Talk:Potential superpower/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

New changes by IP 117.228.160.110

IP 117.228.160.110 and his range (117.233.96.83, 117.233.124.161 etc) introduced controversial changes, in favor of China [1]. The changes mainly affect the main table with main graphic, where he labeled China as (Only extant) "Emerging superpower". Given, that there are sources describing, for example, the European Union also as Potential superpower and "Emerging superpower", this edition breaks the rules of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability (disputed sources) and propably Wikipedia:No original research (synthesis and conclusions by IP based on source).

His changes have been undone. He is restore own version without any description of changes and no discuss page. This is a textbook example of a destructive act on Wikipedia.

These changes are very disputed, there has been no discussion about it, no consensus (per Wikipedia:Consensus), source of questionable quality, probability broke all three Wikipedia:Core content policies!!!... also the IP broke the Wikipedia:CYCLE (new changes -> if revert = must to be consensus). I have opened a discussion where the IP has to prove that its changes are not destructive, if there be consensus, changes can be made in article. Until then, I resore the Wikipedia:Stable version. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 09:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Dear @Intforce:, other users and IP 117....(with a variable address). I don't see any point in discussing on the user's page like [2][3]. This topic in talk page I created on 22 December 2021. There was time for discussion, no one replied. My opinion: initially, I was against the changes made by IP 117... however, after analyzing the subject, I noticed the potential of superpower of Russia and Brazil is no longer growing, nothing is changing per last years. The importance of the European Union and China has grown, therefore, I would be able to agree with IP's opinion - to divide countries: EU and China as emerging superpowers and India, Brasil as potencial superpowers. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Any proposed change needs to come along with duly weighted reliable sources. As far as I can see, most recent edits are based on personal analysis, which has no place on Wikipedia. intforce (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Not really, there are enough reliable sources to support the designation of the EU and China as emerging superpower. Sources can be found in the main article (Potential superpower), and for European Union also in separate article of European Union as an emerging superpower. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 17:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I also agree that his changes (anonymous IP) are disruptive. But the Brexit could thwart the EU being a potential superpower, as it is sourced. I would leave it as it is (summary since the 90's). Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I've previously mentioned while editing that since China is ahead than Russia, India, & Brazil, as US, the sole superpower is engaged in adversarial relation with China (competition is between the equals), besides China has surpassed US in GDP (PPP), in Navy size, as well as some other parameters, plus China is becoming alternative to US in great power politics, it should be classified differently from other 3 countries. Secondly I mentioned in talk pages of Sub-Tropical Man & IntForce that I don't find it necessary to create account, I edit directly, since IP address issue. Thirdly I suspect that users Intforce & Jirka belong to countries with negative perception of China, so in guise of wikipedia rules, you have undoing my edits, with IntForce even erasing my addition of McKinsey report, deleting citations provided by me, as well as I remember Intforce accidentally attacking user Fijipedia for my edits as well. I believe Wikipedia is platform of sharing information, not personal biases (I belong to country with one of the highest negative perceptions of China). I think we should analyse the subject in depth & then make proper edits. Regards. P.S. Subtropical Man, thanks for agreeing to my assessment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.233.79.115 (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where you are from (India, Czechia or Germany). As Intforce said, any proposed change needs to come along with duly weighted reliable sources. China has too low HDI and GDP (PPP) per capita compared to US, EU or Russia, even Russia has a stronger army (PIR). Anyway, this is article about potential superpowers, not "emerging powers", we are not here to judge which country is more potential superpower. Such changes disrupt the whole structure of the article.Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

NYT opinion piece

@LVTW2: Lets discuss your edit before you restore it. See WP:BRD.

First of all, your source is an opinion piece and we can't use an opinion piece for a controversial subject like this. See WP:RSOPINION.

Krugman himself is anti-Russian at it seems given his history of opinion pieces on NYT itself.[4] I don't think we should rely on this source. Shankargb (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Shankargb: The real issue here is that all perceptions in the text regarding Russia as a potential superpower candicate are mostly what you called "opinion pieces". Would you gonna tell me that some advocating opinions from certain politicians such as Hugo Chavez or Benjamin Netanyahu are more "impartial" or "trustworthy" sources than the opinion from a Nobel prize laureate as academic Paul Krugman? lol You made a really "convincing" point for judging which one is so-called "opinion piece" and which is not, by your own opinion as well. LVTW2 (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

This article shouldn't exist as it's inherently unencyclopedic. However, if we are using opinion pieces throughout the article, then I am with LVTW2 that the removal of Krugman is unjustified and should be restored. Bommbass (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@LVTW2: I missed opinions by others. I am fine with restoring your edits. Shankargb (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Opinion article

I am shocked that this article has no maintenance banners or even exists as an article at all. It reads like a soapbox where political scientists argue against each other what a "superpower" even is or if "X" or "X" will ever occur. Not to mention that several of the sources are very old, and there is significant citation overkill basically everywhere. It is a given that this article needs to acknowledge its unclean citation style, its need to be updated, and its significant usage of political opinions as "sources" CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and plenty of original research CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

On 28 March, Ghostman Gendruwo removed the maintenance banners without explanation. I have reinstated them. intforce (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)