This is an archive of past discussions about Potential superpower. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
If you check the history, I removed a section comparing india with china (in the india section), where somebody says that china is superior and all the propoganda crap. I was wondering if I can include these in the china article; or even in the india one: [1], [2]. Please. its not just about how many countries india shares a border with. USA only borders 2 countries, but is far more powerful. I think that section was uncallfor. This article is just to highlight potential superpowers as widely discussed, not to publish opinions / predictions of individuals. If that's allowed, i'll also go ahead inserting those 2 articles.. in fact i can find more. 118.100.4.26 (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree the sections you removed definitely can be improved and presented in a more neutral fashion. For example, large blocks of quotes are undesirable. However, it is not propaganda or nationalistic if a notable scholar who is not trying to denigrate India is referenced and his arguments are valid. It would be better avoid the constant China and India comparisons (which is prevalent on many articles) as each section is supposed to elaborate on a specific country's potential for superpowerdom. What we are trying to achieve here is proper balance between the arguments in favor and against potential for each country. Nirvana888 (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I edited it. I tried to make it short and I tried to do it without a quote, but since english isn't my native language I just threw the quote in the page. As for the propaganda accusation, I tried to get the points that the writer made into the page ( by the way Parag Khanna was born in India ). For me it doesn't really matter that much if India or China has the largest section on a wikipedia page. Maybe you guys can make it a little more neutral than I could. Thank you.(Sorry for my bad grammar:P)
Hey, don't worry about it. I encourage you to add more to the other countries when you have time. If you are unsure or require help then you can post here and we'll get back to you. I'll see if I can present your sections in a more neutral fashion. Khanna also goes into length about EU and China in his book; would be good if we could get his opinion on them. Nirvana888 (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Articles by source worthy sources (and I would allow that the two offered above may be source worthy) that explicitly compare potential superpowers as part of an identification of potential superpowers certainly could be included. The problem with the two sources offered above by the anon who created this section is that they don't even make use of the term "superpower" in passing whereas Khanna's comparison of India and China is couched in an analysis of their prospects as potential superpowers.Zebulin (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Military Source?
Okay, I found this site that tries ranking the military powers in the world, which I feel will be useful for the potential superpowers. But the entire source looks kind of shady to me, so I'm going to post it here and try to get a consensus if we should use this as a source or not. [1]Deavenger (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't really appear to be an academic source, rather just a compiling of numbers. I also find the way they determined this ranking rather foolish. Many of the parameters are flawed. For instance, one of the factors is railway coverage. It measures this parameter by total railways. This is foolish. Russia may have more total railways than France, but the railways of France probably cover a much greater percent of the country, because France is much smaller than Russia. Another flawed parameter is the available military manpower. It seems to list every one abvailable to join the military, but I highly doubt that everyone eligible to join the Army will. It also fails to note technological power. India comes in 4th, dispite it's equipment it almost completely out of Russian imports. China may have a major statistical advantage over many other nations, but it's military tech is no where near nations like the US, Russia, or France. However, that's my personal opinion. Still, doesn't appear to be an academic source so let's leave it out. Saru (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, that's what I thought. But I think we need to find a good military source because for some countries, all we have is what wikipedia has. So if we can find a good source that talks about the potential superpowers military, or what some military analysis says about their military. Deavenger (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that'll be tough. The majority of sources I've read so far mainly talk about political and economic factors. Military is left out for some reason. Saru (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, me too. Like the book I bought by Fareed Zakaria, that talks nothing about military. So I'm hoping that the people who have read Parag Khannas book will be able to tell us if it mentions military or not. Otherwise, I'll start looking and see if I can find any good sources. Deavenger (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I actually think I found a good source that we could use for military. It seems to be pretty accurate. Everybody, check it out.
I can't get to "The End of Europe" article under the references. Is it something wrong with my internet or what? If not, and nobody can get to the file, can somebody remove the source, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.142.207 (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
A recent edit [3] has introduced a large paragraph of material attributed to Ryan Nichols who is described as "a regional expert of Europe" in the article and at the given source here [4]. However the source is a site for a college undergraduate international relations club and it can be seen from the same site that Ryan Nichols is a current student member [5]. It is clear from the source context that Ryan Nichols is in fact regarded as an "expert" only in the limited context of this undergraduate student club. I think it is clear the addition did not meet the standards set by the other sources in this article and I'm going to revert the addition.Zebulin (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I regret the edit I did. I came by the article and thought it looked good and the writer described himself as a regional expert. It was only after you took away it that I started to look more deeply into the site. Swedish pirate (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it's an alright source to put in, but not one of our best ones. Personally, I would be hesitant to use this. But let's see what everybody else thinks of it first. Deavenger (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
If included I would also recommend inclusion of at least one source that says that popularity of a countries prospects of becoming a superpower facilitates it's chances of actually doing so.Zebulin (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I've removed this source from the article. Like Zebulin said, by implying that a favorable poll for the E.U. actually strengthens it's case to be a superpower is OR. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Russia
When I'm looking at this article I am wondering whether the argument for Russia being a potential superpower because it is winning friends and gaining more influence is still valid. Regarding the 2008 South Ossetian War and Poland and Ukraine entering the NATO (not listening to Russia). Further, the EU sections implies that soft power is important, in what degree can that be applied to Russia regarding the war. I am no expert on this, so I'm asking you. Mallerd (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
For the first of all the article says that Russia is losing friends and that's an argument against Russia's superpower status. Regarding soft power, look at how the EU negotiated an end to the war by freezing EU-Russia talks. Now Russia has promised to pull all their tropps out of Georgian territory (except S. Ossetia and Abkhazia) by the start of next month, and all that is thanks to the EU negotiations. If the US (for example) would have filled Georgia with troops and attacked the Russian Forces, the confilct could have continued for years. Swedish pirate (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The war in South Ossetia has done virtually nothing to decrease Russia's standing as a great power; in fact, many argue it has significantly increased it. Ukraine's parliament has united itself against Ukraine's pro-Western president, Yushchenko, and are stripping his powers as we speak. His public approval ratings stand somewhere between 6 to 7% and he is largely a symbolic figure no with no real authority to make decisions of his own. Any decision he makes can be vetoed by the Parliament since they have enough votes. To the contrary, the war has guaranteed that neither Georgia nor Ukraine have any chance of joining NATO. So on that issue, halting NATO's expansion and preserving its sphere of influence, Russia has achieved a significant victory. --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, but now, Poland during the conflict said that they were finally going to allow U.S to install the missile shield. Not to mention, this conflict just brouth the U.S and E.U closer together, not to mention, that nations bordering Russia like Ukraine, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania were claiming their support for Georgia. But seeing how we have articles by two established International relations people and their respective articles. From what I can tell, both articles are both reliable, and should stay in the article, unless Hobie or any of the other senior members of the Power in International Relations project have objections. Deavenger (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Both of the article's sources are adequate and should remain in the article. Fareed Zakaria is one of the foremost experts on international relations. The way the paragraph is worded right now is fine. In my opinion, I'm taking Fareed Zakaria's position that Russsia's sphere of influence has shrunk and will continue to shrink for reasins I've already articulayed. At present, ot appears that Russia is left with Central Asia, the Caucuses, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, and Serbia. --Hobie (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
This article is spared from deletion for reporting on future (or potential) events only because it takes the approach of reporting on the predictions of qualified sources. Unfortunately this means that even if a qualified source were to predict that one of the "potentials" will soon collapse into a failed state we couldn't include it here if they didn't also directly relate that to the potential superpower status of that country or at the least directly refer to a prediction which is sourced elsewhere in the article. These references might be better suited for the foreign relations of Russia article. If we keep them where would we draw the line? Soon we'd have enough references added which comment on the general ups and downs of each "potentials" foreign relations that we'd risk article deletion again for an article that tries to turn wikipedia into a crystal ball.Zebulin (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The edit warring has to stop. Why don't we hold a straw poll for those in favor of including the sources, and those against including the souces. That seems to be fair. --Hobie (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Support- Fareed Zakaria is one of the formost foreign policy experts. Russia's sphere of influence is vital to its potential superpower status. I n my opinion, it is relative. --Hobie (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
No straw poll will spare the article from the deletion hawks if we allow it to stray into crystal ball territory. We can't say we are just reporting on the predictions of others if we do so by including general information from sources that don't even mention the concept of superpower in passing.Zebulin (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Finished India Subsections.
Okay, I finally have finished the India subsections after, using what I wrote before and some of the stuff already on the article. If anyone wants to add more, be my guest. I figure, once the subsections for Russia, China, and the E.U is also done, then we can add all the subsections at once. Here's the finished subsection,
Every year at the World Economic Forum in Davos, there's a star. Not a person but a country. One country impresses the gathering of global leaders because of a particularly smart Finance minister or a compelling tale of reform or even a glamorous gala. This year there was no contest. In the decade that I've been going to Davos, no country has captured the imagination of the conference and dominated the conversation as India in 2006.
Fareed Zakaria believes that one of India’s strongest factors for superpower status is its economy. India’s economy had a GDP growth of 9.4% in 2007. Goldman Sachs has predicted that in 10 years, India’s economy will be larger then Italy’s. In 15 years, it will be larger then Britain’s. By 2040, India should boast the third largest economy. [8] It is also expected that India, along with China should surpass the U.S economy by 2050 [9] But Fareed Zakaria notes that a prediction such as these is a “treacherous business”.
World map of GDP (Nominal and PPP). Figures are from the CIA World Factbook for 2007.
On the other hand, Founder and President of the Economic Strategy Institute and former counselor to the Secretary of Commerce in the Reagan Administration Clyde V. Prestowitz Jr. has predicted that "It is going to be India's century. India is going to be the biggest economy in the world. It is going to be the biggest superpower of the 21st century."[10]
India's strength lies in its demographics; more than 50% of India's population is under 25.[6] Dr Narendra Jadhav, a principal advisor to the Reserve Bank of India and a former advisor to the executive director at the IMF, says "India has a great potential to become an economic super power because of its growing young population."[11] A young population coupled with the second largestEnglish-speaking population in the world could give India an advantage over China.[12]] Fareed Zakaria also believes that while other industrial countries will face a youth gap, India will have lots of young people, or in other words workers. [13]
Zakaria says another strength that India is that despite being one of the poorest countries in the world, its democratic government has lasted for 60 years, stating that a democracy can provide for long-term stability. [14][15] India also has been gaining influence in Asia with trade agreements, direct investment, military exercises, and aids funds. It is good allies with countries such as Iran and Japan, and has emerging ties with countries such as Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar, and India even has an airforce base in Tajikistan. [16]. India also has fine relations with other countries such as Israel, UK, France, and Russia. Also, the Nuclear Deal with the U.S has strengthened its relationship.
Militarily, India has the second largest army in the world after China, and a nuclear power. India is one of the four countries with anti-ballistic missile capability, and is the first developing nation to build an aircraft carrier. India’s military also has lots of experience due to the high levels of terrorism in India, and living next to two countries (Pakistan and China) in which there have been numerous of conflicts. Militarily, India also has fine relations with other strong military powers such as Russia, Israel, United States of America, and many countries in the European Union.
Facts Against
India has been victim to a high inflation, which some people fear will slow down India’s high economic growth. [17]. Goldman Sachs also says that if it is managed badly, there is a great chance that India’s economic growth will drop.
Fareed Zakaria has described India’s growth as
It is not top-down but bottom-up---messy, caotic, and largely unplanned.
He also suggests that while democracy has its long-term advantages, China’s system of government are able to plan and execute major infrastructure projects with unrivaled efficiency. Democracy in India is usually not the will of the majority, but the will of organized minorities such as landowners, powerful castes, rich farmers, government unions, local thugs, in fact a fifth of the members of the Indian Parliament have been accuses of rape, embezzlement, or murder. [18]Some people believe that due to corruption in politics, diversion between the different religions and castes,and other social issues, that India is not a candidate as a potential superpower. [19]
The international relations expert Parag Khanna believes that India is not, and will not become a superpower for the foreseeable future, lagging decades behind China in both development and strategic appetite[20]. Instead, he believes India will be a key swing state along with Russia. He says that India is “big but not important,” has a highly successful professional class, while millions of its citizens still live in poverty. It is “almost completely third world[21].” He also writes that it matters that China borders a dozen more countries than India does, is not hemmed in by a vast ocean and the world's tallest mountains, has a loyal diaspora twice the size of India's and enjoys a head start in Asian and African marketplaces[22]. Khanna states that:
It is not for me to give credit to India; India must earn that credit of which you speak. India faces the largest challenges to development outside of sub-Saharan Africa in terms of its level of poverty, weak infrastructure, and environmental and social stresses. It needs an unprecedented strategy to overcome these, which is not yet in place. I often encourage various aspects of such a strategy among Indian leaders, and hope they will actually implement such a vision. As for “geography of power,” India’s geography is at present geopolitically unfortunate because its ability to project power militarily is blocked by the Himalayan mountains, vast Indian Ocean, and failing states such as Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh, with which it does not have good relations, so it is a very uphill struggle for India to take advantage of its geography between the Persian Gulf and East Asia, but it is trying very hard on both fronts.[23].
India’s military, lacks the technology unlike the other potential superpowers. India's missiles being able to travel under 10,000 kilometers, and having the smallest military spending out of all the potential superpowers. India's military might is also blocked by nations such as Pakistan and China, both whom India has had conflicts with. As well as the Himilayan mountains to the north and the Indian ocean to the south.
China and India rising to superpower status is not inevitable, according to scholars such as Professor Pranab Bardhan, Chief Editor of the Journal of Development Economics, who suggest that millions mired in poverty and ineffective government prevents China or India from rivaling the U.S. or the E.U. any time soon.[24]
Minister Mentor and former Prime Minister of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew believes that
India’s economy can grow to about 60-70 percent that of China. I see that as the long-term trend. They’re not going to be bigger than China - on present projections.
But 60-70 percent of India with a population which will be bigger than China by 2050, is something considerable, and they’ve some very able people at the top. I draw this historical lesson which I believe will be repeated, though not in exactly the same way, but will manifest itself in a similar pattern.[25]
It looks very nice. The only problem I have is that, some sources (I can't actually see them, but I get that impression) doesn't directly mention India's status as a superpower, and I thought we had more or less agreed to only use sources that mention the specific country's superpower status. Swedish pirate (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
It looks great, Deavanger. I'm very glad you took the time and energy to do all of this work. You're a great contributer. However, I'm concerned that some of the sources do not appear to specifically mention India's superpower status. Other than that, it looks great. --Hobie (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback hobie and pirate. Yeah, when we put the subsections up, we can take out the sources that don't directly mention India's status as a superpower. Since I don't think anyone is working on China, I'll get started on the china subsection. As well as the other two subsections if nobody is working on them. Deavenger (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the previous feedback. I think it certainly meets the neutrality requirement. It's about time that someone worked on improving the sections. Right now it looks like the E.U. section is doing a bit too much cheerleading and the China section is too embryonic and should be expanded. Great job Deavenger! Nirvana888 (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks everybody. I'm starting the China subsections now, and I'm hoping I'll have it done by either late October to early november. But we'll see what happens, as school will get in the way. Once I'm done with China, I'll be going onto the E.U then Russia. Deavenger (talk) 04:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Who is this Parag Khanna. certain errors I noticed are,
But "India’s geography is at present geopolitically unfortunate because its ability to project power militarily is blocked by the Himalayan mountains, vast Indian Ocean.."
Blocked by Indian ocean? I find it interesting. Ocean's give a nation the only option of projecting power. India can only project power through the oceans.
Parag Khanna is an expert in IR and Geopolitics. First to nepal, one, when the book was releashed, March 4th, Nepal was still under Monarchy. Plus, it's too soon to say if Relations between Nepal and India are good. People would think (I would think also) That relations between Bangledash and India would be good as India put a stop to a genocide and made Bangledash a independent country, but now look at it. Also, Pakistan and Bangledash, both failed states, both have way more of an effect on India then Nepal has. As for the ocean,
To spread military might from the Indian ocean to say a place in Africa, India would require a blue-water navy. While some of the ships in the Indian Navy are blue water, it comes nowhere near the number such as U.S, France, or even UK, and to even get blue water capability requires building special ships. Also, Ocean's aren't the only way to project power. Let's look at China. It's connected to a whole bunch of countries, some which aren't separated by a large ocean or mountains, in which China could go to other countries by land instead of by ocean. For instance, the U.S, the project their military power across the ocean by building military bases around the world to make up instead of having to have troops cross the world's two largest Oceans. Deavenger (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
No, no no. No need for all that. What I meant was the Parag Kahnna guy wrote "India’s geography is at present geopolitically unfortunate because its ability to project power militarily is blocked by the Himalayan mountains, vast Indian Ocean.."
What I wanted to say was that, Indian is not unfortunate geopolitically because India has the vast Indian ocean to project power. Khanna wrote ocean blocks India which is wrong.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
While I partily agree with you. Having a vast ocean makes it harder to project military power, as having a vast ocean to cross in order to project power is hardern then projecting military power when you're connected to other countries. Deavenger (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The rise of European powers was by projecting power through the oceans. From then to now and into the future, its the oceans that will help in military power projection.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Oceans are more of a pain then a help. Plus, look how small Europe's ocean is when it wants to go to Africa, while India has a vast ocean to cross if it wants to get to Africa. Also, Europe now has very little influence in the Americas compared to U.S because of the vast ocean splitting them. In the past, it made them powerful, but since the countries were a huge ocean away, they had a hard time controlling them. Deavenger (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is rather trivial, the source says what the source says. If you found a source that says that an ocean increases India's potential superpower status, then please let us know. Swedish pirate (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I am not here to prove anything except to say that these are the basics. If a person did not know the basics, what kind of expert is he? The U.S is surrounded by oceans, I mean they are cut off from the African, European and Asian continents. Still the U.S is a Superpower. The oceans never blocked the U.S from becoming a superpower. Oceans are not restrictions but always gives a country the opportunity to go further without requiring anyones permission. As simple as that. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
One, he's an expert on this stuff. You can even look it up. Two, the U.S has military bases pratically all over the world, or how else would they get over having the two largest oceans blocking them from the majority of the countries of the world. Plus, unlike India, U.S was the rival that was capable of taking on the Soviet Union, which was one reason why America's influence spread, as many European countries needed America to counter the Soviet Union, in fact, I think Fareed Zakaria said in his book that if it wasn't for that, and U.S having military bases around the world to counteract two oceans., U.S would have less influence then it does now. But since the world needed to the U.S to do that, and it has military bases all over the world to get rid of the ocean barrier, it has influence despite it's two oceans blocking it from other countries. If you have anything from AN EXPERT IN THE FIELD OF GEOPOLITICS OR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS saying that Indias oceans are an advantage, then post it if it's a reliable source.Deavenger (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
You still not get it. Parag may be an expert or not but from the point of importance of oceans he is no expert. Else the words of Alfred Mahan will have no value. The U.S maintains it's bases at far off places because of the oceans. The ocean is not a barrier, its the one that allow one nation to have influence in far off places by means of trade and power projection.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 10:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
You don't get it either. One, Alfred Mahan was there before a time where aircraft were considered especially important. Which geopolitic experts like Parag Khanna also examine. If oceans aren't barriers, then why don't countries like Mexico and Canada have influence to equal America in the world. If a failed state like Pakistan switched places with America geographically, then according to you, it will have as much influence as America does now. Despite the fact that to get over the ocean barrier, America needs missiles that can travel over 10,000 miles. Have the vast majority of it's fleet have blue water capability. Have the majority of it's planes be advance enough to stay in the air for large amounts of time, and being quick when deploying troops. Since America can do all except the last one, they use military bases around the world to do it. Now, Do you have any actual sources by current IR/Geopolitic/Polisci experts saying that ocean is an advantage. If not, this discussion is over because it's not accomplishing anything. Deavenger (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, when you say that even before the arrival of Aircraft carriers, people like Mahan had understood the importance of oceans for a nation to exert influence in far off places. Countries like Mexico and Canada are not restricted by oceans. They have the opportunities wide open in terms of the oceans. It's not about positioning in any part of the world. It's about utilizing the ocean in the right manner which the U.S did and succeeded. Don't think that I am saying is that land power is useless or land link for a nation to another part is useless. It's also important. What I point out is the saying that "ocean restricts a nation" is totally wrong. Oceans are a big opportunity for every nation in the world and they can influence the world according to their capability, small or big. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
and I'm going with the expert on IR/Geopolitics/Polisci. And no, I didn not mention aircraft carriers. I said aircraft. And guess what, your so called "oh, oceans are not barriers". The English during both the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 had control of the ocean, and yet the Americans basically won both times. Part of it was, that England had to transport units over one of the largest oceans of the world, to a land that was very far away. In the war of 1812, England had way more control of the oceans then America did. Now, do you have anything else like links from experts or are you going to continue on the "Oh, but it's totally wrong, but I'm not going to back it up with any links to other experts in the field today saying that Oceans are important." Seriously, you're haven't posted any links except saying, it's totally wrong, and only using one guy who talked about one certain aspect while throughout history, people have proved other theories wrong or use other theories to look at other factors that affect the certain thing. Until you do, don't reply here. Oh yeah, did you know, that during the cold war, america kept on running plane patrols all around Russia, because a plane can go both where soldiers and boats can and can't go. Deavenger (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah. About Mexico and Canada. No, all they need to do is get ships with blue water capability, have planes that can be in the air for long periods of time with ease, and have missiles that travel over 10,000 miles and troops that can deploy quickly. Hmm, requires a large increase in military spending, otherwise they can't do it. Deavenger (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed this
Hey, I just noticed this, why is Brazil in the article? hadn't we agreed to leave other countries (like Brazil, Mexico, Japan, etc.) out of the article? in fact the map doesn't show it because we had only left China, Russia, India and the E.U., so why did someone add it back, and since when? Supaman89 (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Someone just added it one just now. I just undid their edits, because we have often discussed if Brazil is a potential superpower or not to the experts or not, and we come to the consensus that they describe Brazil as a energy superpower. Deavenger (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh ok, I thought it had been like that for a while now cuz this is not the first time it happens, but thanks for clearing that up for me. Supaman89 (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Peer Review vs self-published sources and undue weight
The issues at hand here are the following:
Parag Khanna: Disproportionate weight is given to this chap's perorations here. Every section (Russia, Europe, India, China) contain his ruminations on this topic. I fail to see what makes his writings notable. He may have an impressive array of "credentials" (despite his questionable affiliations to dubious neoconservative think tanks like CFR), but so do Kevin B. MacDonald, P.N. Oak, J. Philippe Rushton and other such crackpots. Ultimately, his source is self-published, not peer-reviewed. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources:
“
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable
”
. The sources I cited are all from reputable publishers or peer-reviewed journals, and, as per WP:RS carry precedence over self-published sources, particularly against ones that are given Undue weight here.
Accusation of original research:The accusation of original research raised by Nirvana888 regarding this reference may have some merit. I propose a point-by point perusal of the contents over the course of several days so as to determine whether this reference is acceptable here.
Other sources:An objection raised by the apparent Owners of this article is that the sources added don't mention India as a superpower but an "Economic Superpower","military superpower","knowledge superpower" or some such. I fail to see any distinction above the purely semantic. There is no such thing as a generic "superpower". Even the United States is not a superpower in all things (car-manufacturing, for instance, which is far more exhaustive in Japan and Korea than the US). The article is not about semantics here, but is about the various dimensions in which a country is a potential superpower. Very few academics attach generic "superpower" labels to countries, even the US. The "superpower" status is discussed in the context of specific dimensions, like economy, military, knowledge, and others. Thus, the claims of "synthesis" are the result of a semantic misunderstanding of the term "superpower" as it is used in academic/political-science circles.Goingoveredge (talk) 03:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
[7] - The only place you find the word superpower is in the search bar.
[8] - uses the word superpower in a different context ("knowledge superpower"?)
The rest is book sources which I can't check.
By the way gereneric superpowers do exist. A superpower is a state with a leading position in the international system and the ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale; it is traditionally considered to be one step higher than a great power. Alice Lyman Miller (Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School), defines a superpower as "a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time, and so may plausibly attain the status of global hegemon."
This reference [9] we can discuss further. There may be OR'y elements that can be hashed out.
This reference [10]. Check page 153 "India represents the remarkable combination of a potential military superpower". taken verbatim.
Regarding the generic superpower vs specific-area superpower comment, that logic applies to China and Russia as well. Most of the sources discuss China as potential economic and military superpower, not a "generic one" (given China's lower standard of living compared to the developed world) and Russia solely as a military superpower, so then the whole article would pretty much have to be scrapped. There seems to be an Indophobic double standard at work here, where criteria for inclusion for other countries are lax, whereas criteria for inclusion to India are stringent except when it is negative. What can be done is to divide the India section into 3 parts. One concerning economy, one concerning military, one concerning knowledge and so on, with a lead explaining all three aspects. Pro and anti views can be interleaved in each section as needed.Goingoveredge (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Parag Khanna is used in the China, EU, and India sections because he elaborates on each power's case for present and future superpower status. I agree that there might be undue emphasis on his views but the more important thing is that he is extremely credible and he directly assesses the future global order led in his view by 3 superpowers (US, EU and China) and followed by the second world. If you can find other reliable sources that support a country's potential as a future superpower then please suggest. I would also like to echo was Swedish Pirate said about the distinction between "knowledge superpower", financial superpower etc. and a full-fledged superpower. You do not seem to be comprehend the difference between the two and your argument with China and Russia is flawed. Going by your logic, Saudia Arabia is considered an energy superpower. Does this mean it is a superpower and we should add it as a potential superpower? The answer is obviously, no. By twisting the definition of a superpower, you are setting a dangerous precedent that could further degrade the quality of this article. Your accusations of indophobia are baseless. The reality is that although India may be progressing socially and developing in many areas, it remains largely restricted on the world stage and will remain so for the short to mid-term future. Nirvana888 (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
If we are to use different sections, then we have to use it for every country (by the way, you can't accuse people of being indophobic simply because they criticize your sources). Another thing, isn't the "Superpower Rivalry in the Indian Ocean: Indian and American Perspectives" which was written in 1989 a little outdated. Swedish pirate (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It's clear that arguing with logic, reason, or adherence to balance or neutrality against an ideologically motivated and well-coordinated cabal of edit-warriors is a waste of time here, since the edit-cabal that Owns this article is clearly willing to Disrupt wikipedia in order to make their point, selectively using prejudiced right-wing sources from some sel-published chap named Parag Khanna, who can be safely described as a neo-fascistneoconservative and who lies outside the academic mainstream. The ideology here is to make China look good and other countries look bad, in accordance with the revisionism of the Han chauvinist racial ideology. I will have to file a Request for Comment with additional sources and background material, which will take time to prepare.Goingoveredge (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
What?!? Your post is incoherent and rambling. Where do you get "neo-fascist" or "neocon" from? If you bothered to do a little research you would see that Parag Khanna has been advising Barack Obama, who everyone knows is such a neocon (sarcasm). You're making no sense. Indophobia?!? I wasn't aware of "revisionism of the Han chauvinist racial ideology" until you brought it up. You're making baseless, incoherent claims. You have a block record and threatening to go to the noticeboard. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. --Hobie (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
If you actually did some research on the topic, you'll find out that Parag Khanna is one of the most widely respected members in International Relations, as he's been in the Council of Foreign Relations, New America Foundation, and even made Esquire's 75 most influential persons in the 75th century. And if you actually read his book or his articles, he considers the U.S, E.U, and China superpowers, and explains why, and how other countries around it affects their power, and he also explains why he doesn't consider Russia and India potential superpowers. Deavenger (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Goingoveredge, you have a tendency to expend a lot of energy attacking other editors and linking your argument (rather needlessly; most of the things you've linked aren't that esoteric, don't worry) instead of talking to them about the sources at hand. What makes Parag Khanna a neo-fascist? Do you have sources that agree with your assertion? Please, let's do this rationally; everyone keep your cool. Master of PuppetsCall me MoP! :)02:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I would advise so myself. Number one priority here should be adhering to WP:CIVIL. Ownership of article, POV and other such accusations raise the guard of other editors and are by definition counter-productive and not conducive to calm and reasoned debate. These coupled with unproven allegations about sources used in the article only obfuscate the issues further. Therefore the primary requirement for a meaningful debate should be adherence to WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:COOL. Dr.K. (talk) 03:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't aware I was attacking anyone specific. I didn't name names. And yes, Khanna is clearly a PNAC-style neocon fantasist and his implicitly pro Han chauvinist views safely puts him in the neo-fascist category. I don't see any academic credentials from this chap. No real degrees, no academic or scholastic experience, not a single peer-reviewed publication in any respectable journal other than the postmodernist New-York times (which bolsters the nao-fascism, since, by the Sokalite paradigm, a lot of neo-fascist types have gone in bed with the postmodernist left through the use of Fashionable Nonsense like that touted by the NYT) and some blog he cooked up. Being listed in a prostitution magazine like Esquire does not place him at par with university professors who specialize in these areas. The only reason why a disproportionate attention is given to him here is because a determined cadre of edit-warriors (probably ardent devotees of his cult of personality or whatever) wish to do so. Again, any discussion on the basis of reason is futile, as WP:TIGERS indicates. More eyes are needed here. Preferably from users established in the peer-review standard.Goingoveredge (talk) 03:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the issue here is that you have a very opposed POV; calling the New York Times a neo-fascist publication is quite the statement. And unless you provide some academic sources that clearly support your views, your argument will most likely be the one dissenting WP:FRINGE voice in an otherwise-unified consensus. Master of PuppetsCall me MoP! :)04:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I am not convinced by all these wikilinks and characterisations of New York Times as postmodernist and Esquire as prostitution magazine etc. These are clearly your opinions and I'm afraid that they are not going to persuade too many other people. Given the above characterisations, the rest of your conclusions are also not going to be easily accepted, even if they had some merit. I can understand your frustration but many of your arguments sound like a heavy dose of WP:OR to me. The problem is, even if you are right, you have to prove your allegations citing reliable sources. The New York Times is considered a reliable source by many people. I don't think because you call it postmodernist, people are just going to agree with you. You have to work within the framework of the existing structure, even if you don't accept it. If the NYT is considered WP:RS by Wikipedia then you have to accept the consequences which include using its articles as sources. As far as the academic credentials of Khanna are concerned we can mention in the article that he doesn't have any and let the reader decide about his credibility. But first and foremost no more of these exotic theories. Attractive and impressive though they may be to some, they are too exotic to be persuasive. Dr.K. (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
According to his own biography ([11]) he holds a Bachelor of Science in International Affairs and a minor in Philosophy from the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, a Masters Degree from Georgetown’s Security Studies Program, and is earning a PhD in International Relations at the London School of Economics. He also studied at the Freie Universitaet Berlin. Parag’s essays and reviews have appeared in The New York Times, Washington Post, Financial Times, Harper’s, The Guardian, Policy Review, The National Interest, Foreign Policy, Los Angeles Times, Prospect, Esquire, Slate.com, The New Republic, Die Zeit, Survival, Current History, GOOD, Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, New Statesman, Strategy+Business, Washington Times, Daily Star, Indian Express, India Today, OpenDemocracy.net, TheGlobalist.com, and Correspondence. Are all those prostitution magazines? Swedish pirate (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I must say this has been an amusing read so far. Neo-fascist, neoconservative, prostitution, Han chauvinism, PNAC-style, postmodernist, Fashionable Nonsense, ardent devotees of his cult of personality? You clearly have an extreme POV and have shown your willingness to engage in OR on the talk page and on the article. It is also worth noting that of the three superpowers, Khanna probably views the E.U. most positively in his book. I am not sure why you have this warped view that India is unfairly portrayed compared to China when there is plenty of criticism in regards to China. Inferiority complex, perhaps? I'm also afraid that until your points are backed up by solid arguments and evidence in the form of RS, they will not be acknowledged let alone taken seriously. Nirvana888 (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Since I can see that "Goingoveredge" has been temporarily blocked, I suggest we go back to the previous page until we can discuss this major edit when he can. Is that okey with you guys? Swedish pirate (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
yeah, that was my plan from the start. The author of the sources that goingoveredge is posting is a reliable guy like Parag Khanna, I just wanted to read the sources first as Nirvana had some issues that it won't be about India being a full-fleged superpower but only like a military superpower or economic superpower. So, I think we should go back to the previous page for now. I'm going to start reading those sources. Deavenger (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I've gone through the article vetted sources and trimmed down sections to make it more NPOV and NOR. There is still work to be done but it looks much better than before. Nirvana888 (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
We already have discussed this in the past,Brazil is not considered a potential superpower, it's considered a potential great power, just look at the past discussions. Deavenger (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
title, scope
first of all, "potential superpower" is a dreadful title; "potential power" is a prefectly jarring apposition. It isn't made clear whose term this is. If anything, the topic of this article is emerging superpowers or future superpowers.
Since this article is about speculation about the future of certain states, it also isn't about "states by power status", since none of these states are "superpowers", we are merely referring to discussions that they may conceivably become such one day.
Finally, no source is cited that would establish this as a single topic, raising concerns of WP:SYN.
There is no apparent reason why the individual sections of this article would need to be part of a single article rather than part of the article about the respective countries. I have tagged the article accordingly. --dab(𒁳)08:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
looking for these phrases on google books, I find that both see some use, although "emerging superpower" is probably preferable.
However, I fail to find any reference that would treat "emerging superpowers" as a topic in its own right, and there is nothing to indicate that use of the phrase isn't fully compositional.
Yes, "emerging superpowers" can be a section at superpower, but no, I don't see any justification for this standalone article (which is really a collection of mini-articles about the power status of a bunch of independent states). --dab(𒁳)08:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Except, that various IR/Polisci/Geopolitic experts have been writing of the subject of what will be the next superpower such as Susan Shirk, Fareed Zakaria, Parag Khanna, and Kishore Mahbubani just to name a few. Unless we want Potential superpowers taking up half the superpower page, as the page is not completed yet as I'm writing the subsections and reading some more books of this subject.
The reason why it would be considered a state by power status is because some academics believe that ________ is already a superpower due to ______ ______ and ______while some other academic doesn't believe it isn't a superpower because of ________, ________,_______ and since there's no clear consensus Potential superpower would be appropriate.
And the fact that discussions like this have been happening since WWII, I think it's quite appropriate.
I also agree with the name change. "Emerging superpower" is a more accurate and notable term after consulting Google Search, Books, and Scholar. Nirvana888 (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Pakistan
Pakistan is also considered by many as a potential superpower. It has nuclear weapons, high tech missiles, and even an indigenous automobile industry. Population = 160 million people. Moreover, it’s population is highly skilled and educated in various fields. Can somebody please include this glorious country? It’s for sure a potential superpower. Why not Pakistan is India can be there? I asked this before. now can new people gimme some solid answers unlike before?
Pakistan:
1. Sizeable Population: 160+ million, which is larger than Russia's
2. Sizeable land area (around 800,000 sq. km)
3. Known nuclear power
4. Has the most advanced self developed missiles in South Asia
5. One of the largest armed forces in the world (far below the size of India's)
6. Lower population below poverty line (in percentage terms) than India
7. Higher standard of living compared to India
8. Lower illetracy rate (percentage) than India's
9. 2nd largest grain producer in the world
10. One of Asia's most powerful navy and air force but far less if compared with india
11. One of Asia's most evolved space sector (first asian country to launce a SLV); mans its own sattelites (SUPARCO)
12. Strong relations with other powers (e.g. USA, UK, China, Russia)
13. One of the largest troop contributor to the UN
14. Asia's 2nd largest BPO hub after India
15. Large pool of English speakers
16. Strong domestic industry (Automobiles (Adam Revo, machinery, drugs etc)
17. Rising economy (economic growth of around 5% year on year)
Are there any reliable sources which call Pakistan a potential superpower? Last time an editor added this info in the article they also added a comment that Pakistan's chances of becoming a superpower were slim to none. We need stronger evidence backed by reliable sources such as newspapers, mainstream media etc. if Pakistan is to be a viable entry in this article. Dr.K. (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
We are not talking about articles by some people predicting the rise of a superpower. as you all know all those are just PREDICTIONS and nothing else. Is there someone who can say FOR SURE who is gonna be a potential superpower? These are just predictions i repeat. what i mean is today China's the fastest growing large economy. But it can collapse into civil war at anytime, crushing its dream. The same goes with India. So when everybody here is only predicting, why not we predict Pakistan will be a potential superpower? It's not difficult for me to come up with an article in some magazine saying so then using it as a source. Yes, although not available online, I've got friends working in Time (guy in Time is a senior editor based in Brussels) who at anytime can publish such an article. They have in the past published such articles supporting pakistan, and can do it again. If in due course I can produce an article, would you really include pakistan?
This one comes from superpower article: Former Indian National Security Advisor Jyotindra Nath Dixit has also described the characteristics of superpowers. In his view, "first, the state or the nation concerned should have sizable territorial presence in terms of the size of the population. Secondly, such a state should have high levels of domestic cohesion, clear sense of national identity and stable administration based on strong legal and institutional arrangements. Thirdly, the state concerned should be economically well to do and should be endowed with food security and natural resources, particularly energy resources and infrastructural resources in terms of minerals and metals. Such a state should have a strong industrial base backed by productive capacities and technological knowledge. Then the state concerned should have military capacities, particularly nuclear and missile weapons capabilities at least comparable to, if not of higher levels than other countries which may have similar capacities.
I have proved that Pakistan displays all capabilities stated by Jyotindra Nath Dixit.
Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, and the 2nd largest after Christianity. There's no muslim superpower to control the islamic world. Pakistan is by far the most powerful muslim country capable of being a superpower that’s capable of controlling the Islamic world. It’s just western biasness that doesn’t want to acknowledge a single muslim superpower. Pakistan’s homogenous muslim population (over 95%) will tend to be more harmonious than India’s mixed population (83% Hindu, 12% muslim, christians, jews, Sikhs, bahai, parsi... god knows what else) . This makes Pakistan a more suitable candidate over India. trust me pakistan has significant control over islamic countries like saudi arabia and uae.. etc.. etc..so that makes up for 'influence'. Pakmerhu23 (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The problem is we can't predict it ourselves. You can't prove it by yourself. Even if you are right. Someone else must prove it outside Wikipedia and publish it in a reliable source. Only then we can report it here. If we just published our proofs here this would be original research. This is not allowed in Wikipedia. So you must find published books, reliable newspapers, academic papers which predict that Pakistan is a potential superpower. We cannot analyse facts ourselves and then apply the conclusions to the article as per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. For something to be included it must satisfy policies such as WP:RS, Verifiability etc. I hope this helps. Dr.K. (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Islam being the second fastest growing religion in the world has nothing to do why Pakistan will be a potential superpower. Saudi Arabia also has said no to giving a bailout to Pakistan. Turkey is the only muslim country that would even come close to becoming a superpower out of all the muslim countries, even though it doesn't have nukes. Look at what's happening at Pakistan's economy right now. It's nearly defaulted on debt, and has to start taking loans from the IMF.
NO, we already covered this, In fact, let me post it here again
1. Has the most advanced self developed missiles in South Asia: Indian missiles have a further reach and are capable of carrying larger warheads. In fact Pakistan hasn’t successfully tested an IRBM (the Shaheen 3 is still claimed to be in development stage), while India has successfully tested their Agni 3 twice.
2. One of the largest armed forces in the world (almost the size of India's): India’s army is more than twice larger than Pakistan’s. India has 1,325,000 active troops and 1,155,000 reserve troops, while Pakistan has 619,000 active troops and 528,000 reserve troops. I don’t know how that can be ‘almost the size of India’s'. See List of countries by size of armed forces
3. Lower population below poverty line (in percentage terms) than India: Not too sure on this one but I doubt it’s 100% true. 2002 statistics show India’s PBPL at 25%, while 2007 statictics show Pakistan’s PBPL at 23%. I couldn’t find anything newer.
4. Lower illiteracy rate (percentage) than India's: Again incorrect. India’s literacy rate is 61% while Pakistan’s is 50%. SeeList of countries by literacy rate
5. 2nd largest grain producer in the world: Not possible. Largest is China followed by India.
6. One of Asia's most evolved space sector (first Asian country to launch a SLV); mans its own satellites (SUPARCO): Other Asian countries are far ahead. China has sent a man into space. India and Japan have satellite launch capabilities, while Korea is developing satellite launch capabilities with Russia's coorperation. Recently India launched 10 satellites at once on it’s PSLV rocket. Pakistan launched a Nike-Cajun (if I’m correct), not it’s own SLV.
7. One of the largest troop contributor to the UN: Can’t verify this one as there are conflicting reports, some saying India, others saying Pakistan.
8. One of Asia's most powerful navy and air force: I find it hardest to digest this one. You really need to do some more research. Before India, look at Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Israel and even Saudi Arabia.
9. Asia's 2nd largest BPO hub after India: As far as I know, Japan, Phillipines, and even Malaysia have a more advanced BPO industry than Pakistan.
1. #9 Failed state (2008). US, India, Russia, China and EU countries aren't even in the list!
3. One of the only countries in the world where not a single democraticaly elected government has completed its term.
4. #3 in the world in deaths from suicide bombing.
5. Terrorist powerhouse: Bin Laden, Dawood Ibrahim, Qari Asadullah are hiding there. Moreover, these men are also believed to have been trained there. Pakistan is also the home of various terror networks like Lashkar-e-Toiba, Sipah-e-Sahaba, Lashkar-e-Omar and a safe haven for al-Qaeda. Most of it are state supported. In short, Pakistan is the Oxford in terrorism education. None of the other potential superpowers even come close.
6. Has the largest slum in Asia, and the 2nd largest on the planet. It's the Orangi Township in Karachi. Can't believe? Google it.
5% is nothing. India has been growing at about 8-9 percent. In fact, Pakistan wouldn't even make the top 5 fastest growing Asian economies. South Korea has been growing at 5%, same as Pakistan, but it for sure isn't considered a potential superpower.
Everybody last time gave you solid answers except for one or two. You did not post any links at all, and I have not come up with one person who has said that Pakistan is a potential superpower, and is considered reliable. I even looked through the magazines you were talking about! I SPENT 17 HOURS SEARCHING.
'Secondly, such a state should have high levels of domestic cohesion, clear sense of national identity and stable administration based on strong legal and institutional arrangements.' Strong levels of domestic cohersion? It's considered a failed state, and has almost no power over it's tribal areas to the north. It doesn't even have a stable administration, it was just recently that Pakistan had elections, and it's hasn't been long enough to even say that Pakistan has a stable administration. Pakistan is also failing economically. Deavenger (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
You didn't have to do all this research Deavenger. Just quoting Wikipedia policy would have been enough. The fact remains that no reliable sources exist which name Pakistan a potential superpower. In the absence of WP:RS to verify this this cannot be included in the article period. Dr.K. (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Most of the research has been provided by other users when the user who posted this did it the first time. Then during that time, and now, I've done some searching and research through my books to see if Pakistan would be considered a Potential superpower. Also, the entire economy thing, I've been following the subject around since I started working this page as well as the entire political science and relations thing, as well as buying books on the subject, and looking for other potential superpowers, and other new powers. So it was more interest, not really research, though kind of both. Deavenger (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I guess you didn't find any source explicitly referring to Pakistan as a potential superpower. Dr.K. (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Your welcome, and no, I didn't find anything mentioning Pakistan as a potential superpower, let alone a potential superpower in anything that I have read. Personally, I think that India is a potential great power, but from what I read, only half the people believe that India is a potential great power while the other half believe that India's a potential superpower. Pakistan however isn't mentioned to be either. Though I personally believe, that if Pakistan's current government works, and it fixes relations with India and all that fun stuff, then it could be considered a potential great power along with India, but that is future, and none of the experts are writing about it. Deavenger (talk) 03:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
At least some scholars believe that India is a potential superpower. If, in the future, other scholars start believing the same about Pakistan and they publish their opinions in reliable sources, so that we can quote them in Wikipedia, then there would be no reason not to assign the great Islamic Republic of Pakistan its rightful place in this article. Unfortunately, currently, such sources are not available. Dr.K. (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. I believe that if Pakistan and India work together, they can form a superpower alliance. But that's more hope talking, and not fact. Deavenger (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
(indent) I agree with Deaverger and Dr.K; all "facts" provided so far constitute OR. Assuming good faith, hopefully this will put an end to the idea of adding Pakistan as a potential superpower again. As far as India is concerned, the common view in foreign policy is that it is a potential great power in the midrange and perhaps potential superpower in the long-term. Although, I should add a caveat that distant projections are a treacherous business as a number of things could happen between now and then. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree completely. Also the article is called Potential superpowers. So as long as there are reliable sources speculating about India becoming a superpower, then this can be noted in the article, never mind if or when this can happen. Just judging by the title of the article this is largely speculation anyway. But at least it must be citable speculation. Not our own. Our speculation is unfortunatel called original research and is to be avoided at all costs. Dr.K. (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Pakmerhu23 iam sorry i have to disagree with you. Btw why do you always compare with India?. To be a superpower you have to match whole world that is US, UK, Israel, Russia, China and EU. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, this isn't the first time. He posted Pakistan before because India was up there. Someone tried to post Ukraine because Russia was up there. Somebody tried to post Japan because China was up there. Thing is, for none of those countries, have experts and academics even began calling these even great powers, save Japan. As he only places that call Pakistan and Ukraine superpowers are blog by random people, usually Ukrainian and Pakistani. Japan is the only great power, but academics aren't calling it a potential superpower at all. If we were to do it the way the user who posted this topic, I can honestly make it seem that Australia, Iran, South Korea are all potential superpowers, despite that academics aren't calling any of them potential superpowers, and not even potential great powers.Deavenger (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
OK everybody listen up. I juat wanted to have some fun, some nasty fun and so I played this up. I know Pakistan is a failed shit piece of crap that it doesn't even deserve a place anywhere. Thanks for playing along, your replies were really fantastic.
Sorry for wasting ur time, especially that guy who spent 17 hours (!!!) searching for something so stupid!. I imagine what he'll do if I tell him there's a diamond in your pocket. Maybe he'll search his pocket for 17 days! Mr. 17 hours, you're the winner!
How come india is a pontential superpower when it isnt even a great power, i know that France and the UK are part of the EU, but they are great powers and india isnt. Unde the EU section refrence to the UK and France being great powers should be brought to point, mabybe adding a subsection? Also Germany as a Economic Great power maybe (mainly France and the UK) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.48.253 (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think India's a potential great power or a great power. However, some academics and experts believe that India is a potential superpower. In fact, some of them believe that India is a great power, or a key state/pivotal power which those experts who use those words usually include all the other great powers only. Also, we'll add how that France, UK are part of the EU. Deavenger (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
yeah. But, some times the Ips think it's bs. It has to do with soft power, most people still view India as a extremely weak third world country, when that's been changing for a long time. Deavenger (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Mr. Met (funny name by the way. We only report on experts and academics opinions and predictions. And so far, there hasn't been any case for a united Africa as a potential superpower. The African Union is only six years old and in the embryonic stages of development, far behind the EU. A united Africa would probably be hampered by extreme poverty, famine, corruption, AIDS, internal conflict, disease, ethnic cleansing, etc. before it emerges onto the world stage. But if we see further African intergration and notable speculation on its status as a potential superpower, than we'll add it. --Hobie (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but it wont matter if they could get it together, as 'Hobie Hunter' has said they are a mix of 'all' of the poorest countrys in the world and the EU is a mix of the richest countrys in the world, the EU can afford to expand were as the AU cant afford to support the majority of its citizens, and 'Hobie Hunter' didnt ridicule the statement he told the complete truth Alexsau1991 (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Africa is having the largest problem in the world with ethnic and religious conflicts between muslims and christians and have in many perspectives not developed very much since the sixties so the idea of Africa to even unite to a prosperous entity and change the position of being exporting nearly only raw materials must be the first concern, and even that happens it has be very far way to go for being a superpower. Awakened82 (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Introductory section
The following is the introduction as it stands now (italics added to distinguish from my question):
A number of states have been speculated to be in the process of turning into superpowers at some point of the ongoing 21st century, mentioning several candidates. Whether China,[3] the European Union,[4] India,[5] or Russia,[6] will be future superpowers is a matter of ongoing debate. The most common belief held is that only the United States currently fulfills the criteria to be considered a superpower. It is a matter of debate regarding Russia's status as a possible future superpower.[7] Brazil is considered to be a potential great power.[8][9]
The record of such predictions has not been perfect. For example, in the 1980s, political and economic analysts erroneously predicted that Japan would eventually accede to superpower status, due to its large population, huge GDP, and high economic growth at that time.[10]
Most of that first paragraph seems out of place. Specifically, the following would make more sense:
A number of states have been speculated to be in the process of turning into superpowers at some point of the ongoing 21st century. Among the most commonly mentioned are China, the European Union and Russia. However, the record of such predictions has not been perfect. For example, in the 1980s, political and economic analysts erroneously predicted that Japan would eventually accede to superpower status, due to its large population, huge GDP, and high economic growth at that time.[10]
The article could then go into detail on each of these candidates (and others). The sentence about Brazil is particularly out of place as it is called a potential great power - a totally different article. I would change this myself but I'm not really sure what to do about the links. Therefore, I'm putting it forward as a proposal.Khajidha (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Happy to help. Are there only these four possibilities? Should the historical prediction of Japan as a possible superpower be described? Should more time be given to the idea that superpowers are a thing of the past?Khajidha (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey. India, EU, Russia, and China are the 4 most discussed possibilities that you can see are often debated by acacdemics. There are some that might have 1 or 2 other people, but not nearly enough to make it notable, and somes times it's not from reliable sources. As for Japan, I'm not sure yet. We should ask some other members first. Also, I wouldn't quite say that superpowers are a thing of the past. As for expanding each country, I've been working on that. I have finished the India subsections, and I'm working on the China subsections. However, I'm trying to finish several books talking about China as a potential superpower, so that will take a while. Then, I plan to go to EU, and Russia. Once those countries are done, I or some other user will post it up, and work on improving them as we go along.Deavenger (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: Brazil and the word "superpower"
While there are references in the media to Brazil as a food superpower or energy superpower, that casual use of the word "superpower" (meaning roughly "a world leader in" that category) should not be confused with categorizing the nation as a superpower. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. We have dealt with this issue before. Looking at sources and references, Brazil can be considered a potential great power, but not a actual potential superpower like Russia, China, India, or E.U. Deavenger (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Excuse my note "out of the blue" :), I was RC patrolling and noticed someone had inserted an edited map in the "Potential superpower" section of the Superpower article to color in Brazil ... and was just covering the bases. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Do not forget that the nature of this article is speculative, like a weather forecast. There is nothing absolute when predicting the future of developing countries where corruption, poverty and social inequalities are endemic. Anything can happen. It is wishful thinking to ignore that countries like India and China at certain point in time will have problems feeding their huge populations or getting enough energy to fuel their growing manufacturing and transport sectors. Oil is not an abundant resource and they have not being tested on these fields as the current powers have. There is always the risk of social turmoil and violent revolutions if the needs of a large parts of the population are not satisfied. The current global financial crisis and food crisis are providing example of that. Statistical figures like poverty index, GINI coefficient, HDI and others show that these countries have very difficult problems to overcome if they were to become superpowers. I cannot imagine a superpower where hundreds of millions live in slums or where the country is facing a form of civil war. The notion of that is just ridiculous.--tequendamia (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Brazil again?
I'm sorry to point this out, maybe i'm being a little bit rude, but as a brazilian with studies in this area i find the idea of Brazil as a potential superpower utterly ridiculous. By any stretch of imagination Brazil can be cited as having a power projection capability like the US or the URSS(the only known superpowers) in the near future. That the country has some relevance in some specific areas and some projection on a regional level doesnt mean he will be able to project power over states on another continent in this century... i find it unlikely that the reasons given to add Brazil to this list suffice for any person with at least some level of knowledge on this matter. Furthermore the new section on Brazil doesnt cite any decent references. Please, someone with more knowledge about editing take the appropriate measures about this matter, and i find more discussion is needed if someone really wants to add it. Thanks folks ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.54.230.185 (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a speculative article, so it should be ridiculous too to imagine that China with its more than 700 million of very poor and uneducated country side inhabitants could become a superpower. Utmost it will be a large economy. If you think that India is about 30 years behind China in development then it is even more ridiculous to have India in the list. When you visit these countries you notice that the most developed and most egalitarian (without reaching the levels of egalitarianism of US) is actually Brazil, then you understand that Brazil have the best chances of first reaching the status of a superpower. Notice also that from the developing list, Brazil is the only country that attracts migrants from all over the world, mainly from Europe and that this trend is likely to increase in pace as Brazil grows richer and richer, and therefore compensating its own demographics against countries like China and India. So, it is obvious that Brazil will be the new US, not India or China.--tequendamia (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
From what I can see the addition of Brazil looks to be just WP:SYN so I think it shouldn't be included. I have elaborated on such things before, so I will just copy and past from my previous statements. We are not here to create our own opinions and post it on Wikipedia, it is actually officially banned:
Wikipedia:No original research : Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position
We must also avoid creating our own conclusions by doing research here and drawing our own conclusions from them:
Synthesis of published material which advances a position : Material published by reliable sources can inadvertently be put together in a way that constitutes original research. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.
We should also not post opinions about what may happen in the future, because one can never know what tomorrow brings:
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball : Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen. Of course, we do and should have articles aboutnotableartistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. [..] "Future history" is welcome at Future Wikia, where original research is allowed to some extent and fact-based speculations are welcome.
WP:SYN applies to everything said in this article. The article is basically a BRIC+EU. In the same way as some people see China as a future superpower there are many more who see it a a future super-disappointment, the same has been said about India and Brazil, however, this article only shows one side, like a compilation of wishfull thoughts by analysts.--tequendamia (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
No, it actually doesn't. From the SYN page, Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources.. Many of the sources for EU, India, China, and Russia have it one group academics say their opinion on the country/organization becoming a superpower. And another group of academics stating their own reasons of why it wouldn't be a superpower. And for all the potential superpowers, it's like that with RS. However, as Phoenix pointed out, almost all the sources for Brazil save one or two are SYN, OR, etc. Not to mention, Brazil (besides that it isn't considered a potential superpower, but a potential great power), the entire thing is written like an advertisement. It doesn't mention anything that Brazil has to overcome. Even the EU section has stuff the EU has to overcome, and the EU is way more developed then the other potential superpowers and Brazil. If we go on using SYN or OR like the Brazil section has, then we can make countries like Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, and Japan seem like superpowers. Deavenger (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I think Brazil should be given a chance (again), but we need to look at the sources one by one to see if the sources are reliable and if they belong here (with that I mean that they really touch the subject and aren't just nationalistic advertising... or something). Swedish pirate (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I looked at the sources for Brazil again, and problem is, most of them are from what looks like blogs, some are just forums, just mention the word superpower in the title only, or just say, it's a superpower move. And other ones just call it just an economic superpower (which needs it's own article). Out of all the sources for brazil, [12], this is the only real RS one that doesn't just mention superpower in it's title, and calls it a plain superpower instead of something focused like economic, oil, agricultue. However, you can go through the sources also.
And yesterday, I removed several sources from China, Russia, EU, and India (especially) that just mentioned something like economic superpower only, or was other forms of unreliable, etc.Deavenger (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that Brazil's segment of the "Potential superpowers" page is a little too "glowing" and it does seem like some national advertising. There seem to be no faults to Brazil, and the author of that segment makes it seem as if it is absolutely inevitable that Brazil will be a superpower. There needs to be, in my opinion, more unbiased writing on the subject, as Brazil is the only "potential superpower" without any flaws, apparently.
I also agree that Brazil might become a great power, but I doubt a superpower. It seems a little crazy that there are FIVE potential superpowers and furthermore, Russia, China and the EU are more universally approached as "potential superpowers" than either India or Brazil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.22.232 (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, I think it's relevant to point out that in the beginning of this article, it states that: "In the 1980's, it was widely expected that Japan too would become a superpower, due a large population, huge GDP and high growth rate." Yet, Japan had very few military capabilities and even today, it relies very much on the United States for its defense. I think the notion of Brazil being a superpower is the same as Japan being a superpower in the 1980s. It had been anticipated, but didn't happen. As said before, Brazil has always been subjected to prediction of global power, but has yet to fulfill them. You stated that Brazil has been developing for 100 years, if that is the case, why is it not a great power already?
Brazil may have economic power, but that is one component of being a "superpower."
How many potential superpowers can there be? I think if we needed to wittle down to the bare and most probable potential superpowers, Brazil would go first, then India and then Russia. It would be the EU and China that have the best chance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.22.232 (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
It appears that the argument for Brazil's inclusion has been debunked thouroughly in Swedish pirate's analysis. After looking through the discussion as well as the section for Brazil on the page, it is ludicrous. The whole section reads like a tourist brochure: "From Wall Street to the World Trade Organization, Brazil is finally punching its weight with a booming economy and stronger global leadership." This should not be in an encyclopedia. I'd like to add that this project, due to the ocassion flare-up such as this only cites academic sources. Most of those provided that merit Brazil's inclusion are either news articles or blogs, or simply refer to it as an "agricultural or "oil" superpower, not a general one. In general, members of the media have a poor grasp of the extent that the term superpower implies, and will apply to any emerging power. These reek of weasel words. Brazil’s gross domestic product growth rate has skyrocketed from a passable one percent to an impressive nearly six percent. It has been developing in its sometime madcap way for over 100 years." This violates NPOV, no crystal ball, no synthesis, and no original research. It would be best to scrap the entire section. Brazil does not merit inclusion. --Hobie (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Besides the entire thing is written like a huge advertisement, an overwhelming majority of the sources aren't academic or reliable sources to be used in the article, leaving only one source. And that isn't enough for this article. While there are still several sources for India, EU, China, and Russia (probably) that won't work for this article, there is still plenty of reliable sources written by academics.Deavenger (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok so lets check the sources provided and see if they are considered WP:Reliable Sources or if they are Synthesis, not relevant to the article at hand, or just plain WP:Original Research. I wont have time to check them all after inserting them here, so please vet them or take these sources to the Reliable Sources noticeboard.
Super-Power!? I'm not sure they mean the same thing as a 'superpower' since they are using the "right word" when they refer to Brazil as an oil superpower, but that better fits into the Energy superpower page. Swedish pirate (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The article's expert says: "They want to play a role, as if they are one of the big superpowers.” The aticle pretty much says Brazil wants to be a superpower, and which country doesn't? Swedish pirate (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It's nothing but a bunch of facts, belongs on the Brazil page , and there's not even analysis on whether Brazil is a potential superpower or not. Deavenger (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Dubious if it really belongs here. It only has the word superpower in the title and seems to analyse the relationship between the canadian and brazilian markets and not whether Brazil is a superpower or not. Swedish pirate (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
just some random article pointing out the highlights on one of the economist articles above. If the economist article fits here without it being OR or SYN, then just use the economist article. I'll let Phoenix do the rest. But as he once said, "If there has to be a condition before the word Superpower appears then that is not a proper source for the article. It is about Potential Superpowers not Potential Economic/Energy/Agricultural Superpowers", this goes for India, Russia, EU and China also. Deavenger (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Ridiculous analysis
The ridiculous analysis on the sources that was applied above, if applied to the rest of the sources of this article would lead up to the same results, that none of the countries cited here will be a superpower. Reality is showing that there is nothing like a full fledged superpower, the status some here already claim for India. So if making an A-bomb turns India (a country who can hardly talk to its neighbours and feed its own people) into a superpower then Israel and Iran should by the same logic be considered full fledged superpowers, and with more reason Brazil which is many light-years ahead in development.--tequendamia (talk) 08:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Is it necessary to show the EU candidate/potential candidate countries? They seem to clutter up the map legend. None of the candidates is anywhere near being a superpower on its own and would only become part of one as part of the EU so it seems a little silly to have them colored in at this time.Khajidha (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
You are right. Of the countries initially included in the article only China is currently considered a world power due to the cheer size of its REAL economy and their seat at the UNSC. In the EU there are 5 of the largest economies on earth, which means their combined wealths alone make it the largest economy on earth, now imagine if we include the extended EU.--tequendamia (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Let the candidates coloured. The EU is still growing (Croatia and maybe Iceland are the next members) and this should be shown cause it shows the developement and the potential of the EU. And a country like Turkey will increase the weight of the EU specially in the muslim world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.161.73.237 (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
First off I agree that Candidates should be shown, not so much potential candidates. If we are to keep potential candidates, Kosovo should be shown as the EU recognises Kosovo as a separate entity from Serbia as a potential candidate under UNSC Res 1244. Also British and French overseas territories should be shown on the map. Puerto Rico for US, Taiwan with lines through it should be shown on the map for China. I am unable to edit SVG maps, who is willing to perform these edits. Ijanderson (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea how to make maps. But if I remember correctly, there was a map that didn't have the potential EU canidates, so we just need to look back and we should be able to find it. Deavenger (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
If there are shown the candidates and the potential candidates, the ukraine should also be coloured as one of them. Its often discussed in the EU and the ukraine and its the declared aim of the governemt to join the eu.--84.161.78.62 (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Well its a good thing we don't live in a hypothetical universe of frozen time, seeing as how all countries have had to overcome the obstacles of development with India not being an exception to the list. Seriously, the amount of India hate in this talk discussion is hysterical, that part of the world has always been wealthy and to undo 200 years of colonialism is obviously going to be difficult. "Not a good idea, it will put India in shame" is a POV statement and does not belong in this encyclopedia.(Sunnysgrewal (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
Possibly include the military and army sizes. As well as economic growth possibly. Hopefully, we can have a reliable sources that state the importance of these for qualities for the potential superpowers. Economics I can get easily, it's the military stuff I might have a hard time on, any help? Deavenger (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I added GDP growth, fixed India's GDP PPP thing, military sizes (though I didn't add total size of armed forces). However, I don't know the numbers for the European Union. As for the source, I think it's a reliable source as it came from another encyclopedia. But let's see what everybody else thinks, and I'll find some sources for military and other economics, economics shouldn't be too hard. However, China's poverty percentage I find hard to believe, so I'll try double checking on thatDeavenger (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah. My bad. All we need to do is find the rest of the EU rankings, I think I got some sources stating the importance of each of these qualities. Deavenger (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Several of these sources I took from the Superpower page. Tell me what you think. [14], [15]. These two talk about the importance of a superpower having nuclear weapons, sizable population, economics (all relative to great powers), and supplies like energy and food, and the second one talks about domestic cohesion. [16], military, economics, and of course nukes. So this takes care of the military, nukes, and economy. I'll look up some sources for poverty, and english, and see if you can think of more sources, better sources, or any more categories. Deavenger (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure, looks good enough, but should English really be a category? I mean, I don't know how many people in the former Soviet Union were able to speak English, but I've a hard time imagening it to be all too many. Swedish pirate (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I remember seeing a source that English right now is pretty much the global language. Seeing how that's the one common language used worldwide as a lingua franca. And it's pretty much the official languages in organizations like the UN, IMF, World Bank, etc. But I removed the category now. Deavenger (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
ha ha. English language, that's a good point. Given that the Anglosphere is bankrupt and that all the real money is now kept in China, you should expect Chinese to become more relevant than English in the coming decade. Of course, Indians tend to believe that what made UK and US rich was the language. I find that belief really funny indeed.--tequendamia (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The Soviet Union and the United States fulfilled the superpower criteria in the following ways:
USSR
USA
Political
Strong socialist state. Permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Strong ties with Eastern Europe and the developing world. Strong ties with anti-colonialist movements and labour parties.
Strong capitalistfederation/liberal democracy. Permanent seat on the UN Security Council plus two allies with permanent seats. Strong ties with Western Europe, Latin America, British Commonwealth, and several East Asian countries.
Geographic
Largest country in the world, with a land area of 22.27 million km²[26]
Third largest country in the world, with an area of approximately 9.6 million km².[27]
Cultural
Wielded influence through communist governments and left-wing dictatorships and organizations around the world. Rich cultural heritage based around classical music, ballet, literature, theatre, chess. [citation needed]
Wielded influence by supporting right-wing dictatorships in undeveloped countries and democracies in developed countries.[citation needed] Massive influence in music, TV, films, art, and fashion throught the world through such mediums as Hollywood. Freedom of speech and other guaranteed rights for residents.[citation needed]
Military
Essentially land-based: one of the largest armed forces in the world and one of the two largest air forces in the world. One of the world's strongest navies. The world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons for the second half of the Cold War.
Essentially naval-based advanced military with the highest military expenditure in the world[28]. World's largest navy surpassing the next 17 largest navies combined,[29] bases all over the world, particularly in an incomplete "ring" bordering the Warsaw Pact to the West, South and East. Largest nuclear arsenal in the world during the first half of the Cold War. One of the largest armies in the world. One of the two largest, and most advanced, air forces in the world. Powerful military allies in Western Europe (NATO) with their own nuclear weapons.
Economic
Second largest economy in the world. Enormous mineral and energy resources and large farming areas (well, although Russia exported food in the days of the Tsar, the USSR always had to IMPORT FOOD (due to the inefficiency of Communist economics), even taking out an IMF loan in the 1980's to do so). Largely self-sufficient. Marxist economic theory based primarily on production: industrial production directed by centralized state organs.
By far the largest economy in the world. Large resources of minerals, energy resources, metals, and timber, large and modernized farming industry alongside an enormous industrial base. US Dollar as the dominant world reserve currency. Western economic theory based on supply and demand: production determined by customers' demands. Allied G7 major economies.
Demographic
Had a population of 286.7 million in 1989, the third largest on Earth behind China and India.[26]
Had a population of 248.7 million in 1990, at that time the fourth largest on Earth.[30]
For the discussion, in this article which countries are more likely to fulfill the superpower criteria the USA and The Soviet Union exhibit in this comparison?--tequendamia (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Probably only EU. But seeing how all the sources we have are from different academics and experts in the subject, and they all have their own reasons to believe that one of the four countries/unions one the article are going to be superpowers, or some even believe are already superpowers. As we have 8 different experts saying why they believe China will be/ or is a superpower, 14 different experts for EU, 7 for India, and 7 for Russia, without the sources being OR or SYN. Deavenger (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
As far as I have noticed, most of your sources are just journalist or news presenters from TV. Nothing serious, just propaganda.--tequendamia (talk) 05:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Parag Khanna. He's written a book on this entire subject, and is an expert in IR and Geopolitics. Same for George Friedman, Fareed Zakaria, Amy Chua, Adrian Hyde-Price, Mark Leonard, John McCormick, Jeremy Rifkin, Andrew Reding, Clyde Prestowitz, Robyn Meredith, Pranab Bardhan, Ivan Krastev, Laurent Cohen-Tanugi, Martin Jacques, Steven Rosefielde, Mike Ritchie, Susan Shirk, Shujie Yao, and Geoffrey Murphay. Then we also have politicians like Romano Prodi, Recep Tayyip, Alexander Stubb. Then we have people who have written books on the subject like Daniel Lak, T.R Reid, R.J Guttman, and think tanks like The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and National Intelligence Council. And that's all without it being OR or SYN. Lastly, if all my sources were pure propaganda or OR , the other users would have deleted it in a second, especially since they're so strict on OR, SYN, and propaganda. (P.S. I only added maybe 5 sources at most, and most of them except for 1 or 2 are books). Deavenger (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
If you look at the Superpower Criteria table, India only satisfies the last one. Yet, the only two superpowers in that table were always smaller in population that India and China. So at the end India satisfies a requirement that only makes it a cheap labour superpower. No matter how your selected sources want to paint it reality speaks for itself. India's Human Development Index is the lowest among all large countries for which it won't be yet a developed country for the next 100 years.--tequendamia (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Yet if you did some actual historical research, both US and USSR had still high levels of poverty and low levels of development in the aftermath of WWII, when they were considered superpowers. Reality is, only one of these countries are going to be a superpower, no matter what the sources say, and chances are, it's only the EU. Deavenger (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
WHAT? After WWII, the US was economically the most powerful state in the world by a million miles. Where have you been the last 70 years??? Try reading a book on the 1950's sometime. China will most definitely be a superpower by 2020, as is seen by its GDP growth and its population. The only prob with China is that it's becoming such a resource vacuum, other nations can easily contain it by regulating the amount of resources (especially oil) that it needs. The same is true of the EU. India has the potential to be a superpower, but their GDP growth simply hasn't climbed like China's has. As for Russia, their days are gone (hell, Italy has a higher GDP than they have). The US will continue to be a superpower, but maybe not as dominant as before. As for Brazil being a superpower, dream on. As for the EU, while they have the money, they don't have a common identity, they have no common, credible defense, many of their nations are closer to the US than to other EU nations, they are dependent on foreign resources (esp. Russian oil), but lack strategic military/economic positioning (like the US has) to secure those resources, and Europeans have little stomach for conflict. Hopefully, in the future, people will be wiser than some of the people on this website and decide that there is little to gain from the world having multiple superpowers besides renewed Global War and the death of the human race.68.164.3.124 (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Looking at all datas in this dicussion and other ones many datas if Usa are a superpower EU is THE SUPERPOWER.
Many things must be changed in this article about supepowers.With the 862% of global debts/gdp how can be Usa a Superpower?
Be honest!WORLDPOWER27 (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Look debt is not the only factor--and BTW, the countries that hold the US debt are just as vulnerable as is the US for having that debt; besides, if those nations canceled the US debt, the only one benefiting from that would be the US, and the cancelers would be utterly ruined. Suck on that Popsicle Debt-Boy. Answer me this, IF RUSSIA AND THE GULF STATES CUT OFF OIL TO THE EU, WHAT WOULD THE EU DO??? The US could always militarily secure the resources it needs (and, funnily enough, use EU nations to do it). Can the EU say the same??? No, they can't--thus, THE EU IS NOT A SUPERPOWER!68.164.3.124 (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
First, majority of academics still believe US is a superpower, while they are split over whether EU is one or not. Not too mention, it's debt is only 99.95% of it's GDP, as it's external debt is about 13 trillion dollars, while it's economy by GDP (nominal) is above 14 trillion dollars. It's debt to ratio is still positive. Also, due to US's military and economic power, and how much say it has in international relations, it's still considered a superpower. And that's being honest. Deavenger (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Majority of academics are to consider EU first superpower.
You don't consider in the debt the debts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guaranteed by USA.The global debt / gdp in USA is 862% while in EU 140%.The global debt is the public + the private debt.EU is first in all the main economical datas(check also in this discussion Comparison Table).EU countries have weapons to destroy Earth more than once so all other weapons are unuseful.Do you think that EU hasn't good relationships all over the world?
I remember you that many EU countries are born before than USA.So be realistic.Come in EU and you'll see that people here doesn't consider anymore Usa a superpower.US citizens are considered like commom people of other countries.Stop dreaming.WORLDPOWER27 (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the US still Qualify. Going on what the documentary I.O.U.S.A says about the debt and the economy it maybe in a mess but its not collapsed yet. Wonx2150 (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I've watched a lot of documentaries and read books that support without doubt EU is over all other political beings.You can check books,also a lot of US sources ...stop dreaming.This article is very troubled,in fact at the top there's the warning...there's PROPAGANDA!In EU talking of Usa as supeprower people laugh!Tell US jokes to other parts of world.151.60.119.120 (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
WHY IS EVERYBODY SO KEEN TO BE A SUPERPOWER??? SO WE COULD HAVE A REDO, BUT ON A GLOBAL SCALE, OR WORLD WAR I AND KILL
MILLIONS OF PEOPLE??? STOP THE HUBRIS!!! STOP THE MADNESS FOR GOD'S SAKES!!! SEEK PEACE AND PROSPERITY NOT THE FALSE
GLORY OF PRIDE!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.3.124 (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
That's fine,but 20 years ago nobody would have talked about EU superpower.Now that it is the main one we try to change subjects.151.60.119.119 (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
So because in EU countries calling the USA a superpower is a "joke" means the USA isn't one? Remember for the latter part of the 20th century, W. Europe pretty much relied on the USA for it's defense, and that's not propaganda, that's a well known fact. I think the EU has the potential to become a superpower, and definitely deserves a spot in this article.
- Ryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.91.239 (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Today is today,yesterday was yesterday.That's the only truth.EU is to today the leading world power.There aren't anymore superpowers.Have you seen today one of them?151.60.119.223 (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
You are talking me about things that i don't know.I prefere to talk about the article and not about your strange behaviour.I'm happy you're always right like mads.That's all.151.60.117.41 (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
World's second largest economy, just built helicopter carriers (which may potentially be converted into fixed-wing carriers), substantial military, population of 100 million-plus, touted as a potential super-power for most of the 70's,80's, and early 90's. Yeah, I know, if I want it included I should write it myself, but firstly I don't want to include something which the people who have this page on their watch-lists don't like, and secondly I think others might do a better job of it. FOARP (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Some other member or I can write the section for you. However, like all of wikipedia, it's not about what we think. You have to bring some academically reliable sources that aren't OR or SYN. If you can bring enough of those sources (from 2000, not the ones from 70's or 80's please), and they are reliable sources, that can preferably show why academics think Japan will become a superpower, or what academics are saying that Japan has to fix in order to become a superpower, or why Japan will not be a superpower. If you bring enough sources, and all the members look them over and think they're fine, then I'll write the Japan section for you. If you want some good examples of sources, look at the China and European sections. As they have sources that state that they're superpowers, emerging superpowers, or potential superpowers. And not sources that say military superpower, or economic superpower without that same sources saying that the author believes that makes it or will make it a superpower. Hope this helps. Deavenger (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I think there's a pretty strong case against Japan becoming a superpower. They've had a stagnated economy since the early 1990s, and recently a rapidly shrinking economy. They have a shrinking population. And of course they have a pacifist constitution which leads to very limited participation in foreign affairs of a military nature. Further, the rapid rise of China (and to a lesser degree South Korea) dilutes its influence even on a local scale, never mind a global one. TastyCakes (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Japan can't be a superpower because it is totally dependent on foreign sources of resources, and it is unlikely that the world would let it develop the military and start to secure these foreign sources. Japan is better off seeking fuller relations and even integration with the US than going back to the days of the Rising Sun.68.164.3.124 (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to let you all know that I have added Brazil and Japan to my map, but I am not making a section for them on the main article. The reasoning, Brazil and Japan have been mentioned as potential superpowers on several references, and are mentioned on the several of the foreign-wiki pages (e.g., Portuguese, Spanish). Do I think these two countries should get their own section, that is up the the consensus. However, I do think these two nations should be mentioned (in some way) on this page. Even if it were to be one statement saying "Brazil and Japan show some potential for becoming a superpower, but this is only due to exports and imports" or something in that nature. But I have decided to add them to my map and the key, and that is as far as I am going to go. — NuclearVacuum01:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a proposal for the article here so please come and add your two cents. For now though, I'm going to remove Brazil and Japan until we can get a consensus so the page doesn't look as sloppy. Deavenger (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't remove the map, and added a little thing how they're not as much mentioned as the current four countries. However, I have a problem with the Brazil source as it only calls Brazil a superpower/potential superpower in the article title, and everywhere else in the article, it calls Brazil a rising regional powerhouse. A regional power and superpower are two different things. Deavenger (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd just like to say that I don't like the inclusion of Brazil nor Japan. We've been over Brazil half a dozen times (see previous talk-pages) and my thoughts remain the same until someone comes up with some good reasons as to why we should keep Brazil (if it isn't a potential superpower it shouldn't be in the article at all). I can only remember one good source portaying Brazil as a genouine superpower (I'm too lazy to dig it up now, but look through the achives). Japan hasn't been seriously speculated to become any superpower since, at least, the late 80s. I don't want to go against the consensus, but I strongly vote to change both the map and the introduction back to their original forms. Swedish pirate (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Brazil and Japan, in my opinion, shouldn't be on this list, Japan especially. In the 80's, yes, it was considered to be a potential superpower, but now, with limited military strength, little foreign influence, competition from China, a shrinking population...it's hard to say it'll be a superpower right now.
Brazil is actually a lot stronger in terms of becoming a great power, but it lacks influence outside of Latin America and the Lusosphere in general.- Ryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adilrye 1467 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree with Pirate and Deavenger, we've had this discussion lots of times already.
BTW, you should've waited until there was a consensus to change the map and legend in the article, the more proper thing to do it to change it back the way it was before until we solve anything here. Supaman89 (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Alrighty than, I removed Brazil and Japan from the map. However, I still want them to be mentioned in some way in this article. Even if it were to say "Brazil and Japan have absolutely no chance of becoming a superpower in your lifetime." — NuclearVacuum00:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
We could do somehting like that. What we could say something like Brazil and Japan are both considered Rising powers, however, they're not considered potential superpowers. As all the current potentials that we have now are also rising powers, just some people think they will be or are superpowers. However, I think we really need to add a couple of sections on the history of potential superpower (like Japan in the 80's) and methods IR people used to try and predict them. Deavenger (talk) 09:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, this page is about potential superpowers currently, however, I'm hoping that my proposal here will go through. However if it doesn't, then I'm hoping to expand this page. Right now, we have the four countries/unions that academics think are the most likely to be superpowers, and the most often mentioned. We also have two countries which are also mentioned but not enough as the four main countries (though the sources on the two countries needs to be checked over because it might be OR or SYN). Then, we could add a small section on countries like Iran who is trying to be a superpower, but most academics don't believe that it is a superpower or will be a superpower. However, right now I want to add more on the history of potential superpowers and how they tried to predict them like Japan in the 80's before I add any more things. Deavenger (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Where did you hear they were expected (or wanted) to be a superpower? I've heard a lot of talk about them being a large regional power, but never a global one. TastyCakes (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I know the current president always goes on about Iran being a superpower, but otherwise, nothing more then that. Deavenger (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
"Additionally, even though Russia has the largest amount of nuclear weapons in the world, it has been debated that the last country that would benefit to use nuclear weapons, and to potentialy start a nuclear war, would be Russia, since Russia only has two major population center zones or economic hubs."
Unless I misunderstand the intended meaning, it seems illogical, and the source doesn't look very reliable. I am also not sure how it is relevant to Russia's superpower status.--Boson (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The source deals with the large stockpile of nukes that Russia has. All the other countries have sources stating the obstacles they have to reach superpowerdom, and this is one of Russia's. As to its credability, it's the international relationship-expert and writer Parag Khanna making the claim, so I think the source is quite reliable. Swedish pirate (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Brazil and not India?
Brazil has been rejected plenty times and then someone else just adds it again, and then we have to open an new discussion all over again, it is getting really tiring.
The article should be restored to its "normal state" that is without Brazil or Japan or anyone else for that matter, and then open a new discussion (for the Nth time) if someone wants to add it.
If you do want to leave Brazil then we should put it in a special section along with other contries such as Japan.
Everything looks correctly sourced to me. I removed the {{Synthesis}} banner that has been here since november 2008. If you think it is a mistake, please be more precise about what you think might be original. Calimo (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The following statements appear to indicate original research or imply support for one point of view:
Presently, only the United States currently fulfills the criteria to be considered a superpower.
As Fareed Zakaria and other academics observed, China's government can do tasks such as development or dealing with a crisis faster than democracies in Europe or India.
1. Sizeable Population: 160+ million, which is larger than Russia's
2. Sizeable land area (around 800,000 sq. km)
3. Known nuclear power
4. Has the most advanced self developed missiles in South Asia
5. One of the largest armed forces in the world (far less than size of India's)
6. Lower population below poverty line (in percentage terms) than India
7. Higher standard of living compared to India
8. Lower illetracy rate (percentage) than India's
9. 2nd largest grain producer in the world
10. One of Asia's most powerful navy and air force do not compared with mighty china and india
11. One of Asia's most evolved space sector (first asian country to launce a SLV); mans its own sattelites (SUPARCO)
12. Strong relations with other powers (e.g. USA, UK, China, Russia)
13. One of the largest troop contributor to the UN
14. Asia's 2nd largest BPO hub after India
15. Large pool of English speakers
16. Strong domestic industry (Automobiles, machinery, drugs etc)
17. Rising economy (economic growth of around 5% year on year)
What more can we ask for here? Aren't these the characterestics of a potential superpower? Pakistan deserves to be in the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.170.90.3 (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
@2 it qualifies for a small nation, @4 no its India that has it, @5 no pak army is half the size of india, List of countries by number of troops@6 not in terms of percentage, @7 the other way, @8 again the other way, @9 not even among top 5, @11 totally false, @12 its not a quality to be called a superpower.Qazmlp1029 (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
United States
China
European Union
India
Russia
USSR
USA
.svg)