Misplaced Pages

Talk:Superpower: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:02, 22 January 2017 edit2a00:23c4:638c:4500:dda5:7d80:4101:b8a2 (talk) →Lede needs to be changed← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:52, 16 November 2024 edit undoKlbrain (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers87,615 edits →Merge proposal: Potential superpower: Closing; no merge 
(189 intermediate revisions by 79 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}}
{{merged-from|Superpower disengagement| 11 May 2024}}
<!-- 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}}
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=30}}

<!--Talk page begins here-->

== Potential superpower ==

This article is not a GA. Anyways, {{yo|Heuh0}} what are your reasons behind removing the specific mention of the USA? ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 01:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
:My problem was not so much with mentioning the US, but mentioning the US specifically it is argued by many that the EU and China are also superpowers, the EU even has a bigger economy as well as many other things. It is misleading to name US exclusively as the superpower, as this is not a consensus. Additionally it isn misleading to group India with the EU and China. It situations like this, due avoid misleading you must be a broad ass possible but to still give the relevant information, which has been given. ] (]) 02:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
::Such argument leads to a number of off topic discussion that we many of us had before. EU and China are not superpowers. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 02:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
:::On what basis can you assert that EU and China are not superpowers? There is no formal definition and so, by implication, any claims are subjective - hence this is not an impartial article. ] (]) 13:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
::::The EU is falling apart. (] (]) 19:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC))

== RfC: Ottoman Empire superpower ==
{{Rfc top|Consensus is against the Ottoman empire being described as a super power. The majority opinion states that a superpower has global influence which the Ottoman did not have. There is strong support for "Great power" and really no posts objecting to it. But it was not asked as a question and was not discussed by all of the responses. But it may be the way to go. ] 03:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)}}
Should the "Superpowers of the past" section contain the Ottoman Empire.

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

===Sources ===
*Source deleted from the article = {{cite book|author=Peter Hamish Wilson|title=The Thirty Years War: Europe's Tragedy|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=XgtpAl8HzjcC&pg=PA76|year=2009|publisher=Harvard University Press|isbn=978-0-674-03634-5|page=76}}

*Other random sources
*{{cite book|author=Christopher Catherwood|title=A Brief History of the Middle East|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=JmPBBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT100|date=24 February 2011|publisher=Churchill College|isbn=978-1-84901-807-4|page=100}}
*{{cite book|author=Cathy Gere|title=The Tomb of Agamemnon: Mycenae and the Search for a Hero|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=2VwH6Thk4ZgC&pg=PA47|year=2011|publisher=Profile Books|isbn=1-84765-376-6|page=47}}
*{{cite book|author=Beyza Ç Tekin|title=Representations and Othering in Discourse: The Construction of Turkey in the EU Context|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=gRtpeH-_YKYC&pg=PA44|year=2010|publisher=John Benjamins Publishing|isbn=90-272-0630-9|page=44}}
*{{cite book|author=Zion Zohar|title=Sephardic and Mizrahi Jewry: From the Golden Age of Spain to Modern Times|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=4vg0RdqjNV0C&pg=PA152|date=1 June 2005|publisher=NYU Press|isbn=978-0-8147-9705-1|page=152}}
*{{cite book|author=Richard Thornton|title=Earthfast, the Dawn of a New World|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=03-UBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA12|year=2014|publisher=Lulu|isbn=978-1-304-43420-3|page=12}}

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

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

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

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

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

:::: There is something non-encyclopedic feeling about this section. I think the problem may lie with the use of the word "SuperPower" being applied to empires that existed prior to when the term was first coined in 1943. I would suggest a different title such as "Great empires of the past". Either that or create a definition of Superpower based on criteria from reliable sources and then compare past empires to that criteria. For what it is worth however, in the most conversational sense, I would not argue with someone who called the Ottoman Empire a superpower of the past. ] (]) 19:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
:::::: I just tried something. This article is both about a word and the phenomenon it describes. I change the first sentence of the article a bit to see if it put the rest of the article in a more accurate context. I think it does. Thoughts? If someone strongly disagrees and wants to change it back it is fine with me. I just think this may help. ] (]) 19:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
:::::"Great empires of the past"? I see two problems with it. It would probably have the same scope as ] and ] (which currently includes 215 empires). The other is that the list of past powers, imperial or not, is currently handled by our articles ], ], ]. The latter tree were recently divided from a common list. Here is in summary which powers are included as great powers. Not certain if they also qualify as superpowers of their respective eras.
*Babylonia.
*Sumer and Akkad.
*Elam.
*Mitanni.
*Assyria.
*Hittite Empire.
*Phoenicia.
*Median Empire.
*Achaemenid Empire.
*Parthian Empire.
*Sassanid Empire.
*Carthaginian Empire.
*Ancient Egypt.
*Kerma.
*Kush.
*Aksumite Empire.
*Macrobia.
*Ancient Athens.
*Sparta.
*Macedonia.
*Seleucid Empire.
*Ptolemaic Empire.
*Roman Empire.
*Indus Valley Civilization.
*Āryāvarta.
*Nanda Empire.
*Maurya Empire.
*Shunga Empire.
*Satavahana Empire.
*Chola Empire.
*Gupta Empire.
*Shang Kingdom.
*Zhou Kingdom.
*Qin Empire.
*Han Empire.
*Jin Empire.
*Scythia.
*Sarmatia.
*Xiongnu.
*Hunnic Empire.
*Byzantine Empire.
*Great Seljuk Empire.
*Rashidun Caliphate.
*Umayyad Caliphate.
*Abbasid Caliphate.
*Al-Andalus.
*Fatimid Caliphate.
*Ayyubid Sultanate.
*Bahri Mamluks Empire.
*Bulgarian Empire.
*Ghaznavid Empire.
*Timurid Empire.
*Sui Empire.
*Tang Empire.
*Song Empire.
*Ming Empire.
*Turkic Khaganate.
*Uyghur Khaganate.
*Mongol Empire.
*Yuan Dynasty.
*Frankish Empire.
*Kingdom of Germany and Holy Roman Empire.
*Kingdom of Hungary.
*Jagiellon dynasty.
*Normans.
*Papacy and Papal States.
*Kingdom of Sicily.
*Republic of Genoa.
*Republic of Venice.
*Capetian Kingdom of France.
*Angevin Empire.
*Crown of Aragon.
*Kingdom of Castile and Crown of Castile.
*Kalmar Union.
*Ghana Empire.
*Mali Empire.
*Songhai Empire.
*Ajuran Empire.
*Ethiopian Empire.
*Kingdom of Zimbabwe.
*Chalukya Empire.
*Rashtrakuta Empire.
*Pala Empire.
*Khmer Empire.
*Srivijaya.
*Maya Civilization.
*Inca Empire.
*Aztec Empire.
*France (France in the Middle Ages and French colonial empire).
*Qing Empire.
*Safavid Empire.
*Dutch Republic.
*British Empire.
*Mughal Empire.
*Ottoman Empire.
*Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
*Portuguese Empire.
*Prussia.
*Spanish Empire.
*Swedish Empire.
*Moscovia, Tsardom of Russia and Russian Empire.
*Persian Qajar Empire.
*Kingdom of the Netherlands and Dutch Empire.
*French colonial empire.
*Late British Empire.
*Late Spanish Empire.
*Empire of Austria and Austria-Hungary.
*Prussia, German Empire and Germany.
*Late Ottoman Empire.
*Russian Empire and Soviet Union.
*Italian colonial empire.
*Empire of Japan.
*United States.
**Any comments on the relative extend of their influence on human history? ] (]) 22:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

*I would '''support''' the inclusion of the Ottomans as a historic superpower. The first source alone has a reputable historians published by a university press, calling the Ottomans a "superpower of the ]" and that seems to be the standard for the other superpowers of the past in the article (]). ---- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 05:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

::Comment on the above. An obvious pick sounds very much like original research. We really need reliable sources here, which are (by the way) largely lacking in the list of medieval great powers article you are referring to, making that list a problematic Misplaced Pages article. ] (]) 20:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' I'd prefer the wording "Great Power" because the word "superpower" to me is associated with the Cold War. USA and Soviet Union. The Ottoman Empire was however certainly a great power. Although I have more doubts about some other entries in the list. Basically I agree with the initial comments by ] and ]. ] (]) 15:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment.''' Referring to superpowers in the period before the 1940s is an anachronism. The term was introduced because there was a quite obvious difference between the most powerful great powers of the second half of the 20th century and other great powers: the former could/can destroy the whole world while the latter could/can "only" conquer large territories. The Ottoman Empire could conquer large territories in Asia, Afrika, Souhteastern and Central Europe, but it could not directly influence the history of America, Australia, sub-Saharan Africa, etc. ] (]) 03:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
{{Rfc bottom}}

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

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

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

== Is the United States still the only superpower? ==

It's biased to suggest this because many have argued China is now a superpower. (] (]) 18:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC))
:Only the United States is widely held among political scientists as being a superpower. Therefore, it is not bias, but a reflection of the overwhelming majority of experts. ] (]) 18:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
::China is now regularly described as the world economic superpower. (] (]) 18:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC))
:::You said it yourself, "economic superpower". China may have the economy of a superpower, but that is where it ends. This article is not concerned with economics, or merely one aspect of a superpower - this article is about full-fledged superpowers in every domain.] (]) 18:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
::::But China is not interested in fighting wars. The source is only an opinion piece by a US publication. (] (]) 18:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC))
:::::Interest in fighting wars isn't one of the factors that makes one country a superpower, and the publications are RS, whether based in the United States or not. - ]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">(])</span> 20:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
::::::With the end of conventional wars the term superpower is being redefined in the 21st century. China does not need to be a military superpower in order to bankrupt the United States. (] (]) 09:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC))
Can the original poster of this thread provide reliable secondary sources for their ideas. Otherwise this whole discussion is useless as without such sources no changes to the article would be acceptable. ] (]) 09:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
:::::::An update to this article is probably overdue. According to a plurality of international respondents said that China was likely to replace or already has replaced the US as the "superpower", although it does not define "superpower". That said it is probably no longer a controversial statement (as it would have been back in 2010) that China and the US are emerging as "binary superpowers" now, as described in the ] article.]+<small>(])</small> 19:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

== UK ==

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

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

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

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

:No idea. Removed. ] (]) 15:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

== British Empire in Teal ==

The map showing the British Empire in teal is misleading, for instance, only part of Canada is coloured teal, none of Australia, but all of New Zealand. In fact, all should be entirely coloured teal as they all have the QEII as head of state. It looks as if this map is designed to minimise British influence. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

== US was the only superpower ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Lede needs to be changed ==


== American overseas military map graphic - Should be altered? ==
China is clearly a superpower now, and the opinion of a dictator like Putin isn't reliable. (] (]) 02:13, 22 January 2017 (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.
:Putin's quote in 2016 is reliable. China hasn't done anything differently than it did a year ago. ] (]) 03:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


I'm getting the numbers from this German media report which details personnel numbers across the world:
::China has been a superpower for years now. Economically, industrially and militarily. (] (]) 13:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC))
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 IP is right. The Russian President may be considered a reputable source on the topic of geopolitics (though that is disputable), but he is certainly not impartial. Giving his view prominence like that is a breach of WP:NPOV. The statement "according to <s>Russian President Putin and</s> other sources, this has remained unchanged." is actually uncited. No source claims that no other source considers China a superpower. Rather it is that the editors of this article simply haven't found any sources claiming this to be the case. Editors of this article need to learn what Misplaced Pages is about.


== Unilateral edition ==
::::All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
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 ==
:::Only a minority of sources claim China to be a super power. So we should proportionately represent this view and provide counter arguments as to why it is a minority view. Not pretend this view doesn't exist.
{{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.
:::] (]) 14:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
:] (]) 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)
::::China is the world superpower now. Putin's view is irrelevant as he has never won a free election. He has his own reasons for claiming the US as the only superpower, because China could easily bankrupt Russia at any moment. (] (]) 15:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC))
:] arguments are lacking in detail.
:] 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}}

Latest revision as of 09:52, 16 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Superpower article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconPower in international relations (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Power in international relations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Power in international relationsWikipedia:WikiProject Power in international relationsTemplate:WikiProject Power in international relationsPower in international relations
WikiProject iconInternational relations High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics: American Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

The contents of the Superpower collapse page were merged into Superpower on 15 March 2024. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
The contents of the Superpower disengagement page were merged into Superpower on 11 May 2024. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
On 7 June 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Superpower (politics). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

American overseas military map graphic - Should be altered?

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'm getting the numbers from this German media report which details personnel numbers across the world: 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.

Unilateral edition

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge, given that a merge would unbalance the target. It is agreed that a joint article would not be WP:TOOLONG. Klbrain (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. Thenightaway (talk) 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. Rambling Rambler (talk) 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. GeogSage 02:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Support, Upon inspection, both articles may cover different information, but there are some similarities. WP:OVERLAP may have to do with this.
148.222.132.74 (talk) 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. Jno.skinner (talk) 06:21, 22 July 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. Maxeto0910 (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:SIZESPLIT arguments are lacking in detail.
Potential superpower is 1500 words and Superpower 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. seefooddiet (talk) 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. Maxeto0910 (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Categories: