Talk:Potential superpower/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tezero (talk · contribs) 12:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

While I'm waiting for my own GANs (which are not in the area of politics, FWIW) to get reviewed, I think I can knock out this one.

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• In my fairly recent GA PETA satirical browser games, the Daily Mail was determined to be unreliable even for an opinion. I don't think it's wise to use it for factual information here.
• A lot of the sources are bare links or formatted incorrectly.
• I'm not knowledgeable about what constitutes a reliable source for politics articles, and nothing stands out as flagrantly unreliable, so I'll trust you on those. This is not, however, a concession that they would be permissible for an FAC.
• Looks like there's been a bit of large-scale reverting lately relating to sourcing. Has this been cleared up?
• Why is Russia covered only in the intro? Intros should be for summarizing what's in the page, not introducing new information. Russia should get its own section in the article.
• That being said, it's a definite area of speculation that even I've heard discussions of (in fact, probably more of Russia than of India). Surely there's more to say about it than "Some academics agree. Some don't." And if there is, there's no reason not to treat it on the same level as China, India, and the EU, including with a place on the map.

I'll get to the prose and stuff later. Tezero (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero: Thanks for looking up.

• Dailymail has been replaced with BBC link.
• Bare links have been formatted well now.
• While adding sources, it was fundamental duty to verify. There are opposition and support for various nations, but I had closely observed the credibility of information.
• No, because many of these SPAs promote their favorite country or economic power as "Super power", although one thing is common that they would never discuss any of the changes, page has been protected and since, at least 2 different users have faced block.
• Russia and Soviet Union have been removed from lead, it wasn't necessary to add either.
• Same as above point, now that the basic sentence has been commented out. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Pass for everything else, but I'm really getting opposed to Russia not being covered. I mean, a quick Google search for "russia superpower" pans up numerous articles on whether it will or won't become one from the likes of Forbes, the Boston Globe, the LA Times, US News, the Guardian, etc. And I'm sure if I remembered my university's username and password for JSTOR I'd get a good amount there, too. I don't think it should be too difficult... Tezero (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

There is only 1 academic who had said that Russia can become a superpower and that was few years ago. There is none in recent. It was discussed on talk page, and majority agreed that Russia is not really a potential superpower. Recently, as you know about the whole Crimean issue, may have degraded the image of Russia. Economic growth is minus 2 percent. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Those people must have a very narrow definition of "academic", then; I'm finding plenty of articles that negatively acknowledge the discussion of Russia being a potential superpower as well as a few that say it likely will. I mean, if there's really that major a consensus then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but... Tezero (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

If you happen to find such sources you can inform here. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually there is one 100% academic source which even was in the initial message (take a look back), I asked the question, based on what grounds or rules this scientific work was outdated, but got no response... I'm actually do interested in this, because if it's common wikipedia rule - I should know about it before doing my own research. Also, politician's speeches also can be viewed as sources, so we have 1 100% academic work + 2 political speeches already without even googling. Last two were ignored based on fact that they "seek favor", I argue with it with claim that it is the reader who have to judge, not we. So, again, I'm with Tezero here - there are plenty of sources, but they are ignored deliberately.

I must add note that my reply to Tezero (where I do agree with him) was removed by OccultZone with rather broad definition. Can you describe a little further why you did so? I was being polite and said that we should deal with sources we have. - it looks very inappropriate action. 91.123.18.167 10:30, 29 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Consider discussing about it on the talk page of the page. You should try to make conversation interesting and back up your theory with some source, because people usually stop replying if they don't find any rationale. That is what usually happened, not just with Russia, but also Brazil, Japan, and even Turkey. You will find some source that would claim them to be future superpower but there is no reliability. Forum links are not reliable. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I'm doing my own paper now and use wikipedia as ground for my research, so I'm 100% agree with you - links to forums should be eliminated! It even should not be discussed. But if there works which are in Russia's favor, if there are speeches for it - it should be represented. Otherwise wikipedia just hiding the facts. It will hurt my work and also hurt readers, who won't give full info. 91.123.18.167 10:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This articles subject sits firmly within the boundaries of political science, therefore, relying solely on the opinions of commentators from Forbes or the LA Times would be grossly inappropriate. Instead, this article needs to represent current academic consensus through the use of reliable academic publications. If a well established consensus among political scientists can be found, then additional citations from Forbes or the LA Times are welcome, as they act to reinforce this consensus and can give different perspectives on some of the finer points discussed in the article. Having been involved for some time in the development in this article, I can say with much certainty that this is how the article is presently structured.

The trouble with Russia is there is no broad consensus among political scientists as to its potential of being a superpower, but there is an abundance of sensationalist commentary that claims Russia is or will be a superpower again. Unfortunately, sensationalism doesn't belong here. Furthermore, many academic publications may feature titles including buzzwords such as "Russia... resurgent... superpower", but the author will instead go on to assert that Russia is simply an emerging power or trying to halt its decline since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, not a potential superpower.

Would it be wise then to give Russia its own section in the article? Probably not, as being covered in such a way would improperly imply that Russia is somehow equal to China, the EU and India regarding its potential of being a superpower. By "equal" I refer to the popular opinions of political scientists and the broad consensus that can be found for China, the EU and India - but not Russia. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being repetitive, but I'll ask third time... based on what rules or standards link to 100% pure scientific work about Russian was considered outdated. I asked it three times already, two times I was ignored, and one - deleted. Should wikipedia simply ignore the fact this work exist? I must admit why I'm so persistent - I'm doing my own research and this link helped me a lot. If I would be here for couple weeks later, I would not find it. I'm very angry that info that should be inside article and help people are somewhere on talk page and considered outdated. There is no consensus among political scientists about Russia/EU/China, I see no reason why last two are supposed to be in article and Russia is not. Any speculations, that Russia's economic is dropped 2% and based on that it should not be listed in article - pure WP:OR

@Antiochus the Great: That's actually a good argument. I hadn't thought much about the reputations of individual sources whose opinions we are to weigh for importance. Do you think it'd make sense to include an "Other potential superpowers" or "Less popular choices" section, just to avoid the black-and-white implication that these are the only three anyone talks about? It could also include commentary on... I don't know, Brazil, South Africa, maybe - whatever's been discussed. Tezero (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero: There is RS which supports Russia, which have equal reputation: http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/economics/international-economics/russia-21st-century-prodigal-superpower It was denied based on fact, it's from 2005 and "outdated". I've asked five times already, to point me to rules, by which you can consider work as outdated - no answer. I consider calling this work as outdated as WP:OR.

We got over it before, right? Just measure the importance and status, what it was in 2005 and what it is now. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but we didn't - "we" - it was you plus the man who proposed to remove Russia. Importance status of Russia has rised from 2005, in 2005 it could not afford to annex Crimea for example, it would be squashed by USA/Europe simply by threatening. But again - it's pure WP:OR to speculate on GDP, military power, etc - I don't want to go into that. What I want to say - there is a reference to scientific work and wikipedia can't declare it as "outdated" just because some editors want to do so. I repeat again - doing so is WP:OR. As I said, I'm preparing my own report on the topic, and in a few days I'd want to analyze RS for all article participants, because as my experience has shown (please look at previous section) - it's not so clear whether all other RS has equal importance to Russia's one, or whether they even support what is being said in article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.123.18.167 (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

So, have we decided what will become of the countries besides China, India, and the EU? Tezero (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that Brazil and Russia according to main academic sources must stay totally out (they aren't for several economic, dempographic and military aspects). Lost time using nationalism or similar things to change a well written article.I even doubt of India as potential superpower( this is based on several main academic reports).95.233.11.138 (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Sources and actuality is available but only for these 3 economic powers, not for the rest like you have seen. So hopefully we have established the current situation of potential superpowers in writing. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Occultzone.No other political beings can be in the article in the foresable future (i doubt even of India,but this is just an opinion based on some academics writings)95.233.11.138 (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Are we sure that we can't even bring them up as countries that sources have acknowledged there's discussion about being potential superpowers, but dismiss these claims themselves? Tezero (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

About Russia there used to be one from 2005. At that time, Russia's economy was better too. But now or at least since 2011, things have changed. We are sure and it would make sense that this article has been never into real content dispute.(DRN, RfC, or even 3O) OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: Aren't your speculation about Russia's economy is an WP:OR? I can't see how such arguments can be used in this particular discussion. There is only one question I rise again and again, I did it six (OMG!) times. By what rules pure scientific work is considered as outdated by editors? Politics, and proposing as superpower is a thing that is predicted for decades, not for a years. And if we start to speculate on topic, I think Russia is moving towards this. Recent political events are the proof. 91.123.18.167 20:30, 5 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Not really OR, Russia's economy is at -2% decrease now. When we had Russia on the page, there was edit war from the opposing IP who wanted a sentence about Russia's declining population to be removed,[1], sometimes the whole section.[2] So I acknowledged that even if there was the mention of Russia, IP would still raise issue. Later the above IP(95.233) had said that "Russia is lucky enough to be even here", so it was investigated. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

This is only an ad-hominem attack on the IP, not an argument that Russia should not be included at all - barring, of course, "Russia's economy is at -2% decrease now", which would be flagrantly OR to remove all mentions of Russia on account of. Tezero (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll wait a bit for dissenting analyses of the situation to pop up, and if most people agree with you or say nothing, I'll pass this, despite my own personal objections to the incompleteness. Otherwise, you have to understand, it's a stability issue. Tezero (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero: Can you write your opinion about situation that pure academic source is declared as "outdated" by editors and denied to be included in article? Especially in a topic, that can't be predicted for a decade, only for a decades. Also, what analysis you want to see? About economy, politics and power? I suppose it's WP:OR and should no be considered.

All suggestions are welcome, we are always in touch with the WP:RECENTISM too. Certainly some have viewed differently, but that's whole different story. We will probably go deeper and consider adding the various information, records of these potential superpowers(current and former), and the article will become FA. ;-) For GA, it was pretty enough. Sure we can wait. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

91.123.18.167, please sign your posts with four tildes. Anyway, if you want my opinion, I'd say the information should be presented along with the year in which it was published, so readers can decide for themselves if it's still relevant. Of course, if the arguments from 2005 for Russia being or not being a potential superpower rely on statistics and such that are verifiably outdated, perhaps that should be given a mention as well. Tezero (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero. I like the suggestion you made above (on 1 July). I left a message on your talk page (here) a few days ago saying such, but I didn't get a reply so you may not have seen it? But yes, I do like like that rather smart suggestion you made. Until then, what's the status with the GA review? Its hard to make out which comments above belong to who, and I am rather suspicious of that pro-Russian POV pushing IP! With good reason too. Antiochus the Great (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right, Antiochus the Great; I didn't see it. If you agree, you can try creating a section with the available discussion of countries besides the big three. Anyway, the status is that it will remain on hold until this dispute about inclusion is resolved, because, again, that's a stability issue. Tezero (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero: This is user previously known as IP, I've registered an account to make it easier. First of all, I have to point out that Antiochus the Great without any public accusation tried to get permission from administrator to remove my comments. I repeat, it has been done silently and w/o any possibility for me to defend myself. But, luckily, I got a chance to respond to his (her?) accusation: here.

Second, and very important part: Antiochus the Great has been caught to create false facts about Russia in this article: here he adds false statement, to create an impression, that there is "consensus" among scientists and here he, being caught by me, reverts this edit). This should give you the picture, who is really trying to improve the article and who is pushing non-NPOV. I hope, you will take this into consideration for decisions about the article and about those who created it.

Third, constructive: I propose to add Russia to the map, I don't object about tag "highly controversial" or smth like this (just look at this talk page - isn't it "higly controversial"?). I propose this based on this

1. As you've pointed out - there is huge discussion about Russian being superpower (or potential superpower - it doesn't matter right now) in mass media. This means that users will look information about it, and highly possible they will end in this article. I must note specifically that this discussion is much more highly controversial than, about Brazil, or India. Also, I think that creating "Other countries" section will just make the tensions higher, not resolve it.
2. There is RS for Russia, they are this scientific work, which we discuss for more than a month now, plus, for example quotation of political's speeches, like Venezuela's president saying "Russia is a superpower" and Israeli PM calling Russia "an important superpower", and as I said earlier, only reader has to judge that them. I do completely agree with you that we should just say that this RS was published in 2005, but we can't hide the fact of its existence. Also, I would to point out, that RS for EU, is being from 2002, 2004, 2006 years - and they live happily. Also, interviews and politician's speeches are considered as RS for EU, but denied for Russia.
3. Russia is being only (except US) country to have Nuclear triad, in my view this fact just on itself says a lot, but it should go only as supportive argument, otherwise it just falls into WP:OR.
4. Russia is considered as "potential superpower" based on the RS under question by other wikipedias, see here. It's not implying that Wikipedia on itself RS, but just give us an overview of broad and unite consensus among wikipedia users of other languages.

Final point: I am here not to push Russia's POV, I'm here to fight against things, I've colored red above, against people who start to use Wikipedia, one of the greatest inventions people have ever done in the history, to move their political propaganda, creating false facts and shamelessly putting "reliable sources" label on it. This is the thing I'm angry about. I hope, that at least, those people are not being paid for that. Because non-NPOV is usual for human-being, we're live creatures, anyway; but doing bad things for money, really turns people into rats. Effervescency (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Effervescency, Antiochus wasn't adding unsourced information; Wikipedia goes by verifiability, not truth. Regardless of what either of us thinks, the sources he added posit that Russia will not become a superpower, and we should not silence them on that account. On the other hand, we also shouldn't remove sources that say Russia may become one just because we disagree.
• Also, I don't really care about users' edit histories or how well-esteemed they are. If an individual contribution is valid, I will support it; if not, I won't.
• I'm not sure what to think of how other Wikipedias interpret the source. I haven't looked at it; if it's in English, I'm not sure we should give their interpretations too much credence, because no Wikipedia speaks English better than English Wikipedia (with the possible exceptions of Simple English and small languages frequently studied by English-speaking linguists, e.g. Old English, Irish, Manx) - not Russian, at any rate. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF could be extended to not following the policies of other Wikipedias just because they exist.
• Should there even be a map, actually? I don't know of any sources that simply show the big three as being the, and the only, potential superpowers, so it may be OR for us to cobble together a map of the countries that simply have the most attention.

Tezero (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Tezero: By no means I implied (if you thought so - I'm sorry) that we should silence the facts. If there are RS that discuss, that Russia isn't potential superpower - I'm absolutely fine with them, they should be in article! I've absolutely NO objections on them.
• Antiochus deliberately stated that there is "consensus" about Russian not being potential superpower, and he provided the link which had absolutely no information about "consensus", he created the fact for a readers, who don't check the sources. Such behavior should not be tolerated, we can't simply say "we don't care about those who don't check links" - if a user do such things, it should be pointed out, I feel that it's bad. Also, I feel that this should be taken into account when judging user's actions and arguments.
• About inter-wiki's - well, English is being one of the most common second languages ;) - I think most wiki editors (on all wikis) know it more or less well. - but again, it's not an argument, just a supportive information.
• Your point about map is very interesting, I can't decide right now, but I think I'm more in favor of it. Maybe this is the thing that REALLY create the tension. And if we just follow your logic about describing countries with RS - it may work... Actually, I think this is the most valuable contribution on the whole talk page to resolve the conflict, much thanks for an idea! Can this be discussed with our counter-parties, what do they think? Effervescency (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Try with CIS to be luckier....if you won't be luckier with CIS that includes Russia it means that Russia can't be in this article.This insisting about Russia is becoming non sense.82.48.139.245 (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Update: I have asked WT:POLITICS for input on the inclusion of nations besides the big three. Other users may be coming in. Tezero (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

A separate, but similar issue. Half the lead is spent talking about Japan, something that doesn't even have its own subsection. It really needs to be redone to more accurate summarize what the article covers in the body. (This isn't commentary for or against Japan, but rather, how to properly write the opening of an article to properly summarize the article. Sergecross73 msg me 16:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Thanks, I have removed it for now. Whenever the article will be nominated for bigger tag I will probably restore it and expand on article. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Sergecross73, I agree. It was the same way with Russia until it was deleted and then I created a new section for other contenders just now. By the way, you're not normally into these articles, I don't think; did you find out about it by scouring my contributions? Tezero (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Completeness is probably good enough at this point for GA, but as it stands, the ref layout is abysmal. I'll try to fix some of them; I'd appreciate some help. (One of the titles is literally "An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie", and its link is dead.) Tezero (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Also regarding the lead, it ought to briefly summarize the arguments for and against each of the big three. Tezero (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Now Wikipedia has a low level article.Greetings!Somebody here wrote and acted in a too free way wihtout sufficient sources about Russia and Brazil.Are now all happy?Even the crying russians?Why don't we add Madagascar and Nicaragua too?151.40.45.125 (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Why aren't the sources sufficient? I would be fine with adding Madagascar and Nicaragua if sources were around to back them up as being potential superpowers. Wikipedia goes by verifiability, not truth. Tezero (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Good 1. Depends upon the content, verifiability, then BRD/Consensus, keeps going on. Article is never finished, was just discussing that on DYK's talkpage. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

In the article Russia can't be defined current superpower because in Wikipedia the sole current superpower are USA.The content of Russia is really low and not sufficient.No sufficient sources by academics.Brazil same.All rubbish to be deleted.151.40.45.125 (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

151.40.45.125, I added "or current" because some of the opinions there posit that Russia already is a superpower. What the lead says is that the U.S. is the only one that fulfills some formal definition (which I haven't investigated). Tezero (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems that after the DISASTER ( so i name this change) all people are disappeared.Russia and Brazil haven' t sufficient sourcies in quality and quantity to stay in the article.I 'm sorry but many people that should check writers have no idea (like some of writers).The rating of "Other contenders" part is 0.I'd delete India too according to main sources.A DISASTER THIS ARTICLE AFTER THE LAST CHANGE.Some historicians of main universities will have time to laugh. 151.40.45.125 (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not delete the sections for any of these countries. The sources are fine for what they say. Sure, there's probably more out there that we could use, but that doesn't mean Brazil, Russia, or India should go. If historians laugh, let them laugh; this article adequately portrays five countries that are discussed as potential superpowers. Wikipedia does not take a position on how likely any of these are; we only summarize others' opinions. Tezero (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems somebody is is insisting with current...Russia can't be defined so because in the article only USA are defined so.Before the pro russians wanted the finger and now the arm.... Russia like brazile shouldn't neither be there.All rubbish.The part od "Other contenders" is based on very particular opinions not supported by very high academic sourcies but only by old sources (some of them were in the article "Superpower" some years ago).The simple fact that many people criticize this (me too like the majority) by high level sources is more than sufficient (See Antiocus the Great that well set the article).151.40.45.125 (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I've explained above why I feel it's correct to use "or current". Tezero (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

My dear russian,current can be used only for USA.You explained nothing.We could add current to China and EU too for istance."Or current " can't be used otherwise it means that Russia could be even now a superpower.We could use the same for EU and China referring to many sourcies.A lot of rubbish today in this article.Greetings.151.40.45.125 (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This the example of a bad article in Wikipedia.I SUGGEST TO RESTORE ALL without "Other contenders" FIRST OF ALL and possibly without India.151.40.45.125 (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I was reviewing the edits on the Potential Superpowers but really the problem lies with Antiochus the Great he started here with this anti Russia campaign[3] and on the Potential Superpowers here[4] and OccultZone is involved but also Antiochus the Great has been known to hide behind multiple ips even though he says he doesn't I have seen the trail which I have I can forward to verify. The problem started with Russia as a superpower to not a superpower anymore on December 30, 2013 with Antiochus the Great and he did it on the potential superpowers May 2014. These two editors are behind this anti Russia campaign, they hate Russia and so they put it's all Russia academic sources and discussions off the map. They are pro USA all the way even though Antiochus the Great is British; I have their history of communication with each since April 2013 so I know their track record to verify their anti Russia on this quest to make sure Russia is not placed on the superpower list.

The fact is Russia is a superpower, period. One verified academic sources is Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower, they continue to denounce it like no tomorrow is:

Steven Rosefielde, International Relations Professor UC University, 2004

http://www.amazon.com/Russia-21st-Century-Prodigal-Superpower/dp/0521545293

That's an academic source period, that is 110% credible as it was written by a foreign relations expert professor, it's a college school book.

but for Antiochus the Great and OccultZone to say its out of date, oh really but that is absurd when it comes to their source on the Superpowers page such as the academic source "Lonely Superpower or Unapologetic Hyperpower? Analyzing American Power in the post–Cold War Era", it is outdated, way outdated. You can not have a 1999 source to say the United States is a superpower, it is not even revised since 1999 either. If the US is a superpower then it needs current academic sources to state it is a superpower. The url is http://post.queensu.ca/~nossalk/papers/hyperpower.htm

but for Antiochus the Great and OccultZone they don't want to reply if there is no new update, the only other one is a 2008 source they have, that's it.

I also have over 100 or so Russia superpower articles from 2003 to 2014, so I am not just saying that but I have those sources at hand when I will use them but I have a hard time dealing with the corrupted editors on these pages who are specifically out to denounce Russia each and every time and the problems I have seen December 30, 2014 through now, I have counted 4 editors in particular that are all in this anti Russian campaign together, it is sad and to go to Administrators to say please block the articles, they want that, they want people to argue so the pages will get blocked.

Also, I am not Russian myself. I was born in Maine, I am full American as their is nothing Russian about me, so my tale is I support the facts not the anti countries some editors are using Wikipedia for. There needs to be some editor elimination on these articles to point out that there is discrimination on countries as I have witnessed.

Second why do I not have a registered user name, I feel I had too much drama with the talkpages so I use my home ip instead. I will email the links but don't like to post my oxforduniversity email address online, I have a BA degree from Oxford University, Oxford, England and live in California, so this issue about Russian POV pushing is non-sense, I will say its more USA POV pushing. If you have any ideas, post please post them here please.

Anyway I wanted to forward that info, thanks.--192.173.144.237 (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@192.173.144.237: If you have sources at hand - please post them, I'll review and add! (Russia is back to an article) Thanks! Effervescency (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Heh, this discussion's almost as long as the article now. Play nice, you two! Tezero (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's one from just today pointing out Russia is a world superpower again

Russia’s Neighbours: Primary Colours - Financial Times (Britain) By Jack Farchy June 9, 2014 5:33 pm

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ad076a54-efbc-11e3-bee7-00144feabdc0.html#axzz36orRvndq

--192.173.144.237 (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

No hard feelings. But I like to keep up with the current events. Just like Tezero had noted that even Nicaragua can be considered as potential superpower once we have a reliable source for it. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

By russian fingers this article has fallen really low....why don't they find many academic sources of high level supporting CIS as superpower?Russia is in it and CIS should be a potential superpower.82.... is right.They avoid to look for CIS( Russia even lost its influence on Ukraine and Moldova and Georgia -the last one since longe time:Russia lost its influence in mostly all former USSR allies too) because it hasn't sufficient sources and Russia isn't a potential supepower.If Russia were a potential superpower CIS should be with more reason a potential superpower.But they have nothing of high quality about it. I suggest to add aside Russia and Brazil ("Other contenders") also Turkey and South Africa and others that had sources for name them potential superpowers.I repeat,the best thing is TO RESTORE ALL (possibly without India). It seems that russians are helped a lot having in their hands NOTHING .It seems other people opinions based on strong points (sources and other) are neither considered.Russian crying (many other russians could arrive in this page to support their Russia and to forget Wikipedia standards) for long time works better.151.40.13.161 (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero:, can it be summarized somewhere - what still need to be done to get GA status? I'd like to participate, since I'm already here. Effervescency (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Effervescency, the lead needs to be expanded to cover the basic points regarding each of the big three countries, the citations need to be formatted (some of them are just bare links), and the content dispute regarding Russia, Brazil, and India needs to boil over (which will just take time). Tezero (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note: I'm on Wikibreak as of today, as I'm long overdue for one. I'll trust you all not to murder one another while I'm gone. Спасибо, и до свидания! Tezero (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

So now we see the true faces of writers.Spashibo, i Do svidania!These people have changed the article that must be restored.They used not sufficient sources.But soon the right will be restored in this rubbish article.How many academic sources against Russia in this article do you need?I already posted 3.Do you need more?I saw also the majority is against Russia and brazil in the article.Here there's something shaganigan.151.40.65.156 (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Today the anti Russian ip is 151.40.12.61, yesterday he was 151.40.45.125 blocked and the day before he was 151.40.13.161 blocked. All the same person making anti Russian statements, please stop this nonsense of making arguments on why Russia is not a superpower when it is.

Your not helping the discussion 151.40.12.61 on your arguments, their are editors who have blocked these comments and warned you to stop. Please stick to the subject on Russia as a superpower--204.15.111.27 (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Effervescency good point, you made good ideas to the discussion, thanks--204.15.111.27 (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Sergecross73, I don't mean to badger you too much, but what do you think of the article's status? Tezero (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero: Good to have you back. The day when you had added Brazil and Russis was apparently the last day of content dispute. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Alright, then, OccultZone, I think the only necessary changes are rewriting the lead to summarize the article and formatting the citations correctly. Think you can handle that, or do you want me to help? Tezero (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You can help? That would be great. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

OccultZone, I've started, but for the ones you want to do, you can just use "cite web" (for Internet citations) and fill in the most important data fields: url, date (if available), accessdate, last (author's last name - also, only if available), first, title, and publisher. Tezero (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. It looks like it's well written and well sourced, but I really don't know much about the topic, so I can't really comment on things like completeness, accuracy, or bias. I've never observed you to have issues on these types of things, so I don't have reason to actually be concerned, but it would take so much to catch me up that I'd rather just keep my involvement here to being a "helpful admin" in my assistance here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

*sigh* I don't even care about date and publisher formatting and all that anymore. I just want the article to be stable and the source formatting to not be completely inconsistent. Tezero (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)