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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
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:
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)
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
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)
Pakistan:
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)
Quality of life,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index
http://en.wikipedia.org/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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
LETS ALL TEAM UP N MOCK THE HELL OUT OF THE PORKIS. 60.54.62.131 ( talk) 04:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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.”
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 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)
" "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)
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" 1 2, and the World Future Society makes no single mention of singularity2050.com 3 4.
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'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 [1] They have a population of a whopping 300,000 people.
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 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)
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)
This page 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. |
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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
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:
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)
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
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)
Pakistan:
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)
Quality of life,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index
http://en.wikipedia.org/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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
LETS ALL TEAM UP N MOCK THE HELL OUT OF THE PORKIS. 60.54.62.131 ( talk) 04:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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.”
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 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)
" "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)
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" 1 2, and the World Future Society makes no single mention of singularity2050.com 3 4.
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'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 [1] They have a population of a whopping 300,000 people.
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 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)
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)
This page 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. |