Talk:Superpower/Archive 9

message: Can this page be semi-protected? I have noticed that alot of unregistered tend to vandalize this page and it is getting really annoying, can it please be semi-protected so ungregistered users cannot edit this page? User:Daniel Chiswick 23 May, 2007.
:There isn't enough vandalism on the page for semi-protection. Most anon edits come from one IP who seems to be editing on good faith. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Daniel Chiswick,you are just 16,i recommend to comedown your hormones.--87.65.216.66 12:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: How is that relevant?  Are you telling us you remain anonymous to evade being blocked for insulting and personally attacking other editors?Zebulin 14:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:CIVIL please. Let's just drop this issue and focus on the content of the article. Thank you, Signaturebrendel 14:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: I don't know about you guys,but for me the past idea about japan as a emerging superpower ,waters down the concept.--87.65.216.66 19:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, during the 1980s Americans just about feared Japan for its rising economic strenght (similar as with Germany during the Wirtschaftswunder-Economic miracle). I actually recall a Time Magazine (or at least I think it was Time) cover that featured a US flag with "Made in Japan" written on it. Anyways, I think the 1980s Japan-as-next-superpower mentallity is worth a blurb. Regards, Signaturebrendel 13:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: True, "nothing is ever certain and things change"-especially in the social science arena. Yet, mentioning that Japan was once thought of as a potential superpower might be worth a one-sentence blurb w/ ref. Regards, Signaturebrendel 02:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What about the Times article?isn't good enough?--87.65.142.17 12:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it actually is, so go ahead and add the blurb. Signaturebrendel 01:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Japan As (emerging) Superpower

message: In the superpowers today section, there is a lot of OR (See: WP:OR). Sources that are in fact unrelated to the topic of being a superpower are used to advance the position that the US is a superpower. Only reliable sources that  have a content directly related to the concept of superpower should be used. Otherwise, we just form our own idea of what are important markers and pick-and-chose articles that deal with these. Sijo Ripa 12:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before deleting those sections lets explicitly tag the unsourced OR statements that those inappropriate sources are intended to support.  That may make it easier to track down appropriate source material that makes those arguments directly.Zebulin 17:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: OR

message: what on earth is wrong with having EU, China, and India subheadings? It makes the section clearer. the fact that seperate articles about these countries being potential superpowers were deleted is so irrelevant. Willy turner 17:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Subheadings for each potential superpower

message: "While there is no clear and uncontested definition of superpower, generally this term was used to signify a political community that occupied a continental-sized landmass, had a sizable population (relative at least to other major powers); a superordinate economic capacity (again, relative to others), including ample indigenous supplies of food and natural resources; enjoyed a high degree of non-dependence on international intercourse; and, most importantly, had a well-developed nuclear capacity (eventually normally defined as second-strike capability). In short, the term superpower was intimately connected with the rivalry between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War, and was designed to signify the essential "distance" in power capability terms between those two countries on the one hand, and all other major powers on the other."
The above definition is word for word from the queens superpower paper already referenced in the article.
We currently do not source much if any of the characteristics of superpower portion of our article.  But so much of this definition seems to ignore the obviously different definitions that other sources are using (but not explicitly defining for their readers) that I wonder how best we might use this to improve the referencing of that section without unilaterally subscribing to a single definition simply because other authorities do not seem to see fit to clearly articulate their definitions for their readers.
I don't want to leave that section unsourced particularly with talk of deleting it out right due to lack of sourcing but I am uncomfortable committing the article entirely to this one working definition particularly when the source providing the definition agrees that no uncontested definition exists.  How shall we proceed?Zebulin 17:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for my lack of clarity.  I am in fact delighted by the second definition you found.  My concern had centered around my frustration with my inability to find additional sources that explicitly defined their usage of the term "superpower".  I didn't want any effort to provide a source for that section to result in one source being used to remove other indirectly sourced definitions for sources already present in the article that clearly are using a different definition but also do not explicitly state what that definition is.  In any case the more sources for a superpower definition we find the less problematic this will be.Zebulin 19:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  working definition of Superpower found in one of our sources 

message: This section cites GlobalCPR as a source. GlobalCPR is a mirror site of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Ghi. Obviously this means it is not a reliable source. 
The section on Russia also links to this page . In that article it first says, "Russia is trying to use its oil wealth to become a superpower again". Trying doesn't count for anything. San Marino might 'try' to become a superpower; doesn't mean it ever will be one. The sentence isn't even a direct quote from Bobby Inman. All Inman does actually say is, "I believe that Mr. Putin has concluded that there is a new path for Russia to again be a superpower". This article doesn't explicitly say that Russia is a potential superpower, just that their president (who might be a bit biased) thinks they could possibly become one. Consequently, due to a complete lack of reliable sources, the Russia section should be deleted. If anyone finds reliable academic sources explicitly saying Russia is a potential superpower, then of course add them. Willy turner 07:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Russia shouldn't be deleted, simply because it is the biggest nuclear power in the world and its intercontinental ballistic missiles can't be beaten by any country defensive systems in this world (see Topol-M). --Eurocopter tigre 13:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't listen to "willy" he's just being silly and frankly stupid. How could you NOT have Russia as a superpower?
-G
Thanks for your intelligent contribution to the discussion. Willy turner 07:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You have sources that describe as potential superpowers those other countries you want to add?  Any unsourced addition will be reverted as unnecessary for that section.  We have to draw the line somewhere unless we want to list all of the countries in the world and a requirement for sources seems to be a more than fair definition for that line.Zebulin 17:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Russia as a potential supepower

message: The US has details on the different "criteria",with emphasis only on the positives interpretations.While all the others are just paragraphs.This is a important bias,left over from the deletions of the potential superpower articles.All i ask is that we treat them,in the same way,either the potential superpower stubs are expanded,either the US details are removed.--87.65.163.96 14:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should make the post 1991 sections dealing with a particular country or supranational collection of countries all follow the format currently used for each of the potential superpowers.  The US probably won't need a larger section as much of the relevant information is already covered by the cold war section.  As sijo mentioned earlier it's not really appropriate to have all those sources included that don't mention superpower or even indirectly address the concept.Zebulin 19:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV issue 

message: Dear fellow Wikipedians, remember the deletion of all subarticles dealing with emerging superpowers. It was a clear signal that POV and OR are not allowed. Such OR is the use of sources that explain one aspect of power, but do not discuss the concept of superpower directly, or do so but are not reliable. It would constitute a synthesis of information to advance a position. E.g.: Russia is a potential superpower because it has this and this and this forms of power. However, if reliable sources are used that directly discuss the potential superpower status of Russia, the content of these sources can be used. Also, please note that this page is about superpower, not other (lesser) forms of power. Sijo Ripa 20:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I surely remember that it was out of proses and against consensus.--87.65.132.116 20:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was deleted according to Wikipedia most important policy pillars (NOR and NPOV) which overrules other concerns (remember Wikipedia is not a democracy - but even then I think a majority was for the deletion). That the deletion was supported by Wikipedians and admins was also proven by the endorsement of the deletion. Sijo Ripa 20:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't object the inclusion of Russia if reliable sources are used that directly deal with Russia's potential as a superpower. Economy of EU is already mentioned by Leonard, and there is no unified military.Sijo Ripa 20:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't let this article lose its quality again

message: I think this article needs to be semi-protected until all the issues are resolved and this article is re-written and returned to it's former quality. This used to be a good article, it was simple and to the point which is the way it is suposed to be. I am afraid that so many people are only concerned with "Potential superpower" to the point the the article loses quality. The section about the US is completely gone and the article talks more about "Potential superpowers" than the US, Soviet Union, and British Empire which were actually superpowers. This article is a complete mess and looks just plain ugly. "Potential superpowers" needs to be cut in half or reduced because using too much space and taking focus away from actual superpowers. I have noticed that most of the damage to the article is from unregistered users, most notably User:Ilya1166, so I urge that this page be semi-protected until this page is fixed. User:Daniel Chiswick 3 May, 2007.
I agree the article is about the present not a possible future.
:Remember that unregistered users will sign their edits with an ip address.  He's not unregistered he just doesn't have something to say on his user page.Zebulin 07:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary semi-protection 

message: Can somebody please shorten that section? I read it and it is very good but a little too long, can the person that wrote it just summarize it so that way it still gives the same information without taking so much space? User:Daniel Chiswick 6 June, 2007.
:I think it's either the most important or second most important part of the article. It's also an area where we want to take the greatest care to avoid inserting any original research.Zebulin 23:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with - besides it isn't even that long... but then again "long" is a subjective term ;-) Regards, Signaturebrendel 00:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: honestly I was actually looking for sources to make it even longer.  Don't you agree that the section should constitute a core section of the article sources permitting?Zebulin 03:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shorten Characteristics 

message: I miss the mentioning of the discriminating Indian Caste System as one of the problems India will have to face in the future. 0v3r533r 23:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide a reputable source and add a quick mention-the relationship between a rigid caste system and economic growth is certainly worth a mention. Signaturebrendel 23:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 2 BBC articles discussing the story, which i find informative Can India become a global superpower? and Is caste discrimination a matter of international concern? 0v3r533r 00:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  India 

message: I fail to see why this is a reason for the EU to be a super power, "the unpopularity and perceived failure of US foreign policy in recent years,". I could understand something along the lines of "the EU's strong foreign policy in recent years". Your thoughts? Exsellion89 17:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for EU's Possible Superpower Status 

message: I cannot remove the added OR-part again, because it would violate the three-revert-rule. Note however that I explained my removal every time in the edit summary. The particular part is OR, or more specifically a violation of WP:SYNTH. Several power characteristics are combined (A+B) to advance the position (that these characteristics make) Russia (is) a potential superpower (C). Put differently, while the facts cited are most likely correct, the sources do not mention the term "superpower", let alone that these specific characteristics make Russia a potential superpower, and thus this constitutes OR. User: Eurocopter tigre, could you please read WP:SYNTH and undo your reversal? Sijo Ripa 18:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Russia & OR

message: Can whoever continues to add Russia as a potential superpower please cease doing so? Russia is not and will never again become a superpower. It's not even a world power, and is at best perhaps a regional power. Has anyone bothered to actually compare Russia's capabilities to statistics relating to economic output, population and demographic projections, military power projection and government efficiency? Had they done so, they would see that Russia's future is bleak. The country is losing 700,000 people per year,
regardless of how small the russian population will be, even if its one person, the presidnet, he will still have the nuclear launch codes to wipe everyone else out.....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.142.146 (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Russia cannot become a superpower

message: , but we do need a reputable source. Regards, Signaturebrendel 04:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree.  This article was stabilized by a consensus to rely on meticulous sourcing as the bar that all major changes had to pass and by an outright rejection of all possible original research additions.  the best you can do to make your points is find an authoritative source for them and possibly find a way to unambiguously demonstrate the inadequacy of the sources which indicate that Russia is a potential superpower.  Good luck with that.Zebulin 20:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WRONG 

message: . Moreover, if Russia is included, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Brazil and Mexico should all be included too: All either rank more highly than Russia today or show greater potential in the medium or longer terms. Let is end this 'Russia will be a superpower' nonsense once and for all, please. Imperium Europeum 01:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can we end it in such a way that doesn't leave room for editors to remove other sourced material from the article?  what sort of objective defined standard can be applied to prevent that?  The existing rough consensus was that multiple sourced material is not to be removed from the article as inaccurate without directly invalidating the sources through other sources.  Common sense dictates that Russia is such an extreme long shot at superpower status that nothing in it's current situation suggests that it is a potential superpower in any meaningful sense.  However common sense will also lead to efforts to remove the china and EU sections for diverse reasons and this will lead to revert wars and article instability.  We need a workable standard that will allow for removing the offending Russian section without requiring a double standard to protect other article content.Zebulin 08:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problem with that being that the EU is not a STATE ... it's no more speculation than about Russia. --Ondra2 (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I never looked into the quality of the sources. What I suggest: 3 academics in 3 separate academic articles/books? This would show a certain support in academic circles. Newspaper articles are often more sensational and less argumented/accurate. Sijo Ripa 12:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Imperium's edits, FWIW. —Nightstallion 15:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the changes are sourced and we have at least temporary consensus on this edit page that Russia is no potential superpower.  I hope the edits will stay.  We might want to keep an eye out for a source that specifically mentions Brazil as well to make that currently unsourced portion less likely to be challenged.Zebulin 16:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A Brazil reference has now been added. Imperium Europeum 20:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I´m not advocating to lift Russia in potential Superpower status, but the current citation is not more than a harrassing rant of a ColdWar academic. The role of Russia must be presented in its actual powers. This is not the case, it is rather highly biased. India´s economy doesnt even meet nominal total GDP of Spain, it is a third world country. The growing economic data won´t change any relevant power projection in the near future. The India section includes several overenthusiastic POV statements. India must be integrated in other countries. Lear 21 21:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: What? Barry Buzan, 'a ColdWar academic'? Hardly! He's one of the most renowned scholars in the field of international relations. I could be persuaded on India, however. It certainly has potential, but many impediments also remain. Could someone create a table or template called 'Superpowers: Existing and Potential', listing their GDP (nominal), Defence spending, population, area, percentage of world trade, and so on, for the dates 2000, 2005, 2007, and maybe a projection, say 2020? I don't know how to do it. Imperium Europeum 22:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Under which rule in the Wikipedia guidelines do you, Imperium Europeum, base your conclusions that professor Steven Rosefielde is not a credible scholar? I'm not going to assume bad faith as to how you arrived at that conclusion. Nevertheless, I've reinstated the bit, because for the sake of neutrality we need to mention the fact that there is not a unanimous consensus that Russia has no potential as a superpower. Steven Rosefielde is a real professor at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and he has published several books on Russian studies. If you want to tell him he's a loony because you work at one of "Britain's leading universities" and you said so, feel free to email him. I'm going to insert page numbers from his book so there should be no problems as far as proper citations are concerned. As for your addition on Russia as an energy superpower, I've moved that from this article to the energy superpower article. Superpower and energy superpower are not one and the same, and if we're going to discuss Russia's status as energy superpower we need to do it in the appropriate article.--71.112.159.122 01:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WRONG 

message: India is shown as other allies of USSR during coldwar. But it was part of the founder members of
NAM (continues to this day.). So the information in image is inaccurate.
192.18.43.225 15:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coldwar alliances

message: What exactly does it mean? Economic Superpower? Military Superpower? Energy Superpower? Agricultural Superpower? Technological Superpower? Nuclear Superpower?
Currently China is described only in terms of it's economic strength. It's humongous population, it's nuclear capabilities, it's natural resources, it's magnificently high education level, it's obscenely large military, these are missing.
It seems like Superpower is a term from the cold war. As a term of the cold war, perhaps it no longer has any meaning. Perhaps there are no empires anymore... could that be?--Keerllston 21:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd like us to weed out qualified instances of "superpower" that aren't elaborated on (basically all of them except energy superpower)  I think you may have a good point.  Those phrases may be construed as OR in the sense of neologisms coined by editors.  Naturally you will find ample documentation for the post cold war usage of the unqualified word "superpower" already in the article and some for energy superpower in it's article.Zebulin (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Term

message: Could anyone answer this question about potential superpowers:
What are the chances of Japan ever aspiring to superpowerdom? --Woodelf 04:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: try google scholar but i doubt this is being seriously examined.Zebulin (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After their Devestating expirience during WWII I doubt that the Japanese people want to become a world power, never mind a super power ever again  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.185.82 (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: some of the links in the references section are dead or contain false information, please fix that.
:dead links have no place in the article but which links contain false information and how do you know that they are false?Zebulin (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead links

message: Influential in music, sport, TV, films, art, and fashion. Freedom of speech and other guaranteed rights for residents. Wielded influence by supporting right-wing dictatorships in undeveloped countries but democracy in developed countries. The thing about United States being influentual in sports, is this actually true? I would have thought that Europe and the United Kingdom have been the most influentual in sport for the past few hundred years, with cricket, rugby and football being pretty much the number one world sports. The sports played in America have never really had a global appeal or involvement and in no way was the United States globaly influentual with sports. JayKeaton 12:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, I question a line in an encyclopedia with the intent to improve the articles accuracy and you go all "pointless topics", "waste of time" and "argument"? No need to be a jerk about it. I'm going to put a fact tag on that "scentence" in any case, because I don't really trust a jerks opinion on this at all. JayKeaton 09:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To fair I think apart from the possible exception of baseball and basketball the USSR was about as influential in the sports world as the US.  If we can't find a source to backup the influence of the US on the sporting world during the cold war perhaps that part really should be removed.  Certainly I'm hard pressed to understand how any such influence on sports would contribute to either the USSR's or the USA's superpower status.Zebulin 10:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly my thinking. I meant no malice with my original post about this and I meant no attack on America either. America has been greatly influential with a lot of things that are listed on the article, like movies and music would not be the same without the United States. But sports is not something that the United States has been influential in. Oh, and I meant football as what is known in America as soccer, America's definition of football is played almost exclusively in the United States and isn't seen or significantly followed anywhere else. I would even go as far as to say that the United States not only is not notable in their influence with sports, but that it's global influence with sports is minimal to nil when compared to it's influence in music, finance and films. JayKeaton 11:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet Union and United States comparison 

message: The term use to define, as much as I understand, states-not a union of states-unless they are all under the full mastery of the same central power-this was the case for the former USSR. However, these days super powers are: India (it can be that there is no agreement about it), China, Russia and USA-no less or more. UK and French could be considered, but only by part, as super powers as they both have significant intercontinental military abilities(air craft carriers, huge navy, large bases outside Europe and etc), large stock of nuclear weapons and means to deliver it and to any point on Earth, they are both within the world 10 biggest economies and etc-However, they still missing many characters of super power.
The European Union includes many largely independent states-that's mean-they don't have the same spoken language, they don't have the same civilian rules nor do they have the same international policies many times-they have largely separated economies and etc-so, if one considers the EU as a super power than he/she should consider many other unions -like the Arab league, the forming South American one and etc as super powers as well.--Gilisa (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The strength of wikipedia is also it's weakness.  We must bow to sourced material wherever it is provided over unsourced material.  So long as cite worthy sources can be found making speculations those speculations can find their way into the article and there is no amount of reasoning or, frankly, original research that can justify removing it by wikipedia guidelines.  Your excellent points do not help to remove the european union from the potential superpowers subsection because your points are unsourced (and OR) while the european union case is sourced.  Even if you find sources dismissing the possibility of the european union as a superpower it would not preclude the continued presence of of the attributed statements of other sources to the contrary.  If we are unfortunate enough to see the day that editors dig up some citable source that backs up superpower claims for the arab league or even the Union of South American Nations then we will indeed be stuck with them in the article as well.Zebulin (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Union is '''not''' a super power 

message: ...is, at present, a waste of time. Aside from being the victim of constant change as Russia goes in, goes out, goes in again, which is really not a state any article should have to experience, the level of speculation is far too high. Having articles on specific countries or entities is not a reasonable solution, as any country can become a superpower and, realistically, we are not going to predict it at this time. All of the current suggestions are capable of attaining superpower status. None of them can be verified beyond idle speculation. Example:
1907: The Russian Empire should reasonably be expected to dissolve under outside attack within the next fifty years. Its navy has already been obliterated by the Japanese, it has no significant production capacity, it is agriculturally nonexistent and its cities are not linked by reliable rail or telegraph routes. Were Germany or Japan to invade Russia the result could only be complete annihilation of the largely untrained and under-equipped Russian army. Continued terrorism on the part of Lenin and his associates is likely to require the government's attention which will prevent resources being direted towards vital modernisation policies.
Result: Russian Empire becomes USSR.
1807: Although the British retain control of the shipping routes around Europe, French consolidation and social collapse in Britain make a successful British invasion of Europe a remote possibility at best. The British economy is straining to support vast unemployment while France reaps the benefits of holding the German empires hostage, and has the support of the independent colonies in America. Britain's best hope for survival is to make peace immediately and adopt sweeping reforms based on the French system in order to prevent complete economic breakdown.
Result: France is defeated, Britain becomes global economic powerhouse.
1707: The wealth of raw materials in the New World mean that, with a century of carefully managed construction, the European states will be able to expand slowly and comfortably into new territory as demands of population increase. Since the existing population is small and technologically undeveloped, there is no obvious obstacle preventing a gradual shift of resources and development across the Atlantic. There has been a small increase in the number of voluntary settlements, which can be expected to provide a reliable stream of funding for this project through light taxation.
Result: United States.
My point is that while predictions about Russia, India etc. may be likely, they are not set in stone, as the future is always unpredictable. I could go on at length, as just about every major shift in global power relations was unanticipated, regardless of what 20/20 hindsight tells us.
Therefore, for the Potential Superpowers section, the most important thing to include is a paragraph explaining why none of the predictions are necessarily accurate. With that in mind, it would make sense to remove detailed analyses of how each nation with disgruntled editors plans to make its way to hegemony. Every country has a potential route: some are more likely than others, but there is no point in a section entirely dedicated to speculation. The section would do well to avoid subdivisions, and simply examine the few, general factors that can be assessed such as economic strength, and their impact on a global level, without specific predictions which are at best unverifiable and at worst, propaganda.
Sorry for the rant. Leushenko (talk) 13:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm 100% with you about this (and about the rant). Let's take the EU, which is the most marketing example to me, it is wrote that all together the EU military power is by far the second in its might-and of course, there are also citations to support this-but let's carefully examine it: 1. when it come to speculations about the future there are always articles and experts to cite about anything-many times only few of them are valid, if at all, when the time is come. 2. in the EU there is the Spanish army, the Italian, the German, the British, the French, Austrian, Polish, Greek and etc-very impressive power in did, but first-these are totally different armies not only by their language, quality and doctrines -but also by their loyalty as well-let's say that tomorrow Russia will attack Hungary, or treat it with its Nuclear arsenal (which is the largest and by far) would the Italians, only for example, put their life's at risk to protect the "EU"-I don't think so, since the all idea behind the EU is to enlarge the world influence of European cultures against USA and others and mainly to elevate the life quality within it. Samuel Huntington would say that the basic conditions for the existence for EU or any other union is them to have a similar common culture, history, languages, racial origins and etc-of course, each of these criterions is differently weighed but the principle is that North Europeans, at least by part of the scholars would not, for example, sacrifice their life's to save East Europeans which are profoundly different from them-culturally mainly, the race is less important and the differences are not big. Not only that, but the size of Europe is significantly smaller than this of Russia, so is the nuclear arsenals and the means to deliver them that the European states possess, the Russian population is equal in its size to those of Germany and UK together, and we yet didn't discussed Putin, the Russian controversial president who now making serious moves to reunite between Russia and Belorussia-this is only the beginning (he also trying to get control on Ukraine as well) and he is very well aware to the heavy dependence of the EU on Russia's oil and gas provisions. The present status is like that: USA have, by far, the strongest military force, specialized with power projection around the world (the largest, and by far, air carriers-not to mention that they have nuclear engines-which means that theoretically their range is unlimited), it also, still, have the largest economy, the second nuclear arsenal size (but it make no difference as both those of Russia and USA can wipe up the entire world population many times) and the most sophisticated delivery means (satellite bombers for example), it's size is almost equal to this of Europe and two fold larger if we consider Canada as their backyard (after all they not only share the same borders and language, but also many other things), and population size which is bigger than these of French, Italy, Germany and UK in sum: so it truly a Super power. Russia, aside for its size, population and what I already mention have about 300 nuclear submarines (however, most are inactive by now) Nuclear air carriers (the only state, as far as I know, that possess such air carriers) -by now only one is active but it carries about 60 air crafts (assault helicopters and jet bombers/fighters) (while those of French and UK can carry only 25 each) the second largest air-force and the second largest , and well experienced, infantry. China posses the third largest air force, huge navy (including self-made advanced nuclear submarines), the biggest infantry and more than 700 nuclear war heads (it is enough to destroy any country or continent) which it can launch to any where it would like to. China size is very similar to this of entire Europe and it's population size exceeding it by far (1.25 billion citizens), not to mention that this is the second largest economy after USA. As for India-which is the 4 or 3 largest economy today and it's population size is second only to China, however -much details about it's military force are unknown to me and any way it dont possess a laerge enouge nuclear arsenal for a super power and its size is about one third, more or less, of China. Regarding the European Union, it is not really a union-people in Germany have a completly different culture, belives, economy, welfare, legal system and ideologies than those of Portugal for example-so, the EU cant be a super power. There are two criterions for a state to be a super power: 1. that no other state can conquer it (all of the nuclear powers practiaclly fulfill this criteria )2. that it can conquer all the other countries aside from those which cant be conquerd--Gilisa (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All original research.  You need to find a source who says it all for you.Zebulin (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question whether to treat the EU as one entity that therefore can be accounted as "Super Power" is not about WP:OR but rather a very concrete one: why should the European union would considered as super power while, for instance, NATO is not considered as such even if it clear to all that it have all the capacities to be considered  as such but the term should be referred to states, not to  alliances-and the EU is an alliance not a real union-that's way a EU citizen can work any country within the alliance he would like to, but he can only vote in the place where he have citizenship. As for sources-I'll do it a.s.a.p.--Gilisa (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have NATO in the article purely because we don't have a source that calls NATO a superpower...yet.  Sadly when someone finally finds and adds a source declaring NATO to be a superpower we will be stuck with it.Zebulin (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Rome was not a country? well, you should rethink about it-there was one Roman senate, one Roman Caesar whose authorities were absolute-who is the Caesar of the EU (Sarkozy? Markel?) not to mention that Rome ruled over many other countries over most of the known world because it was a superpower and not the opposite..More on that, Rome was, along with Cartage, the only regime who had the ability to project substantial powers toward significant distance. To claim that EU is superpower is ridiculous, but if it make people feel good to think so than I can't fight it..--Gilisa (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential Superpowers section 

message: The NYT article Waving Goodbye to Hegemony by PARAG KHANNA is probably the most influential statement concerning global geopolitics currently available.
It should be a reference for several sections and can be used as a blueprint for a major overhaul. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Times on Geopolitics in the 21st century 

message: Here is a reference for the African Union as a potential superpower.
http://www.africanexecutive.com/modules/magazine/articles.php?article=506  —Preceding unsigned comment added by THE DJA (talk • contribs) 20:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  African Union as a superpower - reference 

message: China is already the largest agricultural producer of the world while the EU rivals the USA in industrial output.
Russia is not the same as USSR. India and Russia do not come anywhere near even Japan in output, investment and trade. So, they should not be included as superpowers. A population of a country is its asset only if they are skilled, fed, housed, clothed, educated, trained and provided with tools, capital and enterprise-level experiences. Otherwise, by default, population is a liability to the nation.
Let India and Russia first scramble and feed all their people and avoid starvation deaths before going on wild goose chases on empire and colonies. Otherwise, we can easily include South Africa as a superpower as its economy is 35% of Africa or Saudi Arabia as a superpower as its oil ministry policy announcements are closely watched by central banks in other countries including the EU and the USA. 
Sooner or later, reason must prevail over this article. This is a encyclopaedia not a cuckooland for nurturing fantasies. So please remove the sections and sentences about Russia, Brazil, India and all other poor Third World nations.PlusDrawn (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your POV'd view of the world is extremely ignorant and not based on facts at all. It's not up to your own ignorant opinion to decide who to include and not include, that's why we use reliable sources with every edit we make. And your assertions that Russia is a "third world" country is false. Please see: this article, this one and this one. Further, China IS a third world country. But current status doesn't even matter because we're not talking about the countries being superpowers right now. Krawndawg (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Third World

message: One sentence at the end of the post-1991 section IS ALL THIS TOPIC NEEDS. Please refrain from adding ANY information on why these countries can and cannot become superpowers, and FTLOG don't add any more to the list right now. Leushenko (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Current status of section

message: This is from last May, how did we miss this?
"U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried, said: “Russia has restored its position of a large political and economic force recently.”"
adding: "Washington acknowledges the consequences of that process, negative for it: “Russia’s strengthening has been accompanied by a cooldown in its relations with the U.S.”."
Using the word "restored", that can only be referring to pre-1991 influence. Interesting. This might warrant a revamp of Russias section in the potential superpower section, or at the very least, removal of Barry Buzan's opinion, since it seems rather dated and contradictory to todays reality. Krawndawg (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article by Kommersant stating Russia is a superpower, is also backed with a complete source information from U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried on his discussion about why Russia is a superpower, you fail to seek his full discussion on why is made that statement but he has made it clear with the Europe Union that Russia stands as a superpower once again. Read his comments here--64.69.158.252 (talk) 05:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

text: too much interpretation.  "restored" admits to degrees.  Certainly few, if any, of our definitions of "superpower" set the bar so low as "a large political and economic force".Zebulin (talk) 04:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean to say we should write them in as a second superpower, they've still got a long ways to go for that. But when Washington starts saying things like that, on top of already admitting they're the "indisputable" number two military power, that pretty much completely debunks the Barry Buzan paragraph. Krawndawg (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Washington Acknowledges Russia as Superpower

message: This is 21st century. USSR is dead. It means only the USA is the remaining superpower. There are no ifs and buts. Learn to live with it.
Incase you are unaware, the non-oil GDP of Russia in 2007 was smaller than the non-oil GDP of London or even Turkey, which I still regard as the sick man of Europe.
If Turkey is sick, then China and India are worse than that. They are dying, if not already dead, civilisations.Anwar (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: do you support removing the potential superpowers section as speculative?Zebulin (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. That speculative section on "potential" superpower is not adding any value to the article. Infact it diverts the readers' attention from the gist of the article.Anwar (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What's wrong with you people?

message: I hope nobody misses the huge potential superpowers section too badly.  I have to say the article is looking far more encyclopedic without it.Zebulin (talk) 08:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am cool with it, but I think that we should be more suspicious regarding sources which named EU as  super-power. The implications of considering EU as super-power are that many other unions will sooner or later, unjust fly find their way into the article. More, as I am familiar with the military abilities of European countries, My personal (original research, I know) opinion is that even if the EU was one country, it still can't be the second world power-may be the fourth after USA, Russia and China.--Gilisa (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is [] this person any of you? He is vandalizing the article by removing important information and cites this discussion to justify his actions. JTBX (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An admin could easily determine if it's someone with an account but I rather suspect it's another anon editor.  In any event could you explain how the information removed was at all important or how the edits listed could be construed as vandalism?Zebulin (talk) 06:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article improvement 

message: France was the largest society and economy in Europe in circa 1800. France had the second largest colonial empire in Europe in circa 1900. France threatened to veto several times US/UN resolutions in the 20th century. It was the French Revolution, not the American Revolution, that triggered the rise of nationalism worldwide over the past two centuries.
I bet more people loved to name, talk, eat, drink, dress and dance like French or Arab; than like Russian, Chinese or Japanese in circa 2000. This is extraordinary cultural hegemony without the use of force. 
So I am surprised, the words France and Arabia are conspicuous by absence in this article on super-powers.Anwar (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find some reliable sources that call them superpowers, go right ahead and add it. Krawndawg (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: France & Arabia

message: ...switching from the defensive to the aggressive. To those who keep adding it - why on Earth does this article need a potential superpowers section? You're breaking standard policies and introducing cruft to an otherwise decent article. Please, justify or desist. And please, under no circumstances use your own country as an example to back up any logic as to why it should be on the list. Leushenko (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No, seriously 

message: I have some issues with the image displaying the durations of past superpowers. The Soviet Union is fine, and I don't know enough about the Spanish Empire to comment on its duration, although it's not one of the three "canonical" superpowers. More importantly, what is the justification for Britain's superpower status way back in the 17th century, or the USA's superpower status since the early nineteenth century?
1815 or thereabouts is a good time to start thinking of Britain as a superpower, as it had become the dominant power in Europe, which it wasn't previously (which would necessitate the inclusion of France). Similarly it was after this point that Empire-building really took off. Meanhile the United States didn't really make its name as a superpower until after the First World War; what did it do of any note on a global scale before that? If anything the timeline seems to imply rather counterintuitively that being defeated in a minor war is a good time to start being considered a superpower. Leushenko (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We need sources for the graph to work, but I think sources for either wwI or the Spanish American war might be found as some sort of start date for a status of superpower for the US.  It will likely be a bit more difficult to source the start of that status for the British empire if only because it sees so much less discussion published in connection with the concept of "superpower".  In the meantime I think we need to remove the graph until the sources are identified.Zebulin (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It's original research and seems very inaccurate to me. Both America and the USSR became superpowers at the same time following WWII for starters, and I don't recall learning in history class about "superpower Spain of the 19th century". Krawndawg (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline graph thing 

message: The european union is a collection of states, no different then NATO. It cannot be considered a single state. considering no one government or man controls it. Infact, for instance, germany itself is an emerging superpower, with the 3rd largest economy and plans to revamp its bundeswehr. or what about france? one of the largest nuclear stockpiles and largest military spending in europe.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.119.215 (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, after all, NATO has a common currency, a common economy, and a constitution. Sure the EU is not fully a state but it is far from NATO(nothing more than a mutual defense pact) and a better comparison would be a mix of OPEC and the African Union but with a constitution. 128.227.139.150 (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Constitutions are wonderful things domestically but how do they have any bearing whatsoever on the functioning of a political unit in it's role as a "superpower"?  The only parts of a constitution that would be relevant would be those that grant power to the supranational institutions that can actually act on behalf of the entire "superpower" marshalling all of it's resources.  When people talk about things like common currency, common constitution, common national anthems, etc, it generally has no relevance to the superpower status of anything because it doesn't provide the "superpower" with any additional power or ability to use the power of it's constiuent political units.Zebulin (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The European Union, while not a single country in the traditional sense, does have closer ties including shared laws and a mostly-shared currency, as well as a degree of military homogenization. There isn't really a good past precedent of an entity like it - in my personal opinion it does qualify as a unified economic area and makes sense as a single 'superpower' rather than separately analysing the larger/more powerful members. ~ mazca talk 17:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: European union

message: Many people are wondering about the United States and its recession economy as if its still a superpower with the Iraq war, falling US dollar , high US minimum wages being outsourced for Chinese labor, a high unemployment rate, credit crisis through US foreign policy spending, US inflation  from the Federal Reserve lowing interest rates too low, a housing crisis, dependence from oil & high gas prices and etc. Where does the United States stand as a superpower versing Russia’s current superpower status? Read at these sources here to see how the United States is losing or is now considered a former superpower: 
Now there is Russia a superpower (the United States only real counter partner as  
as a superpower     because they have the economics , the wealth , the diplomatic power , ideological  , technological power & advances  than any other country besides the United States (look here on why the US is losing its superpower status read here:) recognizes Russia as a superpower , they have the cultural sector and lets not forget their military forces (supreme). Russia is also the largest military arsenal producer in the world (they hold 73% of the worlds military arsenals market) and they have the worlds largest nuclear weapons arsenal than another other country (newer & older which many are reconditioned as new again) which is 5 times greater than the US has. 
So Russia is a Superpower and lets not forget a Space Superpower, remember Russia has a Mar's mission coming up in 2015 to 2024, also a Moon space station planned for 2015 without NASA but Russia going by itself; which NASA is out of funding due to a poor current US economy, 2007 & 2008. I do not start this article to brag about how wonderful Russia is, I started it because I am an American and I am seeing how the US is becoming a former superpower; even though I admire Russia as a country, I also admire my own country (USA) too.
Russia is a Superpower, that's plenty of facts in the bag to state they are in that position. The United State's position ), think what they are in for, a lot in the bag on the whole US economy on all sorts of issues, so we need to understand our Congress has put a lot of our problems right in front of us. US Congressman Ron Paul was the only presidential candidate who would have saved the US as a superpower and our country. We cannot regret Russia is a superpower once again, that was always predicted they would achieve that goal and good for them, they stuck to their dreams and they brought it back. The US has done the opposite and we are heading down down the economic depression  tube to a great power nation because of Congress, Unions, Corporate greed and oil.
If you want to save the US as a superpower, stop buying from US companies made in China (look for the labels and try to buy made in America only, store like Costco, Walmart, K-Mart, Best Buy, Staples and more are companies that buy made in China goods and we Americans buy these things by the millions each day), second visit Congress personally and request to bring down the US minimum wage and request to cap wages too high to cap them or lower high salaries so greed is enforced to stop US inflation. Read here as if we don’t do something we we’ll really suffer as China’s minimum wage is $.25 cents an hour as China has used its low labor population power to put their country on the Superpower front and we made that happen, please read an listen to this link:    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Versace11 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States vs. Russia as Superpowers 

message: "After the Cold War, the most common belief held is that only the United States and Russia fulfill the criteria's to be considered superpowers,[2] (though it is not considered to be hegemonic) but the question now is, is the United States still a superpower or is it no longer a superpower?[3][4][5] [6][7][8] Also, some alternate theories believe Russia is a superpower [9][10][11][12][13][14][15] because they have the economics [16][17], the wealth[18][19], the diplomatic power [20][21],ideological[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. The China and European Union, are thought to have the potential of achieving superpower status within the 21st century.[34]" 
First things first the usa is still a super power, russia may or may not be a super power and if this is the case, the eu is stronger the russia, just someone please fix this terrible edit. Oh and if this paragraph is stating that us is no longer a super power and that russia is than its clearly bias  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.60.57 (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say one thing that does need changing is the references and the grammar. Adding 12 references after ideological is silly when it's not even clear what it's saying. Ideological what? Is it meant to say idealogically instead? If it is, the references don't support it. Adding 12 references that are saying something very vaguely in the same direction as what you want to claim isn't the same as providing references that actually support your claim. I suggest removing any references that don't directly say that Russia is a superpower or that there are theories that it's a supoerpower, i.e. remove all 12 of them, as none of them do. I'm not saying that it is or isn't a super power (I don't get "superpower envy" as I've heard it's what you do with it rather than the size that matters) I'm just saying stop with the silly references that don't say what you claim they're saying. Ha! (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please change this edit 

message: if you read threw the article it keeps saying that the us is decling and has lost its super power status and russia has taken its place, i think this article should just reflect on the acual facts and not what anti usa and russian nationlist keep putting in this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.60.57 (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article seems to be a bit anti US 

message: Things seem to be heating up here.  Please focus on sourcing material to recognized experts in international affairs, or else try dispute resolution. DurovaCharge! 18:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest dispute resolution 

message: I happened to listen to John McCaim today on television about his new foreign policy issues. It is interesting to note that a US Senator making statements about the nuclear arms race of today and how he quoted that the 2 superpowers on tv this morning (Russia and the United States) on more disarmament but also military commitments on patrolling the middle east from nuclear conflicts. Claiming that Russia can destroy the world with a quarter of its total nuclear arsenal and that Russia has a lot of power with its international relations & global strategy with countries the US can't meet the eyes with. Russia's allies are the US's enemies or why the US can't control the countries it needs to influence and Russia can. It seems that with all of the US's NATO member countries, not one of them can influence any dangerous country or potential dangerous country than non-NATO Russia.
That right there says what Russia is and their importance on a global scale, which is beyond a world power country can do; which clearing states that Russia is no world power. A superpower has the ability to influence nations and countries together on major conflicts that interact with other nations that cannot. World powers are limited powers and are not global enough to make a stance which can lead to nation threats to war who cannot defend their own sovereignty or countries they bring on to the table. John McCain made these comments and reputably repeated the word Russia over 67 times in a 22 minute speech.  
Obviously to the US, Russia has the economic potential plate to build anything they want and influence the world on a global scale. I mean why would he say to the public that Russia is the new influence on foreign policy; and act of will or an act of desperation? It is clear that the US has to look at Russia as its partner to the world on a global front if it needs an act of influence since the US cannot control its global policy. Both countries have the four axes of power on superpower influences than any other country; there is no question that both can destroy the world over and over again but who is not clearly strong enough where another can. I see Russia as either the potential or the second superpower, nothing lower. I’ll post the speech on youtube to prove it. .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradmorrisusa (talk • contribs) 21:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You prove the cause here, good points, why isn't Russia on the article as a superpower? Are people still trying to keep the fact Russia is superpower off the main page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.158.252 (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find it very interesting that here we have people who say Russia is a superpower and then we have people people who say it isn't a superpower, especially AI009 but with the right sources when it says it is, AI009 refuses to believe anything. This user is making the rules on here all to himself. We are dealing with a monopoly system here, a 18 year old kid AI009 says the content he wants and then he uses Adminstrators to protect his locked speech from everybody else and nobody gets to say there facts on the article. I think we have a real serious issue with this user AI009. When the facts are up, they may last 10 minutes and user AI009 just goes in and takes all the content out how he likes it. This guy is anti Russian, you can't say anything about Russia or bring any new link source, it is just disapproved asap. No ifs or butts, talk about crooked. --24.180.3.127 (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No ifs or buts? I compromised and agreed on having "there is a debate regarding Russia's status as a superpower.." but you were adamant on removing the word debate too. Listen, I want all sides to be represented equally here since this is an encyclopedia. You can cry, bang your head to the wall, call me a "big fat liar", "Nazi", "crooked" anything.. but unless you fail to provide reliable sources saying Russia is a superpower and not just an energy superpower or potential superpower, I'll keep reverting your edits. If you continue, I'll have to take up this case to Arbitration Committee because not only you are spreading nationalistic statements on Wikipedia, you are also making highly uncivil remarks against me. My case here is for everyone to see. --AI009 (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why this discussion community disapproves of you AI009. I think your threatening everybody here. --75.15.144.72 (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we try to keep the discussion on track, please discuss the issue not the editor.  I see no evidence of any threats. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Russia is a Superpower 

message: ===Statement by users involved in the dispute===
*Most sources that are cited supporting statements that Russia is a superpower are either unreliable, or state Russia is a energy superpower or a potential superpower. Russia is not a superpower and if it is, then so are China, EU and India by logic. --AI009 (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was 19 years ago, that isn't now. Russia is back on the superpower status, read the facts. Only 2 countries can destroy the world, that is Russia and United States, world powers cannot do that. The question is now, is the US is a superpower still or not, I don't support Ondra2, he's way off on the matter.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all irrelevant, as the current page supports both sides by stating that there is a debate regarding Russia and the United States status as superpowers. This whole argument is strangely pointless. Saruman20 (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute over Russia's status as a superpower 

message: *Most sources that are cited supporting statements that Russia is a superpower are either unreliable, or state Russia is a energy superpower or a potential superpower. Russia is not a superpower and if it is, then so are China, EU and India by logic. --AI009 (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was 19 years ago, that isn't now. Russia is back on the superpower status, read the facts. Only 2 countries can destroy the world, that is Russia and United States, world powers cannot do that. The question is now, is the US is a superpower still or not, I don't support Ondra2, he's way off on the matter.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all irrelevant, as the current page supports both sides by stating that there is a debate regarding Russia and the United States status as superpowers. This whole argument is strangely pointless. Saruman20 (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by users involved in the dispute

message: I am starting this topic on user AI009, in the last several weeks I have seen and witnessed a lot of stirred conflicts but also a lot of misleading information by user AI009. User AI009 is making statements after statements (a 18 year old) about how Russia is not this and not that, a lot of hogwash and more trash is being stirred out by this anti Russian baloney. You can't say anything with this user hogging these articles without him, it is a constant cat dog game here. I am reading a lot of discussions and I have Googled "AI009" , this guy thinks he is God here. The content is according to him, he is making his statements that I certaintly cannot understand why but I am seeing an anti Russian member here who is taking the positon to use this Superpower articles about who he thinks everything should be. Ok, I don't agree with this person and I think he should be banned where  should be in college studying instead of discriminating Russia or whatever message your trying to imput here because this is ridiculious people don't have a right to discuss anything here when user thinks he a cop above the law. I see other users also fustrated with user AI009 and I think this is turning into too much falsehood that no one can trust the content on Wikipedia on these issues. Oh know, whats the point here when we have an 18 year old kid who is making this his website.  Get off, do something else, write a book or something if you want to speak or say something anti Russian because you are doing what is not the best interest of anything here, your making this a cartoon not an information source and I don't like it.
He is only states thing that you disagree with, and this is attacking someone, if i recall you arent allowed to do that on wiki so please no attacking. If i had my way there would be no super power section, it bring out national pride which isnt always a good thing and creates biasness over ones country.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.60.57 (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In bubble, as along as this AI009 guy continues to stay on, he'll keep undoing the current Russia superpower sources. I think people need to really record this guy and show everyone here. I looked at his talk page and noticed warnings flags on undoing content, so he certaintly knows he's putting people down just he refuses to listen or hear the feedback. Again, this is his war game, he'll play war on here until someone either steals his computer or if finds himself a girlfriend because this guy has a lot of time to fight with people.--75.15.144.72 (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute on user AI009 and articles on Potential Superpower & Superpowers