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.
I see no talk page discussion on the issue. If the issue has been resolved/non-existent, i plan to remove the NPOV tag. If there is a doubt, can someone plz illustrate how the neutrality of the section can be improved by giving specific examples. thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Since the tag was added in February and the talk page only goes back to May, you need to do a search in the archives. There was discussion about India about that time, but really I think the section that needs attention the most is Russia. It's small, only lists why it will become a superpower and as a result I think it's the weak link of the article. Sure, maybe it could be small but at least some additions to its current state (those sources I think are a little old IIRC). I think it's possible the whole article needs an overhaul actually to examine the current reality (this doesn't mean including Canada or Norway or the Martian Republic, this means looking at the sources and injecting the article with some fresh blood. Is this recentism? Maybe, but this article probably needs a little bit of that; I think the EU section only discusses a pre-Lisbon EU, China's supposed to undergo leadership change soon and Russia's just had Putin step back in - has this changed any of the academic thought? Is there concern that the new Chinese leadership might moderate China's growth and alter the dynamic of 21st century power politics? Is there concern that the current EU is in a state of turmoil that might weaken the organisation rather than strengthen it?). Comics (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Really? Canada? They have a high economy, but usa has a higher one, Canada has no nuclear weapons, there population isn't that high, there better, and less corrupt then the usa al give you that, but Canada has no way of turning into a superpower. --Ty Rezac (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry. No one is supporting that change. This section is being kept solely for the purpose of displaying the responses of Comics to the questions of the ip editor. (Again, i am kidding) Anir1uph | talk | contrib11:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Topic says that only the USA is currently held to be a superpower, whereas the other countries in the article are only potential (read possibles with varing degrees of chance) superpowers. Comics (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The British Empire was the most powerful superpower, but when it dissolved the most powerful nation to succeed was UK. UK has been ever since rising up, but slowly. It has been rising too slowly to be recognised as potential superpower, but it's now clearly rising. Also because it's slowly rising, it has been in the shadows of China & India, what are fast growing potential superpowers. I believe that China and India will go down as fast as they came and they will not stay as a superpower for a long time. Also could the US be a superpower without UK or France? Of course it would have enough military power alone, but what about economy and political influence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ransewiki (talk • contribs) 18:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
In the case of Japan, it qualifies all of the qualities necessary to achieve superpower status, except for one (aging population). Predictions made in the past have not been perfect. For example, in the 1980s, many political and economic analysts predicted that Japan would eventually accede to superpower status, due to its large population, huge gross domestic product and high economic growth at that time.
Though it may have an aging population, Japan has still shown the potential to emerge as a superpower. Japan has the longest overall life expectancy at birth of any country in the world: 83.5 years for persons born in the period 2010--2015.
It has recently been greatly influencing the world with its culture; including J-pop, anime, manga, fashion and lifestyle. Recently a campaign was started known as Cool Japan in an effort to spread out Japanese culture.
Another area to point out is that Japan is a leading nation in scientific research, particularly technology, machinery and biomedical research. Nearly 700,000 researchers share a US$130 billion research and development budget, the third largest in the world. In the mobile telecommunications field, Japan was the first country to launch both a 3G Network (NTT DoCoMo launched 3G UMTS in 2001) and a 4G Network (NTT DoCoMo launched 4G LTE in 2009).
Japan is also one of the most advanced nations in space research. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) is Japan's space agency; it conducts space, planetary, and aviation research, and leads in development of rockets and satellites. It is a participant in the International Space Station: the Japanese Experiment Module (Kibo) was added to the station during Space Shuttle assembly flights in 2008.
As of today, Japan is a well-thought of as a potential superpower; is a great power, great economy and has made great advances in its technology.
It has been argued that Japan has the technology, raw materials, and the capital to produce nuclear weapons within one year if necessary, and some analysts consider it a de facto nuclear state for this reason.
Contrary views:
Though it is still the world's third-largest economy as of 2012 in terms of nominal GDP, Japan has faced an ongoing period of weak growth since the "lost decade" of the 1990s, and has been suffering from an aging population since the early 2000s, eroding its potential as a superpower.
The Myth of Japan's 'Lost Decades'But, Eamonn Fingleton presents a counterargument to the perception of Japan's so-called stagnation.
Due to its aging population, Japan's population is expected to drop to 95 million by 2050. Demographers and government planners are currently in a heated debate over how to cope with this problem.
Japan is also engaged in multiple territorial disputes with its neighbors: with Russia over the South Kuril Islands, with South Korea over the Liancourt Rocks, with China and Taiwan over the Senkaku Islands, and with China over the EEZ around Okinotorishima. Japan also faces an ongoing dispute with North Korea over the latter's abduction of Japanese citizens and its nuclear weapons and missile program (see also Six-party talks).
So even though Japan has the potential for superpower status, it still faces many problems with its decreasing population and its neighbors that could greatly affect its future. Sai317 (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Russia?
Russia will not be a superpower again, look at whats going on! Corruption, danger, economy not doing good, bribes, poverty. Russia is the 2nd most corrupt european country! Russia can not be a power! It's impossible! China,India,Brazil now were getting somewere! Brazil will one day be more powerful then the usa, China and India will beat usa's economy, India will be the dominant superpower, EU, not a country! Why don't we just put NAU, or OAS, or SAU, if it was it would have great powers, and be dominant superpower. --Ty Rezac (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
There is speculation though regarding Russia possibly being able to bounce back sometime this century (corruption exists but it exists everywhere [no excuse, just an observation], danger [what danger? danger of the state failing, danger of a bad winter, danger of what?], bribes [corruption], poverty [which also plagues India and rural China]). Their economy I think is a bit of a mixed bag; my understanding is that it has some elements of Chinese dynamism (albeit in a quite diluted form) but is just as fragile, if not more so. Regardless, it seems to me to have the durability to last as a European economic power for at least the next decade [ample time to fix issues within the state]. As is, I think our Russia section is lacking. The EU is also there because it's potential rests in the possibility of creating a more federal state, which the article explores quite thoroughly (I don't recall seeing similar federalisation speculation for the NAU, SAU or even OAS - NAU also doesn't seem to exist yet). Comics (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Should this section also note the potential of the Eurasian union, as this has potential to be stronger than Russia by itself and will have a simular format to the EU? Jakreiser (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree, it's unlikely for Russia to be considered a superpower. The corruption and poverty. Not many allies. Also during WWII, the Empire of Japan defeated the Russian Empire in the Russo-Japanese War, despite being largely outnumbered and the odds against them. They also defeated most China, most of Northeast Asia. And, literally all of Southeast Asia. So I wouldn't count Japan out. They have more Allies and technological capabilities today. They were able to bounce back pretty good after WWII. Sai317 (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
You never know though. I think the US should try to help Japan become a superpower, considering the growing threat with China. The future remains unclear at the moment. Sai317 (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
South Korea
South Korea or a unified Korea has a very high population and economy. South Korea's military is one of the best in the world. South Korea or a unified Korea is likely an emerging power. What do you guys think?
Well, South Korea is growing quickly, and with a unification, that would be a powerful nation. It is also a potential member for the BRICs, like Mexico. But maybe until unification we can add it... Viller the Great (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Japan a potential superpower?
It appears that recently we have another country ascending to the ranks of such suggested potential superpowers as Brazil and Canada (of which the former has gone through significant scrutiny); Japan. I am not against the addition of new countries to the list. I cite my older involvement in the Brazil case as evidence of this (even though I'm older now so yeah. I was cringing going through the archives). Now, it appears as if the section created mostly by User:Viller_the_Great is media reports that have been strung together into an argument for Japan being a potential superpower. Technically these support Wikipedia's policy for requiring reliable sources (however half of the section in Japan's favour is unsourced). I've tagged the relevant pieces that ARE in need of such sources. I don't want to start an edit war, so I've simply tagged it as requiring reliable sources (also tagged Russia as in need of expansion while I was at it).
I personally don't see Japan rising as a superpower for the remainder of this century and nothing I've read has suggested Japan will rise either - instead falling behind the rising economic power of the BRIC nations and countries like Indonesia and Mexico. The most recent work I've found discussing Japan as a superpower in any way is from 2012, is a google book riddled with blanked pages, but by Kenneth G Henshall of the University of Canterbury. Everything else I found was from the 1989 to 1996, suggesting that Japan has not been seen as a contender for superpower status at least since the millennium. Henshall's book is even a third edition of a 1999 work and seems rather to examine Japan as a culture with a Darwinist view of global politics. It's riddled with gaps so it's hard to make out clearly. It can be seen here.
As it is, I've decided to open this up for discussion so that we can either create a community consensus in agreement to keep a considerably improved Japan section or alternatively to remove it as not supported by contemporary academia. I'm hoping that by stating outright that I don't believe Japan is a potential superpower I can at least serve as a kind of devil's advocate if we do decide to keep the section on and edit it considerably. Comics (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I don't believe Japan to be a superpower, nor do I think that the sources' case for such to be strong enough for an inclusion. Some are simply too old (ca. 20-30 years) to be indicative of modern consensus. Also, two links are broken, one doesn't mention the word "superpower" at all. The other is a book which I can't inspect, although neither the content it advocates or its title seem to indicate that it argues for potential Japanese superpower-status. Swedish pirate (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Why get rid of Japan? Many people agree that Japan has the potential to be a superpower. They're more tech-savvy than India is. The United States had the help of a ton of countries to beat Japan in World War II. Japan was exhausted by the time the US joined the war because they literally conquered Southeast Asia and most of Northeast Asia into the Empire of Japan. The USA had help from other countries too. And after WWII, Japan went on to become the world's second largest economy and the most technologically advanced country in the world, making robots, cars, etc. It has also been argued that Japan has the technology, raw materials, and the capital to produce nuclear weapons within one year if necessary, and some analysts consider it a de facto nuclear state for this reason. They're one of the smartest country in the world, with a good education. They're also a huge cultural superpower with big followers. And, the United States and a ton of countries are their allies. The contrary view is the disputed islands that they're having with China, Taiwan, Korea, and Russia that could effect their future. And, they haven't fully recovered from the Lost Decade or the Lost Two Decades yet. They're also struggling with an Aging Population. That's why Japan has the potential superpower status, but their future is unclear at the moment. Put Japan back on the list or take India off too, because I don't see India reaching superpower status really. China is the only true contender, using your logic.
I think Japan may not be an economic superpower by this first half of the 21st century, but who knows? It still had considerable military and political power. I am for keeping Japan in the list. Arius1998 (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
You know, Japan really does not that much power, but who knows? It is unlikely they will come back though, but i see someone already readded the section....We should all discuss here if we would like to add new superpowers. I mean, even though powers like Indonesia, Mexico, annd others are rising economically, it does not mean they will be superpowers. Nor South Africa just because it is in BRICS.... Viller the Great (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The is EU is down as "no" regarding security council, noting France and the UK are permanent members, but down as "yes" regarding nuclear weapons, noting that France and the UK have them. There needs to be conformity here one way or another - in both cases the EU itself doesn't have the thing in question (the organisation does not have a seat at the security council nor does it have a military let alone nuclear weapons)... but two of its members do.
So there are two issues here: firstly, that there has to be conformity - both have to be "yes" or both have to be "no". That leads to the second issue... I can see arguments for and against in noting the situation (for either security council/nuclear weapons) as "yes" or "no". The trouble with "yes" is that it wrongly implies that the EU itself has these properties. The trouble with "no" is that it wrongly implies that the EU does not posses these properties (can't think of a better word, sorry!) in any sense.
Now I know there's the footnote noting that the UK and France have these things, but I think either way it's (to the casual observer/immediate impression) misleading. Is there another word or acronym or so we could use instead of "yes" or "no"? (Still with the footnotes of course.) Alternatively - and I'll make this edit now as a temporary (perhaps) arrangement - is "(yes)" followed by the footnote. Your thoughts please! David (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
The is EU is down as "no" regarding security council, noting France and the UK are permanent members, but down as "yes" regarding nuclear weapons, noting that France and the UK have them. There needs to be conformity here one way or another - in both cases the EU itself doesn't have the thing in question (the organisation does not have a seat at the security council nor does it have a military let alone nuclear weapons)... but two of its members do.
So there are two issues here: firstly, that there has to be conformity - both have to be "yes" or both have to be "no". That leads to the second issue... I can see arguments for and against in noting the situation (for either security council/nuclear weapons) as "yes" or "no". The trouble with "yes" is that it wrongly implies that the EU itself has these properties. The trouble with "no" is that it wrongly implies that the EU does not posses these properties (can't think of a better word, sorry!) in any sense.
Now I know there's the footnote noting that the UK and France have these things, but I think either way it's (to the casual observer/immediate impression) misleading. Is there another word or acronym or so we could use instead of "yes" or "no"? (Still with the footnotes of course.) Alternatively - and I'll make this edit now as a temporary (perhaps) arrangement - is "(yes)" followed by the footnote. Your thoughts please! David (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
An emerging power perhaps, but certainly not a potential superpower. As for Mr Obama - he has a tendency to claim all sorts of overly positive guff when he goes visiting other countries. But in all seriousness, I think Nigeria should be added to the list on the emerging powers article. David (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
EU????
How can the EU be a superpower?
EU has all.The largest economy,the largest net wealth and a huge military system nukes able to cancel life on Earth several times and athe largest conventional military).The article is well set.Mediolanum (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Brazil? ...oh come on, really?
Brazil seams a little out of place in this article don't you think? Like a man who has just walked into a ladies changing room. Sure, he likes what he see's, but he knows he doesn't belong and must leave. The same applies to Brazil in this article.
The only supporting citation giving any reference to Brazil as being a potential superpower is The Cornell Daily Sun citation (a daily newspaper published by students!!). The other citations that 'apparently' support Brazil being a potential superpower are all dead links and cannot be used as reference anymore. So dealing with the citation that is left remaining, The Daily Cornell Sun, it reports that during a lecture entitled "Brazil as an Emerging World Power?", Leslie Armijo said... “Soon, we’ll have two superpowers in the Western Hemisphere". She was also reported saying that Brazil is not a Great power but an emerging power. Quite frankly, where she was reported saying that there is soon to be two superpowers in the western hemisphere, appears slightly sensationalist to me and nothing more than bias rhetoric thrown into a lecture to capture an audience. Hardly Wikipedia material! There are a few more citations in the Brazil section, but they only mention Brazil being a potential economic superpower rather than a contemporary superpower like the United Sates. So I will ignore them as they do not specifically mention Brazil as a potential superpower.
Many would agree that the case for Brazil on this article is very weak. In fact, it is hanging on a single thread (The Daily Cornell Sun citation). So the question to my fellow editors is, where do we go from here? In my opinion, either one of two things should be done. A, The citations for Brazil should be greatly improved and therefore Brazil can stay in the article, or B, a consensus should be reached and a decision made on whether to delete Brazil from the article or keep the status quo. If nobody responds to this discussion after a week then I will be WP:BOLD and delete Brazil.
A few additional points I would like to add to my argument is that all the other nations listed on this article are Great powers, while Brazil is not a great power. Dr Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, Strategic Vision: America & the Crisis of Global Power (published 2012), he appraised the worlds current world powers. He goes on to name China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States as being the current great powers. Dr Zbigniew Brzezinski is a political scientist, geo-strategist, and former United States National Security Advisor, a highly qualified academic and a very well informed person. Of those, China, India and Russia appear on this article. So, while China, India and Russia are considered great powers with he potential of becoming superpowers - Brazil is still merely a nobody seeking superpower status. Getting too far ahead of yourself are we Brazil?
In militarily terms and other traditional avenues of 'hard power' Brazil is irrelevant and non existent. Far removed from being the potential superpower this article suggests. I also question editors here, can Brazil really catch up with the United States or other potential superpowers in order to actually become a superpower? In economic terms for example, even by the year 2050, Brazil is very unlikely to achieve a GDP 25% the size of the USA, that's not superpower potential in my books, not now, not ever. See: List of countries by past and future GDP (nominal). A bit of commonsense on Wikipedia goes a longs ways aways.
I feel many editors to this article have failed to grasp the distinction between a superpower and a great power. Very few powers in history can be described as superpowers - indeed in modern history only 3: the US (to the present day), the British Empire (to the 1950s) and the Soviet Union (to c. 1990). And it is my opinion that really only China will become a superpower in the near to medium term (the EU cannot be "a power" until and unless it is a sovereign state). Countries like Brazil and India are emerging powers. They will in all likelihood become great powers in the near to medium term. But superpowers? Hardly, especially Brazil which has a population and economy far less than the US or China.
My suggestion is this article is streamlined and the nationalist trawling of the internet for the remotest references for their country being or becoming a superpower stops. And that editors learn the difference between a great (or 'world') power and a superpower. (I would also like to point out that the article proposes that the world will soon have several superpowers - this isn't possible. You can have several great powers but really only 1, 2 or possibly 3 superpowers.) To be honest I doubt anything will happen as Wikipedia is particularly weak at the moment and nationalist editors seem to be able to get away with all sorts of nonsense. David (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Several contributors are getting ahead of themselves, in the discussion on potential superpowers. I wish to make the following points on this subject (some of which have already been made earlier by other editors):
1. The concept of a superpower is a fairly modern phenomenon (ie. late 19th/early 20th century). Probably only USA, USSR & UK (pre 1945), could be considered such.
2. The number of superpowers at any given time has been very small (one, two or none at all). It is quite feasible, that as the world continues down the path of multipolarity, in 30 or 40 years there may be no superpowers at all, but rather just a small group of global powers, none so powerful so as to effect far reaching change just by themselves or in concert with their smaller allies.
3. Popular widespread speculation on who might become a superpower, has shown itself to be completely off the mark in the past (eg. how many of those in the know predicted the weakening of the Japanese economy (potential superpower) in the 1990’s or the collapse of the USSR in 1991, for that matter?). Such speculation is of little value and not worthy of too much consideration.
4. The probability of an emergence of a global superpower cannot be determined by a google search featuring a given country eg. “Turkey Superpower” - 48.5 million hits. Such an approach is blatently nonsensical, to put it mildly!
5. People need to be discerning in what they read. Newspaper and electronic media articles written by journalists with moderate to no knowledge of global dynamics or geostrategy, cannot be held up as authoritative sources on the subject of global power. X number of newspaper/internet articles saying “Y”, does not necessarily make Y to be factually true. A better source of information is that of respected political scientists, geostrategists and others who study this field, and have expertise in this area.
6. Neither military expenditure nor economic size by themselves necessarily make a great power or superpower (although these indicators may be factored into the equation). I would ask all editors to at least consult the Wikipedia articles on ‘Great Power’ & ‘Superpower’, to better understand the definition of these concepts, before making assertions about the qualifications of a particular country.
7. On the question of Brazil being a potential superpower, I wish to make the following points:
a) One needs to become a great power first, before attaining superpower status.
b) I wish to put forward a conjectural notion: How many informed people (ie. those that follow the news, take a general interest in world affairs) outside of Brazil can name the President of Brazil? I would suspect, not too many (especially those outside the American continents). How many could name the Foreign Minister of Brazil? I suspect far fewer. Yet if indeed Brazil was a great power, I believe a substantive portion of the world population would be able to name its president. By contrast, most people could name the Prime Minister of Britain, and a fair number could also name the Foreign Minister of Britain. I would put this largely down to the fact that Britain is a global power, whilst Brazil is not. I accept that this may be a somewhat crude measurement of determining a country’s power status, but I don’t think that it can be totally dismissed.
c) What is Brazil’s position on global issues? For instance, what is its position on Syria? Besides the fact that most reasonably informed people would not know Brazil’s position here, the fact is that few people would care. Broadly speaking, what Brazil thinks about Syria or Libya or North Korea, or most other international issues doesn’t really matter a great deal. Brazil’s stance has little consequence for anybody, but this would be less likely to be true if Brazil really was a great power or emerging superpower. Furthermore, when the Great Powers do occasionally organise a conference to resolve issue X, whereby the affected parties + Great powers are invited, you would rarely (if ever) see Brazil invited to take a seat at the table. Brazil’s international role is quite minimal, whereas the international role of a great power is significant, and it is this that largely distinguishes a great power from a regional power.--Mrodowicz (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both for replying and sharing your views to this discussion. I agree with both David and Mrodowicz that certain editors/contributors to this article need to brush up on their understanding of the terms Superpower and Great power (or World power). Especially if people are going to use an online newspaper (published by students) to reference Brazil. In my opinion, and for the betterment of this article, Brazil should be deleted from the article on the basis of a lack of academic citations (therefore a lack of WP:VERIFY) and that Brazil is not even close to being a Great power yet.
Wikipedia articles such as the Superpower, Great power, Regional power and Middle power articles form part of a collection of articles dealing with state power and international relations. All of these article are thoroughly referenced with academic and authoritative citations, and an emphasis is placed on strict adherence to consensus enforced by the editors who maintain the articles. I therefore suggest that this articles, like the other state power and international relations articles, be subjected to similar scrutiny and a consensus be reached on this talk page outlining content and citation principles for this article.
I would delete Brazil from this article. May I at the same time suggest a "positive" editing-wise: that countries like Brazil should be featured in an expanded emerging power article. Then this page can stick to those countries that really are potential *superpowers*. David (talk) 08:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion on placing greater emphasis on the emerging power article for countries like Brazil. To be honest, Russia would probably be best placed on that article too as a "re-emerging power". I think that countries listed here on the potential superpowers article should have a 'broad consensus' among leading academics and analysts supporting a 'realistic' potential of becoming a superpower. The only nations who have that 'broad consensus' are China, the European Union and in the longer-term, India.Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm of mixed thoughts on Brazil (having not looked at the sources in a while), but I agree Russia has a weak case here. Comics (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Russia - it's a completely different case than Brazil and India as it is a long-standing great power that (as the USSR) held superpower status for a while (just like the UK, as the British Empire, did) and remains a great power. It's not an emerging power as it "emerged" long, long ago. And IMO I can't see it becoming a superpower again, as its population is simply too small to compete against the US or China. David (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Otherwise, yes, I would say this article should concern itself with China, the EU (noting that it is not yet a sovereign state/a unified power/has exclusive competencies in the areas of foreign and defence) and India, as they are the only three that have widely-held academic consensus about their futures as superpowers. And I've bolded "academic" there as the internet, being the internet, is full of rubbish about country X being the next greatest thing in the universe. David (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it has already "emerged", however one could make the argument that Russia is primed to emerge as a more powerful nation in the future. I agree however that the comparative lack of sources on Russia indicate that it isn't seen by most to have the potential of re-assuming the status of superpower. Comics (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Russia will never be a superpower again, but it may re-emerge from its post USSR collapse as an economically stable and prosperous country like Germany, Britain, Japan and France are today. Britain never 'collapsed' as a country during the decline in empire, but Russia saw a brutal collapse after the sudden loss of the Soviet Union - so it is fair to say that Russia is re-emerging from the woeful position it finds itself in. It is this reason why I suggested that we perhaps place Russia in the "emerging power" article. Russia most certainly doesn't belong here and there is no broad consensus among academics it ever will be. However, there is allot of material and acknowledgement among academics that Russia will re-emerge with a suitable economy for its size and improved standard of living for its population on similar levels to western countries.Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
So... with the emerging power article "up and running" can we begin paring the potential superpower article down to size?
I also found a source (the most recent SIPRI Yearbook no less) for Russia as a "re-emerging" power. I've added it to the emerging power page. David (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
And can we get some consensus as to the removal from this page of Brazil and/or Russia? I would certainly opt to delete Brazil, and am neutral about Russia. David (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Strong delete for Brazil and Russia. Reasons; There is no widely held consensus among academics regarding Brazil and Russia. The references given in the article for them are lacking. We don't need to list every Tom, Dick and Harry that gets the slightest bit of attention from academics and the media and them being a potential superpower. Wikipedia is not the place for ethnic self promotion. We need to use common sense and understand the unlikely possibility of Brazil and Russia achieving superpower status (Wikipedia's guidelines urge editors to use common sense when gaining a consensus). Additionally, there is a broad consensus among academics for Brazil and Russia being emerging powers, also they are most often described of as emerging powers. Therefore, they are best placed at the Emerging powers article.
Thanks for the map - we'll certainly use it if Brazil and Russia are deleted - give it a few more days (perhaps until Wednesday evening?) as some editors don't frequent Wikipedia that often. David (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed then, we wait until Wednesday, that would make it around a week since the discussion started. I think a week is a sufficient and indeed polite amount time to allow editors to respond. However, unless editors who oppose their removal can; A. Provide numerous authoritative citations by academics, and B. Provide proof of a broad and existing consensus in the academic community reinforcing the idea of their superpower potential - then we should avoid a long drawn-out discussion whereby the opposing party is basing their view on less than reputable sources and national pride. Such an evolution of the discussion would surely be a waste of time and potentially sabotage any chance of reaching a consensus. We would also be wise to discern whether or not any citations provided are referring to the countries as "emerging powers" (which is most often the case) rather than actual potential superpowers. A compromise could be met where we list the EU, China and India as they already are, but afterwards in a separate section (or in the articles lead paragraph instead) mention that Brazil and Russia are emerging powers which are sometimes referred to as potential superpowers, however there is no widely held consensus among academics reinforcing this idea. Could also be mentioned that they are referred to more as 'potential energy or economic superpowers' as opposed to a superpower in the traditional sense.Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the map - it's a picky point but the only British Overseas Territory in the EU is Gibraltar. And you'd also have to colour in those French, Dutch etc territories that are in the EU. David (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
First off I would like to thank Hallel for his input, however, regarding the citations you provided I have these remarks to make: Citation 1 & 2 are referring to Brazil as a potential economic/agricultural superpower not a superpower in the traditional sense. Citation 3 does not constitute a reliable source and only refers to Brazil as a "university superpower". Citation 4 refers to Brazil as being a member of the BRICS and also being an emerging power, not a superpower. Citation 5 is in portuguese, but some of the abstracts I translated appear to only refer to Brazil's foreign policy regarding other "emerging powers" but no mention of being a potential superpower. The summary of the publication for citation 6 suggests to me it is dealing with US interests in Latin America and the emerging powers therein. Probably nothing to do with Brazil being a potential superpower. Lastly, citation 7, again the key word here is "emerging third world powers" and "economic powers" no mention of being a potential superpower.Antiochus the Great (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Emphasis must be placed on reliable and academic citations which clearly portray Brazil as being a potential superpower. Preferably in the same traditional sense of a superpower like the USA is today, the USSR and British Empire used-to-be and how China and India may become.Antiochus the Great (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
All are reputable sources, and among those who cited several scientific articles. I have to say this: The India and China in particular are considered as emerging superpowers by having a consumer market giant, high standard educational science and technology; Russia is considered a superpower because besides having a highly qualified human capital, also has considerable reserves of mineral resources. Because Brazil is excluded then? Brazil is emerging as a superpower holds the title of largest agricultural producer, the (one of) the richest country in mineral resources, the largest consumer market in Latin America, in addition to educational indicators that surpass India and China. Oh, and I disagree with his interpretation of the sources. Say exactly and explicitly the condition of Brazil as an emerging superpower. Here are some more sources: [8][9][10][11]. Hallel (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Citation 8 is not the sort of academic source we are looking for and again only refers to Brazil as being an "economic superpower". Citation 9 is The Daily Cornell Sun citation, and as established above in previous posts is unreliable. Citation 10 is not really relevant. Citation 11 is again referring to the BRICs and their "emerging markets/economies". There is absolutely no mention of Brazil being a potential superpower. The recurring key words in almost all of the citations you have provided are potential "economic power" and "emerging power". I would also like to ask you Hallel, have you read through the entire discussion so far? Because if you did, then why would you present The Daily Cornell Sun as support of Brazil being a potential superpower when it has already been established towards the start of this article that the Cornell Sun citation is not reliable and best avoided. Antiochus the Great (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Until proven otherwise, all sources claim vehemently that Brazil is an emerging superpower. With all due respect Antiochus, but you at least read the papers have made available? If you only mastered the English language, as soon as he read an article in Portuguese? Scientific articles produced by renowned Brazilian universities! Out the items I have made available in English. If the article is on the "emerging superpower" because I have to prove that Brazil is a superpower comparable to the U.S. or Britain? We're talking about emerging superpowers! It is not clear this? Do not rush things here do not. In a little over a week now wanted to close the topic as conclusive now that appear to sources refuse to discuss seriously? Good contributions! Hallel (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
You said; "Until proven otherwise, all sources claim vehemently that Brazil is an emerging superpower." How exactly is this possible if NONE of the citations you provide call Brazil a potential superpower? The citations you provide are only referring to Brazil as a "potential economic/agricultural superpower" or as an "emerging power". Please do not confuse those two terms with the traditional "superpower" term. Likewise an Energy superpower is NOT a superpower. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with what a superpower actually is so as to avoid confusion in future.Antiochus the Great (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Are you claiming or will submit fonts? Until proven otherwise I presented sources confirm that Brazil is rather an emerging superpower! Hallel (talk) 02:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion is interesting, but unfortunately I stop for today. Tomorrow return to this interesting debate with Mr. Thank you and good night of Brazilian land! Hallel (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Nope your sources do not say Brazil is a potential superpower. However, with the utmost respect, I think the language barrier will hinder you from understanding why and prevent you from comprehending the general thrust of my comments explaining why. In addition the language barrier prevents you from distinguishing between the terms; "emerging power", "economic superpower", "agricultural superpower" and an actual "superpower". Anyway, I am off to bed.Antiochus the Great (talk) 02:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The issue as I see it is that some editors (and I think Hallel is one) don't fully grasp the meaning/difference of the term superpower as opposed to "power" in either a general (power in international relations) or other specific (great power, regional power, et al.) way. The sources suggest Brazil is an emerging power - some do mention "superpower" but not in the true sense, only in narrow areas such as agriculture. And this is the point of this whole motion to delete Brazil (and perhaps Russia) - that editors for whatever reason (quite possibly national POV) are using whatever sources, whether they actually refer to actual superpower status or not, to push a certain nation onto this article, which should actually be a fairly short article. Brazil is an emerging power, there is no doubt about that, but it's not even a great power yet and as keeps being pointed out, no decent academic source suggests true superpower status for Brazil.
I can only suggest to Hallel that the constructive way forward is to transfer much of the Brazil stuff from this article to the developing emerging power article, which is a much more suitable "home" for it. In this article, as has already been suggested, we can still mention Brazil and Russia as emerging powers with some potential for superpower status because of agricultural/energy output or whatever. Frankly that is the truth of the situation out there in the real world. I cannot understand how anyone with any real understanding of the world can seriously suggest that Brazil is anytime soon going to be a superpower - that person either doesn't understand the situation of the world's nations or doesn't understand the term superpower and is mixing up with other terms for power as I mentioned above.
If this matter goes to arbitration I cannot see how the sources provided for Brazil can be upheld as demonstrating academic references to Brazil's potential as a superpower. They demonstrate Brazil as an emerging power with a strong future in certain areas. Do we really have to take this all through the mill? Well, sadly I can see the nationalists out there doing anything in a desperate attempt at keeping their country in this article (as if it changes anything in the real world..!) but they really would be wasting their (and our, and arbitrators') time. David (talk) 08:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Cheers for that survey Mrodowicz, found it particularly interesting. Especially to see quite a high % of Chinese respondents consider Britain to be a world power. The survey actually confirms well founded doubts about Brazil on this article - nobody sees Brazil as a world power, in fact only 13% of Brazilian respondents considered their country as a world power.Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
In relation to the Bertelsmann survey, it's interesting that so few people view the other great powers (besides USA, & possibly China) as great powers. Russia, Japan, UK, Germany, France & EU all score between 22% - 39%. I suppose that this is because whilst many of us would subdivide the world into 4 categories. 1. Superpower 2. Great Power 3. Middle Power 4. Small Power, the general population may think of world power distribution in terms of only three categories: 1. Superpower/Great Power 2. Middle Power 3. All the Rest. Under this distribution, USA would be in Cat. 1 by itself (or perhaps with China). Cat. 2 (middle power) would have all the remaining powers, on account of them being so far behind the US in terms of strength, and Cat. 3 is self-explanatory. --Mrodowicz (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
From the Bertelsmann survey, it shows that the British and German populations have the greatest grasp on what constitutes a Great power. I think this is because the British and Germans have a very healthy attitude and understanding when it comes to state power and global affairs, probably because both the World Wars (and the following Cold War) have a unique importance in our culture/society and therefore influences our outlook on the world. However, there is still allot of confusion among the general public as to what a "World power" or "Great power" is. Most people seam to think both terms simply mean "Superpower"! I suppose this is due to the United States being so overwhelmingly powerful in today's global environment that it "overshadows" the rest of the worlds powers. But people need to realise there is also a HUGE gap between Great powers like Russia, Britain and Germany etc vs traditional Middle powers like Canada, Australia and Italy.Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
On the basis of my 3 category theory, those who see the world in those terms would, I think, generally distinguish between their conception of "middle powers" like Britain & Germany Vs Canada & Australia, the latter whom I think they would consider in the small power/rest of world category. The problem is that they would lump Canada & Australia (actual middle powers) into the same category as Liechtenstein & Fiji (small states), and this really does not make much sense in the scheme of things. --Mrodowicz (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
To be fair to Hallel, he does provide one good source to make his point that Brazil might be considered a global power. Source Attachment No. 11 (No. 12 here) [12] is a respectable source written by academic Leslie Elliott Armijo in 2007. Of course it represents the opinion of one individual, but it's a good source. The article is worthwhile reading. I’ve taken out a few excerpts, to give some sense of what is says. See below:
This section thus far has examined the category “the BRICs countries” in the light of a realist framework emphasizing the relative power of individual sovereign states. China looks quite consequential, India and Russia somewhat less so, and Brazil still less so, although the order depends significantly on the specific metric employed. We conclude that it is certain that China is or soon will be a major power, eventually second only to the US, and reasonable to anticipate that the other three also soon could be major powers. On several relevant dimensions each of the four soon will outstrip the US’ traditional Western European allies—although this judgment would change dramatically if the Western European countries were to move toward close political union. Though the US remains overwhelmingly first among equals, multipolarity is increasing.
Tellingly, however, many realist analysts worry about the emergence of China—and the reemergence of Russia—as major powers in the current century, but seem unconcerned about Japan, India, and Brazil. Perhaps this is because China and Russia appear to pose a greater military threat, as both are long-declared nuclear states with large standing armies. But there is more to the argument than simply a concern over rising material capabilities among countries that were weak following the Second World War. What many realist scholars actually fear is the rise of a powerful anti-Western and anti-liberal-values coalition, led by China but possibly also including Russia.
This section began with two queries. We asked whether it was reasonable to imagine that, in purely material capability terms, any or all of Brazil, Russia, India, and China could by the mid-twentieth century [sic] be considered “major powers.” A variety of evidence suggests that by this criterion first China, then India and Russia, and then Brazil, all would be indisputable members of the set of top five to seven major powers--at the latest approximately three decades hence.
Moreover, both India and Brazil have demonstrated considerable soft power, or attractive and persuasive international capabilities. For example, India was a leader in both the Non-Aligned Movement of the 1950s through the 1970s and the New International Economic Order of the 1970s and early 1980s, each of which might have found greater long-run success had more of their members been democracies like India. More recently, Brazil and Argentina have improved their relations dramatically since both have democratized. If some democracies that are major powers (the European members of today’s G-7) are substituted for by other newly powerful democracies (such as India and Brazil), then we may expect global governance institutions, overarching liberal values, and processes to remain much the same.
In fact, a look at the business literature suggests that the core proposition even among scholars is simply that the BRICs’ economies will be large and therefore must be important—as markets, investment destinations, and competitors. Economic liberals who are logically consistent should care about factors such as the quality of national economic governance within emerging market economies. In contrast, a concern with relative size—and thus relative power— implicitly transports us to the cognitive territory of political and economic realism.
A realist approach suggests that advanced industrial countries whose relative international position may be slipping are justified in fearing the rise of the BRICs. Moreover, within a pure balance-of-power mental model for interpreting trends in the international political economy, the structure of relative material capabilities among units or countries shapes systemic outcomes: The end of American hegemony may undermine global stability. Yet there is more to be said. In particular, the realist model is unclear about why Japan or Germany, enemies of the United States (and the liberal democratic “West”) within living memory, are universally perceived today as reliable Western allies, while China and Russia arouse enormous suspicion.--Mrodowicz (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep, a good article, but it doesn't mention superpower and a global/major power is a great power. And that's the point - Brazil is an emerging power, but it is emerging as a great power, not a superpower. That article would be a good reference and source of material for the emerging power article. David (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Após esta afirmação me recuso a continuar este debate em inglês: "I think this is because the British and Germans have a very healthy attitude and understanding when it comes to state power and global affairs, probably because both the World Wars (and the following Cold War) have a unique importance in our culture/society and therefore influences our outlook on the world. However, there is still allot of confusion among the general public as to what a 'World power' or 'Great power'". Os senhores que "se virem" para entender o que irei escrever. Primeiro: apresentei artigos científicos de renomadas universidades brasileiras. Não foi o bastante! Continuei com os argumentos, e o que colocam um texto fora do contexto, selecionando um fragmento que convém e não o conjunto da obra... a análise do autor. Mas tudo bem, apresento lhes mais estas fontes pra se deliciarem com um trabalho acadêmico digno de respeito:
OLIVEIRA. Amâncio Jorge Silva Nunes de. O Brasil como uma superpotência emergente: seu papel na transição para um ordem multipolar e as consequências para suas relações com os EUA. Instituto de Relações Internacionais (IRI). Universidade de São Paulo (USP). São Paulo, fevereiro de 2012.
HUNTINGTON, Samuel P. A superpotência solitária. Política Externa, São Paulo, SP: Paz e Terra, v. 8, n. 4, p. 12-25, mar./maio 2000.
Instituto Histórico-Cultural da Aeronáutica. Ideias em Destaque. Rio de Janeiro, 2010.
Façam uma busca rápida na internet, e vocês terão a sua disposição estas literaturas de suporte. Ah, e quanto a acusação de bairrismo (sou bairrista e não nego!), me admiro muito de vossas senhorias britânicas me falarem tais coisas, pois estavam tecendo comentários sobre uma provável Potência Elizabetina! Vamos colocar os pingos nos ís, ok?! Saudações tupiniquins! Hallel (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay so that was hard to read through. Спасибо Халлэл.
Brazil As an Economic Superpower? - 32 references in the book. By clicking through 'Mais' with the link you provided, I found only one reference to 'Brazil as a potential superpower' - Chapter Three: "Brazil as a Potential Agricultural and Agroenergy Superpower". Maybe Google books is restricting my access to more relevant pages, but every other reference was isolated instances of the word "Brazil", "a" or "potential" (eg; 'a potential source of vulnerability'). The writer seems like an expert in his field, however, and if the biography I found for this figure is the right one his specific field is agronomy.
Brazil: The Challenges in becoming an Agricultural Superpower - 35 references in this article, about 30 of them being the recurrence of "superpower" in the header of each page. I only counted two references to "superpower" in the article itself, and both were in sentences referring to Brazil as an agricultural superpower ie; food supplier. On this note I then left to Google to search "Australia as an agricultural superpower" and found some interesting news stories suggesting Australia could be a 'food superpower' for Asia, yet clearly Australia does not have the clout to turn any agricultural clout into military or economic political power on the global stage - I'm not sure either of these two sources suggest anything more than "Brazil will be an agricultural superpower and literally a hub of food for the world". Similarly I found this description of Canada: "Canadians like to think of this country as an agricultural superpower, where farmers grow vast amounts of food to help feed a hungry planet." If this is indeed what an agricultural superpower is, then I fail to see how articles focusing on this concept and not following through to "how this affects Brazil's political position" are proof that Brazil is a "potential superpower" as you claim. Feel free to correct me but I want direct quotes from each of the sources you provided.
Brazil as next university superpower? - Colour my skeptical, but I'm not sure if this article is using 'superpower' as a weasel word - all it's describing is Brazil turning its focus to tertiary education and "may[be] emerg[ing] as a major player internationally". There's nothing to suggest that the article is claiming Brazil has the potential, or is emerging, as a superpower - just that it's becoming more important and following the footsteps of India and China in ensuring it's producing professionals.
O Brasil dos BRICS - Maybe it's just the translation of the page I'm reading, but it only refers to "superpower" seven times - all in reference to the current, unipolar system or the previous bipolar system of power. The article does not attach Brazil to the title "potential/emerging/possible superpower".
A Política Externa do Brasil no Século XXI - forgive me if I ignore this one, as I can't find a quick way to translate. We'll count this one as a possible yes for Brazil though, in exchange for my laziness?
The U.S. position facing the alternative leadership emerging in Latin America - This seems to be talking about regional leadership; ie; Brazil emerging as a regional leader in Latin America in a similar way to China in East Asia or the United States in North America. I admit I only read the abstract and the translation is dodgy, but this does not appear to discuss Brazil as a potential superpower.
Emerging Third World powers: China, India and Brazil - with only the abstract available for me to read, I can only go off that summary sorry. The abstract, however, makes no reference to a discussion on superpowers. Perhaps the article goes into more detail and explores Brazil as an emerging superpower more closely, but this seems to position Brazil as perhaps more as emerging on a comparable level to Germany or Japan - an economic powerhouse that's starting to flex its muscles.
Brazil: The world's next economic superpower? - CBS News. Null.
Country will ‘soon’ become a superpower but is now a ‘sleeper’ - Seems to be a news source like CBS as well, however the quotes in the article seem familiar. Aren't we already using this source in the article right now? That makes this a redundant source.
State Institutions, Ideology, and Autonomous Technological Development - This seems about 20 years old at least, so perhaps it doesn't quite reflect contemporary scholarship in the area? And dude, I'm just going to grin right now because JSTOR ftw and this is EXACTLY the sort of source we're looking for - it states clearly and definitively "Brazil would soon become a superpower". And yet... this is a history essay. It's looking on Brazil as once having the potential to become a superpower, and that's the only reference in the entire article to superpowers. As it was published in 1988, it's perhaps hard for it to then carry through with this line of argument into the contemporary, long post-Cold War era. As much as this is perhaps the most usable source you've provided (making three, counting the one already in the article you duplicated and the one I was too lazy to translate so we're counting that as one for you because I'm in no position to make an opinion otherwise), it's also one that we can't use for reasons stated. It sounds like it describes a period of optimism for Brazil in the 1970's, but an optimism that's still waiting to be rewarded.
THE BRICS COUNTRIES (BRAZIL, RUSSIA, INDIA, AND CHINA) AS ANALYTICAL CATEGORY - ...there are only three references to superpowers in this article, two to the US (describing its current position) and one to Russia (in reference to the Soviet Union). It makes no claims as to Brazil having the potential to be a superpower. It does, however, refer to 'major powers' - and makes reference to the Second World War as being the last 'major power war'. By this token, and considering the term "superpower" did not enter current currency until after the War, I'm not sure if this essay is discussing the BRICs by a definition of "Great Power" as opposed to "superpower". I feel there's a blur there, and perhaps the essay is suggesting that a multi-polar world is constructed of major (or perhaps great?) powers in contrast to a bipolar or unipolar world of pre-eminent superpowers. It seems ambiguous to me at best.
The Brazil as an emerging superpower - I have tried to find this with Google and, besides finding the author of the paper (I'm assuming it's a paper?) and thinking they're just the scholarship we need, I can't find it. I did, however, find an article called "Brazil as an emerging power" by the same author. With only an abstract to go off, it doesn't refer to Brazil as a potential super anything - only a growing world power. Semantics are everything and I"m not sure we want to risk OR by suggesting 'world power = superpower' and with only the abstract to go off, I have to say this doesn't quite fit the bill.
The Lonely Superpower - This refers to Brazil as a "major regional power" and compares it to the German-French coalition in Europe (European Union?), China, Russia (which at this point was languishing in the depths of a financial crisis, but had begun to pick itself up a gain and was at the beginning of a period of sustained economic growth), India, Iran and South Africa. I can only assume Huntington is referring to a collection of Great Powers of varying preeminence. Otherwise it is merely talking about how America is attempting to gain a frustrated global hegemony and might find it more fruitful to settle as a major power in a multi-polar system. The article doesn't discuss Brazil as a potential anything - it mentions Brazil has emerged as predominant in Latin America... only for the US to increase ties with Argentina in what I can only assume Huntington considers a move to contain Brazil and increase its own influence in Latin America.
Instituto Histórico-Cultural da Aeronáutica. Ideias em Destaque - The only thing I could find was an online bookstore; if you know a better link or can provide me with exerts to form an opinion, that'd be great. As it is I can only say this source is null.
Whoah, that took a while. And I think that's all your sources too, to date, yeah? So let's do the countdown:
That's three in favour of Brazil as a superpower (one I was lazy about, one that's in the article already, and one that's talking about the mid 1970's)
That's two in favour of Brazil as an agricultural superpower which, if we're going with the Canada definition, is a country where "farmers grow vast amounts of food to help feed a hungry planet".
That's one in favour of Brazil as... a university superpower. With the possibility of it being a weasel word in this context.
And that's five in favour of Brazil as a more Great Power level state (with two feeling more closely equated with Great Power, one with economic power and one as a major regional power experiencing hegemony).
Oh, and two we've scratched as null, one as not addressing superpowerness.
As a rundown, that's a damning 3/14 sources specifically addressing Brazil as a potential superpower and two have issues (my laziness and the 70's), leaving... maybe only really one source that's really good. I can't tell about the Instituto source as I haven't found an actual transcript in my search. I've been as thorough as I can in this analysis though and hope I've been fair enough in my judgement. But yeah. This isn't looking good, sorry Hallel :/
PS: Damn you Antiochus. Damn you. May you burn in the fires of hell for sneaking in that English Wikipedia comment before I had finished typing! Comics (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Opps! :O I am so so so sorry Comics! I understand your pain, I have taken on the habit these-days of copying my post before I click the "Save page" button. Accept my apologies and I feel your pain! Nonetheless, a huge thanks for your thorough run down on the citations, excellent job. Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Section break
Okay, placing a section break here for ease of editing etc. As agreed upon its been roughly a week at this stage since the discussion started and perhaps now we should decide upon where to go from here. Also how should we proceed with Russia?Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
This has been a great discussion and my thanks especially to Comics for his rundown of the Brazil sources.
There are a number of sources that use "superpower" in relation to Brazil, but very few if any use the word superpower in its true and full meaning. Agricultural superpower (or university superpower (which is clearly nonsense frankly)) is not the same as a superpower - Saudi Arabia for example is right now an energy superpower but that doesn't make it a superpower let alone a great power. The word is too often used (and I'm not just talking now about these particular sources, but generally) to mean "powerful" but not the proper USSR-USA c. 1980 sense!
My recommendation is this - we can keep Brazil (and Russia) in this article in a separate section (towards the bottom) regarding other types of "superpower" including energy superpowers (so Canada could even be included here I suspect) and agricultural superpowers. The article otherwise should concentrate on China, the EU and India. And much of the general emerging/growing power stuff moved to emerging power. This article should be kept short and sweet IMO. David (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree largely with David on the matter and my suggestions and principles for this article are as follows:
1) Brazil and Russia should be deleted from the article. Presently having Brazil and Russia listed as equals with China, Europe and India is improper.
2) Focus should be placed on China, Europe and India as per the numerous academic and authoritative citations reinforcing their status as potential superpowers.
3) Brazil and Russia should be briefly mentioned in the lead paragraph that they are sometimes referred to as potential superpowers but are more accurately considered emerging powers.
4) In future, countries that are proposed to be listed here should undergo a process of more strict and ridged scrutiny. Similar to the current process at the Great power article.
I don't know if adding more mention of economic, agricultural and energy superpowers to this article is a good idea, as I think it will further blur what is means to be a "Potential superpower". Perhaps expanding the Emerging powers article by adding mention of how some emerging powers are often referred to as economic, agricultural or energy superpowers would be better. Britain has be described of as a "cultural superpower" and there is a case for Britain being a "financial superpower" via the City of London. Also, Canada, Russia and Saudi Arabia are described as being "energy superpowers" and Brazil an "Agricultural superpower" - but these terms are often used only to describe one aspect where a nation holds considerable power and influence, not necessarily as a potential superpower.Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Antiochus - your 4 points are fine by me, except that I wouldn't mention Russia and Brazil in the lead, instead I'd have a very short section at the end of the article (perhaps titled "emerging powers" - a bit like in the great power article) for their mention.
Certainly David, that's made it a little clearer! The Emerging power section fits in very well on the Great power article, a similar section would indeed fit well here too. I suppose we should get cracking on this article then, we agreed to start this evening... Comics is uploading a new brighter map for the article - I agree mine is terribly dull and the contrast between India and China isn't very good.Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, here's the map I did (using the basic colour scheme of yours), but it's in PNG atm. If someone can turn it into an SVG, that's cool. There's also greater contrast between India and China, though looking at the thumbnail I'm not sure if I made China's red too bold. Comics (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Vejo que os senhores já trataram de fechar este consenso na calada da noite. Enfim, não irei conversar com vocês em inglês, visto que se consideram culturalmente superiores à nós tupiniquins (brasileiros). Mesmo que seja deselegante Antiochus, continuarei a expor meus argumentos em português e espero que os senhores tenham cultura o suficiente para entendê-los.
Como foram cobradas as fontes sobre o Instituto Histórico-Cultural da Aeronáutica, lhes deixo disponíveis. São artigos da academia militar do leste do Brasil: [13][14]. Como as fontes afirmam que o Brasil é uma superpotência emergente, reverterei os senhores, já que este consenso não foi fechado. Grato desde já! Hallel (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Hallel: - I feel that the other editors have been fair towards you, in the discussion to date. You are free to disagree with the position reached, but we have addressed each of the sources you have provided (with the exception of the last two you have just provided, which are in Portuguese). I do not wish to make any accusations, but it is my impression that you understand our criticism of a number of these sources provided (ie. poor source, off topic etc.), but are refusing to acknowledge or answer these criticisms, preferring instead to take a deliberately obstinate stance. In reference to your threat in your latest comment, about reverting any changes we make to the article, which are not in line with your point of view, I would suggest that you familiarise yourself with wikipedia guidelines, before pursuing any destructive form of action on your part.--Mrodowicz (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
To be fair, Hallel, this is the English language Wikipedia. So most editors here are going to be speaking English and will expect others to speak English since, y'know, this Wikipedia is in English. If we were on the Portuguese or Brazilian Wikipedia it would be expected we'd speak Portuguese since that's the language the site is written in. Similarly Russian for Russian, Chinese for Chinese... It'd be wonderful to meet halfway here but you don't seem to be willing to budge. Out of all the sources you provided above only a handful seemed usable at best. And could I just point out how it seems odd you point out that the Anglosphere feels culturally superior... and yet you approach their website and ultimately demand to speak in Portuguese because English speakers are arrogant? Comics (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
@Comic master: Eu iria continuar a escrever em inglês, mas dadas algumas infelizes conclusões (não relacionadas com o tema e sim com questões culturais) tomadas nesta discussão, mantenho minha disposição de somente escrever em português. Nunca considerei o mundo anglófono como arrogante. Entretanto considerei a posição tomada por alguns editores aqui como arrogantes.
O debate não se encerrou, e amanhã a tarde trarei novas fontes, visto que os senhores não contra-argumentaram as duas últimas fontes que apresentei. Em resposta ao @Mrodowicz: As fontes que apresentei por último dizem claramente que o Brazil/Brasil é uma superpotência emergente. Vocês não a refutaram, e sim alegaram que os artigos acadêmicos estavam fora de contexto (mas não explicaram porque estavam fora de contexto se tratam exatamente do assunto) e que estava em português (???). Ora, quer dizer que se a fonte não está em inglês não serve para referenciar os artigos desta enciclopédia? Isto é um argumento muito fajuto! Conheço muito bem as diretrizes do projeto, e pelo que sei se meu argumento refuta os seus eu tenho a autonomia de revertê-los. E este consenso não fechou, de forma que qualquer alteração no artigo é um desrespeito ao esforço que tem sido feito por mim para vir até aqui e argumentar com os senhores. Afinal eu sou um contra quatro editores. É muito fácil forçar um consenso se nenhum dos senhores decidir levar meus argumentos a sério.
Peço sinceras desculpas se restou a impressão de algum comportamento agressivo de minha parte, não era esta a minha intenção e sim debater seriamente um tema importante. Boas contribuições! Hallel (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
The articles presented were taken out of context because, for the most part, they do not discuss the type of superpower this article attempts to discuss. The Superpower article provides this definition from Alice Miller: "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 hegemony". That's only one definition and I'm sure there are plenty of others, but I hope this offers some clarification as to why articles discussing "university superpower" and "agricultural superpower" in particular aren't exactly what this article is exploring: this article is looking at that idea of countries with the potential for "global hegemony", not the capacity to feed the world or lead the world in university ladders. Similarly other articles you presented seem to deal more with Brazil being capable of becoming a Great Power or 'World Power', but not exactly a 'Superpower'; one definition (applied to Putin's Russia) of a 'global power' is a state with "...interests - and the capacity to pursue them - across much of the world". This is what some of your articles seem to be looking at: Brazil gaining the capacity to flex its muscles on global issues.
I thank you for providing those PDFs (although, forgive me, they both look like exactly the same one?); not being a Portuguese speaker it's hard for me to assess their usefulness, however I did a search for "emergente", "potência" and "super" with no results coming back from the first PDF. Could you provide some exerts that you think might be relevant which someone could then translate (if you don't wish to yourself)? Otherwise it's hard for us to see how they might be useful. We'd be more than happy to include non-English sources, however it can be hard for some people to use them if we don't have someone on hand to translate the essential bits so we know what the source is talking about. I think the problem is you're claiming the articles say one thing, but we can't quite see that reflected in the articles you're providing (I found at best about two in the ones you provided earlier?). Maybe there's some bias from one or both sides here. Comics (talk) 06:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Hallel, your comments might have added weight and thrust if they were posted in English. Continuing to post in Portuguese could be interpreted as you being too proud, uncooperative and unwilling to contribute to this discussion in a productive manner.Antiochus the Great (talk) 09:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I can understand on Brazil but not Russia, Russia is not a great power and nor should it be listed as a emerging power, that's ridiculous; it's a potential superpower or emerging superpower. If you compare Brazil and Russia, Russia is the ruler, if you compare India and Russia, Russia rules over military and economics[15] on India it outcast on others such as population, some military and some global affairs. There are plenty of stats online that point Russia as an emerging superpower. There are US dipolmats & world leaders who have made official statements on Russia's power surge on the world stage, Brazil doesn't have that grip on the world. India, so so but their ecomony does impact the world stage as much as Russia is. The article should place Russia back as it was, there was foreign relation expert sources that were defending article and they shouldn't be ignored.--103.246.114.80 (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I am against removing data about Russia and Brasil. Russia is largest country in the world, 8th or 9th or 10th world's largest economy (depending on source, and similar size of economy as India), military - one of the largest in the world (including nuclear weapons, the second largest in the world, after USA) and world's political importance. Also, exist sources about this. Brazil or India is less important than Russia in the world. Generally, today exist two superpowers: United States and European Union and also two potential superpowers: China and Russia and also two emerging potential superpower: India and Brazil. Subtropical-man (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Well said Subtropical-man Brazil has some substance to be on here and Russia especially. How can anyone delete the world's second military superpower and largest stockpile of nuclear weapons as Russia? Here you have 2 US senators saying Russia is a superpower[16] and for economy Russia has been between 5th & 6th largest[17][18] Brazil is a BRIC nation (India, Brazil, Russia, China), the fact that these 2 nations matter and they sould be on the front line and never deleted--103.246.114.97 (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Geographic size does not a superpower make, and its economy is projected to lag far behind China, India and the US by 2050; Goldman Sachs and PwC both project this (yes, in fifth place in comparison with its current position on the outskirts of the Global Top Ten, however the divide between Russia and the largest economies is projected to only grow wider even if the ratio shrinks and JAPAN is projected to have a larger economy than them. Not to mention Brazil, and all three will lag far behind the economic powerhouses of India, China and the US). Russia is also projected to see its workforce contract by at least 30% by 2050, as claimed by HSBC. Russia will be big, far bigger than it is today, but not important. Comics (talk) 05:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
"How can anyone delete the world's second military superpower and largest stockpile of nuclear weapons as Russia?" The phrase 'second military superpower' should not be used to describe the Russian military, it is a humorous suggestion and stinks of POV.Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The anonymous IP editor and Subtropical-man are both confused about terminology. A superpower is a great power that wields global hegemony. (All superpowers are great powers but not all great powers are superpowers - indeed very few across history are or were.) An emerging power is any state or union that is rising in its position or role in the world - it covers many states of various sizes and (potential) power. A 'potential superpower' is not the same as a 'potential great power' nor an 'emerging power' - all three terms are different (though emerging power, as I've already said, covers pretty much everything, in a looser way). Russia is a great power (that is indisputable and is made very clear on Wikipedia) and may well be a (re-)emerging power, but it is difficult to see how it squares up against the US, China, the EU or India in the coming decades as a potential superpower. Brazil is certainly not an emerging superpower - it isn't even a great power yet.
Can people who come into this discussion please read up and understand the terminology used before wading in and declaring X, Y and Z are this, that or the other? It's getting tedious. David (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Just - I have a different opinion. The second case: India. Today, USA and EU and China can be called as "superpowers" and have an upward trend. OK. But India? India's size of the economy is similar to Russia, military - less power than Russia, world's political importance - less power than Russia. OK, for 50 years maybe! India will better than Russia in economy, maybe also in military or political power, but these are just projections, plans, not reality. Wikipedia is not a fairy. If Russia and Brasil has been removed from the article, India also must been removed from the article. If the predictions of the fairies, will be true for 50 years, if this becomes a reality, India will add to this article. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
India's economy is projected to overtake the Russian economy within 7 years not 50 years. Russia's population is in terminal decline and by the 2050s will have a population of around 100 million... in comparison the United Kingdom is projected to have a population of 80 million by the late 2040s. Russia is simply NOT a potential superpower and whats more there is no academic consensus that reinforces the idea of Russia as a potential superpower. This discussion should be closed as per policy to preserve the decision of the consensus. A new section should be opened to discuss any relevant issues. Arguments starting off like "I have a different opinion" from Subtropical-man are not valid because as he said its his opinion (POV).Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Comments for reconsidering
If one can provide acedamic references that Brazil is not a potential superpower or I will consider it to go back on the article. Some of the discussions are weak and lacking sources stating why Brazil was eliminated as this discussion has only been opened for 2 weeks to add more comments like myself or to add sources to the table which I find the prejected arguments above were very weak in taking out Brazil from the article. I also may add that Russia too was rather weak in taking out a country with no real acedamics to remove it than the previous acedamic sources were in place to keep it. Removing acedamic sources when asking for acedamic sources is not a coin toss on heads or tails who wins. I think the editor who started this discussion probably set this up on purpose and took out two important countries that matter as potential superpowers; some will agree in less than 2 weeks that is unfair and not appropiate to everyone taking their time to respond and boom they're gone. That's not real consensus. --103.246.114.72 (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment You may not remove Russia. Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower Cambridge University Press p3. It certainly belongs here. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed that is an acedamic source book, I agree that is a valid wikipedia source made clear on Russia, thank you for bringing that matter to the discussion. It is my opinion the discussion leader wanted that in, probably wanted to achieve the discussion quicky before more sources follow.--103.246.114.72 (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes it is an academic source of sorts, but even from the book summary I quote: "This book demonstrates that Russia intends to re-emerge as a full fledged superpower", again "that Russia intends to re-emerge as a full fledged superpower", and again "Russia intends". Russian intention to re-emerge as a superpower while admirable doesn't make it a potential superpower, and most certainly not in the same league as China, India or the EU. Darkness Shines, any additions such as adding a country to the article would need to be discussed and would require several academic citation to support their inclusion. Preferably 'better' citations are required than one that simply states "Russia intends"... North Korea intends on destroying the West... intending on becoming a superpower is very different to having the potential of becoming one.Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Antiochus the Great, do you have a PHD in foreign relations? Like Steven Rosefielde, Frank Zakaria, James Jay Carafano... and more, do they make their views intentions but when headlined they're media statements. The white houe would take their intentions seriously even if it's an intention. If not that I cannot agree with your statement. There are sources on the United States that are on the article and sources are making intentions on the US remaining a superpower that look very questionable but should we take that out and consider it hearsay? I don't see any discussion there but someone adds in a source and it's there in several area's on intentions. If an source or a amademic source that says China will be the world superpower over the US by 2014 and it's an intention are you saying you can't use it because it's an intention but its an academic source? I think prehaps we should examine the current sources on the potential superpower now then and cross examine everything. Intentions! ... to be discussed is this a 2 week discussion process and we'll achieve it like Brazil oh really? Who agreed to close out the Brazil discussion? Is there a agreement on that, seems like an intention there? Don't see it any agreement so how do you intend to discuss when you closed out the discuss in 2 weeks. Why achieve something and yo have more feedback coming in? and where does it say in Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower Cambridge University Press as an intention? What page numbers? Lets have some feedback from others please --103.246.114.122 (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I have added comments on Russia in the section below, and even Rosefielde notes that Russia's attempt to secure superpower status for itself once more could turn it into a paper tiger at the mercy of other powerful states. Also, Antiochus gave you the page numbers - the book summary on the back cover. The book however does not appear to go into the specifics of 'intentions'. And dear God my head is hurting from your blustering about 'intentions'. Comics (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
It suggests that the EU and China are widely considered to be superpowers, which is simply not the case (and indeed if it were so would make the whole article pointless). Another aspect of this article that needs dealing with!! David (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I do not concur, China, US and Russia are superpowers. The EU is only a union, it is not a military, it is basically a currency nor is it NATO. --103.246.114.80 (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Article is well written.The former one was confused and accepted "all".EU and China are without doubt in the list with USA.India is in the article even many people doubt of it.Brazil and Russian Federation must stay out without doubt to be realistic.They miss in many many sectors.They miss in economy (not only in GDP but also and above all in global net wealth that made them insignificant in the world economy) and population.Brazil miss in military and Russia in conventional military too (Check well datas.All have inside nukes able to cancel life on Earth.Conventional military becomes the main one and in this Brazil and Russia aren't at the level of USA,EU and China capabilities).According to the majoriy of people that are in economy ,social and military studies considering Brazil and Russian Federation potential superpower is not trustble.EU owns a its clause of mutual defence based on the article 42.7 of the Lisbon Treaty,so no doubts on EU military might.
The post at the bottom of the article is perfect.It gives well the idea of superpower.The guy that writes anonymous is brazilian or russian.One thing is reality another prpaganda.I like this article because realistic and far from propaganda that is very common in policy articles.Mediolanum (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you should demonstrate why Nigeria is not a potential superpower with academic references, if not I will add it to the article. --103.246.114.72 (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I hope that was a joke. If not, you need to seek help, as you clearly don't understand, well, anything. David (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I think that is a good point, if you don't have an acedemic reference then what acedamic reference do you have that says the opposition. If Africa or Austrilla or any other country was a potential superpower or not, you would have something stating it was and something maybe saying it wasn't, right. Compared the two for debate then. Nigeria may not be a potention superpower but then again, show evidence it isn't too. Brazil and Russia both have a host of sources on acedamic and non acedamic but then you have non acedamic sources used in acedamic sources such as in college books and news sources and more. Why do you think people write books then or journal reports or media reports? That's call case citings. There's a show called 60 Minutes from CBS, do you think all their sources are acedamic? No so why do 20 million viewers agree with their facts each week. --103.246.114.86 (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Um, if there's no academic discussion about whether it is a superpower why would we have to also show academic discussion about how it isn't? And just because CBS is watched by 20 million each week doesn't mean it's accurate. It's current affairs. They distort stories and play on emotions to gain viewers. Comics (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Well they are used as Congressional Records even some CNN shows are printed in Congressional Records and also archived in the US National Archives office. Why would such sources of taxpayers money be spent on printing and archived in congressional books such as shows? The point is, they become acedamic sources when they are used in such a way than a simple newpaper article. How about a politicial debate or something and it gets printed, weird but it gets used and accounted for something later, what it maybe used for. --103.246.114.86 (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
@ 103.246.114.8, CNN is not a reliable source for an article such as this. Also, you keep claiming that Brazil and Russia have academic citations that describe them as potential superpowers! Will you please produce these said citations? Additionally, the citations for Brazil have be examined by me and a few other editors - the result was that they are unsuitable to support Brazil's place on the article. NONE of the citations described Brazil as a "potential superpower". Get real or go home. Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
It is pathetic. One IP with a battleground mentality and all of this crap to put up with. He also 'un-closed' the discussion holding the consensus... the joys!Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
'India's economy is projected to overtake the Russian economy within 7 years not 50 years. Russia's population is in terminal decline and by the 2050s will have a population of around 100 million... in comparison the United Kingdom is projected to have a population of 80 million by the late 2040s..... Antiochus the Great' - oh, really? :) The population is growing in Russia since 2009 (due to immigration), and from 2012 there is a natural increase. Read: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Demographics_of_RussiaSprenger aa (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The GFP link is nice, but it's just stats and figures. We can't use that to imply anything other than Russia is considered to have a powerful military. It mentions "world power" - a term that is ambiguous at best considering it could also refer to Great Power. I'm hesitant about using that to support Russia's inclusion into the article.
Similarly, although you linked to Wikipedia, I link to the CIA Factbook and that suggests that Russia's current population growth rate is... glacial at best, with an estimate of a -0.01% growth rate in 2012. Maybe 2013 might see that shift slightly to 0.01% or maybe a little higher, or maybe CIA is a little dodgy with its figures (I wouldn't think so, though). It also indicates that Russia's average age is roughly 40 (more accurately; 38), with half of the population between the ages of 25 and 54. Maybe the baby boomer point that you and Anon IP raise might change these demographics, but it would have to be something pretty massive (combined the ages 0 - 24 are roughly 2/3 the 25 - 54).
I am opposed to reopening the Brazil discussion. A new topic should be created if there is still some conjecture; don't reopen the old one. Please don't. Just make a new topic. And considering you mention the topic was open for 2 weeks... uh, surely that's a lot of time for people to come and make their opinions heard? There was some weighing in, some editors decided to remove Brazil and Russia after seeing reactions and assessing them, then closed it with a bow. Anything major is going to attract controversy even after it's over - you want Brazil in, that's fine. Could you offer some sources like you have been for Russia for us to look at, rather than saying "Brazil dude no put it back Brazil's obvious same Russia"? Comics (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
'Russia's current population growth rate is... glacial at best, with an estimate of a -0.01% growth rate in 2012.'
In 2011, the population of Russia grew by 191,000 people
In 2012, Russia's population increased by 292,400 people
Just so you know, the CIA is using an outdated data from these sites, and then approximated by them at the time.
In general, I suggest leaving this subject. It is not so important, I think. But what criteria do you assess whether a country is deemed worthy of a potential superpower or not? Can you list these criteria? Sprenger aa (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
No. Still, I am absolutely sure that Russia is a potential superpower. See:
Do you really think that Russia does not deserve to be a potential superpower? A project to create a Eurasian Union is that to you? Is not Russia's desire to recreate the Soviet Union in one form or another, and regain the status of a superpower?
I know of all those Wikipedia pages, but Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I certainly think Russia will be a big player in the future. I'm just looking at what seems available and it doesn't look like it's going to be standing in the same leagues as the likes of China, the US or India (and perhaps the EU). You also seem to have confused certain of your points: last I checked space programs were more scientific than military achievements, and the CIS is restricted to its region at the current time (in contrast with the EU, which perhaps has a head start on coordinating European actions on the world stage). The Eurasian Union exists as a proposal and, at least in older documents, was hypothesised to supersede the CIS or alternatively to re-impose a Soviet-era of Russian dominance over other states within the Eurasian region. Book thingy with old documents on the CIS I concede that this is an older book.
Perhaps it's the ultimate goal of Putin to re-establish a Russian entity that will re-assume the power that the Soviet Union once held. As it is, however, I'm perhaps feeling that Russia is destined to be something of a senior partner to China. Dmitri Tremin states that "Gone are the military confrontations... and the Kremlin's superpower pretentions"; despite still acting as something of an imperialistic thinker - "having ceased to be an empire and a world superpower, Russia has managed to stabilise itself as an important second-tier player". In comparing Russia with China (and taking their history in the 70's into account), Tremin claimed that "Russians feel dwarfed" - the Russia of now is forced to avoid domination by "the two premier powers of the 21st century; the United States of America and the People's Republic of China". Tremin's Book
Stephen Kotkin believes that China is constricting Russia: "today it is China that has emerged as the force to be reckoned with on both continents" in place of Russia. He quotes Rogozin and suggests that his views of "small groups of five million" Chinese crossing into Russia reflect a concern about Russia's weak grip on East Asia and that, due to China fostering comparably good relations with Europe to Russia's own, it has become an "even more pronounced strategic weakness". Russia is now "a regional power that acts like a global superpower" in contrast with a China that "has been transformed into a global superpower but acts like a regional power". Kotkin also dismisses the notion of a 'New Cold War' because "Russia, a regional power, cannot hope to mount a global challenge to the United States". Kotkin's article is included in this book
Commenting on the term "energy superpower" do often applied to Russia, Andrei Kortunov states "a country cannot be an energy superpower: - it is either a superpower or not a superpower". He suggests that the way this term has been embraced allows Russia to give the impression of preserving "it's international status - at least partially - without really working hard" (he goes on to list areas Russia needs improvement in, such as economic reforms and investing in human capital). Kortunov's essay is included here.
Thomas Ambrosio appraises Russia's foreign policy in the post-Soviet era and feels that Russia only held onto its great power status through courtesy of "it's geographic size, it's history as a Cold War superpower, and its nuclear arsenal" and needed an alliance if it were to regain any of its former glory (China being a natural partner, and resulting in such actions as the formation of the SCO as a means to curb American hegemony). Michael Mandelbaum suggests that neither China or Russia could successfully mount a challenge to the US, however for different reasons (he seems to suggest China will need to work on improving its own problems, such as per capita wealth and the fall-out of it's one-child policy) - "China is destined to become stronger as the 21st century unfolds: Russia is likely to grow weaker". Mandelbaum cites demographic problems such as a high mortality rate, lower life expectancy (60 for males) and epidemics of alcoholism, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS. He also notes that Putin's first two terms did nothing to cultivate non-fossil fuel related industry, holding Russia hostage to the price of fossil fuel. Furthermore it's history as an imperialistic power would be difficult to maintain in a post-Soviet era where its former possessions have developed strong national identities of their own. Ambrioso's discussion can be found here and Mandelbaum's comments are in here
The book Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower by Steven Rosefielde even mentions that Russia will "contradictorily striving to reattain past superpower glories... while seeking the indulgence of powerful strangers" - but Russia is "at risk of becoming a 'paper tiger'" that powerful nations could take advantage of if it attempts a Soviet-era process of attaining superpower status. I understand that it also details ways that Russia could attain its previous superpower status (although Rosefielde does mention that this would have the effect of "economic backwardness, and popular discontent"), but it's worth noting that perhaps one of the shining lights of the Russian paragraph itself states that Russia will have difficulties reattaining its former status of superpower if at all. Comics (talk) 05:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
All that you have listed now, it's just a subjective opinion of some experts. I also gave an absolutely objective and well-known facts. Wash, any sane person would deny that Russia can regain the status of a superpower. But there is no secret that many experts in the West after the Cold War continued contemptuously refers to Russia. One may give subjective opinions of expert Russophobes as proof that Russia will not become a superpower. Such experts probably would like to see Russia a poor country with a population of 100 million people. No, I'm not saying that everyone you refer will supposedly Russophobian source, but you will deny that at least some of the experts here prejudice against Russia?
I've been recently trying to prove that Wikipedia sometimes guided by "common sense." Well ... It seems that this is not so. Until there is some English-speaking expert Russophile who will write a book and call it "Russia will become a superpower" to call for sanity useless. Although, I'm not even a drop of no doubt that some wiki editors say, "No, he's just an idiot, because Russia will become a poor country with a population of 100 million people! Because so said another expert, which I believe is more !! "Sprenger aa (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
So you mean if one expert says that Russia will have trouble becoming a superpower it's a subjective opinion and not worthy of Wikipedia's attention, however if another expert says that Russia will become a superpower it's so objective and let's put it in the article because it's the golden truth? This sounds like confirmation bias to me. Funnily enough, it seems as if both Tremin and Kortunov are Russian authors whose work leads them to comment on foreign affairs at a global level. So maybe they are English-speaking experts, but they're Russian English-speaking experts. I particularly have to wonder why you reject Rosefielde's views as subjective, seeing as Rosefielde's book has seen the most support on this talk page as being a valid source. So is Rosefielde a subjective Russophobe declaiming "Russia will become a poor country with a population of 100 million!", or is he the shining light of "Russia will become a superpower"? Comics (talk) 00:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Sprenger very good point and I may say too there is a baby boom going there too and the Russian Federation may have 3 countries that may join the Federation as one nation because some countries want to be in their economics & financail interests, apparently there is money there. I don't see India making the same except for huge deportations because of jobs in the US and other countries.
http://rbth.ru/articles/2012/11/26/can_russian_baby_boomers_change_the_game_20417.htmlhttp://www.nbcnews.com/id/23972762/ns/world_news-europe/t/russia-experiencing-baby-boom/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/russianow/business/9200168/Russia-baby-boom-sales.html
CNN did a report on this last year on the boom in Russia and while India is going strong, I don't think we added all on both nations on the article but however one of the editors eliminated both Brazil and Russia off the article in order to discuss that. Should we agree to open the "Brazil oh really" discussion since it was closed yesterday after 2 weeks of talks. I think we were setup on the article and somebody intended close out the discussion on both Brazil and Russia before more would weigh in on the matter. I think so. Open the "Brazil oh really" discussion and lets get more feedback on this.--103.246.114.122 (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
If you think you're fooling us by creating accounts and using different IPs, think again. Obvious trolling is obvious. David (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Of course, of course :) Maybe it's you, Comic master and Antiochus the Great are one and the same people as well? :)Sprenger aa (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, you found me out. I'm actually a sockpuppet for a Penguin Polar Bear overlord with designs on turning Russia into a hyper-spatial platform from which he can launch his invasion of the universe. So it's in my best interests to remove Russia from here since, y'know, everyone reads Wikipedia and if Russia's just this little nothing with a strange little bald president thing nobody's going to notice the imports of Jethric stone from Ribos that I'll neutralise such that the polarity can be used to create a conductive wave-form energy pattern capable of powering spaceflight. No need for fuel either. Comics (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Due to the ongoing dispute, I've full-protected the article, for the same duration as Superpower was already protected, so that this can be discussed and resolved without continual reversions/edit-warring. - The BushrangerOne ping only20:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Invited to comment Only four people framed the consensus which is way too low considering the highly controversial nature of the topic.....you should have waited till more people(not socks) commented on the topic. I think at least 10 people were required to frame the consensus here....considering the highly controversial nature of the topic...
PS:I'm in favour of the consensus but just don't like the way it was reached. Thanks, TheStrikeΣagle02:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, the sources (currently removed from the article) on Brazil and Russia (especially Russia) clearly show that the question whether Brazil and/or Russia could become future superpowers is a question of academic and media interest. Therefore it is a question of readers' interest and encyclopedic interest as well. If some respectable sources discuss the possibility of achieving superpower status by Brazil, Russia or any other country, than some summary of this discussion belongs to the article about potential superpowers, no matter how sceptical are those sources about superpowerdom of a particular country. So the removal of information about Brazil and Russia - the information clearly relevant to the topic of the article - is not an improvement of this article. This removal simply has made the article less informative and lacking interesting and relevant discussion about those countries. GreyHoodTalk20:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
So my recommendation would be to re-insert Brazil and Russia back to the article, but in case there is consensus that the chances of those countries to become superpowers are estimated by the majority of sources to be slim and unlikely, it is perhaps better to discuss Brazil and Russia in a special separate section in the article. For example, we may create the section called Likely candidates for EU, China and India and Other candidates for Brazil and Russia. In the lead Russia and Brazil then should be listed separately from other candidates, and on the map they should be shown by pale colors or in other specific way. In my opinion that would be a good compromise solution, allowing on one hand to include all countries of interest to the article, and on the other hand to distinguish likely and less likely candidates. GreyHoodTalk20:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Good idea but I have doubts about India; India, Russia and Brasil should have a separate section, not only Russia and Brasil. India is not clear "potential superpower" like as Russia and Brasil. Besides, there are sources for Russia and also Brasil, even if the part is opposed, this data must be in article. This new pseudo-consensus (discussion lasted only two weeks, and not all users have time to comment: [19]) breaks the rules of Wikipedia. According to the rules of Wikipedia, in the article must be data about Russia with the note and sources about differences of opinions. Generally, this new pseudo-consensus is not applicable, if there is no new consensus in this talk page, should be create a new topic in RFC about this. This pseudo-consensus is not a consensus by users of Wikipedia and not breaking the rules of Wikipedia, this new pseudo-consensus is very funny manipulation. Subtropical-man (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Greyhood, there were no academic citations for Brazil or Russia which referred to them as being "Potential Superpowers". Wikipedia is not the place for sensationalist media reports when dealing with an article such as this. Russia and Brazil are however referred to as "Emerging powers" by several academic citations and were therefore placed at the Emerging powers article. As for your comment about India, you are incorrect - there are numerous academic citations referring to India as a "Potential superpower" and there is a broad consensus among academics that India will emerge as a superpower sometime this century.Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I was going to suggest that another section with comments about other nations being speculated would be alright. The amount of sources, although suggesting some academic interest as Greyhood suggests, doesn't appear to be in the same volume as China, the EU or even India. According to Wikipedia NPOV we are supposed to give due weight. Subtropical-man, the current consensus seems to be that undue weight was given to Brazil and Russia considering the amount of sources available for each - they were given more prominence than needed (if a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts - it's a struggle to find appropriate sources for Brazil and Russia; they exist, but it's not as easy as looking up China or the EU for instance). Any such section (I see it as perhaps being a paragraph or two, just detailing states with less speculation HOWEVER they must have quantifiers [an article saying 'doesn'th ave ambition, less superpower thing]) Comics (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
A lead section should normally summarize the article, so the best solution is a subsection in the article plus a line or two in the lead. GreyHoodTalk10:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
There were acedamic sources that were on both Brazil and Russia but were deleted by "Antiochus the Great", so I don't think it is an issue of acedamic sources, I think it is an editor that chooses to erase edits. There were very good sources that were already discussed on Brazil and Russia 2 years ago and were agreed to leave in but because of one editor the article got a tug of war on disagreement to remove and now it's suspended from editing. That tells you that many were not agreeing with taking out Brazil and Russia in the first place. --103.246.114.86 (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
There were no academic sources for Brazil and Russia. Infact, most the the sources for Brazil were all dead links!! So 103.246.114.86 do not make false claims in an attempt to support your argument.Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Was not asking you, let the other editors speak their minds please. Nice try "Antiochus the Great", there was acedamic sources for Brazil and Russia until you came along and started the trouble here falsifying the facts. We went from an acedamic source article to Sesame Street article now, who edited the article before the suspension, guess who? That would be "Antiochus the Great". And broken edits can be fixed not deleted.--103.246.114.86 (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
There were no academic sources for Brazil and Russia. It is pointless for you to continue saying there were and not produce evidence! Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Steven Rosefielde, Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower, Cambridge University Press, 2004. Seems to be a perfectly academic source. Clearly discusses the processes which the author sees as Russia's attempt to regain the superpower status. Clearly shows that the question of possible Russia's return to superpower status is of academic interest. Even if the author is somewhat skeptical about the achievement of that status in actuality, the source is enough proof for the encyclopedicity of the issue. GreyHoodTalk21:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Greyhood I do agree with you on Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower, Cambridge University Press. It has a lot facts and sources but mainly it is an acedamic source. There is on editor who has put all the editors on edge with his elimination campaign on Brazil and Russia in erasing acedamic sources with no consensus is "Antiochus the Great". So I would like several others to reply here than one editor stirring lots of trouble with good sources. Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower is a great source for this article, couldn't agree with you more.--103.246.114.104 (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Greyhood, I think the understanding is to place Russia in a subsection towards the end of the article with a sentence in the lead. You also agreed to this didn't you? The Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower citation is academic but what I was trying to get at was that we cannot list Russia on equal footing with China or the EU etc on the basis of a single citation. This is why I agree to placing Russia in a subsection. As for Brazil there really are no academic citations supporting Brazil... unless academic citations for Brazil can be found we cannot re-add Brazil to the article.Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Well I have a few comments to share with everyone:
I agree that maybe the original editors could have made more time for the consensus so other editors could respond. But I would also like to mention that we have to be fair and understand that the Wikipedia rules do not say how long a consensus should be. So while we would have liked more time to respond I have to accept that the original editors in the consensus have done nothing wrong.
I agree with the original consensus, Brazil had no place on this article as it did not have the sources of academics. However I think that Greyhoods suggestion of using a subsection for Russia with the - Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower - reference is a good idea. This solves two problems, especially that we should not place Russia as equal as China, India and the European Union.
I think that the IP (103.246.114.104) is too much angry towards the editors and he should relax and stop attacking them. Peaceful discussion is all that is needed. The editors also must give him a chance as he is probably new and does not know how the talk pages work.
My last comment is that most people in these discussions agree on the same thing that Brazil and Russia should be removed because they do not have the high quality references, only a very small handful of people think that Brazil and Russia should stay, but these small number of people do not provide adequate references and sources! But like I said before we should do what Greyhood says and put Russia in a subsection because it has one good reference.Languid Scientist (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Russia according to many academics and people in policy will be "eaten" by EU (see article Eurosphere )that even today has a strong influence on Russia.Russia like Brazil hasn't sufficient population and has a small economy compared to the other ones cited in the article today and in a foresable future.It'd be just ridiculous propaganda.Article is really complete.Stop with trolling.Mediolanum (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
EU is not a potential superpower.
They lack a unified currency. Their people would never allow it to become one country. Each country has centuries of history, the people would not give that up. They are in an economic sh*thole. UK will probably be out of the EU within a decade. Even Germans are starting to want to leave. The EU is not, and never will be a potential superpower. The only ones are US (existing superpower), India, and China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copulative (talk • contribs) 22:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
EU is a political being with a larger economy that Usa and inside a larger military than Usa. (see art. 42.7( Lisbon Treaty).Mediolanum (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The Lisbon Treaty includes common defence but this does not equate to an actual "EU military" - otherwise NATO is "a military" too. Don't confuse an alliance (the EU, NATO, etc) with an actual union of militaries (that would only happen if the sovereign states merged/gave up their sovereignty to the EU). David (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Nowehre is written that to be a superpower a political being must be a common nation.Nowhere.EU according to Lisbon Treaty art. 42.7 has cluase of mutual defense that links all EU states.EU owns (rapresented by The EU Miltary Staff) today a huge military system .Check better datas,then write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediolanum (talk • contribs) 16:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
The EU very much is a potential superpower! Has anyone thought that maybe the EU does not need to become a country to become a superpower? When you look at the British Empire in world war two the armies of some of its colonies helped England fight the war. The EU has been described by many as an empire too, I am sure if Europeans get a closer bond and work closer with military matters then one day we could be a superpower, we don't need to melt into one giant country to do it! But this is just my opinion, plus David is from England where there is a surge of euroscepticism which is understandable as the English have maintained their historic distance from Europe and have the famous attitude of Churchill! Languid Scientist (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
UK in the reality is an EU state.Article is well wrtten and to keep in this way without any useless change.Mediolanum (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
No, the UK is a member state of the EU. The EU is not a country - it is a supranational union, made up of sovereign nation states, who are members of the organisation that is the EU. It does not have a military - there are 27 separate militaries, one for each sovereign country. There are many international organisations and alliances which co-ordinate militaries and even go into battle with them.
This by the way is not me coming out with 'eurosceptic' stuff - this is simply the reality of the situation. I may argue that the UK should not become part of a truly federal (and sovereign) EU, that is my political opinion, but that is different than pointing out academically the existing state of affairs: that the EU is not a federal (and sovereign) state. I am also not arguing against the EU's inclusion in this article - indeed I support its inclusion. David (talk) 08:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Generally, European Union is atypical entity, official is an economic and political union of independent states but this is a fairy tale for children. EU states not have a full sovereignty. European Union ruled by parliament of EU and states of EU have limited opportunities, like autonomous regions in federal country. Today, European Union is political (the top three in the world), economy (1st in the world), demographic (3rd in the world) superpower, and potential military superpower (a lot of staff, modern equipment, nuclear weapons, but this is not common army, yet; with exceptions: Common Security and Defence Policy, European Defence Agency or European Union Force, EU Battlegroup, EUROMARFOR etc). Subtropical-man (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
If EU isn't a potential superpower India and China must disappear too from the article for economic ,political and military reasons.EU many times in articles is described holding even a too low profile.This article is well written and complete.Mediolanum (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Mediolanum, wow so the article is well written and complete, what test does it pass then if you can read or write? You bring a very interesting consensus here on your incomplete comments. --103.246.114.86 (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
You are offending and making personal attacks because you've nothing to say.Please,it's time to stop this guy .Mediolanum (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The source for the EU does not say it is a potential superpower, it actually seems to be making up a new definition of a superpower. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Antiochus the Great already reported all reasons in a very complete way, so please stop.Political (and not scientifical )way isn't the good method.Trying to join the policy of "all happy" in the subsection attacking here Antiochus the Great with no sufficient reasons is not correct."Do ut des " means in latin "I give you because you must give"-.Translated in this situation is "I attack here article to have subsection" .Really strange that the attack hasn't been taken on India (above all) or China that have weakest points.This isn't the right scientifcal philosphy to write an article.People must be scientifical and not political in writing article. I accused and accuse you of useless and disruptive trolling.Mediolanum (talk) 07:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The article lists many reliable sources that name the EU an emerging superpower, and several that challenge this view (implicitly acknowledging it is relevant to discuss EU in terms of potential superpowers).
Although I do agree that potential superpowerdom is leaning towards predictions of future, the only consequence could ever be to remove the article entirely.
The above discussion for removal above does not list any sources and teems to be more of a soapbox argument grounded in personal ideas of the editors which nations should be seen as worldleaders than any usueful, neutral attempt at improving Wikipedia. Arnoutf (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Arnoutf, I have no doubt that there are sources aplenty which sat the EU has the potential to be a superpower, all I am doing is pointing out that the source in the lede does not support that, and is in fact giving a new definition for a superpower. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
In this sense even the article Superpower should be totally removed.In the history according to the main academics (one of them,the most famous in the world, is Franco Cardini of the University of Florence) a Superpower in the pure sense is "a political being with high wealth and civilization and able to influence and hit everywhere without having back a lethal hit".The last one real Superpowers were the British Empire and USA from 1945 to 1949.Many people (and the best academics would think the same) think that some ideas to change the article (that are in the minority) aren't the best ones,it would lead to a too strong relativism.Superpowers must be intended under a new point of view (not in the absolute sense ,but in the relative sense and respecting some main basical datas),the one that Antiochus the Great described.In this sense it's more scientifical to hold this article well written unchanged and to better the article Superpower.Mediolanum (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The probability of an emergence of a global superpower cannot be determined by a google search featuring a given country eg. “Turkey Superpower” - 48.5 million hits. Such an approach is blatently nonsensical, to put it mildly!
I just try to say that Turkey is going to be leader of the Muslim world. In this sense it is a potential superpower. Now you will cry and say how it can be that's impossible, because it has less population compared with china, and less economy compared with usa.. stop comparing turkey with any other states. turkey will gain more influence than the ottoman empire did. with your logics none muslim country could be a superpower. since it will be the largest faith group. the Sunni islam is already the world largest confession. 95.114.22.135 (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
The Ottoman Empire at its height was irrelevant as a global power. Heck, the Ottoman Empire was never even regarded as a Great power! Centuries of European dominance on the world stage forced the Ottoman Empire into being an isolationist regional power with little influence outside its borders. As for Turkey today? A potential Superpower? You have to be joking right?!Antiochus the Great (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
If Turkey would in future regarded as the most important Muslim country, it is not enough. If whole muslim world (1.6 billion people, more than China) formed one country, "Greater Muslim Country" will potential superpower or even superpower. However, even then, the economy will be weaker than the USA or EU, the army with obsolete equipment, only a political issue to be significant, USA, EU and China will be afraid of such a colossus ;) Turkey as superpower in the world? Very funny. Subtropical-man (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes I understand what you say. The Muslim countries just export oil and natural gas. And they don't produce things. But Turkey don't have such as resources but it is a industry and technology creator. Turkey is the proof that pluralism, democracy and islam is compatible. His constitutional democracy is exportable which makes Turkey more than a Great Power. For example we have seen in the Arab spring that Turkey had more Soft Power than the European Union. Because of globalization we don't live anymore in the cold war. So that Turkey will dominance the world more than the Ottoman Empirer did in its height. And as relativization so much greater a country is so much it is instable. China and Russia were not be decolonized. It is dangerously that they will break. Having only big population makes them not automatically potential superpower. So how can India dominance the world? Turkey have political more strength. And to remind Turkey is an european country. You have to be kidding right? When you think that the Muslim world will be ruled by potential superpowers "Usa, China, India and European Union". LOL... 95.114.101.147 (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, instead adding Turkey. Just add "Muslim World" and mentioned the muslim Countries: Turkey, indonesia and Egypt. (Maybe Pakistan and Iran, too. although I have big doubts because Pakistan, Iran and Egypt are very instable.).. because it sounds ridiculous that the Muslim world will be ruled by Usa, China and India.. 95.114.101.147 (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
"ruled" why ruled? superpower is not synonym of "ruled".
"Muslim World" is not entity and country, this is term of countries with Islam religion, this is the same sense to Christian world. I wrote previously about Muslim World in another sense, quote: "If whole muslim world (1.6 billion people, more than China) formed one country, "Greater Muslim Country" will potential superpower". Of course, this is just a joke, it there is no chance.
Stop writing nonsense, you can not compare the USA, EU, China and... Turkey. This is ridiculous and pathetic. Even if Turkey would in future regarded as the most important Muslim country, it is not enough. There is no any reasons to write about Turkey as potential superpower. Turkey is too small, does not have enough people; have a weak army, weak economy, lack of political importance. Germany as superpower? this is the same category but Germany this is one of the states of European Union.
Comparison Germany (one state of the European Union) and Turkey - result 7:1 for Germany:
The thing to understand about Turkey is not that it's going to be a Great power. It is. (George Friedman)
There are no ways that the so called superpowers China, India could cultural and ideological influence the Muslim world. Fact is that Islam is going to be the worlds number one religion. But how comes that Christian World have two superpowers? (Usa and European Union) It is very clear that there will at last 1 Muslim global power. The Muslim world is rise in relevance, they are not isolated. There is Immigration in Europe and Norht America. Populations in India and China. Your comparison with Germany shows that Germany is regional power with high economic capital, and that Turkey is a Great power with global political capacity and soft Power. Nor Japan or Germany have such as Agenda. Edit: Because of globalization it will possible that also small countries will fit to becoming superpower. 95.114.101.147 (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Google search is original research, as is all of the discussion above. It may be true, but it should be {{WP:verify|verifiable]] using reliable sources, preferably secondary source. The above does not follow this and is therefore not a good argument for inclusion.
In other words: Bring in a reliable secondary source, or we can stop this thread. Arnoutf (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Strike Σagle 02:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Germany
Turkey