![]() | 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 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
IP 117.228.160.110 and his range (117.233.96.83, 117.233.124.161 etc) introduced controversial changes, in favor of China [1]. The changes mainly affect the main table with main graphic, where he labeled China as (Only extant) "Emerging superpower". Given, that there are sources describing, for example, the European Union also as Potential superpower and "Emerging superpower", this edition breaks the rules of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability (disputed sources) and propably Wikipedia:No original research (synthesis and conclusions by IP based on source).
His changes have been undone. He is restore own version without any description of changes and no discuss page. This is a textbook example of a destructive act on Wikipedia.
These changes are very disputed, there has been no discussion about it, no consensus (per Wikipedia:Consensus), source of questionable quality, probability broke all three Wikipedia:Core content policies!!!... also the IP broke the Wikipedia:CYCLE (new changes -> if revert = must to be consensus). I have opened a discussion where the IP has to prove that its changes are not destructive, if there be consensus, changes can be made in article. Until then, I resore the Wikipedia:Stable version. Subtropical-man ( ✉ | en-2) 09:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@ LVTW2: Lets discuss your edit before you restore it. See WP:BRD.
First of all, your source is an opinion piece and we can't use an opinion piece for a controversial subject like this. See WP:RSOPINION.
Krugman himself is anti-Russian at it seems given his history of opinion pieces on NYT itself. [4] I don't think we should rely on this source. Shankargb ( talk) 14:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Shankargb: The real issue here is that all perceptions in the text regarding Russia as a potential superpower candicate are mostly what you called "opinion pieces". Would you gonna tell me that some advocating opinions from certain politicians such as Hugo Chavez or Benjamin Netanyahu are more "impartial" or "trustworthy" sources than the opinion from a Nobel prize laureate as academic Paul Krugman? lol You made a really "convincing" point for judging which one is so-called "opinion piece" and which is not, by your own opinion as well. LVTW2 ( talk) 16:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I am shocked that this article has no maintenance banners or even exists as an article at all. It reads like a soapbox where political scientists argue against each other what a "superpower" even is or if "X" or "X" will ever occur. Not to mention that several of the sources are very old, and there is significant citation overkill basically everywhere. It is a given that this article needs to acknowledge its unclean citation style, its need to be updated, and its significant usage of political opinions as "sources" CollectiveSolidarity ( talk) 15:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Chirica21C, re your update:
[5] Note that although GHI undertook assessment for a total of 136 countries, it had sound data for the purpose for only 121 countries; the official website also acknowledges that "For 15 countries, individual scores could not be calculated and ranks could not be determined owing to lack of data.
" The secondary sources, which are plentiful (e.g.
[6]), mention a count of 121 for the same reason and our numbers should align with them too.
MBlaze Lightning (
talk)
19:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Why the tags are appropriate:
The article requires a major rewrite. It's likely even more appropriate to delete several countries or even the full article as these issues may prove unresolvable. UlyssorZebra ( talk) 08:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
More examples of issues with the sources, now specifically to the Japan ones:
So, for the Japan section, only one source is actually usable/valid: the 1988 Time's one. UlyssorZebra ( talk) 16:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Removed Brazil? This is a bullshit, Brazil has all the reasons to be a emerging superpower, it is a superpower in the south park of the american continent, it used to be one of the top ten world economies, has 210+ million population. It has a powerful military in the regional area AND will Lead G20 this year and host it next year as well as UN's Security Council. Probably the first step to become a permanent seat as it contributed the most of the G4 to sending troops. 2400:2651:302:8300:543A:BD76:4845:F9D6 ( talk) 11:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
since it most likely can no longer achieve it like japan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noob251 ( talk • contribs) 13:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Why aren't Brazil and Indonesia included in the list while the European Union is included? Purely based on size, population, quantity of natural resources, and GDP forecast, Brazil and Indonesia are worth mentioning as potential superpowers. The European Union is not a country, if we want to include it, it should be placed under the name United States of Europe (a proposed sovereign country) instead.
However, if we start to include proposed countries, then we probably should also include the likes of the United States of Africa, ASEAN, the East African Federation, the United Turkic States and the Arab world etc. 2001:8003:9008:1301:34F3:D83B:96B5:D29 ( talk) 05:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Brazil is a superpower, why is European Union included and not Brazil, while Brazil is richer and stronger than EU, These editors that don’t want to add Brazil as superpower, these are Brazil haters, they dislike Brazil, they don’t even see that Brazil is the world’s future.
Brazil is ruling the world, an economic and scientific superpower, Add Brazil!
Brazil is a potential superpower due to its role in the world.
Brazil is already a potential superpower, add Brazil on the map. Saintsupermario ( talk) 18:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Brazil superpower status information draft.
Brazil | |||
---|---|---|---|
![]() | |||
![]() |
Brazil is described as the world’s emerging superpower, that accounts a large part of the world’s science, economy and industry. Brazil play’s big role in the global world, Brazil is a superpower in the South park of the american continent, it is the only country in South America to have access to space, its space branch Brazilian space army (COMAE), is one of the most advanced military’s in the world, Brazil is part of one the top ten world economies, has 210+ million population. It has a powerful military in the regional area and leads G20 as well the UN's Security Council.
Henrique Santos argued that Brazil would direct the world's financial currency system by 2020, Brazilian currency would replace the dollar as the world's reserve currency in 2022.
Mateo Hernandez stated in 2008 that Brazil by making massive trade and investment deals with every countries, Brazil’s presence as a superpower along with the United States. Brazil’s rise is demonstrated by its trade in its economic products.
Fabio Garcia from Oriental Studies argued that the United States will be surpassed by Brazil in military superpower and economic power, the Director of the Brazilian Center for Economic Reform at São Paulo "survey said that the Brazilian and U.S. economies grow, respectively, Brazil will become the world's largest industry supplier by 2009.
Bruno Rodriguez was pointing to factors such as the International Monetary Fund predicting that Brazil GDP will overtake that of the United States, that a power shift to a world with several superpowers was happening "Now". However, Brazil has high power projection abilities and has high GDP. According to Pew Research Center, a survey found that Brazil will be the world’s leading power by 2011.
On 2012 the world Congress had announced that Brazil is the world’s future.
https://www.gov.br/en/government-of-brazil/latest-news/brazil-is-a-scientific-superpower. https://www.gov.br/en/government-of-brazil/latest-news/brazil-is-an-economic-superpower
Jeromesanchez ( talk) 01:17, 8 September 2023 (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 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
IP 117.228.160.110 and his range (117.233.96.83, 117.233.124.161 etc) introduced controversial changes, in favor of China [1]. The changes mainly affect the main table with main graphic, where he labeled China as (Only extant) "Emerging superpower". Given, that there are sources describing, for example, the European Union also as Potential superpower and "Emerging superpower", this edition breaks the rules of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability (disputed sources) and propably Wikipedia:No original research (synthesis and conclusions by IP based on source).
His changes have been undone. He is restore own version without any description of changes and no discuss page. This is a textbook example of a destructive act on Wikipedia.
These changes are very disputed, there has been no discussion about it, no consensus (per Wikipedia:Consensus), source of questionable quality, probability broke all three Wikipedia:Core content policies!!!... also the IP broke the Wikipedia:CYCLE (new changes -> if revert = must to be consensus). I have opened a discussion where the IP has to prove that its changes are not destructive, if there be consensus, changes can be made in article. Until then, I resore the Wikipedia:Stable version. Subtropical-man ( ✉ | en-2) 09:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@ LVTW2: Lets discuss your edit before you restore it. See WP:BRD.
First of all, your source is an opinion piece and we can't use an opinion piece for a controversial subject like this. See WP:RSOPINION.
Krugman himself is anti-Russian at it seems given his history of opinion pieces on NYT itself. [4] I don't think we should rely on this source. Shankargb ( talk) 14:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Shankargb: The real issue here is that all perceptions in the text regarding Russia as a potential superpower candicate are mostly what you called "opinion pieces". Would you gonna tell me that some advocating opinions from certain politicians such as Hugo Chavez or Benjamin Netanyahu are more "impartial" or "trustworthy" sources than the opinion from a Nobel prize laureate as academic Paul Krugman? lol You made a really "convincing" point for judging which one is so-called "opinion piece" and which is not, by your own opinion as well. LVTW2 ( talk) 16:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I am shocked that this article has no maintenance banners or even exists as an article at all. It reads like a soapbox where political scientists argue against each other what a "superpower" even is or if "X" or "X" will ever occur. Not to mention that several of the sources are very old, and there is significant citation overkill basically everywhere. It is a given that this article needs to acknowledge its unclean citation style, its need to be updated, and its significant usage of political opinions as "sources" CollectiveSolidarity ( talk) 15:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Chirica21C, re your update:
[5] Note that although GHI undertook assessment for a total of 136 countries, it had sound data for the purpose for only 121 countries; the official website also acknowledges that "For 15 countries, individual scores could not be calculated and ranks could not be determined owing to lack of data.
" The secondary sources, which are plentiful (e.g.
[6]), mention a count of 121 for the same reason and our numbers should align with them too.
MBlaze Lightning (
talk)
19:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Why the tags are appropriate:
The article requires a major rewrite. It's likely even more appropriate to delete several countries or even the full article as these issues may prove unresolvable. UlyssorZebra ( talk) 08:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
More examples of issues with the sources, now specifically to the Japan ones:
So, for the Japan section, only one source is actually usable/valid: the 1988 Time's one. UlyssorZebra ( talk) 16:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Removed Brazil? This is a bullshit, Brazil has all the reasons to be a emerging superpower, it is a superpower in the south park of the american continent, it used to be one of the top ten world economies, has 210+ million population. It has a powerful military in the regional area AND will Lead G20 this year and host it next year as well as UN's Security Council. Probably the first step to become a permanent seat as it contributed the most of the G4 to sending troops. 2400:2651:302:8300:543A:BD76:4845:F9D6 ( talk) 11:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
since it most likely can no longer achieve it like japan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noob251 ( talk • contribs) 13:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Why aren't Brazil and Indonesia included in the list while the European Union is included? Purely based on size, population, quantity of natural resources, and GDP forecast, Brazil and Indonesia are worth mentioning as potential superpowers. The European Union is not a country, if we want to include it, it should be placed under the name United States of Europe (a proposed sovereign country) instead.
However, if we start to include proposed countries, then we probably should also include the likes of the United States of Africa, ASEAN, the East African Federation, the United Turkic States and the Arab world etc. 2001:8003:9008:1301:34F3:D83B:96B5:D29 ( talk) 05:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Brazil is a superpower, why is European Union included and not Brazil, while Brazil is richer and stronger than EU, These editors that don’t want to add Brazil as superpower, these are Brazil haters, they dislike Brazil, they don’t even see that Brazil is the world’s future.
Brazil is ruling the world, an economic and scientific superpower, Add Brazil!
Brazil is a potential superpower due to its role in the world.
Brazil is already a potential superpower, add Brazil on the map. Saintsupermario ( talk) 18:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Brazil superpower status information draft.
Brazil | |||
---|---|---|---|
![]() | |||
![]() |
Brazil is described as the world’s emerging superpower, that accounts a large part of the world’s science, economy and industry. Brazil play’s big role in the global world, Brazil is a superpower in the South park of the american continent, it is the only country in South America to have access to space, its space branch Brazilian space army (COMAE), is one of the most advanced military’s in the world, Brazil is part of one the top ten world economies, has 210+ million population. It has a powerful military in the regional area and leads G20 as well the UN's Security Council.
Henrique Santos argued that Brazil would direct the world's financial currency system by 2020, Brazilian currency would replace the dollar as the world's reserve currency in 2022.
Mateo Hernandez stated in 2008 that Brazil by making massive trade and investment deals with every countries, Brazil’s presence as a superpower along with the United States. Brazil’s rise is demonstrated by its trade in its economic products.
Fabio Garcia from Oriental Studies argued that the United States will be surpassed by Brazil in military superpower and economic power, the Director of the Brazilian Center for Economic Reform at São Paulo "survey said that the Brazilian and U.S. economies grow, respectively, Brazil will become the world's largest industry supplier by 2009.
Bruno Rodriguez was pointing to factors such as the International Monetary Fund predicting that Brazil GDP will overtake that of the United States, that a power shift to a world with several superpowers was happening "Now". However, Brazil has high power projection abilities and has high GDP. According to Pew Research Center, a survey found that Brazil will be the world’s leading power by 2011.
On 2012 the world Congress had announced that Brazil is the world’s future.
https://www.gov.br/en/government-of-brazil/latest-news/brazil-is-a-scientific-superpower. https://www.gov.br/en/government-of-brazil/latest-news/brazil-is-an-economic-superpower
Jeromesanchez ( talk) 01:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)