Talk:Potential superpower/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Africa as a Superpower

This whole article is missing one huge element...Africa! I've tried and failed to get it on here, on account of it's natural resources, young work force, strategic location, and governmental potential. I have faced some revisions that I feel were made in bigotry, and if anyone agrees that Africa deserves a spot, please join me in speaking up. (The countries that have the most academic support are Nigeria, Egypt, South Africa, Angola, and DRC). Kieran P. Clark (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Africa as a Superpower? Very funny ;) Asia as a superpower is better ;) Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 00:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't joking.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Every country is a potential superpower although some have more potential than others. If we adopt the definition of a superpower that it is a country that projects economic, political, cultural and military power at a global scale, all African countries are currently far away from that; but that may change in the future. However I think it is still too early to call these potential superpowers as used in the scope of this article. Arnoutf (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

And Africa is a continent, not a country. 120.16.3.197 (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Who's Timothy Beardson and why his comment is important to include here?

I saw a comment by this person in the section Contrary views of China. He has been introduced as founder of Crosby International Holdings (a company never heard of). Can anybody tell me why his comment is so important that it's been included here? Or is it that any tom, dick and harry criticizing China automatically deserve to be included? Xinjiang guy (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The Economic Times thinks his credentials are notable enough to consult him. [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Other contenders?

What makes Russia a lesser contender than the European Union or India, this article was better the way it organized before. Charles Essie (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Charles Essie. Before the unification of Russia and crimea it was on the list and as soon as Russia was reunified with crimea and added 2.5 million people and an area the size of Belgium it was taken off the list. For me that doesn't make sense. russia has increased its defence budget by 33% since 2014 so if russia deserved to be on the list in 2014 why doesn't it deserve to be on the list now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.198.53 (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

On account of there being substantially less scholarly publications which argue in favour of Russia being a potential superpower. Infact, Steven Rosefielde's publication is the only academic work (known to us on Wikipedia) that makes the assertion Russia could re-emerge as a superpower. However, even Rosefielde candidly admits (in his book) that this is largely reliant on wishful thinking, both in Russia and certain circles in the West. Antiochus the Great (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It has the largest nuclear arsenal as we know. It`s one of the most important factors which dont need some "academic/scholar/etc" proves — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.220.108 (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

On Wikipedia everything needs sources (and for good reasons). Arnoutf (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

it has — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollanotherblunt (talk • contribs) 16:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

what has what? Arnoutf (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

superpower status is not earned by number of nuclear weapons alone. after the fall of the soviet union even Ukraine and Kazakhstan among others inherited hundreds nuclear weapons, did that automatically make them super powers? i personally do think russia has been reasserting itself and has the potential to be a superpower, but that is my personal opinion and not supported by many scholars which is why i cant include that in wikipedia.

that is rubbish. No one said Russia deserves to be on the list because it has nuclear weapons but because it has the most in the world! so your comparison to ukraine and kazakhstan is invalid.

going around abusing multiple ip's to continue you little revert war, without trying to discuss the issue, is something that has forced me to start a SPI case. Pvpoodle (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Other than the Big 6 listed in the article, I reckon we should add a list of the second-string potential superpowers (Next 6) to the pipeline, namely Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Australia, South Africa and Iran. 120.16.51.10 (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you are pulling phrases and countries out of thin air, and obviously have little understanding of the academic application of superpower status. Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, we need reliable sources before we even begin to consider additional countries. Arnoutf (talk) 12:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is poorly written, India will never become a global Superpower, the maximum they can be is a global Great Power. Other than United States being the current Superpower, there could only ever be three potential Superpowers: China, Russia and Europe. Countries like India, Brazil, Indonesia, Japan, Canada and Mexico can achieve global Great Power status, but not any higher. 125.168.97.231 (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You have clearly read nothing about any of these countries then, and Europe is a continent, not country. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Head note

Currently it reads:

"This page is a summary of published academics' opinions. Please remember that opinions are only allowed in Wikipedia if they are held by writers in reliable sources. While it is possible that an editor is more knowledgeable and correct than any given academic, Wikipedia is not the place for personal opinions."

We have non academic opinions in the article. Such as Tony Blair. Should we replace with something better. Any opinions? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't really know what to think. Personally -and I have said this many times before- I do not think we should include opinions from politicians full stop! Politicians have a tendency to be extremely bias based on their own political agenda, and therefore are inherently unreliable. I would suggest removing any opinions from politicians and replacing them with reliable secondary sources if we can, preferably academic. Thanks.Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. And this is also a problem with EU-related pages. Argovian (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

EU as a superpower again

Being added again with a politician's speech as the source. I think academic analyses are required to make this claim. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Correct. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I dont think EU should be on the list of potential super powers. It doesnt have significant military forces, its teritory is limited, but, most importantly, it doesnt have independent politics. On the other side, why is Russia not on the list? It have a vast teritories, controlling most of the continents natural resources from Alaska to Baltic, and from Iran to North pole. European part of Russia is 40% of Europe's landmass. And Russia have no problems in deploying its military power anywhere in the world (we all witnessed that TU-95 "excursions").178.221.116.115 (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I would wait for another 2 years and see if someone still considers EU as a superpower. I believe that some of the reliable sources still would. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@178.221.116.115. Russia is mentioned in the article, but it has very little academic support for being a potential superpower. Furthermore, simply having vast territories doesn't make a country a superpower - if it did, then surely Canada would be a superpower? There is also a big difference between Russia being able to fly Tu-95s near NATO airspace and "deploying its military power anywhere in the world". Almost all defence experts exclusively agree that Russia cannot do the latter, at least not on any significant scale worthy of mention. The bulk of Russia's conventional military strength is resigned to its own boarders or immediate neighboring territories (such as ex-Soviet states). A big difference when compared to the capabilities of the United States and to a lesser degree, some other NATO states.Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Brazil

Why was Brazil taken off this list? Don't you know It's an emerging power with a high population and decent per capita income with a very high economy? Brazil has an okay military, no where near as good as China, USA, or India. But Brazil will at one point become South America's first superpower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.236.192.23 (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

And what reliable academic sources do you have to support your opinion? If you can provide none, than above comment cannot be acted upon in any way. Arnoutf (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

"Don't you know It's an emerging power with a high population and decent per capita income with a very high economy" - Large population yes, but a GDP per-capita less than a quarter of the United States and Brazil is certainly not considered a "very high income economy". It doesn't even rank in the top 50 of the Human Development Index (even Cuba ranks above Brazil). I think you will have a hard time finding reliable sources to support your position. Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Bablooda1996

@Bablooda1996. I reverted your recent edits, as you cannot go around changing or removing the published views of Lant Pritchett. Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio

With this edit[2] Banedon has made a good judgement that the content was copyvio. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

American influence in Crimea

However, Nathan Smith of the National Business Review has argued that despite Russia having potential it did not in the 1980s to win another "Cold War", other factors such as American influence in Crimea make superpower status unlikely

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Effervescency (talk • contribs) 14:00, 8 July 2014‎ (UTC)

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/do-not-treat-russia-superpower-it-isnt-ns-152930— Preceding unsigned comment added by Effervescency (talk • contribs) 14:03, 8 July 2014‎ (UTC)

I followed that source briefly and can't understand what this sentence is all about - what influence America has in Crimea? - I can't find this in the source. In my opinion this sentence is total non-sense - remove it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Effervescency (talk • contribs) 14:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

On the use of "regime" to describe Chávez government

"Regime" is rather poor descriptor for any type of government, rather it is a vague word with negative connotation. This charged word was used to describe Venezuela's Chavez led-government so I have changed it for "government" [3]. User ScrapIronIV changed it back to "regime"[4] claiming the change was unsourced. A quick look to the source cited in the sentence in question reveals no usage of the word "regime" [5], and even if it was used the word "regime" should be avoided for more proper and widely accepted descriptor (to this it adds that a singe newspaper like Los Angeles Times is not an adequate source to define the nature of Venezuela's government). Dentren | ^Talk 06:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Peer review

Should we subject this article to peer review? Lbertolotti (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Note

Iryna Harpy, why have you removed a note at the top of the article? (This page is a summary of published academics' opinions. Please remember that opinions are only allowed in Wikipedia if they are held by writers in reliable sources. While it is possible that an editor is more knowledgeable and correct than any given academic, Wikipedia is not the place for personal opinions.) This note perfectly described what is this article about. About entities which have wide academic support to become a superpower. This article was marked as a "Good article", however if you will keep this article as you changed it now, there will have to be forever notes that: it has multiple issues, please help improve it; article possibly contains original research; or this article's factual accuracy is disputed. Because now here allways someone pop up and disagree that this or that entity is not potential superpower, India, Rusia, Brazil.. or EU (because not really a state), or will even try to challenge USA as the present superpower. I think that following wide academic support (also with contrary views included) is the best way for this article, otherwise it can become deeply unstable. Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Jirka.h23. I removed it per WP:NODISCLAIMERS (as I gave in my edit summary). We already have an article related template in place - multiple issues - which alerts the reader to any potential problems concerning the content while we discuss fundamental issues. Disclaimers are not to be used unless it regards 'spoiler' alerts, content that may be offensive to some reader, and issues of that ilk. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Antiochus the Great and Jirka.h23: Having read over the article as it stands, I actually do believe that the disclaimer should be reinstated (treating it as a matter of WP:CON for the sake of its content, and on the understanding that NODISCLAIMERS is a guideline, not a policy). I think it desperately needs to be qualified for the readers. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Good, I believe that return of the disclaimer will help to keep it as a "Good article" and to return of the article stability (disclaimer returned). Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, good move to restore the disclaimer. Many thanks. Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for pulling me up on a bad decision on my behalf. Good faith doesn't make for a good article! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Russia

Returned to status before the change in May 2014, no reason for this change. Some anonymous ip still trying revert my edits, however was also reverted by various other users, his actions were not justified in summary at all. At my talk page he declared that consensus was found, however no consensus was found anywhere at talk page. Russia was only challenged, as the EU, India etc. All claims are properly sourced. Therefore, article should stay as it is. Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You have no consensus to change.In this talk i'm against Russia as potential superpower.So please wait to have the majority to do that.the article written in 2014 is defined even GOOD.Demography and economy are easy reasons not only to set in "other conternders" but even to delete Russia totally from the article.Revert.You can' t decide for all people.Wikipedia is democratic and not a dictature.I imaged that you'd have come back.151.40.53.57 (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait a second. Is there a stable version at all? If the version has been consistently kept at the May 2014 version (and changed back to that within reasonable time spans), than the version Jirka.h23 is referring to should be seen as the "stable" version, and consensus is required to change it. If the May 2014 change was only recently changed, I would say the post 2014 version is the "stable" versions and changes from that require consensus. So I am not sure the reason by Jirka above is fully clear.

Secondly, anon user 151.40.53.57 is wrong in saying that Wikipedia is a democracy. In fact, it explicitly is not a democracy. Facts always trump majorities on Wikipedia. Also your argumentation seems to be more of a soapbox argument than one supported by reasons and sources. But I may have misunderstood you, as your English lines above are poor enough to make them hard to understand. Arnoutf (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Even if you just scan through Talk:Potential superpowers/Archive 9 archived talk page, it's clear that there has been ongoing debate about which countries should be included here, especially regarding Russia. I'm not sure there was a stable version last year or the year before. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is no consensus found at all (I dont know what is that "ip" talking about. If he arguing by economy, Russia is much richer country than India (GDP PPP per capita-24,805; India- only 5,855) and according to Financial Times, Russia was second by economic performance among G20. Also have a very large amount of reserves have and a very low debt comparing to the west. Russia was only challenged, as the EU, India etc. However this "ip" not even done so, and only removing content without any debate. Also I think this page should be protected to be changed only by registered users.Jirka.h23 (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Russia has a small national nominal and GDP PPP size to be considered a potential superpower and also a very small net national wealth (See list of countries by ntional wealth and nominal GDP and GDP PPP).Russia lacks totally also in demography with just around 150 millions people.It doesn't need too have many citations,Wikipedia articles are sufficient to realize the strong weakness of Russia and Brazil.Russia position is right in the past position with Brazil.India in fact should be in the same position of Russia and Brazil (that should be totally deleted), but i accepted at that time (2014) the article (without changing it by myself with no consensus and talking like you did and not following Wikipedia lines).If i should act alone like you Jirka.h23, i'd delete totally Brazil and Russia and i'd set in the other contenders position India.Russia,Brazil,India and China lack all in per capita at every level and about HDI.The only 2 potential superpowers considering all aspects are EU and China (this last one is another level as population and compared to India is economically another level in a foresable future).You are in a hurry to lock the article for fear.You acted without Talking and consensus.In this it's important not only the number but also the quality of people that write.Let the article written by Antiochus the Great that was defined GOOD.Pooerer people are and more importance give to their nation,this is sure.It's their opium.151.40.53.57 (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

That reads like WP:OR. Instead of looking at why Russia is or is not a potential superpower, how about pointing out what's wrong with the sources currently cited, for example Steven Rosefielde's book published with Cambridge University Press, and Farooque Chowdhury's article on countercurrents.org? Banedon (talk) 06:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Right.So before than set new articles let the one written by Antiochius the Great.it's strange that suddenly arrive 3-4 people that all agree about Russia.It's seems something agreed before.Like it's easily to do that it's easily to organize the opposite.Poorer is the country ,more important are these kinds of articles for people of those countries.This the psychlogy of their acting.Pen to arrive where facts can't.151.40.53.57 (talk) 06:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't understand you well; what you write reads quite incoherent to me. Regardless, you do not seem to have answered my objection above. What is wrong with Steven Rosefielde's book published with Cambridge University Press, and Farooque Chowdhury's article on countercurrents.org? If they are WP:RS, why should their viewpoints not be included in the article? If they are not RS, why not?

So add Brazil too like Russia in the list before than China.Before it's B and then C.Why not Brazil?Or all or nobody.This is a talking good just for people of the second world (China,Russia,India,Brazil).Not for the first world.151.40.53.57 (talk) 06:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

If you're referring to the order in which the countries are listed, the ordering is clearly not alphabetical. The country with the most support as a potential superpower is listed first, and country with the second-most support is listed second, and so on. Brazil has the least amount of support, so it's listed last. Russia is not listed before China in the current article. Banedon (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Have China and above all India more support than EU?Please don't joke.This article now seems more a Carnival.Very original.So add Brazil too at the same level of Russia.It isn't other contender,so why without a full presentation of it?Is Russia shameful to be presented close to Brazil?I'm sure that behind many english names are russian people here.To identify a person aren't main the IP or his presentation,but what this perosn writes. 151.40.53.57 (talk) 06:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The incorrect map - crimea is not marked (even as a disputed region) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.231.53 (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Crimea isn't Russia.Crimea is occupied by Russia but NOT recognized.About russian debt it's small but russian global debt has the same size of its central bank reserves.Rating debt of Russia in fact is very low.Strength of the currency is the mirror of a country and ruble and real aren't at all wonderful mirrors in the long.Russia and Brazil should be deleted totally from article and India should be set in other conteders part.151.40.70.108 (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you please stop with soapboxing. That is not helping your point, in fact it will do the opposite as it will only cause irritation. If you want changes, bring a neutrally voiced, well argued proposal, supported by reliable source to this talk. Otherwise you are just flogging a dead horse which will never run. Arnoutf (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Russian Ruble .This is more than sufficient to desrcibe russian situation.Which potential superpower?Very original article.Here nobody explained well WHY the last change.Now tell the others to run.Behind me people are laughing reading this article.Thanks and greetings.151.40.70.108 (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Who is laughing? There are reliable sources that back up the RF as a potential superpower. Excluding it on a WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis is not an argument. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The source is very dated (2004)to do not write prehistoric and not the best one.Even the global amount of GDPs is wrong.Very shabby.Russians and indians hold your flags and your world.No more time to loose in this talk of the second world and third world at every level.Bye!151.40.70.108 (talk) 06:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That's one book. The others are more recent, e.g. I see sources dating from 2008, 2009, 2012 and even 2014 in the section. Everything else you've mentioned (like the amount of Russian debt) falls under WP:OR. I do not see the case to remove Russia from the list of potential superpowers.Banedon (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

IP 151.40.70.108, all of the potential superpowers sections use dated sources, as well as more recent sources... So what's your point? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Jirka.h23, IP is right. Liz also is right. Was a debate about Russia and users decided that Russia will be deleted from article. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 21:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Not only can consensus change, but the circumstances surrounding the issue can also change. Sorry, but I'm not about to dismiss recent scholarly and media discourse. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

...if there is clear a new consensus, ok - no problem but now, user Jirka.h23 introduced changes against the previous consensus and without new consensus. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Following the changes in the map and given the explanation for those changes, I'd like to express my opinion: The EU is an economic union, not a country, so if the EU is displayed, other economic unions concerning to the countries displayed as potential superpowers (Brazil - Mercosur; Russia - EEU and India - SAARC) shall also be displayed in some way. Concerning to include Russia and Brazil or not, it depends on what we consider as a "superpower". But since all these countries are described in the article, it makes no sense to describe them in the article and not include them in the map. Urgup-tur (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you've made a good point, Urgup-tur. 'Superpower' is a 20th century term deployed to describe the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R., and the latter was not a nation-state (again, a recent addition to political and economic power), but a union of nation-state republics. What, then, does the current lexicology mean by 'superpower'? Just in cursory terms, searching through scholarly works on the subject area, it suggests collaboration/unions between nation-states, not simply a self-contained nation-state. Consequently, there is discourse over a China-Russia alliance, etc. (or any number of co-dependent unions). What and where are the RS defining what constitutes a potential superpower? Without it, there is no article, merely WP:OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

EU.Read well before than writing.Don't describe in a wrong way my land,on my passport above all is written EUROPEAN UNION.Here there's no consensus about this page.Brazil and Russia can't be considered for demography and economies (see related articles in Wikipedia) potential superpowers.Only EU and China can be considered TRUE potential superpowers because more complete at every level.India should be set between other contenders.The problem isn't only Russia but Brazil and India too.Citations or academics aren't sufficient to justify in an article like this a position.Here it needs also a wide consensus.This page hasn't it now ,that's why the former article should be immediately restored.This page is here like after a golpe.This article has been changed without the talking and broad consensus.It's fishy.Bye ,i go back to my 1st world.151.40.16.254 (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

What defines a TRUE potential superpower, your highness of the first world?Filpro (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

(ec)IP 151.40.16.254 (plus the other IP's you've been using), please read WP:WINARS. This article explores an entirely different subject to the EU therefore, according to WP:TITLE, the content must be defined and proscribed by reliable sources, not personal opinions as to the definition. As a PS, as you are using different computers around your area (or may have a dynamic IP), may I suggest that you create an account for your own benefit and for the benefit of other editors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy OK, I agree, but then should this article be renamed? Anyway, I ignore if what is said in this article should be extrapolated from the 20th century. It looks like Wikipedia:CRYSTALBALL. Is futurology a subject of Wikipedia? I think there should be a more objective address about these issues. Urgup-tur (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

If you read through the archives, you'll find that the title of the article has changed in the past. Crystal-balling doesn't apply to writing articles based on academic/scholarly 'speculation' where the basis is firmly entrenched in academic fields (i.e., in this case, economics). As such discourse does exist in economics and politics, what needs to be established is the distinction between what RS say on the matter as opposed to POV, WP:CHERRYPICKING, WP:SYNTH and all of the other no-no's. Whether or not the title ought to be changed is contingent on WP:PRECISE, WP:NDESC, and other factors. The only thing I can be certain of is that there are missing factors which appears again and again in RS dialogues surrounding potential superpowers, being that of constituent elements within the range of multiple parts that go to forming the 'definition', such as 'energy superpower', et al.

Whether this means that the subject area would be best served by developing WP:SPINOFF articles is a matter to be chewed over carefully. The primary concern still lies with ensuring that sources being drawn on and cited truly meet with the criteria of being globally recognised authorities.

As for futurology: yes, there is an article on it addressing it as a genuine science, but it has nothing to do with promoting people like Patrick Dixon. ← Now that's an article that ought to be deleted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy Could you explain what you said in a less technical and more perceivable way? Thanks! Urgup-tur (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mediolanum/Archive. Posts from the 151.40 range can likely be reverted if they match the same style and the IP reported for socking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Urgup-tur: My apologies for the convoluted response! Essentially, it's not 'crystal ball' because it is a genuine field of research in the political/economic sciences. The article started out as "Emerging superpowers", but was changed to "Potential superpowers" some time ago. Since then, it has been developed with very little discussion. None of the original editors involved with the article appear to be active on Wikipedia. My feeling is that the scope of the article was badly defined in the first place, and that establishing tertiary sources that define what 'emerging'/'potential' superpowers actually means and covers must be the first consideration.

I think that it's worth the effort for new editors working on this article to go back and look at sources that discuss what a superpower is, then look at sources that define the criterion for emerging/potential superpowers. There are issues surrounding the forms a superpower takes (military superpower; energy superpower) to be considered. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Iryna Harpy for the clarification. According to informations that I get here and there, I think (but that's only a personal opinion) that only China and India have the potential superpowers at the level of what USA is, or at the levels that USSR or the British Empire were, in the past. The EU lacks enough cohesion to become one, and China and Brazil may, at most, become 2nd level superpowers, like China is already today, by the way. That's my opinion. Concerning to military power, I don't think that Brazil will ever be able considered as a superpower, since it's located in a region where there aren't any significant potential conflicts between the countries and concerning to energy power, that is quite speculative, since the predominant energy sources in the future won't be the same as they are today. There are also aspects concerning to raw materials, land, population, so on that shall (in my opinion) be taken into consideration. Greetings! Urgup-tur (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Based on the criteria defined by Superpower, I'm predisposed towards agreeing with you, Urgup-tur. Personal agreement, however, is simply that: WP:POV. Again, this article needs to be bound to mainstream theory surrounding the issue in order to be genuinely encyclopaedic. It's imperative that salient criteria be attributable to reliable sources in the political sciences, meaning that solid tertiary sources need to be used to set the groundwork around which candidates for 'potential' can be compared. At the moment, I've just added another tag for the article as being potentially WP:OR as most of the references are either op-ed pieces by media sector journalists, or academic papers from scholars who don't have global recognition as being experts in the area.

Any relevant input by other editors would be very welcome. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy Since I guess that India and China are undispustable contenders (anyway, I actually said that China, in my opinion, is already a 2nd level superpower), I'll check about informations concerning to Russia (which may take into account the recently formed EEU) and Brazil. Greetings! Urgup-tur (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I propose, for whoever is interested about these topics, the following question: Though no individual countries within ASEAN is being considered as a potential superpower, could ASEAN (like the EU) be considered as a potential superpower in the future (it includes several regional powers such as Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam or the Philippines). As single countries they aren't considered as potential superpowers, but combined they might be, and the level of integration in ASEAN is already high. Urgup-tur (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Quite. That's why it's vital to establish scholarly definitions of what constitutes a superpower (which logic would dictate is not simply a nation-state on its own) and how broad or narrow the definition potential superpower actually is. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Urgup-tur, your new changes has been reverted. You changes break some rules of Wikipedia, including Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:CYCLE, Wikipedia:Consensus. Your new changes may not break any rules of Wikipedia and also, must to be consensus for new changes. This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time (if you don't stop pushing that changes), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 14:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy Thank you for the opinion. I'll try to look for further information about the Eurasian Union, Mercosur and SAARC, as well as about ASEAN, the African Union and NAFTA. Greetings! Urgup-tur (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, Urgup-tur. Per Subtropical-man's comment, I think it's been established that more research into the subject is needed, therefore more RS and discussions need to be brought to the table here, on the talk page, for discussion before we go stumbling into OR. Our primary concern must lie with forming consensus as to what 'potential superpower' means according to the political sciences. Every bit of research will help to clarify the scope and content of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy Yes, I agree. Let's start to recapitulate the definitions, and later we should go into the details about which country/union may be or may not be a potential superpower. As I think I told you, I personally think that only China and/or India can reach that level, but I guess we've reached a point beyond what we, ourselves, think about this topic may be considered as relevant or appropriate enough. I'd be glad to work with you in this article. Let's do it! Sorry that my English is not perfect. Urgup-tur (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You're English is fine, Urgup-tur. Aside from trying to pursue researching this further with limited knowledge of the current mainstream thought in the political sciences, I might ask another Wikipedian whose degree is in Political Science for some assistance. I'd rather not keep annoying old friends/colleagues from university as, since my retirement, they're probably sick of me asking for tips and recommendations as to who the prominent global academics are in whatever fields I look into. Ah, well. Let's see what we can come up with if we put our heads together on this. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

On the russian map Crimea should be colored — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.215.120 (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@ NeilN: This article is clearly no longer worthy of its GA status, having been largely reverted to its pre-GA condition, and all the problems contained therein. For example, as part of the GA review, it was agreed upon that Russia and Brazil belong in a separate category by virtue of their being considerably less academic support for them being potential superpowers. This was to tackle the issue of WP:UNDUE. After all, the merits of either Brazil or Russia being a potential superpower is arguably a fringe view, held only by a small minority of academics, as evidenced by the limited and scarce literature supporting it. Whereas there is an overwhelming wealth of literature and dialogue on China, India and the European Union. Do you see the imbalance then, of listing either Brazil and Russia in an equal way to China? It is also amusing to see countries in this article are now being listed in order of the "country with the most support as a potential superpower" - rather than the neutral method of alphabetical order. How does the Wikipedia community seriously decide who has more academic support between the likes of China, India or the EU. What a joke! I therefore propose this article be restored to its last good/stable version as accepted by the GA and the then consensus reached by knowledgeable and competent editors. Not the above POV riddled farce. Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

To compare versions see this. I agree with you but fear we're in the minority. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, there is a wide academic and media support about Russia as potential superpower (1, 2). Please stop to absurdly ignoring this and act rationally. As of listing I do not care if this will be done by alphabetical or by most support order, I am not going to contest this marginal case (even in my opinion Brazil should be listed last). Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@ Jirka.h23: Since you stated you don't mind, and since it is good practice, I have listed the countries alphabetically. Thanks. Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@ NeilN: Understood, but I was under the impression that Wikipedia wasn't a democracy? Also there was an extensive GA review and consensus held back in the summer of 2014, that dragged this article out from the gutter. So please understand my disappointment and frustration, that the above discussion between a small collection of editors -most who appear to have a rather poor grasp on Wikipedia's policies- have managed to override good practice (the GA review and consensus) and returned this article to its former sorry state (for the most part). Surely a GA review and consensus that improved an article on the basis of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines has more legitimacy than the above comedy (good-faith or not). At-least remove the GA tag, the article is clearly no-longer fit for it.Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Antiochus the Great, is it your feeling that the article no longer meets point 4 of WP:GAC? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, yes those are my concerns indeed. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Disclaimer was restored.Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Separate section?

@Urgup-tur and Iryna Harpy: You are opposed to moving Brazil and Russia to a separate section? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm most certainly not opposed to their being moved to a separate section. As regards Urgup-tur, he's a confirmed sock and I'm more than happy to strike his input on this page. My arguments for any major changes to this article were contingent on thorough research of subject area prior changes, not its being turned into a COATRACK reconfiguring the article based on OR. The subject area is dependent on scholarship in the political sciences. In reading up on the subject matter, my own understanding is that Russia, for example, fulfils requisite criteria only in certain aspects: primarily resources and energy, and this, in turn, appears to be contingent on an alliance with China in recent sources. Brazil also fulfils criteria to a limited extent. Treating both countries as being on par with China or India for fulfilling an 'all points met' for a potential superpower is misleading.

It would be excellent if editors with expertise in the political sciences were to develop the article (with plenty of potential for spin-off articles) at some point but, as it stands, I would !vote for reinstating an "Other contenders" section. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Antiochus the Great, can you work with Iryna said above? I'd hate to see all the work making this a GA go for naught. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, absolutely, Iryna is spot on with what he's saying there. It would be good to hear weather or not Jirka.h23 agrees to this too - so we can all work towards returning to a stable version of this article once again. If I am not mistaken, he instigated the removal of the "Other contenders" section. Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Antiochus, respectfully I do oppose to move Russia to a separate section. This page is a summary of published academics opinions (as we restored in the lead recently) and in case of Russia it fulfils this criteria. It is not place for your personal opinions. In case of Brazil, I see that you have moved all into a contrary views section recently, it means that there is no opinion that Brazil would become (some day-in the future) a superpower? In this case, it looks like Brazil is a candidate to be moved to a separate section or even to be permanently deleted from this article. Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not about personal opinions Jirka, but the issue of undue weight. The way this article is currently presented, Brazil and Russia appear to be given equal validity as potential superpowers as China or India. This is simply wrong, as the sources show this not to be the case. While both Russia and Brazil do indeed have limited academic support/discussion on their merits of being potential superpowers, it is nowhere near as extensive or broadly supported as China or India (even the European Union for that matter).Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

As i said, this is your personal opinion, Russia could have equal validity in the 21th century as potential superpower same as China or India (mainly for its huge amount of reserves). Russia have same academic support as others here presented countries. You know, theres no agreed definition of what a 'superpower' is. For example, in my opinion there can not be any superpower with insufficient wealth of their citizens comparable to others. And you can see how far in GDP (PPP) per capita is still China and India behind Russia. But this is not important, it's just my opinion and this do not belong here (as yours). Can you please answer my question about Brazil? No current source supporting Brazil as possible superpower? Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not personal opinion Jirka, it is Wikipedia policy. Brazil and Russia simply don't have same wealth of academic literature supporting them as potential superpowers as China, India or the European Union. It is therefore inappropriate (per Wikipedia policy, not my opinion) to present the article in its current state, especially for a GA. Regarding Brazil, both Collecott and Kwang Ho Chun discuss in depth the prospect of Brazil emerging as a superpower, with many strong arguments that place Brazil as a worthy contender. However both conclude, perhaps even scrutinisingly, that it probably wont, due to some key shortcomings. To be honest, the contrary section doesn't really quite work for Brazil at the moment.Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I quickly searched and found all this academic opinios denoting Russia as potential or present superpower: Steven Rosefielde and Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower (Cambridge University Press). Ronald Steel and Superpower Reborn (professor of international relations). Stephen Kinzer in Bostonglobe (Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University). And and not to mention other sources from journalists in media. How do you can say that this is the same as in the case of Brazil (where is not currently nothing)? Actually, Russia have more academic support than India. Please be objective and stop it. Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think you will find that Steven Rosefielde's publication is already referenced in the article, so too is Stephen Kinzer's opinion piece in the Boston Globe. So you are not bringing anything new to the table there! Although Ronald Steel's opinion piece in the New York Times is new, so well done for that I guess. However, are you aware of Wikipedia's position on opinion pieces? They generally don't make for good sources (even from academics) as they are merely the unsubstantiated personal opinion of the writer, and by their very nature, are not subjected to any form of fact-checking or peer-review (as opposed to published scholarly literature). Therefore, while an opinion piece may indeed be used to outline the opinions of the writer, it cannot be used as a statement of fact. Unfortunately, you are going to have a hard time convincing anybody that Russia has more academic support than India as a potential superpower. And even if Russia did, then why are you not adding these scholarly publications to the article? Instead, all you have done is provide us with solitary new source, that is an opinion piece no less. And you tell me to be objective?Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The New York Times is not a 2nd rate online news aggregator. I have provided sources among academics (excluding that of journalists). Can you tell me where are all of these sources supporting India? All I can see in the article are just opinions of journalists. With the exception of Anil Kumar Gupta, so we have one. However he is of Indian origin, so he should not be taken as neutral, so maybe we have none. Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Jirka, you may not refactor any comments made by myself on this talk page! I restructured my comment for clarity (per the WP:REFACTOR guideline), as I had unwittingly referred to the wrong source. Note, that refactoring peoples comments on talk pages can lead to being blocked. Cheers.Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted your deletion of yours text, because you changed your older text after my answer, then my answer does not make sense. But ok, I will cite it here (so evereone could understand this continuous discussion): Instead, all you have done is provide us with solitary new source from a 2nd rate online news aggregator. Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay Jirka, if you feel you need to make an issue of a harmless mistake I made unintentionally (and subsequently corrected in my comment), then so be it. But other than that, I am glad you understand you may not refactor other peoples comments again for similar reasons. I am, however, unsurprised you have chosen to push this issue, as lets face it, you appear to have no legitimate policy or content concern regarding the restoration of the "Other contenders" section. Anyway, lets return to topic; With regards to what you wrote about the citations for India, it is nothing short of nonsense. I find it distasteful that you feel it necessary to resort to blatant lies, because anybody who takes the time to look through the sources for India will find numerous citations from academics and experts alike.Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Lol. Where are those citations from academics? You asked for sources from scholarly, I gave you some examples. In the case of India, we have just Indian professor Anil Kumar Gupta. Jirka.h23 (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh I see, you are confused as to what constitutes a scholarly source aren't you? Perhaps you should understand that you don't actually need to have a Phd to publish something that is considered scholarly, although generally speaking most do! Any literature written by a leading professional or expert in their field, that is peer-reviewed or vetted by the scholarly community is what we are looking for in this article. Regarding such sources for India, I simply refuse to believe you are so inept - that you truly believe we only have one such source (I.e the one from Professor Anil Kumar Gupta). I can only conclude, that you are deliberately playing ignorant, which is unfortunate. This article contains an absolute wealth of expert material on India's potential as a superpower:

• Anil Kumar Gupta (as you already mentioned)
• Fareed Zakaria (Phd - Philosophy in Government/International relations, author, journalist) The Post-American World (2008) ISBN 978-0-393-06235-9
• Robyn Meredith (Author, Asia expert, economics & business professional, journalist) The Elephant and the Dragon: The Rise of India and China and What It Means for All of Us (2007) ISBN 978-0-393-33193-6
• Amy Chua (Professor, author) Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance – and Why They Fall (2007) ISBN 978-0-385-51284-8

Sources from other experts in the article include; Anand Giridharadas (Honors in politics & history, author, journalist) and Clyde V. Prestowitz Jr. (M.A/M.B.A in East-West policies and economics, Asia expert, author, founder and president of the ESI think tank).Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Antiochus, sorry for my late reply, I am awfully busy this week. I meant academics working directly in schooling (universities), I would say that their opinions are more worthy, than these from some philosophs, journalists or writters. But thank you for your answer, I will look at these sources asap. However, as far as I know, book The Post-American World nowhere says that India will become a superpower in the 21 century. Zakaria outlines the future developtment of the emerging powers - China, India, Brazil, Russia, South Africa etc. And also, after sentence that by prediction in 2050 Indian per capita income will rise by twenty times, next sentence explains: predictions like these (The Goldman Sachs BRIC study) are a treacherous business, and trends often peter out. Nevertheless, it should be clear to all, that evaluation of Russia differs substantially from that of Brazil (where is now nothing). Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I did a research, and as I said The Post-American World nowhere says that India would become a superpower, same in The Elephant and the Dragon: The Rise of India and China and What It Means for All of Us, only thing I found is at the bottom of page 23: "Both countries have a long way to go, in Dahlman’s view, before they become technology superpowers." In the article is a [page needed] demand, so I guess this sentence should be deleted. I have not access to Amy Chua's Day of Empire, however from this article I would say this book only outline the histories of world's superpowers and compares them with present U.S. superpower. Article changed according to sources. Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

map claims

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Potential_Superpowers.svg

A map showing the United States as the current superpower

this map does not show anything of the sort, it just has multiple countries in differing colors. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes that might be. But the claim the US is a superpower is not based on the map (but on other sources) and the claim that the EU is a superpower is NOT supported by mainstream consensus. So whatever you think about the map, the caption itself should fit reliable sources. Arnoutf (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Arnoutf The idea that currently that USA is the only superpower is not confirmed in sources, there are various current superpower sources. This edit of mine is clearly the most npov - with the neutral reporting that it is ...A map showing the current superpowers, along with other political entities that have varying degrees of academic support as potential superpowers.Govindaharihari (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable, mainstream source that unambiguously names these "other superpowers". Without such source it is just your statement. Arnoutf (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Anybody can come here and write what you have just said Govindaharihari, and like you, they would be wrong. As long as your POV doesn't make it into the article, I have no further interest in what you have to say. The European Union is not a superpower, enough is enough. Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Table

It was re-added without any conversation. Table had been removed before,[6] and has been removed again. It is not really showing any comparison as how they should be considered potential superpower and how they couldn't be with these stats. Capitals00 (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Russia

Russia wass a superpower believed Ronald Steel in 2008. The world has changed however since 2008, e.g. the price of oil. Xx236 (talk) 08:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Russia isn't able to participate in two wars: [7]Xx236 (talk) 08:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Russia No Longer a Superpower: US Xx236 (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez is dead and he started the destruction of his country's oil based economy. Putin destrois Russian economy, he has only more assets than Venezuela.Xx236 (talk) 08:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

the wrong map of russia. crimea is not marked (even as disputable territory), who draw the map - fix it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.231.182 (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Mauritius

Mauritius is coming soon a potential superpower! heeded my words! 2003:6:1136:2235:54AF:D555:5C5D:9145 (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

North Korea

Kimyojong, please stop trying to introduce North Korea to this article. There are no reliable sources attesting to North Korea as being a contender in any shape or form. Trying to push this content into the article is a breach of the no original research policy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

contra China / pro EU: Andrew Moravcsik Lecture

Andrew Moravcsik is Professor of Politics and director of the European Union Program at Princeton University. He held a lecture on "Why is Europe, not China or India, the Second Superpower of the 21st Century?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dezv7X1VLOA

Maybe someone can incorporate this?185.98.51.171 (talk) 08:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Professors tell a lot of stuff. As if anyone can predict the future. And you are just simply biased, looking for sources that support your views. --2.245.116.133 (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

European Union

The strong economic pillars of Europe, as a continent, are UK. France and Germany. Other countries dont count much like Spain, Greece, Italy, Ireland and other lot. UK has voted to leave!!

a) It is now a fact and a reality that the people of UK has voted themselves out of the European Union. The present PM of UK is set to leave office on Sept/Oct "2016". And then the new PM will start the process. It is most likely that by early next year "2017" UK wont be a nation in the EU Union.

b) Germany may be economically strong but it wont make EU a superpower. The world does not want Germany as its world leader. The world has still not forgotten the Holocaust, the Nazi Germany and Hitler for his quest for German superiority and Germany ruling the world. In International politics, neither the US or UK or to a great extent China will want Germany to be their master.

c) European Union is a continent not a single country with one ethnicity. French are "neither German nor Spanish" (and same logic goes to other countries in Europe). How is it that while we are considering individual countries like China, India and Russia; why are we considering an entire continent? Why cant we take the entire continent of Africa or for that matter Australia?

d) I personally cant see EU in future ruling the world. NATO is a creation of the past and is becoming less powerful. An alternative creation by China, called now the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation has now Russia, India and Pakistan included. Other Geo-strategic nations include Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan.

EU should be removed from the article as it is irrelevant. It does not make sense to have an entire continent to claim to be or become superpower. In no point in history has even a continent become a superpower. It has always been individual nations. Thanks, Varghese Jacob; comment added by 182.69.147.237 (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
____________________________________________
Your assessment sounds like a personal opinion, and you would need sources to support it. As for some of your other points.

• "In International politics, neither the US or UK or to a great extent China will want Germany to be their master." You assume that "superpower" means "master of the world", "world conqueror", or "master of other countries". The current definition of superpower is a state with a "dominant position in international relations and which is characterised by its unparalleled ability to exert influence or project power on a global scale." Influence, not conquest. None of the current or past superpowers ever did manage to translate this influence in ruling the world, and such instances like the Vietnam War and the Soviet–Afghan War serve as reminders that the military capabilities of superpowers have limits. Even if it becomes a superpower, the idea that the European Union will control China seems entirely far-fetched.
• "European Union is a continent not a single country with one ethnicity. ...; why are we considering an entire continent. Why cant we take the enrite continent of Africa for that matter or Australia." The European Union is a political and economic union, with decision-making bodies which affect all member states, and has its own currency, legal system, and even citizenship. In some ways it acts as a state. It might aspire to someday become, but actually is not synonymous with the continent of Europe. It currently has only 28 member-states (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, the Republic of Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The European continent has an additional 22 states which for one reason or another have not yet joined the Union. These are Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, the Republic of Macedonia, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Norway, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, and Vatican City. There are also other 6 self-declared states which control areas of Europe but have limited or none diplomatic recognition. The European Union has an advanced level of integration, Africa as of yet has not. Its equivalent union is the African Union but it has a long way to go to become the deciding voice in the politics of Africa. As for Australia, it is huge (the 6th most extensive state in the world) but its population is comparatively small. Only about 24 million people, while Poland alone has 38 million. Australia is probably the only regional power in the entire Oceania, but its influence in other continents is minimal.
• "NATO is a creation of the past and is becoming less powerful." While I personally have my doubts on the current relevance of NATO to world affairs, how does this relate to the European Union? While there are states which are members of both organizations, the two organizations are not directly connected. Several NATO members are neither European Union members, nor actually European states. Several European Union members never did join NATO.
• "In no point in history has even a continent become a superpower." True but potentially irrelevant. Never before has a continent attempted to unite itself under a single government structure. And study of history may give you some perspective on various subjects, but it is usually a poor predictor for future events. "In no point in history has an aerial bombing destroyed a country" would sound reasonable in the 1930s, but the Strategic bombing during World War II did destroy the economies and infrastructures of several countries. Dimadick (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed more a personal opinion than back by sound reasoning or fact. In any case, the EU holds a position not that dissimilar to the USA in North America, so it could be argued that either the EU is no continent (see above) or that the US shows a precedent of a continent becoming a superpower. Arnoutf (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course the Europhiles will fight the Europe deletion from this page tooth and nail. But if another major country leaves the EU (either France or Germany), I propose we go ahead and delete it anyway regardless of what these people say. Europe as a superpower was ludicrous from the start given its political unity is about as solid as a sandcastle at low tide, but I guess the Europhiles can keep dreaming for a little while longer.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.215.60 (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of key policies like WP:RS, WP:CON, WP:CIV; and guidelines like WP:AGF. If not, please read up on those or leave the project per WP:CIR, if you do know those, please reconsider what you posted above, as it seems to break all of those. Arnoutf (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

____________________________________________
I think, the concept and the realisation of the concept of superpower and potential superpower has to be understood in the context of history not personal observations. My earlier post was based on sound economic, geo-political facts and not on your views.

a) I think people should read writings and books of legendary economic and quantitative historian "Prof. Angus Maddison". I believe in an Youtube interview, he even stated that China would not only takeover USA and the west; but in the times to come Asia as a continent will be of strategic improtance and will be an economic power over Europe.

The global contribution to world's GDP by major economies from year 1 to 2003 according to Angus Maddison's estimates. Before the 18th century, India and China were the two largest economies by GDP output.

Projected GDP of 7 largest economies in 2050.

b) Economists and Researchers at Harvard University have projected India’s 7% projected annual growth rate through 2024 would continue to put it ahead of China, making India the fastest growing economy in the world.

c) Several reports and publication from National Intelligence Council, have revealed that China and India will be more powerful that the U.S. by 2030.

Q How China and India will be more powerful that the U.S. by 2030 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2245987/How-China-India-powerful-US-2030.html)

d) Prof. Niall Ferguson of Harvard Business School has proved why the West is now in decline? He has also published data and article while China and India is on rise and will take over the west and the European continent.

Q Why the West is now in decline (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8362325/Niall-Ferguson-why-the-West-is-now-in-decline.html)

Q In China's Orbit (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704104104575622531909154228)

Q China's got the whole world in its hands (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9135590/Niall-Ferguson-Chinas-got-the-whole-world-in-its-hands.html)

Thanks, Varghese Jacob

Why is Brazil here?

Brazil may or may not be a potential superpower, but I don't understand the point of it being in this article if there is absolutely no argument made for Brazil being a potential superpower. What arguments are the contrary arguments even referring to? The article literally gives none. Brazil should either be removed, or its section should have arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insert90 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Insert90: That's... actually a good point. Strange that nobody reacted. There are some limited arguments for in the contrary views section, that could be moved up, but it probably would be better overall to blank the section and merge its contents... somewhere. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 22:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler in the European Union section

I am not quite sure why Adolf Hitlers opinion on a construct which would come to realization decades after his demise matters here. Additionally to the fact that I am quite sure that he does not hold any scholarly credibility at all, as genocidal dictator and the like... Dead Mary (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed it. Just because he used the phrase "European union" does not mean he was discussing the European Union. That would be an accomplishment, to see in the future. Scr★pIron^IV 19:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Russia - obsolete

• Hugo Chávez died in 2013.
• Ruble isn't stable.
• American influence over Crimea - wake up! Xx236 (talk) 09:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Japan

Why no Japan?--Crossswords (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Crossswords. Because Japan has fallen behind, as indicated in the section about its historical, former, potential. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 22:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Its still has a huge economy with a significant culture/softpower. And if i remember correctly Japan used to have a section in this article, because a lot of historic articles and books speculated the country to have a potential to become a superpower when it was close to surpass the US economy in nominal GDP.--Crossswords (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Japan should be added to this list. 2001:8003:8612:EA00:1D67:8FCB:236D:3A89 (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Japan & Indonesia

I reckon Japan is not a historical potential superpower, it is a current one. Indonesia should also be seriously considered as a candidate. If South Korea and North Korea become a unified Korea, then they too should be considered as a potential superpower. I predict that ultimately there would be a “Big 9” world. 2001:8003:8612:EA00:1D67:8FCB:236D:3A89 (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

No crystal ball predictions please, bring reliable sources. Arnoutf (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

What about Russia, super power

The article states "Currently, only the United States fulfills the criteria to be considered a superpower." But would't Russia also be a super power Fightforsocialjustice (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Got any reliable academic sources that suggest Russia is a modern day superpower? Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The USSR was a superpower, but Russia is not. 120.156.138.87 (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

the wrong map - crimea is not included — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.11.48 (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the map. When did the global community accept Crimea as being legally annexed by Russia? Please bring reliable sources to the talk pages of the articles you're trying to change content on. Ever heard of the Minsk II protocols? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

United States

It might be interesting to add a section to this article describing pro/con views by scholars on whether the U.S. will remain a superpower. This article is well done, but it does not discuss at all whether the current superpower will remain one, when doing so will benefit the article. Because I have too little time and knowledge about this topic, I cannot add such a section myself, but I encourage more knowledgeable editors to do so. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Borderline WP:CRYSTAL. In the main, however, it's WP:OFFTOPIC for the scope for this article. There could be another article specifically on the subject, but would have to be well researched and well written. It's also more closely related to Superpower in terms of a WP:SPINOFF. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

It would not violate CRYSTAL, because it would be the same thing as we have now for the countries already listed in this article. These are all present-day predictions of the future by qualified experts -- I never proposed anything that would violate WP:OR, unlike the IPs and new editors above. I proposed exactly something that's "well researched and well written", and I'm not going to do it myself because I don't have the time or knowledge of the RSs to do so.

Also, I don't think such an addition would violate WP:OFFTOPIC -- this article discusses countries that scholars believe have the capability of becoming superpowers in the near future. Whether the U.S. has the capability of remaining a superpower in the near future according to those same group of scholars is a question that lies in the exact same topic-area. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: I do see your point. As I noted, it's all a bit problematic unless the articles surrounding the concept of a "Superpower" are developed to encompass more on the issues of the preconditions: economic and political. For starters, they don't properly address political systems (i.e., is the major precondition that of a global capitalist economy, and the fragmentation of economies into nation-states?) as being central to the existence of a superpower. The definition of 'superpower' is also measured in disparate parts: military, industrial, etc. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if good sources are added, I strongly recommend that a section is created. I would be surprised if people knowledgeable on this topic cannot find good sources, and I would also be surprised if I'm the only reader who expects to see on this page scholarly info on the U.S.'s future as a superpower. Regardless, I will leave it to you and other editors. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Comparative statistics

I added to Ukrainian Wikipedia article such table of comparative statistics of each potential superpowers in population, nominal GDP, nominal GDP per capita, GDP growth and military expenditure. What about adding a similar table here? --TheLotCarmen (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@TheLotCarmen: Do we have a same and neutral source for all of them? Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

All sources I took from English Wikipedia article, like as this, this and this. Only EU statistics I took from Eurostat because in first sources data available only for countries not for union such as EU. --TheLotCarmen (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

If no one opposes I add this table to the article. --TheLotCarmen (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@TheLotCarmen: Thanks. Looks fine. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

China

China is already widely regarded as a superpower. (Mcd;;d;ww (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC))

• They maybe a superpower, but if they are, than it is only just barely. Yes, China is economically a superpower, there is no question to this. No normal Great Power is able to create something as ambitious as the Belt and Road Initiative. Politically, China is able to find a niche in developing countries and even certain developed countries. But militarily, China still needs room to grow. Yes, China has their first overseas military base in Djibouti which definitely proves that China is capable of force projection beyond its respective region, but the US has over 400. So China is indeed a superpower as per definition, but they only manage to scrape it. Once they fully realized the String of Pearls and the second island chain in the SCS, than China can be seen as a military equal. Same can be said of the EU, if they federalize, create a proper centralized military and have a concrete foreign policy led by a French-German alliance, than the EU can be a formidable superpower that could check on both the US and China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.49.75 (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Statistics don't match up with the source

I noticed some of the statistics in the box don't match up with citation 14. They're said to be from 2017, but a quick check of China's GDP percent growth in 2017 should be 6.8% (rounded up from 6.765%), not 6.7%, according to the data. In 2016 this would've been the case.

So... I guess the data isn't actually from 2017. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, this should be updated, or this table should be moved at the end of the article. It is really not that significant (many other factors play an important role). Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

At least I have updated the table so far, linked it to relevant sourced articles and added other factors. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

GDP PPP data is obviously wrong

I remember China has surpassed USA in terms of PPP GDP back in 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.187.166.54 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your notification. The data were inexplicably and wrongly adjusted by 99danewguineadahyena2000 in his/her edit on 9 May. Updated data were returned. Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I find this article really well done even if US and EU are a little undervalued. List of countries by total wealth, List_of countries by_wealth_per adult and List of countries by Human Development Index should be on table. They are too important to describe a potential superpower. They are at the base of a superpower. Wealth is much more important than GDP(nominal is much more important than PPA that is too arguable). GDP can be compared to a year wage , net wealth is all what a political entity accumulated in the history. By money people can get all , from food to weapons , from commodities to allies. Me and others noticed this big hole. So table should be better. Thank you for your attention.33Hudsonbay33 (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

China Page calls it a superpower. What now?

The mainpage of China calls it a global superpower. There was a discussion in the China talk page about changing it back to the category of 'potential superpower' but that was immediately shot down due to a large consensus of various news media, journals and think tanks all calling China A superpower. So my question is that should we change the category on this page to signify China's superpower status as per consensus? I mean, even the section talking about China on this very page states that it has reached superpower status pretty recently.134.7.65.106 (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, no country can be considered a superpower, if its people do not hold sufficient wealth. GDP PPP per capita is considered as the most important indicator of a country's standard of living, China's figures however show that they are 3-4 times smaller than those of the USA and almost twice smaller than the Russian ones. Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

China is just a potential superpower, lower than EU in the scale for economy and several other points. China like US and EU is a "complete" great power, but not a superpower like US. Russia should be shorter. It's "overvalued" in article. Its land and weapons aren't sufficient for a so wide space in the article. 33Hudsonbay33 (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Economics and GDP PPP is not everything. It is the capability in projecting power on a global scale that denotes the difference between Great Powers (which can only project on a continental scale) to a superpower. According to Lowy Institude Asia Power Index (a relatively neutral and rather accurate think tank based on power projection), China IS considered a superpower. This is the statement from the API "China is a superpower in Asia.China netted the highest gains in overall power in 2019, with first place rankings in half of the Index measures: economic relationships, diplomatic influence, economic resources and future resources. Last year it led on only three of the eight measures. For the first time, China narrowly edged out the United States in the Index's assessment of economic resources. Despite a slowing growth rate, in absolute terms China's economy grew by more than the total size of Australia's economy in 2018." Here is the link https://power.lowyinstitute.org/countries.php?profile=CN. I shall be putting this in the China segment as this is important. 175.38.153.175 (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Your example seems to contradict your position. If a superpower is defined by "projecting power on a global scale", then why is China described only as a "superpower in Asia"? --Khajidha (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

And what about citations for all economic data per capita , HDI and so on?33Hudsonbay33 (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• The level of contradiction between this page and the China page is pretty jarring so I understand that. But IMO, the projection of power is everything if one wants to become a superpower. To the above post, trying to use GDP PPP per capita as a measurement is....shall I say a very poor argument. Case in point, Qatar has twice the per capita of the US in terms of PPP, but no one with a brain considers Qatar an economic powerhouse. As it is stated, projection of power is everything, if you fail to project power than you only risk revealing major weakness in your suppose influence. You can have all the money you have in the world, but if you can't project power than you are nothing. The UK stopped being a superpower after the Suez Canal Crisis exemplified the impotence of British influence in Egypt due to the arrival of US economic influence and Soviet political influence. To the anon's link, the Lowy Institute is a pretty fun source to read, however I find it too regional and too broad on their power rankings. Case in point, the Lowy Institute never goes into detail on the enforcement/scale of the BRI nor Chinese economic influence in Europe, Africa and Latin America. I consider China an economic and technological superpower, although it is politically insular in contrast to US democracy promotion. China will become a military superpower as early as 2025 and will be an equal to the US military at that time. By 2025, the String of Pearls in conjunction with China's two nuclear powered aircraft carriers would effectively police the entire Indian Ocean, containing India and safeguard China's maritime trade routes. By 2025, the PLAN would be able to effectively dominate the SCS and East China Sea, whatever US presence there would be nothing more than symbolic rhetoric. By 2025, China should have - if Russia allows it - security dominance in Central Asia to protect the BRI as well as a significant naval presence in the Arctic. Essentially speaking, I consider China today in the same way as the USSR was in 1949, newly emerged superpowers with room to grow. If China controls Eurasia and Africa through economic and/or military force, China effectively rules the world as dictated by the laws of Geopolitics.175.38.205.33 (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Projections are forecasts, nothing else. Many times studies about projections are payed by the same political entities that need them for propaganda. Japan should have become a suoperpower. China has too low HDI and so very low attractive position. Its net national wealth is much less than the 50% of US or EU ones. China is neither a "full great" power because of this. It's difficult to find a full great power, so a real superpower today. Even US population is too low. US and EU for different reasons are at the same level. May be EU is a "primus inter pares" holding a low profile.33Hudsonbay33 (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think China could be a true world superpower like the USA. China can only access the ocean by one side (the east side), and even that side has been "locked-up" by nearby powerful countries competing for international power. Also, the western part of China has harsh climate and is not ideal for any meaningful developments. Russia (too cold, lack of infrastructure, lack of seaports), Canada (too cold, lack of seaports, lack of manpower) and Australia (too dry, too isolated, lack of manpower) etc. all have similar problems, although Australia as a giant island continent has great access to the ocean. In my opinion, only Brazil, India and a unified United States of Europe (USE) can ultimately challenge the USA for global domination in a Big Four world. 2001:8003:9003:1801:FCAF:C6A5:20D6:51E8 (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The PRC has big internal and external issues. There are many protests every year. There are domestic issues in Hong Kong. Taiwan doesn't want to be a province of the PRC. There's human rights abuse, corruption, oppression of minorities (Uyghurs, Tibetans, Manchus, Cantonese speakers etc). The one-party system is unknown if it can keep control during an economic slowdown or recession. The EU is disintegrating. The United Kingdom is leaving. South European countries have high unemployment and debt with low economic growth. There's increasing resentment in EU countries for the loss of autonomy to bureaucrats. (Artanisen (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC))

Why is Brazil a Superpower?

This country has so far failed to prove any force projection either economically, politically or militarily outside of its respective region. Brazil might be the most powerful country in South America, but the same can be said to South Africa and SA is not considered a superpower. I feel like people just slap superpower around because it sounds fancy without taking consideration on what constitutes a superpower. Brazil is not a superpower, at best it is a swing state between Great Power competition, unless Brazil has proven the capability in enforcing its national interests through a combination of hard and soft power on a global scale, than calling Brazil a superpower is highly disingenuous. I mean, its telling when articles providing support for Brazil is several years old with only two available sources and has not been updated since. The same can be said for Russia, the Russian Federation outside of military expenditure has never really showcase the ability to enforce its influence outside of the former Soviet space (even than, Russia is losing its influence in Central Asia to China and Eastern Europe to the EU). Sure Russia wish it could still think as a superpower like the former USSR, but unless Russia somehow reconstitute the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact and immediately start propping military bases around the world, than Russia would only end up as a subversive Great Power trying to pull the US and Europe down to its level. The situation in India is still far down the road and I will wait and see where India would end up. So far, of the entities listed here, only China and the EU have shown both the political will and capability in expanding its economic and political power on a global scale. Militarily....not so much, although I will wait and see.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.49.75 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Brazil is not a superpower. As stated, it have limited discussion among authorities regarding its potential as a superpower. Maybe it could be transferred to some special section. All other countries are sourced enough from the media and academics. Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Which again begs the question on why is it even there in the first place? If we all agree that Brazil lacks the credentials to even be a Great Power no less, than it is safe to remove Brazil from its entirety a long time ago. After reading the source in support of Brazil's superpower status, it came out even worse. I thought there was two independent sources, but there was only one, which puts Brazil's status in even more doubt. Additionally, the source's argument for Brazil's status is extremely weak and idealistic. It ignores Brazil's economic woes and rampant political corruption let alone the hard fact that Brazil is not the leader in almost any of the global multilateral economic partnerships it is part of. The only supranational organization in which Brazil seem to be the leader of, is UNASUR. The article also do not list any evidence of Brazilian power projection, instead it constantly grouped Brazil's contributions to its economic and trade partners.....which is not a conclusive evidence of global leadership for Brazil at all. Compare this to China who are the leaders in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and Belt and Road Initiative as well as having a massive regional military dominance in the Asia-Pacific, significant influence in Africa, Latin America and Central Asia, or the EU which is the largest economic bloc, the largest political union, the largest aid donor whilst hosting a leading member-state that has replaced the US as the leader of the free world and have the military capacity in enforcing peacekeeping roles on three different continents all the while having significant influence in Europe and Africa. All of this is what you would call power projection, and that is without taking into account of the United States. All of a sudden, Brazil doesn't really look like a heavyweight.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.49.75 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 15:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

You're right (regarding recent economic recession and other factors) IMO Brazil should be changed to something like Japan is presented in the article (or completely deleted). Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I second this. The map needs to be changed to reflect the current political consensus. Brazil should be removed.175.38.153.175 (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I think very similar.33Hudsonbay33 (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Brazil has all the critical things needed to become a world superpower: land, manpower, resources, great access to the Ocean, strategic location etc. Just continue to work hard, all Brazil need is time really. Planet Earth is not going to explode soon, so Brazil has plenty of time to rise. 2001:8003:9003:1801:FCAF:C6A5:20D6:51E8 (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Brazil has potential, but also numerous domestic issues. Such as corruption, high taxation, quality of education, poverty, crime, income disparity etc. Brazil has an abundance of land which makes it less valuable. 60% of the land is rainforest that is difficult for agriculture. It has many natural resources, but much is exported to other countries. Geographic size doesn't make a country destined to be a superpower. Brazil isn't a leader in many international organizations. As of 2019, Brazil doesn't have great power status. It seems to be a long time until Brazil could become a great power. (Artanisen (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC))

August 2019

I have fully protected this article due to ongoing edit warring. All interested parties should bring their arguments to this page to determine consensus. If the edit warring resumes without consensus being reached I will reapply protection to the article. Tiderolls 17:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Disputing CometCaleb's Big Reversals of Valid Additions to the Page

I've taken the initiative to discuss the matter with CometCaleb. On 27 August 2019‎, CometCaleb has made a series of reversals of valid additions to the page. The reversals were unexplained by CometCaleb. There's disagreement with CometCaleb flawed arguments, because 1. These edits include references and are not ridiculous, they are plausible 2. on (14:44, 31 July 2019‎) he said "lowering the bar", yet Brazil and India are listed as potential superpowers, but they're both not great powers yet! The information about Brazil states it's a potential great power, not a superpower. On 07:21, 27 August 2019‎, he said "If the bar is low enough to add Japan to the list, then it's certainly low enough to warrant adding China as a superpower alongside the US below the SVG map. While you're at it, you might as well add Germany to the list of potential superpowers, as it's also a great power. Heck, you could even add Italy to the list as it's considered the "least of great powers", which is still a step above Brazil. Problem is, you keep moving the "superpower status" goal posts; you need to be more consistent" My Response was: "Weak arguments. Germany is stuck in the European Union. Brazil is listed as a potential superpower but the information concludes its a potential great power. I wasn't talking about China, you're derailing it. Italy is stuck inside the European Union which overrules domestic and foreign policy. Germany, Italy and Brazil are individually economically smaller than Japan" Then at 17:04, 27 August 2019 he reversed it again based on his own personal bias without refuting the arguments made. Then a few minutes later on 17:18, 27 August 2019‎ Tide rolls Protected the page which prevents the restoration of the biased reversals caused by CometCaleb. His argument was "And once again, the impartiality of your sources regarding Russia are highly questionable". There are dozens of sources that support similar analysis about probable disintegration of Russia even by high profile Russians. For example: The Russian politician Vyacheslav Volodin and 10th Chairman of the State Duma said in 2014 “If there is Putin, there is Russia; if there is no Putin, there is no Russia.” Another example: Andrey Illarionov, former economic policy adviser to the President of Russia (2000-2005), said the disintegration of Russia is inevitable and a natural process for all multi-national empires.. These are statements by these prominent people. It's even less biased, because prominent Russians are quoted. CometCaleb can disagree with something, but shouldn't apply harsh reversals of things he doesn't like on this page, because that is the real bias. (Artanisen (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC))

• Artanisen, you need to strike your allegation that anyone got me to protect this article. That statement is simply not true. Tiderolls 18:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay I've removed that. Sorry, it seemed unusual a few minutes after CometCaleb's reversed a lot of valid additions to the page. (Artanisen (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC))

Your bad faith assumptions will not serve you well. I'd advise you to avoid drawing conclusions based on "perfect timing" and characterizing the good faith edits of others censorship. Tiderolls 18:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith about the page protection, that is a false allegation. It did seem unusual that the page was locked a few minutes after the previous edit. Secondly, I've removed the assumption of "perfect timing" already and apologized. Also I didn't know about the three-revert rule before, so my apologies. I would like to discuss the dispute with CometCaleb. A "good faith" edit should not delete so much valuable additions to the page without a fair discussion. (Artanisen (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)).

Protected edit request on 1 September 2019

The notion that the United States is the only Superpower is extremely biased and overtly incorrect. Please remove this opinionated post. Scottieb 02:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

And what are the sources for your suggestion? Dimadick (talk) 08:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Add Brazil data on "Comparative statistics" table

hello there, Makes absolutely no sense for me that only the data of Brazil is omitter on the table. I see no reason for this actual structure of the article, so if anyone have a good reason or acceptable arguments to maintain the article as it is today, would like to know, otherwise I recommend fix it.

B777-300ER (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Referenced EU critics are not credible

From the looks of it, it's only citing UK- and US-based Eurosceptics. That's a bit like citing goldbugs only in the critics section of an article related to fiat money. Sure, a few of them might have a good point to make, but their all being goldbugs to begin with makes it look like they're all out of the same echo-chamber.

2001:4C4E:2A1E:3000:F077:517B:D845:CEA8 (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

In first image sahi g that only usa is superpower and emerging is only china , name of india should be added as it is also categorised as emerging superpower. 47.30.216.208 (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- S.Hinakawa (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

4.27% of the world population?

The article states that the potential superpowers + the US make up 4.27% of the world's population. However, China alone holds roughly 18% of the world population. Is this an error, or did I misunderstand the statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khanacademy03 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

right, it should be 44.33% of the population based on the link (i.e. BRIC+USA). I assume, at the time, it was supposed to be 44.27%+EU which is around 6%. I changed it to "approximately half", which I think is fair. Pkin8541 (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

China

China is already widely regarded as a superpower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.82.125 (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Not militarily yet in varying degrees. While the Pentagon likes to emphasize us having the larger navy, that argument can mostly be attributed to wanting greater funding.
https://news.usni.org/2020/09/01/pentagon-report-china-now-has-worlds-largest-navy-as-beijing-expands-military-influence
Under a more rigorous evaluation in types of ships making up our fleet, you would see a massive difference in overall tonnage for warship classes that really matter. — ChineseToTheBone (talk) 04:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

But Brazil, India, and a possible United States of Europe have more potential. Ultimately, the world are likely to be dominated by the Big 4: the USA, the USE, India and Brazil. China, Indonesia, Japan, and Russia are hampered by their geography and are likely to become the second tier Reserve Big 4 in international politics instead. 120.16.213.168 (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Missing comma

China, on the other hand, has been referred to as an emerging superpower, given that Beijing's power is now beyond the classification of a Great Power. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Japan

Since there was an editor who had removed the wording "Historic potential of Japan" from the section name "Japan" to become the section name just "Japan", should the statistic of Japan should place in the Comparative statistics section? WPSamson (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

China again

Potential superpowers Bold text In recent edits user Shankargb changed the opening image, China was transferred back to the category "Potential superpowers" from an artificially created category "Emerging superpower". I agree with Shankargb. China has been here classified as potential superpower, I think, since the creation of this article in 2008. This has been changed by anonymous ip 49.190.160.252 on 28 September 2019, and without any consensus. In the archive you can read several discussions about the categorization of China, however, it always remained the same. In my opinion, no country can be considered a superpower, if its people do not hold sufficient wealth. GDP PPP per capita is considered as the most important indicator of a country's standard of living, China's figures however show that they are 3-4 times smaller than those of the USA and almost twice smaller than the Russian ones. I also see no reason to create a new category if this article only deals with this category (Potential superpowers). Consensus was not reached on the discussion page, only that China is potential power. This has been reverted by the two newbies in Wikipedia: Ranking888 and Bryant7728. I do not agree with this and I believe that the article should be restored to its original state. Jirka.h23 (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jirka.h23: I agree that this will need consensus. The opinion piece cited to support this WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim only says that "China will be the next superpower", than "it is an emerging superpower". Shankargb (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

It has been cited by numerous reputable articles on this page now that China is viewed in some professional and academic light as an emerging superpower. You can not remove the cited passage because "In my opinion..." this is WP:OR and not how consensus works. If the sources are reputable, an argument can not be made to reject them solely on opinions. Terramorphous (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

You are just falsifying sources and it is ironic that you cite WP:OR. We can confirm this from the sources you added.

This source asked "What kind of superpower that China wants to become?" and adds: "...China can only become an economy superpower if it economy continue experiencing economy growth and as a major economy actor the communist country will secure itself a seat among the elite club in international politics but won’t become a military superpower or complete superpower country like the USA because it China foreign policy for decades has been built upon soft power ..."

This one (better accessible through this link) does not say "emerging superpower" but doubts if China will ever achieve higher recognition.

This one makes no mention of "emerging superpower".

This one is the same as above.

This one is a mere clickbait headline with no confirmation if China is emerging superpower.

This one does not support your statement but only predicts (without strong basis) that China will overthrow the US in tech.

This one is a completely irrelevant source.

You should refrain from falsifying sources and wait until someone can say it without doubting that China is a emerging superpower. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

 Note: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trueknowledge789, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bryant7728. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

User Ranking888 and Bryant7728 has been confirmed as a sockpuppet and has been blocked. User:Angelsky737 also seems like a suspicious user, who recently changed this page again. He has been created recently on 21 December 2020, has posted only a few edits so far and his edits are very similar, like the one in atricle Superpower (adding China as an emerging superpower). I also do not agree with his change, as all his sources again do not declare that China is an "emerging superpower", only that it is an emerging major power and a possible future superpower. Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

ASEAN

Is ASEAN a Potential Superpower? can add? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 許文赫 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@許文赫: Unless if there got reliable sources that I can find around the internet and also the books and academic materials, otherwise not wise to add it into the content. WPSamson (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Revamp/deletion needed

Some objections:

• Many sources are 10-20 years old. Much has happened in the meantime. Reliable media in 2021 don't generally report on Japan, Brazil, the EU, and Russia as potential or emerging superpowers. There may be fringe views claiming they are (such fringe views also exist for CANZUK btw), but these shouldn't be given undue weight. Hence, I propose to remove these countries.
• Next to this, more fundamentally, I believe this article (and its sub-articles) will always be POV and OR, reading like an essay rather than an encyclopedic article. I don't think they should exist. The relevant/useful (=non-speculative) content can likely be covered in the superpower article and in various international relations articles.

Morgengave (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

There are many sources since 2014 for EU countries and Russia. On the other hand, I would agree with the removal of Brazil and Japan. As already discussed here, Brazil should be removed, it have very limited discussion among authorities regarding its potential as a superpower, maybe it could be transferred to some special section. For example, with Japan, which has fallen behind long ago. China is not a superpower (Wikipedia:EXCEPTIONAL), academic sources only says that China could be the next superpower, rather than it is an emerging superpower. This article is useful, it demonstrates the status of the world after the collapse of the USSR and should remain. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jirka.h23: Glad we agree on Brazil and Japan. I do disagree with your views on "many sources since 2014" and "this article is useful":

(1) About the EU: If you look to the sources in the article that "support" the EU as a potential superpower, the most recent ones are all from 2008 or earlier (there's one source on languages which is from 2010, but that source doesn't mention superpowers; it's just about languages). The only sources that are more recent than 2008 are the "contrary" views. You need to look at the original date, not the retrieval date. If you can update the article with more recent, reliable, non-fringe (!) views (to adhere to WP:RSP and WP:UNDUE), please do so. Ideally you then take sources from mid-2016 and later dates, to take along the impact of Brexit, which is understandably major for the future of the EU.

(2) About Russia: most recent sources are from 2014, but almost all are from 2010 and earlier. More importantly, these sources are not convincing at all: the one from 2014 is about Russia "acting" as a superpower, not "being" or "becoming" one. Another one is an op-ed from 2008, which may just be a fringe opinion. Two are statements from Chavez about Russia; Chavez has died in 2013. One is about Netanyahu calling Russia a superpower in 2010, but that link is no longer accessible. In the case of both Chavez and Netanyahu: diplomatic niceties don't constitute credible sources. One is in Russian from RIA, which according to WP:RSP is a "biased and opinionated" official news agency of the Russian government, so not usable. Then there's a book from 2005 about Russia returning to superpower status by 2010; clearly, that didn't happen. All other sources are "contrary" views. So, in short, not one "supporting" source is even close to usable at this moment.

(3) On the status of major powers following the Cold War: that's not the purpose of this article. There are many articles that deal with the post-Cold War world. This article is just speculation and full of outdated and fringe views, as well as OR by bringing various sources together to push a view (WP:SYNTH). I believe that fundamentally, this article shouldn't exist as it will always be POV/OR. Morgengave (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

As for the China's sources: article on Scmp.com is just opinion of the author, not a news article, Rfi.fr only use this in the title, text in the article further explains that in one opinion the United States could be replaced by China as the world’s "Artificial Intelligence superpower", and as for the article in Fortune.com I don't have a subscription so unfortunately I don't see what exactly is written there. Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

As said, I don't find the China point important, and I don't want it to distract from the other, much more important points. NB: For that reason, I have removed my point on it for now. I am also much more interested in your view on these other points. Morgengave (talk) 11:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• The tag bombing on this article is discouraging but I am in favour of considering comments from Morgengave that sources here date back to 15-20 years ago and majority of experts no longer see any potential in Russia, Brazil and European Union. If I were to select the current version (with tags) or the revamped version by Morgengave, then I will go for the latter. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• To add, I had poked around following the notice of controversies, and it appears major revisions or edits to this page were made by serial Wikipedia Sockpuppeteers with virtually exclusive ties to Chinese topical articles. Now blocked users like 88hyperborea1998, Ranking888, Bryant7728, and 99republicoftaiwan (from a similar sockpuppet tree) have appeared to engage in an editing campaign to extol the greatness of China as an Potential/Emerging Superpower while historically chipping away at other article sections and alternate user contribution. I have no interest in the debate itself, but this edit history should speak towards the significant and practically unsalvageable extent of damage done to the quality of this article by actors with an agenda antithetical to Wikipedia core values. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:4406:67D0:B807:D735:A48F:A1B5 (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• @Intforce: What those outdated maintenance tags have to do with the GA review? GA review is not for resolving content issues, nor those tags were added after GA review. @Morgengave and Jirka.h23: do you see any need of these tags anymore given the above discussion addressed each of them? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

These objections are not yet addressed, so the tags should remain. Morgengave (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Morgengave: I am fine with removing section about EU and Russia and I guess you wanted the same? Will that resolve tagging issue? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: That, or a major revamp of the sections of those two sections, is indeed needed. (I do suspect one won't find enough reliable, non-fringe issues to support Russia and the EU, so yes, it may be best to remove them?) It would however not resolve the tags. The China and India sections also have many issues. For example, sources are used that are either old and outdated. I believe that speculative sources in a case like these shouldn't be too old as the world is very dynamic (e.g., sources that are more than 10 years old, are likely outdated). There are also many outdated predictions (e.g., by year 2015 or 2016 or 2021, or in 10 years, <something> will happen - I believe in most cases these claims didn't come to fruition). There are also sources that only indirectly refer to one of the countries being a potential superpower (e.g., only in the page or article title), and these claims aren't central to the article. Elsewhere, they are using a qualifier (e.g., "economic" superpower"), or apply criticism the notion of the country as a current superpower rather than a potential one (e.g., the source on India's malnutrition etc.). Other sources are used (e.g., about China leveraging its power, India's expected economic growth, the renminbi will become the reserve currency, the whole paragraph starting with Lee Kuan Yew (he talkes about supplanting the US, but he never said the US was a superpower - so let's avoid OR here), the part about the decline of the US, etc.) but don't themselves use the concept "superpower", meaning they constitute SYNTH/OR. Columnists such as Benny Avni also shouldn't be given undue weight. He's not a notable or objective expert on the matter. The list of examples I provide here is not exhaustive, just a non-exhaustive illustration of significant issues. Morgengave (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I would not agree with removing 15 year old sources, they are useful on the topic, it demonstrates the status of the world after the collapse of the USSR. If new sources emerge that deny this, these may be also included in Contrary views. For now, I have changed the introduction so that it is clear that it is a description of views from the past. Regarding the tags, I also think that they would not be needed here, various adjustments can be made later without them.Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

For me, the state of the sources and the current OR/SYNTH, is not a minor issue. The above list is just an illustration of some of the page's issues. The state is such that I think that the page be better deleted. Feel welcome to make adjustments, but removing the tags before these issues have been resolved, is not something I support. Morgengave (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Brazil

Why Brazil was removed from this article? Nitesh003 (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Because Morgengave and I agreed on that, and no one was against it. Do you demand its return? This has been widely discussed before (see archive), there are no sources for Brazil being a potential superpower, only the contrary ones. Low HDI, low military power, and given the long economic problems of recent times, I don't think it belongs here. Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to say anything on 'adding Brazil back to this article' but Brazil is also part of groups such as G4 and BRICS. Nitesh003 (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• By your definition, Brazil can merely include as emerging power but it may not even reach to a great power status, which is also clearly mentioned in the textbody of BRICS as it being an association of "major emerging economies" on regional extent. Have those country groups been said to define as "recognized" potential superpower groups?? Canada is in G7, why is she not considered a great power? ...BRICS also admitted South Africa into the group, does that mean we shall add South Africa as one "potential super power"? The country groups are not a conventional classification for the use of the specific terms. This is why we require scholar metrics for supporting those claims as well as being the only reliable criteria, if you can find adeqhate sources to support Brazil's position as a future peer competitor to those candidates the article has mentioned then everyone would agree to sort it in listing.

Per intuitive understanding of rating, even India, a nuclear-weapon state as well as being the 6th largest economy globally by nominal GDP, is also questionable by many for its potential of becoming a superpower in near future as you can see in above talks... For what standpoints of Brazil itself in satisying any of criteria as a "potential superpower" when it is not even satisfied as a major power? 123.195.130.73 (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

With regards to India's inclusion, the answer is simple: there is a clear academic consensus by experts in the field. India is always mentioned in peer-reviewed, academic writing relating to potential superpowers of the current day, which is of course the subject of this article. Of course, by the same virtue, we may also say that Brazil would not be suitable for inclusion. Transfo47 (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I also disagree one hundred per cent with the removal of Brazil from the article. And disagree with Jirka.h23's opinions. Brazil is the most populous Western country after the United States, it's military power is not "low", Brazil has one of the largest armies in the World, the only country in South America to have a airplane carrier, the country has a tremendous military aircraft exporter, like Embraer and it's KC-390 design and brand new Grippen fighter jets recently added to that country's portifolio, Brazil's potential while at war can not be downplayed, it has reserve forces of almost 2 million people besides the main force which is larger than most European "potential superpowers". The EU has no integrated army, it's only an economic bloc with divergencies in foreign affairs. Actually most of your opinions and excuses for removing Brazil from the article are consistent with original research, even the one where you affirm that no scholars these days assume that to be true, for you to say that you have to present some research, anyone can say they think "nobody believes it, everybody agrees with me". If you know anything about recent Brazil history you will know about the importance the country has in arbitrating South American conflicts and it's influence in the continent. Brazil has no "long economic problem of recent times", the country is expected to grow 5% this year and it already reached pre pandemics economic level many months ago. The economic crisis was over in 2016, 5 years ago. From there, Brazil had no negative growth and foreign investiment is high in recent years. So you're spreading false informations to reinforce your vision. I encourage editors to make a deep research about a country if they want to affirm important things like it's recent economy and it's military power, which are complex subjects. But Brazil was attractive to invest since at least 5 years ago, with that process intensifying in recent years, foreign invetment is at a peak. I think this is not the right place to discuss that, but as you made it, i feel comfortable to deny some false arguments. The potential such a country has, the international importance and it's massive economy, military might (It's Navy and Air Force are larger than that of France), military power and potential to raise a huge number of troops in times of war (The country has currently a population of 213 million people) cannot be ignored. There's much research to be done before removing a content base on the opinion (vote) of only two individuals.Sawyersx (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Sawyersx, I have no problem discussing this topic with you. As already Transfo47 said above, there are no academic writings relating to Brazil become potential superpower. As I said before, this has been widely discussed before (see archive), people here wondered why is even Brazil included if there are no sources for it being a potential superpower, only the contrary ones. User Nitesh003 mentioned membership in G4 and BRICS, but I also agree with the answer below, that this does not indicate the status of a potential power - as in the case of South Africa. As has already been said in the archive, Brazil has numerous domestic issues and geographic size doesn't make a country potencial superpower. The stagnation and decline of the Brazilian economy since 2014 will not add much to that either, GDP drop up to -3.5% (2015) and -3.3% (2016), and about 1% growth in 2019 does not change anything. I would also disagree with your mention of the military, this is not compared to a country like France, but the EU, but above all, its military strength is far behind all other subjects, and even the weakest India has twice the Power Index rating than Brazil. So if you still want to convince us otherwise, the only option is to supply us a number of relevant sources. But I don't think it belongs here, as in the case of Japan. Regards, Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

India as a "potential superpower"

How, and in which sense, is India, one of the poorest countries on planet Earth, where not even enough oxygen is found to treat people who have COVID-19, is a potential superpower? Not to even mention, its massively corrupt, and its poverty rates are off the charts... Please check the stats of the Indian states of Bihar, Jharkhand, and Uttar Pradesh once, and tell me that India is a "potential superpower". India should be a potential fourth-world country, since its nowadays seen degrading even from its third-world status. Emerging GDP nominal, but the citizens are dirt poor, barely get food, clothes, and clean water. There are numerous high-class politicians who claim that a person of other religion should be mass-cleansed... and India is a "potential superpower"??? Remove it from this list. Another important point is that, India ranks very low in the Human Development Index, and hell, even Bangladesh has a larger per-capita income than India. So much for a "potential superpower". 45.118.63.6 (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

In some ways you're right, but even China has too low HDI and GDP (PPP) per capita compared to US, EU or Russia. However, it is a potential superpower due to its population size, influence and military power. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

India is always mentioned in peer-reviewed, academic writing relating to potential superpowers of the current day. This alone warrants inclusion. The countries not on this list can also be justified by the same virtue. It is quite simple. Transfo47 (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

 Warning. Next time please avoid exaggerated comparisons and your own feelings, rather factually debate. Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Jirka.h23, you did that in the topic about Brazil, showing your own feelings, base on false informations (Like the affirmation of Brazil having recently a long economic problem, which is contradictory with the numbers). I warn editors to beahve the same way they expect other editors to behave.Sawyersx (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I aimed this warning at the first person, not at user Transfo47. His exaggerated comparisons could be taken as insults. As for my comments, perhaps I have answered you sufficiently in the paragraph Brazil below. Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Superpower doesn't necessarily mean being super rich and socially progressive, US isn't exactly the wealthiest country out there, it might be having some of the worst living standards, religiosity and corruption among the first world countries. And lets not forget, the people of USSR weren't exactly living in a luxury. China is another example which is the most cited country in contemporary academic articles to be the most likely superpower while having overall living standards that are comparable to the best Indian states, while having a regressive culture and a very authoritarian government. And India itself was part of the previous superpower(as well as fueled a considerable part of its economy), the British Empire which exactly didn't have great living standards outside of core UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.44.160.133 (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

What about the Commonwealth of Independent States? - Also Concerning Other Economic Superpowers

Should the CIS be listed instead of the lone Russian Federation? If we are including the US and the EU I feel it is only fair to include or mention other closely-tied IGO's, such as ASEAN, the SCO the AU, the Arab League, OPEC, and NATO, NAFTA, or the OAS/OAE. There's tons more but I think we should consider the function of economic blocs in addition to regional alliances or the geographical limitations of borders. Шхыюнк (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources for these organizations. Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

they are organizations, not possible united states Januszfanrybactwa (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Britain

hello, honestly, I don't know about the growing superpowers, but I would like to ask about the great britain, whether after leaving the european union, britain has ceased to be a superpower or at least an emerging superpower in the international arena? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.106.163.175 (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Because there are currently very limited sources in support of the United Kingdom as a contemporary rising power or at least an emerging power in its own right. Besides, the UK is now largely reliant on the US hagemony to sustain its position in global diplomacy. LVTW2 (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)