![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
This whole article is missing one huge element...Africa! I've tried and failed to get it on here, on account of it's natural resources, young work force, strategic location, and governmental potential. I have faced some revisions that I feel were made in bigotry, and if anyone agrees that Africa deserves a spot, please join me in speaking up. (The countries that have the most academic support are Nigeria, Egypt, South Africa, Angola, and DRC). Kieran P. Clark ( talk) 22:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't joking.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
I saw a comment by this person in the section Contrary views of China. He has been introduced as founder of Crosby International Holdings (a company never heard of). Can anybody tell me why his comment is so important that it's been included here? Or is it that any tom, dick and harry criticizing China automatically deserve to be included? Xinjiang guy ( talk) 15:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
What makes Russia a lesser contender than the European Union or India, this article was better the way it organized before. Charles Essie ( talk) 23:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Charles Essie. Before the unification of Russia and crimea it was on the list and as soon as Russia was reunified with crimea and added 2.5 million people and an area the size of Belgium it was taken off the list. For me that doesn't make sense. russia has increased its defence budget by 33% since 2014 so if russia deserved to be on the list in 2014 why doesn't it deserve to be on the list now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.198.53 ( talk) 15:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
It has the largest nuclear arsenal as we know. It`s one of the most important factors which dont need some "academic/scholar/etc" proves — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.220.108 ( talk) 14:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
it has — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollanotherblunt ( talk • contribs) 16:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Currently it reads:
"This page is a summary of published academics' opinions. Please remember that opinions are only allowed in Wikipedia if they are held by writers in reliable sources. While it is possible that an editor is more knowledgeable and correct than any given academic, Wikipedia is not the place for personal opinions."
We have non academic opinions in the article. Such as Tony Blair. Should we replace with something better. Any opinions? OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Being added again with a politician's speech as the source. I think academic analyses are required to make this claim. -- NeilN talk to me 14:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I dont think EU should be on the list of potential super powers. It doesnt have significant military forces, its teritory is limited, but, most importantly, it doesnt have independent politics. On the other side, why is Russia not on the list? It have a vast teritories, controlling most of the continents natural resources from Alaska to Baltic, and from Iran to North pole. European part of Russia is 40% of Europe's landmass. And Russia have no problems in deploying its military power anywhere in the world (we all witnessed that TU-95 "excursions"). 178.221.116.115 ( talk) 15:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@178.221.116.115. Russia is mentioned in the article, but it has very little academic support for being a potential superpower. Furthermore, simply having vast territories doesn't make a country a superpower - if it did, then surely Canada would be a superpower? There is also a big difference between Russia being able to fly Tu-95s near NATO airspace and "deploying its military power anywhere in the world". Almost all defence experts exclusively agree that Russia cannot do the latter, at least not on any significant scale worthy of mention. The bulk of Russia's conventional military strength is resigned to its own boarders or immediate neighboring territories (such as ex-Soviet states). A big difference when compared to the capabilities of the United States and to a lesser degree, some other NATO states. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 16:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Why was Brazil taken off this list? Don't you know It's an emerging power with a high population and decent per capita income with a very high economy? Brazil has an okay military, no where near as good as China, USA, or India. But Brazil will at one point become South America's first superpower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.236.192.23 ( talk) 17:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@Bablooda1996. I reverted your recent edits, as you cannot go around changing or removing the published views of Lant Pritchett. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 19:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
With this edit [2] Banedon has made a good judgement that the content was copyvio. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
However, Nathan Smith of the National Business Review has argued that despite Russia having potential it did not in the 1980s to win another "Cold War", other factors such as American influence in Crimea make superpower status unlikely
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Effervescency ( talk • contribs) 14:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/do-not-treat-russia-superpower-it-isnt-ns-152930— Preceding unsigned comment added by Effervescency ( talk • contribs) 14:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I followed that source briefly and can't understand what this sentence is all about - what influence America has in Crimea? - I can't find this in the source. In my opinion this sentence is total non-sense - remove it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Effervescency ( talk • contribs) 14:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
"Regime" is rather poor descriptor for any type of government, rather it is a vague word with negative connotation. This charged word was used to describe Venezuela's Chavez led-government so I have changed it for "government" [3]. User ScrapIronIV changed it back to "regime" [4] claiming the change was unsourced. A quick look to the source cited in the sentence in question reveals no usage of the word "regime" [5], and even if it was used the word "regime" should be avoided for more proper and widely accepted descriptor (to this it adds that a singe newspaper like Los Angeles Times is not an adequate source to define the nature of Venezuela's government). Dentren | Talk 06:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Should we subject this article to peer review? Lbertolotti ( talk) 15:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy, why have you removed a note at the top of the article? (This page is a summary of published academics' opinions. Please remember that opinions are only allowed in Wikipedia if they are held by writers in reliable sources. While it is possible that an editor is more knowledgeable and correct than any given academic, Wikipedia is not the place for personal opinions.) This note perfectly described what is this article about. About entities which have wide academic support to become a superpower. This article was marked as a "Good article", however if you will keep this article as you changed it now, there will have to be forever notes that: it has multiple issues, please help improve it; article possibly contains original research; or this article's factual accuracy is disputed. Because now here allways someone pop up and disagree that this or that entity is not potential superpower, India, Rusia, Brazil.. or EU (because not really a state), or will even try to challenge USA as the present superpower. I think that following wide academic support (also with contrary views included) is the best way for this article, otherwise it can become deeply unstable. Jirka.h23 ( talk) 11:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Returned to status before the change in May 2014, no reason for this change. Some anonymous ip still trying revert my edits, however was also reverted by various other users, his actions were not justified in summary at all. At my talk page he declared that consensus was found, however no consensus was found anywhere at talk page. Russia was only challenged, as the EU, India etc. All claims are properly sourced. Therefore, article should stay as it is. Jirka.h23 ( talk) 17:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
You have no consensus to change.In this talk i'm against Russia as potential superpower.So please wait to have the majority to do that.the article written in 2014 is defined even GOOD.Demography and economy are easy reasons not only to set in "other conternders" but even to delete Russia totally from the article.Revert.You can' t decide for all people.Wikipedia is democratic and not a dictature.I imaged that you'd have come back. 151.40.53.57 ( talk) 19:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Russia has a small national nominal and GDP PPP size to be considered a potential superpower and also a very small net national wealth (See list of countries by ntional wealth and nominal GDP and GDP PPP).Russia lacks totally also in demography with just around 150 millions people.It doesn't need too have many citations,Wikipedia articles are sufficient to realize the strong weakness of Russia and Brazil.Russia position is right in the past position with Brazil.India in fact should be in the same position of Russia and Brazil (that should be totally deleted), but i accepted at that time (2014) the article (without changing it by myself with no consensus and talking like you did and not following Wikipedia lines).If i should act alone like you Jirka.h23, i'd delete totally Brazil and Russia and i'd set in the other contenders position India.Russia,Brazil,India and China lack all in per capita at every level and about HDI.The only 2 potential superpowers considering all aspects are EU and China (this last one is another level as population and compared to India is economically another level in a foresable future).You are in a hurry to lock the article for fear.You acted without Talking and consensus.In this it's important not only the number but also the quality of people that write.Let the article written by Antiochus the Great that was defined GOOD.Pooerer people are and more importance give to their nation,this is sure.It's their opium. 151.40.53.57 ( talk) 06:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Right.So before than set new articles let the one written by Antiochius the Great.it's strange that suddenly arrive 3-4 people that all agree about Russia.It's seems something agreed before.Like it's easily to do that it's easily to organize the opposite.Poorer is the country ,more important are these kinds of articles for people of those countries.This the psychlogy of their acting.Pen to arrive where facts can't. 151.40.53.57 ( talk) 06:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
So add Brazil too like Russia in the list before than China.Before it's B and then C.Why not Brazil?Or all or nobody.This is a talking good just for people of the second world (China,Russia,India,Brazil).Not for the first world.
151.40.53.57 (
talk)
06:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Have China and above all India more support than EU?Please don't joke.This article now seems more a Carnival.Very original.So add Brazil too at the same level of Russia.It isn't other contender,so why without a full presentation of it?Is Russia shameful to be presented close to Brazil?I'm sure that behind many english names are russian people here.To identify a person aren't main the IP or his presentation,but what this perosn writes. 151.40.53.57 ( talk) 06:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The incorrect map - crimea is not marked (even as a disputed region) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.231.53 ( talk) 19:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Crimea isn't Russia.Crimea is occupied by Russia but NOT recognized.About russian debt it's small but russian global debt has the same size of its central bank reserves.Rating debt of Russia in fact is very low.Strength of the currency is the mirror of a country and ruble and real aren't at all wonderful mirrors in the long.Russia and Brazil should be deleted totally from article and India should be set in other conteders part. 151.40.70.108 ( talk) 20:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Russian Ruble .This is more than sufficient to desrcibe russian situation.Which potential superpower?Very original article.Here nobody explained well WHY the last change.Now tell the others to run.Behind me people are laughing reading this article.Thanks and greetings.
151.40.70.108 (
talk)
20:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The source is very dated (2004)to do not write prehistoric and not the best one.Even the global amount of GDPs is wrong.Very shabby.Russians and indians hold your flags and your world.No more time to loose in this talk of the second world and third world at every level.Bye! 151.40.70.108 ( talk) 06:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
EU.Read well before than writing.Don't describe in a wrong way my land,on my passport above all is written EUROPEAN UNION.Here there's no consensus about this page.Brazil and Russia can't be considered for demography and economies (see related articles in Wikipedia) potential superpowers.Only EU and China can be considered TRUE potential superpowers because more complete at every level.India should be set between other contenders.The problem isn't only Russia but Brazil and India too.Citations or academics aren't sufficient to justify in an article like this a position.Here it needs also a wide consensus.This page hasn't it now ,that's why the former article should be immediately restored.This page is here like after a golpe.This article has been changed without the talking and broad consensus.It's fishy.Bye ,i go back to my 1st world. 151.40.16.254 ( talk) 23:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mediolanum/Archive. Posts from the 151.40 range can likely be reverted if they match the same style and the IP reported for socking. -- NeilN talk to me 09:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
User:Urgup-tur, your new changes has been reverted. You changes break some rules of Wikipedia, including
Wikipedia:No original research,
Wikipedia:CYCLE,
Wikipedia:Consensus. Your new changes may not break any rules of Wikipedia and also, must to be consensus for new changes. This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time (if you don't stop pushing that changes), you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Subtropical-man
talk
(en-2)
14:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
On the russian map Crimea should be colored — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.215.120 ( talk) 17:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay Jirka, if you feel you need to make an issue of a harmless mistake I made unintentionally (and subsequently corrected in my comment), then so be it. But other than that, I am glad you understand you may not refactor other peoples comments again for similar reasons. I am, however, unsurprised you have chosen to push this issue, as lets face it, you appear to have no legitimate policy or content concern regarding the restoration of the "Other contenders" section. Anyway, lets return to topic; With regards to what you wrote about the citations for India, it is nothing short of nonsense. I find it distasteful that you feel it necessary to resort to blatant lies, because anybody who takes the time to look through the sources for India will find numerous citations from academics and experts alike. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 19:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Potential_Superpowers.svg
A map showing the United States as the current superpower
this map does not show anything of the sort, it just has multiple countries in differing colors. Govindaharihari ( talk) 20:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
It was re-added without any conversation. Table had been removed before, [6] and has been removed again. It is not really showing any comparison as how they should be considered potential superpower and how they couldn't be with these stats. Capitals00 ( talk) 10:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Mauritius is coming soon a potential superpower! heeded my words! 2003:6:1136:2235:54AF:D555:5C5D:9145 ( talk) 16:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Kimyojong, please stop trying to introduce North Korea to this article. There are no reliable sources attesting to North Korea as being a contender in any shape or form. Trying to push this content into the article is a breach of the no original research policy. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 01:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Andrew Moravcsik is Professor of Politics and director of the European Union Program at Princeton University. He held a lecture on "Why is Europe, not China or India, the Second Superpower of the 21st Century?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dezv7X1VLOA
Maybe someone can incorporate this? 185.98.51.171 ( talk) 08:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
The strong economic pillars of Europe, as a continent, are UK. France and Germany. Other countries dont count much like Spain, Greece, Italy, Ireland and other lot. UK has voted to leave!!
EU should be removed from the article as it is irrelevant. It does not make sense to have an entire continent to claim to be or become superpower. In no point in history has even a continent become a superpower. It has always been individual nations. Thanks, Varghese Jacob; comment added by
182.69.147.237 (
talk)
02:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
____________________________________________
Your assessment sounds like a personal opinion, and you would need sources to support it. As for some of your other points.
Of course the Europhiles will fight the Europe deletion from this page tooth and nail. But if another major country leaves the EU (either France or Germany), I propose we go ahead and delete it anyway regardless of what these people say. Europe as a superpower was ludicrous from the start given its political unity is about as solid as a sandcastle at low tide, but I guess the Europhiles can keep dreaming for a little while longer.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.215.60 ( talk) 22:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
____________________________________________
I think, the concept and the realisation of the concept of superpower and potential superpower has to be understood in the context of history not personal observations. My earlier post was based on sound economic, geo-political facts and not on your views.
Thanks, Varghese Jacob
Brazil may or may not be a potential superpower, but I don't understand the point of it being in this article if there is absolutely no argument made for Brazil being a potential superpower. What arguments are the contrary arguments even referring to? The article literally gives none. Brazil should either be removed, or its section should have arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insert90 ( talk • contribs) 07:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I am not quite sure why Adolf Hitlers opinion on a construct which would come to realization decades after his demise matters here. Additionally to the fact that I am quite sure that he does not hold any scholarly credibility at all, as genocidal dictator and the like... Dead Mary ( talk) 18:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Why no Japan?-- Crossswords ( talk) 20:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I reckon Japan is not a historical potential superpower, it is a current one. Indonesia should also be seriously considered as a candidate. If South Korea and North Korea become a unified Korea, then they too should be considered as a potential superpower. I predict that ultimately there would be a “Big 9” world. 2001:8003:8612:EA00:1D67:8FCB:236D:3A89 ( talk) 10:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
The article states "Currently, only the United States fulfills the criteria to be considered a superpower." But would't Russia also be a super power Fightforsocialjustice ( talk) 19:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
It might be interesting to add a section to this article describing pro/con views by scholars on whether the U.S. will remain a superpower. This article is well done, but it does not discuss at all whether the current superpower will remain one, when doing so will benefit the article. Because I have too little time and knowledge about this topic, I cannot add such a section myself, but I encourage more knowledgeable editors to do so. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 02:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I added to Ukrainian Wikipedia article such table of comparative statistics of each potential superpowers in population, nominal GDP, nominal GDP per capita, GDP growth and military expenditure. What about adding a similar table here? -- TheLotCarmen ( talk) 19:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
China is already widely regarded as a superpower. ( Mcd;;d;ww ( talk) 13:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC))
I noticed some of the statistics in the box don't match up with citation 14. They're said to be from 2017, but a quick check of China's GDP percent growth in 2017 should be 6.8% (rounded up from 6.765%), not 6.7%, according to the data. In 2016 this would've been the case.
So... I guess the data isn't actually from 2017. LittleCuteSuit ( talk) 01:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I remember China has surpassed USA in terms of PPP GDP back in 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.187.166.54 ( talk • contribs) 11:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I find this article really well done even if US and EU are a little undervalued. List of countries by total wealth, List_of countries by_wealth_per adult and List of countries by Human Development Index should be on table. They are too important to describe a potential superpower. They are at the base of a superpower. Wealth is much more important than GDP(nominal is much more important than PPA that is too arguable). GDP can be compared to a year wage , net wealth is all what a political entity accumulated in the history. By money people can get all , from food to weapons , from commodities to allies. Me and others noticed this big hole. So table should be better. Thank you for your attention. 33Hudsonbay33 ( talk) 11:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The mainpage of China calls it a global superpower. There was a discussion in the China talk page about changing it back to the category of 'potential superpower' but that was immediately shot down due to a large consensus of various news media, journals and think tanks all calling China A superpower. So my question is that should we change the category on this page to signify China's superpower status as per consensus? I mean, even the section talking about China on this very page states that it has reached superpower status pretty recently. 134.7.65.106 ( talk) 10:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
China is just a potential superpower, lower than EU in the scale for economy and several other points. China like US and EU is a "complete" great power, but not a superpower like US. Russia should be shorter. It's "overvalued" in article. Its land and weapons aren't sufficient for a so wide space in the article. 33Hudsonbay33 ( talk) 12:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
And what about citations for all economic data per capita , HDI and so on? 33Hudsonbay33 ( talk) 15:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Projections are forecasts, nothing else. Many times studies about projections are payed by the same political entities that need them for propaganda. Japan should have become a suoperpower. China has too low HDI and so very low attractive position. Its net national wealth is much less than the 50% of US or EU ones. China is neither a "full great" power because of this. It's difficult to find a full great power, so a real superpower today. Even US population is too low. US and EU for different reasons are at the same level. May be EU is a "primus inter pares" holding a low profile. 33Hudsonbay33 ( talk) 02:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
This country has so far failed to prove any force projection either economically, politically or militarily outside of its respective region. Brazil might be the most powerful country in South America, but the same can be said to South Africa and SA is not considered a superpower. I feel like people just slap superpower around because it sounds fancy without taking consideration on what constitutes a superpower. Brazil is not a superpower, at best it is a swing state between Great Power competition, unless Brazil has proven the capability in enforcing its national interests through a combination of hard and soft power on a global scale, than calling Brazil a superpower is highly disingenuous. I mean, its telling when articles providing support for Brazil is several years old with only two available sources and has not been updated since. The same can be said for Russia, the Russian Federation outside of military expenditure has never really showcase the ability to enforce its influence outside of the former Soviet space (even than, Russia is losing its influence in Central Asia to China and Eastern Europe to the EU). Sure Russia wish it could still think as a superpower like the former USSR, but unless Russia somehow reconstitute the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact and immediately start propping military bases around the world, than Russia would only end up as a subversive Great Power trying to pull the US and Europe down to its level. The situation in India is still far down the road and I will wait and see where India would end up. So far, of the entities listed here, only China and the EU have shown both the political will and capability in expanding its economic and political power on a global scale. Militarily....not so much, although I will wait and see.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.49.75 ( talk • contribs) 13:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I think very similar. 33Hudsonbay33 ( talk) 02:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I have fully protected this article due to ongoing edit warring. All interested parties should bring their arguments to this page to determine consensus. If the edit warring resumes without consensus being reached I will reapply protection to the article. Tide rolls 17:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I've taken the initiative to discuss the matter with CometCaleb. On 27 August 2019, CometCaleb has made a series of reversals of valid additions to the page. The reversals were unexplained by CometCaleb. There's disagreement with CometCaleb flawed arguments, because 1. These edits include references and are not ridiculous, they are plausible 2. on (14:44, 31 July 2019) he said "lowering the bar", yet Brazil and India are listed as potential superpowers, but they're both not great powers yet! The information about Brazil states it's a potential great power, not a superpower. On 07:21, 27 August 2019, he said "If the bar is low enough to add Japan to the list, then it's certainly low enough to warrant adding China as a superpower alongside the US below the SVG map. While you're at it, you might as well add Germany to the list of potential superpowers, as it's also a great power. Heck, you could even add Italy to the list as it's considered the "least of great powers", which is still a step above Brazil. Problem is, you keep moving the "superpower status" goal posts; you need to be more consistent" My Response was: "Weak arguments. Germany is stuck in the European Union. Brazil is listed as a potential superpower but the information concludes its a potential great power. I wasn't talking about China, you're derailing it. Italy is stuck inside the European Union which overrules domestic and foreign policy. Germany, Italy and Brazil are individually economically smaller than Japan" Then at 17:04, 27 August 2019 he reversed it again based on his own personal bias without refuting the arguments made. Then a few minutes later on 17:18, 27 August 2019 Tide rolls Protected the page which prevents the restoration of the biased reversals caused by CometCaleb. His argument was "And once again, the impartiality of your sources regarding Russia are highly questionable". There are dozens of sources that support similar analysis about probable disintegration of Russia even by high profile Russians. For example: The Russian politician Vyacheslav Volodin and 10th Chairman of the State Duma said in 2014 “If there is Putin, there is Russia; if there is no Putin, there is no Russia.” [5] Another example: Andrey Illarionov, former economic policy adviser to the President of Russia (2000-2005), said the disintegration of Russia is inevitable and a natural process for all multi-national empires. [6]. These are statements by these prominent people. It's even less biased, because prominent Russians are quoted. CometCaleb can disagree with something, but shouldn't apply harsh reversals of things he doesn't like on this page, because that is the real bias. ( Artanisen ( talk) 18:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC))
![]() | This
edit request to
Potential superpowers has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The notion that the United States is the only Superpower is extremely biased and overtly incorrect. Please remove this opinionated post. Scottieb 02:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
And what are the sources for your suggestion? Dimadick ( talk) 08:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
hello there, Makes absolutely no sense for me that only the data of Brazil is omitter on the table. I see no reason for this actual structure of the article, so if anyone have a good reason or acceptable arguments to maintain the article as it is today, would like to know, otherwise I recommend fix it.
B777-300ER ( talk) 20:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
From the looks of it, it's only citing UK- and US-based Eurosceptics. That's a bit like citing goldbugs only in the critics section of an article related to fiat money. Sure, a few of them might have a good point to make, but their all being goldbugs to begin with makes it look like they're all out of the same echo-chamber.
2001:4C4E:2A1E:3000:F077:517B:D845:CEA8 ( talk) 22:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Potential superpowers has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In first image sahi g that only usa is superpower and emerging is only china , name of india should be added as it is also categorised as emerging superpower. 47.30.216.208 ( talk) 16:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The article states that the potential superpowers + the US make up 4.27% of the world's population. However, China alone holds roughly 18% of the world population. Is this an error, or did I misunderstand the statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khanacademy03 ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
right, it should be 44.33% of the population based on the link (i.e. BRIC+USA). I assume, at the time, it was supposed to be 44.27%+EU which is around 6%. I changed it to "approximately half", which I think is fair. Pkin8541 ( talk) 16:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
China is already widely regarded as a superpower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.82.125 ( talk) 20:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Not militarily yet in varying degrees. While the Pentagon likes to emphasize us having the larger navy, that argument can mostly be attributed to wanting greater funding.
https://news.usni.org/2020/09/01/pentagon-report-china-now-has-worlds-largest-navy-as-beijing-expands-military-influence
Under a more rigorous evaluation in types of ships making up our fleet, you would see a massive difference in overall tonnage for warship classes that really matter. —
ChineseToTheBone (
talk)
04:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
China, on the other hand, has been referred to as an emerging superpower, given that Beijing's power is now beyond the classification of a Great Power. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich ( talk) 12:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Since there was an editor who had removed the wording "Historic potential of Japan" from the section name "Japan" to become the section name just "Japan", should the statistic of Japan should place in the Comparative statistics section? WPSamson ( talk) 01:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Potential superpowers Bold text In recent edits user Shankargb changed the opening image, China was transferred back to the category "Potential superpowers" from an artificially created category "Emerging superpower". I agree with Shankargb. China has been here classified as potential superpower, I think, since the creation of this article in 2008. This has been changed by anonymous ip 49.190.160.252 on 28 September 2019, and without any consensus. In the archive you can read several discussions about the categorization of China, however, it always remained the same. In my opinion, no country can be considered a superpower, if its people do not hold sufficient wealth. GDP PPP per capita is considered as the most important indicator of a country's standard of living, China's figures however show that they are 3-4 times smaller than those of the USA and almost twice smaller than the Russian ones. I also see no reason to create a new category if this article only deals with this category (Potential superpowers). Consensus was not reached on the discussion page, only that China is potential power. This has been reverted by the two newbies in Wikipedia: Ranking888 and Bryant7728. I do not agree with this and I believe that the article should be restored to its original state. Jirka.h23 ( talk) 16:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Is ASEAN a Potential Superpower? can add? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 許文赫 ( talk • contribs) 09:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Some objections:
Morgengave ( talk) 10:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Why Brazil was removed from this article? Nitesh003 ( talk) 07:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't want to say anything on 'adding Brazil back to this article' but Brazil is also part of groups such as G4 and BRICS. Nitesh003 ( talk) 16:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
How, and in which sense, is India, one of the poorest countries on planet Earth, where not even enough oxygen is found to treat people who have COVID-19, is a potential superpower? Not to even mention, its massively corrupt, and its poverty rates are off the charts... Please check the stats of the Indian states of Bihar, Jharkhand, and Uttar Pradesh once, and tell me that India is a "potential superpower". India should be a potential fourth-world country, since its nowadays seen degrading even from its third-world status. Emerging GDP nominal, but the citizens are dirt poor, barely get food, clothes, and clean water. There are numerous high-class politicians who claim that a person of other religion should be mass-cleansed... and India is a "potential superpower"??? Remove it from this list. Another important point is that, India ranks very low in the Human Development Index, and hell, even Bangladesh has a larger per-capita income than India. So much for a "potential superpower". 45.118.63.6 ( talk) 15:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Warning. Next time please avoid exaggerated comparisons and your own feelings, rather factually debate.
Jirka.h23 (
talk)
05:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Superpower doesn't necessarily mean being super rich and socially progressive, US isn't exactly the wealthiest country out there, it might be having some of the worst living standards, religiosity and corruption among the first world countries. And lets not forget, the people of USSR weren't exactly living in a luxury. China is another example which is the most cited country in contemporary academic articles to be the most likely superpower while having overall living standards that are comparable to the best Indian states, while having a regressive culture and a very authoritarian government. And India itself was part of the previous superpower(as well as fueled a considerable part of its economy), the British Empire which exactly didn't have great living standards outside of core UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.44.160.133 ( talk) 13:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Should the CIS be listed instead of the lone Russian Federation? If we are including the US and the EU I feel it is only fair to include or mention other closely-tied IGO's, such as ASEAN, the SCO the AU, the Arab League, OPEC, and NATO, NAFTA, or the OAS/OAE. There's tons more but I think we should consider the function of economic blocs in addition to regional alliances or the geographical limitations of borders. Шхыюнк ( talk) 05:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
they are organizations, not possible united states Januszfanrybactwa ( talk) 09:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
hello, honestly, I don't know about the growing superpowers, but I would like to ask about the great britain, whether after leaving the european union, britain has ceased to be a superpower or at least an emerging superpower in the international arena? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.106.163.175 ( talk) 23:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
This whole article is missing one huge element...Africa! I've tried and failed to get it on here, on account of it's natural resources, young work force, strategic location, and governmental potential. I have faced some revisions that I feel were made in bigotry, and if anyone agrees that Africa deserves a spot, please join me in speaking up. (The countries that have the most academic support are Nigeria, Egypt, South Africa, Angola, and DRC). Kieran P. Clark ( talk) 22:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't joking.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
I saw a comment by this person in the section Contrary views of China. He has been introduced as founder of Crosby International Holdings (a company never heard of). Can anybody tell me why his comment is so important that it's been included here? Or is it that any tom, dick and harry criticizing China automatically deserve to be included? Xinjiang guy ( talk) 15:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
What makes Russia a lesser contender than the European Union or India, this article was better the way it organized before. Charles Essie ( talk) 23:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Charles Essie. Before the unification of Russia and crimea it was on the list and as soon as Russia was reunified with crimea and added 2.5 million people and an area the size of Belgium it was taken off the list. For me that doesn't make sense. russia has increased its defence budget by 33% since 2014 so if russia deserved to be on the list in 2014 why doesn't it deserve to be on the list now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.198.53 ( talk) 15:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
It has the largest nuclear arsenal as we know. It`s one of the most important factors which dont need some "academic/scholar/etc" proves — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.220.108 ( talk) 14:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
it has — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollanotherblunt ( talk • contribs) 16:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Currently it reads:
"This page is a summary of published academics' opinions. Please remember that opinions are only allowed in Wikipedia if they are held by writers in reliable sources. While it is possible that an editor is more knowledgeable and correct than any given academic, Wikipedia is not the place for personal opinions."
We have non academic opinions in the article. Such as Tony Blair. Should we replace with something better. Any opinions? OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Being added again with a politician's speech as the source. I think academic analyses are required to make this claim. -- NeilN talk to me 14:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I dont think EU should be on the list of potential super powers. It doesnt have significant military forces, its teritory is limited, but, most importantly, it doesnt have independent politics. On the other side, why is Russia not on the list? It have a vast teritories, controlling most of the continents natural resources from Alaska to Baltic, and from Iran to North pole. European part of Russia is 40% of Europe's landmass. And Russia have no problems in deploying its military power anywhere in the world (we all witnessed that TU-95 "excursions"). 178.221.116.115 ( talk) 15:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@178.221.116.115. Russia is mentioned in the article, but it has very little academic support for being a potential superpower. Furthermore, simply having vast territories doesn't make a country a superpower - if it did, then surely Canada would be a superpower? There is also a big difference between Russia being able to fly Tu-95s near NATO airspace and "deploying its military power anywhere in the world". Almost all defence experts exclusively agree that Russia cannot do the latter, at least not on any significant scale worthy of mention. The bulk of Russia's conventional military strength is resigned to its own boarders or immediate neighboring territories (such as ex-Soviet states). A big difference when compared to the capabilities of the United States and to a lesser degree, some other NATO states. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 16:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Why was Brazil taken off this list? Don't you know It's an emerging power with a high population and decent per capita income with a very high economy? Brazil has an okay military, no where near as good as China, USA, or India. But Brazil will at one point become South America's first superpower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.236.192.23 ( talk) 17:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@Bablooda1996. I reverted your recent edits, as you cannot go around changing or removing the published views of Lant Pritchett. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 19:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
With this edit [2] Banedon has made a good judgement that the content was copyvio. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
However, Nathan Smith of the National Business Review has argued that despite Russia having potential it did not in the 1980s to win another "Cold War", other factors such as American influence in Crimea make superpower status unlikely
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Effervescency ( talk • contribs) 14:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/do-not-treat-russia-superpower-it-isnt-ns-152930— Preceding unsigned comment added by Effervescency ( talk • contribs) 14:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I followed that source briefly and can't understand what this sentence is all about - what influence America has in Crimea? - I can't find this in the source. In my opinion this sentence is total non-sense - remove it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Effervescency ( talk • contribs) 14:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
"Regime" is rather poor descriptor for any type of government, rather it is a vague word with negative connotation. This charged word was used to describe Venezuela's Chavez led-government so I have changed it for "government" [3]. User ScrapIronIV changed it back to "regime" [4] claiming the change was unsourced. A quick look to the source cited in the sentence in question reveals no usage of the word "regime" [5], and even if it was used the word "regime" should be avoided for more proper and widely accepted descriptor (to this it adds that a singe newspaper like Los Angeles Times is not an adequate source to define the nature of Venezuela's government). Dentren | Talk 06:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Should we subject this article to peer review? Lbertolotti ( talk) 15:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy, why have you removed a note at the top of the article? (This page is a summary of published academics' opinions. Please remember that opinions are only allowed in Wikipedia if they are held by writers in reliable sources. While it is possible that an editor is more knowledgeable and correct than any given academic, Wikipedia is not the place for personal opinions.) This note perfectly described what is this article about. About entities which have wide academic support to become a superpower. This article was marked as a "Good article", however if you will keep this article as you changed it now, there will have to be forever notes that: it has multiple issues, please help improve it; article possibly contains original research; or this article's factual accuracy is disputed. Because now here allways someone pop up and disagree that this or that entity is not potential superpower, India, Rusia, Brazil.. or EU (because not really a state), or will even try to challenge USA as the present superpower. I think that following wide academic support (also with contrary views included) is the best way for this article, otherwise it can become deeply unstable. Jirka.h23 ( talk) 11:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Returned to status before the change in May 2014, no reason for this change. Some anonymous ip still trying revert my edits, however was also reverted by various other users, his actions were not justified in summary at all. At my talk page he declared that consensus was found, however no consensus was found anywhere at talk page. Russia was only challenged, as the EU, India etc. All claims are properly sourced. Therefore, article should stay as it is. Jirka.h23 ( talk) 17:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
You have no consensus to change.In this talk i'm against Russia as potential superpower.So please wait to have the majority to do that.the article written in 2014 is defined even GOOD.Demography and economy are easy reasons not only to set in "other conternders" but even to delete Russia totally from the article.Revert.You can' t decide for all people.Wikipedia is democratic and not a dictature.I imaged that you'd have come back. 151.40.53.57 ( talk) 19:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Russia has a small national nominal and GDP PPP size to be considered a potential superpower and also a very small net national wealth (See list of countries by ntional wealth and nominal GDP and GDP PPP).Russia lacks totally also in demography with just around 150 millions people.It doesn't need too have many citations,Wikipedia articles are sufficient to realize the strong weakness of Russia and Brazil.Russia position is right in the past position with Brazil.India in fact should be in the same position of Russia and Brazil (that should be totally deleted), but i accepted at that time (2014) the article (without changing it by myself with no consensus and talking like you did and not following Wikipedia lines).If i should act alone like you Jirka.h23, i'd delete totally Brazil and Russia and i'd set in the other contenders position India.Russia,Brazil,India and China lack all in per capita at every level and about HDI.The only 2 potential superpowers considering all aspects are EU and China (this last one is another level as population and compared to India is economically another level in a foresable future).You are in a hurry to lock the article for fear.You acted without Talking and consensus.In this it's important not only the number but also the quality of people that write.Let the article written by Antiochus the Great that was defined GOOD.Pooerer people are and more importance give to their nation,this is sure.It's their opium. 151.40.53.57 ( talk) 06:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Right.So before than set new articles let the one written by Antiochius the Great.it's strange that suddenly arrive 3-4 people that all agree about Russia.It's seems something agreed before.Like it's easily to do that it's easily to organize the opposite.Poorer is the country ,more important are these kinds of articles for people of those countries.This the psychlogy of their acting.Pen to arrive where facts can't. 151.40.53.57 ( talk) 06:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
So add Brazil too like Russia in the list before than China.Before it's B and then C.Why not Brazil?Or all or nobody.This is a talking good just for people of the second world (China,Russia,India,Brazil).Not for the first world.
151.40.53.57 (
talk)
06:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Have China and above all India more support than EU?Please don't joke.This article now seems more a Carnival.Very original.So add Brazil too at the same level of Russia.It isn't other contender,so why without a full presentation of it?Is Russia shameful to be presented close to Brazil?I'm sure that behind many english names are russian people here.To identify a person aren't main the IP or his presentation,but what this perosn writes. 151.40.53.57 ( talk) 06:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The incorrect map - crimea is not marked (even as a disputed region) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.231.53 ( talk) 19:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Crimea isn't Russia.Crimea is occupied by Russia but NOT recognized.About russian debt it's small but russian global debt has the same size of its central bank reserves.Rating debt of Russia in fact is very low.Strength of the currency is the mirror of a country and ruble and real aren't at all wonderful mirrors in the long.Russia and Brazil should be deleted totally from article and India should be set in other conteders part. 151.40.70.108 ( talk) 20:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Russian Ruble .This is more than sufficient to desrcibe russian situation.Which potential superpower?Very original article.Here nobody explained well WHY the last change.Now tell the others to run.Behind me people are laughing reading this article.Thanks and greetings.
151.40.70.108 (
talk)
20:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The source is very dated (2004)to do not write prehistoric and not the best one.Even the global amount of GDPs is wrong.Very shabby.Russians and indians hold your flags and your world.No more time to loose in this talk of the second world and third world at every level.Bye! 151.40.70.108 ( talk) 06:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
EU.Read well before than writing.Don't describe in a wrong way my land,on my passport above all is written EUROPEAN UNION.Here there's no consensus about this page.Brazil and Russia can't be considered for demography and economies (see related articles in Wikipedia) potential superpowers.Only EU and China can be considered TRUE potential superpowers because more complete at every level.India should be set between other contenders.The problem isn't only Russia but Brazil and India too.Citations or academics aren't sufficient to justify in an article like this a position.Here it needs also a wide consensus.This page hasn't it now ,that's why the former article should be immediately restored.This page is here like after a golpe.This article has been changed without the talking and broad consensus.It's fishy.Bye ,i go back to my 1st world. 151.40.16.254 ( talk) 23:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mediolanum/Archive. Posts from the 151.40 range can likely be reverted if they match the same style and the IP reported for socking. -- NeilN talk to me 09:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
User:Urgup-tur, your new changes has been reverted. You changes break some rules of Wikipedia, including
Wikipedia:No original research,
Wikipedia:CYCLE,
Wikipedia:Consensus. Your new changes may not break any rules of Wikipedia and also, must to be consensus for new changes. This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time (if you don't stop pushing that changes), you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Subtropical-man
talk
(en-2)
14:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
On the russian map Crimea should be colored — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.215.120 ( talk) 17:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay Jirka, if you feel you need to make an issue of a harmless mistake I made unintentionally (and subsequently corrected in my comment), then so be it. But other than that, I am glad you understand you may not refactor other peoples comments again for similar reasons. I am, however, unsurprised you have chosen to push this issue, as lets face it, you appear to have no legitimate policy or content concern regarding the restoration of the "Other contenders" section. Anyway, lets return to topic; With regards to what you wrote about the citations for India, it is nothing short of nonsense. I find it distasteful that you feel it necessary to resort to blatant lies, because anybody who takes the time to look through the sources for India will find numerous citations from academics and experts alike. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 19:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Potential_Superpowers.svg
A map showing the United States as the current superpower
this map does not show anything of the sort, it just has multiple countries in differing colors. Govindaharihari ( talk) 20:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
It was re-added without any conversation. Table had been removed before, [6] and has been removed again. It is not really showing any comparison as how they should be considered potential superpower and how they couldn't be with these stats. Capitals00 ( talk) 10:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Mauritius is coming soon a potential superpower! heeded my words! 2003:6:1136:2235:54AF:D555:5C5D:9145 ( talk) 16:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Kimyojong, please stop trying to introduce North Korea to this article. There are no reliable sources attesting to North Korea as being a contender in any shape or form. Trying to push this content into the article is a breach of the no original research policy. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 01:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Andrew Moravcsik is Professor of Politics and director of the European Union Program at Princeton University. He held a lecture on "Why is Europe, not China or India, the Second Superpower of the 21st Century?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dezv7X1VLOA
Maybe someone can incorporate this? 185.98.51.171 ( talk) 08:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
The strong economic pillars of Europe, as a continent, are UK. France and Germany. Other countries dont count much like Spain, Greece, Italy, Ireland and other lot. UK has voted to leave!!
EU should be removed from the article as it is irrelevant. It does not make sense to have an entire continent to claim to be or become superpower. In no point in history has even a continent become a superpower. It has always been individual nations. Thanks, Varghese Jacob; comment added by
182.69.147.237 (
talk)
02:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
____________________________________________
Your assessment sounds like a personal opinion, and you would need sources to support it. As for some of your other points.
Of course the Europhiles will fight the Europe deletion from this page tooth and nail. But if another major country leaves the EU (either France or Germany), I propose we go ahead and delete it anyway regardless of what these people say. Europe as a superpower was ludicrous from the start given its political unity is about as solid as a sandcastle at low tide, but I guess the Europhiles can keep dreaming for a little while longer.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.215.60 ( talk) 22:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
____________________________________________
I think, the concept and the realisation of the concept of superpower and potential superpower has to be understood in the context of history not personal observations. My earlier post was based on sound economic, geo-political facts and not on your views.
Thanks, Varghese Jacob
Brazil may or may not be a potential superpower, but I don't understand the point of it being in this article if there is absolutely no argument made for Brazil being a potential superpower. What arguments are the contrary arguments even referring to? The article literally gives none. Brazil should either be removed, or its section should have arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insert90 ( talk • contribs) 07:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I am not quite sure why Adolf Hitlers opinion on a construct which would come to realization decades after his demise matters here. Additionally to the fact that I am quite sure that he does not hold any scholarly credibility at all, as genocidal dictator and the like... Dead Mary ( talk) 18:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Why no Japan?-- Crossswords ( talk) 20:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I reckon Japan is not a historical potential superpower, it is a current one. Indonesia should also be seriously considered as a candidate. If South Korea and North Korea become a unified Korea, then they too should be considered as a potential superpower. I predict that ultimately there would be a “Big 9” world. 2001:8003:8612:EA00:1D67:8FCB:236D:3A89 ( talk) 10:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
The article states "Currently, only the United States fulfills the criteria to be considered a superpower." But would't Russia also be a super power Fightforsocialjustice ( talk) 19:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
It might be interesting to add a section to this article describing pro/con views by scholars on whether the U.S. will remain a superpower. This article is well done, but it does not discuss at all whether the current superpower will remain one, when doing so will benefit the article. Because I have too little time and knowledge about this topic, I cannot add such a section myself, but I encourage more knowledgeable editors to do so. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 02:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I added to Ukrainian Wikipedia article such table of comparative statistics of each potential superpowers in population, nominal GDP, nominal GDP per capita, GDP growth and military expenditure. What about adding a similar table here? -- TheLotCarmen ( talk) 19:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
China is already widely regarded as a superpower. ( Mcd;;d;ww ( talk) 13:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC))
I noticed some of the statistics in the box don't match up with citation 14. They're said to be from 2017, but a quick check of China's GDP percent growth in 2017 should be 6.8% (rounded up from 6.765%), not 6.7%, according to the data. In 2016 this would've been the case.
So... I guess the data isn't actually from 2017. LittleCuteSuit ( talk) 01:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I remember China has surpassed USA in terms of PPP GDP back in 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.187.166.54 ( talk • contribs) 11:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I find this article really well done even if US and EU are a little undervalued. List of countries by total wealth, List_of countries by_wealth_per adult and List of countries by Human Development Index should be on table. They are too important to describe a potential superpower. They are at the base of a superpower. Wealth is much more important than GDP(nominal is much more important than PPA that is too arguable). GDP can be compared to a year wage , net wealth is all what a political entity accumulated in the history. By money people can get all , from food to weapons , from commodities to allies. Me and others noticed this big hole. So table should be better. Thank you for your attention. 33Hudsonbay33 ( talk) 11:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The mainpage of China calls it a global superpower. There was a discussion in the China talk page about changing it back to the category of 'potential superpower' but that was immediately shot down due to a large consensus of various news media, journals and think tanks all calling China A superpower. So my question is that should we change the category on this page to signify China's superpower status as per consensus? I mean, even the section talking about China on this very page states that it has reached superpower status pretty recently. 134.7.65.106 ( talk) 10:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
China is just a potential superpower, lower than EU in the scale for economy and several other points. China like US and EU is a "complete" great power, but not a superpower like US. Russia should be shorter. It's "overvalued" in article. Its land and weapons aren't sufficient for a so wide space in the article. 33Hudsonbay33 ( talk) 12:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
And what about citations for all economic data per capita , HDI and so on? 33Hudsonbay33 ( talk) 15:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Projections are forecasts, nothing else. Many times studies about projections are payed by the same political entities that need them for propaganda. Japan should have become a suoperpower. China has too low HDI and so very low attractive position. Its net national wealth is much less than the 50% of US or EU ones. China is neither a "full great" power because of this. It's difficult to find a full great power, so a real superpower today. Even US population is too low. US and EU for different reasons are at the same level. May be EU is a "primus inter pares" holding a low profile. 33Hudsonbay33 ( talk) 02:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
This country has so far failed to prove any force projection either economically, politically or militarily outside of its respective region. Brazil might be the most powerful country in South America, but the same can be said to South Africa and SA is not considered a superpower. I feel like people just slap superpower around because it sounds fancy without taking consideration on what constitutes a superpower. Brazil is not a superpower, at best it is a swing state between Great Power competition, unless Brazil has proven the capability in enforcing its national interests through a combination of hard and soft power on a global scale, than calling Brazil a superpower is highly disingenuous. I mean, its telling when articles providing support for Brazil is several years old with only two available sources and has not been updated since. The same can be said for Russia, the Russian Federation outside of military expenditure has never really showcase the ability to enforce its influence outside of the former Soviet space (even than, Russia is losing its influence in Central Asia to China and Eastern Europe to the EU). Sure Russia wish it could still think as a superpower like the former USSR, but unless Russia somehow reconstitute the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact and immediately start propping military bases around the world, than Russia would only end up as a subversive Great Power trying to pull the US and Europe down to its level. The situation in India is still far down the road and I will wait and see where India would end up. So far, of the entities listed here, only China and the EU have shown both the political will and capability in expanding its economic and political power on a global scale. Militarily....not so much, although I will wait and see.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.49.75 ( talk • contribs) 13:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I think very similar. 33Hudsonbay33 ( talk) 02:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I have fully protected this article due to ongoing edit warring. All interested parties should bring their arguments to this page to determine consensus. If the edit warring resumes without consensus being reached I will reapply protection to the article. Tide rolls 17:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I've taken the initiative to discuss the matter with CometCaleb. On 27 August 2019, CometCaleb has made a series of reversals of valid additions to the page. The reversals were unexplained by CometCaleb. There's disagreement with CometCaleb flawed arguments, because 1. These edits include references and are not ridiculous, they are plausible 2. on (14:44, 31 July 2019) he said "lowering the bar", yet Brazil and India are listed as potential superpowers, but they're both not great powers yet! The information about Brazil states it's a potential great power, not a superpower. On 07:21, 27 August 2019, he said "If the bar is low enough to add Japan to the list, then it's certainly low enough to warrant adding China as a superpower alongside the US below the SVG map. While you're at it, you might as well add Germany to the list of potential superpowers, as it's also a great power. Heck, you could even add Italy to the list as it's considered the "least of great powers", which is still a step above Brazil. Problem is, you keep moving the "superpower status" goal posts; you need to be more consistent" My Response was: "Weak arguments. Germany is stuck in the European Union. Brazil is listed as a potential superpower but the information concludes its a potential great power. I wasn't talking about China, you're derailing it. Italy is stuck inside the European Union which overrules domestic and foreign policy. Germany, Italy and Brazil are individually economically smaller than Japan" Then at 17:04, 27 August 2019 he reversed it again based on his own personal bias without refuting the arguments made. Then a few minutes later on 17:18, 27 August 2019 Tide rolls Protected the page which prevents the restoration of the biased reversals caused by CometCaleb. His argument was "And once again, the impartiality of your sources regarding Russia are highly questionable". There are dozens of sources that support similar analysis about probable disintegration of Russia even by high profile Russians. For example: The Russian politician Vyacheslav Volodin and 10th Chairman of the State Duma said in 2014 “If there is Putin, there is Russia; if there is no Putin, there is no Russia.” [5] Another example: Andrey Illarionov, former economic policy adviser to the President of Russia (2000-2005), said the disintegration of Russia is inevitable and a natural process for all multi-national empires. [6]. These are statements by these prominent people. It's even less biased, because prominent Russians are quoted. CometCaleb can disagree with something, but shouldn't apply harsh reversals of things he doesn't like on this page, because that is the real bias. ( Artanisen ( talk) 18:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC))
![]() | This
edit request to
Potential superpowers has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The notion that the United States is the only Superpower is extremely biased and overtly incorrect. Please remove this opinionated post. Scottieb 02:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
And what are the sources for your suggestion? Dimadick ( talk) 08:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
hello there, Makes absolutely no sense for me that only the data of Brazil is omitter on the table. I see no reason for this actual structure of the article, so if anyone have a good reason or acceptable arguments to maintain the article as it is today, would like to know, otherwise I recommend fix it.
B777-300ER ( talk) 20:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
From the looks of it, it's only citing UK- and US-based Eurosceptics. That's a bit like citing goldbugs only in the critics section of an article related to fiat money. Sure, a few of them might have a good point to make, but their all being goldbugs to begin with makes it look like they're all out of the same echo-chamber.
2001:4C4E:2A1E:3000:F077:517B:D845:CEA8 ( talk) 22:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Potential superpowers has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In first image sahi g that only usa is superpower and emerging is only china , name of india should be added as it is also categorised as emerging superpower. 47.30.216.208 ( talk) 16:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The article states that the potential superpowers + the US make up 4.27% of the world's population. However, China alone holds roughly 18% of the world population. Is this an error, or did I misunderstand the statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khanacademy03 ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
right, it should be 44.33% of the population based on the link (i.e. BRIC+USA). I assume, at the time, it was supposed to be 44.27%+EU which is around 6%. I changed it to "approximately half", which I think is fair. Pkin8541 ( talk) 16:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
China is already widely regarded as a superpower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.82.125 ( talk) 20:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Not militarily yet in varying degrees. While the Pentagon likes to emphasize us having the larger navy, that argument can mostly be attributed to wanting greater funding.
https://news.usni.org/2020/09/01/pentagon-report-china-now-has-worlds-largest-navy-as-beijing-expands-military-influence
Under a more rigorous evaluation in types of ships making up our fleet, you would see a massive difference in overall tonnage for warship classes that really matter. —
ChineseToTheBone (
talk)
04:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
China, on the other hand, has been referred to as an emerging superpower, given that Beijing's power is now beyond the classification of a Great Power. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich ( talk) 12:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Since there was an editor who had removed the wording "Historic potential of Japan" from the section name "Japan" to become the section name just "Japan", should the statistic of Japan should place in the Comparative statistics section? WPSamson ( talk) 01:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Potential superpowers Bold text In recent edits user Shankargb changed the opening image, China was transferred back to the category "Potential superpowers" from an artificially created category "Emerging superpower". I agree with Shankargb. China has been here classified as potential superpower, I think, since the creation of this article in 2008. This has been changed by anonymous ip 49.190.160.252 on 28 September 2019, and without any consensus. In the archive you can read several discussions about the categorization of China, however, it always remained the same. In my opinion, no country can be considered a superpower, if its people do not hold sufficient wealth. GDP PPP per capita is considered as the most important indicator of a country's standard of living, China's figures however show that they are 3-4 times smaller than those of the USA and almost twice smaller than the Russian ones. I also see no reason to create a new category if this article only deals with this category (Potential superpowers). Consensus was not reached on the discussion page, only that China is potential power. This has been reverted by the two newbies in Wikipedia: Ranking888 and Bryant7728. I do not agree with this and I believe that the article should be restored to its original state. Jirka.h23 ( talk) 16:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Is ASEAN a Potential Superpower? can add? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 許文赫 ( talk • contribs) 09:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Some objections:
Morgengave ( talk) 10:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Why Brazil was removed from this article? Nitesh003 ( talk) 07:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't want to say anything on 'adding Brazil back to this article' but Brazil is also part of groups such as G4 and BRICS. Nitesh003 ( talk) 16:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
How, and in which sense, is India, one of the poorest countries on planet Earth, where not even enough oxygen is found to treat people who have COVID-19, is a potential superpower? Not to even mention, its massively corrupt, and its poverty rates are off the charts... Please check the stats of the Indian states of Bihar, Jharkhand, and Uttar Pradesh once, and tell me that India is a "potential superpower". India should be a potential fourth-world country, since its nowadays seen degrading even from its third-world status. Emerging GDP nominal, but the citizens are dirt poor, barely get food, clothes, and clean water. There are numerous high-class politicians who claim that a person of other religion should be mass-cleansed... and India is a "potential superpower"??? Remove it from this list. Another important point is that, India ranks very low in the Human Development Index, and hell, even Bangladesh has a larger per-capita income than India. So much for a "potential superpower". 45.118.63.6 ( talk) 15:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Warning. Next time please avoid exaggerated comparisons and your own feelings, rather factually debate.
Jirka.h23 (
talk)
05:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Superpower doesn't necessarily mean being super rich and socially progressive, US isn't exactly the wealthiest country out there, it might be having some of the worst living standards, religiosity and corruption among the first world countries. And lets not forget, the people of USSR weren't exactly living in a luxury. China is another example which is the most cited country in contemporary academic articles to be the most likely superpower while having overall living standards that are comparable to the best Indian states, while having a regressive culture and a very authoritarian government. And India itself was part of the previous superpower(as well as fueled a considerable part of its economy), the British Empire which exactly didn't have great living standards outside of core UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.44.160.133 ( talk) 13:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Should the CIS be listed instead of the lone Russian Federation? If we are including the US and the EU I feel it is only fair to include or mention other closely-tied IGO's, such as ASEAN, the SCO the AU, the Arab League, OPEC, and NATO, NAFTA, or the OAS/OAE. There's tons more but I think we should consider the function of economic blocs in addition to regional alliances or the geographical limitations of borders. Шхыюнк ( talk) 05:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
they are organizations, not possible united states Januszfanrybactwa ( talk) 09:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
hello, honestly, I don't know about the growing superpowers, but I would like to ask about the great britain, whether after leaving the european union, britain has ceased to be a superpower or at least an emerging superpower in the international arena? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.106.163.175 ( talk) 23:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)