Talk:Potential superpower

Remove India, Brasil

With the capabilities they demonstrated in the Commonwealth game disaster, its safe to say, india will likely remain the third if not fourth world country it is for at least this century, until now, they have failed to show any characters even remotely related to superpowerdom. Judging by their current status, they should pay more attentions to realistic goals like feed their people properly, and forget the superpower dreams. But what India and Brasil have done before to indicate these people are superpower materials? what they have now to justify their superpower potential? Lets be serious and honest, these countries have basically no chance to become superpower in this century, their best bet is to be respectable regional powers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.242.164 (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to back up your opinion? If not, this does fall under OR and can't be used in the article. Also, I have a question. At the end of World War 2, the newly created South Korea was in an absolutely appalling state. Yet, by 2000, they had created an economy that is in the top 20 in the world and have solved significant problems that they faced (mainly North Korea). Considering that India and Brazil have 90 years left of this century to fix larger problems, doesn't the established literature still carry weight? Comics (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Brazil has successfully organized the 2007 Pan American Games, which is an event even more important in size and quality of competitions than the 2010 Commonwealth Games. This shows that Brazil is further ahead of India in the organizational skills and know-how required to host world class Mass events.--tequendamia (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

A superpower in the simplest sense is a nation with a large population (over 100 million), massive economy (over 10 trillion dollars in GDP), and a military capable of of armed intervention anywhere on the planet. Obviously only two candidates can fit this criteria at the moment(U.S.A., and E.U.). The problem with the E.U. is that it does not have a standing army nor does it have centralized executive branch, though that could change very easily.

So from one data point (the commonwealth games) you can make a sure-fire prediction about the next 100 years. Astonishingly arrogant. 134.115.64.73 (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

China is growing at a rapid pace and will reach the ($10,000,000,000,000.00 USD) mark in a few years, and it has the largest population on the planet, but it's military (though the largest in the world) cannot deploy its forces outside it's continent (Asia) without triggering nuclear war (India, North Korea, Russia, Pakistan, and the United States through Guam all encircle China in a nuclear umbrella).--98.201.33.16 (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

True comment about India and Brazil. It is obviously absurd to call these countries potential superpower. A timeframe of the next 2 decades only should be considered to assume a superpower position. Brazil has not even the economy of France, UK, Germany how can this country be placed in such an article, its ridiculous. Same with India which is at large a third world country. Both should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.69.194 (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

But what as a part of BRIC? BRIC as a trading bloc would certainly elevate the "super power" status of these two nations.134.115.64.73 (talk) 07:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous to remove a country just because of mud slinging about a games organization. FYI, the commonwealth games, whatever mud slinging had been done,.. were a successful ones. There is nothing to point out against India in respect to previous additions to remove India. India and Brazil are rightfully Potential superpowers. -(user:satishynd)

In regard to the person who says to delete India and Brazil. Well, superpower basically means countries with significant size, population, economy, etc etc. India does have significant size being 7th largest, 2nd largest population, 4th largest economy, as well as nuclear weapon capabilities too. I see no logic in the statement of the person who started this thread —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.179.61 (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe India has a solid claim to potential superpower status do to population, nuclear weapons, growing economy, and substantial military (especially their power projection capability afforded them by their carrier force). Brazil simply does not have any of the traditional elements of a superpower. There is no indication their population (5th), economy (9th), and military (13th) could increase to "superpower" levels in the next century. Rather, Brazil is firmly a regional power. They are solidly 1st in all these areas among latin american countries.(Jschager (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC))

Whatever! India has no potential to become a superpower in next few decades. If you need more proof, go look at the streets of India and such. I mean, I am an Indian, and I think that if it keeps going on, *Sigh* . People compare India to United States. Get real, fellas. There's a huge difference. Not a superpower, Nyah! I agree that India and Brazil both should be removed.

A lot can happen in 30 years, and I don't think a timeframe was really placed on India and Brazil; just the tag 'India/Brazil is thought to have the potential to become a superpower this century'. Comics (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Strange map / Turkey not part of the EU

The current map displays the EU and its candidate countries. As it is unclear if or when these countries can join, I think it was better to have the status quo (without candidates) presented here.

EU bias?

Just a note, but the EU section in this article is twice as large as the other sections, making me wonder if it is being blown out of proportion. Any chance on cutting the size down a bit?--Gniniv (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• eu not is a country; it´s a organization - NAFTA is a country..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.192.174 (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

There's an article on both the EU and NAFTA, go read them and see why your question is ridiculous. G.R. Allison (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Which makes me wonder why a intra-national organization is even being considered on this list, since it lacks several characteristics of a single nation.--Gniniv (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

1) it is a matter of data, the EU requires more explanation given its status. 2) The EU and NAFTA are not comparable, the EU has strong federal elements with a single market and emerging foreign policy (some elements of foreign policy are already federalised, for example trade policy).- _J.Logan`^t: 19:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The country versus region thing aside, isn't it simply a case of more data on the EU being known to the editors of this page than on other examples? I find it somewhat unsupportable to call this a bias. -- BenTels (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps...I would at minimum call it WP:Systemic bias due to the fact that Wikipedia editors are more likely to know about the EU than the other countries/entities on this list. I still think it should be improved. The People's Republic of China is far more likely to achieve global dominance in the 21st century than the EU, largely because the EU refuses to invest hardly any of its massive GDP in military and defense....--Gniniv (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we are in any position to speculate on who will achieve superpower status or when, nor do I think it is relevant to the discussion. The issue is one of textual balance on the page, not of content or factual basis thereof.

That said, I agree that the page could use improvement to balance it out. However, I do not think that such balance should come from pruning the section about the EU, but from beefing up the other sections. Wikipedia strives (for better or worse) to be an encyclopedia. To me that means the editors should strive for more information and not less, i.e. to make the weak points stronger and not to lower the standard to the lowest common denominator. -- BenTels (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The EU shouldn't even be listed in the first place. It's not a country, but a economic agreement similar to NAFTA. It holds no military ties, and non of it's members have even taken up the issue of a Union with other members. It has neither the military or political potential for super power status, and considering it's not a single entity i hardly think the traditional term of super power power should apply to it's economic status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding whether or not the EU should be listed, it seems to me the existing section on the EU lists exactly the arguments for its being listed and why the EU might well be considered a (future) superpower.

That said (and no offense intended), you badly need to read the article on the European Union. The description you give of the EU is very plainly wrong, to the extent that you might not even maintain your own position anymore after having read an accurate description of the EU. -- BenTels (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

EU is a political power,Nafta no. A lot of ignorance. A lot of words on EU because they want to set it in the emerging powers and have no proves to tell this.How can Usa be a superpower with a such economy..jokes..

EU is the only one that fullfills all criteria to be a superpower (economically,military and culturally).To be a superpower you must be a political power..nowhere is written that you must be a country.EU is a new kind of sovereign political power.Today formally it's the only true superpower.Us today have a strong acomplex vs EU and try to make all the possible to hide their decline..burt is uselless also in media and propaganda.In EU all people ahave realized it.And not only.Everiwhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.60.117.139 (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC) I hate it when people use the word 'country'. Country is a geographic term. Centainly the EU is not a nation state, but if their was a feudal superpower would that be struck off the list for not having the most common type of state structure. I don't think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.124.143.135 (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

European Union is not a country. Why is EU even listed here? EU can't even send a military force without US-led NATO permission.72.81.233.159 (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"If " is useless..the main thing is what EU is today.It's political being like every nation..it's made of more state or nations ..but it's a single political being able to act in every sector.The rest is bla bla bla...EU has a gdp biggest than Usa ,more weapons (more conventional ones ,troops and today also with nuclear weapons like m 51 hold by french Navy that are like Trident but much faster..25 mach.It's the most dangerous weapon on Earth today.)Culturally there are no possibilities for Usa to win.Then you can write what you want but rests a bla bla bla..EU global wealth is bigger than EU global debt ,while Us global wealth is about 1/3 Us global debt.People that wrote the article used part of lines of some famous books that support EU as superpower to support the opposit..trying to "burn " also this books...One thing is the vritual world of the article and one thing is reality.Who knows world knows well that today EU is caput mundi.We can go on days...change this ridiculous article ( in other languages is already changed)...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.60.116.172 (talk • contribs)

Anti-USA rhetoric is not a basis for argument. Lets all get a long and remain NPOV. Thanks :) --NDState 00:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not to improve China section, instead? Indaco1 (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Check Ref are rights...because some of them are wrong....

In this article people used part of lines or sentences of books to show the opposit of what they support as also their title tell to readers.Stopping this vandal culture the article will change a lot...totally.Like for Mc Cormick and Reid books abaout EU for istance..they support EU as superpower in a clear way (check tiltes of their books) but who wrote changed the things ..in the way of giving a low lprofile of EU.Us propaganda ..then will arrive the guy the writes ..i'm from UK or similar and defend the article..but i won't ever trust him because also a stupid understand that this article is written in maligne faith for propaganda.If others hate EU or are envious of EU (and change in the virtual the reality) is good for EU...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.60.116.172 (talk • contribs)

Erm... yes? G.R. Allison (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts... could you please explain your point again? Are you asking is to verify references? G.R. Allison (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I've had a lengthy chat with 151.60. They seem to think that they can "easily" challenge the references, but now appear reluctant to do so. This editor has been posting here for at least a year or so, and never seems to make the step from complaining to constructive editing. I first became involved, I think, when accusations of "Us [sic] bias" started being thrown around by 151.60 (or whatever similar IP address they had at the time). Until 151.60 starts detailing problematic references there isn't much we can do here, apart from ignoring the constant trolling. TFOWR 15:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/5077.html

Try to explan this.2 articles "Superpower" and "Potential superpowers" to be thrown in the basket with rubbish.151.60.116.172 (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What are you saying? Are you saying that this is a problematic reference, or are you saying that it supports your thesis? A little help here, please, 151.60. We're volunteers, not mind-readers. Having said that, this reference does look very familiar... TFOWR 20:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

http://us.macmillan.com/theeuropeansuperpower

http://www.garnertedarmstrong.org/Mark_Wordfroms/EUsuper1/eusuper1-13.shtml

http://www.cer.org.uk/articles/leonard_irish_times_18feb05.html

http://www.globeurope.com/standpoint/quiet-superpower

http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=7102.5628.0.0

I can stay here for days...tons books written by main academics and also common newspaper today support EU definetely as superpower.151.60.116.172 (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

But, again, you'll need to tell us what this is about. Are these references you're challenging, or are these references you've found that you believe support your thesis? Your first reference rang a bell, so I started looking through the talkpage archives - so far all I've found is this. Which is why you're so familiar - you're EU 100% (talk · contribs). TFOWR 20:39, 3 October 2

I just show that the 2 articles are old and to throw away.I think you dislke studies and truth.These 2 article are dead articles today.Rest in your old point and you don't miss ignorance and hateful propaganda.You 're alwatys answering making me understand that you want to leave the status quo and i've no time to lose with you.Anyway people that told me about Wiki ignorance were true.The problem is to Wiki and to you that are in it.All the books and articles i set here and all the other ones that i could set are more than all the bla bla bla or than the huge mistakes in the 2 aricles.Byebye.151.60.116.172 (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Based on the talkpage archives, you've plenty of time to lose here. Maybe if you started articulating clearly instead of vaguely throwing random references at us you'd get somewhere. All you need to do is identify the references you regard as problematic, and explain why they're problematic. For someone of your claimed knowledge and experience that should be trivial. Still, I guess as you've no time to lose that's the matter closed and we won't see you again. Which neatly avoids the block-evasion issue. TFOWR 20:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The titles of these books or articles are sufficient to understand that the 2 Wiki articles are full of mistakes..Mc Cormick,Reid or Lenard (which are three main ones of the subject) are telling the opposite of what is written in your articles.I trust more them or other sources than you....the is something wrong in your articles.More than one person has this mood...the majority may be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.60.116.172 (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the titles of these books are sufficient to understand that some commentators have argued that the EU is a superpower. That very first reference you provide, John McCormick's The European Superpower, is cited in the article, in the section that reads:

John McCormick believes that the EU has already achieved superpower status, based on the size and global reach of its economy and on its global political influence...

But we don't cherry-pick individual authors. We assess the broad range of commentators, and within that broad range McCormick's view is still a minority view. I'm beginning to think you've not actually read the article... TFOWR 21:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You are denying evidence. The problem is that Reid and Lenard are with Mc Cormick..and they agree on the fact that EU is the suoperpower..on the contrary a i can find tons of books that define Usa a non supeprower written by main cademics.These 2 sarticles are full of mistaskes..a lot of mistakes and these authors books are more than these 2 articles for importance. You must consider the sense of their whole books (that is expressed also in the titles) and not using a sentence to write what you like.This isn't culture..this is another thing..I go to sleep ..but not in the ignorance.151.60.116.172 (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, many authors agree with McCormick. Still many, many more disagree. Until you identify - clearly - the "mistakes" and offer a concrete proposal for fixing them (as I've repeatedly asked you to do) there really is nothing any one can do to help you. This has been said to you time and time again. You should read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - it will, if nothing else, shed some light on why you're indefinitely blocked and no longer have the right to edit here. To assist you with honouring that block, I'm about to re-instate the range-block that was put in place when you last used tried to evade your block. TFOWR 21:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Follow up

As noted above, I've blocked the IP address range used by EU 100% (talk · contribs). Editors with long memories may recall that EU 100% was a disruptive editor who appeared to suffer from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:COMPETENCE issues. I believe these problems are evident in EU 100%'s latest posts (as 151.60.116.172 (talk · contribs)) above. One of the claims made by EU 100% on this IP's talk page was that This article in many other languages (like also the article " Superpower") is totally different..and people don't read only english version $..just to start.. With that in mind, I've just checked the French, German, Italian and Spanish Wikipedias. Here's what they have to say about the EU's status as a superpower:

• French Wikipedia: The European Union is itself already an economic superpower and trade and could even increase its influence, especially in politics....Many analysts predict the emergence of countries or organizations can become superpowers in the coming years. All these countries or organizations currently have a significant impact across a continent, or in some cases across the globe. These include:...the European Union.
• German Wikipedia: Representatives were after the Second World War, the United States (U.S.) and the Soviet Union (USSR). With the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 left only the United States as a superpower. The European Union[1][2][3][4] and the People's Republic of China[5][6] in addition to the U.S. as a potential superpower of the 21st Century.
• Italian Wikipedia: The end of the Cold War (the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989), the dissolution of 'the Soviet Union and the consequent end of bipolarity have resulted in the system of international relations, the presence of a single superpower, the United States of America (defined by some as a 'Hyperpower), around which focus on international affairs (policy adopted by some of unipolarity), because in essence, currently, there is a state or not is a state system, powerful enough to counterbalance U.S. influence (thus giving new life to a multipolar system). Wars are not successfully concluded in Afghanistan and Iraq and the financial crisis of 2008, however, have begun to bring out the limits of the United States, to the point that their own alleged role as a superpower has been challenged. To date, the multi-polar world is seen, ie with more political powers none of which can be described as a "superpower." The EU is indicated as a possible power among these leaders.
• Spanish Wikipedia: Since the end of the Cold War, the United States have been regarded by some as the only superpower....However, there is a discussion of whether hegemony or is losing its superpower status.3 China, the European Union, the India, Brazil and Russia also believed to have the ability to achieve superpower status for the XXI century.

All articles translated by Google's Chrome browser, so I'd imagine that similar translations would be available from translate.google.com. All bolding was added by me.

In summary: all four Wikipedias, covering four major langauges, say the same as the English Wikipedia: The United States is currently the only superpower, and the European Union has the potential to become a superpower as this century continues. EU 100%, I hope that you'll stop selectively reading articles and references. Everyone else: next time an IP editor in the 151.6.*.* range appears and starts being disruptive - let me know. I'll reinstate the range-block. TFOWR 12:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Nations

If the E.U. is on here, then why isn't the Commonwealth of Nations? They have a far more established system of government, have a standing Military procedure independent of NATO, and share a Political Figurehead (Queen Elizabeth the III).

At least add a comparison of the British Empire and the Soviet Union when they were still superpowers at the end of WWII for comparison to potential superpowers rather than putting big country's with great potential for growth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.33.16 (talk) 04:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, for starters I believe they share Queen Elizabeth II as opposed to Queen Elizabeth III. Secondly, the Commonwealth of Nations seems a lot more like the United Nations as opposed to a group of nations seeking unification. There's also a difference between the EU and the Commonwealth - the Commonwealth is the result of the slow disintegration of the British Empire, whereas the EU is slowly establishing itself.

I do like your idea though of having the British Empire (post-WW2) and the USSR as a kind of marker for former superpower states, but isn't that something to be covered over at Superpower? Wouldn't something better be a documentation of the rise of particular states to the level of superpower? I know Deavenger was interested in that while he was still here. Comics (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

EU shouldn't be considered a Superpower because it lacks GLOBAL MILITARY FORCE PROJECTION. I can never see EU sending a EU Army to fight China in Great Wall map of Battlefield 2. EU isn't even a country. How can EU send military forces abroad? It can't! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.233.159 (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hence 'potential', which means that it could be a superpower in the future if certain trends continue; ie integration and creation of a unified military. I believe the article you're looking for is Superpower, which states that the EU is merely regarded as having potential (alongside China etc) to become a superpower in this century. Comics (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Average column appears a bit odd

Hi, just wondered whether the comparison list might look a bit less odd if the Average column would be removed. It does strike me as a bit arbitrary, what with it merging totally different areas such as land mass and military spending. I doubt that a plain average of the measurable factors listed in the other columns could really be a scientifically sound indicator of a nation's actual power. Ondundozonananandana (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Comparison tables ?

Shoul tables be included ? I say yes Datastat (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Countries	Share of world nominal GDP (%)	Share of world military spending (%)	Share of world population (%)	Share of world landmass (%)	Average share (%)
Brazil	3.3	1.7	2.8	5.6	3.4
China	9.3	6.6	19.5	6.2	10.4
Canada	2.3	1.3	0.5	6.7	2.7
European Union	26.0	18.0	7.2	2.9	13.5
India	2.3	2.4	17.3	1.9	6.0
Russia	2.4	3.5	2.1	10.9	4.7
United States	23.6	43.0	4.5	6.1	19.3
Together	69.2	76.5	53.9	40.3	60.0

Country	Population	GDP total	GDP per capita	Military expenditure	Mil. expend. per capita
Brazil	193,219,000	1,574,039	8,220	27,124,000,000	140
Canada	34,255,000	1,336,427	39,669	20,564,000,000	600
China	1,338,630,000	4,908,982	3,678	98,800,000,000	73
European Union	500,900,000	16,447,259	32,900	322,931,000,000	644
India	1,183,373,000	1,235,975	1,031	36,600,000,000	30
Russia	141,927,297	1,229,227	8,694	61,000,000,000	429
United States	309,730,000	14,256,275	46,381	663,255,000,000	2141

And that's all well and good, but you'll notice that the tables actually double up on information (making some of it redundant) and also that there's been no actual conversation to see what the best way of implementing the table would be. Therefore, for now, I've removed it from the article. I'd strongly suggest streamlining the two tables into one, or at least removing information that is doubled up on in the tables. That and also engaging in a constructive talk on where best to put it - personally, if we were to put a table, I think having it nearer the top might be better as opposed to down the bottom.

Also, one more thing. Canada hasn't been ratified by anyone here, so probably remove it until a large majority (unlikely) agree with substantial scholarly evidence? Comics (talk) 11:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Comics and Nirvana. Perhaps, I wouldn't object to some comparison tables in principle, but not in the proposed form.

• 1) Why Canada is on the tables?
• 2) Why Nominal GDP is chosen and not GDP PPP (the same question for military expenditure evaluation)?
• 3) Is military expenditure the only or the best way to measure military capacity?
• 4) Is there any sense in average share?
• 5) Why total land mass ans land mass per capita is missing from the second table? And isn't it handier to create just one table with total/share/per capita values?

If any such tables are inserted to the article, some introduction should be made that explains how the parameters in the tables correspond to Superpower#Characteristics. As far as I can see, the proposed tables also lack any information on natural resources, food supplies and nuclear capacity. GreyHood ^Talk 12:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the best table I've seen for Superpowers is at the article of the same name; the one comparing the USSR and the US. But that only works on a bipolar level I think; it'd be harder to work for the potential multipolar discussed here. And this editor seems a fan of the idea of a superpower Canada. His source hinges on the idea that global warming in the North will allow for greater resources in Canada and therefore increased prosperity etc. A bit more speculative than the BRIC's maintaining high growth rates and the EU possibly federating/working more coherently Comics (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you on Canada. While global warming indeed may be good for Canada and bring it better access to resources, the population of Canada is too small compared to other potential superpowers, and it should grow at amazing rate in order to be worth of a superpower by 2050. And no any major military potential too. So we should wait for more sources on Canada that evaluate its prospects in correspondence to all superpower parameters, not just resources. GreyHood ^Talk 12:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What's with the table on the Superpower page, it compares the historical superpowers and their historical attributes (some features of the U.S. in that table actually are different at present). If you propose to compare the potential contenders at their present states along the similar lines, that actually may be not that difficult at the first attempt, but I fear that textual descriptions may raise more discussions in the future as compared to the plain statistics and numbers. GreyHood ^Talk 12:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• It's pretty obvious who the next Superpower is going to be. As recently as 1820-1840, the Qing Dynasty of China occupied 33% of the world's GDP slice, compared to 25% for British Empire at her height, and 23.5% for America immediately post-WW2.108.7.160.130 (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Calling all editors (or some I guess)

So it seems we've had someone with the interesting notion that this article is about former superpowers and relating that to potential superpowers (namely, the lack of political will in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan have made them soft powers and how political will may allow China etc to rise). I'm not saying I support this, as it seems peculiar and doesn't take other factors like alliances (eg; NATO, CIS and SCO) economics, geograhic location etc into consideration (which are slightly longer lasting than political will, which can change at an election in democracies). And what's with adding Canada in? At ~34 million people (almost a quarter the population of Russia) and an economic standing that isn't poised to improve in the projected future, as well as facing some of the problems the West at large is going to be facing in 2050 (when China and India will have a predicted double of US GDP and equal to US GDP respectively and possibly risen to superpower status), as well as lack of credible sources (some of the projections for GREAT powers I've seen don't even have Canada, so I fail to see how it stands a chance at superpower if it's not even seen as a likely great power). Also, why the removal of China, the EU and India by this editor? They're perhaps the most credible powers listed, so why remove them? I've noticed this editor also seems too be popping up again infrequently to change the article, so should we try talking to them and seeing where they're coming from? I guess I'm kind of conservative with this article, but I do think it needs a bit of improvement, but this editor is completely changing the article and I don't think for the better. Just opening this up for discussion, because I don't want to see this spiralling into an edit war. Boy, that was a long message. Comics (talk) 09:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

China, India, and to some extent, the EU are the most credible candidates so far for Superpower status... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.160.6 (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Please Remove/Update references no 72, 74 & 75

Please Remove/Update references no 72, 74 & 75 as this is a broken/non-fixable link. if one cannot update this source one must remove the sentence for which the reference is required as it is no longer verifiable to be considered true or relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.142.161.127 (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Vetting and copyediting

I think this article needs some work to ensure that it only mentions what the views of scholars are on a country's potential to be a superpower. Many articles may covers aspects that may be related to superpower status (i.e. economy, innovation, government) but they should be avoided unless the link between these factors and superpower status is made. Cutting synthesis and original research can help to ensure that information is reliable, credible and relevant. Nirvana888 (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)