Talk:Superpower

For older discussion, see archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

WikiProject Power in international relations?

The current International Power-related articles fit the criteria to be formed into a WikiProject. As we have so many articles to keep a track on and so many discussions relate to all of the articles as opposed to simply one of these articles, I think it would be alright to create such a project...what are your views? Please express your views before and if you believe this is alright then put your name into the Approving User list directly below: I'll be able to organize most of the project but may ask for a bit of help. Nobleeagle (Talk) 03:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

I think a Wiki project is a great idea. There are a lot of articles and we do cover a lot of content that is controversial which makes it the more important to have a project with a designated discussion page. I am already part of the Auto Wiki Project and it has greatly helped to improve the quality of articles, settle disputes between editors and adopt new policies. Signature^brendel 05:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea, well done for coming up with it. Turning it into a WikiProject might also help in getting some more editors on board, hopefully filling up some of these sourcing holes.

Xdamr^talk 06:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, but we'll have to monitor that we're not turning into some sort of exclusive club, discouraging new editors to take part Trip: The Light Fantastic 22:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to put my own name in...WikiProjects can actually help get more people editing, there are often some random signed in users that put in a couple of edits to these pages, if they join the project they can be allowed to express their opinion. For example, if you're not from a Commonwealth Nation you probably wouldn't have even heard much about cricket, but yesterday WikiProject Cricket got its 100th participant. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just wandering by and thought I'd probe a little more into the ambit of this proposal. After skimming power in international relations, it appears that a Power in IR WP would be framed to appeal to users with a realist perspective. This is not necessarily a bad thing but, given the lack of a WikiProject International relations as a upper level coordinating forum, it may be worth giving thought at some point to the scope of the project and how it might interact with country and regional notice boards, WikiProject International development, etc. Or I may simply not be on everyone else's wavelength. - BT 15:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a fair idea BanyanTree...I'm going to be opening discussions on the title of the project and its scope after we get a decent number of approving users. This is part of WikiProject Politics, but that particular project seems dead...so a fresh project is required. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think WikiProject Politics was just a little too unspecfic to have any real impact. There is simply too much to cover and it'd be best off split into Wikiproject French Politics and similar subdivisions. I mean, come on, it's like having Wikiproject Science or something crazy like that! Trip: The Light Fantastic 23:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is WikiProject Politics of India but it deals more with things like Politicians and Elections as opposed to International Relations. Thus the need for a new project. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, why not. It would be good to try and discuss all the articles in perspectives (with balance) and can encourage new editors with new sources. Should be "interesting". :P -Heilme 09:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Approving Users Enter your username here using a # yourname . We will move onto the next step after we get more than 7 or 8 users.

1. Signature^brendel
2. Xdamr
3. Trip: The Light Fantastic
4. Nobleeagle
5. ACamposPinho
6. Heilme

Step 2: Scope and Name

Since we almost have enough users and many people will probably join once I begin advertising. You can still put your name up their of course, but you can't vote here until your name is up there. I'll move on to the next step: Propose a name for the project, the name should be representative of the scope you have in mind. For example, WikiProject Power in international relations would probably refer to few more than the articles in the {{International power}} template at the bottom of each of these pages... Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Propose a new name by using '''my name''' . If you support an already proposed name, list it under that particular name using the following '''Support''' COMMENTS # ~~~ . We'll keep it open until all that have put their names down have voted...in the event of the tie, cut out any outliers and get the people that voted for that to vote for something else...I wish we had 7 participants so there couldn't be a tie in the end, but if that happens then I'll think about it. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject: Power in international relations'

• my name WikiProject: Power in International Relations I like this one, it's what we've been referring to it as and it just about sums up the articles that need to fall under it. And with a name like that, we can always expand the project to include any articles necessary. Trip: The Light Fantastic 14:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support I also think WikiProject: Power in International Relations is the best title for this project. It clearly outlines the scope of the project. Regard, Signature^brendel 17:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support COMMENTS 1 (or 2 = same) Heilme 22:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support per above...I agree that perhaps to immediately include the scope of all International relations articles would be too much for our small group of six editors. And you sometimes lose the plot when the Project is too broad. Nobleeagle (Talk)

• Support Xdamr^talk 15:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be unanimous, I'll create the project when I have time next week. From then on, we can have general and important discussions over there. As well as be able to coordinate the article-improvement-effort. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Bias

I've added the neutrality tag as the whole article is so biased towards God-blessed america it sounds almost like a parody. The best example being Superpower#The_United_States, which may as well be entitled "why america is better than anyone else". Please remove the tag only when neutrality is restored - Jak (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right there is some POV there but please also consider that this is a controversial issue. Regards, Signature^brendel 03:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but you should come here and discuss this with the editors. This is a highly sensitive issue and we have a strict rule on tagging the page that involves concencus. Now, please quote some sentences and examples and maybe we can all work on changing the POV areas you describe. Trip: The Light Fantastic 01:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

India's growth

For some interesting facts and opinion on changes and stagnancy in India, see Pankaj Mishra's 6 July 2006 op-ed in The New York Times, "The Myth of the New India".

It's a disputed subject, one can find many many articles in favour of India, while one can also find many many articles against India. It's really hard to hit NPOV in this series of articles. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)