Talk:Potential superpower

EU is a Superpower(S)

Why bother distorting the original definition of a Superpower, which is essential one single sovereign entity. There is nothing of the such within the republican, pluralistic, second anarchy state system that is EU. I advocate creating an entirely separate section for EU, in the "organizations" section of this article. That will put EU in the 'organizations' category of Superpower, and leaving China, India, Russia, Brazil(?) in the 'country/empire' category of Superpower. Some people may think EU is a single unified country, but it's not! --

Let's see what are the criteria that designate a state? Under international law, a country must meet the following criteria to be considered a country:

(a) a permanent population; - has a population of 500 million inhabitants (b) a defined territory; - has a territory, the Member States territory, just as the U.S. is composed of territories of Member States (c) government; - it has a government (European Commission), has a legislature (European Parliament) and President (European Council) (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. - It has embassies in many countries in the world and has a High Representative for Foreign Policy with the same tasks as U.S. Secretary of State Furthr more, The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. True, the EU is not like any other state, is sui generis (ie there is nothing else the same) but has many similarities with a confederation and the motto "ever closer union" shows that it can become a sovereign state in the future.--Mahetin (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This is likely to be a highly controversial topic. The EU is not a country - neither a federation or even a confederation. It's a treaty organisation like NATO or the UN. There is an appalling democratic deficit at the core of the EU - the only elected body of the EU has no real power and yet huge numbers of laws end up being generated by the commission and then implemented at national level. Elected MEPs can do little to change the rules that the commission hands down to national parliaments, who cannot veto these new laws. There is more resentment now about this than at any time since the Maastricht Treaty. If left unaddressed, this deficit will tear the entire EU apart, unless it is forcibly federated against the will of the peoples of Europe. That would make it more like the USSR, and would be a sure recipe for war. Many Europeans are strongly opposed to the formation of a European 'state', and the comparisons with the states of the US are not helpful. --JulesVerne (talk) 12:21, 03 May 2012 (BST)

What is the democratic deficit of the European Union? Let's compare the European Union with Great Britain:

• European Union's legislature consists of the European Parliament (elected, lower chamber and the Council of the European Union (non-elected, upper house)
• The british legislativ consists of the House of Commons (elected, lower chamber) and the House of Lords (not elected, upper house).

What's the difference?

• • House of Lords is made ​​up of unelected members appointed by the Queen and the parties. Some members inherit the seats.
  • European Union Council consists of ministers of national governments.

They are elected by national parliaments, which themselves are elected by citizens.

Conclusion: the British legislativ system seems more undemocratic than the european system. Council members are indirectly elected by european citizens by the national parliaments. Members of the House of Lords have nothing to do with the will of the citizens.

About the power of the European Parliament: The European Parliament it has been described as one of the most powerful legislatures in the world. Parliament is the "first institution" of the EU (mentioned first in the treaties, having ceremonial precedence over all authority at European level),[9] and shares equal legislative and budgetary powers with the Council (except a few areas where the special legislative procedures apply). It likewise has equal control over the EU budget. Finally, the European Commission, the executive body of the EU, is accountable to Parliament: in particular Parliament elects the President of the Commission, and approves (or not) the appointment of the Commission as a whole. It can subsequently force the Commission as a body to resign by adopting a motion of censure. To me it seems that is quite strong. Indeed, they can not initiate legislation but that does not mean it can not propose or force the Commission to propose piece of legislation. You know that in the national legislatures of the member states 85% of initiatives introduced without executive support fail to become law? There is also an indirect effect on foreign policy; the Parliament must approve all development grants, including those overseas. For example, the support for post-war Iraq reconstruction, or incentives for the cessation of Iranian nuclear development, must be supported by the Parliament. Parliamentary support was also required for the transatlantic passenger data-sharing deal with the United States. The legislative branch officially holds the Union's budgetary authority with powers gained through the Budgetary Treaties of the 1970s and the Lisbon Treaty. The EU budget is subject to a form of the ordinary legislative procedure with a single reading giving Parliament power over the entire budget (before 2009, its influence was limited to certain areas) on an equal footing to the Council. Unlike most EU states, which usually operate parliamentary systems, there is a separation of powers between the executive and legislative which makes the European Parliament more akin to the United States Congress than an EU state legislature. The President of the European Commission is proposed by the European Council on the basis of the European elections to Parliament. That proposal has to be approved by the Parliament (by a simple majority) who "elect" the President according to the treaties.

The „unelected” European Comission: The members are proposed by their member state governments, one from each, however they are bound to act independently – neutral from other influences such as those governments which appointed them. The President of the Commission is first proposed by the European Council taking into account the latest Parliamentary elections; that candidate can then be elected by the European Parliament or not.

• The Commission is voted by the European Parliament, so it has democratic legitimacy.
• The British government is also chosen by the British Parliament, as with democratic legitimacy.

So there is no difference between the election of the European Commission and the British Government. The unelected European Council: The European Council is the Head of State of the European Union. It comprises the heads of state or government of the EU member states, along with the President of the European Commission and the President of the European Council, currently Herman Van Rompuy. Heads of State or Government of the member states are elected directly or indirectly by citizens. So we can not find any "deficit of democracy". Queen is unelected :) So where is the democracy deficit?--Mahetin (talk) 11:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Strange map / Turkey not part of the EU

The current map displays the EU and its candidate countries. As it is unclear if or when these countries can join, I think it was better to have the status quo (without candidates) presented here.

Iran

Lo and behold, just as we had the Brazil drama a couple of years ago (which, thankfully, was resolved when someone put together something that was accepted by the then-community as a decent-ish piece), it seems someone's added a section on 'Iran' to the article. This popped up overnight and I'm just wondering how much of the section is original research (or synthesis or something):

• According to a number of analysts and academics, the Islamic Republic of Iran has the potential of becoming a superpower in the 21st century.[76][77][78][79][80]

• • Source 76 appears the only legitimate source discussing Iran's potential as a superpower, but it's hard to gather since the source links to a summary of the book's contents and reviews as opposed to an ebook. Whether this was intentional, accidental or a result of Google taking down a previously available ebook copy isn't something I know. It is 'The Devil We Know' by Robert Baer, though, and I think I've seen that as pretty much the only real source claiming Iran can be a superpower.
  • Source 77 I did a search for 'superpower' and only came up with two results, saying "Iran looks like an energy superpower". There were no hits for 'rising power', 'emerging', 'rising' or 'potential'.
  • Source 78 seems to state Iran only intends to become a superpower "in the Persian Gulf". That sounds more like regional hegemony than "a state with a dominant position in the international system" and able to "the ability to influence events and it's own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests". Not to mention the article appears to make reference to the Iraq-Iran war and seems to have been published in 1987 - is that recent enough to use as a source on Iran's current potential to become a superpower? (my apologies for using the definition of superpower from our own article).
  • Source 79 only refers to 'superpower' in the title, and the rest of the article seems instead to focus on Iran becoming a regional leader who sees itself as actively involved in Middle Eastern affairs.
  • Source 80 again seems to be a mostly 'regional superpower' piece, but (as I read it) talks less about potential and more about Iran having a unique global influence as a divisive force among the great powers due to it's nuclear project.

• Thanks to its vast reserves of oil and natural gas, its unique culture and rich history, Iran's present status is that of a regional power and energy superpower.[79][80][77][81] Flynt Leverett calls Iran a "rising power" because of its massive hydrocarbon reserves. He argues that Iran is the world's only country to have huge reserves of both natural gas and oil.[82] Furthermore Iran is the only country with huge hydrocarbon reserves which has the potential to increase its output massively, since Iran's current production levels are well below its maximum potential. The combined hydrocarbon energy reserves composed of natural gas and oil in Iran is almost equal to that of Saudi Arabia's and more than Russia's total hydrocarbon energy reserves.[82][83][84]

• • There is nothing wrong with the use of Sources 77-80 here; Source 81 (on global energy geopolitics and Iran) seems to also fit in here with classing Iran as a "regional power and energy superpower". I think that's alright to admit that Iran would be coming from a very different background to China (great power) the EU (great power [contested everywhere] but economic powerhouse), India (seen as a potential great power, at least) Brazil (same as India) and Russia (who really, going off this article, is the underdog).
  • Source 82 has only two comments on Iran as a "rising power" - one explicitly stating "rising power in the region". There were no hits for 'superpower'. The editor's linking of "rising power" to "potential/emerging superpower" might be OR.
  • Since Sources 83 and 84 are just appear to be backing up the claim that Iran's energy reserves are large, I didn't look at these sources. All up, this paragraph just seems to say "Iran is a rising power with large energy reserves and is presently an energy superpower". If this were used in a paragraph, I think my one sentence summary would be better for this article than this paragraph talking about how Iran has a lot of natural gas and oil.

• Benefiting from an educated middle class, Iran hails the highest scientific growth in the world.[85] In addition, Iran has the 17th largest economy by PPP.[86][87] Considering that Iran's population will reach 100 million by 2050,[88][89] Goldman Sachs foresees Iran as one of the world's largest economies in the 21st century.[90][91] Gary Sick argues that Iran's ambition is to become a conventional superpower or even an empire.[78] Robert Baer, in his book "The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower", states that Iran is already a superpower both because of its own energy reserves and the military power it can project over the energy reserves in Middle East region.[76] Admittedly, Iran is a "virtual" nuclear weapon state.[92]

• • Okay, it's an educated country. I'm not looking at the source here, since it's only going to be talking about education. I'm sure the editor would have pointed out if the article said something like "Over the past twenty years, Iran's middle class university graduates have enrolled in science courses with an increase of 20% each year" and went on to say "If this trend were to continue, Iran has the potential to be a superpower of the 21st century". Perhaps not likely, but at least the comment has a link to talking about Iran as a potential superpower. Here it's just a nice little fact.**Lovely, it's the 17th largest economy. Can I throw Australia into the article, please? It's in the top 20 economies by PPP or nominal GDP. Seriously though, the difference between this comment on Iran's economy and India's (in the article) is that the India comment states 'India's economic growth will overtake China's in 2025, allowing it to emerge as a superpower'.
  • I've seen graphs etc based on Goldman Sachs' economic predictions, so I have no comment here except this; Source 90, used to back up the comment that Iran will be one of the largest global economies, seems to ignore the comment "Of the N-11, only Korea and Mexico (and to a lesser extent Turkey and Vietnam) appear to have both the potential and conditions to rival the current major economies" - therefore, the source states that although the N-11 (of which Iran is a part) will grow and be large economies in the 21st century, Iran isn't part of the group that will rival either the G7 or the BRICs in clout. Source 91 is unrelated and just says "Iran had a good year and seems to be economically stable".
  • Source 78 has already been discussed, but the word 'empire' is mentioned nowhere. It's ambition, according to the 1987 article, is solely to be a regional superpower. Source 76 is much better because it actually says 'because of this and this, Iran has the potential to be a superpower'. Of course, it only says 'it's already a superpower'. As I've said on this already, any ebook doesn't appear to be there on Google Books so I'll add that the source should be listed as a book.
  • Source 92 is good because it lists the shortcomings of Iran; it's military power might be good, effective and projected with relative ease but as a (currently; this may change) non-nuclear state, it isn't quite in the same league as China or the US. Still, it doesn't say "because Iran isn't a nuclear state, this is seen as a weaking any potential to become a superpower".

• Globally, Iran is an influential member of the Non-Aligned Movement given its financial and industrial wherewithal and proclaimed principled political stances.[93] Iran's area equals that of the United Kingdom, France, Spain, and Germany combined, or somewhat more than the US state of Alaska.[94] To the north, Iran borders energy-rich states bounding the Caspian Sea. Iran is also of geostrategic importance because it controls the access to the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, through which 40 percent of world's sea-borne oil passes.[95]

• • None of this mentions anything about Iran having the potential for a superpower. Australia's got geostrategic importance too; it's got historic ties to America, is one of the largest economies in it's area, and is trying to strengthen it's trading links to Asia. It's also bigger than Iran, a part of the G-20 and the largest member of the Pacific Island's Forum. None of this means it's going to be a superpower, and that means that these details for Iran don't mean it's going to be a superpower. In the China part of the article it says "Other factors that could constrain China's ability to become a superpower in the future include: limited supplies of energy and raw materials, questions over its innovation capability, inequality and corruption, and risks to social stability and the environment" - it's linked back to China's potential to be a superpower.

That's also something that's poor about this section on Iran; there's only a small sentence that says there's a weakness. Otherwise it's gushing about Iran having potential to be a superpower. China, which most people agree is going to be a superpower, even lists problems facing it's rise. India lists challenges, the EU lists challenges and Brazil lists challenges. Russia listed challenges but for some reason they were deleted a while ago (I was thinking 'why?' when I saw that, but didn't really speak up). For the most part this section on Iran is talking about how well Iran does in lists on economies and how great it's oil supplies are and how it's a rising power, but it only appears to have one source stating 'it will be a superpower', and even then the link provided could have been better. I suggest removing the Iran section unless credible sources that state clearly 'Iran is emerging as a superpower', 'Iran has the potential to be a superpower' and the like are provided - this article's already possibly borderline WP:CRYSTAL as is, adding WP:OR to the list wouldn't be good. Also, was I fair in this or am I just being overly critical? Comics (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have the same concerns as you. I had previously deleted the inclusion of Iran after I had a brief review of it citations, but another [passing] editor decided against that and restored the inclusion of Iran. The editor (who is of Iranian ancestry) stated the inclusion of Iran was in conformity with a number of Wikipedias policies. I disagree, but wasn't ready at the time to start an edit war or anything of the sort.

Iran aside, there are major problems in this article and it appears the criteria to include a country is far to low. I would suggest we push the standard of this article up to the likes of the Great power article and similarly the criteria for which a country can be added should be high and enforced. If this article continues as it is then we are just inviting situations like these and it wont be too long before the floodgates are opened.

The inclusion of Brazil is equally as weak as Irans. Not one citation comes from an academic publication and the only citation that actually calls Brazil a rising superpower is from an online news/opinion website. The problem here is the media's common abuse of the word superpower and ability to "translate" what is said by officials to suite POV. Note the professor only calls Brazil an emerging world power (Great Power) and clearly says Brazil isn't a Great Power yet. In addition it appears the majority of Brazils citations only refer to it as being a potential, rising or current economic superpower, not a superpower. Retaining Brazil is a problem as the citations to support it are very poor, and the inclusion of Brazil will tempt the inclusion of countries like Iran, Turkey etc. Just because Brazil is one of the BRICs doesn't make it a potential superpower.

My proposal would be to delete Iran and Brazil and then raise the criteria for China, the European Union, India and Russia. Generally the supporting citations for these countries are quite good and I wouldn't think it too hard to find stronger ones. Overall China and the EU have the strongest case as potential superpowers.Talk^Woe90i 10:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I went through Brazil's sources a while ago and I think I found the same problem you did (I think some links were dead, too). Still, it went through a long on-off edit war before the then-community accepted it, and I just want to see if we can avoid a prolonged debate about whether Iran should be included by settling it here now that it's been brought up. Still, I agree in part. I think Russia might have a case but the section we have is really sub-par. India's seems better to me than Russia's at the moment. Comics (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The entire article is bordering WP:CRYSTAL for sure. For the rest, I respectfully disagree since there are many experts who think differently (please see additional source here).209.216.198.121 (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd say Iran is as likely, if not more likely than Brazil or India to reach a Great Power Status, I see no harm in adding Iran to the list. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Iran as a potential Great Power, I myself can see that. As a potential superpower it's intersting to think about, but barely any of the sources that the editor used in their section talk about Iran's potential as a superpower - there are a couple that explicitly state it, a few that appear to be talking more about a regional hegemon, and others that the editor themself appears to be linking together to prove their point (would that be WP:OR?). I know that the article's bordering WP:CRYSTAL, which means we do have to be very good at keeping what we do have within the guidelines. Comics (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Given the magnitude of an issue this article covers, if Irans inclusion is not supported by reliable sources it shouldn't be included. As for Iran being a likely superpower, according to economic forecasts its GDP wont even reach the top 20 any time soon. I support the removal of Iran and Brazil asap, unless a serious improvement of sources are provided for their inclusion. And yes I agree with you Comics about Russia and India.Talk^Woe90i 20:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Iran... a potential superpower? Seriously, what? This article and some contributors need to get a grip.

There are at most 4 potential superpowers: EU, China, Russia, India. Including Brazil is pushing it as it's not even a great power nor is it anywhere close to achieving that status, unlike India which is practically there. David (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The article definitely needs an overhaul, but to keep things on topic can we come to an agreement regarding whether the current Iran section meets the standards for inclusion? I propose delete, as it only has about two sources that explicitly state that Iran has potential and the others are either vague or unrelated to the topic. The Iran section is filled with WP:OR. Comics (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete, as per my above posts, I share the same concern as Comics. I would also support a move to delete Brazil, as it currently has no citation to support it as a potential superpower. In that state it should never have been accepted in the first place.Talk^Woe90i 00:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete, I agree with the above points. Most sources for Iran doesn't even mention Iran becoming a superpower, the few that do talk of energy superpowers of regional powers (other things entirely). The one exception might be the book, since I can't actually read it's contents, it's hard to say. I was hesitant about Brazil's inclusion in this article a long while ago, so if the consensus is that it should be removed along with Iran, I would supprt such a move. Swedish pirate (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete, and we should consider removing Brazil too. David (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, Iran has been removed and it appears the overall theme of this discussion is to consider the removal of Brazil (in addition to Iran). WP:RS would/should be enough to remove Brazil on its own. If its not supported by a reliable source it doesn't belong here on Wikipedia. Brazils inclusion here is perhaps even weaker than Irans.Talk^Woe90i 20:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Might I suggest making a new section if you want to discuss Brazil's inclusion? Just I see this topic as is closed. Comics (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with the removal of Brazil from the article, as there has already been a very lengthy discussion about it's inclusion. There are sources that back its inclusion and new ones availble online, for example: "Brazil’s Quest for Superpower Status" by Dr. Peter Collecott, former UK Ambassador and Cambridge PhD, and "Brazil: Latin America’s Superpower" by Joachim Bamrud, a writer and Latin American specialist. Although not suitable as a source, CBS' 60 Minutes recently aired a story about Brazil's potential superpower status: "Brazil: Next World Superpower" and Newsweek published an article titled: "The Crafty Superpower". In addition, there are countless sources that call Brazil an "oil superpower", "green superpower", "economic superpower", etc. Limongi (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Limongi is right. David and others, if you are going to dispute the sourcing of the part of the article in which Brazil is mentioned you need to say why do you think each one of the sources are unreliable. Mind you that Wikipedia exists to portray as many points of view coming from reliable sources as possible. You should focus more on if the sources are reliable than if you agree with what they say. --CEBR (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hm, whatever, it makes sense to discuss Brazil in a separate section if there is any need to discuss it at all. At least I hope we all agree that demographically and economically Brazil is much more likely superpower case than Iran (Brazil is on a trajectory to become the world's 5th economy in several decades, right after China, United States, European Union, India and Russia, the more likelier superpower candidates). And there is some sourcing behind the potential superpower claim. GreyHood ^Talk 00:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I went through the Brazil sources a while ago (the ones we currently have) and I think I found that a few were dead links or something. If you wanted to create a substitute version using Limongi's sources and any of the current sources that are within the guidelines go ahead. In comparison to the Iran section, I think the Brazil one at least tried to use sources that related in some way to becoming a superpower - doesn't make it the best section that we have in the article though. The Iran section was OR; I agree with Greyhood that the Brazil section at least uses some legit sources. Comics (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The first move should be create a separate discussion about Brazil, with an opening message explaining the reasons its section should be deleted. Mixing it along with th discussion about Iran will turn this into a mess. --Lecen (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep: First there are at least 2 editors who have expressed diverging views about Iran. One is Phoenix here and the other is myself here. Second, there are three main sources given meeting WP:RS and which are highly relevant here (amongst many others):

• Robert Baer: Dealing with the new Iranian superpower

• Haaretz: Will Bush make Iran the only superpower?

• Council on Foreign Relations (CFR): The Rising might of the Middle East super power

These people are unlikely friends of Iran. No accusation of bias can possibly be made here. For the rest, these experts are talking about potential superpowers. We agree that Iran's present status is that of a regional power and energy superpower. I can tell you why Iran might become a superpower (e.g. Iran is of paramount geo-political importance already) but this does not matter here. I have no personal opinion except you are the one doing WP:OR. 147.203.126.194 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

Iran is lacking on geographich size and economic and military prowess to be regarded as a possible future superpower. I can't even imagine Iran growing enough in the next decades to achieve that status. And once the oil is gone, the country won't stand a chance too. Merely having an atomic bomb doesn't turn a country into a superpower. --Lecen (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I can see many reason why it is already a superpower but you just made my point. YOU are doing the WP:OR here. Your opinion should not matter. 147.203.126.194 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

Baer I've said in all of my cases is the only possible legitimate source I saw in the section for Iran as was in the article. There was one vote for keep against four for delete (Phoenix didn't include themselves in the voting and said, IIRC, Iran might have potential to be a 'Great Power', which isn't a superpower. Your other two sources aren't really that good.

• The Rising might of the Middle East super power (article title)
• "Among the unintended consequences of the [war in Iraq] is Iran’s emerging empowerment." (first comment that really links to 'potential superpower' at best but definitely 'rising power' - everything else is just 'regime's lively and they want nuclear stuff'.)
• "Lebanon’s recent tribulations have furthered Iran’s claims to regional leadership." (at this point, seems to be talking more about Iran gaining dominance in the Middle East rather than anything else).
• "However, the Islamic republic that acquiesced to such arrangements was a state ruled by reformers eager for integration into global society. It was also an Iran negotiating from a position of vulnerability, as it feared growing US power." (okay, so Iran has either gotten more confidence, cocky or a reassurance they have a better position. Either way, Iran acts as if it has power.)
• "As with China, Iran sees itself as a leading regional power that is key to the Middle East’s conflicts." (By comparisons to China, the amount of power Iran thinks it wields within it's Sphere of Influence is made clear - it's paramount).

'Superpower' is mentioned only in the title. The rest of the article is talking more about Iran becoming a leading regional power. This would not be the best source to use, as a 'regional power' is something different. From the content of the article it would be OR to use this to make an argument for Iran as a superpower. At best, it's an argument for Iran as a regional superpower, which is again a different thing.

• Will Bush make Iran the only superpower? (article title)
• Bush ... has yet to field a coherent policy regarding the grand dark-horse of 21st Century superpower politics, Iran.
• If [Bush] is [incapable of waging another war] - and you can bet that none of the European or Asian nuclear powers have any plans to move against Iran - then Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may just fine himself effectively in charge of the world's only remaining superpower ... actually willing to go to war.

This source makes a case that Iran might be a superpower, but it seems to reek of media sensationalism at the same time. You make a case none of the writers are 'unlikely friends of Iran' and no bias is possible - isn't the opposite true? Their bias against Iran means they write sensationalistic pieces and effectively say 'hurry, stop this now!' 'sanction sanction sanction'? They both seem to use events as opposed to data to make their evaluations after all. Are you sure these are the best sources you have? I'm of the opinion Baer might be your only legit source, and that's because I haven't read the thing. Even if these did meet the criteria, that's three sources and the deleted section was rampant with unrelated sources whose relation to Iran's potential as a superpower were most definitely OR. Look, the community's reached a consensus so can we please let this be? Maybe you could find different sources to the ones that have been rejected and create a more suitable section? It'd be better than debating an action that's already passed. Look, we're heading into a forum here. Comics (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Iran... a superpower? Not a clue. David (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Brazil

As per discussion above, it is wise to discuss the inclusion of Brazil here.

Just to re-state my current position on Brazil "Not one citation comes from an academic publication and the only citation that actually calls Brazil a rising superpower is from an online news/opinion website. The problem here is the media's common abuse of the word superpower and [tendency] to "translate" what is said by officials to suite [popular] POV. Note the professor only calls Brazil an emerging world power (Great Power) and clearly says Brazil isn't a Great Power yet. In addition it appears the majority of Brazils citations only refer to it as being a potential, rising or current economic superpower, not a superpower". I know Comics has found similar issues with Brazil. Unless reliable sources are provided for the inclusion of Brazil it doesn't belong on this article. Talk^Woe90i 12:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

After a brief overview of the citations provided by Limongi, I find them lacking too. This article needs concrete sources and a criteria to match the Great Power article. It is no good including Brazil in its current state, I might as well go-ahead and include Germany in the article - supported by the numerous citations supporting it as a rising superpower via its prominence in the European Union. Its silly isn't it? Allot of bias is showed towards Brazil because of all the Hype given towards the BRICs as the "next best thing" and the media's continual abuse of the term superpower. Talk^Woe90i 13:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Woe90i. So far you gave no reliable opinion to why Brazil may not become a super power. All you did was to reveal that you have a personal opinion against the inclusion of Brazil on this list and against the BRICs. I might simply say as well that "Brazil has huge reserve of oil, is huge in size and has possible limitless potential due to its natural resources". You mau consider it a personal opinion, others might consider a correct judgement. See Empire of Brazil to understand why Brazil has a great potential to achieve the spotlight one day: given it enough time and stable government, it can grow and become something big one day. Obviously, since I'm Brazilian, many may claim that my own personal opinion is biased. We are stuck here with personal opinions so far. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I can go much farther: a quick search on Google and you'll find thousands of results in the last month only for articles about Brazil as a potential superpower.[1] This is a clear demonstration that there are many, many people discussing the actual possibility of Brazil raising to the status of super power. --Lecen (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The objective is not to provide opinions. WP:OR has no place on Wikipedia. The issue here is Brazils inclusion on the list. Its not backed by any credible sources and therefore its inclusion on the article represents a problem if; (a) its supporting citations aren't significantly improved or (b) its not removed from the article as per WP:RS.

Lecen, you said "All you did was to reveal that you have a personal opinion against the inclusion of Brazil". Please do not jump to ill judged conclusions, I have done nothing of the sort. Note the general theme of the discussion section before this was to either delete or strongly consider Brazils place on this article for the same/similar reasons I have pointed out.Talk^Woe90i 13:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Having a personal opinion against the inclusion of Brazil here isn't something wrong. I'm not criticizing you for that. What I'm saying is that you gave no good reason to why Brazil shouldn't be here. What you did was to give a generic argument that sources aren't reliable. Then, what kind of source do you regard as reliable or credible? --Lecen (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Lecen's considerations. And Woe90i, how can you claim no bias when you state: "...because of all the Hype given towards the BRICs as the "next best thing"? It clearly shows your personal opinion against the BRICs thesis. As for sources, a quick look at Google Books revealed the following:

• An entire chapter devoted to Brazil's possible rise as a superpower. Concludes as: "... Brazil therefore has every chance of developing into a superpower." (World Megatrends: Towards the Renewal of Humanity, by Adjiedj Bakas pg. 89)
• Chapter titled "Brazil: The Crafty Superpower", details Brazil's rise and potential (The New Brazil by Riordan Roett pg. 143)
• "US-Brazil Relations: The Emergence of the Hemisphere's Second Superpower (Brazil and the United States: toward a maturing relationship by Roger W. Fontaine pg. 95)
• A chapter devoted to Brazil's superpower potential (Review of international affairs, Volume 60 pg. 25)

I will keep looking for more. Limongi (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You are clearly missing the plot here Lecen, I am not pushing any point of view, nor am I arguing for or against Brazils potential to reach superpower status. As with the consensus reached with Iran, this is primarily an issue regarding its verifiability based on reliable sources. For these very reasons my self, Comics and other editors have expressed the same concerns. I (among other editors) have nothing more but a generalised wish to improve the article and its need for an overhaul. All your questions can be/are answered in my above posts and comments, just take the time to read them this time round.

Lecen, you said, "Iran is lacking on geographich size and economic and military prowess to be regarded as a possible future superpower." Really? Humm....be careful, you exercise a huge display of POV while at the same time massively contradicting your self. Given your above statement, how can you possibly be supporting Brazils inclusion? (Brazil being militarily on par with countries like Poland or Norway and far weaker than Iran) Bias much? And who gave you the right to dictate the characteristics of a potential superpower?Talk^Woe90i 14:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Even though not directed at me, let me just point out that Brazil is on par with India, not Poland. I have no idea where you got your information, but Brazil currently has the 11th largest military budget (List of countries by military expenditures). Limongi (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Limongi, that is not bias. There is allot of hype surrounding the BRICs as the next big thing and when citing from media/news and opinion websites to support a country as a potential superpower you are inevitably at risk of citing unreliable information abusing popular beliefs and especially the term "Superpower".

Now those recent citations you provide are what im talking about and they are exactly the sort of thing we need in this article. Please incorporate them into the article with an appropriate re-write where needed. As I have said before, my issue is purely based on the lack of reliable sources to support Brazils inclusion, therefore I proposed to either (a) improve the citations or (b) delete Brazil from the list. Citations like the ones you have provided more than satisfy me. Cheers.Talk^Woe90i 14:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"[Militarily] Brazil is on par with India". No, just no no no no no.Talk^Woe90i 15:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally I see Brazil taking longer in the 21st century to blossom than the others, but on a side note good find with the Brazil sources. Should we put deletion talks on pause until Limongi's had time to put them into the article? Comics (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I strongly condemn, people here pampering vandals like Woe90i. Just because he want it out, never means that it must be enforced. No need for anyone to judge when it will happen and so and so. Just put it there if the source says that Brazil is going to be a Superpower. By the way he has vandalized Blue water Navy page by removing sourced content. Why don't the Admins notice? Ah. One rule for the whiteman and another for others right. This is called Racism. Wikipedia is fully racist in nature.Tinkus (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Al-right Chanakyathegreat?Talk^Woe90i 01:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I personally side with Limongi and Lecen, btw, I find the new sources by Limongi excellent. I find the old sources in the article very good too. But, although I don't agree with Woe90i's point of view about Brazil's part in the article, I don't think he is doing it out of racism, it is just his point of view, and he is fully entitled to have a point of view. What Tinkus said makes no sense and seems like one of those cases in which someone falsely accuses the other of racism just for the sake of it. By the way, even if Woe is dumb enough to be racist, which I hope he is not, I am sure he knows that Brazil is, not unlike the USA, a melting pot, with people of many ethnicities (or, if you believe this myth, races) , and thus, he is also aware that many people in Brazil are like him, white. --CEBR (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi CEBR. To clarify, my issue with Brazil on this article was purely based on WP:RS. The current citations used in the article are not up-to standard. Limongi's new sources (as I have said) are exactly the sort of sources we need to improve the article, with those new sources I no-longer object to Brazils inclusion here. Tinkus is a sockpuppet of Chanakyathegreat and of Indian origin, he spreads around a conspiracy theory that Wikipedia is run by an elite group of admins and editors who are White and racist against non-western people and countries. Ignore him.Talk^Woe90i 11:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I see, well, we may disagree about this WP:RS issue, but I do agree with you that Limongi's new sources need to be added, as improvements are always good. Could you please add it, Limongi? Thank you, Woe, for being flexible in your position, it is a very hard trait here in Wikipedia. Judging by what Tinkus (AKA Chanakyathegreat, aparently) wrote over there, he seems to be delusional about some kind of conspiracy indeed. --CEBR (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad we were able to achieve a consensus on this issue. I will start working on those sources on Tuesday, as I'm away from my computer due to the holiday - Carnaval here in Brazil. If anyone wants to pitch-in in the meantime, thats fine too. Otherwise, I will start next week. Thanks. Limongi (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Malnutrition in india material removed

See [2]. Exactly what WP policy is broken here? Note also that numerous other sources in this article, including ones supporting India in the India section, are newspaper articles. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

A quick search also shows that many of the sources in this article only mention the word "superpower" in the title. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I've already gone through this with you on your talk page. It's a self imposed policy here to maintain the, relatively, good standard of quality we have on this page. It should be noted however that newsarticles are allowed, but only if they reflect the opinions and/or views of a scholar, a politician or some other person with expertise on the subject, maybe as part of an interview or something of that nature. A newsarticle that, from what I could gather, lacked such backing and only used the word superpower in the title does not live up to the standards of this article. If you happen upon such sources in the existing article, please put them here so that we may review them. Swedish pirate (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There has been no such agreement on a special local policy for this page. It seems to be your own personal opinion on the issue. Regarding opinion articles in newspapers, see WP:RSOPINION. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 08:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The thing about newsarticles, or mention of the word superpower outside of the title, isn't just something I've come up with, but is a policy we here and and on other pages regarding power in international relations adhere to in order to avoid nationalistic editing. I've already provided the quote codifying this agreement in your talkpage, going way back, but if further clarification is required, just read through the other discussions here. To quote some of the other editors here (on this very page no less). ... "only refers to 'superpower' in the title, and" ... "Then there's newspaper articles (which we don't use)"... (both from Comics) ... "is from an online news/opinion website. The problem here is the media's common abuse of the word superpower and [tendency] to "translate" what is said by officials to suite [popular] POV"... .(by Woe90i). While the policy coincide with my personal opinion, it is also, as you can see, one of the cornerstone for how the editors of this article maintain its level of quality. If you wish to change that policy then it is up to you to tell us why. Swedish pirate (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope, no such policy on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Power in international relations page either. The quotes above are the opinions of some of the editors here and not any official policy. Should Anil Kumar Gupta be removed while since while he is an academic is it not in any field related to politics? Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 10:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No there is no such official policy written there and I never said there was. In fact, I've always told you that it is a self-imposed policy maintained by the editors here to keep a ceirtain standard of quality. If you look at other pages related to WikiProject Power in international relations you will see that this policy is there as well. Check the talk page for the Great Power article. Maybe not the most recent one (since it doesn't have much of anything yet) but look at the talk page before that in the archives. Note how often editors ask for 'academic sources'. That's what all this is about. We need academic sources, sure to discuss a nation's potential for superpowerdom, if they are to be used in this article. A news article that primarily discusses famine in India and not the nation's superpowerdom per se, and in fact only uses the word in the title followed by a question mark, does not constitute as an academic source. I also find it suspect that you would first accuse me of making this up and, when shown evidence that this is a view shared by many editors of this page, go on to say that this is simply the opinion of 'some'. Believe me when I say I welcome new material to this article, as long as it is appropriate to use. Swedish pirate (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It is misleading to describe may be a local majority "opinion" or possibly even a "consensus" on a talk page as any kind of "policy" which implies Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Please use some phrase such as "many editors here think..." instead of "self imposed policy".Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I felt the phrase self-imposed policy was quite self-explanatory, but I'm sorry if you misunderstood. Am I to understand then that you've come to see the reason behind the source's removal?Swedish pirate (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Certainly there are better sources. I have added an academic one regarding malnutrition and other problems in India. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Im in full agreement with Swedish pirate on this one. Talk^Woe90i 14:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Lant Pritchett's article on India

Allliarsarehereinwikip has raised the issue that the 2011 Indian census found a higher literacy rate than what is stated in this paper. That is not surprising since the paper is from 2009 and the 2011 census was of course not available. I personally see no problem with adding a statement that the 2011 census found a higher literacy rate (which is still below the world average). However, this is not a reason for removing the whole paragraph which also makes many other points so I propose restoring the it. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

So what fucking retard? If it's below the world average? Indians can't exist? When India became Independent after the brutal rule of British bastards, we were 100 percent illiterate and 100 percent poor. So if India can increase literacy from zero to 74 in 60 years it's no mean achievement. Ask your bloody so called Academic authour to start writing about British Ghettos and the pathetic lives of British citizens there. Only India is targetted for such articles. None of these bastards ever write about the poverty in the so called western world and the so called first world. What's first about them? Nothing. None of the British articles has nay mention of British Ghettos. None. That's why Wiki is so racist and biased.Allliarsarehereinwikip (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Allliarsarehereinwikip, please see WP:BATTLEGROUND and Wikipedia:Incivility, edit summeries such as this, as well as your above comment could lead to a long term block or even a ban. I have also restored the paragraph as your deletion is clearly biased as it attempts to eliminate the undesirable but factual aspects of India. And on a further note are you User:Alibaba445 or are your similarities coincidence? – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I changed the text to simply state that the literacy is low and clarified regarding education in order to hopefully resolve this issue. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the negative factors should also be captured. But I'm sure we have more sources than just the Lant Pritchett study to give that side. Dont want to trigger an edit war (which I can see was going on), so let me know if its cool to condense and reword the paragraph drawing from a few more sources but covering pretty much the same issues (economic inequality leading to poverty and malnutrition, corruption, literacy, etc). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Russia

Industrial output in 2011 (Nominal)

Rank	Country	Output in billions of US$	Composition of GDP (%)	% of Global Industry
—	World	21,913.656	31.3%	100.0%
—	European Union	4,508.012	25.1%	20.6%
1	United States	3,329.324	22.1%	15.2%
2	China	3,291.569	47.1%	15.0%
3	Japan	1,405.292	24.0%	6.4%
4	Germany	1,019.643	28.1%	4.7%
5	Russia	697.414	37.0%	3.2%
6	Brazil	677.322	26.9%	3.1%
7	Italy	565.918	25.2%	2.6%
8	United Kingdom	535.891	21.6%	2.4%
9	France	519.529	18.5%	2.4%
10	India	484.809	26.3%	2.2%

seriosuly why cant i ad it??

http://books.google.de/books?id=VNnjIS-AXmEC&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=industrialisation+and+superpowers&source=bl&ots=26k4xr9veu&sig=1UyG0-xBnDSHicC7onpIKZHwDbY&hl=de&sa=X&ei=nGFQT7zcIcf44QSvp_XMDQ&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=industrialisation%20and%20superpowers&f=false

everyone knows that industrialization leads to more power, thats why china was so weak against the europeans and the SU became so strong in ww2, russia obviously has a bigger industry than all the other potential superpowers like india and brazil. Seems like people dont like to hear the truth.--Alibaba445 (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's an interesting table, but you need to back it up with sources about why industrial output is related to potential superpowerdom. Otherwise this would be original research and not usable in this article. Swedish pirate (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

CIA PROPAGANDA vs EU

In the article "superpower" Usa aren't considered anymore superpower or they are in doubt.Here you consider them superpower.The majority in EU doesn't consider Usa anymore a Superpower.People consider in EU today Usa lower than Usa considering economy (gdp),military and culture.Many Wiki articles in policy and social things and weapons are full of cotraddictions so no trustble.Cia supports Wiki for propaganda.Propaganda anyway has short legs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.40.11.141 (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That's bigoted. Just because someone has short legs doesn't make them a propagandist.

On a more serious note, the 'superpower' article says this:

• After the Cold War, only the United States appeared to fulfill the criteria to be considered a world superpower.
• Some people doubt the existence of superpowers in the post Cold War era altogether... and that the world is now multipolar.
• In the opinion of Samuel P. Huntington, "The United States, of course, is the sole state with preeminence in every domain of power – economic, military, diplomatic, ideological, technological, and cultural – with the reach and capabilities to promote its interests in virtually every part of the world."
• Experts argue that this older assessment of global politics was too simplified, in part because of the difficulty in classifying the European Union at its current stage of development.
• "Contemporary international politics" ... "is instead a strange hybrid, a uni-multipolar system with one superpower and several major powers."
• Additionally, there has been some recent speculation that the United States is declining in relative power as the rest of the world rises to match its levels of economic and technological development.

The article therefore considers the US to be a superpower by classical definitions, but not everyone agrees with the view that there is any one dominate power (uni-polar system) and that the world is multi-polar (many major powers). The only real comments casting doubt on the US as a superpower seem to apply to the multi-polar world-view camp, that other countries are beginning to match the US' level of affluence and development. It also states that, due to the unique and one might even say revolutionary system of the EU, that it's hard to judge whether or not the EU might also be a superpower (because it doesn't necessarilly match classical criteria). Since your beef seems to be with the Superpower article, I see little reason to point out anything other than how the article presents things. Also, this article just says 'at the moment, it is widely held that the United States currently fulfills the criteria to be considered a superpower' - nothing different to what is said on the Superpower article. Comics (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Real world isn't as written in the article.It's typical the view of the common Usa people.It's an ended thing since long time.Usa today especially in EU that is 1st for GDP are considered mostly second world. Article must be totally changed as many other ones that are only Usa propaganda above all in policy,economy,social and military.Very low level of articles when Usa propaganda arrives.....the problem is that today all people realize immediately it.Useless.

The order of the sections.

I have been trying to reorder the sections so as to somewhat reflect the prominence in our sources of each claim to being a potential superpower. I think this is right way to organize an article in accordance with WP:DUE. No reason has yet been presented why they must be organized in alphabetic order. I frankly don't think it makes sense at all to organize the article like that. I mean, if we could find sources which saying Australia, Argentina and Bangladesh are potential superpowers, should we then throw them in at the top of the list? And should the article about Human evolution start out with theories about "alien descendants" and Creationism come before it then got to Darwinian evolution?TheFreeloader (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Which nation has the "best" sources in the opinion of a Wikipedia editor is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia does not aim to be an independent judge and decide the "truth" on a disputed issue. Support alphabetic order. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not think it is WP:OR to follow WP:NPOV, and WP:DUE is a part of WP:NPOV. Decisions on the quality of sources, and the prominence given to claims within those sources are made all the time on other Wikipedia articles. It is pretty much a prerequisite for following WP:DUE. If you want to argue that WP:DUE shouldn't really be applied anywhere, then that is not an argument to be made here, it is one to be made on the WP:NPOV talkpage.TheFreeloader (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Mostly Neutral I feel either way could work actually, but I'm starting to lean towards and understand TheFreeloader's argument that we should begin with the most likely canidates and follow up with the less likely, however Acadēmica Orientālis makes a good point of Alphabetical being more neutral and unbiased. I cant make a firm decision over who is right, so I say I support whatever the outcome, but the proposed new order should be analyzed and given fair chance before being simply brushed aside, and should be reverted only because of its flaws and not just because its out of the box from what were used to. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• The way this seems to be done, so far, is to have the longest section up the top and the rest listed in decreasing order of length. While I don't think that's a bad thing (keeps the less prominent candidates in a less prominent position), I think it's not a good 'permanent' way of ordering the article (especially if someone goes through and condenses the EU section, or we have a real whiz who goes and adds satisfactory sources to the rest of the sections and then China becomes the longest); I think it'd be too open for frequent change, whereas alphabetical in a (more or less) list of this kind keeps things comparitively static. I don't like your use of 'Human Evolution' as an example either; it's specifically about evolution and therefore it would talk about evolution before Creationism (which I don't think has much relevance to an article about evolution and not creationism) or Alien ancestors (I think you mean that and not descendants? but even then, that's going nack way way way further and would belong more in 'Origin of Life' if we're on the same page). Yes, if Aussie, Argentina and Bangladesh had sources they'd be at the top. As it is, I highly doubt any one of them would seriously be considered a potential superpower at the moment and it's a kinda ridiculous example. Comics (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the order of the sections needs to be set in stone. It should change as our information changes. I just think we should try to get at least a rough approximation of the prominence of the claims. So, that we at least do not have Russia and Brazil on top (Brazil which it seems not even to be entirely certain whether actually should be mentioned in the article), and so that we do not bury very often mentioned claims like that of China and the EU.TheFreeloader (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• The thing is though, stability isn't such a bad thing with an article. Not to mention that it would go EU, India, China, Brazil, Russia under 'lengthiest-most in depth sections on top'. If we're to go by prominence, I'd think China is perhaps the most prominently speculated potential and yet the way the article is at the moment it would come in third under your suggested change (which perhaps doesn't properly reflect it's prominence). Comics (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

And due weight isn't that bad a thing either. And to fully follow WP:DUE, the sections should also have relative lengths which reflects the relative prominence of the claims in our sources. But perhaps we also have a problem with due weight in that regard as the article is currently.TheFreeloader (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Nope, because it can be argued that China has vastly more superpower potential given the pluralistic republican second anarchy state system that is EU. Unlike China, India, US, etc... EU is a composition of multiple countries together with conflicting national aims, objectives,foreign policies, and interests. You can't realistically say EU has more Superpower potential than China, since EU isn't even a country, it's a supra-national organization that shouldn't be compared to nation-states like China, US, India, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phead128 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, we try just to look at the sources. It is not our job to decide whether the sources are right or not.TheFreeloader (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Using the same logic, it's not our job to decide whether sources are more prominent than others since ordering on prominence is an arbitrary and subjective process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.168.212 (talk) 06:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, but that is a process we have to go through to follow WP:DUE.TheFreeloader (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:DUE says nothing about how to order the article. Furthermore, let us say that my personal interpretation is that China is more deserving of the first place. How do we decide which of us two anonymous Wikipedia editors is right? We have numerous straw polls and change the order each time the local talk page editor opinion changes? Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it implied in WP:DUE that the way an article is organized must be follow the principle it sets forth, so that we do not risk, like in my theoretical example I gave about an "origin of humans" article, that prominent theories and claims get buried under less prominent theories and claims. As to how we decide on the prominence of the claims, the preferable thing would be if we could find some authoritative secondary sources which talk about potential superpowers in general, not just one potential superpower, and then duplicate the weight they give to the various claims. In the absence of that, I guess we have to come to some rough consensus about which entities are more often talked about in reliable sources as potential superpowers.TheFreeloader (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Likely no agreement in secondary sources on this either. Regarding the number of citations, taking the example of Google Scholar, we get China > Russia > India> European Union > Brazil Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 09:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, what seems more to be the problem is that we do not have any sources which talk about potential superpowers in general. Only ones which mention specific potential superpowers. And to the other point, I am not sure we want to use search results for determining this. It is often the case that an article which mention a particular country and the word "superpower" does not actually talk about that country as a potential superpower. The way I ordered the sections, I tried to look at the number of reference each section used, although that approach might also have its flaws.TheFreeloader (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Alphabetical. Talk^Woe90i 17:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

---Agreed. This has nothing to do with WP:Due, and if we do make a change, EU would certainly not garner the top spot.Phead128 (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

---The alphabetical form seems fair to me. --CEBR (talk) 09:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Just on this note here, the alphabetical listing is objective (which seems to be an issue raised with the WP:DUE, namely who makes the calls as to which section is more prominent than another), but WP:NPOV does say that articles should reflect the prominence of claims and give due weight to each (it doesn't, however, appear to make any claims as to how the article should be structured - it appears to state that "If X is more widely talked about than Y, X should recieve more weight in the article than Y"). [Focus] I think covers the EU section - familiarity with the subject and most sources used being English-language sources (which probably means that more work should be put into fleshing out the China section with good quality sources). I tried to find a layout suggestion for how to resolve this, but I wasn't able to find one that explicitly says "An Article should be laid out like this". As such, on the basis that the wording of WP:DUE appears not to be a guideline for how to order an article but how to approach writing about minority perspectives I vote alphabetical. If I read the section wrong I'd love to be told how I read it wrong though. Comics (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do realize that there is no direct provision in WP:NPOV directly stating it also covers article structure. But it still think it lies within the spirit of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE to also in the organization of an article to accurately reflect the relative prominence of the claims made. And we should be making a call no matter what on the relative prominence of the claims anyways, since the length at which each claim is discussed is definitely covered by WP:UNDUE.TheFreeloader (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope you guys know that just voting, without giving any reason your !vote, has absolutely no say in the decision making process at Wikipedia (see WP:DEM and WP:PNSD).TheFreeloader (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

IMF on China's GDP

See [3]. Daily mail thus comments on superpower status using IMF predictions. IMF is of course a very authoritative source. That China may surpass the US so soon is very interesting and important. As such I see no reason to exclude this. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is an academic making the same point and also mentions a very interesting Pew survey on perceptions of superpower status.[4] Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't have alot of time looking over this (will be leaving for a couple of days soon), but I'm not so sure about the first source. Can't tell whether the IMF report or the journalist makes the predictions. The second source seems pretty legit though. Seems like something this page could benefit from. Swedish pirate (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Numerous other sources report the same thing regarding the IMF and China's GDP in 2016. One example with further links: [5] Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 10:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

LSE and India never being a superpower

[6] I think this important study should be mentioned carried out by arguably the worlds top institution for business finance etc 86.182.173.186 (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Where is Canada?

We will take over USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.81.192 (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Lovely to know. Comics (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

how do we get superpowers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.92.160 (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

By being bitten by a radioactive spider, mostly. Comics (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

USA is a superpower right?

Topic says USA as potential superpower whereas USA is already a Superpower..right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.203.235.56 (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Topic says that only the USA is currently held to be a superpower, whereas the other countries in the article are only potential (read possibles with varing degrees of chance) superpowers. Comics (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)