Talk:Superpower/Archive 12

Edit war
Here we go again, Antiochus the Great abusing the superpower article deleting 37,169 bytes) (-4,976)‎, and he did so without consensus, deleting more than 49 sources and adding 18 sources instead is wrong. It is a fact that user Antiochus the Great is anti Russia & Brazil and that is not a threat but his history of edits are abusive toward these countries in particular. Notice how Antiochus the Great deletes every Russian source, look at what he does here[], that is abuse and discriminatory of country of origin and this will not be tolerated. Edits will not happen without consense and sources will not be removed without consensus either or the article will be blocked.Yay for Antiochus.

Do not abuse the article please! --212.166.90.111 (talk) 10:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This is very childish of you isn't it? I was merely acting within the guidelines of the policy WP:RSUW and thus don't need a consensus. If you have a policy problem with my edits then please ask an administrator to review the situation. Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No need, I have kindly requested for an administrator to comment here and express his opinion. Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I found there to be problem too and there seems to be a problem an editor which you mentioned. I will suggest we move for a block Antiochus the Great --27.121.111.201 (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I've locked the article in lieu of blocking both parties: neither of you get to edit-war over content disputes. Use this page to cordially discuss proposed changes. If I see personal attacks, I'll act accordingly.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * My only intention is to address some issues of nationalistic pov that has crept into the article, as well as a few other issues. If you take a look at my contributions to this article they have been constructive edits. A simple comparison of the current revision with the former is proof itself. I do not appreciate being branded as anti-Russian and abusing articles. I am also concerned as to why the IP wants to so ardently defend the former revision that contains significant nationalistic pov as well as many other issues? When this is all behind us, I would like nothing more than to work constructively on this article together! Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I disgree when you have done this then here lead to here then another user undid the edits here but then he does this then he removed this without consensus here and this which he says citations were added but weren’t clearly cited and then he removes edits here and does it again here and here and here and here again again and again that pushing and discussing nothing on your push--27.121.111.201 (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What are you trying to achieve here? I mean you're selecting some of my edits where I have been fixing the structure and layout of sections (e.g such as forming paragraphs, because a single sentence doesn't constitute a paragraph!!!) and yet you trying to present it as me abusing the article!! That doesn't make any sense. As for latter edits of mine you make reference too - I hardly think you are in a position to point fingers as you engaged in the edit-warring too! What I would like an answer too, is why are you so passionately trying to defend the revision which contains nationalist pov? As you obviously have no valid reason to dislike the rest of my edits. Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Antiochus is acting in reasonable conformity with WP:CRYSTAL - we should not guess about these things, but rather wait until mainstream sources agree. Definitely this kind of thing, especially advocating things that are not well agreed, should not be in the article lead. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 27.121.111.201, the 5,000 bytes worth of material you're arguing for is not commonly agreed. Therefore it does not belong in the WP:Lead in its current form. The lead is not there to expound full discussions of subjects, but to lead into a fuller discussion lower down. Recast your argument into a couple of succinct sentences, make sure they're referenced (ALL the references go at the end of the sentence, in ONE footnote), and insert the rest lower down in the article. Antiochus, this is valid discussion - don't delete it out of hand; insert it in its proper place. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I fully disgree, actually Antiochus the Great did so without consensus, he knocked off tons of content and erased a lot of verified sources. That's like charging a car color from red to pink, would you live with it? There was no warning prior to what he did and that I will defend my argument here. The article does not appear to be sourceful now as it is misleading to the public.--27.121.111.201 (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Buckshot06, thank you for kindly expressing your most helpful advice on this matter. I will take on board what you say, and not to delete it out of hand. A re-write of the information in question and then allocated to a more appropriate place sounds reasonable. However like you said to 27.121.111.201, "the 5,000 bytes worth of material" isn't "commonly agreed" upon, therefore any re-write should also mention that the overwhelming consensus among scholars, academics and political scientists is that neither Russia or the European Union are superpowers, and that in the case of Russia is unlikely to ever be a superpower again. What do you think? Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No. The lead should not debate controversial issues, just signpost the potential new trends. So it would mention with a reference that Europe has been called a potential superpower, and that would be about it. Long discussions over the merits of E & Russia's superpowerdom do not go there - they can be debated with references, but not in the lead. Personally I would not mention Russia in the lead at all; they're more a major power (as in the Congress of Vienna sense) than a superpower these days. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you may have misunderstood my most recent post, perhaps I didn't word it properly sorry. As I have said before I think the lead should be kept entirely free from such controversial discussions. But if you look at the very bottom of this article under the heading "Potential Superpowers" there is a brief overview of countries cited as having the potential of achieving superpower status in the 21st century - so any such discussion about the merits of Russia or Europe etc could be done there. And yes agreed, Russia is most certainly more of a Great power as opposed to a superpower these days.Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Russian sources have been clearly represented as a superpower, lets bring them up again to Antiochus the Great, he apparently doesn't want Russia on the playing field. In fact his past reflects of deleting anything related to that argument. There are plenty of other editors that will agree on Russia as reflected as emerging superpower again. Some of the worlds most powerful voices have made statements, PhD foreign relation professors and say Russia's stage on the world stage.--27.121.111.201 (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's see what Antiochus the Great did without consensus to the Superpowers article in one edit, this is the original version here on line 1: Reagan and Gorbachev hold discussions jpg US President Ronald Reagan (left) and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, former leaders of the Cold War's two rival superpowers, meeting in Geneva in 1985. The Suez Crisis, which ended British Empire's status as superpower and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 left the United States as the only superpower. This remains unchanged. ]]

Then Antiochus the Great changed the above without consens to this: File:Superpower map 1945 |400 thumb|A world map of 1945. According to William T.R. Fox, the United States (blue), the Soviet Union (red), and the British Empire (teal) were superpowers.]]

'''Then Antiochus the Great added this without consensus too:' ' A 'superpower' is a state with a dominant position in international relations and is characterised by its unparalleled ability to exert influence or project power on a global scale through the means of both military and economic strength, as well as diplomatic and soft power influence. Traditionally superpowers are preeminent among the great powers (i.e as the USA is today). The term first applied to the British Empire, the United States of America and the Soviet Union. However following World War II and the Suez Crisis in 1956, the British Empire's status as a superpower status was diminished; for the duration of the Cold War the United States and the Soviet Union came to be generally regarded as the two remaining superpowers, dominating world affairs. After the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, only the United States appears to fulfill the criteria of being considered a world superpower.

Then Antiochus the Great removes "Origin"and replaces it with this here without consensus: Alice Lyman Miller (Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School) defines a superpower as "a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time, and so may plausibly attain the status of global hegemony."

'''Then Antiochus the Great is removes original content again here without consensus: 'A year later, William T.R. Fox, an American foreign policy professor, elaborated on the concept in the book The Superpowers: The United States, Britain and the Soviet Union — Their Responsibility for Peace'' (1944), which spoke of the global reach of a super-empowered nation. Fox used the word Superpower to identify a new category of power able to occupy the highest status in a world in which, as the war then raging demonstrated, states could challenge and fight each other on a global scale.

Then Antiochus the Great replaces without consensus here to his version: There have been attempts to apply the term superpower retrospectively, and sometimes very loosely, to a variety of past entities such as Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, China, India, the Persian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Roman Empire, the Mongol Empire, the Portuguese Empire, the Spanish Empire, and France. Recognition by historians of these older states as superpowers may focus on various superlative traits exhibited by them.

Then Antiochus the Great is removes original content again here without consensus: According to him, there were (at that moment) three states that were superpowers: British Empire, the United States, and the Soviet Union. The British Empire was the most extensive empire in world history and considered the foremost great power, holding sway over 25% of the world's population and controlling about 25% of the Earth's total land area, while the United States and the Soviet Union grew in power in World War II.

He then replaces it with this without consensus (no sources either): "Terminology and Background"

Same with "Characteristics", Antiochus the Great adds without consensus here: The term was first used to describe nations with greater than great power status as early as 1944, but only gained its specific meaning with regard to the United States, the British Empire and the Soviet Union after World War II. This was because the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union had proved themselves to be capable of casting great influence in global politics and military dominance. The term in its current political meaning was coined by Dutch-American geostrategist Nicholas Spykman in a series of lectures in 1943 about the potential shape of a new post-war world order. This formed the foundation for the book The Geography of the Peace, which referred primarily to the unmatched maritime global supremacy of the British Empire and United States as essential for peace and prosperity in the world.

Then Antiochus the Great removs this without consensus here (under Characteristics): "The criteria of a superpower are not clearly defined and as a consequence they may differ between sources."

Then Antiochus the Great add this without consensus here: A year later, William T.R. Fox, an American foreign policy professor, elaborated on the concept in the book The Superpowers: The United States, Britain and the Soviet Union — Their Responsibility for Peace (1944), which spoke of the global reach of a super-empowered nation. Fox used the word Superpower to identify a new category of power able to occupy the highest status in a world in which, as the war then raging demonstrated, states could challenge and fight each other on a global scale. According to him, there were (at that moment) three states that were superpowers: British Empire, the United States, and the Soviet Union. The British Empire was the most extensive empire in world history and considered the foremost great power, holding sway over 25% of the world's population and controlling about 25% of the Earth's total land area, while the United States and the Soviet Union grew in power in World War II.

Then Antiochus the Great removes Car War without consensus here: - Original research |section|date November 2009 Remove Image:Cold War Map 1980 from Cold War in 1980. Consult the legend on the map for more details

Then Antiochus the Great removes this to not replace it without consensus: Despite attempts to create multinational coalitions or legislative bodies (such as the United Nations), it became increasingly clear that the superpowers had very different visions about what the post-war world ought to look like, and after the withdrawal of British aid to Greece in 1947 the United States took the lead in containing Soviet expansion in the Cold War.

Then Antiochus the Great removes population source without consensus here: Had a population of 290.9 million in 1989

Antiochus the Great replaces it without source here: Had a population of 286.7 million in 1989, the third largest on Earth behind China and India

Then Antiochus the Great removes this without consensus under Car War: The idea that the Cold War period revolved around only two blocs, or even only two nations, has been challenged by some scholars in the post–Cold War era, who have noted that the bipolar world only exists if one ignores all of the various movements and conflicts that occurred without influence from either of the two superpowers. Additionally, much of the conflict between the superpowers was fought in "proxy wars", which more often than not involved issues more complex than the standard Cold War oppositions.

Then Antiochus the Great removes without consensus: "Post Cold War Era" to "Cold War Era" instead

Then Antiochus the Great removes this without consensus: After the Soviet Union disintegrated in the early 1990s, the term hyperpower began to be applied to the United States, as the sole remaining superpower of the Cold War era. This term, coined by French foreign minister Hubert Védrine in the 1990s, is controversial and the validity of classifying the United States in this way is disputed. One notable opponent to this theory, Samuel P. Huntington, rejects this theory in favor of a multipolar balance of power.

Then Antiochus the Great replaces without consensus here: After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 that ended the Cold War, the post–Cold War world was sometimes considered to be a unipolar world, with the United States as the world's sole remaining superpower. In the opinion of Samuel P. Huntington, "The United States, of course, is the sole state with preeminence in every domain of power – economic, military, diplomatic, ideological, technological, and cultural – with the reach and capabilities to promote its interests in virtually every part of the world."

Which Antiochus the Great replaces this without consensus here: A 2012 report by the National Intelligence Council said that America's superpower status will have eroded to merely being first among equals by 2030, but that the USA would still be the most important country in the world because of its influence in many different fields and global connections that the great regional powers of the time would not match."Forecast Sees Eroded U.S. Power." Additionally, some experts have suggested the possibility of the United States losing its superpower status completely in the future. Citing speculation of the United States relative decline in power to the rest of the world, economic hardships, a declining dollar, Cold War allies becoming less dependent on the United States and the emergence of future powers around the world.

Then Antiochus the Great removes without consensus this: A 2012 report by the National Intelligence Council said that America's superpower status will have eroded to merely being first among equals by 2030, but that the USA would still be the most important country in the world because of its influence in many different fields and global connections that the great regional powers of the time would not match."Forecast Sees Eroded U.S. Power."

Then Antiochus the Great replaces it with this without consensus here too:Some people doubt the existence of superpowers in the post Cold War era altogether, stating that today's complex global marketplace and the rising interdependency between the world's nations has made the concept of a superpower an idea of the past and that the world is now multipolar. However, the military dominance of the United States remains unquestioned, and its international influence has made it an eminent world power.

Then Antiochus the Great changes Hyperpower and adds the following without consensus here: Among those political commentators who felt that the United States had moved beyond superpower status after the fall of the Soviet Union, some felt a new term was needed to describe the United States' position. French Minister Hubert Védrine used the term "hyperpower" in a speech in March 1998, the earliest recorded use. It has also been applied retroactively to dominant empires of the past, including the British, French, Roman, and Chinese Empires. In this use, it is usually understood to mean a power that greatly exceeds any other in its political environment along several axes; Rome did not dominate India or China, but did dominate the entire Mediterranean area militarily, culturally, and economically.

To this without consensus: Among those political commentators who felt that the United States had moved beyond superpower status after the fall of the Soviet Union, some felt a new term was needed to describe the United States' position. French Minister Hubert Védrine used the term "hyperpower" in a speech in March 1998, the earliest recorded use. It has also been applied retroactively to dominant empires of the past, including the Persian Empire, Roman Empire, Arab Caliphate, French Empire, Mongol Empire, Ottoman Empire and the British Empire. In this use, it is usually understood to mean a power that greatly exceeds any other in its political environment along several axes; Rome did not dominate India or China, but did dominate the entire Mediterranean area militarily, culturally, and economically

Then Antiochus the Great removes Main|Potential superpowers

Then Antiochus the Greatreplaces it with this without consensus here: The term "Potential superpowers" has been applied by scholars and other qualified commentators to the possibility of several states achiveing superpower status in the 21st century. Due to their large markets, growing military strength, economic potential and influence in international affairs; China,     the European Union,  India, Russia   and Brazil   are among the countries most cited as having the potential of achieving superpower status in the 21st century. Pertinently, a country would need to achieve great power status first, before they could develop superpower status, and it could be disputed whether some of the countries listed above (e.g., Brazil and India) are presently great powers.

Then Antiochus the Great removes without consensus here: File:Potential Superpowers svg 300px Present day governments that currently are or have the potential to become a superpower within the 21st century. − {{legend|#edd400| United States of America  }} − legend|#75507b| Brazil }} − legend|#cc0000| China }} − legend|#3465a4| European Union }} − legend|#73d216| India }} − legend|#f57900| Russia }}]] − Academics, institutions, politicians and other qualified commentators sometimes identify potential superpowers thought to have a strong likelihood of being recognized as superpowers in the 21st century. The record of such predictions has not been perfect. For example in the 1980s some commentators thought Japan would become a superpower, due to its large GDP and high economic growth at the time. However, Japan's economy crashed in 1991, creating a long period of economic slump in the country known as The Lost Years. As of August 2012, Japan has not fully recovered from the 1991 crash.

Then Antiochus the Great removes this without consensus here too: Due to their large markets, growing military strength, and economic potential and influence in international affairs the Republic of India, the European Union, the Federative Republic of Brazil,  the People's Republic of China,    and the Russian Federation,   are among the powers which are most often cited as having the ability to influence future world politics and reach the status of superpower in the 21st century. Pertinently, a country would need to achieve great power status first, before they could develop superpower status, and it could be disputed whether some of the countries listed above (e.g., Brazil and India) are presently great powers.

Then Antiochus the Great replaces it with this without consensus: The record of such predictions has not been perfect. For example in the 1980s some commentators thought Japan would become a superpower, due to its large GDP and high economic growth at the time. However, Japan's economy crashed in 1991, creating a long period of economic slump in the country known as The Lost Years. As of August 2012, Japan has not fully recovered from the 1991 crash.

'''Which this was done with one edit by Antiochus the Great, no discussion whatsoever by him nor did he inform anybody of these changes. He removed loads of sources and replaced them with no so good sources, that is uncalled for and it out of line. The article is now meaningless. Edit is needed to correct these problems Antiochus the Great has created to this article.''' --27.121.111.201 (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What are you trying to achieve with this? You went to all that trouble for what exactly? Whats your opinion on what Buckshot and I were discussing about? Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The sources are defining Russia as a emerging superpower, it's just that simple.--27.121.111.201 (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * @27.x: discuss content, not other editors, and be concise. I will not respond to personal attacks or walls of text alleging impropriety by editors with whom you disagree, nor am I here to arbitrate content. If no progress is made here I will extend the protection until a consensus is reached.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * On review, I've extended protection for two weeks, since I don't see any chance that a discussion that started last May will be resolved in the next few hours. Please comment on content, not on other users, avoiding comments like the original title of this section, which I have adjusted.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I was putting the consensus on what the editor did and questioning consensus. I am not getting an agreement on Antiochus the Great, he aparently doesn't want to discuss his edits. I have a problem with that as he has done this before.--27.121.111.201 (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 27.121.111.201, so you want me to consult with you and discuss every edit I make on this article? That doesn't sound reasonable, because thus far you have fallaciously attacked every single edit I have made (including edits where I have fixed simple grammar and structure mistakes like forming paragraphs). I think both Acroterion and Buckshot06 will both agree with me when I say that I don't have to discuss such good faith edits. What is concerning me however, is that you still refuse to discuss why you support Russian/EU pov in the articles leading paragraphs. As the administrator Buckshot06 pointed out to you, such material doesn't belong here!! Also 27.121.111.201, stop harassing me on my talk page, stop harassing my edits on other articles and stop doing what you did here. Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Looking at the article there's only one person whe has changed it and only one person who wants no one to change it, that's Antiochus the Great. You took and moved thigns around and now you want no one, not even one person to touch it. You don't believe anything what editors do but yourself. Now we have a page that went from superpowers to one superpower and made a list of potential superpower instead. Pretty messed up.--162.211.179.98 (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * 162.211.179.98, the decision to deal with the issue of nationalistic POV within this article is clearly supported by two administrators that have kindly intervened in this recent dispute. The IP editor who accused me of "abusing this article" received a temporary block for harassment, disruptive editing and trying to forcibly push his nationalistic POV. 162.211.179.98, you say that the page "went from superpowers to one superpower" - please tell me what is wrong with this? Only the United States is considered a superpower, so naturally this article should reflect that reality. Remember, Wikipedia is not a place for editors to assert their POV agendas! Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Time to remove this source from Kim Richard Nossal. "Lonely Superpower or Unapologetic Hyperpower? Analyzing American Power in the post–Cold War Era". Biennial meeting, South African Political Studies Association, 29 June-2 July 1999. Retrieved 2007-02-28. This is a 15 year old source that needs to be updated with something else.

Can be replaced with academic sources such as http://www.news.illinois.edu/news/08/0508superpower.html

Defines US as great power http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/us-china-a-new-model-of-great-power-relations

Not an acedemic but a sister chain source http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/100238900/us-government-shutdown-barack-obama-is-presiding-over-the-end-of-americas-superpower-status/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.211.179.98 (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * While this not an acedemic site, USAwatchdog.com their interview Karen Hudes and her creditable position states the U.S. Not a Super Power and Not Credible Anymore.
 * World Bank lawyer Karen Hudes says the global opinion of America is tarnished. Hudes contends, “Is the United States a credible super power?  The answer to that is ‘we are neither.’  We’re not a super power and we are not credible.” http://kahudes.net/
 * As Youtube is not a creditable source, it's the material I am looking at in the in the interview
 * http://usawatchdog.com/u-s-not-a-super-power-and-not-credible-anymore-karen-hudas/


 * .org non profit site
 * America Was Once a Superpower - Now It's Not - 30 October 2013 By The Daily Take, The Thom Hartmann Program | Op-Ed
 * http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/19713-america-was-once-a-superpower-now-its-not

--162.211.179.98 (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Since there are no new source updates from the 15 year old souce Kim Richard Nossal. "Lonely Superpower or Unapologetic Hyperpower? Analyzing American Power in the post–Cold War Era". Biennial meeting, South African Political Studies Association, 29 June-2 July 1999; the only acedemic sources that are new are sending the United States as a great power. So with that I move to remove this 15 year old article off and replace with the current sources.

The US has lost its superpower status when there no new acedemic sources to support it anymore, therefore the article needs to be changed.--162.211.179.89 (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * With the current restructuring of the article, the statement and source is actually no longer needed. SG  2090 00:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I did some reading over and over on the article and do not quite agree the article is making much sense from original. Noticed some of the edits with material but sources have been tossed out which I quite don't undertsand but I am seeing that from one editor making those changes. I don't see any agreements on that and for that I support older version.--103.1.153.206 (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I want to make conflict of interest on 109.76.220.159 and Antiochus the Great both are the same editor and both are creating edit wars from pushing the same POV. Since this is a talk page it is not being used as a talk page and they are avoiding it. There is POV pushing and no talking on this page. If there is going to be no talking then the article will blocked again.--103.1.153.206 (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep neutral point of view
Can editors please remember to keep a neutral point of view when editing this article (read WP:NPOV). Reverting the article back to an earlier revision that contains a significant amount of POV material (such as stating Russia or the EU is a superpower) is unacceptable and unhelpful. If you feel changes need to be made to the article then be constructive and adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Alternatively discuss such changes here at the talk-page. Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's acceptable when there are sources to back the material which there are. Antiochus the Great it appears you don't like them on the history of Superpowers and not talking about it here also removing doesn't resolve it too. If reverting the article back to an earlier revision that contains a good amount of POV material such as stating Russia or the EU is a superpower is acceptable and helpful, throwing them out is not the answer.--103.1.153.206 (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Its not acceptable to push any form of POV under any circumstance. Your above comment shows an absolute lack of understanding of Wikipedia's policy WP:NPOV. Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I saw no prior talk, I saw a take over on the older version moved to this, unacceptable. Now going back to push any form of POV under any circumstance what is there here, who's doing this here Looks like a push on Wikipedia's policy WP:NPOV--103.1.153.206 (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Add protection padlock template
Subject line says it all. If a bot is supposed to do it, it's not working right. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  18:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * , this is disruptive mess clogging up User:AnomieBOT/PERTable and Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests is very inappropriate. I've closed the request and added an appropriate list request on WP:RFPP.  Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hyperpower
Cannot find any discussion regarding the proposed merge of Hyperpower into this article, so I will start by expressing my opinion here. Having taken a look at the Hyperpower article, it is clear it does not merit its own article, furthermore the Hyperpower section in this article gives a more comprehensive overview of the term anyway! Therefore I would support the proposal of a merge. Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks like you decided to change this before you started the discussion here on Hyperpower. You removed superpower across the board and didn't think twice about it.--27.121.111.201 (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't be changed to Hyperpower. OccultZone (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I also would support the proposal of a merge.  Subtropical -man  talk  (en-2)  17:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Superpower article revision, no POV
I would like to raise concerns over the recent behavior of a number of anonymous IP editors (the latest of which is 103.1.153.206) who are repeatedly making unconstructive edits to this article. The motives behind these unconstructive edits is to restore POV material. Such POV material includes making the assertion that Russia and the EU are superpowers. Furthermore, every time they restore their precious POV revision of the article they also intentionally undo a significant amount of edits made by me and others to improve the quality of this article.

As I write this RfC, this is the current (supported) revision, while the POV pushing IP editors want to restore this revision. I invite everyone to take a brief look at both revisions if you please.

What I would like to get from this RfC is to promote discussion and reach a consensus of some sort. Maybe even a decision of which revision to endorse. Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thread discussion

 * I believe that the current version is more compact and balanced than the last one. Their was clout in the previous presentation in terms of potential superpowers being in the lead. They should stay on their article. SG  2090 01:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support current ('supported') version (591153177). It is not appropriate, in my view, to have the speculation about the EU and Russia etc in the lead (WP:UNDUE). Might well be added to the emerging superpowers section at the very end. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't Support current version. The lead was better in December, EU and Russia should be in the lead, Russia is an emerging superpower as much as the EU is.--198.23.76.141 (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @198.23.76.141. Your argument is nugatory. The lead is no place for speculation (written in a POV manner) about the EU and Russia being superpowers! Such material is not in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. The current revision lists Russia and the EU as potential superpowers in the appropriate section towards the end of the article (re-written in a neutral point of view). Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments

 * This version is better 17:25, 28 December 2013. I disagree on this version 23:14, 30 December 2013 Why? Because the older version has much more sources, it's better constructed and is more dynamic to the reader on the term Superpower but also lets readers know who's a superpower, the newer one doesn't really . The new version is poorly constructed and it not clearly cited, too many sources were removed from original version. Older version is definitely better and should stay.--103.1.153.206 (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't' this supposed to be on the Potential superpowers article? Swordman97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * SUGGESTION. This article has the potential to be very unstable with every nationalist trying to sneak the name of their country into the lede as an "emerging superpower" -- case in point: "A few heads of states,[8][9] politicians[10] and news analysts[11] have even suggested that Russia may have already reclaimed that status." The sources given do not appear to be reliable.
 * I propose that the current version be used with the sentence
 * ''"After the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, only the United States appears to fulfill the criteria of being considered a world superpower.[1]"
 * ... replaced by a modified version of sentences from the other competing version:
 * ''"After the Cold War, only the United States appears to fulfill the criteria of being considered a world superpower.[1] The term "Emerging Superpower" has been applied by scholars to the possibility that the People's Republic of China could soon emerge as a superpower on par with the United States or at least on par with the USA-USSR phase. [3][4][5][6], and by some to other states, such as European Union, India and Russia."
 * IOWs, keep the speculation about future superpowers short.
 * (editor randomly selected to participate in the request for comment) --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose the speculation as it is clearly violative of WP:CRYSTAL, and in some cases even WP:UPANDCOMING. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  02:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC) (a historian, and another editor randomly selected to participate in the request for comment)
 * Surely China ought to be mentioned. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As others have said above, such material is best left out of the lead paragraphs. Note that China (and other states) are adequately listed with citations in the Potential Superpowers section towards the end of the article. But I understand your motive being that China is a strong candidate and backed by popular academic consensus supporting it being an emerging superpower. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * China and Russia should be on the title for superpowers, both have acedemic sources to support their cause and both should be on as superpowers. Yes China should mentioned agreed and Russia too.--62.73.9.42 (talk) 10:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There are no academic sources that suggest China and Russia are superpowers. So no, they should not "be on [the article] as superpowers". Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see two sources on Russia and one source China as university material on prior talk. Can't put that away, the material says two countries are superpowers when there are publish material for reading.--62.73.9.42 (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * List the sources here. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * RFC Comment: Hi guys, instead of trying to decide whether Russia and China are superpowers, we could instead describe reasoning that reliable sources put forward to claim they are, or aren't. In other words, as WP:NPOV states, we should describe disputes rather than participate in them. For reference, here are a few sources on the matter 1, 2, 3. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with your suggestion that any debate among reliable sources should be included in the article. However, as others have stated here already, this shouldn't be done in the leading paragraphs. The Potential superpowers section towards the bottom of this article would be the most appropriate location or such a debate (based on reliable sources). Thanks again. Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 February 2014
The page should probably have a few more categories. The ones I'm suggesting should hardly be controversial and have nothing to do with the edit-warring, so I'm hoping an admin can just put them in place. Some of these categories already have Superpowers as a subcategory, but I think the page belongs in the categories themselves, too. Superpowers seems to be more about categorizing historical superpowers, while this is about the concept.

Suggest:

Wieno (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There is only 1 superpower at this moment, so how it would be possible?  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 04:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Wieno (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It was easy, you are talking about "superpowers", yet there is only 1 superpower.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 04:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This page is currently part of Category:Superpowers. Are you arguing that it should not be? Are you trying to import the debate about whether Russia and China should be mentioned in the article into this section? I'm really not quite sure what your point is vis-a-vis my edit request. Are you objecting to the article being included in any of the categories I suggested? If not, could you please explain what your point is? (More semantically, whether or not there is only one superpower currently, America is not the only superpower that has ever existed so it's clearly possible to use the term 'superpowers' in the plural when talking over the course of human history) Wieno (talk) 04:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable to add these suggested categories. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the Wieno's idea that he wants of making this article more historical and detailed, he wants to highlight those things that happened before 1991 and 1945. But he will have to edit/add himself. Then only we can reach to some consensus. Go ahead Wieno.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 17:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you won't accede to the request to add this article to some categories unless I take a position in the primary content dispute in this article? That does not seem like a fair request, and I don't think it's a legitimate reason to try and block consensus. Wieno (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I thought this would be uncontroversial enough for an immediate edit, but I'll try and get consensus. Is there any objection to any/all of these categories? Wieno (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * User:OccultZone There is NOT only 1 superpower at this moment, so how it would be possible as well? You've got China and Russia, can't avoid those countries. I would ask that, the US currently has no superpower source backing it up User:OccultZone, that should be clarified first, second China and Russia are on there paths for superpowes, not potential, one is an emerging superpower and other one is already there. I understand there are some pro USA editors and refuse to listen but defending something that is lacking something, is not good for the article. There are negatives and there are positives but the article has more negatives than positives, so yes there is controversial stuff in the article. So I oppose the current article as it stands that it should be modified more with more material and more sources.--64.129.10.92 (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, but all that aside, how do you feel about the addition of the categories I suggested? Do you have a problem with adding any of them? I need consensus to get the edit in, so if you could even mention your position on it in passing, that would be greatly appreciated. Wieno (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My position is there was a lot of wording and sources taken out December 30 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Superpower&diff=588439869&oldid=588090036
 * ever since then, there has been nothing but cross fire here. So taken that context out without prior talk was not completely sorted out. I think sources were taken out for bad reasons that had little support. If we're going to work something out, then we should start that date Dec 30, talk things out and get everything fixed--64.129.10.92 (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, trying to make the article a history article when the prior was about the current superpowers. If one editor that wants to make a history lesson, they should build a "superpowers history" article from stratch on their own, not here. Yes some history but the current history lesson here is not working, it lacks too much current information.--64.129.10.92 (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Surely your position can't be that no edits should be allowed (no matter how non-contentious) unless the main editing dispute is worked out. I have no position on what countries should and shouldn't be included in this article. But whatever the final format of the article, whichever countries are included, there categories seem appropriate. Is there any reason these categories would not belong in your preferred version of the article? Because if the categories should be included regardless of what's in the article, then it should be an easy consensus. Wieno (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean catagorize each country?--64.129.10.92 (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I mean put the page Superpower into the five categories I listed. This has literally nothing to do with which countries are superpowers, and would have absolutely zero effect on that debate or outcome. Wieno (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@64.129.10.92. China and Russia are not superpowers. Currently only the USA fits the criteria of a Superpower and is backed by reliable sources. All registered editors in the RfC discussion above agree that the current protected revision of the article is the best one to proceed with, that is the current consensus being formed. There are many policy issues with your edits and if you continue to push your nationalistic POV and go against consensus then you may find yourself blocked. Antiochus the Great (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You said Currently only the USA fits the criteria of a Superpower and is backed by reliable sources
 * If the US is a superpower, what sources please? List them here:
 * I want to see them.
 * Second if China and Russia are not superpowers, then what sources are you debunking then?

--64.129.10.92 (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If I don't get an answer to your statement about USA being a superpower with you stated Antiochus the Great, I am going to question your prior edits. I would like to get your facts please and list the sources that you are stating the US is a superpower. List them here.


 * If China and Russia are not superpowers, I am going to specifically question your comments, I want to know what you are saying is true or not true.


 * My acedemic source for Russia as a superpower is this acedemic source: http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam051/2004045110.pdf
 * You will notice this book is in the library of Congress by the way.


 * Wieno please take note and witness the crossfire here.

--64.129.10.92 (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously, can you guys please take this debate over which countries are superpowers and put it in the appropriate section of the talk page (i.e. the one about which countries are superpowers)? The only comments in this section should be about whether this article should be added to any or all of the five categories I listed. Thanks. Wieno (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

My acedemic source for Russia as a superpower in catagory is using this acedemic source: http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam051/2004045110.pdf

I'll let Antiochus the Great answer my questions above though too, he needs to answer. --64.129.10.92 (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, nobody has raised any substantive objection to the inclusion of these categories. If nobody else has anything to add, I'm going to reactivate the edit request. If you do have an objection to these categories and not to other editing disputes like whether Russia and China are superpowers, please add them below. Wieno (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There are absolutely no valid objections to the inclusion of the proposed categories. Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Since there's already another active edit request to this page and it's clear that OccultZone is just trolling legitimate edit requests for no reason, I'm reactivating this request. Wieno (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. It is clear though, you are wasting people' time. You are going no where with your "multiple superpower concern", unless you come up with your own edition, instead of forcing others to write for you. Seems like you want people to spoon you. It is hard to find, when you have actually discussed about your proposed categories. Read WP:Notaforum, you cannot open your edit request if it has been closed. Unless you have something new, as well as consensus. Otherwise it is just idiotic. And User talk:64.129.10.92, there is no superpower at this moment except USA. I can find 2 sources claiming Australia to be Superpower too, But they should be WP:RS, none of yours are.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 02:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Wieno I don't support the proposed catagories. Unless you catagorize China, USA, Russia, India in the catagories as superpowers.--62.73.7.79 (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Proposed categories would make sense, if there are multiple superpowers. No objection to the category "Superpowers" though, but all of them seems to be former superpower, except USA.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 05:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OccultZone you can't use Kim Richard Nossal source "Lonely Superpower or Unapologetic Hyperpower 1999 anymore which is the only acedemic source on the article using to state the US is a superpower, that's not stating the United States is a superpower for 2014, that source was written 15 years ago.--62.73.7.79 (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. I've added the categories. There have been a lot of words in this section, but there haven't been any policy-based arguments made against Wieno's proposed change. The categories in question don't have anything to do with the question of how many superpowers there might be in the world, and which countries they might be. Rather, the categories represent the defining characteristics of the subject of this article (see Categorization for more on this), and none of the characteristics described by the categories would change depending on the question of "one superpower versus many superpowers". Consensus on Wikipedia is decided through the strength of the arguments rather than the number of commenters, and so I've decided to enact this request based on the lack of any substantial arguments made against it. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 06:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree if it is about "defining characteristics", I never really objected the categories, but they should be described, on page itself. That how "superpower", is "hegemony", or related to "political science term", "States by power status", etc. Either way it won't be a issue, it can be expanded. Plus there are about 3 dead links, check, Can you tag?  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 06:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * On lead, "Alice Lyman Miller" should be wikilinked with Alice L. Miller.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 06:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have other edit requests, can you file them in separate sections, using the edit protected template? Please see Edit requests for more information about making edit requests. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 07:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Russia is not a superpower

 * @64.129.10.92. Your academic source does not make the assertion that Russia is a superpower. In fact on page 3 of the Introduction it reads: "This book, however, explains why it is more likely that Russia will reemerge as a prodigal superpower". So my question is, did you even read your own source? Clearly not! The Source is essentially claiming Russia is a potential superpower. Your suggestion that this sources claims Russia is a superpower is false and misguided. Funny. Antiochus the Great (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 February 2014
Hi, I believe that there should be a comma in the sentence " However following World War II and the Suez Crisis in 1956, the British Empire's status as a superpower status was diminished; for the duration of the Cold War the United States and the Soviet Union came to be generally regarded as the two remaining superpowers, dominating world affairs." from the lead following the word however. Thanks!

Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Quiet obvious though, how British lost its status. But you can gather some sources, if you can. It will be far more helpful.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 00:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear at this point that OccultZone is just trolling perfectly uncontroversial edit requests. I have no objection to this. Wieno (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * When did I rejected? If someone wants changes to the page. They must bring sources as well. If you are incompetent to suggest, why you have to weep around? Just saying.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 02:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 04:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 10th February 2014

 * 1) There are about 3 dead links, check, They should be tagged.
 * 2) On lead, "Alice Lyman Miller" should be wikilinked with Alice L. Miller.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 07:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. One deadlink (ref. 14) was already marked, the other two flags were both for ref. 13, and I have tagged that. JohnCD (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The United States is not a superpower
I am asking that this link be removed "Kim Richard Nossal. "Lonely Superpower or Unapologetic Hyperpower? Analyzing American Power in the post–Cold War Era", it is outdated, way outdated. You can not have a 1999 source to say the United States is a superpower. If the US is a superpower then it needs current acedemic sources to state it is a superpower. The url is http://post.queensu.ca/~nossalk/papers/hyperpower.htm I cannot find new sources stating the US is a superpower if so I would replace this 1999 with something newer.--62.73.7.79 (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Indirectly, the source said that US is only superpower, and until 2030(prediction) will be the sole superpower.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 07:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not an acedemic source, that's a news article blog. Notice you can comment on the bottom on the source below like a blog. If you read the url it says http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/10/19098 blogs on the url. I am not putting you down on your source, I am just saying it's not an acedemic source.--62.73.7.79 (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Stop POV pushing 62.73.7.79. Anyway, there are absolute tons of academic sources which deal with the topic of the USA as a Superpower. I have listed one here: From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations since 1776, published 2008, by Professor George C. Herring (Professor of of History at Kentucky University). The last chapter describes the USA as a "Hyperpower". 12:59, Antiochus the Great 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , I can smell anti-americanism from 62.73.7.79.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 17:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Theses maybe helpful to straighten the US on the brink of a superpower no longer. I am not finding anything that US is a superpower except for From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations since 1776 2008.

The world's superpower no more, July 15, 2014 http://www.dw.de/opinion-the-worlds-superpower-no-more/a-17788131

The takedown of the American superpower, July 17, 2014 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/17/crowley-the-takedown-of-the-american-superpower/

From Superpower to Besieged Global Power, May 2008 http://www.ugapress.org/index.php/books/from_superpower

--64.129.3.230 (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Questioing ref: Kwang Ho Chun">"...it is widely agreed that the US and the USSR were the superpowers of the Cold War era, and at present, the US is the sole world superpower. Not true.''


 * This book really lacks information on countries based on great power status, superpowers status and emerging superpowers status as it really confuses the world standing in world status from soft and hard powers for example. It lacks serious world events which is necessary to describe superpower status. It's funny that the caption says BRIC's superpower challenge but then the book later goes on to say that Russia has emerged as a superpower of the 21st century using "Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower" 2005 by Steven Rosefielde as a reference; emerging to world stage affairs and basically putting Russia & China on the brink of three superpowers in the book. So that's on one superpower at present, as I don't know what to say about the books title, I think the title is mistaken and the author is not 100% correct on because it is his opinion. He uses China in the ring of a superpower and defined the ring of powers of China, US and Russia, where did BRICs come from if Russia and China are listed as superpowers in the book? Sure Brazil and India are in the book but describes over the last several years of hard power between China and Russia. It also forgets the flip flops on the US lag of the middle east and South America which Russia has the strong hold and China holding to gain the number economy by 2014. Again this book is an opinion.


 * Second we have a 1999, 2008 and 2014 sources on favoring US as a superpower, one is out dated 15 years. Sounds like an over kill because somebody likes the United States for some reason. Is that fair? It feels like US propaganda on here.--64.129.3.185 (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I placed Kwang Ho Chun off the article. It is an overkill using the US as an superpower repeatedly is simply does not benefit anything here.--198.23.68.195 (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

EU as a superpower
I do not think this one source, an opinion piece solely discussing economic issues, is enough for the EU to be included in the article as a superpower. --Neil N  talk to me 14:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree, although the term superpower is horribly ill defined it usually includes global political and military power which the EU has not (much of anyway). This may change in the future, but then we are talking about a (even more horribly ill defined) potential superpower Arnoutf (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree NeilN. If we were to add another superpower, China, might make the cut but not the EU. Politically and economically the EU is fragmented. It doesn't have "unparalleled" power or influence on a global scale. Toffeepot (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "China might make the cut but not the EU" - It appears as if we as Wikipedia editors are now deciding on this. We really need verifiable and reliable source that decide which makes the cut. Arnoutf (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Good luck with finding one of those! Until we have a clear definition it's all opinion, no matter how verifiable and reliable. By the way, I tried seeing what Google Ngrams has to say but the numbers of occurrences are too low to be of much use. Toffeepot (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed, that is in fact why neither China or the EU are listed right now; and they shouldn't be. Arnoutf (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Map Explanation
The map used is misleading for several reasons. One, it purports to show that the US has a massive sphere of hegemonic power due to several treaties it is part of including proposed treaties. For example, the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance is included in the map which has no influence or US domination in it, it isn't a military organization controlled by the US, it's a reciprocal defense treaty that not to forget, is ignored by many members of it, and many of those members actively oppose parts of US foreign policy. ANZUS also doesn't necessarily have US domination, when New Zealand didn't like a nuclear provision in it, it just withdrew and stopped participating in many US military exercises, if the US really had a hegemonic influence over them, then how did that work out to happen. NATO can be argued that it is heavily influenced by the US but again, NATO member states refuse to follow US foreign policy wishes all the time and openly defy US foreign policy in the region. The other three mutual defense treaties just mean that they will both come to each other's aid in the case of either being attacked. Those three countries are very close nonetheless due to aligned foreign policy goals in their regions but that isn't due to a US hegemony. Now to the other treaties such as the proposed treaties of the TTIP and the TPP. Those proposed treaties don't indicate any US hegemony, the TPP for example existed between several south asian nations before the US even started negotiations to join and even if the US joins the treaties, that wouldn't give them a hegemony over those countries in any way. The TTIP also doesn't show a US hegemony even if it were enacted and it is still proposed anyway. Two, the military bases shown on the map are not all actual US military bases but that is a smaller issue. Three, major non-nato ally status does not indicate a US hegemony over a country, simply increased cooperation. There is a big difference. - SantiLak  (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You copypasted the violent and abusive terms of your Hegemony Talk. This has no sense, the military and economic treaties of the US are perfectly responsible of its status as a Superpower thus the map is perfectly reasonable here. By the way, if you didn't read our Hegemony talk:

Relations between US hegemony and TTIP-TPP: http://www.feps-europe.eu/assets/64d92837-8f50-4d0e-8d32-798db061424d/ttip-contr-oct2014-mtelopdf.pdf http://janewatkinson.com/2014/08/13/the-ongoing-power-and-hegemony-of-the-us/ http://www.rosalux.de/fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/Standpunkte/policy_paper/PolicyPaper_01-2015.pdf https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/08/11/18759878.php

"The US initiated TTIP to strengthen its hegemony through a strategy encompassing both the Atlantic and Pacific regions. Through TTIP and TPP"

Relations between US hegemony and TIAR: http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/10/new-threats-same-old-u-s-hegemony/ https://books.google.es/books?id=pbYbzoKoFgUC&pg=PT38&lpg=PT38&dq=US+HEGEMONY+TIAR&source=bl&ots=zMBXffdT3G&sig=nxv8Vk1ciDse3BjlPd5vBkC3Wpc&hl=es&sa=X&ei=nR8-Vbr0E-ee7ga7noHIAw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=US%20HEGEMONY%20TIAR&f=false "...an age ofuncontested U.S. hegemony over Latin America..."

Relations between UKUSA and US hegemony:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/echelon/echelon03.htm

https://books.google.es/books?id=a5rKferIbf0C&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=ukusa+agreement+%22us+hegemony%22&source=bl&ots=HFr06UT1Uf&sig=WNbVhGsPFFTSJj4ZXrKtxBGzbMw&hl=es&sa=X&ei=lSA-Va3UGqS17gb_jIDYBQ&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ukusa%20agreement%20%22us%20hegemony%22&f=false


 * There are thousands of references with a simple Google search. I can continue for ages, Santilak. Stop defending the indefensible.

LadyBeth (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I see no issue with the map, it is well placed for illustrative purposes. Furthermore the map is not intended to show US hegemony, but the US sphere of influence.Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My argument first off wasn't violent and abusive, I copied and pasted it because the same user asked me to explain it on both articles. Second off, the spheres of influence are inaccurate and if all those treaties mean those countries are in their sphere of influence then Canada has mass spheres of influence much like it minus the military bases. Obviously that's not true but my point about the treaties still stands, just because the US is part of one, doesn't mean they hold a sphere of influence over the member countries. - SantiLak  (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Santilak you are completely wrong. Military and economic treaties led by the US are common viewed as the sphere of influence of the States. You're basing your claims in a Pink Flavour interpretation of reality which denies the power and influence of the USA in the world and the enormous influence it performs with the treaties. Here you have some sources of the link between "USA sphere of influence" and TPP, TTIP, NATO, TIAR, ANZUS and many others:

http://biblio.univ-annaba.dz/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/SADAOUI-Lamia.pdf

"These include the Australia, New Zealand and United States Treaty (ANZUS in1951) and the Southeast ...... America's sphere of influence. "

https://books.google.es/books?id=mhJY7VgEWTUC&pg=PA409&lpg=PA409&dq=tpp+%22america+sphere+of+influence%22&source=bl&ots=Pmj6w50uWz&sig=WrDctWNxCOcudW6nEaC4ycgNHr0&hl=es&sa=X&ei=io4-VannIcfa7AaZ9YEY&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=tpp%20%22america%20sphere%20of%20influence%22&f=false

"to include Japan in America's sphere of influence."

https://books.google.es/books?id=14nBFFK8_y0C&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=tpp+%22america+sphere+of+influence%22&source=bl&ots=9VusQkuWRq&sig=S5-yTQEIdZgfg5DF8J-0gtCh64U&hl=es&sa=X&ei=io4-VannIcfa7AaZ9YEY&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=tpp%20%22america%20sphere%20of%20influence%22&f=false

And so on. There are plenty of studies naming "American sphere of influence" and linking it to NATO, TPP, TTIP, TIAR, ANZUS and others. You are trying to hide -nobody knows why- the utterly obvious fact that the USA projects power. I'm not inventing the wheel.

Nagihuin (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not saying they don't project power, they do it just like many other countries do but the map you show, like I said the spheres of influence are inaccurate. Great use of ellipsis by the way, because in that exact paragraph with the "These include the Australia, New Zealand and United States Treaty (ANZUS in1951) and the Southeast" it doesn't say anything about "America's sphere of influence" there and the only place where it does is 117 pages away where it says "Russia does not see these revolutions as spreading democracy but rather as enlarging America’s sphere of influence." so good job on the disingenuous quote front. Same with quote from the book which isn't from the book but from a Chinese government official who said that. Again like I said, the US projects power and has influence in other countries, but to make a map that claims that it somehow has this mass sphere of influence in so many countries based on a series of treaties is misleading. - SantiLak  (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Due to the faults with map, I have removed it.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * @SantiLak. I retract my earlier comment, you bring up some relevant points, cheers for digging into the sources. It does indeed now appear the map is inappropriate. @LadyBeth. I think it may be worthwhile if a map were made, but for it to be clearly based on reliable authoritative sources, rather than interpreting the sources yourself, as you have appeared to have done.Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't notice they were blocked for sockpuppetry.Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Can a power be a superpower without being a great power
The simple answer is Yes it can. Neither term is unambiguously or even in any way formally defined. Therefore and someone may label a state superpower without labelling it a great power (or may even claim some state is a superpower while it does not fulfill great power requirements). While this is unlikely there is nothing to stop such claims in reliable sources (because both terms are hopelessly ill defined). Therefore the addition about superpower status of India is at best irrelevant to this page, and possibly even confusing (as it may make readers think that Great power status is needed before one can get Superpower states) in fact that may even be an implied synthesis which goes against one of the core policies of Wikipedia. Therefore the text should be removed and we should reach consensus before adding such claims. Arnoutf (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Albeit the constraints of a Superpower may be ambiguous, a Great Power is most certainly not and the term has had a fundamental formally defined legal international meaning since the Congress of Vienna (Gray, Geopolitics of Super Powers (2015), pg 31) as a nation that has surpassed a secondary power by its capacity for action, and the relationship between a Superpower and a Great Power can be defined as well. A Superpower derives from a Great Power in the ladder of progression, and all Superpowers have gone through this stage. Therefore it is wishful-thinking that a nation can bypass the stage of Great Power to become a Superpower when there is no historical precedent for such an occurrence. The case of India is that the way the article is expressed creates confusion as to its claim to be a potential superpower is on equal level to nations such as China, whereas the latter is a recognized Great Power while India is still, by the consensus of Wikipedia on the Great Power page, is still an Emerging Power. Sleath56 (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok you may be right about great powers.


 * More interesting is the internal inconsistency in your argument above. You agree that the definition of a superpower may be ambiguous, yet you claim that definition unambiguously includes the requirement that a superpower is first a great power.


 * Also the argument that there is no historical precedent of a superpower coming into existence without it being first a great power maybe true, but to extend 3 occasion (UK US and USSR) to a general unfixable rule is stretching it a bit far. If the EU would ever be labelled a superpower it will almost certainly not have been a great power first as it does not meet one of the (unambiguous) requirements i.e. being a single state.


 * In any case, I am not sure what problem your edit aims to solve. There is nothing in this current superpower article that claims only that a nation has to be a great power before it can become a superpower. So this article is internally consistent as is. If this lead to internal inconsistencies in the great power article, that should be fixed there not here. The current addition suggests that there is something about superpower status related to great power status. If you want to make that claim in this article, than we would need a reliable source that states that a superpower can only evolve out of a great power (and I think that will be hard, if not impossible to find) otherwise the implied relation would be implicit synthesis on our side. And that is something we must avoid much more than possible confusion. Arnoutf (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Super Power as a word versus the thing it describes
I think my idea got lost in another section so I am restating it here. I think one of the problems right now is that this article is both about the word superpower and the thing or things it is being used to describe. As someone pointed out earlier the term superpower did not exist prior to World War II and it was used to describe a new bilateral global phenomenon involving the United States and the Soviet Union. I accept that the Roman Empire, British Empire, and others in their day could fit the definition of Superpower, but they existed prior to the coinage of the word. Therefore, I suggest that the article be organized to be about the ==word== superpower and the post World War II uses of the word and have the rest of the article organized around past global powers and past regional powers. What do people think about that? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a sensible suggestion to me. Arnoutf (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, there is something inherently problematic about pre-dating this word. Was Helen of Troy the Miss Universe of her day? Was Boudica the first feminist? Would Shakespeare be writing soap-operas if he were writing today? Such analogies are commonplace, especially in popular writing, when people are trying to illustrate a point and facilitate understanding, but are inherently speculative. I think it unproblematic to say that the Roman's etc. exercised a similar level of power over their known world, but constructing a list of what were/were not historical super-powers inevitably involves synth, even if some historians have used these analogies.Pincrete (talk) 07:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. It is (was?) a word that came into being to express a particular circumstance, a circumstance where "Great Power" did not suffice, circumstance where European Empires no longer dominated. There is comprehensiveness about a "superpower" that is dependent upon 20th century philosophical, historical and technological development.  A superpower was truly able to project power worldwide, not just "known world", in near-real time, because 20th Century communication and transportation primarily, and only secondarily military technology.  A superpower has dominant cultural and ideological influence, thanks to 20th century newspapers, movies, radio, TV, satellites, etc.  A superpower had an ideological point of view -- communism versus capitalism -- that was comprehensive and universalist, that applied to nearly everything and should be expanded to everyone.  In short, a superpower projected itself across the entire world and across the entire human existence, affecting all parts of human life, in real-time, and that could only be done from the mid-20th century onwards.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

map claims
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Potential_Superpowers.svg

A map showing the United States as the current superpower

this map does not show anything of the sort, it just has multiple countries in differing colors. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't show that specifically, but it doesn't also show a bunch of different superpowers. - SantiLak  (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Ottoman Empire superpower
Should the "Superpowers of the past" section contain the Ottoman Empire.


 * "Ottoman Empire = historic superpower"... should they be listed alongside Ancient Egypt, the Persian Empire, the Greeks....etc ?  -- Moxy (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments

 * Several problems with that. First of all: The rather ill defined definition in the article refers only to the modern use, which refers only to powers that were a superpower after 1944. The Ottoman empire had long been resolved by that time. Secondly: the definition explicitly refer to a global scale of projecting power. While the Ottoman empire was definitely a great power, it never project both military and diplomatic to all continents (e.g. it never was a power in the Americas or Oceania). The historisation of the term superpower as done in your sources should be agreed upon, and if we go that way it is obvious the Roman empire and perhaps the early Chinese empires should also be listed. I am afraid that would involve a lot of original research though. Arnoutf (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Roman empire and Chinese empires are mentioned in the article in the section called "Superpowers of the past".  -- Moxy (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Arnoutf. It was a term first coined in 1943 and there have been attempts to apply it to past empires. If there was a reliable, third-party source (and I haven't checked the sources provided) then OK.  But I think that it will be tough. Great Power, yes. Superpower?  Tough.  --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @Moxy. After re-reading the section I have to concede that you do have, to some extent, a point. If we adapt the definition (economic and military power at global scale) to ancient cultures, we should transfer it to "the known world". That would bring Ancient Egypt, Rome, Mongol and Spanish Empires inside the definition of Superpower. In fact the military projection of China around 1400 extended further than either Egyptian, Roman or Mongol military ever did (with expeditions to Africa). So China might be labelled an all out superpower at that time (although the article now only lists it as economic superpower).


 * The other listees are more problematic. The Persian Empire was always limited by Greek and Egyptian counterforces, Alexander's empire did not project westward to the well-known Italian countries, and was if you look at it critically hardly more than a single blitzkrieg type assault as the empire was never consolidated. Similarly Napoleons French Empire never projected any major naval power threatening (by then well known) regions outside Europe (and also lasted only about a decade). So calling any of these a superpower would be opening the scope for other empires that not fully fit the definition.


 * Now to Ottoman. It has existed and been a great power for a long time (approx. 1400-1900); so on that account it was more of a power than Alexander or Napoleontic empires. It has always been confined by Anglo or French colonies in Africa, the Russian empire and European countries; but in that it was hardly different from the Persian empires. Still the fact that it existed at a time that all continents were discovered raises the bar for global projection so that comparison may not totally fly.


 * All in all, this analysis makes me critical about the whole section: Past superpowers, but it largely undermines my earlier objection. The somewhat overly Western bias in the current listing of past superpowers make me tend to adding the Ottoman empire, if only to limit that bias. Arnoutf (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There is something non-encyclopedic feeling about this section. I think the problem may lie with the use of the word "SuperPower" being applied to empires that existed prior to when the term was first coined in 1943.   I would suggest a different title such as "Great empires of the past".  Either that or create a definition of Superpower based on criteria from reliable sources and then compare past empires to that criteria.   For what it is worth however, in the most conversational sense, I would not argue with someone who called the Ottoman Empire a superpower of the past. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I just tried something. This article is both about a word and the phenomenon it describes.   I change the first sentence of the article a bit to see if it put the rest of the article in a more accurate context.   I think it does.  Thoughts? If someone strongly disagrees and wants to change it back it is fine with me.  I  just think this may help.   Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Great empires of the past"? I see two problems with it. It would probably have the same scope as List of empires and List of largest empires (which currently includes 215 empires). The other is that the list of past powers, imperial or not, is currently handled by our articles List of ancient great powers, List of medieval great powers, List of modern great powers. The latter tree were recently divided from a common list. Here is in summary which powers are included as great powers. Not certain if they also qualify as superpowers of their respective eras.


 * Babylonia.
 * Sumer and Akkad.
 * Elam.
 * Mitanni.
 * Assyria.
 * Hittite Empire.
 * Phoenicia.
 * Median Empire.
 * Achaemenid Empire.
 * Parthian Empire.
 * Sassanid Empire.
 * Carthaginian Empire.
 * Ancient Egypt.
 * Kerma.
 * Kush.
 * Aksumite Empire.
 * Macrobia.
 * Ancient Athens.
 * Sparta.
 * Macedonia.
 * Seleucid Empire.
 * Ptolemaic Empire.
 * Roman Empire.
 * Indus Valley Civilization.
 * Āryāvarta.
 * Nanda Empire.
 * Maurya Empire.
 * Shunga Empire.
 * Satavahana Empire.
 * Chola Empire.
 * Gupta Empire.
 * Shang Kingdom.
 * Zhou Kingdom.
 * Qin Empire.
 * Han Empire.
 * Jin Empire.
 * Scythia.
 * Sarmatia.
 * Xiongnu.
 * Hunnic Empire.
 * Byzantine Empire.
 * Great Seljuk Empire.
 * Rashidun Caliphate.
 * Umayyad Caliphate.
 * Abbasid Caliphate.
 * Al-Andalus.
 * Fatimid Caliphate.
 * Ayyubid Sultanate.
 * Bahri Mamluks Empire.
 * Bulgarian Empire.
 * Ghaznavid Empire.
 * Timurid Empire.
 * Sui Empire.
 * Tang Empire.
 * Song Empire.
 * Ming Empire.
 * Turkic Khaganate.
 * Uyghur Khaganate.
 * Mongol Empire.
 * Yuan Dynasty.
 * Frankish Empire.
 * Kingdom of Germany and Holy Roman Empire.
 * Kingdom of Hungary.
 * Jagiellon dynasty.
 * Normans.
 * Papacy and Papal States.
 * Kingdom of Sicily.
 * Republic of Genoa.
 * Republic of Venice.
 * Capetian Kingdom of France.
 * Angevin Empire.
 * Crown of Aragon.
 * Kingdom of Castile and Crown of Castile.
 * Kalmar Union.
 * Ghana Empire.
 * Mali Empire.
 * Songhai Empire.
 * Ajuran Empire.
 * Ethiopian Empire.
 * Kingdom of Zimbabwe.
 * Chalukya Empire.
 * Rashtrakuta Empire.
 * Pala Empire.
 * Khmer Empire.
 * Srivijaya.
 * Maya Civilization.
 * Inca Empire.
 * Aztec Empire.
 * France (France in the Middle Ages and French colonial empire).
 * Qing Empire.
 * Safavid Empire.
 * Dutch Republic.
 * British Empire.
 * Mughal Empire.
 * Ottoman Empire.
 * Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
 * Portuguese Empire.
 * Prussia.
 * Spanish Empire.
 * Swedish Empire.
 * Moscovia, Tsardom of Russia and Russian Empire.
 * Persian Qajar Empire.
 * Kingdom of the Netherlands and Dutch Empire.
 * French colonial empire.
 * Late British Empire.
 * Late Spanish Empire.
 * Empire of Austria and Austria-Hungary.
 * Prussia, German Empire and Germany.
 * Late Ottoman Empire.
 * Russian Empire and Soviet Union.
 * Italian colonial empire.
 * Empire of Japan.
 * United States.
 * Any comments on the relative extend of their influence on human history? Dimadick (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It's this editor's opinion that the entire concept of applying the terminology of 'Superpower', a term created solely to explain the unprecedented bipolar dominance of the United States and the Soviet Union, to pre-20th century empires is inherently flawed from the start.


 * In any case, the Ottoman Empire, by the definition of a superpower as a country with a unparalleled ability to exert its influence on a global scale, cannot be considered as a superpower. An argument is made that superpowers are to be measured as their 'global' dominance in what they saw as their known world fails to aid the Ottoman case. The existence of China and India was well established during the entire time period of the Ottoman Empire, yet the Ottoman influence on the Great Power of Ming China and large swathes of land such as the subcontinent of India was minimal. The Ottomans also played a negligible role in the Americas when they were discovered.
 * Sleath56 (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I would support the inclusion of the Ottomans as a historic superpower. The first source alone has a reputable historians published by a university press, calling the Ottomans a "superpower of the early modern world" and that seems to be the standard for the other superpowers of the past in the article (verifiable to at least one reliable source). Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Two comments Firstly, I agree with those who say that it is inherently problematic to 'pre-date' this word, (see comments below). Secondly, a small number of academic sources saying that this/that empire IS a super-power is a very, very low threshold of proof, is the description generally accepted among historians? 'Older empires which have sometimes been described' is what is proven rather than 'is'. Pincrete (talk) 07:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - it seems an obvious pick and short list that says it's informal also-use does not need extreme support and it suits to have the line be short and show a variety. Could cite BBC Two: The Ottomans "a super-power of a million square miles.  From its capital in Istanbul it matched the glories of Ancient Rome" just to show the term does get applied, inappropriately or not.   The lengthy ask above re lists such as List of medieval great powers or whatever seems off topic as only this one is asked about, and the objection that only ones reaching America count also seems off.  Could argue their size in world trade at the time, geographic scope, effects on world history -- but come ON, it's just a short illustrative list, not a Big Deal.  Markbassett (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment on the above. An obvious pick sounds very much like original research. We really need reliable sources here, which are (by the way) largely lacking in the list of medieval great powers article you are referring to, making that list a problematic Wikipedia article. Arnoutf (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I'd prefer the wording "Great Power" because the word "superpower" to me is associated with the Cold War. USA and Soviet Union. The Ottoman Empire was however certainly a great power. Although I have more doubts about some other entries in the list. Basically I agree with the initial comments by Arnoutf and Iloilo Wanderer. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Referring to superpowers in the period before the 1940s is an anachronism. The term was introduced because there was a quite obvious difference between the most powerful great powers of the second half of the 20th century and other great powers: the former could/can destroy the whole world while the latter could/can "only" conquer large territories. The Ottoman Empire could conquer large territories in Asia, Afrika, Souhteastern and Central Europe, but it could not directly influence the history of America, Australia, sub-Saharan Africa, etc. Borsoka (talk) 03:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Vague, confusing definitions
Currently, the article is a mix of "why the US is currently the most powerful" and a surprisingly little amount of history. The most confusing part of the article is that it says "[A hyperpower] is traditionally considered to be a step higher than a superpower," when this is clearly not the case. The article shows why the US is a superpower ("the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time"), but not why the US would be a hyperpower ("a state that dominates all other states in every sphere of activity"). The last one is certainly not the case. While the US does indeed have large influence worldwide, it is in no means a world hegemony and does not dominate all other countries in the world in every sphere of activity. The Achaemenid Empire, on the other hand, WAS a hyperpower around 500BC, but was not a superpower (according to the definitions in this article). It had no rival on the entire Earth in terms of population, military, economy and other matters, but it still could not influence events in, say, South America. The same was the case in the glory days of the Roman Empire. Ergo saying that "hyperpower" is above "superpower" would only be true in modern times.

Furthermore, when we have one source define "superpower" and another tabloid source call something a "superpower" you get this kind of confusion. Also odd is that the article never specifies when the US, British Empire and Soviet Union became superpowers. At the start of WW2, the American military could not yet defeat Nazi Germany, the British Empire or the Soviet Union on its own.

Lastly, the article rejects Europe as a superpower because it's not traditionally a country, while the text actually mentions an entity. Philip T. Hoffman, Rea A. and Lela G. Axline Professor of Business Economics and Professor of History at the California Institute of Technology, wrote a book that details "Europe’s historic global supremacy". So then once again, we find ambiguity limiting the scope of the article. Does the exact word "superpower" have to be used? If so, this would be more of a dictionary article than one about the concept (which, as I mentioned, is still ill-defined). Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Potential superpower
This article is not a GA. Anyways, what are your reasons behind removing the specific mention of the USA?  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My problem was not so much with mentioning the US, but mentioning the US specifically it is argued by many that the EU and China are also superpowers, the EU even has a bigger economy as well as many other things. It is misleading to name US exclusively as the superpower, as this is not a consensus. Additionally it isn misleading to group India with the EU and China. It situations like this, due avoid misleading you must be a broad ass possible but to still give the relevant information, which has been given. Doc H e u h (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Such argument leads to a number of off topic discussion that we many of us had before. EU and China are not superpowers.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * On what basis can you assert that EU and China are not superpowers? There is no formal definition and so, by implication, any claims are subjective - hence this is not an impartial article. Ag1975e (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The EU is falling apart. (165.120.240.48 (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC))

UK
The UK was no longer a superpower after World War II. (165.120.240.48 (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC))
 * Yes it was. The United Kingdom and the British Empire emerged from WWII and one of the "big three" principle powers, and was widely regarded (from academics, to politicians etc) as one of the three superpowers. There are references in the article explaining this already. Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The UK was no longer a superpower by the end of World War II. The Atlantic Charter, the beginning of Lend-Lease and the Fall of Singapore ensured the complete collapse of the British Empire. The Suez Crisis showed only that the UK had not been a superpower since World War II. Most historians say the UK was no longer a superpower after Churchill signed away its empire in 1941. (165.120.240.48 (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC))
 * An article in "The Guardian" today said the UK was never a superpower, even in the 19th century, and that the United States was the only true superpower in history. (81.132.48.149 (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC))

This article or section might be slanted towards recent events. (May 2016)
This article or section might be slanted towards recent events. (May 2016)

What?Ernio48 (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * No idea. Removed. Rob984 (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Is the United States still the only superpower?
It's biased to suggest this because many have argued China is now a superpower. (165.120.240.48 (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC))
 * Only the United States is widely held among political scientists as being a superpower. Therefore, it is not bias, but a reflection of the overwhelming majority of experts. Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * China is now regularly described as the world economic superpower. (165.120.240.48 (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC))
 * You said it yourself, "economic superpower". China may have the economy of a superpower, but that is where it ends. This article is not concerned with economics, or merely one aspect of a superpower - this article is about full-fledged superpowers in every domain.Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But China is not interested in fighting wars. The source is only an opinion piece by a US publication. (165.120.240.48 (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC))
 * Interest in fighting wars isn't one of the factors that makes one country a superpower, and the publications are RS, whether based in the United States or not. - SantiLak  (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * With the end of conventional wars the term superpower is being redefined in the 21st century. China does not need to be a military superpower in order to bankrupt the United States. (81.132.48.149 (talk) 09:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC))

Can the original poster of this thread provide reliable secondary sources for their ideas. Otherwise this whole discussion is useless as without such sources no changes to the article would be acceptable. Arnoutf (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * An update to this article is probably overdue. According to this survey a plurality of international respondents said that China was likely to replace or already has replaced the US as the "superpower", although it does not define "superpower". That said it is probably no longer a controversial statement (as it would have been back in 2010) that China and the US are emerging as "binary superpowers" now, as described in the Group of Two article.Colipon+ (Talk) 19:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

US was the only superpower
The United States was the only superpower in the 20th century. The UK and the USSR were never on the same level. (81.132.49.250 (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC))


 * What? Pre-WW2, the US wouldn't be considered any more powerful then France, Germany or Japan. Pre-WW1, arguable the UK was the sole superpower. Rob984 (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The US was clearly the industrial superpower in the first half of the 20th century, and arguably the economic superpower as well. The UK, USSR, France, Germany and Japan were never superpowers. Only the US - and now China - are actual superpowers. (81.132.49.1 (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC))


 * Personally I find reasonable that the USSR was a superpower in facts like that USSR was the first to put a man in space, to launch satellites, to invent cellphones. And that the US and the USSR divided the world about evenly from 1945 to 1989.
 * But hey, if you can find a reliable source that says that the US was the only superpower, maybe that could get included in the article. Search Google scholar!
 * --User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 03:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If you solely consider industrial power then China has been a superpower for a long time. That is certainly not the sole criteria for a superpower. The US was considered a superpower only after its militarisation up to and throughout WW2, and its alliances thereafter. Before this the US might have been economically powerful, but it was extremely non-interventionist. It didn't not join the League of Nations, it did nothing to counter the expansion of the Japanese Empire, took no stance during the Spanish Civil War, and it stayed neutral for much of WW2. To say the US—an isolationist country at the time—was more influential then Japan, the USSR, Britain, or France, which each had very an active role in international affairs, is preposterous. Rob984 (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC


 * The US sided with France and the British Empire from the very beginning of World War II, just as it had in World War I. Even the Neutrality Patrol, despite its name, was massively biased in favour of the Royal Navy over the Kriegsmarine.

British Empire in Teal
The map showing the British Empire in teal is misleading, for instance, only part of Canada is coloured teal, none of Australia, but all of New Zealand. In fact, all should be entirely coloured teal as they all have the QEII as head of state. It looks as if this map is designed to minimise British influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.155.129 (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Your arguments are similarly expressed by others in the talk page of the map in File talk:Superpower map 1945.png. I rather hoped that the map's talk page would have an explanation, I'm sure there is one myself mind you. --User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 03:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User:ZaidRock11 responded over at the image talk page, seems adequate. The argument being that the Statute of Westminster 1931 gave Dominions independence. Seems reasonable to me.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Map inaccuracies
The 1945 world map has several bits that seem to be the wrong colour. New Zealand is shown as fully part of the British Empire, unlike Australia, Cananda or South Africa, while the effective British control of Egypt and Soviet control of central Europe are not shown. Any thoughts on this? — FIRE!  in a crowded theatre... 14:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what either of the two maps brings to the article, as shown by the United States territory has nothing to do with being a superpower. MilborneOne (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I just uploaded an edited version to Commons, with central Europe, Mongolia and northern Iran assigned to the Soviets, Greece, Egypt and southern Iran assigned to the Brits, Iceland assigned to the Americans, and New Zealand independent. Though actually, I think you're right. There are too many nuances for a map to ever be very accurate, and it could only ever be a snapshot at most. No objection if you change my changes back, or get rid of the map from this page altogether. — FIRE!  in a crowded theatre... 14:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The third Reich?
Wasn't the third Reich a superpower at it's time? Same question for the Japanese Empire?! Falco iron (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Superpower. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://abe.etailer.dpsl.net/Home/html/moreinfo.asp?bookid=536885601
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www-stage.foreignaffairs.org/19990301faessay966/samuel-p-huntington/the-lonely-superpower.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131204011005/http://www.ccs.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/China_Monitor_JUNE_2010.pdf to http://www.ccs.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/China_Monitor_JUNE_2010.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Lede needs to be changed
China is clearly a superpower now, and the opinion of a dictator like Putin isn't reliable. (81.136.23.142 (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC))


 * Putin's quote in 2016 is reliable. China hasn't done anything differently than it did a year ago. Supergodzilla2090 (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * China has been a superpower for years now. Economically, industrially and militarily. (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:DDA5:7D80:4101:B8A2 (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC))


 * The IP is right. The Russian President may be considered a reputable source on the topic of geopolitics (though that is disputable), but he is certainly not impartial. Giving his view prominence like that is a breach of WP:NPOV. The statement "according to Russian President Putin and other sources, this has remained unchanged." is actually uncited. No source claims that no other source considers China a superpower. Rather it is that the editors of this article simply haven't found any sources claiming this to be the case. Editors of this article need to learn what Wikipedia is about.


 * All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.


 * Only a minority of sources claim China to be a super power. So we should proportionately represent this view and provide counter arguments as to why it is a minority view. Not pretend this view doesn't exist.


 * Rob984 (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * China is the world superpower now. Putin's view is irrelevant as he has never won a free election. He has his own reasons for claiming the US as the only superpower, because China could easily bankrupt Russia at any moment. (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:DDA5:7D80:4101:B8A2 (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC))


 * Your POV is also irreverent. Find some sources, please. Rob984 (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * There are thousands of sources online describing China as the world superpower. (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:DDA5:7D80:4101:B8A2 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC))
 * There are also thousands of sources online claiming evidence for aliens or magic. We need named, specific, and reliable sources. And it is up to those suggesting inclusion of new contents to provide these. Without such sources we cannot even begin considering inclusion of new information. Arnoutf (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * China has the largest and most powerful army in the world. So of course it's a superpower. (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:DDA5:7D80:4101:B8A2 (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC))
 * Provide a source plesase. Arnoutf (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There are multiple sources saying China and Russia are both superpowers: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/07/china-russia-superpower-axis (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:DDA5:7D80:4101:B8A2 (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC))
 * Did you even read that article? The only time superpower is mentioned is, is in the heading, and even there accompanied by a question mark. Please do your homework before just dumping something in this discussion. Arnoutf (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is a source from 2011: http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/07/13/china-seen-overtaking-us-as-global-superpower/ (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:DDA5:7D80:4101:B8A2 (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC))
 * Which is about an opinion poll among non-expert citizens and does not list any factcheck. Arnoutf (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Who is an expert on the definition of a superpower? At the very least the lede needs to mention that China is widely seen as a superpower/emerging superpower in the early 21st century. (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:DDA5:7D80:4101:B8A2 (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC))
 * Tell me who an expert is, and define widely seen please. Arnoutf (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll use some plain Texan talk here, a lot of people are stupid, and as such "widely believed" by non-academics isn't reliable, in fact I think that would fall under WP:weasel. China is a great power, there is no doubt, but they have several crippling weakenesses that place them solidly in the "not-superpower" category. I will compare them to what experts call the sole superpower, or even hyperpower, America. You mention industry, that one may be true. Economically is a solid no, while they make propaganda about their solid lack of private debt, that's pretty easy when you are communist, take a look at public debt sometime. Military, don't make me laugh, their military isn't the weakest of anyone, but it would only meet great power at a maximum. It is a pretty well established fact that America could wipe the floor with China. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  18:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The United States was defeated by China in the Korean War and that was long before China had thousands of nuclear weapons. China owns so much US debt that it could easily bankrupt the US economy at any time. There were reports on the BBC today about China surpassing the US, and how they would destroy the American economy if Trump started a trade war. (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:1CF8:7C96:457B:2A83 (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC))
 * 1. They were pushed back but rapidly repelled the chinese, before it stalemated. 2. China still doesn't own thousands of nukes, it only has about 260. 3. That's entirely wrong, China has been rapidly selling off holdings of US debt, as of recently Japan owns more than them. 4. The thing about them destroying the economy is that it would require America to agree to pay its debt. I am 100% certain that Trump would tell China to procreate with itself, therefore doing little damage to the economy, and making China's hold of the debt politically worthless. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  21:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * China also defeated America in the Vietnam War. You are just in denial - China is the world economic and industrial superpower with a vast modern military, and the US is rapidly heading for its "Suez Crisis" moment. The election of Trump just speeded up the inevitable. (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:1CF8:7C96:457B:2A83 (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

This is just WP:FORUM. Cool. It's more likely that when America has its "'Suez Crisis' moment", there will be no more superpowers. World has become far too multipolar. The great powers can't just throw their weight around like they use to. As China grows, so are many other emerging economies. It still a few years before China's GDP surpasses the US or EU's. Also its growth rate is slowing down. Get reliable academic sources, then we can discuss. Rob984 (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * China surpassed the declining EU years ago. The EU is breaking up and won't exist in a few years. (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:1CF8:7C96:457B:2A83 (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC))
 * Get reliable academic sources, then we can discuss. Arnoutf (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The United States were never defeated by China in a war, especially not in the Vietnam or Korean War. The Korean War doesn't have a winner or loser since the conflict is still going on. Redman19 (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Arnoutf and others: "Get reliable academic sources, then we can discuss."--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * China was vital in helping Vietnam defeat the illegal US invasion. The US lost the Korean War when MacArthur was fired. (86.150.124.127 (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC))

Should Global policeman be merged here?
Thoughts? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 18:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. Because not all Superpowers wanted to have global hegemony and snooped around in every nation's affairs, of course they liked power but many also had certain morals which limited them from doing things like this. E.g. Cyrus the Great advocated for the self-ruling of non-Iranian peoples, which were the majority of people he conquered, and encouraged them to be more active in their affairs. It also seems like a relatively new idea which began with the actions of the British Empire and continues today with the USA. Migboy123 (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

BE sourcing
I think we need to discuss the weighting and viability of sources used for including the British Empire in this article. This is causing problems elsewhere. Only one author (Fox) - a contemporary commentator, not a historian - is actually cited as treating the British Empire as a super power; all the other sources used (few that there are) refer back to him. No doubt there are others, but without evidence it does not seem right to present this as historical consensus, especially as it is contentious. The weighting here should be adjusted to reflect weighting in reliable sources. The article should also include caveats like, for example, that the term was only applicable to the BE was a brief period after it was coined. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The British Empire was without a doubt a Superpower in it's time. It controlled 25% of the world's landmass, a feat which no other of the great superpowers of the past have been able to accomplish, although this can be attributed to technological advancement over time, it is without a doubt that Britain had a superior economy and naval fleet. There should be reliable sources cited but it's without a doubt British Empire was a superpower. Migboy123 (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Can these be considered Superpowers?
Can these empires really be considered Superpowers: Carthaginian Empire, Aksumite Empire, Almoravid Empire, Mali Empire, Inca Empire? I'm concerned with the Incan Empire because they were so isolated they weren't nearly as technologically advanced as the global powers at the time. They didn't even have a system of finances but rather still bartered for goods. Thoughts?Migboy123 (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1 AD to 2003 AD Historical Trends in global distribution of GDP China India Western Europe USA Middle East.png

Removal of "Superpowers of the past" section
The subject of the article is not the word "superpower", but the concept. The common usage, in the vast majority of cases as found in a books and web search, is the idea of the post-WWII superpowers, especially the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., as well as "emerging superpowers" such as China on the global stage. The fact that a few authors have used the word to refer to past empires (and often in "scare quotes" to indicate non-standard usage) can be mentioned, but it's not really significant to an understanding of the subject.

The "Superpowers of the past" section appears to be an indiscriminate, mostly-random subset of the List of ancient great powers and List of medieval great powers. The fact that a book once used the word "superpower" to describe some historical empire is not an important aspect of the subject. Most of the citations don't actually use the word "superpower", and half the entries are unsourced. A long list of examples of past great powers in this article is undue weight. It also has no clear criteria for inclusion, and entices people to just add their favorite article to it, amounting to original research.

I've added a concise paragraph to the end of the "Terminology and origin" section, that explains that the term is sometimes also used colloquially to refer to past great powers, and given two examples of works that have used the term in that way. It also links to the above two lists of great powers. I think this is sufficient coverage of it, and the "Superpowers of the past" section should be deleted. --IamNotU (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The section has now been deleted. --IamNotU (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)