| Revision as of 02:23, 5 October 2019 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,305,210 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Superpower/Archive 12) (bot← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 09:52, 16 November 2024 edit undoKlbrain (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers87,575 edits →Merge proposal: Potential superpower: Closing; no merge |
| (133 intermediate revisions by 57 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes| |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Power in international relations|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Power in international relations|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject International relations|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid|American=y|American-importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Russia|class=B|importance=mid|pol=yes|hist=yes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|counter = 12 |
|
|counter = 13 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 7 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Superpower/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Superpower/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{merged-from|Superpower collapse| 15 March 2024}} |
|
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=30}} |
|
|
|
{{merged-from|Superpower disengagement| 11 May 2024}} |
|
<!-- Talk page begins here. --> |
|
<!-- Talk page begins here. --> |
|
|
{{Broken anchors|links= |
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> Anchor ] links to a specific web page: ]. |
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie","appear":{"revid":490700302,"parentid":485790865,"timestamp":"2012-05-04T21:53:51Z","replaced_anchors":{"Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie":"Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":1160717353,"parentid":1160716083,"timestamp":"2023-06-18T09:43:15Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{old move|date=7 June 2024|destination=Superpower (politics)|result=no consensus|link=Special:Permalink/1229440734#Requested move 7 June 2024}} |
|
== Should ] be merged here? == |
|
|
Thoughts? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 18:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, no. Because not all Superpowers wanted to have global hegemony and snooped around in every nation's affairs, of course they liked power but many also had certain morals which limited them from doing things like this. E.g. Cyrus the Great advocated for the self-ruling of non-Iranian peoples, which were the majority of people he conquered, and encouraged them to be more active in their affairs. It also seems like a relatively new idea which began with the actions of the British Empire and continues today with the USA. ] (]) 01:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== BE sourcing == |
|
|
I think we need to discuss the weighting and viability of sources used for including the ] in this article. This is causing problems elsewhere. Only one author (Fox) - a contemporary commentator, not a historian - is actually cited as treating the British Empire as a super power; all the other sources used (few that there are) refer back to him. No doubt there are others, but without evidence it does not seem right to present this as historical consensus, especially as it is contentious. The weighting here should be adjusted to reflect weighting in reliable sources. The article should also include caveats like, for example, that the term was only applicable to the BE was a brief period after it was coined. ] (]) 10:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The British Empire was without a doubt a Superpower in it's time. It controlled 25% of the world's landmass, a feat which no other of the great superpowers of the past have been able to accomplish, although this can be attributed to technological advancement over time, it is without a doubt that Britain had a superior economy and naval fleet. There should be reliable sources cited but it's without a doubt British Empire was a superpower. ] (]) 01:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Can these be considered Superpowers? == |
|
|
Can these empires really be considered Superpowers: Carthaginian Empire, Aksumite Empire, Almoravid Empire, Mali Empire, Inca Empire? I'm concerned with the Incan Empire because they were so isolated they weren't nearly as technologically advanced as the global powers at the time. They didn't even have a system of finances but rather still bartered for goods. Thoughts?] (]) 01:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion == |
|
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: |
|
|
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2019-07-03T16:07:35.202007 | 1 AD to 2003 AD Historical Trends in global distribution of GDP China India Western Europe USA Middle East.png --> |
|
|
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 16:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== American overseas military map graphic - Should be altered? == |
|
== China == |
|
|
|
The graphic overstates the extend of American military hegemony. For instance, Brazil is colored - but there are only 27 military personnel stationed there, which is more of a diplomatic or training mission than a superpower projection. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the map should only highlight countries with at least 100, or 500, or 1000 stationed personnel. |
|
China is now the world economic superpower and seriously challenging the US as a military and industrial rival. (] (]) 15:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm getting the numbers from this German media report which details personnel numbers across the world: |
|
== Removal of "Superpowers of the past" section == |
|
|
|
https://kritisches-netzwerk.de/sites/default/files/us_department_of_defense_-_base_structure_report_fiscal_year_2015_baseline_-_as_of_30_sept_2014_-_a_summary_of_the_real_property_inventory_-_206_pages.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I propose that Honduras, Brazil, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Bulgaria, Greece, Philippines, and Australia should not be colored on the map due to low personnel sizes based on the figures in the aforementioned report. |
|
The subject of the article is not the ''word'' "superpower", but the concept. The common usage, in the vast majority of cases as found in a books and web search, is the idea of the post-WWII superpowers, especially the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., as well as "emerging superpowers" such as China on the global stage. The fact that a few authors have used the word to refer to past empires (and often in "scare quotes" to indicate non-standard usage) can be mentioned, but it's not really significant to an understanding of the subject. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Unilateral edition == |
|
The "Superpowers of the past" section appears to be an indiscriminate, mostly-random subset of the ] and ]. The fact that a book once used the word "superpower" to describe some historical empire is not an important aspect of the subject. Most of the citations don't actually use the word "superpower", and half the entries are unsourced. A long list of examples of past ] in this article is ]. It also has no clear criteria for inclusion, and entices people to just add their favorite article to it, amounting to original research. |
|
|
|
Someone edited the part about emerging superpowers and decided to delete informations about Brazil and the image showing potential superpowers was substituted without any discussion about it. Personal feelings are not determinants in Misplaced Pages, at least it shouldn’t be. |
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
== Merge proposal: Potential superpower == |
|
I've added a concise paragraph to the end of the "Terminology and origin" section, that explains that the term is sometimes also used colloquially to refer to past great powers, and given two examples of works that have used the term in that way. It also links to the above two lists of great powers. I think this is sufficient coverage of it, and the "Superpowers of the past" section should be deleted. --] (]) 22:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Discussion top|result=To '''not''' merge, given that a merge would unbalance the target. It is agreed that a joint article would not be ]. ] (]) 09:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
Following the merge of superpower collapse and superpower disengagement, I believe the page ] could be merged into superpower. I don't believe there is enough difference to justify the two distinct pages. Merging them would improve the main superpower page significantly. The content can be put into the existing section of the same name. ] <sup> (]) </sup> 22:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
: '''Support.''' There's no reason to have two separate articles on basically the same subject. It dilutes editor efforts and results in lower quality articles. ] (]) 23:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose''' - Unless you're also suggesting large-scales reductions in detail the merged article is likely to be too long to be easily navigable. ] (]) 13:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::'''Comment'''- If the merge is accepted, I would encourage any editor to help boil down the merged section to remove redundant information and keep the page navigable. ] <sup> (]) </sup> 02:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' Vastly different topics. ] (]) 07:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:*'''Support''', Upon inspection, both articles may cover different information, but there are some similarities. ] may have to do with this. |
| ⚫ |
== China as a military superpower == |
|
|
|
:] (]) 03:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Support''' - It does not appear to me that ''potential superpower'' is recognized by sources a distinct enough concept to merit a distinct article. ] (]) 06:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Strong Oppose'''- Per arguments listed above. These are different topics. ] (]) 23:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:*'''Comment''' per arguments listed above, do you have sources that assert this is a distinct enough concept to merit a distinct article? |
|
|
*:] <sup> (]) </sup> 23:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Oppose'''. Not because they are vastly different topics (yes, they are different concepts, but they are not that different so that they couldn't be merged), but because the "Potential superpower" article is so detailed and long and contains so many references that it would either bloat the other article or lose a lot of depth; I don't think it could be shortened to an adequate length where it could be merged without losing much background information. Also, the article is very likely to become even larger in the future, e.g., when other countries become candidates for potential superpowers or countries lose their status as a potential superpower and would therefore be moved into the "Former candidates" section and commonly cited reasons for their downfall would be given. ] (]) 21:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
As of 2019 China is massively expanding its armed forces, making it a military superpower and a rival to the United States in Asia and the Pacific. (] (]) 14:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
:] arguments are lacking in detail. |
|
:It would not be correct to describe China as a "military superpower" in the article. At best it is accepted as possibly being an "emerging superpower". It may be becoming a rival to the US in Asia/Pacific, but not globally, which is the definition. The US has five to six times the military power of China. See the "Post–Cold War era" section, and the citations, which make this very clear. --] (]) 20:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:] is 1500 words and ] 3542. Combined they'd be 5042. That's less than the 6,000 minimum for justifying splitting. Even then, 6,000 is a lower bound suggestion; beginning from 8,000 it becomes a firmer recommendation. |
|
|
:Size split argument could go either way I think. I don't think what will or won't be a superpower will change so quickly that we should anticipate a significant expansion in either article. Imo what should be the deciding factor is how distinct of topics they are. ] (]) 12:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::When I wrote that merging the article would "bloat the other article", I was not referring to the total length; I rather meant that the merged content, when keeping the detailed descriptions, would make up a disproportionately large part of the article, thus already justifying its own article for better clarity, even considering that they are not vastly different topics. As for my argument that the "Potential superpower" article will become larger in the future, I can already see reliable sources coming up in the next few months or years with the idea that Russia is not a potential superpower anymore, which would mean we'd have to put it in the former candidates section, along with Japan, and add commonly cited reasons for why Russia is usually not seen as a potential superpower anymore or why its status is at least contested by academics. If we merged the article, that would mean that this article would cover three topics: The history of superpowers, potential superpowers, and former potential superpowers (including countries whose status as a potential superpower is heavily debated, such as perhaps Russia or even Brazil in the future). I don't think that's a concise solution. ] (]) 08:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{Discussion top}} |
The graphic overstates the extend of American military hegemony. For instance, Brazil is colored - but there are only 27 military personnel stationed there, which is more of a diplomatic or training mission than a superpower projection.
I think the map should only highlight countries with at least 100, or 500, or 1000 stationed personnel.
I propose that Honduras, Brazil, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Bulgaria, Greece, Philippines, and Australia should not be colored on the map due to low personnel sizes based on the figures in the aforementioned report.
Someone edited the part about emerging superpowers and decided to delete informations about Brazil and the image showing potential superpowers was substituted without any discussion about it. Personal feelings are not determinants in Misplaced Pages, at least it shouldn’t be.
Following the merge of superpower collapse and superpower disengagement, I believe the page Potential superpower could be merged into superpower. I don't believe there is enough difference to justify the two distinct pages. Merging them would improve the main superpower page significantly. The content can be put into the existing section of the same name. GeogSage 22:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
