Talk:Potential superpower/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Source

Am I the only one that can't access the 30th source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.73.179 (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

just for fun

here's a link to an editorial [1] by an Indian columnist who gives a list of of all the current and near-future potential Great Powers following a few paragraphs of lead in that discuss George Bush's previous visit to India. The author appears to use "great power" in much the same way as we use "superpower". I know the rough consensus on journalistic sources requires the author to have appropriate credentials and I didn't find much information in a 10 second half-arsed google search but it may have some value to see such a list that has been published elsewhere.Zebulin (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This author seems very POV. He makes India seem like the perfect country, with all these programs to reduce poverty, go green, and promote peace and nucleur disarment, with the only thing holding saintly India back are those evil Chinese imperialists and those un-helpful Westerners. Doesn't look like a reliable source to me. It should be noted that news articles, especially editorials, are to be used with caution, if at all. Saru (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the author seems like she's one of the BJP or the Communist parties in India which oppose the nuclar deal and make it seem like the U.S is trying to get an upper hand on India.Deavenger (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

So, what was the point of that? --Hobie Hunter (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Various points are possible but the most obvious was that it was a chance to show just what sort of "potentials" list journalistic columnists and other commentators are apt to make in contrast to what we see from our more scholarly sources. I think it also illustrates what a daunting task we have laid out for ourselves in trying to make an article like Potential superpowers suitable for wikipedia. Notice how cavalierly the author justifies the membership of his list. Then think about all of the "sources" we have seen who don't even offer a hint of insight into the reasoning behind their selections. How much better can we really assume their reasoning would be? I would like to eventually have a consensus here that only sources that carefully justify and explain their choice(s) of potential superpowers will be acceptable but...one thing at a time and I think we are a long way from there. For now I'm satisfied with reminding people how rather meaningless it can be to find a selection of a "potential" somewhere even when it's perfectly explicit and made by a regular columnist on a journalistic web site.Zebulin (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is a daunting task: but there are sources. Most are books, but we can find those on Adobe Reader documents, and if not, we can use there official websites, and if they don't have those, we can use Amazon.com page I suppose. There are some worthwhile online sources aswell, such as the Times article that referances the big three (China, EU, US), complete with reasoning and sources. That's the kind of journalistic source we want: one written by an accomplished journal (Times) and I experienced author (It was a former diplomat in this case I believe). Otherwhise, we best stick to book's and academic studies. Saru (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

So places like IHT or Newsweek wouldn't count unless the article is written by an accomplished academic? Deavenger (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, or someone who has substantial knowledge of the subject, not some journalist looking for a good scoop. Saru (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

But, we can use a news station if that specific article is written by the academic? Deavenger (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Reputable papers such as the IHT are fine sources, but not every article is a masterpiece. Especially those that use citations from reputable people on the subject are valuable. Common sense and a look through reliable sources policy, will help making a good judgment. If you are planning to make big changes to the article, it's good to propose them first on the talk page. But other than that, be bold. =Species8473= ^(talk) 15:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Brazil Superpower

I noticed that in the image, Brazil is listed as a potential superpower, yet there is no section explaining this claim. Either the image needs to be corrected or a section needs to be added for consistency. I'd do it myself but I don't know the first thing about Brazil... AzureFury (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't say Brazil, as we already had discussions on thi s in the past, and there were no reliable sources saying that Brazil was a potential superpower. Deavenger (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Again?.. anyways what image? I only the the current PSP in the map. Supaman89 (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's because I reverted it after this topic was posted. I also did the same thing on the superpower page. Deavenger (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

BRAZIL HAVE A GREAT CHANCE TO BE A SUPERPOWER DON'T UNDERSTIMATE BRAZIL!  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRIC  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.243.228 (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC) 

Two sources support the claim, however, one of them also supports a claim for a United South America. The second source refers to Brazil as the "Superpower of the South" and actually explains how Brazilian military power and economic growth outruns that of India. It also has lower poverty levels, a large population, territory, a large industrial base and well developed infraestructure. The sources are already on the article. Cocoliras (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed your http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/superpower/potential-superpowers.html source because it appears to be a word for word copy of an old version of the old huge "potential super powers" section of the Superpower article (it even states at the bottom that it sources from wikipedia). The other source, (an editorial by polish author Marek Swierczynski) might be valid but if so the section will need to be re-written to match the standards of the other section. The section will need to name Marek Swierczynski up front and ascribe his prediction and it's arguments to him directly. However, editorials are not automatically source worthy in wikipedia (they depend on the credentials of the author) and the screening process for having an editorial published on the atlantic-community.org website might not meet wikipedia source standards either. I've copied the following description of their editorials and of how they select such editorials for publishing below:

Short opinion pieces written by Atlantic Community members are the core of the Open Think Tank.

You can share your views on international politics in the form of a news analysis, an op-ed or a conference report. A strong thesis is essential.

The best arguments from the articles and comments will be summarized in Atlantic Memos that are presented to decision-makers.

Please also consider commenting on and rating articles by your fellow members. The best articles will be displayed most prominently on the site. If you need any assistance, please contact the editorial team. We are more than happy to help you with any content, language or technical issues.

As you can see they don't say that they consider credentials when choosing to publish an editorial but only state that they have to consider it to have a "strong thesis".Zebulin (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I thought after screening the quality and suitability of the sources. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I got a source which I think has more credibility. [2] Cocoliras (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The author seems to qualify "Super Power Nation" as one that has the possibility of obtaining a permanent UNSC seat. Not sure how credible the author, publication is. Maybe someone can comment on this. Nirvana888 (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks legitimate although if included we will need to include the authors apparent definition of "super power nation" as well.Zebulin (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a prior consensus not to least countries that don't have widespread acedemic support, like Japan, Mexico, and Brazil. There's onlt one source provided- that's not enough. --Hobie (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that one source isn't enough but 'widespread acedemic support' is almost impossible to demonstrate and to be fair it hasn't really been demonstrated rigorously for the other "potentials" either.Zebulin (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

[3] [4]

The first source is a college newspaper op-ed written by an undergraduate student - thus not credible. The second sources states in the title that Brazil is a new "oil superpower" very much different from a potential superpower. Brazil is just not widely acknowledged by experts as a potential superpower. Potential great power, yes. Nirvana888 (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair neither of those are sources offered recently by Cocoliras. I'd have to say that even though none of the sources He's offered that I've checked out are as solid as the sources for the other potential superpower predictions they are nonetheless the best brazil as potential superpower sources offered to date and they deserve to be properly vetted here in discussion since we are apparently not ready to have them in the actual article.Zebulin (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

How so Zeb? Cocoliras was the one who posted those two sources here and even referenced them in the article. I think you may have been confused given that he didn't sign off. I simply debunked these sources. Nirvana888 (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right! My bad :( I am a bit puzzled as to why Cocoliras would offer those two as both had already been found wholly inadequate some time ago but discussion history has his fingerprints all over the edit.Zebulin (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Cocoliras, you are edit warring and ignoring what has been said by the other active editors. Please stop or you will be reported for breaking the 3RR or reverting more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. Looking at your history, you've been a couple times for edit warring in the past so you should know better. Nirvana888 (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the 3rr prohibits Cocoliras from adding brazil directly to the article at this time but it's certainly no excuse for us to not explain exactly why we are rejecting the sources offered. In particular the http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=962876 paper, the http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/power/2006/06.03_Brazil_Superpower.html article and the Marek Swierczynski paper might meet the bar, or at least come closer to doing so than the earlier sources offered and rejected for Brazil.Zebulin (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Some other sources, do not leave this behind. We should continue reviewing these sources. http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/11-10-04.asp http://www.brazzil.com/articles/184-october-2007/9990.html http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/power/2006/06.03_Brazil_Superpower.html All for now... Cocoliras (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/11-10-04.asp says putin is gathering the most powerful coalition of regional and superpowers in the world. but it does not specify which of the countries in that coalition it regards as regional powers and which are the "superpowers" and in particular it doesn't ever specifically refer to Brazil as a future or potential or current or any other kind of superpower.

http://www.brazzil.com/articles/184-october-2007/9990.html this article is legitimate and would be source worthy but it does not predict that Brazil will be a superpower or is a potential superpower, rather it reports that Brazil wishes to make itself into a superpower which is quite different. If anything the source appears to question the feasibility of such ambitions

http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/power/2006/06.03_Brazil_Superpower.html this one might work. It hinges on the authors credibility. Again it is greatly superior to the brazil sources that had been offered prior to today even if it falls short of the standard set by some of the other potential superpower sections. However, It's not clear that the author is predicting that Brazil could rise to be an unqualified superpower as he always hedges the term with qualifiers (ie "economic superpower" and "political superpower"). But perhaps it should not be dismissed immediately out of handZebulin (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should simply explain that Brazil is not confirmed to be a potential superpower, but that it is in debate. I mean, several sources credit Brazil as a possible superpower, though not a potential one. It may be placed since it is confirmed, by some sources, that Brazil meets the criteria. But that there are low posibilities of it being one. It may be just as controversial as Japan. And Japan is on both articles. I simply think we should mention "Brazil is currently controversial, as it is qualified mainly as a potential great power, though some also categorize it as a potential superpower, this is debatable as..." because of the controversy Brazil has as being referred to both sides. Cocoliras (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you cease please edit warring? You've broken the 3RR and can/should be blocked yet again (last time was 1 week. wonder what this time will be?). If you're gonna make edits at least make sure you do a good job. You're replacing the current map with an incorrect map that also lists Japan. You have not obtained consensus and continue to make unilateral edits and cite wholly inadequate sources. The section on Brazil is complete synthesis/OR and does not address Brazil's potential as a superpower (look at the other sections for examples). We've already obtained consensus before and there was not enough evidence for Brazil to be a potential superpower. If Brazil were to be added on the list, similar cases could be made for the inclusion of Japan, Germany, South Africa, Mexico etc. Nirvana888 (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The "Watch out for Brazil, Russia's New Buddy" source is written by a journalist and not an expert, author or academic. The "Brazil, the New Oil Superpower" talks about Brazil being a "oil superpower", which would rather support Brazil as an energy superpower(plus, no academic, expert of author) and, come on, "The forgotten BRIC: Why Brazil might be the next world superpower" is written by a college student. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.132.161 (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Since, all the sources have already been debunked I won't bother to debunk them. I think this is getting to be farcical, Brazil as a potential potential superpower; the standards have really been lowered. Cocoliras, if it seems like other users are being hard on you, that's because they're wary of proposals like this. So far, we've had Brazil, Mexico, Japan, Pakistan, and even the Bahamas as potential superpowers. We had to deal with one person who used sockpuppets to make it seem it was a majority opinion for weeks on end. Brazil is not even a great power yet. Your unilateral edit warring has to stop. I can tell you're new to this project. Here, you have to build a wide consensus to add a new potential superpower, and you're the only one pushing this. Seeing my reasons and everyone elses' reasons, I hope you don't mind if I remove the Brazil section. --Hobie (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree with Hobie. Sorry if I was being too harsh on you Cocoliras but you have made like 5 reverts in the past 24 hrs and don't really seem to be heeding the consensus. We've also experienced similar cases of users wanting to add countries based on nationalistic POV which is completely against Wikipedia's pillars. As a result, we are very conscious of editors trying (intentionally or otherwise) to derail the project. If you want to help out, please make suggestions but do not make unilateral changes without having achieved consensus. Hobie can you revert to my latest revert? Nirvana888 (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not to sure about the section, but I compared many of Brazil standards to those of Russia and they surpass them, to certain extent. I'm not saying that Brazil should be included by force. But I think it should be mentioned that it has the possibilities of becoming a potential superpower in the near future. I shouldn't say we compare Brazil to South Africa, maybe to Mexico and Japan. But I mean, Brazil should be mentioned as "under debate" or "controversial" because some sources refer to it as a Superpower while others refer to it as a great power. We should still mention Brazil in the article (without its own section) and point on the map that Brazil may rise as a potential superpower. But that its odds are very low. Just like how many people pointed to Japan. Don't forget this source. http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/power/2006/06.03_Brazil_Superpower.html Cocoliras (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wowa, I made a new section, I didn't see this discussion. Well, I for one think we're being a little harsh. Besides the one written by a college student, the sources are okay. While there not outstanding, we have something to work with. I'm sure there are other sources out there, and we should look for them. I think some of us our jumping to conclusions based on previous experiences with people trying to add Brazil to this page. This time it seems much more though out. While I agree it isn't exceptional, we should assume good faith and try and work with this instead of deleting it outright. Looking through the history, I can see that some edit warring has occured. This is unacceptable. I understand your point Cocoliras, but edit warring isn't going to get you anything but anger from your fellow editors. I've been in the process of moving, but I think I'm ready to help work this out now. A few of sources provided our accurate, such as the one from the think tank. However, let's refrain from blogs and even journalists. I'm sure there are more academic sources if we just looked for them. Saru (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at the sources:

-http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/superpower/potential-superpowers.html: This source appears to be lifted from an old version of this page. However, in itself not a terrible source.

-http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=962876: This one is good. As someone pointed out, it primarily uses membership on the UNSC to determine superpowership, but it's not up to us to critique how someone defines something.

-http://whitmanpioneer.com/opinion/2007/10/25/the-forgotten-bric-why-brazil-might-be-the-next-world-superpower/: Written by a college student, need I say more.

-http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/nov2007/db20071115_045316.htm: Only refers to oil superpower. A good source, but better in the energy superpower article than here.

-http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/power/2006/06.03_Brazil_Superpower.html: The best source so far. Clearly indicates Brazil as a superpower, and written by a academic source.

-http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/11-10-04.asp: This one is kinda confusing. It's short, but seems to be okay, but the confusing wording means it could be good or bad, depending on how you interpit it.

-http://www.brazzil.com/articles/184-october-2007/9990.html: Another good source, but I suppose, as someone already pointed out, it says Brazil is attempting to be become a superpower, never calling a superpower or potential superpower. However, saying a nation is trying to become a superpower could be seen as being a "potential superpower", again it depends on your you see it.

In conclusion, the sources http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=962876 and http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/power/2006/06.03_Brazil_Superpower.html are good sources, while the sources http://www.brazzil.com/articles/184-october-2007/9990.html and http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/11-10-04.asp could be good or bad, depending on how you look at it. Four sources isn't spectacular, but it's a start. I recommend we form a draft, perhaps on the Power in International Relations project page, and wait to actually add to the article while we find more sources. Saru (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This is how I see the sources:

-http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/superpower/potential-superpowers.html: As Saru said, this source is from an old version of this page. We can't use wikipedia as a wikipedia source.

-http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=962876: Use the word(s) "Super Power Nations" in a different fashion than the Superpowers vis-à-vis the United States (for example).

-http://whitmanpioneer.com/opinion/2007/10/25/the-forgotten-bric-why-brazil-might-be-the-next-world-superpower/: Written by a college student.

-http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/nov2007/db20071115_045316.htm: Only refers to oil superpower which possibly supports Brazil as a potential energy superpower.

-http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/power/2006/06.03_Brazil_Superpower.html: Totally okey source. Written by an academic and clearly supports Brazil as a potential superpower.

-http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/11-10-04.asp: Says Putin is gathering the most powerful coalition of regional and superpowers in the world. but it does not specify which of the countries in that coalition it regards as regional powers and which are the "superpowers" and in particular it doesn't ever specifically refer to Brazil as a future or potential or current or any other kind of superpower.

-http://www.brazzil.com/articles/184-october-2007/9990.html: Sould we really include EVERY country that "attempts" to become a superpower, than we have to take North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. etc. in the article.

In conclusion, the source http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/power/2006/06.03_Brazil_Superpower.html is a good source, while the sources http://www.brazzil.com/articles/184-october-2007/9990.html, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=962876 and http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/11-10-04.asp doesn't fit the citeria. We can't have Brazil into the article because of one good source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.132.161 (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

To add, http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/power/2006/06.03_Brazil_Superpower.html acknowledges Brazil as a potential political and economic superpower not a full-fledged superpower. The author credits Brazil as a power without nuclear weapons which is not surprising given the think tank's stance on nonproliferation. In addition, the author is a "Columnist, film-maker and writer" not a scholar. It's at best a passable source. Nirvana888 (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it depends on how you look at it. If you look at it one way, three or four of those articles seem to be suggesting Brazil is a potential superpower. If you look at it in a more critical light, it could seem the opposite. I think most of use find the idea of Brazil being a superpower foolish, myself included, but we must assume a NPOV. Saru (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The source proves my point, Brazil is a potential superpower, but it lacks enough backup. I'm now unblocked. and I think we should simply mention Brazil fullfils the criteria while not having widespread academic support. The source is still enough for the mention, we don't have support still for Brazil to have its own section, but it deserves mention, as Brazil's influence, if taken from separate sources will finally point out to Brazil as a Superpower, separate, but true. Japan's out of talk. I'm just including Brazil only to the map under the tag, "under debate" to let people know that its status is disputed but that it officially fullfills the criteria. I'm doing it once and feel free to revert it because I'm searching for more solid data later, but inform me why it was edited. I'll let you all know when I get the data and sources. Cocoliras (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Find some more sources and you may add this to the article. By the way, something is not "under debate" if only one person and one source are on one side, while everything else is on the other. Saru (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Okey, for the first of all, I took it away because you didn't consult us, you just throwed it in there. Second: you are the only one who thinks Brazil fits the citeria (at least that's the impression I get). Third: The only okey source you have isn't enough. If we would add every country that has ONE okey source, then we're gonna have to make very much editing, very soon. Anyone that doesn't agree with me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.73.179 (talk) 07:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be correct. Saru (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Brazil as a military potential superpower: http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Americas/Brazil-ARMED-FORCES.html Cocoliras (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Terrible source. No mention of superpower potential, complet WP:SYN. The statistics arn't even that impressive. Perhaps the best in Latin America, but that's not saying much, espicially if you compare it to any of the other powers listed here. Here's some possible (note I say possible, as there are problems with them) sources for Brazil as a superpower:

http://www.rense.com/general60/vvil.htm = similar to the india daily source in that it does not identify which of the listed countries are regional powers and which are superpowers, so likely not a good source

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11052873 = a good source (the economist), but only identifies Brazil as an economic and oil superpower, not anything else

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=77040&d=30&m=1&y=2006 = a good source, but only identifies Brazil as an economic and oil superpower, not anything else

These are flawed sources at best. In addition, there where many blogs talking about Brazil's superpower potential, but obviously we can't use those. Many reliable sources spoke of Brazil as an "ethanol superpower", a "food superpower", an "agricultural superpower" and an "oil superpower", but none of them called it a potential superpower or a superpower.Saru (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we have to be critical when using news papers as a source. The Economist seems to be the best of the three, but they only mentions Brazil as an economical and oil superpower. Second: it doesn't mention who wrote the article so we can't know whether it's an expert or a dummy. Third: It really just mentions Brazil as a superpower in the rubric and nowhere in the rest of the article. The Rense source doesn't even specifically mentions Brazil as a superpower (and even if it did, I don't think the source would fit the standard citeria). About the third source, Jonathan Power, who's that? When using newspapers as a source we have to know if it's really written by an expert or a journalist that just wants to make a selling artice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.73.179 (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hence why I said they are "flawed sources at best". He's where the best I could find however, which goes to show the lack of sources regarding Brazil as a potential superpower. Saru (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Would this be a decent source? http://www.jstor.org/pss/1148552. 190.140.235.159 (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's very dated (27 years old in fact), and written by a journalist, not an academic. Saru (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No, written by a journalist and not a scholar (and a little but too old too, I think). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.73.179 (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

http://archive.peacemagazine.org/v04n2p08.htm

This identifies Brazil as a military superpower, because its military is known for being among the most expensive ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.235.159 (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't identify Brazil as a military superpower. It's a prediction of India and Brazil going nuclear (plus, it's written by a journalist and not a scholar). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.73.179 (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Cocoliras has been suggesting that as a sort of compromise we might add limited mention of Brazil in the article with some disclaimers. However, this article and this topic is unlike the vast majority of topics covered in wikipedia. This article deals with a future event (recognition of new superpowers) which is prohibited in wikipedia except when it takes the form of reporting on the predictions of people or groups of people who are qualified sources. So if we are to have any mention of Brazil at all it must be in reference to specific predictions/descriptions of Brazil as a superpower by qualified persons. We simply aren't allowed to note that it is a strong contender or has better than average prospects or anything like that any more than we would be allowed to do so for any other potential (ie not yet fully recognised) superpower, like the EU or China. We instead have to let others say it for us and carefully identify who those sources are. About the only sort of compromise I could imagine for Brazil would be to make a small section identifying sources who predict or recognise it as a superpower with a description of the limitations of those sources (ie the author is a journalist or only goes so far as to describe Brazil as a potential economic superpower or political superpower. However, such a compromise would not be without problems of it's own. It would likely invite massive additions to the other sections for sources of similar lower qualifications and that could adversely effect the quality of the article. It might be best to simply continue searching for a perfect source for Brazil rather than trying to work for immediate inclusion in this article. Even if it were possible to get it included it would likely only invite total deletion of the article or at least the section in the near future as this article and related subsections of other articles have been closely watched by admins intent on deleting anything that violates wikipedia's "no crystal ball" policy and any such deletion would surely make it much harder to get Brazil included in the future when a good source does in fact finally turn up. It's not going to pay to jump the gun on this. For other topics it might, but the "potential superpowers" topic is not an easy one to work on under wikipedia rules.Zebulin (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Considering the overwhelming support for leaving Brazil out of the article, I will agree with you. We can't appear to find any good sources, so let's leave Brazil out. Saru (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Though I think we should keep in mind that we can only meaningfully agree to leave Brazil out for now for the sources offered thus far. It's entirely likely that a fully qualfied source could be found that makes an explicit prediction or recognition of Brazil as a full "superpower" with no hedge word qualifiers ("political", "economic", "energy", or other special type of "superpower"). In which case, in spite of some of the suggestions to the contrary here, I don't think there would be grounds to revert a section describing that prediction by that source.Zebulin (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the decision to leave Brazil out. It's not even a great power, let alone on the same level as the EU or China. Including it as potential potential superpower would be farcical. --Hobie (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Whereas the political and foreign policy analysts suggest that China and the E.U. may have a strong case to become superpowers in the coming decades, and India possibly in the latter half of the 21st century, Brazil is not even on the radar is will in all likelihood not be a superpower. It would really take a miracle for Brazil to have comparative influence to the other candidates. Nirvana888 (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana, Hobie, while I agree with you completely, Brazil is no where near being in the same league with Russia, China, or the EU, if we find more reliable sources that state Brazil as a potential superpower, we'll have to include it. Our opinions mean nothing, what matters is the opinion of the experts. We can't let our own theories and views affect the way we edit this article. Saru (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

EU growth

We should mention that the EU is expected to grow in the future, therefore suggesting as it gets bigger, the more of a potential it has to be a superpower. Ijanderson977 (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

first of all, we'd need at least one source that would support that conclusion. Second of all, assuming by 'growth' you mean further expansion of EU membership to include additional countries, then I hope you are aware of the recent difficulties the EU has had achieving consensus with it's current limited membership much less an expanded one. It is not at all clear that adding new additional members would do more to strengthen the EU's ability to act as a superpower than it would to weaken it's ability to reform itself in ways that would further allow it to act as a superpower.Zebulin (talk) 10:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisbon is a short term problem Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you could find a source that says the EU has greater potential to be a superpower as it grows, but if you can't then you can't say that in the article. Saru (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and Quality

This article needs to be edited in terms of quality, neutrality and consistency. For example, why are there two subsections for the EU section when there is one for the other candidates? Why is it that India has such favourable outlook and praise as a potential superpower and China a relatively negative one when by and large most scholars deem China to be the next superpower. An impartial view is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.23.195 (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

because the article is basically original research Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. The article contains OR and non-neutral POV. It is unbalanced and requires major cleanup. Nirvana888 (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this article is full of OR and POV. The only sources that should be in this article are those that directly predict the rise of a potential superpower. We should be reporting only on the predictions of experts, not the editors personal opinions. Acting otherwhise leads to POV and OR. Saru (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I just got a book called The Post American World by Fafreed Zakair in which it predicts the superpower growth of China and India. I'm nearly done finishing it, and would be able to contribute a little to China and India. Deavenger (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

EU sub-sections

I've taken the intiative to removed the EU subsections, as they where complete OR. Sources such as these , , are unsuitable for this article, as none of them predict the rise of the EU or any other country as a superpower. They where simply being used to back up OR by being used as statistics. This article isn't about the EU, it's about the EU's potential as a superpower and only sources that directly predict that occurence should be used. Saru (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I figured this would happen sooner or later, but nobody responded to the above section discussing this. I'd just like to point that we're dealing with synthesis, not OR. Also, I'd like to point out that the EU having two sub-sections was not the result of POV, but rather the supporting sections had to be cleaned up and re-added to the article. I was the only one doing this, and then some suggested that they shouldn't be re-added at all, so progress stalled on the cleaning up. I suggest you read the prior discussions so that you can be well-informed. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the initiative Saru and Hobie. The EU section looks much better but still need some work. We should go over the other sections (China, India, Russia) and at least make this article conform with minumum WP standards. Nirvana888 (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I haven't really been involved in this article for a little while, probably a week or so. Now that's there are some changes, I'm ready to jump back in and help. I'll be sure to go over the other sections, Nirvana. --Hobie (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The same thing with me. I took a week or two hiatus from wikipedia editing, but now I'm back. Saru (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That's great. Just so I am in the loop, as I read from the discussion above, were you guys working on reviewing the previous supporting pages and removing OR, POV, bad refs etc. or have we decided to rewrite the sections altogether. Here's the Times article that I think Saru mentioned above which is worth a read. [5] Nirvana888 (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go with the rewriting on this one. We tried to re-add the EU sections, with revisions, but there was still OR and POV. We should read over the refs from the old subsections, pick out only the ones the specifically talk about superpowers or potential superpowers, make sure there written by credible, reliable sources, then add them to the current article. Instead of listing facts about the countries as before, we should only report on the experts opinions. Instead of:

"China's military is the largest in the world."

We should say:

"This expert believes that due to the size of China's military, it is an emerging superpower."

See the difference? In the first, we are presented a fact via synthesis as a reason for China becoming a potential superpower. We can find plenty of sources talking about China's large military, but that doesn't mean they deserve to be in the article, because very few of them talk about how it relates to being a superpower. Meanwhile, in the second example we report on a what an expert believes, and how he interpets the facts. We can report on what experts believe will happen in the future, but not what we believe will happen in the future, because wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Saru (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So something like this?

"Fafreed Zakaria stated in his book, the Post American world, that India in the future will have a larger workforce due to __________ , _________ and _________ which could give India an edge over China who has a one child policy." Deavenger (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes.Saru (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, I'm going to try and get started on India and maybe China sub sections, and hopefully, I'll post one of them up in the talk page beofre the 18th. Deavenger (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Great. I'll search the web for any good possible sources to add, but I have to deal with a problem on Indian Century first (someone appears to have added the WP:NOR offending sections removed from this article to that article) Saru (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good Deavenger. I'm definitely interested in seeing this and other articles related to power in international relations improved. Count me in. Nirvana888 (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm not too good at writing complex stuff like this, so expect to do lots of corrections when I post it. To saru, I think that we should get rid of that. Now, it just seems like the section of what we have on India here basically. Oh yeah, this is deavenger, I just forgot to sign in. 66.112.113.186 (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's great that we're finally getting back to improving the article. There's still a lot of work to be done. I'll be back in a few days. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunatly I'm moving, so I won't have my computer for 2 and a half weeks, but I hope you guys can start this up while I'm gone. Once I get to Calgary I'll try to get on as fast as possible. Saru (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

Hello, I made quite an edit about Parag Khanna's view on the EU as a superpower, I'm planning to write about his view on China too, but can somebody check my grammar. English isn't my native language and I don't know if I've made any grammar mistakes. Just look and if you find something change it right away. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.133.154 (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will work on improving grammar. Can you add to the other sections? Khanna's source actually talks about each candidate to some degree - he believes the current and future superpowers of the 21st century are US, EU and China. Nirvana888 (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I'll try, but as I said, english isn't my native language. Plus, my wikipedia capabilities are limited. It was actually first today that I succesfully added a source, I had to practice some self-learning:P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.133.154 (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

India subsections

Okay, I'll here's what I have on the India subsections so far, on the 18th, I'll be in India for a while, so I won't able to contribute too muc until some time in August. You'll note that I used Fareed Zakaria alot, and the reason for that is because I recently read his book: The Post American World, and it has chapters related to the two potential superpowers of India and China, though it lacks in military power, which is why that section is not too developed. However, I highly recomend that book, especially for people who wnat to help develop on the China and India sections. Also, I forgot to mention some other important facts in Facts for and facts Against. But, I don't know when I'll be able to post on Wikipedia next, so I'm posting what I have now. Plenty of room for improvement here. Once I get back, and China has not been done yet, I'll try to do China also.

Facts For

Fareed Zakaria wrote in his book, The Post-American World, that India has a fine chance of becoming a superpower, stating

Every year at the World Economic Forum in Davos, there's a star. Not a person but a country. One country impresses the gathering of global leaders because of a particularly smart Finance minister or a compelling tale of reform or even a glamorous gala. This year there was no contest. In the decade that I've been going to Davos, no country has captured the imagination of the conference and dominated the conversation as India in 2006.

Fareed Zakaria believes that one of India’s strongest factors for superpower status is its economy. India’s economy had a GDP growth of 9.4% in 2007. Goldman Sachs has predicted that in 10 years, India’s economy will be larger then Italy’s. In 15 years, it will be larger then Britain’s. By 2040, India should boast the third largest economy. It is also expected that India, along with China should surpass the U.S economy by 2050 But Fareed Zakaria notes that a prediction such as these is a “treacherous business”.

Another strength that India has is its demographics; more than 50% of India's population is under 25.[35] Dr Narendra Jadhav, a principal advisor to the Reserve Bank of India and a former advisor to the executive director at the IMF, says "India has a great potential to become an economic super power because of its growing young population."[36] A young population coupled with the second largest English-speaking population in the world could give India an advantage over China.[37] Fareed Zakaria also believes that while other industrial countries will face a youth gap, India will have lots of young people, or in other words workers.

Zakaria says another strength that India is that despite being one of the poorest countries in the world, its democratic government has lasted for 60 years, stating that a democracy can provide for long-term stability. India also has been gaining influence in Asia with trade agreements, direct investment, military exercises, and aids funds. It is good allies with countries such as Iran and Japan, and has emerging ties with countries such as Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar, and India even has an airforce base in Tajikistan. . India also has fine relations with other countries such as Israel, UK, France, and Russia. Also, the Nuclear Deal with the U.S has strengthened its relationship.

Militarily, India has the second largest army in the world after China, and a nuclear power. India is one of the four countries with anti-ballistic missile capability, and is the first developing nation to build and aircraft carrier.

Facts Against

India has been victim to a high inflation, which some people fear will slow down India’s high economic growth. . Goldman Sachs also says that if it is managed badly, there is a great chance that India’s economic growth will drop. China and India rising to superpower status is not inevitable, according to scholars such as Professor Pranab Bardhan, Chief Editor of the Journal of Development Economics, who suggest that millions mired in poverty and ineffective government prevents China or India from rivaling the U.S. or the E.U. any time soon.[40]

Fareed Zakaria has described India’s growth as

It is not top-down but bottom-up---messy, caotic, and largely unplanned.

He also suggests that while democracy has its long-term advantages, China’s system of government are able to plan and execute major infrastructure projects with unrivaled efficiency. Democracy in India is usually not the will of the majority, but the will of organized minorities such as landowners, powerful castes, rich farmers, government unions, local thugs, in fact a fifth of the members of the Indian Parliament have been accuses of rape, embezzlement, or murder.

Deavenger (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good start Deavenger. It needs to be cleaned up somewhat. I fixed some minor grammatical errors. I think I might check out Zakaria's book. I've read much of his work. Another good book that is quite perceptive is Parag Khanna's The Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order Nirvana888 (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, If I get the chance, I'll read his book.Yeah, I'm not too good with grammer, or making it so it's good for an encyclopedia, so we'll have to do that, and hopefully somebody can finish some of the facts. Deavenger (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. If you make some errors, don't worry, other people will correct them. Be bold, you don't need to ask us every time you going to add a source or paragraph. Saru (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I haven't added stuff to the subsection for a while. So before school starts, if possible, I'm going to finish the India subsection, as I now have some more facts for Facts Against. Though for India, I'm lacking a good military source. So I'm going to try finishing India before school starts, and starting China if no one else wants to do it. Deavenger (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The EU

How can the EU possibly be considered a superpower? The EU is a treaty among strong friends, not a nation. If we were considering blocs, then NATO should be listed, not the EU. NATO is much stronger, including most (21 / 26 I believe) EU nations. I just don't get how EU can be a superpower when it is not a country. 65.25.62.121 (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The EU is a Sui generis, of its own kind. Does Nato has its own courts, citizenship, commission, council, currency or parliament etc. etc. Besides, it dosn't even matter what you think ( or I for that matter ), it all depends on what the experts and academics thinks.

China already a superpower

China is already a superpower according to most people. The US should stop ignoring the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.137.92 (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Riigghhtt. Deavenger (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Come back with some actual, reliable sources and then we'll talk. --Hobie (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)