Talk:Potential superpower

Brazil needs a check.

Links, that suggested Brazil being future superpower.. They were ultimately dead links.

I second, that Brazil might be future superpower, but we have no source right now. For claiming so. OccultZone (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The entry of Brazil in this article needs assessment. I personally cannot find any reliable sources which suggest Brazil is a potential superpower. Also remember that sources which call Brazil a potential "economic superpower" do not constitute a reliable source. The term "economic superpower" is not the same a "superpower". Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Antiochus, Brazil does need some assessment...why should it be considered a potential superpower? The potential could exist, but for the time being I think Brazil will only reach at the greatest "great power" status. But practically it is a regional power. The sources are mostly dead links, and it is really hard to find a place that suggests that Brazil is a superpower. An "economic superpower" cannot be translated literally as a candidate for superpower status. Brazil should be clearly removed from this list. It isn't considered a great power yet. It is a regional power...it does have regional influence in organizations such as UNASUR and MERCOSUR. Viller the Great (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Well I see OccultZone has decided to remove Brazil from the article per this discussion. I personnally think this is best, especially considering there were no citations to verify Brazil's potential as a superpower.Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Placing one US superpower link only

The US cannot deserve two superpower links on the heading and letting countries like China, India, Brazil and Russia with one. Second by Kim Richard Nossal - "Lonely Superpower or Unapologetic Hyperpower? Analyzing American Power in the post–Cold War Era", it is outdated. You can not have a 1999 source to say the United States is a superpower. The url is http://post.queensu.ca/~nossalk/papers/hyperpower.htm . The only other source From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations since 1776, published 2008, by Professor George C. Herring (Professor of of History at Kentucky University) is fine to use, it's 2008 not 1999 like Kim Richard's.--66.55.132.155 (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I am suggesting the US has a per category in article

I am suggesting the US needs a per category in the article now because the question is the US has been questioned as a current superpower and or a great power. Some of you may or not agree but the US is having a down spin on it's world stage power status of events. Does it deserve to be a superpower, sure. Does it deserve to be a great power or between, sure. However the US needs a contrary views as well. So I am suggesting we place the US in a category too along with Brazil, China, European Union, India, Russia.

My examples the US for need of contrary views

1. U.S. No longer Superpower, now a Besieged global power - University George Press by Edward A. Kolodziej, Roger E. Kanet May 26, 2007 http://books.google.com/books?id=iaTnm48GW-cC&pg=PA114&lpg=PA114&dq=U.S.+no+longer+superpower,+now+a+besieged+global+power&source=bl&ots=eZzeAy0U7d&sig=3nDPntWydNre-T70Gr7vuW5oHs0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gaz0UvzyE8T-oQTj-YDgCQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=U.S.%20no%20longer%20superpower%2C%20now%20a%20besieged%20global%20power&f=false

2. America Was Once a Superpower Now It's Not - Truth-Out.org by Thom Hartmann Oct 30, 2013 http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/19713-america-was-once-a-superpower-now-its-not

3. Is America About to Lose Its "Superpower" Status? - Daily Finance by Katie Spence Jan 25, 2014 http://www.dailyfinance.com/2014/01/25/is-america-about-to-lose-its-superpower-status/

4.The US is NOT a Superpower Anymore - Israel National News by Tamar Yonah March 5, 2013 http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/5109 --66.55.132.155 (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, their should be a contrary on the United States--198.23.83.229 (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits in the Russia, Contrary view section

There have been a series of recent edits, starting on 11 March and most recently today, 14 March, that seem to indicate a misunderstanding of what this particular section is about. This section is for the expression of contrary views, or, in other words, opinions against Russia being a superpower. It is not the section for

• expressing how much Russia might have grown in its population
• stating how much Russia's GDP has grown.

Also, the two different statements that have been persistently added do not belong in this section for other reasons. The first statement was sourced from an internet bulletin-board/openly-edited forum, as such they are considered a Self-published source and do not have the editorial oversight necessary to be considered as a reliable source for statements in Wikipedia. The second sentence is repetition of a statement that already appears in the previous section that is actually about Russia being considered a superpower.
I have reverted this paragraph to its previous appearance. If other editors disagree with this action, please discuss it here before making any further changes to this particular section. Shearonink (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

We cannot attribute with SPS, I agree. We have added the poverty levels of China, India. We have also added the economic situation of European Union. Russia is no different subject. So there is no need for explanation. You can revert that specific paragraph to your last version, currently I am checking/verifying every single source. Cheers OccultZone (Talk) 17:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

That's what the contrary views are for.

Facts: Russia's population is not on decline because new hard data says it is growing [1] Source is Russia's Population Isn't Shrinking by Forbes May 11, 2013 by Mark Adomanis [2] Second Russia's GDP has moved upward from 6th to now 5th largest economy. "Russia breaks into top 5 world economies by RT News July 16, 2013[3][4][5]

Third, why post the story by "The Hindu" in the Contrary the Russian's are leaving is now, that's conflicting with the data. Maybe some editors want it their because their bias on Russia and hate it for some reason. Then other editors post new informaton, undermining the facts that Russia is not declining, it is not broke after all. It's time to change the contrary here.--198.23.83.229 (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that there is a misunderstanding about this article and how it is constructed so let's go through it from the top down.

• This article is called "Potential superpowers", it is about countries that could be or might be superpowers.
• The article is divided into 4 different main sections, each one about a different country or governmental entity (China, European Union, India, Russia).
• Each country's section is divided into two more sections. The first section is about why the country might be considered a superpower. Opinions and statements of fact about this idea are sourced from reliable sources.
• The second section is called Contrary views, these sections are about why the country might not be considered to be a superpower. Opinions and statement of fact about this idea are also sourced from reliable sources.

So, deleting an opinion that has been published in a reliable source such as The Hindu will not change the fact that it was a view contrary to the idea that Russia is a superpower. The proper place in this article to put any reliably-sourced information or statements concerning that "Russia might or should be considered a superpower" is in the first part of this article's Section 4: Potential superpowers: Russia. Shearonink (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

198.23.83.229 None of your sources have anything to do with "superpower". No matter what those commentators, writers have written about Russia's potential of becoming superpower. They will be mentioned. OccultZone (Talk) 02:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)OccultZone (Talk) 08:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Today exchange rate is around 1€=51 rubles.IMF estimates that the real change (reer) by the end of the year must be at least 1€=56-57 rubles.Sources close to OECD (that blocked Russia) estimate 1€=70 rubles or more by the end of 2015.This is a collapse in terms of nominal and PPP GDPs,HDI and so on for Russia.Russian reserves of RCB are lowing (russian banks are becoming very very weak and they could face a situation worse than in 1998-2000).As reported in the contrary views Russia lacks totally in economy,its weight is mostly 0 in the finance -its weight is only less than the 0.5% in the world-( in fact it's in the G8 that is politic but not in the G7 that is economic).It's a gift that it can be cosidered a potential superpower ( even neither an emerging power).I neither write in the contrary views because Russia should be deleted from this article.Thanks.151.40.95.82 (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for making your opinion. Although currency rates are not even a point. Especially when you are talking about economical strength. OccultZone (Talk) 02:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

All main economic data depend on currency rates .That's why i underlinded Russia collapsing trend in the reality and in a foresable future.It lacks not a lot, but totally in economy (as net national wealth,GDPs and so many aspects that it would take a book) and not only.You'll see it already in IMF forecast of April 2014.With an economy in fall it is neither an emerging one.I read about next data in IMF.The article begins to be dated.That's all and thanks again.151.40.95.82 (talk) 08:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)