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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Am I the only one that can't access the 30th source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.73.179 ( talk) 11:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
here's a link to an editorial [1] by an Indian columnist who gives a list of of all the current and near-future potential Great Powers following a few paragraphs of lead in that discuss George Bush's previous visit to India. The author appears to use "great power" in much the same way as we use "superpower". I know the rough consensus on journalistic sources requires the author to have appropriate credentials and I didn't find much information in a 10 second half-arsed google search but it may have some value to see such a list that has been published elsewhere. Zebulin ( talk) 19:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that in the image, Brazil is listed as a potential superpower, yet there is no section explaining this claim. Either the image needs to be corrected or a section needs to be added for consistency. I'd do it myself but I don't know the first thing about Brazil... AzureFury ( talk) 21:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Again?.. anyways what image? I only the the current PSP in the map. Supaman89 ( talk) 16:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
BRAZIL HAVE A GREAT CHANCE TO BE A SUPERPOWER DON'T UNDERSTIMATE BRAZIL! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRIC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.243.228 ( talk) 14:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Two sources support the claim, however, one of them also supports a claim for a United South America. The second source refers to Brazil as the "Superpower of the South" and actually explains how Brazilian military power and economic growth outruns that of India. It also has lower poverty levels, a large population, territory, a large industrial base and well developed infraestructure. The sources are already on the article. Cocoliras ( talk) 15:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Short opinion pieces written by Atlantic Community members are the core of the Open Think Tank.
You can share your views on international politics in the form of a news analysis, an op-ed or a conference report. A strong thesis is essential.
The best arguments from the articles and comments will be summarized in Atlantic Memos that are presented to decision-makers.
Please also consider commenting on and rating articles by your fellow members. The best articles will be displayed most prominently on the site. If you need any assistance, please contact the editorial team. We are more than happy to help you with any content, language or technical issues.
Well, I got a source which I think has more credibility. [2] Cocoliras ( talk) 17:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Cocoliras, you are edit warring and ignoring what has been said by the other active editors. Please stop or you will be reported for breaking the 3RR or reverting more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. Looking at your history, you've been a couple times for edit warring in the past so you should know better. Nirvana888 ( talk) 18:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Some other sources, do not leave this behind. We should continue reviewing these sources. http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/11-10-04.asp http://www.brazzil.com/articles/184-october-2007/9990.html http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/power/2006/06.03_Brazil_Superpower.html All for now... Cocoliras ( talk) 18:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we should simply explain that Brazil is not confirmed to be a potential superpower, but that it is in debate. I mean, several sources credit Brazil as a possible superpower, though not a potential one. It may be placed since it is confirmed, by some sources, that Brazil meets the criteria. But that there are low posibilities of it being one. It may be just as controversial as Japan. And Japan is on both articles. I simply think we should mention "Brazil is currently controversial, as it is qualified mainly as a potential great power, though some also categorize it as a potential superpower, this is debatable as..." because of the controversy Brazil has as being referred to both sides. Cocoliras ( talk) 23:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not to sure about the section, but I compared many of Brazil standards to those of Russia and they surpass them, to certain extent. I'm not saying that Brazil should be included by force. But I think it should be mentioned that it has the possibilities of becoming a potential superpower in the near future. I shouldn't say we compare Brazil to South Africa, maybe to Mexico and Japan. But I mean, Brazil should be mentioned as "under debate" or "controversial" because some sources refer to it as a Superpower while others refer to it as a great power. We should still mention Brazil in the article (without its own section) and point on the map that Brazil may rise as a potential superpower. But that its odds are very low. Just like how many people pointed to Japan. Don't forget this source. http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/power/2006/06.03_Brazil_Superpower.html Cocoliras ( talk) 15:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Wowa, I made a new section, I didn't see this discussion. Well, I for one think we're being a little harsh. Besides the one written by a college student, the sources are okay. While there not outstanding, we have something to work with. I'm sure there are other sources out there, and we should look for them. I think some of us our jumping to conclusions based on previous experiences with people trying to add Brazil to this page. This time it seems much more though out. While I agree it isn't exceptional, we should assume good faith and try and work with this instead of deleting it outright. Looking through the history, I can see that some edit warring has occured. This is unacceptable. I understand your point Cocoliras, but edit warring isn't going to get you anything but anger from your fellow editors. I've been in the process of moving, but I think I'm ready to help work this out now. A few of sources provided our accurate, such as the one from the think tank. However, let's refrain from blogs and even journalists. I'm sure there are more academic sources if we just looked for them. Saru ( talk) 15:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This is how I see the sources:
- http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/superpower/potential-superpowers.html: As Saru said, this source is from an old version of this page. We can't use wikipedia as a wikipedia source.
- http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=962876: Use the word(s) "Super Power Nations" in a different fashion than the Superpowers vis-à-vis the United States (for example).
- http://whitmanpioneer.com/opinion/2007/10/25/the-forgotten-bric-why-brazil-might-be-the-next-world-superpower/: Written by a college student.
- http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/nov2007/db20071115_045316.htm: Only refers to oil superpower which possibly supports Brazil as a potential energy superpower.
- http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/power/2006/06.03_Brazil_Superpower.html: Totally okey source. Written by an academic and clearly supports Brazil as a potential superpower.
- http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/11-10-04.asp: Says Putin is gathering the most powerful coalition of regional and superpowers in the world. but it does not specify which of the countries in that coalition it regards as regional powers and which are the "superpowers" and in particular it doesn't ever specifically refer to Brazil as a future or potential or current or any other kind of superpower.
- http://www.brazzil.com/articles/184-october-2007/9990.html: Sould we really include EVERY country that "attempts" to become a superpower, than we have to take North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. etc. in the article.
In conclusion, the source http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/power/2006/06.03_Brazil_Superpower.html is a good source, while the sources http://www.brazzil.com/articles/184-october-2007/9990.html, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=962876 and http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/11-10-04.asp doesn't fit the citeria. We can't have Brazil into the article because of one good source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.132.161 ( talk) 14:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The source proves my point, Brazil is a potential superpower, but it lacks enough backup. I'm now unblocked. and I think we should simply mention Brazil fullfils the criteria while not having widespread academic support. The source is still enough for the mention, we don't have support still for Brazil to have its own section, but it deserves mention, as Brazil's influence, if taken from separate sources will finally point out to Brazil as a Superpower, separate, but true. Japan's out of talk. I'm just including Brazil only to the map under the tag, "under debate" to let people know that its status is disputed but that it officially fullfills the criteria. I'm doing it once and feel free to revert it because I'm searching for more solid data later, but inform me why it was edited. I'll let you all know when I get the data and sources. Cocoliras ( talk) 04:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Okey, for the first of all, I took it away because you didn't consult us, you just throwed it in there. Second: you are the only one who thinks Brazil fits the citeria (at least that's the impression I get). Third: The only okey source you have isn't enough. If we would add every country that has ONE okey source, then we're gonna have to make very much editing, very soon. Anyone that doesn't agree with me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.73.179 ( talk) 07:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Brazil as a military potential superpower: http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Americas/Brazil-ARMED-FORCES.html Cocoliras ( talk) 18:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Would this be a decent source? http://www.jstor.org/pss/1148552. 190.140.235.159 ( talk) 21:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
No, written by a journalist and not a scholar (and a little but too old too, I think). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.73.179 ( talk) 21:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
http://archive.peacemagazine.org/v04n2p08.htm
This identifies Brazil as a military superpower, because its military is known for being among the most expensive ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.235.159 ( talk) 04:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Cocoliras has been suggesting that as a sort of compromise we might add limited mention of Brazil in the article with some disclaimers. However, this article and this topic is unlike the vast majority of topics covered in wikipedia. This article deals with a future event (recognition of new superpowers) which is prohibited in wikipedia except when it takes the form of reporting on the predictions of people or groups of people who are qualified sources. So if we are to have any mention of Brazil at all it must be in reference to specific predictions/descriptions of Brazil as a superpower by qualified persons. We simply aren't allowed to note that it is a strong contender or has better than average prospects or anything like that any more than we would be allowed to do so for any other potential (ie not yet fully recognised) superpower, like the EU or China. We instead have to let others say it for us and carefully identify who those sources are. About the only sort of compromise I could imagine for Brazil would be to make a small section identifying sources who predict or recognise it as a superpower with a description of the limitations of those sources (ie the author is a journalist or only goes so far as to describe Brazil as a potential economic superpower or political superpower. However, such a compromise would not be without problems of it's own. It would likely invite massive additions to the other sections for sources of similar lower qualifications and that could adversely effect the quality of the article. It might be best to simply continue searching for a perfect source for Brazil rather than trying to work for immediate inclusion in this article. Even if it were possible to get it included it would likely only invite total deletion of the article or at least the section in the near future as this article and related subsections of other articles have been closely watched by admins intent on deleting anything that violates wikipedia's "no crystal ball" policy and any such deletion would surely make it much harder to get Brazil included in the future when a good source does in fact finally turn up. It's not going to pay to jump the gun on this. For other topics it might, but the "potential superpowers" topic is not an easy one to work on under wikipedia rules. Zebulin ( talk) 06:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
We should mention that the EU is expected to grow in the future, therefore suggesting as it gets bigger, the more of a potential it has to be a superpower. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 07:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This article needs to be edited in terms of quality, neutrality and consistency. For example, why are there two subsections for the EU section when there is one for the other candidates? Why is it that India has such favourable outlook and praise as a potential superpower and China a relatively negative one when by and large most scholars deem China to be the next superpower. An impartial view is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.23.195 ( talk) 16:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I've taken the intiative to removed the EU subsections, as they where complete OR. Sources such as these [1], [2], [3] are unsuitable for this article, as none of them predict the rise of the EU or any other country as a superpower. They where simply being used to back up OR by being used as statistics. This article isn't about the EU, it's about the EU's potential as a superpower and only sources that directly predict that occurence should be used. Saru ( talk) 20:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I made quite an edit about Parag Khanna's view on the EU as a superpower, I'm planning to write about his view on China too, but can somebody check my grammar. English isn't my native language and I don't know if I've made any grammar mistakes. Just look and if you find something change it right away. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.133.154 ( talk) 08:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll here's what I have on the India subsections so far, on the 18th, I'll be in India for a while, so I won't able to contribute too muc until some time in August. You'll note that I used Fareed Zakaria alot, and the reason for that is because I recently read his book: The Post American World, and it has chapters related to the two potential superpowers of India and China, though it lacks in military power, which is why that section is not too developed. However, I highly recomend that book, especially for people who wnat to help develop on the China and India sections. Also, I forgot to mention some other important facts in Facts for and facts Against. But, I don't know when I'll be able to post on Wikipedia next, so I'm posting what I have now. Plenty of room for improvement here. Once I get back, and China has not been done yet, I'll try to do China also.
Facts For
Fareed Zakaria wrote in his book, The Post-American World, that India has a fine chance of becoming a superpower, stating
Every year at the World Economic Forum in Davos, there's a star. Not a person but a country. One country impresses the gathering of global leaders because of a particularly smart Finance minister or a compelling tale of reform or even a glamorous gala. This year there was no contest. In the decade that I've been going to Davos, no country has captured the imagination of the conference and dominated the conversation as India in 2006.
Fareed Zakaria believes that one of India’s strongest factors for superpower status is its economy. India’s economy had a GDP growth of 9.4% in 2007. Goldman Sachs has predicted that in 10 years, India’s economy will be larger then Italy’s. In 15 years, it will be larger then Britain’s. By 2040, India should boast the third largest economy. [5] It is also expected that India, along with China should surpass the U.S economy by 2050 [6] But Fareed Zakaria notes that a prediction such as these is a “treacherous business”.
Another strength that India has is its demographics; more than 50% of India's population is under 25.[35] Dr Narendra Jadhav, a principal advisor to the Reserve Bank of India and a former advisor to the executive director at the IMF, says "India has a great potential to become an economic super power because of its growing young population."[36] A young population coupled with the second largest English-speaking population in the world could give India an advantage over China.[37] Fareed Zakaria also believes that while other industrial countries will face a youth gap, India will have lots of young people, or in other words workers. [7]
Zakaria says another strength that India is that despite being one of the poorest countries in the world, its democratic government has lasted for 60 years, stating that a democracy can provide for long-term stability. [8] [9] India also has been gaining influence in Asia with trade agreements, direct investment, military exercises, and aids funds. It is good allies with countries such as Iran and Japan, and has emerging ties with countries such as Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar, and India even has an airforce base in Tajikistan. [10]. India also has fine relations with other countries such as Israel, UK, France, and Russia. Also, the Nuclear Deal with the U.S has strengthened its relationship.
Militarily, India has the second largest army in the world after China, and a nuclear power. India is one of the four countries with anti-ballistic missile capability, and is the first developing nation to build and aircraft carrier.
Facts Against
India has been victim to a high inflation, which some people fear will slow down India’s high economic growth. [11]. Goldman Sachs also says that if it is managed badly, there is a great chance that India’s economic growth will drop. China and India rising to superpower status is not inevitable, according to scholars such as Professor Pranab Bardhan, Chief Editor of the Journal of Development Economics, who suggest that millions mired in poverty and ineffective government prevents China or India from rivaling the U.S. or the E.U. any time soon.[40]
Fareed Zakaria has described India’s growth as
It is not top-down but bottom-up---messy, caotic, and largely unplanned.
He also suggests that while democracy has its long-term advantages, China’s system of government are able to plan and execute major infrastructure projects with unrivaled efficiency. Democracy in India is usually not the will of the majority, but the will of organized minorities such as landowners, powerful castes, rich farmers, government unions, local thugs, in fact a fifth of the members of the Indian Parliament have been accuses of rape, embezzlement, or murder. [12]
Deavenger ( talk) 05:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
How can the EU possibly be considered a superpower? The EU is a treaty among strong friends, not a nation. If we were considering blocs, then NATO should be listed, not the EU. NATO is much stronger, including most (21 / 26 I believe) EU nations. I just don't get how EU can be a superpower when it is not a country. 65.25.62.121 ( talk) 17:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The EU is a Sui generis, of its own kind. Does Nato has its own courts, citizenship, commission, council, currency or parliament etc. etc. Besides, it dosn't even matter what you think ( or I for that matter ), it all depends on what the experts and academics thinks.
China is already a superpower according to most people. The US should stop ignoring the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.137.92 ( talk) 14:46, 24 August 2008 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Am I the only one that can't access the 30th source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.73.179 ( talk) 11:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
here's a link to an editorial [1] by an Indian columnist who gives a list of of all the current and near-future potential Great Powers following a few paragraphs of lead in that discuss George Bush's previous visit to India. The author appears to use "great power" in much the same way as we use "superpower". I know the rough consensus on journalistic sources requires the author to have appropriate credentials and I didn't find much information in a 10 second half-arsed google search but it may have some value to see such a list that has been published elsewhere. Zebulin ( talk) 19:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that in the image, Brazil is listed as a potential superpower, yet there is no section explaining this claim. Either the image needs to be corrected or a section needs to be added for consistency. I'd do it myself but I don't know the first thing about Brazil... AzureFury ( talk) 21:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Again?.. anyways what image? I only the the current PSP in the map. Supaman89 ( talk) 16:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
BRAZIL HAVE A GREAT CHANCE TO BE A SUPERPOWER DON'T UNDERSTIMATE BRAZIL! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRIC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.243.228 ( talk) 14:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Two sources support the claim, however, one of them also supports a claim for a United South America. The second source refers to Brazil as the "Superpower of the South" and actually explains how Brazilian military power and economic growth outruns that of India. It also has lower poverty levels, a large population, territory, a large industrial base and well developed infraestructure. The sources are already on the article. Cocoliras ( talk) 15:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Short opinion pieces written by Atlantic Community members are the core of the Open Think Tank.
You can share your views on international politics in the form of a news analysis, an op-ed or a conference report. A strong thesis is essential.
The best arguments from the articles and comments will be summarized in Atlantic Memos that are presented to decision-makers.
Please also consider commenting on and rating articles by your fellow members. The best articles will be displayed most prominently on the site. If you need any assistance, please contact the editorial team. We are more than happy to help you with any content, language or technical issues.
Well, I got a source which I think has more credibility. [2] Cocoliras ( talk) 17:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Cocoliras, you are edit warring and ignoring what has been said by the other active editors. Please stop or you will be reported for breaking the 3RR or reverting more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. Looking at your history, you've been a couple times for edit warring in the past so you should know better. Nirvana888 ( talk) 18:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Some other sources, do not leave this behind. We should continue reviewing these sources. http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/11-10-04.asp http://www.brazzil.com/articles/184-october-2007/9990.html http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/power/2006/06.03_Brazil_Superpower.html All for now... Cocoliras ( talk) 18:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we should simply explain that Brazil is not confirmed to be a potential superpower, but that it is in debate. I mean, several sources credit Brazil as a possible superpower, though not a potential one. It may be placed since it is confirmed, by some sources, that Brazil meets the criteria. But that there are low posibilities of it being one. It may be just as controversial as Japan. And Japan is on both articles. I simply think we should mention "Brazil is currently controversial, as it is qualified mainly as a potential great power, though some also categorize it as a potential superpower, this is debatable as..." because of the controversy Brazil has as being referred to both sides. Cocoliras ( talk) 23:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not to sure about the section, but I compared many of Brazil standards to those of Russia and they surpass them, to certain extent. I'm not saying that Brazil should be included by force. But I think it should be mentioned that it has the possibilities of becoming a potential superpower in the near future. I shouldn't say we compare Brazil to South Africa, maybe to Mexico and Japan. But I mean, Brazil should be mentioned as "under debate" or "controversial" because some sources refer to it as a Superpower while others refer to it as a great power. We should still mention Brazil in the article (without its own section) and point on the map that Brazil may rise as a potential superpower. But that its odds are very low. Just like how many people pointed to Japan. Don't forget this source. http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/power/2006/06.03_Brazil_Superpower.html Cocoliras ( talk) 15:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Wowa, I made a new section, I didn't see this discussion. Well, I for one think we're being a little harsh. Besides the one written by a college student, the sources are okay. While there not outstanding, we have something to work with. I'm sure there are other sources out there, and we should look for them. I think some of us our jumping to conclusions based on previous experiences with people trying to add Brazil to this page. This time it seems much more though out. While I agree it isn't exceptional, we should assume good faith and try and work with this instead of deleting it outright. Looking through the history, I can see that some edit warring has occured. This is unacceptable. I understand your point Cocoliras, but edit warring isn't going to get you anything but anger from your fellow editors. I've been in the process of moving, but I think I'm ready to help work this out now. A few of sources provided our accurate, such as the one from the think tank. However, let's refrain from blogs and even journalists. I'm sure there are more academic sources if we just looked for them. Saru ( talk) 15:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This is how I see the sources:
- http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/superpower/potential-superpowers.html: As Saru said, this source is from an old version of this page. We can't use wikipedia as a wikipedia source.
- http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=962876: Use the word(s) "Super Power Nations" in a different fashion than the Superpowers vis-à-vis the United States (for example).
- http://whitmanpioneer.com/opinion/2007/10/25/the-forgotten-bric-why-brazil-might-be-the-next-world-superpower/: Written by a college student.
- http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/nov2007/db20071115_045316.htm: Only refers to oil superpower which possibly supports Brazil as a potential energy superpower.
- http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/power/2006/06.03_Brazil_Superpower.html: Totally okey source. Written by an academic and clearly supports Brazil as a potential superpower.
- http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/11-10-04.asp: Says Putin is gathering the most powerful coalition of regional and superpowers in the world. but it does not specify which of the countries in that coalition it regards as regional powers and which are the "superpowers" and in particular it doesn't ever specifically refer to Brazil as a future or potential or current or any other kind of superpower.
- http://www.brazzil.com/articles/184-october-2007/9990.html: Sould we really include EVERY country that "attempts" to become a superpower, than we have to take North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. etc. in the article.
In conclusion, the source http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/power/2006/06.03_Brazil_Superpower.html is a good source, while the sources http://www.brazzil.com/articles/184-october-2007/9990.html, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=962876 and http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/11-10-04.asp doesn't fit the citeria. We can't have Brazil into the article because of one good source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.132.161 ( talk) 14:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The source proves my point, Brazil is a potential superpower, but it lacks enough backup. I'm now unblocked. and I think we should simply mention Brazil fullfils the criteria while not having widespread academic support. The source is still enough for the mention, we don't have support still for Brazil to have its own section, but it deserves mention, as Brazil's influence, if taken from separate sources will finally point out to Brazil as a Superpower, separate, but true. Japan's out of talk. I'm just including Brazil only to the map under the tag, "under debate" to let people know that its status is disputed but that it officially fullfills the criteria. I'm doing it once and feel free to revert it because I'm searching for more solid data later, but inform me why it was edited. I'll let you all know when I get the data and sources. Cocoliras ( talk) 04:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Okey, for the first of all, I took it away because you didn't consult us, you just throwed it in there. Second: you are the only one who thinks Brazil fits the citeria (at least that's the impression I get). Third: The only okey source you have isn't enough. If we would add every country that has ONE okey source, then we're gonna have to make very much editing, very soon. Anyone that doesn't agree with me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.73.179 ( talk) 07:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Brazil as a military potential superpower: http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Americas/Brazil-ARMED-FORCES.html Cocoliras ( talk) 18:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Would this be a decent source? http://www.jstor.org/pss/1148552. 190.140.235.159 ( talk) 21:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
No, written by a journalist and not a scholar (and a little but too old too, I think). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.73.179 ( talk) 21:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
http://archive.peacemagazine.org/v04n2p08.htm
This identifies Brazil as a military superpower, because its military is known for being among the most expensive ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.235.159 ( talk) 04:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Cocoliras has been suggesting that as a sort of compromise we might add limited mention of Brazil in the article with some disclaimers. However, this article and this topic is unlike the vast majority of topics covered in wikipedia. This article deals with a future event (recognition of new superpowers) which is prohibited in wikipedia except when it takes the form of reporting on the predictions of people or groups of people who are qualified sources. So if we are to have any mention of Brazil at all it must be in reference to specific predictions/descriptions of Brazil as a superpower by qualified persons. We simply aren't allowed to note that it is a strong contender or has better than average prospects or anything like that any more than we would be allowed to do so for any other potential (ie not yet fully recognised) superpower, like the EU or China. We instead have to let others say it for us and carefully identify who those sources are. About the only sort of compromise I could imagine for Brazil would be to make a small section identifying sources who predict or recognise it as a superpower with a description of the limitations of those sources (ie the author is a journalist or only goes so far as to describe Brazil as a potential economic superpower or political superpower. However, such a compromise would not be without problems of it's own. It would likely invite massive additions to the other sections for sources of similar lower qualifications and that could adversely effect the quality of the article. It might be best to simply continue searching for a perfect source for Brazil rather than trying to work for immediate inclusion in this article. Even if it were possible to get it included it would likely only invite total deletion of the article or at least the section in the near future as this article and related subsections of other articles have been closely watched by admins intent on deleting anything that violates wikipedia's "no crystal ball" policy and any such deletion would surely make it much harder to get Brazil included in the future when a good source does in fact finally turn up. It's not going to pay to jump the gun on this. For other topics it might, but the "potential superpowers" topic is not an easy one to work on under wikipedia rules. Zebulin ( talk) 06:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
We should mention that the EU is expected to grow in the future, therefore suggesting as it gets bigger, the more of a potential it has to be a superpower. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 07:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This article needs to be edited in terms of quality, neutrality and consistency. For example, why are there two subsections for the EU section when there is one for the other candidates? Why is it that India has such favourable outlook and praise as a potential superpower and China a relatively negative one when by and large most scholars deem China to be the next superpower. An impartial view is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.23.195 ( talk) 16:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I've taken the intiative to removed the EU subsections, as they where complete OR. Sources such as these [1], [2], [3] are unsuitable for this article, as none of them predict the rise of the EU or any other country as a superpower. They where simply being used to back up OR by being used as statistics. This article isn't about the EU, it's about the EU's potential as a superpower and only sources that directly predict that occurence should be used. Saru ( talk) 20:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I made quite an edit about Parag Khanna's view on the EU as a superpower, I'm planning to write about his view on China too, but can somebody check my grammar. English isn't my native language and I don't know if I've made any grammar mistakes. Just look and if you find something change it right away. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.133.154 ( talk) 08:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll here's what I have on the India subsections so far, on the 18th, I'll be in India for a while, so I won't able to contribute too muc until some time in August. You'll note that I used Fareed Zakaria alot, and the reason for that is because I recently read his book: The Post American World, and it has chapters related to the two potential superpowers of India and China, though it lacks in military power, which is why that section is not too developed. However, I highly recomend that book, especially for people who wnat to help develop on the China and India sections. Also, I forgot to mention some other important facts in Facts for and facts Against. But, I don't know when I'll be able to post on Wikipedia next, so I'm posting what I have now. Plenty of room for improvement here. Once I get back, and China has not been done yet, I'll try to do China also.
Facts For
Fareed Zakaria wrote in his book, The Post-American World, that India has a fine chance of becoming a superpower, stating
Every year at the World Economic Forum in Davos, there's a star. Not a person but a country. One country impresses the gathering of global leaders because of a particularly smart Finance minister or a compelling tale of reform or even a glamorous gala. This year there was no contest. In the decade that I've been going to Davos, no country has captured the imagination of the conference and dominated the conversation as India in 2006.
Fareed Zakaria believes that one of India’s strongest factors for superpower status is its economy. India’s economy had a GDP growth of 9.4% in 2007. Goldman Sachs has predicted that in 10 years, India’s economy will be larger then Italy’s. In 15 years, it will be larger then Britain’s. By 2040, India should boast the third largest economy. [5] It is also expected that India, along with China should surpass the U.S economy by 2050 [6] But Fareed Zakaria notes that a prediction such as these is a “treacherous business”.
Another strength that India has is its demographics; more than 50% of India's population is under 25.[35] Dr Narendra Jadhav, a principal advisor to the Reserve Bank of India and a former advisor to the executive director at the IMF, says "India has a great potential to become an economic super power because of its growing young population."[36] A young population coupled with the second largest English-speaking population in the world could give India an advantage over China.[37] Fareed Zakaria also believes that while other industrial countries will face a youth gap, India will have lots of young people, or in other words workers. [7]
Zakaria says another strength that India is that despite being one of the poorest countries in the world, its democratic government has lasted for 60 years, stating that a democracy can provide for long-term stability. [8] [9] India also has been gaining influence in Asia with trade agreements, direct investment, military exercises, and aids funds. It is good allies with countries such as Iran and Japan, and has emerging ties with countries such as Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar, and India even has an airforce base in Tajikistan. [10]. India also has fine relations with other countries such as Israel, UK, France, and Russia. Also, the Nuclear Deal with the U.S has strengthened its relationship.
Militarily, India has the second largest army in the world after China, and a nuclear power. India is one of the four countries with anti-ballistic missile capability, and is the first developing nation to build and aircraft carrier.
Facts Against
India has been victim to a high inflation, which some people fear will slow down India’s high economic growth. [11]. Goldman Sachs also says that if it is managed badly, there is a great chance that India’s economic growth will drop. China and India rising to superpower status is not inevitable, according to scholars such as Professor Pranab Bardhan, Chief Editor of the Journal of Development Economics, who suggest that millions mired in poverty and ineffective government prevents China or India from rivaling the U.S. or the E.U. any time soon.[40]
Fareed Zakaria has described India’s growth as
It is not top-down but bottom-up---messy, caotic, and largely unplanned.
He also suggests that while democracy has its long-term advantages, China’s system of government are able to plan and execute major infrastructure projects with unrivaled efficiency. Democracy in India is usually not the will of the majority, but the will of organized minorities such as landowners, powerful castes, rich farmers, government unions, local thugs, in fact a fifth of the members of the Indian Parliament have been accuses of rape, embezzlement, or murder. [12]
Deavenger ( talk) 05:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
How can the EU possibly be considered a superpower? The EU is a treaty among strong friends, not a nation. If we were considering blocs, then NATO should be listed, not the EU. NATO is much stronger, including most (21 / 26 I believe) EU nations. I just don't get how EU can be a superpower when it is not a country. 65.25.62.121 ( talk) 17:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The EU is a Sui generis, of its own kind. Does Nato has its own courts, citizenship, commission, council, currency or parliament etc. etc. Besides, it dosn't even matter what you think ( or I for that matter ), it all depends on what the experts and academics thinks.
China is already a superpower according to most people. The US should stop ignoring the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.137.92 ( talk) 14:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)