Talk:Potential superpower/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Avoiding OR

In order to avoid the type of synthesis and OR that now plagues this article and has resulted in edit wars and near deletion in the past, we need to reconsider how we are going to edit and word this article. We could continue to use OR and say things like "Country A has a high B, 7th in the world", to back up our own ideas about who are "potential superpowers" and who arn't. Supporting facts are all good fun, but this isn't a article for reporting facts and statistics about a certain country, it is an article for reporting on expert opinions on the matter at hand. What we should be doing is wording it something like this:

"Expert A believes Country B will be a superpower because of factors C and D."

Not: "Country A is a potential superpower because of it's high factor B."

What you believe makes a country a potential superpower is irrelevant. It is the beliefs of the experts that matter. If you believe an expert is wrong, that's your opinion, but it's their opinion that matters, not yours. We should use scholorary, academic sources, not blogs, statistics, or new articles to back up our reports. New articles are not normally reliable sources! Reliable sources are scholors, authors, diplomats, etc... People who actually know something about the subject, not a journalist assigned to report on it. Please, consider this before you edit the article. Saru (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So something like this "Fareed Zakaria at Newsweek believes that India has a great potential at being a superpower due to it's high economic growth" or whatever. Deavenger (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, accept academics are preferred over journalists. Saru (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but would Fareed Zakaria count as an academic, because he has written books like The Post-American World and The Future of Freedom Deavenger (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)?

Yes, because books are good sources. The reason we refrain from using mainstream media is the say it exaggerates and sensationalizes things, but if a journalist rights a book, that is because they have learned about the topic through there journalism and should be considered "academics" in that way. Saru (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Languages Remark

The influential languages of Europe were listed in this order: Anglophone, Francophone, Hispanophone, Lusophone.

According to this source ( http://www.krysstal.com/spoken.html ) French is the least spoken of these languages, so it is kind of unfair. I moved Francophone to the back of the list and added Russophone. It is not a language of the European Union, but that is not in question we are talking about the European languages influence on the world and Russian is more spoken than both Portuguese and French. So the new order will be:

Anglophone, Hispanophone, Russophone, Lusophone and Francophone.

Any objections? Usertalk:Jonaspv

Actually this might be a good place to remind people that along with that sentence most of the content re-added below the lead paragraph in the EU section represents original research by synthesis. After all, do we have even one person or group of persons predicting the rise of the EU as a superpower (or naming it a current superpower) who supports their prediction based on the number of people speaking languages originating in Europe? To keep this particular bit of the article without violating policy (and inviting article deletion) we need to at least add a reference showing that someone recognises this as a measure of "cultural influence" while also indicating who (assuming anybody at all) believes "cultural influence" in general or perhaps specifically controlling regions where widespread languages originated facilitates attainment of superpower status (although in the more specific case we might additionally need a source that says that the EU in fact does "control" or exercise sovereignty over those regions rather than possessing only partial and indirect "sovereignty" over them).Zebulin (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We shouldn't have stuff like this in the article. What we should have his something like this: Expert A believes Country B will be a superpower because of factors C and D. That way we are only reporting on expert predictions not what we believe makes a country a superpower. Unless we can find a source saying that the EU will be or is a superpower because of the number of people who speak European languages, we shouldn't have that in the article. If someone wants to learn about China's military or Europe's culture, they have their own articles. This is an article about potential superpowers, os we should only be talking about sources that directly say a country is a potential superpower. Saru (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan superpower

Pakistan is also considered by many as a potential superpower. It has nuclear weapons, high tech missiles, and even an indigenous automobile industry. Population = 160 million people. Moreover, it’s population is highly skilled and educated in various fields. Can somebody please include this glorious country? It’s for sure a potential superpower. Why not Pakistan is India can be there? --60.50.68.160 (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Who is "many"? Many within Pakistan? If you want to include Pakistan as a potential superpower, you'd have to find some reasonably rigorous sources to support Pakistan's inclusion in this article. I have never read that anyone considers Pakistan to be a potential superpower. Even Japan, which has a much greater chance to become a superpower than Pakistan, was left out because of a dearth of scholarly evidence supporting such a claim. Don't try to include Pakistan just because India is included. Though they may be military and political rivals, India and Pakistan are not in the same league. Meatwaggon (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have checked IHT, CNN, and Newsweek and I have found no instnaces of where Pakistan is mentioned as a potential superpower. I will keep looking, but I think, that at this time, Pakistan is not considered a potential Superpower. Deavenger (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I checked (by which I mean Googled) there aren't any. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh good, I can stop searching. Deavenger (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, no reliable sources. Yet another nationalist trying to add his own country. Saruman20 (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan:

• 1. Sizeable Population: 160+ million, which is larger than Russia's
• 2. Sizeable land area (around 800,000 sq. km)
• 3. Known nuclear power
• 4. Has the most advanced self developed missiles in South Asia
• 5. One of the largest armed forces in the world (almost the size of India's)
• 6. Lower population below poverty line (in percentage terms) than India
• 7. Higher standard of living compared to India
• 8. Lower illetracy rate (percentage) than India's
• 9. 2nd largest grain producer in the world
• 10. One of Asia's most powerful navy and air force
• 11. One of Asia's most evolved space sector (first asian country to launce a SLV); mans its own sattelites (SUPARCO)
• 12. Strong relations with other powers (e.g. USA, UK, China, Russia)
• 13. One of the largest troop contributor to the UN
• 14. Asia's 2nd largest BPO hub after India
• 15. Large pool of English speakers
• 16. Strong domestic industry (Automobiles, machinery, drugs etc)
• 17. Rising economy (economic growth of around 5% year on year)

What more can we ask for here? Aren't these the characterestics of a potential superpower? Pakistan deserves to be in the list. --60.50.73.138 (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan may be growing economically, but it has a weak military compared to the other countries on the list, and almost no political influence. It may have "strong relations", but that's because the other countries easily influence Pakistan. Also, don't make blanket statements like "one of Asia' most powerful navy and air force". There is no "scale" to determine how powerful a country's military is, so that's orginal research based off what you've read about Pakistan's army. Also, if you can find a single reliable source citing Pakistan as a potential superpower, go ahead an add it. Note the source must say exactly that Pakistan is a potential or emerging superpower. Saruman20 (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Military is nowhere near India. India has an overal force of 3,773,300, Russia has 3,796,100, Pakistan has 1,449,000. Literacy rate, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate. Internet Users, Russia, India, China also beat Pakistan. India also has a higher life expectancy, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2102.html

Quality of life, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Quality-of-life_index http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index Again, there isn't a single source listing Pakistan as a Potential Superpower. IT MIGHT BE A POTENTIAL SUPERPOWER IN THE FUTURE. But at this time, it isn't. It's the same situation as it was for Brazil. Don't say we should add Pakistan because India is up there. That's like saying we should add Ukraine because Russia's up there, or Japan or Korea because China's up there. Deavenger (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Ukraine isn't in the same league as Russia, same goes for Japan and Korea against China. But India and Pakistan are in the same league. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.208.244.76 (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No, they arn't, India and Pakistan are nowhere near each other. It is commonly accepted among scholors in political science and military sociology that India is rising much faster than Pakistan, and that it was better off than Pakistan in the beginning anyway. If you can find one repubtable source (a scholor, outside of Pakistan) that Pakistan is a potential superpower, than add it the article. By the way, just because India and Pakistan have fought wars, does not mean they are equal, even militarily. Had any of the Indo-Pakistani wars gone, with no peace treaties being reached, India would have crushed Pakistan. Saru (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ad Saru, since I heard you lived in both Ukraine and russia, would you say they were in the same league? Also, to user 218.208.244.76, India and Pakistan aren't in the same league at this time. Military, Economically, and almost any other way. Deavenger (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No, they are no where near each other. Saru (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

We are not talking about articles by some people predicting the rise of a superpower. These are just predictions. In fact today China's the fastest growing large economy. But it can collapse into civil war at anytime, crushing its dream. The same goes with India. So when everybody here is only predicting, why not we predict Pakistan will be a potential superpower? It's not difficult for me to come up with an article saying so. Yes, although not available online, I've got friends working in Worldview and Time (the guy in Time is a senior editor based in Brussels) who at anytime can publish such an article. They have in the ast published such articles supporting pakistan, and can do it again. If in due course I can produce an article, would you really include pakistan?

Yes, if you find such an article it could be the basis of a stub section for pakistan centred on that single source. Some kinds of sources aren't allowed however (blogs, personal pages, etc) and the prediction actually has to be part of the article not just hyperbole in the title designed to attract the readers interest.Zebulin (talk) 08:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Moreover to add on what Saru said that India and Pakistan are of a different league Military and Economically let me have my say: Militarily: Although smaller in size, pakistan army is better equiped than the Indian army, being able to deploy forces more rapidly. Moreover, its airforce is equipped with the latest F16s and JF17s, rather than India's Su30s and Mirages. Their Tejas is yet to see the skies. Pakistan's missile program too is more advanced with its longest range missile having a much further reach than India's. The warheads too are much superior. Fearing that, India developed their BMD shield. Economically: No comparison in GDP and PPP (nominal) as india has almost 9x the population of Pakistan. But GDP (per cap wise), Pakistan is higher than India. So we are of a superior (or atleast similar) league.

Moreover, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, and the 2nd largest after Christianity. There's no muslim superpower to control the islamic world. Pakistan is by far the most powerful muslim country, capable of being a superpower that’s capable of controlling the Islamic world. It’s just western biasness that doesn’t want to acknowledge a single muslim superpower. Pakistan’s homogenous muslim population (over 95%) will tend to be more harmonious than India’s mixed population (83% Hindu, 12% muslim, christians, jews, Sikhs, bahai, parsi... god knows what else) . This makes Pakistan a more suitable candidate over India.218.111.30.218 (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

one, if you can find a realiable article, and we all agree with it, then we will add pakistan. But a couple thing about the facts you posted. One, it doesn't matter if Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. India also has good relations with Iran and Israel, and other middle east country despite being mostly Hindu. In fact, one could argue, that in Pakistani muslims can be divided due to Al-Qaeda coming up through the north and preaching terrorism to some muslims.

GDP per capita wise: pakistan is ranked 128, India is ranked 126. No, Pakistan missiles don't go farther then India's yet. Pakistan missiles that can go the fartest so far is the Shaheen-III at 4000-4500 KM while the Agni III for India can go 3500 to 5000 KM. Airforce, India has a larger airforce then Pakistan. And most of aircraft used by the air force is considered equal to what Pakistan uses because the Russians made those aircraft to rival what the Americans make. Plus, India has U.A.V's, Pakistan doesn't. India has never lost a single war to Pakistan. pakistan has lost atleast 2. Now, if you want us to actually believe that Pakistan is a potential superpower, actually post some realiable sources. Don't just add Pakistan because India is up there. India, we actually have sources and facts for. All you're doing is posting up facts which we all have countered so far. We already had people want to add Ukraine, Mexico, Brazil, and Japan up there because they also believed that they too should be considered Potential Superpowers. So instead of listing some facts, most of which have been proven false, list some REALIABLE SOURCES, and then we'll decide if that country should be up there or now. Deavenger (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources, sources, mister IP you need sources. Your points are not only OR, but most are wrong. Pakistani Air Force is not better than the Indian one. American aircraft are not superior to Russian planes. Russian and American aircraft are designed with different aspects in mind, so you can't say one is better than the other. Your statment regarding missle range is also wrong, as people have already stated, Indian and Pakistani missles are similar in range and power, with a slight advantage to India. Tactically, India has won all the Indo-Pakistani conflicts, with Pakistan suffering larger casualities in all. The only reason they are considered draws is because treaties nullified any military success with political equality. Your idea about one muslim superpower is truly unbelievable. The middle east is a trublent region, with no single leader. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel are all equal or greater than Pakistan. Pakistan is definatly not more stable than India. Benazir Bhutto, one of the most influential and popular political figures was just assassinated. There was a nation wide military lockdown for months. Elections were post-poned and their results ignored. Take your nationalism somewhere else. Saru (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ever since this topic has been posted, I have checked Newsweek, IHT, CNN, MSNBC, Time, BBC, ABC and even did a google search for books or any reliable sources that would even mention Pakistan as a potential superpower. I have wasted about 17+ hours looking for books and websites that would mention pakistan as a potential superpower. I have been thoroughly convinced that Pakistan at this time is not considered a potential superpower. I'm frankly tired of searching, as there is not one single reliable source that mentions Pakistan as a potential superpower. Deavenger (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't waste your time on such claims. It's a genetic problem that is inherent in them. Leave them to that. The claims can be anything from Making the largest condoms that can be as long as a football field to a Pakistani going to Mars to meet his inlaws. No reasoning even when telling lies. Leave it to that.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is funny. I guess it won’t be long until a topic on Bangladesh as a potential superpower appears! Oh, and by the way, some facts by 60.50.68.160 concerning his/her comparison of Pakistan with India/other Asian countries are incorrect:

• 1. Has the most advanced self developed missiles in South Asia: Indian missiles have a further reach and are capable of carrying larger warheads. In fact Pakistan hasn’t successfully tested an IRBM (the Shaheen 3 is still claimed to be in development stage), while India has successfully tested their Agni 3 twice.
• 2. One of the largest armed forces in the world (almost the size of India's): India’s army is more than twice larger than Pakistan’s. India has 1,325,000 active troops and 1,155,000 reserve troops, while Pakistan has 619,000 active troops and 528,000 reserve troops. I don’t know how that can be ‘almost the size of India’s'. See List of countries by size of armed forces
• 3. Lower population below poverty line (in percentage terms) than India: Not too sure on this one but I doubt it’s 100% true. 2002 statistics show India’s PBPL at 25%, while 2007 statictics show Pakistan’s PBPL at 23%. I couldn’t find anything newer.
• 4. Lower illiteracy rate (percentage) than India's: Again incorrect. India’s literacy rate is 61% while Pakistan’s is 50%. SeeList of countries by literacy rate
• 5. 2nd largest grain producer in the world: Not possible. Largest is China followed by India.
• 6. One of Asia's most evolved space sector (first Asian country to launch a SLV); mans its own satellites (SUPARCO): Other Asian countries are far ahead. China has sent a man into space. India and Japan have satellite launch capabilities, while Korea is developing satellite launch capabilities with Russia's coorperation. Recently India launched 10 satellites at once on it’s PSLV rocket. Pakistan launched a Nike-Cajun (if I’m correct), not it’s own SLV.
• 7. One of the largest troop contributor to the UN: Can’t verify this one as there are conflicting reports, some saying India, others saying Pakistan.
• 8. One of Asia's most powerful navy and air force: I find it hardest to digest this one. You really need to do some more research. Before India, look at Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Israel and even Saudi Arabia.
• 9. Asia's 2nd largest BPO hub after India: As far as I know, Japan, Phillipines, and even Malaysia have a more advanced BPO industry than Pakistan.

Since I proved you wrong on most of your arguments concerning the comparison between Pakistan and other Asian countries (primarily India), I hope you’d put this topic to rest until you can come up with some reliable sources supporting your theory on Pakistan being a potential superpower.  S3000  ☎ 11:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And I salute Deavenger for spending a whooping 17+ hours to search up for any mention of this. I wouldn't even bother looking for something I know is rubbish.  S3000  ☎ 11:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I find this discussion hilarious. A country which is listed as a failed state claims to be a potential superpower? I bet the main intention of starting this topic was actually to mock Pakistan. --Emperor Genius (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

60.50.68.160 I was reading your claims on Pakistan as a possible future superpower, do you have a source article I could read on this? I am interested to know as this is big issue on the US handling their affairs and their nuclear weapons program.--75.0.66.119 (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I spent 17 + hours searching for an article saying that Pakistan is a potential superpower. Even if it was in print, I have a search thing that searches all printed material also, and I have found nothing that even points to Pakistan being a potential superpower. This was just another nationalism attempt like Ukraine, Brazil, Mexico, and Japan. Deavenger (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't it is a pointless discussion, if he has facts, 60.50.68.160 has every right to bring sources to the table. I would leave the world nationalism out, there is nationalists everywhere, their are pride USA guys here that don't want anybody eles to down talk them, like there are pride India guys here samething, do see people calling them nationalists. Lastly I might add to Japan, their GDP alone with China is something they may beat the US very soon but that is another issue, China is the next superpower, many will agree with that. The issue of Pakaistan is a serious issue though, why does the US fear them more than Iran?--75.0.66.119 (talk) 05:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If India wqas like Pakistan, and they wanted to include India in the list like the Pakistani guy wants to, the same thing is going to happen. The points he brought up were debunked by everybody else already as he was lying. Each time the IP posted, he could have posted sources, or even made references to them if they were only in print, but he didn't. Japan might have the GDP, but it requires more then economy to be a superpower. As for why U.S is afraid of Pakistan, please look up Waziristan, but that's the only big reason that the U.S is afraid of Pakistan, if you watch any News channel in America, it's talking about Iran all the time. Deavenger (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The US fears Iran way more than Pakistan, watch any American news outlet to see them rant and rave about Iran's supposed nucleur weapons program. Pakistan's current government was partially propped up by the US orginally. The only reason the US fears Pakistan is because it is the believed hiding place of Osama Bin Laden and other Al Queda terrorist leaders, which is in no way the Pakistani government. Please, learn a few facts before making wild accusations and statements. Saru (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You must have been watching Fox News, Saru. As an American, it seems to me the Pakistan is constantly on the verge of civil war, not mention that it has radical Muslims and nukes. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

When I watch American news, I watch ABC. FOX seems to be just the opposite of "fair and balanced". It seems to everyone that Pakistan is on the verge of civil, and given it's nucleur arsenal we have reason to be afraid, but not of the Pakistani government. Pakistan's situation is similar to that of Iraq and Afghanistan before the wars. All three countries were ruled by American backed de-facto dictatorships, set up during the Cold War to oppose the Soviet Union. Saddam and the Taliban bit the hand that fed them, so they where invaded, disposed and the countries forced into civil war. I doubt Pervez Musharraf will take the same path seeing what has happened to Iraq and Afghanistan. When he's out of power, who knows, but he seems to "hesitating" in passing on the leadership torch. Iran however was founded when the American backed dictarship of the Shaq was overthrown. They have no reason not to oppose the US, religious fanatics as they are. That's why the American media is making a big deal of their "nucleur weapons program", which is actually a peaceful, Russia and China backed attempt at nucleur power. I disagree with my country's foreign policy in that manner, but I think the US is making a bid deal out of nothing. But, then again, that's just by two cents. Saru (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion was started over a week ago by an anonymous user, that has not returned. Since then it has been revived over and over again by Versace11. I have already archived it once (and it's still in the archive), but within one day the discussion was put back by 75.0.66.119 (Versace11). It seems like you are just replying on those sockpuppets, so I propose ending this. Together with the discussion about kommersant and the Bahamas. =Species8473= ^(talk) 18:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Pakistan is a true Superpower. Here are some key points:

• 1. #9 Failed state (2008). US, India, Russia, China and EU countries aren't even in the list!
• 2. One of the only 3 rogue states in existance.
• 3. One of the only countries in the world where not a single democraticaly elected government has completed its term.
• 4. #3 in the world in deaths from suicide bombing.
• 5. Terrorist powerhouse: Bin Laden, Dawood Ibrahim, Qari Asadullah are hiding there. Moreover, these men are also believed to have been trained there. Pakistan is also the home of various terror networks like Lashkar-e-Toiba, Sipah-e-Sahaba, Lashkar-e-Omar and a safe haven for al-Qaeda. Most of it are state supported. In short, Pakistan is the Oxford in terrorism education. None of the other potential superpowers even come close.
• 6. Has the largest slum in Asia, and the 2nd largest on the planet. It's the Orangi Township in Karachi. Can't believe? Google it.
• 7. Classified as a crisis state

Hence, I really support the motion of including Pakistan as a potential superpower as no other country listed has such a good record.

Perhaps after Pakistan we can include Bangladesh, then Zimbabwe, and even Sudan!

Sorry, I'm not trying to be sacarstic, but there's a limit for everything. I hope those who started this topic would get back to their senses and start more logical discussions to improve the article. -- 218.111.28.109 (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC) --

Porkistan a superpower? the most funny joke i ever heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.208.247.105 (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

LETS ALL TEAM UP N MOCK THE HELL OUT OF THE PORKIS. 60.54.62.131 (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's taking it so far. There's no racism or Personal attacks allowed on wikipedia. Now let's just wait for this discussion to be archived again. Deavenger (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Kommersant article

Discussion about: http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=768929

Here, we can discuss this entire kommersaint article on whether it should be included into the page or not. There's a lot of people for and against it, so to prevent edit wars and mroe personal attacks, let's end this now, and decide wheter this source should be in the article or not. And please remember, Wikipedia: No personal attacks. Deavenger (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As I've said in Talk:Superpower, the only place the Kommersant authors mention "superpower" in their article (if it can even be said to really be "in" their article) is in the title of the article itself. News media everywhere are notorious for misleading or outright inaccurate article titles due to things like sensationalist motivations and the fact that generally such titles aren't written by the authors of the article but by people working in an editorial capacity. In no way does the article attempt to justify it's sensational title. Nowhere in the article do we find instances where "Washington" in any form acknowledged Russia as a superpower. The title writer is literally putting words into "Washingtons" mouth if that wasn't a gross mistake. Can anyone name one statement from the article other than the title that justifies the idea that "Washington" has been calling Russia a "Superpower" or specifically identifies traits in Russia that only a superpower could have? There is nothing in the article that comes close to supporting the hyperbole in the title. In general news articles can be sources appropriate for wikipedia but their titles certainly cannot.Zebulin (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Added link to article in question and corrected header to kommersant instead of kommersaint.

I challenge there being a lot of people for including it into the page. The only one who continuously puts it into articles is User:24.205.234.250 (and other proxy connections controlled by that user User:69.239.171.174 User:66.17.49.165 User:24.176.166.135 User:64.69.158.252). Further discussion on that specific point can be done at the administrators noticeboard entry. If there are others besides User:24.205.234.250 that want to use the article as source, please do mention it.

My opinion is that it should not be used into this or any other article for having a misleading title. The title "Washington Acknowledges Russia as Superpower" is not supported by the article. It quotes Daniel Fried saying "Russia has restored its position of a large political and economic force recently". Have done Google search on relevant keywords daniel+fried+superpower+russia - and found nothing to back up the articles title. The article also has popups, and that I see as violation of WP:EL. Species8473 (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The Kommersant is frankly a bad source. If you actually read the article you would realize it. It says, and I quote:

U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe held special hearings devoted to Russia on Thursday. The Commission came to a conclusion which is flattering to Russia: the latter is returning to the international arena as an influential political and economic power.

The commission did not say that Russia has become a superpower. It said that it is "an influential political and economic power", which could be anything. A middle power, a regional power, a great power, etc. Furthermore, news articles are under nearly all circumstances not reliable sources. The exceptions are prestigious reliable sources such as the Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, NY Times, BBC, etc. The source cited is jut plain incorrect --Hobie Hunter (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere in the Kommersant article does it actually say Russia is a potential superpower. I'm sure we could find better sources than this if we tried. I say keep it out. Saruman20 (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the overall consensus is that the Kommersaint link is to be kept out of the article. So to the IPs that were trying to add the article in the first place, we've all agreed not to have the link in the article. Deavenger (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand, this article link Kommersant[1] is an excellent source to the article. In fact my political science teacher used this article in his upcoming University gov't science book coming on in September which will have this article published in university textbooks. So I don't agree downing this article when it is important source. When you look at some of the source articles here in context, some USA articles are so outdated on US as a ptential or superpower from 1990 from in 1998, they don't compute anymore. Why are older articles not removed when this Kommersant article is pretty recent. It is a source with other important sources and it should be used--24.176.166.135 (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

We can either agree on this or we can also strike the article down again as what happened on potential great powers. It's just that simple, the Kommersant article is a reference, it is not a mystery, it is an publication article, we use it.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

We already have already agreed to keep the Kommersaint article out of the article. Deavenger (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the deletion of "potential great powers" was articles like Kommersant. To remain, this article must get rid of bad sources and replace them with useful, scholorary sources that directly and explicitly state a certain country as a potential superpower.Saru (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting we have the Kommersant article debate but the US is already being critized for no longer being a superpower[2] with the latest books on the market? Why aren't you defending the USA but your worried about one source article? Too much nonsense here, Kommersant is one of the newspapers that some find a good source of feedback from the government if they are hinding something where other media's won't publish or may, this is one more good example we need to source the information, as we keep it up there in the article.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say this? The reason we agreed to remove the Kommersant article was because it was frankly a bad source. News articles are rarely reliable sources. The exceptions are respected, prestigious sources such as the BBC, NY Times, Time, Newsweek, etc. The title is misleading. It says, and I quote:

U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe held special hearings devoted to Russia on Thursday. The Commission came to a conclusion which is flattering to Russia: the latter is returning to the international arena as an influential political and economic power.

The commission did not say that Russia has become a superpower. It said that it is "an influential political and economic power", which could be anything. A middle power, a regional power, a great power, etc. This is why there is a consensus to keep bad and unreliable sources out of the article. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No it says Washington Acknowledges Russia as Superpower, why would Washington say they acknowledge it then? Were you there Hobie Hunter? The title says superpower with Washington's approval, is that something you just refuse to believe here? Why do you go on and on on a daily bases about this article for? What is your point when the article says what it says? Was there any media or confession to say this article is misleading? Really where is it? Are you a professor, do you have a certificate on cross examination to say this is all wrong? What is your statement of proof? It just sounds like you just want to bash this whole thing Russia is not a superpower anything. I can read that allover the place on just about everything you write about here. Let the article be, do you have some other articles you can override the article with this one, that would be easier than arguing your nonsense.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to relax. You might want to finally read and re-read Wikipedia: No personal attacks. The committee itself said nothing of that sort. In addition to the above quote, here's another.

"The chief speaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried, said: “Russia has restored its position of a large political and economic force recently.”

Once again, "a large political and economic force" is not the same as being a superpower. Just because the incorrect, sensationalist title of one article of a non-notable newspaper says something does not make it true. Your unwavering faith in any news article is naive at best. I'd like you to take a look at The Onion. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Excuse me, trolls? Are you exempt from calling people troll?--24.205.234.250 (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hobbie Hunter, we have not reached any consensus on Kommersant article, that is what you want but that is not the end of this consensus, 2nd: You not only deleted the Kommersant but you deleted "Russia in the 21st Century The Prodigal Superpower"[3], so that says your not just about the Kommersant article, you are personally attacking a nation Russia and it's content.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but we have already reached a consensus, just because you are not part of the that consensus does not allow you to claim that there is none. For example,

Okay, the overall consensus is that the Kommersaint(sic) is to be kept out of the article. So to the IPs that were trying to add the article in the first place, we've all agreed not to have the link in the article. Deavenger (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I have have no problem with the adding a sentence stating that "there is a debate as to whether Russia is a superpower", as long as there are multiple, adequate sources. (ie. not the blatantly incorrect Kommersant article or a book that says Russia might become a superpower.) --Hobie Hunter (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is not misleading, it is free to the public to read it. The government opened the discussion and the media posted it. Really if Kommersant recorded the discussion, are they wrong if the US government made these claims?

We can agree on something here, I am not Russian, I was born and live in the United States, so I am not an nationalist on a country I wasn't born in. I have read half of the book "Russia in the 21st Century The Prodigal Superpower" and I can post the comments directly from the book and what it says about Russia in it's current situation but even if this 2010 as Russia as a full fledge superpower. There is full fledged superpower and there is a superpower, the book is quoting Russia to according to it's plans and if the steps are made it is suit to what it does, the book also says on page 83 that Russia can be a superpower by 2008 but not a full fledge superpower. What defines the 2 under full fledged and just a level entry or a superpower or baby boom superpower? Can we agree and leave the issue as Russia as a potential superpower or possible superpower soon or in the making on some consensus?--24.205.234.250 (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Leaving this issue behind us, now that's something I'd like to see. We could just leave Russia as a potential superpower, since there aren't any adequate sources stating Russia as a superpower.(The incorrect Kommersant article doesn't count). The book you cite states that Russia's government intends to become a superpower- not that is one. What do you say, let's just leave Russia as a potential superpower. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This issue can now be left behind, five editors have expressed it being a bad source. The other editor has now been blocked by slakr for a week (diff). If the edit warring continuous during the block with other IP addresses, or after the block. Please don't engage in it but mention it here. Species8473 (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Good, we must stop this issue now. It is wasting valuable time. Saru (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Listen guys, there are little article sources used on the article page and there are big articles used on the article page. I wouldn't leave the Kommersant story out but use it in another location on the article because I have seen some other small articles sourced that are being used to benefit which don't explain enough the same way you feel on the Kommersant article. My feelings are we maybe bullying the Kommersant too much and may not realize the story left behind it's original content as to say other sources that we are not being tough on with little information to read if you compare it to. I will only agree to the article on some what of a 60/40 we use it but I can't agree to butt it out on the curve. Use it in the lower section or maybe we can find a source that is referred to the Kommersant story if there is more content to lead on to it. Think of it this way, ever heard of the Lock Ness Monster? When someone gave the media one hard to see photo, no 8mm film, video or anything than just a photograph, made world wide attention. Why? I am not saying the Kommersant superpower article is a Lock Ness photo but worth something--64.69.158.252 (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have read this Kommersant[4] article over a dozen times sometime ago along with some CNN articles that refer to the same classifications on Russia is a superpower or not[5]. I asked my local newspaper journalist about this wikipedia debate on using a source to classify an article even though it's sources are small, he stated that because of the nature of the titles and Federal government announcement, they can themselves use this as a source because of it's content which in contrast backed by government material as the government keeps media achieves and televised material for the media to use sources. Since this is journalism and journalists have to have backup, this article can be used as a backup for another story or book references and maybe further government announcements. That being said I am seeing this as an interesting debate and not allowing an article for wikipedia when the media can used this same article for their media sources[6]. They also said that Kommersant is a member of the Associated Press[7] and because they are affiliated with a large media organization, they can share their articles on a large data base for US or international media news networks. If you go back in history on crime or government announcements, statements have been used on countless news media stories on content that seemed too broad or just a statement; journalists will use anything in all countries to have a story. A little tape recorder does a journalists the world of good[8] if they have their backup. Since Kommersant news Russia superpower story is a press release it is classified as a media achieve where this is fed into a journalist editor network like the Associative Press which news from TV, magazines and more can access this material for publishing stories. Right now I am reading this story which just came out last week as this is an announcement article [9] by the Washington Times but as small as it is, it is legally official material for the media to daisy chain this material or in fact write on it alone. If the Washington Times wanted to use the May 2007 Kommersant Russia superpower story they can; both are members of the Associative Press. In the nature of the article I have to say it can be used as Superpower topic or an article material, whether people disagree or agree, they can legally use this story.--206.169.14.200 (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what your local newspapter journalist said because journalists and news article arn't reliable sources. Saru (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

New Source for Article

I just wanted to get everyone's thought on a source I found, stating that the US will remain the world's sole superpower through 2030:[10] --Hobie Hunter (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is very interesting, though I'm not sure how much of it is true. For example, the authors argument on economy, one of the people who posted a comment countered that.

" "Have an economy that matches the US economy in size. If the US grows by 3% a year for the next 22 years, it will be $30 trillion in 2008 dollars by then...China, with an economy of $3.2 trillion in nominal (not PPP) terms, would have to grow at 11% a year for the next 22 years straight to achieve the same size, which is already faster than its current 9-10% rate, if even that can be sustained for so long (no country, let alone a large one, has grown at more than 8% over such a long period)." This is a very flawed argument. Why? Because the growth rates you used are for PPP GDP growth. According to the IMF, in 2000 China's (nominal) GDP was 1.2bn $ and in 2007 was 3.2bn $. This means China's nominal GDP has been growing at 15%. Now considering that nominal GDP tends to converge to PPP GDP as countries get richer, and that China's potential for this is very big (it's real GDP is more than twice as big as its nominal, at around 7bn $), growth of 11% for the next 22 years (in nominal GDP) is entirely feasible. As for 4) (universities), rankings are all subjective and tend to be weighted towards the Anglo-Saxon and particularly US (e.g. because one of the criterions used is, say, publications in the journal Nature). I've come across a study by one of those ranking organizations which showed that by knowledge and problem solving skills after graduation in scientific areas, the top three universities were Japanese, and the fourth was Moscow State. Fifth was MIT. And so on. In other words the only decisive advantage American universities have is that a) they have more money to spend on attracting "star" researchers / Nobel Prize winners and b) have more chances of being published in US academic journals."

I'm not sure how much of it is true, but I think it's an interesting point. The article itself is very interesting, but I'm not sure if it should be included into our article. But, let's see what everybody else thinks. Deavenger (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think is a very internesting article, as our your comments on it. However, I think this source should be used with caution, as it is a blog. Regardless of that, it would find a better place in the "superpower" article, not here. Saru (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's realistic that China will become a or the new superpower. The United States currently has huge and large growing debts to Japan and China. And the price of the U.S. dollar is dropping fast. These are all signs that the U.S. is heading towards a financial crisis. Basically, products from the U.S. are exported for overly high prices, while products from China are exported for overly low prices. This is a big time flaw in using GDP statistics for a future projection. And not likely a situation that will go on forever.

I'm confused by the suggestion to use the presented as source in the article. Just this one diff should be sufficient to make my point. =Species8473= ^(talk) 17:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Before anybody starts speculating, the reason I posted this article was because I thought it was very interesting and some people might want it to be added. I myself do not care either way. And may I point on that the Futurist is not a blog, but rather an online publication of the World Future Society, an academic source. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I inserted my other (26 June) comment, because it was removed. I thought you wanted to use it in the article, as you stated it to be a New Source for Article in the header. It's cool either way, discussion is fine. The connection with the World Future Society is not obvious to me, the weblog appears to be published anonymously. But accepting that there indeed is a connection, I don't see the World Future Society as academic source. It's presented on wikipedia as open to anyone who wishes to join and to be a neutral forum for exploring possible, probable, and preferable futures. =Species8473= ^(talk) 13:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking back at the title, I see your point. However, the [[World Future Society appears to be mostly made up of professionials like sociologists, scientists, and futurists, with some untrained people. Regardless, its better source than a lot of others thhat have been suggested. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Without a connection between this source, and the World Future Society, it remains irrelevant how academic they are. And for all I know, there is no connection. The domain of the source makes no single mention of the "World Future Society" 12, and the World Future Society makes no single mention of singularity2050.com 34.

Now let's check it against WP:RS. It fails right away by not having a reliable publications process in place. The material is likely written by only one person, and not checked by anyone else. The author remains anonymous, so we have no idea if the person has any knowledge on the subject. Then it's a self-published source. And challenged by other sources, that do pass WP:RS and present even the current U.S. as no longer being a superpower 1.

The source you presented, is an opinion, even though more realistic, in nature not much more than what we have in direction of Pakistan on this talk page. Nevertheless, it was an interesting read. =Species8473= ^(talk) 18:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely see your point. Let's get on with this discussion for the sake of the article. We need to have serious discussion about what to do with the supporting pages and other things. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

How can this US superpower 2030 blog article but a source? It's a blog and it isn't supported by anything other than sources you can use individually on here. The blog is written the same way any blog is written, blogs are not good sources, there is no support on that unless it is requested by special interests; somebody could have written that blog and they are a Wikipedia user to use their blog as a source(?), which is a conflict of interest but I don’t know that as there is no editors name. I suggest if you want a source, look for book sources, media or journals, consensus on those ideas or maybe contact the editor who wrote the blog and get his opinion on paper but to say 2030 as a superpower, I just don’t agree to that. The world will be different in 22 years from now to even suggest that, it is not a fact it is an opinion. The oil crisis [Why U.S. Is Running Out of Gas: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030721-464406,00.html] [http://astore.amazon.com/gristmagazine/detail/0805080643] [Portrait of an Oil-Addicted Former Superpower by Michael T. Klare: http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2008/050808Klare.shtml] could severely blow the US in the water to no superpower as it is happening now. Lets not forget that they are current new books that are pointing out the US is a possible former superpower[11] which some have that bought up but I believe of possible special interests not allowing those sources by removing their discussions, we didn’t get to talk about it. It would be nice if we had people on here not writing about their beloved country and trying to benefit it, we need 3rd party editors who have no special interest on anything, like picking a jury when hearing a case. We have people writing what they want, so if a blog is going to be allowed, then you also open up the discussion to use blogs. I disagree with using blogs, we should use case study sources or media or journal sources, research papers, doctored researched to put the matter on the table. I could write up a blog in a few hours and put 2010 superpowers China, India, Russia, how would some say to that? I also look at some who have deleted sources and discussions as to know why I say special interests, that is like a democrat verses a republican or a conservative versing a liberal but if there are more liberals on here or more conversations, one is going to out weigh the other. When I look at some of us who have criticized articles not being good enough, they certainly were better than this one (2030 superpower). I could bring up blogs of the same source saying the same thing or almost the same thing but to use blogs as source, I don’t agree. You can vote on it but get some people who never been a part of the discussion and have them bring up the source and we should have who’s right and who’s left then discuss. Left and rights don’t agree on everything which that also matters how the content is discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bimota101 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there's rough consensus that we can't use the linked blog as a source. We can't really even use it for mining it's own linked sources because the sources it offers are not the sort this article really needs. We need specific credible source worthy predictions that something is a potential superpower at present or in the future. So far as I know the only exception to the use of blogs as sources remains blogs by source worthy individuals about something they are inherently authoritative on like an authors blog on their writing or a politicians blog on their politics, etc...Zebulin (talk) 04:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The Bahamas a Superpower of the 21st Century

I'm starting this topic on the Bahamas as a re-ermerging superpower. They have a living standard that exceeds that of most Carribean countries. People from around the world come to the Bahamas for its beautiful beaches and oceans. Billions of Ammericans visit the Bahamas each month. Some of their superpower status has rubbed off on us. They're a sportfishing superpower and a Junkanoo superpower and don't forget about handicraft superpower status. They have a militaruy budget of over 20 million dollars!. The Bahamas were also part of the British Empire, the worlds first superpower. We were also part of the ancient superpower of Atlantis They have a population of a whopping 300,000 people.

Also check out these sources:

I'm inclined to believe this is a joke ment to mock the people who add countries like Pakistan and the Ukraine to the list. If so, good one. If not, then I'm scared. Saru (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobie Hunter (talk • contribs)

Radical Russian Sockpuppetry

Hey everyone, there's an open case for User:24.205.234.250 User:Versace11 and the radical Russian sockpuppets over at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Care to give your two cents? It would really go a long way toward improving the great power, superpower, potential superpowers, etc. articles. Please come and comment. Best wishes! --Hobie Hunter (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I had to restore this section. IP 75.0.66.119 deleted for no apparent reason (The IP is under investigation as a sockpuppet of Versace 11.) Versace11 has been found to have been using sockpuppets to influence the discussion, rig votes, and make vicious personal atttacks. He has been blocked indefinitely and the IPs have been blocked for six months. There is strong speculation that he has simply switched between IPs. This is an extremly serious issue. One user has hijacked the discussion and has made it appear that there are eight or nine people pushing one agenda while there was only one. Be on alert and be sure to give your two cents at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That IP already is blocked for a limited time, because it was Versace11 for sure. The suspected sock puppets case doesn't really need more input. It was reviewed by an admin, and the result was a block on Versace11 and his editing privileges. One thing that may continue to happen is that he bring in other connections. I hope not, because it's a waste of his and our/my time. But if he does choose to do so, those IPs will simply be blocked too. =Species8473= ^(talk) 19:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to add User: Bimota101 aswell. The user has only one edit and it is on this talk page, to say the very same thing as Versace11 and his sockpuppets have been saying. Saru (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I share your concern, especially after Versace11 has shown to not accept being blocked. By simply coming back with other IPs. It would require another checkuser case though, to have this confirmed with enough proof (at this point). And that seems a bit much over one message at a talk page, without any real damage. Even though I think he should simply accept being no longer welcome, and had enough chances. For now I left a message on this users talk page, simply asking him to confirm or deny being Versace11. That seems to be the most logical first step. =Species8473= ^(talk) 23:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

While my radar went off as soon as I read Bimota101's post, we must not get carried away. He's posted one comment on the talk page so far, and we should assume good faith. However, the post reads exactly like Versace11's and his puppets. They all post cruddy sources liberally (a Time article from five years ago). We should be on alert for him and his puppets. Wait until "Bimota" has a few more edits and then we'll see. We should also move on and discuss more important things like the supporting pages of the article. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Re-Adding Supporting Pages

Previously we decided to remove the supporting pages, scan them for OR, POV, and bad sources, remove them, and add the sections back into the article. So far, I've been the only one doing this. Then, some people suggested that this was synthesis and that they shouldn't be added at all. So my question is, should we add them back or not? --Hobie Hunter (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

adding them back is definitely hard work. They simply can't be added back enmasse with additional sourcing as the wording also needs to be changed so that it's clear how each bit of information connects to at least one person or one groups specific prediction or predictions about super power status in a specific way. That can be harder than it sounds. For instance if we have a sentence we want to be put back that says a country has strong cultural influence but none of sources who made predictions that the country would be a superpower used that countries cultural influence to support their prediction then we simply can't add that material back until we find someone credible who does use the countries cultural influence in their prediction and then link the information about cultural influence to that particular prediction. It's hard work but on the other hand it should remove the deletion threat from the article and once the pattern of sourcing is clear new material should be more likely to follow that same pattern with less explaining necessary on the talk page.Zebulin (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

See the top section "avoiding OR" to see my views on how we should proceed in adding back the supporting sections. Saru (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10