Template talk:International power

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject International relations (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Joao Felipe[edit]

Your interventions out of reason modifying this template have been reported and your status as active member has one calling of atention, please don't reject this notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kardrak (talkcontribs) 01:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

SCO Dispute[edit]

I don't believe we should include the SCO on this template, firstly, it consists of many Central Asian non-Great nations...it's aim seems to be more economic development as opposed to BRIC which is very much power-projection related. All BRIC Nations are Great or close to Great as opposed to in the SCO where there are 2 Great Powers and a number of middle powers. Lastly, does the SCO page have much written on it relating to Superpower-status or power in international relations? If we include this, why not include ASEAN, NATO and other international relations organizations? Please answer before readding it... Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

BRIC is a marketing term focusing on trade while SCO is composed of great powers. SCO is an intergovernmental organization similar to NATO. It is about military, economic, and power-projection-related. ASEAN is different because there is no great or superpower included in it. And there is no emerging superpower in NATO. SCO is more prominent than BRIC because BRIC is a marketing term and is mainly about trade. However, SCO is more than economics, it concerns security, culture, trade, ect. If BRIC is included, than SCO should be as well.
The BRIC thesis is directly related to economic power and power projection. Remember, this is not the Emerging Superpower template, it is the Power in international relations template, thus it includes Regional, Middle, Great and Superpowers. Therefore either we include a number of other international organizations or we strictly keep it to those related to power projection. Simple economic and military cooperation is present all over the world. The entire article for the SCO doesn't even mention the word 'power'. I'll keep it on for now but if you don't reply within a few days it'll go off again. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how BRIC is more prominent than SCO. Emerging powers make up a huge part of the international relations template and we should include international organizations that include these emerging superpowers. The SCO article needs expansion.

NATO is in decline and currently a solution in search of a problem. Whereas the SCO is a new, growing alternative bloc which contains a lot of powerful players and is very relevant considering that Iran is about to join forces with Russia and China. It's not an economic union, it's a 'security' union. Joffeloff 16:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Though it may be in decline, the SCO article mentions NATO, so perhaps NATO merits a place here also...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

BRIMC[edit]

BRIMC is a valid term used by Goldman Sachs and, far before that, it was used by financial experts to denote the five leading emerging markets of Brazil, Russia, India, Mexico and China. Since I included the term here, nobody opposed its inclusion but a brazilian user named "Joao Felipe". The term has been here for months and nobody has deleted it since then. However, "Joao Felipe" returned to Wikipedia and he decided that the term "was not important" in the template (as you can read in one of his edit summaries).

It is so obvious BRIC is not the same that BRIMC, nor "Next Eleven". More importantly, if we are going to "delete" something, we should seriously think about removing all the economical terms, since the article is about international power, focused in politics. Thanks. AlexCovarrubias Flag of Mexico.png ( Talk? ) 01:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The term is not used by Goldman Sachs. The bank created the term "Next Eleven", of which Mexico is member. BRIMC can be cited in the template, since that BRICS, BRICET, BRICA, and others also are cited. Since the mexican user named "Alex Covarrubias" included the article, it was unknown, as much the other terms. We go to be right, or we remove BRIMC or we add all. João Felipe C.S 18:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong title[edit]

Someone created the article Power politics, which is not the right name, and thus on this template it should be Machtpolitik. 172.191.100.66 20:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Change Power in international relations template[edit]

BRIMC, BRIC, and Next Eleven are not international organizations or even groups in the political sense. They should not be in this category. There should be a seperate category that shows a difference. One category for these three (maybe call it "Growing economic powers" instead), and one for "International Organizations". That makes way more sense! ObamaGirlMachine (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Add G20 major economies?[edit]

In view of current developments, it would seem sensible to add the article G20 major economies to this template. 217.41.240.15 (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm[edit]

Is it just me or does the section "Types of power status" look a bit twee? Do academics in international security really try to classify powers into such extraordinary categories, or has pokeman started influencing our articles? --BozMo talk 11:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Protection template[edit]

{{editprotected}} Could some admin please wrap <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags around the {{pp-template}} protection template. We have 85 articles with a protection level error because of this sloppiness. Debresser (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Debresser (talk) 11:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)