Talk:Superpower/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

USSR error

The USSR was communist, not socialist Why does this page refer to them as socialist? They are not the same thing. Socialism=good, Communism=bad.

Their economy was socialist, the government type was communist. Not to mention, they were known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Deavenger (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well communist East Germany was called the "German Democratic Republic". So much for names.68.164.5.236 (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The USSR was a totalitarian system, where the government and economy were completely entwined. "Communist" is a much better term for them than "socialist". Besides, Socialism doesn't necessarily mean agricultural collectivism. Use "Communist".68.164.5.236 (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk about POV. They both are bad, they both serve to weaken their own economy. --Rockstone35 (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Most Scandinavian systems (Norway, Denmark, Sweden) have a very socialist background; China is distinctly communist; hadly the weakest economies around

On the other hand, unchecked capitalism (subprime mortgages in the USA) has not done the world economy much good in the recent crisis.

So lets keep personal political beliefs out of this and try to stick to the facts.

If you look at the core of the liberal-capitalist and communist ideologies their aims are not that different; everyone works to capacity and consumes to needs. The way to get there is very different though.

The perversions of both systems is the consequence of trying to apply ideals in reality. Arnoutf (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Communism is a type of socialism so in this context either is correct 115.70.58.126 (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

USA is fourth largest country in the world during the Cold War

USA only became the third largest in 1996, which is after the Cold War. During the Cold War, it was the fourth largest. I provided the link at footnote 23 that links to World Factbook 1989 edition when USSR still existed. Currently the world's third largest country is in dispute. It is not accurate to list USA as third largest. Please take note of this.

Well, when talking of "large" are they referring to population or land area??? If population than the US is third, if land area, then that is open to debate because China considers some of its area to be part of China while most other nations dispute this (I think this is the area taken from India).68.164.1.56 (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, US total area back then was approx. 9,372,000 km2. Not 9.6. Not 9.8 as it is currently. That is because since 1996 US has included into its territory numerous water space, some valid, some questionable. See here: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s0001.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc900 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

India & Russia potential superpowers ?

The introduction names these 2 countries as superpower candidates. India has the largest poor population the world, while Russia is still economically underdeveloped. I found it odd to name these 2 in the introduction. It seems misleading and baseless.

To us, India and Russia do not seem to be potential superpowers. India and Russia probably will not be superpowers. However, some academics believe that India and Russia are potential superpowers (potential if they manage to fix some of their problems like poverty, etc.) due to other strong points. So it's not really misleading or baseless. Deavenger (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you Deavenger. India by population and economically could be considered a superpower but not quite under military level but with Russia they are a different story as they pass most test for superpower contests. I read some of your past comments months ago criticizing lack of International Relations experts on materials about superpower countries claiming a superpower is only a superpower if reviewed or affirmed by an International Relations expert or maybe such as a International Relations PhD. Right?

I have also viewed an expert on this subject who seems to have a different position on Russia and is now. According to an IR expert named Ronald Steel[1] has claimed that Russia has been reborn[2] and has restored it’s county as superpower once again[3]; even during the global recession, Russia still holds on as a reborn superpower[4]. Even the US government[5] [6]is also informing us that Russia has made its relations as a world peacemaker (superpower) once again and they have to act as responsible as a superpower[7] for world affairs because the US considers Russia as a superpower again. Personally there needs to be some changing here as there is no such thing as one superpower, not today. I would ask we change the US as one superpower into 2 superpowers in current position and if someone wants to update anything on India or China, than we also update them as well.--24.176.171.32 (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The only reason the US still calls Russia a superpower is because if we didn't, hubris-laden Putin the Idiot would be upset. My God, Italy has a higher GDP than Russia does, and France has a military budget that is almost TWICE that of Russia. Additionally, Russia no longer has the means to militarily act outside Eurasia, and if it came to a war between the EU (or China) and Russia, and Russia couldn't use its nukes, Russia would be absolutely pounded (and if WW2 happened today, Germany would clean their clock). The only claim to power Russia still has is its huge number of nukes. Without them, Russia is a has-been, and with Putin in charge and his penchant for the tried and failed solutions of the past, chances are Russia will only get worse.99.150.202.187 (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's see. The one by Ronald Steele I addressed that while in the title he called Russia a superpower, in the article he constanly called Russia a great power, which is different from a Superpower. Number 6 refers to it as a superpower, but that would fit more under potential superpower due to the fact that most within the IR community, there is not a consensus if there is another superpower. All of them say US with a few exceptions, there are some who want to argue that _______ is a superpower, while others agree and say that _______ is a superpower, while others disagree and say there are no superpower, or just one superpower. And saying that since Russia is a peacemaker ≠ superpower. That here is called Original Research and Synthesis. Also, we have also discussed it on this page and other pages that politicians, especially after the subject country just invaded another country. We had a so called source of Obama saying Brazil is a great power, but didn't add that for the reason as he was a superpower.

India has the 12th largest economy, and has over 20% of it's population living in poverty, and a very low HDI.

Before there some "updating" there has to be consensus within the IR community, and here on wikipedia. Most editors here believe that EU is a superpower. However, as much as we would like to include that, we have to wait until there is a consensus. BTW, Fareed Zakaria, Parag Khanna, Zherebetsky, Richard Haas, and Jeffery Mankoff are just some IR experts who will say, even after the war, that Russia is a superpower. Deavenger (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Then Make that phone call right now to Fareed Zakaria, Parag Khanna, Zherebetsky, Richard Haas, and Jeffery Mankoff then. Get them on the phone and update it. Don't ask members to speak for you, go to the IR expert sources and provide them here. Consensus should not show a history of negative post to the consensus such as members helping members to conflict bar play the article to what the article should say (I have looked at your talk pages on a history of asking your special superpower ip members to hype up the article from backup specifically; those guys are not Fareed Zakaria, Parag Khanna, Zherebetsky, Richard Haas, and Jeffery Mankoff). Lastly Ronald Steel titled "Russia" as "Superpower Reborn", that isn't the term Great power. Can you get some kind of Russia, USA, China, India 2009 updated IR article on here now?--24.176.171.32 (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Parag Khanna, [8]. Richard Haass [9], Jeffery Mankoff [10], Fareed Zakaria [11]. Look at the Ronald Steele article again. He uses the term superpower, then calls it a great power in the article. If you took the time to read the article instead of doing a google search, you would know that. Maybe I should call Steele to update his work? And for me asking other members to come and talk, they are members that work on the page and are part of the same project. And for someone who has access to multiple IPs and can change them or ask other people to go on other IPs and use them as sockpuppets (oh yes, we had plenty of that before). And as the for IR page, we have a page for that already. As the current page says After the Cold War, the most common belief held that only the United States fulfilled the criteria to be considered a superpower,[2] although it is a matter of debate whether it is a hegemon or if it is losing its superpower status.[3] China, the European Union, India and Russia are also thought to have the potential of achieving superpower status within the 21st century.[4] Others doubt the existence of superpowers in the post Cold War era altogether, stating that today's complex global marketplace and the rising interdependency between the world's nations has made the concept of a superpower an idea of the past and that the world is now multipolar.[5][6][7][8]. The page for the new countries are on a different page, as these are the most commonly viewed potential superpowers. Some people think they're superpowers, others don't, and we have an entire thing for each country. Which is pretty much the type of page you're asking for, and we have mention of that on this page. Deavenger (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Deavenger - What ip, sock or no sock or member introduces any statement, is it always your intentions to contact your group of friends on Wikipedia on any conclusion to anyone or everything that either modifies or consensus to modify or beings up any consensus, to stop them on their tracks each time? I read this comment you made to Phoenix’s talk page:

"”””Hey, there's an IP on the Superpower talk page saying how u.s is not a superpower, and anyone who thinks so has a lot of imagination and are following propaganda. I've been arguing with him, but I'm think he can't be convinced. Should I just ignore the Ips, seeing how he hasn't made any changes to the page? Deavenger (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)--Reply by-- D'oh -- Phoenix (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)”””””

You replied “seeing how he hasn't made any changes to the page? ” What are you referring to as the page? Don't touch it? Is it a members only page or club?

I see that you have been patrolling the superpower, potential superpowers and great powers on almost everything or anything that consensus a subject to the pages. I am not that ip you questioned back last month on the user questioning the US is not a Superpower or whatever but personally, why do you spend so much time patrolling these pages? I have read pages and pages for the last 2 to 3 hours on comments you have defended everything on the superpowers page since early 2006. I have read where you have used Fareed Zakaria and Parag Khanna countless of times in particular on everything referring to superpowers. Have you ever thought of any other IR expert author? Personally 2 guys like Fareed Zakaria and Parag Khanna are not the total say so the US is a superpower or no power, or great power or whatever power, there are plenty of other IR experts who will have different or similar opinions but this subject should not be on based on these 2 guys on this entire superpower article. Even so as I have to question as I am reading a lot of your writings that I feel you are really trying to defend the content more than hearing consensus from other people. I am not sure if your unemployed or a fulltime student or a full time on wikipedia user but when do people have any say so to bring new consensuses up to allow the content to be heard rather than making contacts to your friends to bring along with you criticize? The 2 particular links you provided me yesterday by Fareed Zakaria and Parag Khanna, I am reviewing and have some comments I wish to questioned on those links you forwarded me. I will forward them back to you to also comment on them what I read vice versa. Concerning Ronald Steels article “Superpower Reborn”, the term great power is used once in the article, it terms Great powers but not specifically Russia but the powers of Great powers in particular. Ronald Steel titled the article “Superpower Reborn” not “Great Power Reborn”, there is a complete difference in those 2 titles. However the title is the subject and Ronald Steel is indeed a world opinion as much as Fareed Zakaria and Parag Khanna have also. There is a cross fire on the subject but the subject by Steel has weight on it’s feet vise versa. Everyone knows Russia is a military superpower but the question or consensus does it fulfill it’s economic, political, and cultural also as a superpower. That is not a question I have but to consensus the subject more on where it stands over it’s military strength.--24.176.171.32 (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

First, all IPs and users, please sign your name using four ~~~~.

Hmm, asking a senior member if I should ignore an IP or not. As it usually would be better to engage in dialouge that could turn into an OR or forum conversation. And all Phoenix did was come and ask the IP if he had any sources that were not OR, SYN, and verfiable. And when I said he hasn't touched the page, he didn't start engaging in an edit war or start vandelizing the page as so many IPs like to do. If you bother to look at the history, the times I reverted IP edits when it was vandelism, not supported by a reliable source that wasn't OR or SYN, or they accidently got a fact wrong like saying USSR did not state they had a socialist economy.

Wow, me patrolling and working on many pages that have to do with a subject I know. Hmmm, that' slike an engineer working on something related to engineering. Then, if you actually decided to read the current superpower page, no works by Fareed Zakaria and Parag Khanna are used, as their works deal with what they think are or will become the superpowers in the 21st century. And I did not rewrite the entire potential superpower page based on their veiws. All I and other users did was take their opinion on the subject, add a small sentence or paragraph, and left it. As for the Ronald Steele article, he uses the word three times. Then, when the newspaper calls the article a superpower reborn, yet his introduction states that the US should treat Russia like the great power it is (it's in the intro, his thesis most likely judging from his article). And a great power is different then a superpower. But according to you, Fareed Zakaria and Parag Khanna are not the total say while your guy is!!. Probably every single member and IP who regularly works on this article will probably tell that they think US and EU are superpowers. I can have Parag Khanna, John McCormick, Mark Leonard, Amy Chua, and Andrew Redding to name a few who would agree with a view like this. Even though I have all of those academics and IR people to support me, there is not a consensus within the IR community as a whole. For the US, an overwhelming majority agree that the US is still a superpower. There are only a few people who say "No superpower" or "US is a hyperpower". Then, there is no consensus whether there is an actual superpower to challenge the US, whether the world has become multipolar, still unipolar, or as Sam P. Huntington put it, a uni-multipolar world (one overall strong power, with several weaker but still strong powers underneath). The potential superpower page is just for that. As there have been so many academics predicting this, that we created the potential superpower page. As while they still can't agree whether it's a unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar, they all agree that there is one or more of these four countries/organizations that are predicted to become the next superpower. Deavenger (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is time to cite credible sources which clearly state that Russia or India have NO ability to be a recognized potential superpower. Anybody who thinks that these countries have more powers beyond their own territories should ask themselves WHEN or WHERE was that power projected in the last 10 years ? Russia is great power and India is a regional power but nothing more. There is no indication of future power accumulation. Unlike China or the EU (collective power of its members) which already have influence over world affairs Russia and India had no significant progress. They should be removed from the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.10.169 (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

India and Russia, while it not seem to you, are considered potential superpowers. There are several reliable sources that are not SYN or OR. And since they are actually mentioned enough as potential superpowers to be notable, they are in the page. Who knows, Russia might become a superpower instead of EU, India might become a superpower instead of China. Only time will tell. Deavenger (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

India will eventually become a superpower (unless it and Pakistan nuke each other out of existence). As for Russia, forget it. Japan has more potential to be a superpower (and Germany itself) than Russia, a country who's gdp is less than Italy's. As time goes on, and the EU and China grow more powerful, Russia, by relative comparison, will get only weaker (especially as the world gradually transitions to non-oil energy sources, which would pretty much remove the one economic source of power they have in the world). Besides, I think in this discussion, cultural power and influence must be considered as a factor in superpower status. In this regard, what does Russia have? Though they had some great writers and composers in the past, what do they have today that influences the world in any way? India's Bollywood has more cultural influence on the world than Russia. Unless Russia develops some fantastic, lucrative technology (unlikely since they're having a brain drain), or develops some dread weapon and uses it with abandon, Russia's days as a Superpower are over.99.150.202.187 (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with 78.53.10.169.WORLDPOWER27 (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

78.53.10.169 - If you totally disagree, then you would provide some resources for it. Personally Russia has moved from a collapse like a depression period, then they recovered beyond over a great power but as a peace maker. I have no idea why you would want to state specifically why Russia or even India have no potential aspects of becoming a superpower? Sounds like you want to put them down (your quote “They should be removed from the introduction” 78.53.10.169

Russia's a peacemaker? Stop drinking the koolaid.99.150.202.187 (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

)[12] and have no say so on the subject. I do not agree to consensus something with no possibility, not in the 21st century. If somebody wants to say Brazil is a superpower and they have provided case citings, I have no deed to put them down by standing on no possibility or saying they never will. Same case with Russia; like the European Union such as France and even Great Britain have publicly stated in 2008 Russia has moved beyond a great power in world affairs. What other county would the US fear today if there was any country to even fear about in the 21st century; the worse thing the US has have ever dealt with in its history of world events was one Germany (WWII) and after the Cold War. What is different from the Cold War and Post Cold War? Even IR professor Steven Rosefielde[13] has said Russia has demonstrated it intends to re-emerge as a full-fledged superpower before 2010 challenging America and China and potentially threatening a new arms race. Ip 78.53.10.169 how can you say Russia and India show “no indication of future power accumulation”[14]? It is absurd but totally ridiculous to say such a thing 78.53.10.169

Well the diff between the Cold War and the Post Cold War worlds is that Russia is only a shadow of what it used to be when it was the USSR. The USSR had almost 50 million more ppl than the US did. Now the US has over 2x the population of Russia. The USSR had almost twice the industrial capacity of modern Russia and a military many times larger. The USSR had a large navy that could, with its huge number of subs, give the US Navy a run for their money. Russian ships today can just barely reach the Atlantic. The USSR had an ideology (a despicable one) that mesmerized many left wing radicals around the world. Russia today has no ideology, except for maybe supporting countries they know the US doesn't like. The only thing today that Russia has that gives its power is it huge number of nukes, but unless they're prepared to blackmail the world (or end it), these toys really don't do very much to increase its influence in the world, do they? Russia ain't a superpower. Sorry.99.150.202.187 (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If they can bring in a couple reliable sources that state the their country is a potential superpower, and the sources not OR or SYN, and there is a discussion, the country is added. The most recent argument was Brazil. The one user brought in several sources that were pure OR, SYN, and some were not even from reliable sources. Not to mention, the same user did not even take basic wikipedia protocal of talking it over first before making a big change the the article. When he wrote the section, it was not even written in a balanced way. It was basically nationastic advertising. Another user before wanted to add Brazil (this was more recently on the great power page). He did not do what the previous user did. He actually went and discussed it first. When it was found that the user did not have a reliable (non OR, and SYN) source, he did not do what the previous user did, which was insulting me because I was Indian, or vandelizing the page. He went and said he would look for a couple of reliable source so he could add Brazil and India. Deavenger (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

India is a third world country which has seen some developments in some second class technology sectors. Russia does not even influence inner EU affairs (it´s close neighbour) not to mention US politics or economy.

Even more important, the age of superpowers is over. Every so called IR expert which still uses a terminology of this past era, in my eyes disguises himself as incompetent. This is an article which should deal with history and the most common knowledge of the present. In the present and midterm future (5-10 years) India will at most achieve a stable regional great power status. Russia has to deal more with inner national problems. Where does Russia influence politics, culture or economics on a global scale? Nowhere. Is Russia a source of militaristic provocation ? Yes. But that is not a sign of any active power politics.

Sorry to say that, Japan, Germany, France and the UK are far more influential on a global scale compared to Russia. It devaluates the article to name every second nation which was mentioned with the term superpower in the same breath.

You can think that the age of superpowers is over, as that's your own opinion, like India, Russia, China, EU becoming or are superpowers are other people's opinion. In the begining of 2009, Russia shut off gas to Ukraine. 18 different countries were affected by this, including big EU countries like Germany. Economics, while it does not wield the same economic power the USSR had or US has, it has a large control over natural gas, and one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Politics, almost all major organizations have Russia in it, and Russia plays a major part. Several IR experts, even the ones who say Russia is not a superpower, will say that Russia is one of the most important and powerful countries in the world. Deavenger (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's easy for a developing country to have a high rate of growth. If you start out with a dollar and by the end of the year have ten dollars, that's 1000% growth (much more than the growth of somebody who starts out with one billion dollars and by the end of the year has 1.2 billion dollars). As time goes on, the EU will be less addicted to Russian oil, and the world, by and large, will use more non-oil energy sources (and it's a tribute to the US's power that it can influence OPEC to sell cheaper oil, thus totally undermining the blackmail power of Russian oil and their buddies in Venezuela and Iran). While Russia is surely still a great power, it is no longer a superpower (and this a a good thing for everybody, for that country has never done a good turn for anyone in their entire history).99.150.202.187 (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Since when is fast growing a sign of power ? It is a sign of an underdeveloped economy catching up nothing more. Only advanced countries grow at moderate slow rates because they are the peak of the civilization. I´m sorry to say that, anybody who truly believes that Russia has global significance can´t be considered an IR expert. A great power with regional influence? Yes. A future superpower ? Certainly never. Russia is the very small neighbour of the EU countries and China. The only reason why published sources say otherwise is, that some American Cold war warriors are still thinking in superpower categories and mistakingly spread their outdated views.

Most ppl calling Russia a superpower are not Americans. The only reason why American leaders still call Russia a superpower is for the sake of not upsetting their still substantial pride (for although they're not a superpower, they still can be a pain in the butt).99.150.202.187 (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

One word to Ukraine, this country is also very much more influenced by western (EU) standards than by Russia. Again, if this article, which is obviously hard to handle because of patriotic interests, wants to be taken seriously, crystal balling has to be avoided. India is no candidate in every respect and Russia is a regional, great power, full stop.

I totally agree with 78.53.10.169.Anyway iRussia next decade will disappear from this discussion because will enter in EU like all ex Ussr states.EU can 't be compared as superpower at any other political being just TODAY.The rest is PROPAGANDA and lost time.151.60.116.125 (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the master of propaganda is back. Russia would never be allowed to join the EU (especially since only one veto of a member state is needed to keep it out, and all the Baltic and eastern European nations all despise Russia and Putin). Even if this weren't the case, Russia, as is, simply doesn't fulfill the criteria to join the EU. It doesn't have legitimate, free elections (at least according to EU election monitors), it has no respect for free speech, protest, or the free press, most Europeans think Putin is to blame for the murder off all those anti-Kremlin activists and journalists, Russia is in the middle of internecine war in the Caucasus, and it's unlikely that Russia would agree to have the European Central Bank to become their central bank. Plus, why would most EU leaders want to put up with the obstructionism, intimidations, and provocations typical of the Russian administrative mind? Plus, why would Germany and France want to give up their pride of place in the EU for Russia (esp. Putin's Russia)? Keep dreaming!99.150.202.187 (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

([151.60.116.125]] Russia will is not going to join the EU or NATO, there is countless of audio files that says Russia refuses to join when the EU calls Russia the superpower of Europe. There is no need to eliminate any discussion, just to correct misconfusion.--24.176.171.32 (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Russia economically is already under EU (check trades).Anyway EU is the only superpower today.The rest is lost time for propaganda.151.60.118.29 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• FYI. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am bringing this case to the article, it is a CNN interview with 2 US Senators clarifying Russia is a superpower, it is on Google News. You can view the clip here as I would like to add this to the article: [15] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.20.15 (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC) --75.128.20.15 (talk) 08:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I like how you decided to add it as a potential superpower instead of claiming it as a full blown superpower. However, video google, youtube, etc cannot be used as sources per wikipedia policy, and the article only calls Russia a superpower in the title, and calls Russia a great power throughout the actual article itself. Deavenger (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the article says on the title Superpower Reborn, asked the writer Ronald Steel[16] that question but the title is the topic of the material. Second first it was said by Hobiehunter don't use Youtube at all or anything but Youtube, Google news was fine to him and several other people claimed the same comments. Google News is also used by the Associated Press feeds. So no Youtube is here or if CNN is pointing this clip are you claiming the feed is not correct if it is a CNN news feed? There are other feeds out there, they are all going to say the samething. Listen you have the verification right there, it says it several times on Russia. If I had a choice, I would knock some other published sources down that are so outdated on the article currently but I haven't which you have tried to backup them up to keep them. The article needs updated sources, these are fine as they stand. You have an International Foreign Relations professor claiming his source on the Reborn article, that clearly makes it a valid source on it's title, not a great power.--75.128.20.15 (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

While I don't like how Steel couldn't keep on refering to Russia as a superpower in the actual article besides just the title, we can keep the source. However, I believe that the CNN clip can be found in the actual site. Even if BBC has it's own channel on youtube (which it does) wikipedia policy still says we cannot use youtube as a source. 23:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I will check with CNN to find the actual video link on their site. I saw the samething on Youtube and Yahoo but a couple of people claimed not to use Youtube at all but just find any video site instead. I will check on it though; what is important we have a message from 2 US Senators claiming what Russia is.--75.128.20.15 (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ancient superpowers

Ancient Egypt was not a superpower. It never conquered non-Egyptian cultures. Ancient China was not a superpower. It never conquered non-Chinese cultures. Ancient India was not a superpower. It never conquered non-Indian cultures. Ancient Russia was not a superpower. It never conquered non-Russian cultures.

Ancient Greece was a superpower. It conquered central Asian cultures. Ancient Iran was a superpower. It conquered central Asian cultures. Ancient Turkey was a superpower. It conquered east European cultures.

No power in the ancient world was a superpower. They were regional powers to be sure, but "superpowers"? Not a chance. Ancient Greece didn't conquer central Asia, one individual, Alexander the Great, did--and when he died his empire fell into divided pieces that were only just able to hold themselves together. The only premodern powers that could be considered superpowers were probably the Mongols, the early Caliphate, and the Turks.99.150.202.187 (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Speed, not size, defines a superpower. In 1875, China was still the world's largest economy with the largest population and largest army. But she was unable to fend off invasions by small but speedy European nations. In 1925, USA was the world's largest economy. But she was unable to lead the League of Nations or influence huge German reparation claims by small but speedy European nations.

What??? The US didn't lead the League of Nations because the US WASN'T IN the League of Nations. The US, did, however, start the League of Nations, which the "speedy European nations" didn't do, did they, and the US very much influenced German reparation claims by insisting that the speedy nations of France and Britain pay the US back for WWI, which caused these nations to insist that Germany keep paying the reparations, wherein the speedy nation of Germany took out loans from the US to pay France and Britain.99.150.202.187 (talk)

Malthus was right indeed. Population is a liability for the nation until (converted into an asset) empowered by continuing education. As of 2009, UK and France have overtaken USA as net creditors. In the ancient times, governments decided the fate of their peoples. Today, companies decided the fate of the governments. CuteRobin (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Edition

I've edited the parts of this article related to Potential Superpowers to match the Potential Superpowers article. CEBR (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Addition

I have added section "Modern superpowers" with a map and characteristics of the USA, the Peoples Republic of China and Russia. C-b90 (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions but this is entirely original research on your part. No recent study in the academic community suggest that these three states are current superpowers as the term is usually defined. Please stop edit warring and read WP:RS and WP:OR Nirvana888 (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how this happened but above entry by C-b90 was, according to the history, made on 15 Nov 20:49 UTC. C-b90, please use the automatic signature by entering four tildes (~~~~); but in any case do not sign your own time zone with UTC as it is clearly not yet 16 November in Greenwich. Arnoutf (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The USA, China and Russia are today superpowers. It is written here: http://vlasti.net/news/20477. And here: http://www.vz.ru/politics/2007/11/9/123643.html.

These three countries completely and absolutely approach under the term "superstate". If China with Russia do not approach, then the USA too does not approach, because at it the largest debt and the most negative trading balance.

Thanks.C-b90 (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

C-b90, you are right about the almost inevitable bankruptcy and decline of USA, but please, just don't bother and don't wage pointless edit wars. Here the superpowers are defined by what we found in the works of Anglophone scholars, and while they get their salary in dollars they mostly will continue to write that USA is a superpower and others aren't. Greyhood (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This source - http://www.vz.ru/politics/2007/11/9/123643.html - is interesting. It claims that in a 2007 poll conducted by Harris Interactive in Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Great Britain and USA around 95% of people consider USA a superpower, around 90% consider China a superpower and around 85% consider Russia a superpower. However I can't find the source in English.Greyhood (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I found source in English: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1139 C-b90 (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. But see, the problem is that the term superpower wasn't used in that poll, it was about the most influencial countries in the world. Most editors here wouldn't accept such poll as a proof that China and Russia are superpowers. Though, perhaps, we could start a section called Public perception of most influencial countries here or in the Great power article and put the results of that poll there.Greyhood (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If you must keep adding the source for 3 superpowers dont cite the vlast article as it is citing an August 22 opinion piece The outlook on a triple-superpower world in the Christian Science Monitor by Helena Cobban at http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0822/p09s03-coop.html as its source. Instead cite the source article directly.Zebulin (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. C-b90 (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Zebulin, the proposed source is an opinion article, and can therefore not be considered as a reliable and neutral source. Arnoutf (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

they were all opinion pieces. I had edited the content to reflect that this source outlined this opinion but server issues blocked the edits so I later dropped the link here so the derivative vlasti article wouldnt continue to be used. opinion pieces can't be used to state flatly that there are 3 superpowers and a single piece certainly doesn't back a section titled "modern superpowers" but it could have been used as an example of a particular source advocating the idea of 3 superpowers.Zebulin (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

True for that limited aim they can be used as primary source. Arnoutf (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The Superpowers of world are a topic of perpetual debate and will remain as they are connected to patriotism(i.e. my country is best because .... err.. I was born here!) but we all know that isn't the truth so here is my opinion on this topic :

1 Brazil-A country with a very fast growth rate and now it seems that it has finally managed to achieve internal prosperity its now destined to become a major economic power.However it isn't a big military player its military had one of the lowest military investment until recently(1.1% gdp) and its personnel number has remained largely intact (1997-3,14,000 2009-3,69,742).Brazil is a very influential nation in Latin America (and soccer fields) but it doesn't have that much influence out of Latin America.It can be best categorized as a superpower in far far away future.

2 Russia-The country with oh-so-deadly nukes and devil know what kind of flesh eating chemical weapons sure it is suicidal to attack Russia but we are talking of superpowers right?The Russia in my opinion has made huge strides in recent years they have finally regained/re-initiated many of Soviet era programs/research which is a huge achievement.Also,they have improved their world image(goodwill) considerably due to more friendly posture and gained trust of many in EU.The missile defense program was dropped due to their influence.I think they will become a superpower in near future if they succeed in their claims over arctic oil fields and price of fuel keeps rising.

3 India-The India is now the serious contender to superpower status thanks to its growing cultural/economic influence.Though due to its high population growth and consequently low PPP(read:high poverty) its claim is somewhat... diluted.It has been seriously upgrading its military for some time and it seems to be only country other then USA that likes aircraft carriers.They haven't built an ICBM yet though some may argue that since they have sent a mission to moon they can do it too but we cant take that into account.Their biggest weakness is over-reliance on outsiders for arms supply.Most hardware is bought from Russia and now America has entered the fray.It is established fact that no one sells their cutting-edge weapons so its a big drawback.Their strongest point beside economy is their goodwill as they never seem to threaten anyone which is a huge plus in todays I-can-build-nukes-too world.

4 China-Most commonly cited contender for superpower.It has a strong economy and it has been expanding its military considerably.China has been making big strides in market and is now famous for owning a hell lot of US funds.Though its growth has been impressive its not quite there.Its airforce contains lots of obsolete planes and it is yet to own a aircraft carrier.However its biggest weakness is its government.The hostile attitude towards several nations and proliferation of nuclear technology to Pakistan and North-Korea are something that no responsible nation would attempt.Also the inner unrest (they lead the world in execution),completely state controlled media(read:propaganda),mass infringement of copyright laws and violation of human rights hampers its claim as superpower is not a nation who has x trillion dollars but rather an globally impressive force which people strive to follow.

5 European Union(EU)-A very respectable union which if taken as a whole is clearly a superpower but wait can we take them as whole? As most of us know EU comprises of 27 nations and is pretty powerful due to immense internal trade and jointly funded military research programs.But what will happen if one of them is attacked?I find it really hard to believe that UK/Germany/France(the most powerful members) are going to enter a war for each other.I mean think of resentment if France is to enter war for Germany.My opinion- Not Gonna Happen.Remember its EU which can be termed "Economic Union".Its rather a marriage of convenience to facilitate internal trade and collaboration.No doubt they are economically and culturally a Superpower but not military wise.

6 USA-The country which we all love,we all hate and we all love to hate.The USA is,despite economic slowdowns,most impressive military in the world and that too by a huge margin.It spends an ungodly amount every year in military expansion/development/research($607 billion the nearest is China with $85 billion a huge difference indeed).Besides it is biggest cultural influence in the world.Every morning we woke up,regardless of whether we live in Asia/Africa/Europe, reading what America is doing or what Obama said about our country/rival country/cat/dog etc.Their media dominates the world.But all is not well and good.America has been terribly affected by global slowdowns and credibility of dollar is being questioned.But the thing which hurt its image as Superpower is ,what we call, military cowboyism .Bombing Afghanistan/Iraq to dirt even when almost no resistance was present and that too on false grounds of possessing WMD when what they were really after was oil is something which ruined America's image as a global leader.Though I don't mean it has lost its superpower status it still is most powerful nation by a huge margin but it is declining or at its best slowly improving while countries like China/India are rapidly growing.So perhaps in far away future we may have other nations besides America as superpower its only a matter of time.

Cheers, Swift&silent (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice analysis. But how should it affect this article or Potential superpower article? And by the way, human rights in China have nothing to do with its superpower potential. When British Empire, Soviet Union and United States were rising to power, the situation with the human rights in these countries was terrible (in modern understanding).Greyhood (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I was just following wiki guidelines step 1- Gain consensus (here my point is importance shall be given to Military/Economy AND Culture) Step 2-Edit\discuss/edit.Are you suggesting I should have edited article without discussion?

I believe that Soviet era definition of superpower is no longer applicable.In those days the term basically stood for a country which possessed nuclear weapon and a big army but nowadays even little dictatorships like North-korea can gain nuclear weapons so in my humble opinion its no longer the case.Today culture and economy are at least as important as military.Also I must say that I completely disagree with your view that "human rights have nothing to do with superpower status" because nowadays superpowers are more of a globally influencing icons unlike our classic hack and slash British empire.

Cheers, Swift&silent (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

But what do you propose, fellow? Before gaining consensus on something you should state what you want to change. And you just have expressed your opinion on potential superpowers and the fate of USA. But no clear proposals regarding the article.Greyhood (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

What i propose is

Brazil is not a potential superpower it is rather an Economic power unless the term 'potential' stands for 25+ years. EU can not be included in Superpower list neither current nor potential as it is ,in its essence, an economic union. Some people have said USA isn't a superpower but this is still far from truth.Perhaps in near future... And most importantly what I wanted to say is-We cant ignore the cultural aspect.We simply can't carry on the age old philosophy of military/economic superpower in modern world.What good does USA military did when it invaded other countries?We no longer can expect military to conquer capital and citizens to accept new ruler/administration as it used to happen in the past.So yeah I think cultural influence is an important factor.

cheers, Swift&silent (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again you make no specific proposals regarding the article, but only express your opinion. And look, both the Brazil and EU potential superpowerdom is supported by academic sources - which is the main basis of IR articles in Wikipedia, not personal opinions. Of course, if you find some academic sources that support some of your views, you are very much welcome to add them.Greyhood (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:Don't feed the trolls. No reliable academic source claims anyone other than the United States to be a superpower between 1991-present. Simple as that. WP:No original research. There is already an article on potential superpowers. You may have your own opinions as to who is or isn't a superpower but this is an encyclopaedia and not a forum for you to voice those opinions. WP:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I'll also add a personal note that if a country (Russia) whose nominal GDP and military expenditure struggle to get in the top 10 and is not even 20% that of the United States' nominal GDP and military expenditure then all other countries who rank higher than or similarly to that country (this case Russia) in terms of nominal GDP and/or military expenditure could also claim to be superpowers, such as: France, United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Italy, and so on. That's why it's a non-starter. No offence to Spain, but a country (Russia) whose nominal GDP is the same size as Spain's cannot be considered a superpower. Or should we now be considering including Spain as a superpower too? For any country to be a superpower its nominal GDP would have to be at least larger than Japan's, who is itself a great power and not a superpower. A would be superpower cannot have a nominal GDP smaller or similarly sized to that of a great power or else it itself is also a great power, let alone a nominal GDP smaller or similarly sized to that of a middle power. Bambuway (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Where did it said that Russia is a superpower?When did it said US is not a superpower??

@Bambuway You yourself say we are all entitled to our own opinions.It wasnt like I talked about cake recipe on a superpower article.

Ofcourse original research is not allowed but you are saying since Russia has GDP similar to Spain it cant be a superpower.Dont you think it is your original research and personal opinion?

PS:I dont have any problem with your opinion we are all entitled to free thoughts.

PPS:Would you kindly cite source for your claim that "For any country to be a superpower its nominal GDP would have to be at least larger than Japan's"

Cheers,

Swift&silent (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with that, Russia is already a superpower or in the tip of a superpower. Just one month ago Russia has purchased 5 new fully loaded aircraft carriers and 7 being built in the next 9 years. Building as they are doing, you have to have a lot of money, especially Russia having more than 74 nuclear warhead submarines in operation, that's more than the US has. The GDP is also a lot different than Spain and lets remember, Spain does not have a Superpower miltary, they have nothing. Second a GDP is not what the US generals think, a country that can destory the world with its own aresenals is a superpower as only 2 countries can do that, Russia and the US. When you consider how many nuclear arsenals Russia has it is astonishing to know that many they have over the US, no wonder why Obama wants to decrease the Star Treaty Act on nuclear weapons with Russia, they have too many in operation. Scary stuff as NATO is breaking off the old Soviet borders of expansion to ease off Russia because Ukraine and Georgia have been rejected membership permanently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.55.224 (talk) 11:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Im pretty sure that if Spain or any other of european major countries remove free health care and use all of that money to make nuclear arsenals, they would have twice as military power as Russia. In today's world, war is not possible because mutual destruction is assured. So a superpower cannot be so just because it has a lot of nuclear bombs. A country like Israel could destroy every human being in Russia in 30 minutes, yet Israel is not a superpower. It is the influence on other countries that determine if a country is a superpower. Russia has got influence in energy affairs, and even internal affairs of eastern european countries, kazajstan, etc. But the decisions russia makes cannot be felt in western europe, america, or australia. By the way, the article is british biased with phrases like "the largest the world has ever seen", etc. 213.98.229.216 (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Being able to destroy the world is not enough. Being able to project global military, economic, and political influence must all be met. And if Russia closes it oil delivery to the EU (because of conflict with Ukrain) as they threatened to do today that is economic influence over Europe.Arnoutf (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Isreal cannot destroy the world with its arsenal, maybe a country (not Russia, too big) but not the entire world. When you can wipe it away with 1/4 your arsenal less than 30 minutes, sorry but the west as much to fear with Russia's military capabilities. If you hear the US generals claiming what makes a superpower and what doesn't, Isreal would need the rest of the middle east which is not going to happen. Russia and the US are the only 2 country that have superpower capabilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.52.67 (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

New York Stock Exchange

I propose the New York Stock Exchange image be removed from this page. The picture of an enormous American flag, accompanied by smaller American flags on the front of a building is not relevant to the section. B. Fairbairn (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It is completely relevant. Please stop removing it without consensus. Economic power is as much a characteristic of a superpower as military power is. Therefore there are two images, one depicting economic power of a superpower and another image depicting military power of a superpower. A picture of a stock exchange is the most representitive when representing nominal GDP and world reserve currency. The New York Stock Exchange is the only stock exchange of a superpower and therefore the only stock exchange which should be used to represent the economic power characteristic so to not confuse or mislead readers. The only problem you seem to have is "an enormous American flag" being in the picture. The New York Stock Exchange always has "an enormous American flag" outside these days and I see no reason why this should be a problem. After all, the United States is the only superpower anyway. Perhaps your problem is with this rather than the image. Bambuway (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I managed to find an image without the large US flag covering the front of the New York Stock Exchange. I really shouldn't have had to replace the image just because of a big flag. It's one of the most pathetic reasons for not having an image I've ever heard. Personally, I'm not sure if this new image really represents the New York Stock Exchange properly as it always has a large US flag covering its exterior nowadays. I think it's basically just anti-American POV that the image shouldn't include the flag, having to go to lengths to find an image without it.Bambuway (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

While I agree a stock exchange is "a possible" symbol of economic power, it is the institution, not the building that hold this power. Leading back to the question why this rather uninteresting building is featured. Arnoutf (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone found academic research defining A modern superpower based on it's GDP and Population?

"A superpower is a state with a leading position in the international system and the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests; it is traditionally considered to be one step higher than a great power."

"Alice Lyman Miller (Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School), defines a superpower as "a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time, and so may plausibly attain the status of global hegemon."

Is there academic research defining a modern superpower based on it's economic dominance in the global market place? Defined by it's [GDP] and [Population]? Has it been considered that the definition of a superpower in today's world could be based on population and [gross domestic product] of any given country? Will China Become the No. 1 Superpower?

Also it appears that the [Characteristics] focus within this article is based on US military and stock exchange (NY). Article portrays little in regards to the other countries with similar capabilities. Maybe China should be considered in the same light to maintain neutrality, though a clear 'modern' definition of today's superpower status would need to be clarified first.

--Netsight (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No academic sources state any country other than the United States as being a superpower since the Cold War to present. Your definition of "modern" sounds more like the future, say 2040 rather than 2010. Remember, the United States' GDP is 25% of global GDP and its military spending is 50% of global military spending. No other country, even China, whose economy is still smaller than Japan's, even comes close to it. China's GDP accounts only for around 5% of global GDP. Much of the rest of global GDP comes from the European Union, who accounts for 30% of global GDP. China's military budget of $80 billion is dwarfed by the United States' miltiary budget of $700 billion. China's military budget is far more comparible to the $65 billion military budgets of France and Britain. Population is not a characteristic of a superpower. A country can have a large population and have a small GDP and a small military budget, making it a weak country in terms of power. A country can have a small population and have a large GDP and a large military budget, making it a strong country in terms of power. India is an example of a country whose population is the 2nd largest in the world, yet its GDP and military budget are not inside the top 10. Countries such as Japan, Britain, France, Germany and Italy have small populations and yet have GDPs and military budgets inside the top 10. Remember, India in the 18th century was easily overcome by Britain, despite having a population larger than all of Europe combined. The reason for this is Britain industrialised, giving it enormous economic power, and consequently enormous military power, while India is still in a process of having yet to become industrialised some 2 centuries later. Large parts of China itself were, by 1914, under the control of many European powers in all but name. It later fell with ease to a country with a fraction of the population, Japan, during the Second World War. Again the same situation which had befallen India with Britain had happened to China with Japan. In both cases a small, industrialised country with a small population easily conquered a large, undeveloped country with a massive population. Economic power, the power to purchase and produce, plus military power, the power the destroy and control, are the two defining characteristics of a country's ability to wield power over others. China is likely to become a superpower but most experts state this is likely to happen between 2030-2050, when China's GDP and military budget will become equivalent to that of the United States. Industrialisation doesn't happen over night, it usually takes centuries. Though China may have economic growth rates of 9% and India of 6%, that doesn't help much when industrialised countries' econcomies themselves are growing, for instance then United States' latest economic growth rate was 5.7%. China only started to industrialise in the 1970s and India in the 1990s, western countries started this process some 2 centuries earlier. China and India have 2 centuries worth of industrialisation to catch up on and western countries aren't standing still either. 88.106.108.250 (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, the real sector of Chinese economy (agriculture + industry) is already larger than that of the United States in terms of PPP, and that's what should be really taken into account when defining the superpowerdom, not services and financial speculations that constitute the larger part of the American GDP. So, with much larger population and good perspectives for additional economic growth, China needs now only to catch up with the military budget of the United States and to achieve the same level of financial influence. Now, with a large growing industrialized economy, China has a good chance to make this much faster than in 2030-2050. Greyhood (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"Should be really taken into account" - This is in my view the main problem with the whole "modern" (or even worse postmodern) superpower discussion. "should" is original research and even in a scientific paper would be an arguement rather than a mainstream opinion. Arnoutf (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Purchasing power parity is not a measure of one country's economic power compared to another because it's price adjusted. Nominal GDP is the measure of one country's economic power compared to another because it's the market value of an economy. PPP is a grossly misleading way of comparing economic size of countries. Economists only compare economic size in nominal GDP and not PPP for this reason. As I said, China's GDP is still smaller than that of Japan's. China does not have a reserve currency like the US dollar, which makes up 65% of world reserves, therefore giving the United States the power to control the value of 65% of the world reserves by inflating or deflating the value of its own currency. No other country can do this because they can't print US dollars, giving the United States unparalleled control over the global economy. As of 2010 there's an enormous gap between the economic power and military power of the United States compared to all other countries, that's why it is today's sole superpower. China is not a superpower as of 2010 and no academic sources state otherwise. If China were today considered a superpower, many other countries such as Japan, France, Britain and Germany would also have to be considered superpowers because their GDPs and military budgets are close to in size to that of China's. None of those countries are superpowers, they're great powers, and it appears the term superpower is being confused with and lowered to include those who are great powers. 88.106.123.108 (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well that's sounds out of context - the US GDP is about 78% from its total deficit. If you put China in it's GDP, China is less than 40% in debt and Russia is less than 18% in debt of it's GDP as they seemed to be paying off their bills fastest than ordering a pizza. If you look at the news the stories are saying the US is the next Greece in less than 8 years away[17]. A country cannot run on borrowed debt forever which the US is certaintly doing. More than 82% of Americans spend more than they make and the same goes with the US government is in the same bubble. Both Russia & China have the largest growth rates over 9.2% now and than India & Brazil are right under. The US is less than 3% and one professor named Dilip Hiro recently[18] critizies the US is no superpower anymore or at least in the economic terms and if war happens in North Korea the US will not have the funds to support another war but just talks. Russia & China have been both recognized for achieving their superpower status's as the military their might is massive as they can both use hard and soft power.

America critized for not being a superpower here:[19]

China is a superpower according to here:[20]

1800s superpowers

Little infomation on super powers during this period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.124.83 (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's simple. The term "superpower" was not used until after 1945, therefore it was applied to countries after that date, not before it. 88.106.108.250 (talk) 06:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

In the context of early uses of the term superpower in the 20th Century, Prof. Sheldon Wolin in his book, Democracy Inc., cites a German commentator remarking on the reopening of the German Reichstag in 1939, “the eminence and richness of a Reich which has become a superpower.” Wolin footnotes the quote citing: Richard J. Evans, “The Third Reich in Power, 1933-1939” (New York: Penguin, 2005), p 183. ~~EVC~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by EVC (talk • contribs) 16:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Old and partial sitiuation in the article

Today there are no real superpowers,just leading powers.I wonder if people know what write in the articles of Wiki.65.199.220.1 (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The sentence above is a very strong statement of fact. As we cannot rely on your word (or mine for that matter), could you please provide the reliable sources that support this very strong claim. Arnoutf (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Need to remove some articles that are too outdated

Remove: Lonely Superpower or Unapologetic Hyperpower? 1999 http://post.queensu.ca/~nossalk/papers/hyperpower.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.155.2 (talk) 05:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It might make sense to remove pointers to that article which use it as a source for descriptions of current events but it is still an excellent (and irreplaceable) source for superpower concepts such as definitions. Scholarly works are routinely cited *decades* after publication.Zebulin (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

EU is Superpower

Read this article. http://www.oxfordpress.com/hp/content/shared/news/world/stories/05/08_EUROPE_SUPERPOWER.html

EU is the worlds leading Superpower, the world will see this very soon. Recon.Army (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I'm sure people in Greece, UK, Ireland, Portugal, Italy and Spain have already seen the the world's leading "superpower" that is Europe. Wake up and get a clue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.123.32 (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed: But has various deficiencies in the healthcare sector.

I've removed the line 'But has various deficiencies in the healthcare sector.' in the table comparing the Soviet Union and the United States, as this can be seen as a political statement and is controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.184.25.240 (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Needs to be updated

This article seems very biased towards USA, implying that it is the biggest super power yet how can that be in the amount of debt they are in? Please update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cairo9o9 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

And since when is debt the sole criterion of superpower status? There are areas where the US is the single most dominant nation and there are areas where it has fallen from dominance, overall it is STILL the largest superpower. --Khajidha (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Cold War heading

It lists in the military section the US Navy was larger than the next 13 countries navies combined. This is false. It's true today but not during the Cold War. I've checked the sources and they are post Cold War figures. This should be updated. I did try updating it but was accused of vandalism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badassbab (talk • contribs) 23:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Asperger's

The article dealing with an extremely important political concept begins with: "are you sure you're not here to read about comic books?" Keep on truckin', Wikipedia. You're still really unimpressive. 96.228.30.201 (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I did a search using my browser's "find" function (Ctrl+f in Chrome and Firefox) for "comic", and found nothing. However, the article is unprotected so if you had found anything like that the solution would have been for you to edit the page and fix it - instead of editing this page to ask someone else to fix it ;-) Really unimpressive, huh?! TFOWR 09:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The US is the 3rd largest country, not China.

USA: 9629091 square k/m China:9596960 square k/m

http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/world_statistics_by_area.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_outlying_territories_by_total_area

The only way to make PRC number 3 is to include Taiwan and other regions it claims as it's territory. No countries recognize this claim, so hence it should not be counted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A huge majority of countries recognise Taiwan as part of China. Area is a tricky issue, you have to deal with China's extraneous areas (ROC, Spratly, india disputes) and the USA's territories etc. What you include in the calculations determines which one is larger really. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

All the major countries in the world recognize Taiwan as a part of China, unless you are some random Carribean island, African, or Oceanic countries... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.233.159 (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I changed the "Geographic:" section to state US is the fourth largest becuase this is historically true. Please do your research, US only became 3rd largest in 1996 when "water space" was included for the US, and not for China. So when the Cold war was still taking place, US was the fourth largest.

China: It's spoken of as a superpower

Recently, it's hard to find a news article which does NOT refer to the People's Republic of China as a superpower, rising superpower or economic superpower. China has thus been classified as a superpower. Whether it actually is a superpower or not remains open to debate, however I think it's best that we get that opinion somewhere at the top of the page in some form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NyuclearTrigger (talk • contribs) 10:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Most academic sources on superpowerdom state that the United States is the world's sole superpower from 1991 to present. Many academic sources state that China is likely to become a superpower over the next decades as it develops. China is still a developing country and its GDP and military budget are still far smaller than the United States'. The article already states that China is a potential superpower. If the article were to state that China is already a superpower then it would make the article a wp:Crystal ball, which Wikipedia is not. News articles are often not considered to be reliable sources on Wikipedia and as a result academic sources take precedence over media sources. The media frequently abuses the term superpower in order to hype stories, using the term when referring to such countries as Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Venezuala and so on. Furthermore, please note you must follow wp:BRD rules and that continued engaging in edit warring rather than gaining a consensus for your changes amongst users here is likely to result in your account being blocked. Quite vivid blur (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you finally responded. :P What evidence do you have that the media abuses the term superpower? I have only ever seen, for instance, Venezuela (correct spelling) referred to as a superpower by the leftist fringe. Russia is another story. I believe that Russia remains a superpower. It can squeeze Europe economically, march into Georgia and what not. It has more than enough nuclear weapons to obliterate the United States several times over. Anything of that magnitude is definitely a superpower, but this discussion is not about Russia. It's about China. China itself denies being a superpower and claims it does not wish to become one. However, China would appear to have no choice.

Military

China has the largest number of active troops of any country in the world. Its land army is more or less capable of facing that of the United States. Aside from that, their air force is inferior, and their naval capacity is not even worth mentioning. They make up for this somewhat in the fact that their conscription base is larger than the U.S. population. If push ever came to shove in a conventional war, China would be able to defend its sovereignty. March into Washington though? No chance.

Economy

The Chinese and American economies are interdependent and China wields vast economic leverage across the world. The Chinese economy has not caught up with my country yet, but it is still an immense power.

Diplomacy

China enjoys the loyalty of Russia as an ally, as well as Russia's allies through the SCO. Other countries (such as Venezuela) maintain close ties to China. China holds a permanent United Nations Security Council seat and has rising influence within international organizations. The United States often watches its step around China, not wanting to provoke it. An example of this would be U.S. weariness at responding to North Korea's deranged behavior.

In closing

It's suitable to include a line of text about those persons who claim China is a superpower. China may be a developing country with domestic problems, but it is still an extremely powerful country. Its international weight is much greater than Great Powers such as Britain or France. Though China may deny that it is a superpower, and though China does not possess aircraft carriers or (active) stealth fighters, China is considered a peer by the United States (remember the G2). A potential compromise would be to refer to it as a "rising" superpower instead of a superpower outright, since it's definitely not a true equal to the United States at this point. Adding a link to the G2's article at the bottom of the page would be a good additional step. (On a side note, there are currently no links at all. Perhaps that should change?)

NyuclearTrigger (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You need only perform a Google search for "Iran" and "Superpower" to see how heavily the term is abused by the media. You concede in your opening paragraph that the term superpower is abused by the media, in this instance by leftists regarding Venezuela. Russia may like to be nostalgic and believe itself to still be a superpower by squeezing former Soviet countries occasionally, such as Georgia and Ukraine, but Russia's empire in Europe and the former Soviet Union is now firmly limited only to Belarus and Armenia, with all others either a part of NATO and the European Union or allied to the United States.

Military

Many countries maintain a military of 1 million or more, as can been seen on the List of countries by number of troops article. Military power is not gaged by manpower, particularly in an era of hi-tech military equipment. The United States' military accounts for 43% of global military expenditure and maintains ~800 overseas military installations, whilst China maintains none overseas.

Economy

China's economy is only slightly larger than Japan's and the Chinese yuan is not a reserve currency, whereas the United States' economy comprises 25% of the global economy and the US dollar comprises 65% of global currency reserves.

Diplomacy

Russia and China are only allies of convenience, often distrusting each other as much as they do the United States. NATO, unlike the SCO, consists of countries which are actually allies and is by far the most powerful military alliance in the world, with the combined military expenditure of its members acounting for over 70% of global military expenditure. China's possession of a permanent UN Security Council seat is no different than other great powers such as the United Kingdom and France. Of course China exerts a significant influence over North Korea but only because the country is on its border, whilst it wields less influence over countries not on its borders, such as Iran or Libya, than what the United Kingdom or France wield.

In closing

The characteristics you have described are that of a great power, which China is, and not that of a superpower, which China isn't. You appear to be confusing the characteristics of a great power with those of a superpower. Anyone could argue that particular characteristics of one of the great powers in fact makes that country a superpower, for example if stealth fighters and aircraft carriers make a country a superpower, as you appeared to suggest, then one could argue Italy is a superpower as it possesses aircraft carriers and will soon purchase F-35s. I suggest you read the great power article. In addition, our personal opinions are wp:Original research and only material supported by reliable academic sources can be included as content in the article. The article already states that China is a potential superpower and I don't in anyway dispute China is a rising, emerging or potential superpower and the majority of academic sources support this. However, I do dispute that China is already a superpower and the majority of academic sources, along with other users who reverted your changes, agree with this. Discussions regarding which countries are superpowers have been voiced on this talk page in the past and the consensus which has been forged on this talk page over time is unlikely to change so long as most academic sources state the United States is the only superpower. Quite vivid blur (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I've included a See also section with a link to the Group of Two. Quite vivid blur (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That modification essentially does it for the next few years. NyuclearTrigger (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE CONSIDER THIS SUGGESTION: The popular press has made China the most 'fashionable' potential Superpower, so I believe this merits special distinction, rather than clumping China up with Brazil, India, Russia, and EU as potential Superpower. One sentence will suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.233.159 (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed: I added a link to Second Superpower into the introductory paragraph because China merits special distinction, and it is reasonable to consider China as a second Superpower.Phead128 (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

K, the idea that China would be able to "defend its sovereignty" in the event of the breakout of unlimited warfare between China and the US is simply ridiculous. China would effectively cease to exist in hours, if not minutes. What was the statistic I heard recently? That of the tens of thousands of nuclear weapons still extant in the modern world, all of two hundred are in hands other than the US or Russia? Niggaplease. -.- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.60.76 (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The statement was qualified as "conventional war" not "unlimited warfare". In a conventional war (ie opposing armies on a battlefield), China could hold its own. If the conflict progressed to ICBMs and nuclear warheads, then China could not stand. --Khajidha (talk) 04:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

US was the fourth largest country during COLD WAR

US may be the third largest country now but it was not always the case, please see older edtions of the CIA factbook, China was listed as third (from 1989-1995). It was only during 1995-1996, the numbers were modified to make US the third. So during the Cold War, US was the fourth largest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.109.12 (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Also please see footnote 37.

The Land of the Free?

I believe that this article is VERY biased towards the USA. I think that this article is undoubtedly the work of an American, and a patriotic one at that. I think the US is trying to hold on to its superpower status that it lost long ago and is still trying to lead the world. I'm not saying that America's not a great country or anything, because it is, but where would it be without the influence of Europe and other continents and countries. Right now, you may be thinking that 'Oh, that was hundreds of years ago' or 'Oh, The USA is still the only superpower in the world' but it's not. I think America should take a step back and actually look at themselves for a change. The American Government is quick to criticise others, though not so quick to criticise themselves, not so quick to go out and help others, but quick to tell them what to do from a back seat. I believe that a 'Superpower' status should be judged by the cultural, political and economic influence on the world, not just how much land its got or how big it's armies are. Yes, I am British, but even if I wasn't British, and I actually would, I would think that the UK, European Union, Japan, China and Australia are the superpowers, and maybe the US should come in at around fifth or sixth. They are in debt, the Government, lets admit it, isn't the best one in the world and yes, it might be the most famous country in the world, but it certainly isn't the most culturally influencing, rather one of the most culturally influenced. The Hamburger? I believe that's from Scotland. Mcdonalds? I think you'll find Kroc was Czech and the McDonald Brothers were of Scottish origin. Exscuse me for a moment, I am trying to think of things that America is famous for that aren't collected with food.

Oh yes, your 'Forefather' George Washington was English.

Oh, and may I be so rude to ask, how many of you are actually descended from the original Native American Tribes. How many? One? (And no I don't mean 'My granfathers auntie's sons father's uncle's great aunt was a third Cherokee!)And how many of you are descended from foriegners? Oh, more than I imagined!

78.148.115.59 (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The United States is a superpower because it has immense cultural, political, diplomatic and economic influence and because it has the world's largest navy, the world's most technologically advanced air force and so on. Britain's issue is that frankly, it does not have the political will to challenge the U.S. It is content with its current place. France, France has independent security commitments and allies throughout Africa as well as the largest overseas territories of any old European colonial power. It would be very easy for France to step up, but again, they're happy where they are. Japan is large, has a large economy, but would be hard pressed to find allies or a definable sphere of influence. AUSTRALIA? Let's not even address that one.

China is a superpower because it is a recognized rival of the United States with a gigantic population, a gigantic and rising economy, a gigantic military and the political will to face down America.

NyuclearTrigger (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that in the present era Britain and France each have one fifth the population of the United States. It's not a case of "not having the political will to challenge the U.S.", more a case of obvious size issues! (All three countries being roughly equal technologically and economically, per capita.) What's more why would Britain and France want to "challenge" the United States? The West faces more pressing matters than rivalling one another. David (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Cultural influence? Didn't the internet develop out of US Defense Department research? (With, admittedly, influence from other countries. Research at CERN was quite important, too. But the original backbone came from the US DoD) In any case, Facebook and Twitter were wholly American developments that have become important in the protests and revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East. The movie industry? Developed first in the US.

Debt? The Eurozone has an external debt almost equal to that of the US. And many European countries owe more per capita than the US.

Admittedly, the US is not the hyperpower it was after the fall of the USSR or even as great a superpower as it was during the cold war, but it is still the single most powerful country in the world. --Khajidha (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"I believe that this article is VERY biased towards the USA"...
You can say that again. Someone keeps sticking an image of a huge American flag at the NY stock exchange on this page. Now come on - this article is about so-called superpowers.B. Fairbairn (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

There is always a huge American flag at the New York Stock Exchange. Whether there's a huge American flag or not is irrelevant. What is relevant though is an example image of the economic power of a superpower and an example image of the military power of a superpower in the Characteristics section of the article. As the United States is considered by most academics to be currently the only superpower we therefore have an image of the New York Stock Exchange and an image of a Nimitz class supercarrier as examples of such economic and military power. Quite vivid blur (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There are 3 images on the page: One shows Gorbachev and Reagan (which is entirely appropriate), and the other two are blatant pro-American propaganda; one showing a massive US flag at the New York Stock Exchange and the other an American aircraft carrier. If their inclusion is compulsory the images belong on the United States page or the I Love Myself page or the God Bless America and Nowhere else page. B. Fairbairn (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no propaganda on this article. The article is supported by academic sources. The only propaganda here is yours, an anti-American one, which is obvious by your contribution history. Do you wish for the article to erroneously imply that there are currently no superpowers or that there are countries other than the United States which are superpowers? Which is it because both assertions are incorrect as most academic sources state the United States is currently the only superpower? Quite vivid blur (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is it that when anyone criticizes anything about the US they are accused of expressing anti-American views. The article should mention past and present superpowers. Adding in a photo of the the NY stock exchange replete with large flag, and an image of an aircraft carrier is overkill. If the US images must stay how about including images of English and USSR flags, and images of English ship cannons and USSR missiles. B. Fairbairn (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not just "when anyone criticizes anything about the US". It is the incredibly nasty tone that certain people employ when they are being "critical" and the fact that some of the things they "criticize" can be very petty. Do you object to the picture of the New York Stock Exchange itself or just that it has the US flag in it? Do you have a USSR flag picture to add to the article? 70.90.87.73 (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Addition of the term Second Superpower in introductory paragraph

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

Place it in the potential superpowers section instead.Zebulin (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed phrase

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

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

• People should avoid such POV-pushing in the talk pages.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Cultural Section

I trimmed down the uncited/irrelevant material in the "Cultural" section. Both sides supporting dictatorships but this has absolutely nothing to do with culture. If you want to reinsert your claim that the USSR/ United States had a culture of supporting dictatorships or used dictatorships to influence culture, then find a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.236.198 (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Umm... those were summaries and covered in other sections, also the US has had a history of meddling in the affairs of the world, funding Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the Iran-Iraq conflict (they funded both countries), overthrowing a President of Panama to install a dictator for their own benefit, the list goes on. Read through the whole article or Google it, the proof is in the pudding my friend. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 1:59pm • 03:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No, these summaries are not covered in other sections. Nowhere else in the article does it mention "dictatorships" except in this part. It briefly mentions Cold War proxy-wars, but it has no source and has an "Original Research" tag. I still fail to see how any of this belongs in the "Cultural" part of the article. Please don't re-include it without a source showing that the United states and USSR had a cultural impact by supporting dictatorships. If the proof is in the pudding then it should be easy for you to include...

"...though the ongoing Cold War did lead to a degree of censorship and oppression."

I'm sorry, but I find this statement very offensive. The Red Scare featured the US using the same tactics as the Soviets. The number of citizens that had their lives ruined due to this witch hunt was massive. The rise of Nationalism in the US during the 1950s hit its peak. The United States pledge was altered to include the phrase "under god" in retaliation to the Soviets. To make the level of censorship and oppression in the US during the Cold War a simple skirmish, is a dangerous rewriting of history. I'd change the statement myself, but I don't want an edit war to ensue. Maybe we can come to some sort of agreement in regards to this statement. Partyclams (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, even J. Robert Oppenheimer had his security clearance revoked. Unfortunately for Sakharov, he did not get the same. Разрывные (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"....with the world's largest navy surpassing the next 13 largest navies combined,[38][39]"

Was that really the case during the Cold War? The footnotes just refer to post Cold War times after the Russian Navy was significantly downsized. I have a feeling this is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badassbab (talk • contribs) 17:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

according to the source it varied from larger than the next 17 navies combined at the end of world war 2 to larger than the next 13 at it's minimum. This is of course only considering naval vessels of 1000 tons or greater. Some of the confusion may arise from simple comparisons of numbers of naval vessels of any size whatsoever where the US did not enjoy a large lead in the cold war but which is far less useful as a gauge of naval strength.Zebulin (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Consensus on article needed

If you've not noticed we have an editor who claims there was a consensus on elimating Russia and forcing the EU in the article saying there was a discussion on it, where? User User:Antiochus the Great has made seveal unconstructive edits on the article without a single consensus on this talks page but has made decisions to eliminate key paragraphs & sources on short notice, that's not good for the article especially when there is no consensus on the topic. If you are going to make huge edit changes, you need to discuss them first and that there isn't anywhere User:Antiochus the Great claims. I am hear to defend the article by leaving Russia in as the emerging superpower on the article (this has been discussed time and time again) as there is plenty of data that discribes their front on the world stage but not saying is a superpower but with the verified sources verifying its global dominance claiming by world leaders, world diplomats, foreign relation experts, politicians and news media to claim Russia has superpower status or has re-emerging status; many sources are tuilting that direction. While the US and China are the key players today on this article, Russia cannot be ignored. There have been past discussions on this topic and several of us have agreed to allow Russia to be on the article with agreed verified sources as listed (just like with the US, China, India etc) giving it the stance it has on the world, not the Soviet Union, we all know the Soviet Union was a massive superpower but that Russia still say has a lot to say on the world stage on using hard and soft power. Anyhow to begin consensus, I am basically protecting the original content, sure there can be modification but not elimination. To consensus is to talk about it and make discussions, this prevents abuse to the article, hopefully. (talk)

I am defending the 4th paragraph below and 28th paragraph in the article

After the Cold War, only the United States appeares to fulfill the criteria of being considered a world superpower. The term "second superpower" has been applied by scholars to the possibility that the People's Republic of China could soon emerge as a superpower on par with the United States. Additionally, it is widely believed that the European Union, and India may too have the potential of achieving superpower status within the 21st century. A few heads of states, politicians and news analysts have even suggested that Russia may have already reclaimed that status. According to various academics, the European Union has revived a style of European imperialism, liking the union to an Empire (or superpower) of sorts. The term commonly used is Eurosphere. However, currently the United States is the only nation for which there is a broad consensus of its superpower status.

and this paragraph 28th

Due to their large markets, growing military strength, and economic potential and influence in international affairs the Republic of India,the European Union, the Federative Republic of Brazil, the People's Republic of China, and the Russian Federation, are among the powers which are most often cited as having the ability to influence future world politics and reach the status of superpower in the 21st century. Pertinently, a country would need to achieve great power status first, before they could develop superpower status, and it could be disputed whether some of the countries listed above (eg. Brazil) are presently great powers.

These are the original context, there good update verified sources here and wording that is all up to date. So what I am defending is the sources of data defending there stay in the article with it's original content in the article, so I am consensing this to protect this content as it is now, please reply to discuss(talk)

Consensus is located at the Potential superpowers talk page. The decision was to remove Brazil and Russia due to the lack of broad academic support for those two countries being potential superpower. Most academic citations refer to Brazil and Russia being Emerging powers so one result of the consensus was to place them on that article instead. Additionally, mention of Brazil and Russia had to be removed from this article for consistency. Adhere to the consensus and open up a new discussion to discuss any material you want re-added to the article, but for now (as per Wikipedia policy) the article should remain at the present revision supported by consensus.Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

All I can say to anyone reading this - particularly any administrators - is to read Talk:Potential superpowers in full. A good number of editors have taken part and there is consensus. Opposition, frankly, comes from those who either don't understand the terminology (which is academic) of superpower, great power, et al. or are nationalist POV pushers. David (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The consensus is here User:Antiochus the Great, not over on potential superpowers, it is here. There is no need to go over there and discuss a different issue when the article is here not there. Stick to the rules. Most academic citations???? really so shall I pick at your citations not using acedamic sources? How many sources are on potential superpowers that are academic and not academic, shall I pick at all the non academic articles under that article and throw them out? However, I am not going over to the potential superpowers to discuss an outside issue on that article. If you want to consensus potential superpowers, then consensus over at the potential superpowers article, not over here and making changes here saying but under potential superpowers and so, why have no other editors came over here and consensus? Sounds fishy and inconsiderate. To start, Brazil was not under superpowers, so you are stating a problem with potential superpowers and for Russia, again, you are referring to potential superpowers, not superpowers.

So you are confusing your edits to the audience and referring everything from your discussions under potential superpowers. Potential superpowers and superpowers are two different articles, not one. Lastly to say "but for now (as per Wikipedia policy) the article should remain at the present revision supported by consensus". Excuse me but supported by consensus, you have no consensus, none here and even over there you never provided any copied & paste facts that what you are saying is true. Again, that is a matter of the potential superpowers not superpowers. What your talking about on consenus, does not mean come over and knock someone else's door down on another article. Your comments on "you have consensus" -- again that is under potential superpowers and also, where is your history of that information(?), lead to here under superpowers? That's like joining the Army and but your claiming you can make change to the Marines but your not a Marine? Same government, same commandor in chief but completely differnent arm forces. Where is your logic?

For now, the article will remain in it's original form before your change April 26th, I viewed and read your entire history edits, so I am watching your comments and all your edits. You have proof of acadamic articles that Russia is not a superpower or potential superpower, I want to read them. Now.--103.22.129.134 (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you - an anon. IP editor - cannot dictate what Wikipedia does. And cut out the threats. You really think you're impressing other editors with your childish ways? btw - good luck going through my TEN YEARS WORTH of edits, numbering in their tens of thousands...

And it's not a case of "need to provide sources to show that Russia isn't a superpower/potential superpower" - it's the other way round. Otherwise please show me sources that Sri Lanka isn't a superpower otherwise I will add it to this article. David (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

David again your referring to a different article on the consensus, quite frankly doesn't mention changing the content under superpowers from potential superpowers consensus. I read every edit brought up by Brazil and Russia but really Brazil was never on the superpowers page at all and Russia was used as sources leading to as a re-emerging as a superpower but it did not state Russia was a superpower but only academic sources were listed saying it (such as world leaders, foreign relation PhD experts, dipolmats and etc). People over on the potential superpowers were referring to the potential superpowers only. Nobody came over here and made consensus here about Brazil & Russia but only did user User:Antiochus the Great claiming under a different article. I mean to change 2 articles in less then 5 days, when user User:Antiochus the Great has never been any long discussion this year, last year, the year before than and more. I think this is all new to him and went in there and made a few comments and said no potential superpowers for Brazil or Russia (I read all his statements) but that's one user. I also will mention there was also quite a bit of criticism on the potential superpowers about removing Brazil & Russia but again, that is that article, it just does not interfear with this article. If your going to question an article or change it, doesn't logic tell you, you start with the article original talk's page. I mean really, to go back and forth and say this and that then come over here and change what said over there? That violates the common intend of each article if everybody did that. I could go over "US Marines talks page" for example and had a discussion about the "US Army" and consensus about them under the "Marine's talk's page" then a 4 days later I came over and changed everything on the "US Army article" claiming people were talking about it under the "US Marines talks page". Get my point? You would upset people on both articles. The adminstrators have view this article on it's own merit that's what it says to discuss each topic under each specific article.--103.22.129.134 (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh please stop wasting everyone's time. Indeed I suspect you are User:Hakan Erbaslar who recently challenged changes to another article on a similar stupid line of "you need consensus to prevent my deletion of X Y Z" which was funny... David (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

btw - I am not going to bother any more with this troll. David (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Not understanding you and who's User:Hakan Erbaslar? Never been on any other discussion on this matter except for here. So I will count your intend as a no. Next users for discussion. --103.22.129.170 (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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

See this is vandalism. This is not the potential superpowers talk page. This is the superpowers talk page. So I am not going over to another discussion on another article. I disgree with your edits on the short time period some of the comments you made to be on silly edits on lack of sources on mentioned to other ip users, I have read your edits from Brazil & Russia and find them questionable on deframing nationalities on other ip users. This is not the place to tell Rosa Parks[21] to sit on back of the bus for being black as I inquire some of comments made to others. I may pick and question your sources and bring them for this discussion. You made huge changes to the article not allowing enough people to look and talk. Your semi lock was denied also, so there is a consensus here even if it means reverting back to have a discussion on the superpowers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.22.129.170 (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting you closed the discussion yourself on the other article. Are you running the show here? Looks like North Korea in the making.--103.22.129.170 (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

As an outsider to this discussion, I do find it somewhat odd that the "Potential superpowers" section of this article does not match the Potential superpowers article to which it links.

Update this article to reflect potential superpowers

I move that the section regarding potential superpowers in this article should be updated to reflect the potential superpowers article.

Please write below whether you support or oppose this. David (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Whether this article reflects that one or that one reflects this one, the two pages should most assuredly agree with each other. --Khajidha (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose As discussion is still ongoing over the inclusion of Russia and Brazil into the potential superpowers article. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

How long do you think this discussion should go on for? It's been going on for over a month. And consists of a lot of socks and disruptive IPs. David (talk) 07:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The only socks have been on the side of those wishing to remove Russia and Brazil from the article, the only disruption that I have seen is from the same sockmaster in using IP socks. Policy and common sense tell us that Russia and Brazil need to be included in that article as we have RS to support their inclusion, the discussion will go on until those opposing it agree to abide by policy and reinsert them. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• I Oppose as well, this article has nothing to do with the potential superpowers, different article, different problems. Please discuss your potential superpowers over at the potential superpowers, not here. --103.22.129.203 (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This article already has a section on potential superpowers, as well as mentioning them in the lede! David (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose attempting to make the two articles agree for agreements sake but feel free to raid the other article for sourced content with which to propose making specific improvements to this article.Zebulin (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hang on, you oppose making Wikipedia consistent?! Madness. David (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I Support making the relevant changes. both articles should be consistent with each other. Primarily, it is the last section of this article which needs changing. The paragraph should highlight China, the EU and India and so should the map. Towards the end of the paragraph a sentence on how some academics have also referred to Russia and Brazil as being potential superpowers should be added too. This would be in harmony with the subsection that is going to be created for them at the Potential superpowers article.

In the lead paragraphs this particular sentence, "A few heads of states, politicians and news analysts have even suggested that Russia may have already reclaimed that status." should be deleted. The citations for this sentence are either from the media or statements of politicians, using such bias and agenda motivated sources is wrong and would not be tolerated at the Great power article! The sentence was obviously placed there to satisfy the POV of a Russian anyway.

Overall, the changes needed on this article are so minor it should not be an issue at all.Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

So it doesn't seem odd to you (Zebulin) that the "Potential superpowers" section of this page has a "Main article" link to the Potential superpowers page but presents data that was not covered on said page when this discussion started? --Khajidha (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Reading this article and putting a hand on it that placing great power for superpower sources for Russia is pretty inconsiderate when I see credentials sources that say what they say, it's a superpower and it's all leading toward that one term. You got good educational sources that point it's a superpower and surely it's very creditable if you got professors putting their credentials on it, why delete it when it makes enough sense to the article. Down grade it to a great power, that's nonsense.

I couldn't agree more it would hurt the content which it supplies legitimate primary sources that are good enough for me and looks like some other people too. Second this article refers to superpowers why bring in potential superpowers. Why? That's kinda pushing saparate sources that was never intended for.

The superpower article ALREADY CONTAINS POTENTIAL SUPERPOWERS - why is this so hard to grasp?! Read the article!

The whole point of this discussion is whether to update it to align it with the potential superpowers article and therefore make Wikipedia consistent.

Of course another option is to REMOVE the potential superpowers from this article. Fine go ahead. Makes things simpler. David (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The European Union is not a state or country

The EU is an international organization, as not all of the members use the euro, and each member can operate as a full sovereign state. Therefore, this section must be edited: Potential Superpowers, which contains the phrase "Present day states that currently are or have the potential to become a superpower within the 21st century," linking to article on sovereign state, which the European Union is not. --Nosugarcoating (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• European Union is country or not (supranational entity similar in operation to the country) - it does not matter. In the world is treated as a superpower or potential superpower. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

No. It is not a country in any way, no matter how similar it is, and no one, except a few fanatics, treats it as such. All of the countries in the EU organization have full sovereign powers and can leave the organization anytime. Many Eastern Europeans may wish that this organization is a country, but that will never happen. The United Kingdom has a monarch. A political entity cannot be treated as a country if one or more of its constituent states is a monarchy. The United Kingdom's currency is superior to euro. The UK has opted out of euro. The country will never agree to lose its sovereignty over the EU. Moreover, a superpower has all its member states use the same currency, which a few members of the EU don't. No country recognizes the EU as a sovereign state or country. I will clarify again in the text that EU is not a sovereign state. I've seen your post(s) elsewhere and knew that you're a big fan of nationalizing the EU, which is okay, but Wikipedia is not a place for original research and point of view. Making it look like the organization is a country will not make it be. Again, it will never be a country or sovereign state, no matter how close it seems. I'll wait for your comment within the next 48 hours before I remake the clarification. If you then revert my clarification again, then I'll call in experienced Wikipedia editors to decide on the issue. --Nosugarcoating (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter whether it is a country or something else. Term of "Superpower" is not synonym of country. Besides, there are sources for this. You call in experienced Wikipedia editors? Ok, please, administrators are better :) You push own version without consensus and start new edit-war. Previously, was already discussion about European Union and consensus, your new change must have consensus. Subtropical-man (talk)21:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The section that I edited said "Present day sovereign sovereign states..." And a fan of "let EU be a country" added EU to that list. List a citation that claims EU is a sovereign state. If EU is to be added to that list, then the best way to word the title should be "Potential super powers," not Present day sovereign states since the EU is not one. I'm very serious about this, and acting like a kid by saying "Ok, please, administrators are better" will not change anything, as I'm not here to make childish arguments or play around. --Nosugarcoating (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Again:

First: discussion and consensus, later: changes, if there is consensus.

Second: European Union officially is not country, anyone can check it out by clicking on the link of European Union.

Thirdly: stop writing about other users having a different opinion than you as "a fan of "let EU be a country"". This is personal attack, please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Fourth: your behavior (start new edit-war, pushing own version without consensus), your opinion/soubriquet about the users with a different opinion than yours, lack Wikipedia:Assume good faith and info on your user page only shows your willingness to fight, and that's the problem for Wikipedia, on which other users must respond.

Fifthly: kid? you first wrote "If you then revert my clarification again, then I'll call in experienced Wikipedia editors to decide on the issue". This is funny for me, you have just basic knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia and you want to teach me or scare? But ok, let's stop talking about it. Subtropical-man (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright so I've called admin(s) on you as you requested. They say you have a history of edit-warring. So until you give a citation that supports EU's inclusion as a sovereign state, I'm reverting the article to my edits. Don't get yourself into trouble by being troublesome. --Nosugarcoating (talk) 02:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not revert your changes, I just improved article in compliance with norms of Wikipedia (see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking). Repeat few times the same link in the article is not justified and breaks the norms of Wikipedia, one link is sufficient. After the my new corrections, in the article of Superpower and Potential superpowers, near name of European Union, there are links to supranational entity (one in each article), in accordance with the Wikipedia:Links. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I agree with your edits for superpower, but same rule needs to be applied to potential superpowers as well. This means I'll clarify in that first paragraph for the article potential superpowers the list of the potential superpowers, the EU's status. You know, it makes no sense to say something like: "It is expected that the following pets would be the most loved pets in the world: cats, dogs, hamsters, and elephants." It would make more sense to clarify, for example: "cats, dogs, hamsters, and elephants (if adopted as pets)". I support EU the peace keeping intergovernmental organization, but it must be clearly presented as what it is. Making it look like what you wish it to be won't actually make it be that; it would only misinform readers, which is why WIkipedia opposes original research. --Nosugarcoating (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• You wrote "I agree with your edits for superpower, but same rule needs to be applied to potential superpowers as well" - in both articles (Superpower and Potential superpowers) there is a link to supranational entity. You were wrong.
• You wrote "I support EU the peace keeping intergovernmental organization, but it must be clearly presented as what it is" - must? No! do not must and even do not need. Everyone knows what means European Union, if someone does not know, there is a link to the article of European Union.
• You wrote "Making it look like what you wish it to be won't actually make it be that; it would only misinform readers, which is why WIkipedia opposes original research" - nowhere in the article, there is no original research and article is based on sources.

Please stop trolling and fight with EU, you showed their intentions, quote "I'm a citizen of the United States, a real federation, a real country with all states using the same currency, and a real superpower". Subtropical-man (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I said that to show you an example of a real federation. Wow, you really never learn a lesson. Well, if you keep on vandalizing the articles I will have to call in another experienced editor(s) to settle this. I hope your week has been great. :) --Nosugarcoating (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You accusing me of vandalism and scaring me others users (again). If you do not cease, will inform the administrators. It is a violation of the principles of Wikipedia. This is last warning. Subtropical-man (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Just because I said I would call in experienced Wikipedia editors to settle this matter does not mean I intend to scare you. As you may know, I called in an experienced Wikipedia editor the first time I promised you, and they helped to pause the edit war that you initiated. If that makes you scared then by all means you shouldn't be here, or perhaps you should read the manual before making any edits. Like I said, if you vandalize any articles I'll call in experienced editors like I've done before and they will help resolve this issue at hand. Have a nice day. I do not intend to scare you. I'm here in good faith for the good of Wikipedia and its readers. Experienced Wikipedia editor(s) said that you have shown a lack of common editorial principles of Wikipedia by too much edit warring. You should either change for good or accept whatever consequences for disruption. Thank you. --Nosugarcoating (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

something you made ​​a mistake. By the way, I vandalize articles?!? - please give link to this. If I not vandalize articles, your aforementioned texts violate of the principles of Wikipedia. Subtropical-man (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Misleading information

In the chart in the "Cold War" section, under "Soviet Union" and "Political," the article states, "Permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council plus China as an ally, up to 1960, with permanent seat." While technically true (China was an ally to the USSR up to 1960, and China eventually had a permanent seat), this statement is incredibly misleading. It implies that The Soviet Union had an ally in the Security Council. This is false as the People's Republic of China only received a seat on the security council in 1971 because before that, The Republic of China (AKA the USA's ally AKA Taiwan), held the seat. I'm wondering if we should remove that statement entirely or only the "with permanent seat." --69.126.210.25 (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

United States superpower source

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

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

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

US was fourth largest country during the entirety of cold war

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