Talk:Superpower/Archive 5

message: 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)
replies: text: Please with over 100 references and dozens of external links what more do you want? Nobleeagle  (Talk) 06:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: * 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)
thread_title:  India is a potential superpower? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  multipolar world 

message: 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)
thread_title:  militairy critirion /biger the better? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Potential "blurbs"

message: "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.Signaturebrendel 06:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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, Signaturebrendel 17:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Signaturebrendel 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Incorrect Reference to the United States

message: 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)
thread_title:  usa overestimated 

message: 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. Signaturebrendel 19:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing Sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  political entitys that wherent contreys 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spelling and Grammar on this page 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: No problem I alreade reformated the links, utilizing the citing template. Thank you for all those great sources. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new references 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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, Signaturebrendel 19:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Signaturebrendel 01:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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, Signaturebrendel 01:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. Signaturebrendel 16:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Calm down!

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: chame on you,we will torter you and kill you.--Ruber chiken 20:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Har, har, har. Come and play fetch you sea dog. Intangible 21:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global CPR 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 ;-). Signaturebrendel 17:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: This is not for you to decide, either. Remember that. Trip: The Light Fantastic 17:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other views

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. Signaturebrendel 02:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: We are? (That's funny) Signaturebrendel 05:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inherent contradiction

message: While we debate about facts, you can show your beliefs via userboxes, put any of these on your userpage to reflect your views:
* 
* 
* 
* 
Enjoy, I created them to lighten up the debate a little bit. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 07:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it! Thanks. Signaturebrendel 04:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is a superpower?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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, Signaturebrendel 20:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just rephrased it. Aesthetically, it works. --Bobblehead 20:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Thank you, the rephrase caption works great. Regards, Signaturebrendel 21:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic Freedom Map