Talk:BRICS

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the BRICS article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 90 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about BRICS. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about BRICS at the Reference desk.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

International relations Mid‑importance

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

Brazil: Government and laws Mid‑importance

	Brazil portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Government and Laws of Brazil task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Russia: Economy / Politics and law Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the economy of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.

India Mid‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

China Mid‑importance

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

South Africa Mid‑importance

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

Economics High‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations High‑importance

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

Politics High‑importance

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

Trade High‑importance

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

An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the Main Page in the "In the news" section. You can visit the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from reliable news sources to include recent events.
Notice date: 24 August 2023. Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate.

Merge proposal

I propose merging BRIC into BRICS. As it stands, the BRIC article is a smaller duplicated version of the BRICS article. The only difference between the two articles is that the latter article includes South Africa to the grouping. The addition of this one country can be explained within one article. We do not need two separate articles. The existence of multiple articles on virtually the same topic leads to worse article quality and dilutes the efforts of editors. Thenightaway (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good proposal. The change in title can be explained within the article. Neither article is large enough that the merge would create a size problem. Burrobert (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page of BRIC, specifically from 2011-2015, reveals that many discussions were had that determined that the wishes of editors at the time was to maintain BRIC as a separate article dealing about the economic theory by Goldman Sachs, separate and distinct from the international organization. Understanding the article as this shows that BRIC really has nothing to do with the international organization we know now but rather the economic theory that the organization took its name from. I do not support a merge because a lot of that information has no place in this article and is way too in-depth. That being said, I think it should be discussed whether to keep the information in BRIC at all or if it should be retitled as BRIC (economic theory) in order to maintain a distinction. Yeoutie (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Burrobert, you state that "Neither article is large enough that the merge would create a size problem". Both articles are 80k in size each, they are each oversize now per WP:SIZERULE. Some sort of consolidation is appropriate, possibly with a few articles on this topic and removing duplication. Possibly one article on "History of BRICS" (i.e. what is now the BRIC article), one article on BRICS as it is, and one article on its support institutions (i.e. New Development Bank and other initiatives). There may be other approaches. 182.239.152.216 (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BRICS: Prose size (text only): 17 kB (2801 words) "readable prose size"

BRIC: Prose size (text only): 28 kB (4615 words) "readable prose size"

Policy advice on readable prose size is contained at WP:Article_size#Size_guideline. Articles with a readable prose size < 50 kB are fine. Burrobert (talk) 09:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are sure that these numbers are correct, then I fully support the initiative. 182.239.152.216 (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do the counts myself. They come from the prose size gadget. Burrobert (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the good reasons given by Yeoutie above. The original acronym was BRIC and this was a pun on brick in a discussion of investment strategy. BRICS is now a rather different thing. As the acronym doesn't work any more, I expect that the organisation will change its name but they can't even agree on that. "BRICS Plus" seems to be the current Chinese suggestion and so the title of the BRICS article is not stable. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is no longer the discussion of editors in 2011-2015, this is a discussion for 2023-4. Times change, and so does the opinion of editors. I cannot see a reason why WP would support two articles on what is in fact the one organisation. What you expect to happen is better expressed over on WP:PREDICT. 182.239.148.125 (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed ~~ El819 (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(that it should be merged)~~ El819 (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the two articles seem to be good on their own, as one of them is about the "thesis" of Goldman Sachs and the other is about the intergovernmental organization. Natg 19 (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It Makes sense to Merge BRIC and BRICS into One Article as the only name change is it adds (S)outh Africa to BRIC, making the name BRICS 135.23.143.48 (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We have both G7 and G8, why not keep both BRIC and BRICS too? 2001:8003:9100:2C01:B4A5:A908:5BED:21A3 (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The transition from BRIC to BRICS(+) represents an evolutionary process in the group's history. Unlike the G7/G8 analogy, where G8 essentially superseded G7, BRICS represents a broader expansion and inclusivity in membership. Merging the articles would allow for a more comprehensive examination of this evolutionary process.

Maintaining separate articles for BRIC and BRICS may lead to duplication of content and confusion for readers. By consolidating the information into a single article, Wikipedia can ensure consistency in coverage and provide a more streamlined reading experience. Pedro H.V. Santos (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are two different concepts here, the theory and the organisation. I think it makes sense to keep both separate. The opening in the lede of BRIC links to BRICS in a very clear way. Sargdub (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the BRIC article should be merged because it was not a predecessor organization but just its old name Daisytheduck (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daisytheduck: The BRIC specific to the article in question and the BRIC that became BRICS are two different subjects. One is inspired by the other but are not the same thing. The equivalent would be like merging Europe, European Economic Community and European Union into one article. DA1 (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed The proposal is a good idea. BRIC should be MERGED to BRICS because it is the most current article. The notable contexts under BRIC should be be moved to BRICS general with modifications. Fugabus (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Even Goldman Sachs admits that BRIC and BRICS are the same thing:

By the middle of the decade, numerous BRICs-themed mutual funds, ETFs and indexes were created to track this distinct group of emerging economies. The first annual BRIC Summit took place in 2009 in Yekaterinburg, Russia, bringing together leaders of the BRIC countries to discuss policy issues and common challenges. The following year, the group voted to invite South Africa to join, cementing the acronym BRICS. - Goldman Sachs | Commemorates 150 Year History - With GS Research Report, "BRICs" Are Born

On top of that, the article name should be changed to BRICS+, as new new countries are joining the organization.

Most of the contents of the BRIC article could be organized under the "History" Section. The other contents could be easily accommodated in new sections. Pedro H.V. Santos (talk) 09:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pedro H.V. Santos: Your highlighted quote doesn't match what you're saying. The "acronym BRICS" being cemented doesn't make the BRIC concept and BRICS organization one and the same. The concept of BRIC is independent from the organization. India could withdraw from the organization and the concept of BRIC would still be its own theory and grouping. DA1 (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your perspective, it's important to recognize that the BRICS+ organization is fundamentally based on the BRIC concept. The inclusion of South Africa in the BRICS grouping can be seen as a natural evolution of the original economic criteria set forth by Goldman Sachs.

After the initial Goldman Sachs reports, most economic analysis and research had already included South Africa in its scope, as evidenced by reports such as the BRICS Investment Report (unctad.org). This suggests that BRICS is not merely an organization separate from the BRIC concept, but rather, it represents the expansion and adaptation of the original acronym to reflect changing economic realities.

Additionally, the acknowledgment of South Africa's inclusion by key figures like Goldman Sachs and O'Neil contradicts your point that the concept of BRIC is entirely independent from the BRICS organization.

Furthermore, it's worth noting that even the BRIC concept itself is not set in stone. The Proposed inclusions section mentions several instances of proposed inclusions to the acronym, such as Mexico and South Korea (BRIMCK) or Arab countries (BRICA). This fluidity demonstrates that the BRIC framework has evolved over time to incorporate new economic realities and potential partnerships.

Therefore, while there may be distinctions between the original BRIC concept and the BRICS organization, they are closely interconnected, with BRICS representing a natural progression and expansion of the original acronym to reflect the changing dynamics of the global economy.

Regards, Pedro H.V. Santos (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For multiple reasons:

1. BRICS is an organization. BRIC is a theoretical concept and grouping that predates BRICS and its former incarnation by the name of BRIC. The subject of each article is inherently different.

2. A member state, say India, could withdraw from BRICS but it would still be part of the BRIC theoretical grouping.

3. The organization of BRICS could admit other states, such as South Africa and later Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, etc, but they are not part of the theoretical BRIC grouping that concept is about. The purpose behind BRIC is distinct from that of the organization BRICS. DA1 (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is pretty evident from the articles themselves (which are accurate in) that BRIC is a concept, admittedly somewhat outdated, in the context of the global economy, and BRICS is an entity that is governed and defined as an organization - one that is increasingly featured these days as more countries contemplate membership. I would go further and argue that even in a hypothetical situation in which South Africa was originally a part of the concept as BRICS (instead of BRIC), after the formation of BRICS organization in 2009, that organization after a certain preiod of time would have justified a separate article on its own e.g. BRICS (intergovernmental organization). IdentityCrisis (talk) 03:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From the above, it seems clear that there is support for different articles on the theory and on the actual grouping. If that is a possible consensus, BRIC needs to be tightened up to reflect this as it strays into the duplication mentioned. This can probably be easily solved by merging only the History and Proposed inclusions from there to here. After that, there is question of the primary topic of "BRIC" which has also been raised above, but that is secondary to the content aligning with the views here. CMD (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be renamed to BRICS+?

Considering it has grown beyond the 5 member states, it seems reasonable to rename it BRICS+.

216.165.212.4 (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, BRICS+ seems very appropriate. As of the morning of February 1, 2024, this article lists 9 nations in BRICS. But many authoritative news organizations announced on 1/31/2024 and 2/1/2024 that Saudi Arabia has now officially joined BRICS. So the "+" would accommodate any number of countries, and the abbreviation BRICS only highlights five of them. 64.185.61.127 (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not what sources use — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 13:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? The official website says it is called BRICS+.

Link: https://www.brics-plus.com/ 2001:8003:9100:2C01:B4A5:A908:5BED:21A3 (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yes, the new organisation is called BRICS+. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:B4A5:A908:5BED:21A3 (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support BRICS+ (or BRICS Plus) is already being used in scientific literature - brics plus - Google Scholar Pedro H.V. Santos (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Apparently you forgot to check brics - Google Scholar — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 07:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

support brics, brics+, 'brics plus' is commonly used across all sources and it makes practical sense Jetsettokaiba (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support There are news and universities using the term BRICS+ with plus sign. Could this be mentioned in the article? I guess it's not official yet. [1] [2] [3] [4]. Web-julio (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "BRICS+' is not the official name. M.Bitton (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi arabia also added on 2 jan 2024

Saudi arabia added on 2 jan 2024 Deepak200520 (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it didn't, see the article body — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 12:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DaxServer Have you read [5]? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Reuters reference in the article. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 17:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DaxServer So, you think the guancha.cn is unreliable?! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue what that website is. You can reach out to our editors at WP:RSN to determine the reliability — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 08:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Reuters article is based on a comment to Reuters by "an unnamed Saudi Official", which is hardly a statement by the Royal Saudi Government. How about Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-31/brics-gets-boost-as-saudi-arabia-joins-group-of-emerging-nations 14.2.196.234 (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry no. Reuters reported they haven't — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 08:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, triple yes. The BBC says the Saudis are in. The Japan Times says the Saudis are in. Bloomberg reports that the chair of BRICS - South Africa - says they are in. Reuters reports that an unnamed source says they are not. Who is the more reliable source - the Foreign Minister of South Africa or an "unnamed source". Can we at least pretend that we are being impartial regarding this article? 14.2.196.234 (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters report is the latest reporting on the issue and thus invalidates other reports that you quoted — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 09:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the BBC quotes Reuters' report from Jan 31 [6] but did not consider the following report [7] because the BBC updated their article at Feb 1 13:59 GMT while the Reuters report was published at 16:48 GMT. Japan Times is a Reuters syndication from Jan 3. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 09:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to explain how an unnamed source allegedly talking to Reuters takes precedence over a statement by the South African Foreign Minister. It hardly meets WP:RELIABLE - we don't use content provided by unnamed sources anywhere else on the encyclopedia. 182.239.146.143 (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading Source protection — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 18:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to recall for a re-judge for reliability of Reurters, @DaxServer Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN is thatway — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 08:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DaxServer Note that you have pinged at zhwiki due to the same Reuters source, where the same Reuters source cited by zhwiki is described as "Saudi Arabia confirmed to officially participant in the BRICS (沙特阿拉伯确认正式加入金砖)" Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liuxinyu970226 I don't speak the said language — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 08:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also it's "you have been pinged" or "I have pinged you" but not "you have pinged" — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 09:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BRICS members are 10

Brazil,Russia, India, China, South Africa, Eygept,Ethopia,saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Iran 118.179.166.161 (talk) 09:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of China sovereignty note

Is there really a good reason for the note about China's sovereignty? I don't think it's particularly relevant to China's membership of BRICS and it's only used in the members table, nowhere else. Can it just be removed? Voltaic181 (he/him) (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - while theoretically truthful, this seems too tangential to the article and table in question. I can see it being merged into note [c] though, with a brief mention of total claimed area vs controlled area. IdentityCrisis (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Memebers newly included in BRICS include saudi arabia not mentioned here. Sejalchaturvedi (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. we mention that Saudi Arabia has been invited to join but has not apparently accepted yet. Need a source to support if they've joined Cannolis (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Saudi Arabia has joined BRICS. Source - [8]. Add that too. 2409:4073:495:B3E8:5450:46BA:D773:38D7 (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: It didn't. Please see the sections above — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 15:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DaxServer Have you ever read [9]? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2024

72.39.200.116 (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Thailand has now joined BRICS 72.39.200.116 (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 June 2024

It has been proposed in this section that BRICS be renamed and moved to BRICS+.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

BRICS → BRICS+ – See Talk:BRICS#Should_this_article_be_renamed_to_BRICS+?. Web-julio (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson, Thenightaway, Burrobert, Yeoutie, Natg 19, Pedro H.V. Santos, Daisytheduck, DA1, Fugabus, IdentityCrisis, and Chipmunkdavis: I started an official voting per M.Bitton. Web-julio (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]