Talk:Superpower/Archive 8

Great power
This article is too much OR, let's make it more like great power and get it to GA.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 02:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well it isn't too bad. The Cold War era section needs attention more than any other section (unfortunately I am not an expert on the cold war weapons build up). Regards,  Signature brendel  02:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

European Union "Controversy"? What "controversy"?
I edited the title of this section and it was immediately reverted.

Just because we have a genuine controversy here in our talk section for this article and just because there is no obvious consensus in the larger world as to whether the EU qualifies as a "superpower" does *not* mean that there is in fact a recognizable "controversy" of any sort raging about this topic in any general sense suitable for mention in an encyclopedia.

The controversy is all here in our edit wars and it's not appropriate to refer directly to that in our section titles.

From the first time I read this article that section title has seemed out of place and we need to replace it with a matter of fact section title that accurately reflects the ambiguity of the status of the EU as a superpower without invoking a charged word like "controversy". Controversy would require people at least debating the issue and as far as I can tell the only debate is here. Just because some qualified references can be found both stating that the EU cannot be a superpower while other say it already is does not make this lack of consensus a controversy.

Lets see if we can come up with a better section title:

suggestions?

European Union: a new form of superpower?

European Union: a formal association of countries as a superpower?

European Union: A superpower that is not a country

Perhaps there are others? The title should reflect the fact that the EU's status of superpower is unclear not due to issues of scale (as with the emerging superpowers) but due to it not being a country/sovereign state.

I'm sure defenders of the status quo "european union controversy" will be quick to say that this title has been in the article for a long time while all sorts of debate raged but that is not in itself any sort of defense for keeping that title.

If someone can link to any actual "controversy" surrounding the EU's qualifications as a "superpower" rather than just mutually exclusive opinions on the matter that would change my mind on this section title. Zebulin 06:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the EU is more than a just close-nit version of NAFTA- look at the CIA. The CIA also lists the EU as the largest economy in the world by nominal GDP right here- recognizing it as more than a mere association of nations. So it's proven that the EU is more than a "formal association" and like the Soviet Union (which wasn't a country either) can be a superpower. Therefore I have chosen the first of your proposed titles ("European Union: a new form of superpower?"). While I approve of that particular title, I don't think it's really new that a non-nation entity is a superpower as the Soviet Union wasn't a proper nation either- but as I said I'm fine the first of the three titles you proposed.  Signature brendel  06:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well that was certainly an easy consensus.

I think there is some disagreement remaining about the soviet union however.

The soviet union was a sovereign state. It could belong to to the united nations. it fit every definition of "country" that I am aware of. There is nothing externally preventing the EU from also becoming a sovereign state but the sovereign states that make it up would have to surrender their sovereignty to the EU for it make the transition to full fleged state.

You may well make the case for the notion of superpower being expanded to formally include the EU but you are greatly mistaken if you believe the soviet union was not a country. The EU and the soviet union were not only different they weren't even the same *kind* of political unit. The soviet union was a country a state and the EU is close multilateral association of independant states.

None of the constituents of the EU have given up their status as independant states and you can't have soverign state within states. That is impossible by definition. Zebulin 06:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the USSR included Poland, Hungary, etc... who techincally were independent nations at the time-of course it is debatable whether or not the Soviet Union was more unified as the EU (it was). For now disagreeing over the USSR's status is not really cause for concern as we can both agree that, whether a proper nation or not, it was a superpower. I am glad as well that we have found consensus on the section's title so easily. Regards,  Signature brendel  06:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Careful! You are confusing the warsaw pact and USSR. The USSR can be argued to have exercised *de facto* control over various eastern european countries such as Poland but it never claimed *de jure* control of those countries. It dealt with them officially as indenpendant states and they had separate representation in the united nations.

The soviet union *did* however contain as "soviet republics" some former countries (ie the baltics or ukraine) that even managed to regain their independance when the USSR broke up. However these countries lost all of their ability to exercise any sovereignty during the existance of the USSR and the official soviet stance on their status was that they had "voluntarily" surrended all of their sovereignty to the supreme soviet in Moscow.

NONE of this applies to the countries in the EU. They all continue to claim and exercise independant sovereignty. The EU and the soviet union are not at all the same kinds of political units.

Zebulin 06:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying they are the same. They are not. The EU is a unique thing, the only one of its kind. I'm just saying the USSR wasn't a proper nation ("it never claimed *de jure* control of those countries"). Maybe I am confusing the Warsaw pact and the USSR, but I'm tired anyways and am going to get some sleep now. Regards,  Signature brendel  06:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Zebulin but not with his titles. European Union: a new form of superpower? just sounds unencyclopaedic. I suggest that we change it to European Union ambiguity or Status of the European Union.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 08:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I like "status of the European union" best of any of the alternatives so far. Hopefully Brendel will agree and we can change it again without losing consensus.

Zebulin 09:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Per Nobleeagle, I also agree with Zebulin, but not with his titles. However, I remain unconvinced that the EU deserves separate treatment from the other 'emerging superpowers'.  After all, that is exactly what the EU section deals with, the EU as an emerging superpower.  It might conceivably be further along the road to superpowerdom than India or China, but it is not there yet, at least not in the opinion of the majority of people.


 * As far as the title goes, I'm uncomfortable with anything that smacks of editorialising. We are, after all, bound by NPOV in the titles in just the same way as in the main text.  Words such as controversy, ambiguity, or titles with question marks in them—as if positing a hypothesis, are, in my view, unsuitable in tone.  Status of the EU seems to be neutral enough, but I'm not sure that it fits too well with the general style of the page.


 * Really, I suppose this all boils down to one question: what are the arguments for treating the EU separately? We all know the arguments about GDP, sui generis, etc, but stylistically speaking, given that it is not widely acclaimed as a superpower, why the separation from the others?


 * X damr talk 15:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Several reasons:
 * The EU, unlike emerging superpowers, is not a nation
 * The EU does not lack socio-economic development as do the "emerging superpowers"
 * Is the title emerging really correct? (If you're a Euro-skeptic then the EU isn't even emerging)
 * The EU is unquie entity in a unique disposition very much unlike that of China or India. Putting all three in the same section would be misleading. You just can't lump the EU together with China and India-they are too different in terms of development and political structure.  Signature brendel  02:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * All true enough, but, if you'll forgive me, the 'defining characteristic' of these three entities is not their past or their present, but rather their future; that is to say the realistic possibility of their attaining superpower status.


 * I think that we'd all agree that neither of the three are superpowers at present, or failing that, we'd at least agree that most people do not consider them as superpowers. By the same token, we, or at least most people, would probably agree that they are the contemporary superpower 'contenders'.  No other country can realistically be added to this category.  If we agree on that, then I'm not sure what the grounds for differentiation are.  The differences between them—ie. how far, relatively, they are along the road to 'superpowerdom'—can, and indeed should, be discussed within this section, but why differentiate them in the article structure?


 * X damr talk 23:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

How about we get rid of "emerging superpowers" and lump the EU, China, and India together in a "Post Cold War Superpower development" section which at the top would also discuss the changes in super power status of ussr/russia and the US. the EU, China and India would have their claims to superpower status discussed indiviudally.Zebulin 07:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I would agree with such an arrangment in which "the EU, China and India would have their claims to superpower status discussed indiviudally."- this seems to take care of my concerns.  Signature brendel  07:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my title suggestions. I'm not sure how I got so off track there. My only defense is I had just returned to the page from reading a gazillion editorial style references and I suppose I hadn't gotten back to "encylopedia mode".

I don't think it's wise to treat the issue of the section title change along with the issue of whether in fact the EU should simply be lumped with the other emerging superpowers. I think it was opposition to anything that might lead to a removal of the special treatment of the EU in the article that kept the title "European Union controversy" for as long as it was.

Anyway the article looks good at first blush for the first time now. I still don't think the EU deserves special treatment but that is another (probably unwinnable) debate and I can live with tabling that issue indefinately.

Zebulin 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The EU is too different from the other "emerging superpowers" (Is it even an emerging superpower?)- but see some of my points above. The new title looks good though.  Signature brendel  02:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why the EU is not listed. EU overtrumps USA and Russia in literally all sigificant fields, not only economics and military power. If the article want to list superpowers, no listing of the EU just makes this article a post-cold-war-relic. Delete it or fill it with content. 62.226.61.61 22:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The EU is listed in the article. Help us find some authoritative sources that demonstrate that EU is regarded as a superpower.  We had a nice large section making a case for the EU as a superpower but it was removed as in violation of wikipedia original research rules.  We can restore an equivalent such section by ensuring that we source not just the data but the conclusions as well.  I hope you'll also register if you haven't or log in when posting if you have since it makes it easier discuss these things.Zebulin 22:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The EU is not a single political unit. It does not have a single foreign policy .  It does not have an integrated military.  It doesn't have a clearly unified political system.  At best you could call it an economic superpower, or a potential superpower (pending achievement of political/foreign policy/military unification).  The article on Potential Superpowers was deleted because A) it inherently misleads about what constitutes a superpower and B) it's 100% speculative.&mdash;Perceval 02:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about that article. I don't believe I ever even read that emerging superpowers article.  In any case The anon editor above seems to want more treatment of the EU as a superpower in *this* article.  The EU as a superpower isn't speculative if you buy the line of thinking that it wields a new kind of soft power or that it's lack of unified policy constitutes some sort of strength.  IIRC that last whacky notion was even properly sourced in the previous version of this article, we just didn't properly present it as being just the whacky idea of that particular source.  As to misleading about what constitutes a superpower I'm not sure that is truly possible since the term has been seized and mis-applied by countless people of influence or authority who ought to know better.Zebulin 04:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll agree that the term is misused. The anon seems like a typical nationalist, wanting their particular group mentioned regardless of facts or sources.  In any case, if the sources are there discussing it as a superpower (as opposed to a potential superpower, then we've got material than can be added without violating WP:ATT.&mdash;Perceval 04:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you must remember that this is a non-factual issue. A theory you disagree with is not neccesarily "whacky." The EU is more unified than NAFTA or OPEC which is why the CIA factbook lists it in its gloassry of "countries." There are bound to be multiple differing theories on the subject. Perceval is right that we just need to stick to our sources. Reflect authoritative opinions (that's all there is on this subject) and present theories as theories (trying to imply that they're "whacky" would be putting our own opinion into the article-so it is important to reflect the theories of others w/o putting our spin on them). In other words please don't "present it as being just the whacky idea of that particular source" just present it as being a theory from a given source w/o any loaded rhetoric.  Signature brendel  17:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Perceval, first of all, it is not my job, to enhance your smattering by citing something, which is obviously. There is a simple mathematical method called addition, which you could adopt on the 27 EU member states to enhance your missing knowledge about any subject you want to know more about, and btw a good ressource would be Wikipedia. And of course - if we talk about superpowers - we talk about potential superpowers, because if we wouldn't and just take the plain facts or take the proof in form of won wars (including a final peace treaty and stability), I guess since world war II, the only country who looks "whacky" on that is the USA. The other thing is, that in your words the EU does not have a "clearly unified political system", which of course is nonsense. What you probably mean - since "political system" has several definitions - is the form of government. The EU has a very clear and unified political system in all member states (democracy), probably some definitions such as "Constitutional Monarchy" in particular member states confused you. Apart from that since the Patriotic Act, I am not sure if the USA still has a "clearly unified political system". Finally, I think you are the last one who is qualified (based on your narrow minded view and false comments) to create criteria for countries to achieve superpower status. 62.226.37.103 20:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Shall we also treat NAFTA, ASEAN, Mercosur, and the SCO as potential superpowers? There is a simple mathematical model called addition...  While I do not appreciate your condescension, I'll simply point out that the insistence of a random IP address contributor to Wikipedia is not nearly enough to warrant the invention of the EU as a superpower.  No reputable published sources that I am aware of treat the EU as a superpower or refer to the EU as a superpower.  There are some that speculate or predict that one day it will be a superpower, once certain events come to pass.  But speculation remains just that, speculation.  The EU will not be discussed as a superpower in this article until there are reputable published sources saying such that we can cite and summarize.&mdash;Perceval 20:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

(reinserting indent) Please. Let's just stick to the sources. The NAFTA comparison isn't correct either, as the EU is in the CIA factbook, but NAFTA isn't- so the US government seem to be of the opinion that the EU is more than just a "regular" trans-national alliance. But that's besides the point. This entire article deals with speculation. Power is not something you can count like apples on a tree. There is only opinion to deal with here. It is, however, not our opinion that matters here, but the opinion of reputable sources. So if you have a reputable source, bring it to the table and we'll discuss it-otherwise having a discussion is a mute point.  Signature brendel  01:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

New Page design
Due to the recent discussions over titles and page lay-put I have taken a closer look at this article and am now of the opinion that quite a lot of its needs to be re-done in order for this article to follow in the foot-steps of the Great Powers article. I have noticed several things that need improvement; these are my suggestions: Let me know what you think. Once we get all our differences settled and find consensus there shouldn't be a problem promoting this article to GA. Regards,  Signature brendel  03:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Work the US section into a real text section instead of an "evidence list" supporting the assumption that the US is powerful.
 * Surely we could expand the China and India sections a bit. This article is only 33kb long (I have written several articles far longer (in the 70s) and they passed GA w/o any problem.
 * As for the EU section, I still beleive that you can't throw the EU into one big pot w/ China and India, so I support the EU having its own section.
 * Why is the US the only entry in the Superpowers today section? The US should have its own section IMHO. Furthermore is a "Superpowers today" section even needed-shouldn't a discussion of current superpower issues be discussed in the intro.
 * I would suggest adding some text to the "Emerging superpowers" section before we jump into talking about China and India. Or we could lose it altogther and have all current and possible superpowers have their own sections.
 * I think everything post cold war in this article is not ready for GA status and this may be out of our hands. In the cold war "superpower" acquired a very concrete and relevant meaning which seems to have been lost since the end of the cold war.  After the cold war there does not even seem to be a common understanding of what the term means let alone who qualifies.  It is very hard to say what relevance the term has in the cold war era.  emerging superpowers?  wouldn't we really need a crystal ball?  EU as superpower?  It doesn't even have a seat on the UN and it's two members on the security council have totally separate voting histories.  PErhaps the EU is a superpower, pethaps China and India are on their way to superpower status, perhaps the US ceased to really be a superpower when the cold war ended, perhaps superpowerdom was a bipolar world relic.  This whole portion of the article almost defies organization because there is so little in the way of concrete standards by which to examine a candidate post cold war superpower.


 * Of course the article currently discusses all these considerations but it is *very* hard to organize the entries for cold war superpowers without making assumptions about these unsettled concepts. You cannot list the EU separe from India or China without implicitly endorsing the notion that it is already a superpower and likewise you cannot list the EU as an emerging superpower without implicitly suggesting that it cannot currently qualify as a superpower.  listing all the superpower candidates together creates the awkward situation that the article appears to be saying that india and China are regarded as possessing the same superpower status as the US.Zebulin 04:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I agree with Brendel that whatever happens, changes are required.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 04:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's as far as I can get as well. With respect to converting the current superpowers US entry to paragraph format are we sure that would improve the usefulness of the information?  Do we also want to convert the cold war superpowers table to paragraph format?  Do we want a paragraph format section on the USSR?  It's hard to see any change that won't lead logically to a complete overhaul of the article or which will otherwise do nothing to provide a more uniform style. .Zebulin 05:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to your first post: This article does talk about all theories but does so as though the subject as thought it was stating 100% objective facts. Fact is that this subject is subjective ;-). It is a set of intilectual concepts. You described the diversity in theories well: "emerging superpowers? wouldn't we really need a crystal ball?  EU as superpower?  It doesn't even have a seat on the UN and it's two members on the security council have totally separate voting histories.  PErhaps the EU is a superpower, pethaps China and India are on their way to superpower status, perhaps the US ceased to really be a superpower when the cold war ended, perhaps superpowerdom was a bipolar world relic." It is this uncertainty the article needs to convey to the reader in a more up-fron manner- that includes changing the page lay-out. Also, why do we list India and China in one section? Do we acutally have any sources that they share the same status? Perhaps they should have their own sections. Doing so does not (IMHO) create "the awkward situation that the article appears to be saying that india and China are regarded as possessing the same superpower status as the US" We will mention in the article that the US is the most widely accepted only superpower. Besdies this organization allows for discussing the subject in the most objective and inclusive manner. If we label the EU as an emerging superpower, for example, we will contradict sources that state it to be superpower. Furthermore the article needs a section on the "Multi-polar world" theory in which there are no superpowers. As for "It's hard to see any change that won't lead logically to a complete overhaul of the article"- most likely, yes.  Signature brendel  06:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * in that case I sincerely hope that when such major overhauls are overtaken restraint will be shown rather than simply reverting everything back. Instead I hope people will attempt to build off of whatever they could accept from those major edits and so at least allow for some incremental progress to me made.  I would begin such an overhaul immediately if I felt confident the considerable effort wasn't at a very high risk of simply getting reverted enmasse.Zebulin 06:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well we all have our opinions, but we need to let the sources guide us. There were many edit wars (or dicussion wars) on the Great Power page until recently when the article was re-written in strict accordance to its sources. The same needs to be done here. I think such an overhaul could be conducted quickly in big bold swoops. Perhaps, we should at least agree on an outline for the article here before putting in changes. Regards,  Signature brendel  06:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, I think I can safely say that there is little or no likelihood of any sort of 'revert-war' here—at least not amongst the established editors. Per the Great power rewrite, I'm certain that this will be done in the same friendly and collegial atmosphere.


 * X damr talk 23:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * first question is, can we convert the entire article to either bullet point form or paragraph form for each of the superpowers. Which form will be more suitable for the kind of information we have?Zebulin 07:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a strong preference for paragraph form. It is more formal and appropriate for WP and it is better suited to deal with a subjective topic. Bullet points for a complete objective facts such as "The median personal income in the US for persons age 25+ with earnings was $32,000 in 2005"- that's the kind of info suited for bullet points. Subjective material pertaining to international relations is best covered in paragraphs.  Signature brendel  07:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that the basis for the article structure doesn't already exist at Great power. I can't really see any decent reason for departing from this, can anyone else?


 * X damr talk 23:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * the problem I see with the great power article (and this article in it's current form) is that it has become largely a listing of particular Great Powers Leading to endless emotionally charged editing by newcomers unhappy with why this or that favorite/disliked country is in/not in the list. I think I would rather see the article focus more on the *concept* of the superpower and how that has evolved rather than on the countries that have laid claim to that title for whatever reason or had it applied to them by outsiders.Zebulin 00:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Reasonable concerns, but I think that we have the balance pretty much ok with Great power at present. There certainly is a danger from excessive 'fact creep', and it may be that Great power could do with a little pruning.  Nevertheless, what that article does have is a pretty substantial section on the theory—something which I agree that this article could usefully emulate.  I also agree that this article devotes far too much attention to individual countries vs. theory, a thoroughly skewed balance.


 * X damr talk 01:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * True anytime you create a list there is going to be a debate and there is "endless emotionally charged editing by newcomers"- something I am quite frankly tired of-which is why I propose to re-do this article into a solid GA. I agree that expanding the section that described the theory of a superpower is something that should be expanded. Keep in mind that this article is just 33Kb long-that means it can put on a couple of pounds ;-) As for the bullet vs. Paragraph thing- if we devot more time to theory explanantion paragraphs would be better- especially since they are the best method of conveying a subjective piece of information.  Signature brendel  02:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Status of italy
People keep removing the mention of Italy as one of the "great powers" in the European union status section. I see that Italy is listed in the great powers article as a recent great power and as a possible current great power. Should we try to make sure any mention of "great powers" in this article agrees with those listed in the great power article? Zebulin 23:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well they should agree with each other.  Signature brendel  01:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Italy is a great power and so should be mentioned in the EU section along with the UK, France, and Germany. Somethingoranother 02:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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


 * You're wrong, EU, India and China are emerging superpowers or in the EU's case, a new case altogether over which there is some controversy. US is the only fully accepted superpower.  — N o b l e e a g l e  [TALK]  [C] 06:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It also doesn't really matter what reasons we find and rationals we can come up with if there are no source. I doubt that there are sources considering Japan a superpower.  Signature brendel  07:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * it might also be added that apart from the economic size of japan almost everything mentioned was speculative and in divergence from past trends.Zebulin 19:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

how do you know that japan will get the unsc seat? of course it might! but remember the P5 vetos.


 * Japan has the economic and cultural muscle, but it does not have natural resources and a limited military that is checked by what happened during WWII. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.213.198.142 (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

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


 * I regard the UK as practically the gold standard of a great power. It seems to be impossible to find any historian or statesman who would claim it is not a great power.  Your points may be useful for demonstrating how other supposed superpowers are in fact probably instead great powers.  I suspect that rather than new superpowers emerging the US will end up being recategorized as the strongest great power and the rank of superpower will remain for some time unfilled by any state.Zebulin 23:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, whether or not you, Somethingoranother, can make an argument for why the UK should be listed a superpower does not relate to the article. This article is based on academic opinion. Unless you have your argument published in a journal, we can't publish it here either. I personally do not agree that the UK is an emerging superpower (though it is a powerful nation), Most of your points apply to any G4 nation (and to be frank w/ you some are quite speculative- e.g. "leader in fighting global warming"). You could make points for and against all these (G4) nations, but such an argument would be a complete waste of time as our article need to adhere to references. There are many different opinions. Personally, I beleive that the US will be the last superpower there ever was as we are racing towards a multi-polar world where no nation and truly act uni-laterally. But again, we need to follow our references. Are there sufficient references for listing the UK as an emerging superpower. No, so we can't include it.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  01:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If the UK cannot be claimed to be an emerging semi-super power then such likes as China and especially India cannot be claimed to be an emerging super power because China only holds relatively as much power as the UK and India holds less power than the UK so it doesn't make sense. Considering aswell the huge amount the UK has grown in influence and strength it shows over the past decade it has shown more real growth of actual power than either China or India have. 88.109.86.234 02:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is all a matter of opinion (it is a non-factual topic!) and unless that opinion has been published in a journal or source that is in compliance w/ WP standards it cannot be incorporated into the article.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  03:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It would seem quite a large number of Americans actually believe that the United Kingdom is becoming a superpower of sorts, which was revealed in a recent survey in 2005 The United Kingdom itself has been open recently about considering itself as an emerging semi superpower with Tony Blair refering more and more to the United Kingdom as being at such a status in the world now and considers the UK as now being second only to the US. I might write to him and ask him for his opinion as to whether the UK really now is considered to be a partial superpower of sorts.


 * There are a lot of polls out there and stating the UK to be second to the is quite an ambitious claim that seems to be a reflection of unbridaled nationalism rather than geo-political theory. There are quite a few nation considered more powerful than the UK in most academic discussions on the topic. According to the poll you cited Japan and China are seen as more powerful than the UK-only 18% saw the UK as 2nd on the world stage. But if you find a reliable source stating that the UK alone is an emerging superpower you can include it- thought this is the first time I have ever heard of the UK being considered more of an emerging superpower than China (which is commonly considered far more powerful).  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  00:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As with Japan, UK does not have much natural resources/land. Viewing it as part of the EU, however, and it is an emerging superpower.--141.213.198.142 06:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

EU/India/China -- OR
I have set up a temporary workpage at Talk:Superpower/temp for material on the EU, India, and Russia. Following the AFD decision that the emerging superpowers articles were OR, the similar information found here ought to be reworked in such a way that it does not fall to similar problems with OR.&mdash;Perceval 03:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

....The workpage presents an interesting discussion of emerging superpowers, but this belongs in a position paper, not in an encyclopedia. The rejected article topics (EU as an Emerging Superpower, China as an Emerging Supoerpower, Emerging Superpowers, etc...) should NOT find a new home in the wikipidia entry on Superpowers.

The Superpowers section should more or less follow the form it is in, which is to say that it should 1. define what a Superpower is according to several sources, 2. give some insight into the history of the Superpower concept, 3. identify current Superpowers.

ADDITIONALLY, I think it should mention something about emerging or partial Superpowers, but anything along these lines should be minimal and not come to rival the size of the rest of the article on Superpowers. I suggest a small paragraph or so about the EU, China and India under a heading like "Emerging or Partial Superpowers". This should not devolve into arguments among Europeans, Chinese, Indians, versus the Americans over why or why not each country should be a Superpower.Jasoncward 04:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)jasoncward


 * I essentially agree with your position, but I didn't want to delete the content outright. There may yet be something salvageable that can come from the excised sections, and I think the other editors would probably like a chance to rework the sections.&mdash;Perceval 04:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree. There are sources, the information is referenced and needs to be mentioned in this article. The mentiones, especially the EU is section is well-referenced and represents in the ongiong discussion on the topic. Removing these sections would make this article less informative! The charge that these sections belong in a position is false. These sections simply represent theories express by our sources. There is no adequate reason for removing well-referenced and wholesome information. These sections are not OR-show me one example of OR! Not mentioning India, China and the EU actually makes this article inaccurate.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  06:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's fine that you disagree. The problem is not whether or not the sections are sourced or informative.  The problem is that the sections are essentially the same content that was recently deleted in AFD for being original research.  The sections marshall evidence to support a position, rather than presenting the opinions of experts attributed to those experts in the text.  The former is OR; the latter would not be. As they stand the section are OR which is why I removed them to a temp page where they can be reworked.  WP:OR is a non-negotiable content policy--do not re-add the content without refactoring it.&mdash;Perceval 06:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The sections are not the same as the articles. Give me an example of OR in any of the sections and since when are surced and informative sections subject to deletion. I am not negotiating WP policy I am saying that is being mis-used. The sections are not OR! As of now the article is incomplete and misleading. Good Job!  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  07:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What is AFD? I looked in articles for deletion and I certainly didn't see an emerging superpowers content deletion if that is what you meant. Assuming we are talking about articles for deletion does someone know when the emerging superpowers article was deleted?  I want to find the example of an article deleted for having the same OR content as this one so as to help insure the new effort diverges from the one that produced the deleted article.  A link would be ideal if it wouldn't be too much trouble.  Zebulin 09:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we need at least one prominent citation from a qualified source that regards the EU as a superpower. If we have that then the EU section wouldn't be OR strictly speaking and would at worst require some trimming.  What criteria would an "expert" on international relations need to be regarded as such?Zebulin 17:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no way that Russia is an emerging super power when its economy is 14th in the world and its military spending is 9th. Russia's population continues to shrink rather rapidly and its HDI is 65th and isn't even really developing. A part from having a large amount of gas, a large country, and a lot of nukes Russia doesn't score very highly at all in anything else and shows no signs of those scores increasing if anything they're going down. Not really what you would call an emrging super power when their scores keep falling behind. Most of Russia's population now lives in poverty and Russia struggles to find cash to give its people any sort of decent way of life, its infrastructure continues to crumble and fall apart around itself, and its military decays and is now even bypassed in strength by such countries as Saudi Arabia. Russia also has out of hand crime which pretty much controls the country now. Russia seems like it's in a state of decay and on a road to no where and would be crazy to say it was emerging as a super power when it holds no power and actually loses power and strength each year rather than gain any.
 * in the absence of a recent edit adding Russia as an emerging superpower you seem to be really beating the hell out of a strawman here. In any event as place of the entire set of modern non US superpowers in this article is now being challenged I doubt that you have much reason to fear Russia earning a place in such a section.Zebulin 17:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Zebulin, here is the link to the AFD decision on emerging superpowers Articles_for_deletion/China_as_an_emerging_superpower_%28fourth_nomination%29. What needs to happen, to prevent OR is the following. These sections start with statements like "A case can be made for expanding the use the term 'Superpower' to include not only countries but also the European Union" or "The People's Republic of China is often considered an emerging superpower." They then proceed to marshall evidence in support of that proposition. They certainly cite sources, but those sources are synthesized together and not attributed in the text. What the reader sees is not the theory presented by an attributed reputable expert, but a theory assembled by Wikipedians. The former is acceptable, the latter is WP:OR and will be removed. How to fix this? Glad you asked. A short section (one or two paragraphs) on various countries is acceptable, if structured in the following way:
 * "Popular historian J. Peterman writes in his book, The Rise of XYZ, that ABC-country has the potential to rival the United States. He cites the following four factors: ABC's large population relative to the U.S., ABC's large growth rates relative to the U.S., the rapid growth of ABC's military expenditures, and ABC's better social organization than the U.S.  On the other hand, international relations historian Niall Ferguson writes in his book Colossus that ABC-country will not challenge the U.S. for the following three reasons: ABC's rapidly aging population, ABC's highly unequal distribution of income, and ABC's oppressive political/civic culture.  A third prominent opinion is advanced by realist IR theorist John Mearsheimer saying that ABC-country will challenge the U.S., but for different reasons, including: blah blah blah etc etc etc."

See the difference between the current text and the above text? The current text marshals cited but unattributed evidence synthesized together to support a position. The above text neatly summarizes the argument of each reputable published author side by side so that the reader knows exactly whose opinion their reading and which author supports which evidence. The current text is OR and will continue to be removed, but text restructured along the lines above is acceptable.&mdash;Perceval 18:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems clear that the US portion of the post cold war half of the article may well be setting the standard that the others followed. The only thing about the US section that complies with the concerns raised in AFD is the fact that it is not speculative.  The US section reads like a position paper.Zebulin 00:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Zebulin, I think your concerns about the US section of the article are answerable by the fact that the term 'superpower' is largely defined by what the US is and does, at least in the post cold war world. While many from China, India and the EU may not like it, nevertheless our modern use of the term 'superpower' became defined during the Cold War as either the US or the USSR...and in the absence of the USSR the definition of 'superpower' becomes, to oversimplify, the United States.   The detailed definition of 'superpower' has become the detailed descriptions of the US.  In a sense, nothing about the US as a superpower can be a position or POV because the US itself is the major definition of superpower.--Jasoncward 01:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the model paragraph suggested by perceval above. If someone wants to write it, we could at least get something in the main article that passifies those who are pushing for their favorite entity to be named a superpower. It adds to the information in the article (especially for uninformed readers) to sligtly mention the potential superpower landscape in the next 50-100 years. --Jasoncward 01:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have retagged the "Potential 21st Century Superpowers" section with the OR tag. I reject the aseertion by some that this is not original research, based on the following argument: As to whether the European Union, China, and India can or will be future superpowers is a matter of ongoing debate.  This sentence in particular gives away the agenda of this section, which is clearly original research by synthesis. Wikipedia is not a place for original essays. Take a political science class and write a research paper on this subject if it is that important to you. There is no concept of "partial superpowers", nor is there a concept of "potential superpowers". There ARE superpowers and there ARE great powers but noone can "debate" on Wikipedia what or who they think or even worse "believe" qualifies for this distinction, and then put forth some sort of thinly-veiled validation by providing sources that purport those ideas. The sources themselves are speculation based on fact, stiching them together in some sort of crusade is plainly and simply original research. I would say the entire section needs to be ditched, but it is obviously a touchy subject for all of us and, having participated in the lengthy AfD debate, I have to say the sources should be kept, sans the rampant crystal-balling and editorializing. This section needs to be edited to just MENTION the articles and not couch them in a biased context. Excuse my bluntness. --IRelayer 21:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a minor clarification...the sentence I provided as an example was edited by me, for style, but the previous version shows the same agenda. Just so I am not accused of editing it and then bashing it.  I thought taking it out altogether would draw the ire of many but I also thought it needed to be edited for style.--IRelayer 21:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with your conclusion that the 21st century superpower section keeps straying over the boundary between reporting sourced information and synthesizing new original research from that information. However I am somewhat amused by the ironic fact that your assertion that "there is no concept of concept of 'potential superpowers'" appears itself to be original research.  I have found use of the term "potential superpower" and derived variants like "potential 21st century superpower" in numerous scholarly papers without explanation as if there were already a consensus understanding of this concept in such academic discussions.


 * The section certainly should not be dumped. It's important to retain some equivalent to it simply because with the exception of strictly historical publications the overwhelming majority of current or recent publications of all sorts relating to the concept of "superpower" tend to relate to this topic.


 * However, we must work hard to find sources for those conclusions that best represent the broad range of academic and diplomatic consensus that exists on the topic and insure we are merely reporting those sources. The best source would be a sort of meta commentary on the situation that actually describes the state and range of consensus (such as it is) on this topic but until we are able to find this we will have to make due with a representative sample of sources displaying the range of discussion in this area of the general topic of "superpower".Zebulin 22:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

UK as a former superpower
This article still seems to be largely centred on the US/USSR as superpowers, but fails to mention that the UK was once a superpower (apart from the occasional mention) fair enough the UK is no longer a superpower (weather it is re-emerging is/was another debate) but surely this article is to inform of all super powers, past and present; rather that to offer a definition and then some information on current/cold war superpowers. It should therefore have information on the role of the UK, and othe former superpowers if there exists any, as superpowers. Looking through this article and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_power#United_Kingdom it is meantioned that this status was once held but there appears to be little else on the subject. /Discuss... 82.11.195.211 23:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There quite a few colonial European empires that would fit the description for a superpower. There is the Roman Empire, the Spanish Empire, the Portugese Empire, the Dutch Empire, and in the mid/late 19th and ealy 20th century, the French and English Empires (see the EU section for the current status of these nations). But the term superpower wasn't around back then-it's a cold war term that was coined in the mid 20th century, when none of the empires listed above had superpower status.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  23:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

- sorry let me get this straight, you're trying to say that because the term was invented after these empires it means that said term cannot be applied to them? That's really quite pathetic.


 * those earlier powers existed in totally different international environments than was the case when the concept of superpower originated. They can be disqualified since it was simply impossible for any of them to exert the kind of influence that 20th century and later superpowers displayed.  However, the british empire *did* exist briefly in such circumstances and certainly would qualify as a superpower when the term originated.  I think some mention would be reasonable.  Information from references explaining how its superpower recognition was lost could also be quite useful in helping to sharpen the definition of a superpower.Zebulin 02:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes the British and as far as I know also the French empire could be mentioned if a reference calling them "superpowers" is found. Then again, even thought the Spanish Empire exsisted in a different time, whether or not it could be called a historical superpower is subject to debate. One could certainly make a case for Spain or Portugal being historical superpowers.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  03:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is to find a source that makes the case, rather than arguing back and forth over an (as of yet) unsubstantiated claim to former superpower status.&mdash;Perceval 07:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * speaking of sources I found a paper on the web that seems to have multiple citation possibilities for some currently unreferenced information in the article.


 * http://post.queensu.ca/~nossalk/papers/hyperpower.htm


 * How do I go about determining if the author is a wiki-credible source?Zebulin 08:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a university paper for an academic conference--you can assume it's an acceptable source. Queen's University is respectable.  Good work.&mdash;Perceval 19:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It has already been stated in this article that "William Thornton Rickert Fox, an American foreign policy professor at Columbia University ... states that were superpowers: the United States, the Soviet Union, and the British Empire." There is another source, and in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_power#United_Kingdom it states "The United Kingdom is often considered to have been the world's first Superpower." but it states no reference to this claim, just as the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#History states:"...Britain became the principal power of the nineteenth century". I think this, and the article from Queens is enough evidence, but i'm not too well up on how things work around here so i'll not make judgement on that... 82.11.195.211 20:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The US is no Super power
I have found a very good article saying how the Us is no super power. It is currently in the references at the bottm, but no mention in the article goes with it. Could someone please add this infomation the page thank you.


 * Nothing new, US have not won a single war since WW2, beside Grenada and Korea (and North Korea and South Korea never signed a peace treaty, so they are officially still in a war, what you can hardly count as a win). I could add that WW2 was won by Russia, because US and UK had little effect on that, but I won't because all their history books would have to be rewritten ;)

yes that would be ok

i just want to add something...FRance has now a very high birthrate...2.5 kids per family...and it is still rising,,,and probably will get quite high. You said that they have a aging population, well thats the same in Canada.... Canada, Japan, and Us, have all low birth rates also....

ChrisDVD

Flag images at start of article
I really don't like the recent placement of various superpower flags at the start of the article. Given the headaches we have had with the "emerging superpowers" content do we really want to open a can of worms where people keep adding flags until we have, USA, USSR, EU, China, India, the UK, the Netherlands, and any other occasionally mentioned contenders flags all squeezed into the margin at the top of the article?

A big problem with this article is the amount of space it devotes to particular examples of various superpower contenders with or without proper sourcing and less and less focus on the abstract concept of "superpower" itself.

If there are a lot of people who really don't like that B2 picture can we come up with a better replacement than a collection of flag images for every possible "superpower" entity?Zebulin 23:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Questionable Superpower Definition
Currently, nations such as China and India have a greater industrial capacity than that of the sole listed superpower, the United States, along with currency backed up by enough United States Dollars to easily invest in matching the United States militarily. Many nations also match the USA in military technology and size. While their most modern technology is not fully implemented, it could be used on a large scale in a matter of months. Considering those two factors, is the United States the sole world superpower? Even looking at nations which are not considered developing or disputed superpowers such as France we see more advanced technology in areas such as nuclear energy and electronics.

If you want the specific information I will get it, I only ask a review of developing vs current superpowers, or a statement that it is cloudy in current times.

--Taken By Robots 03:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent points. Notice we've had editors lately trying to remove India from the list with edit summaries that it's a "developing country".  The heart of every authoritative definition I've seen has always been a consideration of geopolitical *power* not how effective it is at serving it's populations needs.  Your observation seems to indicate you recognize this.  What we need in order to make use of your observation is a source to back it up.  As it stands it could be easily challenged by other original observations.  For instance someone might well claim that it's just as easy for the united states to spend on increasing it's industrial capacity as it is for India or China to increase their militaries.  The capital equipment required to expand light industries isn't *that* expensive and much of it is still produced in the US.  Furthermore, the relative importance of having a large civilian manufacturing base vs a large service economy is far from settled.
 * Bottom line---find a source for your new definition and we can at least get this perspective into the article.Zebulin 05:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * True power and quality of life are two very different issues. Switzerland has a median household income roughly $9,000 higher than that of the US and $15,000 higher than that of the UK-yet Switzerland is not anywhere near as powerful as the US or the UK. Some of the world's most prosporous nations (Luxembourg, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, etc...) are not at all powerful. Zebulin is also abosultely correct that "The capital equipment required to expand light industries isn't *that* expensive"-thus enabeling developing nations to become very powerful. Overall economic and military capabilites are the prime factoes here-that is why India is seen as an "emerging superpower."  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  19:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"post cold war era over/ nobody would call US a hyperpower - this is common knowledge! multipolar world is reality"
This:

"post cold war era over/ nobody would call US a hyperpower - this is common knowledge! multipolar world is reality"

was an edit message the gist of which Lear21 has been consistently repeating in his effort to delete article content which discusses the unipolar world theories that have been published in relation to superpowers.

In particular this bit has been repeatedly deleted from the article along with the sources:

"Sometimes, given the unipolar nature of the world, it is described as a hyperpower. "

Now I happen to disagree with the hyperpower theory, but I thought the paper was one of the few scholarly published treatments of the superpower concept we have had in our article and I can't help but feel it deserves some mention in the article.

Lears21 is claiming that because it was published in 1999 that the situation has changed and it must be deleted because "everybody knows" we lived in a multipolar world and nobody would call the US a hyperpower. He doesn't provide any links to sources to back up this new consensus that the 1999 authors were wrong rather he just asserts it is common knowledge and deletes it repeatedly.

I have tweaked the wording somewhat to emphasise the lack of consensus on this issue:

"Furthermore, given the unipolar nature of the world, it has even been described as a hyperpower. "

I don't know what else to do if this doesn't satisfy Lear21.

Do we need to rip out all information sourced by publications older than 5 years old from the article? That is going to rule out the vast majority of information that is available and restrict us entirely to sourcing from news pieces. Is that what we want?Zebulin 22:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There should be no problem in keeping the source as historic document. But it is outdated in combination with the claimed sentence in the introduction. The global community finds itself in a post 9/11 era with increasingly globalized interdependencies. That is meant with common current knowledge. To claim there is a unipolar world and a hyperpower is last century belief. Lear 21 23:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you would read the paper you might find that the authors explicitly cite globalization and increased interdependencies in making their case for their "hyperpower" hypothesis. Can you cite a paper or source that suggests that increased globalization somehow undermines the influence of superpowers or hyperpowers?Zebulin 23:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly I found a paper published in July of 2003 which contained this sentence:

"How the US military preponderance as the sole superpower (some now say ‘hyperpower’) or, for that matter, how the wide-reaching alliances that it had formed in the world and in the East Asian region could be justified in the absence of a comparably strong threat as the former Soviet Union, is a vital question that the US is apparently still trying to answer."

The entire paper can be found here: http://community.middlebury.edu/~scs/docs/Pablo-Baviera,%20The%20China%20Factor%20in%20US-Asian%20Alliances.pdf

So we have someone publishing in july of 2003 using the curious phrase "some *NOW* say 'hyperpower'" as if this use of the word "hyperpower" were a recent development in 2003 and yet we have Lear21 saying that in 2007 4 years later not only is this not a recent idea it is in fact an idea wholly and completely discredited such that nobody still seriously holds it and that it is an idea not from 2003 but from the last century and that no sources are needed to understand this because it's just something that everybody knows. Hrmmm.Zebulin 23:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No sources older than 2 years!:,, , , , I can only guess: You made holidays on an island without internet and newspapers the last 4 years... Lear 21 23:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You just don't get it. Our job as wikipedia editors isn't to figure out what the truth is and then discard everything that disagrees with that truth.  NONE of your links says that everybody agrees that there is no hyperpower.  They simply offer their own competing interpretations of international relations.  When you find information like this you add the information to the article with it's sources *ALONGSIDE* other information that may disagree with it with it's soruces.  There is no scholarly consensus on these issues.Zebulin 23:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


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

Plus  ! The introduction sentence pretends there is a consensus about a unipolar world and hyperpower. That is not accurate and even outdated. The sources don´t mention a hyperpower because there is none. The intro sentence will be off tomorrow. Lear 21 00:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You realize you have blogs and forums among that litany of links you posted here.Zebulin 00:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Silly picture
Do we really need a picture of the earth spinning to show how super powers have influence over the planet, I find the image almost laughable Barcode 19:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have a better suggestion? I for one, like the spinning earth pic.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  19:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We had trouble with the B2 picture recently so it seems safe to say any intro picture will need to be almost perfectly neutral as this globe image is.Zebulin 21:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do we need a introduction picture in the first place? Anyway, I also dislike the current one. Sijo Ripa 22:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * we certainly don't but having no picture is ugly as well, imho. We could just brainstorm for something sutiable and google for an appropriate image based on that consensus.  The globe does have the plus that it serves as a reminder that part of the definition of a superpower is *global* influence.  Sometimes people forget that when advocating certain historical "superpowers".Zebulin 22:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * approval, the picture is redundant. there must not implicitly need to be a better one, when the removal would be a good alternative (better than the status quo)


 * What does "approval" mean? I still like the picture and I think the status quo is better than removal.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  00:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * well the image does nothing for the article, what other planet would global superpower be talking about?? Mars!? The image is useless in my opinion. Global superpower, shouldnt need an image of this planet spinning around to tell us 'OH! they meant THIS GLOBE!' Barcode 03:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it's the only picture that really works-of course it isn't needed for any informative purpose-I just happen to like it for its esthetics ;-)!  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  04:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Superpower today criteria = problematic
I think we should remove the bullet point division in criteria in the "Superpower toady" section for the moment. There are in my opinion two reasons to remove most of this section. First, there is no consensus about these criteria. While everyone agrees that military and economic might are important, it is less clear to what extent other criteria such as (A)is cultural power really necessary. There is also no consensus about whether cultural influence is not merely a logical consequence of having economic power (e.g. when one is economically and military powerful, (1) the particular country has the power to enrichen its culture and (2) other cultures will look up to the power of this country and thus its culture - so cultural influence is derived from military and economic might). For instance, the USSR could influence cultures in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central and Eastern Asia simply because it dominated them. Also, cultural power (the worldwide spread of American brands, such as MacDonalds) is not easy to separate from economic power. However, even when one assumes that cultural power is detriminal for being a superpower, it is less easy to formulate now (as opposed to the Cold War) how and why the USA has such cultural power at this moment. (B) I think that the mentioning of political power in the article is unclear: what is it? in what way does it differ from economic and military power? Possibly, this is also a logical consequence of having economic and military power (e.g., the permanent seat in the UN Security Council was only given to the 5 countries that were considered the most powerful/important). Secondly, the criteria are filled with data that does not seem to give a clear and comprehensive view on what these criteria mean and what is of particular importance in the context of being a superpower. While everyone agrees that GDP is an important indicator of economic strength, why is being mentioned that the U.S. is one of the leading countries in nanotechnology? Can't we just stick to generally accepted data such as GDP and GDP per capita, productivity and economic growth? The same applies for cultural power; something which will always be vague and therefore not easy to be explained. For instance: why are brands an important facet of having cultural power or being a superpower? If we would limit ourselves to athors who suggest that the USA has soft power (which is related to cultural power, but which is not the same) and mention the examples they use, it would be more clear and comprehensive. Sijo Ripa 00:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess you can view a superpower as a country with the potential for more growth - abundance in natural resources/land, growing and sustainable population, booming and vibrant economy, continued cultural influence, good relations with other countries.--141.213.198.142 07:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * that sounds a lot more like a plausible description of "emerging superpowers" than a meaningful description of a superpower. The soviet Union was clearly a superpower right up until the moment that it lost it's satellite countries and broke up even though it was far from booming, had a crappy economy, and extensive foreign relations only with it's satellites for the most part.  Furthermore who is say if *any* country has both a growing *and* sustainable population.  You'd need a crystal ball given that without implementation of new technologies (probably not even developed) no modern state has a long term sustainable population due to environmental shortcomings of our recent and current technologies.  All the more reason IMHO to remove considerations of future growth from any definition of superpower.Zebulin 08:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits (partial reversal): argumentation
What do you think of my edits? Greetings, Sijo Ripa 01:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The term superpower was applied for the first time in 1943-1944, and was then applied also to the British Empire. In the years after WW II it was not yet clear that the British Empire had weakened to the extent that it could no longer project its power decisively on world scale. So, the British Empire should have a short section. Btw: I'm not a British citizen, so I'm not trying to increase the status of the UK in any way, the fact is simply that the term was applied for a brief period to the British Empire, and for a longer period retrospectively. A short separate section shouldn't be controversial in any way in my opinion.
 * The influence of the Spanish Empire on contemporary Latin-America, which I don't not try to deny or minimize in any way, is not really relevant in the context of current and former superpowers. The influence of the Spanish Empire at that time could however be mentioned.
 * I agree that the heading was way too long. Thanks for the improvement. I changed it a bit to emphasize that the section is about potential new superpowers in the 21th century, and not about past potential superpowers (which failed for some reason to attain that status) or superpowers in later centuries (which some people are already debating!).
 * I agree with the removal of the pictures.

Let me address your point in bullet form: Regards,  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  03:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need for a British Empire section-by the same token we could have a Spanish Empire and a French Empire section.
 * The influence of Spain on Latin American and the Western US is important as it shows what a great cultural influence the empire once had-at least important enough for one puny sentence any ways.
 * What pictures? The GDP pie chart is certainly helpful, as for the empire maps, I don't think we really need them.
 * (1) The difference however is that the term included the British Empire (BE) from the first moment on - while this is not the case for the Spanish Empire (SE) and French Empire (FE). (2) Also, it seems to me that the application of the term superpower to the SE and FE obtain far (!) less support by historians or political scientists than the BE. For instance (in case if you have access to such databases): look up academic articles or books: there is much support for the BE (which controlled more territory than any empire before, had territory spread over every continent besides Antarctica (as opposed to the much smaller and less spread FE and SE), had the strongest (worldwide) naval power the world had ever seen at that time (a superpower needs to have the "ability to project power at a global scale", the BE had a much larger and more industrialized economy than other countries, etc.). While some support exists for the SE, there is hardly any for the FE. I do not oppose a bit more text about the SE, but it seems quite clear that a consensus exists about the BE (and not about the SE) and this consensus means that the BE deserves a seperate section. Sijo Ripa 04:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the exact history of the European empires, pre WWII, isn't my primary area of expertise. I just have two sources supporting the SE so I added it-and beleive that its mention ought to be kept. Do you have source that there is "a consensus exists about the BE (and not about the SE) and this consensus means that the BE deserves a seperate section?" This is primarily a Cold War term, so I don't know if any pre WWII empire should have its own section in this article.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  05:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the British Empire was recognized as a superpower at the same time that the USSR and USA were given that recognition. I think it's claim as one of the "original" superpowers is quite unassailable given the documentation we have on the origin of the term.  However, I can't support going out of our way to add an equivalent section for it to the article without some thought as to the consequences for the likely evolution of the article should we do so.
 * The cold war "superpower" cliche was ingrained long enough that I think nobody takes issue with special sections for those two countries. On the other hand a section about the british empire as a superpower will be hard to fit into the context of the Cold war and will likely be seen as an invitation to begin expanding equivalent sections for *all* 'superpowers' which at least one external source have labelled as such.  A few minutes browsing the Google scholar search results for superpower has convinced me that there are literally dozens of historical entities to which someone at some time has appended the label of "superpower" to in their scholarly peer reviewed paper, and there is no sign that this use of the word is diminishing.
 * How do we want this article to evolve? Do we want a list of sections for entities which at least one scholar has called a "superpower" with lengthy summaries of their greatness or do we want something a bit more focused than that?  Honestly my recommendation would be not to add a section for the britsh empire but rather to take a good look at the specific USSR and USA sections and see if we can tie them more closely to the special context of the cold war (when superpower came to have a very concrete meaning) and reduce the extant to which they seem to be just general lists of bragging rights of two powerful states.Zebulin 06:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I both agree and remain skeptical. I still doubt that "the British Empire was recognized as a superpower at the same time that the USSR and USA were given that recognition." I do, however, agree that we should "not to add a section for the britsh empire but rather to take a good look at the specific USSR and USA sections." This is largely a cold way and later term, thus we shouldn't add a section for the BE and other historical superpowers. Just mentioning them in a sentence or two somewhere else is sufficient IMHO.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  06:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As with Japan, UK does not have much natural resources/land, so it does not have enough potential for more growth. However, since it's part of EU, you can view it as an emerging superpower. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.213.198.142 (talk) 07:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Today, yes. But we are talking about the British Empire, not the modern-day UK.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  07:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * American foreign policy professor William Fox, the person that coined the term in 1943 (= before the Cold War) considered the British Empire to be (and have been) a superpower (not the historical Spanish Empire), and later on expanded that notion in his 1944 book. Historians, such as Anthony Clayton (The British Empire as a Superpower, 1919-39; 1986) and Simon Schama (A History of Britain, The Fate of Empire, 1776-2000; 2000) explicitly use the term, and in all the book reviews (and that are quite some!) I've not read one historian that opposed the usage of this term. I know that this is not the most perfect way to deduct whether or not the BE deserves its own section, but from my general reading experience I always find that authors use the term without much discussion (or argumentation for that matter) for the BE, while there is always some criticism or nuance when it is used to other powers in history (and now for other countries besides the USA). The argumentation - if used - is that it controlled the largest land mass ever, (spread over every continent) as well as the seas, was able to maintain power over these areas for a long time, capable of forming credible alliances and waging wars globally, etc. Sijo Ripa 12:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the term has since 1943 taken on a life of its own. That the man who coined the term, considered the BE a past superpower is all fine and good but that doesn't mean we should take Mr. Clayton's word above that of all other experts. I think having a couple of sentence on the BE and the SE is fine since there are experts with roughly equal credentials calling them both "past superpowers." I also see your rationale for having a seperate BE section but am still not convinced. I am not saying the BE was not a superpower-it was, but this is largely a WWII and later term and having a BE section just becuase the guy who coined the term happened to mention it, seems a bit too arbitrary for my taste. I think having a couple of sentences that the BE is considered a past superpower by some experts and that the SE is considered a past superpower by some experts will do just fine.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  17:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Superpowers today (1991-)
"Most people consider the United States the only sovereign nation-state, or country, that meets all criteria for being a superpower." The whole paragraph is based on that unquoted claim and I guess besides the citizens of the United States barely anyone would say the USA would be the only - if at all - superpower. So delete this paragraph or enhance it. EU, Russia and probably already China and India are stronger.

Thank you i agree too.


 * Wrong, the United States has the strongest military, most soft-power, growing population, rich land, and friendly neighbors, so it is considered the only superpower. EU does not have comparable soft power and a declining population in many areas, plus they are not as unified with language barriers among others. Russia does not have the economy and a declining population with insufficient farmland. China is still developing and does not have enough soft-power (Japan is stronger in many areas), and India is still developing. Plus, they all have (excluding the US) insecure borders with many conflicts.


 * "EU, Russia and probably already China and India are stronger." this seems to be a dead give away that you're merely trying to troll the editors of this article. You'll have to explain your reasoning there before there will be any reason to take it any other way.Zebulin 22:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sources? Anyone? We all have our opinions, but before we put the idea of China being more powerful than the US up there, you'll have show us some reputable sources.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  23:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * true. trolls are unlikely to actually dig up any sources.Zebulin 23:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are the trolls Zebulin and Signature, USA is a weak compared to EU, reason: Israel controls US foreign policy with AIPAC while EU makes their own decisions. But write what you want, do not forget to call the Article "Superpower by Zebulin and Signature" then. 62.226.49.21 17:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You're getting closer to the truth now. But rather than putting "Superpower by Zebulin and Signature" in the article title the appropriate thing for us to do is place the sources of our information into the article and avoid filling it with our own unsourced commentary.  Blogs are for people to post their own unsourced commentary.  Wikipedia is for gathering together sourced information in an encyclopedic form.  If you have a source for your comments here in discussion I'll have justification for assuming they are more than an just effort to upset editors of this article.Zebulin 00:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Show me the source for "Most people consider the United States the only sovereign nation-state, or country, that meets all criteria for being a superpower." As long as you don't have any sources for that it is just bias and beside USA is far away from being sovereign. 62.226.65.225 07:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You are misplacing the burden of proof there, my friend. The info in the article is sourced-if you have sources that you would like to include, simply present them right here. Otherwise you're just wasting disk space w/ this discussion.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  07:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Other views
I complete disagree with moving mention of the SE being called a superpower to an "Other Views" section. Perhaps we should rename the article to "Superpowers according to William Fox." There are other opinions voiced since Fox in '43 that need to be mentioned side by side with his. This article is not only about what Mr. Fox thought but about the overall concept of a superpower. We can't divide this article into "What Mr. Fox said" and "What others say." In order to provide a balanced and wholsome summary of this concept this article needs to mention as many experts as possible w/o marginalizing any of them in a "Other views" section.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  20:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

British Empire Map
The map of the British Empire has been recently introduced to the article and is placed next to the Cold War Map. This is misleading as it implies that the 'superpower' term has been equally used for both. For decades the term has been applied exclusively for the Cold War Era, while the British Empire is rather seen in the Great Power 19. century era. A written mention of the Empire is necessary but can´t include a map. The map will be removed. Lear 21 09:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is not one NPOV reason to remove the map or the separate section. Fox' view is not the general view on superpower, nevertheless he was the inventor and that makes his view notable. Therefore the sections should be seperated and a map can be included, so that it is clear that these are two different views and to make clear why the British Empire was considered a superpower by him. A map makes this very clear. Sijo Ripa 12:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * By the same token we should include an SE map to illustrate the opinion of Edwards. Anyways, you could make a point for removing and keeping the BE map. On one hand, we do not need to support the statements by our sources through illustrations, on the other hand I personally like illustrations as they make things clearer, easier to understand and add to the esthetics of the article.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  17:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The article cites references in the vast majority of cases including the Cold War era. This is no Fox article ! The last 50 years nobody would estimate the British Empire with superpower status, because there was no BE anymore. Putting the map next to the Cold War Map suggests an equal usage of the term, and it´s wrong. Lear 21 17:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you would have read my comment, you would know that I clearly emphasized that this is not a Fox article. The addition of a map does not constitute POV if it is used in the correct section as it currently is. It is "your" interpretation that the map puts the BE in the overall article as equal to the USA and USSR, not mine. The article clearly emphasizes the Cold War era, just count the amount of words... I just see the map as a nice illustration of a legitimate seperate section. Sijo Ripa 18:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The concept of a superpower was a product of the Cold War and the nuclear age. Although the word appeared, according to Webster's dictionary, as early as 1922, its common usage only dates from the time when the adversarial relationship of the United States and the Soviet Union became defined by their possession of nuclear arsenals so formidable that the two nations were set apart from any others in the world. It came to be widely, though by no means universally, accepted that the very possession of these weapons, regardless of their actual use, made the two nations immensely more powerful than any other. BE is not part of this concept. Lear 21 19:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The BE is not part of the Cold War definition indeed. It is part from the earlier definition though. That's why there are seperate sections between "origin" and "Cold War" necessary. In fact, you are now saying what I'm saying. :) Also, you didn't respond to my earlier comment: The origin - because it is different from the Cold War view - deserves a seperate section, so that it is clear to every reader that Fox' view and the Cold war definition differ. In other words, a seperate section is logical and legitimate. A seperate section can have an illustrative picture, just as almost every other section of this article has. There is no problem, only "your" interpretation that it would put the BE and USA/USSR on an equal footing in this article, which is clearly not the case if you consider the amount of text about the USA/USSR. Sijo Ripa 20:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Clean up
I cleaned up this article a little bit, it had to many unnecessary things in it. Also there was a really strong E.U. bias so made it more neutral and I also edited it to focus on the U.S. and Soviet Union more since they are the the two countries best known for being superpowers. I also added some new pictures and restored some old ones to make the article less confusing. User:Daniel_Chiswick 16 April, 2007.

You didn't have to delete the mentions of the British Empire and Spanish Empire. You could have at least left a sentence about them. Gdo01 01:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The article still mentions the British Empire, but the Spanish empire had to go because the term superpower was never applied to it. If we add the Spanish empire that means we would have to add the French Empire, German Empire, Russian Empire, Dutch Empire, Portugese Empire, and the Austrian empire and that would be over doing it since they were never called superpowers when though they were during their respected time periods. User:Daniel_Chiswick 16 April, 2007.

Also the picture of the British empire isn't really needed because it as only known as a "Superpower" for a short period of time and the picture makes the page too crowded, I think a mention works just fine. User:Daniel_Chiswick 16 April, 2007.
 * The French Empire was in competition with the British Empire when they had their world influence. The German Empire never held more than a scant few colonies and mostly leveraged power by the fact that it could easily strike at the homelands of European countries. The Russian Empire never had any naval power and ruled over barren wastelands. The Dutch Empire was mercantalistic but not very territorial. They held bank power but not much military might. The Portugese never really had an empire, they basically only conquered Brazil and were pretty much the Dutch of their century. The Austrian Empire is the same as the German Empire, few if any colonies and no influence outside of Europe. This is much different than the Spanish Empire which effectively owned half the world and held unparalleled naval power in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. No other country at the time ruled as many people under one kingdom. The British fed on the scraps of the Spanish Empire and gradually usurped. It also has a distinction of ruling over a great number of people under a united crown. Lets not even mention the economic monopolies Spain had on the whole Western Hemisphere and that Britain had on most of Africa, India, North America, and parts of China. The USA in today's world system could never have as much power as those two did back then. Gdo01 01:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So just because the French Empire was in cometition with the British Empire that doesn't make them a superpower? Well then I guess by that logic the Soviet Union was never a superpower since they were in competition with the United States. France took over most of europe and it's empire was second only to Great Britain before WWII. Also from the 1660s until the 1750s France had the world's largest navy and again from the mid-1790s until 1805. After the defeat of of Napoleon until the 1890s the French navy was second to Great Britain and it's navy has far more modern and advanced. The Russian Empire was very powerful during the early 19th century and the British feared that they would attack India until well into the 1870s. Imperial Germany had the world's second largest navy in 1914 and was the world's second largest exporter (After the U.S.) and had the world's most powerful army. The Dutch Empire was the dominate trading nation in the late 17th century and it's navy was second only to France. Portugal was the first European country to have a colonial empire and they controlled more than just Brazil and they had the world's largest navy during the early 1500s. All these countries were never called superpowers during their respected time periods even though many of them meet the criteria to be called superpowers, but this article talks specifically about nations like the U.S., Soviet Union, and the U.K. which were actually called superpowers and the term was coined after them. User:Daniel_Chiswick 16 April, 2007.
 * Well you deleted some cited material that did call them superpowers. Henry Kamen and John Edwards and this one. Why did you delete those? Gdo01 02:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As for point by point answers: You have a point about the French Empire but France never had any where near the economic grip on the world that the English did. The fear of Russia invading India does not a superpower make and does not make either not a superpower or a superpower. Germany's navy may have been large but they never had any of the big gun ships until a decade before WW1, numbers can't always beat bigger guns. Portugal did rule more than Brazil but they owned nothing more than the port or coast of the areas they controlled and nothing inland. Hardly territorial and I already said they were an economic power. Same goes with Dutch, as for their Navy once again they were numerous but hardly effective. They were quickly and effectively outclassed in battle against the British and basically gave the British a free ride through Indonesia, the heart of their colonial empire. As for being called superpowers see my response on the my writing above this. It has been done and citations are likely out there for many of the other countries also. Gdo01 03:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Two historians from prestifous universities published two books calling the Spanish Empire a former superpower-that is going to be mentioned here. That is how WP works! Referenced info is mentioned where relevant. The info is referenced and it will be mentioned.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  05:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Called a country "The superpower of it's day" is very different from calling it a superpower in the modern sense. The U.S., Soviet Union, and the U.K. were the only nations to be called superpowers so that is all this article should talk about, that and "Potential Superpowers". If you want to talk about the Spanish empire why don't you add it to the Great power page where it will be better suited? User:Daniel_Chiswick 16 April, 2007.

Also if you add the Spanish empire you would have to add the French Empire, German Empire, Japanese Empire, Russian Empire, Dutch Empire, Portugese Empire, Ancient China, Ancient India, and Ancient Egypt as well, but they were never known as superpowers in the modern sense even though they did meet the criteria. The Great power page needs to be expanded and adding those empires there would be the most appropriate for them. User:Daniel_Chiswick 16 April, 2007.


 * The article is about the concept of superpower-if an authoritative source such as an Oxford professor says Spain was a superpower-that belongs in this article. The US and USSR are not the only nations to whom the term is applied-some experts do use the term for the Spanish Empire! This is real simple-WP for dummies: Source => says SE used to be superpower => Article => States that one source identified SE as supoerpower. Your claim that "The U.S., Soviet Union, and the U.K. were the only nations to be called superpowers so that is all this article should talk about" is not true. Clearly there are professors disagreeing with you-look at the sources! They show two reputable historians calling the SE a superpower-that's it. So long as reputable sources are calling the Spanish Empire a superpower-it will be mentioned in this article! They are not calling the Spanish Empire a great power, so adding it there would be OR. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with the sources-they say the Spanish Empire was a superpower and this article deals with the concept of a superpower. Now, do we need to start an RfC? BTW: If there are reputable sources alling the Japanese and Russian Empire superpower-that will be added. That is WP works-if a source mentions a concept and that source is reputable-the content is included in the article. Remember it is not up to us, to decided what is mentioned where-that is up to our sources. It is our sources that tell us what and what isn't mentioned here. Regards,  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  05:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I will say this AGAIN, it says the Spanish empire meet the criteria to be called a superpower if the term existed back then, which it did not. The term "Superpower" was coined after WWII to refer to the U.S., Soviet Union, and the U.K., not past superpowers. The Great powers page talks about past superpowers and it would be much better suited there that way the same thing is not talked about in the same articles. And what is with you with the Spanish Empire? The French Empire at it's height was just as powerful as the Spanish empire so why isn't it listed? It meet all of the criteria for being a "Superpower" but it is not here because there are too many former superpowers and listing just a select few is POV, that is why the Great powers page exists, to talk about past and present Great powers/"Superpowers". The Spanish empire is not listed on the great powers page so why don't you add it instead of trying to add it to this page where it does not belong? Also just because you find a source for something it doesn't mean that it is encyclopedic. Just because something says "If the term existed back them" doesn't mean that it belongs here. User:Daniel_Chiswick 16 April, 2007.
 * Until we find a reputable source that offers the argument that "Superpower" has a different meaning when retrospectively applied to states in periods before that term came to have it's cold war definition your perfectly sound argument based upon that presumed difference in meaning is irrelevant. I seem to remember hearing in lecture that 'superpower' tends to be applied much less formally to pre-cold war states so I suspect we may be able to find such a reference.  However until such a reference is found there is no basis for deleting sourced material in this article that refers to these pre-cold war superpowers because we are in effect simply saying the cited sources are wrong using arguments that are at best unsourced and at worst original research.


 * However, the article will indeed bloat quite a bit if we go adding multi sentence sections on every such retrospectively identified superpower. I recommend instead that we limit inclusion of pre-cold war superpowers in this article to at most a single sentence each along with the sources.  Quite likely there will eventually be a dozen or so sources offered which call various historical states "superpowers".  Like it or not historians seem to throw the term around very cavalierly with little regard to any formal definition.  However I really doubt a dozen additional sentences would bloat the article too badly.Zebulin 06:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Past superpowers?
Isn't it POV to only list a few? It doesn't make sense to just pick a few select countries like the Roman Empire, Persian Empire, and the Spanish Empire which were not the only countries to meet "Superpower" criteria before 1945. What about the French Empire, Imperial Japan, and Nazi Germany? All three countries were extremely powerful at the height of their power and not listing them but listing other Empires/countries is POV if you think about it. Does anybody have any ideas on how to fix this problem? User:Andrew16 18 April, 2007.


 * We have those who we have sources for.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  02:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but if you look at the sources they say "World power", not superpower. They seem like pretty much the same thing but they do not use the word "Superpower" so if that article is going to be here we will have to add every world power since the dawn of time, and that wouldn't make very much sense. Somebody earlier on this page said that those empires would be better suited on the Great powers page and I would have to a agree with them. User:Andrew16 18 April, 2007.


 * They also use the term superpower. Superpower is used interchangeably with world power. Putting these powers in the great power page would be OR as they are not called great powers. See Zebulin's post above -the term superpower is used pretty liberally by poli-scientists and historians. Turth is, there are some reputable source who beleive that there were superpowers before the US and the USSR.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  05:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course there wer superpowers before the U.S. and Soviet Union, but the term "Superpower" wasn't used. I understand that they meet the criteria of a superpower but the term was never used and just because a few poli-scientists use the term far too liberally in order to make modern day people understand these countries former power doesn't mean that they should be called here. Also what about all the other former great powers? We cannot list all of them as there are far too many, maybe we can create a new page called former world powers? I am only trying to help and I am not trying to start any problems. I just think listing a select few former powers is POV and listing them all would crowd the page. User:Andrew16 18 April, 2007.


 * If our sources tell us too, then yes we will list all of them-even if this article becomes over 50kb.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  06:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible Sockpuppet?
I have strong reason to beleive that User:Andrew16 is User:Daniel_Chiswick sockpuppet: The only difference is that User:Andrew16 gives SF as a place of residence/origin rather than LA. Something that he/she might have done to throw off supicious editors. The above are simply too many conicidences for me- The same agenda, the same type of edits, the same age with one account being opened just one day after the other got blocked. I have voiced my concern on the appropriate notice board as well. Regards,  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  06:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Both users state to be 16
 * Both users edit the same articles, w/ the same outlook
 * Both users seem to be patriotic
 * Both users give California as a place of residence/origin
 * Both users agree with each other on this talk page
 * User:Andrew16 is a brand new account opened just one day after User:Daniel_Chiswick got blocked for two weeks.
 * I'm in full agreement. The similarities are mind numbing. Anyone in agreement to reverting bad faith changes of a sockpuppet? Gdo01 06:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed-let's revert the changes. I have reported the case to the sockpuppet noticeboard. Andrew16 just told me that he knows User:Daniel_Chiswick from his poli-sci class-the case seem pretty clear.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  06:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Same class so that means same IP adress in school, similar edits because of school reports, same age, and state. Wikipedia did the same thing to a person a math class a few weeks back, I hope you assume good faith before you accuse people of things. Thank you, I guess. User:Andrew16 11:34 P.M. 18 April, 2007.
 * It doesn't matter that you both are friends. If you are both operating on the same modus operandi, you can be thought of as the same person and a checkuser clerk can block a user for having two editors from the same IP making the same edits. I'm also wondering how a guy in San Francisco and a guy in Los Angeles can be in the same high school class. Gdo01 06:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I am from San Francisco but I do not live there, I live in Napa, CA and I go to vintage high school and we have people from all over the country here. User:Daniel_Chiswick 11:43 P.M. April 18, 2007
 * Then get off your user name and write as an IP right here. Gdo01 06:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And you do know that you have just confessed to having the same IP and having edited from another user name. This case is closed. Gdo01 06:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"rv - uncredible sources" - four sources that were removed
The following 4 sources were removed from the article as being "uncredible" by another editor. I reverted the edit as it was not at all clear as to why these particular sources were "uncredible".

http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=10193 New World-Order Paradigm: The Best of the West Agrees It’s Moving East], by Tom Plate

http://www.wfs.org/confprcetron.htm The Dragon and The Tiger, Prospects for China and India in the 21st Century],Dr. Marvin J, Cetron

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/768/1 The other rising Asian space power], by Jeff Foust

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6407 China, India Superpower? Not so Fast!], YaleGlobal, Accessed March 11, 2007

Reliable_sources is not much help here as most of it's guidelines require a judgement call on the part of the editor. In particular I want to avoid cherry picking where sources whose conclusions we dislike are removed for reasons applied only to those sources and not to all of the sources whose content we agree with.Zebulin 19:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just looking at some of the URLs some of these sources seem reliable. Source 1 is from UCLA.edu and source 4 from Yale.edu. Source 2 was written by someone with a PhD -but a PhD in what? The source "World Future Society" could be anything. Source 3 is of doubtful creibility-the author seems to be the publisher of the web-site as well. In sum, sources 1 and 4 are a definite keep, source 3 is a maybe and source 4 hasn't passed yet ;-). (Note that I haven't actually read these articles but am judging them soley based on the credentials of the web-sites and their authors) Regards,  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  21:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

1-3 are unreliable and never heard of. 4 hasn´t been removed and will be kept. Sorry to state that again: India is a developing country and won´t be a significant power in our lifetime. I´d rather like to see references about Japan and Russia in here. Lear 21 21:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why does source 1 seem unreliable to you? Concerning the author the source states that "Tom Plate is a professor of Communication and policy Studies at UCLA. He is a regular columnist for the The Straits Times -- and is syndicated through UCLA's MEDIA CENTER to papers througout the world, including The Honolulu Advertiser, The Japan Times, The Seattle Times, the San Diego Business Journal, the Korea Times and the Orlando Sentinel. He has been a participant member of the World Economic Forum at Davos, and is a member of the Pacific Council on International policy. The author of five books, he has worked at TIME, the Los Angeles Times and the Daily Mail of London. He established the Asia Pacific Media Network in 1998 and was its director until 2003. He is now founder and director of UCLA's MEDIA CENTER."- this man is a reputable professor at a reltively prestigous university (UCLA ranks among America's top 50) who is syndicated in several publications. You may disagree with professor Plate's statements, but we don't edit Wikipedia based on our opinions. Source 1 is looking more and more like a poster-child WP source.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  21:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Author AND media should be credible. If he writes the same article for Time or NYT then we can start discussing. Lear 21 21:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Lear I don't understand how you determine if the media or author is not credible. Please provide us your definition or criteria for "credible".  We may have to work out compatible standards for these things.Zebulin 22:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think source 1 is perfectly acceptable, the man is a professor at UCLA- the 24th best university in the US! He has been syndicated through the LA Times-I don't know how familiar you are with the American press, but the LA Times is as prestigous as the NY Times or Washington Post. Both "author and media" are credible in this case-this article is published on the UCLA web-site-which I have mentioned is one of America's best universities! If a professor at one's of America's best universities isn't credible than I would like to know who is!  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  23:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Lear I also see you have been making other reference modifications in this article for instance you expanded the http://www.globalcpr.com/org/super.html Superpower, Global CPR, Accessed March 11, 2007 reference with the editing comment "(ref style / Excellent definition!)".
 * Obviously you find the Global CPR article to be "credible". Why is that?  As is mentioned on this very discussion page the Global CPR article appears to have *very* dubious credentials and may in fact even be a partial mirror of wikipedia content.  And yet you claim that your choices of citations to remove are based upon the credibility of the sources.  I really need to know how you evaluate the credibility of sources when you choose to remove them or explicitly endorse them as you did the Global CPR citation.
 * in addition you also saw fit to remove all of these references from the article earlier
 * 


 * and this one in this edit
 * http://www.marketingvox.com/archives/2006/03/31/google_dominates_uk_search_market/
 * and this one in this edit
 * http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=news&ID=263
 * and these two in this edit
 * http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/breakingnews.jhtml?articleId=21402208
 * and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3090918.stm


 * All superpower article references that you deleted. I have to say that these examples aren't helping me to see how you determine the credibility of the sources.


 * The editing comments that accompanied the removals were sometimes even more mystifying.Zebulin 23:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think many of these sources need to be re-incorporated into the article. In the list above I see a BBC article. The BBC, not credible?!  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  00:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

To determine the sources needs to have the references readable. And WHO converted the references into identifiable sentences? Correct, me. That was for credibility reasons. Some of the double, triple and even more references had to go. You certainly won´t find me answering one question concerning some references deleted weeks ago. I can only state the messy ref style is back. In this outdated article (superpower era over) making the choice of what is important and what not seems not very much understood. Lear 21 10:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If the "messy ref style" is back, the best thing to do is to order and correct them. In general I prefer books or academic articles over websites or newspaper articles, because the notion of (super)power can and will be much more expanded (=more depth, more nuance). A book or academic article is in most cases also more authorative. Sijo Ripa 12:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Messy ref style? That is the standard Wikipedia reference template, which I find preferable. Two of the sources in question are academic articles, one from UCLA and the other from Yale.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  20:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be a bad idea IMHO to remove web sites as an acceptable form of sourcing because unlike most books the citation can be immediately examined. If we rely entirely on books or articles available only by subscription, it becomes much more difficult to ensure the article content faithfully represents the sources.  The best situation is where both a source that is available online as well as the most authoritative source available offline are cited for a particular point of view.  Furthermore I think that so long as the vast majority of wikipedia articles have far too little citation of sources it will remain almost impossible to have too many sources in any article, particularly for content that is likely to be challenged.  If over sourcing on wikipedia eventually somehow becomes problematic we can pare it down but I don't think that day will ever arrive.Zebulin 22:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I do not object to websites and newspaper articles, but on a topic such as this, there are so many books and academic articles available that it is my opinion a lack of quality if we mostly cite newspapers and websites. But, I do NOT support the removing of website references, rather replacing them if possible. To Brendel: these links aren't academic articles... they are speeches and collumns by academics. An academic article is an article written in an academic journal, usually between 20 and 50 pages long, including footnotes and an extensive bibliography, and peer-reviewed. A collumn or speech will never reach the depth and quality of an academic article. Sijo Ripa 10:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Messy ref style: in ref 19-24.

laughable quote and assertion
"Marvin J. Cetron: 'At the current rate of growth, a majority of Indians will be middle-class by 2025. Literacy rates have risen from 52 percent to 65 percent in the same period. This is a rate of progress no one else in the world can match.'" Is India's literacy of 65% the making of a superpower? Mexico even has a literacy of 92%. Majority of Indians will be middle class by 2025? This quote is so POV and "out there" that it ought to be replaced with something more moderate and reasonable. The US, Mexico, Canada, China, Russia, Japan, EU all have literacy rates above 90%. Even the most positive of estimates do not expect the Chinese to be mostly middle class (by American standards) until at least 2050, and China is growing faster than India. So how can India be mostly middle class a mere 18 years from now? The above quote about India is misleading and exaggerated. --Naus 07:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And why is India's space program mentioned in this article when China's is ignored? China's space program is far larger (larger budget and manpower) and more advanced (China's program is manned) than India's right now. Either China's space program should be mentioned or India's should be removed from the text. --Naus 07:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please keep the section short. While it is a good idea to mention the current debate about potential superpowers in the 21st century, it shouldn't go much beyond that, as was proven by the deletion of all subarticles about emerging superpowers. I would just mention the main argument pro and contra in this debate. A paragraph of 5 sentences per potential superpowe should be more than enough. Sijo Ripa 09:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem with that source and the space program source that I could see was that neither actually discussed the superpower status potential or otherwise of any country. If I recall this article previously got in trouble for using such sources to support an original research case for potential superpower status for various states.  I've gone ahead and removed the offending material to head off that problem.  This does however raise the broader question as to why we remove such information for "potential" superpowers when there is so much material in the cold war section which is not held to the same standard.Zebulin 10:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The EU as a superpower vs a former superpower in diplomatic row
Opportunities to locate some sources that deal with the functioning of the EU as a current superpower may present themselves in the near future. Estonia is appealing to the EU to weigh in to protect it from the pressure Russia is applying to Estonia relating to the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn. A link to the formal appeal for immediate EU intervention can be found here:

http://www.epl.ee/artikkel/384207

The fallout from this event will likely provide source-worthy commentary either affirming or quashing the EUs status as a current functioning superpower. Let's keep an eye out for such emerging source material.Zebulin 22:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

=EU as a super power= When will the Eu be a super power? Will it be when it has a unified military. I think it will be a super power when Turkey joins, because its influence will become much stronger in the middle east.


 * Depends on who you are trusting-there is no definite future date.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  23:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * if I understand correctly the question isn't at what date or time will the EU become a superpower but rather by what criteria will it eventually be recognized as a superpower.Zebulin 06:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Recognition of earlier superpowers
Does recognition of earlier superpowers really need to be here since there is a page called Historical powers which talks about these countries pretty much the same way? It would take up way too much room to list all the historical powers which could be called "Superpowers" (A term used far too liberally) and would take the focus away from the United States, Soviet Union, and the [British Empire]] which were actually called superpowers. I think deleting the recognition of earlier superpowers and creating a link to Historical powers would much better and less confusing since none of these countries were ever called superpowers. User:Daniel Chiswick 10 May, 2007.
 * Doesn't this "A term used far too liberally" and this "since none of these countries were ever called superpowers" contradict each other? Gdo01 02:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No not really, let me explain. These countries in question were never called superpowers as the term never existed but many people call them "Superpowers of their time" because if the term was around in their time they would be called superpowers, but they were not. The term was used for the United States, Soviet Union, and the British Empire but some people get too carried away and apply the term to every major power before 1945, which is very confusing as are dozens of major powers that could have been called superpowers had the term existed. User:Daniel Chiswick 10 May, 2007.
 * Ok the so the argument is can we confine the article to only dealing with superpowers which were recognized as such by their contemporaries? Key to this argument would be demonstrating that the concept of a superpower did not predate the term "superpower" which was coined to describe it.  All that is needed is a source which supports the idea that the very concept behind "superpower" either could not or did not exist in those earlier eras or that there were no possible candidates that would fit the bill.  We would then want to make sure that our definition of the concept of "superpower" matched that of the source.  This might run the risk of forcing the article to conform to a minority definition of the superpower concept among reputable sources.Zebulin 02:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be an awful-lot of OR here. This is really quite simple. There are two authoritative sources that identify the Spanish Empire as an early superpower-thus that point of view will be mentioned. The guideline by Daniel above are his own and therefore OR. If earlier empires are recognized by some credible sources than we are obligated to mention that point of view. There seems to be more than one definition of superpower (As Zebulin said, the term is quite liberally used) and it is not up to us to decide which this article should adhere to. This article needs to mention all definitions and all geo-political entities that have been identified as a superpower. Even if a source surfaces that says pre-1940 entities shouldn't be called superpower-that's only one source's POV-so long as some credible sources mention the exsistance of earlier superpower this article needs to do so as well.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  06:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)