| Revision as of 18:04, 11 May 2024 editGeogSage (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,153 edits changed mintrheadsleft to 1 instead of 7.← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 09:52, 16 November 2024 edit undoKlbrain (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers86,417 edits →Merge proposal: Potential superpower: Closing; no merge |
| (34 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B| |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes| |
|
{{WikiProject Power in international relations|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Power in international relations|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid|American=y|American-importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid|American=y|American-importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject China|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject India|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject European Union|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=mid|pol=yes|hist=yes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
| Line 21: |
Line 14: |
|
|archive = Talk:Superpower/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Superpower/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=30}} |
|
|
{{merged-from|Superpower collapse| 15 March 2024}} |
|
{{merged-from|Superpower collapse| 15 March 2024}} |
|
{{merged-from|Superpower disengagement| 11 May 2024}} |
|
{{merged-from|Superpower disengagement| 11 May 2024}} |
| Line 29: |
Line 21: |
|
* <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":}} --> |
|
* <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}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== American overseas military map graphic - Should be altered? == |
|
== American overseas military map graphic - Should be altered? == |
| Line 43: |
Line 37: |
|
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. |
|
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 == |
|
== Potential modern superpowers: The case for UK and France == |
|
|
|
{{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) |
|
There is some good faith debate and reverts, specifically from @], 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 ] 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 ], however both surpass Russia and are in the top ] , with GPD per capita far in excess of Russia, China and India. |
|
|
|
: '''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) |
|
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. |
|
|
⚫ |
::'''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) |
|
Other things that could be included onto the list include NATO, but the EU is probably enough for ]'s to get the point across without muddying the term. |
|
|
|
|
|
] <sup> (]) </sup> 16:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Let's use reliable sources rather than discussions that would amount to original research ]. Also note that the security council does not seem to be a good starting point as it was created from of the ]s (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. ] (]) 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 ], , uses the phrase "In some respects, it is so strong that it is approaching the status of a “cultural superpower.”" There is also a ] publication discusses the UK as a "soft-power super-power" . Also, the ] makes reference to the first study and discusses the UK as a "cultural superpower" , 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. ] <sup> (]) </sup> 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. ] (]) 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 "" or "". 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". ] <sup> (]) </sup> 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 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 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, ] (]) 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 ] @] warned of, or an issue with ]. ] <sup> (]) </sup> 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 ] ] 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. ] (]) 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). ] (]) 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. ] from the list? If not the consequence would be it should be included - I guess we all agree that would be nonsensical). ] (]) 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 ], 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. ] <sup> (]) </sup> 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.''. Hope this helps the discussion forward. ] (]) 18:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::The text was not really added by me, I re-added it after a revert, then mentioned economy and added sources. You are right on how to make this less ambiguous and I have made that change. ] <sup> (]) </sup> 19:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== On nation-states == |
|
|
|
|
|
People use the word "]" 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. ] <sup> (]) </sup> 22:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Merge proposal: Superpower collapse into Superpower == |
|
|
{{Discussion top|result=The result of this discussion was merge. ] <sup> (]) </sup> 19:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
The page ] has had a notice for more sources since 2007. The page has a lot of content that might border on ]. 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. ] <sup> (]) </sup> 20:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:*'''Support''', Upon inspection, both articles may cover different information, but there are some similarities. ] may have to do with this. |
|
: I support the merger. There does not appear to be much salvageable content, but if there is any, it should be merged to ]. ] (]) 21:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:] (]) 03:03, 8 July 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? ] <sup> (]) </sup> 21:57, 20 February 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) |
|
::Thinking about this a bit, and a potential approach could be a section on "Decline of superpowers," focusing on pages ], ], and pulling content from the ] section "Chinese decline," and the ] section "Decolonisation and decline (1945–1997)." I believe we can use these to build up the page overall. |
|
|
|
*'''Strong Oppose'''- Per arguments listed above. These are different topics. ] (]) 23:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
| ⚫ |
::Also, on another note, the page ] might also need to be merged into this one. ] <sup> (]) </sup> 07:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*:*'''Comment''' per arguments listed above, do you have sources that assert this is a distinct enough concept to merit a distinct article? |
|
::: I support the merger of that article into ] as well. ] (]) 12:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Support''' merger, for both ] and ]. –<span style="box-shadow: 0px 0px 12px red;border-radius:9em;padding:0 2px;background:#D00">]<sup>''' ] ]'''</sup></span> 16:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
*:] <sup> (]) </sup> 23:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
| ⚫ |
{{Discussion bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:'''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) |
| ⚫ |
== Merge proposal: Superpower Disengagement == |
|
|
|
:] arguments are lacking in detail. |
|
{{Discussion top|result=The result of this discussion was merge based on previous discussion and silent concensus.] <sup> (]) </sup> 17:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
:] is 1500 words and ] 3542. Combined they'd be 5042. That's less than the 6,000 minimum for justifying splitting. Even then, 6,000 is a lower bound suggestion; beginning from 8,000 it becomes a firmer recommendation. |
|
Following up on the merge of Superpower Collapse into Superpower, the topic of merging Superpower Disengagement into Superpower had support. This is a formal proposal of that. I believe some content from this page can be merged into the sections of superpower, and then a redirect created. |
|
|
|
: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) |
|
Pinging {{ping|Gluonz|Thenightaway}} ] <sup> (]) </sup> 19:23, 15 March 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 bottom}} |
|
|
⚫ |
{{Discussion top}} |
The graphic overstates the extend of American military hegemony. For instance, Brazil is colored - but there are only 27 military personnel stationed there, which is more of a diplomatic or training mission than a superpower projection.
I think the map should only highlight countries with at least 100, or 500, or 1000 stationed personnel.
I propose that Honduras, Brazil, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Bulgaria, Greece, Philippines, and Australia should not be colored on the map due to low personnel sizes based on the figures in the aforementioned report.
Someone edited the part about emerging superpowers and decided to delete informations about Brazil and the image showing potential superpowers was substituted without any discussion about it. Personal feelings are not determinants in Misplaced Pages, at least it shouldn’t be.
Following the merge of superpower collapse and superpower disengagement, I believe the page Potential superpower could be merged into superpower. I don't believe there is enough difference to justify the two distinct pages. Merging them would improve the main superpower page significantly. The content can be put into the existing section of the same name. GeogSage 22:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
