Talk:Superpower/Archive 1

message: I say not hardly. The EU is a Confederation or an alliance. Run by the Germans and the French (same difference, the French are Germans who speak a corrupt form of Latin). They can not decide on a common currency. Many of the member countries are almost third world if not so. The French and Germans are amongst the biggest debtor nations in the world. What about the former east bloc countries? Many of whom are disgusted with socialism in all its forms and are tacit alolies of the US. What about the smaller Western European countries who remember French and German Imperialism and want the US to stay involved in Europe? What about the Europhiles in US politics who would like to see the US involved in the EU in one way or another. What about the French attempt to revive the defunct Western European Union to replace NATO as the perceived Military arm of the EU. Which it is not. The EU got away from the Franco-German control and is now in the hands of the more US friendly countries, which include most of the newer members. The EU is just that, a Union, it is not the United States of Europe and it will not become so in our lifetimes as the rest of Europe remembers life before.--Tomtom 17:50, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: EU - A Super Power-NOT

message: This text was on the page a while ago, but removed after a fair amount of discussion.  It is slanted, assumptive, and off-topic.  Self-claimed garantor? "It has been argued"? passive voice as well as uncited argument?  Why refrence to all the wars?  How does that aid the definition of Superpower?  How does the moral arguments around US foreign policy aid this definition? (yes, I contributed to that text...) What does 9/11 have to do with being a superpower?Davejenk1ns 00:20, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Actually, I didn't mean for it to sound like a cheap shot at the U.S. And the anonymous user who wrote the old paragraph _certainly_ didn't mean for it to sound like that. He probably considers himself a great american "patriot". Anyway, I'm quite content with the paragraph being left out of the article. — David Remahl 23:39, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I didn't think your text was a cheap shot.  I use that phrase as the acid test for NPOV or biased stuff.  If I read a sentence and it doesn't seem to fit, I ask myself that basic question (replacing US with Japan, Kennedy, insert noun here).  America as Superpower is such a minefield to start with-- any overt power vein associated with the US becomes an instant lightning rod for blind support or marxist critique (IMHO).  We just need to state facts, here.  Certainly we can state common wisdom or current theories about power, but those should be states as such: theories or interpretations. Davejenk1ns 01:04, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: removed text re: American foriegn policy

message: Its relative wealth and dominance on the global market are important reasons why the United States is considered a superpower. Ending up on the opposite side of the United States in a conflict can lead to trade blockades, and is avoided because of this dominance.
I would rather not see this paragraph in there: The first sentence is a repeat of a statement made earlier, and the sencond sentence is pretty far-fetched, as if trade blockades happen at the drop of a hat (they don't).  I agree it is better than that food-dominance goofiness listed previously, but the salient question remains: does the text help someone understand what the word Superpower means, or is it a cheap shot at the US?Davejenk1ns 23:32, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Actually, I didn't mean for it to sound like a cheap shot at the U.S. And the anonymous user who wrote the old paragraph _certainly_ didn't mean for it to sound like that. He probably considers himself a great american "patriot". Anyway, I'm quite content with the paragraph being left out of the article. — David Remahl 23:39, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I didn't think your text was a cheap shot.  I use that phrase as the acid test for NPOV or biased stuff.  If I read a sentence and it doesn't seem to fit, I ask myself that basic question (replacing US with Japan, Kennedy, insert noun here).  America as Superpower is such a minefield to start with-- any overt power vein associated with the US becomes an instant lightning rod for blind support or marxist critique (IMHO).  We just need to state facts, here.  Certainly we can state common wisdom or current theories about power, but those should be states as such: theories or interpretations. Davejenk1ns 01:04, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Trade blockade text

message: The best way to balance out the American bias is to add perspective.  This planet has seen many empires rise and fall.  In history great empires were built on charasmatic leaders.  These countries soon fell apart, or were reconquered within a century of the leader's demise.  Normally it wouldn't take long for the conquerers to get soft.  Soon after that, the oppressed and the foreign came rushing in.  --Benk625 18:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Superpowers in History

message: As much as I appreciate it, I do not believe Wikipedia is in the business of ironic literary epigraphs before articles. I can't bring myself to remove it, however. --B. Phillips 19:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Basho

message: I see no reason why Brazil should be taken off the list, since it forms, along China, India and Russia, the group of nations more likely to become world powers in 50 years(They call the group, B.R.I.C.). 
--Luguiacastro 03:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Brazil is back on

message: Japan has a huge economic influence on the world, doesn't that mean something?
66.205.108.8 05:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Undoutedly true, but Japan doesn't have a 'notable' foreign policy, I just don't think Japan wants to be a superpower in any sense of the word. --JDnCoke 16:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why was Japan removed?

message: Croatia seems to me an odd example to use; it was formerly more industrialized than such EU members as Portugal; if it is less so right now, that is a consequence of recent war, and probably a short-term matter, since there is no lack of trained and educated people. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "transitionally industrial countries" 

message: The UK has a fairly large military,nuclear weapons,and the support of Commonwealth nations. -- anon.
:Eh? Jooler 01:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That still doesn't make it a superpower. 81.153.15.178 23:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why doesnt the UK have its own Separate Entry?

message: I don't understand what South America is doing in that list. Reasons:
*There is not even a real (i.e. a deep and wide) South-American integration process started, like there is in Europe (with the European Union), let alone an unification process. The chances that the EU will become a superpower are already slim (saying as an European). 
*It's too hypothetical that South America will unite. Furthermore it's way too hypothetical to assume that a hypothetical country could become a superpower. You could also suggest that an united Arab world, or an united South East Asia would become a super power. Or an united Africa.
*There aren't any signs that even an united South America has the potential to become a superpower. While the U.S. (and increasingly China) has (have) these signs; i.e. a strong economy with continued strong economic growth, combined with a strong military and technological dominance.
*I don't deny that some countries like Brazil are becoming economically stronger, and they can become a worldpower in a few decades (at least), but a superpower? 
With all due respect to the writer, I don't think that an "united South America as potential superpower" deserves a place in this list. I will remove it, if others agree.Mjolnir1984 18:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, USA is trying very hard to PREVENT an united south america, see ALCA and learn about the real deal. Do not dismiss south american countries as under-developed nations without any interntional impact, this is clear NPOV. Brazil alone has a huge population, and if you don´t know yet please keep in mind that Amazonia is the biggest resource of biodiversity in the world and the biggest hidrographic bay around. I know USA are trying to convince the world tha Amazon is not brazillian property. Why is that a superpower needs to try to fake something like that? Isn´t it afraid of it´s potential? Everyone knows that the real power of the future lies in biodiversity and hidrographic resources. But as the article stands, I would not list Brazil (yet). I think there should be a a section for past superpowers (goind back to Roma or even earlier) and then a section for potential superpowers (in which Brazil could be listed). Regards. Loudenvier 12:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: South America: a potential superpower? (Uh?)

message: To the anon user who posted on my talk page and keeps adding the anchronistic nonsense. Please stop it. Retrospective use of the word superpower does not make any sense. Jooler 13:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Retrospective use of the word ''Superpower''

message: I have removed the sub-section entitled "The Next Caliphate" from the grouping of potential future Superpowers.  This subsection was highly speculative and POV, and entirely inappropriate for this type of article. --The Thieving Gypsy 12:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, well done. Mjolnir1984 18:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Though India and Russia are indeed more speculative than China and the European Union, there are nevertheless some objective facts, like economic growth and military assets. On the other hand, there isn't any substantial integration or unification process going on throughout the Arab world. For the same reason, and "united South America" was removed.Even more, there isn't even much trade between Muslim countries. Furthermore the Arab World is extremely divided. See for example the Syria-Lebanon tensions, the Iraqi terrorism that mostly targets other Iraqis, the Morocco-Algeria tensions, the Morocco-Mauritania tensions, the Algerian civil war, the former tensions between Iraq and Kouwait, the former tensions between Syria and Iraq, etc. The efforts to try to form an Arab unity all failed completely and quickly in the past.Added, non-Arab Muslim countries are mostly anti-Arab. See the Iraq-Iran War, the pro-West anti-Arab Turkey, etc. While India and Russia have significant military capabilities, a prerequisite of being a superpower,  the Muslim world fails to show this (let alone, an attempt to unify these military capabilities). See for instance, the quick Arab military defeats in the Israeli-Arab wars, the two USA-Iraq wars, Afghanistan, etc. Mjolnir1984 13:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the last 100 years, high birth rates never made an empire strong, on the contrary, it tends to create larger poverty. Development tends to bring reproductive control not expansion. Rauh 15:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: There are two big problems with the idea of a muslim superpower: there is no clear trend of integration between muslim countries, and even if they were integrated the muslim countries would not match the US or EU in terms of economic or military strength.  Most muslm countries are among the poorest in the world.  In addition, the "New Caliphate" section has a lots of POV and wild speculation that are portrayed as facts.  A lot of things that might happen(but are considered unlikely by many) are "bound to" happen in the article.--Todd Kloos 03:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm an admin...I'm going to ban Saladim*** and all of his friends. They are just here to be disruptive. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If he comes back, please add it to the list I started on the Vandalism in Progress page. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I understand your concern; Usammey, but there is no integration process going on in either the Muslim world or South America. On the contrary, many states (especially in the Arab world) are quite opposed to eachother. Furthermore both regions are weak in almost every aspect (economy, military, technology, etc.). Nobody denies that these regions will possibly once unite, but the prospect is non-existant in the near future. Even more, even if these countries would unite, they would not become superpowers, but only major powers. When there's a page about superpowers that mentions "potential" superpowers there has to be at least a strong possibility. A page that deals about an united South America or about the Next Caliphate can be legitimate on Wikipedia (if it meets the requirements of Wikipedia), but not on this page. I will rename "potential superpowers" into "current major powers". This would be less POV and settle the problem, without changing the content.  Mjolnir1984 00:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: No, there is no bias. Removing "South America" is correct as South America is not "one" power. Adding Brazil however is correct. Japan should be added also. Mjolnir1984 15:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Next Caliphate"

message: I think it is legitimate and NPOV to add Brazil and Japan as "major powers". I Removed the "potential superpowers" title, as it prevents POV discussions and is not hypothetical anymore (this page is not about hypotheses). As a consequence the "several major powers" are taking most of the place of this article. I think that the sections about the Soviet Union and the UNited States need to be expanded, as they are/were the "superpowers". Mjolnir1984 15:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Section-Stubs

message: Mjolnir, over the past few weeks you've made alot of edits to this article, I have nothing against you contributing to the article, but what I do have arguments about is how US-centrist you are making this article. I will be trying to counterbalance this article in the next few days, please reply. 81.153.11.46 02:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm an European though. Looks quite logical to me when it's about superpowers that much space is reserved for the two superpowers that ever existed: the Soviet Union and the USA. I think that the sections of these two countries should be expanded, but as the USA is also the current superpower (often called a hyperpower, as the term superpower is according to many no longer appropriate) I think it's logical that the USA gets more space (Cold War, and post Cold War) than the Soviet Union. Furthermore, I think it's not logical that the superpowers themselves get less attention than the "potential superpowers/several major powers". Feel free to contribute however. The better the quality of information, the more satisfied readers will be. Mjolnir1984 13:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: it is best to give a just a list of potential superpowers, as each country has its own entry. also, accent should not be on would be superpowers, but on superpowers in the past (roman empire, spain etc) since that is not speculative.Perrrout 06:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mjolnir1984

message: Having a blank France area was dumb, so I added a chunk.
66.205.108.8 05:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  France 

message: This page is about "superpower(s)", not about "major powers", and so most of the space should be spend on superpower(s). A reference to the current major powers can be relevant, but this is exaggerated. I suggest to just mention the current major powers in one paragraph of about 5-10 lines. Mjolnir1984 23:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing or shortening "major powers"

message: * Expanded the European Union article
* Moved EU away from "Major Powers". (why it was sandwiched between the United Kingdom and Japan escapes me. I gave it it's own little section because it is a fully-fledged superpower, just in pieces. This differentiates it from Brazil and China etc; so I gave it it's own little section.)
* I also added little flags by all the countries for easy reference.
* Changed the China article and added the bad points I promised a while back.
* Added a map of the world showing the US and all potential superpowers for easy reference at the top.
* Shifted photo of US aircraft carriers down into US Superpower section.
* Removed cleanup tag. Article still needs to be cleaned up slightly, but no need for it to be tagged.
What needs doing:
* USA article needs expanding, desperately.
* Page needs restructuring
* Stubbed articles need fleshing out.
* Someone needs to proofread the article, there are lots of mistakes
* UK article needs cutting down ALOT. In fact, should UK, France and Germany even be mentioned without the EU? They're not superpowers at all. (I am British, by the way.)
* More images need to be added to illustrate points.
Trip: The Light Fantastic 20:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added? It looks like you removed quite a lot. Jombo 05:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added to American Article 203.214.81.83 05:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Made some changes and what needs doing

message: The German and France articles had no points relating to why they were Major Powers in the contemporary era. The only points were their role in the EU which translates to the European Union Article. It is agreed by most that they were powers during and before the World Wars. It is therefore necessary that they are placed in a seperate time period.203.214.81.83 05:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Germany and France

message: How can the entire article be considered long although there are many stubs in it. There are many wikipedia articles that can get longer than this.
When you edit the article the follwoing sentence appears above:
"This page is 47 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size."
Please just check that. The article is really long and the existence of stub configurates that the article is not well structured. Why UK and India take so much space???
201.1.159.18 15:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Considered Long Yet Filled with Stubs

message: The edits by 203.214.81.83 are removing a large chunk of the article, and has attempted to remove the entire section about France and Germany as modern major powers. I am disputing the changes 203.214.81.83 as POV. Jombo 05:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I see the issue, but my reasons are stated above203.214.81.83 05:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by 203.214.81.83 

message: The Chinese, American, Indian and Russian Military are all strong and yet do not have huge points based on how good the airforce, navy, intelligence agency etc. are. The American Military is being overshadowed by UK in this article.203.214.81.83 05:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UK Military Information Way Too Detailed

message: The European Union Article is placed in the Great Powers section, a section for contemporary powers. However, the article is based on the idea that the European Union becomes one nation with equal foreign relations, equal economy etc. An example of this is that the UK have gone to war in Iraq while France have not. It is therefore either POV or should be moved to the Emerging Powers Section.203.214.81.83 05:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: European Union Article Is Missing the Point

message: Ok...oil is an important resource...what about the other commodities (in the last two years, we saw a surge in the price of commodities - in general). Shoud oil be more important than iron ore, nickel, cooper or wheat ?
Remember than alternative energy sources are coming up. Also if commodities are important - and you do have a point here - the position of Brazil should be reviewed as potential commodity and agricultural powerhouse. Brazil has far more resources and conditions to become the largest producer of food in the world, being already an important commodity producer.
Whereas manufacturing products have their prices in constant decline, one of main reasons that US do not give emphasys to the manufacuring sector, commodities in general have their price at the heights in this new recent and eventual economy growth oriented world (China and India for example).
200.171.167.124 22:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fossil fuel superpowers

message: Stop tagging this article. It looks pathetic. I am going to remove all tags except the "very long" tag, because it does exceed Wikipedia guidelines and will continue to do so.
If you want to add a tag, don't just whack it on because you feel like it and don't tell anyone why. Come here, add a section and tell us why you think the article should be tagged. Then we can all decide if the article should be tagged for whatever reason you propose. Kapeesh?
Trip: The Light Fantastic 17:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagging

message: I found that the China section is extremely bias. Whoever did the China section is clearly trying picture a negative view of China. In contrast, the India section is very favorable toward India. I thought this website supposed to objective. I edited the China part and will watch further changes in this section. This is the same thing I observe on the Sino-Indian war page, many people trying to potray a positive side of India and a negative side of China.
And this person said nothing about China's cultural power. Maybe you are just ignorant about it? If you don't know something, then don't write about it.
                                                                                 John
":All your 'changes' to the China and India sections were POV and required reverting. Many of your comments would be rather insulting to Indian users and most of your changes included comparisons that were to prove that China was better than India in every aspect. You went as far as to deny India's position as an IT Superpower."
 "All I did is to write a balance and objective article for China as a super power. Stop accusing me things I never did. You use and abuse the rights given to you from wikpedia by demeaning Chinese people. What you wrote made it sounds like everyone in the world hates chinese which is purely racism and insulting. You have no rights to accuse others insulting indians. John."
::I did not write the entirety of the Chinese article, I just wish you to stop deleting the work of other wikipedia users. I had, in fact, in the past, added some things to prove that China was indeed a superpower. I will read each and every point against the rise of a Chinese Superpower and may revert some. Please discuss any issues you have...203.214.108.194 05:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias against China

message: I changed the China and India section, so it will be more balanced and objective. Junlee
: That comment is laughable, the changes were extremely POV, if you wish to make changes please make additions, rather than removing all the work of other wikipedia editors. All the points in both the China and India section are true, have been there for a long time and have not been disputed strongly, I am reverting your POV changes.203.214.108.194 00:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One points to that must be understood, it was not I that created ALL the points against the rise of a Chinese superpower, it was another wikipedia user, I have added I believe only 2 points in my editing of this article that are against China. Secondly, I ask you to simple A) Not delete entire points out of the India section, B)Not delete entire points out of the points against the rise of the Chinese Superpower and C) Do not say things that are comparitive (such as, India's economy is tiny compared to China). Apart from the points about the relations with the United States, they are improved through exports, but it was Former Advisor to Bill Clinton, Dick Morris, who claimed the above point.203.214.108.194 05:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes in China and India section

message: It is not fair on other wikipedia editors to simply remove their additions. There are many people who have in fact worked quite hard on researching their informations. Junlee has taken out facts and inserted their own informations which are strongly in favour of China and against India. Moreover, these changes include comparitive statements which are somehow meant to prove that India is better than China and Russia203.214.108.194 05:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is you that made this comment about India and Russia in the China section. 
"Compare to India and Russia, China clearly has better economic strength to support a large and modernized armed force."
Why compare to India and Russia? Why not say what they are ranked in PPP or something. It is clear that you have a bias against India and Russia.203.214.108.194 05:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Changes to China and India Sections