Talk:Russia/Archive 7

CHESS
Should be mentioned somewhere. Perhaps in culture or sport, but given its history of dominance especially during the USSR years, it seems a glaring omission not to mention it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.169.254 (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Writercommuity, 3 August 2010
Information Link - IA Russian Federation - Russian-Federation.ru

Writercommuity (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. No evidence that this website is operated by the Russian government. Waiwai933 (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 217.87.60.182, 8 August 2010
editsemiprotected

217.87.60.182 (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)   russia is NOT a superpower ! this must be edited out or at least be put into persepective
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 13:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the IP seems to have a point. The designation of Russia as a superpower is contested by some sources and does not appear to be a part of the conventional wisdom yet. E.g. here is a 2009 column from WSJ directly on point called "Do the Math: Why Russia Won’t Be a Superpower Anytime Soon". Here is another one, from Atlantic Review, which also quotes a story from The Economist contesting Russia's designation as a superpower. So probably some more conditional language should be used in the article. Nsk92 (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * These articles should be removed off the article
 * Bad source - Do the Math: article is a blog and cannot be used as a good source and why did they not publish this in the Wall Street journal but on a Blog? makes not a whole lot of sense to put it in a blog outside article news source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalstatus (talk • contribs) 22:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Bad source - from Atlantic Review has a great deal of discussions of disagreement in its form. There is countless disagreements on the article on viewers stating is mislead on its edit review outweighing the article entirely. Another poor researched article--Globalstatus (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, here is a 2008 Spiegel interview with "Kremlin-aligned political strategist Vyacheslav Nikonov" who is quoted as saying:"Russia is not a superpower and won't be one for the foreseeable future. But Russia is a great power. It was one, it is one and it will continue to be one.". Nsk92 (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I withdraw my objection! Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 15:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have changed the language in the article to a more qualified one and added several refs. However, someone more familiar with the matter (or maybe just someone who cares more about this particular question) may want to take another look and maybe ponder on the precise phrasing. Nsk92 (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Nsk92 :::: These articles should be removed off the article
 * Bad source - Do the Math: article is a blog and cannot be used as a good source and why did they not publish this in the Wall Street journal but on a Blog? makes not a whole lot of sense to put it in a blog outside article news source.


 * Bad source - from Atlantic Review has a great deal of discussions of disagreement in its form. There is countless disagreements on the article on viewers stating is mislead on its edit review outweighing the article entirely. Another poor researched article.--Globalstatus (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Questioning: Alantic Review: article''

Kyle Atwell vs. Ronald Steel on the Atlantic Review - Kyle Atwellwho says little on the subject on Russia not being a superpower trying to override Ronald Steels facts who clarifies Russia is a superpower in greater detail and titles it.

Kyle Atwell is an US army Lieutenant and only has a masters degree in foreign relations and also has little experience in internation foreign relations which he has not written any certified publication books on record but a small journal review on the Atlantic Review and has so little foreign relation contacts than just a Twitter account & Linkin account reference, that's it. Kyle Atwell is very pro USA in particular on the subject on his articles what I have found him to write in foreign relations subjects. I think it is kinda of bias if someone is pro USA to only write subjects on good old USA and good this etc etc.

Roland Steel is a professor of international relations at the University of Southern California who has written books for over 48 years on international foreign relations experience over Kyle Atwell. I mean you can Google Roland Steel and find countless reviews on his extensive experience on international foreign relations. Ronald Steel is also a US citizen, a Harvard graduate and also teaches at Harvard University and UCS but he does not write bias articles or books. He write subjects as it is and I favor he so much more on this subject.


 * Questioning the facts on this article: Article Review is very ill founded on its facts cannot reference Roland Steel's extension experience on international foreign relations on the subject even arguing on Russia, Kyle Atwell lacks the subject on little information to contrast the matter. I found this article poorly used and should not be used on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalstatus (talk • contribs) 00:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Russia remains a global Superpower according to a huge amount of sources such as here are several sources claiming Russia is global superpower: "Russia is a Superpower CNN", US Senators telling the truth - CNN Wolf interview: March 2009 and "Washington Acknowledges Russia as a Superpower" - Kommersant News 2007 - Daniel Fried, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs and "The Dangers of Nuclear Disarmament" - Project-Syndicate News By Sergei Karaganov April 29, 2010 and "Azerbaijanis, Armenians can be good neighbors" (Superpower Neighbor Russia) News Az March 2, 2010 by Akper Hasanov and "Perspective of Karabakh conflict settlement unreal in current conditions" - News 1 June 2010 and "Venezuela's Hugo Chavez recognizes independence of breakaway Georgia republics", Russia is a Superpower - Los Angeles Times by September 11, 2009 editor Megan K. Stack and "The dangers of nuclear disarmament" - TODAY’S ZAMAN News by Sergei KaraganovMay 1, 2010and "Sergei Karaganov: Weapons that save us from ourselves" - Scotsman News: May  5, 2010[http://news.scotsman.com/world/Sergei-Karaganov-Weapons-that-save.6272226.jp and "Kyrgyzstan conflict" Right after the uprising, on Wednesday, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir - in a tug-of-war between the two rival superpowers- Sunday's Zaman by Dogu Ergil April 17, 2010 ERGIL and "The Dangers of Nuclear Disarmament" - Saint Petersburg TimesBy Sergei Karaganov May 4, 2010http://www.times.spb.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=31370] and "PM's visit underlines rising Indian interest in Ibsa", Bric- Business Standard News; Jyoti Malhotra / New Delhi April 16, 2010

“Is Russia Warming Up For A New Cold War” by Brian Mciver Oct 20, 2008 and “Medvedev or Putin: Who Holds Real Power in Russia” Voa News By Anya Ardayeva October 16, 2008 and “A multipolar world with multiple scenario - The rise of China, the reborn of Russia as a superpower” Agora Vox News: January 2010 and “The Cold Peace” Spiegel News by By Ralf Beste Sept 9, 2008 and “Russia and the West: The Cold Peace” – Free Internet Press - Sept 1, 2008 and “Running out of time” - Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM December 2009 and “CHAVEZ PREDICTS THE END OF AMERICA” Moscow University - International News Analysis Today - September 17, 2009 and “Russia indeed a superpower, says diplomat” – Derschos News by Equipo Nizkor Aug 30, 2009 and “Russia to Aust: Don't dump uranium deal - AAP News September2, 2008 and “Which country's going to be the next superpower” September 2008 and “Russia pilots proud of flights to foreign shores” - The Associated Press By DAVID NOWAK: “Rather than hostile to the West, the pilots seemed more keen that Russia be taken seriously as a military superpower once again”


 * We should leave the current sources on the article at it stands, Russia remains a superpower as the facts indicate they are peace maker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalstatus (talk • contribs) 22:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, here is someone who clearly does have strong POV. A quick comment. The WSJ ref you object to is a newsblog, rather than a personal blog. Newsblogs are perfectly acceptable as RS, per WP:NEWSBLOG:"Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs; these are acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." Nsk92 (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So then I guess its ok use Youtube, Twitter, Myspace, Blogspot for sourcing too. I guess that's acceptable to use as sources now according to this discussion.--Globalstatus (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC) — Globalstatus (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Did you not read my post above??? Editorial newsblogs of newspapers are acceptable as sources per WP:V, if the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. That is precisely the case with the WSJ ref in question. Youtube, myspace, blogspot etc do not qualify under this rubric of WP:V and are not acceptable as sources. Nsk92 (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the discussing editor has a point in contrast with the 2 edits on WSJ & Alantic debate edits. The idea to post a superpower and non superpower beats out the article severely. With the other sources on there now that gives Russia a much better demograph of Russia being a superpower with so good bits of info but when a heat of arguments stems in a latter level up & down issues especially WSJ it really debonks the truth from the writer and the audience degrading it. Pretty non interesting and not a great matter of detail to use but I am only stating my opinion. The other one is sorted of a tie knot of affiliating gibber gabber on another source that pretty much brings another wish washy edit URL. I personlly believe Russia is a superpower considering the 21st what they have done for Ukraine but in the 90's not so sure. Adding an edit be to a superpower and no so superpower is like a tug of war. I looked on China and USA but there is not a tug of war there but both have also been said to be superpower and not a superpower for those countries too. I think the USA is a failing superpower or limited superpower where China is a new superpower and Russia is a returing superpower because what they have done to Ukraine. I am from Ukraine and the news on Russia is always doing well that is relations with Russia. About 70% of my country is Russian and the rest are Ukraine, others are from smaller post Soviet countries. If the Russian Federation took Ukraine in the Federation I will tell you many people would want to be apart of that economy. When we elected a new president late last year prices of gas fell on better relations with Russia and new military bases are in new contracts allover the country putting all sorts of people to work in Ukraine. Roads are getting repaired everywhere and new schools are being built everywhere all because of new president making deals with Russia. All this money coming from Russia is helping Ukraine, that is the first time in 19 years such improvement has made a difference to my country. The USA gave Ukraine nothing not a penny , NATO, EU nothing for Ukraine but Russia with the last four years of the orange party trying to fold us to the West made this country so poor people were just going bankrupt not getting along with Russia was in not in any place to continue. Now for the past 6 months I have seen more businesses open, new roads, hospitals in place and our unemployment going down finally as the sign of relief we are doing better. These improvements have came from Russia on a country with money to help ours. Any opinion is important when you see a superpower neighbor helping a country like ours back on our feet again thats what I feel is happening on a country with power influence--64.69.155.2 (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

-And how Ukraine has shown some improvement thanks to Russia discounting their oil gas supples. The Russian government is funding to build 1 to 2 Russian aircraft carriers is being proposed to build in Ukraine for the Russian government. The cost may sum to 2.5 billion dollars and will employ 4000 people to work. The ships could take 3 years to build as Russia is fully funding its superpower buildup is an indication they have the money to finance their military and a 30 year contract commitment to Ukraine's sea ports will all be Russian miltary. Noting the above comments the change of parties has been a big relief for Ukraine by Russia which I think sums Russia's superpower status now days since the English government has admitted on BBC they have made that stronghold at the G8 meeting Russia being a major military superpower and possibly more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.50.1 (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Europe - Asia
On which administrative level does Russia distinguish between between Asian locations and European locations: on Oblast level or municipality? Or perhaps, does the administration not make this difference at all? The only answer I found on this article (or one of the sub-articles) was that it cannot be on district level, because the Ural district is said to fall into both, Europe and Asia. Tomea s y T C 00:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody can comment on this? Tomea s y T C 07:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Asian/European location of any given place in Russia is strictly a matter of geography; it had never been a factor in the legislation dealing with the administrative or municipal divisions. May I ask you what prompted you to ask this question?  I guess I don't understand why it should even matter&mdash;the borders of the modern federal subjects developed over time on the historical, demographic, and economic principles, not on the geographic ones.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 10, 2010; 13:29 (UTC)
 * Of course you may ask. Out of curiosity. Further, if the Russian administration clearly defined whether, e.g., Municipalities are European or Asian, I think this should be mentioned in the article. And if they don't, I guess there is just not much to say about it - mentioning that they don't would probably appear silly as they are certainly very many things that they do not do.
 * Do I understand correctly, that the Russian administration does not distiguish on any level on which continent an administrative subdivision of its territory is located?
 * Obviously, one would not need an explicit declaration for, say, Kamtchatka. However, there may be cities like Orsk or Perm (I hope I chose good examles) where the status is less obvious. In such cases, I was wondering whether the Russian administration makes a clear cut (if yes, on which level), or whether their is a more or less blur transition phase. Tomea s y T C 17:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any reasons why the Russian bureaucracy would decide to specify whether a place is in Europe or Asia. For all intents and purposes, it is sufficient to know which federal subject a place is in.  Russia has no policy of any sort which would make a treatment of any given place different depending on whether it's in Europe or Asia; based solely on the geographic location.  Does this answer your question?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 10, 2010; 18:19 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does.
 * Actually, I see no need for us to wonder why they should do so or not do so. Important to us is only whether they do it or not.
 * I was told by a visitor of Yekaterinburg that they erected a column outside the city demarcating the border between the continents. Moreover, I frequently read that this fraction of Russia's territory is European or that percentage of its population. Whatever we think about such information, can we at least conclude that they are not based on an official definition by the Russian authority? Tomea s y T C 18:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the distinction is purely geographical. It is based on the scientific definition of the borders of Europe and Asia, not on a legislative act of any sort.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 10, 2010; 19:11 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Tomea s y T C 21:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-believers
It's called “atheist”, kids.
 * Although considering there are religions that do not feature any deities, it might be a more accurate term. However, the phrase itself sounds biased and is not generally used. NO BELIEVERS NO BELIEVERS!!!!!!--Goldensean11 (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No it is not! They are called non-believers and this term is unique to the Russians who had traditional belief before the Orthodox Church came to Russia. They are not atheist because atheist dont beliave in God at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.50.26.247 (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Russian Kamrad (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)There are atheists and agnostics(?) as I know, not non-believers. I know only one non-believer, his name is Fomah and he is a character of a poem or something like that. "Fomah the non-believer"(Фома-неверующий).:)
 * And yes - most russian "atheists" is really non-believers like Fomah. There we have the idiom - "Hey you, Fomah-non-belivier!" (a man who don`t accept some truth). As life gets harder most of "atheists" runs to churches or mosques to make some pray. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.21.168.170 (talk) 08:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The word "non-believer" is generally used by so-called "believers". As long as we do not refer to Catholics as "Roman heretics", we may as well use the word "atheist" instead of "non-believer". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.232.251.18 (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Guys, stop this silly dicussion, they are atheists, just like with any other country. There are "unique words for atheists" in any language, but you write this wiki in English, and you don't have to translate each such word literally. We have language of science, and atheist is the right word for an encyclopedia. They are all just atheist. As to the phrase "Hey you, Fomah-non-belivier!" - it is now least connected to faith in God, any Russian, including me, knows this. FeelSunny (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In Russian language non-believer("неверующий") often just used to people but do not attend church, as opposite to believer("верующий") who are faithful to all ritual. When russian person tells he is "non-believer" most of the time that mean that they "non-religious". As a native Russian speaker, who was born in former USSR and worked for Christian mission, I can tell you that most of the people who call themselves "неверующими" actually believe in God and Jesus, but do not want to attend church every weekend. If you ask them if they are atheists, many of them may get offended, because "atheist" and "non-believer" is very different in russian language (that why russian people got offended in this article discussion). When russian tells about someone: "He is a believer"("верующий") it commonly mean not just a person who just believe in God, but a devoted follower of church, active practitioners of the faith rituals. Also word "non-believer" sometime used for person of non-Christian faith. Famous "Fomah-non-believer" was originated from Jesus disciple Thomas who refused to believe in resurrection until he touch Jesus hands, mostly used for stubborn in his mistake person. Innab (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I think the sense of the word "non-believer" is more similar to such of "infidel", than "atheist".--Soviet Russian Kamrad (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Does non-believer include people who believe there is no God as well as people who don't believe in a God specifically, but don't necessarily disbelieve? (Agnostics). IN that case, non-believer would be a more inclusive term and atheist would be misleading. An agnostic is not an atheist. 204.65.34.246 (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I think so=) Actually I am far from all that stuff, but it is very likely, that non-believer isn't just an atheist. It could be agnostic too.Soviet Russian Kamrad (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-believer is a biased and Christian-centric term. It should be avoided at any cost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.197.252 (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 8 August 2010
Requesting to remove these edits as there is no consensus in this context and the edit sources should be discussed in the discussions page first as they are questionable sources. I am asking to remove and set for discussion please to see if we can discuss the edits first that's all.

although such characterization is disputed by some analysts.
 * Peter Brown, Do the Math: Why Russia Won’t Be a Superpower Anytime Soon. Capital Journal, Wall Street Journal, August 26, 2009. Accessed August 8, 2010
 * Is Russia a Superpower? Cold War II? Atlantic Review, August 25, 2008. Accessed August 8, 2010
 * 'What's Looming in Ukraine Is more Threatening than Georgia' Der Spiegel, October 16, 2008. Quote: "Nikonov: Russia is not a superpower and won't be one for the foreseeable future. But Russia is a great power. It was one, it is one and it will continue to be one."
 * NATO and the invasion of Georgia: How to contain Russia. There is no quick fix, but an over-confident Russia is weaker than it looks. The Economist, August 23, 2008

Globalstatus (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC) — Globalstatus (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Not done: I took the liberty to remove the ref tags and add some formatting so that everyone can see what is being discussed. Those appear to be reliable sources and they were discussed above. You are welcome to try to develop a new consensus or to take these sources to the reliable sources noticeboard, but an edit requests cannot remove content which was added by consensus. Celestra (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, the WSJ ref is an editorial newsblog (rather than a personal blog) and is thus perfectly acceptable as a source, per WP:NEWSBLOG. I have taken another look at the sources Globalstatus objects to and it appears to me that the Spiegel, the Economist and the Atlantic Review also pass WP:RS requirements. The unqualified phrasing "Russia is a superpower" really is only appropriate if the statement in question is more or less universally accepted by mainstream sources. That does not appear to be the case here. I would be fine with some language that is stronger then the one currently used in the article (e.g. something like "Many sources describe Russia as a superpower, although this characterization is disputed by some analysts" or perhaps even something stronger. However, I find the unconditional phrasing "Russia is a superpower" objectionable. For the record, I am a Russian citizen and grew up in Russia, although I currently live abroad; still I retain a strong affinity to Russia. Nsk92 (talk) 06:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The WSJ article blog by Peter Brown from 2009 has massive disputes on objective comments all over it. The editor Peter Brown is not a foreign relations professor on international studies either. I am questioning it by its heavy disputing about 70% to 80% of the comments are regarding this blog as hearsay which this Blog should be removed.--Globalstatus (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC){{spa|Globalstatus}


 * P.S. Here is also a ref to a Jan 2008 column in NY Times. The author there argues that the U.S.' influence is declining and is likely to continue to decline but he also mentions Russia:"In exploring just a small sample of the second world, we should start perhaps with the hardest case: Russia. Apparently stabilized and resurgent under the Kremlin-Gazprom oligarchy, why is Russia not a superpower but rather the ultimate second-world swing state? For all its muscle flexing, Russia is also disappearing." Nsk92 (talk) 06:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is something more recent, from a July 2010 article in Toronto Star:""Russia is not a superpower, and this is not the Cold War,” says Braun". [Earlier in the article it explains who Braun is: "Aurel Braun of the University of Toronto, whose latest book is entitled NATO-Russia Relations in the Twenty-First Century."] Nsk92 (talk) 06:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is another one, from April 2008 article in Financial Times:"Sergei Rogov, the director of the institute of the USA and Canada at the Russian Academy of Sciences, says bluntly: "We are now very close to a new cold war which will not be a repetition of the original cold war since Russia is not a superpower and it will probably never again be a superpower." Nsk92 (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but Russia remains a global Superpower according to a lot sources such as here are several sources claiming Russia is superpower (not regional): "Russia is a Superpower CNN", US Senators telling the truth - CNN Wolf interview: March 2009 and "Washington Acknowledges Russia as a Superpower" - Kommersant News 2007 - Daniel Fried, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs and "The Dangers of Nuclear Disarmament" - Project-Syndicate News By Sergei Karaganov April 29, 2010 and "Azerbaijanis, Armenians can be good neighbors" (Superpower Neighbor Russia) News Az March 2, 2010 by Akper Hasanov and "Perspective of Karabakh conflict settlement unreal in current conditions" - News 1 June 2010 and "Venezuela's Hugo Chavez recognizes independence of breakaway Georgia republics", Russia is a Superpower - Los Angeles Times by September 11, 2009 editor Megan K. Stack and "The dangers of nuclear disarmament" - TODAY’S ZAMAN News by Sergei Karaganov May 1, 2010 and "Sergei Karaganov: Weapons that save us from ourselves" - Scotsman News: May 5, 2010 and "Kyrgyzstan conflict" Right after the uprising, on Wednesday, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir - in a tug-of-war between the two rival superpowers- Sunday's Zaman by Dogu Ergil April 17, 2010 ERGIL and "The Dangers of Nuclear Disarmament" - Saint Petersburg TimesBy Sergei Karaganov May 4, 2010http://www.times.spb.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=31370] and "PM's visit underlines rising Indian interest in Ibsa", Bric- Business Standard News; Jyoti Malhotra / New Delhi April 16, 2010 “Is Russia Warming Up For A New Cold War” by Brian Mciver Oct 20, 2008 and “Medvedev or Putin: Who Holds Real Power in Russia” Voa News By Anya Ardayeva October 16, 2008 and “A multipolar world with multiple scenario - The rise of China, the reborn of Russia as a superpower” Agora Vox News: January 2010 and “The Cold Peace” Spiegel News by By Ralf Beste Sept 9, 2009 and “Russia and the West: The Cold Peace” – Free Internet Press - Sept 1, 2008 and “Running out of time” - Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM December 2009 and “CHAVEZ PREDICTS THE END OF AMERICA” Moscow University - International News Analysis Today - September 17, 2009 and “Russia indeed a superpower, says diplomat” – Derschos News by Equipo Nizkor Aug 30, 2009 and “Russia to Aust: Don't dump uranium deal - AAP News September2,  2008 and “Which country's going to be the next superpower” September 2008 and “Russia pilots proud of flights to foreign shores” - The Associated Press By DAVID NOWAK: “Rather than hostile to the West, the pilots seemed more keen that Russia be taken seriously as a military superpower once again”.

Secondly the article by Peter Brown from 2009 has massive disputes on objective comments all over it. The editor Peter Brown is not a foreign relations professor on international studies either. I am questioning it.

Thirdy the article by Kyle Atwell has heavy objection comments regarding the article. Reading the outrage on the article by Kyle Atwell is questionable why this should be used when he also is no PhD in international foreign relation studies on this subject. I am questioning this as an article as Kyle Atwell is an US army Lieutenant and only has a masters degree in foreign relations and also has little experience in internation foreign relations which he has not written any certified publication books on record but a small journal review on the Atlantic Review and has so little foreign relation contacts than just a Twitter account & Linkin account reference, that's it. Kyle Atwell has written very pro USA articles what I have found him to write in foreign relations subjects. I think it is kinda of bias if someone is pro USA to only write subjects on good old USA only as I am questioning it also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.140.176 (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that a particular article draws a lot of objections in the comments section is irrelevant - the Comments sections are basically discussion boards and anyone can post there. The Atlantic Review source by Atwell that you object to so much is just one of several sources. It may not be a very lofty source but it passes the basic WP:RS requirements, as far as I can tell. There is a value in including a citation to this source since the Atlantic Review article is an online source available w/o subscription and it includes detailed relevant quotes from several off-line sources, such as the Economist article. Nsk92 (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nsk92 again the Alantic Review article is written by a person who is not a PhD international relations specialists. Trying to override Ronald Steel who is a PhD international foreign relations professor and specialist to say Kyle Atwell can object to a mastermind on superpowers like a boxing match from a 110lb fighter over 230lb fighter, there's a massive difference over one vs the other in international affairs on a high ratio categories. There should have been more time to consensus these articles than a 8hour approval on a questionable source. Its weak in its face as much as WSJ article blog by Peter Brown is also objected to too much criticism that lacks creditably as I have looked at Peter A. Brown as the writer has no history in international affairs, none. That's like asking Obama to say something about Chevelet Camero over politics, same like Peter A. Brown saying the same question. I object to both of these articles as they are poorly constructed and lack references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalstatus (talk • contribs) 17:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)  — Globalstatus (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This is not about a contest in academic degrees (for example, Sergei Rogov, the director of the institute of the USA and Canada at the Russian Academy of Sciences, whom I also quoted above, has plenty of degrees and academic distinctions) and as I noted, Atwell is just one of quite a few sources which contest the designation of Russia as a superpower. In the presence of a significant number of such sources an unqualified and unconditional statement "Russia is a superpower" is simply not justifiable, no matter how many times you post it to this page. If you are still intent on sticking with your position, I suggest that you file a RfC here, at this page. Nsk92 (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want more academic sources, here is another one, by Muthiah Alagappa, a PhD who writes in a 2009 article:"Although Russia still has a formidable nuclear arsenal, it is not a superpower or even a top-tier regional power in Asia." However, preoccupation with academic titles in this particular case is missing the point. The notion of a "superpower" is very poorly defined and largely symbolic (and, in my personal opinion, fairly meaningless). It is not a technical academic term but rather a poorly defined concept from general political discourse. As such, to the extent it is appropriate to mention it at all, one should look to fairly broad sources - journalists, newsmedia political analysts, as well as academics. Nsk92 (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Broken link, article cannot be read referring to: "NATO and the invasion of Georgia: How to contain Russia. There is no quick fix, but an over-confident Russia is weaker than it looks" The Economist, August 23, 2008. If there is not readable link to source this article for reading it should be removed. I cannot read the article and I cannot search for any open source to read this particlar article anywhere Nsk92?--Globalstatus (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC) — Globalstatus (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Wrong again, re-read WP:V, there is no requirement for a source to be available online at all. Nsk92 (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to the story in question at the Economist's website. You either have to pay for access to read it or you can go to a library and read it for free. Either way, the source passes WP:V. Nsk92 (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And, like I said above, if you are still hell-bent on pushing your point, you can file a Requests for comment. Nsk92 (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Really I don't understand how people can view this source it shows it doesn't exist. I tried to find the article searching the author, the authors references, nothing. If journalist around the world wrote articles and they refered them to only homepages or company pages, how would people know anything if they can't read it. When I tried seaching "NATO and the invasion of Georgia: How to contain Russia. There is no quick fix, but an over-confident Russia is weaker than it looks" it goes here. There's nothing in this link that directs to the source, nothing. I Google, Binged, Yahoo and nothing pulls up on this article, that's like getting Time magazine and not getting the magazine but just the coverpage only. Why backed that up? It is not readable. I don't want to read about the Economist, I want to read the article.--Globalstatus (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Err, in case you missed the post above, here is a direct link to this story at the Economist's website. It does require subscription, but that is the case with most newspaper/magazine stories as well. There are usually available for free for a couple of weeks after initial publication and after that they go into paid archives where online access requires paying, and free access is only available by going to a library. Most books are not available for free online either and you have to go to a library to read them if you don't want to pay. That's called life. Off-line sources are perfectly acceptable per WP:V and WP:RS and you just have to live with it. Nsk92 (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How many people have subscriptions to the Economist? Not many and I have never never cited a source that requires a subscription, I would be embarrassed. If I handed in an online research paper to my professor and he read my research paper on MLA format searching the quotes and if I had provided no actual sources but homepage sources that required a subscription he would not grade it; it would be considered incomplete. When you present material, references have to be available for it, such as wanting to print the reference sources. Having a scription to view this article is not good for anyone who wants to view the article. There maybe people researching this article on its entire detail and if sources are referring to subscription people are going to look else where.--Globalstatus (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You (or your professor for that matter) don't need to have a subscription to check sources. There's such a neat thing called a "library"&mdash;even if yours doesn't have a subscription to the Economist (which would be shocking), they should be able to get a copy of the article from another library for a nominal charge.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 9, 2010; 18:50 (UTC)


 * In a recession economy people are not all buying the Economist and to go into a library to view a Wikipedia reference that cannot pullout on the internet without a subscription is ludicrous. Why go do that and second if someone if viewing this online what if they are in a Libary in South Affrica or Mexico where they don't have such subcriptions as libary's can be broke for example and don't have access to US articles or subsriptions or online databases. I see that all the time. There should be a copy of it online that is what online is for. What if we took this article and only cited references that required subcriptions for every different reference you had to paid for to view? Would you consense that? The nature of the article is to have the references right there available for viewing. Second why would it be shocking not to have the Economist? Well about liberal journalists vs conservative journalist as I think the Economist is more liberal than conservative, what is the clear view they are publishing? Obama or Bush? Not entire detail but in some major areas the Economist is very liberal. In my opinion I think the Economist sources cannot be considered a source if the audience has no subscription to view it as I am not going to cheat anybody to pay for a subscription to read an article I would refer have sources that readily available.--Globalstatus (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are continuing to shout at the wind here. It is a very well accepted practice on Wikipedia that off-line published sources are acceptable; if you are not happy with it, the place to argue your point is at the relevant policy talk page such as WT:V - good luck with that. Nsk92 (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So it is ok then to use Twitter, Youtube, Myspace, Blogspot according to allowing this link? And if I want to source something from Time Magazine and Wall Street Street Journal, I can just direct them to the homepages? I mean it isn't important to site the specific link just site the homepage, no author or anything?--Globalstatus (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, as was explained to you at length several times above, youtube, blogspot, myspace etc are not acceptable per WP:V. However, editorial newsblogs maintained by many newspapers and magazines are acceptable as sources under WP:NEWSBLOG rubric of WP:V:"Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs; these are acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." That is exactly the case for the WSJ ref you are objecting to. Nsk92 (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Twitter, Youtube, Myspace, Blogspot are not reliable sources, if the source is an article on a website, the link to the specific page is required. Books that most of us may be unable to access and paysites are allowed though, you would have to raise this matter at the location Nsk92 mentioned if you want the rules changed. (i happen to agree that we should not allow paysites) but as as far as im aware they are allowed and we have to go by the rules as they stand. It is of course better if sources that everyone can access are used. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Moreover, in this case the source in question, The Economist is available in print as well and is freely accessible in most libraries. Nsk92 (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick google search of the referenced text also finds the article displayed on some Georgian website in full by the looks of it. I wont post the link as i am unsure if the site in question has permission to show it, but its clearly easily at hand and appears to back up the statement. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the sources from the above are clearly stating Russia is a superpower are clearly sourced in the right direction with good edits. To say Russia is not a superpower when you have over 15 good sources stating Russia is a superpower from well published publications. The article to me looks funny with superpower this and superpower not this. I think this makes the article ill founded to the viewers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.155.2 (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I like how it says that while some sources say superpower, the international policy analysts would disagree. I think that is pretty balanced the way it currently is written.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.238.152.3 (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What international policy analysts? The sound of that makes me question who what and when. The balance is favoring more superpower than great power by the load of creditable weight that are not speaking Russia is anything less than that. Being from Ukraine I would never call Russia not a superpower in the aid it has helped my country as we would be eliminated off our GDP if Russia did not save my country last year. With the US out on a lim back into recession again Russia is out on 8.9% positive growth we are standing clear thanks to Russia saving my our country. None of the great powers in Europe would step into save Ukraine out of debt but France's prime minister last month called Russia a superpower by saving Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus & Kazakhstan

from going bankrupt country. Greece holding everybody in the EU Europe to pay them to save their country with not solid loan in place, Russia saved 4 countries this year and Iceland last year from going bankrupt. What has India, China or the US done to save countries from going under? At least there is something possible about what Russia is doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.155.2 (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 64.9.239.20 (talk) : Russia is world's 11th or 12th largest economy by nominal GDP.
Not 6th as article states - according to International Monetary Fund, World Bank or CIA Factbook. Also, both links supporting it being 6th largest by nominal GDP should be removed - first one is outdated, the other does not list any sources and mentions the fact only briefly - and again, we have much more reputable sources stating the opposite. 64.9.239.20 (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry but Russia remains the 6th worlds largest economy and moving to 5th largest economy. The edit should stay as sources say Russia is 6th currently and moving up. The source article on Russia now is June 2010, that's not outdated but recent information for the Russia's GDP.

science and technology section
you know i think it needs to be cut down. it reads like a laundry list. i am comparing it to the USA article section on science and technology which is much less like a list. i will try to summarize the russia one a bit better and make the changes. 207.238.152.3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC).

superpower ? energy superpower?
The intro writes about an energy superpower. What does that mean? This is not an official term, rather a headline of a magazine. "The largest energy (oil /gas) exporter" would be an appropriate term. And what is this ridiculous claim about a superpower ? Russia in 2010 is a BRIC country, with no cultural, scientific output. Its economy is on position 12. in the world and smaller than 5 EU member states. Are these now superpowers too ? Please remove this absurd sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.18.56 (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But the truth is Russia is an energy superpower (and a world superpower) as they are the world's largest and biggest energy superpower in the world officially now. Saudi Arabia is no longer the energy superpower as it was 2 years ago that's all changed now as the facts says exactly what it is. Sorry but Russia's economy is 6th not 12th--Globalstatus (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that "a superpower" classification is too unclear and subjective. Why not just use more concrete terms like "energy superpower", "security council member", "nuclear power", etc. instead of the vague general superpower? I would support doing that in the lead as a compromise. Offliner (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Article is being abused request to close editing again
There has been more edit abuse on the article page that we have to again closed the open editing due to abusing editors, removing context without consensus is again abusing the article. If you have to remove something or add content (with sources) than that is what the talk pages are for, not erasing everything in its path without consensus.--Globalstatus (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about doing the revert. I thought removing the whole speculation would be a good compromise to end the dispute. But maybe it wasn't. Let's talk instead. Offliner (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Superpower status
I was on vacation when the issue was discussed here last time, and I'd rather not meddle into this issue at all if not for the GA reassesment proposal. Personally I'm mostly indifferent whether to call Russia a superpower or not. However, as a long-term editor of articles superpower and potential superpowers I can tell that at present even the inclusion of Russia into potential superpowers list was not very easy feat. Currently there is no academic consensus on designating Russia as superpower, the overall majority of Anglophone scholars don't support it.
 * Oh really how so? If so, then show me nothing exist then? Who are these anglophone scholars then? and do you have the facts they don't support it either?

As far as I know, there are few academic works that support the idea of Russia as a future superpower, and hardly any works that count Russia to be superpower at present.
 * Again what makes you say such a thing at present what articles are you saying this from? Do you have data that says otherwise?

Short newspaper articles where the word superpower just makes the better title, random flattering phrases like that from Netanyahu or some U. S. senators are not a good ground for designating Russia as superpower in the strict sense of the world.
 * Ok so should I call US Senators John Kerry, John Cornyn and Carl Levin then let them know we can't use their information because of an editor on Wikipedia says they are not qualified experts and we should erase the National Records Achieves of Congress that our Senators are wrong because they are just flatting US Senators that means nothing to the public for media sources or even acedemic sources? Why maybe we should ask the National Records of Congress on other things like Martin Luther King, I have a dream that this was just flatting phrases and it not considered acedemic sources for Wikipedia too.


 * So if President Obama calls China a superpower are you going to denounce his information just flattering? I mean that becomes record on the National US achieves of speeches in Congress which says in acedemical information from the government as public national record? Are you going to contact the National Achieves of Congressional Records to say otherwise that information is misleading and cannot be used as acedemic source or a defination of nation of a superpower is just flatting phrases? So should I contact Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel or even President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela say there are flatting phrass to the public and they should remove their press releases on Russia is a superpower or calling China a superpower or any other country or etc etc then? Should I contact them and let them know they are wrong and they should perhaps contact the media they are wrong then? Maybe contact the media networks that constructed the journals to denounce their interviews also because they are just flattering information and their position as World leaders are not good ground for saying such information?

There are very specific academic definitions of the notion superpower, and many people simply mix it with the notion of great power,
 * Really many people and who? Where are these many people located that say its a great power then? Are they notions or short form? Send me the peoples names maybe I can gave them a call and have a discussion with them then see if I can bring them aboard this discussion.

so the fact that some important people called Russia a superpower doesn't mean anything, until either these people represent a clear majority view or some good academic articles or books specifically address this question and resolve it positively. Greyhood (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh so we can actually start deleting everything out of the article that is not an acedemic source then? You've got 70% that is media sources, so I guess that means we can take all those articles out of the article too because they all mean nothing to the article than? Where should we start going one by one on the article? There's 285 articles on the article page so I guess this means we should start going through every 285 sources to count only acedemic facts only. I think I may have to see if an Adminstrator will concur that and the rest of the editors who have all volunteered their time building this article that we have a new rule to delete all none fact sources, everything and all flatting phrases too?


 * First not all articles are short and this discussion has been going on since 2007 on the superpowers page on an on Greyhood you are repeating old information that does not see fit than just your opinion that was way before your vaction. You have not even mentioned sources from PhD international foreign relation experts for example such as Ronald Steel a professor of international foreign relations at the University of Southern California (& Harvard) who has written books for over 48 years on international foreign relations experience and find countless reviews on his extensive experience on international foreign relations or even Steven Rosefielde a professor of economics at the University of North Carolina (with a Ph.D. from Harvard), and a member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. Both have written and have provided their research on Russia being a superpower for use on acedemic sources in MLA format or university acedemic research format.


 * For the US as a superpower there is only one article on the superpowers article used to say it is a superpower which was written back in 1999, that is over 11 years ago. The world has changed a lot since then, China and Russia have both been viewed by the media as superpowers but hey you said you disagree with the media.


 * On the other hand, the recent few years upsurge of calling Russia a superpower in the media sources is quite an interesting matter per se, and of course may be mentioned in encyclopedia. But it is rather out of place in the introduction to the article about the country, where we should stick to the solid facts and clear majority opinions.Greyhood (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if that's what your inplying then what about the entire article then? You suggest fishing out all the opinion from top to bottom for the Russia article? I mean if you are discussing one subject than you have to count everything else which would need consensus on from A to Z then.


 * Also, the correct, non-controversial presenting of the information about the current speculations on Russia's power status really should take much more place than one short line with a large collection of random sources, that's why it is better to remove it from the intro. However, if someone would suggest the way of inserting a few lines about the superpower speculations somewhere into the main body of the article, that would be perhaps not that bad. Greyhood (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I just've looked through the long list of articles above at the talk, that are put forth as sources for Russia's superpowerdom by Globalstatus and perhaps some IPs. The usage of the word superpower there mostly falls into the following categories:
 * the word superpower used only in the title to make it more sensationalized
 * an article talks about Russia as a future superpower or reasserting itself as a superpower, not about the present superpower
 * an article talks about Russia as superpower only in a military or energy respect
 * the word superpower is misused and mixed with the notions of great power or regional power
 * an article just reports that someone else called Russia a superpower
 * There is no any source presented so far that specifically and exclusively discuss the question of Russia's current superpowerdom and resolves it positively, only casual, sensationalized, non-accurate, non-academic usages of the word superpower. So we have only interesting speculations and no good references.
 * Oh so this is really a fairytale? So have you reviewed all 285 articles other then these too?

Globalstatus, you should either provide some really good sources or take the matter easy and watch the mention of current superpower status issue removed from the intro.
 * I find that really interesting that according to you that all conclusions are ill founded? Wow. I guess I will have to contact Professor Ronald Steele and Professor Steven Rosefielde that their reports are ill founded by Greyhood and their notions of written research on Russia as a superpower is non-accurate non-academic and maybe just flattering information. I guess I will have to get on the phone and call some US diplomats also and inform them their information was disapproved by you.

Greyhood (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that I don't think it's a great topic for the intro, at least how it's being phrased at the moment. Discussion/descriptions in the media are certainly suitable in a media section, and reliable views on Russia's geopolitical status are also worthy of inclusion in the article, but the lede is not the place to go over the discussion. Perhaps one could say something like this:


 * Russia's contemporary geopolitical status, having been the dominant part of, and legal successor to, a former superpower, has been the subject of much discussion in political debate, the media and academia; in particular in relation to unipolar and multipolar views of the global political system.


 * Does that seem like a fair suggestion? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems good. How about adding the line into Foreign relations subsection? Greyhood (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

--So this has been the subject of much discussion in political debate, the media and academia; in particular in relation? ''Wow but you said you were on vacation and this is a large discussion? You claimed we, who's we?''

It sounds like you have made a decision to close this matter and write the opinion all yourself claiming Russia is not a superpower after a vacation after a long hated argument over and over. Wow I can't believe my eyes what I am reading here. I am so lost at words here.

I am sorry but I totally disgree with you Greyhood and that I truly don't believe a thing you have said in your conclusion.--Globalstatus (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Globalstatus: In your short time here you have done nothing but push one single point, against consensus and while engaging in personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith with respect to the other contributors. If you don't stop this behaviour, you are fast heading towards a block or a topic ban. I have half the mind to report you at WP:AN/I already. By the way, stop inserting your comments in the middle of comments of others; if you want to respond to a comment of a particular user, do so below the comment of that user, not in the middle of it. Nsk92 (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * you are fast heading towards a block or a topic ban, how is that? I have half the mind to report you at WP:AN/I already. Well if that is the case try reporting me for it, don't have a clue but I would like to see your case then.

The whole discussion here is nothing but outdated. The concept of superpowers is outdated as well and does not reflect the current descriptions concerning the global power structure. There are 3 spheres of influence in this multipolar world right now: The USA, EU-Europe (and its members) and an emerging China. After that Russia, Japan and a little bit India and Brazil hold some powers. There is nothing like an "energy superpower" as well, otherwise Norway or Saudi Arabia could claim this term as well. Russia is an oil gas exporting country, nothing else. Italiano111 (talk) 11:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Russia is an oil gas exporting country, nothing else. Wow that is something I never heard of, where is that supported from?

Unfortunately, Globalstatus is making this discussion a mess both technically and in spirit. Firstly, Globalstatus, kindly stop inserting your unsigned comments inside that of other people. Secondly, the burden of finding good sources lies on you, and you haven't provided them so far. Ronald Steel (or his editors) uses the word superpower only in the title of his short article. Steven Rosefielde writes about Russia as future superpower. An interview with Russian diplomat and Azerbaijani articles simply mix superpower with great/regional power. Etc. Random politically motivated or just colorful language phrases from U.S. senators, Chavez and Netanyahu do not make Russia a superpower in an instant. Provide some academic sources, that talk about Russia as a superpower at present, that discuss it thoroughly, not only in the title. Even if you find such sources, they would be still very few and their conclusions would be heavily challenged by many other sources. Anyway, Globalstatus, it seems that the current consensus is to remove the superpower line from the intro. Perhaps, in a modified form, it can be placed into Foreign relations subsection. And I have another proposal: try first to modify the superpower article if Russia's status is so important to you. Superpower clearly designates Russia as a potential superpower, not present, and there is no report about all recent speculations. It looks silly when we read about Russia a superpower in Russia article and then go to superpower articles and see that Russia only a potential superpower. Greyhood (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me see so your saying Russia is not a superpower and you need sources as that there is not enough data, well lets take a look at these examples that say Russia is not a superpower then listing on the article if anything where's this information you shall quest from them? Data, research, resources how are they creditable, not much but the same vice versa.

Here's the statements you have said below: 1. Currently there is no academic consensus on designating Russia as superpower, the overall majority of Anglophone scholars don't support it. ''Greyhood then who are these people then? Who is the majority of these Anglophone scholars and prehaps the editors from the articles stating Russia is superpower are scholars? And what makes a scholar a person who can clarify this subject or any subject? But according to you, U.S. senators John Kerry, John Cornyn & Carl Levin, President Chavez and Prime Minister Netanyahu are not scholars is that right? Peter Brown, Kyle Atwell and Vyacheslav Nikonov as these guys scholars are they a majority of anglophone scholars? The anglphone means - who speaks english especially in countries where english is not the only language that is being spoken. Are you stating that anglophone scholars are special people? What is the difference between a anglophone scholar verses a world leader then? Prehaps they maybe both?''

2. There is no any source presented so far that specifically and exclusively discuss the question of Russia's current superpowerdom and resolves it positively, only casual, sensationalized, non-accurate, non-academic usages of the word superpower. So we have only interesting speculations and no good references. Who is we? And what are these articles then are they acedemic, are they anglophone scholars are they creditable?

3. random flattering phrases like that from Netanyahu or some U. S. senators are not a good ground for designating Russia as superpower in the strict sense of the world. The word flattering means - given self flattery. ''So when I hear Obama talking about China then I guess according to you he is just flattering then right? How about professor Dilip Hiro he says in this interview that the United States is not a superpower I guess he is just flattering then according to you. When I see the word flattering and Google it Stephen Colbert pulls up which he seems to be flattering politics. Maybe you know the difference between Stephen Colbert and lets says US senator Carl Levin, how are these 2 guys different or are they the same and flatter dicussion? Are they anglophone scholars or not what do you think? So when I here Saraha Palin talking about foreign policy or how about Miss Teen USA Caitlin Upton talking about South Africa are they falltering information or are they stating the facts for the record? If I am to look for a source that is not flattering then lets looks who maybe flattering and you maynot be flattering. Lets see, is it video 1 or video 2 or video 3 or video 4. Maybe you can guess who is not flattering and flattering and who you say is maybe a anglophone scholar and isn't anglophone scholar?''

4. On the other hand, the recent few years upsurge of calling Russia a superpower in the media sources is quite an interesting matter per se, and of course may be mentioned in encyclopedia. But it is rather out of place in the introduction to the article about the country, where we should stick to the solid facts and clear majority opinions. Ok so you say facts Greyhood, so when you edit on your particular topics such as under: Russian people lets use some examples such as Lazar Kaganovich so are these articles factual or non-accurate non-academic? How about Yevgeny Kaspersky or  are these factual or non-accurate non-academic? How about Oleg Timofeyev or Oleg Timofeyev or Léon Theremin non acedemic source here on Roman Matin  or Mikhail Bakhtin (what is this?)

5. There are very specific academic definitions of the notion superpower, and many people simply mix it with the notion of great power ''Many people than who are those people then, if there's a mix then why is the weight favoring the country is a potential or returning superpower than? And if you say great power where is you acedemic facts it is a great power?''

6. You said - so the fact that some important people called Russia a superpower doesn't mean anything, until either these people represent a clear majority view or some good academic articles or books specifically address this question and resolve it positively. ''These people represent a clear majority view like well then who is the majority then? Maybe you should visit the China, Brazil, India and USA article pages and ask the same question, ask those editors to provide the same content? You seem to pick on Russia for not being a superpower (yet you haven't provided any acedemic articles saying it is now vice versa) but your outside the box on not 100% using academic articles or books yourself. and etc.'' If you want me to backtrack your contributions to articles that lack non credited or non acedamic I would be happy to review your edits and contributions but you seem to be burking on the this superpower arena for really a bad reason.

7. a. You said -the word superpower used only in the title to make it more sensationalized - ''Oh it is sensationalized then? Hows that, did you interview the writer, do you have his audio file to verify that information?''

b. You said - an article talks about Russia as a future superpower or reasserting itself as a superpower, not about the present superpower- ''Oh ok so a 1999 11 year old USA sole superpower source is more creditable than a 2004 Russia superpower acedemic book source then? I guess you didn't read the revised version then.'' c. You said - an article talks about Russia as superpower only in a military or energy respect - Professor Paul Dukes, say "a superpower must be able to conduct a global strategy including the possibility of destroying the world, so what is Russia then? And does not respect the energy respect as a superpower then so what article are you talking about? d. You said - the word superpower is misused and mixed with the notions of great power or regional power - How is it misused? Maybe even great power is misused? or regional power? All you do is say but you have quoted no links vice versa the facts over it then. Where is it? e. You said - an article just reports that someone else called Russia a superpower - ''Well who is that person then? Are they nobody you perfer not to say? Yet your calling it isn't then, what is your acedemic sources? If I call Russia a superpower, your statement is no its not, if Obama calls Russia a superpower, is your answer no it's not? If Fareed Zakaria on CNN called Russia a superpower is your answer no its not? What is your point if some calls Russia, China or the USA a superpower or not as if someone said he's a scientist or he's professor, what's your point?''

Lastly I have discussed this issue with Admin Daniel J. Leivick about using realiable sources which he has said that not all articles have acedemic sources and media sources are verified sources to use on Wikipedia, even blog sources have been critized but as long as they are media blogs or education blogs and google video's.


 * globalstatus, your contribution is valued, but you need to understand how Wikipedia works. There is a stunning architecture of etiquette rules that allow people of vastly different viewpoints to work together harmoniously. The encyclopaedia would have fallen apart years ago if this were not the case, and it would not have become the universal go-to source that it is now.
 * There are two principles I want to bring to your attention. One is presume good faith. You have a very big disagreement with a couple of editors here (I've read your messages on their talk page) and you seem to mistake disagreement with prejudice - as if they're disagreeing with you out of spite. They're not the same thing. Disagreements will never get resolved if you accuse people of bad faith. This is what's happened here, which is why you and Greyhood are shouting at each other.
 * The other principle is that Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability. Our own opinions are officially without importance. Arguments on this page about the merits of arguments about Russia being a superpower are fundamentally irrelevant. What's relevant is what respected, reliable opinion makers and researchers say. As editors our struggle is to represent opinions fairly.
 * With that in mind, and with your fears about bias noted, I suggest you try a google scholar search on the terms "Россия" and "сверхдержава" ("Russia" and "superpower"). When I did it, every single article (I think) in the first 100 where abstracts or content were available, was about the question of Russia's status, not a statement of it. In many it is a question of in what arena is Russia even a great power, or just a regional one. Discussions of "superpower" tend almost entirely to be about Russia's potential, not the actuality. Many results were references to an article entitled "РОССИЯ-сверхдержава, великая или региональная держава?" (Russia - superpower, great power, or regional power). The abstract for it is here - and typical of the articles I found, it characterises the question as one more interesting for who asks it, rather than what the answer might be. What seems clear both from English language and Russian language literature is that Russia's position fascinates analysts, but characterising it as "superpower or not" is a misrepresentation of the literature. My suggestion above for the lede - to state that the question fascinates people - remains. Would you agree with it? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Since your hiping on non-acedamic articles on Russia then your also complying the same issue of other article in question as well.

Lets look at the articles on the Russia article page that are not acedemic sources and etc etc.--Globalstatus (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 134.60.105.198, 18 September 2010
Muslim percentage should be 10-15% in Religion section for Russia.

134.60.105.198 (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * . Sources say it is much higher than that. Please provide reliable sources. This article and the article on Religion in Russia states a range of figures, so even with soures a change to this will need to be debated here, not with an Edit request. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A proposal to settle down the superpower issue
I'm starting this new section, since the previous one is now a great mess thanks to Globalstatus. Here is my last comment about VsevolodKrolikov's proposal that was deleted by Globalstatus for some reason :


 * Hm, after doing some testing, I think that the proposed line (Russia's contemporary geopolitical status, having been the dominant part of, and legal successor to, a former superpower, has been the subject of much discussion in political debate, the media and academia; in particular in relation to unipolar and multipolar views of the global political system.) looks not bad when put into the intro. VsevolodKrolikov, I think it would be nice if you insert it with few of the better sources taken from the old superpower line. I think also that the same proposed line + the old superpower line should be added as a new paragraph in the Foreign relations section (both lines stylistically modified). Greyhood (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that line qualifies as a paragon on Orwellian doublespeak. It's a lot of words to say essentially nothing whatsoever.   Fell Gleaming talk  01:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just done the basics, but keeping citations only to the new paragraph - no time to do more. Hopefully we can focus on expanding the paragraph rather than on the lede. FellGleaming, there's nothing double-speaky about saying that there is a debate and the nature of it, because it's there in the literature, and it clearly does exercise politicians, commentators and academics. Do a scholar search or a news search and you'll find a lot of material. Lots of it has been posted here or in the article. There's a lot in Russian, too, as I pointed out above.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree because you are actually not answering the questions back.--Globalstatus (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But you didn't say there's a debate over whether or not Russia's a superpower. You used nearly fifty words to say there's been "much discussion about Russian's geopolitical status".  A statement so watered down as to be meaningless.  It informs the reader of nothing whatsoever.   The previous version had problems, but was much better than this.  Fell Gleaming talk  01:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I know I didn't say that. That's a mischaracterisation of the debate, as I explained above. Why would I want to have a mischaracterisation in wikipedia? Sometimes in wikipedia we have to "water things down" (or as I call it, avoiding POV) because the real world is more complicated.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The goal here is to inform the reader. That sentence is guaranteed to confuse anyone encountering it.   Why not simply state that some sources consider Russia a superpower, whereas others (like this Moscow Times article ) say its a nation trying to regain Superpower status?   Fell Gleaming talk  02:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks FellGleaming I concur with that. There hasn't been enough opportunity to discuss this issue. Changing this article would precisely confuse the readers; you have pro superpower sources and non but the weight is on the pro articles in its favor. The article should stay so the readers can read both sides of the article sources to judge if Russia is a superpower or not.--Globalstatus (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think what's there now needs a lot of work. But I also don't think we should censor out the entire debate either.  I also don't know that I would agree a preponderance of sources state Russia is a superpower.  In any case, that's not up to us to decide.  We find reliable sources, and let the reader make their own decision.  Fell Gleaming talk  02:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I am throwing in these articles in for Russia as a superpower, they are media related sources, one is an acedemic source with resources attached plus these are from 2010:

1. Will Russia Be the Superpower That Will Stop Iran from Going Nuclear - The Middle East Media Research Institute By A. Savyon July 29, 2010

2. Why isn't anyone taking Kyrgyzstan's calls?; Foreign Policy By Steve LeVine Friday, June 18, 2010

3. Georgia: An Insecure Foothold for the United States - The Globalist - Martin Sieff June 02, 2010

4. The Dangers of Nuclear Disarmament by Sergei Karaganov - Project-Syndicate News April 4, 2010

5. Azerbaijanis, Armenians can be good neighbors (Superpower Neighbor Russia) News Az - March 2, 2010 by Akper Hasanov

6. Perspective of Karabakh conflict settlement unreal in current conditions - News Az - June 2010 by Vafa Guluzade

7. The dangers of nuclear disarmament - TODAY’S ZAMAN News May 1, 2010 by Sergei Karaganov

8. Sergei Karaganov: Weapons that save us from ourselves - Scotsman News: 05 May 2010 Sergei Karaganov

9. Obama restricts America’s use of nuclear arms -San Diego Conservative Examiner by Robert Rische April 6, 2010 [examiner. com ] Because the Examiner is on a backlink I will send a snapshot of the article for viewing asap.

10. Right after the uprising - Sunday's Zaman April 17, 2010 by Dogu Ergil Kyrgyzstan conflict

11. The Dangers of Nuclear Disarmament - Saint Petersburg Times By Sergei Karaganov May 4, 2010

12. PM's visit underlines rising Indian interest in Ibsa, Bric - Business Standard News; Jyoti Malhotra / New Delhi April 16, 2010

13. Russia’s mission is Eurasian integration - RIA Novosti by Xing Guangcheng August 8, 2010

14. Guam Back to Life? - RIA Novostiby by Bogdan Tsirdya August 3, 2010

15. Armenian base part of Russia's quest for 'superpower' status - News.Az By Leyla Tagiyeva August 30, 2010

16. Boost for nonproliferation - The Japan Times April 10, 2010

17. Syria asks Russia to lean on Israel - Asia Times Online By Sami Moubayed May 14, 2010

--Globalstatus (talk) 03:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you're misrepresenting some of those sources, many of which question if Russia actually is a superpower, or say it's a superpower "with respect to its nuclear arsenal", or similarly qualify the statement.  Fell Gleaming talk  03:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * EDIT. Please keep the discussion here, rather than my talk page.  And now that I look at more of these sources, some of them say the exact opposite of what you're claiming, such as this one .  Note it specifically refers to the "superpowers" during the US-USSR era.    Rather than slinging sources, why don't you state here exactly what text you feel is a most accurate representation?   Fell Gleaming talk  03:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't have to agree to all of them, I realize that even this one but the terms are worded in each of them. I stir away from Post Soviet articles and stick with what Russia is generally considered now. I did not see great powers in any of them but one yet it was referring to great powers such as France and Britain not Russia.--Globalstatus (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that the section needs more work. My concern is the "superpower or not" representation. The debate is about whether Russia is, can/will or should aspire to be a superpower or a great power or just a regional power, and is complicated by disputes over what those first two terms mean. (try a scholar search on Russia "great power" to see examples of these complexities) My suggestion for the lede was trying to be neutral. As you'll see from the sources, the issue is framed by all kinds of political POVs which we need to avoid. If anyone has a more incisive line for the lede, please suggest it. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the discussion of whether Russia is a former superpower, a current superpower, or a nation on the verge of regaining superpower status is one that should be covered outside the lede entirely. Would you agree?   Fell Gleaming <sup style="color:black;">talk  04:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ideally, the lede should reflect the contents. And I think this particular debate is interesting and notable enough to be included in the contents. But the lede is pretty bloated (and far too many citations for a lede - the legacy of being a fought-over article). So I'm only weakly for keeping it in the current context. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My take would be "what's in a name?" There are a million things more notable about Russia than whether or not someone chooses to call it a superpower.  I agree the debate is quite interesting, but I don't see how to summarize it in any meaningful way in the lede that both maintains fairness and also informs the reader of something useful.  Fell Gleaming <sup style="color:black;">talk  05:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are more articles on the subject but not much under great power to regional over superpower, that's mostly after 2006 the terms superpower has been written about Russia in hundreds news media articles. As I have said even the United States has one acedamic source article supporting it, only one that dates back to 1999. I have found over 110 articles on Russia from 2004 to 2010 from re-emerging superpower status, potential superpower status and superpower status. Professor Paul Dukes said a superpower must be able to conduct a global strategy including the possibility of destroying the world as US Senator John McClain last year said Russia still has the weight in military strength to conduct hard and soft power.
 * I support to leave the subject as it stands currently but let more articles come in for viewing which I can provide more articles on supporting this evidence.--Globalstatus (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You all don´t get it, right ? The concept of having two, and only two superpowers, refers to the era from 1945-90. Obviously one party has collapsed entirely and is now the 12th largest economy with a more or less regional impact. During the last 2 decades China emerged and the EU has risen and consolidated its position. No serious academic claims the position of the EU (The combined interests of its members) or China has become globally dominant. Instead these two new players are globally relevant, like the US, which is likely not seen as the sole superpower, but rather the most important among several players. The world is multipolar and Russia is a strong player in the region comparable with India or Brazil. But Russia has no global scope. The potential of Russia´s capabilities are so limited that reliable academics not even believe in "potential" superpower status. The introduction is not the place of presenting such a discussion in general. all the best Italiano111 (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Italiano, basically I agree with you that the future world will be more multipolar and that's why it is unclear whether the concept of superpowers will have any real meaning in the future. But you don't quite understand the relation between superpower and global power. Superpowers are not the only global powers, since great powers are also global according to the definition, and Russia fully qualify as a great power. Greyhood (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

According to my initial proposal, I've inserted the following para into the Foreign relations section:
 * Russia's contemporary geopolitical status, having been the dominant part of, and legal successor to, a former superpower, has been the subject of much discussion in political debate, the media and academia; in particular in relation to unipolar and multipolar views of the global political system. Russia is characterized as a currently reinstating or potential future superpower by a number of experts and politicians,     while such characterization is disputed by many other analysts.   
 * If it is not correct and neutral enough report of the ongoing Russia's power status speculations, please make the necessary amendments. As anyone and especially Globalstatus can see, the old line from the intro has been now inserted into the different place of the article with all sources, while it has been almost universal consensus to remove it from the intro. I hope that this will be the compromise solution to the problem. Greyhood (talk) 11:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it is both correct and neutral. The problem is that it is confusing, overly prolix, and punctuated improperly.  I suggest the following instead, "Having been the successor to a former superpower, Russia's geopolitical status has been often debated, particularly in relation to polar views of the global political system. Russia is usually characterized as a currently reinstating or potential future superpower.  Other sources consider Russia a regional power, or dispute the concept of superpowers is even meaningful in the modern world."   Fell Gleaming <sup style="color:black;">talk  11:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * FellGleaming, I've inserted the first your sentence, slightly modified, into the article. The second, however is not correct, since Russia is accepted and usually characterized as a great power and only recently a number of sources started to dispute it's superpower status. Now the paragraph looks this way:


 * Having been the successor to a former superpower, Russia's geopolitical status has been often debated, particularly in relation to unipolar and multipolar views on the global political system. Russia is commonly accepted to be a great power, however in recent years it has been characterized by a number of experts and politicians as a currently reinstating or potential future superpower.      Such characterization has been disputed by many analysts.   
 * Perhaps some stylistic amendments are needed in the second sentence, however. Greyhood (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I like Greyhood's version better because Russia as a Great power is probably the most common view, and although I myself have said that some argue Russia is or should be only a regional power, I can't find decent sources to back that up (it was Bush II people from outside of the reality-based community, but I can't remember more than that). I would make some stylistic changes, highlighted in bold:


 * As the successor to a former superpower, Russia's geopolitical status has been often debated, particularly in relation to unipolar and multipolar views on the global political system. While Russia is commonly accepted to be a great power, in recent years it has been characterized by a number of scholars, commentators and politicians as a currently reinstating or potential future superpower.     However, such a characterization has been disputed by others.   ''


 * How's that? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've inserted your proposed changes, though I'm not sure if the very beginning (As the successor to a former superpower, Russia's geopolitical status) is stylistically good. Greyhood

(talk) 13:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Other than "scholars, commentators, and politicians" who else would comment on Russian's superpower status? Does that information add anything, or is it just excess verbiage?   You either state its a majority view (if you can support that interpretation), or you name specifically those who are stating it.   Ambiguous weasel wording such as "others say" or "others disagree" is frowned upon.  Fell Gleaming <sup style="color:black;">talk  14:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * FellGleaming: I think it's far better than "experts", which is value-laden, and makes it very clear that these arguments are going on in three domains. The Anglophone press on Russia since the end of the cold war has - in general - not covered itself in glory in terms of reading the runes or reporting accurately what's going on, mainly due to editorial politics and lack of language skills (e.g. the coverage of Kasparov as some great white hope, or the sometime beatification of people like Chubais). As a result, there's often been a big gap between commentators in the press and academics - but of course the press insists it has "experts". And politicians of a certain kind still talk about Russia like it's 1956. Russia is one of those places people project their fears onto. So being clear who's talking helps a lot.
 * Greyhood - I preferred "As" to the perfect gerund because it was fewer words/letters, so visually less clutter. But I'm not that fussed if someone changes it.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If Russia is a great power Greyhood then where is the facts? Deleting sources that say otherwise as a superpower and adding to it as great power doesn't not make any sense, there is no acedemic sources? The intro is doesn't make any sense and saying it is a Great Power when it has not been even discussed until until I have the opportunity to read these sources. You are changing the content on a limb of information and you are doing it so quickly that does not promote all those you read these sources.

I DO NOT agree to the intro and I do not agree Russia is a great power until the sources are available otherwise and the sources that you erased have not even been discusses about either. This is not an article according to you.--Globalstatus (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop acting like there is personal issue between me and you, and try to read more attentively what other people write to you. Read carefelly my answer to you on my talk page. The sources for Russia being great power are presented in the great power article (see the table in the end), you may bring these sources into this article if you like. You don't agree that Russia is a great power? Then how do you support Russia being a superpower? Do you know that to be a superpower a country should meet the criteria of being a great power as well? Greyhood (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If the sources for Russia being great power are presented in the great power article (see the table in the end), but you are on there as well editing denouncing Russia based on your editing history is not a superpower on there too and you are on the Superspowers denoucing it is not on there either; at what point is the editor in a blockade over editors who continue to disagree to say they think they know whats best. Think outside the box and not look for all the sources on Wikipedia because the modification and content you keep erasing you have made it impossible for readers to find the sources editors provide; you erase those sources so what makes you think everything in Wikipedia is true? So forget the time table and spend sometime providing the sources you continue to say about as Russia is this great power and it is not a superpower and you also have not marely read the all the sources I had provided yesterday, you have denouced everyone of them and every single source at hand on Russia being a superpoewer or emerging or potential superpower Greyhood. For example you did not even comment on this source from above - "Will Russia Be the Superpower That Will Stop Iran from Going Nuclear - The Middle East Media Research Institute By A. Savyon July 29, 2010". Should I just assume that you just disapprove this source like all the other sources you disapprove? I am not reading anything you have provided my Greyhood as I have nothing to read from you or disapprove other than the intro and erasing the sources as you have done.


 * Why do you think news organizations or journalist refer Russia as a superpower on the topics or headlines, why do you suppose they use those terms over and over again? I mean should I just contact The Middle East Media Research Institute or why Washington announces Russia as a Superpower 2007 The chief speaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried that he is wrong or misleading the public?

I mean why do they write it for? I mean should I call all these news organizations up and say they are misleading the public and tell these media or research organizations that they should not be calling Russia a superpower Greyhood?

Look at these titles and article below and tell me I am wrong here? WHy do you suppose they write these articles? "Why isn't anyone taking Kyrgyzstan's calls"; Foreign Policy By Steve LeVine Friday, June 18, 2010 or "Georgia: An Insecure Foothold for the United States" - The Globalist - Martin Sieff June 02, 2010 or "The Dangers of Nuclear Disarmament by Sergei Karaganov" - Project-Syndicate News April 4, 2010  or "Azerbaijanis, Armenians can be good neighbors" (Superpower Neighbor Russia) News Az - March 2, 2010 by Akper Hasanov  or "Perspective of Karabakh conflict settlement unreal in current conditions" - News Az - June 2010 by Vafa Guluzade or "The dangers of nuclear disarmament" - TODAY’S ZAMAN News  May 1, 2010 by Sergei Karaganov or "Sergei Karaganov: Weapons that save us from ourselves" - Scotsman News: 05 May 2010 Sergei Karaganov  or "Obama restricts America’s use of nuclear arms" -San Diego Conservative Examiner by Robert Rische April 6, 2010  [examiner. com ] or "Right after the uprising" - Sunday's Zaman April 17, 2010 by Dogu Ergil Kyrgyzstan conflict  or "The Dangers of Nuclear Disarmament" - Saint Petersburg Times By Sergei Karaganov May 4, 2010 or "PM's visit underlines rising Indian interest in Ibsa", Bric - Business Standard News; Jyoti Malhotra / New Delhi April 16, 2010 or "Russia’s mission is Eurasian integration" - RIA Novosti by Xing Guangcheng August 8, 2010 or "Guam Back to Life" - RIA Novostiby by Bogdan Tsirdya August 3, 2010 or "Armenian base part of Russia's quest for 'superpower' status" - News.Az By Leyla Tagiyeva August 30, 2010 or Boost for nonproliferation - The Japan Times  April 10, 2010 or "Syria asks Russia to lean on Israel" - Asia Times Online By Sami Moubayed May 14, 2010

These are simple Google news articles that pull up daily but I what are you saying about them on here calling Russia a great power instead. Why don't you ask them to provide acedemic sources or why do you call them tell you'll provide them sources that they are wrong if you have any. A what point is this discussion going to say about the news media is otherwise saying Russia is a superpower?--Globalstatus (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

In relation to Greyhood's initial proposed wording in the lede, I actually prefer the older version which said: "Russia is characterized as a superpower by a number of sources     , although such characterization is disputed by some analysts.    "  This is more directly on topic. I am fine with some of the later versions suggested by Greyhood and VsevolodKrolikov, such as: ''As the successor to a former superpower, Russia's geopolitical status has been often debated, particularly in relation to unipolar and multipolar views on the global political system. While Russia is commonly accepted to be a great power, in recent years it has been characterized by a number of scholars, commentators and politicians as a currently reinstating or potential future superpower. However, such a characterization has been disputed by others. '' I am fairly neutral on whether to keep any discussion of the superpower/great power et terms in the lede although I would probably somewhat prefer to remove that from the lede and discuss it in the main body instead. The terms like "superpower" are fairly meaningless in the modern world and they have heavy POV connotations and associated POV controversies - just on those grounds it might be better to move that stuff out of the lede. Nsk92 (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, with all the ongoing problems regarding GA status and article size, we should avoid so visible POV controversies. Also we should try and avoid oversourced statements, especially in the intro (having more than 3 sources in a row is quite bad visually, and it is not a situation when one or two sources is enough, while no good comprehensive sources are available). Greyhood (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not fine with the current changes as there is no information provided that Russia is a great power. Before this discussion started Greyhood acted to assume Russia is a great power providing no valid sources otherwise to the editor and readers. I disagree with the wording and the article should be changed to the orginal version. Because there is over hundred media articles currently stating Russia is a superpower weighs more evidence by that factor but there not no evidence that otherwise says Russia is a great power. The article is misleading the readers in its place and I continue to question these edit changes because I am not convinced this article is good enough but only misleading the readers from superpower to great power when Googling provides more Russia superpower sources than great power sources.


 * Therefore the article should be edited to the orgininal context as it was--Globalstatus (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A proposal to settle down the superpower issue - arbitrary break

 * Adding this in consensus as this is what the heading should say nuclear weapons states and possesses the world's largest stockpile of weapons of mass destructionand is the world's largest energy superpower.   Russia is a great power although such characterization is disputed by some analysts Russia is characterized as a superpower by a number of sources      
 * After reading over and over the orginal change it just doesn't make sense so I am posting this version for the intro for the time being as sources are directing to this wording is much better.--Globalstatus (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * He is the missing link to another Russian superpower source from the list from above that contained a broken link:

"Obama restricts America’s use of nuclear arms" April 6, 2010 PM San Diego Conservative Examiner by Robert Rische The Examiner Press http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/7092/suseofnucleararmsonsupe.jpg --Globalstatus (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have added this to the article on separate terms as this - As the successor to a former superpower, Russia's geopolitical status has been often debated, particularly in relation to unipolar and multipolar views on the global political system. While Russia is commonly accepted to be a great power, in recent years it has been characterized by a number of world leaders, scholars, dilpomats, commentators and politicians


 * Just posting this as my suggestions of superpower sources.--Globalstatus (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Globalstatus, do you understand that we are trying to cut the size of the article? If you do understand that, why are you adding citations that are entirely superfluous, and changing the text only to increase the word count without adding any extra meaning?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am merly adding nothing just sources, if you look at the USA article is is massive, Russia should get the same respect. I am an American trying to do this article a favor with some good sources and that is all.--Globalstatus (talk) 05:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The United States article is 166,744 bytes long. The Russia article is 200,372 bytes long, over 1000 of which have just been added by you in adding entirely superfluous sourcing. The Russia article is bigger. So how about taking out your revisions, because they add nothing but bytes? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Russia is a country of very smart people (I think the worlds smartest people), lots of invasion, technology and culture and so much more, the article needs sources of why Russia is so important and should be I think discribed important than American, especially the 21st century.--Globalstatus (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

With such a comment, you are demonstrating why you are a disruptive editor.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not, I just disgree with calling Russia a great power for example. That disturb me in calling Russia a great power as it is like calling it a 3rd world country in my opinion. I am an American but I speak Russian and I have some family in Russia. I went to school in Oxford University, Oxford England, I studied Cold War and etc on Russian culture in Oxford. So I like Russia and the people so I defend Russia in many ways American's would never think of for example. The news said over here in California is much different than what you would hear in Russian News, there is media curruption here in the States but that is a whole other discussion. I have spoken to a professor about writing an acedemic source on Russia being a superpower as I am going to see if I can get something written or an institution of some sort to give this article a boost it needs a good source or a source that is voted agreed in some community here.--Globalstatus (talk) 07:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You cannot publish your personal views on wikipedia. You're not the only one here to have studied Russia (not even to have studied Russian politics at Oxford), or to consume Russian media. You seem to confuse consensus with unanimity. Everyone else is agreed that your attempts to have Russia unequivocally labelled as a superpower is inappropriate. Your decision to ignore this and plough on pushing your POV is disruptive. Why don't you drop the matter and find something more productive to do? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I said I would find a professor or institution to write a creditable source, not me.--Globalstatus (talk) 07:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)