Talk:Potential superpower/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Potential superpower. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Russia and Brazil

As the sources asked for have been supplied I am going to restore these two nations to the article. Per policy. I shall wait 24hrs from now to see if anyone has a reason, within policy to exclude them. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Where are the reliable sources? The section on Russia above gives sources on several of the criteria for being a potential superpower, but combining these ourselves to conclude it is one is synthesis, a kind of original research which is a big nono on Wikipedia.

We really need a reliable source stating explicitly that these countries are indeed potential superpowers (the word superpower must be used in the source). Arnoutf (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower by Steven Rosefielde Already given above and had been added to the article. Brazil – an emerging democratic, global superpower "Nevertheless, all of the above mentioned variables, which lead us to the assumption that Brazil has the potential as well as the intentions to become a global superpower" Grin Indigenous Struggle at the Heart of Brazil: State Policy, Frontier Expansion and the Xavante Indians, 1937-1988 "Brazil's superpower potential" Duke Lament for America: decline of the superpower, plan for renewal UoT calls it a potential rival to the US as a superpower. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, several editors (including me and Darkness) have agreed to place the likes of Russia and Brazil in a subsection to highlight that while some have said they are "potential superpowers", they are infact in a significantly different category as opposed to China, the EU or India. Also, the citation for Russia is very weak/inconclusive as both I and Comics have pointed out. So simply restoring Brazil and Russia as they were (I.e listing them as equal to China, EU, India etc) would be improper/wrong (due and undue weight). The Superpower article should be consistent with and complement this article too!

Another thing I would like to mention is that Russia and Brazil are far more commonly referred to as Emerging powers by academics not as potential superpowers. Only a tiny minority within the field of political science have made the argument that Russia and Brazil have the potential to become superpowers.Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I am more than happy with a subsection, as you said due weight must be considered. A single line in the lede along with that is more than sufficient. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I support the motion that Russia and Brazil should be included in this article BUT ONLY in a separate way to the EU, India and China, which are clearly in a different league to Russia and Brazil.

Also, as has been painfully pointed out time and time again, this article and the superpower article need harmonising.

Please can we come to a conclusion to this saga and implement the changes necessary and then protect that implementation. David (talk) 07:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Darkness, I think it would have been wiser to have kept the article revision as Bushranger had protected it and simply added a new section with an expansion template so me, you, David, Comics and other editors could have worked on it. Having said that, there is no reason for the article to have been protected again! Repeatedly reverting editors who abuse sockpuppetry would normally result in the sock/IP being blocked and not the article being protected. I was looking forward to working on the new section today :(

Overall, I am glad an agreement has finally been made and progress can be made from hereon out!Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You can still edit it, it is only semi protected. I thought I had already reverted to the version BR had last protected it at? Feel free to revert to there and begin work. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

David wrote: "I support the motion that Russia and Brazil should be included in this article BUT ONLY in a separate way to the EU, India and China, which are clearly in a different league to Russia and Brazil", I also support this with a small except: EU, China and separate: India, Russia, Brazil. USA, EU and China are clearly in a different league to India, Russia and Brazil. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not support that motion. You cannot just allocate countries to a "section". The fact that you feel the EU (which is not even a country) and/or China are not comparable to Brazil or Russia is not relevant. This article is about potential superpowers and reliable & objective sources have been provided for the inclusion of all five nations (incl. EU). Different people will have different opinions on the likelihood of each country becoming a superpower, and we cannot base the structure of any article on personal views. I could claim that Brazil is the one true potential superpower and provide a bunch of "relevant" facts like the number of palm trees per square foot, or sugarcane output, but that would not make me right. Unless multiple, reliable, and objective sources are provided to clearly state why China or any other country is special (specifically in the context of becoming a superpower), the current structure should remain.--Therexbanner (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe the separate section is influenced by less sources supporting Russia and Brazil than the EU, China or India - a separate section thereby giving all views a more appropriate weighting in the article. Comics (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, but we must rely solely on the presence of reliable sources. While it is true that there may be fewer sources supporting some countries, no one can objectively judge how many are needed for each section. This is without even going into the debate on the quality vs. quantity of those sources. Given that any decision coming out of the discussion on the quantity of sources/citations will be subjective and biased, I propose that we keep things the way they are. ie. As long as there are several reliable and objective sources supporting that a nation has superpower potential, it should be mentioned in the article. The variances in the reputable opinions can be outlined within each country's paragraph to provide more visibility into the various dilemmas that come up when labeling a country as a "potential superpower."--Therexbanner (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Russia's population

This came out with my last revert. It's sourced but needs either better wording or integration into existing paragraphs.

Russia's population was on the decline but that has changed with new hard data [3]^[1] but that has changed with steady growth on Russia's GDP moving upward from 6th to now 5th largest economy.^[2] The prior story by "The Hindu" in the Contrary the Russian's are leaving is now put behind them now as the country is now showing signs of steady growth in it's population.

References

^ Russia's Population Isn't Shrinking by Forbes May 11, 2013 by Mark Adomanis [1]
^ Russia breaks into top 5 world economies by RT News July 16, 2013 (Superpower Reborn)[2]

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

There is more sources on their economy but it is clear, they are in the right direction. I updated the Contrary views with 4 sources backing this. --82.212.94.57 (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with NeilN please make sure you get the wording right, it is not only about sourcing. I took the following out.

Russia's population was on the decline yet that has changed with new hard data [4]^[1]. Secondly, Russia is now the biggest European Economy^[2] in the World surpassing Germany after the US, China, India and Japan. Russia has also almost a high GDP per capita now like Greece and surpassed Estonia both are counted as first World countries by many organizations. Despite all the negativity towards Russia and many external attacks Russia faced, it managed to get first world standards on its oown without any help like other Western allies received and are still receiving^[3].

Problems in this text "hard data" is an odd phrase and is very scarce in any social data anyway. Comparison, in the words used, is not very neutral. Better would be "Russia has grown to be the biggest European Economy and the 5th in the world." The whole comparison about GDP per capita is somewhat odd, and the term first world country has fallen out of use anyway. The sentence "Despite all negativity...... it managed to get first world standards on its own....." is very much non neutral and unencyclopedic in tone. Arnoutf (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Some problems with this. Russia's economy is still smaller than than that of Germany's, Frances and Britain's (according to the IMF, World Bank etc). Also, Russia's population has been in terminal decline since 1991. Recent reports that Russia's population has grown slightly in the last 2 years are not enough to prevent Russia's overall trajectory of population decline - in-fact, Russia's modest population growth was only due to immigration from ex-soviet states (because of the economic crash). It is expected that once this recent influx of immigrants to Russia stops, Russia's population will once again record negative population growth.Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Huummm, prehaps you didn't read the sources Antiochus the Great, is there anything you like about Russia? You delete everything because your above comments saying Recent reports that Russia's population has grown slightly in the last 2 years are not enough to prevent Russia's overall trajectory of population decline - in-fact, Russia's modest population growth was only due to immigration from ex-soviet states (because of the economic crash). It is expected that once this recent influx of immigrants to Russia stops, Russia's population will once again record negative population growth.. What information give you that? Where did that come from? Who said that, is that your opinion? Prove it then please? Here there are sources above and you delete them like no tomorrow, is that fair to everybody here? Give the article a break and let people read the sources for before changing everything like you do, it disruption and unfair to everybody.--27.121.111.201 (talk) 00:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Antiochus the Great, you deleted at 23:52,31 December 2013 (diff | hist) .(-1,434)‎Potential superpowers ‎ (Reverted to revision 588527073 by Antiochus the Great (talk): Saying Removing non-relevant information. Your edit here [5] Explain to everybody here please, why is this non-relevant information? How, just how are these sources non-relevant? What justifies this to erase and say it's non-relevant information. Is it because it's Russian? I wonder as simply I question your authority on erasing such edits like this please. Explain?--27.121.111.201 (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

In itself Rosstat shoud be considered a reliable source, but then again nobody denies that Russian population has grown recently. What Antiochus challenges is that this is due to temporary migration and not a consistent birth surplus. The links in google translate to those figures in Rosstat do not work in English, but that data should be there; so you can easily provide that. Arnoutf (talk) 10:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Well put Arnoutf. However the Rosstat citation does work in Google Translate, but you have to right click and select "Open in new tab" for it to work. Under "Demographic projections to 2030" you will find this table. As you can see, it gives three separate forecasts for Russias population; a "low forecast", a "medium forecast" and a "high forecast". Both the low and medium forecasts point towards significant population decline (with only a temporary population growth due to immigration). The high forecast is the most optimistic. What is interesting is that all three forecasts point towards negative natural population increase and immigration as being the only reason for modest short-term/medium-term population growth - which is the signs of a fundamentally unhealthy demographic. The other citation used in this article is Forbes, where Mark Adomanis attributes Russia's recent modest population growth to immigration.

Now putting the Rosstat figures and Russia's historic population trends into context, it is fair to say that Russia's population is indeed in terminal decline - but simply experiencing a brief influx of immigrants due to economic hardships. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Reverting back doesn't fix the problem and saying it is an immigration to say they will decline again is only your opinion, if there is an update on the population and the citation is useful; don't remove it. You are really hurting the article and the editors contributing to update it. The GPP source and growth update were removed as they are fresh to use good source material which they should be placed back.--23.105.7.149 (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

23.105.7.149, yes it is my opinion, you are correct. It is my opinion because I decided to base my opinion on the findings of the Rosstat demography report (kindly provided by the Russian governments Federal State Statistics Service). Here you go, read it for your self: Federal State Statistics Service. Also be careful how you behave until your 48 hour temporary block expires. Otherwise you may face consequences for WP:EVASION. Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Russia

I know why you think Russia cant be a superpower and its all ready discussed but i think youre totally wrong about this decisions removing russia and i tell you why by showing some data which might disprove you. At least i think its dumb from you including the EU or India.

-1st the EU is not a country never has been and never will be, then you could include all kind of cooperation who are coming eurasian union, latin american union, asean and so on. Also the EU is very different, the core is the eurozone of which the economy is much smaller 11 trillion.

-2nd India is very behind to be a superpower. If India is included then you could include russia just as well and maybe japan.

--Russias economy is 3.1 trillion dollars indias is only 4.5 trillion. Its not such a difference. And you can clearly see that brazil is much more behind with only 2.2 and mexico with 1.9. Russia with its much smaller population has like 70% of the wealth of a nation with 1 billion people. And brazil or any other country who has more people than russia is clearly behind.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.CD/countries/RU-IT-FR-DE-GB?order=wbapi_data_value_2011%20wbapi_data_value%20wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc&display=default

--Industry, Russias Industry is already the 5th largest in the World doesnt matter if in nominal or ppp. Indias is clearly far behind other countries. And you can see how less the US looks like without its fake value of economy of printing money and media but to real value like manufacturing or producing resources its only 4 times bigger than russia or less than 3 times in ppp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry#List_of_countries_by_industrial_output

--manufacturing, now you say its ohhh its just all natural resources thats why russias industry is so big. Well did you know that Russias manufacturing is above Indias in 2011?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing#Countries_by_Manufacturing_output_using_the_most_recent_known_Data

--patents, its also funny how you included patents in the article. If Japan would be included it would be above the EU and the US at least at the patents granted in 2011. Russia would be 50% of the number all EU countries together, so more than uk, germany and france together see patents granted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_patents#Top_20_countries_in_2012

--its the biggest country on earth and is bordering on east asia, europe and central asia & iran which is pretty much almost all important regions in the future. India, brazil, mexico or what every doesnt border anything like this.

--Russia is also the third largest military spender in the world spending 50% more than UK or japan. Japan is also now surpassing france ad could easily become 4th if it wants. India even lower than saudi arabia.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/157935/countries-with-the-highest-military-spending/

--exports, India exports less than russia and brazil exports even twice less than russia. Russia is 9th largest exports in the world its not that much far away to japan with 530 billion $. And germany exports so much thanks to the euro and european free trade, you can see that the Eu is only 2.1 trillion while germany has 1.5 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2078rank.html#rs

--internet, europe has no real competion to google. Europeans using american products like slaves. Only russia and china have search engines which can compete with them. There are the only countries in the world who can compete with google and facebook, i think this is very important underrated fact.

https://d28wbuch0jlv7v.cloudfront.net/images/infografik/normal/ChartOfTheDay_899_unique_users_of_search_engines_in_december_2012_n.jpg

--population, russias demographics are heavily improving the natural populations is almost not shrinking anymore. But the thing what most people dont know about russia is that russia imports a lot of central asian immigrants which are not counted in the statistics. Moscow for example could have 17 million people instead of 11 million. So russias population could be 153-183 million people in reality.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/russianow/society/8555676/Moscow-17-million-people.html

-anyways i dont want to bash india here i just made a clear comparison of realities. Because this opinion about population is very overrated. Many people isnt everything. Countries like Russia or Japan could clearly be counted as superpowers even today. I think they should be included or India and the eu should be removed.--Quandapanda (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.55.104.229 (talk)

It seems you ignore racist offending.He says europeans are like slaves.He uses offensive words.Russia misses a lot to be a potential superpower even after his talking.151.40.59.151 (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see the message I just left on your talk page. Any further posts from you to Wikipedia will be removed as you are an IP sockpuppet of Mediolanum‎. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I placed a talk discussion to further talk on this matter on Potential Superpowers. I reverted back because there was no discussion on January 1st[6]. Since there was no discussion on these edits, I reverted back simply because

I felt there no proof on the article was done in good faith as good sources were removed without using talk. If you look here[[7], there was no talk on these changes, so I added to talk to dicuss first. These edits should not be done with discussion and I see no discussion on it. I am protecting the article.--185.35.164.107 (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Article is well written

I like this article.I consider realistic in describing.Greetings to the authors of Wikipedia.Mediolanum (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The article could be better and is a work in progress... otherwise I agree that it is a realistic representation of entities that have the potential to achieve superpower status. Those on this talk page that argue Brazil and Russia are potential superpowers obviously have little understanding of what a "superpower" is and have an unusually inept level of capacity to understand that a citation that describes Brazil as an "emerging power" or an "agriculture superpower" does not mean that Brazil is going to be or has the potential to be a superpower!!! Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Well written, not!!!!! This article is an embarrassment, soon as the suspension is over it's going back to the original. Not very many happy campers with Brazil and Russia missing. Many people hate the article as it stands. --103.246.114.86 (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No - you don't like it, based on your own personal opinion. Stop pretending to be more than one person. The trolling and sock puppetry is going to get you nowhere. Have you thought about being constructive instead? You'll find life much more fulfilling. David (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Antiochus the Great about Brazil and Russia.Their population is too small and their economies too (as GDP and as global national net wealth they are and will be insignificant).They lack also in other main sectors.I even doubt about India.Anyway this article is better than the last one...much better.Clear,realistic and easy to realize.Article must be realistic and not make happy all because of their nationalisms or likes in propaganda.I think that discussion can be closed holding this good realistic article.Please stop trolling 103.246.114.86Mediolanum (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

What you think is just comments, you have no information to back your comments, is hearsay. The article stinks[8], doesn't have good souces and lacks a host of facts[9]. Who wrote the article the last two weeks, Antiochus the Great did[10]. Poorly discussed, poorly edited and poorly cited, can I say more. It's not Wikipedia material and looks embarassing. I wouldn't want a 5th class reading it[11], they would fail their history exam[12] if they read this article. --103.246.114.86 (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are supporting a totally non sense position.We already read you long lasting talking.Pen and words many times want to arrive where facts can't.It's no more reality,but only propaganda.Article is well written and has very good citations and sources.If you are here to make propaganda for something or even offending people without having a reason you mistook place.I rather not answer to your offending that show your level of culture.Please ,stop him in useless trolling.Even David asks for it.Mediolanum (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, 103.246.114.86 is being too unreasonable and might only be here because of nationalism and propaganda means.Languid Scientist (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't say! This has been going on for weeks, also with the Superpower article, which perversely was protected with the version this troll wanted! David (talk) 08:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

David ,i TOTALLY agree with you.Even Superpower article is full of citations and contrasts.Time to change it and to give it a clear structure based on this well written article.Too many political beings claim there as potential superpowers with just simple citations.Too many claim to be what they can't be in the present and in a foresable future,too many at the table of the winners.In that article should be named just the existing and the potential ones cited in this article.Article "Superpower" seems a circus.Mediolanum (talk) 10:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Mediolanum, why does it take you 18 saved edits to write 4 sentences? Can you write and spell? Sure looks like you need help. Should I ask Kermit the frog if you know each other since you really don't make any sense here. You agree but you can't read, spell and write but you have an opinion to say the article looks good. Wow.. Are you related to Antiohus the the Great, a cousin, son, sister, brother or ?? Sounds like a conflict of interest. LOL on the article, I guess since it's readable and attracted to 3rd graders as it looks like it was written by 3rd graders.--103.246.114.86 (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Time to stop this guy 103.246.116.86.He is just offending.Mediolanum (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, very offending. There is no pleasure in hurting people especially when Mediolanum has not insulted 103.246.116.86. I can see that the IP needs a very stern punishment if he continues to stay like this. Languid Scientist (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It says right at the top of this talk page to "Avoid personal attacks". There is no excuse, the IPs abuse to editors is going too far. I have filed a complaint to the Admin who protected this article (@ User talk:The Bushranger/Archive26#Potential superpowers) I hope some action is taken. Additionally, if you wish to reinforce the complaint with your own comments then do so. Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes personal attacks are bad. After all those who disagree with Antiochus have an "unusually inept level of capacity, Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2013" Or David "this troll wanted! David (talk) 08:39, 9 May 2013" Or Mediolanum "Stop with trolling.Mediolanum (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2013" Shall I go report you fellows? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

He is a troll though. He's spent the last couple of weeks trolling Antiochus. Anyway, please go ahead - anything to highlight this ridiculous saga to the admins (who so far have done very little to address the issue). The IP hasn't got a leg to stand on. David (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Darkness, I have yet to see an editor PA the IP. Claiming that his actions are "trolling" is factual not a PA. Also, taking my comment out of context is improper and poor show to prove a nonexistent point. The general thrust of my comment was that if editors cannot grasp the understanding of what a "Supepower" is as opposed to an "Agricultural superpower" then obviously this isn't the place for them to be leaving comments as they show an obvious lack of knowledge on the subject (thus I said inept level of capacity). However, i do apologise if you felt the comment was rather strong. Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec)No, it is a PA, comment on content not contributor. As for Brazil and no academic sources, did you actually look? Brazil – an emerging democratic, global superpower "Nevertheless, all of the above mentioned variables, which lead us to the assumption that Brazil has the potential as well as the intentions to become a global superpower" Grin Indigenous Struggle at the Heart of Brazil: State Policy, Frontier Expansion and the Xavante Indians, 1937-1988 "Brazil's superpower potential" Duke Lament for America: decline of the superpower, plan for renewal UoT calls it a potential rival to the US as a superpower. It is also described as an emerging oil superpower and economic superpower. With cash comes power. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Brazil lacks like others of population,high national net wealth (in the foresable future) and many other aspcets in military and policy.Real data are more important than sentences.It'd be well to stop in asking for propaganda.Mediolanum (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

They were not present at the time we discussed the changes. Also, I have reviewed some of those citations (and others before) in my own time (via enhanced Google search to find them). They throw around the term "global superpower" very loosely and arrive at a rather inconclusive end. They more rightly assert Brazil as being more of an aspiring/rising global player or world power (great power) than an actual "potential superpower".Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I really am not interested in what you think the source "throw around" You asked for academic sources which describe Brazil as a potential superpower, you got them. As with Russia Brazil will go back into the article. Mediolanum, what propaganda? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Prpaganda is to make appear true a thing to people that in reality isn't.Mediolanum (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

An additional point, if I were to print off all of the academic citations which strongly reinforce the idea of China, the EU and India as being potential superpowers id have several tons worth of printed material. On the other hand, if I were to print off all the material I could find which referred to Brazil or Russia as potential superpowers (albeit in a rather vague, inconclusive and contradictory* fashion) then id have a few kilograms of printed material. So what were trying to do he is get a balance within the article - it is clearly improper and wrong to list Russia or Brazil in the same light at the EU, China or India.

I say vague, inconclusive and contradictory as 99% of the time the citations more rightly assert Brazil and Russia as emerging powers or (in the case of Brazil) as an aspiring great power with growing global influence.

Anyway, your latest comment does rather sound like a recent comment posted by the IP! Also its worth mentioning that the overwhelming majority of editors here support the current consensus and the current revision of the article. Whats left is how to proceed with Brazil and Russia, do we create a subsection for them in the article? Or do we place greater emphasis on them at the Emerging powers article.Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to make an accusation then make it, do not allude. There is no current consensus, as well you know consensus can change, and self declarations of consensus matter not. We have sources which describe Brazil as a potential superpower, so that will go into this article. That is policy, and that is what we follow. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

To stay close reality they must stay out of the article.It's well written.Do we want to add also other smaller or poorer countries?They can have emphasis in "Emerging power".In the long i'd give more emphasis to Brazil than to Russia.Russia is under Eurosphere.People can already try to guess its future.Mediolanum (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

To Darkness Shines a consensus and agreement on the talk pages is a policy too and the original editors of the consensus and the majority on here support their arguments. It would be a uphill battle to ignore a supported consensus.

Too many editors are in agreement and support with David, Antiochus the Great, Comics e.t.c and their arguments and decisions appear well thought out and executed. They did nothing wrong. But yes I would have liked more time to give my opinions.
I feel the similar agreement that the references and sources for Brazil and Russia are at a too poor grade for this article. But I think a subsection like Greyhood said is the best solution so a peaceful result may occur.
Antiochus the Great made a very good point that there is a large mismatch in the references from academics that support India, China and the EU than those of countries like Russia and Brazil.

We must all remember to talk about the changes before they happen to the article, but in a peaceful manner. Do not argue just for the dislike of loosing an argument.Languid Scientist (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I am fine with a subsection, all I am saying is we have sources so they belong here. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This seems a political suggest agreeded by 3 people (not the majority) and not a scientifical decision.Subsection ( in which we can add Brazil ,Russia,Indonesia,Pakistan and so on) would be a bad and low compromise on not scientifical datas.Just to make happy all.Or you are a potential superpower or you aren't ,otherwise article would talk of all and nothing at the same time.That's not serious.Serious is holding article as written.The rest would become rubbish.Mediolanum (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm ok with Brazil in the subsection but I am not ok with Russia in the subsection because is more of a potential superpower than Brazil so I suggest Russia be placed as before in the first paragraph. The difference between the two, is one has the leading role in the BRIC countries, has a lot more sources directing it's world stage view next to China and the United States that would be Russia. India is sorted of in between the two but I cannot accept Russia in the subsection, You asked for academic sources which describe Russia as a potential superpower, you got them, You asked for academic sources which describe Brazil as a potential superpower, you got them. That's my view. --78.157.215.47 (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Brazil and Russia aren't and won't be for several aspects well cited by the majority of people potential superpowers in the present and in the foresable.Subsection is useless.I agree in holding article unchanged.Changing would be missing a scientific method and following a politician one.Greetings to Antiouchus the Great.He wrote a complete and clear article.GLawrence1972 (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Blocked sockpuppet of Mediolanum Darkness Shines (talk) 08:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The article is really complete and well done.Brazil and Russia aren't potential superpowers because they miss a lot to be so now and in the future.They neither need a subsection.The article must be unchanged to be trusted.89.97.225.73 (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC))Blocked sockpuppet of Mediolanum --64.134.234.86 (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet is Mediolanum[13], Bocca[14] and Subtropical-man[15]. All one editor, same content, same push.--198.55.104.229 (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

~~My opinion is to hold the article in this way.Time to close the discussion with a result.151.40.60.108 (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)~~ apparent sockpuppet of Mediolanum, Bocca and Subtropical-man.

I contributed to update the article in some area's as somethings are coming in for 2014 for China, India, Russia and Brazil emerging for superpower status among these countries. While more stuff is out there on these countries growing, more input is needed to reflect their stage on the world.--5.102.171.27 (talk) 11:39, 13 January 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)

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)

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 [16] Source is Russia's Population Isn't Shrinking by Forbes May 11, 2013 by Mark Adomanis [17] 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[18][19][20]

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-to give an idea Italy has a net wealth 12 times greater than Russia,and net wealth to grow takes many decades or centuries),GDPs (that it's easier to boost in the short term) and so many aspects that it would take a book) and not only (coneventional military,population and so on).A growing number of academics (without doubt the majority) like the main historician living that teaches in Florence University and common people consider Russia destined to be a " forgotten country" or to a " global irrelevance" as already cited in the article.You'll see it already in IMF forecast of April 2014.With an economy in fall it is neither an emerging one.To be a potential superpower economy like poulation and military are main.Numbers are against Russia in these sectors.What are we talking about?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)

You know the currency rate of Iran? But Iran's economy(in terms of GDP) is one of the highest. Main point is that Russia is not usually regarded as a future superpower. Good, we agreed. OccultZone (Talk) 14:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

151.40.82.54 Your disruptive list of edits from 2013 to 2014 Ip addresses from Italy, all targeted as anti Russian, slamming disruptive post and non academic source edits not supported for POV community. Your history reflects a lot of wikipedia abuse.

All your ip addresses:

So your info on here[21] on this talkpage is your puppet trail of your work on anti-Russian comments and edits.

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)

USA can be compared (because of lacking of population;NAFTA can be considered as population ) with others like EU (that seems really complete as global wealth,military-see art.42.7 Lisbon treaty-,population ,HDI and so on) and China (that could be in the long,but very long and with many may be).India lacks too much for a too long foresable future.To consider it we must call not academics but people of astrology..Brazil and Russia mustn't be neither considered.151.40.95.82 (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

151.40.95.82 is a troll. Contrary section needed for US, we need to list the contrary on the United States.--198.23.79.165 (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's add Brazil?

In this list are cited three of the BRICs, but is lacking Brazil. 172.56.6.4 (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It is because Brazil lacks the potential of becoming superpower. Lets discuss... How many nuclear weapons Brazil got? I will ask few more questions later, as long as they are related with the status "Potential Superpower". If you want to avoid such discussion, just let us know if any reliable source suggested Brazil to be a potential superpower. OccultZone (Talk) 13:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@172.56.6.4, in this month Russia has been deleted from article of potential superpowers. Russia, largest country by area, powerful economy, powerful military (including nuclear weapons), global political significance but among others around 150 million people not enough to be potential superpower and also lack of reliable sources. Brazil in all things (to be superpower) is worse than Russia, so, Brazil as potential superpowers is nonsense. Between China, European Union and Brazil there is a tremendous gap. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@172.56.6.4 If you have not been informed yet, Brazil was actually previously on this list, as stated by the previous contributors, but like I have said many times before, being a BRIC country does not automatically make you a superpower. Having a large area, population and economy does not equate you to superpower status. Brazil was removed because known of the sources said anything about it being a potential superpower, rather they stated Brazil is an energy superpower. Nothing close to a superpower. Russia was also lacking reliable sources. They only clear potential superpowers are China and the European Union. Viller the Great (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It is quite clear that India, China and the EU are the only viable candidates with the prospect of achieving superpower status in the 21st or early 22nd century. This is overwhelmingly supported in academic literature. Brazil (and Russia) quite simply do not belong here... as per reasons outlined above and in many discussions on this talk page. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I think Russia must be on this list. Russia has nuclear weapons and power of veto in Security Council. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.26.169.189 (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

But not high GDP. Which academic or economist claim that Russia is potential superpower? OccultZone (Talk) 22:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Europe doesn´t fit on this list. They lack military projection as a unity. Individual nations, maybe, but there is no coesive militar strenght for Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.115.71.227 (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Which means the potential for Europe is there, but the practice is not. This is not the list of current superpowers though. Arnoutf (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Arnitxe:

Please stop edit-warring the European Union, instead of the United States, into this and Superpower. Origamite^{$·_·$(/·_·)/} 12:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

European union should be excluded

Cause the EU is not the one country, there are more than 20 countries in it, but no one among them is not a superpower. Its not correct to consider the organization of 20+ countries as one superpower. According to this logic, lets include here the OECD or Nato or BRIC or G20 etc. The EU is not a country — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.212.121 (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Russian :) formerly was already a lot of discussions on this topic, please read the previous threads about this. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 18:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I saw that smb wrote that the EU is the governmental entity, but nevertheless they are not unified in everything (in comparison with China or the US), each of its members has its own government, own policy and army, its just the union of middle powers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.212.121 (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Various academics, politicians, analysts and other professionals in the field of political science concur that the European Union is a likely candidate to achieve superpower status. Your personal opinion is totally irrelevant. Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Very constructively. Yours too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.212.121 (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

....which is exactly why Antiochus raises the opinions of experts. Arnoutf (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Should Russia be removed from this article?

I feel that the inclusion of Russia in this article needs to be seriously evaluated, due to several reasons that I will discuss below. I encourage as many people as possible to give their thoughts and perhaps we can come to some sort of decision on what to do.

The first issue is the lack of reliable scholarly references supporting the idea of Russia once again emerging as a superpower. An article of this nature requires an academic touch with scholarly references. Political Science is, after all, an academic field with no place for sensationalist journalism! Unfortunately, on examination of the references listed for Russia, I find that the overwhelming majority of references are completely inadequate for this article. I have identified them in the following list:

Reference 94 - Is a forum! Not a WP:RS.

Reference 95 - Clearly unreliable. Doesn't even mention anything about Russia as a potential superpower. Not a WP:RS.

Reference 96 - Biased and opinionated journalism from a small Russian online news outlet. Not a WP:RS.

Reference 97 - Online news outlet. Quotes Venezuela's president saying "Russia is a superpower".

Rference 98 - Online media outlet. Quotes Israeli PM calling Russia "an important superpower".

Reference 99 - Not sure what this is, but clearly not a WP:RS.

Reference 101 - Online news organisation. Journalist talks of Russia in the context of an energy superpower due to oil and gas resources.

Reference 102 - British journalist speculates Russia may emerge as a superpower again due to oil and gas revenues. The opinion of a journalist isn't a WP:RS.

So essentially, what this list illustrates, is that Russia's inclusion in this article is almost entirely based on a mishmash of shoddy unreliable sources. Also, the comments made by a Venezuelan or Israeli politician seeking to gain favour with Russia doesn't belong on this article. Nor too does the opinions of journalists.

Fortunately, not all of the references given for Russia are as bad as the above. There is one exception: "Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower" by Steven Rosefielde 2004 (Cambridge University Press). This reference is the only scholarly piece of work which outlines the possibilities of Russia returning to superpower status. However, there is an issue even with this. The work was published in 2004 and at this stage might be considered outdated. Furthermore, can we justify the inclusion of Russia in this article based on a single (and outdated) academic piece of work? I don't think so.

Presently, Russia is included in this article as if it were an equal to China, India or the EU. But as discussed above, the references are simply not available to support that assertion. This gives rise to the issue of WP:UNDUE - E.g. Why should Russia be listed in the article next to China, India and the EU when there is a severe lack of references to support it?

In order to address these issues, my proposal would be to delete Russia from the article and simply insert a sentence in the leading paragraph along the lines of: "Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, some academics have pondered on the possibilities of a resurgent Russia once again rising to the status of superpower." Afterwards we would reference the scholarly source by Rosefielde. Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Russia is on here for no reason. Why were so many countries included on here in the first place? Many people have actively campaigned to remove Russia and Brazil; look at many of the archived discussions. Brazil was removed, and now we face Russia. Who said it is a superpower? Did not the USSR collapse in 1991? Russia does not have have all the power it used to exert as it was the USSR. Russia does not even aspire for superpower status. What global influence does it exert? It is not at par with the United States. Russia tends to be under the EU's sphere of influence (Eurosphere). If that is not the case, it is under China's. Russia and China are not exactly comparable. This page used to have all the BRIC countries, as if somebody said they would all become superpowers someday. Having a large economy and landmass does not guarantee superpower status. All of the sources clearly have no crucial sources pinpointing to Russia being a potential superpower. Russia is a great power, just like France and the United Kingdom. It has nuclear weapons too. It has a permanent seat in the UN. Russia however is not capable of being a superpower in any way, hence it must be removed. This article needs a major cleanup. Viller the Great (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I support Russia, leaders like Yeltsin, Putin, Lavrov, had done a good job. I have to say that Russia had small of becoming a superpower in future. But now I don't think that there's any hope now. We have to see what is happening. Like Niall Ferguson had said that Russia is on its way to "global irrelevance", he was correct. Russia has no strong support from any country in the world now. China abstained from voting on a UN Security Council, regarding Crimea, which is not even a support. I am not saying that the United States or European Union are ideal examples, but when we talk about "Potential Superpower" we have to be correct with the definition. OccultZone (Talk) 03:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I support Russia too, I want it to progress to a prosperous Western country. Unfortunately you are right and a lot of damage has been done recently to the country. Great point you made, Crimea received support from very few states, not even one of its closest allies China always seems to always be on its side. China needs good relations with the West. It is indeed soon facing a global irrelevance, as it cannot sway any real countries under it influence, such as Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Venezuela etc. We must face the facts and accept that Russia will not be a superpower anytime soon. Putin does not even aspire for his country to become a superpower. Quite possibly the only potential superpowers are China and the European Union (even though it is not a country). India is rising and could someday be powerful, but that is yet to be seen. Russia and Brazil, along with Japan do not qualify for superpower status.Viller the Great (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Even though Russia has suffered in years following Cold war but the fact cannot be denied that people still consider Russia as a significant country in World politics and deem it powerful with potential enough to become a superpower in any time in future. I have also placed some references with academic touch which infers Russia to be a potential Superpower. Hison Here (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Hisonjsph. Thanks for expressing your opinion here. Indeed, as you pointed out, Russia is both an important and powerful country, that much is certain. But I feel that you may have misunderstood the purpose of this discussion. We are evaluating the merits of Russia as a potential superpower based on scholarly/academic citations and due to the lack thereof, whether Russia should be included in this article with equal status as China, India and the EU (which contrary to Russia are supported here by a wealth of academic literature). Regarding the two cations you provided, while they are interesting to read, they do not constitute what would be considered as academic literature. Furthermore, they do not present or outline any legitimate reasons of Russia being a potential superpower. In fact, the citation from the New York Times (A Superpower Reborn) clearly asserts that Russia is a Great Power and does not suggest Russia is a potential superpower at all. The intriguing title is nothing more than a form of hyperbole and in this context is referring to Russia as once being a superpower but reborn after the collapse of the Soviet Union as a Great Power. Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Hisonjsph. The recent citation you added is worse than the previous two. Small-time news outlets written by small-time journalists are not reliable sources when it comes to the academic field of political science. Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

We are not denying the fact that Russia is a great power. It is a great power, just like the United Kingdom and France. However the sources do not show that Russia is indeed a potential superpower. It is all a matter of discussion. Viller the Great (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

@Hisonjsph:, those who have supported Russia, they usually had the opposition to US's policies on Iraq war, Afghanistan war, or their crackdown after 9/11. If you want to talk about the happenings of 20th Century, nothing was interesting about Russia after 1991 until they had crackdown in Chechen. I actually agree that Russia has a place in real world, one can also resist that it is a great power(wide term). Potential superpower is different term, you know right? Once again, talk about what is happening now. OccultZone (Talk) 08:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

- dudes just remove Russia please. I think this spotlight deserves china and india let people talk about those. --Crossswords (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

- Agreed Crossswords, it makes no sense to have Russia here. It is should practically be about the Asian giants China and India. Russia is an important country, and a partner to the two, but it doesn't seem to chose the same potential. All have large area, but China and India have more than a billion people each. Both have nuclear weapons, like Russia. But as Antiochus said, they don't seem to show that Russia is a recognized potential superpower. It should be removed. Being a BRIC country does not automatically make you a potential superpower. All these sources are suggesting is that Russia is a rising great power. Viller the Great (talk) 05:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

- But I think that Russia should be added here, cause it has one of the largest economies (more than indian for example) and the largest nuclear arsenal (more than EU, India and China together). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.31.101.229 (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Where I can find standards by which you can consider scientific work as outdated? I must notice that vast majority of sources for other list participants are from more or less same period of time.

I'm taking OccultZone up on his word. Here are some sources that discuss whether Russia could be a superpower:

Boston Globe
National Business Review
Forbes
US News
Forbes 2
I24 (may be unreliable)
White Out Press (may be unreliable)

All easy to find. And as I've said, it doesn't matter if a majority of them say that Russia will or can become a superpower; it matters that there's substantial evidence of discussion. Tezero (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sensationalist commentary and loosely using buzzwords (such as superpower) to make catchy headlines isn't really what were looking for. The first link for example, catchy headline, but no discussion on Russia actually being a superpower or a potential superpower. It does however refer to Russia as an emerging and as a rising-power, but it doesn't discuss anything in detail. Some of the other links make for nice opinion pieces and give some interesting perspectives, but they often lack any supporting material or material showing how they formed their opinions. This is why at the GA review I outlined that we first need some reliable scholarly publications which establish there is a broad consensus among political scientists (regarding superpower potential). If we can do this, then opinion pieces or commentary from carefully selected sources (I.e. no sensationalism) would be welcome, especially if they reinforce established academic consensus. This is an essential step towards properly covering Russia in the article and accurately representing the subject matter.

At present, there is an apparent lack of scholarly publications supporting Russia as a potential superpower, but an abundance of scholarly publications that instead asserts Russia is an emerging power, a great power and trying to halt its decline since the collapse of the Soviet Union, this leads me to assume that the consensus among political scientists is the latter. So should we portray Russia as a potential superpower if it is a minority view? Is that accurately representing the subject matter?

By nature, power in international relations is a contentious issue, so it is understandable that differences of opinions will often occur. But by using a unique set of guidelines as above, we are better able to address those concerns and keep things neutral. A good example would be the Great power article, where for some time now adopting such guidelines has benefited the article greatly and enabled editors to better resolve disputes and differences of opinions.

I don't think the current discussion regarding Russia should influence the GA review in a negative way. It should instead be kept separate, as I suspect reviewing references and coming up with ideas on how to proceed with Russia may take some time. Indeed, any formulating of a section to comprehensively cover Russia would take time, if scholarly publications and a broad consensus is found. There is no rush. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm strictly objecting on this. Covering Russia and ignoring RS for its support influence GA review. I'm again 100% with Tezero here. If topic is discussed in mass media, if there is academic work on it - Russia should be covered. Otherwise, throwing it out, declaring academic works which support Russia as outdated is a WP:RS. It should not be tolerated in GAs.

Also I must add, that wikipedia is here to provide facts and not to judge if facts are "minor" or so - it's a reader, who should decide and create his own judgement. Wikipedia relies only on RS, and Russia has such RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:91.123.18.167 |91.123.18.167]] ]] (User talk:91.123.18.167 |talk]] • Special:Contributions/91.123.18.167 |contribs]])

Interwiki's about Russia

As I can see, majority of interwiki's are using this scientific work from 2005 as a proof and include Russia in their maps. Actually only English one and Ukranian don't. I see this as argument, to propose to add Russia again, as this shows that this scientific work considered as reliable source for Russia by Wikipedia community.

http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/economics/international-economics/russia-21st-century-prodigal-superpower

Interwiki's which recognize the source under dispute as RS and including Russia: bg es fr id pt ro (very small article) ta vi zh

Interwiki that don't recognize this as RS: en ua (??)

(I ignore russian wiki for obvious reasons)

I'll ask I hope the last time (seventh!!!), and I hope for the answer... By what rules English wikipedia don't recognize RS, which I stated above. All other interwiki's are happy about it. I suppose English wiki should follow the majority consensus and don't try make its own rules. Or (the worst!!!) turn wikipedia into a weapon of political battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.123.18.167 (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is not a reliable source, what other Wikis do is really not very relevant here.

In my opinion the source, published by a high quality academic publisher (CUP) should be considered reliable.

However, I am not sure the book actually claims that Russia IS a potential superpower at this moment, from the shown text it appears it INTENDS to be a superpower by 2010 (it is not one now and it is well past 2010, so that intention failed). So this source is not completely unambiguous.

So while the source indeed argues that Russia is a potential superpower, the view of the book also seems somewhat outdated. I would prefer a newer source.

To be honest I find the whole idea of superpowers a bit tricky as the term is rather ill defined - making it an almost automatic POV fork to decide which country is one. The idea of potential superpowers is, if possible even worse - and tends towards crystal balling. But that would go for all mentioned countries here and not only Russia. Arnoutf (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not the idea of superpowers, it's the fact that editors refuse to listen and are anti Russian, pull any valid source I can guarantee you will get the source thrown out with no consideration. One particular editor will with two others I can mention that follow the same path of anti Russia articles, period. It's like go USA but go way Russia since December 2013.--64.129.3.196 (talk) 07:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Try with CIS as potential superpower...may be you'll be luckier...may be...82.48.139.245 (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

India RSs

While resting from Russia's discussion, several notes about India's RS:

A US Intelligence report, from 2012, says that India will become a superpower by 2030...

And link to http://www.indiaeveryday.in/fullnews-india-to-become-economic-superpower-by-2030-us-1003-4809942.htm

If you would follow the link, you will see that word superpower is actually used only in title, so it's just journalist's opinion. Actual US intelligence report says:

In 2030 India could be the rising economic powerhouse that China is seen to be today. China's current economic growth rate - 8 to 10 per cent - will probably be a distant memory by 2030

Powerhouse is not a superpower, since later propose more that simple economic power.

Please, remove the paragraph, which I quoted, or provide better sources. Effervescency (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed you are correct. It is surprising that myself and nobody else noticed this before. It is amazing how people will deliberately add misleading material to an article! Good job and many thanks for pointing this out. Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Antiocus the Great.151.40.45.125 (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Haha, I must note - you agree with him too much :) even when it's not needed Effervescency (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Antiochus the Great: you edit was reverted. OccultZone, why have you restored this material here? Can you provide direct cite where US Intelligence report (2012) says that India will become "superpower"? I can find only "powerhouse". Effervescency (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Effervescency:

Done OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Adding Russia back

Russia is rapidly growing both economicaly,Culturally and Militarily Russian Annexation of Crimea is only the first sign russia is building new tanks,ships,bombers and weapons in large numbers while signing trade agreements with many nations 112.135.131.140 (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

112.135.131.140 your right but the problem is one editor is very anti Russian, the facts are there it's the fact when you have one editor who started this mess since late December 2013 and has been on this troll deletion mentioned of anything regarding Russia as a superpower, pulling all valid sources and etc then tells the admin for help each and every time[22]. Personally I don't spend 8 hours a day everyday on Wikipedia editing unemployed but the point is, you can't trust this article like you can't trust Wikipedia because of editor corruption. So with that said because this is a constant problem then start a blog campaign stating how the potential superpowers and superpower articles are false by corruption. If people want the truth, not to come here but to use other sources when it comes to this subject.--64.129.3.196 (talk) 07:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that editors were trying to get permission to delete my comments, I've left a note on User:The_Bushranger talk's page. I see no reasons why editors try to remove Russia and then quickly try to gain GA status, only if they have reasons to push their own POV. At least, I hope, they don't get paid for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.123.18.167 (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I support Russia back in, there's sources that are worth using, even past sources but it was mislead in May 2014 and sources didn't get argued to save Russia in as Russia was deleted on purpose by 3 editors who planned it. Seeing bias editors delete good sources is wrong and to deal with that makes it difficult with one way thinking turning heads on good sources. Need to place Russia back in like before.--173.224.116.150 (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It's really difficult to realize your english..you can image your ideas. Later i'll post aside Russia and Brazil Turkey and South Africa that have been mentioned as superpowers in the past times.IN THIS PAGE MORE THAN 50% of WRITERS ARE RUSSIANS.The credibility not only of their sources (that are really insignificant)and of a broad consensus is 0.We cann see a lot of writing by them but not real good sources.Russia just lost Ukraine that was the second state in USSR and that moved to EU with Georgia and Moldova(last words are just my opinion that give anyway an idea of russian situation).If we begin to write about russian lacking in economy (National net wealth,GNI,GDP nominal and PPP,GDP per capita,HDI and so on) ,demography and conventional military we end after tomorrow.Same naturally for Brazil. 151.40.100.219 (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your speculations on Ukraine (lost? Crimea is lost?), Georgia (South Osetia and Abhazia are lost?) it's all WP:OR. If you have nice sources for Turkey and SA - you're welcome. But I highly doubt that you can call any country a potential superpower, if they have no nuclear weapon. Effervescency (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Antiochus the Great,151.... and others to RESTORE ALL and delete Russia and Brazil from article that now has a very low standard to do not say shameful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.231.65.104 (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Turkey has nuclear sharing.This about nukes it's just an opinion of yours.151.40.65.156 (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Here are some references about Turkey http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/world_policy_journal/v027/27.4.zalewski.html

http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-319-00431-0.pdf

151.40.65.156 (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Then write a section about it and post it here, on Talk page for review - no one is opposite to it. Why should I care about Turkey, or your opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Effervescency (talk • contribs) 18:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I won't add Turkey because like Russia nd Brazil hasn't sufficient good sources.TIME to delete Brazil and Russia.This shows how easily people add political beings in this article.Brazil and Russia were added in an easy way.A low level article now.151.40.12.61 (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Then why have you provided bad sources at first place? If you don't want to write about Turkey - then don't write. No one cares about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Effervescency (talk • contribs) 19:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I posted it to see russians reactions.You immediately said "YES" to justify the adding of Brazil and Russia yesterday.This shows that more than something is wrong in this article.sorry but you fell in the trap.151.40.12.61 (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I said, if you want to write - write, we will review, if you don't want to write - don't write, no one care about it. Wiki is about RS, not about political battle arena, as you try to picture it. More on that, you try to convert wiki to such arena. All your further comments will be ignored. You're a bad person. Effervescency (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

What you wrote shows that you are "easy" in adding political beings.Now you try to JUSTIFY Brazil and Russia in the article.151.40.12.61 (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Removing note about consensus

I would like to propose to remove (or edit) this line from article: "However, popular consensus among political scientists and other commentators is that Russia is simply an emerging power, as opposed to a potential superpower." http://www.ccs.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/China_Monitor_JUNE_2010.pdf

I've read the pdf file, it has absolutely no information or implication about political scientists consensus. Please, remove (or edit) the line appropriately, or provide sources which proves the claim.

Yes this is a valid concern. I have edited the sentence and added a better sources to more accurately represent what is being said. Thanks! Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Potential superpowers/GA1

It seems editors are ignoring this and many other thing more important...when we'll wee see Brazil and Russia delete and DONE!!!!a lot of fantasy in the article now!151.40.65.156 (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Really good thing!)151.40.12.61 (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Unified Korea Superpower?

I'm just throwing this idea out there but hasn't there been some talk about the possibility of a Unified Korea becoming a superpower? Perhaps it should be listed under other contenders. Ace45954 (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A unified Korea would have basically the economic output of South Korea and a population smaller than Japan. I don't see why a unified Korea would be considered a superpower and not Japan. Even with Chinese levels of growth in the North (8%-12% sustained), or like those South Korea from the the 70's (when it first exceeded the North) until it fully developed, it would take many decades for the two regions to reach parity. And even once the North and South reached parity, the North only has half the population, the combined entity would have only about 1.5 times the population. So, we would be talking about an entity not drastically stronger than South Korea already is anyway, unless a unified Korea's economy somehow seriously outpaced that of all other developed countries in per capita terms.

I could only find one serious article arguing the point (by a "Hank Hyena), and the only point he makes that's not superfluous is to point out that, if you add the two countries armies together, it would have the largest army in the world. But this is somewhat absurd. North Korea maintains such a large military because it's incredibly paranoid, South Korea maintains a large one as well to counter them. In the event of unification, the armed forces would likely be cut back massively. It's very well possible that North Korea's would be entirely dismissed, as happened to East Germany's. The idea of trying to integrate the military's into one at full strength is laughable, these people fought a bloody war between between each other and have been at each others throat for 60 full years. East Germany didn't do that, and they still got pink slips. Furthermore, the vast majority of NK's armed forces are, in fact, paramilitaries of arguable military usefulness, not full time trained soldiers. And the rest of the NK armed forces are technologically backwards.108.131.84.28 (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, fair enough. I was simply throwing the idea out there. Especially in light of the fact that it is estimated that North Korea has more rare earth mineral deposits than any other place in the world and in total is estimated to have at least $6 trillion worth of minerals. Though I agree it would still be a stretch to call it a superpower. Maybe a great power but not a superpower. Ace45954 (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

the EU should be removed even japan is a more potential superpower

Please read the rules of Wikipedia and previous discussions about EU. The following discussion is closed.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/chapter-3-balance-of-power-u-s-vs-china/ http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2014/07/PG-2014-07-14-balance-of-power-3-05.png

people around the world see japan as more economical stronger than the EU, EU is an organisation not a country in the first place anyway.--Crossswords (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

A number of political and economical writers have considered whole EU to be potential superpower, that's why it was added to this article. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

some political writers < survey of 1000s of people--Crossswords (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Arnoutf (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Crossswords, please stop trolling. Again. And also, one not reliable source does not change reality, please not add ~~shits~~ (and OR, POV) to article like as "show that the world sees Japan as a more leading economy that the EU". Even if Japan (according to one not reliable source) has a better economy is not relevant to being a superpower. According to few sources, UE has a greater GDP (economy) than USA, so? EU is more superpower than USA? Please no trashing discussion, please read the rules of Wikipedia and previous discussions about EU. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TO RESTORE WITHOUT INDIA

I suggest first of all to delete the section "Other contenders" that is really very low.I'd restore all like before but without India( this my opinion based on the academics writings that i read).151.40.45.125 (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Blocked sockpuppet of Mediolanum[23] Supersaiyen312 (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

While I would like to make a comment about India and Russia but I found ip user 151.40.13.125 for disruptive ip hoping on these discussions, speaking against Russia in all ip’s I found below. All the same editor, all ip addresses are from Florence Italy. I would like to discredit this user out of this discussion since it is all the same wording slamming disruptive edits against Russia since 2013 that this is not effective when users like this are disruptive and are doing the opposite. Here is the list with links of the contributes starting July 8, 2014‎ - 151.40.13.161[24] , July 7, 2014 151.40.45.125[25], March 17, 2014 - 151.40.95.82[26], April 2013 - Bocca Trabaria[27], March 2014 - 151.40.24.9[28], March 2014 -151.40.7.192[29], Sept 23, 2013 - 151.40.18.30[30], Sept 15, 2013 - 151.40.55.125[31], March 18, 2014 - 151.40.35.236[32], March 18, 2014 - 151.40.9.149[33], March 17, 2014 - 151.40.72.141[34], March 16, 2014 - 151.40.14.179[35], March 16, 2014 - 151.40.83.17[36], March 15, 2014 - 151.40.69.199[37], March 15, 2014 - 151.40.34.218[38], March 15, 2014 - 151.40.120.19[39], Feb 4, 2014 - 151.40.63.30[40], Feb 4, 2014- 151.40.16.167[41], Dec 28, 2013 - 151.40.107.93[42], Dec 27, 2013 - 151.40.27.25[43], Dec 27, 2013 - 151.40.64.77[44], Dec 25, 2013 - 151.40.54.32[45], Dec 23, 2013 - 151.40.41.170[46], Dec 22, 2013 - 151.40.9.139[47], Sept 8, 2013 - 151.40.102.200[48], August 14, 2013 - 151.40.125.50[49], May 10, 2013 – Mediolanum[50], Oct 22, 2013 - Glc72[51], May 21, 2013 - 151.40.11.180[52], May 14, 2013 -151.40.59.151[53], May 14, 2013 - 151.40.60.108[54], May 11, 2013 - Bocca_Trabaria[55]

Are you sure about it?My web is linked to Infostrada that is owned by Vimpelcom that is russian.I think you are wrong russian Sherlock Holmes.Here you are the play maker that defends the make up of Russia in this section.Naturally propaganda is also in economy,policy and military articles.It seems you had contacts with Tezero (the other russian) and Sergecross73 that appeared and then disappeared making the huge confusion (or DISASTER in my opinion for broad consensus).I know Russia and russian better than you think.I swim in Rosstat pages and in its lies.Developing states have statistic data full of lies.Numbers to play at lottery many times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.40.100.219 (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet of Mediolanum[56] Supersaiyen312 (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@151.40.13.161: What the hell? What is a terrible WP:OR are you trying to push? I've passed this before already! Wikipedia is to provide sources, and READER is the only one who has to judge. Sources for Russia and Brazil are provided. There is no discussion about South africa being superpower. Current political events (annexation of Crimea for example) involves USA, EU and Russia. If you google for "russia superpower" - you will see that there is discussion about it in mass media, this means that wikipedia should cover it.

@151.40.13.161: On top of it - yes, previous editor is correct, your IP is from Italy. He isn't wrong, he is correct. Also those edits shows that you're highly anti-Russian user, adding works like Russia is "unimportant" and etc. I doubt you have good faith. Effervescency (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

RussiA LOST Ukraine in the true sense.Russia is nothing more tha a middle/great power even in a foresablle future.You couldn't find sources about Turkey and South Africa and others.Me yes.I agree to restore like Antiochus the Great.2.231.65.104 (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Blocked sockpuppet of Mediolanum[57] Supersaiyen312 (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

it's WP:OR i'm already tired to express that. I actually don't give a [insert any word you like] about what you think Russia has lost or what you think about Russia. If there RS - give them, I'll think about adding them myself or won't touch them. Otherwise, it's word against word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Effervescency (talk • contribs) 15:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Russian people seem to be nervous because they know russia isn't at the level.It lacks a lot like Brazil under many points of view.The majority of writers and sources are against Brazil and Russia.2.231.65.104 (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Blocked sockpuppet of Mediolanum[58] Supersaiyen312 (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC) http://books.google.it/books?hl=it&lr=&id=x9QITQuDdx4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA379&dq=russia++superpower&ots=3PIU0GbJ86&sig=xY65RhJWzIxVB0GJ5P8C7ScOHRc

~~http://www.jstor.org/stable/3183323 151.40.65.156 (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)~~Blocked sockpuppet of Mediolanum[59] Supersaiyen312 (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09668130802362367 Just to start finding articles against Russia...do we want to last? We can bomb Russia position with all times academics sources.TIME TO DELETE Russia and Brazil.173.....deleted himself but left his post.Hehehe151.40.12.61 (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Blocked sockpuppet of Mediolanum[60] Supersaiyen312 (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Today the anti Russian ip is 151.40.12.61, yesterday he was 151.40.45.125 and the day before he was 151.40.13.161. All the same person making anti Russian statements, please stop this nonsense of making arguments on why Russia is not a superpower when it is.--204.15.111.27 (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thoroughly agree with Effervescency, ip 151.40.12.61 is disruptive and making anti Russian remarks which seems this user is supporting all of Antiochus the Great's edits which is linked to the same thing, hurting the article of pushing off Russian verified sources for no consideration. I see a tie between IP users 151.40.12.61 and Antiochus the Great upon reviewing their history together. I know now not who to trust on these comments from these editors and it's truly sad.--204.15.111.27 (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

According to IMF in 2014 Italy has a larger nominal gdp than Russia and it' won't pass in a foresable future Italy according to IMF data (see List of countries by past and future GDP (nominal)).As net national net wealth Italy is 10-11 times Russia according Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report October 2013.Same scale differences between Germany,UK and France vs Russia.Same distances also for Brazil and India. IMF is a perfect source to show the impossible and ridiculous situations of these political beings in this article on the economic point of view.People can discuss on demographic (for Russia and Brazil) and military (conventional and not too). Strange potential superpower Russia....similar conditions for Brazil and India....really a ridiculous panorama seeing Russia,Brazil and may be India in this article.Some newspaper writings can't cover this abyss in reality.A lot of rubbish to delete.151.40.117.74 (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Blocked sockpuppet of Mediolanum[61] Supersaiyen312 (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Do we really need this article?

I've observed that at least a couple of contenders for possible future superpowers have been removed, one by one. And now they've been returned in a smaller "other" category. I'm curious to see if India might be the next one to go, since according to great power article, India doesn't even seem to have much consensus in being a global power at the present.

At this rate, I'm now wondering if this page is really necessary. The subject here is simply a type of emerging power and the topic at hand is entirely dependent on the original superpower article. Sources vary on which countries are superpowers or going to be one in the near future - some say that United States is falling short of being a true superpower, while some say that China was already basically a superpower in the Cold War days. It's because what one means by a superpower can vary by source: the definition, scope, and standards. And I just don't think that the editors are really going to achieve consensus like this.

I think that at least the present form of the article isn't very effective; it's trying to display a few preeminent examples and basically exclude the rest, which is hard to balance as a neutral article. Instead, it would be better off as a simple list format, inclusive in nature; if a reliable source says a nation is a potential superpower, then just state that and not worry about how many countries are going to be listed. The length of each country's section would depend on how much weight is due. Abstractematics (talk) 04:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I think it prudent to reiterate that this article is intended only to summarize viewpoints, not offer any judgment on each nation's chances of its own. While it is hugely unlikely that all quoted individuals - even the academics - could recite the exact, official definition of a superpower, I think we can trust that they have a general idea of what one is, and if not, hey, we're not positing them as being right.

That notwithstanding, you do have a point about the possibility of excluding material for the purpose of conforming to a clean, preconceived narrative of which nations are thought of as potential superpowers. It would be difficult to cover all nations with any reliable attestations of such a status here without turning the "other" section into a sloppy laundry list amounting to little more than a "Trivia" section.

I think it's wisest to consider what the average reader will most value. I contend that a list format, assuming you're talking about a giant table, would be non-ideal because of how much information would be necessary to cover for the top few countries. It would look unseemly. That is, unless there was some way to divide typical arguments into categories and put it all in a great big table with one axis for countries and the other for issues: for example, mark the square of "China" × "Population" green and fill in sources there, because the general scholarly consensus is that China's population is enough for it to be a superpower. Even that, though... I don't know. Tezero (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Abstractematics: On great power's article, consensus is clear that India is considered as great power by numerous sources and there is no denial. About your main question that we need this article or not, it had been decided years ago that this article is very important for both economics and politics. It is no more WP:RECENTISM but common understanding among all political and economical writers. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Abstractematics, a Great Power isn't necessarily a global power, good examples are Prussia, Austria and in some respects Germany or Japan today or China in the 1940s - 1990s. The Great Power article highlights that India is gaining more recognition as a Great Power, and few will argue against this. Regarding the "other contenders" section, it is largely suitably sourced, although Brazil needs some work. Likewise, comments made by politicians regarding Russia as a superpower is inappropriate. I left a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics on this particular issue but I assume nobody has seen it yet. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes ,we need it.The problem is that many people don't know the difference between an emerging power,a superpower and so on.India is an emerging power and not a great power (otherwise Italy too should be listed in great powers).Italy has a greater military (see Germany),a larger national net wealth (see UK and Russia) and a larger nominal gdp (see Russia) of several political beings cited as "great".Great power,that is an old view of policy (1800), should be intended just for states with veto power in UN (that today is just a formal thing) nothing else.In fact France ,UK ,Russia and others are cited also as middle powers (see article).These problems are reflected in this article that presents even Brazil,Russia and India that are just emerging powers.and some of them are at the final part of their growth in every sense.Real potential superpowers are EU (that i even consider a true superpower) and Popular Republic of China (this one in a longer future). USA have been the last true absolute superpower (today like EU they are relative) till when USSR produced the first atomic bomb.A true absolute superpower is a power able to influence world everywhere without receiving back a lethal hit. A relative superpower is able to influence by economy,military,culture and its high level standards of life all world.In this case only USA and EU are relative superpowers.Wikipedia conmsiders USA the sole superpower so at least EU must be considered as main potential superpower.In this article well written by Antiochus the Great remained even too many political beings,they are just secondary players or emerging powers.(Brazil,Russia and India)Gladio4772 (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Blocked sockpuppet of Mediolanum[62] Supersaiyen312 (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

In my view we don't need the article as the title (potential) is a POV fork for all eternity. Even a country like Tuvalu is a "potential" superpower, although that potential is vanishingly small of course. Arnoutf (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

May be Arnoutf is right.It's better using "Contemporary superpowers" all would be clearer.We'd have only 3 players (USA,EU and Popular Republic of China,with USA considered the main one according the majority) whitout arguing on academics or personal points of view.Noboby can't be partial in policy in the absolute sense.I think a lot of things should be rewied in this sense about the meaning of superpower,emerging power and great-middle power.Gladio4772 (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Blocked sockpuppet of Mediolanum[63] Supersaiyen312 (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: Not from the impression I got from reading great power article. It's not on the maps yet, and it's only mentioned in passing, just like Japan would be mentioned in passing in this article. Maybe it's an emerging power with potential to climb to great power.

@Tezero: When I say list, I don't mean a table. I mean something like... this, or this.

(Title: "List of Countries" or some equivalent)

China

Information about growing Chinese influence

Contrary views

Japan

A short simple sentence or two: "For example in the 1980s some commentators thought Japan would become a superpower, due to its large GDP and high economic growth at the time.[Source] However, Japan's economy crashed in 1991, creating a long period of economic slump in the country known as The Lost Years."

Russia

Whatever information that's currently there

United States

Something like, "Many sources contend that the United States is the sole superpower and will be able to retain the superpower status; however, some sources foresee United States losing it" (insert explanation here)

What this means: lately I've seen a lot of debating among editors here regarding which country deserves the "spotlight" and which doesn't. I think that's trying to create OR:Synthesis. Editors should not bother worrying about deciding which country has the qualifications to be a potential superpower; let the sources speak on that. That's what I mean by "inclusive". The advantage of this list is that it doesn't matter how short a subsection is (e.g. Japan) or how many countries are listed here, because the article is wouldn't be trying to draw attention to a few select examples that "truly" deserve the title. It's simply echoing the various verified sources. As you (Tezero) have said, Wikipedia is about verifiability. We can shorten or lengthen a state's subsection based on the weight, but we shouldn't make judgments on whether it should be included or not as a potential power, when verified sources state it as so. Abstractematics (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Your list is very difficult to realize because it includes many different levels of countries.Antiochus the Great way is the best one to follow (less players for instance in this article) in this article about reliable sources.Gladio4772 (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Blocked sockpuppet of Mediolanum[64] Supersaiyen312 (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments made by politicians, diplomats, scholarly publications, presidents regarding Russia as a superpower are appropriate and valid facts for support for countries on potential superpowers, not just one country but all countries.--198.134.105.98 (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't care too much whether we include those, but in general I prefer more information to less; readers can ignore information that comes from voices they don't trust, but they can't look attentively at information that isn't --198.134.105.98 (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Statements made by the political leaders of Israel, Venezuela or any country for that matter are not considered to be a reliable source. Especially when they are simply being quoted by two online news aggregators which give no detail of the overall context it was spoken in or even the transcript of the speech itself! Another issue is that politicians will say literally anything in return for political favor - this time from the Kremlin. Taking Hugo Chavez of Venezuela as an example, he was very well known for his pro-Russian bias and close ties with Moscow. During his leadership, Hugo Chavez was criticized by the West and several NGOs for violating and denying basic civil-rights to his own population. In time, the West placed an arms embargo on the Venezuelan regime, forcing Hugo Chavez to turn to Russia for arms. Shortly afterwards, Hugo Chavez made the statement now quoted in the article. I wonder what influenced his words? I guarantee you it was influenced by his political bias and therefore not reliable. Yet on this article, based on some sloppy news journalism and sloppy standards (I.e "I don't care too much whether we include those") we present his opinion as fact. This is inappropriate.

If it is to remain in the article then it should be rewritten. In doing so, it should be clear to the reader that this particular state or politician was strongly aligned with Russia at the time and was seeking political favor. It should also be clear to the reader that it is merely the opinion of the politician and nothing more.

Also, if we are doing this now, then perhaps I should include some less than pleasant comments made by the heads of state of some Eastern European countries regarding Russia. Or those made by Tony Blair when he asserts Russia is irrelevant, not a superpower any longer, but the West should still try to treat it as one, if only to keep them quiet as you would an insecure child. But then again, perhaps I wont. Why? Because any statement made by the head of state of an Eastern European country is likely to be influenced by their negative view of the Russian establishment or any existing anti-Russian sentiments. Likewise, when Tony Blair made those comments he was trying to discredit Russian objections of British-American foreign policy in the Middle East - therefore, his statements were influenced by political bias and not reliable.

I hope this illustrates my point as it would be nice to keep this article neutral. Political statements are anything but neutral and will cause contention. @Tezero, yes, in general more information is desired but we should remember that this is an encyclopedia where quality and neutrality trump quantity. Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Antiochus the Great, keep in mind that I'm not advocating painting Russia in an unrealistically positive light. In fact, my personal thoughts on its government are rather contemptuous. And so I also wouldn't mind negative opinions from politicians of Russia's likelihood of superpower-dom. My instinct is to say that it constitutes original research to determine whose published opinions are worth mentioning (to an extent that goes beyond reliable vs. unreliable, for which the standards are fairly objective), but you make a good point about the general transparency of the opinions' political purposes for politicians in general, so who knows. I don't feel strongly about it either way - my main point of contention is that I don't want all of the countries other than the EU, India, and China to be redacted entirely just because they don't conform to the artificial narrative of these three, and only three, potential superpowers being a clean-cut scholarly concensus. Tezero (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If you don't object, then I would like to reword those two sentences as I outlined above. Personally, I am reluctant to include additional material from politicians where I feel their comments were influenced by political bias. I agree with your last point entirely and am not trying to challenge that at all. Thanks. Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@198.134.105.98 its hard to understand what you are saying and I fear you may be missing the point entirely considering you are speaking of 'scholarly sources'. Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Not hard to understand, important people make statements and they become public information such as the US Congressional office of records and etc places statements become referenced material. Avoiding politicians, diplomats, scholarly publications, presidents is nonsense. So I disagree but Antiochus the Great don't you have a particular objection toward Russia? I noticed you have been history against that nation in particular but seem to like the US States. Is this the way to treat nations and favor one in particular? I object to deleting these articles, they are necessary and they should stay.--198.134.105.98 (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding prime minister Tony Blair in the article, you know he was elected office, people voted for him, it's not like he applied for a job Mcdonald's, he was selected for his job by a lot of people and when he said things on tv like on Iraq or in college or to the media or around the world, people recorded his information made it public information. So when you have people like diplomats, presidents or ambassadors, you know these people were elected or appointed in by elected people and their position representing people, that's not you can say someone and them saying something, you versing the media, who's the media going to take seriously? These elected officials of course. I would count those statements in as the media counts them in all the time and what politicians say could be a debate later if the media brings up topics of things said. You can watch CNN presidential debates on tv and if there is an election year, past presidents or US Senators or congress people or other presidents or prime ministers they prior statement could come up again and again. Why would it matter then, well apparently they do if you got people like US Senator John McClain saying things and its brought up again and again on heated discussions, you might find those said statements in college papers or referenced columns for academic material which i feel if elected people say things its part of the process, it counts to use those people to reference education material. Here it appears the same way because you can reference their comments and use it in a writing a book or a research paper for school and more. Remember Martin Luther King, look at all the things he said in the 1960's, that information is everywhere on black rights in America, apparently it still matters what he said just what judges say in court opinions, those things get published like what diplomats say. Its matters as people want count those statement that mean something.--5.175.149.168 (talk) 08:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@5.175.149.168, Martin Luther King was a visionary - Hugo Chavez was a criminal who denied his own populations basic civil-rights. An academic or scholarly publication would rarely present a statement made by a politician as fact, especially in order to argue in favor or against something. Why? Because a politicians word is often only their opinion and influenced by political bias. Also, a statement made by a politician is often unsubstantiated! In academia this is inappropriate. However, sometimes statements made by politicians can and will be used. For example, when a politician makes a statement regarding falling crime rates, this is often supported by accompanying statistics - therefore he is able to provide tangible evidence for what he is saying. Material such as this would be OK to use, certainly from an encyclopedic or academic view.

@Tezero, so do you feel it is OK if I rewrite those two sentences? Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

If you want. I don't feel strongly about it. Tezero (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Japan

@User:Subtropical-man so? why is it that you also removed the link that i added to the Japan section? Wasnt it true that the table shows Japan as third most leading economy after the US, china and above the EU which is measured by polls around the world. Second there are many examples why japan is more powerful than you think, like patents.--Crossswords (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Which polls? And in any case Japan may have an important economy it does not project political and military power at a global scale and is unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future. Hence no superpower. Arnoutf (talk) 11:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

neither does the EU--Crossswords (talk) 07:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

A significant number of academics would disagree with you Crosswords. Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course the EU's gonna beat out Japan; it's the European Union. Maybe Germany, the UK, or France couldn't do it alone, but they've got one another and over a dozen more friends. Tezero (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

academics who are all westerners, are you sure there arent an equal amount of asian academics who say different but arent translated in english? Second i think a union of states is very fragile and also more of a weak point than a strength because a union ends up being pushed into domestic politics often times. There are various articles written about how the EU functions in its foreign policy and the eurocrisis that way and that this is one of the problems in the first place.--Crossswords (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Re:User:Crosswords: "arent an equal amount of asian academics who say different but arent translated in english?" If you can provide a list of Asian academics stating otherwise that is of course fine. However, since negative evidence is impossible to provide you cannot ask that from others. The burden of proof is with you there. (personally I would be surprised as the whole bragging - my nation is more superpowery than yours seems to be mainly a western thing).

"Second i think a union of states" You are welcome to an opinion, but until supported by reliable secondary sources that should not influence your edits on Wikipedia. Arnoutf (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Also Crossswords, regarding your latest edit to the article; it constitutes original research to say Jonathan Adelman cited the wrong or incorrect GNP figures! We have no idea which figures were the most current at the time of his research. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

its obvious he used outdaed GNP data why else he would say that russia is at the same level like canada tough the time he wrote it was above india and canada, this is the problem of this wikipedia articele you guys all here post a bunch of reference because someone this and that says so instead looking also at solid data and facts just like i posted a link where you could see people trust the japanese economy more than europes. Of course no in this link say that japan is above europe but everyone can see it. Maybe this article just needs a table where data is compared like patants, gdp and warheads. This article used to have one i think.--Crossswords (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"Attack" in presenting things as somebody did sometimes it's the best defence for cover what can't be defended.There are tons of sources supporting EU and Popular Republic of China as superpowers or potential superpowers (even CIA describes EU like a superpower that acts like a single nation).EU is really (this can be based on real reliable sources) a true superpower even now (China not,a long way to do on HDI level and not only).If we consider not only academics sources but numbers from every sector (total net wealth,GDP,HDI,miltary,demography,patents,influence at every level on Earth and so on) EU is even ahead of USA.EU has a larger net wealth, a larger GDP,a larger demography,a larger conventional military than USA and so on.Naturally both of them have a nuclear stockpile able to cancel life on Earth several times like others too.EU is the largest in many sectors and will be in a foresable future.I consider it already a superpower at every level, i repeat and even better than USA for many many aspects.In the common opinion that is made by fiction USA are the sole superpower but the majority of people that studied some matters know that isn't so.One thing is reality and one thing is the perception of the common people about the status of a politic being.We've 2 real relative superpowers (USA and EU),a potential superpower (China) and the rest ( India,Brazil,Russia,Japan & Co.). The matter is always the same Brazil and Russia shouldn't neither be there because they haven't sufficient sources and they can't be compared to USA,EU and China.I agree with people that want to cancel Brazil and Russia from this article.I doubt a lot even about India (& Co).We must be not partial.India can be considered a true emerging power (it has at least other 5-10 years of good growth in every sector)but not a great power because it hasn't veto power by UN even if it's just today a symbolic thing that remained after WW2.Today we can see that many states act without UN agreement.Today many many academics state that world has lived not a true globalization,but a strong continentalization.The meanings great and middle power are dated even still used, because they were born in 19th century.We use the terms like emerging to describe a trend but not a steady situation.Emerging is something that is moving up faster than onthers (like China or India) and these politic beings can be of different sizes.Even today referring to HDI,net wealth and other aspects we can talk about without doubt about First World - linked to the standard of developed country (where are true superpowers EU and USA in a steady state being developed),Second World-linked to low-middle net wealth and developing levels(where is the potential superpower China-faster emerging- and others no superpowers like Brazil ,Russia,-these 2 no more emerging in the true sense-India- faster emerging) and Third World (even today instead of them are generally used softer terms like developed,developing and less developed by international organizations).Even levels to consider a country developed are much elastic and easier than some years ago.Russia is a great power for the UN veto power and a middle power considering other aspects.It isn't at all an emerging power anymore like Brazil,in fact its space of growth is limited in every sense.Brazil is in the same situation with the difference that hasn't the veto power.Even if CIS and MERCOSUR will develope they won't ever join in a foresable future the USA and EU (USA hard and EU soft real superpowers) and China (potential superpower) seizes and levels.Japan (like Germany) can't be neither a great power (no veto power in UN)and neither an emerging power and nevertheless a superpower (potential or real).Many many academics and common people (i refer above all where HDI is higher in the world) have these opinions.I gave you these suggests to be not in contrast with many academics of main univesities. Thanks.Gladio4772 (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)Blocked sockpuppet of Mediolanum[65] Supersaiyen312 (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

TLDNR. Arnoutf (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to summarize, the only thing that he really said was the US and EU are superpowers, while India, Russia and Brazil are not. Side note this user is also a sockpuppet of User:Mediolanum and User:Arnitxe. This user is IP-hopping on various IPs that mostly trace back to Florence, Italy. His main goal is to get rid of Russia, Brazil, and (to a lesser extent) India. More recently, he has been trying to replace the US with the EU. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

First of of all i don't live in Florence and second you deleted a very interesting post and you did a not good exposition about what i wrote. Is a guilt that EU can be considered a superpower even better tha USA?Strange.Arnitxe and whatelse..what is it????Robert McClenon already followed and knows about my case.Gladio4772 (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Blocked sockpuppet of Mediolanum[66] Supersaiyen312 (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but it was too long to filter out any relevant point. Please make your case in much much fewer words.

Also try to write in understandable English, because honestly I do not know what this "Is a guilt that EU can be considered a superpower even better tha USA?Strange.Arnitxe and whatelse..what is it????" means. Arnoutf (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Gladio4772: people might find the Archives interesting and this is not the first time that this has happened.[67][68][69] Supersaiyen312 (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The main aspect to be a superpower:the net wealth

~~List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult~~

~~National_wealth#List_of_20_Largest_Countries_by_Net_National_Wealth_since_2000~~

All these data change with exchanges rates referred to every september with stocks prices,with bonds prices,real estate prices,private debts and so on.For istance a fall of stocks would make rise in the ranking EU (EU has a larger bonds market) while a rising of stocks would make rise USA in the ranking (USA has a larger stocks market).That's why EU and USA are the real today superpowers.China has a lot of way to do.The other ones can't be considered in a foresable future.HDI like a good military system and all other main aspects depend on it.The rest is talking of nothing about potential superpowers.

~~On the net wealth is based a real superpower.By net wealth a superpower can mostly all.151.40.123.24 (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)~~Blocked sockpuppet of Mediolanum[70] Supersaiyen312 (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

And do you have any reliable source backing that rather bold claim that net wealth is the only cue for superpower status? Arnoutf (talk) 11:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see the message I just left on your talk page. Any further posts from you to Wikipedia will be removed as you are an IP sockpuppet of Mediolanum‎. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

EU

I just dont get it why it has EU included? What makes EU different than to other Unions? There is also AESEAN and Eurasian Union. What does this article determine to count a union as a potential supwerpower? An own currency? I really would like to know the standards from the users responsible here for this article. Imo EU should be removed from the map and above.--Crossswords (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

What makes it different is the many reliable sources suggesting that. Arnoutf (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

who happen to be EU sources what a surprise.--Crossswords (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

So you suggest that we remove all EU sources from the claims about EU superpower status and those from the US about such status of the US (and in fact any other US related article)? That is an interesting, yet probably unfeasible approach to reliability of sources.

I agree potential superpower status is a nightmare (even Uruguay is a POTENTIAL superpower, although that potential is negligible right now). But that would suggest removal of the article entirely (which has been proposed before but not accepted).

If we keep the article we need to accept reliable sources as well, as biased as these may be in some peoples perception. Otherwise we are stuck with our own biases and those are in any case less verifiable than published reliably sourced biases. Arnoutf (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Indonesia

Should we add Indonesia in the list? I know they are a developing country, but based on their massive land size, huge population, large quantity of natural resources, vast coastline and a strategic location, I reckon they will one day join the Big 6 (BRIC + USA and Europe) as one of the world's major superpowers. 120.16.51.10 (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no such things as the "Big 6" superpowers, in fact there is only one superpower, and that is the United States (according to sources). Regarding Indonesia, there are no reliable sources which debate the merits of it as a potential superpower so it doesn't belong in this article. Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we are talking about potential superpowers not existing superpowers. In my opinion Indonesia certainly has the potential to become one. 120.16.51.10 (talk) 08:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

And the key word here is "In my opinion" - forgive me, but I had to put that in bold in your above post to highlight the fact that our own opinions are irrelevant on Wikipedia. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

But I think a lot of people would agree with me about Indonesia's potential to become a superpower! I will start a poll on this one. 120.16.51.10 (talk) 14:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

VOTING

Dear fellow Wikipedians,

Please cast your vote on whether Indonesia should be added as a candidate for potential superpower.

Thanks. 120.16.51.10 (talk) 14:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies and guidelines: It doesn't matter if people agree with your opinion. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, not editors or readers wishes and ideas. Also, you need to read WP:DEMOCRACY and WP:POLL: Wikipedia is not a democracy, even if one thousand people agree with your opinion it is irrelevant if there are no reliable sources to back it up. Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I am so sad to hear that. All the so called reliable sources in the Universe were produced by normal people like you and me. I thought Wikipedia is a democratic cyber nation, but it is actually a single-party cyber state. 120.16.51.10 (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that is verifiable through the use of reliable sources. It is not a "single-party cyber state". Thus far I have assumed good faith and tried to explain the situation regarding personal opinions being a no-no and the need for reliable sources instead. However, your recent comment above makes me wonder if I should simply Wikipedia:Deny recognition and possibly ping an Admin to keep an eye on this talk page and article. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, verifiable, reliable sources are the heart of Wikipedia. These verifiable reliable sources were produced by normal people, although often experts in the field, and on top of that they generally are subjected to editorial and peer review before being published. That is what makes these sources reliable. It is free to you to publish a paper in an academic journal arguing that there are more potential superpowers. Once you have it published you can bring it up as reliable source.

(PS: Even if you would consider Wikipedia as a democracy, how would that ever practically work? To make that process anywhere near reliable, we would need a minimum turnout at every vote. With about 2 Million editors even setting a minimum turnout as low as 1% (sic) you would need over 20,000 votes to get anything done. ) Arnoutf (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Would this one be a reliable source: http://www.quora.com/Will-Indonesia-become-a-superpower 120.16.51.10 (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It is an open, free for all to contribute internet platform (not unlike Wikipedia) without editorial or peer review prior to editing. For those reasons I would not call it a reliable source (and indeed neither is Wikipedia itself for these reasons). Arnoutf (talk) 06:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

How about this one: http://m.kompasiana.com/post/read/500217/3/indonesia-the-next-super-power-country.html

I especially like the point that Indonesia has a young demographics compared to China. China's one child policy means they are going to have to face the challenges of an aging society down the track, more so than today's Japan I'd say. 120.16.51.10 (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Go read WP:RS as you obviously have no idea what constitutes a reliable source. The first link clearly the complete opposite of a reliable source, as I or anyone can edit the page. The second link is a blog and again is the complete opposite of a reliable source. Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

http://wondermark.com/comics/291.gif 125.168.97.231 (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Funny comic but irrelevant. Wikipedia provides knowledge, not military support in case of barbarian invasions. Arnoutf (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Ten Contestants for Earth's Next Superpower

http://mentalfloss.com/article/50442/10-contestants-earths-next-superpower 125.168.97.231 (talk) 09:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Very funny one. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Better argued than most proposals though ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

^ Russia's Population Isn't Shrinking by Forbes May 11, 2013 by Mark Adomanis [71]
^ Russia Takes 5th Place in World GDP Rankings - The Moscow Times July 16, 2013 [72]
^ Russia breaks into top 5 world economies, displacing Germany by RT News July 16th, 2013 [73]

[1] Russia's Population Isn't Shrinking by Forbes May 11, 2013 by Mark Adomanis [1]

[2] Russia breaks into top 5 world economies by RT News July 16, 2013 (Superpower Reborn)[2]

[3] Russia's Population Isn't Shrinking by Forbes May 11, 2013 by Mark Adomanis [71]

[4] Russia Takes 5th Place in World GDP Rankings - The Moscow Times July 16, 2013 [72]

[5] Russia breaks into top 5 world economies, displacing Germany by RT News July 16th, 2013 [73]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]