Talk:Superpower/Archive 8

message: This article is too much OR, let's make it more like great power and get it to GA. Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 02:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it isn't too bad. The Cold War era section needs attention more than any other section (unfortunately I am not an expert on the cold war weapons build up). Regards, Signaturebrendel 02:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great power 

message: People keep removing the mention of Italy as one of the "great powers" in the European union status section.  I see that Italy is listed in the great powers article as a recent great power and as a possible current great power.  Should we try to make sure any mention of "great powers" in this article agrees with those listed in the great power article?
Zebulin 23:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well they should agree with each other. Signaturebrendel 01:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of italy 

message: I think that if the EU, China, and India were all considered to definitely be super powers then Japan would also have to be considered one aswell through its sheer economic and technological power. Japan earns massive amounts of money and earns a huge surplus which means it has massive amounts of money stashed away. It's the 2nd largest economy after the US and has the world's 2nd largest market and 2nd largest stock exchange. Tokyo is the world's largest city. Japan has loads of massive companies too making most of the world's electronic goods and cars. Japan is a bit of a silent super power because of the fall out from WW2 and is underestimated because of it. Look around your house and see which company makes your TV, DVD player or video recorder, mobile/cell phone, CD player/radio, games console, even your PC such as monitor, printer, speakers, DVD/CD ROM, hard drive and floppy drive, and next time you're out see how many of the cars you see are made by a Japanese company and you'll see how much of an affect Japan has on our lives. Look at how good their Shinkansen trains are and how futuristic their cities at both day and night look like and robots like ASIMO even their toilets are so futuristic they don't require toilet paper. Japan's military is in the top 4 in the world because it's the 4th largest military spender even though it only spends 1% of its economy on its military. Once Japan gets a UN Security Council seat which should be pretty soon (citation needed) considering it's the strongest contender for one it's likely then that Japan will start to spend more than 1% on its military and may increase it to 3% - 5% what with the threat from North Korea and China, which would mean it would definitely have the 2nd most powerful military because of the sheer amount it would and could be spending on its military (3 - 5 times as much as what it is now) at 5% it would be spending even more than the EU on its military. Also Japan may be considering a nuclear deterrent of its own soon especially after it gets a UN Security Council seat which would get rid of any controversy over it. Japan really does hold a massive amount of influence around the world aswell as through hidden power in the fact it's the world's largest creditor means many countries from rich to poor usually rely on getting loans from Japan, even most G8 countries like America and Germany often loan money from Japan. Japan also in the largest aid relief donor and many third world countries rely on aid from Japan. Many countries labour forces work for Japanese companies which means employment to many people in that country and business tax revenue to that country's government. Think of what would happen if the Japanese companies left a country and left that number people out of work and the loss of the amount of business tax revenue to that government. Or think of what would happen if Japan giving aid or stopped exporting any goods to a country when you can see how many goods we rely on come from Japan. Even the UN may feel compelled to do as Japan says considering that Japan is the largest donor to the UN especially if there was a threat of Japan stopping its funding to the UN. It's not hard to see how other countries both the rich ones and the poor ones really do rely on Japan. Japan is a silent super power and has been ever since the 1980s and recent developments in Japan's politics show Japan is growing confident not to be so silent anymore. Japan also has its own space program formed in 2003 called JAXA and has its own rockets, launch pads, and satillites. It recently built the largest module of the International Space Station. It plans to build a GPS system of its own, send a manned mission to the moon and build a lunar base there. It also plans to build a replacement for Concorde. 88.109.86.234 05:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong, EU, India and China are emerging superpowers or in the EU's case, a new case altogether over which there is some controversy. US is the only fully accepted superpower.  — Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 06:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It also doesn't really matter what reasons we find and rationals we can come up with if there are no source. I doubt that there are sources considering Japan a superpower. Signaturebrendel 07:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: it might also be added that apart from the economic size of japan almost everything mentioned was speculative and in divergence from past trends.Zebulin 19:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Japan has the economic and cultural muscle, but it does not have natural resources and a limited military that is checked by what happened during WWII. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.213.198.142 (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Japan

message: I think the United Kingdom itself maybe be emerging to be an early 21st century semi super power with the US as the world hyper power. Here's the reasons for me thinking this:
*Second to the US in world diplomacy
*Second highest defence budget
*Second largest navy in terms of tonnage
*Second most power projection capability
*Second largest aircraft carrier fleet with second largest aircraft carries being built after the US Nimitz class aircraft carriers
*MI6 considered most successful secret service
*British troops considered best and most trained in the world
*SAS considered best special operatives in the world
*UN Security Council seat and founding member
*Head of the Commonwealth of Nations (the largest organisation of states after the UN)
*The British monarch is also Head of State of 15 other countries such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand
*Major player in NATO and EU
*Large North Sea oil and gas production
*London being one of the greatest cities in the world 
*City of London being the world's main financial centre in terms of having the largest amount of money pass through it each year than anywhere else and largest gathering of financial groups in the world.
*Pound Sterling one of the world's top currencies alongside US Dollar and Euro
*Second highest growth for major developed economies after US.
*Its own nuclear missiles on nuclear submarines which have joint longest range with US nuclear submarines
*Largest number of over seas territories
*Carried out major invasions of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. 
*Was only the nation to actually invade Afghanistan and Iraq alongside US forces (Other forces came after US & UK forces had secured the countries)
*Second largest force in Iraq and Afghanistan 
*Leads the fight against Afghan rebels in Helmand province
*Controls southern Iraq and large areas of Afghanistan
*Leads NATO force in Kosovo
*The leading nation in tackling global warming
*A leading country in the Middle East road map to peace
*Most involved in Darfur issue
*Second most involved in Iran nuclear issue
*Single handedly resolved Sierra Leone issue
*International renoun, popularity, and success of British popular music industry, film making industry, literary works
*Modern British scientific discoveries and inventions; DNA, Internet 
*British education such as Eton College, Cambridge University, and Oxford Univeristy
*Popularity of British sports and famous people like Manchester United and David Beckham
I think since the end of the Cold War to present the United Kingdom has played the second largest role in the world after the United States, and after all the role a country plays in the world is what defines a super power. Also the United Kingdom demonstrated that it can single handedly and quickly defeat a regional power and quickly resolve a conflict when it won the Falklands War. This is more than what can be said for such countries as the United States or Former Soviet Union. After the Second World War and during the 1950s the United Kingdom was considered to be a super power because of the role it played in the world but the after effect of the Suez crisis made this disappear. The Falklands war and Thatcher-Reagen era displayed the UK was preparing to retrieve its status as being on the same level as the USA and USSR. Soon after this the Cold War ended and with no Soviet Union left to counter the United Kingdom in any way (like in the Suez crisis) the Thatcher-Reagen duo had worked and the United Kingdom set in motion activities to reclaim such a postion it had in the world that it had in the world before the Suez crisis in time for the beginning of the 21st century. The 1990s was a bit of a prelude to today and saw the United Kingdom slowly begin to prepare as being a power equal to the US and former USSR by being eager to greatly contribute to the Gulf War and and Yugoslav wars and grew more involed in Western Africa by sending troops there to resolve conflict in Sierra Leone and was testing its place as second most powerful in the world to the US and in being a semi super power again. Soon afterwards September 11th happened and the War on Terror that followed gave the United Kingdom just what it needed to reassert itself on the world stage and came just at the right time to have given the United Kingdom time to perpare and try out its future after the end of the Cold War and for the beginning of the 21st century. Today the United Kingdom is easily seen as being second most powerful on the world stage diplomatically and even militarily and could be called a semi super power. People have started to raise this issue called the British Moment in the 21st century. The United Kingdom also acts very much as a deciding force in NATO and the EU in which policy they take or their futures in whether it decides to side with the US or EU and can have an effect around the world. It also greatly influences the other 52 members of the Commonwealth of Nations which it heads by its monarch and is the largest body other than the UN. Not to mention its influence and veto power of being a permanent member of the UN Security Council. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Somethingoranother (talk • contribs) 23:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I regard the UK as practically the gold standard of a great power.  It seems to be impossible to find any historian or statesman who would claim it is not a great power.  Your points may be useful for demonstrating how other supposed superpowers are in fact probably instead great powers.  I suspect that rather than new superpowers emerging the US will end up being recategorized as the strongest great power and the rank of superpower will remain for some time unfilled by any state.Zebulin 23:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, whether or not you, Somethingoranother, can make an argument for why the UK should be listed a superpower does not relate to the article. This article is based on academic opinion. Unless you have your argument published in a journal, we can't publish it here either. I personally do not agree that the UK is an emerging superpower (though it is a powerful nation), Most of your points apply to any G4 nation (and to be frank w/ you some are quite speculative- e.g. "leader in fighting global warming"). You could make points for and against all these (G4) nations, but such an argument would be a complete waste of time as our article need to adhere to references. There are many different opinions. Personally, I beleive that the US will be the last superpower there ever was as we are racing towards a multi-polar world where no nation and truly act uni-laterally. But again, we need to follow our references. Are there sufficient references for listing the UK as an emerging superpower. No, so we can't include it. Signaturebrendel 01:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This is all a matter of opinion (it is a non-factual topic!) and unless that opinion has been published in a journal or source that is in compliance w/ WP standards it cannot be incorporated into the article. Signaturebrendel 03:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of polls out there and stating the UK to be second to the is quite an ambitious claim that seems to be a reflection of unbridaled nationalism rather than geo-political theory. There are quite a few nation considered more powerful than the UK in most academic discussions on the topic. According to the poll you cited Japan and China are seen as more powerful than the UK-only 18% saw the UK as 2nd on the world stage. But if you find a reliable source stating that the UK alone is an emerging superpower you can include it- thought this is the first time I have ever heard of the UK being considered more of an emerging superpower than China (which is commonly considered far more powerful). Signaturebrendel 00:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As with Japan, UK does not have much natural resources/land. Viewing it as part of the EU, however, and it is an emerging superpower.--141.213.198.142 06:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: United Kingdom

message: One of the best references in this article seemed to be this one
http://www.globalcpr.com/org/super.html "Global CPR"
It's a great article that clearly addresses many of the main points covered in our article.  However it does not list any sources and I can't seem to determine who the heck "GlobalCPR.com" is or thinks they are.  Does anybody know?  Is it even possible that some of their information was lifted directly from earlier versions of this article?  Obviously in that case it would be absurd for us to be citing them as a source.   How do we evaluate references of this sort?Zebulin 23:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At first look the site seems trusworthy but look at this page ?! There WP mirrors within GlobalCPR that are irrelevant regarding the site's purpose. Signaturebrendel 23:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hrmm given that find and the apparent total lack of any self identification on the site I wonder if I should remove that reference straight away.  I wonder who originally found it and put it in our article?  I had already added it again to reference a second point in the article but now I think that change and the orignal reference instance should probably go.Zebulin 00:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The article indicates Europe's population size as compared to the U.S. as an attribute that will give it an advantage as an emerging superpower. However, I have read most western european countries are experiencing a very low birth rate that could cause problems for Europe as its population ages (paying for pensions, etc.). I know that this is a major national concern in Italy. Here is a link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/27/world/main546441.shtml
:unless we can find authoritative sources that explicitly discuss the impact of this demographic trend on the EU's prospects as a superpower any effort on our part to discuss it in the article would violate the wikipedia no original research rule.Zebulin 05:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Europe Population 

message: I really don't like the recent placement of various superpower flags at the start of the article.  Given the headaches we have had with the "emerging superpowers" content do we really want to open a can of worms where people keep adding flags until we have, USA, USSR, EU, China, India, the UK, the Netherlands, and any other occasionally mentioned contenders flags all squeezed into the margin at the top of the article?
A big problem with this article is the amount of space it devotes to particular examples of various superpower contenders with or without proper sourcing and less and less focus on the abstract concept of "superpower" itself.
If there are a lot of people who really don't like that B2 picture can we come up with a better replacement than a collection of flag images for every possible "superpower" entity?Zebulin 23:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag images at start of article 

message: This:
"post cold war era over/ nobody would call US a hyperpower - this is common knowledge! multipolar world is reality"
was an edit message the gist of which Lear21 has been consistently repeating in his effort to delete article content which discusses the unipolar world theories that have been published in relation to superpowers.
In particular this bit has been repeatedly deleted from the article along with the sources:
"Sometimes, given the unipolar nature of the world, it is described as a hyperpower.Encyclopaedia Britannica The World's Sole Superpower "
Now I happen to disagree with the hyperpower theory, but I thought the paper was one of the few scholarly published treatments of the superpower concept we have had in our article and I can't help but feel it deserves some mention in the article.
Lears21 is claiming that because it was published in 1999 that the situation has changed and it must be deleted because "everybody knows" we lived in a multipolar world and nobody would call the US a hyperpower.  He doesn't provide any links to sources to back up this new consensus that the 1999 authors were wrong rather he just asserts it is common knowledge and deletes it repeatedly.
I have tweaked the wording somewhat to emphasise the lack of consensus on this issue:
"Furthermore, given the unipolar nature of the world, it has even been described as a hyperpower.Encyclopaedia Britannica The World's Sole Superpower "
I don't know what else to do if this doesn't satisfy Lear21.
Do we need to rip out all information sourced by publications older than 5 years old from the article?   That is going to rule out the vast majority of information that is available and restrict us entirely to sourcing from news pieces.   Is that what we want?Zebulin 22:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be no problem in keeping the source as historic document. But it is outdated in combination with the claimed sentence in the introduction. The global community finds itself in a post 9/11 era with increasingly globalized interdependencies. That is meant with common current knowledge. To claim there is a unipolar world and a hyperpower is last century belief. Lear 21 23:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would read the paper you might find that the authors explicitly cite globalization and increased interdependencies in making their case for their "hyperpower" hypothesis.  Can you cite a paper or source that suggests that increased globalization somehow undermines the influence of superpowers or hyperpowers?Zebulin 23:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You just don't get it.  Our job as wikipedia editors isn't to figure out what the truth is and then discard everything that disagrees with that truth.  NONE of your links says that everybody agrees that there is no hyperpower.  They simply offer their own competing interpretations of international relations.  When you find information like this you add the information to the article with it's sources *ALONGSIDE* other information that may disagree with it with it's soruces.  There is no scholarly consensus on these issues.Zebulin 23:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You know the word "hyperpower" doesn't even appear once in any of your articles?  How odd that they could serve to support your notion that everybody agrees there is no hyperpower when they don't even appear to be addressing that school of thought.  They are instead discussing their own interpretations of events and not in any way claiming to speak for anybody else or describe a consenus that exists.Zebulin 23:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You realize you have blogs and forums among that litany of links you posted here.Zebulin 00:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "post cold war era over/ nobody would call US a hyperpower - this is common knowledge! multipolar world is reality" 

message: I think we should remove the bullet point division in criteria in the "Superpower toady" section for the moment. There are in my opinion two reasons to remove most of this section. First, there is no consensus about these criteria. While everyone agrees that military and economic might are important, it is less clear to what extent other criteria such as (A)is cultural power really necessary. There is also no consensus about whether cultural influence is not merely a logical consequence of having economic power (e.g. when one is economically and military powerful, (1) the particular country has the power to enrichen its culture and (2) other cultures will look up to the power of this country and thus its culture - so cultural influence is derived from military and economic might). For instance, the USSR could influence cultures in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central and Eastern Asia simply because it dominated them. Also, cultural power (the worldwide spread of American brands, such as MacDonalds) is not easy to separate from economic power. However, even when one assumes that cultural power is detriminal for being a superpower, it is less easy to formulate now (as opposed to the Cold War) how and why the USA has such cultural power at this moment. (B) I think that the mentioning of political power in the article is unclear: what is it? in what way does it differ from economic and military power? Possibly, this is also a logical consequence of having economic and military power (e.g., the permanent seat in the UN Security Council was only given to the 5 countries that were considered the most powerful/important). Secondly, the criteria are filled with data that does not seem to give a clear and comprehensive view on what these criteria mean and what is of particular importance in the context of being a superpower. While everyone agrees that GDP is an important indicator of economic strength, why is being mentioned that the U.S. is one of the leading countries in nanotechnology? Can't we just stick to generally accepted data such as GDP and GDP per capita, productivity and economic growth? The same applies for cultural power; something which will always be vague and therefore not easy to be explained. For instance: why are brands an important facet of having cultural power or being a superpower? If we would limit ourselves to athors who suggest that the USA has soft power (which is related to cultural power, but which is not the same) and mention the examples they use, it would be more clear and comprehensive. Sijo Ripa 00:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you can view a superpower as a country with the potential for more growth - abundance in natural resources/land, growing and sustainable population, booming and vibrant economy, continued cultural influence, good relations with other countries.--141.213.198.142 07:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that sounds a lot more like a plausible description of "emerging superpowers" than a meaningful description of a superpower.  The soviet Union was clearly a superpower right up until the moment that it lost it's satellite countries and broke up even though it was far from booming, had a crappy economy, and extensive foreign relations only with it's satellites for the most part.  Furthermore who is say if *any* country has both a growing *and* sustainable population.  You'd need a crystal ball given that without implementation of new technologies (probably not even developed) no modern state has a long term sustainable population due to environmental shortcomings of our recent and current technologies.  All the more reason IMHO to remove considerations of future growth from any definition of superpower.Zebulin 08:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Superpower today criteria = problematic

message: "Most people consider the United States the only sovereign nation-state, or country, that meets all criteria for being a superpower."
The whole paragraph is based on that unquoted claim and I guess besides the citizens of the United States barely anyone would say the USA would be the only - if at all - superpower. So delete this paragraph or enhance it. EU, Russia and probably already China and India are stronger.
Thank you i agree too.
:Wrong, the United States has the strongest military, most soft-power, growing population, rich land, and friendly neighbors, so it is considered the only superpower. EU does not have comparable soft power and a declining population in many areas, plus they are not as unified with language barriers among others. Russia does not have the economy and a declining population with insufficient farmland. China is still developing and does not have enough soft-power (Japan is stronger in many areas), and India is still developing. Plus, they all have (excluding the US) insecure borders with many conflicts.
:"EU, Russia and probably already China and India are stronger." this seems to be a dead give away that you're merely trying to troll the editors of this article.  You'll have to explain your reasoning there before there will be any reason to take it any other way.Zebulin 22:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources? Anyone? We all have our opinions, but before we put the idea of China being more powerful than the US up there, you'll have show us some reputable sources. Signaturebrendel 23:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: true.  trolls are unlikely to actually dig up any sources.Zebulin 23:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the trolls Zebulin and Signature, USA is a weak compared to EU, reason: Israel controls US foreign policy with AIPAC while EU makes their own decisions. But write what you want, do not forget to call the Article "Superpower by Zebulin and Signature" then. 62.226.49.21 17:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're getting closer to the truth now.  But rather than putting "Superpower by Zebulin and Signature" in the article title the appropriate thing for us to do is place the sources of our information into the article and avoid filling it with our own unsourced commentary.  Blogs are for people to post their own unsourced commentary.  Wikipedia is for gathering together sourced information in an encyclopedic form.  If you have a source for your comments here in discussion I'll have justification for assuming they are more than an just effort to upset editors of this article.Zebulin 00:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Show me the source for "Most people consider the United States the only sovereign nation-state, or country, that meets all criteria for being a superpower." As long as you don't have any sources for that it is just bias and beside USA is far away from being sovereign. 62.226.65.225 07:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are misplacing the burden of proof there, my friend. The info in the article is sourced-if you have sources that you would like to include, simply present them right here. Otherwise you're just wasting disk space w/ this discussion. Signaturebrendel 07:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Superpowers today (1991-)

message: I complete disagree with moving mention of the SE being called a superpower to an "Other Views" section. Perhaps we should rename the article to "Superpowers according to William Fox." There are other opinions voiced since Fox in '43 that need to be mentioned side by side with his. This article is not only about what Mr. Fox thought but about the overall concept of a superpower. We can't divide this article into "What Mr. Fox said" and "What others say." In order to provide a balanced and wholsome summary of this concept this article needs to mention as many experts as possible w/o marginalizing any of them in a "Other views" section. Signaturebrendel 20:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other views

message: who got rid of the potential 21st century article?
:don't you ever use the article history tab?  It was User:Daniel Chiswick - Zebulin 03:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  huh? 

message: The map of the British Empire has been recently introduced to the article and is placed next to the Cold War Map. This is misleading as it implies that the 'superpower' term has been equally used for both. For decades the term has been applied exclusively for the Cold War Era, while the British Empire is rather seen in the Great Power 19. century era. A written mention of the Empire is necessary but can´t include a map. The map will be removed. Lear 21 09:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not one NPOV reason to remove the map or the separate section. Fox' view is not the general view on superpower, nevertheless he was the inventor and that makes his view notable. Therefore the sections should be seperated and a map can be included, so that it is clear that these are two different views and to make clear why the British Empire was considered a superpower by him. A map makes this very clear. Sijo Ripa 12:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the same token we should include an SE map to illustrate the opinion of Edwards. Anyways, you could make a point for removing and keeping the BE map. On one hand, we do not need to support the statements by our sources through illustrations, on the other hand I personally like illustrations as they make things clearer, easier to understand and add to the esthetics of the article.  Signaturebrendel 17:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If you would have read my comment, you would know that I clearly emphasized that this is not a Fox article. The addition of a map does not constitute POV if it is used in the correct section as it currently is. It is "your" interpretation that the map puts the BE in the overall article as equal to the USA and USSR, not mine.  The article clearly emphasizes the Cold War era, just count the amount of words... I just see the map as a nice illustration of a legitimate seperate section. Sijo Ripa 18:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The BE is not part of the Cold War definition indeed. It is part from the earlier definition though. That's why there are seperate sections between "origin" and "Cold War" necessary. In fact, you are now saying what I'm saying. :) Also, you didn't respond to my earlier comment: The origin - because it is different from the Cold War view - deserves a seperate section, so that it is clear to every reader that Fox' view and the Cold war definition differ. In other words, a seperate section is logical and legitimate. A seperate section can have an illustrative picture, just as almost every other section of this article has. There is no problem, only "your" interpretation that it would put the BE and USA/USSR on an equal footing in this article, which is clearly not the case if you consider the amount of text about the USA/USSR. Sijo Ripa 20:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Empire Map 

message: Isn't it POV to only list a few? It doesn't make sense to just pick a few select countries like the Roman Empire, Persian Empire, and the Spanish Empire which were not the only countries to meet "Superpower" criteria before 1945. What about the French Empire, Imperial Japan, and Nazi Germany? All three countries were extremely powerful at the height of their power and not listing them but listing other Empires/countries is POV if you think about it. Does anybody have any ideas on how to fix this problem? User:Andrew16 18 April, 2007.
:We have those who we have sources for. Signaturebrendel 02:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They also use the term superpower. Superpower is used interchangeably with world power. Putting these powers in the great power page would be OR as they are not called great powers. See Zebulin's post above -the term superpower is used pretty liberally by poli-scientists and historians. Turth is, there are some reputable source who beleive that there were superpowers before the US and the USSR. Signaturebrendel 05:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If our sources tell us too, then yes we will list all of them-even if this article becomes over 50kb. Signaturebrendel 06:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Past superpowers?

message: I have strong reason to beleive that User:Andrew16 is User:Daniel_Chiswick sockpuppet:
*Both users state to be 16
*Both users edit the same articles, w/ the same outlook
*Both users seem to be patriotic
*Both users give California as a place of residence/origin
*Both users agree with each other on this talk page
*User:Andrew16 is a brand new account opened just one day after User:Daniel_Chiswick got blocked for two weeks.
The only difference is that User:Andrew16 gives SF as a place of residence/origin rather than LA. Something that he/she might have done to throw off supicious editors. The above are simply too many conicidences for me- The same agenda, the same type of edits, the same age with one account being opened just one day after the other got blocked. I have voiced my concern on the appropriate notice board as well. Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in full agreement. The similarities are mind numbing. Anyone in agreement to reverting bad faith changes of a sockpuppet? Gdo01 06:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed-let's revert the changes. I have reported the case to the sockpuppet noticeboard. Andrew16 just told me that he knows User:Daniel_Chiswick from his poli-sci class-the case seem pretty clear. Signaturebrendel 06:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter that you both are friends. If you are both operating on the same modus operandi, you can be thought of as the same person and a checkuser clerk can block a user for having two editors from the same IP making the same edits. I'm also wondering how a guy in San Francisco and a guy in Los Angeles can be in the same high school class. Gdo01 06:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Then get off your user name and write as an IP right here. Gdo01 06:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And you do know that you have just confessed to having the same IP and having edited from another user name. This case is closed. Gdo01 06:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Sockpuppet?

message: Marvin J. Cetron: "At the current rate of growth, a majority of Indians will be middle-class by 2025. Literacy rates have risen from 52 percent to 65 percent in the same period. This is a rate of progress no one else in the world can match."
Is India's literacy of 65% the making of a superpower? Mexico even has a literacy of 92%.  Majority of Indians will be middle class by 2025?  This quote is so POV and "out there" that it ought to be replaced with something more moderate and reasonable.  The US, Mexico, Canada, China, Russia, Japan, EU all have literacy rates above 90%. Even the most positive of estimates do not expect the Chinese to be mostly middle class (by American standards) until at least 2050, and China is growing faster than India.  So how can India be mostly middle class a mere 18 years from now?  The above quote about India is misleading and exaggerated. --Naus 07:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep the section short. While it is a good idea to mention the current debate about potential superpowers in the 21st century, it shouldn't go much beyond that, as was proven by the deletion of all subarticles about emerging superpowers. I would just mention the main argument pro and contra in this debate. A paragraph of 5 sentences per potential superpowe should be more than enough. Sijo Ripa 09:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The biggest problem with that source and the space program source that I could see was that neither actually discussed the superpower status potential or otherwise of any country.  If I recall this article previously got in trouble for using such sources to support an original research case for potential superpower status for various states.  I've gone ahead and removed the offending material to head off that problem.  This does however raise the broader question as to why we remove such information for "potential" superpowers when there is so much material in the cold war section which is not held to the same standard.Zebulin 10:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  laughable quote and assertion 

message: Opportunities to locate some sources that deal with the functioning of the EU as a current superpower may present themselves in the near future.  Estonia is appealing to the EU to weigh in to protect it from the pressure Russia is applying to Estonia relating to the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn.  A link to the formal appeal for immediate EU intervention can be found here:
http://www.epl.ee/artikkel/384207
The fallout from this event will likely provide source-worthy commentary either affirming or quashing the EUs status as a current functioning superpower.  Let's keep an eye out for such emerging source material.Zebulin 22:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The EU as a superpower vs a former superpower in diplomatic row 

message: When will the Eu be a super power?  Will it be when it has a unified military.  I think it will be a super power when Turkey joins, because its influence will become much stronger in the middle east.
:Depends on who you are trusting-there is no definite future date. Signaturebrendel 23:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if I understand correctly the question isn't at what date or time will the EU become a superpower but rather by what criteria will it eventually be recognized as a superpower.Zebulin 06:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Doesn't this "A term used far too liberally" and this "since none of these countries were ever called superpowers" contradict each other? Gdo01 02:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok the so the argument is can we confine the article to only dealing with superpowers which were recognized as such by their contemporaries?  Key to this argument would be demonstrating that the concept of a superpower did not predate the term "superpower" which was coined to describe it.  All that is needed is a source which supports the idea that the very concept behind "superpower" either could not or did not exist in those earlier eras or that there were no possible candidates that would fit the bill.  We would then want to make sure that our definition of the concept of "superpower" matched that of the source.  This might run the risk of forcing the article to conform to a minority definition of the superpower concept among reputable sources.Zebulin 02:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: EU as a super power

message: Does recognition of earlier superpowers really need to be here since there is a page called Historical powers which talks about these countries pretty much the same way? It would take up way too much room to list all the historical powers which could be called "Superpowers" (A term used far too liberally) and would take the focus away from the United States, Soviet Union, and the [British Empire]] which were actually called superpowers. I think deleting the recognition of earlier superpowers and creating a link to Historical powers would much better and less confusing since none of these countries were ever called superpowers. User:Daniel Chiswick 10 May, 2007.
:Doesn't this "A term used far too liberally" and this "since none of these countries were ever called superpowers" contradict each other? Gdo01 02:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok the so the argument is can we confine the article to only dealing with superpowers which were recognized as such by their contemporaries?  Key to this argument would be demonstrating that the concept of a superpower did not predate the term "superpower" which was coined to describe it.  All that is needed is a source which supports the idea that the very concept behind "superpower" either could not or did not exist in those earlier eras or that there were no possible candidates that would fit the bill.  We would then want to make sure that our definition of the concept of "superpower" matched that of the source.  This might run the risk of forcing the article to conform to a minority definition of the superpower concept among reputable sources.Zebulin 02:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recognition of earlier superpowers