Talk:Superpower/Archive 13
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
Requested move 27 November 2019
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Not moved; yes, numbers are roughly equal, but references to what first comes to mind do not outweigh both criteria for primary topic. As an aside, I commend those doing the thankless work of fixing links. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 23:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
– Does not appear to be the obvious primary topic. By pageviews, the political page gets roughly 3x more than the ability, but since the ability also gets around 400 daily, it is not "much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." One out of every 4 readers wants the comic term and not the political one. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. 3:1 is pretty overwhelming. 216.8.129.252 (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support Since almost everyone going to the ability page probably goes to the political page too. The ratio is more like 2:1, which definitely mean it not the primary topic (in my opinion).– BrandonXLF (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- 2:1 still seems pretty overwhelming. 216.8.129.252 (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support The comic term appears more frequently in daily life. Dimadick (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Whose daily life? Are we living in the Marvel Universe now? 216.8.129.252 (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nom - No clear primary topic (especially since "almost everyone going to the ability page probably [first lands on] the political page too"). Move disambiguation page to basename.
- I'm currently in the process of fixing dozens of links to the political concept that should be going to "Superpower (ability)". The sheer number of mistaken links is telling. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - In the last half an hour, I found and fixed 21 accidental links that didn’t mean to link here.
- Fixed 17 accidental links to "Superpower" that meant to link to "Superpower (ability)”: ...on Bolt (2008 film), Lion-Maru, Shadow Fighters, Piece of Wonder, Swamp Thing (1991 TV series), Eviless, List of Misfits characters, Captain India, Marshal Law (comics), Nova (Richard Rider), Alternative versions of Mary Jane Watson, Superhero League of Hoboken, Captain Confederacy, From the Notebooks of Dr. Brain, NEW-GEN, Gabriel (New-Gen), Sean and Chris, Thea (New-Gen), Wally West.
- And 4 accidental links to "Superpower" that should have been to other topics with the name: ...on 1987 in professional wrestling (to a wrestling tag team The Super Powers), ...Batman Total Justice (to Super Powers Collection), ...Willy Dozan (to a film series without an article), ...Greg Theakston (to a comic book series without an article).
- ...Yikes. Like I said, the sheer number of mistaken links is telling. Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- With all those bad links it still doesn't get near as many pageviews. 216.8.129.252 (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support move per nom. There is a most frequent topic, but there is no primary topic. O.N.R. (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support per Paintspot, getting a 3rd is enough to preclude "much more than any other" which would probably be 10x. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Very clear primary topic in real world usage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. There is a primary topic in terms of long-term significance, and the current page does indeed fulfill the page view requirement. Dekimasuよ! 16:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Colour of neutral nations on Cold War allies map
The colour of neutral nations on the map is a light blue, but the NATO nations/allies are also blue. This could suggest that the neutral nations could be NATO allies. I suggest that neutral nations be coloured white on the map, to show their independence fron either side. Penumbra01 (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
British Empire/China
The table comparing the United States and the Soviet Union should be moved from the Cold War section and expanded to explain how the British Empire fulfilled the criteria of superpower status until the Suez Crisis and how China presently does. BfFwG6A8 (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
And France since 1945- Suez Crisis?
China
China is now more powerful than the United States. (86.140.123.49 (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC))
- China is finally acknowledged as an emerging Second Superpower in 2021. That's a huge upgrade from 2007, 2011, and 2016 when I last visited this Wikipedia page on Superpower nations. Whether China vs. US should be relegated to early 2000's internet flame-war threads, not Wikipedia.Rwat128 (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
|}
United Kingdom
| Ban evasion by User:HarveyCarter. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
In the table explaining how the United States and the Soviet Union met the criteria of being superpowers during the Cold War, the United Kingdom should be added, as it was also a superpower until the aftermath of the Suez Crisis in 1956. A6MKi-43 (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
|
I would love it if somebody could clearly explain what's wrong if anything with the sources supporting the brief mention of the Spanish Empire as a historical superpower. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
It has been debated amongst historians [[User:Kimand299 |Kimand299]] (talk) 3:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Okay. I'm willing to bet that the status of many of the others is also debatable. What we're looking for, though, is a preponderance of reliable sources that say it is (then we include it), or reliable sources that say it isn't (then we exclude it). If there is equal weight for and against among the reliable sources, then we could move it to a second sentence saying that it is sometimes referred to as a superpower, but that this is disputed, or something like that. Have those historians given recorded talks/published books/articles/whatever so that the reliable sources can be reviewed? VernoWhitney (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
China
| Ban evasion by User:HarveyCarter. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
China is already recognised as a superpower, so this should be mentioned in the lede. It has replaced the US in the Middle East. (31.49.209.74 (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC))
|
Potential modern superpowers: The case for UK and France
There is some good faith debate and reverts, specifically from @42Grunt, on the what is or is not a "Superpower" or "potential superpower." I think that we could create a chart for world powers that could sort this out, but that is a job for another day or another editor. Anyway, a potential superpower must be a dominant force in world politics, culture, economics, and military, among other things. A good starting point is the United Nations Security Council five permanent members, The United States, Russia, China, the UK, and France. These countries all have veto power, and nuclear weapons. France and UK both have larger Economies then Russia. Both France and the UK have major contributions to world culture, and their links with other countries give them substantial influence. Their non-nuclear militaries are both significant, and possibly greater then Russia at this point. They both have a history of colonialism, and maintain some influence even today within their former colonies. The inclusion of Russia, China, and India makes perfect sense, even though India is not a permanent security council member. Through the same logic that these countries are "Potential superpowers," the UK and France both qualify. France and the UK both stand out from Russia, China, India, and the US as they are not in the top 10 largest countries by population, however both surpass Russia and are in the top 10 of GDP , with GPD per capita far in excess of Russia, China and India.
I would like to see an argument for why France and the UK should not be included as potential super powers, when they surpass criteria in at least one area for both Russia and India. I get that at this point India, Russia, France and UK are probably best classified as Great Powers, but they would all be the preeminent among Great Powers. The word "Potential" is very loose, and we should have SOME criteria for why we include some countries but not others.
Other things that could be included onto the list include NATO, but the EU is probably enough for Supranational union's to get the point across without muddying the term.
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Let's use reliable sources rather than discussions that would amount to original research WP:OR. Also note that the security council does not seem to be a good starting point as it was created from of the great powers (not even then superpower) that decided WWII. The influence (and power) of some has since declined while other powers have been emerging. But historical precedent (and veto power) makes it unlikely permanent membership will change for the foreseeable future. Arnoutf (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hello,
- This is an excellent point and one I should have started with. While I didn't look into France, a study by Henry Jackson Society, Towards “Global Britain”: Challenging the New Narratives of National Decline, uses the phrase "In some respects, it is so strong that it is approaching the status of a “cultural superpower.”" There is also a HuffPost publication discusses the UK as a "soft-power super-power" here. Also, the UK defense journal makes reference to the first study and discusses the UK as a "cultural superpower" here, which also shows claims that the UK is second only to the US in global power.
- I'm not sure if these sources are top tier, but I think a case can be made for including the UK as a "potential superpower". Many of these arguments extend to France based on my knowledge, but I don't have any sources yet on that. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- France and the UK were past superpowers back then. But now? There are no sources that states otherwise. If anything, Brexit has caused immense doubts on London's political and economic competence on the global stage. Economically, both France and the UK are stagnating. Although Paris is able to use the EU as a vehicle to artificially expand its power, this is more of an EU thing. Culturally? France is losing ground in Franceafrique as more of its former colonies in Africa are revolting against French influence. The UK still has its commonwealth, but again, we are seeing members such as Jamaica effectively trying to remove itself from the system. Militarily, both states saw significant decay in its power projection, although the UK was hit harder, Paris can still independently project power to a limited extent through its overseas territories. You just can't use 'cultural superpower' as an effective gauge for potential superpower status. Japan has far more cultural heft than the UK, and nobody considers Tokyo a superpower, especially after the economic crash in the 90s. Neither can you use the UNSC as a gauge as the UNSC was formed by the primary victors of WW2, not their power status. To be a potential superpower is to have shown increasing rise on several metrics not just one. That includes economics, cultural soft power, military hard power, industrial power, leader of alliance/partnership building, leadership in multilateral organisations, technology and innovation, cyber networks, diplomacy, etc and project them on a global stage. The Brits like to champion 'global Britain', but their dealings with the EU have shown that London has grossly overestimated its own power and is dealt with a much weaker hand. They are still great powers, but there is nothing outside of nationalist rhetoric that suggests either of them as potential superpowers. France under Macron is ambitious, but France is ambitious only in the context of turning the EU as a superpower, not France. So unless there are dozens of sources and hard data that support the idea that both France and the UK are aiming back to superpower status, then they should not have a place here. 42Grunt (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- I have listed three sources that mention the UK as a "soft-power super-power," "cultural superpower", and seconded only to the US in power. Russia has recently shown to be really lacking on economics, soft power, non-nuclear hard power, industrial power, industrial power, alliance building, etc. The UK has a larger economy, and is superior in many other metrics. It is hard to see how Russia qualifies as a "potential" power while others do not, when these other countries may be more powerful in multiple categories you have listed. Further, the UK Government uses the term "Science Superpower" or "artificial intelligence superpower". This ambition, coupled with the UK economy, military, soft power, political partnerships, etc. certainly seems to warrant categorization as a "potential" superpower according to "some" definitions. The sources exist, I've given five, I think "dozens" of sources is a bit of a ridiculous for such a small claim of "potential". GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- It's very easy for a state to proclaim itself that it wants to be X superpower. Actually turning that into a reality is another matter altogether. The fact that you have to compare the UK to Russia of all things does not speak with confidence. Russia was never an economic superpower, even during its Soviet Union days. The only reason Russia is on the list for some reason, is largely based on the general world population still equating Russia=USSR and Moscow consistently punching above its weight by challenging Washington across the globe even with its anaemic economy and lacklustre military performance in Ukraine. Of course, this is changing right now, with it losing influence in its backyard, but Moscow is still deep in the fight. The UK likes to proclaim itself as a 'superpower' like the Russians, but London has shown itself to be incredibly dysfunctional even in its own region when dealing with the EU. Lets look at the metrics. Economically, the UK like most European states, is stagnating and its reputation as a financial centre is called into question by the disastrous handling of Brexit. Militarily, have you seen the state of the British military? Politically, it cannot be stated how bad Brexit has undermined the political credibility of London both internally (Scottish and Northern Irish dilemma) and externally (Leadership instability of last year). Culturally, most of British soft power are cultural legacies left by the end of Empire when London had hegemony. It is like Japan, a lot of soft power, but having soft power isn't a one-all factor to propel one to even potential superpower status. The sources you hand out are all plans, but are those plans realistic? Are they practical? Have they bore fruit? So far no. There is not a lot of sources that takes the UK's lofty ambitions seriously; about as serious as one would take the Tories boasting that Brexit will accelerate 'Global Britain' whatever that means. Case in point, the UK's influence is being contested in its own region in Europe by France, Germany and Russia. You would expect a potential superpower to have some regional hegemony in its area right? China dominates East and Southeast Asian affairs, Russia has/had dominance over Central Asia, India has some dominance in the IOR. A potential superpower also shouldn't be in a position where its life expectancy is going backwards compared to its neighbours now would it? So far, your statements have a lot of words, but no substance. Because for every source your bring out boasting on the UK's return, there are several sources stating otherwise. 42Grunt (talk) 07:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Some prominent people hold the opinion that UK is a potential super power, if only based on "soft power", and "science". UK meets some criteria of other countries in the "potential superpowers" list, and sources exist that consider the UK to be one. Rejecting the UK from this list when there are existing sources, and while they meet or exceed the criteria (economic, scientific, soft power, conventional military, has nukes, has veto power in the UN, allies, etc.) compared to Russia is either the WP:OR @Arnoutf warned of, or an issue with WP:POV. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 07:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- What prominent people? Back then, this list actually had Brazil as a potential superpower. And it also had links to 'prominent people' boasting of Brazillian superpower candidacy. It was removed because the sources was over a decade old and the areas in which it boasts Brazil for superpower candidacy was considered too limited. The UK faces the same exact issues. You can try to add the UK in. It will be removed by some other users or another. I already inform you to look at Japan as a case study that just because you have a lot of soft power, does not guarantee Japan of even a potential superpower. The fact that you wrote that, tells me you never even read my statement or selectively ignored my points. Like seriously? You are using nukes as a criteria? By that point, North Korea is a potential superpower. To be in that list, there has to be some potential for the states listed to project power globally and independently. The EU can project its collective economic might across the globe through Swift, contest US economic power as shown in the 2004 tariff fights and can maintain a limited global military presence largely through French hard power. The Russians, despite their failures, have shown repeatedly to utilize sharp power to influence domestic affairs in Europe and the Global South, as well as projecting grey-zone hard power in the Middle-East, Africa, Eastern Europe and Venezuela; contesting US primacy in nearly every region despite its lack of economic and soft power projection. I don't even need to say anything on China. Whilst India is projected to expand its influence in Africa and the Middle-East (India is the weakest one here as they haven't shown any global projection capabilities yet). The UK? So far London only follows what the US does most of the time, which does not speak well for a potential superpower if you are currently subservient to the current superpower. This is not the first time that prospects of the UK being a potential superpower was brought up only to be immediately shotdown by other users in the potential superpower page. So you can try to add the UK in the potential superpower page. But I doubt it will last that long since there is only so much one can talk about the UK's cultural influence. Unless London has show with hard evidence, that it is rising in every metric. 42Grunt (talk) 08:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- To be clear on this. I also believe that Russia and India should not be on the list. As the former is clearly a declining power and the latter is too early to tell, with plenty of issues of its own, and is incapable of even projecting power in its region vis-a-vis China. But that should be a debate that should be discussed in the potential superpower page. The things the UK has right now, isn't that impressive, even compared to the likes of the EU. The UK is an equal to France and even Germany. But it is in no way in the same league as Beijing. Only China seem to have ticked the majority of the boxes for superpower candidacy save for alliance networking and softpower projection (For now). 42Grunt (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Short response - INCLUDING requires reliable sources (which are hard to find). Not including (or rejecting) should be the status quo (e.g. do you have reliable sources excluding e.g. Andora from the list? If not the consequence would be it should be included - I guess we all agree that would be nonsensical). Arnoutf (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Reverts: Doubts about Russia's status as a superpower
Twice, this section has been removed, and twice I've restored it. I had thought this was essentially common knowledge. However, to avoid claims of it being original research and maintain Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, I have added three news sources disputing Russia as a superpower. This certainly warrants inclusion where it is in my opinion, as it is simply stating a dispute exists. Before anyone reverts the revert again, please discuss it here so we can try and build consensus. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 14:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- To be frank I think the text you include (and the talk above) is somewhat ambiguous. I think there is broad consensus that Russia after the dissolution of the USSR was not a superpower. The introduction clearly states that after the dissolution of the British empire and the USSR the USA was the only remaining superpower. So in my view there are no doubts whatsoever on Russia's current status as superpower. It is not.
- The text you added in addition is in the section "potential superpower". There were already doubts whether Russia would ever (re)gain superpower status, and the poor performance in Ukraine (and the economic damage of the boycots) made these doubts even more stringent. But these are doubts on whether Russia will ever (again) regain superpower recognition. Not doubts on whether it holds that status now (as said above, it does not).
- So the text as you propose is somewhat ambiguous. I would suggest another phrasing, something like:
- Increasing doubts have emerged around the potential of Russia to gain superpower status given its declining economy, severe military underperformance during the invasion of Ukraine, and its loss of influence in Central Asia, a region dominated by Moscow for centuries.[95][96][97]. Hope this helps the discussion forward. Arnoutf (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
On nation-states
People use the word "Nation state" inappropriately. Quoting them accurately is fine, but context should be added that they are misusing the term within the quote. While there are different definitions of what a nation-state is, the term is not a synonym for "country," and a state with more then 50 minority groups doesn't fit the established definitions. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Merge proposal: Superpower collapse into 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.
The page Superpower collapse has had a notice for more sources since 2007. The page has a lot of content that might border on original research. I prepose that Superpower collapse be highly condensed and either added to a section on the Superpower page, or have content added where appropriate throughout the existing sections of the page. The page superpower collapse can then be redirected to the existing superpower page. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- I support the merger. There does not appear to be much salvageable content, but if there is any, it should be merged to Superpower. Thenightaway (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback! I agree, very little seems salvageable but I was hesitant to nominate such an old article (edits go back to 2002 and there is a fairly extensive edit history) to be deleted. Could a new section titled "former superpowers" within this page make use of any of the content? GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thinking about this a bit, and a potential approach could be a section on "Decline of superpowers," focusing on pages Dissolution of the Soviet Union, American decline, and pulling content from the Chinese Century section "Chinese decline," and the British Empire section "Decolonisation and decline (1945–1997)." I believe we can use these to build up the page overall.
- Also, on another note, the page Superpower disengagement might also need to be merged into this one. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 07:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- I support the merger of that article into Superpower as well. Thenightaway (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support merger, for both Superpower collapse and Superpower disengagement. –Gluonz talk contribs 16:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)