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!

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.

Adding Mexico and Japan

Brazil and India are on the article, In my opinion, that alone would give me the right to add them. However, I read some archives on how they were added previously but didn't have the "sources" and how Brazil and India did have some links (pretty shoddy, may I add, but no one called them on that anyway), and that's why they (Mexico and Japan) were deleted in the past.

I have the sources to back my claims, and I would like to know if I could get the approval of the moderators, so they don't delete my work after writing it. 201.166.40.42 (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you have sources why not present them for peer analysis? Comics (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll post some for Mexico, I'll post some later for japan:

First, from this source: http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ideas/brics/how-solid-doc.pdf

• "Mexico was excluded from the BRIC group because it was already considered more developed, as a member of the OECD"
• "Mexico's favourable demographics and scope to catch up place it among the BRICs in terms of economic size by 2050."
• "Of them (Next Eleven), only Mexico and perhaps Korea have the capacity to become as important globally as the BRICs."
• "By 2050, Russia and Mexico also converge to developed country income levels at roughly US$55,000"
• "Only Korea and Mexico are serious candidates that are both large enough and plausible enough to lay claim to a BRICs-like impact"

From this source: http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ideas/brics/book/BRICS-and-beyond-intro.pdf

• "In our initial analysis, we concluded that, of the next largest countries, perhaps Mexico had the greatest claim to be feel aggrieved at not being up there with the BRICs."
• "Certainly, Mexico, the four BRIC countries and Korea should not be really thought of as emerging marketsí in the classical sense, as many still tend to do"

Also, Let me post some other statistics:

In this map, we are shown that Mexico, according to GS predictions, will be one of the top 5 biggest economies by 2050, even breaking between the BRICs, being above Russia in therms of GDP

• Mexico has the 11th largest GDP by purchasing power parity and the 13th largest nominal.

• Mexico City is the 8th richest city in the world in terms of GDP, the highest of any developing country.

• Mexico is part of the NAFTA, the 3th biggest trade partner of the U.S., and is the nation with most free trade agreements in the world (http://www.businessfacilities.com/bf_02_03_nafta.asp).

• Mexico's "Ease of doing business rank" (http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings) is 36, far above China's 79, Russia's 123, Brazil's 127 and India's 134.

• Mexico is also considered a regional power, hence its presence in major economic groups such as the G8+5 along with the BRICS, and the G-20.

Now that I have established Mexico's economic importance, I will show poverty levels.

Less than 2% of Mexico's population lives with less than 1 dollar per day, similar to developed countries.

Similarly, in this map, we are shown that Poverty levels in Mexico are similar to other developed countries

• "From 2000 to 2004, the population in poverty has decreased from 24.2% to 17.6% in the general population and from 42% to 27.9% in rural areas."

http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20080607072558/http://www2.eluniversal.com.mx/pls/impreso/noticia.html?id_nota=301198&tabla=notas

• "Since the late 1990s, the majority of the population has been part of the growing middle class." http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/LACEXT/MEXICOEXTN/0,,contentMDK:20185184~pagePK:141137~piPK:141127~theSitePK:338397,00.html

I would like to know your opinion, so I can put a decent section together. 201.166.40.42 (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking at how you describe them, I'm inclined to say that the sources don't actually say 'superpower' and to suggest that link may be bordering on OR (maybe the other editors can clarify that?). I'll have a better look through them later though :)

Just, it's best if the articles actually say 'Mexico will be a superpower at earliest by 2050' or something, or 'if Mexico improves these problems it will have the potential to be a superpower' rather than an article saying 'Mexico will have a large economy in 2050' and linking that to superpower status. Comics (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

but i live in mexico and here ,most people are poor as hell ,the middle class of mexico is poor to the standards of the middle class of united states — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.127.211.59 (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence, uh? I don't think that's enough to warrant anything. If we go by your logic, China's middle class must be even poorer, given their GDP per Capita is half that of Mexico. Yet nobody denies their potential. This is even more true for India, whose GDP is 1/10 that of Mexico.

Brazil's and Russia's middle class, while similar in wealth to that of Mexico, is smaller. So, the facts are there and the charts are there; It's not something I made up, but official statistics. Just food for thought. Rrm1 (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

- be more realistic with japan ,japan is a strong country ,the lost decade isn't a reason for the invalidity of japanese superpower, even without a lost decade ,japan is still smaller in both size and population than the brics and united states, japan is in a good situation for her size, in that case why all the small european countries are considered a superpower but united and not separated? in that case we should unite japan with korea and china ,another big economies in asia

Are you suggesting that we add in an 'East Asian Union' with China, Japan and South Korea? Last I checked, it was only China that people thought would become a superpower and not all of East Asia. On the other hand, the EU is considered a potential superpower because it has some similarities to an actual state albeit in a less unified form. Japan is also shrinking in it's population and, seemingly, destined to fall behind in its economic standing. I'm not sure many academics would consider Japan based on that. Comics (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Chinese military and political strength

See [1]. There is no policy stating that a word from the title must be present in the source. As such I propose restore the deleted material. Miradre (Talk E-mail) 15:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oh but it does. You see, to avoid nationalistic promotion and original research, this article abides by a few set guidelines. One of them is that the sources have to mention the word superpower, preferably more than once. Other qualifications are no non-academic media sources and no "quasi"-superpower like terms like "culture superpower", "soft superpower", "regional superpower" or "knowledge superpower". See the archives for a better understanding. Swedish pirate (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I have looked and see no WP guidelines referred to. If there is one, pleae give a link to it. I will restore the text otherwise. Miradre (Talk E-mail) 06:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

India and Brazil?

I know this has (kinda) been discussed before, but are the sources supporting India and Brazil as 'potential superpowers' truly academic and authoritative just as the sources are on the Great power article or Superpower article? Or those given for China, the EU and Russia on this very article? Given the topic of potential superpowers I feel more solid sources are needed for supporting India and Brazil as potential superpowers, as many of the sources against them achieving that status come from a higher authority. I think therefore if the situation isn't changed then we should mayby consider removing India and Brazil from this article as the quality of the article suffers. — Woe^{(talk with 90i)} 20:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Not really getting much of a conservation here with other editors, so lets leave it for a few more days and see if we can get onto this.

I was also wondering if anyone came across a similar publication as me regarding India's rise as a global power - It suggested that with China's swift ascension to Superpowerdom, India will never have the opportunity to achieve its potential and remain a modest 'Regional power'. It also outlined China's obvious technological superiority over India, China being several economic revolutions ahead of India and that geographically China and her allies surround India in all or most strategic areas. :However, the publication suffers from misplacement on my part! So if you have come across it your self, please put me in the right direction. Cheers. — Woe^{(talk with 90i)} 15:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That does sound like a good source, but I think I should mention that there has been considerable discussion about Brazil (particularly) in the archives and the majority of the section you're describing was what most of the editors at the time deemed acceptable. I'm not a fan of just removing content unless it doesn't really belong (and, well, India at least belongs), so perhaps if you see something you think is making the article appear weak you could try yourself to find better sources to strengthen those sections rather than make cases for their deletion? Personally I think the section that needs the most work is on Russia.

Considering the immense discussion about whether Brazil should actually be included on the list, I'm hesitant to say that we should remove it. I think it also bears mention that the article is about countries 'most commonly mentioned as being potential superpowers' - perhaps the case against them is stronger, but they are all countries that are often discussed with regards to potential superpowers. That's how I'm reading it anyway. So my suggestion is that we don't remove the content (we'd then have to find a new map for starters) but rather perhaps come up with better quality sources yourself. I'll try to do my part but I'm a little busy this month (hoping to participate in NaNoWriMo, which will take up some time). Comics (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Still no luck finding that publication! I get where your coming from, however, is an encyclopedia a place for speculation, or fact? So, regarding this article, if the supporting sources speculating a 'potential superpower' are weak and appear not to be on any particular authoritative or academic level - should they be included in the article? Mainly its the media who term these nations as rising superpowers, that's no reason to keep the article as it is.

I had searched beforehand for any sources that would have strengthened the article, but with no success.

I will also like to add that the information found in this article cannot be found anywhere else and I think the article should remain. I would just strongly suggest that India and Brazil be removed, retain Russia, China and the European Union, but also add a history on past potential superpowers like Japan and Germany as per the separate discussion below. There are many editors on Wikipedia who can either edit or re-do the map for this article, that wouldn't be a problem.

Good luck with the writing! — Woe^{(talk with 90i)} 17:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

turkey is poetential superpower

the map show only nonmuslims countries. but with more than 1.6billion muslims and turkey has with history (ottoman empire) also a poential for superpower. and there a lot of reasons. candidate for eu, nato member, nuclear sharing. its a member of the council of europe which means that turkey is a western and european state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.66.4.227 (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"the map show only nonmuslims countries". Is that a surprise to you? Are Muslim societies particularly cohesive and organised? Are they wealth, industry and technology creators? Do they produce things? Mitchitara (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The answer about all your questions is Reb. of Turkey. 88.66.4.227 (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Turkey also happens to have a population of 70 million at the moment, I believe? Compared with Russia's 110 million+ population, as well as left over superpower trappings, Turkey isn't in the same league. Besides, isn't Iran the more popular newspaper Muslim Superpower? Comics (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Turkey certainly could be a Great power (again). That in itself is highly significant. A Superpower is power of a greater magnitude. Mitchitara (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

At first Turkeys popluation is 78million and it grows. Russia's 110 million popluations is lessening. And Russia seems more be relegated in role. Russia is losing his influence in Eastern Europe (because european union). And its losing his influence in Turkic republics (because turkey and Islam). At the moment Turkey its not same league like may Russia, USA, Brazil and China and India than this countries have big resource or/ and big popluations. But i think Turkey is potential candidate for a superpower its acutally strongest muslim country. For example Iran represents only the Shia Islam which is only 14% of the Muslims. Nor China or Ruissa or Brazil or India has a democratic system or in other words a democratic system which is exemplary for other nations. But turkey does. 88.66.4.227 (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This is all irrelevant. If you think Turkey is a potential superpower provide a reliable secondary source claiming exactly that. Such sources are provided for all other countries. Arnoutf (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

People must learn Turkish instead of Chineese and Russian languages. (George Friedman) 88.66.4.227 (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

More sources? At the moment that's just one person, and someone who seems to think that Turkey will create a new empire that allows it to rise to a superpower. I can see it now:

• Turkey is considered a potential superpower in the 21st century. George Friedman believes that it will form a new empire and challenge US interests in the latter half of the century.

Anyway, did a Google search and this shows up:

• US Superpower - 16.3 million hits
• China Superpower - 8.2 million hits
• India Superpower - 5.4 million hits
• Russia Superpower - 5.2 million hits (some of these might be about the USSR though, skewing this stat)
• Iran Superpower - 4.6 million hits
• EU Superpower - 2.6 million hits
• Turkey Superpower - 1.9 million hits
• Brazil Superpower - 1.8 million hits

Speaking logically, it seems more likely to find credible sources talking about Iran emerging as a superpower instead of Turkey - you get a lot of people on forums talking about this stuff as well, which would probably be at least 30% of all results. Then there's newspaper articles (which we don't use) and blogs which might be about 60%. Then there's the useful 10%. There's at least 190K sources out there you can find, don't just bring one to the table. Comics (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The first remark I'd like to start with is the use of the crescent moon and the star on top which in fact are not symbols of Islam like many people think. Centuries ago, the Muslim Ottoman Empire controlled large swaths of the Middle East and North Africa on the Ottoman Flag was the crescent moon- A symbol the Turks adopted from the city of Constantinople after conquering it. Because the crescent moon was the symbol for the Ottomans, it also became the symbol for Muslims living in the lands under the Ottomans' rule. It became a cultural symbol. 88.66.4.227 (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting history lesson, but flag decoration has little bearing on whether a country is a superpower or not. Comics (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Those who are against the USA like Iran, North Korea and Russia are dearly hoping to achieve the title of "Superpower". But Turkey is the only muslim country that would even come close to becoming a superpower out of all the muslim countries. For example The Red Crescent is an attribute for a global power. And this more the expression of facts than of the desperate hopes and wishes of isolated states. 88.66.4.227 (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Turkey is a potential superpower, because of his Accession to the European Union. At the moment it's to early for a power vacuum in Europe, but it's still a potential superpower. 88.66.4.227 (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You're still not giving us any other sources. You've only listed one. I went and did a search through the Iran links on Google and it doesn't seem to have a good case for becoming a superpower either (almost all sources state 'Middle Eastern Superpower' or 'Regional Superpower'). I've found a source (probably unable to be used) that suggests Russia's democratic/authoritarian hybrid political system prevents it from functioning properly to become a superpower, but another source (used in the article) suggests that Russia's vast energy reserves give it the political edge to potentially restore it's former clout. That's only two sources (one perhaps a little doubtful), but it gives a better picture than 'everyone must learn Turkish, not the Chinese or Russian languages'.

At the moment, all you have is OR that can't be used in this article. Again, I ask you to bring sources. Me, I doubt Turkey's going to be a superpower. My bet is it will join the EU which, faced with competition from Russia (particularly) will tighten it's union into a federal state that replaces France, Germany, Poland, maybe G. Britain and even Turkey. Still, bring in sources and we might add it. You're not bringing in any sources, mate. Please; you want Turkey on the list? Bring us the sources. I can't stress this enough. Then the editors can say 'yeah, they're reliable' or 'no, that's a newspaper resorting to sensationalism' and we can come to a conclusion. You NEED to bring SOURCES though.

Here is the potentially unusable source, btw: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/superpower-ambitions-weaken-russia/414561.html

Comics (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I realize on my quick research that most of the sources are neutral and without ambitions. But Turkey remains stubbornly fixed in Western culture as a backward-looking land of doner kebabs, bazaars, and guest workers. Turkey, a Stealth Superpower? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/14/opinion/main6579448.shtml 88.66.4.227 (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, when a German's in a film usually it's because it's a WW2 piece and... yeah. Same with the Russkies; they're still seen as the old Cold War Commies (even though they're not exactly Commie anymore, but Cold Warrish might be debatable). It's not just the Turks. Heck, British people drink tea and eat biscuits and speak like the Queen, while Aussies walk around with knives and wrestle crocodiles. Every country's stereotyped, whether its accurate or not.

Anyway, I looked at the source and it seems to be speaking more about Turkey carving out its own identity and establishing itself as a Turkish power with its own interests and policies. There's some comment about superpowers, but most of the article seems to be trying to do away with the image you described above rather than suggest Turkey will be a superpower like China (might). Is that the same impression you got or did you read it differently? Comics (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a native English speaker. And you will not change your opinion, but I'm sure that the thanksgiving meal Turkey will a potential superpower, then the dialog to Islam will more important. And Islam will greatest religion at the 21st century. (because of birthrate). Please bear with me, your simple request is difficult for me. brb.. :0) 88.66.4.227 (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Since 2011 is Turkey's military strength power rank 6. ->> http://www.globalfirepower.com/ 88.66.4.227 (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It's populism to think that BRIC stand for potential superpowers. Russia for example is at the same league like Japan, or Mexico in future. They are strong, but the cultural sphere are small to act as superpower. But Turkeys of his dominating muslim power in history, that's why people at start call "pan ottomanism" (still a relevance to name it at the article, but objective) but Turkey is actually again dominating power in the Muslim World.

Anyway, did a Google search and this shows up:

• Recep Tayyip Erdoğan - 84.1 million hits (Semetic writing would give more)
• Dilma Rousseff - 15.1 million hits
• Hu Jintao - 9.6 million hits
• Wladimir Wladimirowitsch Putin - 21.8 million hits
• Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - 31.4 million hits
• Manmohan Singh - 21.8 million hits
• Barack Obama - 247 million hits

Speaking logically, Turkey allready practice global power. People in the Muslim World celebrate Recep Erdoğan like a Popstar. 88.66.4.227 (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The article appears subjective, why is in an earth where islam will dominate only nonmuslims potential superpowers? Turkey is allready a part of the superpower USA (Nato) and Turkey have also Accession to the European Union. But that's not the point. Turkey is a muslim country on a planet where islam is soon dominating. Christianity will second-largest religions in the world. 88.66.4.227 (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Religion has nothing to do with any of this.

Furthermore please read and internalise the following policies WP:Soap Wikipedia and its discussion pages are not a soapbox or forum for your opinion what should be. WP:OR - there is no place on wikiedia for original research WP:RS - reliable sources are needed to support facts (a google search is both original research and not a reliable source) WP:Truth - wikipedia is not about truth perse, but about the best current knowledge as evidenced by reliable sources.

These are some of the basic rules of Wikipedia, and if you refuse to play by them please leave the project. Arnoutf (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

@Arnoutf: Can you see the best current knowledge? The Times: http://img.timeinc.net/time/images/covers/europe/2011/20111128_400.jpg 88.66.4.227 (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Regional powerhouse is not the same as (global) superpower. And in any case a cover tends to overstate the claims. Arnoutf (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to say that Turkey is going to be leader of the Muslim World. This is differently then the regional power Russia, the Shia State Iran or Japan in eastern Asia. Turkey is active in Africa and makes European Union and China competitive. (German source, but you will find it in english, too) http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3567683,00.html 88.66.4.227 (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Notice: I meant Japan not in Eastern Asia, but his influence in the Pacific Ocean. 88.66.4.227 (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Tell me a good reason, why I should ignore Turkey a potential superpower? 88.66.4.227 (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You need not ignore it, BUT you have to play by the rules; because we agreed these rules are the only way to limit subjectivity and come to generally accepted consensus. So again: Either accept the rules and use them, or find something else to do. Arnoutf (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not joke Russia have not a global influence to be a superpower. But we can just let Russia as military superpower. 88.66.4.227 (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Your last remark makes it clear. Either you are not willing to conform to the basic rules of Wikipedia, or you have insufficient English skills to make a relevant contribution. In either case, please stop this as it is only taking up our and your time. Arnoutf (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

oki.. 88.66.4.227 (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Today, Dez 1. 2011 the german european news euractiv.de call Turkey as potential superpowers. Ursache hierfür ist der Wandel der Türkei zu einer weltpolitischen Drehscheibe. = The reason is that Turkey's transformation into a global political power. Here the full article: http://www.euractiv.de/erweiterung-und-nachbarn/artikel/die-neue-trkei-herausforderungen-fr-die-eu-005685 88.66.40.168 (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, says Birgit Schnieber-Jastram (Member of Christian Democratic Union (Germany) and member of the european parliament): That Turkey and the New Turkey are different countries: Die Welt erlebt eine neue Türkei. Aber neu ist diese Türkei auch für die Menschen, die in ihr leben. = The World experience a new Turkey. But it's also new, for the Humans they lives in new Turkey. 88.66.40.168 (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope, you misread the sources. The paper states that Turkey is doing well and is becoming important. This change is not only towards international relations, but also affects its citizens. Nothing about superpower, nothing about different countries. Arnoutf (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

@Arnoutf Do you speak german? She is talking at start about the mistake you did. She says that this analogies is wrong. That's maybe you misunderstand. Than she says that Turkey is a link to Central Asia, Arabia, Africa and Europe. And she is saying that the Reason is that Turkey become global political power. And because of them Turkey is no more the country which it was 5 years ago. She says its a New Turkey. And at last she says that Turkey will a vital importance about the future of the European Union. And she says we should not risk to lose Turkey because of short-term considerations. 88.66.40.168 (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I can read German. And yes she does say all you say in your post above; but no she does not say any of the things you claims she said in the posts before that. Arnoutf (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

So she's saying it'd be an important state like Britain is today? 'Global political power' doesn't mean superpower per se. It just means that a country might have a global presence and has some weight, like Britain does or France even. Could you bring in the relevant bits you're talking about, translated to English? Comics (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I translate alot to understand the context. It starts with: Die Türkei als die dynamischste Wirtschaft der Welt, die Türkei als Vermittler im arabischen Frühling, die Türkei als Modell für Nordafrika, die Türkei als eine Brücke nach Asien, die Türkei als wichtiger EU-Handelspartner, die Türkei als Drehscheibe für Energie, die Türkei als starker Verbündeter der EU - das ist die neue Türkei, eine junge Türkei, die Türkei von heute.

Turkey the most dynamically economy in the World, Turkey as intermediary to the arab spring, turkey as model for North Africa, turkey as bridge to Asia, turkey as important EU-trade partner, turkey as at the centre for energy, turkey as strong ally of the Eu - that's the new Turkey, a young Turkey, the Turkey today.

Die Türkei hat sich in den letzten Jahren rasant entwickelt. Die Perspektive einer zukünftigen EU-Mitgliedschaft hat die Türken motiviert, dem Westen zu zeigen, dass sie in ihren Klub gehören. Es gibt kein anderes Land, das solche wirtschaftlichen und politischen Fortschritte gemacht hat und das sogar noch Spielraum für weitere Aufwärtsentwicklungen hat.

Turkey developed rapid in the last years. The perspective on some future EU membership motivated Turkey, to show the west, that it's a part of it. There is no other country, with suchlike this progress in economic and political and there is still enough potential for an upward trend.

Then there are some feedback about the current progress that the joblessness sunk heavily, that the business to the european union growth to 103 billions, etc. And that the medial reports about turkey changed and about wrong inference.

Und auch politisch ist die Türkei ein Schwergewicht geworden. Der EU-Beitritt ist für das Land längst nicht mehr so wichtig wie zu Beginn des Jahrzehntes. Ursache hierfür ist der Wandel der Türkei zu einer weltpolitischen Drehscheibe. So wie Deutschland das Bindeglied zwischen Mittel-, Nord-, Ost- und Westeuropa ist, so ist die Türkei ein Bindeglied für die Regionen Zentralasien, Arabien und Afrika, die immer mehr an Bedeutung für Europa gewinnen. Zuletzt hat sich diese neue Einflussposition im Verhältnis zum Arabischen Frühling ausgedrückt. Aber auch bei der Diskussion um die Energieversorgung spielt die Türkei eine gewichtige Rolle.

And also Turkey become a political heavy weight. The accession to the EU is no more important, which it was at the begin of the century. The reason is Turkey's transformation into a global political power. Such as for Germany is a link in middle, north and east and west europe, so is Turkey a link to Central Asia, Arabia, Africa and Europe. The last manifestation for this influence-position is the Arab spring. But also at the debate for the energy supply plays Turkey a substantial role.

Die Welt erlebt eine neue Türkei. Aber neu ist diese Türkei auch für die Menschen, die in ihr leben. Die Großstädte ähneln denen im restlichen Europa, (..)

The World experience a new Turkey. But it's also new, for the Humans they lives in new Turkey. The large city are mostly remaining those in Europe, (..) but the turkish mindset is islam. This part is difficult to translate. The context is that turks feel european and muslim also in anatolia. And at last she says that Turkey will a vital importance about the future of the European Union. And she says we should not risk to lose Turkey because of short-term considerations.

Certainly she doesnt term Turkey as superpower. But as a global political power and not a regional powerhouse. This is historic based like Vatican. It's smallest country but it have influence. But Turkey does alot more. 88.66.40.168 (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

So basically, the thing I'm getting from this is that they're comparing Turkey to Germany and saying it's in a great location that lets it interact with a lot of different countries, with a good economy and political influence. I'm not sure the comparison to the Vatican is really appropriate here, but it's fair to say the article's comparing Turkey to Germany from what you've provided. I'm not sure this is really appropriate on a Potential Superpower's page though. You know, this section's probably heading towards forum material. Would you agree that most of the sources you've found/provided suggest Turkey is going to be important but not a superpower? It seems the case to me (assuming you're the IP who started this section). Comics (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

China and EU have not "supplanted" the US superpower status

The statement in the intro "However, this view is now challenged by some who believe the rise of China (a state) and the European Union (a supranational entity) have already supplanted the sole superpower status of the United States." is incorrect according to the sources listed which cite both China and EU as emerging superpowers. None of the sources listed imply that either China or EU have already supplanted the US as a superpower.

In the source "China Seen Overtaking U.S. as Global Superpower", when asked if China has already overtaken the US as a superpower, the percentage that say yes is as follows:

US 12%. China 6%. France 23%. Spain 14%. Britain 11%. Germany 11%. Poland 21%. Russia 15%. Japan 12%.

The articles listed seem consistent in citing both China and EU as emerging superpowers not that they have already supplanted the US with statements such as "China will be a superpower" or "Europe: Visions of an Emerging Superpower". The intro should be reverted back to 11/12 which states:

"Presently, it is widely considered that only the United States currently fulfills the criteria to be considered a superpower.[3][4] States most commonly mentioned as being potential superpowers are Brazil,[5][6][7] China,[8] the European Union (a supranational entity),[9] India and Russia,[10][11] based on a variety of factors. Collectively, these five potential superpowers and the United States comprise 66.6% of global nominal GDP, 62.2% of global GDP (PPP) and more than 50% of the world's population." BlackHades (talk) 10:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

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.[2] 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 back by any credible sources and its inclusion here represents a problem if; (a) its supporting citations aren't significantly improved or (b) its not removed from the article as per WP:RS.

"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)