is a superpower and that the US wasn't. We had previously agreed in this project not to use media sources, but only academic sources. The media is often sensationalist, poorly researched, or in some cases simply misleading. Most of your sources are not only media sources unsuitable for this project but are not reliable sources period. For instance you use YouTube as a source. YouTube is not a relaible source ever. You also use a tabloid (Austin Chronicle) to support your view. --Hobie (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
User directinfo has really done his homework, those are all good sources. If you say about articles, then you would have to even delete article sources that are on there originally main page in the first place, then argue them too, why isn't they're talk about on those sources? When a big news agency such as New York Times (and LA Times) says Russia is a new born superpower with over a 180 million circulation viewers, that is also a world influence. The question from Lihaas, what is Russia's placement to the world then? It isn't a world power or great power anymore according to the headlines. I viewed the youtube video but it says CNN interview, that video was not modified. If you don't like it, then get it from CNN's homepage and if the Austin Chronicle is not your taste, you've got 65 other valid sources from directinfo.--209.129.64.127 (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, let's see, how many of them are well known international relations or geopolitics expert, um none. It's like Saru said earlier, the majority of news places are just looking for a story, with no real feel of how Power in International relations work. For example, the recent war, all newspapers are going, Russia is a superpower, then you have an international relations expert going, that war was a diplomatic failure for Russia, as neighboring countries such as Poland and Ukraine went to embrace American and EU more, leaving Russia with an even smaller sphere of influence. Then let's look at a geopolitic expert like Parag Khanna, who writes that it's not a superpower, for many reasons such as economy, small sphere of influence, reducing population, and the fact that E.U is just basically slowly taking over countries by Russia through soft power. In fact, let's look up russia economy. It's atleast 10 times smaller then the current superpower, U.S, and 12 times smaller then the E.Us. Let's look at Sphere of Influence, before The recent war, countries such as Poland and Ukraine were iffy on having more relations with the U.S. 56 percent of Ukraine wanted to stay have good relations with Russia instead of U.S. Poland was always dragging it's feet on the Missile Defense with U.S. During the War, The number in Ukraine dropped to 22 percent, and during the war, Poland agreed to the Missile Defense. Then the rest of the countries are basically getting absorbed by E.U and China. The only real thing that Russia has at this time is the military, which is basically equal to China. Deavenger (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
It appears that this "overwhelming" number of sources is simply a barrage of anything that the user could find, when they Googled the phrase "russia superpower". The sources appear to be picked wantonly, with little regard to the standards of reliable sources espicially the more stringent sources for this particular project. The Huffington Post is not written by academics, neither is YouTube nor are tabloids. Messages were left on my and Nirvana's talk pages stating that Russia should be including because of the overwhelming amount of sources. There's an old adage which applies in this situation: It's quality, not quantity that matters. Most, if not all of the sources provided are news articles. Media articles are not reliable sources as I have said before, because they are often sensationalist, poorly researched, or in some cases simply misleading. It's telling that the camp that supports Russia being included is solely composed of either novice editors with only a few edits under their belts, or are nto involved with this particular group of articles. The other camp includes established editors who have worked tirelessly and have seen the pitfalls of including Russia, along with the various troubles, sockpupets, trolls, etc. In summation, Russia should not be included do the fact that the vast majority of sources are disqualified news articles, my other reasons stated above, and all of the reasons outline in Deavanger's very well thought-out comment, Russia should not be included. --Hobie (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Well put Hobie! Essentially, to reiterate my statement before, there is no evidence let alone consensus among academics that Russia is a superpower or will be one in the near future. To the editors pushing for Russia, although you may be disappointed, just to make it clear we are not being anti-Russia. Reliable sources from experts in the field that suggest a nation has reached or lost its superpower status will be duly considered but they have to be credible and good. I hope this puts an end to this issue. Nirvana888 (talk) 05:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Davenger, you appear to be basing your argument on fallacies, which is always concerning when it comes to political issues because it implies you might have other motives, or perhaps just some bad sources (you didn't supply any so I can't tell). Regarding Ukraine, you couldn't have things more backwards. The country is in a political crisis right now because the Prime Minister/future presidential candidate and most popular political figure in the country, Yulia Tymoshenko, didn't side with the anti-Russian president in condemning Russia. She sided with the pro-Russia party (party of regions) in blocking the statement, and they together proceeded to strip the president, whom she used to be allied with, of many of his powers. The "orange" coalition (many Russians and others perceive it to be a "western puppet" regime) is literally gone now because of the neutral stance she's taken towards Russia. The current president has a 6% approval rating, while hers is in the 20s and the pro-Russia leader is in the upper teens/20s as well, so its quite obvious where the political direction is turning in Ukraine. That is, no longer away from Russia, as it has been for the past 4 years.
Now as for public opinion, according to an opinion poll (ignore the commentary, Jamestown is extremely anti-Russian and is basically a CIA front, but the figures themselves don't lie) conducted this month in Ukraine, the number of people who oppose NATO membership has jumped from 55% in July to 63% now. Some more interesting results from that poll: 45.4% supported the suggestion of renouncing closer ties with NATO to keep its close relationship with Russia, while only 33% disapproved, and that's even with such belligerent wording they used in the poll. I suspect the percentage who want close ties with Russia without the sneaky wording would be even higher. Only 10.3% percent of those polled felt that the use of force by Georgia was legitimate, while 41.4% felt the use of force by Russia was legitimate peacekeeping.
Now we must look at the situation in Venezuela (strengthening alliance, naval operations in the Atlantic for the first time in two decades, bomber patrols in Latin America, advanced weapons sales etc. Chavez actually offered Russia to set up base there), Syria, Iran, Central Asia (former USSR countries who also condemned Georgia in the war), Nicaragua (recognized the two breakaway republics and sided with Russia) etc etc. There's also the likes of Italy, Slovakia, Germany and Turkey taking a more neutral stance and preventing NATO and the EU from acting rashly. Basically if you look at the facts, Russia has closer ties to many more governments across the globe now than it did even a few months ago. What has it lost in terms of influence? Very little, because it had very little to lose in the first place. All of the countries that are making the most aggressively anti-Russian statements now were never close to Russia to begin with (Poland, the Baltics, Britain and the US etc.) Meanwhile, as I already mentioned, Russia is winning back some of its most important allies, namely Ukraine, and it's already proven itself to be the dominant power in Eastern Europe/Central Asia, an idea America would have scoffed at a year or two ago with their freshly installed pro-America governments.)
I don't think Russia is as large a power as America right now, but it is still a much larger and more influential power on the global stage than the other great powers of the world, and it's on the rise. America is still number one, but it's no longer close to the dominant power it was only 10-15 years ago, and things are looking grim to say the least. In my opinion, there is no longer such a thing as superpowers. There are only great powers with varying degrees of influence: China, America, Russia, and the combined EU. The 21st century will be that of a multipolar world with those countries/entities at the steering wheel. But regarding the actual topic here, I think there are more than enough sources that support adding Russia in as a superpower, as there are more than enough sources that support removing America, which echo my suggestion that there are no more superpowers. I think it should be one or another, add both, or remove both, in my opinion. I don't see a clear consensus that says America is the worlds number one undisputed superpower, and any scholarly source that currently claims so is outdated given the very active year it's been on so many different levels. Enairku (talk) 08:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
While I agree with most of your points, here's some stuff fro you to consider.
And while the Putin-Medvedev policy appeals to elderly Ukrainians, many of whom might be nostalgic for the Soviet Union; younger Ukrainians by and large condemn the Kremlin’s aggressive actions as well as NATO membership. Apparently the up-and-coming Ukrainian elite will opt for neutrality for their country, while increasing efforts to join the EU, which is not seen as a traditional enemy but as a path to prosperity.
, and also
Of those polled 44.3 percent replied that Russia’s actions in Georgia were “an act of aggression against an independent state,”
and let's not forget Poland, which borders Russia. Then, we have china coming gaining soft power in central asia, and E.U going east towards Ukraine and Poland, and eventually wants to have Russia join the E.U. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deavenger (talk • contribs) 20:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hobie Hunter after reading your input I tracked something you tried to use back in June as source material known as a blog for sources on potential superpowers for updating potential superpowers with this source[1] more less than you disagree with a CNN clip from youtube. This particular blog is really a USA and USA a good old country story.
http://www.singularity2050.com/2008/06/why-the-us-will-still-be-the-only-superpower-in-2030-v20.html
Prehaps maybe this might be something different in nature why you reject current Russian world events sources and even past Russian sources because as to last month on the history link you also engaged by erasing sources taking topics that the US is a superpower or out former superpower but strengthing the US rather than putting the discussion or facts into mute. If there was already some discussion with those sources in June, July or whatever, you somehow erased them on a Sunday morning without note. That to me wasn't fair to the duscussion party but if you have a position to strengthen US discussions only why not allow any
Russian world events on the table if the sources are there (not all sources on the article are expert sources but all from the New Times, Telegraph, MSNBC and more)? When the Russian sources were just posted you first erased the articles then you objected just shortly after the sources were published for discussion.
Did you just looked at the link that said Youtube? These sources would take a few hours just to read such information to view anything in question but every one of them? Again if you disagree with Youtube what if the same clip were on the blog[5], would you deny that then or allow it or not even mentioned the source?
Davenger according to Parag Khanna, he has himself stated that he uses New York Times, Los Angeles Times, American Chornicle, Wall Street Journal as sources (you can Google it and he even admits his sources come from). I have some sources I can forward, he even has his own blog and youtube account. So if Parag Khanna uses these same sources what do you consider him then? Is he exempt and is he allowed to say what he wants and more, like in his youtube blog video's as reliable sources?
Personally I find very absurd that with 60 to 70 good Russian world stage sources, even enough to write an entire book on that you would say not in a slight suggestion that Russia just might be in some superpower position now.
As to what you said here ::""'Then let's look at a geopolitic expert like Parag Khanna, who writes that it's not a superpower, for many reasons such as economy, small sphere of influence, reducing population, and the fact that E.U is just basically slowly taking over countries by Russia through soft power.""
Davenger, a word of suggestion if you take the US GDP (13.3 trillion dollars) and take the US deficit (just at $10 trillion) but with the new $1.2 trillion dollar Wallstreet bailout bill (that includes the $700 billion bailout bill in Congress today) that the US has only $3.3 trillion of it own assets (the bailout what put the US deficit at $11 to $11.5 trillion, that would make it at over 80% in debt out of the US GDP). The US has 73% in debt out it's entire GDP, that is amazing! A military that doesn't own everything its builds, is barrowing Chinese money to buy military aresenals but that's entire the federal budget. I would like to see Parag Khanna says about the US GDP with the US deficit, we both know that US has money problems but where does that go from here, a depression?. I will agree that the US is a superpower but when you have so much debt and no pink slips to the materials you buy, that is like a home mortage with a bank which doesn't include interests compare to another world leader that owes very little debt or owes nothing such as Japan, China, Russia and India. I don't see people bailing out of their home mortages in those countries or do they have the debt anywhere near we do. Everybody in the US has to pay over $50,000.00 to 60,000.00 towards paying off our US deficit? Are you happy about that?
Nirvana888, you said::""To the editors pushing for Russia, although you may be disappointed, just to make it clear we are not being anti-Russia. Reliable sources from experts in the field that suggest a nation has reached or lost its superpower status will be duly considered but they have to be credible and good::"" I have to ask, what is a reliable source then? So when the terrorist drove two 647's planes into the World Trade Center 9/11, that sources from such as the LA Times, New Times, American Chornicle, Austin Times, Wall Street Journal, NSNBC were not reliable sources to source as experts? I am to read the New York Times now and to say it's not true information because these articles are all about money and I have to get everything from an expert now to read about 9/11 or Iraq or current events? [[Let me ask you, who are Steven Rosefielde Harvard professor, Sergei Ivanov Russian foreign diplomat, Russia's Deputy Prime Minister, US Senators, Associated Press mean to you? Are these people lying and are in the business to sell news media articles for money?]]
I think I can answer for Nirvana. You're totally mssing the point. We are not being anti-Russia, however as I have explained before, Mr. Unsigned User, is that there are more stringent standards for this project than Wikipedia in general. It has previously been agreed that unless news articles are writtren by qualified foreign policy analysts, such as, say, Fareed Zakaria or Henry Kissinger, they should not be included. The average columnist who writes an article in a newspaper, even one as prestigous as the New York Times or Washington Post is not a foreign policy expert. On important news events, the media will not lie outright, as you were suggesting, but they blow things out of proportion to garner attention. For instance, have you ever noticed that we have a "Storm of the Century" every decade or so? That's media sensationalism. You don't have to "get everything from an expert now to read about 9/11 or Iraq or current events", however, this article does. --Hobie (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
My opinion is these are world stage events, I have to say that Russia is in that position now and their involvement to the world is acting just as the US does; I have to consider that a superpower confrontation. (Comment by Unsigned User)
I agree with Deavanger's very intelligent and thought out comment dated 9/22/08. To summmarize his and my viewpoint, is that among other reasons, Russia is mainly not a superpower because of it's economy, small sphere of influence, and in my view most importantly, shrinking population. Let's compare Russia's sphere of influence today with the USSR's. Today, Russia's sphere is bordered by Europe's and China's. It consists roughly of Cental Asia, the Caucasus, Moldova, Serbia, Ukraine, and Belarus. This is not big by international standards. In the mean time, rising powers such as Europe and China has been assaulting Russia's spher of influence from both sides: the EU in the wast and China in the east. The EU has absorbed every Warsaw Pact member, brought the Balkans minus Serbia into it's sphere, and even absorbed parts of the Soviet Union (ie. Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, etc.) China has split off Mongolia into it's sphere, and has made significant inroads into Central Asia.
Russia's econony doesn't even rank in the Top 10 economies by GDP (GDP is the measurement used by academics, economists, and the real world for decades, not the artifical verison of GDP (PPP). The Russian economy is 10 times smaller than the economy of the world's generally acknowledged superpower, the U.S. These are all altough serious problems, short to medium term issues. The most significant issue is Russia's shrinking population. Many countries have low birth rates or stagnating populations, but Russia is one of a select few whose population is currently actively shrinking. Russia is vast, the world's largest country, but it does not have enough citizens to people it's territory. This will, in the medium-term shrink the Russian economy, and in the short-term, shrink the number of young men available for the military, a cornerstone of superpower status. Compare this to the US, a country with a replacement rate of growith, and substantial immigration, immigrants who assimilate at least reasonably well, as opposed to many of Russia's immigrants.
To Mr. Unsigned User: I could not make out much of your somewhat rambling post directed at me. However, I'd like to point out that I never actively pushed that blog source to use in the article. You have to understand the context. At that time, the potential superpowers article was very volatile, it had had, as I recall, about three major rehauls in about the two weeks prior. Many sources were deleted, many were added. New sections and countries were added and then disappeared. Amidst all the confusion and upheaval, I merely suggested that that thought-provoking source might be included, and posted it to get feedback. I was under the false belief that the Futurist was another magazine of the same name, a publication of the World Futurist Society, an academic organization, In that case, it would be an acceptable and reliable source. It was only deduced that I was mistaken after I had posted. This has been brought up numerous times and my response has been the same each time. Please do not bring it up again. It is simply Wikipedia policy not to include YouTube as a source, no matter what the video is. --Hobie (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Hobie for defending my position. I'm not sure if some editors here are familiar with Wikipedia's pillars of NOR, V, RS. I encourage everyone to go over them again if they are unclear. Basically, the bottom line is that you have to prove that acknowledged experts in international relations (widely) contend that a nation is a superpower. There need not even be consensus; only that it is substantial and not a fringe view. They would then give their rationale as to why they believe the specific nation(s) is a superpower. They would also ideally define what they believe constitutes a superpower. This is important because some scholars/diplomats interpret a superpower as a country which is defined here as a great power. If your source satisfies all these requirements, then we would be happy to consider them. Now, on the issue of Russia. I will, off the cuff say, that some of this may be OR or my own POV but I consider myself familiar and well versed in the latest international relations/foreign policy developments. Let me repeat, Russia is not a superpower. Global power barometer suggests that Russia, in its stance on Georgia, recently has exercised its power effectively to advance its policy goals. I would generally agree with that assessment; as its influence was not commensurate with its actual power; and any sanctions/punishment to Russia was not proportionate to its actions. However, it is important to realize that this short-term assessment is very different from Russia emerging as a superpower now or anytime soon. Conversely, Fareed Zakaria, one of the most cited international relations authors, believes that Russia's recent actions have been a strategic blunder in the long run. I would agree with this view as well. Now, I will explore three key areas that are key to power: economy, demographics, military. Economically, while lately growing at a relatively fast rate, Russia is presently weak. Russia's economy is about the size of Brazil, India, or South Korea. In this regard, one may argue that Russia does not even have an economy of a great power let alone a superpower. Russia's demographic trend does not augur well for its future power. One could in this regard, argue that even India (a country that is presently not as powerful as Russia) has a much better prospect of achieving superpower status in the long run than Russia. In the sphere of the military, Russia has a capable military, however its military budget was decimated and continues to be below the major great powers. I have to agree with Parag Khanna that Russia will not return to superpower status for the foreseeable future. Nirvana888 (talk) 04:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
"however its military budget was decimated and continues to be below the major great powers" - Wrong. According to a recent report [7] their military budget will be raised by 25% over the next few years, reaching $58 billion by 2011. When you take purchasing power into account, that's the second largest spending after America, valued at just under 100 billion USD per year.
"Russia's economy is about the size of Brazil, India, or South Korea." - Wrong. In purchasing power parity, which is how you compare countries (so says the CIA factbook), Russia's economy is larger than all of those countries by a fair bit, minus India who has a population almost 10 times larger. By 2013 Russia will have the 6th largest economy in the world. Even in nominal GDP, which is irrelevant here, Russia's economy will be larger than all those countries by the end of this year (the only one currently higher is Brazil, just barely), and according to IMF estimates [8], it will be second largest in Europe in 4 years.
"The Russian economy is 10 times smaller than the economy of the world's generally acknowledged superpower" - This was already proven to be a nonfactor. When debt is taken into account, America's GDP is really only worth about $3 trillion. Right now the economy is on the verge of collapse because of this incredible debt, and it's going to be a long time before it recovers. Do we take that into account? Enairku (talk) 10:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Slow down. You're obviously not thinking this through. GDP is a measure of annual economic activity but debt is a measure of total accrued debt. Debt is not a measure of debt added per year! To use an analogy in the gdp context we might say that the US is like someone who makes $60,000 a year and has a total accrued debt of only $45,000. Do you think such a persons finances are in dire straits?Zebulin (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
You're right, the way I compared debt to GDP was logically unsound, but my main point is that the overall health of the American economy is in terrible shape. It's plagued with so called "rot", or "cancer", and no one knows if the chemo is going to work. A dinosaur may be the biggest and most dangerous predator of all, but what use is it with two broken legs? Understand what I mean? Enairku (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
" The most significant issue is Russia's shrinking population. Many countries have low birth rates or stagnating populations, but Russia is one of a select few whose population is currently actively shrinking." - See again, you're just putting a half-thought out analysis together that doesn't take into account some important facts. The population shrinkage has been reduced significantly in the past two years. According to the state statistics service [9]: From January to August 2006, the population fell by 408k. During that time period in 2007, the population fell by 195k. During that time period in 2008, it fell by 125k. See where this is going? It went from falling over half a million every year to an estimated 150k for this year and it will probably keep improving as they improve their healthcare system and living standards rise. My point is, no crystal-balling. You can't use future demographic predictions as a factor because accurate predictions are impossible (according to the CIA Russia should have 1 million less people than it actually does right now), and right now things are trending upwards. And for all we know, they might just open up the borders and let an extra 100k immigrants from Central Asia and China in to make up for the losses. Who knows? Certainly not you or I. Besides, this article is about today, not tommorow. Enairku (talk) 10:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Another thing the person who tried to make Russia a superpower. U clame that Russia has made a clone NATo. I think u r wrong on that note, notable members of Shaghai Cooperation organization are China and russia. all other members can be included as protective states. Another thing Iran, pakistan an India are not yet members. And it can't be a clone of NATO- the only countries that have strong armies in this gropu are Russia, China, india, pakistan and Iran. 3 of them are not even member. And Pakistan and India are nascently strategicly tilted towards the United States,So i reckon it will take atleast anothrer 5 years for russia to be included. If russia wants to counterbalance Nato there is a long way to go. Anyway even China didn't recongnize breakway regions in Georgia.Enthusiast10 (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Let's apply some common sense here. The above articles are all a reaction to the situation in Georgia. Reactions to this conflict are very recent and often sensationalist. Therefore, we can should write: "In the aftermath of the war in Georgia, 1 & 2 & 3 considered Russia a superpower". Or we can wait until the panic reaction has calmed. If there are then still new articles coming up that say that Russia is a superpower, we can just write: "1 & 2 & 3 consider Russia a superpower." Sijo Ripa (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
By the forecast of what Russia is today, they hold as a superpower country right now from well provided sources documented by well known media agencies. I simply don't buy the comments from Hobie Hunter[10], Enthusiast10, Nirvana888 and Deavanger, making one sided false rediclious statements that is simply not about the articles (you guys are simply bullying sources for a conflict of interest, STOP and let people read the reports), it is about the sources and what the media is publishing as a whole. If someone post well updated reports and those reports are published by millions reading them, then the information is protected under the Wikipedia rules (sources)[11] (meaning high-quality news organizations should be used for sources from protecting consensus arguments). This article needs to be changed as the truth is provided, this is not yesterday, this is about today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.55.174.112 (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
You obviously haven't read the whole discussion. You're missing the point. Yes, media sources are reliable for most of Wikipedia, however, they, as I have explained repeatedly, are not reliable for this one specific project. The media is often sensationalist, poorly researched, or in some cases simply misleading. "Truth" is debatable. What do you mean by "conflict of interest", we're simply trying to uphold the quality and balance of these articles. All of those who have been involved with this project for more than a couple days have come out against it. --Hobie (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Superpower&diff=241990975&oldid=241974898) was deleted because it was POV? It was backed by a newspaper of repute. One that is often cited across wikipedia. This is not a forum to discuss who thinks what and why. Putting in "let's apply common sense" is not the domain of an encyclopedia, that's an opinion for a debate. A source clearly cites this, apparently many above; but a well reputable source has cited it. if others disagree then they should come up with other sources to discount it, citing opinion instead of fact is POV. The onus is on those that want to disprove what the reputable source says.
How about we define what a superpower is (off the page) and then answer each of the points to see what we get. (with sources of course). no point citing in opinions and going in circles.
I suggest that you re-read the entire discussion just above for some insight into this debate. While these sources may come from reputable publications, the editor either did not read the articles or chose to misrepresented them and insert his/her own POV. If you had bothered to check the sources you would have realized that the first source is an op-ed titled "A Superpower Is Reborn" and that is the extent to which superpower is referred to in the opinion piece. The second source quotes a Muscovite opining that "The superpower showed that she was able to defend her people." You are also wrong in your interpretation of WP policy. The onus is on those making controversial edits to discuss first and build consensus. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay. First to the people saying how Parag Khanna used some of these sources in his book and other publications. I just guess checked, guess what he used in the article? He didn' tuse what the author personally thought, or even the title of the article. There was a quote from a guy long time ago in that artcle, and that's all he used. He didn't use anything else from the article. Just that quote.
Also, to people talking about the U.S economy, other members have already argued with that. What perhaps people didn't hear about is the 2008 Russian financial crisis, which some people such CFR are calling worst then the problem that the U.S is currently facing.
Lastly, people are calling members in this project onesided. Guess what, because there are plenty of newspaper articles saying how a former superpower invaded an ally of the current superpower doens't make it a superpower. There's a field called International Relations, some people in this include Fareed Zakaria, Parag Khanna, and Raj Neyer, and that's just a few of them. They actually went to college learning about this stuff. Most journalists don't. Because journalists write a whole bunch of stories about mathematics doesn't make the journalist a mathematics expert. That's like saying how Fareed Zakaria, and International Relations expert wrote a piece about math doesn't make him a mathematic expert either. If a mathematic expert wrote an article about mathematics on the other hand, that's completely different. Deavenger (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
It's obvious that Russia is not a superpower, simply because of the fact that even though the U.S. is in a financial crisis and ongoing war in the middle east, if Russia took over Georgia like it wants too, the U.S. would and could remove Russia by force. 75.40.204.26 (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
You obviously don't read either 75.40.204.26, you have no idea of the status of Russia and what world leaders are now calling it a superpower. Here I provide the source for you[12] and a new world order is shaping by Russia[13] as the US has no real control of. Good grief, the US knock out Russia by force 75.40.204.26?
Hobie Hunter, don't achieve new discussions, this is not old topics.
--If someone can put all this information like this the issue stands on superpower or new superpower, I can't but help it that the article is not pointing the truth on two countries such as China to Russia as the new superpwers. I have Googled the wording superpowers and China and Russia pull up everywhere. This needs to be updated because I don't believe the world is one superpower anymore. China being the US's biggest debt collector, I don't buy the wording one sole superpower, that is dominating the context too much when the wording is saying under Google news a whole different set of information from superpowers, it is doesn't say much on sole superpower much any longer than maybe a year or two ago. So this is not being addressed and I think sources say now there is good evidence post new updates now as I found some. Should we continue to say sole superpower but you turn the television on the information is different than the article? I Googled just in 3 minutes and I can look at a lot of new superpower sources.--64.140.208.197 (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to say this one last time. MOST NEWSPAPER SOURCES AREN'T RELIABLE SOURCES FOR DISCUSSING POWER IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. Why, the people who write the stories are journalists, not Policsci or IR experts. The majority of the time that something by a former superpower happens, like the invasion of Georgia, they all scream superpower. Then the IR and Policisci/IR experts go, no, how would conquering a small place like Georgia prove anything, how could Russia, while having a fast growing economy, compare to the growth of China or India, or how China and EU are basically sucking up America's and Russia's influence in the area. India beat Pakistan, a country with a way stronger army, and nuclear power, yet nobody started calling India a superpower. Plus, half the politicians out there, the best part is, you don't even need to have a degree in Polisci or IR. In fact, out of the current presidential teams, Obama is the only one that I know of that has a Polisci Degree, along with a lawyers degree, along with other countries like India. China, I don't think it's a superpower yet. But I think it's the only country out of our list besides the EU that will become a superpower for sure. Some IR experts like Parag Khanna would say, yeah, China is a superpower. While some other IR experts like Fareed Zakaria or Pranab Bardhan would say, no, China has great potential to be a superpower, but it's not a superpower yet. Which is why, Russia and China, along with India and EU are still considered Potential Superpowers, because while some IR/Geopolitics/Polisci experts believe one of them is a superpower, while other IR/Geopolitics/Polisci experts believe that those aren't superpowers, which is why they're classified as potential superpowers. Unlike journalists who just yell superpower when it does something drastic, and not look at economy, sphere of influence, cultural characteristics, military characteristics, standard of living, government, all that. In fact, out of all the books and journals I read about the subject on Potential Superpowers, the only thing that they all agree on is that China and EU will probably become a superpower, and America, while still a superpower, is basically staying the same, and not rising (as Fareed Zakaria said: The Rise of the Rest, Parag Khanna: The end of hegamon). While America is declining, it's still a superpower (though I'm guessing that it's superpower status will be gone maybe 2012, earliest I would say is 2010). This applies to other stuff. The average journalist from a place like BBC or NYT, I wouldn't ask why Russia would be or not be considered a superpower. I would ask a Polisci/Geopolitics/IR expert. On a question about why this huge, long, complex equation leads to 5, I wouldn't ask a journalist, I would ask a mathmatcian. For how to make a eye catching news article, I wouldn't ask an IR expert or a mathmatcian, I would ask a Journalist from BBC or NYT. Each of these fields are not little things that, hey, this thing happened, so therefore it's true. It's not like, hey, Russia, a former superpower invaded Georgia. So therefore Russia is a superpower. IR experts could say no, Russia is not a superpower because while it has military, it doesn't have the other factors as much as the other potential superpowers have. You can't say, hey, this experiment might destory the world because someone said that it could do that. But then a Physics expert might go, no, this will not destory the world because of this, this, and this factors compared what actually could destroy the world. Deavenger (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
--I am sorry but what sources? Look at the sources on the main page, have you looked at them? I am totally confused as to what a source is being used an hour ago on the main page and the news says 30 minutes ago on Google? That doesn't sense to me. You think we should use sources that are from 2003, 2004 or 2005 versing new stuff like 2007 to 2008? Does that say the US is a sole superpower if you use sources from 2005? You got me on this, I am student and I have opinion but I am only using media sources you have on the television or high profiles gov't officials. Can they be wrong? I assure you that I am noting using false stuff to post an update, I can read what the sources say and where the sources where from those sources. Zakaria and Khanna, I never seen this guys on NBC or ABC or CBS news as these are the worlds biggest news agencies used to cover everything in the US media as sources across the United States. If you have an opinion are you an expert? I am not an expert but I have read the materials on China and Russia, I think what I have read says me something that the US can’t be one superpower. That is really impossible right now according my sources I provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.140.208.197 (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that we revert to the previous version and attempt to build consensus in the case of disagreement before making unilateral changes. There is no widespread belief in the international relations community that Russia is a "superpower" in the sense that it has been defined here. Fareed Zakaria in the The Post-American World (2008) that there is “one superpower, many great powers". Parag Khanna (2008) believes that Russia will never be a superpower given the foreseeable trends. Even China, a country cited many experts as having the highest chance of becoming a superpower does not have comparable global influence as the United States - and it will take at least some years/decade before it approaches the United States in comprehensive power. Bold statements that suggest a country has become a superpower should be supported by reliable sources from not only the media but also the academic community. Nirvana888 (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I took the liberty of taking the discussion of what could be considered a reliable source or not. The agreed that if we use news such as CNN or BBC, check the credentials of the author to see if he/she has a degree in IR/Geopolitics/Polisci. As it would be better to use academic sources and news articles written by people with degrees in IR/Geopolitics/Polisci. As the topic of a country being a superpower or not isn't something simple, it's a deep complex study. Much like Physics or medicine. Also, to people saying how many of these sources are out of date. I partily agree with you. My personal cutoff point is 2006, but most of the sources I read that will eventually go into the articles is 2008. But guess what. The people in IR and related fields, they don't look at just one year and go, "hey, this year seemed to be a good year for them. They're a superpower." They have to look at the past. Like economic growth. Like China, it has high economic growth, but it doesn't have the highest economic growth, unless we're looking at just the major economies in the world. The fact that China's growth rate has been high for 30 years fills one aspect as a potential superpower. Media, like after the south ossetian war, were going, hey, Russia, a former superpower and America's biggest enemy in the past invaded a country. This shows that Russia will take no more 'aggressions' from the west. Article done. While and IR person on the other hand goes, Russia has shown it will take no more 'aggressions' from the west. But is it a superpower again? Expert 1: yes, Russia is a superpower due to __________, ________, and that under Putin's government, it has high economic growth due to __________. Expert 2: No, Russia is a great power, but not a superpower due to ________, etc. Deavenger (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
If you look on Fareed Zakaria he writes for the Newsweek, does that cross media relative material from an expert? If you search under Fareed Zakaria, he writes as journalist and talks like a journalist which his profile says he is journalist. What does this make of him if he writes articles for media relative magazines to hence we say another journalist writing something contradicting that source? Doesn’t that cross the line on what you say who is an expert but you cross your logic on quoting “MOST NEWSPAPER SOURCES AREN'T RELIABLE SOURCES FOR DISCUSSING POWER IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS”. I believe media or journalist agencies don’t make a living just to tell stories, there are millions of people behind the news network and the personal experts work in the same field. If you were to ask the Washington Post on an opinion on superpower nations and you want an expert to reply to your question, suppose what they would do if you wanted a serious answer. They could pick people after people who would be ready and willing to stand forward with their credentials. --69.17.91.162 (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
One, fareed Zakaria has a degree in IR and has written books on the subject. In fact, one of the members on the project of Power in IR was saying that we shouldn't have used Fareed Zakaria, but because Fareed Zakaria has written books on the subject, was once member of the Council of Foreign Relations, as well as having a PHD from Hardvard in Political Science. If it wasn't for the fact that he had that PHD from hardvard and BA from Yale in Political science, we probably wouldn't be using him as a reference so often. But the fact that he has education on the subject of IR, is considered an expert on the field, and has written books on the potential powers in the world (though I was disappointed in his Post American World book as he didn't go into detail into all the countries that were rising, skipping EU, Brazil, Russia, and some other countries. Good books still). One of the Washington Post articles we have on the article, the reason why we have it is because the person who wrote that Article was Parag Khanna, another IR and Geopolitics expert. In fact, many of Fareed Zakaria's articles, though he's an expert on the field we don't use still. Like this one [14], as would fit better in an article in Foreign Relations of Russia then superpower or Potential Superpower articles.
Every news outlet has their own personal experts. Fox news has their own personal experts. But is Fox news isn't considered reliable, and it definatly isn't used over NYT and CNN. From Wikipedia's Reliable sources on News for subject like these:
Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment.
. Many experts in the field will actually write articles, like Fareed Zakaria, Parag Khanna, Richard Haas, Rajan Menon. They all have written articles for IHT, WashintonPost, Los Angelos Times, and we use their writings that have to do with countries reaching potential superpowers, and write their opinions because they are considered experts in the field and have worked in places like New America Foundation or Council of Foreign Relations which are IR/Polisci/Geopolitics Think Tanks basically. NYT, LATimes, CNN, while all great sources for reporting news, aren't reliable for saying what's a superpower or not, how this experiment works or not, etc. Deavenger (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
-Everyone has read something that counts for them what they have read relative to the subject on international reasons may not count for you. If you take an article and the article says a country is a superpower, does that make it a superpower? No but also an expert doesn’t make it a superpower in clarification either. It takes several related materials or even world events to happen. If I were to read and read the same content again from different articles from different sources, I would start to see the tunnel. You can’t blame the media what it always writes and what it knows but in an opinion poll, a majority of people read news articles, even the president reads the newspaper and then speaks on the air on what he hears (and even chooses to say what he doesn’t want people to hear) where he repeats what people read. If we look at experts there are only a few experts on this subject but experts for you may not be experts for others. If you have Putin over Zakaria or Khanna or even Bush giving their view, how many will agree with Khanna and Zakaria over Putin or over Bush or another higher lead? It is who you like and who you don't, same applies here to count also who’s the informative on the materials as people listen and also believe who is correct for them. Now I believe if you don't like something, you will fight and disagree, even if you have experts and you have sources over experts. If you have only a hand full of experts and loads of sources from anything to articles, media, Bibliographies or anything comes as a source, what would you do to challenge a hand full of experts over what people are lead by in the media? Let’s take your doctor. What would you say that your doctor reads the New England’s Medical Journal for information on prescribing medicine from and practices what he or she reads, in fact what if most or a majority of doctors read medicine journal magazines even something like Newsweek, would you argue with your doctor that medical journals medical issues are not source material for practice? What if he or she directed you to question the medical institution or the medical dean maybe at Harvard, Yale, Oxford or any medical school in general that have their own media agencies that publish their findings like any other media publishes their own articles.
-If you question something of this nature, you may never make the hurtle to announce your conclusion that medical journals are not written by experts or they may question you what are you reading. Look at Michael Moore, made a fortune as an independent film maker. He made films relating to subjects with no expertise but studied and made the audience believe his documentaries. He says he’s a journalist by says it on film, not on paper but people call him an expert. If he isn’t an expert or experienced what he teaches, what is Michael Moore?
-Try going to a newspaper company, let’s say any of them like the Washington Post or something like that, go in the office and tell them that their media information is not backed by experts and you are confused by the media articles, suppose they would reply back to you. Ask I want to know what county is a _________ and ________ superpower or ________ is not or _________ leads or____________ in the __________ as I _______ want the direct__________ to my question as I ____________ ________ to my sources of information.
-You only mentioned Fareed Zakaria, Parag Khanna, Richard Haas, Rajan Menon as you source of material to claim issues of a superpower? What about Ronald Steel, Steven Rosefielde, Vladislav Zubok, Edward Kolodziej, Roger Kanet, Vladimir Kontorovich and Edward Lucas, all these people are international relation experts too and maybe far greater in experience on top of that too. These guys have different opinions from Fareed Zakaria, Parag Khanna, Richard Haas, Rajan Menon do. If Parag Khanna says Russia will never be a superpower, what makes him the expert if Ronald Steel, Steven Rosefielde, Vladislav Zubok, Edward Kolodziej, Roger Kanet, Vladimir Kontorovich and Edward Lucas say that Russia or China is an emerging superpower or already a superpower?
-Do you want to count experts only; we would have to change the entire article from expert’s only sources, would you agree to that? I can simply eliminate all media or news media sources out and we can make this an expert source article only. We could even include resent dates too, nothing outdated and criteria’s for new superpowers only guidelines. Are you willing to exclude all news related articles and use experts only?
-Do you consider Hobie Hunter and Nirvana888 international relation experts? If you awarded them barnstars, why haven’t you awarded barnstars to Fareed Zakaria, Parag Khanna[15], Richard Haas[16], Rajan Menon? They awarded you a barnstar too, simply because you’re trying to save the superpowers article on wikipedia. If I used expert sources to say China or Russia are superpowers, why reward someone for saving sole superpower a barnstar? What makes saving the article a barnstar? Does barnstar mean save the article as the all American superpower only position and defend any news media or expert source away a barnstar for defending the article? If they awarded you a barnstar and you awarded them a barnstar but all of you defend the same information, it seems a conflict to the article in general.
-If you like your experts, I also like my experts too. We can debit our superpower source experts but I suggest articles and experts as source material. If you want to say Fareed Zakaria, Parag Khanna, Richard Haas, Rajan Menon are the only experts for calling a nation a superpower, then we have to include experts others want to include too.--209.129.64.1 (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
except, that the experts need to have a degree in Polisci, IR or geopolitics, and not some journalist who is going "oh my god the country of ________ invaded another country. It's a superpower" As even the Wikipedia reliable sources policy states that for subject like this, you don't use the media sources unless the author has education and is considered an expert in the field. Which is why, we have certain articles from places such as Newsweek or the Washinton Post as those certain articles were written by people who have a degree in IR, Geopolitics, Polisci, and are considered experts in the field.
You know how many of the news sources said Russia was a superpower without giving any good source except it was a superpower in the pst, and is it again. And not saying anything else, while IR experts, some were saying Russia was a superpower because of this while other IR experts said Russia wasn't a superpower because of this and this. All the news sources I've seen said Russia was a superpower because it was one in the past and it invaded a country, without taking economy, cultural, and other aspects into view. Even when the ones you listed gave it to other experts, very few said why Russia was a superpower, and didn't state any of the reasons why.
You listed other experts. Since most of them are reliable, if you find actual reliable sources from them, then post it here. There are articles by Fareed Zakaria that mentions the word superpower but we don't use it as it doesn't go into detail of why.
I never awarded Hobie and Nirvana barnstars, and I wouldn't even award any experts that came here. You have gone under various IPs trying to push the same view without using reliable sources. I believe that EU is a superpower. But I don't put EU as a superpower because only a couple of experts believe that EU is a superpower while other experts don't. While the majority of experts believe that U.S is either a superpower or a falling superpower, but a superpower nonetheless. Is it my fault that the consensus of a superpower is the US at the moment. No. But they're the experts, and they have actual education in the field.
I could easily find media articles that List Russia, China, EU, even India as a superpower. But does that make it reliable, no. Many of those media articles are written by journalists who have no formal education in the field of IR or Polisci or Geopolitics. I have plenty of views of what 2 countries are considered a superpower, but I'm not pushing for the second country because there's no huge overwhelming majority of IR experts saying the second country is a superpower. In fact, many of the editors here believe that the EU is a superpower, but we aren't going to be pushing for that until there's a majority consensus.
You can call us pro-american or whatever. In fact, I would argue that everybody save one or two people who are or were members of the PIIR wikiproject would say that America, while a superpower, is a falling superpower, and that the EU is pretty much a superpower. But unlike America, there is no large consensus that EU is a superpower. For example, Parag Khanna says that America is the falling Superpower, but a superpower nonetheless, and that the EU and China are superpowers. However, Fareed Zakaria would argue that America is the superpower that's not moving forward, and is probably moving back by now, while plenty of powers such as EU, China, India, etc. are rising, in particular, China.
If we're doing it based on opinions of people who don't have an education in IR, like all the editors, including IPs and journalists. Then, here's my opinion. U.S is going to be a superpower til 2010, maybe 2015 by some miracle. EU is also a superpower. India is a potential superpower, China is a potential superpower that will probably get superpower status by 2012. Russia, out of all the great powers (UK, France, Germany, Japan) is the only real great power that's going to stay a great power and is the most powerful of all the great powers. Maybe a couple of experts agree with me. But the majority of them don't. In fact, there's some people who say that there aren't any superpowers anymore.
Wikipedia Reliable Source policy states that you use the word of experts and academic sources over any journalist or media source. If you have a problem with that, then do yourself a favor and make your own wiki, wetpaint is a good place to start. There, you can push your own views with your own 'reliable sources' of media sources or whatever.
The experts you listed, if they say Russia is a superpower in an academic journal, book, or certain media articles, and they're reliable sources, we'll add them. But not to this page, as the consensus so far is that America is still the superpower, but most likely to the Potential superpower article.
"As far as the EU or Europe Union, it is a list of countries, not a nation like the US with 50 states or Russia with 11 time zones with 6 countries in one nation or like China has in close detail or like Africa. Similar to NATO, NATO is a military blockade of 26 countries, not a superpower. I can’t argue the EU though as a superpower as I have not read enough relating to the EU as a superpower but sources of information as welcome in my opinion, even if the sources weren’t from IR experts, the information would be interesting. The way I see it is the EU, not all EU countries agree with each as one community as the European Union. You have countries such as France, Germany, Italy, Finland, and Sweden who reject NATO membership to Ukraine & Georgia, while they are NATO members, they don’t all agree with each other on international relations or even international policies. The EU isn’t built like the United States is as the federal government works in congress as states vote in state legislation caucuses which are separate and even relate to the US government system. If somebody wanted to push the EU as a superpower, then I have to let those who have their quest of facts, I would only reply with an opinion or even a source or two to argue or support maybe. Same with China & Russia as I believe there is a lot of good information standing as these two nations as the other superpowers even if not all are IR experts or maybe some content of information.
Now if you want to push only IR expert sources, then there needs to be a consensus for everyone or some kind of majority to agree or vote IR experts. I state this because we have one too many news related sources that would halt these opinions completely of off the article if we were to argue only on expert IR opinions. You have to understand what this means if we choose to eliminate the new article off. If there is or was some consensus, then I haven’t seen this I would ask I need to read what was discussed prior so I can review the rule or agreement on IR experts.
You asked me for an IR expert, if you look what Directinfo provided last month, a famous PhD IR expert written source that succeeds your request as only IR expert source.
Ronald Steel, an International Relations expert
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/opinion/24steel.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Lastly when I mentioned Barnstars to you was, when you write your opinions here, you also have replied to Hobie Hunter & Nirvana888 to back you up shortly after almost every reply or maybe they replied for you to reply to there comments but it is sort of a group reply instead of one comment from one editor. Why go to other people to back you up? Really I don’t go and write something then ask other editors to back me up to protect the opinion. All you have to do is look and you reply to them as pals to add more content to block whatever opinion or source it is. Really is that fair to other people? I mean that says write an opinion, then contact Wikipedia friends to back up your arguments. That isn’t right but if you ask someone to do this, what does that say what you are trying to do or your intensions say that refers to the article? That’s like getting a traffic ticket from a cop then you show up in court to fight the ticket but the cop brings in his friends to defend the action when the other cops weren’t even there to witness the violation. Oh course this isn’t a traffic stop but if you see what I am emphasizing, do you think it is fair to ask people to reply on top of your argument?
With the article here I have noticed this seems to be like the current government situation, which seems like filibuster[17], when you have a democrat or even a republican congress and a democratic or republican president; you have a blockade of power over the other on the article. A balance needs some president to the article, not all articles have had a fair-ful chance and even some expert opinions were not all demonstrated as a balance of world powers from editors who have provided some truth to the matter because I don’t think some want to bother reading the current sources where they jump on it saying it not good for them. If an article says the US is the sole superpower or possibly and maybe some current articles are saying sort of different information, not everybody is going to believe Wikipedia where the same goes for the new articles but the discussion to take upon what those who bring to the table to argue the matter as updating the article should have some fair game on both sides. If the article says the US is the sole superpower and then I search MSN at same time frame from maybe Time magazine, that China hold superpower status, who is going believe what or whom? If Time magazine writes a story Oct 2008 and then you have a 1998 sole superpower article source on the Wikipedia superpowers page, what does that say about the article to the current news source? Sure update the superpower article and have it corrected but what if how good is the Time magazine article is using as “quotations or link referring on as subject matter or different or some explanation why they wrote it? Personally I think there are some good & bad articles on China & Russia currently but also besides the articles, the journalist background is also important on review even if they weren’t a PhD IR expert, who they represent and their media or source background is backed by some source of information as if you were applying for your PhD examination.
On experts we have IR experts who are particularly supported on one nation alone and then we some with wide views or longer paths of research on the subject. Not all IR experts are perfect but we should have some fair balance from both sides on the topic. As I mean we should not let 2 experts override 10 other IR experts if we are talking about the subject matter.
As far as sources to see what counts for you, I have done some research and trying to see if I can meet your needs to come across some conclusion on China & Russia as wording them as possible superpowers or close to call but please, we shouldn’t just throw away every single current source away because they weren’t IP experts. The media is writing what they hear but everyday we listen to daily news is not all told by IR experts anyway on global scale events or emerging news events.
Lastly I don’t want to argue or belittle anybody, I just want fair game on this article and not have one domination on the article when sources really need more credit if people do have facts to discuss. As I mentioned if the IR expert articles are only considered, that would change everything by replacing everything from news articles out to IR expert articles only. There is a list of articles on the article topic that would need to be erased if we were to decide only on IR experts only but I also thought of percentage of what is news related to what is IR expert related as an idea, whether that is 20/80 or 40/60 or 50/50? I have suggestions or ideas how to decide or can agree or decide on something else.--209.129.64.1 (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
EU, it has it's own government it's own army, and basically it's own economy. It's basically like a orgainization that's becoming a country.
Ir experts. People who hava degree in IR, have written books on the subject. And books written on the subject would be considered reliable also. Books are considered academic sources. Some journalists have written books, after reading them if you think there are reliable. As, the only reason why I used that certain Newsweek and Washinton Post articles was because they were Parag Khanna and Fareed Zakaria that talked extensively about it's rise, and it was basically in their books anyway.
How long have you been on wikipedia? Every project is like that. Difference is, most projects are bigger, that are watching the page constantly, along with lots of Admins watching the page.
Do you know how many countries are like that? In fact, during the U.S nuclear deal, since India's (how it's a potential superpower I don't know) government was so diverse, the deal almost didn't pass. Wonderful thing about a democracy. It's both an advantage and a disadvantage.
As for the old source, that old source has to do with how people have been debating whether America is a superpower or not. In fact, the New America Foundation has some meetings where they did that. If I could find the transcripts, I would post it, but so far, I've only found the videos of the meetings on youtube, and youtube is not a reliable source, which is why it was removed from one of the other articles. Also, MSN also lists the U.S only as a Superpower, are you going to be accussing them as pushing U.S interests. Bill O'Reily could be working for Time and Washinton Post, because he works for those reputable places? If it's a reliable source, written by a reliable person, then we might post it.
One editor on the Reliable source noticeboard said a great thing: that a journalist like NYT can say something like ______ is a superpower without knowing the full gravity of the word, or just put in the word superpower to get more people to read about it. For instance, that one article you posted, it only mentioned Superpower in the title, then kept on referring to Russia as a great power throughout the article. In the case of great power, UK, France, China, and possibly Japan and Germany. Some articles refer to it as an international power, which can mean Regional Power, Middle Power, Superpower, Great Power, etc.
We don't try to have 2 experts ride over 10. It's just that these 2 are more well known or some of the editors have read their books, as books are prefered over internet sources. Internet sources just happen to be more convienient to those who don't have the books. Unless the internet source isn't free, which many of the good ones on the subjet like this often cost money to view. Or, like I stated above, the books are specific in whether it's a Regional, Middle, etc.
If you want to help out, create a profile. You have a shared IP address, and you can be easily banned because someone else at your college, and other users usually work better with a regular user. And Russian facts would probably go to the potential superpower page, as Ir experts are split between whether Russia is a supepower or not. So it would go under potential superpowers. Even though there's lots of IR experts that say EU is a superpower, it's also split, and put under Potential superpowers. Even one of my favorite IR experts, Parag Khanna thinks Eu is a superpower, but it's still put under the Potential Superpower section Deavenger (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Both China and India are more powerful than Russia, so are we gonna add all "wanna-be" superpowers to the list? Right now now one is even close to the USA, maby PRC can be evaluated as "close enough" to be a superpower. But the main thing is to look at statistcs and see what makes a superpower, even Iran states that they are a superpower... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.213.231 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: Brazil and the word "superpower"
While there are references in the media to Brazil as a food superpower or energy superpower, that casual use of the word "superpower" (meaning roughly "a world leader in" that category) should not be confused with categorizing the nation as a superpower. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
68.143.88.2's (January 15 2009) "Restoring ... to ... former glory" edit
It would seem reasonable in a collaborative environment, that if someone wishes to return an article to a previous state, that they give a better rational than "Restoring article to it's former glory" and a POV accusation of edits since that time. ("Now if people would stop POV pushing that would be great").
Please specify when such "former glory" state was achieved, so it can be determined how many editors work is being dismissed as POV.
Please not revert to 68.143.88.2's "former glory" version (again) without discussion here.
I disagree with the so called "former glory" version. It doesn't go into much detail about actual charactereistics of a superpower, but rather potential superpowers, which there is an entire article for already. Plus this sentence China and India appear to have the greatest potential amongst all the other nations of achieving superpower or near-superpower status within the 21st century and are often termed as emerging superpowers. is not true. As EU, China, India, and Russia are all considered potential superpower, with one's own potential is not greater then the other. The "former glory" also lacks many sources for many of the points compared to the current version. Also, to the POV pushing, that's never going to stop. There's people from all over the world that think there's another superpower or that their own country is a superpower, and they're going to push for it. Even if we go to the same so called "former glory" version, there's still going to be POV pushing whether you like it or not. Deavenger (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
USA GLOBAL DEBT
Usa global debt(private+public) /gdp is about 900% (for istance in EU is 140%).The public debt(considering as well FNM and FRE-check Wikipedia)/gdp is about 140%(like Jamaica or Lebanon).How can Usa to be defined superpower when debts are out of control and all the world (Russia,EU,China) has money to control them and weapons to cancel them?
Only a very good imagination can consider at the moment Usa a supepower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.60.119.15 (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
You need to do more research on the subject on debt? Russia and china have weapons to control them? USA has a way more advance weapons to control the debt, and that's not imagination. Not too mention, no body will control the debt, as the U.S is the single most important country to the world's economy, and if something happens to the U.S's economy, something is going to happen the world's economy. Deavenger (talk) 05:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Russia/China/Eu could harm the US by canceling our debt??? The only ones hurt in that scenario would be Russia/China/Eu, dumbass. Third World countries have had their debts cancelled in the past--this was done to HELP them--the countries canceling the debt are the ones put out. If your credit card company cancels your debt who gets screwed here, you or the company? Hey, go ahead and cancel our debt!!! P.S. If the EU is such a strong, stable, single nation, why are so many people in the various EU nations debating LEAVING the EU, or at least looking for "opt-outs"?? You think these ppl want to have a single entity in Brussels with the ability to draft them for a EU war(much less a war with the US?), or to tax them all directly from Brussel or give them direction from there??? So much for the EU being ONE nation. Let me know in a few decades if and when you've solved those issues. P.S.S. If the EU doesn't have the guts to send even a single divisional strength unit to Afghanistan, and if EU nations like the UK debate leaving the war in Afghanistan just because they suffer a WHOPPING 15 KIA's in a month, where the hell would they get the guts to take on the US? And if they had the guts, would they launch an invasion the of US with their 4 small aircraft carriers (and what makes you think Britain and France would let the EU borrow theirs?)? 68.164.5.236 (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
And the fact that you're saying that USA today is a NORMAL nation is still a theory as there are still equal amounts of academics saying that U.S is a superpower, despite the financial crisis, and there are the usual who say U.S is not a superpower. Deavenger (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
IF THE US ISN'T TO BE CONSIDERED A SUPERPOWER NOW, WHAT IS A SUPERPOWER??? Regardless of debt (we've had debt before), the US still has the highest GDP of any nation (sorry, the EU is only a nation on paper--besides, when asked, most Europeans don't consider the EU to be their nation!), it has the biggest, most powerful, technologically advanced and trained military (and has more than enough nukes to blow apart the entire planet), it has by far the world's biggest navy (a blue water navy with 12 active carriers--and more in mothballs--that enables the US to project its power anywhere), it has bases all over the world, thus enabling it to reach ANYPLACE with it's military (something NO OTHER NATION CAN DO), it has bombers that can hit anyplace on Earth (something no other nation can do), it has allies all over the world (and has mutual defense treaties with many of them, not to mention troops in their countries), it's the foremost country in NATO (thus giving it a foot in the door of the EU, where it has thousands of soldiers, airmen, and seamen stationed anyway), it's culture (music, television, cinema, modern architecture, fashion, Jeff Spicoli leisurely attitude, etc..), whether one likes it or not, permeates every pore of the planet, its economy has insinuated itself into almost every country (and no major country could go to war with it without having their stock market crash), it has a veto on the Security Council, its currency IS THE WORLD'S reserve currency, it still has more diplomatic pull in the world than any other country (as is evidenced by its being able to pull other nations into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan even when the populace of those nations were against those wars), it is agriculturally self-sufficient (and if it withheld it's agriculture, dozens of nations would drop dead from starvation), it is resource-wise virtually self-sufficient (and for resources it could use more of, its military has been positioned, and companies positioned, to secure the use of whatever it needs, as well as denying resources to those who are enemies--no other nation can claim this, and unlike the EU, China, and India it is not at the mercy of foreign oil supplies, for at least the US has the ability to immediately seize oil supplies in the Persian Gulf or Venezuela, whereas those nations can't!), it has the third largest population and is growing every year (without having to deal with the problems of overpopulation like China and India do), it has the most prominent universities on the planet (and benefits from the brains of citizens who come from all over the world), it has most of the biggest companies in the world (sure, there may be a recession, but the US has survived much worse in the past), it has THE MOST CULTURALLY DIVERSE POPULATION OF ANY NATION, it has a unified national narrative and mythology (which is more important than one may think, and the EU sure has heck doesn't have a unified culture or sense of purpose), the Bush years notwithstanding, the US still has a positive message to the world (something China and Russia sure as hell don't have), it has the world's foremost Space Program, and it is in the top-tier of technological research. For proof of the US's power, consider how it's at war in a completely landlocked Afghanistan (and of how it invaded), where it still hasn't had a draft (and still has thousands of soldiers in non-warzone areas like Korea, Europe, Latin America, etc.), and is using bases that are all in former Soviet countries, and thus in Russia's sphere of influence, and Russia isn't exactly friendly to the US. Could the EU, China, Russia, India conduct large scale military operations thousands of miles away from home in another hemisphere, for years, like the US has done like this? Don't think so. If the US ain't a superpower, than the word "superpower" simply doesn't have a meaning. (Oh, for those snipers who would like to point out the fact that the War in Afghanistan is still going on, keep in mind that the US hasn't had a draft, the conventional part of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan was phenomenally successful--never before in history has a military so thoroughly wiped out another nations army with such small losses, and that if it wasn't for trying to win "hearts & minds" the insurgency in both countries would have ended years ago). Sorry, not trying to be Captain America here (I hate Bush and am an internationalist), but some of you America-Bashers here need a bit of truth. Besides, is the need to spite America really worth going back to a multipolar world? All multipolarity has done was bring the world Global War. Do any of you really think that world peace would best be created by having the US, EU, Russia, China, India, and maybe Brazil and Indonesia ALL superpowers???? That sounds like a recipe for WWIII.68.164.5.236 (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
A lot af people is talking about EU or China as superpowers.This is the demonstration that talking of superpower today is impossible and telling that Usa is a superpower ridicolous considering economic (and not only us financial) crisis and the growing power in military sectors of EU and China.(in many many sectors they are superior in number and technology to Usa).For istance if Usa attack EU the same Usa would disappear for nuclear answer!EU has first economy in the world (check gdp lists) and is a political power linked politically in every sector.How can you consider Usa a superpower in front of this?It's only theory and propaganda to make yourselves and other people surer about Usa.
Here in EU telling Usa is a superpower today is a joke.
"Here in EU telling Usa is a superpower today is a joke." Really? Well, then how is it that the US has thousands of troops in the EU, and has EU nations FIGHTING FOR THE US in Afghanistan (and before in Iraq), and the EU doesn't have ANY troops in the United States? Whose the real "bitch" here? Go fetch Fido!68.164.2.38 (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
First of all, Mr. Anomymous IP, the EU is not a unified entity. The EU lacks a unified foreign policy. You state that "For istance if Usa attack EU the same Usa would disappear for nuclear answer!" I don't know where to begin. This isn't intelligent of even coherent. Second, you don't seem to realize that the EU is not a single entity that the U.S. could declare war upon. Furhermore, your scenario of the US and EU going to war is ludicrous. Also, although the EU as a whole has a slightly larger economy than the United States, an essential aspect of a single economy is a unified currency. The Eurozone itself has a smaller economy than the United States. America and Europe have been joined under NATO, as well as steadfast allies. In addition, though you claim "a lot af people" claim the US isn't a superpower, here at Wikipedia, we only use reliable, academic sources, not POV and original research. The next time you spout off your unsubstantiated theories, bring solid, academic proof of the claimns you make. --Hobie (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
EU is a political being (check Wikipedia).It's the first power in the world considering economy(check Wikipedia) and many other datas in all sectors.The speaking of Usa nationalist in EU it's a joke today.EU laws about defence are more important than Nato agrrements.It's valid now EU first and not Nato first in an attack.For istance if Usa attack Spain suddenly would have against all EU armies (conventional and non conventional!).You are served!
Oooo, I'm scared!!! Good luck trying to organize and coordinate the military operations, supplies, and command and control
of 27 EU nations to fight the USA (especially since many nations, especially the UK and Poland) would not fight the US (and
nations like IReland, and some of the Scandanavian/Baltic countries would refuse to fight on general principal). Oh, what
about all those thousands of US troops already Europe, especially Germany, and all those US naval and air bases (check that
out on Wiki)? Anyway, some EU nations have very peacenique Socialist governments, and even if not in power, these groups
are very well represented in the EU. You really think these groups and the Greens would be for a EU-US war? OH,
HOW WILL YOU COORDINATE THE ACTIONS OF MILITARY UNITS USING 27 DIFFERENT LANGUAGES??? You make me
laugh. Please keep the idiotic statements coming, for you amuse me.68.164.5.236 (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
EU is an indipendent political being (from Nato or whatelse)It's superpower.Today everybody has weapons but nobody has so much money and low debts like EU(neither the so mentioned China).EU global debt/gdp 140% vs Usa global debt/ gdp 862%.I think looking at this ,a new answer is PATHETIC! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.60.118.98 (talk) 10:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Spain and Italy have one of the largest economies in the world, yet, they are not considered great powers. Lets see, by October 2008, America had a global debt of 13 trillion dollars. Just taking UK and Germany from the EU, their debt exceeded America, and I didn't even bother adding France, Italy, Spain, or other EU member countries.
Oh yeah. Since so many countries in the EU are part of NATO, they won't be able to do anything, as NATO countries don't attack other NATO countries. So, the other EU member countries will be doing what all countries do when war comes, try to push for peace.
And here's something what's pathetic, it takes 27 countries just to be able to beat America's economy, and they just barely beat it. Plus, while America is in recession, all the major EU countries with the exception of France (unofficial recession) are in recession, along with some little ones. And last time I checked, a majority of the EU countries are working by themselves to get out of the financial crisis, like UK and Germany. And like other users were saying, bring back some sources. And one of the guys is from an EU member country. Deavenger (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's the funny thing. Since the EU is so big on the power of the UN (except when it doesn't suit them--see the Bosnian intervention), to attack the US they would need the okay of the Security Council, which the US would veto. Ooops! Besides if the EU attacked the US, the ICC in the Hague would immediately indict all the leaders of the EU, for that would be a "War of Aggression", wouldn't it?68.164.5.236 (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
EU gdp is 35% more than Usa gdp.EU has its own defense system that is over Nato system agreement.You are describing a situation of '70's.All the modern world knows that EU is the main power today.
In April in fact your chief (mr Obama) will come to EU and not EU President to Usa.You like a EU divided but EU treaties cancel your wishes and Nato weight.Don't worry Usa debts are all there :global debt/gdp 900%!A very pathetic situation!
Actually, the US does NOT want a divided EU--indeed the US has given its blessing numerous times when the EEC was becoming the EU. And if it wasn't for the US political/military/economic power giving Europe stability and protection (and allowing Europe to spend its money on social welfare programs) since 1945, THERE WOULDN'T BE A EU TODAY. If you guys had any honor, you'd pay us back a little for all this.68.164.2.38 (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
First off, it's a real shame that just because of the Bush administration, rabid anti-American EU-Nazis could go so overboard as to completely start viewing the US as your enemy (if it wasn't for us bailing out and feeding Europe after both world wars your whole continent would be a stinking corpse, and if it wasn't for our troops you'd either be suburbs of the Third Reich and Greater Germany or you'd all be living la vida loca was one big, fun-loving Stalinist paradise). Thanks for the gratitude, asswipes! Your EU "President" has a term for 6 months and has no real authority to do a damn thing (and your former Czech President WAS FOR DISMANTLING THE EU!!!), Bozo. Second, nations of the EU HOLD much of the US debt--if the US debt causes the US to go under, THE WORLD GOES UNDER (besides why don't you actually read up on debt, moron)! Third, if the EU and US went to war--which is utterly ludicrous--many of the EU nations would not fight--and even if they did fight, what with (not to mention we could totally wipe out Europe with nukes)???? If Russia were to attack a EU nation in Eastern Europe, THE EU WOULDN'T DO A FRIGGIN' THING IDIOT, THAT'S WHY THEY (ESPECIALLY GERMANY AND FRANCE) DON'T WANT THE UKRAINE TO BE IN EITHER THE EU OR NATO. The EU is the ultimate paper tiger and will always be that way (cause if the EU had any honor or real power, they wouldn't have sat still and said nothing while Russian generals in the last year threatened Poland with nuclear destruction over their proposed missile defense bases--great job sticking up for a fellow nation, buttholes!). Have you ever wondered why NATO still exists and why the Eastern European nations want to join it? They join because they know the EU is weak, spineless, and Westro-Centric, and if they got in trouble with Russia, only the US (and the UK) would have the guts and the integrity to defend them. NATO still exists, and almost all main EU nations support it (and France has rejoined the Command part of it), because those EU nations know that in reality, the EU HAS NO CREDIBLE COMMON DEFENSE STRATEGY OR CAPABILITY! Oh, take a look at the GDP projections on Wikipedia (the US will have a GREATER GDP THAN THE EU before the century is out, largely due to the fact that virtually your entire continent has a negative population growth rate, while the US will keep growing and becoming ever more multi-cultural, something that will give the US more sympathy in the world than the EU, which is basically a land of white people). Have fun with that fact. Besides why are you so keen to have Europe as a Superpower? So Europe can go back on the world scene, like it did with impunity before 1945, and push other countries around? Believe me, the world has had enough of Europe and their penchant for World War and mass-murder. Go back and pass some more resolutions in Strasbourg, see if anybody actually gives a good goddamn. PRINT THIS OUT AND TAKE A LOOK AT THIS IN 20 YEARS--THE USA WILL STILL BE A SUPERPOWER AND THE EU WILL STILL BE FRACTURED AND RIDING OUR COATTAILS. 68.164.5.236 (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
You can check this in Wikipedia (for istance "Global debt Usa" and similar)or other official sites or several international financial societies.Before than writing on Usa people has always to think twice and read MORE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.60.117.13 (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
You can check UBS datas on Usa or other finacial societies.
You can ask at any SERIOUS economical accademies.The numbers are always the same.The global debt (private+public )/gdp in Usa is 900% while in EU 140%.
Go and ask instead of wrting about thing known.If you come to EU and talk about Usa like a "superpower" people think you are telling a joke.We must be honest and serious an live on the Earth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.60.116.67 (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
And when you come back to earth, only a few academics say that the EU is a superpower, yet they say that the U.S is still a superpower. And the guy Phoenix is from the EU, and at my school, all but 1 of the 10 exchange students are from the EU, and from talking with all of them, none seem to say that the EU is a superpower, and they all say US is a superpower. And if debt was such a serious thing, there would be no superpower. Just ask any SERIOUS economist or political scientist. Deavenger (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that you need to read the following official policy from wikipedia.
Synthesis of published material which advances a position : Material published by reliable sources can inadvertently be put together in a way that constitutes original research. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.
I think that world has already changed and it's time to change many things in rubbish books too old.There are A LOT of official private and public stuidies to check about Usa decadence and economic situtaion.The President of ECB said 2 days ago that Usa situstion is a disaster about these numbers.Only a blind or an actor can't understand it.The number of global debts / gdp 900% in Usa is out of control(EU 140%).In the next months with new worse numbers to make you understand (because you understand but you act like american actors)i ' ll turn the knife in the hurt.You are facing leaving word superpower about Usa (the only true superpower is EU!) a tragicomical situation. - unsigned comment from someone...
That would be great... if the European Union was a Country. Thats like arguing that the UN is the biggest superpower. If we were to acknowledge that, then we should have athletes competing under the EU during the Olympic Games... --Rockstone35 (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
EU is the first political power as political being.Check
all datas.You can see the
men of EU at UN ,G8,G20
,everywhere.Under EU there all the political sectors from economy to defense.I think people dislikes the world power that overtakes their own ideas.
Check plase EU Wikipedia site or better EU official site.There also a EU site where are cosidered for istance all the medals won by EU contries at the Olympic Games...EU beats also in sports USA!Sorry!WORLDPOWER27 (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The EU is not a country, therefore it is not a superpower. You are ignoring my argument. Second, the USA could still crush the EU without thought if it wanted. Example: In NATO (which most EU countries are in) More than 50% of it's military power is directly from US forces. --Rockstone35 (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
In EU there are weapons to cancel Usa.EU is the greatest political being in the world.To be a superpower isn't at all necessary to be a nation today.In EU there are nukes able to cancel Usa in few seconds.France and UK above all have nukes on rockets launched also from submarines and other kind of weapons.
The most part of Nato today is composed by european armies that are under the EU Defence Ministery PESD.All over EU weapons is valid the law EU "first" (Nato second).Wake up ,Usa have lost they're position since several years.They talk about China or India because it's easy beating them ,but Usa know that it's impossible to beat EU without their suicide in the military or economical point of view!WORLDPOWER27 (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It would be very easy to track and sink the handful of active UK/French SSBN carrying nukes. Once the US did that, the US could nuke Europe at their leisure without suffering a single casualty in the process. Chew on that my impotent friend. Oh, BTW, I notice you said "to be a superpower isn't at all necessary to be a nation today". So you finally admit that the EU isn't a nation? Also, China would be much more difficult to beat in war than the EU, not the other way around. You also need to keep in mind that the only nations in Europe who still have any guts are the UK and Poland (though even the UK is slipping now considering they're thinking of leaving Afghanistan just because they lost 15 soldiers in a month!). The rest of your continent is utterly spineless and is the epitome of cowardice in the world. If the EU were to ever declare war on the US, dozens of European governments would be toppled the next day by peacenique protesters, and the French would probably offer the US a Vichy Agreement just to bring us to the table to let there be peace again. It's funny how so many millions of Europeans died in the last century from war just so spoiled, chest-thumping, America hating weasels like yourself, who have never experienced war, can be so eager to seek out another World War. You're living proof that the EU has no business being a leader on the world scene, for your continent has learned nothing.68.164.2.38 (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
There are many more nukes in the USA than in the EU. Most of the NATO army is comprised of US forces. Of course all EU weapons are valid with the EU law, because they are EU weapons. Granted, I'll admit that the USA vs. the EU would likely be the worst war ever fought because both would be a wasteland, but the USA is still on top. --Rockstone35 (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The EU nukes are able to destroy Earth several times.Many US and Russian weapons are unuseful in front of it.They are only a cost to mantain.Russia has the top numbers of nukes but they are unuseful like their huge submarines ,the best in the world.One day not too far Russia will enter in EU.Its destiny is already written.
I visited your profile.I think we're very very close as ideas.
I'm a conservative catholic too.Pope is the most powerful man in the world and this is our lucky!WORLDPOWER27 (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Only Frace and the UK have nukes, and not many of them, and the UK (and Eastern Europe) has a hell of a lot more military ties with the US than the EU, and they sure as hell wouldn't nuke the US just so impotent Eurotrash like yourself could feel a thrill of vicarious power. The only danger to the world, and to the friendship the US and Europe have, is crap-for-brains morons like yourself. Get some prozac or go get your kicks watching two groups of guys kick a ball up and down a field for two hours--YES! HOW EXCITING! 68.164.5.236 (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
As long as Russia has creeps like Vladimir Putin in charge, and is infested with corruption, has internecine war in some of its republics, befriends thug regimes like Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela, SYSTEMATICALLY RIGGS ELECTIONS, has no respect for freedom of the press, MURDERS jounalists/activists critical of the Kremlin, thinks of Eastern Europe as their own personal slave states, RUSSIA WILL NEVER PASS THE LITMUS-TEST TO EVEN BE CONSIDERED FOR EU MEMBERSHIP (nor is Russia anymore even a Superpower, as tiny Italy has a higher GDP than they do). Even if Russia did get its act together, there is no way Germany or France would want to share the power they have in the EU with Russia (AND THERE IS NO WAY RUSSIA WOULD WANT TO GIVE UP CONTROL TO BRUSSELS OR HAVE THE GERMAN CENTRAL BANK (I.E., THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK) BE THEIR CENTRAL BANK. The US has a better chance of merging with the EU in an Atlantic Union, or forming it's own North American Union (provided, of course, Republican idiots don't fuck that up), than Russia joining the EU. 68.164.5.236 (talk) 02:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I think this very ignorant guy should be cancelled .His datas are false and his talking offensive.Be quiet now Ua are only 2nd after EU.EU states (not only France and UK,but unofficially also other states own nukes produced in EU)have nukes to cancel Earth several timesones are unuseful.EU economy is the first in the world (19 trillions about vs 14 Usa).Please cancel this ridicolous and offensive guy.151.60.119.119 (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The only one who should be canceled is you, for the "data" you present is utter chauvinistic BS. Other EU nations have "unofficial" nukes??? Perhaps you could provide a reference to this piece of nonsense? Besides the UK and France, the only nukes that were ever in Europe were US nukes that, for the sake of law, were temporarily considered to be in "the possession" of the nations in question (like Pershing missiles were technically, temporarily part of the West German defense). This was just a formality, though, for in reality US troops were in sole control of these warheads and the only part that could authorize the use or movement of these warheads was the US military.68.164.1.56 (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The EU isn't officially ranked...mostly because it isn't actually a country but also because it's individual members are all independent countries in their own right. But if it was it would be first, but not by trillions of dollars. No country even ranks in the trillions, they are ranked in millions. Also the EU ranks at $15,247,163 to the US's $14,264,600 according to the International Monetary Fund.
Also, it isn't polite to demand that someone be 'canceled' because they disagree with you, especially when your numbers aren't exactly correct either. 69.132.221.35 (talk) 07:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
EU is a whole political being (check Wikipedia).To be a superpower you mustn't be tightly a nation.Nowhere is written.The EU is the biggest gdp and is a political being (Nafta for istance is only economical).The problem that is hard to accept for a nation or a political being the upgrades of other ones and the downgrade of itself.This is clearer and cleare day by day.The article is updated but to clean as Wikipedia suggest because isn't anymore scientific.the rest is bla bla bla...Time is the best doctor.151.60.117.148 (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
A superpower must only be a political being ,not a contry.Roman Empire that i know much better than you wasn't a country...but of course a superpower.The true romans in the high Empire lived in Italy
only under the Appennini mountains an the Rubicone river.The rest of the Empire was a poltical being under the Roman laws.There were 2 different realities for who was in Italy and outside of Italy..then if you want to invent superpowers you're free of everithing...a lot of people is knowing more things by me that from critical,disruptive and false sentences.I lost also too much timre for today answering you...151.60.117.148 (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Well then according to this theory NATO, the UN, ASEAN, the Latin American Union, etc. are all superpowers, which would be utter nonsense. Sure the Roman Empire, like the British Empire wasn't just one country, yet they were superpowers. The fact was, though, that those empires were driven from a single focal point, for a common array of purposes, and they each had the military, and the will to use that military, to back up all their diplomatic and economic endeavors. The EU DOES NOT have this capability--nor does the will in the EU exist to either want to develop this capability or, much less, to use this capability (heck, EU nations in Afghanistan think of pulling out just because they suffer 3 KIA's in a month!). Actually, this is a good thing, for the world--especially Europe--has suffered great misery when European nations did enjoy military gusto (mostly because they were jingoistic, chest-thumping fools like yourself who felt it was worth while to kills millions just so they could relieve their impotence via war). Sorry, but economic power isn't enough to be a superpower. As a test of this, if Russia were to invade Estonia (an EU nation), and US-led NATO didn't intervene, would the EU itself do anything more about this than file official protests at the UN? To be sure, the eastern European nations would probably have the will to fight back, but would the western European nations? No way in hell. Sorry, but until you guys find a backbone, and stop hiding behind the aegis of the US military, the EU will NEVER be a superpower and it's only a matter of time before the EU's much vaunted "soft power" is shown for the hollow thing it really is (which is why the EU does NOT want the Ukraine in the EU or NATO, because they know that if Russia were to then invade the Ukraine, as they say they would if this happened, the EU would be powerless).68.164.1.56 (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The term superpower was coined in the early 1940's...so the Roman Empire could be considered a superpower...but back in the year 1 AD nobody would have called it that because that word didn't exist. Also the Roman Empire, at it's center, was a country...and that country could be called a superpower going by modern definitions of the word. Anyway according the the article the be a superpower you must be a 'sovereugn state, and the EU isn't a country, all of it's member states are still independent countries able to have their own militaries and defenses and control their own economies. For example the UK still uses the RAF and spends the pound sterling to buy things and it's still part of the EU. 69.132.221.35 (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Do not feed the troll. No use answering this editor (who has been blocked under many names for this editing). Either you say the US sucks and the EU is the one and only Superpower on earth and be his friend, or you are a pro US propagandist and should not be taken serious. Whatever answer will only support him as being taken seriously.Arnoutf (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Done All refs merged as requested using ref names. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
