Talk:Superpower/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

The "Rising" of Brazil

The article mentioned the rising of Brazil as a possible signal that a multipolar world is developing. However, in the last few decades Brazil has consistantly failed to match the global average rate of GDP growth. It's share of the total world GDP has dropped from about 3.5% in 1980 to about 2.5% today. Brazil is declining rather than rising.--Todd Kloos 02:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right; we've dealt with Brazil here before, the general consensus has been that Brazil has a case to be considered an emerging Major/Great power (possibly) but certainly not anything more - at least not within any reasonable timescale.

Xdamr 02:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

India is a potential superpower?

From the lead of this article: "China and India appear to have the greatest potential, amongst all the other nations, of achieving superpower or near-superpower status within the 21st century." There are countless of internationally published articles and books on China being possibly the next superpower, but where are the citations for India? I don't see any genuine superpower references or external links on India for the Wikipedia article: India as an emerging superpower. If someone does not provide credible sources and references, I consider the claim of India having "greatest potential...of achieving superpower or near-superpower status within 21st century" to be original research (in violation of Wikipedia policy) and should be removed/edited immediately. Even EU has more superpower-related sources than India. --Intsokzen 06:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Please with over 100 references and dozens of external links what more do you want? Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• I want direct source stating that India is a potential superpower, not original research speculated from 28 references. All the external links and references in the India as an emerging superpower article do not suggest that India will be a potential superpower as the term is defined in the encyclopedia. "Knowledge superpower" and "science superpower" do not make a comprehensive superpower. --Intsokzen 06:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I just did a quick google search and found this, also found numerous other sources that debated whether India would be a future Global Superpower. This article details that debate. This assessment of the future Geopolitical Landscape also shows India and China as particular global superpowers. THe article has more than 28 references my friend, there are OVER ONE HUNDRED, many are in inotes in case you haven't gone into edit mode. In these articles, not even a paragraph can be added without a couple of references. Even if some sources say India is a science superpower or knowledge superpower, they hardly use the term superpower on any other nation, do they? Do you see Brazil or France being called a superpower in any areas? Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Bad logic. A "regional superpower" would not be a superpower as defined in this article. Good that you got the link though. I'm not doubting that India has potential, I'm just saying, you got to get clear, unambiguous sources to back it up. One needs to do his best to avoid giving the reader an impression of OR. Are you Indian? Intsokzen 06:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to sort out any confusion. There are numerous sources and political situations that portray India as an emerging superpower. Also note that being an Asian Superpower means a big thing in modern times, since some have claimed that the 21st century is going to be an Asian century, although it definitely would be better to get sources that treat India as a Global Superpower. I also found that the BBC opened a Have your say area on their website asking whether India is going to be the next Global Superpower. Of course the comments on such a poll are unreputable and cannot be used, but the fact that the BBC opened such a poll indicates that their is a possibility that it will become a superpower, thus the use of the term Emerging superpower as opposed to simply India as a superpower. Do you have any other concerns? By the way, I am Indian. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• I am impressed by India's strides into the global arena in the last couple of years. Superpower status should not be zero-sum, creating a multipolar (as opposed to just bipolar) world is important. If China can have India's awareness of intellectual property and India can have China's sense of infrastructural urgency, then both countries would be on their way to superpower status in no time. Unfortunately, that's not the reality for both nations right now. --Intsokzen 07:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

multipolar world

the hole discusion is byzantine.it's like arguing if the center of the univers is on earth or on the sun,they are bothe rubish.the term superpower instictivly and rognfuly means some entity that can do every thing they want.that's never existed,you are still under the influence of cold war propaganda.we live a multipollar world with a good deal of regional powers, some local powers and thats it.after the war usa had 50% of worlds production because every body else was destroide, but from the 70-80 the world rebalance it self.real power of america don't go much further than north american continant,every thing further is overextention,burnout is nececary to do what usa is doing curently.ussr too thaut they cauld do as they wich,but the prouf that they did not is that they collapsed sinse they overstreched and ruind them selvs.did any body (even at 91',even the most optimistic) predicted that end?no.they were all suprised.this article is writen by interested historians(not neutral).objectivly usa have a huge external debt,wors per gdp points than argentina,so the more logicall outcome is a collapse wors then argentina.so the article should be about superpower myth.The theorised usa power lise in washington or in ther creditors.I mean that the aparent strenchth of usa is due to ther abyssal deficits,it's the flat earth theory of oure time(no,you don't vote truth).It's like superman,superpower it's sciencefiction.--Ruber chiken 02:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

militairy critirion /biger the better?

to simplistic.it don't take in too acount that somebody may have more than what's usfull.acording to the critirion the biger the beter.would the usa be beter of if say 40% of gdp was going in the militairy.if not which one?10%?1%.is the 12 other contryies armies to small OR the usa army to big?the ideal militairy spending is it 5%? less?more?--Ruber chiken 02:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Potential "blurbs"

Keep em short and snappy please, kids. There's an article for em for a reason! Trip: The Light Fantastic 17:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

EU

The EU only a potential superpower??? The EU has already a larger GDP that the US and has its member nations hold vast control over the world's natural and economic resources. Take the example of aluminum cans. A few years ago, aluminum cans were the most popular soda conatiner in the US and around the world. But due to the legislation of EU memeber states, plastic bottles have been replacing aluminum cans, not only in the EU but worldwide including right here in the US. One needs to look beyond military power, the EU's economy and the huge conglomerations heaquatered in EU member states have as much control over the fate of the world's resources as the US and its coperations. Concerning, the military, China, the US, the EU all have enough gunpower to destroy manking, so what's the use in counting! It is the control over resources that counts and here the total GDP is the best indicator. Signature^brendel 19:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The EU is not politically unified. It makes little sense to talk of such things as EU military power; for example, there is far more military integration between the US and UK than there is between the UK and France/Germany/Spain etc (including within NATO). As far as foreign policy goes, sometimes EU member states work together (EU3 and Iran), sometimes not (Iraq). Simply put, EU member states are not always pulling in the same direction - lessening the power of the EU as a unit.

Xdamr 21:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. But a superpower is more than governmental foreign policy. Fact is that European companies and investors own more of this planet's resources than those of any other superpower. The EU and its corperations make the EU a superpower. Too many poele outside the EU depend on jobs, goods, and investments from the EU. This unrivaled economic control makes the EU a superpower and not merely a possible superpower. Signature^brendel 22:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thing is that the EU is not unified and thus it is factually debatable to call the EU a superpower as it needs unification. With France, Germany, the UK, Italy etc. having all fought wars with each other as little as 60 years ago, it is hard to consider them to suddenly become friends and put aside all their differences. At the moment, each member state has its own government, this govenrment makes it's own choices. The Iraq War was a perfect example of disunity within the European Union. The EU may have a larger economy when you combine all the economies of Europe, may even have an extremely large military, but you can only combine these figures when the EU is one complete state with no divisions, this may take a number of years...thus Emerging. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Please look beyonf government policy. European culture influences the world, European companies womply as many people outside the EU as do American companies. The EU has the worlds largest GDP and its investors have immense control over the world's financial markets. You can't compare the EU to China or India, who obviously are not nearly as powerful. I have listed the EU as its own section since, yes, it isn't a superpower in the same as sense as the US but isn't an emerging superpower like China either. Signature^brendel 23:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that is purely OR...do you not. European Culture influences the world, who says the EU represents European Culture and projects European Culture. You see, you need to differentiate between Europeans and the EU. Anyone that would describe themselves as Italian or English by nationality obviously don't believe that the EU is a nation to belong to. Therefore, I may have to revert your good-faith edits...I'll let it remain there for a while though. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My point is, yes the EU is not a hard superpower (I don't know if this term exsits but I think you know what I mean), but it is a soft superpower. You see, if we are going to list the EU as a whole we need to mention that it is a soft super power. Yes I'm German, but there is some common identity, I'm also European. The way I see it, if we're talking about the EU we're talking about all its member states. So yes the EU represents the culutral impact of all 25 countries. We certainly can't list the EU w/ China as the circumstances vary greatly. Signature^brendel 00:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's, as a basis for argument, divide superpower status into four heads: cultural, military, diplomatic, and economic.

Cultural The states of Europe, like all nations these days, are not cultural islands cut off from all outside influence. In terms of language, the Arts etc there has always been cultural interchange. This does not mean that there is any sort of unified European culture. The nations have no real cultural homogenity - setting aside the spread of English as the global language and the attraction to Hollywood. In Northern Europe especially, there is little concept of being a 'European'.

Can we really say that Europe as a whole has contributed to the culture of Australia etc? It strikes me that these nations bear the overwhelming imprint of British culture more than any (admitting the case of France in Canada, and the influence of immigration on the US).

Military Three countries in the EU have decent militaries, the UK and France, with Germany a distant third. As far as the rest of Europe goes they are, with respect, bit players. I made the point above re. military integration. There simply isn't any real EU wide military cooperation. Yes they cooperate through NATO, but that is a different institution run along different lines.

The US and UK are integrated to a tremendous extent, conducting regular joint exercises, procuring the same (or interoperable) equipment such as the JSF fighter, and the Royal Navy's new aircraft carriers. The goal for each of these was to have interoperability with US assets, not French or German (aside from common NATO standards).

Diplomatic The example of Iraq will be sufficiently well known to all of us to need repetition here. On the other hand we have the EU3 negotiating with Iran, and EU involvement in the Israel/Palestinian question. This is an area in some flux, however I think that we are justified in drawing the conclusion that this sort of EU front is the exception rather than the rule. Most foreign relations are still conducted as individual nations, especially with the idea of an EU Diplomatic Service having been rejected.

Economic This has been accepted as the main ground for considering the EU as a potential superpower. I won't discuss this much further other than to point out that despite EU company legislation, almost all companies remain organised along national lines. Due to the efforts of the EU, there is a lot of common regulation between member states, but they aren't organised at a European level.

The EU is not regarded as a superpower by international opinion. Do I say that this may not change? Certainly not, a changing political consensus could lead to further, faster integration, turning the EU into something more unified. But this is not the present case, and it is the present case with which we are concerned. A superpower arises through a synthesis of elements, economic power alone is not enough. It can only be called power if there is the intention to use it to pursue goals, something which the EU lacks. In fact there isn't even agreement between member states as to what the EU should be - economic bloc, or unified nation state?

Aside from these arguments however, I really must point out one thing that this page lacks - any references at all. We do not have any sort of academic basis cited for the comparisions we are making between our superpower and potential superpowers. Personally I don't see the point in doing too much work here until this situation is resolved; the page simply becomes more and more OR. I don't have access to any potential sources, do any of you?

Xdamr 13:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

OR POV?

"While there is some controversy over the EU being a superpower or not, its sheer gross domestic product, control over the world's resources as well as cultural influence over the world set it apart from China, India and the US. Despite the fact that the EU is not a country and therefore not a superpower in the same sense as the United States whose unformed governement policy gives it unrivaled diplomatic and military power, its is one of the worlds most powerful unions. European culture has a profound imapct on the world, whether it be fashion, music, entertainment, or automobiles. With a GDP of over twelve trillion US dollars the EU and its corperations and investors have imense power over the world economy and the global allocation of resources."
How is that POV? Have you read the US section, if so you will notice that I took many of the sentences that also apply for the EU and merely switched "US" for "EU" (that's why the spelling mistake below. Please tell me the parts that are POV and I'll fix them, than put up the tag.Signature^brendel 06:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The entire section is rather OR and POV because of one main thing. Who are we to judge whether a state as divided as the EU is a superpower? Right now most say that only the US is a superpower. The EU's Status is different to the US. Anyway, the European Union is not the same as the United States, thus doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same context. Also, we've got an article called European Union as an emerging superpower, no need to repeat the EU's power in the Superpower article. Lastly, I believe that all we need as a change to this article is a simple mention of the fact that a unified EU would be a superpower in the Emerging Superpowers Section. The EU is an emerging superpower because it is yet to be unified. I'm not removing your section because you seem to have put a bit of work into it. But please come to consensus before adding more. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do think there is a need to repeat the EU's status. Look you had the EU listed w/ China. China's GDP is what, maybe two trillion (and that's a projection); the EU's is 12 trillion. Most people do agree that the EU fits the economic, demographic, militraristic, and cultural crtieria for a superpower. Neither China nor any other trule emerging superpower does. The only criteria the EU doesn't meet is that of unified public policy. Nonetheless, the memeber states have hughe control over the world's resources and their culture's influence has reached the most remote portions of the planet. It is the only union besdied the US that fits this many of the crtieria and has that much control over the global allocation of resources and cultural trend. Also, I agree, I will discuss major future additions. Thank you for your professionalism. Regards, Signature^brendel 17:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"Right now most say that only the US is a superpower".So what,peopol beleav in many craps,the superpower thing is no exeption. We don't vote for truth. Yes on paper eu looks very divided, but in practice since they share a lot of interests and are too unterdependent it's not the case. You expect what? what it will get unifide over night? Yesterday it was not even a regional power an today it's a superpower, a quantum leep. It's the classical border problem, at wich point, it would be suffishantly unified according to you, and the day they do, the unification hapend that day, or was spred on many decades? The helvetic confederation is 800 years old, you can say that today it's a federation, but at wich point did the swich hapened? Your are fooled because there are 25 presidents and not 1. For the militairy, as brendel said, they both have the capasity to destroy the planet several times, so counting is usless.--Ruber chiken 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is The European Union considered a superpower canidate and the Commonwealth Of Nations and The League of Arab States,and The CIS are not? Dudtz 6/8/06 9:10 PM EST

Because this organisations aren't serious unions.They are talking shops.--Ruber chiken 17:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Because they don't have a $12 trillion GDP, the world's highest HDI, a worldclass infrastructure. Their corperations and investors do not have near as much power over the global allocation of resources and their culture hasn't had the same impact on the world. Signature^brendel 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats an bad question. It's obvious why. Trip: The Light Fantastic 19:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The eu is not a nation!! It is made up of weak and powerful countries. If the eu is going to be a superpower then the UN is also. I believe the eu is a strong union but that is all [stanley]

Incorrect Reference to the United States

In the main section on the European Union, a bullet point under "Economic and Financial Factors" read:

"The infrastructure of the United States is well-planned and highly developed. With high-speed trains and the Autobahn being the perhaps most symbolic feats or civil engineering in the EU."

I changed this to read:

"The infrastructure of the European Union is well-planned and highly developed, with high-speed trains and the Autobahn being perhaps the most symbolic feats of civil engineering in the EU."

This was done for the following reasons:
1. The bullet point intended to refer to the infrastructure of the EU, not of the United States.
2. To correct a sentence fragment and improve readability. --Mrpaco 06:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your corrections! That was my mistake, I'm sorry. Regards, Signature^brendel 06:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

usa overestimated

Usa has abysal external debt.It's because of ther great economy,or is the abysal deficits that make it look so good?The power of the usa belogns to how,americans or foren bankers and investors?--Ruber chiken 15:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Since my post is ignored ,i just chage the tag,from pov,tawrds totaly disputed.--Ruber chiken 04:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Citing Sources

Hi, our debate over the EUs status as a superpower aside. Shouldn't we be using the Template talk:Cite web for our sources. I have been using it on Passenger vehicles in the United States if you'd like to see an example of it being used in article. Using this template provides, in my opinion, for a much clearer overview of references and automatically keeps them in order. As I get around to it, I'll convert the current reference into using this template. Thanks. Signature^brendel 19:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

maby your rafaring to my ugly way of references and links.It's just my fault.Do as you said.--Ruber chiken 19:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No, no. That's not what I am referring to. Most Wikipedia articles cite their sources using {{ref|123} } and {{note|123} }. A better to reference is using the template I mentioned above. FYI: Thank you for the reference articles you have provided. Signature^brendel 20:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

usa vs europe(and japan)

• "The United States has the highest population growth rate of all developed nations as a result of immigration"

This is due to poverty(hi inequalities in american incoms) and poor education(whorst beteen the developed contryes).I's a whell undestould fact that poverty and poor education incrises fertility(statisticly proven).The oposite is olso thrue.No exeption what so evar,USA aren't an exeption of the rule.Canada has the most inflou of imigrants per capita,and even they,the'll experience population decline.This point shose that someting wrong in the usa,not that the rest of the developed world is laking behind.

• It has a high Human Development Index:It's an average!!

• "The United States invests 2.6 percent of its GDP on higher education, compared with 1.2 percent in Europe and 1.1 percent in Japan."And acording too wikipedia americans are poorly educated.Is that europe and japan spending too littel or that usa spend too much.I mean, wher that many came from,something else have too receave less many.Are europeans and japaneas babouns or something?is flat earth peopol this european and japaneas things?

• It contributes around 22% of the United Nations budget

The EU contryes contribute more.EU is a de facto political entity

• "Overall the US has the third largest per capita GDP in the world following Luxemburg and Norway." USA are overworkded,luxemburg has a big transfrontier workers(ther not conted in the gdp per capital estimate),norway is the third oil producer of the world.

• "Over the past 20 years, America's growth rate has averaged just over 3 percent."according to the link it's2.1 for US and 1.8 for europe when you compare the percapita growth.

• "is the largest debtor nation, owing more than USD 9 trillion in 2005, a debt growing at the rate of USD 3 billion per working day."Whats important is external debt,EU has a small external credit,The public debts are tord european them selvs,european have no interest in puting ther whon contry in bankrapsy.On top of a grate public debt american them selvs are very in debt.

• It has a decisive influence on financial international bodies such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.EU contrys contribute more than the US

• "The US spends more on its military than the next twelve countries combined".Is it that the rest of the world spends too littel OR that the US spends too much?????

--Ruber chiken 19:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's just an interesting thought on the issue, compare Canada to the US. You'll find a much higher HDI, higher life expectancy, better health car system, lower poverty rates, lower infant mortality rates, lower crime rares and a much lower GDP per capita. The US is overworked, American work more than Europeans and thus have a higher per capita income (though not the highest in the world). If you compare the GDP per capita per each hours worked, the gap narrowns siginificantly. Secondly the poor in the EU arn't as poor as the poor in the US due to the wellfare state. The US does however have a high HDI, so do most EU member states (the US is 16 and most of the perceeding 15 ranks are filled by EU member states). The bottom line in regards to per capita GDP and quality of life is the following: Americans work more and thus have a higher GDP but also a quality of life that's a little lower. Europeans work less and thus have a lower GDP per capita but a higher quality of life. (That's been proven by the UN)

But we need to remember that GDP per capita is secondary when it comes to determining a superpower. Luxemburg has by far the highest GDP per capita in the world. If GDP per capita was how we decide a superpower than Luxemburg, the Bermuda and Norway would be most powerful and influencial unions in the world. Both the US and the EU are highly, highly developed place and the citizens in both unions in enjoy very high levels prosperity. (Yes, America has a higher GDP per capita and Europe has a higher quality of life, etc, etc...) What counts is the total GDP, the control over the allocation of resources, and the influence culture has. All three criteria apply to the EU as much as they apply to the US. The EU has a profound impact on the daily lifes of people around the globe; thus it is a superpower. Signature^brendel 20:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This page is not about morally approving or disapproving policies. This page is about power in the world. Sijo Ripa 21:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The impotance of gdp per capital is that it's shose that the us cant go hire.It's alredy at 110%.On contrast europe have more or less same gdp with the usa,but in a more relaxte way(they are 450million).The gdp is just a statistic,how do you acoun't overworke in it?By been over worked is this streghthens or weekens americans?I mean,is the quality and sustanibility that is shone.I'm saying gdp must be interprted,not just taken as is.we compare someon hou is doing 110% with someone at 80%,don't you think that this have an influance in the real power compareson,and so in the superpower debate.--Ruber chiken 21:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The question is whether the European system is sustainable in the long run. For instance: Italy has a fertility rate of 1.2, which means that every new generation is about half the size of the previous. How can you sustain the low working time, the early retirement age, the social benefits? And Europe also has low rates of immigration (as opposed to the US), which worsen the problem. And US immigrants assimilate and integrate better than most European immigrants. Looks like me the US system is perhaps less morally approvable in the short run, but sustainable in the long run. And thus enhances its power vis-à-vis Europe. Sijo Ripa 22:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

But the bottom line is that currently the EU has great power over the daily life of this planet. People in China and elsewhere are gobbeling up Euro fashions and culutre, Euro companies and investors regulate a humungous shate of this planet's resources. Fact is that the EU is very powerful, as powerful as the US. As I said three times before, The EU has as great an influence over the global allocation of resources as the US. If that's not power, than what is? Signature^brendel 22:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Low rates of imigration?Every time EU expands, in what category do you put that?and when turkey joines(70 million,fertility 2.5 or something).europeans can increas ther working time,americans can't.Don't forget that children have a cost,europeans have less but well educated children,americans on the other hand are poorly educated(acording to wikipedia),it's seems to me that americans is more quantity than quality.you argue if it's sustainable.if you consider that resources aren't infite,and that india and china at americans comsoption rates would need several planetes.In the perspective of Hubbert peak theory,the cost of low fertility don't seems so bad,a decreas in population dencity have advantages.America hi population growth is due to poverty,how you compare that cost compared with the cost of low fertility.integration of immigrantes don't seem to mee as good as it is said,for example blacks are still the poorer of americans,if integration was as good as advertised then it schouldn't be any corelation.What gerbrendel has too say on that,he lives in canada so i'm gasing that he nows something on the isue.For the long run how do you acomodate infinite population growrh on the same(or depleating) resources?That's clearly not sustainable.for european welfare i guess that in combination with increas in productivity,benefits from population decline(for example prices in housing are expected to fall),lesser cost for resing educated children(leser children i mean),contribution from the now unemployed.The increas in welfare cost should be manageble at relative lower sacrifices(but at hier finacial cost) than expected--Ruber chiken 23:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

(1) The 2004 member states have even lower birth rates than most earlier EU states, and Europe has much lower immigration rates than the US (most have 1/1000 citizens, US: 3/1000 citizens). Turkey has a fertility rate at the moment one of 1.9 and it is not even sure they will ever join. (And to be honest the chance Turkey will ever join is extremely low, due to the fact that several countries will organize referenda) Whatever happens, Europe's population will start declining and graying at the same time. It is unlikely that anything can prevent this. Most likely the US will have more citizens in 2050 than the EU-27 will have. (2) US population growth is NOT (only) about poverty. It's mostly about new immigrant families and the fact that these families make more children. Just check the fertility rates between blacks (mostly poor) and whites . They're quite similar. New (mostly hispanic) immigrants often have quite high fertility rates (2.5+), but this decreases as they live for several generations in the US. (3) The increase in welfare costs is possibly (but unlikely to be) manageable in many European countries. Whatever happens much less workers and much higher taxes will only harm the economy. It will also harm innovation and increase the current brain drain to the US. Every economist projects a permanent growth slow once aging sets in in Europe and many see a spiral of recession. And economic growth is crucial for maintaining or increasing power. Whether we like it or not, the current system is not sustainable. You state that Europe can increase its productivity and the US can't. Well Europe can and has to do it - to limit its absolute and relative decline, the US doesn't has to as they won't face such problems and keep growing in absolute power. (4) Most American blacks are already American for centuries. I was talking about new immigrants (more than 3/1000 Americans each year) and they assimilate quite well (language, culture). It is even so that new black immigrants fit better in the society than existing blacks do. Two (black) Harvard professors have put the blame of the problematic situation of blacks on the "gangsta-culture", not on racial discrimination (though that also exists, but I doubt that Europe doesn't has racism; e.g. in my nation, Flanders, 2/3 of people of foreign descent are unemployed and a racist party gains 25% of the votes). (5) Yes, American education has problems, but its higher education doesn't. Almost all top universities in the world are American, and almost all talented PhD's go to the US (higher pay, more research funding, top colleagues). And mostly higher education matters for technological and cultural innovation, and thus for power in the world. Sijo Ripa 00:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

(1)what makes you thik that EU will be 27 at 2050,they wher 6 50 years ago,yes the 15 will probably ther population schrink.But an EU inlargment isn't something betewn imigration and natural growth,so in a certain pov the population of the EU 27 will schrink but in an other pov EU will not,due to elargments.(2)if you make more children is statisticly probable that your pore or poorly educated,this is thrue for immigrants and for natives.(3)infinite population growth is not an option.Economist beleave that the law of the market is as good as a law of physics,and think that the market will solve apsolutly everithing.Physics say that you can't drain the planette endlessly.Immigration should(in my view) just damper the poepulation dekline.just see india and china,i wonder wher are they going to find all the natural resources and energy to fuel ther groth(it's progected that oil will be exansted in 2050),how a billion peopol can on the same time feed it self and have imperial views.You whant economic groth, up to the stratosphere or something,The only isue is if technicly we can sustain all the old without without demanding to much sacrifices from the youth.The european way of groth that i advocate is ,simply to enlarge for ofseting apsolute decline(russia,turkiey or what evar,we are talking for 50 years spam)."You state that Europe can increase its productivity and the US can't"that's not what i meant,american's cant increase ther houres of work,prodictivity is determined by technology and is rufly the same in both.Europeans even if they can't increas ther productivity per houre they, they still can increse ther houres of work."less workers and much higher taxes will only harm the economy",that's neoliberalism theory(tax is evil,oooouuu),the goverments are not going to swolow the tax, they going to spend them,the isue of less workers,is a technical isue,not economic.on top of that europe(and japan) has commercial exedents(hundred of billion or someting,i think),if they are redust to zero it's an equivallent increas in level of life,exedents mean in practice that you work but don't consume.(4)For black americans i mean, that despite the fact that they are american's for centuries ,they still are very poor(not whell integrated for me)."assimilate quite well" but mistiriously after 3 centuries black are still the poorer of americans???"gangsta-culture"i don't now what this mean,but it's sound to me like a escape goat theory,so that the goverment don't recongnise his responsability on the isue."nation, Flanders"and from when flanders it's a nation,it's a buch of grede littel peopol that find normal to not chare with it's poor nabors.(i'm from brussel,haha).I didn't say that rasism was inexistant in europe, i questioned the verasity of the american melting pot,how come than a 3 century inequality still persists?(5)with uneducated peopol you gate presidents like buch,are you schure that they are beter off compared with a situation of less many for recherch.And in the final,most of them don't seems to be benefiting from all this,how is it possible that a democracy produce such a system.I hope that you can rede it--Ruber chiken 03:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

(1) A shrinking and aging population. Average age will remain about 37 in the US and will become 55 (!) in the EU in 2050. (2) Poverty can cause more children, but the US does not cause the poverty which causes the children. On the contrary, the US enriches immigrants. (3) Doom scenario's about population growth are not backed up by facts. Already since the '60s these scenario's are undermined by real world evolutions. (4) Productivity is a lot higher in the US and is that's not only determined by better technology but also by more human capital. (5) An aging and a shrinking population will not cause lower growth? That's really funny. You think that less workers, higher taxes and higher (and inefficient) spending in non-productive sectors won't slow growth? You think that when Italy's population shrinks by 10 million, their economy won't shrink? (6) Flemings constitute a nation, but not a state. That's a difference. And I find your comment quite racist and offensive. You said: "it's a buch of grede littel peopol that find normal to not chare with it's poor nabors." While you forget that every Fleming already gives two centuries money for "charity" to French speakers in Belgium and that the ammount is currently 2000 euro (2500 dollar)/person every year. (or 8000 euro (10 000 dollar) for an average family.) A little bit respect and a little bit gratitude are appropriate. (7) Higher education and more research do mean more power. There are few variables so directly linked with durable higher economic growth, and with higher military power than technological innovation. Sijo Ripa 18:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

(1)Yes thet true,but they will be 400-450(i think),europe is alredy overpopulate,you have keep in mind that a sustanable growth must not destroy the environment,it's not just to pleas the ecologists,it is importatnt to not destroy our invironment(for our well beening)(2)"US does not cause the poverty which causes the children" no,the poverty is determined by goverment policy,the poore have to compite with the rich,if they are not helped by the goverment they will remaine poor(example black in america since 300 years)."the US enriches immigrants" that's because of grate inaquality,in the us you tend to be ither very rich,ither very poor,your looking only on the whiners.(3)"Doom scenario's about population growth are not backed up by facts"this in phycology has a name, i don't no what it was,because it didn't hapen yet,thus it will never hapen,it's titanic mantality(you see what i mean).In the 60's whe were 3billion(i think) and whith plenty of fossil fuel,in 2050we would be 9 billion,petroleum and natural gas whould be exausted,agriculture need vast amount of energy for the machines,pesticedes and fertilisers,no i don't beleav that we will have a famine,but eating is not an opsion,do you realy what to get your self in such an adventure.(4)thers productivity per houre and productivity per person,productivity per person is greater in the us because they work more,from what i now productivity per houre is not comparable direcly,the indistrial base has shrunk in the us faster then in europe(how's doing belooming deficits),but the productivity per hour is lower in the indestry than the rest of the economy(that's why they tend to delocalise in the first place),so mechanicly the productivity per houre increases.Human capital?they are poorly educated and electes buch for president,are you shure that the average american is hire than the average european?(5)it's the percatita income that's important,the economy will chrink, but the population too will schrink.If the declining growth is at the same spead than the decling population you don't see the diference.The trick is that the resulting burden on the workers it don't get too hi.combining hier productivity(technology),imigration,less children(intill they get 20 year old,they just consume,if they go to the university it's wors),less premature deaths(we are talking about 2050!!);less expensive housing(that's reduses the gdp,but actually increasses prosperity) and yes increas in work time(presumably,resonable).you don't have to forget that gdp is a statistic that shows production,it' don't say any thing about the efficiency of the consomption(for example if you are stuck in the trafick and burn fuell,that's been added in the gdp,does it make you feal beter by been stuck in trafick).Why "and inefficient",you consider it inefichient spending to care for your parents?yes i indestand you mean productive,but if the goal of the many spend is to care for the population of the state,why consider the production of cars effiscient,and the production of walfare inafiscient,in both cases thers demand for it,i caul ineffiscient coruption,aireports in the midle of the woods,accidents,hospitals that was naver been used because of asbestos(ammiante),well you see.(6)I didn't understant whel,you mean that from when the economic situation in the contry inverted(+-70),flanders alredy gave more than what was given for the rest of belgiun history fom the south(coal mines).If flanders is realy a nation than whay remember it now that the south has economic problems,you have to admite that it don't seem to a coinsidence.In checkoslovakia agen the rich cheks fluch the poor slovaks,in padania(northen italy) the clame is even more suspishus since the teritory is very rich(compared to the rest) but has the same language ,and no particular historic reason.I caul this greed,what is it hen,if it's not it?By the way they are not going to go very far if they sessed,they simply be federal states in federal europe,it's seems to me hard labor for no gaine.WE ARE NOT BEGARS,we are trited like begars,lazy,stuped and i don't now what else,beening poor takes aout several years of average life spam,if we are realy poor aout of laziness,how do you explane that kind of diference?and by the way it's 3%(the 2000/year) of income of flemmich,this figure is in the european norm of trans regional subsidies(i mean within a singel state). (7)"Higher education" the americans are poorly educated acording to wikipedia,this don't have any concequence in the quality of ther dessisions?"more research" agen this is not that simpel,allot of ther spendings are for militairy research,what the use of a neutron bombe in a civilian aplication?thers not much aplication,suposing that it's no secret of defence.A simpel exampel is boing, you could say that with all the zillions of the american militairy budget,and all the hitech warplanes they should have blown away airbus,quite the oposite.You have to be careful when reeding statistics,statistics have to be interprted corectly.When your making investments,you have to balance them,or something somewhere might get atrophide.For example in formula1,the technicians have to take dessisions,on the degres of the fine,the tires,reservoir of fuel,number of stops,mecanical parts and so one.If you fill up the reservoir your making lesser stops but you are to havy,if you put in less fuel you have to make more stops.You see what i mean, you have to be balanced betewn the two in order to finich first(what's counts).Many things don't show up in a statistic like gdp(for example the advanteges of leisure) for example,it's not just a mater of moral,it's a mater of effisciency,and what your objectives are.hmm i wonder when i'll tired you up.--Ruber chiken 21:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Eek. Where did all this come from? I wouldn't say that the EU was a superpower... just yet. Can't we merge the EU superpower article into the potential one? Trip: The Light Fantastic 18:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, now I think about it... I dunno.

Certainly, as the EU integrates further (which will happen, forget public opinion (!), many states in the Soviet Union didn't want to be in it, same with the UK, same with China. Public opinion means squat to world affairs and everyone knows it) this argument will resurface again and again and again. Exactly at what point of integration does the EU's su generis organisation gain superpower status is the question.

Europe doesn't need any more growth or better infrastructure etc; to be a superpower, unlike China and India; there's no barriers in its way whatsoever but a mindset. If some programme came on TV and persuaded everyone to love the EU and everyone went out and hung out EU flags everywhere, the EU would be a superpower, end of. It's difficult to know where to draw the line. EU superpowerness really depends which way the wind is blowing. It certainly packs the same economic and political punch as the United States, which is what being a superpower is about, is it not? Forget the "united military" thing, when it comes down to it, if any country attacked an EU nation they would get splattered all over the global windscreen same as with the US. It's a tough call and not one any of us, or anyone on Wikipedia can possibly make.

So what to do? Should we simply write on the article that the EU may, or may not fall into the category of superpower and this is a decision we feel the Wikipedia community cannot make? Trip: The Light Fantastic 19:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Just leave it the way it is. The EU is a superpower. Yes, it isn't as politically unified as the US so foreign policy isn't as syncronized. Nevertheless unlike China and India, the EU has the world's largest GDP and largest consumer market (moneywise). The EU and its investors, as I said before, have tremendous control over the world's resources and culture. If you influence the entire planet and decide how resources are used on a global scale, then you're no doubt a superpower! China and India don't have nearly as much control over what happens where and what is sold where and what it is that consumer desire as the EU. The EU's economic and cultural hold on the world is only rivaled by the US; thus making them both superpowers. The difference is that the EU is a soft superpower controling the world's trends and resources through economics and pop culture while the US is also a "hard" superpower using foreign policy and a unified military as means to control global trends and resources. It think it is, for that matter, rather obvious to see how the EU fits all criteria for a superpower. Best Regards, Signature^brendel 23:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, this has been an interesting debate, but I think that we have lost sight of two important points:

[No Original Research policy] excludes editors' personal views, political opinions, their personal analysis or interpretation of published material, as well as any unpublished synthesis of published material, where such a synthesis appears to advance a position or opinion an editor may hold, or to support an argument or definition s/he may be trying to propose.

and:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

Both these are found in WP:OR, they are official Wikipedia policy. We need a reputable source which advances the view that the EU is a superpower; if not then this section cannot remain

Xdamr 23:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have cited two articles. The GDP is proved by the world bank. Shall I add come articles on how Bentton and Gucci are conquering China. I can also add the web-sites of several European conglomerates, where you can see their world wide operations. Besides this is common sense! There are as many references backing the EU section as there are backing the US section so perhaps you would like to impune this entire article. Regards, Signature^brendel 00:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand, I don't deny your GDP figures etc - what I do deny is that this verifies your contention that the EU is a superpower. You need to find a reputable source which validates your fundamental premise. Without it your work becomes OR; it becomes 'personal analysis or interpretation of published material' and an 'unpublished synthesis of published material ... [to support an argument or definition]'. This is not my rule, it is fundamental policy.

Incidentally I do impune a great deal of this article (and many of the associated International power articles), some of us here have done a lot of work trying to slim down the US section. But what the US does have is a source which defines it as being a superpower (albeit from the cold war era), the point is therefore proved according to Wikipedia policy.

Xdamr 01:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

50% of american(i think) beleav in ufos,there are numerus religions contradicting them selves ,so on should be carefull with sources.The authority sourses claim that wikipedia is a bunch of poorly reeten articles by kidies,and thats not a serious thin,it will probably evolve to oblivion.Sourses aren't everything,they ofteh contradict them selves

One of Wikipedia's core policies is that articles must be written from a "neutral point of view", relating all noteworthy perspectives on an issue without attempting to weigh in on the issue or determine the objective truth.

"While there is some controversy over the EU being a superpower or not"it don't attempt to determine the thruth. An argument for EU unity,is that is a self orginizing(reed this Self organization is umportant,espacially the human society section) system,this systems exist in physics,chemistry,biology and even in human societys(and betewn contrys).It is a system of Cellular automaton(contris,yes i now the term hears barbar),the contrys(automata) are interacting with sertain rulles(self preservation),and in a result a orginized behavior emerges despite the fact that thers no central coorcetiv power.Conway's Game of Life,ilustrates whel on very simpel model how this princepel works.historic examples of this is the Hanseatic League or the Old Swiss Confederacy.bothe wherent contrys,and dispite this they misteriously got togeuther and impose them selvs.--Ruber chiken 01:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It is no doubt that the US can defeat any nation one on one without any use of nukes. But if the American poeple does not support the war then it might as well be lost.

Sources EU USA

Sources are mandatory. If you read WP:OR you will see that the only valid source for this purpose is a 'reputable' source (what is 'reputable' changing with subject matter). If there is an academic difference of opinion then, according to WP:NPOV, both sides of the argument should be presented. But it the prevailing academic view(s)(properly sourced), not theories of our own creation, which should form the basis of this page.

Xdamr 01:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

French head of government, Chaque Chiraq, once stated that the EU is the world's leading superpower. The qoute was published in a National Geographic magazine I have in my collection. I'll look through them and then add it as a reference. That should take care of any problems. Just give me one or two days. Alright? Thanks. Regards, Signature^brendel 03:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Find a source and then it can stay, with the notation that the European Union is not yet as fully recognised as the United States as a superpower. Trip: The Light Fantastic 19:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll find the source but I'll state that many beleive the EU is as much a superpower as the US, as this is literally what Chriaq said. Regards, Signature^brendel 20:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The new ones aren't good?--Ruber chiken 19:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

They are good sources, if you have more, please feel free to add them. Thanks, Signature^brendel 20:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick point re. the Chirac source. I am not familiar with the precise quote, but I don't think that it alone validates your point. International relations is an academic subject, as such it requires sources from:

'... peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications.' (WP:OR)

Chirac's view is important as a mover and shaker in this area. However we must not mistake his view as an impartial source. Chirac clearly has an agenda to set up a Europe as a counterbalance to the US; not an agenda which unites all EU leaders.

Xdamr 21:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless he is the French head of state and thus an authority on the issue. Besdies we also cite the CIA, which just happens to be the only organization that syas the US GDP is larger than that of the EU. Even American based World Bank and Monetary Fund state differently. So considering that US governmental sources which may not be impartial, there should not be much of a problem with Chiraq's statement. It's as valid as anything else on the oage (I do see your point though ;-)) Regards, Signature^brendel 01:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

In that sence.USA lacks too of references that is a superpower.In the article ,poepol are saing,and the CIA is saing,What about academic stuf prouving that usa is a superpower.Plus the critiria are not very precise to begin with.When you gate in to detail about usa real situation,it's a lot chakyer then it apiers.--Ruber chiken 04:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and also, where are the references for all those criteria they also seem awfully OR. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

not clearly defined|may differ between sources|interpreted That don't sound very academic.So thers no reson to stuck closly to that particular definition.The EU is regarded in wikipedia as,an sus genesis structure,so you can't claim that it should be conssider as a bunch of independed states.An expression of opinion does not cease to be an expression of opinion simply because it is sourced.Wikipedia is not a brain dead reporter of sources.This post is too long.Respond to to EU vs USA 2--Ruber chiken 08:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, we must make a clear distinction here between two points.

• Is the US/EU/China/whoever a superpower?

This is a matter of consulting academic sources covering the field of Int. Relations. America's right to be called a superpower is assured:

The term ... was coined in the book The Superpowers, written by William Thornton Rickert Fox, an American foreign policy professor at the Columbia University in 1943.

Fox explicitly stated that the US was one of the superpowers (the others being the USSR and the British Commonwealth and Empire). Fox originated the term, he included the US, case closed. This is what the EU needs; a respected academic source which claims that 'despite being a novel institution the EU has now become a superpower' (or words to that effect). This would validate your fundmental premise; the EU section can then remain, no longer being OR. But it's an academic source which is needed, for this, an academic subject (see my note about Chirac above).

Despite Fox's book we could still do with sources which establish that Russia is no longer a superpower and that the US remains one post cold war.

• What about the various criteria?

These are problematic. There is a source (http://www.globalcpr.com/org/super.html) but it's difficult to tell whether this site simply lifted content from an earlier OR version of one of these articles. Yet again though, we need proper academic sourcing - there may well be no academic 'criteria'. These long lists of points about US miliary/economic/political power surely are better placed in the articles on US military/economy/politics. I think that we really ought to do away with them and re-orientate this article towards the concept of the superpower, in the abstract, academic sense.

As far as the EU goes, how it stands vis a vis the US in respect of the criteria does not matter. What is needed is an explicit academic statement that it is a superpower.

What these articles need is some bookwork from someone with an academic background in the subject. If you know someone like that then point him in this direction. Without the firm foundation of proper sourcing, adding material to this article is going to be like building a house on a bog.

Xdamr^talk 13:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes the latter two are dificult to back-up. Ruber Chicken has recently provided several authoritive sources stating that there is no longer a superpower in this world and that we live in a multi-polar world. Perhaps, we should create a section based on these references as they clearly oppose some of the other references used. Also, "Despite Fox's book we could still do with sources which establish that Russia is no longer a superpower and that the US remains one post cold war." - wouldn't this be OR. You said we need a source clearly stating that the EU is a superpower, but your statment indicates that the same is not needed for the US. I can also "do with sources" that the EU is a superpower; I do have sources - see the referene marks I incoperated into the text. Regards, Signature^brendel 16:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that we have to distinguish between general opinion (polemical, political or otherwise) and respected academic opinion. The best sources for a subject like this would be peer-reviewed academic journals, works of scholarship etc - not simply journalistic pieces.

I'm not sure that I understand your point re finding sources for Russia/US & OR. It is often said in the media that the 'US is the sole remaining superpower' (or words to that effect). I presume that this reflects the prevailing Int. Relations view. We have an authoritiative source for the US pre 1991, I was only suggesting that we should look for sources for the post 1991 situation.

I think that the 'there are no superpowers' position is intersting. Possibly it could be made into a section of its own?

Xdamr^talk 17:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the media says a lot of things. The media also says the US is the world's richest country - which is not true, wehther you count per capita income or per capita GDP or HDI. If your only source for stating that the US is a superpower is a "source for the US pre 1991," then both the US and EU sections currently have the same backing. You're right there need to be more sources for the US (post '91, please) and for the EU. Also, yes I am thinking about creating a section for the "No superpower" idea, as it provides an interesting insight into another ideology. Regards, Signature^brendel 18:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

...both the US and EU sections currently have the same backing

Yes, I suppose so, but all this does is take us back to my key point. Find a reputable academic source which backs up your contention, and the EU can stay here; if you can't find one then it becomes OR. Somehow I don't think that referencing for the US will be too hard to find.

I've already put my views on EU unity on this page; I disagree with your view of current pan-Europeanism. I think that you fail to give consideration to Northern and Eastern Europe, whose views differ substantially from those of the Franco-German axis. That aside however, verifiability is what we need here - verify it and there is no problem. I'm also not sure I share your analysis of the US's position (how does HDI impact upon US power?), but yes, we need referencing post cold war.

Regards, Xdamr^talk 20:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The term ... was coined in the book The Superpowers, written by William Thornton Rickert Fox, an American foreign policy professor at the Columbia University in 1943. reference out of date "1943,in the midel of the war,so not credible even at his time.He also says that great britain and ussr are superpowers.There are several souces that argue,that the usa is not any more a superpower.there may well be no academic criteria well that's ruther a problem in the first place.If they aren't whell established critiria,then it's imposible to have any credible academique source that sayes that EU is a superpower(even if it's explicit sayr so),but then all the sources on usa superpower status fall in the same category.Since we whant to have an article we need some kind of concessus,of what we are whriting about.What i find for the moment is simply,investigate the tow in the same maner.your saying not simply journalistic pieces and is often said in the media that the US,i am confused.--Ruber chiken 18:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for ,cursucuiting my post,and not replying to it.The problemme is that your are not going to find any serious references on the USA.Then what deleat everithing?And what about the clayms that thers no superpower what soever?--Ruber chiken 20:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No I wasn't ignoring your post, I just didn't have time to respond to it earlier :)

First and foremost, this article needs a lot of work. In almost all aspects it is unsatisfactory. However if you come here proposing the addition of a new superpower, the EU, then I think that we are entitled to seek proper sourcing. Yes, more and better sources are needed generally, especially for the post 1991 situation. But these are two seperate issues, we should not conflate them.

The origniator of the term described the US, USSR, and the UK as superpowers. Additions or subtractions from this list require sources. Common knowledge tells us that the UK was unable to hold onto this status in the aftermath of WW2 and Russia was unable to retain the USSR's position after 1991; this leaves the US as the sole representative of the class. Now it is right that we should seek sources for these changes of status, but the addition of the EU is not linked with resolving this point. If you want to include the EU then justify it with outside academic research.

Xdamr^talk 21:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"fail to give consideration to Northern and Eastern Europe, whose views differ substantially from those of the Franco-German axis."How do you back this up?--Ruber chiken 20:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The simple reason that opinion polls have shown that the UK, Scandinavia etc have the most euro-sceptic attitudes in the EU. Surely no great surprise there?

(http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/quali/ql_perceptions_summary_en.pdf - The EU themselves have found that in the UK, Scandinavia, and much of E. Europe have the most sceptical attitudes. Southern Europe and Ireland have the most positive.)

Xdamr^talk 21:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

reed this Groupthink,tell me your thauts.--Ruber chiken 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

A common now,you can't be serious.The origniator of the term,is a source from 1943.Don't seem to you a litul bit rusty.In the midel of the war,what did you expect that he's going to say.I 'm regecting that source all together,is out of date,63 years old.You can not be serious.A copel of years more and it will be public domain.Plus the EU didn't existed at this time.The only reason the source stais is for the "origniator of the term" thing.What about today."Additions or subtractions from this list require sources. Common knowledge tells us" you aren't contradicting your self?--Ruber chiken 22:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The term originated from that man writing in that book, that is all I have said. It is the primary source for this branch of study.

Re. 'Common knowledge tells us ...', no I am not contradicting myself. I immediately followed by saying:

Now it is right that we should seek sources for these changes of status, but the addition of the EU is not linked with resolving this point.

Xdamr^talk 22:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean that EU adition is linked.Status quo because of no sources.So by default we stick with a 63 year old sourse.I could also argue that both should be deleted.--Ruber chiken 23:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the two are certainly not linked. The concept of superpower within the primary source has not 'gone out of date', it is a concept, an idea. Ideas are not like food, they do not 'go off' with age.

If you want to delete the US then put it to a vote. If you want to add the EU then justify yourself by citing an academic source.

Xdamr^talk 23:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"concept of superpower",it's not the isue.What is out of date is the claim that usa is a superpower.That part of the source is out of date.So you haven't any source prouving usa superpower.--Ruber chiken 23:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ther's no clear source what so evar,for both cases,a part common sence.If stricked policy aplied,usa too have too be deleated,i'm sujesting to put in both POV,intil proper source is found.--Ruber chiken 23:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

i'm claming that this source is out of date.Even the USA need new sources.Many things have changed in 63 years.I claim that EU and USA souces are equaly bad.The 1943 source didn't gave a chance to the EU,for the simpel reason it didn't existed then.So puting the EU in is justified.The same quantity of wikipedia rules where briched in both cases.--Ruber chiken 22:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

political entitys that wherent contreys

The [Hanseatic League] was clearly no contry but was a very strong regional power.The helvetic confederation forced the emperor to accepted it's cessecion.The german confederation was no talking shop like the UN.For what reson the EU have to be treated diferently from the auther 3 things.--Ruber chiken 04:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Spelling and Grammar on this page

Whoever was editing this page crappily should probably stop, it makes Wiki look bad having basic words spelt wrong and commas placed wrong.

you probably refering to me.Spelling is esaly fixed.--Ruber chiken 13:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Critisism

Controversy set aside,this article lacks critisism on the usa(and EU) weaknesses.It should be put on separet paragraphs.Every thing it's not rosy,thers a lot of litterature on weaknesses but hear is very low.--Ruber chiken 23:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Then edit European Union as an emerging superpower. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

new references

the wew referces, at the bottom where done a littel bit in a hury, and sloply,titels may not corespond to content--Ruber chiken 05:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem I alreade reformated the links, utilizing the citing template. Thank you for all those great sources. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

European Union Addition

Ruber, I appreciate your views, but this is the equation in international relations. NOONE can deny the FACT that the United States is a superpower, the United States is singlehandedly better than any other nation in every field. So that's solved, you can't get rid of the United States. Now, the European Union is simply not close enough to a nation to be a superpower. The individual member states still make their own decisions, still send their troops to places where the entire EU is not sending them. The European Union is an emerging superpower because it is NOT UNITED. Surely you can see how illogical it is to simply add up the number of troops in each of the member states and say this is the EU Military. This article is misleading to the readers of Wikipedia. If you want sources, do a simply google search "European Union superpower" and you get lots of sites saying the European Union will be the next superpower, then do "USA Superpower" or "United States superpower" and you get only results that put the United States as the current superpower. Don't use Wikipedia Policy to support falsehoods. A POV Tag is not enough for such a misconception. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"NOONE can deny the FACT that the United States is a superpower"is POV,add references.singlehandedly better,this is not thrue,she is overboroued.close enough to a nation yes this is thrue,to be a superpower this is not thrue.E=mc2 so earth is flat.In theory they make ther own decisions,but they can't aforde it.They have to many common intersts.The article is misliding about the posission of usa in the world--Ruber chiken 15:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to delete the US then say so and put it up for a vote.

You have had 10 days to find a source for the EU, you have not done so. The EU section has been allowed to remain to enable you, or anyone else, to find a source. Despite having ample time this has not been done; the section remains unsourced OR, it must now be removed.

Please do not let your Euro-enthusiasm blind you to the rules wikipedia. Verifiability wins every time, no matter how sure we are in our own mind that we are right.

Regards, Xdamr^talk 15:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This is double standart.The usa is based on media opinions not academic source.Deleting bothe is not an option,you don't have an article then.So EU has it place here.--Ruber chiken 15:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability wins every time, no matter how sure we are in our own mind that we are right this aplys for you too.--Ruber chiken 15:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to get into a 3RR edit war with you. You have admitted that the EU section is unsourced. There is no connection or equivalence between the removal of the supposedly unsourced US section and the addition of your EU section. WP:OR and associated policies are quite clear that unsourced contributions cannot stand. You have been allowed 10 days to find a source. You have not done so. If you find a source, then the section can remain - if not then it will be removed.

The US section has a source, the source is the very thesis which originated the term superpower. If this is unsatisfactory then have the courtesy to discuss it here, in the way in which we have discussed your EU section. Do not try and make spurious links between the two.

Regards, Xdamr^talk 16:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a 63 year old source,riten in the midel of world war 2.This isn't todays source,this is archeological finding.Find a todays source or deleat both.--Ruber chiken 16:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't take any of this personally. It's just that the US debate and the EU debate are entirely different things. I'm sure we all want the best possible article here, that meas abiding by wikipedia policies. A simple search on google will show far more 'buzz' about the US being a superpower than the EU.

Regards, Xdamr^talk 16:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I readded an EU section and added a section for the "No Superpower" idieaology. I have backed both sections w/ references, the latter having fourteen citations alone. I have found the NatGeo article that supports my assertion that the EU can't be compared to China and India since its too powerful and can only be comapred to the US, thus jusitifing its own section in this article. Even when considering the double standard here, favoring the US (which is now the section with the weakest referencing), the EU and Multi-Polar World section should stay as they have more than sufficient referencing. Signature^brendel 17:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This is just POV,find reputable source--Ruber chiken 16:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The cold war section wasn't larger?--Ruber chiken 16:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As a proud European who looks forward to greater European integration I would still not agree that the European Union is a current superpower, only an emerging one. The sentence with a stipulation that says something like "when acting as a single unit the EU could be considered a superpower" is a fairer representation of the facts. Benson85 19:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes they're conflicting viewpoints on the issue, see the compromise below. Thanks. Regards, Signature^brendel 22:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Revisions

Okay but you can't mention the EU alongside China and India. Germany alone has a larger GDP than those two. This article is US centric right now (which is also frowned upon by Wiki policies). The EU has $12 trillion GDP and much more power of the world's culutre and economics. China and India are economic dwarfs in camoparison. Why don't we have an EU section. By that I don't mean listing the EU under current superpowers but having its own section in which it can be properly explained that there is controversy over the EU being a superpower and that the EU is a an economic behemoth with a large culutre clout. Another section added below would use the sources Ruber Chiken has provided to state that some beleive that the age of superpowers is over. Also, try a French or German Google search. Nonetheless, I won't relist the EU under current superpowers, but I do wan't the complexity of the EU's position in the world mentioned in a seperate section. Putting the EU toghether with China and India is a misrepresentation of the current economic and cultural situation of the world. In other words I want the "Superpower today" heading removed as some donnot see the US as sole super power and many argue that there are no superpowers today. That heading is misleading. Instead there should be a section for the US, one for the EU, one for no superpower at all and one for China and India. I will complete these changes within the next three days. You don't owhn this article you know. Signature^brendel 16:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Since thers no referces for usa,then it too have to go.An auther compromice is a section for EU like you said.But if you folow the discussion they will say that you don't have references for that(forgeting that usa too has none),and that EU is no contry and so it can't con't.Same thig in the regional power article.--Ruber chiken 17:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I found a new reference for the EU and thus have reinserted the section (revised version) and have also added a section in regards to the "Multi-polar" world. Regards, Signature^brendel 17:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't understany,they say EU is not a contry,period.It's an international organization like the UN.It's not a nation state.--Ruber chiken 17:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No the EU isn't a country but its a union of countries. Who said that the term superpower only applies to countries. You see, the EU is a unique union, unlike any other. But due to its economy and cultural influence it is a superpower (that is if you beleive such a thing exsists). Signature^brendel 17:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

They using this as a excuse to deleated.They consider all the rest irelevant.The EU could have benn a billion peopol with 50% of worlds gdp,they couldn't care less,a gain they would say EU=UN,so we deleate.You understand now,they don't even see in to it--Ruber chiken 18:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

On Wiki, article's content is supported by Sources instead of Talk page discussion. Read these

• Wikipedia: Cite sources
• Wikipedia is not a democracy

It's you who request source-citing, if you remove my sourced info it would only show your hypocrisy. Stop vandalising! 219.79.166.20 18:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You can put your source.But the text is disputed.See multipolar world section--Ruber chiken 18:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No,i'm not an hypocrite,thers hi tension on this talk page.--Ruber chiken 18:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"You can put your source"? If I can put my source, why you keep removing then? Once again, what WW3? 219.79.166.20 18:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

World war 3.Because you also chaged the text,thats why.In multipolar world it is disputed.--Ruber chiken 18:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Your too specific.--Ruber chiken 19:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Elaborate: What has it got to do with World war 3?...and what "specific"? BTW, please show me sources that such status is internationally disputed then?

Secondly, I didn't change the text's 'meaning', I just did some rewording.

FYI, your vandalism-like edits have been reported to adminitrators 219.79.166.20 19:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

WW3,i mean that theres a dispute,reed a bit the talk page.This is the hole dispute,it is argued that this is public opinion,not academic reserche.The only academic source available is 63 years old.In a multipolar world,by definition,thers no superpower at all.--Ruber chiken 19:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

concidered-->Is.For me this is a change of mening.Vandalism-like edits?Vandalism would be,if i had chaged it to,USA is a banana,Thats vandalism.We have a dispute,thats all,i'm not peaking to you,i didn't tuch your auther edit(if you asume that i didn't see it),your suposed to asume good faith,on riten text is easy too misanderstand peopol.Your report is prematured.You ignored the big sings.The debate is alredy heaten as it is.--Ruber chiken 19:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Let the admins decide, explain to them, not to me. Once again, you still have not shown me sources to prove that US's status as superpower is disputed worldwide. If you fail to do so, just admit it. 219.79.166.20 20:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

In the multipolar section,there are 7.--Ruber chiken 20:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

oups i think the last 2 are the same.--Ruber chiken 21:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Calm down!

Everyone, this is getting out of hand. Don't turn this into a revert war. As the main editor of this article and the European Union http://tools.wikimedia.de/~tim/counter/?page=Superpower http://tools.wikimedia.de/~tim/counter/?page=European_Union_as_an_emerging_superpower article, and a proud European Federalist, I have always tried to balance my views on the EU with the needs of Wikipedia.

The trouble is coming with no compromise: Signature mentioned an interesting compromise above, setting the EU apart from China and India may be a good idea. I mean look at the facts, according to the CIA world factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ee.html:

Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) Top Five

1 United States $ 12,360,000,000,000 2005 est. 2 European Union $ 12,180,000,000,000 2005 est. 3 China $ 8,859,000,000,000 2005 est. 4 Japan $ 4,018,000,000,000 2005 est. 5 India $ 3,611,000,000,000 2005 est

- The US and EU are far away the most powerful here. China is catching up as it emerges as a superpower, but its breakneck growth speed still hasn't got it even close to the other two. This is the hallmarks of a superpower in both the EU and US.

Electricity consumption Top Five

1 United States 3,656,000,000,000 2003 2 European Union 2,711,000,000,000 2002 est. 3 China 2,170,000,000,000 2004 5 Japan 946,300,000,000 2003

- Might sound strange, but is a good indication of a superpower. Look at the US, EU and China's consumption compared to their nearest rivals!

Oil consumption Top Five

1 United States 20,030,000 2003 est. 2 European Union 14,590,000 2001 3 China 6,391,000 2004

- Again a good indicator. Look at the US and EU's consumption. Shows that other nations are mainly scrabbling to supply oil to the EU and US's lifestyles. Ask yourself why this is.

Exports Top Five

1 European Union $ 1,318,000,000,000 2004 2 Germany $ 1,016,000,000,000 2005 est. 3 United States $ 927,500,000,000 2005 est. 4 China $ 752,200,000,000 2005 est. 5 Japan $ 550,500,000,000 2005 est.

-Lo and behold, it aint even China. Imagine how scared other countries are that the EU will cut off exports to them? That's power.

Imports Top Five

1 United States $ 1,727,000,000,000 2005 est. 2 European Union $ 1,402,000,000,000 2004 3 Germany $ 801,000,000,000 2005 est. 4 China $ 631,800,000,000 2005 est. 5 United Kingdom $ 483,700,000,000 2005 est.

- Oh, look which two are top again. You know from the Bra Wars how jittery nations get if the EU closes it's borders to them.

Clearly China is rising, but the EU is already there... Some mention needs to be made of this than simply lumping it with the others. Trip: The Light Fantastic 18:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the having a seperate section for the EU is perfectly justified besides its well-referenced. "Clearly China is rising, but the EU is already there"- I couldn't agree more! That's why I put the EU in its own section. Above you prefectly stated the point I am trying to make! Regards, Signature^brendel 19:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have some doutes if this will be axepted.The EU is no contry,so fluch it.--Ruber chiken 19:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's always my favorite rule in Wikipedia, Be Bold! I think the numbers Trip: The Light Fantastic speak for themselves. The EU belongs in its own section in this article as it is now. Regards, Signature^brendel 21:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the problem,since EU is no contry,then you don't have the right to add the numbers.Since you don't have the rghit to add the numbers,then you have no case.If you adding the number then is POV.I expecte a revert war.Same thing in the regional power article.In this article we clasifie contries according to geography,not belogning to a particular organization,so EU is not admitable.If you don't concider EU in the regional power system of europe,then the vieud balance of power in the region is extrimly distorted from reality.--Ruber chiken 21:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to be a nation to be a superpower, a close-nit community such as the EU is undoubtely a superpower, look at the stats above. Signature^brendel 01:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Am i so dificult to be read.I mean noble eagel and X*** will destrue your argument by just saying,that it's an international organization like ascean,cis,UN.You understand now their position?For them EU=NAFTA(north american trade thing).

Thanks for pointing out what you meant. I know, but I'll just argue my point that the EU deserves to mentioned and isn't like NAFTA or the UN. Saying the EU is like NAFTA and not mentioning it here would be false and I do not want wiki readers to get false or incomplete info. Also, as you can see I got rid of the superpowers heading. Now its just saying, some beleive the US is a superpower, some beleive the US and EU are superpower and others beleive that there are no superpowers. I think that's the best way to do it. Regards, Signature^brendel 01:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps set it apart from China and India, but do not state it as a superpower and do not make it seem like the United States is not a Superpower. By the way Trip, its nice that you've had more edits to this article than the rest but you shouldn't use it to make us seem less important than the rest of us. In my anon days I must have had 60+ edits to this article as well as those were the days when it was building up and there was a lot left to add. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's all I want to do! Sperate the EU from China and India. We have already agreed that the EU isn't exactly the same as the US in terms of being a superpower, but it deserves its own section. I don't even insist on listing it under superpowers today. It can have its own section aside from that. A seperate EU section is all I am asking for. Signature^brendel 16:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm? Don't start rowing with me! I was just using it to add some credibility to my arguments and point out that although I am a Europeanist, I can control myself. It was actually a point aimed at helping you. Jeez. Trip: The Light Fantastic 16:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not rowing with you, just that it seemed to me that you were introducing yourself to gerdbrendel and ruberchiken as the master of the Superpower article... :) Perhaps a misconception on both our parts Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Global CPR

All cites from GlobalCPR should be removed as one cannot trace this website to any person or organization. Intangible 19:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I was bold, and removed all, except the one of the criteria section, which needs to be revised. Intangible 20:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

chame on you,we will torter you and kill you.--Ruber chiken 20:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Har, har, har. Come and play fetch you sea dog. Intangible 21:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The current version I have reverted to is the version that basically shows the article as it was before inclusion of the European Union. This debate has really made this article hard to work with, so I have filed an RfC on the topic. Please allow for consensus here before reverting my edit to any other version with the EU stated as anything other than a superpower. If you do, I will revert. So: NO REVERSION WITHOUT CONSENSUS FROM NOW ON So I have filed the RfC, please keep conversations neat and clean, the issue of debate here are:

• Is the European Union a Superpower or Emerging Superpower?
• Is the United States a Superpower?
• AND multipolar world-no superpower(by ruber)

Opinions that have been stated are above, but basically those that oppose the EUs inclusion are using the fact that it is not politically united enough to be considered alongside the US. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

We should represent all views in this article. There are some who view the US as the sole superpower. But there are others whoi view the EU as big of a superpower as the US, and there are those who think that the days of superpowers are gone. All three points are well-referenced. I have sufficient sources stating that the EU is a superpower. I have sufficient references that there is a beleive that a superpower doesn't exsits. That the EU is not a superpower because its not unified is your opinion. Please not that the perceptions other have may differ. There is enough evidence to back up my argument as well as yours. The best we can do is include both possibilities. FYI: look above at what Trip the Lighting Speed said. Bottom line is: The idea of a superpower lies within the perception persons have. Some preceive the US as the only superpower, some don't. Both ideologies deserve equal representation in this article. We will never reach consus otherwise, please we need to reach middle ground (reverting all my edits to the ways you had it before isn't middle ground). It is my deep conviction that Wiki reader get the most info possible and that includes mentioning the EU special status and how some beleive it to be a superpower. Signature^brendel 06:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please listen...This is my final revert...I'm just taking the article to where it was before this dispute started. Then we can wait a few days for the RfC and the consensus it will probably bring. If the consensus is similar to what you have said so be it, I will accept it. But the EU Superpower points were added without consensus and you can't say we need consensus to remove them considering how they were added. I suggest seperating the EU from both China and India yet making it seperate from the US as well. But I'm not going to carry out this separation without consensus. I want this article to become the best it can be, see my long term goals, it's all there. So please allow consensus to be made. I'm reverting again. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You said if I have sources my changes can stay, I provided enough resources. Why are my edits still reverted. (I've been a user here for quite some time and this isn't really fair) "I suggest seperating the EU from both China and India yet making it seperate from the US as well." - I Agree with you! Isn't that what I did? Didn't I have enough references? Besdies there are three users backing me here. As I see we have to state all three ideologies otherwise the article isn't complete. I outline my argument once more:

There are three ideologies and there are sufficient sources to back each of them. (In other words there is no one truth- one answer- there are three theories on the issue) I had over 16 sources for the latter two before the reversions:

• The US is the only superpower (This is one view and there is sufficient evidence)
• The US and EU are both superpowers (This is another view and there is sufficient evidence)
• There are no superpowers due to rising economic interdependency (This is yet anhother view and there is sufficient evidence as well)
  

How can we possibly exlude any of there theroies if there is enough academic and jouranlistic evidence to back each of them up. Upon request I will list all sources for the latter two theroies right here on the talk page. Thank you. Best Regards, Signature^brendel 07:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

An RFC is carried out on the talk page of the respective article...I just place a note on another page which calls Politics related people to take a look at this article. Thank-you for not reverting, it allows consensus to be reached a lot easier. Let's keep this civil...I don't mind the tags as they reflect the debate in this article. While I understand your POV in the version you seem to agree more with, that version is relatively worse in terms of quality and style, the {{Fact}} tags being used whenever the US is mentioned reflects a biased view and the constant mentioning of the EU in different positions reflects the recent edit conflict. For people that might want to be doing research on the topic today, it would be better to have the old version rather than the version you support. Don't you agree? Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Not quite because its only telling a third of the story. You see I beleive that our articles here need to be as complete as possible. People who do research should also find that there is no simple answer to the state of "today's superpower(s)". They should find out that there is a valid theory stating that there might be two superpowers. They should find out that is a valid theory stating that there are no superpowers. Please I do not have any bias against the US. I'm a Euro-American (literaly as I am actually from Europe), I have dual citizenship from the US and Germany, I would not be needlessly critizising the US as I am also a US citizen. I just want our readers to see all three current academic theories that exsists in regards to todays superpower. See I think that quality also suffers from an article being incomplete. We can also work out better wording and get rid of certain phrases or the {{Fact}} tags. I have been in many discussions and I am sure we can reach a comprises on smaller issues such as wording and quality of writing. But being complete is key in offering our readers a high quality article. Regards, Signature^brendel 07:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Bobblehead

In reviewing this article and the sources cited, I'm finding several things:

1. Y'all need to read your sources better as they often do not support, even counter, the claims pushed in the sentences they are associated with. As an example, this source is used to support that there are no superpowers. However, after reading the article it seems to state that China has joined the US as a superpower, not that there are no superpowers...
2. Even the sources cited by the critics say that the United States is the sole superpower, albeit it a declining one. [1] [2]
3. The European Union is not currently a superpower, but has the potential to become one in the near future.[3] (see above links as well)
4. China is a rising superpower as well, perhaps already there, and Japan's influence has reached its zenith and is in decline as well.[4]
5. The definition of what makes a superpower is obselete.[5] [6] [7]

Long story short, if you keep the current definition of "superpower" (which based on the sources provided I'd seriously question) the article is fine as is for now, but the world is at a tipping point and may need to be updated in the next few years or so, but not in the way you're thinking. If anything it's China that's the next superpower, not the EU. --Bobblehead 08:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. :). Nobleeagle (Talk) 09:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Very funy,you simply not going to rech a concensus in purpes.So it will be imposible to change,and add auther ideologies then yours.Because you where here earlyer,it don't give you the right to sensor us.Your calls on peopol in Politics related was misleading.The isue was,USA,EU,MULTIPOLAR--Ruber chiken 15:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverting prior to ,the EU and multipolar is equal to sensor chip.The new users are mislead into beleaving that is just an unclusion of the EU at the same status as the usa."that version is relatively worse in terms of quality and style" this is just an excuse,for deleating the holle thing--Ruber chiken 16:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to come here and comment, but: your comments contradict each other. You say that China will be next to be a superpower. And you source links saying that the term superpower is irrelevant. That's not very helpful. No offence, but you haven't solved the problem whatsoever. If you wish to comment again, we'd love to hear your take on matters, but please take a look at the problem I have summed up below.Trip: The Light Fantastic 16:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Good catch on the incorrect source. Sorry about that. it was rather late and I missed that I linked the wrong sources to the wrong comments. I've updated the source to point to the one referring to China as a rising superpower. Nailed by my own criticism. As for resolving the issue at hand, another good point. I had intended my comments to just be initial thoughts and I'd come back later to make updates. I should have been clearer with that. But here you go:

• Multipolar vs. Unipolar may need its own article. The sources provided and the comments here indicate it is a controversial issue and according to WP:NPOV it is acceptable to note the controversy and point the reader to the appropriate article where it can be discussed in depth. If a note isn't enough, make it a summary section where both are briefly discussed and link to the main article.
• I would suggest only having summary sections for each country/union rather than sections for current and emerging superpowers with lists of countries under those sections. China, EU, and India already have in depth articles (which should be renamed to eliminate the POV that they are only 'emerging'), but the US does not currently have it's own article. So once an article is created for the US the transition should be relatively easy to make. Basically, leave it up to the reader to decide which countries/unions are a superpower and which are not. There seems to be enough controversy on where China, EU, and US lay that such a design is warranted.

Hopefully that's more helpful.--Bobblehead 17:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Compromise?

I have re-read all the posts above and come to one interesting conlcusion. It seems that everybody arguing here except, X***, has stated that giving the EU its own section is a good idea. I would be fine with just sperating the EU from China and India but not putting it under Todays superpower. So here's my compromise, the EU gets a seperate section, not under "Today's superpower" but seperate from China and India. Would that be a good compromise? Signature^brendel 16:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought that too, but what would the section be called? Kind-of-halfway-there- Superpowers -- European Union. Trip: The Light Fantastic 17:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking, "Quasi-superpower," or simply "The EU" as the EU is kind of unique. Signature^brendel 17:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't like "Quasi-superpower" but simply The EU could work, aye Trip: The Light Fantastic 17:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty, EU or European Union is a good name. Signature^brendel 17:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

EU a sus generis structure(or something).The EU section will say that the EU is a pathological case in taxinomy.If you put just EU they will say that it implicitly states that EU is a superpower,we nead a more specific title.--Ruber chiken 18:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I am sure we can agree on one, I am glad to see that you agree with the compromise. Signature^brendel 19:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

So hopefully this part has reached a consensus.--Ruber chiken 19:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we have. I am awaiting word from Nobleeagle but considering that spoke out earlier if favor a sperate EU section I am pretty confident we have finally reached a consensus. Signature^brendel 19:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

He probably sleeping now.what about the multipolar section,he was contesting that?I don't see where.--Ruber chiken 19:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ruber, you need to accept that your POV is not always right and we all have seperate POVs. Your comments on comparing the EU with third world countries show a POV-pushing mentality which I most dislike. But I agree on your compromise, simply copy and paste the European Union as an emerging superpower paragraph into a new section simply entitled European Union or the European Union Debate as it would be a bit more accurate for the reader. I believe we have reached consensus... Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I titled it simply European Union. Thanks! Signature^brendel 05:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats funy,i was thinking,the same about you.Remamber,we don't vote truth,and even less on concessus.You don't find odd that on a usue like this thers only one POV.Contrary to what you might think i'm a resonable person.You don't find ironic that a noble eagel talks to a ruber chiken.--Ruber chiken 06:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no particular objection to the 'compromise', but this surely wasn't what the entire argument was about? If it was just a minor structural change like this then I, for one, wouldn't have been too bothered; I can readily accept that the economics of the EU place it on a different level from India and China.

Anyway, I'm glad that we are all reconciled.

Xdamr^talk 11:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the argument was about the EU being different from China and India and being a superpower. But since the EU is not a nation I found this to be a good compromise. I wanted the EU listed seperately and in order to reach middle ground I simply abandoned the notion to list the EU in the current superpowers section. I think its a good compromise that will ultimately benefit the reader. Signature^brendel 17:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to poke my finger in a hornet's nest or anything, but the RfC includes whether or not the US is a superpower, or was the inclusion of the US in the disagreement more a 'If the EU isn't a superpower, then neither is the US'?--Bobblehead 18:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It was whether or not the EU should be included in the current superpowers section since it features the world largest economy, consumer market, etc... My argument was that the EU should be moved away from the emerging superpowers section as it is already a superpower. But as the EU isn't completely unified, we settled on the EU having its own section as it is unique. As to "If the EU isn't a superpower, then neither is the US," well, not exactely. The US is more politcally unfified yet the EU exceeds the US in most of the criteria. The problem is that either you see the EU as sufficently unfified which would make it the world's number one superpower or see it as not sufficiently unified in which case the US is the world's sole superpower. Nonetheless the current arrangment is fair, is puts the EU in its own section describing the controversy sourrounding the EU's powers. Signature^brendel 19:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There has never been a problem adding the EU if you can find a reputable source. This whole debate suffered with the attempt to link the case of the US with that of adding the EU. This was an interesting debating strategy but not one best calculated to achieve results in a collaborative effort like writing an encyclopedia article. This really isn't an 'us' and 'them' situation, or at least it shouldn't be. Academic rigour is what we should be aiming for here; it might be hard to divorce ourselves from our personal prejudices, but if we abide by the spirit of WP:OR etc then we'll be off to the best start.

Xdamr^talk 21:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well then there's the argument of what is repudable source and what if those sources conflict. After your first revert for example I found the Nat Geo quote stating that the EU is a superpower and Ruber provided ample sources to sustain his argument that the days of superpowers are gone. The problem is that sometimes sources conflict and not all sources are of the same quality. In this case I thought I had enough sources, but you didn't agree so we reached a compromise that worked out well. This way our reader still understand that if you were to combine the qualities of all EU states the Eu would be a superpower, but critics state that the EU isn't a superpower as it is lacking unity. Signature^brendel 22:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

brendel,your losing your time.--Ruber chiken 22:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean?

Xdamr^talk 00:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

talking to you on the isue--Ruber chiken 00:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well if that's your attitude then there's little I can do about it. Clearly the concept of academic rigour is alien to you; polemics, articles from hack journalists, and opinions of dubious and/or crank theorists do not constitute proper sourcing in any reputable branch of study. If you aren't prepared to engage with criticism then why bother contributing to a collaborative effort like this?

Xdamr^talk 00:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

A common now,how beleaves at thies noncens.It's evident that the usa are gods,and the rest of us degenereted pink babouns,it's obvious,everybody said that,is common sence.So why losing our preshes time in investigating the obvious.The peopol hou say autherways are marginals,they probably geolos,of america.--Ruber chiken 18:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well Europeans are not baboons, the HDI very clearly states the contrary. There is a very simple reason why the US is the only superpower nation: its the largest developed nation. Considering Germany's 82,000k it is also very powerful. Luxemburg is not a powerful nation w/ 150k pop, yet highly developed. I think it is important to remember that power doesn't mean development (though the US is obviously developed) and doesn't conicide w/ quality of life (i.e. USSR). Of course Ruber Chiken was exaggurating to make his point that this article was US-centric. (I think there have been some misunderstandings here ;-) Signature^brendel 06:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Numbrers,are not enouf,you have to be,within reach.Thats makes USA isolated on the north american continent.Plus ,interventions must ,be abel to reproduce them selves,i mean,that you actuly getting more then what you putting in,american deficits show atherwys.Seeing only,what effort you puting in means nothing,it's not merite of hard work,but efficiency.Nubers must be interpreted corectly.Luxemburg,has a big proportion of foreners that crose the frountier each day to work,gdp per capita is considering only the luxemburgians(500.000) population.The EU institutions,where set in place because,europeans can't aford not cooperating,it's not EU that forces them to cooperate,so thrue integration is more advanced then in paper,simply because the contries are doing the bare minimum in regard for the institutions.--Ruber chiken 17:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I added the debate on the US Bobble. Ruber believes that if the EU is not a superpower the US should also not be considered a superpower. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Heres a pice of advice,that is always thrue.When you triting subjects,where you have litel experience,NEVER trust your instinct,it will be almost certainly wrogn.Corect instinct comes only after expirience.You can both agree,i presume,that you became alot more eficient in your jobs,after expirience,then when you just reed the manual.It's the same phenomenon.Xdamr,trust me,a now beter than you what is academic rigor.--Ruber chiken 02:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

For those that are here for Request for Comment

For anyone else that comes here to comment, I think the question is:

Has the European Union accreud enough state-like characteristics to fulfil the dictionary definition of a superpower?

Dictionary definition:

Superpower: (noun) A powerful and influential state/nation/country [depending where you look], especially a nuclear power that dominates its allies or client states in an international power bloc. http://www.answers.com/superpower&r=67

It'd be helpful if you take an in-depth look at this question and ignore the rest of the problems with the article rather than summing it up in a sentence along with other issues. There's also no point in questioning whether the EU fills all superpower criteria, we've discerned that it and the US are in a league of their own, superpower-style. :P

Thank you for your help. If you want to stick around and help with other sections of the article after you've tried to answer the question, please do. :) Trip: The Light Fantastic 16:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, please consider that the issue here as well is whether or not all three theories should be included.

• The US is the only superpower
• The EU and the US are the only superpowers
• There are no superpowers

All three ideologies are supported by sufficient academic and journalistic sources. Thank you. Regards, Signature^brendel 16:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Other views

Shit.No this is not the isue for the article.

• should we include that some peopol beleave that usa is not a superpower any more.
• should we include that EU is the wolds most powerfull union,and thus don't deserve to be compared with tow third world contris,and thus included in the article as a separet section
• should we include the ideology of a multipolar world,and thus the interdependencies are so great that no dominant power emerges.

--Ruber chiken 16:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course the US is a bloody superpower, everyone agrees that. It can do what it wants. As much as we'd like it not to be, it is and has been for about 70 years now. If it's not, then we may aswell delete the page as if the US aint a superpower, the EU certainly isnt one. Then we have no superpowers and the page becomes pointless. Trip: The Light Fantastic 16:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read my "comprimse post above." The US is a superpower if you beleive there are superpowers, which is a view implied in this article. There are academics viewing the EU a a superpower but all I am asking for at this point sperating the EU from the China and India section. I am not asking fot it to be included under the superpowers today section. I just would like a seperate section for the EU. Trip, you have also stated that doing so might be a good idea. Nobeleagel has made statements in support of such a move as well. It seems like the best compromise, since we can argue about this for the next 70 years ;-). Signature^brendel 17:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

light,this is not to you to deside.The multipolar wold vieu state that implicitly.In a multipolar world thers no dominand power.The usa too is too dependent on the world.So saying that there are disbeleaver in the power of the US is not POV.Saying both,is a just compromise.Saying US is a superpower,is not taking in too acount everybody,but just one extrem.For the EU we put in both ideologies in a neutral maner.--Ruber chiken 17:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not for you to decide, either. Remember that. Trip: The Light Fantastic 17:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I take no stances.I argue to put in both.You argue in favor of one of them.So i'm not taking any desisions about what's corect.I don't see how you can be more neutral then that.--Ruber chiken 17:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Inherent contradiction

A superpower is defined as "a state with the first rank in the international system and the ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale." (first sentence of the article page). This seems to be correct and similar definitions can be found on the internet and dictionaries. However further on, the article claims that is debated whether the EU is a superpower or not. This simply can't be the case, according to the definition, as the EU is not a state. Therefore, the EU can only be considered a potential superpower (as it is possible that it would become a state in the future). Sijo Ripa 17:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It's more united then belgium.--Ruber chiken 02:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well there you are, you still treat Belgium like a seperate country despite it being part of the EU. That proves that the EU is not a state and thus is not a superpower, you contradicted yourself ina way. Nobleeagle (Talk) 02:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The EU is not a state that's why it is not listed under current superpowers. There are some who challange the state requriment and argue that the EU is superpower as its more united than any other union of countries. That's why there's contoroversy because, as it states, in the text, "if the qualities of all member states were combined the EU would be a superpower. The defenition of superpower is not carved into stone. There are sources stating that the EU is a superpower, there is disagreement on the issue, we need to mention this disagreemnet, we need to tell our readers of the controversy sorrounding the EU. The EU isn't like anything else on the planet, but it is, if seen as one, a superpower. Considering the contradicting sources and our responsibility to tell the whole story we need to mention that theere is a conflict over the EU's status and that if seen as sufficiently united is a superpower under all circumstancs. You see, we need to mention the conflict. Also, you need to point out the differences between the EU, China and India. China and India are both states who lack economic development. The EU is economically as developed as the US but is not a state and lacking unity, so you can't put the EU in the same section as China and India. The only resposnible thing to do is to put the EU in its own section, give a brief overview of its qulaitites and state the controversy. Signature^brendel 02:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I naver sade that it was a contry,you expect that.E=mc2 thus earth is flat.Here an advice,when triting subjects that you have no exparience with,never folow your instinct,instinct became good on a particular subject only with expirience.Your trusting your instinct when you have no expirience with the subject.And i was ironic,i live in bruxelle,and he lives in fladers,and for chort,the contry is in a mess.--Ruber chiken 03:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, the issue is resolved now, we've reached a compromise, I was just commenting, it wasn't a signal to restart debate. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well Sijo Ripa seems unhappy. The Cambridge dictionary definition of a state simply refers to a country and the country definition is:

country (POLITICAL UNIT) Show phonetics noun [C] 1 an area of land that has its own government, army, etc:

Hmmmmmm well the EU seems to fulfil that enough. Like I put on the EU section, the trouble is that the EU is a sui generis entity - we've never seen anything like it before and cannot classify it.

Whatever it is, its certainly very powerful on the world stage and therefore needs a mention here. Trip: The Light Fantastic 15:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's extraterestrial.Europeans are extraterestials.--Ruber chiken 03:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

We are? (That's funny) Signature^brendel 05:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Who is a superpower?

While we debate about facts, you can show your beliefs via userboxes, put any of these on your userpage to reflect your views:

• {{User EU Superpower}}
• {{User US Superpower}}
• {{User USEU Superpower}}
• {{User no Superpower}}

Enjoy, I created them to lighten up the debate a little bit. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hehe am liking that! :P Ta very much! Trip: The Light Fantastic 15:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I like it! Thanks. Signature^brendel 04:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Economic Freedom Map

Mostly semantics, but the economic freedom map seems to contradict the adjoining description. The description says 'many of the EU's largest member states enjoy the highest degree of economic freedom in the world.' However, of the 10 most populous countries in the EU, only Germany and the UK have the highest degree of economic freedom (Free). France, Italy, Spain, Poland, Portugal, Greece, Belgium, and Czech Republic all indicate 'Mostly Free'. If you're going by GDP (nominal) then a majority is more appropriate than many. By GDP 6 of the top 10 are 'Free'(Germany, UK, Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, Austria), while the remaining 4 are 'Mostly free' (France, Italy, Spain, Belgium). Like I said, mostly semantics. --Bobblehead 20:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, then we can remove it. I added it mainly for esthetic reasons, so if you think it might confuse readers, you can go ahead and remove it. Regards, Signature^brendel 20:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Just rephrased it. Aesthetically, it works. --Bobblehead 20:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you, the rephrase caption works great. Regards, Signature^brendel 21:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)