24.176.166.135 (talk) No edit summary |
24.176.166.135 (talk) No edit summary |
||
Line 822: | Line 822: | ||
⚫ | |||
::::::::::: If someone wanted to use Superpower on a research paper, this is the wrong source of information here, you guys are to blame. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.176.166.135|24.176.166.135]] ([[User talk:24.176.166.135|talk]]) 18:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::: I am reading more and more comments from user AI009, this guy obivously doesn't like Russia at all and has made a lot of |
::: I am reading more and more comments from user AI009, this guy obivously doesn't like Russia at all and has made a lot of |
||
Line 836: | Line 833: | ||
:::::Uh? Sources? Dude, I provided links for all those facts I provided. I don't have anything against Russia and why should I? Neither am I American nor European. I am an Indian and last time I checked, India and Russia were allies. All I'm asking for is this article to be factual, logical and encyclopedic. Including statements like "Russia is a superpower" only reduces the credibility of Wikipedia. --[[User:AI009|AI009]] ([[User talk:AI009|talk]]) 03:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC) |
:::::Uh? Sources? Dude, I provided links for all those facts I provided. I don't have anything against Russia and why should I? Neither am I American nor European. I am an Indian and last time I checked, India and Russia were allies. All I'm asking for is this article to be factual, logical and encyclopedic. Including statements like "Russia is a superpower" only reduces the credibility of Wikipedia. --[[User:AI009|AI009]] ([[User talk:AI009|talk]]) 03:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
⚫ | :::::: I disagree, your a fat liar AI009, I noticed that you guys charging words on no information on the source of facts either. I think you guys are from India making your content your way, doesn't matter what you present, it is your way or take it to the highway. I think Russia is a superpower and to hear you guys saying it on sources dating back in 1991 when this is 2008, which is right in the superpower topic currently[http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19910201faessay6067/charles-krauthammer/the-unipolar-moment.html]; old resources. We are suppose to believe you guys using old sources that the US is a sole superpower when articles are being published today 2008 that US is no longer a superpower and you AI009 is changing the facts by eliminating everything, so so are you Saruman20 doing the samething. It is what you want to do, you want to say the US is a superpower does matter who says it isn't, you deny everything(look at your records, it is a fact you both make living here changing things back all the time). I will take it and send snap shots by sending it to the administers to show what you guys are doing on a daily basis, this article Superpower is a crooked set of facts that making people believe these so so facts are to believe this is the current truth is a hawk of crap. If you hate I say it, Russia is a superpower and I will post it for ya too. |
||
::::::: If someone wanted to use Superpower on a research paper, this is the wrong source of information here, you guys are to blame. |
|||
::::::: You don't have sources AI009, your just in this to down talk Russia, your record is a pure fact that is what you do on Wikipedia. |
|||
===Keep it topical please=== |
===Keep it topical please=== |
Revision as of 19:47, 28 May 2008
Russian economy
Can we really call Russia an economical superpower? I mean both their GDP and FDI is less than that of Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.73.179 (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
If nobody doesn't mind, I'm gonna change this in the article ( IF you however do mind, please tell here and give a reason, for I don't think that a country with a GDP and FDI lower than that of spain is an economical superpower ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.73.179 (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Russia also has a higher nominal GDP than Brazil by at least one ranking party (the CIA Factbook), India, and certainly Mexico. See List of countries by GDP (nominal). The 2008 ranking will most likely bring it up in all ranking parties since Russia's economy is growing so fast. Why do have an issue with Russia but none of these other countries? Look, for consistency, if you're going to change Russia, then you need to change India, Brazil, and Mexico too. --71.112.145.211 (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that I have to change them too, but you see I'm against having them on the page at all. But very well, i'll change all of them.
- As soon as you changed the other countries' status, someone else went back and reverted the edits. I am changing Russia's status back to "positive" for economic superpower, and in the meanwhile please do not change it until a consensus is reached here between all the current registered editors to prevent an edit war. --Mad Max (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Based on IMF estimates, Russia will have the largest economy in Europe within a little over 5 years. Right now it stands at 7th in the world in purchasing power, and along with China and India is one of the fastest growing emerging economies right now. Krawndawg (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- According to the CIA Factbook their FDI is less than that of Spain, at number 12. They also have a ( current ) GDP lower than that of Spain. Where did you find your source that russia would have the largest economy, for according of the IMF reportings on wikipedia ( look at "List of countries by future GDP estimates (nominal)") and you'll see that as of 2013, the largest economies would still be Germany, The United Kingdom and France ( it has however become larger than spain at that time;) ). Their currency, the ruble, also have a quite large inflation rate.
- Based on IMF estimates, Russia will have the largest economy in Europe within a little over 5 years. Right now it stands at 7th in the world in purchasing power, and along with China and India is one of the fastest growing emerging economies right now. Krawndawg (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- As soon as you changed the other countries' status, someone else went back and reverted the edits. I am changing Russia's status back to "positive" for economic superpower, and in the meanwhile please do not change it until a consensus is reached here between all the current registered editors to prevent an edit war. --Mad Max (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that I have to change them too, but you see I'm against having them on the page at all. But very well, i'll change all of them.
- I said in purchasing power. In 2006 Russia was the fifth largest contributer to global economic growth about tied with Japan, and it's gaining its global share at a faster rate than any other country aside from China and India (Brazil on the contrary is losing share). I think that speaks for itself considering it's only the 9th most populated country. Krawndawg (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Possibly, but that alone doesn't give it enough credit to be called an economical superpower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.73.179 (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Some issues to consider: Russia may overtake Britain this year in purchasing power[1], while by 2020 the country's nominal GDP, at an expected $5 trillion, may be high enough to place it as the fifth-largest economy in the world, second only to Germany in Europe.[2][3].--Mad Max (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's if nothing, any economic crisis, happens during that time and the economy keeps growing so fast and all the other states keeps growing just as fast as they do now. Write it that day, but for now it's no economical superpower. I guess the template means being an econimic superpower NOW, right?
- This is something I have been wondering myself. I'm glad you've brought it up, as we can take the time now to decide what the template really means. If we are ranking the countries by their current world standing, then only Russia should have "energy superpower" checked, and only the EU should have "cultural superpower" and "political superpower" checked. None of these other countries can hold a candle to the United States in terms of economic (other than the EU), military (none, not even close), political (again, other than EU), or cultural superpower. --Mad Max (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Personally, I think you're wrong about that. Russia, EU ( if you count all memberstates armies ) and China could match the US, seeing as they are having some problems with a minor guerilla war (Don't get into a debate about the war, please). Possibly India, but not Brazil. I'm quite happy of the templates of China, India and Eu of how they are now. But not with Russia or Brazil, none of them having large economies enough to be called Economical Superpowers at the moment.
- I think your wrong also. Russia, the EU, and China could easily compete with the US in political influence, economic might, and military power. I think "cultural superpower" should be removed however. Every country has culture, so when does a country become a cultural superpower? Not to mention, that doesn't seem to be related to superpowers at all. Having a great culture is fine and all, but as China has shown, a country can still be great even if culture is repressed. As the above poster stated, none of these nations is having problems with a minor guerilla war. As far as templates go, I'm going to have to say leave them as they are. EU, Russia, and China are all fine as they are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman20 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- This is something I have been wondering myself. I'm glad you've brought it up, as we can take the time now to decide what the template really means. If we are ranking the countries by their current world standing, then only Russia should have "energy superpower" checked, and only the EU should have "cultural superpower" and "political superpower" checked. None of these other countries can hold a candle to the United States in terms of economic (other than the EU), military (none, not even close), political (again, other than EU), or cultural superpower. --Mad Max (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's if nothing, any economic crisis, happens during that time and the economy keeps growing so fast and all the other states keeps growing just as fast as they do now. Write it that day, but for now it's no economical superpower. I guess the template means being an econimic superpower NOW, right?
- Some issues to consider: Russia may overtake Britain this year in purchasing power[1], while by 2020 the country's nominal GDP, at an expected $5 trillion, may be high enough to place it as the fifth-largest economy in the world, second only to Germany in Europe.[2][3].--Mad Max (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Possibly, but that alone doesn't give it enough credit to be called an economical superpower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.73.179 (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well one thing that I find strange is that Brazil is checked off for economic superpower while Russia isn't. What's the logic behind that? If Russia isn't an economic superpower, how could Brazil be one with an identical nominal GDP (much smaller in PPP), and a far slower growth rate? Brazils share in the global economy is diminishing while Russia's is growing at the 3rd fastest rate in the world, as I already pointed out. Krawndawg (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've tried to get Brazil off this page, but you're right. If Russia isn't an economic superpower, than Brazil should be off too. Suggesting changing them both to 'Economical Great Powers'.
- Somebody changed Russias economical position to regional power ( which it isn't, it's a Great Power ), changing that. If anybody wants to change it back, please tell us here first( and explain why ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swedish pirate (talk • contribs) 18:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I changed it back to great power. I didn't see this here, so sorry if my post here is a bit belated, but it has the world's 11th highest nominal GDP (almost identical to Brazil) and the 7th largest PPP, much higher than Brazil and many other nations called "economic superpowers" here. It has a faster growing rate, after only India and China. Russia is an economic great power, and a superpower in every other category (just like the EU is a Energy great power and a superpower in every other category). User: Saruman20 (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- OMG!!!This was the discussion?!!
- There is absolutely no criteria. You based your decision on GDP alone.
- It's GDP per capita that matters. It's crazy to compare the UK ( population 60 million) to Russia (population 142 million). The GDP of Russia should be twice that of the UK, but in fact it's smaller.
- Russia ranks 52th on the List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. 52th!!!
- Russian economy defaulted on 1998...how could it become a agreat powr in just 10 years?
- You have no criteria.
- ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 19:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- This is not the only place. As I stated below, I used shares and other representations aswell as GDP. Population hardly matters really. A country of small population can be just as successful as a country of large population. Just because a nation has a large population does not mean it should automatically be powerful. Complex social, political, historical, and geographical factors can affect any nations development much more than population. So, no, GDP per capita does not matter more. Not in the least. You sir have no criteria. You managed to come up with a whopping three sentances to explain your point, and you say I have no criteria. User: Saruman20 (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have no criteria but at least I am honest about it unlike YOU.
- You don't know anything about economics, military, or politics but sure pretends to know a lot by giving ratings, pathetic.
- This whole article is a joke. Russia is a military superpower?? User: Saruman20 said so, he is a military analist. NOT!!!
- Brazil is an economic superpower as well, LOL totally pathetic.
- ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 18:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, someone needs to calm down. And you know so much, right? This is just shows your some kid that thinks he knows a lot so he has the right to act superior because he has "economist" in his name. Keep it up, you only make yourself look more pathetic. By your glorious GDP per capita, Luxemburg is the world's richest country. So I guess Luxemburg is the next superpower, right? Not to mention, if you look at some of the other criterias you mentioned, Russia is very high, higher than it is in GDP. And, look up "honest" in the dictionary. In a matter of opinion like this, no one can be "honest" because there is no definate truth. Once again, you show you have no idea about any of this and are just wandering around in the dark, shouting out things like "defaulted in 1998". So what? As I recall, many countries recovered from the Great Depression in less than 10 years. So yes, a country can become a economic great power 10 years after a default. "Oil dependancy". Yes, this is true, Russia gets a lot of money from oil. But it is working to diversify the economy, and it doesn't matter what it "riding on", because oil will be of great need in the future, so depending on oil is smart and shows economic savvy. Corruption is still an issue, but Russia has moved along way from the corruption of the Gorbachev-Yeltsin era. Corruption is slowly being weeded out and destroyed.User: Saruman20 (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Russia is a Superpower; there many articles from the last 2 years stating that Russia regained its Superpower status back again. These articles are from worldwide creditable sources and they have been verified by the news press media and news television media [4] [5] [6] - [7] [8] [9] [10] [11], the words “Russia is a Superpower” or “Russia the Superpower” is being used more often on television through CNN[12], NBC, Fox News people such as Glen Beck, Lou Dobbs, Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper and etc more often today than ever. I mean really, how can these news agencies be wrong? The fact is, they have the sources of information more than all of us and when Russia is said as a Superpower on CNN, NBC, Fox News, ABC News that is a valid fact it is. [13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Versace11 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
What is the point of all the history talk
Why are the articles for China and India bloated with talk about their ancient civilizations and past wealth/achievement? What does any of that have to do with their potential as superpowers? Seems more like a biased person was more interested in trying to pump up his country using this article. This article needs a big rewrite. Remove all talk of culture and ancient civilization. The "Factors" section should list what the positive trends in economic/social/political growth are and where they have been presumed to be heading based on stats. The problems should list any critiques that have been presented by sources on what could hinder their growth. Aka Human rights, povery, etc.
So why is this article being considered for deletion?
Merge proposal
Superpowers are not static and time moves on. Discussion of past and future superpowers is best made in the main Superpower article to provide continuity. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Continuity is impossible unless it is the same source. There is an intrinsic disconnect in the kind of sourcing possible for the two articles. This article is reporting on the speculation of others on future Superpower emergences whereas the Superpower article relates past and present concepts and developments. The other problem is that "potential superpowers" becomes a vastly disproportionate share of the superpower article when merged. There is a Photography article and a History of photography article. Why not a Superpower article and a Potential superpowers article?Zebulin (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why? This article is a good place for information on which countries might be the next superpower. The superpower article is just fine as it is. This article is on currents events and speculation. The superpower article is on past examples and the actual defination of superpower. Keeping them divided is much more organized and prevents clutter. User:68.89.164.112 12:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.197.36 (talk)
How to not be a crystal ball and avoid Original research by synthesis
We need to stick to reporting on the predictions of authoritative sources rather than sourcing various facts that the editors think support a case for a "potential superpower". We have a lot of sourced material that just shows how great and bright and promising the future of various potential superpowers is without being attributed to a particular source that uses that specific information in predicting superpower status for the "potential superpower". Placing a great deal of OR:SYN content after a sourced prediction does not somehow make it not OR.Zebulin (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Please go on with intensive trimming, if you want to. Personally I see almost no serious indicators to justify a presence of India or Brazil in this article. Lear 21 (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Brazil and India?
India is the largest developing country in the world. There are not even minor indicators available suggesting that this is changing in the near future. Not to mention great power status or even superpower status. Same goes for Brazil. Seen from a global perspective, both are a regional power. Lear 21 (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Nominal support. India deserves to be mentioned if the top four candidates are being considered, but is a much less serious candidate than the Russian Federation, the People's Republic of China, or the European Union. The Federative Republic of Brazil, on the other hand, is not seen as more than a regional power. Did someone add Brazil as a potential superpower into this page and the Superpower page, perhaps more out of nationalism than academic interest? The edits were a bit clunky; the first paragraph of this article mentions "four possible superpower candidates." Anonymous user 01:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.32.218 (talk)
- "Did someone add Brazil as a potential superpower into this page and the Superpower page, perhaps more out of nationalism than academic interest?" - That seems to be the case here. The notion of Brazil becoming a superpower is extremely far fetched, it most definitely falls under the category of WP:FRINGE. I've looked over some of the articles referenced in that section, and some of them actually cast doubt on the notion. Krawndawg (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- This article is a huge nationalistic self-promotion. Also it's fucking long and nobody gives a shit about Brazil. India, remotely possible, but Brazil is just far-fetched. Just saying.. 122.108.29.139 (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's interesting that the article calls Brazil a "military superpower" when not only does it lack nuclear weapons, but it's armed forces are smaller than that of Iran, or Myanmar, or Vietnam, or Egypt, or Turkey, or Ukraine, or Indonesia, or Thailand, or Syria, or even Taiwan (which isn't even recognized as a country). The fact that our article calls Brazil a "military superpower" just goes to show what a sad state this article has sunk to.Zebulin (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- The Brazil section is obviously the work of a nationalist. Brazil may be a strong economic power and growing, but it has no political and military clout. India, maybe. Brazil, no. The Brazil secton needs to be cleaned up to add factual information instead of the nationalistic bullshit that is in it now. 11:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- This article is a huge nationalistic self-promotion. Also it's fucking long and nobody gives a shit about Brazil. India, remotely possible, but Brazil is just far-fetched. Just saying.. 122.108.29.139 (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Redirect
Please read this my fellows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emerging_superpower
Please respect the consensus reached by the admins/editors. - MainBody (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Useless. The consensus has obviously changed for the worst and it's going to take more than nostalgic visits to last years more sensible conclusions to divert this crowd from this misguided effort.Zebulin (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I think India should be mentioned as a possibility, even through it isn't as likely as China, EU or Russia. However, Brazil: No. It is growing, yes, but the possibility of becoming a superpower in the next century is thin to none. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.73.179 (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Who chose the list?
Any country that has a reference as an "emerging world power" can be included in the list? I mean then we would be missing Mexico, it is also listed as an emerging world power, with a huge economy and it has way better indicators than Brazil, India and China. Supaman89 (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- supposably the source has to actually predict that the "potential superpower" will or may become an unqualified superpower. This rule is conveniently being ignored by an appalling vast horde of editors, so I suspect that if you chose to ignore the rule by adding mexico nobody would revert it. There is just so much innappropriate sourcing and OR in this article that I don't think anybody wants to open the vast can of worms of trying to set any of it right. It clearly adds new inappropriate bloat from far too many enthusiastic editors far too rapidly for anybody to tackle alone.Zebulin (talk) 06:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not ignoring the rules mate, all those countries in the article have been in fact being named emerging world powers, and so has Mexico but people might've "forgotten" to add it, anyways I'm going to put it and I'm going to put the source too to back it up, I think Mexico was pretty much the only country left, cheers. Supaman89 (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- This isn't the "Potential World Powers" article. it's the "Potential superpowers" article. Historically the terms "world power" and "superpower" have not been synonymous and I've never seen them equated. "World Power" appears to simply be an equivalent to "Great Power".Zebulin (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- To be fair your addition was just as valid as the vast majority of the sourcing for all of the other potential superpowers. In fact for Brazil it was exactly as valid as there does not appear to be one source that predicts Brazil will be an unqualified superpower. If Brazil will be a superpower why not Mexico? Only the sources could answer and we don't have sources that say Brazil will be an unqualified superpower.Zebulin (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes mate, I actually updated the map yesterday to add Mexico and added some sources as well, but it was reverted, I'm currently talking to the person who made the map so I can just update his map instead of having to upload another one, which would just be unnecesary, I'm still waiting for his answer, cheers. Supaman89 (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Brazil
The Brazil section of this article is obviously motivated by nationalistic rather than academic intentions. The idea of Brazil becoming a superpower is very far-fetched. It may have a strong economy, but it has virtually no military or political clout. The section here uses obviously biased sources and preaches how great Brazil is and how it would make a great superpower. This is an article for intellectual use, not nationalistic preaching. To even put Brazil in the same league as Russia, China, and the EU is amazingly stupid. I think the Brazil section needs a drastic cleanup (and most of the rest of article aswell) or deletion. The edits are strange and irrelevant. I don't see how Brazil hosting the World Cup affects it's status as a superpower or potential superpower.User:68.89.164.112 1:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm up for the article being deleted, however if it stays and Brazil and India are included then we also have to add Mexico, (which as I mentioned before has way better life standarts that all the other countries), I do realize that is absurd to compare those countries with China, Russia and the United States but since I don't see India or Brazil being removed I think that we have to make clear what countries are the real important ones. Supaman89 (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Separation of powers
- I don't think the article itself should be deleted. Just such messed up, nationalistic sections. Maybe two categories? Russia, China, and the EU could be in one, with Brazil, India, and Mexico in the other. I don't really have any beef with Brazil and India, but they obviously arn't in the same league as the US, EU, Russia or China. I do like the arrangement of the Brazil section, with areas for Economics, Politics, Military etc...But the fact that Brazil is given such obviously nationalistic representation while being longer than articles for true superpowers like the EU and Russia. Brazil needs to be given the same treatment as the other countries, stating the problems and issues as well as support. User:68.89.164.112 24:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you, there has to be a separation, on the top the really important countries (China, Russia and the USA) and in the bottom the other countries (Mexico, Brazil and India). Supaman89 (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've divided the articles up. China, EU, and Russia are now under "Major Potential Superpowers", while Brazil and India have been placed under "Minor Potential Superpowers". User:68.89.164.112 1:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, I think that all the potential superpowers listed here should be given similar sections to the Brazil (Economy, Military etc...) That way someone of the large, convulting entries, like China and India, can be given some structure. Unfortunatly I can not do this right now, but if someone else would this article might actually have some kind of organization. User:68.89.164.112 1:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I really like the ides to put specific superpowers into a new section. This can also allow us to possible add other potential superpowers that were or are currently being speculated (like Japan, Australia, and Mexico). I would also like to place on the table to give each section its own article. Like "Russia as a potential superpower" or something like that. I only mention this because this article is getting full of information at a high speed. — NuclearVacuum 01:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Go for it. I will possibly add Australia and Japan when I have time and when I am able to back them up with more information and agreement. But if you want to go ahead with these two countries, go for it as well. — NuclearVacuum 01:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Australia? Who mentioned Australia? With all respect to Australia, but its a nation of only up to 20 million inhabitants. Japan however is much more realistic. Their population comes close to that of Russia, they are extremely advanced with technology and have the highest GDP of Asia.
- btw NuclearVacuum, you've done an awesome job creating this very informative page so quickly. Keep it up. - PietervHuis (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Australia and Japan are not potential superpowers. Niether is Mexico or Brazil for that matter. The information on this page is very misleading. The above four countires (Mexico, Brazil, Australia, and Japan) may be economically strong. But, a superpower is not a country which is strong. A superpower is a country that leads the world. When thinking about superpowers, think, does this country compare to the United States? Will any of those four countries be able to compare to the US in military power or political influence in the forseeable future? NO! No Australia or Japan, and get rid of Mexico and Brazil. This article needs to be about real emerging superpowers, not emerging world powers. User:68.89.164.112 12:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- No Japan? Throughout history Japan has always dominated Asia, it would be weird if China gets listed but not Japan. There's many source that describe their potential. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Australia and Japan are not potential superpowers. Niether is Mexico or Brazil for that matter. The information on this page is very misleading. The above four countires (Mexico, Brazil, Australia, and Japan) may be economically strong. But, a superpower is not a country which is strong. A superpower is a country that leads the world. When thinking about superpowers, think, does this country compare to the United States? Will any of those four countries be able to compare to the US in military power or political influence in the forseeable future? NO! No Australia or Japan, and get rid of Mexico and Brazil. This article needs to be about real emerging superpowers, not emerging world powers. User:68.89.164.112 12:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is crap
This article is pure crap, many some of the countries listed on here (Like Mexico) are not even world powers let alone superpowers. It seems as if every potential world power is being listed as a potential superpower. Seriously, this article needs to go. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to agree with you. In my opinion, the only countries that deserve to be on here are China, Russia, and the EU, maybe India. Some nationalist added Brazil, and then once Brazil is included people wanted to add Mexico aswell. I think we should delete the Brazil and Mexico sections. User:68.89.164.112 12:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Also many of the sources used in this article do not say "emerging superpower", most of them say "emerging power" which is far different from a superpower. In fact those sources could argue those countries not even world powers. The U.S. is a superpower, Britain, France, Russia, China, India, and Japan are world powers. Brazil and Mexico don't really have much influence around the world and they are considered regional powers. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Refrain from using words such as "crap" please, there's a number of policies against that and it's insulting. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all. Besides, if there is not one reference of it being an emerging superpower, that country will not be on here. This article is only fr ones that are well accepted and referenced. — NuclearVacuum 17:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- That is simply not true. Last I checked we still didn't have an unqualified superpower source for Brazil or any of the later additions. "energy superpower" and other qualified "Superpowers" are not at all the same concept as "Superpower". Furthermore even when one of them them does have a source predicting it may become an unqualified superpower quite often the information that follows that citation in our article was never even mentioned by that source.Zebulin (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all. Besides, if there is not one reference of it being an emerging superpower, that country will not be on here. This article is only fr ones that are well accepted and referenced. — NuclearVacuum 17:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree the article is crap, but for different reasons. There is no definition of the criteria potential superpowers are supposed to meet. Wiki's own superpower article says the criteria are undefined. Brazil was always bandied about as the next superpower several decades ago, when there were commonly thought to be 3: USA, USSR and China. Then Japan excelled economically for a while, so Japan was tacked on. Arab oil affluence made others think the next superpower was a rich Arab state that got the bomb. Then everyone realized the whole proposition was cocky and the USSR stepped down. Then a lot of people realized the Security Council of the UN was crap too, based on who had nuclear bombs. Are the permanent 5 superpowers or great powers? Does it even matter? This article on the surface of it seems to be an extreme example of non-NPOV because the people who claim the US is the last superpower are all Americans. Good luck with that. Hypatea (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone make this article less racist against Asians
Seriously, why is it that the two major Asian nations mentioned in this article are the only ones with "Problems" sections. Both of which are ridiculously long sections at that. Some of these factors are hardly related to being a superpower. If some of you can't accept the possibility of an asian nation becoming a superpower then that is your own problem, but this article should have some organization. Someone should add in a "Problems" section for all of the powerw, none of them are without major flaws. It seems as if someone was purposely trying to point out problems with Indian and China for the sake of it, also this is all coming from a Western viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antdarky (talk • contribs) 12:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's why we are trying to clean this article up. Some other countries like Brazil were added for nationalistic reasons and thus state no problems. It's not intended to be racist, that's just stupid to say that. Also, problems have been stated in the Russia and EU sections, just without there own subsection. And this is not entirely all from a Western viewpoint. Many people editing the article could be from eastern nations. I myself am Russian. But I try to keep nationalism out of it. I think all the countries should be given fair treatment, but that's not happening now, hence why I've continually tried to get some kind of clean-up. User:68.89.164.112 12:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- WP:AGF, and refrain from personal attacks. Accusing someone of racism is insulting. This article is just new, and another asian nation such as Japan has little information still. It has nothing to do with racism, the other countries still not to be expanded that's what. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevant Information
We should remove some of the irrelevant information from the India and China sections. They are outrageously long and contain many useless information which is irrelevant to superpower status. For instance, we do not need a whole paragraph about repression of Christianity in China. The Soviet Union was a superpower and it had human rights issues. A country does not have to be crystal clean to be a superpower. Indian and Chinese human rights are irrelevant to superpower status. While human rights should be mentioned, it does not deserve whole paragraphs, espcially against very small minorities. Also, historical greatness does not contribute to superpower status. This is an article about future superpowers, not if countries were strong in the past.User:68.89.164.112 12:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's interesting to read though. Some could consider it "dangerous" for a country that is still full of human rights abuses to become a superpower. As for information about history, that's always relevant. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Nuclear superpower
I added "nuclear superpower" to the list of qualities of a superpower. If find that states that contain nuclear weapons have a better chance of becoming a superpower and should be mentioned if a state is one or not. The European Union is also one, when you put the case of nuclear sharing of British and French nukes with the entire EU and NATO then and now. — NuclearVacuum 16:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, but someone took it off. I'll add it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.141.47 (talk) 11:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Brazil and Mexico
Okay, either the two are included or the two are deleted, you can not leave the one and not the other since they both have being name emerging world powers, you people decide if you want to remove them both that's fine, but don't just do one. Supaman89 (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Um... if you want Mexico on this article so badly, why don't you simply add it on here yourself? It's easy to do, you know. All you need is some good resources and you're ready to go. Otherwise, I will add Mexico myself when I get the time later today. — NuclearVacuum 17:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, it was probably the way you stated it. You already added Mexico and it was removed, eh? Well, did you add resources or links to back up you claims? This could be another reason for that. When I do a search engine on "Mexico superpower", I get very little to no reliable links then if I were to search "Brazil superpower." Sorry to say, but this article is for resourced facts, not for total equality. I do agree that Mexico is able to become a superpower, but me saying that doesn't make it true without information to back me up. — NuclearVacuum 17:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually I did, but I do realize that obviously they're not at the same level as Russia, China or the USA, again if you want to add them both in a section called "less important superpowers" (or something like that) or just just go ahead and remove them both because they're not realy serious candidates, what do you think?, cheers. Supaman89 (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I personally like it the way it is. This section is just talking about potential superpowers (not a way to make every country equal). If Mexico is not at a level of being a superpower, then it should not be on here. But if it has back up to it, then I see no trouble with it being mentioned on here. But we are just trying to mention them and there is no specific level of a superpower other then whether it's a nuclear superpower or a cultural power. Do you understand? Now let me go take a look at what you put on here earlier and see if I can fix it or see if anything was wrong or not sourced. Maybe it is something I can fix. — NuclearVacuum 18:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Neither should be here, and take out Japan with them. Those three countries reaching superpower status is extremely farfetched. Nationalists need to stop adding their own countries. Brazil, Mexico, and Japan are all great countries, but they are not even close to being a superpower. The only countries that have real chances of rivaling the US in the forseeable future are Russia, China, the EU, and possibly India. Thus, those are the only countries that should be on this page. User:68.89.164.112 21:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.197.36 (talk)
As long as they have resources, I see no need to delete or remove any. If anything, add more. This is for potential superpowers (past views and present views). Japan, Mexico, and Brazil have resources that tell its story of this, and it is enough to be here. There is nothing against any government being here. — NuclearVacuum 21:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- This article is for potential superpowers, not every country in the world that has resources. 68.92.197.36 (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Potential superpowers are not even defined. This article talks about what has been documented within history about potential superpowers, not important countries of the 21st century. — NuclearVacuum 21:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it is about important countries. The introduction clearly states that the article is about countries that have a chance of becoming superpowers in the near future. The link to this page from the superpower page states the same thing. To act on it in any other way is misleading to anyone reading. 68.92.197.36 (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Potential superpowers are not even defined. This article talks about what has been documented within history about potential superpowers, not important countries of the 21st century. — NuclearVacuum 21:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I made a template for [potential] superpowers for this page. This saves bytes on this page and is very easy to operate. Give it a try and tell me what you think. — NuclearVacuum 17:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, this will help a lot. (But your example is wrong, Brazil isn't an energy superpower). User:68.89.164.112 21:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Brazil is a Energy superpower. See the sources... Felipe C.S ( talk ) 02:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- There are no good sources that indicate Brazil is an energy superpower. The only energy superpowers in the world are Russia and Saudi Arabia. Any source that claims otherwhise is incorrect. User:68.89.164.112 11:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Brazil is an oil superpower, an agricultural superpower, an ethanol superpower, a biofuels superpower and can be a superpower in other sections. Canada is also a superpower, and other countries... Felipe C.S ( talk ) 15:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You all are missing the point. This is not to discuss how Brazil should or should not be looking like, this is about a box to make all the counties easier to order. Let's start again. I displayed another country (don't worry, the UAR has not been a country since 1961, this is only here for an example of a random [former] country) to show you how it works. Simply add the full [English] name of the country along with a link to its flag and a map. Then for the "powers" section, simply put an "N" witch will make a , and a "Y" to make a . I hope this better explains it. — NuclearVacuum 15:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposed removal of Japan and Mexico from the Potential superpowers article. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was removal of Japan and Mexico --Mad Max (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Removing Mexico & Japan
Block quoteThe record of such predictions has not been complete. For example in the 1980s some commentators thought Japan would become a superpower, due to its large GDP and high economic growth at the time.[
This two countries should be removed and stay removed.--Hobie Hunter (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- There are plenty of discussion above regarding the inclusion or exclusion of some countries (Bra, Mex, Ind), but do not remove anything without previous consensus, BTW Mexico is in fact sourced, so please do not use the word "ludacris" just because of personal impressions. Supaman89 (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just because there is no sources on the right of way doesn't mean that they should be removed immediately. Japan and Mexico should have some facts behind them. But I do see your argument and you do have very strong claims, but you should not remove these sections because they "will NEVER be a superpower, but remove them if they have no literal facts (either past or present). — NuclearVacuum 00:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- What I meant by "there are no sources" are that there are no sources explicitly claiming Mexico as a potential superpower. Likewise, there are few websites less than 20 years old claiming Japan as a potential superpower. The only source in the article is a Time article from 1988! The section for Mexico only lists facts about the military or foriegn relations, and doesn't explain how that qualifies Mexico for superpower status (there isn't much to qualify it for that status at all). --Hobie Hunter (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- The Mexico section was just added yesterday, it need time to be improved, for example the fact that it is within the 10 main contributors to the U.N. budget or that Mexican media (music, television, etc.) has a lot presence worldwide, etc. Supaman89 (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Its not that the Mexico section is new, its that there isn't much basis for superpower status--Hobie Hunter (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I support the removal of Mexico and Japan if they don't have better references. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 02:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Its not that the Mexico section is new, its that there isn't much basis for superpower status--Hobie Hunter (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support removal If this has become a vote, then I support the removal of Mexico and Japan. Mexico should not be included in hopes that someone will find sources for it, it should be included only after those sources have been found (good luck with that). Wikipedia is not a home for unsourced information or nationalism. And as for Japan, the only source for that is irrelevant as it is far too outdated. Japan's current situation is nothing like it was in the 1980s. --Mad Max (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support immediate removal of both Lear 21 (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Removal User:68.89.164.112 11:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see much potential for Mexico indeed, but Japan does have a lot of potential and there's many sources for that. Once someone takes the time to properly source Japan it can stay. - PietervHuis (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Sources for Brazil as a superpower
As sources for The Federative Republic of Brazil has been suggested as a potential candidate for superpower status, We are given:
http://www.fool.com/investing/international/2007/11/23/profit-from-the-next-economic-superpower.aspx
potential "economic superpower". economic superpower is not a "superpower". if ever we find a source that says potential or next "economic superpower" means "potential superpower" then this source will be appropriate for supporting the lead sentence in this article section.
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=77040&d=30&m=1&y=2006
This op-ed is titled "Brazil Is the Next Economic (and Political) Superpower but the article does not in any way discuss brazil as a "political superpower".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/10/brazil.oil
The word "superpower" cannot be found in this source at all
At least this writer predicts brazil will be an unqualified superpower. However, it's a students op-ed on a college newspapers website. blog fodder.
http://english.people.com.cn/200703/15/eng20070315_357821.html
People's daily reporting on Goldmans sachs BRIC idea and only going so far as to call brazil a possible "economic superpower". maybe if that prediction pans out people will start to write articles predicting Brazil could be a superpower after that. maybe.
http://cubantriangle.blogspot.com/2008/01/brazils-superpower-move.html
Calling a visit by Lula to castro "a superpower move" is not the same as predicting a rise to superpower status. In any event it's a blog. (url should be a clue)
http://www.1913intel.com/2008/01/13/brazil-the-super-power/
blog.
We need to be a lot more critical about our sourcing here.
Zebulin (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- The economy is one of the pilars of a superpower nation.
- The political influence is based in the economic power.
- The Guardian report says: "The country of the future finally arrives", "Brazil, the sleeping giant of South America is awakening", "We are the biggest exporters of meat, coffee, sugar, fruit juices and the second biggest of grains", "We will transform this country, definitively, into a great economy and a great nation", "Keen to transform itself from developing nation to world power", "Brazil's international leadership has grown a great deal over the last six or seven years" and much more...
- Cuban Triangle report the strong political influence in Latin America.
- 1913 blog made a research with other references about Brazil's rise. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 03:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
There is not one credible source presented, neither academic nor high-profile newspaper or magazine. Lear 21 (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, none of these sources are credible, they are unspecific, not related to the subject matter, and unfit for this article. Brazil should be removed, it is a weak nation with no chance of becoming a superpower or even a world power anytime soon. It has virtually no military or political influence. Having a strong economy is great, but one of the key characteristics of a superpower is the ability to sway other nations with it's influence, something which Brazil can not do. User:68.89.164.112 11:32, 16 May 2008
(UTC)
- The Guardian isn't credible? And 68.89.164.112, please stop... Who are you? Felipe C.S ( talk ) 15:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm a fellow user just like you. I may just use my IP, but that doesn't make you at all superior me. Just because I support different things than you, does not mean you are smarter or more important than me. I am trying to make this article more factual, and I don't see how Brazil could be come a superpower anytime in the next century. Just because I am not a nationalistic working to promote my country, doesn't mean you have any right to question "who I am". User:68.89.164.112 21:08, 16 May 2008
- The Guardian isn't credible? And 68.89.164.112, please stop... Who are you? Felipe C.S ( talk ) 15:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
(UTC)
- Not credible enough, must have at least some sourcing from an academic, politician or author that directly calls it a possible superpower.
- I have gone through the sources myself. Many of the sources are blogs, and blogs obviously have no credibility of Wikipedia. I have no idea why they are still included in the article. Their inclusion in the article violates WP:SPS and WP:RS (at the very least), and I am considering immediately removing them myself. Some of them are elaborately-staged blogs. The writer of "1913 Intel" admits his site is as much on the "about" page, and writes "I have a B.S. degree in Chemistry and have worked as an Air Traffic Controller in the past." I still can't figure out how his chemistry education or experience directing plane traffic gives him any credibility when talking about Brazil's economy. In other words, his page is completely irrelevant.
- Blogs:[14], [15], [16]
Unacceptable news organization: [17], and [18]. Are these news sources "high-quality end of the market," "such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press," which Wikipedia asks for under WP:V? No, not really. Actually, the People's Daily article reveals nothing that hasn't already been discussed by much more qualified people at Goldman Sachs.
- Blogs:[14], [15], [16]
- Going further down the list of sources for Brazil, we can see one of the sources actually links to a message board! [19] Granted, the forum is on an official Web site, but for the Republic of Philippines! We have no way to determine whether the author of that post has any credibility. Again, massive violation of Wikipedia policy.
- The only credible source is a Guardian article, except that it isn't really a soure at all. There is no mention of "superpower" anywhere in the article, but arbitrary talk of "great economy and a great nation" (actually quoting the country's president). I have voted to remove Brazil. I reserve the right to change my vote, but in its current state I cannot support its inclusion.--Mad Max (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- See: (CNN) (BusinessWeek) (The Economist) (The Associated Press) (The Guardian) (Reuters) Felipe C.S ( talk ) 21:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please give me the time to review the sources. Like you, I do have a life outside of Wikipedia, and it just happens to be a sunny Friday afternoon for me. I promise to look over the sources and change my vote if need be within a reasonable time frame. Anyway, I do appreciate the step in the right direction with better sources such as The Economist and AP. Thanks! --Mad Max (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- See: (CNN) (BusinessWeek) (The Economist) (The Associated Press) (The Guardian) (Reuters) Felipe C.S ( talk ) 21:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Refrain from Personal Attacks please - PietervHuis (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposed removal of Brazil from the Potential superpowers article. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was removal of Brazil and India, and creation of the Potential great powers article. Mad Max (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Removal of Brazil
*Support Removal We must remove Brazil. The information in the Brazil section is biased, and was added for obviously nationalistic reasons. Brazil has no greater chance of becoming a superpower than Mexico or Japan, and should be removed just like them. As has been shown, the sources used in the Brazil article are not credible. Brazil isn't even a world power, as it has no influence outside of it's region besides in football (which has nothing to do with superpower status). Brazil should be removed so more focus can be put on organizing and trimming the other, real potential superpowers. China and India need a clean-up and the EU needs more information. User:68.89.164.112 11:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- While I agree that Brazil should be removed for want of sources we shouldn't justify removal on the basis of it being "a weak country that will never be strong" because we have no source for such a position. Absence of sourcing doesn't equate to a negation of fact.Zebulin (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, that comment was my personal opinion and I should not have included it. I would never post anything like that on any article. I will remove it. But my point stands. Brazil was added for nationalistic, not factual reasons (or so it seems), thus it is distracting to other viewers and users. User:68.89.164.112 21:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I added? See the first version of this article created by American User:NuclearVacuum: [20] Felipe C.S ( talk ) 21:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Removal - Read the sources before saying that not credible... Come on! See the article's name: Potential superpowers, not the New superpowers or Emerging superpowers! This article shows the probable potential candidates to the superpower status in this century, and not today! This article and the sources don't confirm anything... Felipe C.S ( talk ) 15:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Removal - Any country deserves to be on this article. It is all about the resources, not a random user's opinion on that particular county. — NuclearVacuum 15:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- But Brazil was added because a random user from Brazil thought it was a superpower and used faulty sources to back it up. Many of the sources violate wikipedia's policy. I have the same view as you, a random user's opinion on a country is not as important as facts and resources. That's why Brazil must be removed. A random user added it, and the only resources violate policy or do not relate to the subject matter. User:68.89.164.112 21:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- (Again) I added? See the first version of this article created by American User:NuclearVacuum: [21] Felipe C.S ( talk ) 21:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
*Support Removal Not likely becomming a superpower in the next century, even if it is growing. It's very unlikely that it will be able to compete with any of the other states mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.73.179 (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- IP's can vote? And see this Felipe C.S ( talk ) 17:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, IPs can vote. Just because someone wants to use there IP as a username and not something else doesn't change who they are: a fellow user, equal to you. User:68.89.164.112 21:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm sorry. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 21:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, IPs generally cannot vote. All of those anonymous IP votes will be disregarded as per Wikipedia convention on all pages in which polling takes place, as in WP:FPC. This is due to the very nature of anonymity: we have no idea who you are, or if you are a sockpuppet. Read WP:SOCK. Furthermore, voting is reserved only for established Wikipedia editors, which means you cannot register just to vote on a poll. If you are a new user and insist on voting, I'll request WP:CHECK to determine whether you are one of those IPs. To current registered editors: canvassing is not tolerated, see WP:CANVAS. --Mad Max (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, Mad Max! Felipe C.S ( talk ) 21:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, IPs generally cannot vote. All of those anonymous IP votes will be disregarded as per Wikipedia convention on all pages in which polling takes place, as in WP:FPC. This is due to the very nature of anonymity: we have no idea who you are, or if you are a sockpuppet. Read WP:SOCK. Furthermore, voting is reserved only for established Wikipedia editors, which means you cannot register just to vote on a poll. If you are a new user and insist on voting, I'll request WP:CHECK to determine whether you are one of those IPs. To current registered editors: canvassing is not tolerated, see WP:CANVAS. --Mad Max (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm sorry. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 21:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, IPs can vote. Just because someone wants to use there IP as a username and not something else doesn't change who they are: a fellow user, equal to you. User:68.89.164.112 21:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
*Oppose Removal - Brazil is an emerging superpower of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.3.219.1 (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Removal - At first I wanted to keep Brazil, but I’ve changed my mind after going through the sources one by one. After seeing how many policies it violates, I cannot in good faith recommend keeping this article. I explain my reasons in an above post I just made.--Mad Max (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I added new sources [22] Felipe C.S ( talk ) 19:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Removal - Brazil is perhaps a potentially emerging economic superpower, and perhaps an emerging energy superpower, but they are not in any way an emerging superpower. The links provided absolutely do not support the notion of Brazil becoming a superpower any time soon. Many of the links speculate about the idea and often refute it flat out, and the links themselves are dubious at best. Nothing too credible. Brazil should not be listed. Krawndawg (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- God! See these links:
- Eye on Brazil: Land of Contrasts 30 November, 2006 (CNN)
- Lula Resumes Nuclear Program To Make Brazil World Power July 11, 2007 (Space Daily)
- Brazil, the New Oil Superpower November 19, 2007 (BusinessWeek)
- Brazilian Military Power February 28, 2008 (YouTube)
- An economic superpower, and now oil too April 17, 2008 (The Economist)
- Booming Brazil could be world power soon April 17, 2008 (Associated Press)
- The country of the future finally arrives May 10, 2008 (The Guardian)
- Sleeping giant Brazil wakes, but could stumble May 13, 2008 (Reuters)
- Brazil has been suggested as a potential superpower or world power very recently, in 2007 and 2008, mainly in the last month (by Reuters and The Guardian in the last week). So there is still so many references. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 20:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Removal There have being too many complains about Brazil not being a real competitor against Russia, China and the EU, besides curiously all (most) of the votes in favour of keeping it have being anonymous. Supaman89 (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Again: the article's name is Potential superpowers... This is not a comparation with other powerfull countries. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 21:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Removal Just as NuclearVacuum explained, every candidate should be listed not just what people want. Brazil is a huge country with a lot more people as Russia and roughly just as rich, it would be unfair to list one country but not the other. - PietervHuis (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- comment - This isn't about being "fair". This is an encyclopedia, where we present truth as it is. Brazil doesn't have nuclear capabilities, a military with global reach, a human capital level up to par, or the projected economic strength to be considered. And what better way to prove this than to point out the fact that it just doesn't have the sources to back the claim up, as has been pointed out numerous times. The burden of proof is on you supporters, and so far there have been no credible (academic) sources that actually suggest the possibility. And Felipe, you need to understand that all of those links are talking about completely different topics. "ECONOMIC" superpower, "OIL" superpower etc.. those are not at all the same thing as just plain old world superpower. Krawndawg (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- The issue is with sources, not with what people want. The sources are not credible thus it should be removed. It has nothing do with what people. User:68.89.164.112 21:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- No there's many forms of superpower, that's what the potential superpower template also indicates. I support Brazil just as Japan IF good enough sources exist. There probably are, McCain for example wants Brazil in the G8. - PietervHuis (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- The superpower article on this site seems to think differently. User:68.89.164.112 21:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is only one type of world superpower. The kind that America is right now, and that the Soviet Union used to be. That's what this article is about, and that's what the superpower article is about. Krawndawg (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I repeat that again? This article shows the potential candidates for superpower status in this century. Not the current superpowers. The current countries with the powerfull military... And Brazil doesn't have nuclear weapons because is signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty with other 189 countries. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 21:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is only one type of world superpower. The kind that America is right now, and that the Soviet Union used to be. That's what this article is about, and that's what the superpower article is about. Krawndawg (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- The superpower article on this site seems to think differently. User:68.89.164.112 21:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Removal The Sources here are obviously faulty, and until some good sources are added I support the removal of this section. User: Saruman20 User_talk: Saruman20 22:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Removal Don't underestimate Brazil. And don't put too much faith in crystal balls.--Wloveral (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Felipe C.S, please read WP:CANVAS before requesting that other users come and participate in the poll.--Mad Max (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- O, sorry... Felipe C.S ( talk ) 00:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Removal Brazil should be removed unless the section receives a major overhaul. A good part of the section has nothing to do with superpower status, such as the entire Culture subsection. Its ubnlikely for Brazil to acheive anything greater than regional power status. A factor/problems organization like India and China would work well. Its best to scrap the section and start over.
- The cultural influence in the world is one of the "superpower criterias". Felipe C.S ( talk ) 23:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose removal
Facts about Brazil:
- 5th most populous country
http://geography.about.com/cs/worldpopulation/a/mostpopulous.htm
- Biggest beef producer and has 207 million cattle
- 3rd biggest chicken meet producer and has 4.6 billion chickens
http://www.apexbrasil.com.br/eng/noticia_detalhe.aspx?idnot=75 http://www.animalethics.org.uk/aec-c-chickens-entries.html
- 2nd biggest exporter of agricultural products
http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/crs/abstract.cfm?NLEid=1762
- Biggest coffee producer
http://www.coffeeresearch.org/coffee/brazil.htm
- 2nd biggest iron ore producer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_ore
- 2nd biggest soybean producer
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33652
- Biggest sugarcane producer
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7120/full/444670a.html
- 6th largest uranium reserves
http://www.inb.gov.br/english/reservasBrasil.asp
- 3rd biggest bauxite producer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauxite
- 5th biggest manganese producer
http://www.manganese.org/production.php
- 3rd biggest corn producer
http://www.grains.org/page.ww?section=Barley%2C+Corn+%26+Sorghum&name=Corn
- A very poor Brazil does all that, imagine if Brazil becomes rich. Brazil is definitely a potential superpower. I am sorry I took so much space and I know I am Brazilian but those are facts.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 02:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Those are facts, but none are relevant to superpower status. Brazil is an agricultural giant, no doubt about that, but it is hardly a political or military superpower. There are viable resources to suggest otherwhise thus it violates wikipedia policy and must be removed. User: Saruman20 User_talk: Saruman20 12:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- A very poor Brazil does all that, imagine if Brazil becomes rich. Brazil is definitely a potential superpower. I am sorry I took so much space and I know I am Brazilian but those are facts.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 02:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Now countries are listed alphabetically and as such Brazil is on top, while most seem to agree that Brazil doesn't have most potential of all of them. Maybe a fair way to list the federations is by listing them by their population count. - PietervHuis (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- The countries should be listed by number of checks in the superpower template. User:68.89.164.112 21:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe, but the checklist is going to be ground for edit warring I predict. Someone already started checking all the bullets in Russia's infobox.- PietervHuis (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Russia has been that way for awhile, because technically Russia is everything there.User:68.89.164.112 21:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- User:68.89.164.112 seems a Russian nationalist. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 21:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please refrain from personal attacks. Just because someone says something like that does not mean they are a nationalist. You could be considered a Brazilian nationalist because you say something in defense of Brazil. That is unfair to call someone who did nothing but state a opinion a nationalist. User: Saruman20 User_talk: Saruman20 22:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Saruman20? Sockpuppet? Felipe C.S ( talk ) 22:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I registered so I could actually be counted. That is not being a sockpuppet. If someone registers than posts, that does not mean there a sockpuppet for the unregistered user. Joao Felipe C.S, please, this is a simple article and you are being rather rude and personally attacking me for having a different opinion than you. Please try to be civil, as I have done nothing bad to you and you should not attack me in any way. I have nothing against you or your country. I have been to Brazil and I liked it there, but I have a different opinion on whenever it is a superpower or not. Please do not take personal offense. User: Saruman20 User_talk: Saruman20 01:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please refrain from personal attacks. Just because someone says something like that does not mean they are a nationalist. You could be considered a Brazilian nationalist because you say something in defense of Brazil. That is unfair to call someone who did nothing but state a opinion a nationalist. User: Saruman20 User_talk: Saruman20 22:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- User:68.89.164.112 seems a Russian nationalist. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 21:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Russia has been that way for awhile, because technically Russia is everything there.User:68.89.164.112 21:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe, but the checklist is going to be ground for edit warring I predict. Someone already started checking all the bullets in Russia's infobox.- PietervHuis (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose removal - While I agree that Brazil does not possess any "superpower" as of now, the article is about "potential superpowers". In my opinion, any country whose assets may be helpful in the transition towards a superpower status is worth keeping. Brazil has got biodiversity (although it does very little to protect it from espionage), agrotechnology, a slowly growing scientific community and quite some cultural influence (through music and sport). None of these, alone, make a superpower, but one can argue that Brazil has got more or less what Russia and the US had in the first decade of the past century. The only problem is that the world is not "empty" now for growing. jggouvea (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support RemovalAs is this violates enough wikipedia rules that its continued inclusion will likely threaten the entire article with deletion. Especially if others follow it's example and use equally flimsy 'sources' to add more unsourced superpowers. When we get a credible noteworthy source that predicts brazil will likely become a superpower then it may qualify for inclusion. Blogs aren't suitable and even the suitable sources only go so far as saying that Brazil may become an "economic superpower". Sources can be found that both Germany and Japan have been called "economic superpowers" and yet neither has yet been regarded as a superpower. If countries can become "economic superpowers" and not be recognised as "superpowers" then why would prediction of the possibility of a country becoming an "economic superpower" in the future constitute a prediction that the potential "economic superpower" is a "potential superpower"? Likewise in English "World Power" means "Great power" so when a source says Brazil is becoming or may become a "world power" they are merely predicting that Brazil may join the ranks of France, the UK, China and other current "Great Powers". If that prediction pans out then maybe you'll find those sources starting to predict that Brazil may become a "superpower" but they are not going so far as to say that now. We need to NOT misrepresent our sources and we need to NOT use blogs as sources for articles.Zebulin (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Removal - I'm Brazilian, and I in no way see Brazil doing what's needed to reach this status. Even though my country has a strong economy, it grows at a slower pace than those of other countries. This means that even if we were to pursue the necessary military strength to reach this status, we would always trail other countries, as the economy wouldn't allow us to catch them up in terms of technology, size and global reach. And I emphasize "if" because I don't see we going after this at all, as our last actual war was in the 1860's (yes, almost 150 years ago), and since then things have been pretty peaceful. Simply put, there's no concrete incentive for Brazil to pursue this goal. Add to that the very human factor that our recent governments have been center-left or left, that the next ones will most probably follow this trend, and thus that they're and will continue to be full of people still bitter with the right-wing military dictatorship we had between 1964 and 1986, what means they're bitter with the military at large, and thus don't miss a chance to cut our armed forces budget, appeasing talks about the remote possibility of building a nuclear bomb notwithstanding, and I'd say our chances drop to zero. So, yes, please remove Brazil. In two or three decades this situation might change, who knows, the future is uncertain. But right now Brazil doesn't belong in this list. -- alexgieg (talk) 03:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Let me put in perspective what I think by mentioning the last edit by Felipe C.S., where he replaced Brazil status with bars:
- He claims that Brazil is a 100% economic superpower. Let's see: what would happen to the world were Brazil to suddenly stop importing and exporting everything, including our oil? Answer: nothing.
- Military: 75%. I'd say 5%. If one, and I mean one, US aircraft carrier decided to fight Brazil, it would win. And I mean it. When in 1964 USA said they'd help our military coup if there were trouble, they sent a single aircraft. That was enough then, it'd be enough now. Luckily for us, it wasn't needed. Besides, the text itself also says we have 100 million potential combatants. To this I ask: what would they combat with? Kitchen knives? Seriously, we cannot stabilize simple street riots in Haiti, and our opinion on whether any country should do anything at all in military terms to any other country is plainly ignored by both. We don't have any serious military power, that's a simple fact.
- Energy: 100%. Not true. We're almost self-sufficient energetically, and sell some oil to other countries, but that's it. Once we're exploring all we have, sure, we could go up in the scale, but as of now we're very far from 100%.
- Culture: 100%. Seriously, we sell some world music abroad, appear in the the cultural news once a year due to our Carnival, have one or two movies getting good reviews and some prizes every year in festivals, and some presence in sports, but that's all, and this all is a very small one. So small, in fact, that no country is even barely influenced by either Brazilian popular culture, and much less by our almost non-existent high culture, technology, science etc., were our realizations and influence are almost null. USA is the only 100% I can think of here. The European countries, taken as a whole, are also close to 100%. But Brazil, itself, would be at 1%, if that much.
- Political, at 50%, is the only bar I agree with. We have a good diplomatic force abroad, with some remarkable negotiating successes, a tradition we struggle to keep. But that's it.
- Thus, my opinion remains: either the whole section on Brazil is removed, or it should at least go through a complete rewrite. As it stands, it's almost pure non-NPOV material. -- alexgieg (talk) 05:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- This show true intelligence alexgieg. It pains me that not all people have what it takes to realize there are things that are wrong with their country. You've proved to me that not everyone is a nationalist. User: Saruman20 User_talk: Saruman20 12:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose removal. Brazil is definitely a potential superpower, for all the reasons stated above by other users. We could argue about "emerging superpower", but not on "potential superpower": it is definitely correct. Moreover if we remove Brazil, we will need to remove also Ukraine, which is definitely less potential superpower than Brazil. --Checco (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ukraine has already been removed as it was added by a nationalist. The issue is not whenever or not it's a potential superpower, it's the faulty resources. User: Saruman20 User_talk: Saruman20 12:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support RemovalSwedish pirate (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Swedish pirate? Sock puppet? Felipe C.S ( talk ) 17:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Swedish Pirate is an independant user and not a sockpuppet. His vote it valid. User: Saruman20 User_talk: Saruman20 18:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Map
Why is the US on the map of potential superpowers? Ostap 21:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- The map isn't just about potential superpowers it seems - PietervHuis (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- The very caption says "The present day governments to be called, or to remain, a potential superpower. ". Ostap 21:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- The U.S. is a superpower. It cannot be called "a potential superpower," or be said to remain "a potential" if it status is no longer just potential but reality. If the U.S. is to be kept on the map, the wording needs to be changed. --Mad Max (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I hid the map until someone can remove the US. Ostap 01:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- The U.S. is a superpower. It cannot be called "a potential superpower," or be said to remain "a potential" if it status is no longer just potential but reality. If the U.S. is to be kept on the map, the wording needs to be changed. --Mad Max (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- The very caption says "The present day governments to be called, or to remain, a potential superpower. ". Ostap 21:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I do agree that the United States is still a superpower. But I quickly learned (by other users and research) that the US is beginning to loose its superpower status (little by little). That is why the US is on my map. But because it is still a superpower, I put "or to remain" in the description. Things are there for a reason. — NuclearVacuum 16:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- While the US is generally refered to as a superpower, nothing can be truly unanimous. Many people say that since the end of the cold war there are no more superpowers, as the world is no multi-polar instead of bi-polar. Arguments have been made that in order for a superpower to exist there must be two superpowers, each keeping the other in check while at the same time enhancing it's own development in order to keep up with the other. Once one falls, the other will cease to be a superpower. Now, mind you, that is just what some people say. It's a opinion thing, thus the I think the US should remain there so that all opinions are represented. NuclearVacuum is correct. User:Saruman20 (talk) 21:01 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think the US, normally refered to as a superpower in sources, should be removed from the map. Ostap 00:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't, Russia is the superpower now, sure the US has its military but it doesn't have the funds to start another war, it foreign policy is costing too much money and so it the US econony, going bankrupt with it.
Brazil as an energy superpower
Please, stop putting Brazil down as an energy superpower. Use any reliable source, including the "energy superpower" wikipedia article, and it will tell you Russia and Saudi Arabia are the world's only energy superpowers. Brazil has a lot of energy, but it does not have enough to be considered an energy superpower. User:68.89.164.112 21:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Brazil is an oil superpower, an agricultural superpower, an ethanol superpower, a biofuels superpower and can be a superpower in other sections, making it a Energy superpower. Canada is also a energy superpower, and other countries... Felipe C.S ( talk ) 22:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
rename?
Perhaps the article could be changed to "potential world powers" and the wording used for each "potential" would reflect the language actually used by their sources. "World power" is a much more vague and encompassing term than "superpower" and would better accommodate the wide variety of predictions that are being sourced here. Currently sources predict everything from "economic superpower", to "world power" to, "energy superpower", to "political superpower", to "diplomatic superpower", to "cultural superpower", to "military superpower", to whatever other neologism the sources care to coin and we simply lump all such terms together as meaning "potential superpower" despite the drastically different nature of these predictions. A more vague term than "potential superpower" is required to encompass all of these.Zebulin (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I support in the case of India and Brazil, according with Encarta, are regional giants that have the potential to become great powers in the 21st century. [26] Perhaps could be create an article like "Brazil as a potential world power (or great power)" or "Brazil as an emerging world power (or great power)". Felipe C.S ( talk ) 03:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- A split perhaps? This article is very long, so it could benefit from a split. World and superpower are very different things. France is a world power. The United States is a superpower. Obviously, there very different in terms of international power. We should create a "potential world power" article. Brazil, India, Mexico, and Japan could all go there. It would resolve a lot of fighting here and I think it would benefit the article for the better. Of course, I think India needs mention in both pages simple because many sources state India as a potential superpower. I don't agree, but the resources are there so India would have to be both "potential superpower" and a "potential world power". User: Saruman20 User_talk: Saruman20 12:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Almost none "power classifications" are cited
Arbitrarily labeling countries as "superpowers" in various categories is original synthesis prohibited by WP:NOR. Even if we set up a classification system, it would be original synthesis. The "infoboxes" are almost universally uncited.
I could challenge almost every classification there. Some of the statements are cited and appropriate, but "regional power" and "great power" appear to be speculation, original ideas, or synthesis. In many cases, articles that read "global power" are taken to mean "superpower." A prima facie case to call them a "great power", certainly, but the line between superpower and great power is very vague and quickly goes into original synthesis.
WP:NOR allows limited, well-sourced speculation, but this article goes well beyond my comfort level. Speculations about 2050 are just too far out for realistic predictions about global politics.
If nothing else, please harmonize the list of "potential super" with "current great". India is listed there as emerging, so please make a strong case to count it as a current great before considering emerging superpower. Brazil isn't even mentioned on that list, though it could easily be at least "emerging" there. It is also strongly cited as a current middle power.Somedumbyankee (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Ukraine
Ukraine (Central Europe) has a modern very fast growing economy and many newest technologies.
Ukraine has had Orange Revolution and it is now a modern Western country. It has a Western-style democracy.
It has a small but extremely efficient cossaque army and many heroes.
Ukraine (Central Europe) is a mighty superpower. Yuck fou, katsaps! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.14.5 (talk) 06:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ukraine is the country where I was born, but it defiantly not a potenial superpower. As much as I wish it was, facts>hopes. Ukraine only has growing economy and technology because it's smack dab in the middle between two true potential superpowers, the European Union and the Russian Federation. User: Saruman20 User_talk: Saruman20 12:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ukraine might join the EU, which makes me wonder, do they have a lot of energy? That might just fill up the only thing the EU does not have right now. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ukraine has substantial resources, maybe enought to fill up the EU's difficulty in that area, but probably not enough. Moreover, Russia is holding tight onto the Ukraine, and it would anger Moscow a lot if it joined, something the EU can't afford to do. I suppose we will see. User: Saruman20 User_talk: Saruman20 18:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well Russia is always angry over something. If Norway would be part of the EU it would be an energy superpower for sure by the way. Too bad they are too afraid to join. - PietervHuis (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Brazil removed
Moved to Brazil as a potential great power. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 16:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think I support that. It doesn't need its own page and could best fit here. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I think this move is a good idea if a Potential great powers article is created. As the list of countries, both regional powers and middle powers, with potential to become great powers is way bigger than those of countries with potential of becoming superpowers, such an article would necessarily have a short description for each country, each linking to a full article with more details. Those could have standardized names such as "Country name as a potential great power", which in turn would be easy to link to from the article on each country. What do you think? -- alexgieg (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I support the move to potential great power. I think it's a great idea and maybe we could fill the page with other countries in time ( mexico and japan? ) Swedish pirate (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I applaud this decision. However, instead of having an article specific to Brazil, there should be an article for great powers in general. Mexico, Australia, and any other country suggested to obtain great power (but not superpower) status should be placed there. Japan is already a great power but not a superpower so lets keep it out of all this. Should we remove Brazil from here now that it has it's own article? Seems the most proper way. I'm glad this seems like a kind of resolution to this issue so thank Joao Felipe C.S. User: Saruman20 User_talk: Saruman20 18:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Created Potential great powers only for Brazil and India. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 18:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fine, I support this move as well. Basically a country needs to have nuclear weapons in order to be considered a superpower or a potential one, everybody else has one.
- ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 18:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Pakistan and Israel have "the bomb" but neither is even in consideration here, so nuclear weapons are not the key point. That Portugal is switching the way it writes the language based on Brazil's practices is a significant sign, and Brazil certainly has the capability to rise to dominance, but it's a bit too far out at the moment to make solid predictions. It's like the US football team. There's no reason they can't be one of the hardest teams to beat, but they aren't exactly dominating at the moment.Somedumbyankee (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Took away India, since it seems strange/unfair to keep it here while removing Brazil.Swedish pirate (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that India should go, but unfortunatly to many resources suggest it as a potential superpower, even though it is only a potential great power, and resources mean a lot more than fairness on an encyclopedia article. User: Saruman20 User_talk: Saruman20 18:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- How can a state jump from being a middle power to a superpower without being a great power in between? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swedish pirate (talk • contribs) 18:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- In my book it can't, but this isn't about personal opinion it's about sources and sources say India is a potential superpower. I don't agree, but resources>personal opinion. User: Saruman20 (talk 18:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Swedish pirate (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, both things aren't mutually contradictory. If some analysts say that a country that currently is a regional power has potential to rise to superpower, this doesn't mean it won't have to first pass through the stage of "mere" world power. It only means those analysts are taking for granted that it'll reach world power status, with an almost nonexistent chance of this not happening, and are thus are already speculating about what will happen afterwards. Thus, it'd happily appear in 3 articles: one listing current regional powers, another listing potential world powers (with a note stating this is almost a certainty), and another listing potential superpowers.
- But I'm thinking this might be the wrong approach. Wouldn't it be better to not have articles on future events at all, but instead simple factual articles informing the current level of each country, with subsection for country listed mentioning what analysts believe regarding the possibility of it reaching the next level, or levels? This would provide for a more stable, centralized platform around which to work these international relations articles, with less contradictory information being spread over multiple texts (if not the same information duplicated 'n' times), and would be a way to prevent excessive POV nationalism from infiltrating the listing. Only when a country actually switched levels, and analysts agreed this had happened, would a country entry be moved from one list to the other. -- alexgieg (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
For India and Brazil to be put into a new category article sounds OK with me. — NuclearVacuum 21:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad to see India and Brazil moved to their new, rightful category as potential great powers. They didn't belong as potential superpowers. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
United States vs. Russia as Superpowers
Many people are wondering about the United States and its recession[27] economy as if its still a superpower with the Iraq war, falling US dollar[28] [29][30], high US minimum wages being outsourced for Chinese labor, a high unemployment rate, credit crisis[31] through US foreign policy spending, US inflation[32] [33][34] from the Federal Reserve lowing interest rates too low[35], a housing crisis, dependence from oil & high gas prices and etc. Where does the United States stand as a superpower versing Russia’s current superpower status? Read at these sources here to see how the United States is losing or is now considered a former superpower:[36][37] [38]
Now there is [[Russia a superpower (the United States only real counter partner as as a superpower[39] [40][41] [42] [43][44] [45] because they have the economics[46] [47], the wealth[48] [49], the diplomatic power[50] [51], ideological[52] [53] [54][55][56][57], technological power[58] [59][60][61][62]& advances[63] than any other country besides the United States (look here on why the US is losing its superpower status read here:[64][65][66]) recognizes Russia as a superpower [67], they have the cultural sector and lets not forget their military forces (supreme). Russia is also the largest military arsenal producer in the world (they hold 73% of the worlds military arsenals market) and they have the worlds largest nuclear weapons arsenal than another other country (newer & older which many are reconditioned as new again) which is 5 times greater than the US has.
So Russia is a Superpower and lets not forget a Space Superpower, remember Russia has a Mar's mission coming up in 2015 [68]to 2024, also a Moon space station planned for 2015[69] without NASA but Russia going by itself; which NASA is out of funding due to a poor current US economy, 2007 & 2008. I do not start this article to brag about how wonderful Russia is, I started it because I am an American and I am seeing how the US is becoming a former superpower; even though I admire Russia as a country, I also admire my own country (USA) too.
Russia is a Superpower, that's plenty of facts in the bag to state they are in that position. The United State's position[70][71] [72]), think what they are in for, a lot in the bag on the whole US economy on all sorts of issues, so we need to understand our Congress has put a lot of our problems right in front of us. US Congressman Ron Paul[73] was the only presidential candidate who would have saved the US as a superpower and our country. We cannot regret Russia is a superpower once again, that was always predicted they would achieve that goal and good for them, they stuck to their dreams and they brought it back. The US has done the opposite and we are heading down down the economic depression [74] tube to a great power nation because of Congress, Unions, Corporate greed and oil.
If you want to save the US as a superpower, stop buying from US companies made in China (look for the labels and try to buy made in America only, store like Costco, Walmart, K-Mart, Best Buy, Staples and more are companies that buy made in China goods and we Americans buy these things by the millions each day), second visit Congress personally and request to bring down the US minimum wage and request to cap wages too high to cap them or lower high salaries so greed is enforced to stop US inflation. Read here as if we don’t do something we we’ll really suffer as China’s minimum wage is $.25 cents an hour as China has used its low labor population power to put their country on the Superpower front and we made that happen, please read an listen to this link: [75][76] [77][78] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Versace11 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with your statements here, I viewed the sources and it is said Russia is a supoerpower with much facts on these articles sounding this debate. I think the interesting article on US considered a former superpower by Austin Chronicle Texas is well defined[79].--64.69.158.252 (talk) 05:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Rusian economy defaulted in 1998, the Federal budget depends on oil and corruption is big problem
User: Saruman20 can I edit this article at all?
I added two little sentences downgraded Russia in Economy and you reverted why?
I supported my change with quote from Energy Information Administration, but you didn't accept it. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 18:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I see your point, but Russia is a great power in the economic regions. It is only one behind Brazil (which is considered a economic superpower by this article) in nominal GDP, but much higher than Brazil in GDP (PPP), at 7th place, higher than many other countries that have been called economic superpowers. It's economy is growing as fast as China or India. There was a large section at the top of this page on Russian economy and this was the consensus. User: Saruman20 (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Brazil is not an economic superpower...Brazil is very poor.
- On what is based the notion that Russia is a Great Economic Power?
- Where is the consensus?
- I gave you facts that showed that Russia is riding on oil revenues for both growth and federal budget.
- ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 19:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Look up at the top of this very page. "Russian economy" section. Stop changing it until some kind of desicion is reached here. Russia is a economic great power. It has 7th highest purchasing power in the world. It is not an economic superpower. It is an economic great power. Go to Great power for a basic idea on what kind of power in any area being a great power entitles. Russia is expected to have gone up in all economic areas by the 2008 GDP estimates. It has been suggested than in the next 20-30 years Russia will the world's 5th largest economy and the largest in Europe. It could surpass the UK in purchasing power this year. See List of countries by GDP (nominal) and List of countries by GDP (PPP) For 2007 estimates on Russian economic power. Russia is expected to rise in all areas in those charts. The CIA world factbook lists it as having a higher PPP than India now, not to mention with the growth expected when the current estimates are released. It also has large global influence in the economic sector. Russia is in BRIC (a widely regarded essay suggesting the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, and China by 2050). Russian industry is booming. The Russian economy is rapidly growing, it is easy to tell that if you go to Moscow or any other Russian city. Russia has previously been the 2nd largest economy in the world (Soviet Union) and much of that workforce and industry are still there, waiting to be used. It is the 3rd largest growing economy in the world (by share) after China and India. Need I say more? User: Saruman20 (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- EconomistBR, what difference does it make how a country chooses to make its money? There seems to be some sort of stigma against Russia for taking advantage of her ample endowments of natural resources, but no one ever explains why that matters. And since Russia's main advantage over other countries is her resources, naturally, then, you'd expect that to be the largest contributing factor to the economy; especially for a country that as recently as 1998 had defaulted on their currency, and especially for a country which is an energy superpower.
- Hong Kong, which is just a couple hundred square miles of rocky hillside, does not have the same advantage, so her people have to base their economy on other capital, like civilian technology. Making money is making money, whichever way you want to do it.
- You act like the high price of oil is a temporary phenomenon and that soon, when supposedly oil prices will fall, Russia's economy is going to collapse with it. The problem with that notion, however, is that economists agree that oil prices will not fall significantly in the foreseeable future. Perhaps in a few years prices will settle back at $80 a barrel, but they will not drop more than that. And $80 a barrel is more than enough for Russia's flourishing economy to keep flourishing. Russia is taking steps to diversify the economy anyway, so this is becoming less and less of a "problem" over time.
- All this scaremongering, with carefully chosen phrases such as "riding on oil," is not helpful and not accurate. I'll agree with you, however, that corruption remains a big problem. I also don't see a problem with stating that the ruble defaulted in the mid-1990s, as long as it isn't construed in a manner meant to marginalize Russia's unprecedented resurgence or current economic standing. --Mad Max (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Economic Superpower criteria is narrow minded and childish
- As User: Saruman20 explained to me the Economic measure is based on only 1 criteria: GDP and its variations: GDP (nominal), GDP(PPP) and GDP growth.
- That's extremely silly and narrow minded.
It doesn't take into abount
- HDI
- GDP per capita
- GINI index
- inflation
- corruption
- people living under the poverty line
- foreign reserves
- GDP composition (services, industry etc...)
- Labor force characterists (age, level of education etc...)
- International trade/GDP
- In the case of Russia the historic events of the default of 98 and the oil dependency are ignored
- But whatever...User: Saruman20 WINs, I am tired of arguing, I am moving on.
- ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 20:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- A narrow minded and silly definition is preferable for these purposes because it allows direct comparison, is sourceable, and because sources that discuss the economic prerequisites for superpower status seem to pointedly ignore many of the economic parameters you listed. In a realpolitik sense number of people living under the poverty line or HDI, or corruption, or any related quality issues are unlikely to be economic power issues but rather will likely be only soft power or "cultural power" issues if they play any role at all. If you want to add those other parameters you need to find a source that uses them in defining a superpower.Zebulin (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Regional Power
Like the name suggest, a regional power is a nation with very little influence outside it's region. It is not just a weaker great power. For example, while Russia may be at the lower end of great power status on the economic scale, it is not a regional power, as it's economy contributes to rest of the globe, not just Eastern Europe. Likewhise, the European Union has immense energy exports. It may not be a massive great power in terms of energy, it is more than just a regional power on that scale. I feel that some of the edits here are not taking this in mind and are putting nations down as regional powers simply because they are lesser greater powers in certain areas. User: Saruman20 (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Separation of sections
This article is beginning to become overfilled with details and is making for a slow download and upload. This is a few reasons that I am considering the idea of each section having its own article so as not to overfill this article (similar to the once "Brazil as a potential great power"). — NuclearVacuum 21:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- A lot of the history in the articles is really irrelevant. This can be one page, but it will require some disciplined slash and burn tactics on the cruft that's been gathering. Peter the Great was a great guy, for example, but his picture really doesn't mean much.Somedumbyankee (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Map fixed again
Okay the article is fine now, it includes the only 3 real potential superpowers, someone just need to fix the map, cheers. Supaman89 (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's good and easy. I fixed my flag to only include four countries. The reason that America is still on there is simply and reasonable. Quoting from "Superpower#Post Cold War (1991-)":
“ | Additionally, there has been some recent speculation that the United States is declining in power. Citing economic hardships, Cold War allies becoming less dependent on the United States, a rapidly declining dollar, the rise of other great powers around the world, and decreasing education, some experts have suggested the possibility of America losing its superpower status in the distant future. | ” |
- This should explain why America is on there. Hope you like it and if you need anymore changes to it, just give me a note and I will be happy to check it out. — NuclearVacuum 01:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- NV, I still don't understand why the US is on the map. The map is of potential superpowers, correct? The US is not, even according to the quote given, a potential superpower. The quote actually confirms that the US is a superpower (if it can lose its status in the future, it must have it now). Ostap 04:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've thrown an alternate caption on the map that I think is less confusing.Somedumbyankee (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- NV, I still don't understand why the US is on the map. The map is of potential superpowers, correct? The US is not, even according to the quote given, a potential superpower. The quote actually confirms that the US is a superpower (if it can lose its status in the future, it must have it now). Ostap 04:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is a JOKE.
Ok, pardon me for dropping my 2 cents, but here is my take on this article. If someone votes to put this page up to deletion, I'll totally agree and I won't hesitate to put my insight favoring the decision.
This is what I see:
- Regular users taking administrative roles.
- People "voting" rather than "discussing"
- People putting their own perspective and point of view rather than sticking with sources provided by professionals and specialists.
- Users making this a definitive list rather than exposing viewpoints.
Look, we should start first defining the word potential: According to the Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (ISBN 1-888777-48-6 , TridentPress International, 2002, p. 347), potential is an adjective defined as:
PO•TEN•TIAL adj. possible -n. an unrealized capacity or capability
According to that, there are several countries in the world that would be able to fulfill this criteria. Also, there is a lot of debate on whether a country can be considered a superpower or not. Even in the superpower article, is clearly states the criteria on the first line:
The criteria of a superpower is not clearly defined [80] and as a consequence they may differ between sources.
Hence, this shouldn't be a limited and fixed list. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should not be the limiting agent trying to judge, define and characterize countries as "potential superpowers" but rather, should be arguing and sourcing why some people believe such and such countries are considered potential superpowers. According to Wikipedia Guidelines, if several unrelated sources can be mentioned, it is notable and worth it of mentioning.
With that in mind, let me introduce you to some articles/essays/books that would help you improve your understanding on the international power issue.
- Template:International power should be a good start. But also, focus on G8+5 · BRI(M)C · Next Eleven · SCO and I'd also recommend a look on Chindia.
- Robyn Meredith, The Elephant and the Dragon: The Rise of India and China and What It Means for All of Us (ISBN 0393062368 [2007] W W Norton & Co Inc)
- Peter Engardio, Chindia: How China And India Are Revolutionizing Global Business (ISBN 0071476571 [2006] McGraw-Hill)
There is absolutely no question India should be included in the same place China is. Books like "The Elephant and the Dragon", "Chindia" and even "Financing Energy Efficiency" explains several characteristics that make these countries potential superpowers despite their ongoing list of problems. The fact is that here too, most of the views are based on the personal knowledge of the country (which most of the times is limited to "I know where it is located in the map" ) and bias. Mexico and Brazil should definitely be included. As it has been mentioned over and over by scholars as an alternative for China and India and their stability compared to those countries. Also, Russia should not be left behind either.
For starters, this is not a matter of "voting". AFDs are not that way and this topic won't be that way either.
Also, mentioning unrelated links to whether countries like Brazil withstand the possibility of becoming a superpower doesn't help our discussion and it doesn't help us to arrive to a consensus. Every single country in the world could be a potential superpower as every single one of them will be able to show "good economic standing" or things like that. At the same time, every single country in the world has the potential to be removed from that list since we can find sources showing its "poor human treatment", "political instability", "More people die in XXX daily than in Iraq" and things like that. What I'm trying to say is that even China (a country that we all agree should be in the list) has its contrasts, social deficiencies, political instabilities and things like that.
Although not necessarily related, I'd also recommend the following books as further info:
- Robert P. Taylor et al., Financing Energy Efficiency: Lessons from Brazil, China, India, and Beyond (ISBN 0821373048 [2008] World Bank)
I'll stop writing here trusting that you folks broadened your visions of the world. I know I wasn't very clean or clear in my writing but I believe that after reading it, you will have some insight on the topics regarding "Potential Superpowers". Please feel free to discuss my opinion here or throw your anger in my Talk Page. Thank you for your time. -- Loukinho (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- The article will definitely benefit by having a sourced discussion of what experts suggest predisposes a country towards becoming a superpower and how countries appear to be able to develop into a superpower. Right now all of this seems to be simply assumed and those unstated assumptions used to support original research cases for each country as a future superpower. If we were to continue to have sections for individual countries they should contain nothing more than quotes of sources explicitly predicting that the country will be a superpower.Zebulin (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. A few days ago, I wouldn't have, but after reading over the article it's obvious it sucks. The very principle is messed up. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for discussion on world politics. Now that I realized this, it puts this all in perspective: the article must go. It is long (so much extra, unnessicary info), unorganized (why does each country have different categories?), biased (read some of the sections, many are obviously nationalistic, and some are obviously from a very Western viewpoint), and it has all but broken down into an edit war, with people adding there own opinions and not contributing any resources. I admit, I took part in this in the past, but I realize the error of my ways. The article must be deleted. User: Saruman20 (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- This article is pure bs. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If it stays, it must have India in it. India is supposed to overtake the American economy by 2043 according to Goldman Sachs[1]. Ofcourse its a potential superpower! Nikkul (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Only 35 years away. In 1973, the end of the cold war was far from predictable. This is a subject for academics and serious research, not speculating with cherry-picked articles to support the greatness of one's own country. WP:SYN and WP:NPOV make this article almost impossible to construct and meet Wikipedia's quality standards. WP:CRYSTAL allows limited, well-sourced predictions to allow for things like articles about the events in the 2008 Olympics. It wouldn't allow for speculation about who would win what medal. This article is about who will win the "superpower" medal. Sure, the Russian team might be dead ringers for the medal, but...
- This article might be called hopeless, which is specifically noted in the policy as a bad prima facie reason to delete the article. It's not actively harmful, there aren't any copyright violations, and it doesn't meet any other deletion criteria. The question is, can it be fixed?Somedumbyankee (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Bar charts
The bar charts in every potential superpower infoxbox need to be removed immediately. They are completely arbitrary and all of them are unsourced, not to mention they were never made for this purpose. For exmaple, India is apperantly 85% an economic power, 60% a political power, 80% a military power, 40% an energy power, and 85% a cultural power. Where do these numbers come from? They come from the article's editors' imagination, sometimes based on good guesses, sometimes not. In any case, they are all original research—if "research" is even the appropriate word—and violate some of Wikipedia's most fundamental rules. This is not an issue of voting; we can not vote to overrule policy. Until a source is found that breaks down countries in specifically those numbers, the bars need to go.--71.112.145.211 (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. The bar charts are definitely (un)encyclopedic and should be removed. --AI009 (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- I floated this to the WP:NOR talk page and received a similar opinion there. I am going to be WP:BOLD and remove them from the article.Somedumbyankee (talk) 06:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Addition of India?
We had a discussion on the talk pageand the result of it was to remove Brazil and India. India has magically reappeared as a potential superpower. It was agreed that India belonged as a potential great power. In additon, there was no discussion to re-add India to the page My question is why was India added to the page again? --Hobie Hunter (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Imagining too much.. huh? Can you please provide a link to that previous discussion? Involving a couple of editors without getting balanced and more knowledgeable view does not help. --AI009 (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
India is the world's fourth largest economy right now and according to Goldman Sachs, India will overtake the US economy by 2050. Ofcourse it is a potential superpower! Who's going to say one country is a potential and another one isnt. Wikipedia is not a forum; inclusion is not based on editors' opinion. Nikkul (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- World's 4th largest economy
- Will overtake US economy before 2050, according to Goldman Sachs
- Second largest army by personnel
- Largest democracy
- 2nd largest economic growth
The funny part Nikkul is that User:Hobie Hunter claims We had a discussion on the talk pageand [sic] the result of it was to remove Brazil and India and while I can see proposals being made of removing Japan, Mexico and Brazil, the issue of India's status wasn't even raised here. The user is nothing but a troll. Please ignore. --AI009 (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Found the discussion. But again, that consensus was reached only by few editors and balanced view was not sought. --AI009 (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
A summary of points in favor of India:
- Second most populous country in the world.
- Fourth largest economy; ahead of Russia (see List of countries by GDP (PPP)).
- Second fastest growing large economy; ahead of USA, EU and Russia (see List of countries by GDP (real) growth rate).
- Will be second largest economy in the world by 2050 (see BRIC report).
- Third largest standing army; ahead of Russia (see List of countries by number of active troops).
- Only Asian country which maintains an active aircraft carrier.
- Largest importer of military hardware in Asia.
- A cultural influence rivaled by none in southern Asia and extending far into Southeast Asia, East Asia and Middle East. (if one takes into account the spread of Buddhism and yoga, India is very much a cultural superpower)
And someone put India in the same category as Brazil?! --AI009 (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Bollywood reaches 3 billion people. Hollywood only reaches 1.5 billion people. Nothing else can compete! Thinking about Budhism, yoga, bollywood, and many other factors, India is def a cultural superpower. Nikkul (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just a point of context on why India isn't here... I made a comment that the list of "potential superpowers" should be consistent with the list of current "great powers" on the logic that a country generally goes from one "weight class" to another by steps. India is currently listed as a Middle power. It could be a potential superpower and a potential great power, but it seems redundant to show both unless the rise will be extremely rapid. No one particularly objected to this analysis, so I think that's the consensus that was referenced for moving India to potential great powers from this article. The alternative is to establish that India is already a great power and makes more sense here, but expect stiff resistance from the Brazilians.Somedumbyankee (talk) 06:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- What baffles me is the fact that the article on potential great powers assumes that only UNSC permanent members are 'great powers'. That is highly inaccurate because - Firstly, being a UNSC member is more of a status rather than real power as UN's power itself is greatly limited in present political scenario. Secondly, UNSC itself represents the political climate of 1945 and not of 2008. That is what the entire UNSC reform debate is all about! Even then, how does being a UNSC member make France a great power and Japan only an economic power? The entire logic is as flawed as UNSC itself. --AI009 (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Read the Power in international relations article. Power is not stature, it's not accomplishments, it's the ability of the country to meddle with the world. Japan is only an economic power because their pacifist constitution pretty much rules out a lot of hard power, and they're relatively isolationist. France is a Great power because it can, and does, influence global politics. The US is a Superpower because it is pretty much always involved in global politics. This is partially why India is considered a middle power: it's not that it doesn't have the power to be influential, they just don't flex those muscles that much.Somedumbyankee (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
LOTS of original research wind blowing through this discussion. Bottom line...if the sources explicitly state that they are predicting that India will be a superpower then those sources and their predictions can be included. There is no point in our trying to convince each other here one way or another because any "consensus" achieved in that manner will simply be impermissible OR noise. Predictions are not allowed in wikipedia articles but reporting the predictions of qualified sources is.Zebulin (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
EXACTLY! How is Brazil comparable to India. In fact in some previous versions there were some bar charts (e.g. this) showing both Brazil and India as Great powers in military might. How irrelevant! India is an advanced nuclear state with one of the largest defence forces in the world. Just check up Brazilian armed forces and see how inferior it is compared to Indian one. At the most it is a regional power for military. And how come India isn't considered a cultural superpower?
India:
- 2nd largest population
- Second largest army by personnel
- World's largest democracy
- Largest film industry in the world in terms of viewership
- 4th largest economy
- 2nd fastest growing economy
- Largest pool of English understanders / 2nd largest in terms of fluent speakers
- Posseses WMDs (Nuclear weapons)
- 2nd largest troop contributor to UN
- 6 companies in fortune 500 list
- Recognised IT power
- Advanced space program
- Young population (~30 years of age, average)
- 2nd largest agricultural output in the world
Oh ya.. and
- 5x winner in Miss World, 2x in Miss Universe
India as a cultural powerhouse:
- Yoga, Ayurveda, Vaasthu Sastra, Siddha, and yes, Kamasutra
- Birthplace of 4 major religions:
- Hinduism (3rd largest number of followers, one of the oldest religion)
- Buddhism (4th largest number of followers, spread far and wide. Most Buddhists are in China and other East Asian countries)
- Sikhism
- Jainism
- Formed one of the ancient civilization (Indus) which introduced many things to the modern world such as (amongst some)
- Chess
- Zero (0) number
- Explanation of Gravity
- Concept of spherical earth
- Heliocentrism
- Birthplace of earliest and only known Modern Language
- Plastic surgery
- In fact even Shaolin Kung Fu has its roots in India (Bodhidharma)
- Has by far the most number of dance styles (still alive) and musical instruments
- Home to the world's longest epic (Mahābhārata, 90,000 verses)
In fact Indian culture has been absorbed into various other cultures especially in South East Asia. See the Malay language / Cambodian architecture / Indonesian names and currency name / Thailand's airport name! All atributed to Indian culture!
OK lets stop here. This isn't Indian propoganda. Coming to the point, I don't know how Brazil matches up. --60.50.66.194 (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I repeat what Zebulin said earlier;
- It's interesting that the article calls Brazil a "military superpower" when not only does it lack nuclear weapons, but it's armed forces are smaller than that of Iran, or Myanmar, or Vietnam, or Egypt, or Turkey, or Ukraine, or Indonesia, or Thailand, or Syria, or even Taiwan (which isn't even recognized as a country). The fact that our article calls Brazil a "military superpower" just goes to show what a sad state this article has sunk to
- He went on saying that it could be the work of a nationalist. 100% true. --60.50.66.194 (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Let us stick to talking about the inclusion of India. The inclusion of Brazil can have its own section. This section is about INDIA. Nikkul (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with re-introducing India - The issues above where about removing Mexico and Brazil from the article, not about India, I do think India belongs to this article. Supaman89 (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that India should be here, but this article shouldn't contradict other articles. Going straight from Middle Power to Superpower without being considered a Great Power first isn't impossible, but it doesn't sit well with me. I'm going to un-watchlist this article and leave y'all to it, I don't see it as salvageable but don't see a burning need to delete it or make a fuss.Somedumbyankee (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Organization
This article is extremely unorganized. Each country has different sections, and some, like India and China are long and filled with unnessicary information. The Potential great powers article has a good system of organization. This system should be applied to all the sections in this article, espicially extremely long, unorganized ones like India and China. User:Saruman20 (Usertalk:Saruman20|talk]]) 12:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
India
India is a potential superpower, or a potential great power? Felipe C.S ( talk ) 04:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- A potential superpower, that's why people discussed about adding it back. Supaman89 (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Destroy old world.jpg
The image Image:Destroy old world.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Why Russia is not a superpower
Enough is enough. This article has become a hotbed for nationalistic views. Please, this is an encyclopedia. I'm tired of reverting stupid, non-sense edits being made to this article. As a matter of fact, I'm surprised that this article has even survived on Wikipedia. And for those people who live in the imaginary world created by Russia media:
- Russia has the seventh largest GDP (PPP). See List of countries by GDP (PPP)
- Russia has the eleventh largest GDP (nominal). See List of countries by GDP (nominal). Even Brazil has a larger GDP than Russia's.
- Russia has the 54th highest GDP (nominal) per capita. Behind several European and Asian countries.
- Russia has the fifth largest number of active troops. China, USA, India and N. Korea are ahead.
- Russia has the seventh largest military budget. Even Germany and Japan have a greater military budget than Russia. As a matter of fact, Russia had to ask for funds from India and Brazil to finance its 5th-generation fighter jet program.
- Has the 26th highest economic growth rate. China and India are way ahead. According to BRIC report, by 2050 the three largest economies will be China, India and USA.
- 67th highest Human Development Index.
- Ranks 105th in Quality-of-life index way behind other potential superpowers like China and India and even behind Botswana.
- Ranks 131st in Global Peace Index even behind failed states like Pakistan and Myanmar. It cannot even maintain control over its own territory and some people claim it already is a superpower?
A nation which cannot even claim top 5 ranks in any of these indicators is a superpower? Give me a break. Any person who resumes adding the same bs to this article will be reported and risks getting blocked. --AI009 (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Russia is not a superpower. I live in Russia, it's a potential superpower, not a superpower. However, some of your accustations are flawed. Russian quality of life is way above India or China, don't believe everything on the internet. 5th largest number of troops it pretty good, considering it has the 9th largest population. GDP per capita is flawed, because by that estimate Luxemborg is the world's greatest economy... Brazil does not have larger economy. Russia is 7th in PPP, which is the real world, practical measure of a nation's economy. Also, those are 2006-2007 estimates. When the 2008 list is released, Russia will have gone up at least two ranks and surpassed Brazil and Spain in GDP (nominal), and also will go up in GDP (PPP). By the BRIC report, Russia will be 5th, and since Brazil's growth has slowed, probably 4th now, after China, the US, and India. The Global Peace Index is obviously flawed, because Russia isn't the one invading Middle Eastern countries for oil and causing the deaths of thousands of innocent people (that's the world's sole superpower's job). Quality of life uses crap like number of divorces, climate, and church attendance to get it's rankings, which is all stupid. We can't help that we're cold, and if we have lots of divorces and low church attendence, I don't care. That's obviously biased to countries who uphold to tradtional, religious values (something I'm glad Russia doesn't). But, regardless, Russia is a potential superpower, not a superpower. "Superpower" is being used far too loosly around here. User: Saruman20 (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- GDP per capita is measure of economic prosperity per capita. By that measure, Luxemburg is one of the most economically prosperous countries. PPP and nominal are two different measures of measuring an economy and generally economies which are developing have higher PPP than nominal economy. Since China, India, Russia and Brazil have high difference between nominal and PPP economies, they are still developing. EU and USA are developed economies; that's why there is little difference between PPP and nominal. But PPP and nominal are both equally important measures of a nation's economy. Regarding Global Peace Index, what about lack of rights in Russia, disputes in Chechnya, etc. Superpower does not really mean ability to project power only. It also means one's ability to use power decisively and gather considerable international support. Russia is not a role model unlike the United States. Agreed that countries like Venezuela, Russia, Iran, North Korea and a good part of Middle East don't highly regard United States. But enter countries like China and India where a third of humanity lives and you'll realize the considerable influence America still exerts. According to Fareed Zakaria, America's greatest weapon which will ensure its superpower status is immigration. --AI009 (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just want to say that Russia has purposefully cut down on the number of troops in its military, and wants to further reduce that number to about 1 million. Most modern armies are moving away from the outdated doctrine of huge troop build up that was witnessed after WWII, and are focusing on smaller, mobile, and highly-trained armies. So, really, number of troops is more like a sign of backwardness than a sign of power, which of course is why no one takes China's 7 million-strong army very seriously. --71.112.145.211 (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note that I mentioned active troops. If one takes armed forces into account, Iran has one of the largest armies. Standing army represents one's ability to mobilize troops to different regions and also ability to engage in multiple conflicts. But obviously, there are a lot of other factors like military expenditure, training, technology etc. which needs to be taken into account. --AI009 (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Russia as a developing country...that's funny. I've lived in the US, and it's not more free or prosperous than Russia. I'd have to say, Russia is more of a role model than the US. India may look up to the US, but China hardly does. Nobody likes the US anymore, because of it's imperialistic, nationalistic, war-mongering, and ruthless foreign policy. Russia has better human rights than America, last I checked, America still has the death penalty, Russia has abolished it in practice. While the Russian people are subjected to the daily doses of propaganda we get over here, Americans get it too. The American media and education institutions are all about teaching kids how great America and how evil countries like Russia, China, and Cuba are. They're not. I've been to all three. If that's not propaganda, I don't know what is. Again, Russian propaganda may say it's a superpower, but it's not. Both countries have propaganda and human rights issues, so let's not try to put one over the other, that's just scaremongering and propaganda. User: Saruman20 (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- American education system does not tell which countries are good or not. American media does and that's because they have freedom of speech. Anyways, I never said USA was some sought of a utopia and please, this is an encyclopedia and personal interpretations have no significance here. We need facts and facts say USA is ahead of Russia in many aspects.. and so are Germany, France, UK and China. And don't blame the entire USA for Bush administration's faults. --AI009 (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the American education system does. From the words of my 8th grade Social studies teacher (when my mind was young and impresionable) when I was living in the United States, and going to one of the top schools in the country aswell, "America usually realizes that's it's wrong faster than other countries. Some countries, like Cuba and China, just execute people without a trial. Be glad you live in a better country", not to mention all sorts of other anti-communist, anti-China, and anti-Russia stuff I heard in school, on the news. But, I agree with you, Russia is not a superpower. There arn't many sources to suggest that, but I'm just pointing it out that your posts make Russia out to be worse than it seems. Your general point is correct. These nationalists need to stop making Russia out to be better than it seems, but on the other hand people need to stop putting Russia down aswell. To say Germany, France, and the UK are ahead of Russia is foolishness. Russia is already ahead of France, and is expected to surpass Germany and possible the UK in the near future. China and the US are however ahead of Russia. That's why Russia is a potential superpower, it has a good chance in the future, but not yet. User: Saruman20 (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am reading more and more comments from user AI009, this guy obivously doesn't like Russia at all and has made a lot of
critism about the country in general, not just false comments about it not being a superpower but quoted all sorts of bias notes and changes he has made on the article as he is determined to hide all the information about Russia is not a superpower and goes on to say nothing but non sense things. I mean how would he like if we down talked his country, India?
- Besides, Russia is a superpower; (argue all you want), those statements are on the topic and he just throws them out, so people can't read them.
- So this user is really someone who hates the country than his sources as he has no sources, just BS. --Bradmorrisusa (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's going a little too far isn't it? He may be critizing the country, but to say he hates it is a little extreme. User: Saruman20 (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Uh? Sources? Dude, I provided links for all those facts I provided. I don't have anything against Russia and why should I? Neither am I American nor European. I am an Indian and last time I checked, India and Russia were allies. All I'm asking for is this article to be factual, logical and encyclopedic. Including statements like "Russia is a superpower" only reduces the credibility of Wikipedia. --AI009 (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree, your a fat liar AI009, I noticed that you guys charging words on no information on the source of facts either. I think you guys are from India making your content your way, doesn't matter what you present, it is your way or take it to the highway. I think Russia is a superpower and to hear you guys saying it on sources dating back in 1991 when this is 2008, which is right in the superpower topic currently[81]; old resources. We are suppose to believe you guys using old sources that the US is a sole superpower when articles are being published today 2008 that US is no longer a superpower and you AI009 is changing the facts by eliminating everything, so so are you Saruman20 doing the samething. It is what you want to do, you want to say the US is a superpower does matter who says it isn't, you deny everything(look at your records, it is a fact you both make living here changing things back all the time). I will take it and send snap shots by sending it to the administers to show what you guys are doing on a daily basis, this article Superpower is a crooked set of facts that making people believe these so so facts are to believe this is the current truth is a hawk of crap. If you hate I say it, Russia is a superpower and I will post it for ya too.
- If someone wanted to use Superpower on a research paper, this is the wrong source of information here, you guys are to blame.
- You don't have sources AI009, your just in this to down talk Russia, your record is a pure fact that is what you do on Wikipedia.
Keep it topical please
Please keep the discussion focused on editorial issues that relate directly to this article. If the editors here have difficulty reaching consensus, suggest dispute resolution. Best wishes. DurovaCharge! 16:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think everything is fine here, no need for a WP:DR. What's the issue? User: Saruman20 (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Why Russia is a Superpower
I happened to listen to John McCaim today on television about his new foreign policy issues[82]. It is interesting to note that a US Senator making statements about the nuclear arms race of today and how he quoted that the 2 superpowers on tv this morning (Russia and the United States) on more disarmament but also military commitments on patrolling the middle east from nuclear conflicts. Claiming that Russia can destroy the world with a quarter of its total nuclear arsenal and that Russia has a lot of power with its international relations & global strategy with countries the US can't meet the eyes with. Russia's allies are the US's enemies or why the US can't control the countries it needs to influence and Russia can. It seems that with all of the US's NATO member countries, not one of them can influence any dangerous country or potential dangerous country than non-NATO Russia. That right there says what Russia is and their importance on a global scale, which is beyond a world power country can do; which clearing states that Russia is no world power. A superpower has the ability to influence nations and countries together on major conflicts that interact with other nations that cannot. World powers are limited powers and are not global enough to make a stance which can lead to nation threats to war who cannot defend their own sovereignty or countries they bring on to the table. John McCain made these comments and reputably repeated the word Russia over 67 times in a 22 minute speech.
Obviously to the US, Russia has the economic potential plate to build anything they want and influence the world on a global scale. I mean why would he say to the public that Russia is the new influence on foreign policy; and act of will or an act of desperation? It is clear that the US has to look at Russia as its partner to the world on a global front if it needs an act of influence since the US cannot control its global policy. Both countries have the four axes of power on superpower influences than any other country; there is no question that both can destroy the world over and over again but who is not clearly strong enough where another can. I see Russia as either the potential or the second superpower, nothing lower. I’ll post the speech on youtube to prove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradmorrisusa (talk • contribs) 20:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- This is good information, maybe you should include it in the article and use that youtube video as a source? However, it is my opinion Russia is a potential superpower like China, the EU, and (possibly) India, not a full-blown superpower (at least not yet). But, regardless, personal opinion means nothing, and if you have adequete sources feel free to add something to article as long as it is not biased and/or nationalistic. However, since your edits have only been on this article and it's discussion page, I'm lead to believe that you are a sockpuppet for User: Versace11, who was suspended for a couple days because of edit warring and bad edits, but if your not, feel free to add information that you see as useful and constructive to the article. User: Saruman20 (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I would say Russia is a potential superpower. Having a tremendous nuclear arsenal, a Cold War relic, doesn't make Russia a superpower (though it sure does help). By definition a great power is globally influential. Russia has friendly relations with rogue nations because they need to cozy up to any great power, and the US, UK, and France won't have warm relations with them, Russia and China are left. Also, Russia has been happy to help with and weapon needs they need be fulfilled. And Saurman, he doesn't look like a sockpuppet of Versace11. His arguments seem much more thought and coherent. (Though I would be on the lookout for sockpuppets. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well if the US government is saying that Russia is a superpower and your disagreeing, who's going to believe you? What key card do you have to access behind the closed doors of the government (US or Russia)? Your making an opinion, the guy above provided the facts, your just making an opinion, your guessing Russia is a world power. If George Bush said Russia was a superpower tomorrow, your opinion would be the same. I don't think it is an opinion Hobie Hunter, I think it is your choice to believe what you like not what others tell you with sources.
- Second France, France and Germany have greater relations with Russia than any other country, shall I provide you the reference, I would be happy too. First, Russia is the energy superpower of Europe, Great Britain has admitted this but to make a comment about France & Russia. Who told you this? Where is your facts "Hobie Hunter" about France and Russia?? Who said France is not in going to cozy with Russia? Where did this come from?
- You all make compelling points. Russia does have a lot of power, probably more than any of the other candiates here, but it can't be considered a superpower yet, because while it is America's equal politically (it has close ties to many nations, not just so called "rogue states", including Europe because of energy), militarily (Russia has the largest conventional and nuclear weapons, the world's most advanced ICBM, a massive nuclear stockpile, not to mention top-notch military training and technology, second only to the US), and energy (obviously), but Russia's true weakness appears to be in economics. While Russia is economically strong, it is along way from rivaling the US (though, as we are seeing, the US economy isn't doing so good). That's the only reason China, India, and the EU have an edge on Russia, otherwhise it would be a full-blown superpower. Also, a little off-topic here, Russia doesn't supply weapons to "rogue nations", it is working to help Iran develop nuclear power, not nuclear weapons as the Americans seem to think. User: Saruman20 (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)