Talk:Power transition theory

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was selected for DYK![edit]

A fact from Power transition theory appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 December 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Power Transition theory is used in political science to predict future wars between great powers and a superpower as it states that war is a cyclic event and is inevitable?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2006/December.

Wikipedia

++Lar: t/c 06:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be advantageOUS and disadvantageOUS nations?

No, because those words apply to things that "give" advantage, not things that "have" it. A sword in battle is advantageous while its wielder is advantaged. China, for example, may be advantageous to have as an ally, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it holds advantage over anyone else. A similar confusion occurs with the terms nauseous and nauseated (a person is usually not "nauseous" unless he or she actually causes others to feel sick).

The redundant article Power Transition Theory (with the capitals)...[edit]

...needs to be merged into here by someone knowledgable. (It's not quite as thorough, but I notice a few gems of data that I don't think this article has.) Who's up to the task? —Lenoxus 17:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article Power Transition Theory is structured much better than this one so I would contend that this article should be merged into that one. Twentyfourfifteen 16:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article was formed with a copyvio. The article that was merged into it (referenced above) contained the same copyvio, but more. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]