Talk:Superpower/Archive 4

message: I want to get this clarified with everyone. I reverted this version of the page as it struck me as incorrect in its factuality. But it would be interesting if there were any clear reason to call the European Union as a superpower and then later call China and India superpowers. Get it through, they're potential and some people wouldn't even call them emerging, the European Union is not yet a superpower because it is not yet considered a nation as a whole by all of the world. 
:What difference does that make? Guinnog 06:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who says? Where is the consensus on that definition? Where are the references? Guinnog 06:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you getting so edgy on it? I'm not going to argue on whether the United States is a superpower, of course it is. Being an Indian, I am not blinded by the rapid growth of my nation's economy and military, I see that it is not ready to be placed with the United States, and neither is China. When the U.S. goes to war, the world shakes, everyone reckons the world is going to change. The E.U., China and India hardly ever go to war, but I know that when Indian troops fight and die in front of Kashmiri Terrorists, they get one eighth of the publicity that the United States soldier would. Same with European and Chinese troops. The criteria and definitions including the origins were picked from a site that I accessed around December. It was not I who added it, but at the time it was pretty plagiarized and needed a bit of rephrasing. I can no longer find the site but it was some sort of Global Society with a .org at the end, so it was a fair source. In reference to your note on my talk page, just because an article is bad doesn't mean you allow it to become worse, like you implied. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 06:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That should be done. In fact before Sep. 11 many would say nations like India were having more trouble with terrorists that the United States. It's a very one-sided perspective that is presented on most terrorism-related articles, on and off Wikipedia. Anyway, signing up should be easy, you don't even need to present any information and you are signed up in a second. Hope you can contribute to these articles further. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 09:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important Note on Vandalism 

message: As I think this article needs some NPOV editing, I've decided to take a crack at it, but before editing an article which has a good potential of being reverted, I'd like to listen to some of y'all's input on one proposed change; if there is any.
Currently:
Currently there is only one superpower: the United States. It is considered a hyperpower in a unipolar world. There are also three accepted emerging superpowers: the European Union, China, and India. These are currently considered major powers.
My Changes:
Currently, there is believed to exist only one superpower, the United States; which is sometimes considered a hyperpower in a unipolar world.  The current accepted major and regional powers; the European Union, China, and India currently appear to have the greatest potential of achieving superpower or near-superpower status within the 21st century.
I feel that the second paragraph in the beginning has too short of sentences and claims the EU, PRC, and India are already major powers and will become superpowers, plus it doesn't explain when.  The reason I switched to major and regional powers, is because although India has a large population and a fast growing economy, it's current political and military progress hasn't achieved the status at which it can affect the global community as say the UK.  China has a similiar issue with it's military, which was, and/or still is, based on defense and localized warfare, and it doesn't appear to have the ability to wage war around the world as easily as a more established major power.
So what do y'all think eh? - Rudykog 07:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that sort of stuff won't be reverted. Only really POV stuff or unexplained things get reverted. The intro and stuff aren't sources of too much controversy, remember Be Bold. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 07:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit ideas

message: Just wanted to notify you guys that I've created a plan of action on the talk page for power (international) which will hopefully stop the contradictions to the pages Major power and Superpower that are listed there. So if you reckon you can help, just a little bit of effort can make that page worthwile in around a week. Thanks. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 05:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Power (international)]]

message: Sorry to get involved in such a disputed topic...but here goes.  I was reading the article and came to: 
"The USA spends more on its military than the next twelve countries combined. It has the second largest nuclear arsenal (after Russia) and combines some of the world's most technologically advanced weapons systems, although it continues to struggle to subdue irregular insurgents in Iraq three years after invading the country."
I edited the section of that statement that implies a bias POV in regards to Iraq.  I felt it was relatively clear that the statement really doesn't fit in that subsection nor does it relate the true complexities of the situation in Iraq.   This really doesn't have as much to do with shear military might but more to do with complex political issues in dealing with religion and people in the area.  The US could crater the entire middle east if it so desired and leave a smoking hole in the gound...there would be no "struggle" if simple weaponized power was the sole mediator.  Anyway, my edit was reverted so I just wanted to add my 2 cents.  I won't continue to edit this article as clearly it's a tar pit of POV and such already.  J Shultz 21:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted it. See discussion under 'Iraq War' above. It's a lousy article but it doesn't get any better for portraying the US military in a simplistic way. Guinnog 03:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Struggle with Iraq 

message: Like the Soviet/America table. Whoever did that, well done :D Trip: The Light Fantastic 16:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is very good. But it's been there for a while now hasn't it? Nobleeagle  (Talk) 23:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, well, I'm sorry! Trip: The Light Fantastic 02:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Table

message: I've just reverted this again. It seems obvious to me we cannot mention the strong US economy without mentioning the debt, any more than you can use military strength without Iraq, or the space program without the STS problems. Guinnog 13:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, you sound like you are implicitly trying to insert negativity that may not be justified in fact for the Iraq issue.  Once again I compare the Iraq issue as a function the USA's total millitary power.  Insurgent or millitia violence is not really a function of a superpowers ability to craterize the country with precision guided munitions, if that were needed it could be accomplished easily.  The millitary can not do that however for obvious social reasons so therefore you will always have simmering violence in a case where a faction does not like the occupying force. It's more politics than millitary firepower. J Shultz 10:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I do appreciate the points you make. As I think I said, a lot of the fault in this article seems to come from the OR way the criteria are set up. As they are, they make no mention of power per capita, either financial or military. If we inserted this, we could maybe have Sweden as a military (certainly an aerospace) superpower, and Monaco or Lichtenstein as a financial one. While this would perhaps be rather fun, I think you'll agree it wouldn't reflect reality. I've reverted for now, until we can come up with a better way to describe the US status in a NPOV way, ie without suppressing uncomfortable facts. Guinnog 12:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection, this is maybe more flippant than I meant to be. NPOV is difficult, and having these criteria makes this article difficult to keep NPOV. If we mention the US strength in certain areaas, it seems to me we have to mention any weaknesses in those areas too.Guinnog 14:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: debt number on it's whon is apsolutly minigless.internal debt,from the peopol of the contry it's self,is no thret,american's don't have intrest to put ther whon contry into bancrapsy.wat's umportant is external debt,foreners don't care for the contry,they just want the'r many.for example japan belgium italy have huge debts but 90% of it's towards ther whon citizens.on the other hand argentina or some other third world countrys they have huge external debts.think it like that,if all the contries of the world are in debt, how's the creditor then,marsians?--Ruber chiken 22:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Debt

message: Have a look at
this, obviously no consensus was ever made on this issue. Right?
Its worth nothing that the reference source from Global CPR, which this Superpower article is based on, does classify RUS as a Potential superpower. (Of course as RUS attempts to regain the Superpower status in the foreseeable future there are still a lot of factors playing a major role in thwarting progress) I believe that on wikipedia a reference source, if exist, has higher authority than simply talk-page discussion/consensus.
Opinions?
mainbody</b> 
I think concensus was that it should stay off the Potential Superpowers list. No-one's even noticed since (I certainly didn't), which says alot about Russia's superpower status. I'll take Russia off the list for now, but if you can shift opinion back towards Russia, then by all means it can go on. 
Personally I think Russia is a dying nation and will possibly not even survive for much longer, never mind be a superpower. Trip: The Light Fantastic 00:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I know what NPOV stands for, but I also know what OR stands for and we don't want OR on Wikipedia. By the way, does anyone mind if I put the Emerging Superpowers articles for Japan, Russia and Brazil up for deletion as they are practically copies of the sections on Major power. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 01:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and see this for consensus. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 01:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I do mind.  If you don't like Russia, Brazil or whatever, Wikipedia is not the place to say so.  There are arguements for and against Russia's (re)rise as a superpower.  Why do you want to remove it?  Wikipedia is NPOV, like I said, and we should represent all points of view here.  Deleting the Russia, or any other potential superpower articles violates NPOV.  European Eunion isn't even a country.  I think Russia has a better chance of becoming a superpower than the EU just for the fact that the EU could possible dissolve.--68.170.86.111 01:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How have you drawn to the conclusion that I don't like Russia and Brazil?? Consensus was reached in the past. I think it is you who is trying to enforce his/her own POV. You say that deleting any Potential Superpower article violates NPOV, so if someone got up and created Potential Superpowers - Bermuda would it be a violation of NPOV to delete it? Nobleeagle  (Talk) 04:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Please be fully informed before taking things as consensus. Russia was nominated late along with Japan and Brazil while the original nomination was for India, the EU and China. Nobody knew that the Russian one existed and it was therefore nominated late, the results of that AfD do not prove anything. By the way, I see you have ignored the [true consensus. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 00:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the main problem with new superpowers creation it the absence of anternate ideology than liberalism. If a country becomes powerful, it still cannot become superpower unless 1.It developes sufficient universal alternative ideology, suitable to oppose western liberalism, or 2.It becomes the leader of the liberal ideology instad of the USA. So the problem of new superpower formation is not the problem of economic development of some countries, but the problem of absence of alternative ideology. If such ideology apeares, the country, suitable to become superpower under this banner will not be difficult to find. The same problem with Russia: there is no suitable ideology exist.--Nixer 10:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia disqualified as 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 externel 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.it's the flat earth theory of oure time.you don't vote truth.
the subgect is not simple ,and a one paragraph is insufitiant but if i write more it will not be readable.--Ruber chiken 23:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  no superpower/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 23:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  militairy critirion