Talk:Potential superpowers/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

in my opinion Iran never anounced its military budget and also because of western threats and their pressure it dosn't like to appear its power in attacks if you trace iran atitude in its manoeuvers, they never show their power in attack and they just exercise for defence, according to your knowlidege Iran has the second reserve of natural gas after Russia, and also has third reserve of oil after Soudi Arabia and Canada, and it has a lot of reserve of uranium and coal, so undoutedly it is a Energy superpower, you know in shiite faith collective killing is forbid and it's right that clerics they live in Qom (Ayatollah Noori Hamedani, Ayatollah Javadi Amoli, Ayatollah Makareme Shirazi Even extremists such as Ayatollah Sanei and Khamenei) and they have most power in Iran don't let to have iran nuclear bomb because of their religiuse beliefes, despite Iranian Sepah Pasdaran researchs in nuclear bomb but they don't have any permission about making it, I can say strongly iranian missile power after russia is more than USA, if you see at some of iranian missiles (some of the equipment of the iran those annouced there are in the net)you realize that how much is Iran's power in military section, after missile Iran makes Helicopter, fighter plane and other military equipments, these are result of US's sanctions on Iran, because Iran before of sanctions is buying its needs from US, according to your knowledge after revolution in Iran 1979, The US announced they wanted to apply some sanction on Iran's new government and blocked all of iranian propeties in the US and President Carter command for provention of delivery of iranian fighter planes those Iran bought them before of revolution after that some iranian student have gone to the US's embassy in Tehran and arrest americans who were in that place. about cultural section I cannot say any thing but from point of view of geopolitical Iran is in the middle east or may be we can say middle world(Iran is major blood vessel of energy in this century) Iran can control world's energy because of its reserve and it's between Qatar,UAE, Iraq, Kuwait, Suadi Arabia, Azarbaijan, Turkmenestan and Russia, Silk Road is passin in Iran and Iran has access to international water from south also Iran has power for controlling and preserving of strategic bottleneck of Hormoz strait ang Persian Gulf, and this country has four season you can have Four season experience in a month of year in seperated areas in Iran so it can supply its foods and fruits besides, from point of view of Technology Iran is in top of the table in the middle east despite all of the western medias advertise that Israel is top of the table but actually Iran is on the right place, Iran has just about 5 million students in its universities, Iran is growing up in Space industry and Biotechnology and Genetic

Please Remove/Update references no 72, 74 & 75[edit]

Please Remove/Update references no 72, 74 & 75 as this is a broken/non-fixable link. if one cannot update this source one must remove the sentence for which the reference is required as it is no longer verifiable to be considered true or relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Vetting and copyediting[edit]

I think this article needs some work to ensure that it only mentions what the views of scholars are on a country's potential to be a superpower. Many articles may covers aspects that may be related to superpower status (i.e. economy, innovation, government) but they should be avoided unless the link between these factors and superpower status is made. Cutting synthesis and original research can help to ensure that information is reliable, credible and relevant. Nirvana888 (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Remove India, Brasil or (Remove all)[edit]

(Person below) If you have to remove India or Brazil, you might as well remove the rest. I don't know where people get their information, but they clearly have no clue what a superpower is. In it's simplest terms, it is a nation state that is the dominant economic, military, cultural and political force in the world. There is no way that any other country can be one in the future. Unlike the Soviet Union, where it initially challenged the US on all aspects, it was clear by the 1970's the Soviet Union was no longer really a superpower. It was losing it's economic might, it's cultural contributions nearly vanished and was isolated politically. If you think in the future, even if China becomes an economic powerhouse, it's military is not unchallenged, it's cultural contributions are next to nothing, in fact, China has been culturally invaded by American culture, and Chinese political power is limited to authoritarian states or rogue nations with few true allies. This is why, although the US will decline as a superpower, it will still be perhaps the last superpower in modern history. It's inventions, way of life, movies, films, books, food, fashion, sports, culture have permeated all countries of the globe etc. So while I may be rambling, the truth is, this entire wikipedia page is based on an illogical premise. There is no way any other country in the world will become the dominant military, economical, political and cultural force on the planet. If anything, the economies, culture and policies are based on globalization or US-dominated. Chinese economic strength is only through other countries investments, same goes for India. All the evidence in this article is anecdotal based on a few economists or political thinkers who routinely change their views. 10 years ago, Parag Khanna stated India would never be more than a regional power, now he says India can be the world's third greatest power by 2030. Views change, but the reality is, there will be no next superpower, but it will be a globalized, multi-polar world that has developed based on American culture and egalitarian principles. The next time you are in Beijing or New Delhi and see kids wearing Nike shoes, blue jeans, carrying iphones, drinking Starbucks, eating KFC, and driving Ford's or Chevy cars, think about which country is really the superpower.

With the capabilities they demonstrated in the Commonwealth game disaster, its safe to say, india will likely remain the third if not fourth world country it is for at least this century, until now, they have failed to show any characters even remotely related to superpowerdom. Judging by their current status, they should pay more attentions to realistic goals like feed their people properly, and forget the superpower dreams. But what India and Brasil have done before to indicate these people are superpower materials? what they have now to justify their superpower potential? Lets be serious and honest, these countries have basically no chance to become superpower in this century, their best bet is to be respectable regional powers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to back up your opinion? If not, this does fall under OR and can't be used in the article. Also, I have a question. At the end of World War 2, the newly created South Korea was in an absolutely appalling state. Yet, by 2000, they had created an economy that is in the top 20 in the world and have solved significant problems that they faced (mainly North Korea). Considering that India and Brazil have 90 years left of this century to fix larger problems, doesn't the established literature still carry weight? Comics (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Brazil has successfully organized the 2007 Pan American Games, which is an event even more important in size and quality of competitions than the 2010 Commonwealth Games. This shows that Brazil is further ahead of India in the organizational skills and know-how required to host world class Mass events.--tequendamia (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
A superpower in the simplest sense is a nation with a large population (over 100 million), massive economy (over 10 trillion dollars in GDP), and a military capable of of armed intervention anywhere on the planet. Obviously only two candidates can fit this criteria at the moment(U.S.A., and E.U.). The problem with the E.U. is that it does not have a standing army nor does it have centralized executive branch, though that could change very easily.
So from one data point (the commonwealth games) you can make a sure-fire prediction about the next 100 years. Astonishingly arrogant. (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

China is growing at a rapid pace and will reach the ($10,000,000,000,000.00 USD) mark in a few years, and it has the largest population on the planet, but it's military (though the largest in the world) cannot deploy its forces outside it's continent (Asia) without triggering nuclear war (India, North Korea, Russia, Pakistan, and the United States through Guam all encircle China in a nuclear umbrella).-- (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

True comment about India and Brazil. It is obviously absurd to call these countries potential superpower. A timeframe of the next 2 decades only should be considered to assume a superpower position. Brazil has not even the economy of France, UK, Germany how can this country be placed in such an article, its ridiculous. Same with India which is at large a third world country. Both should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

But what as a part of BRIC? BRIC as a trading bloc would certainly elevate the "super power" status of these two nations. (talk) 07:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous to remove a country just because of mud slinging about a games organization. FYI, the commonwealth games, whatever mud slinging had been done,.. were a successful ones. There is nothing to point out against India in respect to previous additions to remove India. India and Brazil are rightfully Potential superpowers. -(user:satishynd)

In regard to the person who says to delete India and Brazil. Well, superpower basically means countries with significant size, population, economy, etc etc. India does have significant size being 7th largest, 2nd largest population, 4th largest economy, as well as nuclear weapon capabilities too. I see no logic in the statement of the person who started this thread —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe India has a solid claim to potential superpower status do to population, nuclear weapons, growing economy, and substantial military (especially their power projection capability afforded them by their carrier force). Brazil simply does not have any of the traditional elements of a superpower. There is no indication their population (5th), economy (9th), and military (13th) could increase to "superpower" levels in the next century. Rather, Brazil is firmly a regional power. They are solidly 1st in all these areas among latin american countries.(Jschager (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC))

Whatever! India has no potential to become a superpower in next few decades. If you need more proof, go look at the streets of India and such. I mean, I am an Indian, and I think that if it keeps going on, *Sigh* . People compare India to United States. Get real, fellas. There's a huge difference. Not a superpower, Nyah! I agree that India and Brazil both should be removed.

A lot can happen in 30 years, and I don't think a timeframe was really placed on India and Brazil; just the tag 'India/Brazil is thought to have the potential to become a superpower this century'. Comics (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
please remove india everyone in the west knows how poor, unhealthy & malnourished indians are and even the suggestion of superpower seems absurd. why even give them the imaginary hope that they could be a superpower. i went to india recently the place stinks of shit so does its people, nearly everyone is a begger, i cant see why any literate person would even remotely suggest it being a superpower when it is the poorest country in the world. P.S. indians have never contributed anything to the world except population and using up our natural resources.
[1]This country doesn't look very crash hot either. The people generally look rather poor compared to Western standards of the time. The suggestion this country could become rich seems a little absurd, so why give them some imaginary hope that they could become a really rich country? Fastforward 40 years: South Korea is in the G20, a developed country, and is as well off as some European countries. I'm just saying you can never tell what might happen, and the article should be addressing that India has hurdles to overcome before it can be a superpower. The point is, the article suggests if it can overcome those problems it would be in a very good position to become a superpower. Comics (talk) 06:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Whoever made that retard comment above User:Comic master, I'm Indian, I'm literate, I smell clean. Have a look at the photographs I have uploaded to the Commons, you will know how much India has progressed. While I agree, yes, India has a LOT to do, we are in a good position to be called a Potential Superpower. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Calling all editors (or some I guess)[edit]

So it seems we've had someone with the interesting notion that this article is about former superpowers and relating that to potential superpowers (namely, the lack of political will in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan have made them soft powers and how political will may allow China etc to rise). I'm not saying I support this, as it seems peculiar and doesn't take other factors like alliances (eg; NATO, CIS and SCO) economics, geograhic location etc into consideration (which are slightly longer lasting than political will, which can change at an election in democracies). And what's with adding Canada in? At ~34 million people (almost a quarter the population of Russia) and an economic standing that isn't poised to improve in the projected future, as well as facing some of the problems the West at large is going to be facing in 2050 (when China and India will have a predicted double of US GDP and equal to US GDP respectively and possibly risen to superpower status), as well as lack of credible sources (some of the projections for GREAT powers I've seen don't even have Canada, so I fail to see how it stands a chance at superpower if it's not even seen as a likely great power). Also, why the removal of China, the EU and India by this editor? They're perhaps the most credible powers listed, so why remove them? I've noticed this editor also seems too be popping up again infrequently to change the article, so should we try talking to them and seeing where they're coming from? I guess I'm kind of conservative with this article, but I do think it needs a bit of improvement, but this editor is completely changing the article and I don't think for the better. Just opening this up for discussion, because I don't want to see this spiralling into an edit war. Boy, that was a long message. Comics (talk) 09:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

China, India, and to some extent, the EU are the most credible candidates so far for Superpower status... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
@ E.U. is not a country its just not stop believing it to be. its merely an economic union.Neilpine (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

EU bias?[edit]

Just a note, but the EU section in this article is twice as large as the other sections, making me wonder if it is being blown out of proportion. Any chance on cutting the size down a bit?--Gniniv (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  • eu not is a country; it´s a organization - NAFTA is a country..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
There's an article on both the EU and NAFTA, go read them and see why your question is ridiculous. G.R. Allison (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Which makes me wonder why a intra-national organization is even being considered on this list, since it lacks several characteristics of a single nation.--Gniniv (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
1) it is a matter of data, the EU requires more explanation given its status. 2) The EU and NAFTA are not comparable, the EU has strong federal elements with a single market and emerging foreign policy (some elements of foreign policy are already federalised, for example trade policy).- J.Logan`t: 19:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
No matter how many times EU cheerleaders speak of the EU as they hope it will become in their cherished dreams, the facts remain the same: for instance, the EU is NOT a single market since single markets require a single currency, single tax regimes, single business regulations, etc... It is really quite ridiculous to state with all the factual authority of a 6 year old fresh out of her geography lesson that the EU is a single market. Take a visit to diverse places like London and rural Poland or Amsterdam and'll find multiple currencies, tax rates, business regulations, etc... There is no single market in the EU, no single foreign policy control, no military may be something NEW but it's qualification as a superpower is weak, especially compared to China or even India.Leidseplein (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The country versus region thing aside, isn't it simply a case of more data on the EU being known to the editors of this page than on other examples? I find it somewhat unsupportable to call this a bias. -- BenTels (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps...I would at minimum call it WP:Systemic bias due to the fact that Wikipedia editors are more likely to know about the EU than the other countries/entities on this list. I still think it should be improved. The People's Republic of China is far more likely to achieve global dominance in the 21st century than the EU, largely because the EU refuses to invest hardly any of its massive GDP in military and defense....--Gniniv (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we are in any position to speculate on who will achieve superpower status or when, nor do I think it is relevant to the discussion. The issue is one of textual balance on the page, not of content or factual basis thereof.
That said, I agree that the page could use improvement to balance it out. However, I do not think that such balance should come from pruning the section about the EU, but from beefing up the other sections. Wikipedia strives (for better or worse) to be an encyclopedia. To me that means the editors should strive for more information and not less, i.e. to make the weak points stronger and not to lower the standard to the lowest common denominator. -- BenTels (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The EU shouldn't even be listed in the first place. It's not a country, but a economic agreement similar to NAFTA. It holds no military ties, and non of it's members have even taken up the issue of a Union with other members. It has neither the military or political potential for super power status, and considering it's not a single entity i hardly think the traditional term of super power power should apply to it's economic status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding whether or not the EU should be listed, it seems to me the existing section on the EU lists exactly the arguments for its being listed and why the EU might well be considered a (future) superpower.
That said (and no offense intended), you badly need to read the article on the European Union. The description you give of the EU is very plainly wrong, to the extent that you might not even maintain your own position anymore after having read an accurate description of the EU. -- BenTels (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

EU is a political power,Nafta no. A lot of ignorance. A lot of words on EU because they want to set it in the emerging powers and have no proves to tell this.How can Usa be a superpower with a such economy..jokes..

EU is the only one that fullfills all criteria to be a superpower (economically,military and culturally).To be a superpower you must be a political power..nowhere is written that you must be a country.EU is a new kind of sovereign political power.Today formally it's the only true superpower.Us today have a strong acomplex vs EU and try to make all the possible to hide their decline..burt is uselless also in media and propaganda.In EU all people ahave realized it.And not only.Everiwhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC) I hate it when people use the word 'country'. Country is a geographic term. Centainly the EU is not a nation state, but if their was a feudal superpower would that be struck off the list for not having the most common type of state structure. I don't think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

European Union is not a country. Why is EU even listed here? EU can't even send a military force without US-led NATO permission. (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"If " is useless..the main thing is what EU is today.It's political being like every's made of more state or nations ..but it's a single political being able to act in every sector.The rest is bla bla bla...EU has a gdp biggest than Usa ,more weapons (more conventional ones ,troops and today also with nuclear weapons like m 51 hold by french Navy that are like Trident but much faster..25 mach.It's the most dangerous weapon on Earth today.)Culturally there are no possibilities for Usa to win.Then you can write what you want but rests a bla bla bla..EU global wealth is bigger than EU global debt ,while Us global wealth is about 1/3 Us global debt.People that wrote the article used part of lines of some famous books that support EU as superpower to support the opposit..trying to "burn " also this books...One thing is the vritual world of the article and one thing is reality.Who knows world knows well that today EU is caput mundi.We can go on days...change this ridiculous article ( in other languages is already changed)...—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Anti-USA rhetoric is not a basis for argument. Lets all get a long and remain NPOV. Thanks :) --NDState 00:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not to improve China section, instead? Indaco1 (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the following statement be removed: Notably, the EU as a whole is among the most culturally diverse "entities" on the planet,[48] with some of the world's largest and most influential languages being official within its borders.[49]

I find it highly questionable that cultural & language diversity is in any way contributing to becoming a superpower. Unless someone can present a good argument for this (preferably in the article itself) I will remove that sentence. LarsHolmberg (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this is part of the advertisement-for-the-EU bias in the EU section (indeed the whole article is little more than an advertisement for superpower wannabes). The EU section needs a big trim and should be limited to only those factors related to the defintion of a superpower: military, economic, cultural leadership. Leidseplein (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The people comparing NAFTA and the EU have some reading to do. The European Union has it's own capital (Brussels), parliament, court, political parties, currency, bank, domestic and foreign policies. The EU is a confederation (by definition, though nobody wants to say it for PC reasons), NAFTA is just a free trade agreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Group of Poor[edit]

China and India are a collection of the poor and the wretched. They have no surpluses to boast of except a couple of cities like Shanghai. As a result of their populations, they will be the permanent laggards of the earth and the last republics to emerge out of poverty ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This user is to be lauded for his bold edits, but we did end up losing three very large and relatively well sourced parts of our article (mainly, Brazil, China and India). I've gone and undone this edit until we can talk this radical suggestion of change through properly.
That done, I believe this user has a bone to pick with our Chinese and Indian cousins (going back hundreds of thousands of years in some cases, but still. we're all human). His contributions all seem to revolve around China and India (and his edits to India related articles usually revolved removing all links on the page). Do we have any vandals on record who had this MO? Comics (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
This is the indef blocked sockmaster Shinas/Anwar.Saadat. Among other things he removes all hyperlinks to India, Hindu and names of indians. Revert him on sight. He uses the IP range. But be advised, when you revert him, he retaliates by vandalising articles created by the reverter. --Sodabottle (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, will keep that in mind Comics (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It's better don't cite Usa[edit]

Superpower article of Wiki describes Usa as a superpwer but also and above all as a no more superpower.So Usa can't be cited as superpower.At the same time other Wiki articles describe EU as a Superpower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You have not provided evidence that these are non-fringe views. The source you added expresses an opinion that the USA's status as a superpower is "fraying", also implying that it still has superpower status. I could not veriy that other Wikipedia articles describe the EU as a superpower or the USA as no longer a superpower. Please provide quotations and non-Wikipedia sources that substantiate your statements.--Boson (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Ascension to P5 of UNSC[edit]

I believe that India and Brazil's desire to ascend to the permanent UN Security Council with veto wielding votes is an important aspect of potential Superpower status... Without a permanent presence at the world's most powerful body in the United Nations, Brazil and India will simply be outshadowed by antiquated relics of 18th and 19th century Britain and France, which are Great powers in their own right, but importants to the security council far outweights the two BRIC nations simply because of the veto wielding vote and permanent membership in the council... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That's lovely, but unless you have sources to add to the article for those countries suggesting this I don't think this post is any different to a post in an internet forum :( I thought this was covered in the article already, though. If it isn't, can we get sources for this? Comics (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


We've had a user adding a sourced section on Iran to the article recently; just throwing it up here so that the credibility of the sources can be determined. It looks reasonably verified though:

  • Robert Baer in his book: "The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower", argues that Iran is already an energy superpower both because of its own energy reserves and the military power it can project over the energy reserves in Middle east region. He argues that Iran's ambition is to become a conventional superpower or even an empire. Flynt Leverett calls Iran a rising power because of its massive hydrocarbon reserves. He argues that Iran is the world's only country to have huge reserves of both natural gas and oil. Furthermore Iran also is the only country with huge hydrocarbon reserves which has the potential to increase its output massively, since Iran's current production levels are well below its maximum potential. The combined hydrocarbon energy reserves composed of natural gas and oil in Iran is almost equal to that of Saudi Arabia's and more than Russia's total hydrocarbon energy reserves.[1][2][3][4]

Community thoughts? I'd hate for this to get out of control like the Brazil edit war, but most sources I've seen suggest that Iran isn't in the same league as the other potentials on this list. Comics (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No. Iran's scientific growth is big, but Iran's contribution to science is still small compared to the great powers. Its 'highly developed industry' and cultural influence today are also not very impressive when compared to the great powers, let alone a superpower. Iran's energy potential is definitely not super amazing like Baer may be trying to make it seem to be. The statement 'Iran is the world's only country to have huge reserves of both natural gas and oil' is wrong. Russia has both a lot natural gas and oil. The combined hydrocarbon energy reserves composed of natural gas and oil in Iran is not 'more than Russia's total hydrocarbon energy reserves.' It's as if to Baer, coal is not a hydrocarbon. I don't see Iran's 'advantages' in demographics either. The only things Iran has going for her is energy potential (which alone will not make her a superpower) and her geographic location (which hasn't helped much, as the American presence has limited her influence in the region.) I have a hard time seeing Iran as a great power in the near future. Forget superpower.Qwertzy (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Brazil is NOT a potential Superpower[edit]

There are not any SERIOUS sources that supports this idea, basically the only thing we have are original research, personal opinions and conjectures. But in real terms, Brazil has not even that kind of influence in whole Latin America. You should know better the differences in political and economic terms in Latin America to understand that is only outside the region that some people think about Brazil as a relevant and fundamental country, or a BRIC, but inside the region, it is less developed than Argentina, Uruguay, Mexico or Chile, economically is big only because of it's population, but poorer than this other countries, plus it's industrial base is diminishing, due to the fact that is basically an exporter of commodities to China, nothing else, even Mexico has an stronger commercial presence in the world or a larger aerospace sector. Chile has a way higher per capita, Uruguay way higher educational indexes and no one in Latin America considers Brazil as a legitimate representative of the region as a permanent member of the Security Council (if that was the case), Brazil is a portuguese speaking country that doesn't represent the rest of spanish speaking Latin America. Brazil being a "potential" superpower is only biased local propaganda, and international wishful thinking, but has not real bases or serious reasons to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Addlertod05 (talkcontribs) 22:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that 'potential' superpower claims are even more subjective than the already illdefined superpowers, the editor abouve seems not completely on top of the international discouse as evident from the statement outside the region that some people think about Brazil as a relevant and fundamental country or a BRIC. BRIC is an acronym for Brasil, Russia, India, China; therefore the quote claims that only people outside see Brasil as part of an acronym including Brasil itself??? Arnoutf (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Brazil and probably some other country should not be added to this article, untill we have serious, verificable and recognized sources that support such statements as "potential" superpower! are you aware of what youre saying giving status of superpower to everyone who wants it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Addlertod05 (talkcontribs) 22:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
If you would have read my comment you would have seen that my opening sentence is very criticil about the term potential superpowers, as in my view the term is that vague that all countries can be labelled as such (Nepal, through its high elevation for example could become a superpower after incredible rigins of sea levels, far fetched yes, possible ...yes..., hence Nepal can be labelled a "potential superpower"). With the label potential superpower comes no status, indeed with the label superpower comes no status either (your get no extra brownie points or whatever for being called a superpower). Since there is no status there is nothing to give.
The second part of my comment was about your remark that Brasil is not a BRIC, and this is just not true, as the B in BRIC is derived from Brasil. There are four and only four BRIC countries B(rasil)R(ussia)I(ndia)C(hina). Arnoutf (talk) 10:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I think most of the speculation regards current economic trends or, in the case of the EU, trends towards unification and the effects of such a union on its global standing. Therefore more far-fetched scenarios that could happen, but aren't as supported by current data and projected trends, don't factor into most of the sources used. There already has been a massive debate about Brazil in the archives; so much debate that it would be relatively easy to look for yourself. The Brazil section itself has 12 cases where the texts cites a source; the similarly sized China section (which I think is hardly debated anymore? sure China may not make it, but it's perhaps the most likely contender) also has 12. I wouldn't call this original research on the part of the editors if they've at least tried to cite any claims made. This wikiproject is also highly critical of sources; the Brazil debate in the archives shows how long it took for someone to piece together a section that the community agreed was reasonably sourced. I'm not saying I disagree with your statement, but if you can provide sources to back up your claims perhaps they can be added to the article? Afterall, it's just trying to analyse the powers that are claimed by noteworthy and credible parties as having potential as well as the harsh picture that could prevent that potential from being realised. Comics (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome, at this moment there is clearly no consensus to remove Brazil from this page. You have been bold but now it is time to discuss (per WP:BRD), so please refrain from removing the section untill agreement has been reached here. Arnoutf (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Addlertod05, I don't think it's fair for you to remove content after there have been lengthy discussions regarding it and there is currently no consensus to remove it. I'm not here to try to make a case for Brazil - but you really should get your facts straight. You claim that “Brazil's industrial base is diminishing”, the fact is that Brazil has the 5th largest industrial output in the world – about double of that of Mexico. You also state that Brazil “doesn't have a large aerospace sector”, when in truth Brazil has one of the largest aerospace industries in the world, namely the Embraer conglomerate as well as Neiva, Aeromot and Helibras, in addition to the second largest space program in the western - and southern - hemispheres. You also state that “Latin America [doesn't] consider Brazil as a legitimate representative of the region as a permanent member of the Security Council”. For your information, Brazil is the country that has served the most number of years as an elected member of the UNSC. How did Brazil manage to be elected so many times? It was chosen by the Latin American and Caribbean states (GRULAC) to represent them. The only countries in the region opposing Brazil's bid for a permanent seat are Argentina and Mexico. For the same reasons that China opposes Japan, and Pakistan opposes India. According to your statement, Brazil has no influence in the region. The fact that there are over 270 Brazilian multinational companies in Argentina alone should be enough to 'debunk' your statement.[2] Forty percent of direct investment in Argentina comes from Brazil - who also accounts for Argentina's largest export and import market. The Argentine export sector is so heavily dependent on the Brazilian market that the Argentine newspaper La Nacion calls it “the Brazil-dependece”.[3]. Limongi (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Stupid article[edit]

This has to be the most stupid article on Wikipropaganda! (talk) 08:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I've got blisters on me fingers! Comics (talk) 09:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Revamp the article[edit]

One thing I noticed is that the article talks about how such predictions are not perfect, yet the article does not talk about the history of potential superpower predictions. Also, there is plenty of literature out there not about which countries are potential superpowers, but how countries in the past have traditionally reacted to such powers. Ex. Certain realist theories would look at such powers as being destabilizing as it could lead to conflict between other great powers, etc. If anything, most of the article should be about the history of the term, what theory states, former predictions, etc. with much less time dedicated to which countries are examples of modern day potential superpowers. Not only would this make the article much less controversial, it would fit in much better with the rest of the international relations articles and what most academics and scholars talk about. (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding Mexico and Japan[edit]

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

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

Well, if you have sources why not present them for peer analysis? Comics (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I'll post some for Mexico, I'll post some later for japan:

First, from this source:

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

From this source:

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

Also, Let me post some other statistics:

In this map, we are shown that Mexico, according to GS predictions, will be one of the top 5 biggest economies by 2050, even breaking between the BRICs, being above Russia in therms of GDP
  • Mexico is also considered a regional power, hence its presence in major economic groups such as the G8+5 along with the BRICS, and the G-20.

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

Less than 2% of Mexico's population lives with less than 1 dollar per day, similar to developed countries.
Similarly, in this map, we are shown that Poverty levels in Mexico are similar to other developed countries
  • "From 2000 to 2004, the population in poverty has decreased from 24.2% to 17.6% in the general population and from 42% to 27.9% in rural areas."

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

Looking at how you describe them, I'm inclined to say that the sources don't actually say 'superpower' and to suggest that link may be bordering on OR (maybe the other editors can clarify that?). I'll have a better look through them later though :)
Just, it's best if the articles actually say 'Mexico will be a superpower at earliest by 2050' or something, or 'if Mexico improves these problems it will have the potential to be a superpower' rather than an article saying 'Mexico will have a large economy in 2050' and linking that to superpower status. Comics (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Chinese military and political strength[edit]

See [4]. There is no policy stating that a word from the title must be present in the source. As such I propose restore the deleted material. Miradre (Talk E-mail) 15:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Oh but it does. You see, to avoid nationalistic promotion and original research, this article abides by a few set guidelines. One of them is that the sources have to mention the word superpower, preferably more than once. Other qualifications are no non-academic media sources and no "quasi"-superpower like terms like "culture superpower", "soft superpower", "regional superpower" or "knowledge superpower". See the archives for a better understanding. Swedish pirate (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I have looked and see no WP guidelines referred to. If there is one, pleae give a link to it. I will restore the text otherwise. Miradre (Talk E-mail) 06:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

India and Brazil?[edit]

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

Not really getting much of a conservation here with other editors, so lets leave it for a few more days and see if we can get onto this.
I was also wondering if anyone came across a similar publication as me regarding India's rise as a global power - It suggested that with China's swift ascension to Superpowerdom, India will never have the opportunity to achieve its potential and remain a modest 'Regional power'. It also outlined China's obvious technological superiority over India, China being several economic revolutions ahead of India and that geographically China and her allies surround India in all or most strategic areas. :However, the publication suffers from misplacement on my part! So if you have come across it your self, please put me in the right direction. Cheers. — Woe(talk with 90i) 15:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
That does sound like a good source, but I think I should mention that there has been considerable discussion about Brazil (particularly) in the archives and the majority of the section you're describing was what most of the editors at the time deemed acceptable. I'm not a fan of just removing content unless it doesn't really belong (and, well, India at least belongs), so perhaps if you see something you think is making the article appear weak you could try yourself to find better sources to strengthen those sections rather than make cases for their deletion? Personally I think the section that needs the most work is on Russia.
Considering the immense discussion about whether Brazil should actually be included on the list, I'm hesitant to say that we should remove it. I think it also bears mention that the article is about countries 'most commonly mentioned as being potential superpowers' - perhaps the case against them is stronger, but they are all countries that are often discussed with regards to potential superpowers. That's how I'm reading it anyway. So my suggestion is that we don't remove the content (we'd then have to find a new map for starters) but rather perhaps come up with better quality sources yourself. I'll try to do my part but I'm a little busy this month (hoping to participate in NaNoWriMo, which will take up some time). Comics (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Still no luck finding that publication! I get where your coming from, however, is an encyclopedia a place for speculation, or fact? So, regarding this article, if the supporting sources speculating a 'potential superpower' are weak and appear not to be on any particular authoritative or academic level - should they be included in the article? Mainly its the media who term these nations as rising superpowers, that's no reason to keep the article as it is.
I had searched beforehand for any sources that would have strengthened the article, but with no success.
I will also like to add that the information found in this article cannot be found anywhere else and I think the article should remain. I would just strongly suggest that India and Brazil be removed, retain Russia, China and the European Union, but also add a history on past potential superpowers like Japan and Germany as per the separate discussion below. There are many editors on Wikipedia who can either edit or re-do the map for this article, that wouldn't be a problem.
Good luck with the writing! — Woe(talk with 90i) 17:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

turkey is poetential superpower[edit]

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

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

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

Turkey also happens to have a population of 70 million at the moment, I believe? Compared with Russia's 110 million+ population, as well as left over superpower trappings, Turkey isn't in the same league. Besides, isn't Iran the more popular newspaper Muslim Superpower? Comics (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Turkey certainly could be a Great power (again). That in itself is highly significant. A Superpower is power of a greater magnitude. Mitchitara (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

More sources? At the moment that's just one person, and someone who seems to think that Turkey will create a new empire that allows it to rise to a superpower. I can see it now:
  • Turkey is considered a potential superpower in the 21st century. George Friedman believes that it will form a new empire and challenge US interests in the latter half of the century.
Anyway, did a Google search and this shows up:
  • US Superpower - 16.3 million hits
  • China Superpower - 8.2 million hits
  • India Superpower - 5.4 million hits
  • Russia Superpower - 5.2 million hits (some of these might be about the USSR though, skewing this stat)
  • Iran Superpower - 4.6 million hits
  • EU Superpower - 2.6 million hits
  • Turkey Superpower - 1.9 million hits
  • Brazil Superpower - 1.8 million hits
Speaking logically, it seems more likely to find credible sources talking about Iran emerging as a superpower instead of Turkey - you get a lot of people on forums talking about this stuff as well, which would probably be at least 30% of all results. Then there's newspaper articles (which we don't use) and blogs which might be about 60%. Then there's the useful 10%. There's at least 190K sources out there you can find, don't just bring one to the table. Comics (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

You're still not giving us any other sources. You've only listed one. I went and did a search through the Iran links on Google and it doesn't seem to have a good case for becoming a superpower either (almost all sources state 'Middle Eastern Superpower' or 'Regional Superpower'). I've found a source (probably unable to be used) that suggests Russia's democratic/authoritarian hybrid political system prevents it from functioning properly to become a superpower, but another source (used in the article) suggests that Russia's vast energy reserves give it the political edge to potentially restore it's former clout. That's only two sources (one perhaps a little doubtful), but it gives a better picture than 'everyone must learn Turkish, not the Chinese or Russian languages'.
At the moment, all you have is OR that can't be used in this article. Again, I ask you to bring sources. Me, I doubt Turkey's going to be a superpower. My bet is it will join the EU which, faced with competition from Russia (particularly) will tighten it's union into a federal state that replaces France, Germany, Poland, maybe G. Britain and even Turkey. Still, bring in sources and we might add it. You're not bringing in any sources, mate. Please; you want Turkey on the list? Bring us the sources. I can't stress this enough. Then the editors can say 'yeah, they're reliable' or 'no, that's a newspaper resorting to sensationalism' and we can come to a conclusion. You NEED to bring SOURCES though.
Here is the potentially unusable source, btw:
Comics (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I realize on my quick research that most of the sources are neutral and without ambitions. But Turkey remains stubbornly fixed in Western culture as a backward-looking land of doner kebabs, bazaars, and guest workers. Turkey, a Stealth Superpower? (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, when a German's in a film usually it's because it's a WW2 piece and... yeah. Same with the Russkies; they're still seen as the old Cold War Commies (even though they're not exactly Commie anymore, but Cold Warrish might be debatable). It's not just the Turks. Heck, British people drink tea and eat biscuits and speak like the Queen, while Aussies walk around with knives and wrestle crocodiles. Every country's stereotyped, whether its accurate or not.
Anyway, I looked at the source and it seems to be speaking more about Turkey carving out its own identity and establishing itself as a Turkish power with its own interests and policies. There's some comment about superpowers, but most of the article seems to be trying to do away with the image you described above rather than suggest Turkey will be a superpower like China (might). Is that the same impression you got or did you read it differently? Comics (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Anyway, did a Google search and this shows up:
  • Recep Tayyip Erdoğan - 84.1 million hits (Semetic writing would give more)
  • Dilma Rousseff - 15.1 million hits
  • Hu Jintao - 9.6 million hits
  • Wladimir Wladimirowitsch Putin - 21.8 million hits
  • Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - 31.4 million hits
  • Manmohan Singh - 21.8 million hits
  • Barack Obama - 247 million hits

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

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

Religion has nothing to do with any of this.
Furthermore please read and internalise the following policies WP:Soap Wikipedia and its discussion pages are not a soapbox or forum for your opinion what should be. WP:OR - there is no place on wikiedia for original research WP:RS - reliable sources are needed to support facts (a google search is both original research and not a reliable source) WP:Truth - wikipedia is not about truth perse, but about the best current knowledge as evidenced by reliable sources.
These are some of the basic rules of Wikipedia, and if you refuse to play by them please leave the project. Arnoutf (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

@Arnoutf: Can you see the best current knowledge? The Times: (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today, Dez 1. 2011 the german european news call Turkey as potential superpowers. Ursache hierfür ist der Wandel der Türkei zu einer weltpolitischen Drehscheibe. = The reason is that Turkey's transformation into a global political power. Here the full article: (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

@Arnoutf Do you speak german? She is talking at start about the mistake you did. She says that this analogies is wrong. That's maybe you misunderstand. Than she says that Turkey is a link to Central Asia, Arabia, Africa and Europe. And she is saying that the Reason is that Turkey become global political power. And because of them Turkey is no more the country which it was 5 years ago. She says its a New Turkey. And at last she says that Turkey will a vital importance about the future of the European Union. And she says we should not risk to lose Turkey because of short-term considerations. (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes I can read German. And yes she does say all you say in your post above; but no she does not say any of the things you claims she said in the posts before that. Arnoutf (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
So she's saying it'd be an important state like Britain is today? 'Global political power' doesn't mean superpower per se. It just means that a country might have a global presence and has some weight, like Britain does or France even. Could you bring in the relevant bits you're talking about, translated to English? Comics (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China and EU have not "supplanted" the US superpower status[edit]

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

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

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

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

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


Lo and behold, just as we had the Brazil drama a couple of years ago (which, thankfully, was resolved when someone put together something that was accepted by the then-community as a decent-ish piece), it seems someone's added a section on 'Iran' to the article. This popped up overnight and I'm just wondering how much of the section is original research (or synthesis or something):

  • According to a number of analysts and academics, the Islamic Republic of Iran has the potential of becoming a superpower in the 21st century.[76][77][78][79][80]
    • Source 76 appears the only legitimate source discussing Iran's potential as a superpower, but it's hard to gather since the source links to a summary of the book's contents and reviews as opposed to an ebook. Whether this was intentional, accidental or a result of Google taking down a previously available ebook copy isn't something I know. It is 'The Devil We Know' by Robert Baer, though, and I think I've seen that as pretty much the only real source claiming Iran can be a superpower.
    • Source 77 I did a search for 'superpower' and only came up with two results, saying "Iran looks like an energy superpower". There were no hits for 'rising power', 'emerging', 'rising' or 'potential'.
    • Source 78 seems to state Iran only intends to become a superpower "in the Persian Gulf". That sounds more like regional hegemony than "a state with a dominant position in the international system" and able to "the ability to influence events and it's own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests". Not to mention the article appears to make reference to the Iraq-Iran war and seems to have been published in 1987 - is that recent enough to use as a source on Iran's current potential to become a superpower? (my apologies for using the definition of superpower from our own article).
    • Source 79 only refers to 'superpower' in the title, and the rest of the article seems instead to focus on Iran becoming a regional leader who sees itself as actively involved in Middle Eastern affairs.
    • Source 80 again seems to be a mostly 'regional superpower' piece, but (as I read it) talks less about potential and more about Iran having a unique global influence as a divisive force among the great powers due to it's nuclear project.
  • Thanks to its vast reserves of oil and natural gas, its unique culture and rich history, Iran's present status is that of a regional power and energy superpower.[79][80][77][81] Flynt Leverett calls Iran a "rising power" because of its massive hydrocarbon reserves. He argues that Iran is the world's only country to have huge reserves of both natural gas and oil.[82] Furthermore Iran is the only country with huge hydrocarbon reserves which has the potential to increase its output massively, since Iran's current production levels are well below its maximum potential. The combined hydrocarbon energy reserves composed of natural gas and oil in Iran is almost equal to that of Saudi Arabia's and more than Russia's total hydrocarbon energy reserves.[82][83][84]
    • There is nothing wrong with the use of Sources 77-80 here; Source 81 (on global energy geopolitics and Iran) seems to also fit in here with classing Iran as a "regional power and energy superpower". I think that's alright to admit that Iran would be coming from a very different background to China (great power) the EU (great power [contested everywhere] but economic powerhouse), India (seen as a potential great power, at least) Brazil (same as India) and Russia (who really, going off this article, is the underdog).
    • Source 82 has only two comments on Iran as a "rising power" - one explicitly stating "rising power in the region". There were no hits for 'superpower'. The editor's linking of "rising power" to "potential/emerging superpower" might be OR.
    • Since Sources 83 and 84 are just appear to be backing up the claim that Iran's energy reserves are large, I didn't look at these sources. All up, this paragraph just seems to say "Iran is a rising power with large energy reserves and is presently an energy superpower". If this were used in a paragraph, I think my one sentence summary would be better for this article than this paragraph talking about how Iran has a lot of natural gas and oil.
  • Benefiting from an educated middle class, Iran hails the highest scientific growth in the world.[85] In addition, Iran has the 17th largest economy by PPP.[86][87] Considering that Iran's population will reach 100 million by 2050,[88][89] Goldman Sachs foresees Iran as one of the world's largest economies in the 21st century.[90][91] Gary Sick argues that Iran's ambition is to become a conventional superpower or even an empire.[78] Robert Baer, in his book "The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower", states that Iran is already a superpower both because of its own energy reserves and the military power it can project over the energy reserves in Middle East region.[76] Admittedly, Iran is a "virtual" nuclear weapon state.[92]
    • Okay, it's an educated country. I'm not looking at the source here, since it's only going to be talking about education. I'm sure the editor would have pointed out if the article said something like "Over the past twenty years, Iran's middle class university graduates have enrolled in science courses with an increase of 20% each year" and went on to say "If this trend were to continue, Iran has the potential to be a superpower of the 21st century". Perhaps not likely, but at least the comment has a link to talking about Iran as a potential superpower. Here it's just a nice little fact.**Lovely, it's the 17th largest economy. Can I throw Australia into the article, please? It's in the top 20 economies by PPP or nominal GDP. Seriously though, the difference between this comment on Iran's economy and India's (in the article) is that the India comment states 'India's economic growth will overtake China's in 2025, allowing it to emerge as a superpower'.
    • I've seen graphs etc based on Goldman Sachs' economic predictions, so I have no comment here except this; Source 90, used to back up the comment that Iran will be one of the largest global economies, seems to ignore the comment "Of the N-11, only Korea and Mexico (and to a lesser extent Turkey and Vietnam) appear to have both the potential and conditions to rival the current major economies" - therefore, the source states that although the N-11 (of which Iran is a part) will grow and be large economies in the 21st century, Iran isn't part of the group that will rival either the G7 or the BRICs in clout. Source 91 is unrelated and just says "Iran had a good year and seems to be economically stable".
    • Source 78 has already been discussed, but the word 'empire' is mentioned nowhere. It's ambition, according to the 1987 article, is solely to be a regional superpower. Source 76 is much better because it actually says 'because of this and this, Iran has the potential to be a superpower'. Of course, it only says 'it's already a superpower'. As I've said on this already, any ebook doesn't appear to be there on Google Books so I'll add that the source should be listed as a book.
    • Source 92 is good because it lists the shortcomings of Iran; it's military power might be good, effective and projected with relative ease but as a (currently; this may change) non-nuclear state, it isn't quite in the same league as China or the US. Still, it doesn't say "because Iran isn't a nuclear state, this is seen as a weaking any potential to become a superpower".
  • Globally, Iran is an influential member of the Non-Aligned Movement given its financial and industrial wherewithal and proclaimed principled political stances.[93] Iran's area equals that of the United Kingdom, France, Spain, and Germany combined, or somewhat more than the US state of Alaska.[94] To the north, Iran borders energy-rich states bounding the Caspian Sea. Iran is also of geostrategic importance because it controls the access to the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, through which 40 percent of world's sea-borne oil passes.[95]
    • None of this mentions anything about Iran having the potential for a superpower. Australia's got geostrategic importance too; it's got historic ties to America, is one of the largest economies in it's area, and is trying to strengthen it's trading links to Asia. It's also bigger than Iran, a part of the G-20 and the largest member of the Pacific Island's Forum. None of this means it's going to be a superpower, and that means that these details for Iran don't mean it's going to be a superpower. In the China part of the article it says "Other factors that could constrain China's ability to become a superpower in the future include: limited supplies of energy and raw materials, questions over its innovation capability, inequality and corruption, and risks to social stability and the environment" - it's linked back to China's potential to be a superpower.

That's also something that's poor about this section on Iran; there's only a small sentence that says there's a weakness. Otherwise it's gushing about Iran having potential to be a superpower. China, which most people agree is going to be a superpower, even lists problems facing it's rise. India lists challenges, the EU lists challenges and Brazil lists challenges. Russia listed challenges but for some reason they were deleted a while ago (I was thinking 'why?' when I saw that, but didn't really speak up). For the most part this section on Iran is talking about how well Iran does in lists on economies and how great it's oil supplies are and how it's a rising power, but it only appears to have one source stating 'it will be a superpower', and even then the link provided could have been better. I suggest removing the Iran section unless credible sources that state clearly 'Iran is emerging as a superpower', 'Iran has the potential to be a superpower' and the like are provided - this article's already possibly borderline WP:CRYSTAL as is, adding WP:OR to the list wouldn't be good. Also, was I fair in this or am I just being overly critical? Comics (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have the same concerns as you. I had previously deleted the inclusion of Iran after I had a brief review of it citations, but another [passing] editor decided against that and restored the inclusion of Iran. The editor (who is of Iranian ancestry) stated the inclusion of Iran was in conformity with a number of Wikipedias policies. I disagree, but wasn't ready at the time to start an edit war or anything of the sort.
Iran aside, there are major problems in this article and it appears the criteria to include a country is far to low. I would suggest we push the standard of this article up to the likes of the Great power article and similarly the criteria for which a country can be added should be high and enforced. If this article continues as it is then we are just inviting situations like these and it wont be too long before the floodgates are opened.
The inclusion of Brazil is equally as weak as Irans. Not one citation comes from an academic publication and the only citation that actually calls Brazil a rising superpower is from an online news/opinion website. The problem here is the media's common abuse of the word superpower and ability to "translate" what is said by officials to suite POV. Note the professor only calls Brazil an emerging world power (Great Power) and clearly says Brazil isn't a Great Power yet. In addition it appears the majority of Brazils citations only refer to it as being a potential, rising or current economic superpower, not a superpower. Retaining Brazil is a problem as the citations to support it are very poor, and the inclusion of Brazil will tempt the inclusion of countries like Iran, Turkey etc. Just because Brazil is one of the BRICs doesn't make it a potential superpower.
My proposal would be to delete Iran and Brazil and then raise the criteria for China, the European Union, India and Russia. Generally the supporting citations for these countries are quite good and I wouldn't think it too hard to find stronger ones. Overall China and the EU have the strongest case as potential superpowers.TalkWoe90i 10:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I went through Brazil's sources a while ago and I think I found the same problem you did (I think some links were dead, too). Still, it went through a long on-off edit war before the then-community accepted it, and I just want to see if we can avoid a prolonged debate about whether Iran should be included by settling it here now that it's been brought up. Still, I agree in part. I think Russia might have a case but the section we have is really sub-par. India's seems better to me than Russia's at the moment. Comics (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The entire article is bordering WP:CRYSTAL for sure. For the rest, I respectfully disagree since there are many experts who think differently (please see additional source here). (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd say Iran is as likely, if not more likely than Brazil or India to reach a Great Power Status, I see no harm in adding Iran to the list. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Iran as a potential Great Power, I myself can see that. As a potential superpower it's intersting to think about, but barely any of the sources that the editor used in their section talk about Iran's potential as a superpower - there are a couple that explicitly state it, a few that appear to be talking more about a regional hegemon, and others that the editor themself appears to be linking together to prove their point (would that be WP:OR?). I know that the article's bordering WP:CRYSTAL, which means we do have to be very good at keeping what we do have within the guidelines. Comics (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Given the magnitude of an issue this article covers, if Irans inclusion is not supported by reliable sources it shouldn't be included. As for Iran being a likely superpower, according to economic forecasts its GDP wont even reach the top 20 any time soon. I support the removal of Iran and Brazil asap, unless a serious improvement of sources are provided for their inclusion. And yes I agree with you Comics about Russia and India.TalkWoe90i 20:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Iran... a potential superpower? Seriously, what? This article and some contributors need to get a grip.

There are at most 4 potential superpowers: EU, China, Russia, India. Including Brazil is pushing it as it's not even a great power nor is it anywhere close to achieving that status, unlike India which is practically there. David (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The article definitely needs an overhaul, but to keep things on topic can we come to an agreement regarding whether the current Iran section meets the standards for inclusion? I propose delete, as it only has about two sources that explicitly state that Iran has potential and the others are either vague or unrelated to the topic. The Iran section is filled with WP:OR. Comics (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete, as per my above posts, I share the same concern as Comics. I would also support a move to delete Brazil, as it currently has no citation to support it as a potential superpower. In that state it should never have been accepted in the first place.TalkWoe90i 00:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete, I agree with the above points. Most sources for Iran doesn't even mention Iran becoming a superpower, the few that do talk of energy superpowers of regional powers (other things entirely). The one exception might be the book, since I can't actually read it's contents, it's hard to say. I was hesitant about Brazil's inclusion in this article a long while ago, so if the consensus is that it should be removed along with Iran, I would supprt such a move. Swedish pirate (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete, and we should consider removing Brazil too. David (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, Iran has been removed and it appears the overall theme of this discussion is to consider the removal of Brazil (in addition to Iran). WP:RS would/should be enough to remove Brazil on its own. If its not supported by a reliable source it doesn't belong here on Wikipedia. Brazils inclusion here is perhaps even weaker than Irans.TalkWoe90i 20:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Might I suggest making a new section if you want to discuss Brazil's inclusion? Just I see this topic as is closed. Comics (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree with the removal of Brazil from the article, as there has already been a very lengthy discussion about it's inclusion. There are sources that back its inclusion and new ones availble online, for example: "Brazil’s Quest for Superpower Status" by Dr. Peter Collecott, former UK Ambassador and Cambridge PhD, and "Brazil: Latin America’s Superpower" by Joachim Bamrud, a writer and Latin American specialist. Although not suitable as a source, CBS' 60 Minutes recently aired a story about Brazil's potential superpower status: "Brazil: Next World Superpower" and Newsweek published an article titled: "The Crafty Superpower". In addition, there are countless sources that call Brazil an "oil superpower", "green superpower", "economic superpower", etc. Limongi (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Limongi is right. David and others, if you are going to dispute the sourcing of the part of the article in which Brazil is mentioned you need to say why do you think each one of the sources are unreliable. Mind you that Wikipedia exists to portray as many points of view coming from reliable sources as possible. You should focus more on if the sources are reliable than if you agree with what they say. --CEBR (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hm, whatever, it makes sense to discuss Brazil in a separate section if there is any need to discuss it at all. At least I hope we all agree that demographically and economically Brazil is much more likely superpower case than Iran (Brazil is on a trajectory to become the world's 5th economy in several decades, right after China, United States, European Union, India and Russia, the more likelier superpower candidates). And there is some sourcing behind the potential superpower claim. GreyHood Talk 00:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I went through the Brazil sources a while ago (the ones we currently have) and I think I found that a few were dead links or something. If you wanted to create a substitute version using Limongi's sources and any of the current sources that are within the guidelines go ahead. In comparison to the Iran section, I think the Brazil one at least tried to use sources that related in some way to becoming a superpower - doesn't make it the best section that we have in the article though. The Iran section was OR; I agree with Greyhood that the Brazil section at least uses some legit sources. Comics (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The first move should be create a separate discussion about Brazil, with an opening message explaining the reasons its section should be deleted. Mixing it along with th discussion about Iran will turn this into a mess. --Lecen (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep: First there are at least 2 editors who have expressed diverging views about Iran. One is Phoenix here and the other is myself here. Second, there are three main sources given meeting WP:RS and which are highly relevant here (amongst many others):

These people are unlikely friends of Iran. No accusation of bias can possibly be made here. For the rest, these experts are talking about potential superpowers. We agree that Iran's present status is that of a regional power and energy superpower. I can tell you why Iran might become a superpower (e.g. Iran is of paramount geo-political importance already) but this does not matter here. I have no personal opinion except you are the one doing WP:OR. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

Iran is lacking on geographich size and economic and military prowess to be regarded as a possible future superpower. I can't even imagine Iran growing enough in the next decades to achieve that status. And once the oil is gone, the country won't stand a chance too. Merely having an atomic bomb doesn't turn a country into a superpower. --Lecen (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I can see many reason why it is already a superpower but you just made my point. YOU are doing the WP:OR here. Your opinion should not matter. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC).
Baer I've said in all of my cases is the only possible legitimate source I saw in the section for Iran as was in the article. There was one vote for keep against four for delete (Phoenix didn't include themselves in the voting and said, IIRC, Iran might have potential to be a 'Great Power', which isn't a superpower. Your other two sources aren't really that good.
  • The Rising might of the Middle East super power (article title)
  • "Among the unintended consequences of the [war in Iraq] is Iran’s emerging empowerment." (first comment that really links to 'potential superpower' at best but definitely 'rising power' - everything else is just 'regime's lively and they want nuclear stuff'.)
  • "Lebanon’s recent tribulations have furthered Iran’s claims to regional leadership." (at this point, seems to be talking more about Iran gaining dominance in the Middle East rather than anything else).
  • "However, the Islamic republic that acquiesced to such arrangements was a state ruled by reformers eager for integration into global society. It was also an Iran negotiating from a position of vulnerability, as it feared growing US power." (okay, so Iran has either gotten more confidence, cocky or a reassurance they have a better position. Either way, Iran acts as if it has power.)
  • "As with China, Iran sees itself as a leading regional power that is key to the Middle East’s conflicts." (By comparisons to China, the amount of power Iran thinks it wields within it's Sphere of Influence is made clear - it's paramount).
'Superpower' is mentioned only in the title. The rest of the article is talking more about Iran becoming a leading regional power. This would not be the best source to use, as a 'regional power' is something different. From the content of the article it would be OR to use this to make an argument for Iran as a superpower. At best, it's an argument for Iran as a regional superpower, which is again a different thing.
  • Will Bush make Iran the only superpower? (article title)
  • Bush ... has yet to field a coherent policy regarding the grand dark-horse of 21st Century superpower politics, Iran.
  • If [Bush] is [incapable of waging another war] - and you can bet that none of the European or Asian nuclear powers have any plans to move against Iran - then Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may just fine himself effectively in charge of the world's only remaining superpower ... actually willing to go to war.
This source makes a case that Iran might be a superpower, but it seems to reek of media sensationalism at the same time. You make a case none of the writers are 'unlikely friends of Iran' and no bias is possible - isn't the opposite true? Their bias against Iran means they write sensationalistic pieces and effectively say 'hurry, stop this now!' 'sanction sanction sanction'? They both seem to use events as opposed to data to make their evaluations after all. Are you sure these are the best sources you have? I'm of the opinion Baer might be your only legit source, and that's because I haven't read the thing. Even if these did meet the criteria, that's three sources and the deleted section was rampant with unrelated sources whose relation to Iran's potential as a superpower were most definitely OR. Look, the community's reached a consensus so can we please let this be? Maybe you could find different sources to the ones that have been rejected and create a more suitable section? It'd be better than debating an action that's already passed. Look, we're heading into a forum here. Comics (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Iran... a superpower? Not a clue. David (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


As per discussion above, it is wise to discuss the inclusion of Brazil here.

Just to re-state my current position on Brazil "Not one citation comes from an academic publication and the only citation that actually calls Brazil a rising superpower is from an online news/opinion website. The problem here is the media's common abuse of the word superpower and [tendency] to "translate" what is said by officials to suite [popular] POV. Note the professor only calls Brazil an emerging world power (Great Power) and clearly says Brazil isn't a Great Power yet. In addition it appears the majority of Brazils citations only refer to it as being a potential, rising or current economic superpower, not a superpower". I know Comics has found similar issues with Brazil. Unless reliable sources are provided for the inclusion of Brazil it doesn't belong on this article. TalkWoe90i 12:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

After a brief overview of the citations provided by Limongi, I find them lacking too. This article needs concrete sources and a criteria to match the Great Power article. It is no good including Brazil in its current state, I might as well go-ahead and include Germany in the article - supported by the numerous citations supporting it as a rising superpower via its prominence in the European Union. Its silly isn't it? Allot of bias is showed towards Brazil because of all the Hype given towards the BRICs as the "next best thing" and the media's continual abuse of the term superpower. TalkWoe90i 13:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Woe90i. So far you gave no reliable opinion to why Brazil may not become a super power. All you did was to reveal that you have a personal opinion against the inclusion of Brazil on this list and against the BRICs. I might simply say as well that "Brazil has huge reserve of oil, is huge in size and has possible limitless potential due to its natural resources". You mau consider it a personal opinion, others might consider a correct judgement. See Empire of Brazil to understand why Brazil has a great potential to achieve the spotlight one day: given it enough time and stable government, it can grow and become something big one day. Obviously, since I'm Brazilian, many may claim that my own personal opinion is biased. We are stuck here with personal opinions so far. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I can go much farther: a quick search on Google and you'll find thousands of results in the last month only for articles about Brazil as a potential superpower.[5] This is a clear demonstration that there are many, many people discussing the actual possibility of Brazil raising to the status of super power. --Lecen (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The objective is not to provide opinions. WP:OR has no place on Wikipedia. The issue here is Brazils inclusion on the list. Its not backed by any credible sources and therefore its inclusion on the article represents a problem if; (a) its supporting citations aren't significantly improved or (b) its not removed from the article as per WP:RS.
Lecen, you said "All you did was to reveal that you have a personal opinion against the inclusion of Brazil". Please do not jump to ill judged conclusions, I have done nothing of the sort. Note the general theme of the discussion section before this was to either delete or strongly consider Brazils place on this article for the same/similar reasons I have pointed out.TalkWoe90i 13:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Having a personal opinion against the inclusion of Brazil here isn't something wrong. I'm not criticizing you for that. What I'm saying is that you gave no good reason to why Brazil shouldn't be here. What you did was to give a generic argument that sources aren't reliable. Then, what kind of source do you regard as reliable or credible? --Lecen (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Lecen's considerations. And Woe90i, how can you claim no bias when you state: "...because of all the Hype given towards the BRICs as the "next best thing"? It clearly shows your personal opinion against the BRICs thesis. As for sources, a quick look at Google Books revealed the following:

I will keep looking for more. Limongi (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You are clearly missing the plot here Lecen, I am not pushing any point of view, nor am I arguing for or against Brazils potential to reach superpower status. As with the consensus reached with Iran, this is primarily an issue regarding its verifiability based on reliable sources. For these very reasons my self, Comics and other editors have expressed the same concerns. I (among other editors) have nothing more but a generalised wish to improve the article and its need for an overhaul. All your questions can be/are answered in my above posts and comments, just take the time to read them this time round.
Lecen, you said, "Iran is lacking on geographich size and economic and military prowess to be regarded as a possible future superpower." Really? careful, you exercise a huge display of POV while at the same time massively contradicting your self. Given your above statement, how can you possibly be supporting Brazils inclusion? (Brazil being militarily on par with countries like Poland or Norway and far weaker than Iran) Bias much? And who gave you the right to dictate the characteristics of a potential superpower?TalkWoe90i 14:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Even though not directed at me, let me just point out that Brazil is on par with India, not Poland. I have no idea where you got your information, but Brazil currently has the 11th largest military budget (List of countries by military expenditures). Limongi (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Limongi, that is not bias. There is allot of hype surrounding the BRICs as the next big thing and when citing from media/news and opinion websites to support a country as a potential superpower you are inevitably at risk of citing unreliable information abusing popular beliefs and especially the term "Superpower".
Now those recent citations you provide are what im talking about and they are exactly the sort of thing we need in this article. Please incorporate them into the article with an appropriate re-write where needed. As I have said before, my issue is purely based on the lack of reliable sources to support Brazils inclusion, therefore I proposed to either (a) improve the citations or (b) delete Brazil from the list. Citations like the ones you have provided more than satisfy me. Cheers.TalkWoe90i 14:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"[Militarily] Brazil is on par with India". No, just no no no no no.TalkWoe90i 15:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally I see Brazil taking longer in the 21st century to blossom than the others, but on a side note good find with the Brazil sources. Should we put deletion talks on pause until Limongi's had time to put them into the article? Comics (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I strongly condemn, people here pampering vandals like Woe90i. Just because he want it out, never means that it must be enforced. No need for anyone to judge when it will happen and so and so. Just put it there if the source says that Brazil is going to be a Superpower. By the way he has vandalized Blue water Navy page by removing sourced content. Why don't the Admins notice? Ah. One rule for the whiteman and another for others right. This is called Racism. Wikipedia is fully racist in nature.Tinkus (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Al-right Chanakyathegreat?TalkWoe90i 01:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I personally side with Limongi and Lecen, btw, I find the new sources by Limongi excellent. I find the old sources in the article very good too. But, although I don't agree with Woe90i's point of view about Brazil's part in the article, I don't think he is doing it out of racism, it is just his point of view, and he is fully entitled to have a point of view. What Tinkus said makes no sense and seems like one of those cases in which someone falsely accuses the other of racism just for the sake of it. By the way, even if Woe is dumb enough to be racist, which I hope he is not, I am sure he knows that Brazil is, not unlike the USA, a melting pot, with people of many ethnicities (or, if you believe this myth, races) , and thus, he is also aware that many people in Brazil are like him, white. --CEBR (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi CEBR. To clarify, my issue with Brazil on this article was purely based on WP:RS. The current citations used in the article are not up-to standard. Limongi's new sources (as I have said) are exactly the sort of sources we need to improve the article, with those new sources I no-longer object to Brazils inclusion here. Tinkus is a sockpuppet of Chanakyathegreat and of Indian origin, he spreads around a conspiracy theory that Wikipedia is run by an elite group of admins and editors who are White and racist against non-western people and countries. Ignore him.TalkWoe90i 11:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I see, well, we may disagree about this WP:RS issue, but I do agree with you that Limongi's new sources need to be added, as improvements are always good. Could you please add it, Limongi? Thank you, Woe, for being flexible in your position, it is a very hard trait here in Wikipedia. Judging by what Tinkus (AKA Chanakyathegreat, aparently) wrote over there, he seems to be delusional about some kind of conspiracy indeed. --CEBR (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad we were able to achieve a consensus on this issue. I will start working on those sources on Tuesday, as I'm away from my computer due to the holiday - Carnaval here in Brazil. If anyone wants to pitch-in in the meantime, thats fine too. Otherwise, I will start next week. Thanks. Limongi (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Malnutrition in india material removed[edit]

See [6]. Exactly what WP policy is broken here? Note also that numerous other sources in this article, including ones supporting India in the India section, are newspaper articles. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

A quick search also shows that many of the sources in this article only mention the word "superpower" in the title. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I've already gone through this with you on your talk page. It's a self imposed policy here to maintain the, relatively, good standard of quality we have on this page. It should be noted however that newsarticles are allowed, but only if they reflect the opinions and/or views of a scholar, a politician or some other person with expertise on the subject, maybe as part of an interview or something of that nature. A newsarticle that, from what I could gather, lacked such backing and only used the word superpower in the title does not live up to the standards of this article. If you happen upon such sources in the existing article, please put them here so that we may review them. Swedish pirate (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
There has been no such agreement on a special local policy for this page. It seems to be your own personal opinion on the issue. Regarding opinion articles in newspapers, see WP:RSOPINION. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 08:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The thing about newsarticles, or mention of the word superpower outside of the title, isn't just something I've come up with, but is a policy we here and and on other pages regarding power in international relations adhere to in order to avoid nationalistic editing. I've already provided the quote codifying this agreement in your talkpage, going way back, but if further clarification is required, just read through the other discussions here. To quote some of the other editors here (on this very page no less). ... "only refers to 'superpower' in the title, and" ... "Then there's newspaper articles (which we don't use)"... (both from Comics) ... "is from an online news/opinion website. The problem here is the media's common abuse of the word superpower and [tendency] to "translate" what is said by officials to suite [popular] POV"... .(by Woe90i). While the policy coincide with my personal opinion, it is also, as you can see, one of the cornerstone for how the editors of this article maintain its level of quality. If you wish to change that policy then it is up to you to tell us why. Swedish pirate (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Nope, no such policy on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Power in international relations page either. The quotes above are the opinions of some of the editors here and not any official policy. Should Anil Kumar Gupta be removed while since while he is an academic is it not in any field related to politics? Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 10:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
No there is no such official policy written there and I never said there was. In fact, I've always told you that it is a self-imposed policy maintained by the editors here to keep a ceirtain standard of quality. If you look at other pages related to WikiProject Power in international relations you will see that this policy is there as well. Check the talk page for the Great Power article. Maybe not the most recent one (since it doesn't have much of anything yet) but look at the talk page before that in the archives. Note how often editors ask for 'academic sources'. That's what all this is about. We need academic sources, sure to discuss a nation's potential for superpowerdom, if they are to be used in this article. A news article that primarily discusses famine in India and not the nation's superpowerdom per se, and in fact only uses the word in the title followed by a question mark, does not constitute as an academic source. I also find it suspect that you would first accuse me of making this up and, when shown evidence that this is a view shared by many editors of this page, go on to say that this is simply the opinion of 'some'. Believe me when I say I welcome new material to this article, as long as it is appropriate to use. Swedish pirate (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
It is misleading to describe may be a local majority "opinion" or possibly even a "consensus" on a talk page as any kind of "policy" which implies Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Please use some phrase such as "many editors here think..." instead of "self imposed policy".Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I felt the phrase self-imposed policy was quite self-explanatory, but I'm sorry if you misunderstood. Am I to understand then that you've come to see the reason behind the source's removal?Swedish pirate (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Certainly there are better sources. I have added an academic one regarding malnutrition and other problems in India. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Im in full agreement with Swedish pirate on this one. TalkWoe90i 14:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


Industrial output in 2011 (Nominal)
Rank Country Output in billions of US$ Composition of GDP (%) % of Global Industry
  World 21,913.656 31.3% 100.0%
 European Union 4,508.012 25.1% 20.6%
1  United States 3,329.324 22.1% 15.2%
2  China 3,291.569 47.1% 15.0%
3  Japan 1,405.292 24.0% 6.4%
4  Germany 1,019.643 28.1% 4.7%
5  Russia 697.414 37.0% 3.2%
6  Brazil 677.322 26.9% 3.1%
7  Italy 565.918 25.2% 2.6%
8  United Kingdom 535.891 21.6% 2.4%
9  France 519.529 18.5% 2.4%
10  India 484.809 26.3% 2.2%

seriosuly why cant i ad it??

everyone knows that industrialization leads to more power, thats why china was so weak against the europeans and the SU became so strong in ww2, russia obviously has a bigger industry than all the other potential superpowers like india and brazil. Seems like people dont like to hear the truth.--Alibaba445 (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's an interesting table, but you need to back it up with sources about why industrial output is related to potential superpowerdom. Otherwise this would be original research and not usable in this article. Swedish pirate (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


In the article "superpower" Usa aren't considered anymore superpower or they are in doubt.Here you consider them superpower.The majority in EU doesn't consider Usa anymore a Superpower.People consider in EU today Usa lower than Usa considering economy (gdp),military and culture.Many Wiki articles in policy and social things and weapons are full of cotraddictions so no trustble.Cia supports Wiki for propaganda.Propaganda anyway has short legs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That's bigoted. Just because someone has short legs doesn't make them a propagandist.
On a more serious note, the 'superpower' article says this:
  • After the Cold War, only the United States appeared to fulfill the criteria to be considered a world superpower.
  • Some people doubt the existence of superpowers in the post Cold War era altogether... and that the world is now multipolar.
  • In the opinion of Samuel P. Huntington, "The United States, of course, is the sole state with preeminence in every domain of power – economic, military, diplomatic, ideological, technological, and cultural – with the reach and capabilities to promote its interests in virtually every part of the world."
  • Experts argue that this older assessment of global politics was too simplified, in part because of the difficulty in classifying the European Union at its current stage of development.
  • "Contemporary international politics" ... "is instead a strange hybrid, a uni-multipolar system with one superpower and several major powers."
  • Additionally, there has been some recent speculation that the United States is declining in relative power as the rest of the world rises to match its levels of economic and technological development.
The article therefore considers the US to be a superpower by classical definitions, but not everyone agrees with the view that there is any one dominate power (uni-polar system) and that the world is multi-polar (many major powers). The only real comments casting doubt on the US as a superpower seem to apply to the multi-polar world-view camp, that other countries are beginning to match the US' level of affluence and development. It also states that, due to the unique and one might even say revolutionary system of the EU, that it's hard to judge whether or not the EU might also be a superpower (because it doesn't necessarilly match classical criteria). Since your beef seems to be with the Superpower article, I see little reason to point out anything other than how the article presents things. Also, this article just says 'at the moment, it is widely held that the United States currently fulfills the criteria to be considered a superpower' - nothing different to what is said on the Superpower article. Comics (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Real world isn't as written in the article.It's typical the view of the common Usa people.It's an ended thing since long time.Usa today especially in EU that is 1st for GDP are considered mostly second world. Article must be totally changed as many other ones that are only Usa propaganda above all in policy,economy,social and military.Very low level of articles when Usa propaganda arrives.....the problem is that today all people realize immediately it.Useless.

Lant Pritchett's article on India[edit]

Allliarsarehereinwikip has raised the issue that the 2011 Indian census found a higher literacy rate than what is stated in this paper. That is not surprising since the paper is from 2009 and the 2011 census was of course not available. I personally see no problem with adding a statement that the 2011 census found a higher literacy rate (which is still below the world average). However, this is not a reason for removing the whole paragraph which also makes many other points so I propose restoring the it. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

So what fucking retard? If it's below the world average? Indians can't exist? When India became Independent after the brutal rule of British bastards, we were 100 percent illiterate and 100 percent poor. So if India can increase literacy from zero to 74 in 60 years it's no mean achievement. Ask your bloody so called Academic authour to start writing about British Ghettos and the pathetic lives of British citizens there. Only India is targetted for such articles. None of these bastards ever write about the poverty in the so called western world and the so called first world. What's first about them? Nothing. None of the British articles has nay mention of British Ghettos. None. That's why Wiki is so racist and biased.Allliarsarehereinwikip (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
User:Allliarsarehereinwikip, please see WP:BATTLEGROUND and Wikipedia:Incivility, edit summeries such as this, as well as your above comment could lead to a long term block or even a ban. I have also restored the paragraph as your deletion is clearly biased as it attempts to eliminate the undesirable but factual aspects of India. And on a further note are you User:Alibaba445 or are your similarities coincidence? – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I changed the text to simply state that the literacy is low and clarified regarding education in order to hopefully resolve this issue. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the negative factors should also be captured. But I'm sure we have more sources than just the Lant Pritchett study to give that side. Dont want to trigger an edit war (which I can see was going on), so let me know if its cool to condense and reword the paragraph drawing from a few more sources but covering pretty much the same issues (economic inequality leading to poverty and malnutrition, corruption, literacy, etc). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The order of the sections.[edit]

I have been trying to reorder the sections so as to somewhat reflect the prominence in our sources of each claim to being a potential superpower. I think this is right way to organize an article in accordance with WP:DUE. No reason has yet been presented why they must be organized in alphabetic order. I frankly don't think it makes sense at all to organize the article like that. I mean, if we could find sources which saying Australia, Argentina and Bangladesh are potential superpowers, should we then throw them in at the top of the list? And should the article about Human evolution start out with theories about "alien descendants" and Creationism come before it then got to Darwinian evolution?TheFreeloader (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Which nation has the "best" sources in the opinion of a Wikipedia editor is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia does not aim to be an independent judge and decide the "truth" on a disputed issue. Support alphabetic order. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I do not think it is WP:OR to follow WP:NPOV, and WP:DUE is a part of WP:NPOV. Decisions on the quality of sources, and the prominence given to claims within those sources are made all the time on other Wikipedia articles. It is pretty much a prerequisite for following WP:DUE. If you want to argue that WP:DUE shouldn't really be applied anywhere, then that is not an argument to be made here, it is one to be made on the WP:NPOV talkpage.TheFreeloader (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Mostly Neutral I feel either way could work actually, but I'm starting to lean towards and understand TheFreeloader's argument that we should begin with the most likely canidates and follow up with the less likely, however Acadēmica Orientālis makes a good point of Alphabetical being more neutral and unbiased. I cant make a firm decision over who is right, so I say I support whatever the outcome, but the proposed new order should be analyzed and given fair chance before being simply brushed aside, and should be reverted only because of its flaws and not just because its out of the box from what were used to. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The way this seems to be done, so far, is to have the longest section up the top and the rest listed in decreasing order of length. While I don't think that's a bad thing (keeps the less prominent candidates in a less prominent position), I think it's not a good 'permanent' way of ordering the article (especially if someone goes through and condenses the EU section, or we have a real whiz who goes and adds satisfactory sources to the rest of the sections and then China becomes the longest); I think it'd be too open for frequent change, whereas alphabetical in a (more or less) list of this kind keeps things comparitively static. I don't like your use of 'Human Evolution' as an example either; it's specifically about evolution and therefore it would talk about evolution before Creationism (which I don't think has much relevance to an article about evolution and not creationism) or Alien ancestors (I think you mean that and not descendants? but even then, that's going nack way way way further and would belong more in 'Origin of Life' if we're on the same page). Yes, if Aussie, Argentina and Bangladesh had sources they'd be at the top. As it is, I highly doubt any one of them would seriously be considered a potential superpower at the moment and it's a kinda ridiculous example. Comics (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the order of the sections needs to be set in stone. It should change as our information changes. I just think we should try to get at least a rough approximation of the prominence of the claims. So, that we at least do not have Russia and Brazil on top (Brazil which it seems not even to be entirely certain whether actually should be mentioned in the article), and so that we do not bury very often mentioned claims like that of China and the EU.TheFreeloader (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The thing is though, stability isn't such a bad thing with an article. Not to mention that it would go EU, India, China, Brazil, Russia under 'lengthiest-most in depth sections on top'. If we're to go by prominence, I'd think China is perhaps the most prominently speculated potential and yet the way the article is at the moment it would come in third under your suggested change (which perhaps doesn't properly reflect it's prominence). Comics (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
And due weight isn't that bad a thing either. And to fully follow WP:DUE, the sections should also have relative lengths which reflects the relative prominence of the claims in our sources. But perhaps we also have a problem with due weight in that regard as the article is currently.TheFreeloader (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Nope, because it can be argued that China has vastly more superpower potential given the pluralistic republican second anarchy state system that is EU. Unlike China, India, US, etc... EU is a composition of multiple countries together with conflicting national aims, objectives,foreign policies, and interests. You can't realistically say EU has more Superpower potential than China, since EU isn't even a country, it's a supra-national organization that shouldn't be compared to nation-states like China, US, India, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phead128 (talkcontribs) 05:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, we try just to look at the sources. It is not our job to decide whether the sources are right or not.TheFreeloader (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Using the same logic, it's not our job to decide whether sources are more prominent than others since ordering on prominence is an arbitrary and subjective process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, but that is a process we have to go through to follow WP:DUE.TheFreeloader (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:DUE says nothing about how to order the article. Furthermore, let us say that my personal interpretation is that China is more deserving of the first place. How do we decide which of us two anonymous Wikipedia editors is right? We have numerous straw polls and change the order each time the local talk page editor opinion changes? Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it implied in WP:DUE that the way an article is organized must be follow the principle it sets forth, so that we do not risk, like in my theoretical example I gave about an "origin of humans" article, that prominent theories and claims get buried under less prominent theories and claims. As to how we decide on the prominence of the claims, the preferable thing would be if we could find some authoritative secondary sources which talk about potential superpowers in general, not just one potential superpower, and then duplicate the weight they give to the various claims. In the absence of that, I guess we have to come to some rough consensus about which entities are more often talked about in reliable sources as potential superpowers.TheFreeloader (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Likely no agreement in secondary sources on this either. Regarding the number of citations, taking the example of Google Scholar, we get China > Russia > India> European Union > Brazil Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 09:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, what seems more to be the problem is that we do not have any sources which talk about potential superpowers in general. Only ones which mention specific potential superpowers. And to the other point, I am not sure we want to use search results for determining this. It is often the case that an article which mention a particular country and the word "superpower" does not actually talk about that country as a potential superpower. The way I ordered the sections, I tried to look at the number of reference each section used, although that approach might also have its flaws.TheFreeloader (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Alphabetical. TalkWoe90i 17:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

---Agreed. This has nothing to do with WP:Due, and if we do make a change, EU would certainly not garner the top spot.Phead128 (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

---The alphabetical form seems fair to me. --CEBR (talk) 09:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Just on this note here, the alphabetical listing is objective (which seems to be an issue raised with the WP:DUE, namely who makes the calls as to which section is more prominent than another), but WP:NPOV does say that articles should reflect the prominence of claims and give due weight to each (it doesn't, however, appear to make any claims as to how the article should be structured - it appears to state that "If X is more widely talked about than Y, X should recieve more weight in the article than Y"). [Focus] I think covers the EU section - familiarity with the subject and most sources used being English-language sources (which probably means that more work should be put into fleshing out the China section with good quality sources). I tried to find a layout suggestion for how to resolve this, but I wasn't able to find one that explicitly says "An Article should be laid out like this". As such, on the basis that the wording of WP:DUE appears not to be a guideline for how to order an article but how to approach writing about minority perspectives I vote alphabetical. If I read the section wrong I'd love to be told how I read it wrong though. Comics (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I do realize that there is no direct provision in WP:NPOV directly stating it also covers article structure. But it still think it lies within the spirit of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE to also in the organization of an article to accurately reflect the relative prominence of the claims made. And we should be making a call no matter what on the relative prominence of the claims anyways, since the length at which each claim is discussed is definitely covered by WP:UNDUE.TheFreeloader (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I hope you guys know that just voting, without giving any reason your !vote, has absolutely no say in the decision making process at Wikipedia (see WP:DEM and WP:PNSD).TheFreeloader (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

IMF on China's GDP[edit]

See [7]. Daily mail thus comments on superpower status using IMF predictions. IMF is of course a very authoritative source. That China may surpass the US so soon is very interesting and important. As such I see no reason to exclude this. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is an academic making the same point and also mentions a very interesting Pew survey on perceptions of superpower status.[8] Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Don't have alot of time looking over this (will be leaving for a couple of days soon), but I'm not so sure about the first source. Can't tell whether the IMF report or the journalist makes the predictions. The second source seems pretty legit though. Seems like something this page could benefit from. Swedish pirate (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Numerous other sources report the same thing regarding the IMF and China's GDP in 2016. One example with further links: [9] Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 10:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

LSE and India never being a superpower[edit]

[10] I think this important study should be mentioned carried out by arguably the worlds top institution for business finance etc (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

EU is a Superpower(S)[edit]

Why bother distorting the original definition of a Superpower, which is essential one single sovereign entity. There is nothing of the such within the republican, pluralistic, second anarchy state system that is EU. I advocate creating an entirely separate section for EU, in the "organizations" section of this article. That will put EU in the 'organizations' category of Superpower, and leaving China, India, Russia, Brazil(?) in the 'country/empire' category of Superpower. Some people may think EU is a single unified country, but it's not! --

Let's see what are the criteria that designate a state? Under international law, a country must meet the following criteria to be considered a country:

(a) a permanent population; - has a population of 500 million inhabitants (b) a defined territory; - has a territory, the Member States territory, just as the U.S. is composed of territories of Member States (c) government; - it has a government (European Commission), has a legislature (European Parliament) and President (European Council) (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. - It has embassies in many countries in the world and has a High Representative for Foreign Policy with the same tasks as U.S. Secretary of State Furthr more, The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. True, the EU is not like any other state, is sui generis (ie there is nothing else the same) but has many similarities with a confederation and the motto "ever closer union" shows that it can become a sovereign state in the future.--Mahetin (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This is likely to be a highly controversial topic. The EU is not a country - neither a federation or even a confederation. It's a treaty organisation like NATO or the UN. There is an appalling democratic deficit at the core of the EU - the only elected body of the EU has no real power and yet huge numbers of laws end up being generated by the commission and then implemented at national level. Elected MEPs can do little to change the rules that the commission hands down to national parliaments, who cannot veto these new laws. There is more resentment now about this than at any time since the Maastricht Treaty. If left unaddressed, this deficit will tear the entire EU apart, unless it is forcibly federated against the will of the peoples of Europe. That would make it more like the USSR, and would be a sure recipe for war. Many Europeans are strongly opposed to the formation of a European 'state', and the comparisons with the states of the US are not helpful. --JulesVerne (talk) 12:21, 03 May 2012 (BST)

What is the democratic deficit of the European Union? Let's compare the European Union with Great Britain:

  • European Union's legislature consists of the European Parliament (elected, lower chamber and the Council of the European Union (non-elected, upper house)
  • The british legislativ consists of the House of Commons (elected, lower chamber) and the House of Lords (not elected, upper house).

What's the difference?

    • House of Lords is made ​​up of unelected members appointed by the Queen and the parties. Some members inherit the seats.
    • European Union Council consists of ministers of national governments.

They are elected by national parliaments, which themselves are elected by citizens.

Conclusion: the British legislativ system seems more undemocratic than the european system. Council members are indirectly elected by european citizens by the national parliaments. Members of the House of Lords have nothing to do with the will of the citizens.

About the power of the European Parliament: The European Parliament it has been described as one of the most powerful legislatures in the world. Parliament is the "first institution" of the EU (mentioned first in the treaties, having ceremonial precedence over all authority at European level),[9] and shares equal legislative and budgetary powers with the Council (except a few areas where the special legislative procedures apply). It likewise has equal control over the EU budget. Finally, the European Commission, the executive body of the EU, is accountable to Parliament: in particular Parliament elects the President of the Commission, and approves (or not) the appointment of the Commission as a whole. It can subsequently force the Commission as a body to resign by adopting a motion of censure. To me it seems that is quite strong. Indeed, they can not initiate legislation but that does not mean it can not propose or force the Commission to propose piece of legislation. You know that in the national legislatures of the member states 85% of initiatives introduced without executive support fail to become law? There is also an indirect effect on foreign policy; the Parliament must approve all development grants, including those overseas. For example, the support for post-war Iraq reconstruction, or incentives for the cessation of Iranian nuclear development, must be supported by the Parliament. Parliamentary support was also required for the transatlantic passenger data-sharing deal with the United States. The legislative branch officially holds the Union's budgetary authority with powers gained through the Budgetary Treaties of the 1970s and the Lisbon Treaty. The EU budget is subject to a form of the ordinary legislative procedure with a single reading giving Parliament power over the entire budget (before 2009, its influence was limited to certain areas) on an equal footing to the Council. Unlike most EU states, which usually operate parliamentary systems, there is a separation of powers between the executive and legislative which makes the European Parliament more akin to the United States Congress than an EU state legislature. The President of the European Commission is proposed by the European Council on the basis of the European elections to Parliament. That proposal has to be approved by the Parliament (by a simple majority) who "elect" the President according to the treaties.

The „unelected” European Comission: The members are proposed by their member state governments, one from each, however they are bound to act independently – neutral from other influences such as those governments which appointed them. The President of the Commission is first proposed by the European Council taking into account the latest Parliamentary elections; that candidate can then be elected by the European Parliament or not.

  • The Commission is voted by the European Parliament, so it has democratic legitimacy.
  • The British government is also chosen by the British Parliament, as with democratic legitimacy.

So there is no difference between the election of the European Commission and the British Government. The unelected European Council: The European Council is the Head of State of the European Union. It comprises the heads of state or government of the EU member states, along with the President of the European Commission and the President of the European Council, currently Herman Van Rompuy. Heads of State or Government of the member states are elected directly or indirectly by citizens. So we can not find any "deficit of democracy". Queen is unelected :)

So where is the democracy deficit?-- (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)