Talk:Potential superpower

just for fun

here's a link to an editorial [1] by an Indian columnist who gives a list of of all the current and near-future potential Great Powers following a few paragraphs of lead in that discuss George Bush's previous visit to India. The author appears to use "great power" in much the same way as we use "superpower". I know the rough consensus on journalistic sources requires the author to have appropriate credentials and I didn't find much information in a 10 second half-arsed google search but it may have some value to see such a list that has been published elsewhere.Zebulin (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This author seems very POV. He makes India seem like the perfect country, with all these programs to reduce poverty, go green, and promote peace and nucleur disarment, with the only thing holding saintly India back are those evil Chinese imperialists and those un-helpful Westerners. Doesn't look like a reliable source to me. It should be noted that news articles, especially editorials, are to be used with caution, if at all. Saru (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the author seems like she's one of the BJP or the Communist parties in India which oppose the nuclar deal and make it seem like the U.S is trying to get an upper hand on India.Deavenger (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

So, what was the point of that? --Hobie Hunter (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Various points are possible but the most obvious was that it was a chance to show just what sort of "potentials" list journalistic columnists and other commentators are apt to make in contrast to what we see from our more scholarly sources. I think it also illustrates what a daunting task we have laid out for ourselves in trying to make an article like Potential superpowers suitable for wikipedia. Notice how cavalierly the author justifies the membership of his list. Then think about all of the "sources" we have seen who don't even offer a hint of insight into the reasoning behind their selections. How much better can we really assume their reasoning would be? I would like to eventually have a consensus here that only sources that carefully justify and explain their choice(s) of potential superpowers will be acceptable but...one thing at a time and I think we are a long way from there. For now I'm satisfied with reminding people how rather meaningless it can be to find a selection of a "potential" somewhere even when it's perfectly explicit and made by a regular columnist on a journalistic web site.Zebulin (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is a daunting task: but there are sources. Most are books, but we can find those on Adobe Reader documents, and if not, we can use there official websites, and if they don't have those, we can use Amazon.com page I suppose. There are some worthwhile online sources aswell, such as the Times article that referances the big three (China, EU, US), complete with reasoning and sources. That's the kind of journalistic source we want: one written by an accomplished journal (Times) and I experienced author (It was a former diplomat in this case I believe). Otherwhise, we best stick to book's and academic studies. Saru (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

So places like IHT or Newsweek wouldn't count unless the article is written by an accomplished academic? Deavenger (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, or someone who has substantial knowledge of the subject, not some journalist looking for a good scoop. Saru (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

But, we can use a news station if that specific article is written by the academic? Deavenger (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Reputable papers such as the IHT are fine sources, but not every article is a masterpiece. Especially those that use citations from reputable people on the subject are valuable. Common sense and a look through reliable sources policy, will help making a good judgment. If you are planning to make big changes to the article, it's good to propose them first on the talk page. But other than that, be bold. =Species8473= ^(talk) 15:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Brazil Superpower

I noticed that in the image, Brazil is listed as a potential superpower, yet there is no section explaining this claim. Either the image needs to be corrected or a section needs to be added for consistency. I'd do it myself but I don't know the first thing about Brazil... AzureFury (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't say Brazil, as we already had discussions on thi s in the past, and there were no reliable sources saying that Brazil was a potential superpower. Deavenger (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Again?.. anyways what image? I only the the current PSP in the map. Supaman89 (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's because I reverted it after this topic was posted. I also did the same thing on the superpower page. Deavenger (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

BRAZIL HAVE A GREAT CHANCE TO BE A SUPERPOWER DON'T UNDERSTIMATE BRAZIL!  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRIC  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.243.228 (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC) 

EU growth

We should mention that the EU is expected to grow in the future, therefore suggesting as it gets bigger, the more of a potential it has to be a superpower. Ijanderson977 (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

first of all, we'd need at least one source that would support that conclusion. Second of all, assuming by 'growth' you mean further expansion of EU membership to include additional countries, then I hope you are aware of the recent difficulties the EU has had achieving consensus with it's current limited membership much less an expanded one. It is not at all clear that adding new additional members would do more to strengthen the EU's ability to act as a superpower than it would to weaken it's ability to reform itself in ways that would further allow it to act as a superpower.Zebulin (talk) 10:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisbon is a short term problem Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you could find a source that says the EU has greater potential to be a superpower as it grows, but if you can't then you can't say that in the article. Saru (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and Quality

This article needs to be edited in terms of quality, neutrality and consistency. For example, why are there two subsections for the EU section when there is one for the other candidates? Why is it that India has such favourable outlook and praise as a potential superpower and China a relatively negative one when by and large most scholars deem China to be the next superpower. An impartial view is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.23.195 (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

because the article is basically original research Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. The article contains OR and non-neutral POV. It is unbalanced and requires major cleanup. Nirvana888 (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this article is full of OR and POV. The only sources that should be in this article are those that directly predict the rise of a potential superpower. We should be reporting only on the predictions of experts, not the editors personal opinions. Acting otherwhise leads to POV and OR. Saru (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I just got a book called The Post American World by Fafreed Zakair in which it predicts the superpower growth of China and India. I'm nearly done finishing it, and would be able to contribute a little to China and India. Deavenger (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

EU sub-sections

I've taken the intiative to removed the EU subsections, as they where complete OR. Sources such as these , , are unsuitable for this article, as none of them predict the rise of the EU or any other country as a superpower. They where simply being used to back up OR by being used as statistics. This article isn't about the EU, it's about the EU's potential as a superpower and only sources that directly predict that occurence should be used. Saru (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I figured this would happen sooner or later, but nobody responded to the above section discussing this. I'd just like to point that we're dealing with synthesis, not OR. Also, I'd like to point out that the EU having two sub-sections was not the result of POV, but rather the supporting sections had to be cleaned up and re-added to the article. I was the only one doing this, and then some suggested that they shouldn't be re-added at all, so progress stalled on the cleaning up. I suggest you read the prior discussions so that you can be well-informed. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the initiative Saru and Hobie. The EU section looks much better but still need some work. We should go over the other sections (China, India, Russia) and at least make this article conform with minumum WP standards. Nirvana888 (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I haven't really been involved in this article for a little while, probably a week or so. Now that's there are some changes, I'm ready to jump back in and help. I'll be sure to go over the other sections, Nirvana. --Hobie (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The same thing with me. I took a week or two hiatus from wikipedia editing, but now I'm back. Saru (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That's great. Just so I am in the loop, as I read from the discussion above, were you guys working on reviewing the previous supporting pages and removing OR, POV, bad refs etc. or have we decided to rewrite the sections altogether. Here's the Times article that I think Saru mentioned above which is worth a read. [2] Nirvana888 (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go with the rewriting on this one. We tried to re-add the EU sections, with revisions, but there was still OR and POV. We should read over the refs from the old subsections, pick out only the ones the specifically talk about superpowers or potential superpowers, make sure there written by credible, reliable sources, then add them to the current article. Instead of listing facts about the countries as before, we should only report on the experts opinions. Instead of:

"China's military is the largest in the world."

We should say:

"This expert believes that due to the size of China's military, it is an emerging superpower."

See the difference? In the first, we are presented a fact via synthesis as a reason for China becoming a potential superpower. We can find plenty of sources talking about China's large military, but that doesn't mean they deserve to be in the article, because very few of them talk about how it relates to being a superpower. Meanwhile, in the second example we report on a what an expert believes, and how he interpets the facts. We can report on what experts believe will happen in the future, but not what we believe will happen in the future, because wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Saru (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So something like this?

"Fafreed Zakaria stated in his book, the Post American world, that India in the future will have a larger workforce due to __________ , _________ and _________ which could give India an edge over China who has a one child policy." Deavenger (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes.Saru (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, I'm going to try and get started on India and maybe China sub sections, and hopefully, I'll post one of them up in the talk page beofre the 18th. Deavenger (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Great. I'll search the web for any good possible sources to add, but I have to deal with a problem on Indian Century first (someone appears to have added the WP:NOR offending sections removed from this article to that article) Saru (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good Deavenger. I'm definitely interested in seeing this and other articles related to power in international relations improved. Count me in. Nirvana888 (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm not too good at writing complex stuff like this, so expect to do lots of corrections when I post it. To saru, I think that we should get rid of that. Now, it just seems like the section of what we have on India here basically. Oh yeah, this is deavenger, I just forgot to sign in. 66.112.113.186 (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's great that we're finally getting back to improving the article. There's still a lot of work to be done. I'll be back in a few days. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunatly I'm moving, so I won't have my computer for 2 and a half weeks, but I hope you guys can start this up while I'm gone. Once I get to Calgary I'll try to get on as fast as possible. Saru (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

Hello, I made quite an edit about Parag Khanna's view on the EU as a superpower, I'm planning to write about his view on China too, but can somebody check my grammar. English isn't my native language and I don't know if I've made any grammar mistakes. Just look and if you find something change it right away. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.133.154 (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will work on improving grammar. Can you add to the other sections? Khanna's source actually talks about each candidate to some degree - he believes the current and future superpowers of the 21st century are US, EU and China. Nirvana888 (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I'll try, but as I said, english isn't my native language. Plus, my wikipedia capabilities are limited. It was actually first today that I succesfully added a source, I had to practice some self-learning:P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.133.154 (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

India subsections

Okay, I'll here's what I have on the India subsections so far, on the 18th, I'll be in India for a while, so I won't able to contribute too muc until some time in August. You'll note that I used Fareed Zakaria alot, and the reason for that is because I recently read his book: The Post American World, and it has chapters related to the two potential superpowers of India and China, though it lacks in military power, which is why that section is not too developed. However, I highly recomend that book, especially for people who wnat to help develop on the China and India sections. Also, I forgot to mention some other important facts in Facts for and facts Against. But, I don't know when I'll be able to post on Wikipedia next, so I'm posting what I have now. Plenty of room for improvement here. Once I get back, and China has not been done yet, I'll try to do China also.

Facts For

Fareed Zakaria wrote in his book, The Post-American World, that India has a fine chance of becoming a superpower, stating

Every year at the World Economic Forum in Davos, there's a star. Not a person but a country. One country impresses the gathering of global leaders because of a particularly smart Finance minister or a compelling tale of reform or even a glamorous gala. This year there was no contest. In the decade that I've been going to Davos, no country has captured the imagination of the conference and dominated the conversation as India in 2006.

Fareed Zakaria believes that one of India’s strongest factors for superpower status is its economy. India’s economy had a GDP growth of 9.4% in 2007. Goldman Sachs has predicted that in 10 years, India’s economy will be larger then Italy’s. In 15 years, it will be larger then Britain’s. By 2040, India should boast the third largest economy. It is also expected that India, along with China should surpass the U.S economy by 2050 But Fareed Zakaria notes that a prediction such as these is a “treacherous business”.

Another strength that India has is its demographics; more than 50% of India's population is under 25.[35] Dr Narendra Jadhav, a principal advisor to the Reserve Bank of India and a former advisor to the executive director at the IMF, says "India has a great potential to become an economic super power because of its growing young population."[36] A young population coupled with the second largest English-speaking population in the world could give India an advantage over China.[37] Fareed Zakaria also believes that while other industrial countries will face a youth gap, India will have lots of young people, or in other words workers.

Zakaria says another strength that India is that despite being one of the poorest countries in the world, its democratic government has lasted for 60 years, stating that a democracy can provide for long-term stability. India also has been gaining influence in Asia with trade agreements, direct investment, military exercises, and aids funds. It is good allies with countries such as Iran and Japan, and has emerging ties with countries such as Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar, and India even has an airforce base in Tajikistan. . India also has fine relations with other countries such as Israel, UK, France, and Russia. Also, the Nuclear Deal with the U.S has strengthened its relationship.

Militarily, India has the second largest army in the world after China, and a nuclear power. India is one of the four countries with anti-ballistic missile capability, and is the first developing nation to build and aircraft carrier.

Facts Against

India has been victim to a high inflation, which some people fear will slow down India’s high economic growth. . Goldman Sachs also says that if it is managed badly, there is a great chance that India’s economic growth will drop. China and India rising to superpower status is not inevitable, according to scholars such as Professor Pranab Bardhan, Chief Editor of the Journal of Development Economics, who suggest that millions mired in poverty and ineffective government prevents China or India from rivaling the U.S. or the E.U. any time soon.[40]

Fareed Zakaria has described India’s growth as

It is not top-down but bottom-up---messy, caotic, and largely unplanned.

He also suggests that while democracy has its long-term advantages, China’s system of government are able to plan and execute major infrastructure projects with unrivaled efficiency. Democracy in India is usually not the will of the majority, but the will of organized minorities such as landowners, powerful castes, rich farmers, government unions, local thugs, in fact a fifth of the members of the Indian Parliament have been accuses of rape, embezzlement, or murder.

Deavenger (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good start Deavenger. It needs to be cleaned up somewhat. I fixed some minor grammatical errors. I think I might check out Zakaria's book. I've read much of his work. Another good book that is quite perceptive is Parag Khanna's The Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order Nirvana888 (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, If I get the chance, I'll read his book.Yeah, I'm not too good with grammer, or making it so it's good for an encyclopedia, so we'll have to do that, and hopefully somebody can finish some of the facts. Deavenger (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. If you make some errors, don't worry, other people will correct them. Be bold, you don't need to ask us every time you going to add a source or paragraph. Saru (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The EU

How can the EU possibly be considered a superpower? The EU is a treaty among strong friends, not a nation. If we were considering blocs, then NATO should be listed, not the EU. NATO is much stronger, including most (21 / 26 I believe) EU nations. I just don't get how EU can be a superpower when it is not a country. 65.25.62.121 (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The EU is a Sui generis, of its own kind. Does Nato has its own courts, citizenship, commission, council, currency or parliament etc. etc. Besides, it dosn't even matter what you think ( or I for that matter ), it all depends on what the experts and academics thinks.

removed a section for india

if you check the history, i removed a section comparing india with china (in the india section), where somebody says that china is superior and all the propoganda crap. I was wondering if I can include these in the china article; or even in the india one: [3], [4]. Please. its not just about how many countries india shares a border with. USA only borders 2 countries, but is far more powerful. I think that section was uncallfor. This article is just to highlight potential superpowers as widely discussed, not to publish opinions / predictions of individuals. If that's allowed, i'll also go ahead inserting those 2 articles.. in fact i can find more. 118.100.4.26 (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree the sections you removed definitely can be improved and presented in a more neutral fashion. For example, large blocks of quotes are undesirable. However, it is not propaganda or nationalistic if a notable scholar who is not trying to denigrate India is referenced and his arguments are valid. It would be better avoid the constant China and India comparisons (which is prevalent on many articles) as each section is supposed to elaborate on a specific country's potential for superpowerdom. What we are trying to achieve here is proper balance between the arguments in favor and against potential for each country. Nirvana888 (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I edited it. I tried to make it short and I tried to do it without a quote, but since english isn't my native language I just threw the quote in the page. As for the propaganda accusation, I tried to get the points that the writer made into the page ( by the way Parag Khanna was born in India ). For me it doesn't really matter that much if India or China has the largest section on a wikipedia page. Maybe you guys can make it a little more neutral than I could. Thank you.(Sorry for my bad grammar:P)

Hey, don't worry about it. I encourage you to add more to the other countries when you have time. If you are unsure or require help then you can post here and we'll get back to you. I'll see if I can present your sections in a more neutral fashion. Khanna also goes into length about EU and China in his book; would be good if we could get his opinion on them. Nirvana888 (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already written a bit about Khanna's opinion on the EU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.132.161 (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)