| Revision as of 23:44, 4 December 2019 editRed Slash (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers21,805 edits →Requested move 27 November 2019: no move← 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 |
| (112 intermediate revisions by 48 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Removal of "Superpowers of the past" section == |
|
|
|
|
|
The subject of the article is not the ''word'' "superpower", but the concept. The common usage, in the vast majority of cases as found in a books and web search, is the idea of the post-WWII superpowers, especially the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., as well as "emerging superpowers" such as China on the global stage. The fact that a few authors have used the word to refer to past empires (and often in "scare quotes" to indicate non-standard usage) can be mentioned, but it's not really significant to an understanding of the subject. |
|
|
|
|
|
The "Superpowers of the past" section appears to be an indiscriminate, mostly-random subset of the ] 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== American overseas military map graphic - Should be altered? == |
|
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) |
|
|
|
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. |
|
:The section has now been deleted. --] (]) 19:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm getting the numbers from this German media report which details personnel numbers across the world: |
|
== Requested move 27 November 2019 == |
|
|
|
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. |
|
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
|
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. '' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Unilateral edition == |
|
The result of the move request was: '''Not moved'''; yes, numbers are roughly equal, but references to ] do not outweigh both criteria for primary topic. As an aside, I commend those doing the thankless work of fixing links. {{rmnac}} ] ] 23:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
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 == |
|
|
{{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. |
|
* ] → {{no redirect|Superpower (politics)}} |
|
|
⚫ |
:] (]) 03:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
* ] → {{no redirect|Superpower}} |
|
|
|
:'''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) |
|
– Does not appear to be the obvious primary topic. By pageviews, the , but since the ability also gets around 400 daily, it is not "much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." One out of every 4 readers wants the comic term and not the political one. <sub><small>] (])</small></sub> 17:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. 3:1 is pretty overwhelming. ] (]) 20:34, 27 November 2019 (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? |
|
*'''Support''' Since almost everyone going to the ability page probably goes to the political page too. The ratio is more like 2:1, which definitely mean it not the primary topic (in my opinion).<span class="nowrap">– ] (])</span> 21:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*:] <sup> (]) </sup> 23:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
| ⚫ |
:*2:1 still seems pretty overwhelming. ] (]) 13:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' The comic term appears more frequently in daily life. ] (]) 21:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:*Whose daily life? Are we living in the Marvel Universe now? ] (]) 13:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::*Ask an average person on the street what a "superpower" is, and more than likely they'll say something like "Spiderman's web shooting" and not "a geopolitical force".<sub><small>] (])</small></sub> 03:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' per nom - '''''No''''' clear primary topic (especially since "almost everyone going to the ability page probably the political page too"). Move disambiguation page to basename. |
|
|
: I'm currently in the process of fixing dozens of links to the political concept that should be going to "]". The sheer number of mistaken links is telling. <small>] (])</small> 00:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:: '''Comment''' - In the last half an hour, I found and fixed 21 accidental links that didn’t mean to link here. |
|
|
:: Fixed 17 accidental links to "Superpower" that meant to link to "Superpower (ability)”: ...on ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. |
|
|
:: And 4 accidental links to "Superpower" that should have been to other topics with the name: ...on ] (to a wrestling tag team ]), ...] (to ]), ...] (to a film series without an article), ...] (to a comic book series without an article). |
|
|
:: ...Yikes. Like I said, the sheer number of mistaken links is telling. <small>] (])</small> 01:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::With all those bad links it still doesn't get near as many pageviews. ] (]) 13:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support move''' per nom. There is a most frequent topic, but there is no primary topic. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Weak support''' per Paintspot, getting a 3rd is enough to preclude "much more than any other" which would probably be 10x. ''']''' (]) 06:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. Very clear primary topic in real world usage. -- ] (]) 14:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. There is a primary topic in terms of long-term significance, and the current page does indeed fulfill the page view requirement. ]<small>]</small> 16:31, 4 December 2019 (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) |
|
---- |
|
|
|
:] arguments are lacking in detail. |
|
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this ] or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.''<!-- Template:RM bottom --></div> |
|
|
|
:] 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.
