Talk:Potential superpower/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Brazil: a variant for inclusion

I have taken the best parts of CEBR's last version and, after inserting some wikilinks, better phrasing and other minor edits, I believe that we have got a variant good enough for inclusion into the article:

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Federative Republic of Brazil

The Federative Republic of Brazil is considered by a number of analysts and academics a potential superpower of the 21st Century.

In a lecture entitled Brazil as an Emerging World Power, presented at the Mario Einaudi Center for International Studies, Leslie Elliot Armijo has said that "Brazil will soon rise as Latin America’s first superpower". Armijo states that "Brazil keeps solidifying itself as leader of its region by launching a series of integration projects", adding also that "as an international actor, Brazil has also taken a larger share of world politics by incrementing its already strong presence in economic initiatives, such as the International Finance Facility and the G20", asserting that "Brazil’s rising prominence derives from its solid democratic rule and its strong economy" and concluding that "Soon, we’ll have two superpowers in the Western Hemisphere"

Mac Magolis states in his Newsweek article How Brazil Became a Superpower, the Crafty Superpower that "Brazil is asserting itself as never before, but in a way that is markedly different from other big global players", adding that Lula is presiding "over a crafty superpower unlike any other emerging giant". Magolis argues that Brazil has "also become a more assertive voice for the emerging markets in international affairs", citing its involvement in the formation of the G5 and the BRIC meetings. In another article, Magolis points out that "Brazil is blessed with vast resources" and lists "timber, fresh water, gold...iron ore", stating also that Brazil's reserves of the last two resources are the largest of the world. He also states that while most of the world is running out of arable land, "Brazil has more than 70 million hectares still to plow". Magolis also documents how "the economy has accelerated without overheating", comparing it's growth with that of the other BRIC countries in a favourable light, stating that "no emerging nation has moved earlier or more intelligently than Brazil to head off the cancer of inflation". Another factor that is listed is that "While the booms in China and India are driven by poor peasants [going from the countryside to the cities]", Brazil has "85 percent of the country's 190 million people [living] in cities".

Marek Swierczynski, a journalist specializing in defense questions, in his Atlantic Community article calls Brazil the "potential superpower of the South" and argues that it "may be on its way out of the western camp and can speed up the creation of the world’s new order". He points out that Brazil "has teamed up with Russia, to develop state of the art jet fighters and space launchers, a move to boost its defence capabilities and to match the country's power with its size". Elizabeth Reavey, a research associate from the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, claims in the title of her article that While the US Looks Eastward Brazil Is Emerging as a Nuclear Superpower. While describing the importance of the ongoing development of nuclear technology in the country, she calls Brazil an emerging superpower, with a "potential to have a China-like, booming economy, increased nuclear capabilities, a growing self-confidence in its own power and an ability to make its own way".

Brazil is often called an economic superpower, either present or future, and many experts and journalists compare Brazil with the other potential superpowers of BRIC group. Jonathan Power from Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research claims in his article Brazil is becoming an economic and political superpower that "Brazil has a head start on India and China", saying that it has been positively developing for over 100 years and adding that "between 1960 and 1980 Brazil doubled its per capita income". Michael Skapinker argues in his Financial Times article that the recently found large oil reserves "present the intriguing prospect of Brazil becoming a major oil exporter" while deriving most of its own electricity from renewable sources and powering many of its cars with sugar cane ethanol. He also asserts that, unlike China, Brazil has no sharp ethnic conflicts and is a multi-party democracy. In the Economist article called Brazil, an economic superpower, and now oil too it is asserted that "Brazil enjoyed Chinese rates of growth in the third quarter of the 20th century". In another article Brazil is considered to be a much richer country than China and India, and it is asserted that "its economy grew by an average of 7% a year from 1940 to 1980". Yet another Economist article argues that Brazil could overtake both Britain and France to become the world's fifth-largest economy sometime in the next decade after 2014, rather sooner than Goldman Sachs had envisaged. Furthermore, it is claimed that "in some ways, Brazil outclasses the other BRICs": unlike China, it has a democratic system of government, unlike India, it has no insurgents, ethnic or religious conflicts, and no hostile neighbours, and unlike Russia, exports more than oil and arms and "treats foreign investors with respect". The article comes to conclusion that "when it comes to smart social policy and boosting consumption at home, the developing world has much more to learn from Brazil than from China", and that "Brazil suddenly seems to have made an entrance onto the world stage", citing the recent decision for Rio de Janeiro to host the 2016 Olympics, as well as Brazil's hosting of the 2014 FIFA World Cup. This is a basis for foreign investment pouring into the country, along with falling poverty, "swelling lower-middle class", "strong political institutions" and "reform and democratic consensus-building".

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is it. Perhaps, the last two paragraphs could be reduced, as they don't discuss the superpowerdom that directly, however, I believe, that some statements from The Economist and Financial Times should be included anyway, as they obviously put Brazil in the same class as China, India and Russia. I vote for inclusion of Brazil section into the article in the proposed form and subsequent editing right there, and if there would be no strong counter-arguments, the inclusion soon will be made. Greyhood (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

More work is needed particularly in the realm of IR scholarly work that directly discusses Brazil as a potential superpower. Neutrality also needs to be considered since pretty much the whole section in positive. Overall most scholars do not perceive Brazil as a future superpower because there are more promising candidates (i.e. China, EU). What do other editors think? Nirvana888 (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to point out the following things. We have at least two scholars mentioned for now: Leslie Elliott Armijo directly states that Brazil is a potential superpower, while Jonathan Power directly puts Brazil into the same category as China and India. In fact, now we have better material on Brazil than on Russia, and not so far worse than on India. I am pretty sure that more expert views can be found, but we have enough for the start, and placing the section right into the article would attract more editors to expand it, make it more neutral and find better sources.Greyhood (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've checked the sources and I think that the only sources worth keeping are [1] and [2]. The rest are either media sources, without an expert's opinion, or don't don't bring up Brazil's superpowerstatus at all. Swedish pirate (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

To add to Swedish, I've checked the two sources he referred to and they seem pretty inadequate. One is from a "foundation" of little repute, and another is a media source from a college newspaper. I am of the opinion we need less not more powers if we are to actually consider which states have reasonable potential to be a superpower. Nirvana888 (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Many of the scholarly sources in the article look no better than the two discussed. And the usage of the newspaper sources in the article, like The Economist and The St. Petersburg Times, shows that the views of journalists from reputable newspapers was being acceptable in this article for a long time and, at least for now, it continues to be acceptable. Newsweek, and even more The Economist and Financial Times are reputable newspapers and we see that their correspondents either call Brazil an emerging superpower, or continuously, many times put it in the same row as Russia, India and China. I think we shouldn't ignore this fact.Greyhood (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

While some newspapers have highlighted the BRIC grouping as a group of "rising powers", it is another thing altogether that all, if any, of them will reach "superpower" status, that is be able to dominate the world the way the United States has for the past few decades. Moreover the BRIC grouping is hardly a group of equal powers with large disparities in hard power. The St. Petersburg source is actually not that strong but it was left because there are hardly any reputable scholarly work that describes Russia as a credible superpower. There are other media articles currently in the article (CNN etc) which frankly are not strong as well and should be replaced by more authoritative work. Basically, as WP:RS indicates academic sources from reputable presses not media reports from lay people are most desirable in a IR topic such as this. Nirvana888 (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the question about Russia is different, you know, and a bit complicated, by the fact, that many media sources [3][4][5][6][7][8], call Russia an actual superpower, not an emerging one. With the fact that Russia indeed was a superpower two decades back, the media create rather complicated picture in the heads of people - Russia seems both weak and strong, both emerging and declining, both current and former superpower. In this situation even if you are a scholar and an expert, it will take a long time for you to think how to title your IR work about Russia - in this way the titles like Steven Rosefielde's The Prodigal Superpower appear, which is in fact a week attempt to describe in one phrase the complicated situation about Russia (USA is obviously more prodigal country by the way). It is no wonder that in such situation you will not find much works about Russia's emerging, and even fewer good works, when it seems so unclear for people, whether Russia is emerging or declining or already a superpower. And afterall superpower is not very precise term.Greyhood (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This is my point: the fact that you have media reports suggesting that Russia is a superpower when it clearly isn't as the term superpower is defined in an academic context; a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world" (Miller). Media reports often sensationalize the world superpower to describe any power with some influence in the world. Russia clearly is still a major power in its own right with influence but nowhere close to being a superpower on par with the United States and not even on par with China, a potential superpower. Nirvana888 (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Basically I agree with you on this, I just attempted to explain the lack of good sources on Russia aa a result of a more complicated situation with the country and a wider spectre of popular views on its status. At the same time China, India and also Brazil are now clearly on the rise and not former superpowers (never having been such), and there is less controversy about them.Greyhood (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree the popular media often misrepresents the term superpower and thus the term can evoke many different meaning in the minds of the non-IR community. I have to agree that I've come across mentions of many different states as superpowers in the media even from reliable publications such as the NYT. What is generally reliable by the IR field in the media are pieces by acknowledged IR experts and experts affiliated with leading think tanks such as Brookings, CFR, Carnegie Endowment, CSIS etc. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And it's because of this controversy that I've got my little subpage going. If anyone wants to look over that at any point and help out with sources and stuff that would be good. Also, I've read somewhere that for the past century there was almost always a 6-power balance, and this source classes the EU as the great power. Let's not get into a war here about that, but if this is the case well... more than four Superpowers might be pushing it logistically speaking and historically. Comics (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice page, by the way, though currently the Roman Empire alongside Brazil looks strange.Greyhood (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm working on it Comics (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Greyhood in his discussion with Nirvana, and would like also to point out that Nirvana's posture seems a little bit status quo-ish. Nirvana, you may have the personal opinion that Brazil don't belong in here, but you can't deny that it ought to be here according to the rules, it is much better sourced than much of the other superpowers in the article. You already made several excuses to prevent Brazil from being added, your latest excuse was that it lacked reliable sources, what is your excuse now?

"Overall most scholars do not perceive Brazil as a future superpower" You don't know scholars enough to say it.

"I want to point out the following things. We have at least two scholars mentioned for now: Leslie Elliott Armijo directly states that Brazil is a potential superpower, while Jonathan Power directly puts Brazil into the same category as China and India. In fact, now we have better material on Brazil than on Russia, and not so far worse than on India. I am pretty sure that more expert views can be found, but we have enough for the start, and placing the section right into the article would attract more editors to expand it, make it more neutral and find better sources."

Indeed.

"::: I've checked the sources and I think that the only sources worth keeping are [9] and [10]. The rest are either media sources, without an expert's opinion, or don't don't bring up Brazil's superpowerstatus at all."

Indeed those two you mentioned are top notch, but the media sources should be kept, they are good and even if we assume that they are not worth as much as the two you mentioned, they are still worthy, even if in a supportive role, mate.

"I've checked the two sources he referred to and they seem pretty inadequate. One is from a "foundation" of little repute, and another is a media source from a college newspaper."

If you checked it with good faith you'd probably have noticed that:

The newspaper is from Cornell University and don't expose its opinion, it reports a lecture by Leslie Elliot Armijo, the political science professor at Portland State University, titled “Brazil as an Emerging World Power?” at the Mario Einaudi Center for International Studies.

The article in the site of the foundation is by Jonathan Power, who is certainly qualified: "Columnist, film-maker and writer. M.Sc in economics, trained as a geographer and agricultural economist. For the first ten years after graduate school community work in slum neighborhoods in Chicago and London. Worked for Martin Luther King 1966-1967. For 30 years a journalist, of which 17 as columnist for the International Herald Tribune 1974-1991; he has been a regular guest columnist in New York Times and Encounter.

Silver Medal at the Venice Film Festival 1972 for "It's Ours Whatever They Say". Author of several books on economic development, world hunger and on Amnesty International and human rights issues.

Consultant to numerous international organizations and editorial adviser on the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security chaired by Olof Palme.

Now the author of a weekly column appearing in 41 papers around the world - all featured since 1997 at the TFF Forum, just click!

He is a regular contributor to the opinion page of the International Herald Tribune and Prospect Magazine and he is also working on a new book, '"Conundrum", a foreign correspondent's look at twelve of the world's most difficult to answer questions.

Follow this link to read about - and order - Jonathan Power's book written for the 40th Anniversary of Amnesty International: "Like Water on Stone - The Story of Amnesty International".

Power is a regular contributor to the opinion page of the International Herald Tribune and to Prospect Magazine. He became a TFF Associate in 1991."

"I am of the opinion we need less not more powers if we are to actually consider which states have reasonable potential to be a superpower."

In other words, your opinion is Status quo-ish. The point is that editors are not supposed to let their personal opinion have influence over the article and that wikipedia ought to present points of views from reliable sources, not your opinion, if you want to make a list that reflects your opinion, make it in your user page or in a blog, mate. CEBR (talk) 05:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

CEBR, I think perhaps I was misinterpreted. I am not against Brazil as a superpower and have no bias against it. My position is just that some serious academic work has to back up its potential if we are to list it. As I have stated journalists often crank out articles about how China, Russia or even many other smaller stakes are superpowers when the academic consensus is that they are not. If you can find some scholarly work on Brazil as a potential superpower, I would encourage you to add it to the section. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this source on Brazil can be added into the variant in work - Watch out for Brazil, Russia's New Buddy - by a journalist with a special interest in defence and security matters from Atlantic Community.Greyhood (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

":CEBR, I think perhaps I was misinterpreted. I am not against Brazil as a superpower and have no bias against it. My position is just that some serious academic work has to back up its potential if we are to list it. As I have stated journalists often crank out articles about how China, Russia or even many other smaller stakes are superpowers when the academic consensus is that they are not. If you can find some scholarly work on Brazil as a potential superpower, I would encourage you to add it to the section. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)"

Then, fellow, Brazil already counts with your support, look at the qualification of Leslie Elliot Armijo (who said things such as "Brazil will soon rise as Latin America’s first superpower" and "Soon, we’ll have two superpowers in the Western Hemisphere" in her lecture about Brazil): http://www.mindspring.com/~leslie.armijo/ http://www.sfu.ca/las/news/LeslieElliotArmijo.html

I think this source on Brazil can be added into the variant in work - Watch out for Brazil, Russia's New Buddy - by a journalist with a special interest in defence and security matters from Atlantic Community.Greyhood (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)"

Excellent source, fellow, I also think that it can be added. Thank you. CEBR (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added that article above and also have added this - While the US Looks Eastward Brazil Is Emerging as a Nuclear Superpower, also quite good.Greyhood (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Brazil inclusion: another round of discussion

Federative Republic of Brazil

The Federative Republic of Brazil is considered by a number of analysts and academics a potential superpower of the 21st Century.

In a lecture entitled Brazil as an Emerging World Power, presented at the Mario Einaudi Center for International Studies, Leslie Elliot Armijo has said that "Brazil will soon rise as Latin America’s first superpower". Armijo states that "Brazil keeps solidifying itself as leader of its region by launching a series of integration projects", adding also that "as an international actor, Brazil has also taken a larger share of world politics by incrementing its already strong presence in economic initiatives, such as the International Finance Facility and the G20", asserting that "Brazil’s rising prominence derives from its solid democratic rule and its strong economy" and concluding that "Soon, we’ll have two superpowers in the Western Hemisphere"

In 2009 the Brookings Institution published a book called Brazil as an Economic Superpower?, coedited by Leonardo Martinez-Diaz and Lael Brainard, fellows in the Brookings and directors of its Global Economy and Development Program. In the announcement of the conference devoted to Brazil and this book, the Brookings Press calls Brazil "a geopolitical and economic emerging power". In the summary of the conference it was concluded that "in the past decade, Brazil’s role in the world economy has changed in important ways" and that Brazil "occupies key niches in global energy, agriculture, service and some high-technology markets". However, it was noted that "Latin America’s largest nation still struggles with endemic inequality issues and deep-seated ambivalence toward global economic integration".

Marek Swierczynski, a journalist and defense analyst, in his Atlantic Community article calls Brazil the "potential superpower of the South" and argues that it "may be on its way out of the western camp and can speed up the creation of the world’s new order". He points out that Brazil "has teamed up with Russia, to develop state of the art jet fighters and space launchers, a move to boost its defence capabilities and to match the country's power with its size". Elizabeth Reavey, a research associate from the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, claims in the title of her article that While the US Looks Eastward Brazil Is Emerging as a Nuclear Superpower. Describing the importance of the ongoing development of nuclear technology in the country, she calls Brazil an emerging superpower, with a "potential to have a China-like, booming economy, increased nuclear capabilities, a growing self-confidence in its own power and an ability to make its own way".

Brazil is often called an economic superpower, either present or future, and many experts and journalists compare Brazil with the other potential superpowers of BRIC group. Jonathan Power from Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research claims in his article Brazil is becoming an economic and political superpower that "Brazil has a head start on India and China", saying that it has been positively developing for over 100 years and adding that "between 1960 and 1980 Brazil doubled its per capita income". Mac Magolis states in his Newsweek article How Brazil Became a Superpower, the Crafty Superpower that "Brazil is asserting itself as never before, but in a way that is markedly different from other big global players", adding that Lula is presiding "over a crafty superpower unlike any other emerging giant". In another article, Magolis points out that "Brazil is blessed with vast resources" and spare arable land. He compares Brazil with the other BRIC countries in a favourable light, stating that "While the booms in China and India are driven by poor peasants [going from the countryside to the cities]", Brazil has "85 percent of the country's 190 million people [living] in cities". Michael Skapinker, the Financial Times editor, argues in his article called Brazil is the 21st century power to watch that the recently found large oil reserves "present the intriguing prospect of Brazil becoming a major oil exporter" while deriving most of its own electricity from renewable sources and powering many of its cars with sugar cane ethanol. He also asserts that, unlike China, Brazil has no sharp ethnic conflicts and is a multi-party democracy. The Economist article called Brazil, an economic superpower, and now oil too shares Skapinker's view. This article and a number of other Economist articles state that "Brazil enjoyed Chinese rates of growth in the third quarter of the 20th century", "an average of 7% a year from 1940 to 1980", and that "in some ways, Brazil outclasses the other BRICs": unlike China, it has a democratic system of government, unlike India, it has no insurgents, ethnic or religious conflicts, and no hostile neighbours, and unlike Russia, exports more than oil and arms. The authors from the Economist conclude that "Brazil suddenly seems to have made an entrance onto the world stage", citing also the recent decision for Rio de Janeiro to host the 2016 Olympics, as well as Brazil's hosting of the 2014 FIFA World Cup.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Let's make a sum of the proposed section and the discussion above:

• 1) We have 5 sources that directly call Brazil a potential superpower: two scholars - [11] and [12], one scholar-journalist - [13], and two journalists from a reputable media - [14] and [15].
• 2) We have discussed that the scholars mentioned above are not among the most reputable compared to some experts in the other sections, but at the same time they are also quite comparable in level to some other, perhaps, most experts in the article.
• 3) We have discussed, that media sources shouldn't be the main ones, but can be used alongside the scholarly sources, especially if we are talking about the very much reputable media like The Economist and Financial Times.
• 4) It was noted that initially there had been no material on Brazil's hard power - now there are two sources added - [16] and [17]. We have mentioned Brazilian military development, nuclear and space programs.
• 5) We have seen Brazil called emerging superpower, potential superpower, political superpower, economic superpower, emerging nuclear superpower, and also there are unincluded sources that call Brazil food superpower and agricultural superpower.
• 6) Economically Brazil is put in the same row as China, India and Russia, and this is a view very well supported by all kinds of experts.
• 7) It was pointed out, that we need also some critical views and more neutral point of view. Well, I acknowledge, there are few criticisms for now. But I think we'll be certainly able to improve that.
• 8) The section looks a bit long, but we have plenty of media-sourced less important material that can be removed if someone insists on that.
• 9) In the present form the proposed Brazil section is much better sourced than Russia section and nearly as good as India section.
  

Awaiting your comments.Greyhood (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this summary, fellow, really very nice of you. Seems to me that everyone, except maybe Nirvana, recognizes that Brazil meets the criteria of Wikipedia to be added to this article. Let us add it to the article, then, fellows? CEBR (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hold your horses. I don't think that Brazil is ready to be included in the article yet. First of all, no sources should be included unless they express the opinion of, atleast, one expert or analyst (journalists doesn't belong in this category). This rule applies to all the other sections, which is why a big part of Russia's section was removed, so it's only right that it should apply to Brazil's aswell. Swedish pirate (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, one can simultaneously be regarded both journalist and analyst, if he/she presents some analysis of his/her own. We have some journalist sources in other sections, so should we remove them all or leave them as a minor addition to scholarly sources? I thought we have already discussed that. Once again, the main thing is that we have enough scholarly sources, and we are going to use journalist views on Brazil only as a minor addition. We'll remove most of the journalist part of the section, if you want so.Greyhood (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to appease us, do that Comics (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Journalist part has been already cut, now it's only about 1/3 of the section. If you insist, we can cut it even more, however it seems obvious that the section has already reached a level comparable to other sections of the article.Greyhood (talk) 10:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"Just to appease us, do that"

lol, appease you? O.o

As in "let's sacrifice a goat to appease the Gods"? lol

":Hold your horses. I don't think that Brazil is ready to be included in the article yet. First of all, no sources should be included unless they express the opinion of, atleast, one expert or analyst (journalists doesn't belong in this category). This rule applies to all the other sections, which is why a big part of Russia's section was removed, so it's only right that it should apply to Brazil's aswell."

Me, Greyhood and the rules of Wikipedia are opposed to you about this. Media sources are very acceptable according to Wikipedia criteria. But, lets make it simple now, let's put the new version by Greyhood in the article. We have all the time in the World to make changes later.

By the way, it keeps amazing me how the first source about China is a media source, CNN and you say nothing about it.

Greyhood, you're doing a great job! Thank you! :)

So, with this new version by Greyhood shall we finally add it?

Cheers, fellows CEBR (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have already cut the journalist part to 1/3 of the visible text. If someone one wants to remove some journalist sources completely, do it yourself or tell me - that would be Margolis and some or even all Economist sources. The rest should be left.Greyhood (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

So, an additional summary of discussion:

• We have already cut journalist part.
• We have also added the Brookings sources, that
  • 1)are considered by Nirvana among the top IR scholarly sources
  • 2)offer a bit of critisim on Brazil, previously lacked in the section
  • 3)in the phrase "a geopolitical and economic emerging power" indirectly call Brazil either emerging great power or emerging superpower (since Brazil is already a regional power, there are only two statuses left where to go) - let's note, that India in present also lacks even the status of great power, but we put it into this article and haven't the article "Potential great powers" (and is there any point in creating such article?)
• The only strong argument against inclusion is left undiscussed, I mean that presented by Nirvana - he pointed out that we need experts from the leading think tanks Brookings, CFR, Carnegie Endowment, CSIS and others. What I have to say:
  • 1)Brookings sources have been included, and what I get from them is that we need either include Brazil into this article, or create an article "Potential great powers" or just "Rising powers", and/or create an article "Economic superpower" or "Potential economic superpowers" (and I don't think that creating new articles is a good solution)
  • 2)We have found experts affiliated with other IR institutions and think tanks, and I don't understand why should we ignore them - they seem reputable, though maybe less reputable than institutions that Nirvana named. And in my personal opinion, with the fact that Parag Khanna, affiliated with Brookings etc., wasn't able to present good enough factual analysis on Russia, we have even more reasons not to consider Brookings etc. as the only source of truth and valuable expert opinion.
    

So, guys, I wait for some other strong arguments against the inclusion of Brazil. If you won't find them in a span of a day or less, I recommend CEBR to include Brazil section in the present form, or will do it myself. Greyhood (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That all sounds very good there.

• claps*

Also, remember my little Rising powers page... =) which may/may not replace this one depending on what happens. Maybe I'm being a bit too hopeful though. Comics (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I could help you with collecting some sources on Mexico and Korea. Only if you support the inclusion of Brazil, of course ;) Greyhood (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Could any of you show use exactly how the two of you imagined the section would look in the article, with everything, especially all the sources, you've got. Swedish pirate (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The latest version is in the top of this talk section.Greyhood (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

So, fellows, any objections to adding Greyhood's excellent work to the article? CEBR (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've had some business to deal with in the non-Wikipedia world:) but now I'm back. I think it has really started to shape up, however, I must object to the frequent use of non-academic media sources that fills the last part of the section. I've removed Brazil for now, until we can reach a consensus on what to do with it. Swedish pirate (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll remove Newsweek and some Economist sources. But there are no more reasons to edit this section here and not on the article's page.Greyhood (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say I, personally, have one or more problems with these sources;

[18] - Only mentions the word superpower in the title, which has been a no no for a long time back ( look through the archives )

• Not in the title, but in the intro.Greyhood (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[19] - non-academic media source

• Removed.Greyhood (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[20] - doesn't mention the word superpower

• Removed.Greyhood (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[21] - doesn't mention the word superpower

• But mentions the word power. Left, but remove it yourself if you insist.Greyhood (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[22] - Only mentions the word superpower in the title

• Left, but remove it yourself if you insist.Greyhood (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[23] - doesn't mention the word superpower

• Removed.Greyhood (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[24] - doesn't mention the word superpower

• Removed.Greyhood (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that if Brazil is to be included these sources must be handled in an appropriate way (removal). And, PLEASE, would you be polite enough to at least wait for my response before you take action. I have, again, some important things to do, so post your response, but if I don't answer today or tomorrow don't take that as if I don't have anything to say, okey? Swedish pirate (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• I removed most of the sources per your request. As for politeness, let's be polite together and not remove the whole section if there is a problem with just a part of it. Cheers! Greyhood (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I am closer to Swedish's position. I am still not comfortable with several of the sources listed as they do not specifically discuss superpower in the academic context. Note, world power/emerging power/global power does not equal superpower. A superpower is a power that can project dominating influence anywhere in the world and scholars who have studied the rise of powers suggest that only the US has that capability; China and EU may or may not achieve that status in the mid-term future. When Brazil, India, Russia are mentioned they are in the context of BRIC or rising powers, the first two being potential great powers. The article has sort of degenerated into a rising powers article instead of its original purpose of highlight powers that can be full-fledged superpowers. What I would consider strong sources would be ones written by acknowledged IR experts saying that, for example, "Brazil is a potential superpower because..." with a definition of how they define a superpower and comparable superpowers. To reiterate though, I have no bias against Brazil and if scholars feel it has the potential to become a superpower then I feel it would be right to list it and I welcome further discussion. Nirvana888 (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You have a point. However we haven't the articles Rising powers or Potential great powers and it seems a bit excessive to create them. Also, the field of predictions is an unclear one. When we speculate that some country will achieve a great power status, why not develop our prediction further, to superpower status, especially if the country has an obvious huge potential, like India, or somewhat less huge, like Brazil? And Brazil is clearly rapidly developing and emerging power in global economy and geopolitics, and we should reflect it somewhere. Afterall, we have at least two sources that discuss Brazil superpowerdom quite within the academic context, I mean Armijo, who presented his work in the form of lecture in reputable schoolarly institution (also his works on Brazil may be found in some schoolarly works archives in internet), and Brookings, which directly calls Brazil a possible economic superpower and emerging "geopolitical and economic power". Other sources are less good on their own, but good enough in comparison with many other sources in the article. And I just hope that from now on we shall discuss not the question if we should include Brazil or not, but the question of how to improve the existing section right in the article. By the way, Brazil was included in the very first version of this page, and though I fully appreciate your efforts to make this article better sourced and more of academic style, the stance against the inclusion of Brazil seems to have gone a little bit too far.Greyhood (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the Brookings source for now. Now obviously Brookings is a world-renown think tank, but the articles specifically discusses economic superpower not full-fledged superpower. Countries can have large economies yet not be superpower. Take Japan for instance with the second largest economy in the world. Yet, it is not a full-fledged superpower (and generally no longer even a potential superpower). I'm doing this in good faith as I want to cleanup and improve upon an article which still needs quite some work. Nirvana888 (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't approve this removal, however I won't revert it, if you don't make this an excuse of removing the Brazil section completely.Greyhood (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As for the comparison of Brazil and Japan, Brazil has obviously far more resources and more promising demography than Japan, so it has far greater potential for the development of economy.Greyhood (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent job, Greyhood! The Brazil section is really good! Thank you! ;)

"As for the comparison of Brazil and Japan, Brazil has obviously far more resources and more promising demography than Japan, so it has far greater potential for the development of economy."

Indeed, I agree.

Swedish Pirate, there is absolutely no reason for deleting the entire Brazil section now.

So, let's not remove Brazil's section from now on, fellows, let's work to improve it along with the ones of Russia, India, EU and China. Okay?

CEBR (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi CEBR! It seems the consensus has been reached and Brazil will remain included. However this is my advice for you - try to find more scholarly sources on Brazil and monitor the appearance of the new sources in the Internet. Brazil needs more coverage. And one more thing - perhaps it maybe appropriate to take more citations from already included sources and put them into Brazil section.Greyhood (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, fellow!

Indeed, I guess there is consensus, but maybe Swedish Pirate will just delete the section again (which would be a pain in the backside), let's wait and see...

I'll follow your advices, mate.

I'll try to find more sources. Not only about Brazil, about Russia and India too. CEBR (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Brazil again..?

Brazil is not a superpower yet. You compare India, China with Brazil. It's not how much poor people or Sports contribution that shows a country as superpower. It's dominance and effect on World. China is certainly World effecting country. India too got dominance and say in South-asia and Afgan and other countries. Just my thoughts.. But i dont think brazil's yet ready to be added. it's emerging Power.. True, But, it's not Potential Superpower yet, when other countries are running way ahead forward. As someone said Earlier here somewhere, If Brazil is added .. why isn't Japan, Mexico? you can't disagree Japan is a Powerful country. As i say, I dont think just a no. of poor people or some statments by scholars in some interviews claim one country to be a superpower. Brazil is good.. but a superpower .. not yet.

[Initial thoughts]

Brazil has been rejected many times.. yet again someone adds it in..and then again there's a serial of long discussions.. Just one Question.. If Brazil ..then why not Japan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.29.220 (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"Brazil is not a superpower yet." The article is titled "Potential Superpowers"...potential.G. R. Allison (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

My mistake.. sorry about that.. but ofcourse aside from the word .. the same thing .. is Brazil there to be said as 'Potential' Superpower?

I'd say Brazil has as much shot at being a superpower as Germany or France do. I mean their economy and military are already so far ahead of Brazil that why are we not talking about them instead? I have yet to hear anyone even attempt to discuss Brazil as a world superpower and so this is completely misleading. But hey, we're hear to talk about potential superpowers am I right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.33.84.13 (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

A number of experts cited in the article and a large number of journalists have already been speaking about Brazil potential superpowerdom for some time. Brazil has much more resources than France or Germany and much better demograghy than them (more population and faster population growth), that means better perspectives for Brazil in the future. Also, France and Germany are parts of EU which is deemed to be a superpower. Greyhood (talk) 12:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

but what about Japan,Ausis and other strong Nations? I'm sure you'd agree Japan's more developed and stronger than brazil..in term of economy.

Japan has limited resources and stagnating population and economy growth, which very likely will turn into decline. Japan enjoys high level of technology and is capable to create a strong military in a short term, however right now its military capabilities are very restricted and dependent on USA.Greyhood (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Japan doesn't have an armed forces (per se), but rather a defense force. Unlike other powers (such as the US, China, Russia, Brazil or India), Japan can't enforce it's will be military force anymore (due to something in the constitution if I recall). You will note I did not mention the EU. Well, Germany, France, Britain, Italy... they have their own military forces, and the EU would call upon that as opposed to their own military force. Comics (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit the sub-article on Brazil please

I fully support it's inclusion into articles as a potential superpower, however, I am dismayed at the information presented. Nowhere does the article give any hint to what may hamper Brazil's ascendancy to superpower status. I'd say there are more problems preventing Brazil from ever being a superpower. So we need to add information on why Brazil may not be a superpower. Because right now, the way the articles are worded, anyone reading this page and not knowing anything about the world would think Brazil is the only country that will become a superpower because of the way the article about it is written. And we all know that of the countries on the page, Brazil is probably last at becoming a superpower. I'd say it's China, EU, Russia, India and then Brazil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.33.84.13 (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Rising Powers? Economic superpower?

• Okay, I've made a subpage where we can work on a potential article. As my examples I referred to our Potential Superpowers article, as well as a few of the BRICs and the potential Great Powers that were listed on Deavenger's Potential Great Power's page. If our new friend's Brazil submission can't make it to here, we could always place it there. There is something salvagable in it, and it'd be better to keep it somewhere it can be found than let it float around in the talk pages. Besides, that section is getting /very/ long. Comics (talk) 11:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• By the way, I am starting to think that creating an article Economic superpower is of some sense.Greyhood (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking that it may not make some sense. Instead of creating all these speculative articles, why not try to put them into one? It would mean we discuss any content changes at one place, as long as there is a reliable expert opinion that a country is 'rising' economically or geopolitically they could be added. *shrugs* Comics (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Should it be this article or different one?Greyhood (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I know on the Great Power article reference is made to Japan and Germany perhaps only being Economic Great Powers. Maybe there could be reference on the Superpower page to any states believed to be Economic Superpowers currently... and on here, well this is about potential superpowers. If there is an explicit source that says something like 'no, it won't be a superpower but it will be an economic superpower' maybe that should be referenced. If they're emerging though, maybe try and put it on my Rising Powers page? I haven't had too much time to work on it recently - been a bit busy - but yeah. Comics (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Russia

• Nuclear potential is primarily used not for nuclear wars, but to prevent them, it's as political tool. The possible scenarios of nuclear war have nothing to do with Russia's superpower status. And by the way, in case of nuclear war Russia could just explode all its arsenal on its own territory, without any usage of rockets, - and that would mean the largest ever catastrophe for the whole humanity. With that, the claims about "population hubs" etc. are laughable, not only irrelevant.
• Parag Khanna's views on Russia's demography contradict the existing reality. I understand that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, which is hard to define sometimes; however that doesn't mean that we should not include the verifiable counter-arguments to the verifiable false statements. Greyhood (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Okey, my suggestion is that we leave it as it is for now, I'll see if I can find some more sources on the Russian superpower-status. The problem is that there aren't that many sources talking about Russia as a superpower anymore, but I'll see what i can find. Swedish pirate (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The 'R' in BRICs: is Russia an emerging power? - an article by an Oxford professor, arguing "that Russia is not an emerging power in the conventional sense".Greyhood (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"*Parag Khanna's views on Russia's demography contradict the existing reality. I understand that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, which is hard to define sometimes; however that doesn't mean that we should not include the verifiable counter-arguments to the verifiable false statements. Greyhood (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)"

It would be indeed fair to find and mention a source that oposes Parag Khanna's point of view to balance the article, make it neutral. CEBR (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I made some research, and indeed it seems like Russia's population is growing now for the first time in 15 years. In my opinion, we ought to find a good source documenting this and add it to the article to counterbalance Parag Khanna's point of view. CEBR (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Right now Khanna's point of view is removed completely and, perhaps, better not include it at all, because it doesn't sound very much expert. For example, let's take a statement by Khanna rendered by Swedish pirate: Russia loses about half a million citizens per year or more due to either emigration or death, meaning it won't be much larger than Turkey by 2025 or so. Now the population of Russia is 142 million, with a very much possible positive growth this year. Even if it somehow would start dropping by an average of half a million and continue to do so in 2010-2025 (for 16 years), than it would drop eventually by 8 million and would reach a total of 134 million in 2025. The population of Turkey is around 75 million at the moment, in 2008 the growth rate was 1,01 according to CIA. 1.0101^16 * 75 million = 88 million. 134 million - 88 million = 46 million. Well, maybe the population of Turkey could grow faster (unlikely, as it is going to be developed country), maybe the population of Russia could drop even more faster, but still under normal circumstances there would be a gap of at least 30-40 million in 2025. And that if we don't count the population of Ukraine and Belarus, which very likely will be reunified with Russia by 2025, just like Eastern and Western Germany had finally reunified.Greyhood (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, either I'm counting it wrong or Parag Khanna is mathematically wrong regarding that comparison with Turkey by 2025. There is also that point that it doesn't need to be true to be added if the source is reliable, but, is it really necessary to add it? In my point of view, no, thus, I agree with you, Greyhood, better not include it at all. CEBR (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Brazil, India, Russia ? Rather not !

There seems to be a misunderstanding about the term superpower here. A superpower wields almost hegemonic influence. The inclusion of BRIC countries here like Russia, India or Brazil indicates that the term superpower is confused with the term great power. Brazil, India, or Russia have no perspective of becoming a superpower in the next 20 years. Rather these countries can achieve or maintain a great power/ regional power status. The only serious candidates are China and the EU (with all its great power member states). The article right now is based to much on unreliable references and on boosterism. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's hyperpower that wields almost hegemonic influence. That doesn't apply neither for US and USSR in the past, nor for the US in present. Your opinion about BRIC countries is only your opinion. Please note, that Russia is already a great power and many experts claim it is rising - and where? With no other direction - to superpower status, of course, though it may never happen in the end. Also note that a great range of sources, starting from US senators to many news outlets call Russia a superpower in present. Note that a number of very reputable scholars call India a potential superpower. And finally, this article is about the existing predictions - not about determining which predictions are true or better. The only general restriction, applied to the inclusion of predictions into this article, is the requirment to be a prediction coming from scholars and IR-related experts. Most of the sources in Russia, India and Brazil sections follow this rule.Greyhood (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Greyhood is right. CEBR (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

China and the others BRIC members are clearly not in the same league. --Zhonghuo (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

China > all the other potential superpowers in every domain : economic, demographic, sport, space, military, ressources, money reserves... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhonghuo (talk • contribs) 17:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Not in every domain. Russia's mineral, land, forest and water resources > China resources. Brazil iron and oil resources > that of China. In one or two decades India will have more population than China. Russia > China in winter sports. Brazil > China in the most popular team sports like football. Russia >>> China in space, and Russia > China in military technology and nuclear weapons. Money reserves are valuable only if you can get something in exchange for them. And finally, it's all very interesting, but if we continue such speculations we'll turn this page into forum, which is not what we should do.Greyhood (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No, Zhonghuo, there are many areas in which China is not superior to the other BRICs, such as the ones pointed out by Greyhood.

"And finally, it's all very interesting, but if we continue such speculations we'll turn this page into forum, which is not what we should do."

Indeed, you're right, this is not the place for this. CEBR (talk) 01:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the inclusion of Brazil on this article. Such inclusions distort the term superpower and it is absurd to think that countries which are not even great powers should be called a superpower or a potential one at that. There is no recognition of Brazil being a potential superpower and it should be removed from the article accordingly. It has been included on this article on original research only. If Brazil stays listed on this article other editors will soon include the likes of Japan, Mexico and more on the same original research and the article will become completely inaccurate and little more than a list where nationalist editors talk up their country. Only countries which have plenty of reliable sources stating words along the lines of "potential superpower" or "future superpower" should be listed on this article. I remind editors orginial research is not allowed on Wikipedia and all claims must be supported by reliable sources. Being a BRIC member does not make a country a potential superpower because the authors never claimed the BRIC countries as such and being a G20 member certainly doesn't or else the article will end up with 20+ countries on it and the term superpower will be brought down to mean a middle power, which is what most G20 members are. "State of the art jet fighters and space launchers" could easily be claimed by Kazakhstan, is it too a potential superpower? All original research. According to the satellite article Brazil has not yet launched a satellite of its own and what are these state of the art jet fighters? F-22s? No. Eurofighters? No. JAS 39 Gripens? No. Actually its most common fighter aircraft according to the Brazilian Air Force article is the propeller powered Embraer EMB 312 Tucano. As for Brazil expecting to order JAS 39 Gripens countries such as Sweden, Czech Republic, Hungary, South Africa and so on also either possess or have ordered these aircraft. I take it these countries are also to be considered future superpowers and should expected to be on the article soon? Brazil has no nuclear weapons programme and is highly unlikely to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which forbids Brazil from possessing any nuclear weapons, not to mention Latin America is a nuclear-weapon-free zone. "Brazil is often called an economic superpower, either present or future," So it's already an economic superpower even though its GDP is only the 10th largest? Are the 9 countries with GDPs larger than Brazil also economic superpowers? I guess according to that Japan, Germany, France, United Kingdom, Italy, and Spain should also be added to the article then considering they all have larger economies than "economic superpower Brazil"? I notice that claim has no source. All the sources listed for Brazil are unheard of and unreliable. Sources from such as the United Nations, IMF, CIA and so on would be considered reliable. Bambuway (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

India also hasn't reached yet even the status of great power. And there is no original research in Brazil section, only the views of experts and academics. If you read the whole long discussion above on this page, you'll see that all original research have been deleted from the Brazil section. Some valuable and reputable sources, like Brookings Institution statement that Brazil is emerging geopolitical and economical power, also haven't been included, but they exist. And generally, the sources in Brazil section are on the same level that many sources in other sections. And see, this article is about predictions, about potential superpowers and not about future superpowers, so we could include Japan, or Mexico, or any other country if it's potential superpowerdom is supported by at least several experts. A pity, but United Nations, IMF and CIA don't provide information on superpowers or potential superpowers, and there are no commonly accepted and defined views on which country is potential superpower and which is not. So we can rely only on the views of various experts of at least some reputation. Greyhood (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Bambuway, Brazil is extremely well sourced, and there is no Original Research about Brazil in this article. CEBR (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Source

What do people think about the source quoting Leslie Elliot Armijo? In my view, its not exactly of high quality. Cornell Sun is a college paper and does not have much repute. Secondly, the article refers to a lecture given not an academic paper. Perhaps someone could replace it with an academic work by the Armijo that elaborates on how Brazil is a potential superpower. Nirvana888 (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've seen Armijo's papers on some scientific web archives. Later I'll try to find them again.Greyhood (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The source quoting Leslie Elliot Armijo is reliable according to the rules of Wikipedia, it is from one of the best universities of the World.

A lecture is academic, thus it is valid.

Yes, Greyhood, there are some papers of her's available on the web. CEBR (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Article Ordering

Shouldn't the main articles on the potential superpowers be ordered according to likeliness and ability to become a superpower, rather than alphabetically? I mean it's not like there is any major debate on the ranking, and the order the countries are referred to in the introductory paragraph is pretty much correct. 79.65.109.76 (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the problem with it is that we, editors of Wikipedia, can't express our opinions, we are supposed to portray academic opinions, so we can't order it according to our opinions, thus we need to order it in the standard of ordering: alphabetically. CEBR (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It's time to consider Iran as a potential superpower

Iran has become a nation that masters nuclear technology, that is able to launch its own satellite into space, that is able to build its own weapons, that is able to build is own navy warships, and so on. Isn't Iran already a superpower? --tequendamia (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

When did Iran become a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world? The basic components of superpower stature may be measured along five axes of power in my opinion: ideology, military, economic, political, and cultural. It should be geographically or economically large, have a large and stable population, large supplies of food and natural resources, not be too dependent on other countries, and most importantly, have a well-developed nuclear capacity. Iran is far from a superpower. You reference naval ships? In the 1990s, the Navy added patrol boats, submarines, and surface-launched anti-ship missiles, and replaced Western ships with ones bought from China, North Korea, and Russia. However, In terms of major surface ships, Iran's three destroyers are over 50 years old and are kept in material reserve at Bushehr. The Iranian Navy does not include capital ships; their largest ships are five frigates and three corvettes, all of which are armed with modern anti-ship missiles though. The core of Iran's fighting ships are several Chinese, French and Iranian made small missile boats. That is not the naval power of a superpower. G. R. Allison (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, by your logic Britain is still a superpower and it most certainly is not. G. R. Allison (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a proposal based solely on the editor's (Tequendamia) OR. And one not based on scholarly sources or reality. Nirvana888 (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really, look at this book: The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower. --tequendamia (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The author seems to use superpower in place of great power, I don't think that book's a credible source. Anyone agree? G. R. Allison (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, clearly Iran is not currently a superpower by the definition used in this article, and it is unlikely to become one any time soon. Many countries can launch satellites, many countries build their own navies (and have much more significant navies than Iran), many countries have much larger economies than Iran, and many countries have much greater cultural impacts than Iran, yet none of these countries are considered superpowers because they don't have all the attributes in sufficient magnitude. Iran is a regional power with a large impact on some world issues. It is nowhere close to having the global impact implied by the term superpower. TastyCakes (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You guys seem to know more than the experts. You should be writing your own books to make some money instead of doing it here for free.--tequendamia (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of being an expert, it's a matter of looking at the definition and deciding if a country fits that definition. I think it is clear to most that according to the definition of superpower used here, Iran isn't one. TastyCakes (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Would we be willing to compromise though and list some other powers that are sometimes considered great powers over at that page? I know that at the moment mention is made of the EU due to it's very unique nature, but should it be expanded slightly to talk about how some other countries are gradually being seen as great powers/possible great powers? Just in the 'current' section or something. And hopefully that could keep some of the great powers (who may not become superpowers, such as Iran and South Africa) off this page ^^; Comics (talk) 05:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Let's just keep common sense and keep this page on potential superpowers. Sijo Ripa (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The 30 something countries with larger nominal GDPs and military budgets would also have to be considered potential superpowers by this logic, this would include the likes of Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden and so on. Iran is not even a great power, it is only a middle power. Iran is even weaker than other middle powers such as Australia, Canada, Mexico, South Korea and Spain, all with much larger nominal GDPs and military budgets, and far weaker than great powers such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy and Japan, which are not even included in this article!!! I always knew this time would come when people started wanting to add every country to the article as ever more countries were included and the bar ever lowered. Yattum (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

India has about as much a potential as Africa Union of becoming a superpower this century

Grain (kg per captia per year): India 158, Africa: 146 Veg. (kg per captia per year): India 68, Africa: 54 Eggs (kg per captia per year): India 1, Africa: 2 Fish (kg per captia per year): India: 6, Africa: 9 Fruit (kg per captia per year): India: 37, Africa: 52 Meat (kg per captia per year): India: 5, Africa: 15

Heat (kcal, per captia per day): India: 2472, Africa: 2436 Protein (gram per day per captia): India: 58, Africa: 61 Fat (gram per day per captia): India: 53, Africa: 49

Source:FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS http://faostat.fao.org/site/610/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=610#ancor

Almost 50% India children suffer from malnutrition, percentage-wise it is EVEN higher than that of even Sub-Saharan Africa.

Source: The United Nations International Children's Fund: http://www.unicef.org/india/children_2356.htm

I recommend you people to remove countries like India, Brasil and perhaps Russia as well here.

In all fairness, what makes countries such as India/Brasil/Russia get more potential of becoming a superpower over countries like Japan, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, etc? well, Russia, at least, still get a pile of soviet-era nukes, but India and Brazil? does malnutrition or football make one superpower?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.242.164 (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a wild guess, but is it that reliable sources have suggested that India may become a superpower, but no such sources exist for Britain? That's certainly the impression I get from a cursory glance at prior posts on this talk page... Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"Reliable source" also suggests Africa Union is about to become a superpower: http://www.africanexecutive.com/modules/magazine/articles.php?article=506, note this article is written by a scholar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.242.164 (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I mark this as resolved, then? You understand that Japan, Britain, France, Germany, Italy etc would need reliable sources stating their potential to attain superpower status in the future before these countries could be added? And you understand that India, Brazil and perhaps Russia have reliable sources supporting their inclusion in this article? So, problem solved? Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, peer-reviewed academic journal papers should be the only sources that considered as reliable here, otherwise I can add lots other potential "superpowers", for instance, Turkey (no kidding) is also considered as a potential superpower by some guy:http://us2.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/EDCRFV/productId/9761/TURKEY_WILL_BE_A_SUPER-STATE_IN_10_TO_20_YEARS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.242.164 (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, changing current consensus on reliable sources is better dealt with at the relevant talk page. You could also try posting at the relevant notice board. Good luck! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll look at the sources when I can but, just to start off with, besides these stats (which are interesting and reveal that India is certainly not a Great Power in 2010) is there any reference to India having no chance as a superpower? Because, keep in mind that if it's just stats and no superpower name attached, it's original research and against Wikipedia's policies. Although it might be the correct conclusion, we need to provide the correct citations that it is a deciding cause as opposed to something India can overcome in the coming 90 years. Also, on the note of Italy and co, they are projected to have declining populations (and in some cases already have declining populations) and with the rise of larger economies (such as Brazil, Indonesia and Turkey) by 2050, most of those countries will no longer be in the top ten largest economies. Cheers :) Comics (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, here you are:http://www.theindianblogger.com/interesting/superpower-india-lets-do-some-reality-check/, http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?229038, btw, By your logic, there are 200+ countries in the world, you need to cite sources for 190+ countries have not listed here where claiming these countries will never become a superpower in this century, for starters, how about call a spade spade? in all fairness, India get about as much a potential as Africa of becoming a superpower in the foreseable future, and for future far beyond the foreseeable horizon, I wouldnt discount MIRACLES could happen in India, just like you should not the discount miracles could happen in the rest 190+ countries in the world you HAVE NOT LISTED HERE either.

Just call a spade a spade and call a hype a hype, remove countries such as Brazil, India and maybe Russia as well, for they get about as much a possibility of becoming a superpower in this century as several dozen countries that YOU HAVE NOT EVEN LISTED HERE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.242.164 (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

We can only provide citations for countries that have been speculated. If nobody's written an article about the likelihood of Samoa being the heart of global politics in the foreseeable future, we can't really say anything about it can we? And what list is this of several dozen other countries, hmmm? Comics (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't waste our time like this, I have already explained why this is not the case, Africa Union is also called as a potential superpower by some scholars, so is Turkey, I have already provided the sources for these in my other posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.247.227 (talk) 07:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not wasting anyone's time here. Now, let's go through the post that I replied to and see exactly how I wasn't wasting anyone's time.

'By your logic, there are 200+ countries in the world, you need to cite sources for 190+ countries have not listed hereBy your logic, there are 200+ countries in the world, you need to cite sources for 190+ countries have not listed here' - this is suggesting a pointless search that would end up wasting an inordinate amount of time, due to the impossibility of finding sources for almost 150 of those countries. This statement isn't saying 'let's find all the sources we can find', but rather 'we need to find sources for every country in the world'. Correct me if I'm wrong there, and I would appreciate it if other people could offer their views on that same quote.

'I wouldnt discount MIRACLES could happen in India, just like you should not the discount miracles could happen in the rest 190+ countries in the world you HAVE NOT LISTED HERE either' - we can't discount miracles. Look at the miracle that happened in America after the Civil War - within almost 80 years, a former colony and fragmented country rose as one of the two most powerful nations in the world. However, we also need to be realistic. Keeping my example of Samoa - it's an island nation with a relatively small population and economy. Suggesting that Samoa could rise to superpower status over China seems a bit ludicrous, even if you do take miracles into account. Also, we can't predict miracles and if we suggest miracles could happen in every country without a proper source, that is breaking Wikipedia's no Original Research policy. And I'm sure you, who seem so dedicated to bettering this article, wouldn't want to see it tagged with OR.

'Brazil, India and maybe Russia as well, for they get about as much a possibility of becoming a superpower in this century as several dozen countries that YOU HAVE NOT EVEN LISTED HERE.'

'Africa Union is also called as a potential superpower by some scholars, so is Turkey.'

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think two countries equaled several dozen. Now, if you want us to consider these 'several dozen countries' that we haven't listed here, where is your list? We can't better this article if you can't cooperate properly. I'm asking you for a list, and you're saying I'm wasting everybody's time. Well, if you don't show us this list of several dozen countries, then aren't you simply making a claim and wasting people's time by not working with other people?

Look, all I'm saying is that I'm not the one wasting anyone's time here. Also, I'm not sure if you're aware, but there was a massive editorial dispute in the archives over Brazil. Maybe, if you want the African Union and Turkey to be considered, you could try to make a mock-up of what you propose and the editors can then judge whether it does need some work? Comics (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Qualifications needed to be listed as a potential superpower here

At the moment, the bar of being a potential superpower here is so low to the degree that I can easily add a dozen or more countries as potential superpowers here.

Citing a newspaper or some books doesn't count, since these articles/books have not been peer-reviewed, and people, espeically in the absence of some quality control like peer-reviewing, like to abuse the word "superpower" to seek attention, hence there are so many "energy superpower", "culture superpower", "soft superpower", "regional superpower" or "knowledge superpower" in the world laterly.

I think we should increase the bar a bit higher, how about this: to be listed here, one need provide at least two or more peer-reviewed academic journal papers written by scholars where claim the country's superpower potential, and the academic journal papers should be published no earlier than 2000?

And by superpower we must make it clear, it should be superpower in the strictest sense, not half-ass "superpower" like soft, energy, regional, culture or knowledge "superpowers".

I've got a better idea. You shut up and let us carry on doing what we have been doing, which is discriminating between the 'knowledge superpower' and 'regional superpowers' etc. Don't tell us to continue doing what we've been doing :) Comics (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The article needs to be improved

Superpower is not big power or great power or regional power, superpower supposed to be some power that far outclass any other "lesser" powers both economily and militarily, it supposed to be "Dominating".

Lets admit that, the only countries listed here that has a reasonable potential to be a superpower in the foreseeable future is China, and to a lesser degree, EU, if they can finally agree on something and work together (unlikely).

So either change the title of the article to "potential great powers", or remove countries like Brasil, India and Russia, the article at the moment looks like a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.211.85 (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You should be teaching politics. Sorry but each inclusion has sources to back it up, this article looks far from a joke currently. Finally, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. G.R. Allison (talk) 06:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering that there are about 200 or more countries on this planet, I don't think it's too much to believe there could be about 5 dominating powers at one time. I've heard a theory that there is a ratio to uphold - more great powers means less superpowers, and vice versa. If there comes a global balance of power, would we call every actor a great power or a superpower? Terms can change their meaning over time. Besides, nobody's saying all these powers would be superpowers anyway. It could just be China and India, or just the EU - we don't know. Besides, we had potential great powers a while back and I think it's still on Deavenger's userpage. Countries like Turkey, Poland and Iran as well as, yes, Brazil and India, have more potential for great powers. Russia already is a great power - it can only go up or down, it's not a potential at all. Also, I'm sure all the sources say 'superpower', not 'great power', which means we'd need to get other sources. Think before you type next time - this page isn't a joke. Comics (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if citing a source is the only qualification needed to be listed here, then even african union can be listed as a potential superpower since I can cite many sources mentioning its potential superpower status, for instance: http://www.africanexecutive.com/modules/magazine/articles.php?article=506

It does not mean that every country that is mentioned in this article will become a superpower. What it means is that every one of them has a possibility, a chance, perhaps, of becoming a superpower in the future. If all, or one, or even none will become a superpower, only time will tell. --Lecen (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The verfiability and reliablity of the writers is also important. Comics (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

And where is the so-called credible source mentioning that countries like Brazil have reasonable potential to become a superpower?

I guess the bar at the moment is too low, because most people in the non-academic world like to abuse the word "superpower" to seek attention.

We should increase the bar a bit higher, how about this: to be listed here, one needs to provide at least two or more academic journals or papers written by scholars where they claim the country's superpower potential, and the academic jounral papers should be published no earlier than 2000?

You're just trying to start an argument which is pointless. Dates of course matter, and editors (note, EDITORS and not randoms who are stuck in a hole) sweep through and look after them. Is the bar too low? Did you miss the Iran debate or not? There is a bar here, actually, just you seem to have missed it. And most of the countries here have about 10 or more sources already. Looks like there doesn't need to be any improvement then, am I right?

And I'm going to go Grammar Nazi on your post, because it made me cringe. Cheers, and better luck spelling well next time :) Comics (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the first editor. It is nonsense to claim a 21century future with more than 3 superpowers. Brazil does not even have the economy (GDP) of France or Italy, where is the potential of a superpower here? Same goes for India, the largest third world country with no technology no economic heft or political influence beyond its borders, again, where is the potential? The only 3 entities staying or becoming superinfluential powers within the next 2 decades are the US, the EU (incl all its member states) and China.

The 21st century is a bit longer than 2 decades, sorry to dissappoint. In fact, if you've heard of the BRICs then you'd realise that Brazil and Russia would have about double to triple the economic heft than Britain by 2050, and even more than France. India would have an economy reaching parity with the US by that time as well. Also, who'd have thought that a tiny little kingdom in the East of Europe would have the potential to unify an incredibly powerful Central European power that would eventually threaten the entirety of Europe and eventually the world? A little bit of research thanks before commenting. Comics (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The article here is highly volatile, it wildly speculates and is obviously (partly) enhanced by patriotic enthusiasm. The references are very poor. At least in the case of Brazil or India, which are not even considered complete great powers. Because the superpower term involves a very dominating nature it can only be applied on very few countries, the article here seems rather to point at potential Great Powers. Becoming a superpower (in a multilateral world) would mean to dominate the others. Even in 30 years, which is superspeculative, it is unlikely in any scenario that the EU, US or then China are surpassed by some other actors.

You really have no idea what this article is about, do you? This article isn't trying to speculate on the definitive balance of power. This article is trying to list countries that may or may not become Superpowers. This is the real difference. There is a note that Japan was believed to reach superpower status in the '90's, but didn't make it. This is suggestive that not all the powers listed may ever become superpowers. Merely that, if they keep developing the way that they do, they may reach that status. Brazil and India are not complete great powers you say? What about in 20 years, when their economies are among the largest in the world? And what then, in 2050, when India's surpasses the EU's and threatens to reach parity with the US? Would it still be a third world developing country when it reaches that level of economic power? If you think the references are poor, how about you actually list any instead of trying to indulge in pointless nitpicking? Potential Great Powers we've already discussed - and if I recall, China is considered a Great Power at the moment (2nd/3rd largest economy, largest population), as is Russia and the EU is increasingly being seen as one. If that's the case, then how on earth is this speculation on potential great powers? This article should then, by your logic, be absorbed into the Great Power article. However, it isn't dealing with Great Powers at all but rather possible superpowers. If you really want to help improve this article, making an account might be in your favour. Otherwise, point out areas that could improve (specific areas, bring to the editor's notice the specific references that appear to be lacking) instead of saying 'article needs improvement because I don't like this or that or that so change it all and I'll be happy'. This pointless debate is really getting on my nerves because you appear to be solely motivated by a desire to dismiss any case in favour of the article and stick to yours, and the OP's, repeated mantra that the article is simply 'lacking' without any specific clarifications in where it is lacking. Good day to you, and if you reply in the same manner I'll be inclined to try and mention your lack of productive input into the betterment of this article to the administrators. Good day to you. Comics (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thought I'd wade into this debate. First of all, everyone should try to keep a cool if you disagree with each other. I do agree with the premise of the IP's point. A superpower in the classic sense is a state that has preeminent, hegemonic influence in the world. That being said, if you have a scholarly source on "potential superpowers" that backs up your point then please post it here. Otherwise it would be considered original research. If there are a sufficiently large body of sources that suggest the US, EU or China or other potential states have the potential to become superpowers in the classical sense, they we can discuss the possibility of adding/removing states. Nirvana888 (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments, but a call to delete sections that have got sources doesn't sound too constructive to me. Classical superpowers is one thing, yeah, but by the word 'potential' I thought it was implied that some of these countries may not make it in the long run. For example, if the EU splinters apart then it couldn't be a superpower. If India gets involved in a destructive war with Pakistan that leaves it humbled, then it's chances would shrink. But at the moment they show potential to influence global affairs on a near hegemonic level (eg; three largest economies), and I think the sources indicate that. I know I was getting a bit defensive there, and that wasn't wise, but yeah. A review of the sources is constructive, but the OP doesn't actually take a single source and explain how it is not reliable. I also don't think that the idea to change the article to 'potential great powers' really reflects the content of the article well at all either. Do you agree at all on any of those points, Nirvana? Comics (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree to a certain extent Comics. I do not for a moment believe that states should be imminently removed without consensus but I also do not think that removing sections should be out of the question. But for that to happen, an eminently large number of sources must infer that the state in question does not really have much "potential" to be a superpower in the classical sense. If the OP were to provide such evidence (which he hasn't so far) then we could proceed with a discuss/vote to see if a removal is warranted. On the topic of potential great powers (i.e. Brazil, India or E.U.), there was talk of creating a separate page for potential great powers and a draft written by a former editor. I am still open to that option if reliable sources are provided much like the great power page or this article. Nirvana888 (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If the sources are found, then I think they could be removed by consensus. Just on that note, the brief mention of Japan in the intro - should we find those 80's sources and discuss why Japan was believed to have the potential to become a superpower in a bit more depth? Also, are you talking about Deavenger's page? Comics (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you know, according to Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, in terms of food consumption, per captia wise India is even LOWER than that of the Africa average at the moment? I must emphasis this again, first of all, claiming some country get a potential of being a coming superpower is a huge claim, since back in history there are only very few countries have ever made it,so the club is very exclusive, so making such a "wild" claim that one country get a potential to be a superpower, need extensive studies to back it up, not the other way around. Otherwise, like I said, I can cite lots sources, some even have been written by scholars, claim Africa Union has the potential to become a superpower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.242.164 (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you find us a link to a website either talking about the Food and Agricultural Organisation's rankings/reports or find us a scholar discussing how problems like that prevent India from, in the forseeable future, managing to dominate global affairs? On the flip side, are there reports suggesting that India is trying to improve the situation and better the standard of living for it's population? This point is interesting, but in isolation as evidence for lack of potential it's original research. Link us to those African Union reports too :) we can't assess them if you don't provide them. You also mention that 'very few' states ever arose to the status of superpower in history. By that, I assume you mean a small number of about 3 or 4. I'm sure you'd agree that the Soviet Union, British Empire and Roman Empire, in their time, would have been in that league. However, one one article here it suggests that Spain and the Netherlands wielded hegemonic power over the world before Britain, and on the superpowers article it mentions Ancient China and India, as well as Greece and a few others, as having been superpowers in their own times as well. I have come across a source suggesting that the French Empire, pre-WW1, was also a Superpower. If we were to include all these powers, then the list grows from 'very few' to at least 'a dozen'. We're not here to argue about past superpowers though - this is an article discussing scholarly predictions of the potential for states to increase their global power and dominate the world stage. Give us those links on Africa and India! Comics (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

India & Brazil have no potential

The EU and the next five largest economies in the world by nominal GDP (IMF, 2009)

Get real, IND and BRA show not even a potential. These 2 countries should be removed ASAP. Russia too.

These are the stats you should be looking at. Projected ones. Now shut up, and get off the computer before I get into contact with the admins. You are not constructively trying to better the article, and you're wasting my time (and I'm sure other peoples if they bothered to respond to your obviously troll comments) Comics (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

These projections, presumably created four years ago in 2007, may no longer be relevant for some of the countries. For example, Goldman Sachs' GDP projections into 2050 take into account the UN's population projections, which predict that Russia will lose up to a third of its population by 2050 (thereby explaining why Brazil's GDP is projected to eventually overtake Russia's, all other things being equal). However, were this decline in population to permanently stabilize or even reverse (and there's plenty of time for that to happen), Russia's fortunes as a potential superpower would be greatly increased. Recently, Russia has had some success with halting this population drop--think of it as plugging a bleeding chest wound that's been depleting the country's strength--and even recorded a small population increase last year! What remains to be seen is whether Russia can maintain this dramatic reversal, and if it can, then these fancy GDP charts are next to worthless when it comes to predicting the country's future. Keep in mind this is just four years later, and there's already noticeable change, let alone forty. (I'm not arguing for the removal of Brazil India or Russia, but simply making an interesting observation.) --71.121.211.26 (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I was a bit cranky at the time ^^; but yeah, that is a point that's important. We don't know what can happen in the future, and we can't base a country's current state on what it could achieve if given the chance. India has an incredibly large population and a massive workforce. If India can mobilise these, take steps to eradicate poverty and continues it's economic growth, it should become one of three major superpowers by 2050. The OP needs to look at these things through that kind of lens. Not, it's currently got lots of poverty and an economy less than Britain's. Comics (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Another article about Turkey's superpower potential

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=39538 About the author: "John Feffer is the co-director of Foreign Policy In Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies, writes its regular World Beat column, and co-directs its Balkans Project."

So I guess Turkey should be included in this already-a-joke article to make it looks more entertaining, or perhaps, we should not just stick the full-of-holes "rules" here and applying some common sense to remove jokes like India, brasil, etc, to make this article looks more sane than it is now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.242.164 (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you perhaps outline how they are jokes, with sources? We can't do much with OR you know. On the Turkey note, we'll see how many more people think it's worthy of addition. Comics (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is a joke and only pure entertainment because it is nothing more than the expression of desperate hopes and wishes - not facts. Those with a gripe against the USA and those dearly hoping to achieve the title of "Superpower" for their own favourite nation find expression in this article. It is SO unfair that the definition of Superpower only currently fits America, but that doesn't mean one gets to change the defintion of Superpower because they are Russian, Brazilian, Indian, Chinese or EUropean and seek to make the strengths of their favourite place the definition of Superpower. QUESTION: Why not start endless Wikipedia articles about potentials in every possible field? Potential movie stars, potential football champions, potential underwear styles, potential lottery numbers, etc...? In fact, why not make all of Wikipedia nothing but your predictions for the future, a comforting playpen for you to vent your hopes and frustrations about the now and the future? Wiki SHOULD be filled with articles that explain how YOU want the world to be - not how it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.196.100 (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Another article about Turkey shows why it should be added to the page. Its a better superpower candidate that any other country on the current page. I also agree that India and especially Brazil should be removed; Brazil has been a non-starter "potential superpower" for 200 years running. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.36.159 (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Turkey has no projection capability, all the other countries/unions on the list do. India is soon to acquire carriers and add them to the ballistic missile sub fleet, Brazil already has a carrier and is pretty capable militarily and both are a part of BRIC. All of these countries are regional great powers. How is Turkey supposed to be a superpower if it isn't even a great power? Get more reputable sources than blogs, and post them. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Turkey is a strong power, top 20 economically and probably top 10 militarily. It could reclaim the glory days of Ottoman Empire (huge huge huge empire btw), but that would require going against the Western orbital sphere. Turkey has potential, probably more so than Brazil, but maybe less than India (in my opinion, not even a contender as of yet).Phead128 (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

And how exactly is Turkey supposed to "reclaim the glory of the Ottoman empire"? Well, if it makes an alliance with Iran and if resoure-rich states as Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan join it, this could be a promising alliance (but will be in no way a second Ottoman empire). But there is too much "if". Besides, it is doubtful that even such an alliance is likely to become a superpower.Scheludko (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• turkey is a decadent ex-empire; it´s a middle potence regional and not a global power; have very power in the middle east, because not in the rest of world; for example, the brazil direct influence in the antartic to haiti..turkey only in the eastern balkans and northwest middle east..iran is the most power in the middle east wirh saudi arabia.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.192.174 (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Brazil's oil discovery

It is a key factory to Brazil becoming as a future superpower. How can this artical not mention it. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2010/0317/Rio-protests-Sharing-Brazil-s-oil-revenues-will-hurt-2016-Olympics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.172.200 (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC) http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1842949,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.172.200 (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

As soon as a decent source links potential superpowerdom and that oil, then it can go in.G.R. Allison (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

What MrGRA said. If we make the suggestion that the oil is a key factor, it's OR and that's against Wiki policy. Sorry. Comics (talk) 08:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

wtf are you talking about Comics? Your sentence makes no sense. Most everything in wikipedia is single sourced, why is my source not good enough to get the oil discovery mentioned?

Please be civil. The article you provided is indeed a reliable source, it just doesn't say anywhere that Brazil becoming a superpower hinges on its new oil finds. TastyCakes (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind ^^ if it doesn't make sense, then I'll explain my statement.

I said that 'if we make the suggestion that oil is a key factor, it's OR'. What I meant here was this: if we (in this case, you) claim that this oil is key to Brazil becoming a superpower AND the source you provide doesn't say that the oil is KEY TO BRAZIL BECOMING A SUPERPOWER, then you would be extrapolating and coming to a conclusion that isn't necessarilly supported by the source. If, however, you can find a source that backs your claim and the original source we could consider adding it. Is that a bit clearer? Comics (talk) 06:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

67.84.172.200, OR means "Original Research", see: WP:OR. We need authors linking the oil with the superpowerdom, otherwise we make the link ourselves, which is OR, and thus unacceptable. Sijo Ripa (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ohhh, ok thanks Sijo Ripa. I didn't know that OR was an acronym which is why the sentence confused me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.172.200 (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Misatakes.

If there are a lot of mistakes in the definition of superpower in wiki how can this article to be right?65.199.220.1 (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you mind outlining the mistakes in the definition of a superpower? Are you sure you meant mistakes and not something else, like debates? Comics (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

New Table

The five largest economies in the world in 2050, measured in nominal GDP (millions of USD), according to Goldman Sachs.

Country	Population	GDP total	GDP per capita	Military expenditure	Mil. expend. per capita
Brazil	193,219,000	1,574,039	8,220	27,124,000,000	140
Canada	34,255,000	1,336,427	39,669	20,564,000,000	600
China	1,338,630,000	4,908,982	3,678	98,800,000,000	73
European Union	500,900,000	16,447,259	32,900	322,931,000,000	644
India	1,183,373,000	1,235,975	1,031	36,600,000,000	30
Russia	141,927,297	1,229,227	8,694	61,000,000,000	429
United States	309,730,000	14,256,275	46,381	663,255,000,000	2141

A new comparison table has appeared, to cut my point short, keeping or deleting this table? What is its value? G.R. Allison (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The table is funny. In case we keep it, I'd move it to the bottom of the article, anyway. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 20:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the table as I do not see what purpose it serves. Similar tables do not appear in any of the PIIR articles. Nirvana888 (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I am putting the table back in. It provides a useful prediction of the world's power balance in the future, and is thus very relevant to this article.--Gniniv (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"Potential" is not the same as "Predicted". I do not see any predictions here, Gniniv. Just some current figures of GDP and military expenditures. This table may be an interesting comparision chart between this group of countries and organizations. By no means it imply predictions of any kind. I'm removing it until some consensus is achivied here on talk page. I removed the introductory line as it makes no sense. I did not remove the table and the graphic, as I wait for some more opinions about it. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 09:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

My oppinion table should stay, it shows economical and military power of countries which are very relevant factors.Datastat (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the 'Mil. expend. per capita' field as it has no real value. G.R. Allison (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I am still opposed to the addition of the table. What purpose does it serve? Superpower status in IR is much more complex than a few figures even if they are important. I will remove it unless a majority of established editors agree that is it necessary. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd support a removal of the table as it serves little purpose. G.R. Allison (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the table for the following reasons:

• The table have relevant information to the topic of the article
• The table presents its information objectively and cites a relevant reference (Goldman Sachs, a reputable futures company)
• The table includes information for all of the potential superpowers without slanting towards favoritism
• The table has excellent formatting

--Gniniv (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am still not persuaded. Who says those four crude factors determine if one is a superpower? If you have a reliable source which state that then I would support the inclusion of that particular table. Otherwise, I find it irrelevant at best and misleading at worst. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The tables are sourced, as I mention in my four points above...--Gniniv (talk) 07:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not say these four factors are the determining points of a potential superpower. The table merely provides relevant information on possible symptoms of emerging superpowers...--Gniniv (talk) 07:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Please explain (point by point) how these tables are "irrelevant" and "misleading"--Gniniv (talk) 07:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I say "irrelevant" because these specific factors of population, economy and military have not been shown as direct indicators of superpower status from reliable sources. "Misleading", because if this table were to be added, the reader might imply that when they are not. It would be more appropriate to cite a table in a reliable source that is about superpower status. That way we can relate those factors to superpower status.Nirvana888 (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nirvana888, the table gives the impression that the numbers determine or are at least are a large part of superpower status, while this may seem logical in some ways we would still need a reliable source to indicate they relate to superpower status, if not they really shouldn't be here. G.R. Allison (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe at least one of those tables is referenced to Goldman Sachs (a reputable trading form).--Gniniv (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The table should not be used because it relies on unrealistic probabilities such as the indefinite 10% GDP growth of China and 8% for India. As it stands now the Chinese econamy has entered a severe stage of overheating and efforts to combat this and increase growth further has caused several market bubbles that are now in danger of bursting and will cause the Chinese GDP to contrast sharply as it's markets corrects itself. Further the Yuan is currently devalued ( a very sensitive issue to America, Japan, South Korea, and PRC) meaning that it's currency is in danger of hyper inflation as soon as it becomes exportable if it is not fixed. It may be realistic to suggest the Chinese GDP will be on part with the United States, but such a vast overstating is not possible for any realistic scenario.

The point of all that is simply assuming the 10% annual growth of GDP will last for another 40 years is wholly unrealistic as there are to many factors to consider. The most one can do is 5-10 years and even that has proved to be unreliable in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Japan

Japan is already a great power with the worlds third largest GDP, it would take very little for it to become a competing superpower. A shift in foreign policy which is more interventionist and a WMD program are the only two needed changes, so it is definitively a potential superpower. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Japan has not been speculated though since the 80's I believe, and if you look at the fact that Japan is facing an aging population problem (which Europe is also facing, but the literature suggests that if the EU added Turkey's youthful workforce to supplement it's aging one, it might weather the storm so to speak). I think the literature also suggests that Japan isn't capable of competing at the same level as the other powers suggested in the article and other literature sources (eg; projections that Japan will probably not be in the top ten largest economies by 2050) lean towards Japan probably not being in the running for the forseeable future. Comics (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Japan played Asia's economic hegemon for the last 100 years. That ended today, Aug 2nd, 2010, restored position to China, which held this position for the last 18/20 centuries. Phead128 (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a Forum--Gniniv (talk) 07:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• japan in the 90´s have very decadence; only in the 80´s was a emergence superpower and ind the 1890-1942,5/43 too..japan is a decadent potence with the european union and usa..china is the superpower of east asia and future world..

Article 9 of the Japanese constitution prevents it from meeting the militarily requirements to become a candidate. It's economic ability in having the 2nd largest econamy in the world meet the requirements for potential, but it lacks the same political ability the United States has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Canada -potential superpower?

Laurence C. Smith in his book "World in 2050" suggests that Canada will be superpower because it is rich with natural resources.Datastat (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you please post a link to the relevant part of the literature, or even quote from the book to support this point? This is interesting and could better the article, but you also need to understand that other sources predict Canada is going to be remaining relatively stable for the next 40 years and therefore slip backwards in terms of influence as other countries rise. Context of this statement is important. Comics (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Author makes his predictions based on global warming.

(1) Global warming will free up previously inaccessible deposits of oil, gas, water and other natural resources at a time when they are becoming increasingly scarce everywhere else in the world. (2) Canada’s oil resources will be second only to Saudi Arabia’s and economically invaluable, since wind, solar and hydrogen technologies still won’t be able to meet the world’s energy needs. (3) Canada’s population will increase by more than 30%, a growth rate rivalling India’s. (4) Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver will significantly increase in size and global prominence. (5) Canada’s crop production will likely increase, one of the few places on Earth where this will occur. (6) The “northern rim countries” (NORCS), including Canada, will constitute the world’s fourth-largest economy, with highly-coveted reserves of fresh water, which can be sold or transported to other regions. (7) The opening of new shipping lanes in the Arctic during the summer will make the 500-year-old dream of a direct trade route between the Far East and the Atlantic a reality. (8) Canada’s northern aboriginal communities will benefit economically. Link;Telegram, Toronto Sun.Datastat (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Upgrading the protection on this page

I haven't been too active lately, but I have noticed we've had one knowledgeable person adding uncited vandalism into the lead of this article. Although I'd love to agree with this person, the implications of the phrase are incorrect. Now, this person has added this phrase going on almost three times that I've seen and this is the second time I've reverted it. I doubt this comes under that wikipedia policy relating to three reversals, but I do think that perhaps an increase on the protection of this article may be in order. It is an accepted fact that this article deals with touchy issues; it would probably be best that measures are taken to prevent unnecessary additions such as this series of recent ones. Comics (talk) 12:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not covered by WP:3RR but it is covered by WP:EW. However... no one's discussed this with the editor concerned (it seems to be the same IP, over the last three or so days). Comic master, could you ping the IP and direct them to this discussion? For what it's worth, I live in the European Union (United Kingom) and it's generally held here that the US is the only current superpower. I don't think the EU qualifies as part of the developing world... Regardless, the lead should summarise the rest of the article, and any discussion on other current superpowers should be cited, so the IP's changes to the lead are inappropriate at this time. Given that it only seems to be one editor making this change, I'd prefer to block them rather than protect the article - but obviously I'd hope that they'd be open to discussion and consensus, instead of edit warring. TFOWR 12:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Check Ref are rights...because some of them are wrong....

In this article people used part of lines or sentences of books to show the opposit of what they support as also their title tell to readers.Stopping this vandal culture the article will change a lot...totally.Like for Mc Cormick and Reid books abaout EU for istance..they support EU as superpower in a clear way (check tiltes of their books) but who wrote changed the things ..in the way of giving a low lprofile of EU.Us propaganda ..then will arrive the guy the writes ..i'm from UK or similar and defend the article..but i won't ever trust him because also a stupid understand that this article is written in maligne faith for propaganda.If others hate EU or are envious of EU (and change in the virtual the reality) is good for EU...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.60.116.172 (talk • contribs)

Erm... yes? G.R. Allison (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts... could you please explain your point again? Are you asking is to verify references? G.R. Allison (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I've had a lengthy chat with 151.60. They seem to think that they can "easily" challenge the references, but now appear reluctant to do so. This editor has been posting here for at least a year or so, and never seems to make the step from complaining to constructive editing. I first became involved, I think, when accusations of "Us [sic] bias" started being thrown around by 151.60 (or whatever similar IP address they had at the time). Until 151.60 starts detailing problematic references there isn't much we can do here, apart from ignoring the constant trolling. TFOWR 15:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/5077.html

Try to explan this.2 articles "Superpower" and "Potential superpowers" to be thrown in the basket with rubbish.151.60.116.172 (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What are you saying? Are you saying that this is a problematic reference, or are you saying that it supports your thesis? A little help here, please, 151.60. We're volunteers, not mind-readers. Having said that, this reference does look very familiar... TFOWR 20:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

http://us.macmillan.com/theeuropeansuperpower

http://www.garnertedarmstrong.org/Mark_Wordfroms/EUsuper1/eusuper1-13.shtml

http://www.cer.org.uk/articles/leonard_irish_times_18feb05.html

http://www.globeurope.com/standpoint/quiet-superpower

http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=7102.5628.0.0

I can stay here for days...tons books written by main academics and also common newspaper today support EU definetely as superpower.151.60.116.172 (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

But, again, you'll need to tell us what this is about. Are these references you're challenging, or are these references you've found that you believe support your thesis? Your first reference rang a bell, so I started looking through the talkpage archives - so far all I've found is this. Which is why you're so familiar - you're EU 100% (talk · contribs). TFOWR 20:39, 3 October 2

I just show that the 2 articles are old and to throw away.I think you dislke studies and truth.These 2 article are dead articles today.Rest in your old point and you don't miss ignorance and hateful propaganda.You 're alwatys answering making me understand that you want to leave the status quo and i've no time to lose with you.Anyway people that told me about Wiki ignorance were true.The problem is to Wiki and to you that are in it.All the books and articles i set here and all the other ones that i could set are more than all the bla bla bla or than the huge mistakes in the 2 aricles.Byebye.151.60.116.172 (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Based on the talkpage archives, you've plenty of time to lose here. Maybe if you started articulating clearly instead of vaguely throwing random references at us you'd get somewhere. All you need to do is identify the references you regard as problematic, and explain why they're problematic. For someone of your claimed knowledge and experience that should be trivial. Still, I guess as you've no time to lose that's the matter closed and we won't see you again. Which neatly avoids the block-evasion issue. TFOWR 20:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The titles of these books or articles are sufficient to understand that the 2 Wiki articles are full of mistakes..Mc Cormick,Reid or Lenard (which are three main ones of the subject) are telling the opposite of what is written in your articles.I trust more them or other sources than you....the is something wrong in your articles.More than one person has this mood...the majority may be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.60.116.172 (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the titles of these books are sufficient to understand that some commentators have argued that the EU is a superpower. That very first reference you provide, John McCormick's The European Superpower, is cited in the article, in the section that reads:

John McCormick believes that the EU has already achieved superpower status, based on the size and global reach of its economy and on its global political influence...

But we don't cherry-pick individual authors. We assess the broad range of commentators, and within that broad range McCormick's view is still a minority view. I'm beginning to think you've not actually read the article... TFOWR 21:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You are denying evidence. The problem is that Reid and Lenard are with Mc Cormick..and they agree on the fact that EU is the suoperpower..on the contrary a i can find tons of books that define Usa a non supeprower written by main cademics.These 2 sarticles are full of mistaskes..a lot of mistakes and these authors books are more than these 2 articles for importance. You must consider the sense of their whole books (that is expressed also in the titles) and not using a sentence to write what you like.This isn't culture..this is another thing..I go to sleep ..but not in the ignorance.151.60.116.172 (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, many authors agree with McCormick. Still many, many more disagree. Until you identify - clearly - the "mistakes" and offer a concrete proposal for fixing them (as I've repeatedly asked you to do) there really is nothing any one can do to help you. This has been said to you time and time again. You should read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - it will, if nothing else, shed some light on why you're indefinitely blocked and no longer have the right to edit here. To assist you with honouring that block, I'm about to re-instate the range-block that was put in place when you last used tried to evade your block. TFOWR 21:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Follow up

As noted above, I've blocked the IP address range used by EU 100% (talk · contribs). Editors with long memories may recall that EU 100% was a disruptive editor who appeared to suffer from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:COMPETENCE issues. I believe these problems are evident in EU 100%'s latest posts (as 151.60.116.172 (talk · contribs)) above. One of the claims made by EU 100% on this IP's talk page was that This article in many other languages (like also the article " Superpower") is totally different..and people don't read only english version $..just to start.. With that in mind, I've just checked the French, German, Italian and Spanish Wikipedias. Here's what they have to say about the EU's status as a superpower:

• French Wikipedia: The European Union is itself already an economic superpower and trade and could even increase its influence, especially in politics....Many analysts predict the emergence of countries or organizations can become superpowers in the coming years. All these countries or organizations currently have a significant impact across a continent, or in some cases across the globe. These include:...the European Union.
• German Wikipedia: Representatives were after the Second World War, the United States (U.S.) and the Soviet Union (USSR). With the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 left only the United States as a superpower. The European Union[1][2][3][4] and the People's Republic of China[5][6] in addition to the U.S. as a potential superpower of the 21st Century.
• Italian Wikipedia: The end of the Cold War (the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989), the dissolution of 'the Soviet Union and the consequent end of bipolarity have resulted in the system of international relations, the presence of a single superpower, the United States of America (defined by some as a 'Hyperpower), around which focus on international affairs (policy adopted by some of unipolarity), because in essence, currently, there is a state or not is a state system, powerful enough to counterbalance U.S. influence (thus giving new life to a multipolar system). Wars are not successfully concluded in Afghanistan and Iraq and the financial crisis of 2008, however, have begun to bring out the limits of the United States, to the point that their own alleged role as a superpower has been challenged. To date, the multi-polar world is seen, ie with more political powers none of which can be described as a "superpower." The EU is indicated as a possible power among these leaders.
• Spanish Wikipedia: Since the end of the Cold War, the United States have been regarded by some as the only superpower....However, there is a discussion of whether hegemony or is losing its superpower status.3 China, the European Union, the India, Brazil and Russia also believed to have the ability to achieve superpower status for the XXI century.

All articles translated by Google's Chrome browser, so I'd imagine that similar translations would be available from translate.google.com. All bolding was added by me.

In summary: all four Wikipedias, covering four major langauges, say the same as the English Wikipedia: The United States is currently the only superpower, and the European Union has the potential to become a superpower as this century continues. EU 100%, I hope that you'll stop selectively reading articles and references. Everyone else: next time an IP editor in the 151.6.*.* range appears and starts being disruptive - let me know. I'll reinstate the range-block. TFOWR 12:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Average column appears a bit odd

Hi, just wondered whether the comparison list might look a bit less odd if the Average column would be removed. It does strike me as a bit arbitrary, what with it merging totally different areas such as land mass and military spending. I doubt that a plain average of the measurable factors listed in the other columns could really be a scientifically sound indicator of a nation's actual power. Ondundozonananandana (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Nations

If the E.U. is on here, then why isn't the Commonwealth of Nations? They have a far more established system of government, have a standing Military procedure independent of NATO, and share a Political Figurehead (Queen Elizabeth the III).

At least add a comparison of the British Empire and the Soviet Union when they were still superpowers at the end of WWII for comparison to potential superpowers rather than putting big country's with great potential for growth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.33.16 (talk) 04:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, for starters I believe they share Queen Elizabeth II as opposed to Queen Elizabeth III. Secondly, the Commonwealth of Nations seems a lot more like the United Nations as opposed to a group of nations seeking unification. There's also a difference between the EU and the Commonwealth - the Commonwealth is the result of the slow disintegration of the British Empire, whereas the EU is slowly establishing itself.

I do like your idea though of having the British Empire (post-WW2) and the USSR as a kind of marker for former superpower states, but isn't that something to be covered over at Superpower? Wouldn't something better be a documentation of the rise of particular states to the level of superpower? I know Deavenger was interested in that while he was still here. Comics (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

EU shouldn't be considered a Superpower because it lacks GLOBAL MILITARY FORCE PROJECTION. I can never see EU sending a EU Army to fight China in Great Wall map of Battlefield 2. EU isn't even a country. How can EU send military forces abroad? It can't! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.233.159 (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hence 'potential', which means that it could be a superpower in the future if certain trends continue; ie integration and creation of a unified military. I believe the article you're looking for is Superpower, which states that the EU is merely regarded as having potential (alongside China etc) to become a superpower in this century. Comics (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Comparison tables ?

Shoul tables be included ? I say yes Datastat (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Countries	Share of world nominal GDP (%)	Share of world military spending (%)	Share of world population (%)	Share of world landmass (%)	Average share (%)
Brazil	3.3	1.7	2.8	5.6	3.4
China	9.3	6.6	19.5	6.2	10.4
Canada	2.3	1.3	0.5	6.7	2.7
European Union	26.0	18.0	7.2	2.9	13.5
India	2.3	2.4	17.3	1.9	6.0
Russia	2.4	3.5	2.1	10.9	4.7
United States	23.6	43.0	4.5	6.1	19.3
Together	69.2	76.5	53.9	40.3	60.0

Country	Population	GDP total	GDP per capita	Military expenditure	Mil. expend. per capita
Brazil	193,219,000	1,574,039	8,220	27,124,000,000	140
Canada	34,255,000	1,336,427	39,669	20,564,000,000	600
China	1,338,630,000	4,908,982	3,678	98,800,000,000	73
European Union	500,900,000	16,447,259	32,900	322,931,000,000	644
India	1,183,373,000	1,235,975	1,031	36,600,000,000	30
Russia	141,927,297	1,229,227	8,694	61,000,000,000	429
United States	309,730,000	14,256,275	46,381	663,255,000,000	2141

And that's all well and good, but you'll notice that the tables actually double up on information (making some of it redundant) and also that there's been no actual conversation to see what the best way of implementing the table would be. Therefore, for now, I've removed it from the article. I'd strongly suggest streamlining the two tables into one, or at least removing information that is doubled up on in the tables. That and also engaging in a constructive talk on where best to put it - personally, if we were to put a table, I think having it nearer the top might be better as opposed to down the bottom.

Also, one more thing. Canada hasn't been ratified by anyone here, so probably remove it until a large majority (unlikely) agree with substantial scholarly evidence? Comics (talk) 11:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Comics and Nirvana. Perhaps, I wouldn't object to some comparison tables in principle, but not in the proposed form.

• 1) Why Canada is on the tables?
• 2) Why Nominal GDP is chosen and not GDP PPP (the same question for military expenditure evaluation)?
• 3) Is military expenditure the only or the best way to measure military capacity?
• 4) Is there any sense in average share?
• 5) Why total land mass ans land mass per capita is missing from the second table? And isn't it handier to create just one table with total/share/per capita values?

If any such tables are inserted to the article, some introduction should be made that explains how the parameters in the tables correspond to Superpower#Characteristics. As far as I can see, the proposed tables also lack any information on natural resources, food supplies and nuclear capacity. GreyHood ^Talk 12:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the best table I've seen for Superpowers is at the article of the same name; the one comparing the USSR and the US. But that only works on a bipolar level I think; it'd be harder to work for the potential multipolar discussed here. And this editor seems a fan of the idea of a superpower Canada. His source hinges on the idea that global warming in the North will allow for greater resources in Canada and therefore increased prosperity etc. A bit more speculative than the BRIC's maintaining high growth rates and the EU possibly federating/working more coherently Comics (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you on Canada. While global warming indeed may be good for Canada and bring it better access to resources, the population of Canada is too small compared to other potential superpowers, and it should grow at amazing rate in order to be worth of a superpower by 2050. And no any major military potential too. So we should wait for more sources on Canada that evaluate its prospects in correspondence to all superpower parameters, not just resources. GreyHood ^Talk 12:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What's with the table on the Superpower page, it compares the historical superpowers and their historical attributes (some features of the U.S. in that table actually are different at present). If you propose to compare the potential contenders at their present states along the similar lines, that actually may be not that difficult at the first attempt, but I fear that textual descriptions may raise more discussions in the future as compared to the plain statistics and numbers. GreyHood ^Talk 12:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• It's pretty obvious who the next Superpower is going to be. As recently as 1820-1840, the Qing Dynasty of China occupied 33% of the world's GDP slice, compared to 25% for British Empire at her height, and 23.5% for America immediately post-WW2.108.7.160.130 (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)