Talk:Superpower/Archive 2

message: Just a minor correction. France has the 6th largest economy in the world, not the 5th. California is #5.
::Pardon the ignorance but California? Is that a country or is it part of the USA or some other political entity all together?
:::France should be 6th at Market exchange rates behind US, Japan, Germany, China, and UK.--Todd Kloos 06:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: California will be listed in fifth place as soon as Führer Schwarzenegger declares independence.(Wfgiuliano 01:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: France

message: I'd just like to get a little bit of consensus here. Who else apart from me agrees that the edits by User:Junlee containing some WP:POV statements that violate Wikipedia rules regarding WP:NPOV? What is the best course of action to take? I realise the very nature of the article makes for POV statements, but we need some way to distinguish between opinion, fact, and unfair use of facts. Jombo 01:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Junlee and China POV

message: "Chinese entrepreneurs built extensive global network through innovative management skills and taking risk. The Chinese are also building global level companies through merger and acquisition. 
Reports have shown that China is not only a major manufacturing export country, but also moving up to become a high-tech product export country. During 2005, China's high-tech export is about 80 million US dollars. The Chinese government also put great efforts to push for exporting medical supplies and software. [3]"
I added these two points under economy in China. I here to ask anyone wants to refute my editing?
:Is there any proof that you are able to present? It is common knowledge that China is not the most technologically advanced nation in Asia, a sport firmly held by Japan. It is clear that a turn to Robotics would destroy China's Manufacturing Industry and put millions of people back into proverty. It is also clear that China's currency is undervalued, a point you simply deleted in order to brighten up the image of China. But it can be seen that all you wish to do is delete the point of other wikipedia users and add your own...the Points Against the Rise of a Chinese Superpower is rather short and would astonish any knowledgeable reader of the article.
::China has indeed become the world's largest exporter of high-tech products.  However, that is a bit misleading because many of the exported products are based on imported components and only have the final assembly in China.  Still, China's technology is improving at a very rapid pace, and I don't think that a shift to robotics would hurt China as much as you believe.  China has also become the world's largest producer of scientists and engineers, which should help China sucessfuly adapt to new technologies.--Todd Kloos 21:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, JunLee, How are you? Thank you for inviting me here. I am interested in this article. But I am afraid that I cannot totally agree with you about the points you made. Firstly, I don't agree that China and India should be compared and decided who is stronger. We are still weak. Do you think China or India is stronger than the other one will solve any problem. If compare, compare to US. And secondly, I think to mention BRIC in superpower is a mistake. They are not superpowers and this made this article too long. And finally, it's natural that people have different (sometimes opposite) opinions. That's wikipedia's advantage. So please don't delete others' sentences. Your contributions about China in this article are good. Let's show some positive pictures of today's China. Don't pay attention to those negative points. Readers will read and judge. Xiaojeng 05:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: China: Ecnomic part

message: Since superpower nowadays is US only and in the past were US and SU. Why don't we discribe them only and move BRIC to another item like emerging superpower? We can also move France, Germany, Japan, GB to majorpower? This item is too long. I don't have patience to finish reading it. :) Xiaojeng 02:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, do you think there is some good solution for it? How about cut it short and change it to a general description and make items like India as superpower, China as superpower, UK as superpower, etc?Xiaojeng 05:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will it be good to move BRIC to something like [[emerging superpower]]? 

message: It seems that this 1962 war, only 15 years after India gained independence, has been brought up as a valid point to degrade India's military and a matter of a pride for the Chinese military. An emphatic victory though it was, it has little representation of today's Indian military. After the war, the Indian military regrouped and private government enquiries were held on the subject. A series of measures taken upgraded the Military substantially, which led to India conquering much of Pakistan's land in the war of 1971, including the creation of Bangladesh.
The most recent sign of military tensions between India and China was in the 1980s, which led to the creation of Arunachal Pradesh, a state that China claims belongs to the PRC. However, China does not wish to do anything about it? Why? Because they cannot risk open war with India, especially when India may use it to make a bit for Tibetan Independence.
:Hey, what's your point? You want China to fight against India again? Remember: China and India are both still too weak. It's far too early to debate about who is stronger (or weaker). Let's do something meaningful. Xiaojeng 05:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sino-Indian War 

message: Do you guys think it's pointless to compare India and China in this item? They (we) are far from superpowers. The fact is the only superpower is US. See the chart of military spending in US subarticle. BRIC, still too weak. Xiaojeng 05:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. China has a chance only if it conquer Japan and all South-East Asia. European Union has a chance - but only if speads to the East, incorporates colonies of European states and Britain makes dintance from the US. Another possibilities (in distant future) include Australia (it needs population and territory - possibly in Antarctica or Oceania) and Latin America.--Nixer 08:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think China is close to achieving superpower status.  It alreay has about a 15% share of GWP (in PPP terms), and continues to grow at a rapid pace.  The US has about 20% and the USSR at its peak only achieved about a 10% share, so it could already be considered an economic superpower.  India is further away from superpower status, being in most respects similar to where China was 10 years ago, but both have the potential to surpass the US in the first half ot the 21st century.--Todd Kloos 22:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When comparing economic power, it should be noted that the most important statistic is the nominal gdp, with put China with only 5% of the global GDP, compared to 30% of the USA and the EU. The PPP gdp is important in measuring the stantard of living not the relative economic power with is determined by the industrial productivity of tradeable goods with is reflected in the nominal GDP. Also, the Soviet Union never was an economic superpower (it produced less than 15% of the automobiles produced by Germany in the seventies) it was a superpower because it had many nukes and a huge army.--RafaelG 17:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do you guys think it's pointless to compare India and China in this item? 

message: This article is way too long, and it's lost its point. It's meant to be about the term 'Superpower'. Not Major Power, BRIC or emerging superpowers. Would anyone object if we shortened this article by only including the history of the term 'Superpower', the Soviet Union and the United States? We can move BRIC and Major Power to their respective articles. Jombo 13:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Moved them to Major powers. Mjolnir1984 14:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Erm, stunning that you moved this article without a vote on changing it. I think they should have all stayed where they are. Trip: The Light Fantastic 17:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is way too long. 

message: USSR never achieved exact nuclear parity with the USA.
Now nuclear potentials of Russia and the USA as widely known in Russia, relate about as 1:1.7.--Nixer 14:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear poterntial of Russia 

message: What is discussed is not their role as "major powers" but as potential superpowers. They should remain tied to this article. Do not move them again without consulting everyone here.
What we can do instead is have a brief summary of the nations and have sub-articles. Trip: The Light Fantastic 17:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved all potentials back

message: Not one of them have a chance of becoming a superpower equal to the US or China unless they are with the European Union. End of. They should be taken out and their sub-articles deleted. Trip: The Light Fantastic 17:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Furthermore Wikipedia should not make hypotheses about what country could become a superpower (and implicitly: what country could not). Wikipedia is an ecyclopedia, meaning its about "facts". In the long run every country can be a superpower. Mjolnir1984 19:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but can the edits i did to these pages be saved somewhere?Guinnog 19:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It will be saved in history. You can use it later for another article.--Nixer 04:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Germany, United Kingdom and France should be removed

message: Why was the map removed?
Cameron Nedland 02:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't remove it, but feel free to add it back in. Jombo 14:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a suggestion, but why not put a map at the introduction of the two superpowers the world has ever known (US and USSR) at the introduction. And a seperate map at the "potential superpowers" sections, where the 3 potential superpowers are shown. Mjolnir1984 16:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. Jombo 19:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job, Jombo. But: Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia and Turkey are currently not members of the European Union. Mjolnir1984 19:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I know, that's why I coloured them differently and made a note about them on the image page. Jombo 21:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies. I didn't check the image page. Mjolnir1984 23:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Will someone please include all the Potential Superpowers, the USA and the USSR and this article in a Superpowers category? I'm not too sure how to do it. Trip: The Light Fantastic 16:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: What about the other commodities ? Not just oil skyrocket, but iron, cooper, zinc, coffee, etc...wouldn't be interesting change the name of this subartilce to include other commodities? Besides, Saudi Arabia, Iran and other Middle Eastern countries are not superpowers (we had several oil crises along the last 30 years)..Cloretti 13:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From Fossil fuel superpowers to Commodities Powerhouses

message: Can someone clarify this section, please? It uses lots of jargon and doesn't seem particularly relevant to the article - is it inferring that blogs act as a nation in competition with the United States? This strikes me as a bit of a stretch... rob 21:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. It is not relevant for this article. I think it could be removed from this page, as there is already a link added to it in the disambiguation page. RoLeoVers 21:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Righto, removed. rob 00:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Superpower 

message: I mentioned points that I believe are essential to characterize the economic power of the US that were not cited before.201.42.58.51 18:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Economic points

message: I think the main criteria is the superpower can realize such projects that no other country can. Not second, but do it first.--Nixer 16:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But such criteria can be considered as purely guess-work. It is possible that France, Germany or Japan, Major Powers in our mind to realize projects that the United States do not.203.214.90.104 01:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please give an example? I do not mean better production or engineerting works. But superpower can take much more risk and make more effort than a conventional country. Their scientists lay a track by which can later follow others.--Nixer 12:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The main criteria 

message: This article not only contains no citations whatsoever (strike 1), it then goes beyond the statement of facts into analysis of those facts in a way that's a textbook case of original research.  This article needs quite a bit of work referencing and weeding to turn it into a good article about an important topic --Night Gyr 11:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: All the Potential Superpowers pages are being considered for deletion. So I appeal to all those that have put their blood, soil, sweat and tears, amidst fighting predictable POV editing, to save the articles and vote Keep. It would be great if the articles were not deleted, but were improved instead.Nobleeagle 07:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for Deletion 

message: I have replaced the See Also section with a template based on international power. I would like it if people worked with me in improving this template, expanding all sections on International power and perhaps spreading it to any pages you know of. You can get to the template by following this link
You can place the template on any page by adding  in its code.
The result looks like this:
Nobleeagle 05:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power Template 

message: The Chinese economy is described in this article as "currently the world's fourth largest economy in terms of market exchange rates" but further down the page under 'Major Powers' the UK's economy is also described as the fourth largest in terms of market exchange rates. I think that China may have recently overtaken the UK's economy, but I am unable to find data on this. Zackery the Fence 18:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese and UK economic rankings 

message: Is space exploration really taht important to become a superpower? EamonnPKeane 18:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is more of a future idea. But it is also about power projection, to have space power really makes a country look more powerful.Nobleeagle  (Talk) 06:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the article should mention at some point that the necessity and relevance of space exploration is disputed. Either that or give some real justification for it being listed. --Tifego 22:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about putting satellites into orbit, propaganda value, boost for the economy, development of new technologies, vast amount of resources required? All make it pretty much a superpower-only project. Trip: The Light Fantastic 20:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Space